Doublespeak?

Jason Brown wrote:

"Now, what Brother Garrett should know about the Primitive Baptists is that they fully believe in the instrumentality of the word in sanctification and conversion. In his last post, he seemed incredulous that I would suggest that in this gospel era, the gospel is God's means of conforming the elect to the image of Jesus Christ. No Primitive Baptist denies that the gospel is the power of God unto this conformation to the elect under the sound of it, as the Bible states this quite plainly in Romans 1:16, 8:29."  (see here)

What brother Brown says is doublespeak and double talk.  It is a means and it is not a means.  It is optional and it is not optional. 

Further, Brown is wrong when he says that "no Primitive Baptist denies that the gospel is the power of God unto this conformation to the elect under the sound of it."  Let Jason give us the statements from their leading ministers to prove his assertion.  Most Hardshells would not affirm that being "conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom. 8: 29) is the "salvation" of Rom. 1: 16.   Most Hardshells would affirm that all the elect will be "conformed to the image of Christ" but that the gospel is not the means to bring about that transformation.  I am glad that Jason admits that the salvation of Rom. 1: 16 is that transformation to which the elect have been chosen and predestined.  Yet, he needs to become consistent and quit his doublespeak. 

Brother Brown wrote:

"PB ministers failing to study what their forefathers actually taught. The central error that Brother Garrett, Fralick, and I object to in some PB's, is not the concept of a salvation in time, but the supposed fully optional nature of this salvation to the elect. the Bible does not present these doctrines (for the elect under the sound of the gospel) as options; some degree of sanctification is an effect of having been regenerated..."

It is ironic and contradictory that Jason, in the beginning of our debate, criticized me for supposedly believing in more than one way of salvation (regeneration), while he supposedly believed in only one kind of being regenerated, the "Spirit alone" kind.  Why?  Because he is now himself promoting more than one kind of salvation, more than one way of being "conformed to the image of Christ."  People who hear the gospel are conformed to the image of Christ by the gospel, but those who do not hear the gospel are conformed to the image of Christ without the gospel.  People today are saved differently from those who lived in OT times.  Consistency thou art a jewel!

But, it is also interesting how the "degree of sanctification" for those who are both regenerated and converted is significantly different, in the Hardshell paradigm, from that which the "regenerated heathen" experience.  Let Jason tell us about the "degree" of "sanctification" that exists in his "regenerated heathen."  Let Jason tell us about the "degree" of being "conformed to the image of Christ" in the "born again" Muslim or Hindu.

What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not produce knowledge of the one true and living God and his salvation through his Son by the cross?  It is a "hollow log" and very shallow "regeneration" without any real substance and radical transformation.

Further, Jason is correct about the woeful ignorance of Hardshells regarding their own history!     

In his most recent response Brother Brown wrote:

"The Apostle Paul has already stated in the Book of Romans previous to this text that the function of the gospel and evangelical faith is to conform the elect in time to the image of Jesus Christ."

In this statement Jason has avowed the very position he has set himself against.  In this he is a classic example of those who "oppose themselves" (contradict).  He at one time avows the doctrine that the gospel is a means in eternal salvation and then disavows it at another time.  When are the elect conformed to the image of his Son?  Are they not so initially when they are regenerated?  Are they also not so progressively after regeneration? 

Jason implies that all the elect will be conformed to the image of Christ by the gospel and evangelical faith.  He does not say "some of the elect" but "the elect," meaning "all the elect."  If he means "all of the elect," then he contradicts his view that says - "some of the elect are transformed by the gospel and some of the elect are transformed without the gospel."  Again, this is doublespeak.

If regenerated souls are also souls who are transformed into the image of Christ and transformation is by the gospel, then regeneration is by the gospel.  Who can believe in a "regeneration" where there is no transformation into the likeness of Christ? 

Jason has already asserted that the transformation for those who hear the gospel is through faith in the gospel, but that this same transformation occurs without faith in the gospel for those who never hear the gospel.  Transformation by the gospel is necessary for eternal salvation if you hear the gospel but it is not necessary if you never hear the gospel.

I am sure that Jason will assert that there are two kinds of transformation, one that is universal to all the elect, even to those elect who are heathen polytheists, and one that is limited to only those elect who hear the gospel, for this is a common Hardshell tactic.  But, where is such justification for such disection?  They may call it "rightly dividing the word of truth" but it is rather a "putting asunder what God has joined together." 

Jason wrote:

"So the idea that Paul is not referring to the temporal aspect of salvation in Romans 10:9 is incorrect, as he had already defined his use of the term in the proximate context."

