Brown's Statements

In a protracted posting, Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, made some outlandish statements which deserve analysis.  (see here)

Brown wrote:

"The non-elect were at liberty to believe in Christ, as they were not coerced by any influence outside of their evil desires. It is in this sense only that it can be said that eternal life was "available" to them. Now, Brother Garrett cannot seem to understand that an "offer" of salvation in this sense does not and must not imply that the non-elect were provided for in terms of Christ's atonement."

Jason uses the phrase "in this sense" often and yet one is left bewildered in understanding him.  He does admit, that the non-elect are "at liberty to believe in Christ."  I wonder how his Hardshell brethren will react at such an admission?  If he got up in the typical Hardshell church and affirmed such a thing, I am confident that he would be chastised and "called on the carpet."  If he got up and said - "eternal life is available to the non-elect" - he would be rebuked.  Let him deny it.  Classical Hardshellism will not affirm that eternal salvation is available to the non-elect in any "sense." 

An offer of salvation is an offer of atonement.  But, for the non-elect, it is not an offer of an atonement already effected for them.  Christ died for believers only.  Had it been the will of God for Christ to die at the end of time, the offer now would be as it was in the OT.  Believe in the Lord and he will atone for your sins.  Certainly this was true with regard to OT peoples. 

Is Jason saying that Christ is offering them a salvation that excludes an atonement?  What kind of salvation is that?  Jason has been guilty of doublespeak on this point.  He has sometimes wanted to argue that Christ is offering mere temporal salvation, and then, at other times, has affirmed that he was offering them eternal salvation, at least, in some "sense."  The atonement, like the salvation, is only a possibility. 

Brown wrote:

"The text does not say that 'ye are not my sheep because ye believe not', but 'ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep'. Belief is here contingent on being of the sheep, not the converse."

Certainly believing is not the condition for becoming sheep.  But, the term "sheep" is not synonymous with "regenerate," but with "elect."  People are elect before they believe but they are not regenerated before they believe.

What Jason fails to admit, however, is the fact that all the sheep (elect) become believers in Jesus.  And, how does one believe in Jesus?  By the Gospel!  For, "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"  He calls his sheep by name.  This effectual call is directed towards the sheep and produces faith and allegiance to Christ the Shepherd.  "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me."  How do they hear his voice?  Through the Gospel as Dr. Gill and the Old Baptist taught.  Jesus plainly says that the "sheep" are they who hear his voice, who "believe."  If one does not believe, then he is not one of the sheep.  This destroys classical Hardshellism.  Jesus says that the sheep are they who believe in him, who know him.  How can this be said of the heathen who are ignorant of the Scriptures?

Further, do the Scriptures not say that "you are not alive because you will not come to me"?  (John 5: 40)  Did Jesus not put life and faith together when he said - "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die"?  (John 11: 26)

Brown wrote:

"Any sense of eternal salvation that is offered to the non-elect is in regard to their liberty to believe, not the provision of God."

There is that word "sense" again.  In this sense, yes, in that sense, no.  That is Jason's common response.  These words of Brother Jason are muddled and contradictory.  Eternal salvation is "offered to the non-elect" in some "sense," but the offer is "not the provision of God"!  If God did not provide them with the offer, who did? 

Brown wrote:

"It does not logically require the possibility of actual salvation in order for it to be an "offer" in this technical sense..."

Christ is not offering "actual salvation"?  Then what kind is he offering?  A salvation that is not real?  Since Jason appeals so much to "logic," let him tell us how that is logical.

Brown wrote:

"So, Brother Garrett cannot insist on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for the non-elect on a logical basis, and neither can he from a Scriptural basis, as John 10:11 and 26 make clear."

But, where has Jason proven that the atonement is not "sufficient" for all?  Why would he want to affirm that the atonement is not sufficient for all?  If Christ had died for all, would he have suffered any more than he actually did?

I cannot but here repeat how Jason has still not shown how Hardshellism is in accord with the fact that Christ said to the non-elect - "these things I say unto you that you might be saved"?  (John 5: 34)  He wrestles with the difficulty, but he cannot overcome it.  The words of Christ uproot Hardshellism and brother Jason  cannot defend Hardshellism in light of it, no matter how hard he tries.

