Jason Brown, "Primitive Baptist Apologist," has ended his months of silence and has again spoken apologetically for the Hardshells against our views on "soteriology," which are as I have shown, in keeping with the historic and primitive Baptist faith, as stated in the confessions. It seems to me that this recent hiatus may have been spent by our brother in deep contemplation of things which we have discussed over the past year and produced some good change of mind in him regarding the doctrine of salvation. At least some of the following statements from his recent posting ("Salvation") seem to clearly demonstrate this fact.
I have often commended Jason Brown for his willingness to enter the discussion regarding the teaching of scripture and Baptist heritage and condemned those Hardshells who will not discuss these things openly and honestly. I have commended Jason for agreeing that most of today's "Primitive Baptists" have gone to extremes in their separating of regeneration from conversion and promoting their "time salvation" paradigm.
But, I have condemned all his attempts to affirm the salvation of unbelievers, and I will continue to do so. I have condemned all his attempts at denying that the Scriptures teach that sinners are born of God by the gospel. I will continue to do so.
If God has elect among the Heathen, then he will get them the gospel. That is what the Scriptures teach and it is what the Old Baptists have believed. It is what most of the first Hardshells also believed. But, it is what is denied by 99% of today's Hardshells.
Jason wrote:
"I want to flesh out some of the problems of Brother Garrett's views of soteriology, and how, though some modern PB's have gone to extremes, they nevertheless have a key insight on what the Bible means by "salvation"."
Again, we are glad that Jason makes this "confession" about "some" of today's Hardshells, agreeing that they "have gone to extremes." But, Jason's "some" is no minority, but the overwhelming majority.
Even though Jason condemns "some" PB's, he nevertheless commends the Hardshells for having "a key insight" in biblical soteriology and the scriptural use of the word "salvation." It is not uncommon for Christian cults to claim to have "key insight" into many things, that they have revelation, knowledge, and understanding that most other Christians do not have. What is this "key insight" that only Hardshell cult members have? Though he does not exactly say, yet it is obvious that it is the idea of "time salvation" that is the "key" revelatory idea.
Jason wrote:
"The contradiction presented is that Garrett believes Romans 10:9,10 is a plan by which mankind obtains a heavenly home. This is a simplistic view of Biblical salvation, especially as presented in Romans, and Peter's denial of Christ would logically demonstrate that Peter was unregenerate, according to Garrett's view. However, both Garrett and I know that Peter was regenerate from his confession in Matt. 16:16. There is an aspect in which Garrett's view of salvation is correct, but it needs to be evaluated within the whole text of Romans. As he understands it, it fails as a definition because regenerate men like Peter contradict 10:11...Peter's denial destroys Garrett's interpretation of Romans 10:9-11."
Anyone who first reads Romans 10, without any bias in interpretation, will confess that "Romans 10: 9,10 is a plan by which mankind obtains a heavenly home" and yet this is denied by Jason and the Hardshells as being the prima facie interpretation of the text. The concept of "time salvation" is read into this section of the Roman epistle and is not discoverable by anyone by a prima facie reading of the text. Jason's denial that Romans 10 is talking about eternal salvation is not discoverable from the text itself.
I have more than once dealt with all the false deductions that Jason makes relative to soteriology by his repeated referencing of the case of Peter's denial of Christ. I do not wish to rehash old debate. But, as I shall show, Jason really answers his own arguments regarding the case of Peter. But, let me respond to his basic thesis, which says - "Peter's denial destroys Garrett's interpretation of Romans 10: 9-11."
Jason could just as well have said "Peter's denial destroys the idea that Paul is talking about eternal salvation in Romans 10: 9,10." But, this is a classic non sequiter. Peter, is he to be styled as a "confessor" or a "non-confessor" ('denier')? The former obviously, for Peter confessed Christ every day of his life except one. What "characterized" Peter was his confession of Christ. Peter's one time denial of Christ was not "characteristic" of Peter. I believe that the words "call upon," "believe," and "confess" are present linear and denote what is continuous.
Jason wrote:
"It is certain and manifest from Peter's unbelief that it is not necessarily true that a lack of confession means that a person is unregenerate. The only logical solution is that the salvation of Romans 10:9,10 has a temporal, conditional aspect that may possibly be missed by some of the elect, family of God at certain points post-regeneration, especially in the case of infants, the mentally handicapped, or those deprived of outward revelation."
Jason is focused on "Peter's unbelief" rather than upon Peter's "belief." What was characteristic of Peter's life? Belief or unbelief?
Jason speaks of "the only logical solution" to the perceived contradiction that exists, in his mind, between Peter's "confessing not" and the idea that confession is necessary for salvation. That "logical solution" is to affirm that the salvation of Romans 10 has nothing to do with eternal salvation! And, what is the whole purpose in denying that the salvation of Romans 10 is eternal? It is in order to affirm the opposite of what Paul says! A cursory reading of the text says that faith in Christ and confession of him is "unto salvation," the same salvation that was discussed in the previous nine chapters. But, Hardshells undermine the words so that they come out meaning "faith and confession are not unto eternal salvation." In other words, many will be saved who do not believe in or confess Christ!
According to Jason, the "salvation" of Romans 10 "may possibly be missed by some of the elect"! How anyone can read Romans 10 without bias, taking the prima facie reading of it, or taking it at "face value," and then conclude that "many will be saved who do not believe and confess," is astounding.
Jason wrote:
"Now, one can go too far with this idea to the unscriptural extreme of totally dividing confession or even belief itself from being in a state of grace, like some modern PB's. But this is unwarranted. All of the regenerate are temporally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:8-14, 29)."
Is Jason a "totaller" or a "teetotaller"? He is not like "some" of today's Hardshells who go to "the unscriptural extreme" of "totally dividing" both faith and confession from "being in a state of grace." He is not a "teetotaller," but is he a "totaller"? Does he not "divide" and separate salvation from confession? Does he still not affirm that many who do not confess, habitually, Christ as Savior and Lord, are saved? Does he not affirm that many of the heathen who know not God and Christ will be saved? Yes, he may affirm that 99% of regenerated adults, who hear the gospel, will in fact believe it and be converted, yet he cannot claim that this is the prominent view of today's Hardshells.
Jason said - "All of the regenerate are temporally conformed to the image of Christ" and gives Romans 8: 8-14, 29 as proof. I welcome this "confession" (admission) from Jason!
Jason wrote:
"I recall Elder David Pyles, while considering Romans 1:16, stating that the best definition of salvation in the Scripture was Romans 8:29 - to be made conformable to the image of Christ. He eschewed defining salvation as "timely" or "eternal", and I think there is wisdom in this."
But, Jason has violated Pyle's admonition for he has contended that the salvation of Romans 10 was not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation."
Further, Pyle's advice condemns those biblical writers who spoke of "eternal salvation."
Jason wrote:
"...it is error to interpret Paul to mean by "being made conformable", only the final glorification of the saints, omitting or undermining the concept of progressive sanctification."
Jason reveals, from such statements, how he is coming closer to the truth the further he researches things. His defining of "salvation" as "conformity to the image of Christ" and as involving what is temporally experienced and "progressive sanctification" is a positive step on his part. What he fails to accept however, is the fact that this becoming conformed to Christ is accomplished by the means of the word of God, the means God uses to produce repentance and faith unto salvation. It is inconceivable that Jason could consistently affirm that many existing Hindu polytheists are "regenerate" and "conformed to the image of Christ" or "progressively sanctified."
Jason wrote:
"...temporal suffering that is the mechanism of this conformation in verse 17."
By "this conformation" Jason is alluding to that "conformation" that is the result of God having foreknown and predestined, what pertains to one's eternal salvation. And, Jason is willing to admit that "temporal suffering" is one of the means ("mechanism") to effect that "conformation." If Jason can believe that God uses "temporal suffering" as a means in eternal salvation, why does he find it difficult to believe that God likewise uses the gospel as a means? Further, Jason has affirmed that all the elect will be progressively conformed to the image of Christ and that this involves discipleship. Has he not come a long way?
Jason wrote:
"Many Primitive Baptists have an errant tendency to completely separate the "timely" from the "eternal", as if the Scripture treats them as two, alien concepts."
It is interesting that Jason, in this wording, uses the word "many" rather than "some" when talking about the extremism that exists in today's Hardshell churches. He speaks of "an errant tendency" of this majority. Actually, the Hardshell denomination has lots of "errant tendencies." It is these that we combat here in this blog and we are glad to have Jason to agree with us on some of these "errant tendencies" of our modern "primitives."
Though it is good that Jason decries the "complete" (or "total" or "teetotall") "separating" of the elements of salvation, of regeneration from conversion, or of present salvation from future salvation, and the making into two which the scriptures make into one, it is not good that he does not follow his own advice. Does not Jason separate and divide in the manner he condemns? Does he not divorce faith and confession from eternal salvation?
Jason wrote:
"Sons are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14) in sanctification and discipleship; if they are not led, they are not sons. The text does not present being led as a hypothetical. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God". True sons are led, as a general characteristic. They can backslide for a season, of course."
Jason here answers his own previous argumentation about the case of Peter proving that confession of Christ is not necessary for being eternally saved. It is ironic indeed. Peter was a true son and "as a general characteristic" of his life, was a "confessor" and not a "denier" of Christ. So, the case of Peter does not prove that one can be saved even though he is a denier of Christ, as Jason wants to affirm.
Jason wrote:
"Consider as well Hebrews 9:28 and 10:36,39. These texts plainly teach that the realization of eternal salvation or the promised rest of God is at the final coming of Christ to those who look for Christ (28), to the just who live by faith (38), to those doing the will of God (36), not to those who fall away into temporal perdition, but to those that believe to the saving of the soul (39)."
But, if Jason really believes this, then why is he still a Hardshell? Why does he not join us here in the Old Baptist Blog and help us win over our Hardshell brethren? How can he affirm the above and then affirm, at the same time, that many who do not look to Christ and live by faith will nevertheless also be saved? If Jason kept to affirming what he wrote above then he would be a great asset to kingdom of God.
Jason wrote:
"These texts destroy the idea that it is typical, characteristic, or the norm for sons to reject the gospel. They destroy the idea of complete and utter separation between "timely" and "eternal" salvation."
Okay, we grant that Jason affirms that the great majority of regenerate adults who hear the gospel will believe it and become followers of Christ. We grant that this is an improvement over most of today's Hardshells who affirm that many non-Christians will be saved. Jason separates conversion and regeneration in only a few cases while most Hardshells do it in most cases. But, the fact is, they both separate them to some degree, whereas the Scriptures and the Old Baptist confessions do not separate them in any degree.
Jason wrote:
"However, the degree of insight Primitive Baptists have is shown in their recognition of the conditional and varying nature of the conformation of sons to Christ in time, and their use of it to explain what Brother Garrett cannot explain about Peter's denial of Christ in contradiction to Brother Garrett's understanding of Romans 10:9-11."
In these words Jason is back to talking about the Hardshell cult's "key insight" into the way of salvation and speaks of "the degree of insight" that Hardshells reveal in "their use of" their "conditional time salvation" paradigm. What they call a "key insight" is actually a stumbling block.
Jason wrote:
"Notice that even though Paul states that the sons of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of His son in Romans 8:29, in just a few chapters later in Romans 12:2, the Apostle then commands professing Christians to, "be not conformed to this world". How does this make sense? Why does Paul command what he believes was predestined? Yet, what is the point of this exhortation if professing Christians cannot really resist the sanctifying influence of the in-dwelling spirit, conforming them to the image of Christ?"
Why does Jason have a problem with the transformation of Romans chapters 8 and 12 being the same process? It does not "make sense" to Jason how they can be talking about the same experience. It makes perfect sense however to those who believe that 1) God is able to work effectually through means, and 2) God is able to succeed in producing salvation and sanctification by working with the human will. The freedom of the will does not keep God from succeeding in changing the will.
It seems that if Jason has problems with God exhorting to the same transformation that he requires for salvation then he certainly will have problems with God exhorting men to "circumcise your hearts to the Lord" (Deut. 10: 16) and to "make you a new heart and a new spirit" (Eze. 18: 31), and with "save yourselves." (Acts 2: 40) God has ordained that the "resistance" to his word and Spirit, by his chosen and called people, be overcome by that word and Spirit. Some resist more and some less, for some bring forth fruit thirty fold, some sixty fold, and some a hundredfold.
Jason wrote:
"Of course, Christians can quench the spirit, and disobey the gospel."
But, in order to express agreement with such a statement one would need to define the term "Christians" and just how they "can" be disobedient. Certainly many professing "Christians" are not really Christians who have experienced the birth of the Spirit. (See I John 2: 19) So, it is expected that these "Christians" would make it a practice to "quench (resist) the Spirit" and "disobey the gospel." Further, when true Christians are guilty of resisting and disobeying God, is this occasional and abnormal or is it normal and often? Is it characteristic of the "Christian" to resist and disobey? Is it his normal every day practice? I deny that true born again souls can regularly live in disobedience to God. The scriptures are clear on this point. "Whoever is born of God does not practice sin." "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 18)
Jason is wanting to deny the proposition that says - "all who make it their habit to resist the Spirit and disobey the gospel will be lost." The scriptures do not promise salvation to those who live above sin but to those who, though often falling in battles, nevertheless win the war with sin.
Jason wrote:
"Obviously, though we know that all of God's children are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, we simply do not know how God has decreed this, or the specifics of this decree. So professing Christians walk by faith, knowing it is God that worketh to will and to do of His good pleasure."