He then wrote:

"I never said that the salvation of Romans 10 had "nothing to do with eternal salvation". In fact, I denied this quite plainly in showing that salvation, properly understood, is both timely and eternal by Paul's definition of salvation as being made conformable to the image of Christ in Romans 8:29."

Okay, so we have Jason on record that the salvation of Romans 10 deals with both time and eternal aspects of salvation.  But, notice again his doublespeak.  On the one hand he wants to say that Romans 10 deals with "time salvation," with the implication that it is not eternal, and then, on the other hand, he wants to say that Romans 10 does deal with eternal salvation.

Keep in mind that the Hardshell doctrine of "time salvation" is not the same thing as present salvation.  The scriptures do put salvation into the past, present, and future tenses.  A Christian can say that God has saved him, is now saving him, and will save him in the future.  But, it is not a different kind of salvation, or so many salvations, but the same salvation.  Christian birth into the family of God occurs instantly and is a finished work.  Christian growth and sanctification has a definite beginning but which does not reach its completion in this life. 

The question becomes rather simple.  What is the salvation of Romans 10 predicated upon?  Is it not upon believing in Christ and confessing him as Savior and Lord?  It is foolish for Jason to say that this is only true for those sinners who hear the gospel but not true for sinners who never hear.

He then wrote:

"However, the effectual calling of God is a "timely" salvation that is not optional to the elect. Some degree of sanctification is a "timely" salvation that is not optional to the elect. A fundamental conviction of the truth of the gospel by the spirit to the elect under the sound of it is a "timely" salvation that is not optional (1 Cor. 1:18)."

Again, Jason sometimes will speak of "the elect," meaning "all the elect," and then switch to speaking only of "some of the elect."  He speaks first of "the elect" and then of "the elect under the sound of it (gospel)."  Again, this is doublespeak.  If you are elect and hear the gospel, then you must believe it to be finally saved.  But, if you are elect and do not hear the gospel, then you don't have to believe the gospel to be finally saved.  Again, is this not two ways of saving the elect?  In Jason's paradigm, if you are elect in gospel lands, then you have to be both regenerated and converted, but if you are elect in heathen lands, then you only have to be "regenerated," and not converted. 

He then wrote:

"A temporal aspect of salvation that is optional to the elect is whether to confess Jesus as Lord, as in Romans 10:10. Romans 10:11 indicates that the regenerate under the sound of the gospel will generally confess their faith, but it certainly is possible for a regenerate man to fail to confess what they really believe is the truth, as Peter."

Here is the Hardshell leaven in the lump of Jason's post.  What is his leavenous proposition?  ===> "You do not have to confess that Christ is Savior and Lord to be finally saved"!  Confessing Christ is "optional to the elect"!  It does not matter as far as being eternally saved is concerned! 

Jason argues that the case of Peter proves that people can be saved who do not confess Christ!  What horrific Hardshell logic!  The case of Peter proves that the confession that is necessary "unto salvation" does not require perfection, not that it proves that those who "confess not at all" (heathen) are saved.

He then wrote:

"I agree with Garrett here, but notice that he now concedes that Romans 10:9-11 is to be understood of what is characteristic of truly regenerate people."

"He now concedes"?  I have always said that faith in Christ and confession of him is "characteristic" of the chosen and called.  But, perhaps we do not interpret the word "characteristic" exactly alike.  When I say that something is characteristic of the elect, I mean that it is something which is common to all the elect, what is universal in regard to them all.  Apparently Jason thinks that if something is common to only half the elect then it is "characteristic" of the elect.  But, this is simply more doublespeak.

He then wrote:

"Confession is characteristic of those with actual belief, not that confession necessarily follows it in every instance."

"Confession is characteristic of those (elect) with actual belief," but is not characteristic of those elect who are without actual belief ("regenerated heathen"). 

Confession necessarily follows regeneration and is "unto salvation," but this does not mean that immutable confession follows regeneration or is "unto salvation." 

He then wrote:

"Obviously it is incorrect to construe from this passage that confession always follows belief, if actual belief is possessed, as Peter disproved."

Wrong!  Jason's error is in equating "confession" with perfect or immutable confession, with a confession that never waivers.  Jason's logic says that since Peter failed, on one occasion, to confess Christ, therefore one can be saved who confesses Christ not at all!  You put that kind of logic in a bird and it will fly backward.

