Still "Uprooted"

Though Jason Brown has attempted to replant Hardshellism, it is still "uprooted" based on the scripture cited in my original posting.  It has withstood the fire of Hardshell investigation and is still precious truth. 

Jason wrote (in  "Garrett's Faux Gold"):

"Honestly, I was giving Brother Garrett the benefit of the doubt. It was not clear from his blog post, "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism", that Brother Garrett was making the argument that the gospel is as genuinely offered to the non-elect as it is to the elect."

But, it was very clear to start with!  Anyone who reads the short post with open mind can see the line of argument, what are the premises and conclusions.  I wrote in that posting - "But, what does Christ say to them?  "These things I say, that ye might be saved."  (John 5: 34)  Yes, I did prove that it was the duty and privilege of all to believe in Christ and the Gospel, and I am glad that Jason agrees and is willing to lead his Hardshell brothers, who reject duty faith, out of their error. 

But, does he accept the plain facts of the passages?  Does he believe that Christ was preaching the Gospel to the non-elect?  How can he deny it?  Does he believe that Christ preached to the non-elect with the purpose that they might be saved?  How can he deny it?  Jason made it very clear that, in his mind, Christ was not speaking to the non-elect, in the passages cited, in order that they might be saved from Hell and damnation.

Here is a good example of how people resist the plain teaching of Scripture in order to uphold their own presuppositions that they bring to the text.  Jason thus begins by applying his tortured "logic" to the passage, and by the time the verses are hacked and hewed upon, they do not really mean what they seem to plainly say.  It is a clear case of eisegesis and of contorting scripture. And, what does his application of "logic" force him into affirming?  The salvation cannot be eternal salvation!  The believing cannot be the same kind of believing that Christ desires from the elect! 

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett simply assumes that Jesus means a saving belief and a saving knowledge in this passage."

"How is it all "obvious" and "clear" that Jesus is actually telling them to be eternally saved?"

"...if Christ were exhorting them to believe and be eternally saved it follows that their possible salvation was provided for by God, and, again, that would contradict election and particular redemption, as they were non-elect."

But, if the salvation Christ is talking about in the passages cited is not salvation from sin and damnation, then what is it?  He wants these lost non-elect souls to "believe" in him, but not for salvation from sin?  The salvation talked about by Christ throughout the Gospel of John is eternal salvation.  It the grossest example of perverting the words of the passages in question to affirm that they do not deal with salvation from sin and eternal death.  Surely one can see why the "time salvation" apologetic defense has become so popular with Hardshell apologists over the years. 

When soteriological texts contradict Hardshell presuppositions, then they say - "it can't (logically) be eternal salvation, so it must be strictly a time salvation."  Or, "it can't (logically) be a salvation that is necessary for going to heaven, so it must be only what is of benefit to the quality of life on earth."  But, this is nothing but clear eisegesis.  The context of the passages in question make it very clear, however, that the salvation is from sin and damnation, and to the obtaining of eternal life.  Thus, the debate has narrowed down to proving a single point.  It is agreed that the unregenerate and non-elect are addressed, are the subject of the texts.  The only remaining fact to ascertain is whether the passages speak of eternal salvation. That they do speak of eternal salvation I shall shortly show after I have reviewed the words of my opponent.

Jason wrote:

"Lastly, how is it at all consistent for Brother Garrett to claim Christ is "offering" eternal salvation to the non-elect pharisees in John 10:38 when John 12:39 clearly states that they could not believe? It states that their minds were blinded and kept from belief."

If you had foreknowledge that your offer of help would be rejected, would you offer it anyway?  If you foreknew, as one offering pardon to all prisoners, that the offer would be rejected by half of the prisoners, would you still offer it to them all? 

There is such a thing as "doing good for goodness sake."  Doing something because it is self-evidently right and true.  God provides salvation for all who sincerely seek it from him in Christ because he is more benevolent than any creature.  Yet, at the same time, he knows that men so love prison life that none will accept the offer of pardon and freedom unless he changes the will and thinking of the prisoners in regard to their fate.  This he does not choose to do for all, or else all would be saved. 

This is why the Old Baptists and Calvinist writers of old spoke of both the "general call" of the Gospel to all men indiscriminately and the "special call" of the Spirit to the elect only.  It is also why they often spoke of God having a general will and purpose towards all men, and a special will for some that he chooses from among the rest of the prisoners. They also spoke of God's general love for all men, and of his special love for his elect. 

Thus, God in his infinite goodness and mercy announces to every sinner that he will save him if he accepts his terms of pardon. 

Thus, in the case of the elect, God in grace and mercy opts to so work on their hearts to guarantee that they accept his offered pardon.

Jason makes our Lord into a fool and charges him with doing the illogical.  Since those to whom Christ preached "could not believe," therefore Christ was a fool, because he in fact preached to these who "could not believe."  Did he or did he not preach to these who "could not believe"?  Yes, he did.  But, Jason says that it is not "consistent" to command belief from those who "could not believe."  This is the foundational premise of Pelagianism, that "a command implies ability to do the command." 

As we shall see, Jesus foreknew who would believe and who would not.  Yet, he called upon all to believe in him.  According to Jason, this makes Christ inconsistent! 

Jason wrote:

 "It is not logically possible to argue that the gospel is meaningfully offered to every, individual man without discrimination and also hold that God draws the elect irresistibly to gospel belief."

It may not be "logically possible" to convince the Hardshells, relying upon their rationalism, of how the Gospel is "meaningfully" and sincerely offered to all without discrimination by God with the concept of the "special call" (or effectual/irresistible call) to the elect, but I have already proven this to be the teaching of Scripture.

Jason wrote:

"And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect?"

