Jason Brown has attempted to respond (see here) to our last posting about John 5: 40 and how it, and other chapters in the Gospel of John, "uproot Hardshellism." But, Jason has again miserably failed.
Jason wrote:
"Part of the difficulty of the current discussion with Brother Garrett is defining terms."
Jason got that almost right! But, it is not my "defining terms" that is the problem, but of Jason and the Hardshells. Anyone who has followed this discussion knows that it is Jason who wants to define words like "faith" in numerous unbiblical ways. He certainly is guilty of invalid equivocation.
Jason wrote:
"...he does not believe that the non-elect must be morally capable of believing the gospel in order for it to be incumbent upon them to believe, nor should he."
I take this to be another statement of agreement from Jason. Good! Will Jason offer "constructive criticism" to those Hardshells who do not preach to the unbelievers, and who do not call upon them to believe in Christ? This is what Elder John Clark also taught when he was Editor of Zion's Advocate and today's Hardshells need to heed what he wrote. (see here)
Jason wrote:
"Man is ultimately responsible for sin, and rejecting eternal life. There is, therefore, nothing unwarranted about saying that the non-elect are called by the gospel to believe in this sense; otherwise, why are they judged in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 for gospel rejection?"
In making comments like this Jason is not talking like traditional Hardshells. One wonders, however, whether he left himself an escape with the weasel words "in this sense." In what sense? He speaks of the non-elect "rejecting eternal life." How can they reject it if they never had it offered to them?
Jason wrote:
"I, personally, agree with Garrett here, as the duty the non-elect have to believe the gospel surely rests on the same grounds."
But, believe the Gospel for what purpose? Do they also have the privilege to believe it for salvation? Also, Jason says that he "personally" agrees with me. Does this mean that most of his Hardshell brethren don't agree with him or me?
Jason wrote:
"On the other hand, Brother Garrett surely should be able to be open to the sense in which this "offer" of eternal life to the non-elect seems duplicitous since it is not attended effectually with the spirit. It seems problematic to see this "offer" as an example of the "loving kindness" of God when God surely knows that they are dead in their sins, though it is man's fault."
But, it is not I who has the seeming difficulty, but Jason. I have already given examples to show how an offer of pardon can be offered in kindness even though there is no compelling persuasion operating equally on all to accept the pardon.
Jason wrote:
"How can any act be thought of as "kind" when it is not logically possible that it will result in the intended effect? It would be different if Christ didn't know otherwise."
I already answered this and Jason needs to go back and read. The kindness of a deed does not depend upon how it is received or perceived.
Jason wrote:
"Therefore, and especially because of the context of the various passages, it seems to me that Christ is pronouncing judgment on the non-elect by these references to an "available" salvation for them."
He is first and foremost offering the lost an opportunity to be saved, an act of kindness. And, of course, he offers judgment to those who refuse his proffered kindness.
Jason wrote:
"As an aside, What does Brother Garrett mean by God 'making provision' for the non-elect? If he means provisions of what is commonly referred to as "common grace" in terms of the rain falling on the just and the unjust, I would agree. But if he means that Christ's atonement embraced every individual man, then Brother Garrett has departed from Scripture. Are you saying that, like Fuller, Brother Garrett?"
I mean exactly what Paul meant when he wrote:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Obviously God is the provisional Savior of all men. Christ is available to save any who call upon his name. Obviously an offer of eternal life and salvation is a general provision. Jason has even agreed with this. So, why the problem? I do not believe that the Atonement of Christ was universal and do not believe that it has to be so to make a genuine offer of salvation to all. It is true to say - "if you believe in Christ, then he will die for you." Certainly this would have been the message to OT folk. And, when Christ did die, there was no need to die for those who were already condemned and in torment. Today we may say to every sinner that "if you believe, then Christ died for you, bearing the guilt and punishment rightly due to you."
Jason wrote:
"It is not possible that they could be eternally delivered, and Christ is not offering his atonement to the non-elect by John 5:40, as eternal deliverance proceeds directly from Christ's atonement, not man's belief, which is the confirmation of that reality."
Again, it seems that Jason will not admit that it is eternal salvation that is promised to those who believe. Christ tells the lost that they will be saved if they believe. One cannot disconnect eternal salvation from the atonement. An offer of salvation is an offer of atonement. Just because the offer of atonement and salvation is offered to all does not mean all were atoned!
Jason wrote:
"The emphasis of 5:40 that Brother Garrett wants to make requisite in gospel preaching requires the premise that it is upon gospel belief that eternal life is given, which cannot follow from 5:37,38 or 5:24. The statement of Christ, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life (John 5:40)," is assumed by Brother Garrett to imply that eternal life is fully contingent on belief."
"Coming to" Christ is equated with believing in Christ and Jesus says that men come to him (believe in him) "that they might have life." Let Jason show us that this life is not eternal life. I don't know how the passage can be any clearer. Jason says that I interpret the words of Christ to mean that eternal life is contingent on belief, but that is clearly the teaching of the passage. The reason for not having life is that "you will not" do as I advise, will not come to me.
Jason wrote:
"It is clear from John 5:37,38 that belief is fully contingent of having the Father's word abiding in one, as he clearly states, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.""
There is no chronological separating of "belief" and "having the Father's word abiding in one." They to together. That is what Christ is saying. If one has faith, he has the word. If one has the word abiding within, then he has faith. Again, this is eisegesis.
Jason wrote:
"It is not that Christ is implying that they could be eternally saved at that precise moment in 5:40 merely by a sudden belief, as Christ has already explained why it is that they cannot believe in verse 38 that quite precludes that possibility. The contextual basis of Christ's words in 5:40 is to confirm their damnation according to their own self-determined will, not establish any other actual possible outcome."
Again, this is Hardshellism in a nutshell. Telling sinners that salvation does not occur "at the precise moment" that one believes in Christ! Again, Jason makes Christ into a fool. Christ knows that these cannot be saved and yet, what does he do? He still preaches to them how they can be saved! What Jesus actually does sounds the deathknell to all of Jason's logical machinations.
Jason wrote:
"Given the proper context of the former, 5:40 is obviously stated in a context of condemnation, and is logically consistent with verse 38."
No doubt he is condemning these who "will not come" to him for salvation, but it also shows that Christ has a desire for them to come, and this is what Jason, in his Hyper Calvinism, refuses to acknowledge. If he does not want them to come to him, then why is he condemning them?
No comments:
Post a Comment