Jason's Latest

Jason wrote:

"I agree that saving faith embraces the knowledge of revelation available - my point is that believers do not perfectly embrace this knowledge at all times."

Let us ask Jason some questions for clarification.  Is natural revelation sufficient for saving faith?  Can one have "saving faith" apart from the special revelation of scripture?  If you agree that "knowledge of revelation" is necessary for "saving faith," how can you claim that salvation is through a "faith" that is non-cognitive?  Is belief in one God alone required for one to have "saving faith"?  Is it "saving faith" if there is no knowledge of Christ or of the gospel?  What is "this knowledge"?  Can one be finally saved without "saving faith"?  Was Paul describing "saving faith" in Romans 10?  It is hard for me to believe that Jason would tell enquiring sinners that he does not know the quantity or quality of faith that is necessary for salvation.

What I think that Jason is attempting to imply, by his words, is 1) if God's regenerated elect are in heathen lands, where there is no gospel knowledge, then they will embrace only natural revelation, and properly understand it, and 2) if God's regenerated elect are in places where they hear the gospel, then they will embrace that special revelation.  He is reluctant to admit that one can have "saving faith" who rejects revelation and has no knowledge.  But, he will not agree that the "saving faith" of infants fits his own definition.  Does the "saving faith" of infants "embrace the knowledge of revelation available"?  But, clearly, the old Baptists universally taught the insufficiency of natural revelation to produce saving faith, affirming that all the heathen who die without faith in Christ are lost.  This is seen in the London Baptist Confession of faith and in the writings of Dr. Gill.  Jason seems to want to find some "common denominator" of faith and knowledge that both "regenerated" heathen and Christians possess.  That least common knowledge is the knowledge that Hardshells will want to make "saving knowledge."  But, most Hardshells, if they are consistent, will not allow that any knowledge is given in regeneration.

Jason wrote:

"We are not at liberty to judge what amount or quality of knowledge is necessary for saving faith beyond a general trust in the person of Christ."

Let us again ask Jason some questions for clarification.  What is the least amount of knowledge that one must have in order to be judged to have "saving faith"?  Can a person have a "general trust in the person of Christ" apart from special divine revelation?  Did not Paul affirm that knowledge of Christ is only to be expected from those who have heard Christ preached? 

Jason contradicts himself in the above words.  He allows that a "general trust in the person of Christ" is "neccessary for saving faith," but then says that he does not have "liberty to judge" about the kind or amount of knowledge that is necessary.  Did he not "judge" when he said that a "general trust" in Christ is necessary?  Was this not a statement about the "amount" and "quality" of "saving faith" and understanding?  Finally, do the scriptures not "judge" the amount and quality of that faith which is necessary for salvation?

Jason wrote:

"...perhaps 'faith' is the wrong term to use for this, as it is confusing to use a word that denotes cognitive action..."

Exactly!  The Hardshell talk of a "faith" that is implanted in "regeneration," what they call a "dormant seed faith," is no faith at all, for it believes nothing, embraces nothing, and knows nothing.  "Faith" is indeed the wrong word for describing the Hardshell "deposit" or "seed." 

Jason admits that the word "faith" is a word "that denotes cognitive action"!  Has he not left Hardshellism by this affirmation?  Praise the Lord!  Why did he early on in our debate attempt to divorce cognition and knowledge from the definition of "faith"? 

Jason wrote:

"I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Garrett hasn't accepted Fullerism in toto."

Yea, and I am not surprised that Hardshells have historically accepted universalism, no-Hellism, the "Hollow Log" or "no change" view of regeneration, hyper-Calvinism, the universal call of the gospel, duty faith and repentance, the salvation of unbelievers, etc.  I also would not be surprised to see today's Conditionalist Hardshells become open theists, knowing their views on predestination and the divine decrees.

But, it is interesting that Jason mentions Andrew Fuller, seeing he has followed Andrew Fuller in affirming that narrow regeneration precedes conversion.  Fuller's "regeneration before faith" view was rejected by Abraham Booth and other Particular Baptists. 

Jason wrote:

"Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers. What? When you can embrace logical contradiction, you can believe anything at whim, apparently. What was Peter's unbelief? Was it a lesser doctrine? It was a public disavowal of any knowledge of Jesus Christ! Is there anything more core to the gospel than that?"

I cannot believe that Jason would think that instances of doubt and lack of faith in the promises of God make a true believer become an unbeliever.  Did Peter become an "unbeliever" when he denied the Lord?  If so, then Peter did not lie when he said "I know not the man," and "I am not one of his disciples."  If he was lost, then he told the truth when he confessed to not being a disciple of Jesus.  But, if he was a disciple, and knew that he was, then he lied when he said he was not.  I affirm that Peter was a believer but denied what he knew was the truth.  Peter was still a believer in Jesus, though he denied it.  Yes, there was a lack of faith, as far as courage and commitment are concerned, but there was no evidence that Peter had changed his mind relative to his confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.  Peter fell from his own "stedfastness."  (II Peter 3: 17)

Jason cited these words of mine:

"Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one. Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..." How is that not universal? He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (vs. 11) ""

Jason then responded by saying:

"I never claimed that Paul did not have a universal category in mind - my claim has always been that Garrett commits a category error of what that category can possibly be. The "them" obviously refers to the non-elect who know not God and disobey the gospel. How could it refer to the elect who have disobeyed the gospel like Peter? It, therefore, cannot be made to apply to anyone that has ever disobeyed the gospel in any way, as that would include the elect."