Brown wrote:

"As far as 1 Timothy 4:10, if Brother Garrett is going to argue that this text refers to the atonement of Christ being extended to the non-elect, but only effective to them that believe, Brother Garrett affirms a sense of a universal atonement to the non-elect."

But, the fact that Paul says that God is the Savior of all men does not mean that all men are actually saved.  Certainly God is the keeper and preserver of all men.  "In him we live and move and have our being."  (Acts 17: 28)  "Safety is of the Lord."  (Prov. 21: 31)  All men can thank God for their earthly deliverances and safety. 

Further, God is the Savior of all men provisionally, as respects eternal salvation.  Why would Jason deny that God declares himself to be to all men the only Savior available?  Notice what the Lord says through Isaiah:

"...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."  (Isa. 45: 21, 22)

Surely God is saying to all men that he is the only Savior.  And, he exhorts all to look unto him and "be saved."  Is God actually the Savior of all men?  Have all looked to him?  Obviously the Lord points all to himself as their provisional and potential Savior.  Thus, the Lord is the only Savior pointed to, but since all men do not look to him, he is not in actuality the Savior of all.

Many other words may be used in place of the word "Savior" in the verse and teach truth.  God is good to all, but especially to the elect (believers).  God is kind to all, but especially to believers.  God is loving to all, but especially to believers.  Christ died for all men, but especially for the elect.  God wills to save all, but especially wills to save the elect. 

Jason says - "Brother Garrett affirms a sense of a universal atonement to the non-elect."  Hypothetically or potentially, yes, but actually no.  But, do the Scriptures not affirm the same? 

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."  (I John 2: 2)

Obviously he is not actually the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, or else Universalism would be taught.  Certainly he is not the propitiation for the sins of the non-elect in the same sense in which he is the propitiation for the sins of the elect.  The obvious meaning of the Apostle is that he is potentially or provisionally the propitiation of the whole world, but is only actually the propitiation of the elect, or of those who believe.  (See Rom. 3: 25) 

All those for whom Christ actually bore the guilt of sin will be saved.  But, God has absolute foreknowledge, and knows who will believe and who will not.  Therefore, Christ died only for those whom he foreknew would believe.  But, this does not necessitate that Christ's atonement was not offered to all. 

Brown wrote:

"But if the "all men" of this text includes every individual man that has ever lived, then Brother Garrett cannot disallow that Paul, in 1 Tim 2:1, be understood as saying that prayer be made for every individual man that has ever lived."

It is odd that Jason finally brings up this passage when he did not respond to an entry I made on it a few months back.  (see here)  Jason interprets the "will have" of God, in verse 4, as being God's efficacious will of decree, being what God has predestined shall certainly come to pass.  But, in this he admits that all the elect (the "all men" of the passage) will not only be "saved," but also "come to a knowledge of the truth."  But, if he admits that all the elect will come to a knowledge of the truth, then he has abandoned Hardshellism.

Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist, and yet he could not accept the idea that the "all men" was limited to a few men.  To make the "all men" to be only a few men makes God less benevolent than men.  To affirm that God does not want all men to believe the truth is to affirm that he wants them to believe untruth.  But, if he wants many to disbelieve the truth, then are those many not doing his will when they disbelieve the truth?  How can he condemn them for disbelieving the truth if it his will that they not believe the truth?  Surely Jason is in a conundrum here.  God no more wants men to disbelieve the truth than he wants them to lie, steal, or commit adultery. 

Spurgeon said:

Spurgeon said:

"You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, - "that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for whom am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26, Pilgrim Publications, p.50.)  (see my posting here)

Brother Jason should read what Dr. John Piper wrote on this passage and on how the "will of God" has two different significations in Scripture.  (see here)

Further, Paul says that we should "pray for all who are in authority."  Notice the word "all."  Are there non-elect and wicked men "in authority"?  If one can pray for all in authority, then he can pray for all also who are not in authority.  Does Paul say that we should pray only for some "kings," or all kings?

Further, does Paul not pray for every Israelite to be saved?  (Rom. 10: 1)  Were there not wicked non-elect souls among the Israelites?

Brown wrote:

"Is it scriptural to pray for the world that Christ would not pray for in John 17:8,9?"

