Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, has started another blog titled Sculptor's Hammer in which he offers "Constructive criticism of the exegesis and general views of some ministers among the Primitive Baptists." In his first article, "God's Faith in Christ and Christ's Faith in God," however, Jason shows that he himself needs "constructive criticism" for what he has written about justification by faith, a subject that was recently a series of mine for the book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
Though I applaud Jason for attacking some of the views of the Hardshells on this subject, he nevertheless retains the chief error of the Hardshells on this subject. His views do not reflect either the teachings of Scripture nor of the Old Baptists.
Jason wrote:
"As used as a noun, faith in these passages refers to the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant as distinct from the mechanism of justification under the law or the old covenant, it is not directly addressing any one's or any thing's subjective faith."
The passages referred to by Jason are Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:3, 21-31. I have previously written about these passages in the context of Hardshell interpretations on them. (see the series titled "The Hardshells & Justification")
Throughout this posting Jason says that "the faith" or "faith," as used in the above passages, means "the truth of God" (aletheia), "the mechanism or mode," "the system," etc. This is so common of the Hardshells. In their private dictionary the word "faith" has all sorts of different meanings and it requires some Hardshell "apologist" to come along and help us sort it all out.
It is not denied that faith (pistis) has more than one meaning in Scripture, but it certainly does not have the varied meanings that Hardshells give to the word.
Jason is correct to see that, in Scripture, "the faith" (faith with the definite article) often refers to the body of what is believed, or to the object of faith. Just as "the philosophy" of Jason (or Stephen) denotes the philosophical beliefs of Jason, so "the faith" denotes the religious beliefs of a person. People often ask - "what faith are you?" By this they mean - "what religion are you?" Or, "what are your religious beliefs?" We also speak of "the Christian faith." But, to assume that it always means this, especially when the definite article is absent, is an error. But, more on this in a moment.
Jason wrote:
"It is evident that Paul is still considering the question of verse 3 in verse 7, yet he refers to the 'truth of God' rather than the 'faith of God'. Paul is using 'aletheia' here interchangeably with the 'pistin' of verse 3. God's subjective faith in Christ is alien to the grammar, and it is alien to any preceding context."
One thing is clear. Jason has to at least admit that "the truth of God" is the means of justifying and purifying the elect from the guilt and pollution of sin. He still has to affirm that the righteousness of God is "by the faith," or "by the truth," by the gospel. And, of course, it is only a means to justification and pardon only as it is believed.
Exactly what are those propositions that are the substance of "the truth" or "the faith," the stated means of justification? Jason will not want to make this to be Christian truth or faith! Yet, all through Paul's epistles "the faith" and "the truth" refer to the Scriptures in general or to the Gospel in particular. Yes, it means "system," but only in the sense of "system of beliefs," or in the sense of creed.
I agree with Jason that those Hardshells and others who affirm that "the faith of God" means "the subjective faith (trust, confidence) that God has in his Son" are in error. Those who affirm that "the faith of Christ" means "the faith that Christ had in God" also err. But, I do not agree with Jason that "faith" or "the faith" in the Roman epistle exclude the subjective faith of Christians. The objective and subjective connotations of "faith" and "the faith" in the Genitive Case is to be determined by the context, and often both aspects of "the faith" are in the mind of the inspired writer. But, more on this in a moment.
Jason wrote:
"Coming to Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16, which refer to justification or attaining the righteousness of God 'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief that is referenced by the grammar, but, again, the system of justification under the new covenant, as opposed to the law. There is abundant evidence that this is Paul's meaning in both passages. In both passages (really the whole book of Galatians is about this very point), Paul contrasts two systems of justification, one of Sinai, the other of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:21-31)"
It is both! "Faith" in these verses, and in chapter three of Romans, is both objective and subjective. Scholars agree that Paul and other Bible writers often had both aspects in mind when they spoke of "the faith of" (Genitive Case) God or of Christ.