"Them" refers to those who "know not God" and who "obey not the gospel."  Yes, they are not elect, but that is to be inferred from other passages, not from the immediate context.  Jason reads the words of Paul in this manner - "those non-elect who know not God and obey not the gospel."  But, this rephrasing of the words would seem to imply that some non-elect do know God and do obey the gospel.  Further, Paul describes those who shall suffer "everlasting destruction," the non-elect, by saying that they "know not God" and "obey not the gospel."  Is this true of all the non-elect, or of only some of them?  If these two descriptive expressions describe all the non-elect, and them only, then would not the counter terms describe all the elect?  That the elect are they who "know God" and who "obey the gospel"?  Jason wants us to believe that "them that know not God and who obey not the gospel" may be predicated of those who are regenerated as well as of those who are not.  Absurd.

He speaks of the description being "made to apply" to regenerated people!  Who but a Hardshell could possibly see that in Paul's words? 

One wonders how scripture could be any plainer in condemning all who reject Christ.  How would Jason affirm the propostion that says all unbelievers will be lost?  Let him put such an affirmation into words and I bet you I can show those same words in scripture.  If the scriptures I have cited do not teach that all who reject Christ are lost, then how would it be stated any plainer?  The fact that the faith and obedience of the children of God is not perfect does not negate faith and obedience being necessary for being eternally saved.

Jason wrote:

"Garrett's error is in supposing that the "them" includes anyone that has ever been guilty of gospel disobedience. How is it possible to hold that view and believe anyone will go to heaven?"

Jason does not represent my views, or supposed "error," correctly.  I never affirmed that "them" did or could refer to any of the regenerate.  Again, Jason is fighting straw men.  He wants to argue with plain declarations of scripture which say all those who do not believe in Christ will be damned.  Further, when the regenerate are called "believers," it does not mean that they have perfect faith, and that they are never, in any sense, guilty of unbelief. 

Jason wrote:

"Pervasive unbelief is a life characterized by gospel disobedience and the attendant suppression of the truth and hatred of God. The Scripture plainly identifies those that have been truly regenerated as being led of the spirit of God (Romans 8:14) and manifestly distinguishable from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10). As to how pervasive unbelief can be in children of God, it can completely ruin their lives. It will have the consequence of death, for he that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh receive corruption - be not deceived, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7,8). King Josiah and Samson's fate would be the ultimate result."

Can one who's life is characterized by unbelief and gospel disobedience be saved?  Only a Hardshell heretic would affirm such.  Jason will acknowledge that the regenerated are described as being "led of the Spirit," but why does he reject "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerated?  Are not the terms "believer" and "unbeliever," in scripture, not titles of saved versus lost people? 

Jason allows that "pervasive unbelief" can characterize or describe born again people!  Further, he wants to say that the "pervasive unbelief" of the "regenerated" will only bring them physical death, but not eternal death!  How unscriptural, as I have shown!  What is it that those who sow to Spirit receive for their sowing?  Is it not "eternal life"?  Then why say that the sowing to the flesh is not eternal death?  "Consistency thou art a jewel." 

Jason wrote:

"God can regenerate among the pagans apart from the word. We simply do not know on what scale this has been done, but it is true that God has a people redeemed out of literally every kindred, tongue, and people."

Who denies that God "can" regenerate apart from his word?  It is not a question of what God "can" do, but what he has chosen to do!  Can God make children of Abraham from stones?  Yes!  But, is that how he has chosen to do it?  Have I not shown that the scriptures testify that God regenerates and begets through the gospel word?  Jason may not know the scale of how many heathen, who die in unbelief of Christ, will be saved, but the bible, Gill, and the London Confession brethren did know!

Further, where has Jason proven that those "redeemed out of" all the kindreds of the earth were saved apart from that faith which comes by hearing the word of God?  Again, why can he not simply cite clear statements of scripture that say some are saved apart from faith?

Jason wrote:

"I find it inconsistent to suppose that God would regenerate men without impressing gospel ministers to attend to their instruction in this life."

What an admission!  If Jason is correct, and he is, then why has God not sent Hardshell preachers to all these heathen elect?  Why has it been non-Hardshell Christians, such as Missionary Baptists, who have gone to the heathen to instruct them?  Further, why does Jason not also "find it inconsistent" for the scriptures to say that all unbelievers will be damned and for Hardshells to deny it?

Jason wrote:

"Why does Garrett limit regeneration of elect infants to only those that die in infancy? Does he not argue that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb? Was not Jacob imbued with the principle of grace in that he wrestled with his brother Esau in the womb, manifesting the manner of two peoples? Garrett ignored my observation that Gill does not make the 'proper object of faith' Jesus Christ, which Gill would make clear if he considered that God preached the gospel directly."

I limit it for the same reason that Gill and the London Confession brethren did.  Further, I never said that John the Baptist or Jacob was regenerated in the womb!  All I have done is take the Hardshell supposition that the Baptist was so regenerated, and used it against them!  And, how so?  First, because the case of the Baptist does not divorce faith, knowledge, and cognition, from the experience of regeneration.  The Baptist leaped for joy when he heard the gospel salutation!

Further, Jason misrepresents again Dr. Gill.  If he would recall the citations I gave from Gill's writings on saving faith, Gill plainly said that it had Christ for its object.  In Jason's latest post, he even cites me where I cite these words of Gill - "God the Son is the object of faith."

Jason wrote:

"I have enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues with Brother Garrett."

I can also say that I have enjoyed it, to some degree. But, it has also been painful, a travail. Laboring with those deceived by cultic thinking is no easy matter. I have hopes for Jason and other Hardshells that some of them will come back to the true old Baptist faith.

See Jason's post here

http://primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com/