Who Christ prays for mediatorially is not the pattern for us.  Besides, one cannot read too much into these words of Christ and deny that he never made any requests of the Father on behalf of the world in general.  Did Christ not pray - "Father, forgive them"?  Was this not said of the Jews who cried "crucify him"?  Was it not said of the wicked Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross and parted his garments?  Granted, he did not pray that these be forgiven of all their sins, but he did pray for them to be forgiven of the sin of the crucifixion.  Christ admonishes us to "pray for" our enemies, and for those who "despitefully use" us.  (Matt. 5: 44)  In fact, this is what Christ was doing when he prayed for his enemies who crucified him.  Christ does not pray for unbelievers to be saved!  That itself shows that only believers will be saved, a position that classical Hardshellism denies.

Brown wrote:

"Is it scriptural to pray for preachers to be delivered to unreasonable and wicked men according to 2 Thess. 3:1,2?"

This verse has long been abused by Hardshells to justify their neglect of preaching to wicked men.  Did Jesus not preach to children of the devil?  Paul was not praying that he be kept from preaching to wicked men, but praying that he would not be the object of their wrath.  He was praying that he not be delivered unto them for destruction.

Brown wrote:

"Is it scriptural to pray for individuals guilty of the unpardonable sin of 1 John 5:16?"

Yes, it is Scriptural to pray for those guilty of the sin unto death or unpardonable sin.  We are not to pray for them in regard to their committing the sin unto death, but that does not negate praying for them as respects other sins.  John wrote:

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask (pray), and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."  (I John 5: 16)

Though we are not to pray or make request for our brother in regard to his "sin unto death," this does not exclude all praying for him, for John says that we are to pray for him in regard to those sins he commits which are not unto death.  Jason's logic is this:  since one cannot pray for a brother in respect to his sin unto death, therefore he cannot pray for him in regard to anything else. 

Brown wrote:

"Is it scriptural to pray for those that are dead, or in hell?"

Of course not.  But, in I Tim. 2: 1, the apostle has living men in mind.  All living men are to be prayed for.  Supplications and giving of thanks is to be made for all living men. 

Brown wrote:

"Certainly it cannot be "all" in this sense, it must refer, as the context indicates, to men of high and low estate (1 Tim. 2:2) - to all without distinction or discrimination as Gal. 3:28. It is not that God merely wishes that all men be saved, the verb, θέλει indicates that they will be saved, as the King James rightly renders it and as Dr. Gill states."

As I said earlier, Jason believes that the "will" of God, in this verse, is his sovereign efficacious decree.  But, in this he has the problem of defending Hardshellism which denies that all the elect will not only be "saved" but "come to a knowledge of the truth."  Deal with that brother Jason and quit ignoring it.

Brown wrote:

"1 Timothy 4:10 is surely in this same context, as established in 1 Timothy 2, Christ is the savior of all kinds of men, not every individual man that has ever lived including those now in hell."

Again, Christ "is" the Savior of all men by the appointment of the Father.  The Father has not ordained any other Savior for men than Christ.  But, Christ is not only an appointed Savior, but an actual Savior too, for believers.  Also, as I said, he is the Savior of all men as respects all earthly deliverances.  And, as it respects eternal salvation and preservation, he is the one that God directs all men to trust.

Brown wrote:

"The separation of the men for whom Christ died and those that believe is understood in terms of the necessary effectual calling in order for salvation to be revealed to the elect, claimed by them, and evident to them and others."

This statement is not clear, so I cannot address it fully.  However, are not "the men for whom Christ died" the same number as "those that believe"?  Did Christ die for unbelievers?  Hardshellism says yes. 

Brown wrote:

"It is by regeneration that the elect come to possess faith; by which calling and gospel obedience Christ is especially evident as Savior in those that believe."

If the elect "by regeneration come to possess faith," and "faith comes by hearing the Gospel" (Rom. 10: 14), then the Gospel is the means of regeneration.  Since "faith" means the same thing as "belief," what is it that the regenerated believe as a consequence of their regeneration? 

Brown wrote:

"The text intimates that evangelical belief is a confirmation of having been atoned for by Christ, not that it is upon evangelical belief that eternal salvation is obtained."

Brown wrote:

"...he (Gill) was too inclined to view belief in the propositions of the gospel as a necessary knowledge to which all the elect are brought."

I am glad for this admission!  Why then did you argue that Gill did not believe that the Gospel was a means in coming to faith and regeneration?  Further, where is your authority for defining "faith" as not involving belief in any propositions?  The word "belief" requires belief in truth propositions!  By Jason's definition, a man can be said to have "faith" (belief) and yet believe not  propositions!  Do the elect not believe that God is?  Is that not a proposition?  Did Paul not define "faith" as "believing" that "God is" and that "he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him"?  Are these not propositions?  (Heb. 11: 6)  According to Jason's definition of "faith," a man can have it and believe nothing!

Brown wrote:

"So, it is a shame he chose to go the direction he did on 1 Timothy 4:10, which denies the obvious: that 'all men' here is surely the same scope of 'all men' as in 1 Timothy 2:1,4. Surely his advocacy of 'all men' is in direct conflict with itself."

Perhaps the shame is that Dr. Gill was correct on I Tim. 4: 10 but was not correct on I Tim. 2: 1-6, and not the other way around.

Brown wrote:

"1 Timothy 4:10 proves that belief is not common to all for whom Christ died."

How does it prove such?  The elect do not have common belief?  Why then does Paul speak of "the common faith"?  (Titus 1: 4)  Why does he speak of "the faith of God's elect"?  (vs. 1)  Why does Jude speak of the "common salvation"?  (Jude 1: 3) 

How contradictory are the words of brother Jason!  He says, in one breath, that all the elect have faith in regeneration, but now he says, in another breath, that they all do not have a common or shared faith!

Brown wrote:

"Brother Garrett chooses to contradict the plain, express declarations of John 10:11,26 that Christ died exclusively for the sheep by suggesting that the separation of belief from salvation is in regard to the non-elect for which Christ died. But they both deny the obvious: that coming to faith in Christ is an evidence of salvation, not full salvation itself."

I do not separate salvation from faith, as does Jason.  So, he has that wrong.  Coming to faith in Christ is not only an evidence of salvation, but an essential ingredient of it, as I have shown many times.  Notice again how Jason speaks in double talk.  He says all the elect have "faith," but now says that faith is not essential to be elect and regenerated!  It is God who has joined faith and salvation together, and they will remain together no matter how how the Hardshells try to divorce them.

Brown wrote:

"Brother Garrett seems to want to say that the non-elect could actually be eternally saved. I have already conceded that in regard to the liberty of their will, it is not untoward to imply that, if they would trust in Christ, they would be partakers of eternal life, but this is posed in a context of their failure to do so, not in a context that establishes the actual possibility of this outcome."

It depends on what is meant by "could."  If they came to Christ, they would be saved.  But, since we know that they will not, therefore they cannot.  Does Jason believe that the non-elect would not be saved if they came to Christ?  I never asserted their "actual possibility."  I only argued that Christ offered them the opportunity. 

Brown wrote:

"So it is clear that when Christ preached to the non-elect it need not be seen as purposeless because they will not trust in Him for eternal salvation, but that He was calling them to a salvation from the temporal judgment of God, as Gill understands John 5:34 in his commentary."

More double talk!  Again, he sometimes admits that the salvation offered is eternal salvation, in some "sense," but here he denies that it is eternal salvation that is offered.  Christ is only offering a temporal salvation!  So, when Christ says - "these things I say unto you that you might be saved," Jason knows that this uproots Hardshellism and makes it a "time salvation."  But, the context makes it clear that it is eternal salvation.  But, Jason ignores the context.  He only knows that, in his Hardshell paradigm, it cannot be that Christ could mean eternal salvation, and so he allows his presuppositions to determine his interpretation.  Anyone can see how John 5: 34 is the death knell of Hardshellism! 

Brown wrote:

"How can Brother Garrett claim it is not a difficulty for him to explain how an "offer" of salvation that does not contain the means by which the recipients of the offer could believe is the same "offer" of salvation that does contain the means by which the recipients could believe? If I offered Brother Garrett a million dollars if he could find a pen I hid under a rock, and offered Brother Fralick the same offer - but told Brother Fralick the exact location in Paris, France, would Brother Garrett consider that I intended to give him the million dollars the same as Brother Fralick? Would he consider me kind in my offer to him? The offer would outwardly be the same, but the sense in which it would be "kind" to Brother Garrett is less than clear."

An offer of salvation does contain the means.  But, an offer of salvation in itself does not guarantee the salvation of any.  Only as the Spirit works effectually on the heart of a sinner does the sinner accept the gracious offer.  The analogy that Jason offers is not valid.  The one I gave about a Governor offering pardon to prisoners, however, is valid.  In the movie "Shawshank Redemption," a prisoner named "Brooks" was "institutionalized" and did not want to leave prison.  He wanted to remain in prison and when forced to leave, committed suicide.  Sinners are the same.  They love their prison life.  So, though all are offered a legitimate pardon, all are not made willing to leave.  So, though the Lord offers pardon to all, he does not choose to compel, by sovereign grace, all the prisoners to leave.  He does not work on the heart of all the prisoners to make them want to leave.  And, in this biblical analogy, it would be a kindness to offer pardon to all, but it would be "especially" (I Tim. 4: 10) kind to change the psychology of some so as to make them want to accept the pardon.  There is common kindness and special kindness.

Brown wrote:

"...how can he admit this state of affairs, yet claim that Christ must have made "provision" for the non-elect in His death without the means of coming to belief? Christ made provision for them by dying for them, but no provision for the means by which they could believe? It certainly is an inconsistent "provision"."

But, he does make a general provision for all, but a "special" provision for the elect.  It is the difference between "common grace" and "special grace."

Brown wrote:

"It is laughable that Brother Garrett's idea of an offer of pardon dispels these difficulties. His example only admits the difficulty, it does not dispel it. What purpose or good is an offer of pardon without the means to obtain the pardon? Just so the pardoner can seem good and kind? How can the pardon even be established as offered in kindness without the means by which it could be accepted?"

I have already answered this, however.  I Tim. 4: 10 answers this also.  He offers to all, but especially to the elect.  It is similar to the "gleanings" in the field that Ruth gleaned in.  There were common gleanings for the poor, but special "handfuls of purpose" for Ruth.  The leaving of the common gleanings was common kindness, but the handfuls of purpose were a special and particular kindness.  Don't you see?

Brown wrote:

"Presumably Brother Garrett believes that God knows that it is a kind deed he intends toward the non-elect. But on what basis is it kind for God? Does a sovereign God that does His will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth truly and actually intend things that do not occur?"

Jason should know that God's will and intentions are viewed, in Scripture, in a twofold manner.  Sometimes his will refers to his sovereign efficacious decrees, to what he has predestined shall certainly come to pass.  But, sometimes his will denotes his wish or proscribed will.  Jason, is it God's will for you to obey the ten commandments without fail?  If you don't, has what God intended or willed failed to come to pass?  Again, I refer you to what Dr. Piper has written on the subject.  In Jer. 19: 5 & 32: 35 the Lord speaks of the sins of the Israelites as being that "which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind."  God says that he willed and intended that they not, and yet they did!
Brown wrote:

"If God were to truly intend something, and it not occur, manifestly, God cannot be omniscient or omnipotent, as He would have been able to anticipate and overpower impediments to His will."

But, my previous remarks address this.  But, let Jason apply his views on this to this passage:

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!"  (Deut. 5: 29)

Is God not wishing for them all to keep his commandments?  If God's wishing and willing only denotes what he decrees shall be, then why did it not come to pass?

Brown wrote:

"It seems clear, therefore, that God does not intend the non-elect to be saved, to which I think Brother Garrett agrees, in theory, though his emphasis makes the basis upon which he agrees entirely unclear. So it is clearly not God's intention that the non-elect be eternally saved. How is it, therefore, "kind" for God to offer them what he by no means intends to give them? And how can this be considered kindness outside of the possibility of an actuality?"

No, the truth is this:  God intends that all be saved, generally speaking, but "especially" intends for believers to be saved.  This is what Paul says in I Tim. 4: 10.  Does Jason deny that intention may be both common (general) and special.  Can Jason not have a common love for all but an especial love for some?  Can he not generally will that all prosper but especially will that his own children prosper?

Brown wrote:

"The "offer" is more than vain; it is blasphemy to ascribe to God..."

Such an opinion is due to his Hardshell mindset and not due to what is taught in Scripture.  Jason thinks it is more becoming for God to have no good intentions towards the non-elect!