But, how can Jason legitimately exclude the gospel revelation from that new covenant system that justifies? A system that does not make use of the Gospel revelation! Who gave Jason the right to exclude Gospel revelation from that system of means in justification and purification? The old covenant required perfect obedience to be accounted righteous and just, but the new covenant requires only that Christ be trusted and believed.
Jason wrote:
"However, the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified. Gal. 3:2 makes the contrast plain. The contrast is between man's works under the law and man's hearing of faith under the new covenant. Men know they have received the spirit when they hear and believe the gospel, as it is the earnest of inheritance until the end time."
Jason makes these two contradictory statements:
1. "'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief"
2. "the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified."
Jason affirms that "the faith of Jesus Christ...clearly refers to man's individual faith," thus to a subjective faith, to an evangelical faith.
Jason wrote:
"Subjective belief is treated separately from the 'faith of Jesus Christ' in both Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. Subjective belief, indicated by the phrase 'even we have believed in Jesus Christ' in Gal. 2:16, and 'unto all and upon all them that believe' in Rom. 3:22, marks an intellectual distinction in Paul's mind between the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant, and specific examples of the justified by those who have evangelical faith."
I am glad that Jason admits that both objective and subjective faith are included in the passages he references. Then why all the dispute? Are both not shown by Paul to be necessary for justification?
Regarding Romans 3.21,22:
"The Rev. John Owen, who translated and edited Calvin's Commentary on Romans for the Calvin Translation Society in 1849, wrote: "The words 'by or through the faith of Jesus Christ' mean not the faith which is His, but the faith of which He is the object. They ought to be rendered 'through faith in Jesus Christ'. The genitive case often has this meaning: 'Have faith in (of) God', Mk. 11.22; ‘I live by the faith of the Son of God', should be in our language, 'I live by faith in the Son of God'. This genitive case of the object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence"."
"Dr. A. T. Robertson in "Word Pictures in the New Testament" (1930-33) insists that the Apostle used the "objective genitive", meaning 'faith in Jesus Christ', and not the "subjective genitive", meaning "faith of Jesus Christ"." (see source here)
Are there Greek scholars who take a different view? Yes. But, whether or not subjective faith is included in the phrase "through the faith of Jesus Christ," it is included in the same text, for it says "we have believed that we might be justified." That is clearly subjective faith, cognitive and willful believing.
Jason wrote:
"Paul states that it is God that justifies (vs. 26), so the idea that Paul made evangelical belief in the literal blood of Christ per 3:25 as a 'sine qua non' of justification does not follow. Abraham would not have passed that strict standard, manifestly, as the Bible gives no evidence that Abraham knew clearly of the historical events of Calvary."
Who said that Abraham would not have "passed" the test of Romans 3: 25? Did Abraham not know of "the seed" who would be killed by the Serpent and his seed? Did Abraham not know that God required atonement and blood sacrifice (via vicarious substitution) for forgiveness and reconciliation? Did LORD God not tell him that he would provide a lamb for sacrifice in the experience of offering Isaac upon the altar? Did Jesus not say that Abraham foresaw his time on earth and rejoiced? Did Abraham see any of the details of the Messiah's coming? Did he foresee his birth? Did he foresee his suffering, death, and resurrection? There is no reason to deny it unless there is clear proof to the contrary. Can Jason give us that proof? At least one thing is clear, Abraham placed his hope of salvation and redemption in the coming and work of the Messiah, the Lamb provided according to promise.
Besides, though the Gospel revelation that produced saving faith, in ancient times, was not as full of detail as the Gospel revelation through Christ and his Apostles, yet it still was essentially "Gospel" and was the means of begetting that faith which saves, purifies, and justifies. Proving that not all the saved believed equally, or had equal knowledge, does not prove that Gospel revelation is not a means in salvation. Paul taught, besides its implication and relation to OT peoples, that people today, in order to be saved and justified, must have "faith in his blood."
