Non-Cognitive Faith?

This is my response to Jason Brown's posting "Addendum Causa Sine Qua Non." See at

http://primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com/

Jason wrote:

"One other quote of Gill on Eternal Justification to prove that Gill's view was inconsistent with equating gospel knowledge with the faith given in regeneration:

"It deserves regard and attention, that the saints under the Old Testament, were justified by the same righteousness of Christ, as those under the New, and that before the sacrifice was offered up, the satisfaction given, and the everlasting righteousness brought in; for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins that were past, and his death was for the redemption of transgressions under the first Testament, Ro 3:25 Heb 9:15.Now if God could, and actually did, justify some, three or four thousand years before the righteousness of Christ was actually wrought out, taking his Son's word and bond as their Surety, and in a view of his future righteousness; why could he not, and why may it not be thought he did, justify all his elect from eternity, upon the word and bond of their Surety, and on the basis of his future righteousness, which he had engaged to work out, and which he full well knew he would most certainly work out? and if there is no difficulty in conceiving of the one, there can be none in conceiving of the other."

So now we are discussing Gill's inconsistency? About whether his views on eternal justification were logically consistent with his views on faith and means? About whether his views on eternal justification, and the relation of faith to justification, support Hardshellism?  Nothing that Gill said in the citation denied that faith in Christ was necessary for being saved.  Gill was clear that no one was justified who did not believe or come to Christ.  If Jason thinks the above words of Gill make Gill to contradict himself, then he is blinded by his prejudice. 

Jason wrote:

"My line of reasoning here equally destroys Garrett's position as well as Gill's, if Gill truly made the true faith of regeneration equal to gospel knowledge."

"If Gill"?  How can he question such a thing?  All of Gill's works are filled with statements as to how Gill defined "faith"!  He never defined it in the Hardshell manner!  He never taught that "faith," in the bible, was blind, that knew nothing, that was non-cognitive!  And, Jason accuses me of not being "honest" regarding the words of Gill?  Jason is neither honest in his interpretation of the words of Ryland Sr. or of John Gill!  It is also true with regard to how he reads many passages of holy scripture, sad to say.  I have already cited material from Gill where he affirmed that knowledge of God and truth was necessary to faith!  Why did Jason ignore that and then come back and question it and say "if Gill..."?   Where did Gill ever hint that "faith" did not necessitate "gospel knowledge"?  Hardshell "faith" may be ignorant of Christ, and have no gospel knowledge, but not so the "faith" as defined by scripture and by Dr. Gill.

Jason wrote:

"How can gospel knowledge of our New Testament era be equated with the faith given in the effectual call of the Old Testament Saints? Were all the regenerate under the Old Testament taught intellectual knowledge of the gospel as we have it today directly by God?"

 A knowledge of God and the gospel has always been necessary for "faith."  "How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"  Just because the gospel revelation was not as extensive in the OT does not lead to the conclusion that gospel revelation is not the means of salvation.  That is a non-sequiter.  Can Jason show us where "faith," in either the old or new testaments, is defined in the manner in which he and his Hardshell brethren now define it?  Does "faith" come by hearing the gospel or not, brother Jason?  Can one have faith in a person he knows nothing about, as you and your Hardshell brethren teach? 

Jason continues:

"This seems absurd as it would supplant the place of the "Old" Testament in which the future Messiah was known nebulously (at least in terms of intellectual knowledge) only by types and shadows. Jesus Christ is obviously never referred to as plainly in the Old Testament as he appears in the New Testament; otherwise Paul is misleadingly redundant to say that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and it would make the Old Testament fully moot as "revelation" because God had directly revealed in actual intellectual, gospel knowledge just as we have today far more than a purposeless Old Testament could hope to reveal."

Again, more of the same.  Non-sequiters!  Paul said that God preached the gospel to Abraham.  (Gal. 3: 8)  Paul also said that "unto them (Israelites) was the gospel preached, as well as to us."  (Heb. 4: 2)  So, let Jason argue with Paul!  Let him go ahead and deny that the gospel was preached in the days between Adam and Christ!  Go ahead and deny what Paul said!  Was Paul inconsistent like Gill, brother Jason?

Jason wrote:

"Surely this line of reasoning shows the folly of equating gospel, intellectual knowledge with the fundamental trust in God that embraces whatever special revelation is available."

 "Line of reasoning"?  Jason needs to quit relying upon his logical deductions, which are generally false, and upon his inferences and implications, of bible verses, and just take what they say at face value. 

Equating gospel knowledge with fundamental trust in God and his revelation?  I may not equate gospel "knowledge" with "fundamental trust in God" and in his "revelation," but I do equate faith in gospel knowledge with trust in God.  Many people get instructed in gospel knowledge who never believe it. How can one trust a "God" that he knows nothing about?  Absurd!  How can one have "fundamental trust in God" apart from knowledge of God?  Can I trust a person that I do not know?