He then wrote:

"This variability in obedience, however slight, is what Primitive Baptists mean by "timely salvation". The difference in Christian purity among actual Christians is explained in terms of their sanctification to the image of Christ by their choice of whether to "embrace with meekness the engrafted word". This is what Primitive Baptists mean by "timely" salvation. How can it be argued that when it is applied in this manner it is Scripturally erroneous?"

We want to hear more about this "variability in obedience," this variability in confessing Christ.  What is the nature of the "regenerated" heathen's obedience and that of the regenerated Christian?   How can the heathen have any acceptable obediene apart from faith in Christ?  (Heb. 11: 6; Rom. 14: 23)  What "degree" of sanctification can the "regenerated heathen" have who has no faith? 

He then wrote:

"I have never said that those in this gospel era who live a life rejecting Jesus Christ should be considered saved people. I know of no knowledgeable Primitive Baptist who would consider such people certainly regenerated."

But, this is false and Jason needs to prove his baseless assertion.  Most Hardshells today do not teach what Jason says they teach.  The chief question is whether a man can be "regenerated" and yet be an unbeliever or non-Christian.  Also, this is simply more doublespeak.  He affirms the salvation of millions who die in heathen faith and yet says he would not "consider such people certainly regenerated." 

Jason offers the "national Jew as a special case of providential blindness."  By this he means that the Christ rejecting Jew is an exception ("special case") to the rule that says that only believers, under the sound of the gospel, will be saved.  So, Jason's paradigm has now been altered again and now has these propositions:  1) if you are elect and live without hearing the gospel, then you will be regenerated and finally saved anyway, 2) if you are an elect Gentile and hear the gospel, then you will not be regenerated and finally saved unless you believe the gospel, 3) if you are an elect Jew and hear the gospel, then you will still probably be saved.  What nonsense!

Do the Hardshells not affirm, as Jason has, that the rich young ruler, who Christ is said to have loved, and who rejected following Christ, was saved?  Did not Sonny Pyles use Eze. 3: 4-6 to prove that the heathen were saved?  Did not Elder Sarrels in his "Systematic Theology" affirm that all sincerely good religious pagan people were "regenerated"? 

He then wrote:

"Many will be eternally saved who did not believe, confess, and serve in the Kingdom of God...as much as others."

More doublespeak!  He says such things and then at other times says things that contradict those things.  He just said that he cannot say that people who live and die rejecting Christ are saved and yet he now says just the opposite!  He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, opposing himself.  Can Jason give us one example from scripture of someone who is "eternally saved" but who did not "believe, confess, and serve"?  Does Paul affirm in Romans 10 that many who do not believe and confess will be eternally saved?  Jesus told the Jews - "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."  (John 8: 24)  What does Paul say of the heathen state?  Does he not say that they are "without God and without hope in the world"?  (Eph. 2: 12)

Jason wrote:

"They will all be convicted of the truth of the gospel by the spirit when under the sound of the true gospel (1 Cor. 1:18,24 - saved in verse 18 is exchanged for the effectually called in verse 24, so in this text "being saved" is having been regenerated)."

Notice again how Jason makes unwarranted distinctions.  He says that "all" the elect who hear the gospel will believe it and be saved and transformed by it, but that all the elect who do not hear the gospel will also be saved and transformed, but not by the gospel.  Of course, Jason seems to want to exclude the national Jew from the "all" who hear the gospel. 

One wonders whether Jason accepts the Hardshell view of this text?  Does he believe that Paul affirms that people are saved and called before they hear the gospel? 

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. "  (I Cor. 1: 18, 24)

The typical Hardshell says that the gospel is the power of God to those who are already saved and regenerated because Paul says the gospel is the power of God to those who believe, to those who are called, to those who are saved.  But, this is a violent twisting of the text.  In verse 21 Paul said - "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."  Obviously the salvation follows the believing in the passage.  Obvious also is the fact that what constitutes one a "believer" is that he believes in the gospel, in the fact that Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God.  Further, Paul consistently taught that God calls "by the gospel."  (II Thess. 2: 14)  "The called" is not a title applied to any heathen unbeliever in the NT.   Further, when Paul says that the gospel is the "power of God" does he not mean that "it is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1: 16)?  Jason has already affirmed that the word "saved" in the context is eternal salvation and what is the same as being "effectually called."  If he is consistent, then he will define the word "saved" in verse 21 as also the same as eternal salvation and effectual calling.  Thus we can read the passage as saying - "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to eternally save and effectually call them who believe." 

Jason wrote:

"I never contended that Romans 10 had no "eternal" significance in terms of the events of time signifying the eternal reality."

