Jason Brown, Hardshell "apologist," takes issue with our recent chapter (110) on "Regeneration - Mediate or Immediate?" See his posting titled Garrett and Fuller. I wish to respond to a few things that Brown wrote.
Brown said:
"Obviously, if an ordo salutis that places faith simultaneous to regeneration is embraced, it lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace. Garrett's view of soteriology seems to be that grace is both resistible and irresistible. It is irresistible to the elect, but resistible to the non-elect. Titus 2:11, according to Garrett, indicates that God's grace that brings salvation actually does come to every single man that has ever lived. This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent. Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism."
Brown states a falsehood when he says that the placing of faith and regeneration together, or of making them "simultaneous," or concurrent, "lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace." If this is so, then Brown makes John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, Abraham Booth, and Charles Spurgeon, etc., into "Arminians." Who can believe it? Faith and repentance "accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) If one teaches that faith and repentance, and conversion, "accompanies salvation," how does that make one an "Arminian"?
But, one might ask, what is it that makes one a Hardshell Hyper Calvinist? Is it not the divorcing of faith from regeneration? Is it not the denial that faith and repentance "accompany salvation"?
Brown accuses me of denying "irresistible grace," or "effectual calling," in affirming that faith and repentance were part and parcel of "regeneration," but in doing so also accuses the great Calvinists of the past. He also accuses me of believing in a kind of "resistible grace." But, did Stephen not say to some - "you do always resist the Holy Spirit"? (Acts 7: 51) The common operations of the Spirit are resisted, but not the internal call of the Spirit in conjunction with the word. With the elect there is a superabundance of grace and power that overcomes natural opposition.
Brown refers to Titus 2: 11, a passage I do not think that I have cited, about "the grace of God that brings salvation" and about such grace having "appeared to all men." I have no doubt, cited this verse in my numerous writings, and have asserted as John Gill, that the "grace" of God in the text is a reference to the gospel, and is that which "brings salvation." I have never interpreted this passage as actually indicating that the grace (gospel) had actually appeared to every single human being on the planet in the time of Paul. Paul certainly did not mean that this grace had actually come to every person, i.e., that the gospel had literally been preached to everyone, but simply means that it was manifested to all men without distinction or discrimination. The gospel grace was not to be limited to any group.
So, it is false statement for Brown to say that I believe that actual salvation, or the gospel message, is revealed to every human being per Titus 2: 11.
Brown then says - "This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent."
But, we have previously shown how this basic tenet of Hardshellism is "uprooted" by Jesus. See the posting here. In my series "Addresses to the Lost" I give numerous examples where Christ preached the gospel to those he knew were non-elect and offered them salvation. Brown needs to read them.
Brown then wrote:
"Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism."
But, the idea that the atonement is both limited and unlimited is the view of primitive Calvinists and of particular Baptists. Further, Jason does not disprove anything that he might include under his use of the term "Fullerism," but only insinuates that "Fullerism," whatever it is, is a false teaching. Perhaps Brown can cite something in particular from the writings of Fuller, on the issue, and we will see if we can agree with it. And if we can't, then perhaps we can decide on whether disagreements on it should be tolerated, or whether it should be a "test of fellowship" as far as being recognized as a Church of Christ.
Brown next cites these words from my original posting:
"Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both."
He then retorts with these words:
"Garrett lets slip his Fuller commitments in, "...just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional."
Again, notice how Brown insinutates that "Fullerism" is an assumed falsehood. But, his argument has no weight until he defines precisely what he means by "Fullerism" and then shows it to be false. As far as salvation being both conditional and unconditional, this we believe is the teaching of scripture and will show in upcoming chapters in my present series. We have already begun showing how salvation is both the result of the work of God immediately and mediately, and will be enlarging upon it in the present series. When the series is completed it will be seen how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, and is both mediate and immediate, and both passive and active.
Brown then asks - "What exactly is the immediate aspect of Garrett's view of regeneration?" And, he asks - "How can the act of regeneration be both? It is either through some means or it is not."
In response to this we simply ask that Brown be patient for we have several chapters yet to publish on the question. But, the one introductory chapter has already given some answer to his question. I used the analogy of a physician operating on a patient and how he both touches the patient and uses an instrument. It is a false proposition to affirm that salvation cannot be both conditional and unconditional. Our forefathers wrote much on this question and I will be citing their testimony in the remaining chapters in the present series.
Brown wrote:
"As for Garrett's comparison of regeneration to general salvation, which is supposedly conditional and unconditional, it shares the same contradiction - it either is ultimately conditional or it is not."
But, in the present series, we will prove, from scripture and the oldest Calvinist writings, particularly from Baptist sources, how that they affirmed that salvation was both unconditional, in some sense, and conditional, in some sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment