The Faith of God's Elect?

Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, wrote in response to my critical analysis of his apology, saying:

"Knowledge should not be confused with faith. What is common in the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ in time in all the elect since the beginning of time is a basic trust and faith in the revelation of God available, which, in Old Testament times, was direct revelation from God, and later, the Old Testament."  (see here)

We are glad that Jason affirms that "basic trust and faith in the revelation of God" is "common" to all the elect in their experience of being "conformed to the image of Christ."  But, when he affirms that one can have biblical "faith" apart from what is revealed in scripture about God and his salvation through Christ, then he is teaching what is contrary to scripture, to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and Dr. Gill.  Jason can hardly claim to be an "Old Baptist" when he goes against the above Baptist teaching. 

Gospel revelation, or revelation of redemption through the Son of God, is not a necessary revelation to having "basic trust and faith" that is a means in spiritual transformation.  What may be known of God by other means, other than the gospel, also give that revelation which produces "basic trust and faith." 

Jason wrote:

"Paul's declaration that the gospel is the power of God unto the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ is fully consistent with the manner in which God's revelation directly or through the law, across the ages, was the power of God unto the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ. It all correlated to the degree of revelation revealed to the elect."

I repeat what I said in an earlier posting.  The statement that "the gospel is the power of God unto the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ" is not what modern Hardshells aver.  I want Jason to produce statements from present day Hardshell elders wherein they say that they believe this.  Today's Hardshells would clearly judge brother Jason as not being one of them, but say that he is preaching the "means" position. 

When Jason says that it is "all correlated to the degree of revelation revealed to the elect," he must mean that if one has no revelation, then he cannot have that "basic trust and faith" that is "common" to all the elect.  No revelation = No "basic trust and faith."  I am glad that he admits that some "degree of revelation" is necessary for that "basic trust and faith" that is a means for transformation into the image of Christ.  How much revelation does the "regenerated infant," that Jason and the Hardshells love to talk so much about, must have in order to have "basic trust and faith" that is common to all the elect?  How much revelation does the mentally incompetent need to have that common faith of the elect? 

Jason makes an outlandish assertion when he says that "the law" gave sufficient revelation to produce that "basic trust and faith" that is the means of spriritual transformation.  I am sure that he will say the same about those heathen who neither the law nor the gospel, but only their own heathen traditions and the light of nature.  And, I am sure that he will say that the heathen elect obtain that "basic trust and faith" through studying God's created works. 

But, to define "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1) as being the same in kind with that which heathen polytheists, is a real twisting of the word of God.

Jason also wrote:

"It cannot be argued logically, therefore, that only Paul's gospel conforms the elect to the image of Christ, as all revelation of God is consistent, though not equal in terms of knowledge revealed, and of the same sanctifying efficacy to those who trust in God (which is the root of it all)."

The Gospel is not the "only" revelation that can produce "the faith of God's elect"!  The scriptures declare that there is no faith apart from hearing the gospel revelation - "Therefore faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."  (Rom. 10: 17) 

Further, the good news concerning the Lord Jesus Christ has been published since the foundation of the world.  Jesus said - "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad."  (John 8: 56)  The ancient first sign of "Mazzaroth" (Job 38: 32) tells of the coming of the "seed of the woman" (the Virgin Maiden of Virgo).  Virgo has in her right the Spica of Wheat or the Seed, and the brightest star in Virgo means "the seed."  Jesus, when referring to his coming death, said to the Greeks - "except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it die, it brings forth much fruit."  (John 12: 24)  The Virgin in the constellation of Virgo also has in her left hand a "branch" and this is one of the most ancient names of the Messiah or "seed of the woman."  (See Isa. 4: 2; 11: 1; Jer. 23: 5; 33: 15)  The first Decan of the Virgo constellation is the sign of "Coma" and this word means "the Desired One," and which is also a title of Christ "the seed" in scripture.  (See Haggai 2: 7; Dan. 11: 37)  The other two Decans also testify of Christ, the divine seed who would be Reedemer, Judge, Shepherd, and both God and man.  So, the gospel revelation is as old as the garden of Eden. 

"And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began."  (Luke 1: 69, 70)

The holy prophets "have been since the world began" and their message was a gospel message concerning salvation through Christ.  Jason can claim that the gospel revelation is not the oldest revelation, but in this he is against the scriptures.

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett would have us believe that the gospel has always been available to the elect, which is erroneous by the plain meaning of the texts referenced."

I just showed however that Jason is the one who is in error against "the plain meaning" of the verses I have cited.

Jason wrote:

" It seems to me, therefore, that Brother Garrett is being somewhat spiteful in dragging ridiculous views of some modern Primitive Baptists to the table just to make the PB's look silly."

I have written about what I know is the teaching of the overwhelming majority of Hardshells.  But, Jason has some "ridiculous views" of his own, as I have shown.  Further, the Hardshells do "look silly," with little help from my holding up a mirror. 

Jason wrote:

"...whatever revelation is given to them is the power of God to conform them to the image of Christ."

Is the heathen who only has the light of nature and creation able to have "the faith of God's elect"?  What saith the scripture?  What saith the Old Baptists of ages past?