This is more doublespeak.  Jason interprets Paul as saying that the eternal aspects of the salvation under consideration do not require becoming a Christian but the temporal aspects of it do require it.  Thus, a man may miss the temporal aspects of salvation but not the eternal aspect.  What a reading into the text of what is absolutely foreign to it!  Jason said - "Brother Garrett has a problem with the implications of this definition in that it is not 'fully eternal.'"  The salvation includes present salvation (calling, justification, and sanctification) but also includes final salvation at the resurrection and day of judgment.  It includes conversion.  To believe in and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus is to be converted.

Jason wrote:

"The gospel of John 3:8 doesn't teach gospel instrumentality in regeneration, but we've already discussed that point. He will disagree, but Primitive Baptists and many other Calvinists like James White or R.C. Sproul disagree."

Whether John 3: 8 clearly teaches "gospel instrumentality in regeneration" is beside the point since such instrumentality is taught elsewhere in numerous verses.  Paul said that he had "begotten" the Corinthians "by the gospel."  (I Cor. 4: 15)  Peter said - "being born again...by the word of God...and this word by the gospel is preached unto you."  (I Peter 1: 23-25)  James said - "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth."  (James 1: 18)  James White believes that the instant a man is regenerated he believes the gospel. 

Jason wrote:

"Anyone approaching this issue free of prejudice would conclude that John 3:8 teaches an unmediated, supernatural cause of regeneration. This position certainly has the advantage of the intuitive reading on this text to the honest observer."

That is untrue.  I find it interesting that Jesus goes right from talking about being "born again" to talking about "looking" and "believing" to salvation (vs. 14-16)  Jesus said to Nicodemus:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Why does Jason totally divorce what Jesus here taught about being saved from what he just said about being "born again"?  Is it not rather likely that these verses are an elaboration upon what it means to be "born again"?  To be born again means to lay hold of Christ by faith.

Jason goes contrary to his Hardshell Baptist forefathers regarding the new birth of John 3!  The first Hardshells taught that this new birth was not regeneration, but was what would surely follow it.  They taught that this new birth was affected by means of gospel preaching and that it was synonymous with being converted.  He indicts his own founding fathers as being dishonest interpreters of John 3!

Jason wrote:

"I used Peter to prove that one can be saved even though they may not confess Christ in every instance, not that they won't confess Christ ever or at all."

More doublespeak!  Did Jason not say that the case of Peter proved that one did not have to confess Christ to be saved?  Did I not attack such argumentation and basically say just what Jason now says in this quotation?  Again, Jason is contradicting and opposing himself!  Is he so blind that he cannot see it?

Jason wrote:

"The point is, that Garrett has conceded my point that true belief is logically separable from confession, and that confession is an evidence of true belief."

But Garrett has "conceded" nothing for I have never never denied that faith is "logically separable from confession."  Faith is logically separable from good works also.  But, where there is true faith there are good works, and vice versa.  What is the chief point, however, is whether being saved, born again, or called, is separated from evangelical faith. 

In another recent posting, Brown wrote:

"The Bible is not totally clear about the fate of the heathen."

What a totally baseless proposition!  It is quite obvious that Jason is not familiar with what the scriptures say about the eternal destiny of the heathen who die without a conversion to Christ!  He is also grossly ignorant of what the 1689 London Baptist Confession says for it says that the scriptures are very clear in affirming the eternal damnation of the heathen.  He is also grossly ignorant of what Dr. Gill wrote on the "state of the heathen."  (see here)  Paul said that the heathen are they who "have no hope" and are "without God." 

Jason wrote:

"If one sees the lack of consistency with this and how the elect were saved in the Old Testament, which suggests that the gospel of  Jesus Christ is a more evolved content of a more obscure promise made to Abraham and the Old Testament saints, a logical person ought to see that the fate of the heathen in the Old Testament is entirely dependent on God's direct revelation."

Again, how can Jason justly condemn me for supposedly affirming more than one way of salvation and then do the same?  How many ways does God have of saving his people Jason?

Jason wrote:

"What does this mean for the heathen people before the gospel era? Any answer is some degree of speculation. Everyone concedes that God has revealed Himself directly to pagan people before the gospel era. The Bible is not clear on the scale of such pre-gospel revelation, but does intimate it, even if one considered the case of Abraham alone. God spoke directly to Abimelech in a dream, instructing him that  Abraham was a prophet of God and to let him go (Gen. 20:6)."