Yes, it is true that they could not be saved.  But, I have already addressed that.  No one whom God foreknows will not believe will believe.  But, this does not keep God, out of his goodness, from offering salvation anyway.  Does Jason not believe that God does things for his goodness sake?

Jason wrote:

"It is inconceivable and contradictory to believe, therefore, that Christ included, among His sheep, the non-elect of which he said, "Ye are of your Father the devil", in John 8:44."

I am glad of this admission.  There are people, as I shall show, in John chapters 5, 6, 8, and 10 where these same children of the devil, the non-elect, are addressed and offered salvation, or told how they can be saved. 

Jason wrote:

"If Christ's "invitation" was a testament to the liberty of their will, meaning that they were at liberty to believe, not that they would ever desire to believe because the unregenerate do not have the desire to believe, what would that establish, as Christ did not die for them."

Though Jason does not end the above words with a question mark, yet he clearly ends his words with a question.  He asks - "what would that establish, as Christ did not die for them(?)"  The passages show that Christ offers them a choice about their salvation and in spite of the fact that he knows that they will not choose him and salvation.  Again, this very fact is troubling to Jason and the Hardshells, as it ought to be.  Jason, in other words, is saying - "If the text shows that they had a choice about being saved."  And, - "If the text shows that they were at liberty to believe and be saved."  Not that he accepts these propositions, for he does not believe that they accurately state the record.  But, in order to show that these propositions are not true, he will argue redutio ad absurdum, show that the logical consequences are so absurd and false that the propositions (premises) cannot therefore be true. 

Jason wrote:

"So, though gospel belief is an option for them in terms of a choice that is available, it is universally descriptive of the will of the non-elect that they choose among competing evils."

Agreed!  Why then do you say this and then say all the other stuff? 

Jason wrote:

"The mere liberty of their will is a moot point because, in their liberty, they are still under bondage to sin."

If it is a "moot point," then why did you make it into an argument?  Again, a Governor can offer pardon to all even though he knows that all will not accept his pardon. 

Jason wrote:

"The security and particularity of redemption to the elect in John 10:29 is all the logical force necessary to be equally confident in the eternal hatred of God toward Esau and the non-elect pharisees of this passage."

Again, Jason speaks about what is logical and illogical when he mentions "the logical force necessary."  Why can't he just accept Scripture for what it says even though he cannot reconcile it with his logic?  However, it is not a contradiction to believe in the doctrine of election and particular redemption and in God's general provision.  Spurgeon and Fuller are examples.  The hatred of God towards the non-elect does not exclude his showing them numerous kindnesses.  It does not exclude his offering them pardon and salvation.  It does, however, exclude him from giving them that special grace of his Spirit that will guarantee their acceptance of the offered pardon and salvation. 

Jason wrote:

"... if Brother Garrett supposes that their eternal destiny is not certain, then, to that same degree it is not certain for the elect. All of this is manifest denial of the doctrine of election, or a hopelessly convoluted doctrine of man."

It is certain.  All those who God foreknew as his elect will certainly be saved.  Likewise, all who God foreknew as rebrobate will certainly be damned.  But, this consideration did not keep Christ from offering salvation to the non-elect.  The giving of the invitation is universal, but the work of guaranteeing acceptance of the invitation is special and limited. 

The unregenerate and non-elect are addressed and informed how they might be saved, in these chapters in the Gospel of John.

John 5

"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved...And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."  (John 5: 34, 40)

Who is denominated by the pronoun "ye" in the passage?  Is it the regenerate or the unregenerate?  Is it the elect or the non-elect?  Clearly it is the unregenerate and non-elect.  And, is Christ addressing them about how they might be saved?  Is this being "saved" not equated with obtaining "life" by coming to Christ? 

John 6

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."  (John 6: 47)

"I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."  (6: 48-53)

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."  (vs. 64)

Who is denominated by the pronoun "ye" in the words - "I say unto you, Except ye eat"?  Is it not the unregenerate and the non-elect?  How can these plain facts be set aside by Jason's use of "logic"?  All Jason can do is to say - "they don't really mean what they say."  Who is denominated by the pronoun "us" in the words - "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"?    Is he offering them this "bread" or not?  Why did Jesus not respond to their query with correction and say - "oh you are wrong to think that I am giving you my flesh (this bread) to eat, for I am not offering it to you at all, but only to my chosen few"?  Did Christ offer himself, as the Bread of Life, to these non-elect Jews?  Yea, even "for the life of the world"?  Let, Jason come and tell us that these are not the plain reading of the texts. 

John 8

"Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come."  (John 8: 21)

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."  (8: 24)

"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."  (8: 33, 34)

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."  (vs. 36)

How can it be denied that eternal salvation is under consideration in these passages?  Is eternal damnation not under consideration?  What does it mean to "die in your sins" if it does not mean to die without pardon?  What does it mean to be "in bondage" to sin, to be "the servant of sin"?  What does it mean to be "made free from sin"? 

Further, Jason admits that these people being told the way of salvation are non-elect.  What does Christ say to them?  "If you believe not, then you shall die in your sins."  Who is denominated by the pronoun "ye"?  "If you non-elect believe not, you shall be damned."  Jason would argue that Christ is doing the illogical in telling those who cannot believe that they will be saved if they believe. 

John 10

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  10: 27, 28)

"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.  But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."  (10: 37, 38)

How can Jason deny that this is talking about eternal salvation?  His refusal to do so only shows how stubbornly resistant he is to the plain reading of the text and how he is wedded, till death do us part, to his Hardshell presuppositions.  Obviously, the whole chapter is talking about eternal salvation.  It is connected with receiving eternal life and never perishing, with being eternally safe in the hand of God.  Further, it is clear that the "believing" is connected with believing in Christ and in the Father.