Jason wrote:
"Certainly, though, if we view 'through faith in His blood' as a reference to the full revelation of God (whom God hath set forth - revealed in the gospel), witnessed (but not revealed) by the law and the prophets (vs. 21), it is certain that to whom this revelation is made, they cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood."
"They cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood." Praise the Lord! Will Jason go to work on his Hardshell brethren on this point? It is sad, however, that he can think of many idol worshipping heathen, "who know not God," as "justified"! Rejection of the Gospel is proof of unregeneracy but heathen faith is not proof that such are condenmed, that they nevertheless have "latent" faith in Christ?
In the mind of Jason, if he decides to go to Africa and preach the Gospel, it will be only to "discover" (discern and judge) those who are saved. Whether he goes or not will not change the fact that so many of the African heathen are already "regenerated" and of the "elect." We just won't know who they are! Nor even God, according to Jason. He will "discern" and discover who are saved at the day of judgment!
Jason wrote:
"It is God that justifies in regeneration when the measure of faith is given to all the seed, so that it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise of eternal life might be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16)."
This "measure of faith," does it include belief in the one true God and his Son Jesus Christ? Does it include belief in the Gospel of salvation through Christ? I am sure that Jason will say that many heathen, who have no knowledge of the one true God, nor of Christ, and are worshipping false gods, are nevertheless "regenerated" and have "a measure of faith (belief)." But, what is this minimal faith (belief)? What propositions does it entail? Will Jason tell us? Does the "faith" that receives justification (that necessary "measure of faith" that is given to all in regeneration) come by hearing the word of God per Romans 10: 14? Where is the text that speaks of people believing in that which they have never heard and learned about? In that which they know nothing about?
Jason wrote:
"...the thought process above strikes down the Calvinist notion that evangelical belief in the gospel is to be equated with the doctrine of justification...they err in limiting justification to propositional knowledge about Christ rather than to Christ Himself."
It is the Bible that limits justfication to believers and the Hardshell attempt to extend justfication to unbelievers is the error. Faith does involve knowledge of propositional truth per Paul in Romans 10. It is also integral to the meaning of the word "belief" (faith), for how can one believe that which he has no knowledge of?
Jason continued:
"The true object of justifying faith is the person of Christ, as experienced in the new birth. The true knowledge that justifies begins with an experiential knowledge of Christ in which direct perceptions and affections toward Him are aroused by the Spirit alone."
All this does not sound like traditional Hardshellism. Further, Jason does not always speak clearly, often speaking in double talk, for he can say one thing and then later say the opposite. Should anyone ignorant of Jason and his writings should read the above words by themselves, he would conclude that Jason believes that evangelical faith in Christ is necessary for justification, that one must have "true knowledge" and "an experiential knowledge of Christ" with "perceptions and affections toward Him." He seems to say that all those who are born again are believers in Christ.
I have wondered why Jason chose the title "Sculptor's Hammer" for his newest blog. Obviously it is in order to portray himself as an excellent theological sculptor. He does not, in his own mind, view himself as wielding a smashing sledge hammer, as he would accuse me of using, but a small hammer for "chipping away" at his theological edifice. It reminds me of Masonic symbology wherein FreeMasons see themselves as sculptors, and themselves as "rough ashlar" stones taken directly out of the quarry, that must be sculpted into "a temple for the Lord." Though Jason does not apply the symbology exactly to the same object, as do the FreeMasons, yet he at least shows that he is working on a theological work of art, as a sculpter or stone worker. This is not surprising seeing he has taken the position that the peculiar views of the Hardshells on soteriology reflect an evolution in the understanding of those who compose his church. He has said that all the prior controversies on the subject of salvation were means of "refining" and "clarifying" Scripture on the subject and which finally produced the Hardshell denomination. Jason seems to believe that there is still need for "chipping away" at the Hardshell doctrinal edifice to make it even more perfect and refined.
The Lord said by Jeremiah:
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 23: 29)
What kind of "hammer" is this? A sculptor's small hammer or a sledge hammer?
No comments:
Post a Comment