But, the difference is that the heathen who heard the gospel directly from God, and believed it, was no longer a "heathen."  So, such cases, as Abraham, do not prove that people are saved without evangelical faith!  Further, the Lord spoke to Abimelech but did not preach the gospel to him.  The Lord also spoke to Cain but Cain "was of that wicked one."  The speaking God did to Abraham, while a heathen, was not the same speaking that God did to Cain or Abimelech.  People have been saved the same way in every age as Paul taught in Romans and Galatians, by faith in the gospel of Christ.

Jason wrote:

"It is ridiculous to conclude with certainty that all the pagan peoples before the gospel era were damned, as Abraham himself is an obvious counter-example."

"Ridiculus to conclude"?  Based upon what biblical premises?  Not only does Jason assert that many heathen in the OT were saved without knowledge of God, but he also asserts that many heathen in the NT are also saved without knowledge of God.  Abraham is not an example of people being saved who lived and died in pagan belief! 

Jason wrote:

"What I would like to consider now, is Ezekiel's Valley of the Dry Bones. Brother Garrett is fond of considering this example to prove that God uses means in quickening. However, I want to observe that it was not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ that Ezekiel spoke to the bones in this example. The words Ezekiel spoke are not up for debate, as Ezekiel 37:4-6 tell the reader what was spoken."

What exactly was the message or words that Ezekiel was commanded to "prophesy" is beside the point!  What is the point is the fact that God used a prophet and his prophesying as a means or instrument to effect resurrection!  Why is Jason resisting accepting what the text plainly shows?  Why does he affirm that the prophesying of Ezekiel was no means at all?  Does he not show that patented Hardshell stubborness by his opposition to the clear fact that Ezekiel's prophesying was a means in resurrection? 

Jason wrote:

"So the pertinent question becomes, how does Garrett even know that the spoken words of Ezekiel were used by God as a means? He doesn't know it, he begs the question. This example only shows his presiding assumption."

Here Jason clearly denies that the "spoken words of Ezekiel were used by God as a means" in the resurrection of the dead bones!  How blatant a denial of plain scriptural facts! 

Jason wrote:

"There is absolutely no indication that the actual words of Ezekiel served as the medium by which the bones were quickened. There is just as much basis in the text to argue that the quickening power of God coincided with Ezekiel's words, as that they employed his words."

"There is absolutely no indication that the actual words of Ezekiel served as a medium by which the bones were quickened"?  Jason is willingly blinded and hardened against the plain reading of the text.  The Lord told Ezekiel to "prophesy unto these bones" so that they might live.  He told those bones to "hear the word of the Lord" and it was upon his saying these words that the bones began to come to life.  What a "hot potato" is this passage of scripture for Hardshells!

Jason wrote:

"Garrett may object, but Ezekiel was commanded to tell them to "hear". Does this mean Jesus was redundant when he said, "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear"? If the ears of natural men can spiritually hear, then Jesus obviously misspoke."

Jason is confusing two completely separate passages.  The words of Jesus about people who have ears hearing is not applicable to the case in Ezekiel!  The people to whom Ezekiel was to preach had no ears!  Jesus will say to the "dead," to those who have no ears, in the day of the resurrection, "come forth"!   The ears of natural men can and do hear spiritually when the Lord attends the preaching and imparts ability to hear.  Has Jason never read - "in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book"?  (Isa. 29: 18)  Has he never read - "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see"?  (Isa. 42: 18)  Further, does the Lord not condemn men for their not being able and willing to hear?

Jason wrote:

"If God is a God that works by natural means, have we not laid the groundwork for Deism? How can Christians defend the truly miraculous and providential - that which occurs by the power of God alone, if such a proclivity in the Divine is accepted?"

The preaching of the gospel is not a "natural means" but a supernatural means!  God works by both natural means and supernatural means, but God's use of means, for whatever ends, does not in any way lend credence to Deism.  Jason argues that if God uses means, then the effect intended cannot be wholly ascribed to God and his power alone.  What horrific Hardshell logic! 

"And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?"  (Acts 3: 12)

Obviously Peter was no Hardshell nor one who accepted the "reasoning" of brother Jason!  Peter knew that he had been an instrument by which God had healed the impotent man and yet he did not follow Jason's logic and deny that all the power was of the Lord! 

Jason wrote:

"I doubt Garrett recognizes how dangerous this doctrine is, and that he has laid the ax at the root of the tree of the lifeblood of Christianity."

How dangerous is the teaching that what God accomplishes through means is still nevertheless by his power alone?  What is really "dangerous" is Hardshellism, the proclamation that faith in Christ is not a requirement for being eternally saved!