Well, amen to that! As I have said, Jason says some things that are very sound, but it is sad that he says other things that contradict such utterances. In our earlier exchanges, Jason affirmed that God cannot cause a man to choose, or to do, for this would contradict the meaning of the word "obedience." I cited Phil. 2: 13 to show that God can cause choice and change the will, and that obedience can be compelling and yet freely given. Now Jason is citing the same passage and affirming the same thing! I am glad that he has seen his error on this point.
Jason says that "all of God's children are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ" but has not shown us how this is accomplished apart from being converted. We do know that God has "decreed" that the elect be "called" and that "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14)
Jason wrote:
"The point is, however, that Paul's idea of "being made conformable" entails the free will of the regenerate man. It is manifestly not something that man is irresistibly drawn to, as the Scriptures make plain that man can and does quench and disobey the influence of the spirit."
Jason is a Calvinist. He believes that God has predestined that the elect be "conformed to the image of Christ." He believes that God will assure that all the elect go through this transforming process. But, he says that this predestined transformation "entails the free will of regenerate man." So, how does he deal with this conundrum? He says, basically, that one aspect (degree) of being transformed is certain, at least that part that does not depend upon the free will of the saved, but upon God alone, but the other aspect (degree) that does depend upon free will is not certain. This is a typical Hardshell "errant tendency." They will make two of one to handle the difficulty, the one kind handling one set of objections, and the other kind handling an opposite set.
The Old Baptist forefathers taught that all men are called by the gospel but that it required a spiritual power distinct from the gospel to be applied to the hearts of hearers for the call to succeed. They also taught that chosen sinners would be in some respects compelled, and in some respects would operate freely and seemingly without any compulsion.
Jason wrote:
"The entire process is predestined, which is Paul's point in 8:29, but God incorporates the will of man to realize this decree (12:2). Though all children of God will be sanctified in this life, being made more and more conformable to the image of Christ, this conformation is of varying degrees and diverse process."
Well amen to that! Why did Jason not simply say this alone?
Jason wrote:
"So, salvation is ultimately defined by Paul in the ordo salutis text Romans 8:29,30, and we observe that that salvation is a preparation for eternity in time by belief in the gospel, as it is the power of God unto the conformation of the elect (under the sound of it) to the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16, 8:29)."
Well amen to that also! Am I reading Jason clearly here? Is he not affirming that "belief of the gospel" is for that salvation which "is a preparation for eternity"? Is he not affirming that the gospel is a means for at least some of the elect realizing that transformation that is the result of his predestination?
Jason wrote:
"It is manifest that this process of conformation that ultimately culminates in glorification can be resisted at certain points by those that are truly regenerate, as Peter resisted it, forgetting what manner of man he was (James 1:23,24). If the salvation in Romans 10:9-11 can be resisted at points, it is to that same degree conditional on confession and belief in the gospel."
Again, amen to this also! Why not just stick with this? Final salvation does not depend on living above sin but it does depend upon "progressive sanctification" and "perseverance."
Jason wrote:
"Though this salvation and the conformation of the elect by which it is achieved, is conditional on obedience in terms of the degree, it is not conditional at all in that it must happen to some degree - it will happen to the elect, as it has been predestined by God."
Well, what is this but an acknowledgement that salvation is both conditional and unconditional as I showed in my series on the same?
Jason wrote:
"It is in this manner that Biblical salvation incorporates both "timely" and "eternal" aspects. This is also why it is ludicrous to suppose that truly regenerate children of God, under the sound of the gospel, can completely (for the sum of their life) reject it because the gospel is God's ordained means of sanctification and change in the elect, fashioning them into the image of His Son (Romans 1:16, 8:29-30)."
It is good that Jason affirms all this but for him to suggest that he speaks for the overwhelming majority of present day Hardshells is false. Most Hardshells do not believe what he has just said and so how can he claim to be an "apologist" for them?
Jason wrote:
"2 Corinthians 3:18-4:3 makes this very clear as well. The glass of 3:18 must be the gospel as it is the only place that God can be beheld, and it is this that is hid from them that are damned (4:3). And it is only by the manifestation of the truth of the gospel (4:2) that the glory and power of the Lord is revealed - a glory and power that works in His people both to will and to do of His good pleasure, and that fashions them into the image of the glory of God found in the gospel in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18)."
Again, all this is true and does not reflect the view of today's Hardshells. It is good to see Jason distancing himself against today's Hardshells and hope he will keep on his journey back to the real Old Baptist faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment