Jason responded to my first rebuttal of his first posting by saying:
See here
"Brother Garrett has observed that I have failed to address him as 'Brother', and I offer sincere apology for not doing so from the beginning, as I bear him no ill will. My failure to recognize his belief in our Lord and Saviour was caused by an intention to avoid presumption, not because I thought he was not a disciple of Christ."
This is good and Christian of brother Jason, but the incongruity still remains, for it is clear that he makes many heathen to be "regenerated" children of God and yet would not address me as such. He believed that I was a child of God but wanted to avoid presumption? He can presume heathens are regenerated but not me?
Jason wrote:
"Brother Garrett belongs with the Sophists of Ancient Greece it seems, especially as he seems to enjoy making sweeping generalizations and pass them off as the completely accurate truth. Maybe if he was less inclined to rhetoric, PB Elders would engage him publically (sic) . By creating an inflammatory context of discussion, it undoubtedly justifies in the eyes of many Elders not, "answering a fool unto his folly, lest you be like unto him."
It is ironic that Jason accuses me of making "sweeping generalizations" when this is the Hardshell trademark! They create a set of non-biblical premises and take them to the word of God and make it conform to their premises! Jason, of course, did not offer any proof for his charges that I am a Sophist, only interested in rhetoric, and not in truth, and about making "sweeping generalizations," about "creating an inflammatory context of discussion," and about being a "fool," but only asserts it and shows how lacking he is to meet my proofs to resort to such ad hominem attacks.
Jason wrote:
"Though the Primitive Baptist Church may represent the truest Church in existence, this does not imply Brother Garrett's pejorative implication that other churches are not worshipping Jesus Christ with some measure of the gospel, and that the members of other orders are not disciples of Jesus Christ, having some measure of gospel conversion according to the measure of the gospel embraced."
Jason is very careful in his language here,for he does not want to show his cultic colors. He tip toes through the Hardshell minefield. He knows that his brethren claim to be "the one true church of Jesus Christ," and that they consider all other churches, not in their fellowship, to not be such. That is why they will not recognize the baptisms of any other group. They also teach that the one true church is the only place where the gospel is preached, yet he does not want to be blatant in saying so, in this writing, for he would give credence to the charge that the Hardshells are a cult. So, what does he do? He says the Hardshells are "the truest church in existence," meaning other churches are true, but not as true as they are. He allows that other churches worship Jesus Christ, but it is with only "some measure of the gospel," not with the full gospel one will hear in the Hardshell church. They have "some (limited) measure of conversion," but it is not the full conversion that Hardshells enjoy.
Jason wrote:
"Brother Garrett's criticism of the uses of "Primitive" or "Original" as they relate to Primitive Baptists is in regard to means in regeneration. He says that PB's (Primitive Baptists) are neither "Primitive" or "Original" in "leading points of doctrine". I am sure that he is aware that these designations came about because the PB's refused to change what they took to be the simple New Testament pattern of worship of the early church in the context of the Missionary division. To this end, the designations under consideration would be entirely appropriate."
The denial of means in regeneration and salvation is not the only reason why today's Hardshells cannot claim to be primitive or original, but it does represent their chief error. Their description of what constitutes the experience of regeneration is an essential element of their heresy. Their denial of perseverance is also a grave error that they entertain. I could also mention their Landmarker heresies, and their denial that the Great Commission was given to the church, and to every Christian.
The Hardshells "refused to change"? Isn't it rather the case that they changed? They, at one time, did not oppose the old confessions on the means of regeneration, nor did they disagree with Gill, nor did they oppose churches sending out missionary preachers, and the education of ministers, but they changed and created themselves a denomination, just like Campbell. If they have not changed, then show us the pre 19th century evidence that many Baptists believed in Hardshell views on regeneration and perseverance.
Jason wrote:
"Though PB's have clarified their doctrine of regeneration away from gospel instrumentality, as I have stated previously, the London Confession and early Baptist theologians did not have the debate of the Missionary controversy to prompt precise theological distinctions."
But, I have already rebutted this line of reasoning and have not had Jason to rebut what I said in rebuttal to it. Notice that he is affirming that the Old Baptists did not believe in Hardshellism, because he says they lacked clarity on the point.
Jason wrote:
"Furthermore, Elder Mike Ivey's Book, "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice", which is on the web, details how the old Midland Association, descending from Olchon, the oldest church in Wales, advocated views that were accused of hyper or high Calvinism."
Elder Ivey did not state things correctly in his history, and the comments he made in interpreting the history of the Baptists in Wales and in London, in the 1600s, is false, as other more learned historians have demonstrated, as I shall show.
Jason then cites these words from Ivey's work:
"In A Memorial of the 250th Anniversary of the Midland, now the West Midland Association 1655 to 1905, J. Gwynn Owen notes opposition in the 1770s and 80s by certain older ministers of the association to the promotion of manmade institutions such as Sunday Schools and Missionary Societies. These innovations were introduced to the Midlands by Elders Fuller and Carey who were members of the Association. In explaining their opposition to Fuller and Carey's ideas, Owen wrote of the older ministers, "These revered seniors were more or less bound by the doctrines of a higher Calvinism than now influences theology."
So a few ministers opposed the methods of Fuller and Carey and therefore they denied means in regeneration? That is a leap frog jump in logic from one who values logic so highly!
Still citing Ivey, Jason wrote:
"An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election."
Jason cannot furnish any clear and express confessional statements by Ryland to prove he denied means, but only infers it from what Ryland said, but this inference is not warranted. Besides, it is not proven that Ryland ever said those words. John Ryland, Jr., however, and a close friend of Carey, denied or doubted that his father ever said those words. He said, "I never heard of it till I saw it in print, and cannot give credit to it at all." (Life of Andrew Fuller, 1816 edition, p. 175; cited in I. Murray, The Puritan Hope, chapter 7, fn. 14, p. 280).
Also, notice how Ryland, if he said those words, used the word "convert," a word denoting gospel conversion. Also, where do his words imply that God would convert the heathen apart from the gospel? Perhaps Ryland was only saying that God would do it in a different manner than being proposed by Carey. It is interesting how Jason and the Harshells have to resort to finding adherents of their doctrine, prior to the 19th century, by not citing express declarations, but by saying their words imply Hardshellism.
Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:
"Indicating enthusiastic support for gospel instrumentality together with its trappings of Sunday schools and Missionary societies, Owen is generally unsympathetic toward the doctrines held by Elder Ryland and the other "revered seniors" among the ministry of the Midland Association. By the time Owen wrote his memorial work the Midland Association had progressed from primitive to Calvinist to Arminian in theology. Therefore, Owen deserves commendation for resisting temptations to write a revisionist history which would not accurately present the original doctrine of the Midland Association and the strain which introduction of gospel agency caused."
"Revisionist history"? Is it not men like Ivey and Hassel, Hardshell "historians," who have written "revisionist histories"? Ivey offers no proof that the ancient Baptists of Wales denied means in regeneration or disagreed with their London brethren, as other historians have shown.
Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:
"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace."
They objected to "human agency" and methods, not to the gospel as an agency! Much the same way the signers of the Black Rock Address objected to humanly devised means and methods for spreading the gospel, but not to the spread of the gospel itself, or to its being a means in the divine begetting of children. Ivey misreads both Owen and the Midland confession. Notice also the use of the term "unconverted" for those lost in sin.
Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:
"Owen's assessment of the original beliefs of the founders of the Midland Association suggests they were primitives, not high Calvinists. Further, his statement concerning the younger generation of preachers implies that gospel instrumentality in regeneration was newly introduced and represented a doctrinal departure from the original beliefs of the Midland brethren. "The younger generation of ministers, like Fuller of Kettering; Carey of Moulton; Sutcliffe of Olney and the younger Ryland, being more open to conviction, and less wedded to the old, rigid creed, began to advocate a modification of the old views, and to adopt as the basis of their ministry a moderate Calvinism which permitted them to appeal to the unconverted."
Ivey is so desirous of finding adherents to Hardshellism, in the 17th century, that the words of Owen "implies" or "suggests" that they were Hardshells, but this is all in the head of Ivey who could find no express statement where the Welsh Baptists denied means.
Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:
"Thus, with the passing of such stalwarts as Elder John Ryland the next generation of ministers pursued new theologies, leading their brethren away from true and historic doctrines of grace which had been held by the Baptists of Wales and the Midlands for almost 1700 years." (A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, Chapter 6)"
That is not true, as respects a belief in means.
Jason wrote:
"It seems there is sufficient evidence to reasonably suppose that Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration pre-dated the London Confession. This alone rebuts most of Brother Garrett's rejoinder to my first blog post."
"Sufficient evidence"? By whose judgment? Evidence that is based upon suggestion and inference? It might be sufficient for Hardshells who are so anxious to find old Baptists who believed like they do, and who find the search a difficult matter, and so have to rely upon inference, but it is not sufficient evidence for a bonafide historian. "Sufficient evidence" from Ivey, who does not give all the facts and adds commentary to the facts, commentary which does not properly interpret matters?
The facts are, as I shall shortly show, prove that the Welsh Baptists were in agreement and full fellowship with those churches who endorse the first and second London confessions, which evidence destroys the thesis of Ivey and nullifies his witness as a valid historian.
Jason wrote:
"I want to rebut certain other portions of Brother Garrett's blog post because they are representative of a flawed process and method of debate. He has accused me in several places of exalting intellect above the revelation of God. He states:
"But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic."
Brother Garrett represents a false dichotomy here. Scripture requires reasoning to be understood. There is no Scripture that man does not reason to its truth, as language requires a mental process. We pray that the Spirit of God guides our interaction, but the process of interpretation involves both the guiding hand of God and man's will."
Yes, we can reason about the relationship of words in a biblical sentence, but we cannot rely upon reason as do the Hardshells. For instance, Hardshell human reasoning says it is foolish to preach to dead people, and yet this is exactly what God told the prophet to do in the story of Ezekiel and valley of bones. What did Solomon mean when he warned us not to "lean upon" our "own understanding"?
Jason wrote:
"Brother Garrett is simply begging the question. What he takes to be the "plain declarations of Scripture" is exactly what is disputed. Two informal fallacies in the same paragraph. Perhaps I should begin to address Brother Garrett as Brother Garrett, the Sophist."
Yes, I do believe that James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23, and I Cor. 4: 15 state very clearly that men are begotten by the gospel or word of truth. It takes all kinds of logical attacks from Jason and the Hardshells to make one think it does not mean what it clearly says.
Jason then cites my remarks and then responds:
"It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)"
"Brother Garrett makes this statement in the context of my blog post in which I argue from John 3:8 the exact principle that he accuses me of not arguing. I wonder if it would be possible, or if its too much to ask that Brother Garrett respond to my individual blog posts as a whole rather than individual paragraphs in my blog posts that may not contain arguments that are contained in a later paragraph of the same blog post. To respond to the principle being advocated rather then every word would also cut down on length and repetition."
But John 3: 8 does not say that all are born again apart from the gospel and word of truth! Where is that in the passage? For a passage to be express, it would have to say "men are born again by the Spirit alone, without the means of truth."
Ivey wrote:
"One significant trait of the Midland churches, as with their nearby Welsh sisters, was their independence from the London churches during the seventeenth century.
However, the most significant indicator of the Midland Association's independence and theological distinction from the London Particular Baptists is their Confession of Faith. While the 1644 London Confession is termed mildly Calvinistic by Lumpkin, the Midland brethren penned a confession which closely resembles eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century Primitive Baptist Confessions."
A real historian who has written extensively about the ancient Welsh Baptists, wrote these words against the claims of Ivey.
See here
"The American Primitive Baptist writer, Michael N. Ivey, in his wish-history, called Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, 1994; would have us to believe that this old Church at Olchon was not one with the London Particular Baptists, and that it reached out and constituted churches in Wales and also in the Midlands. The implication is that the Midland’s Confession is totally against the First London Confession of Faith. This connection I am making is very important and will show the false and misleading conclusions of Ivey, a time conditionalist Primitive Baptist. These old Baptists in Wales were one with the London Brethren. Their union with the five churches gathered by Myles and Proud prove this."
Our historian, in refuting Ivey's claim, made these statements:
"Please note the following statement about Miles and the old church at Olchon. This is very important, it will come up later. The Glass House Particular Baptist Church in London, sometimes called Glazier’s Hall church, sent John Miles and Thomas Proud into Wales to do gospel outreach work. When they got there, they constituted several churches and these churches joined with the old Church at Olchon to form the Welsh Baptist Association in 1650."
"The early growth of the Welsh Particular Baptist cause is largely to be accounted for by the zeal and administrative ability of John Myles, who is chiefly responsible for An Antidote. An Oxford graduate, Myles had begun to preach in Wales by 1644 or 1645, probably as an Independent."
"The originality of the Confession must be traced to the genius of Myles, and both the symmetry of thought and the force of expression of the document do credit to the abilities of the author. The Confession is divided into three sections. The first, “Considerations presented to Sinners,” is the doctrinal section; the second, “Admonitions to Saints,” concerns the five “reigning corruptions” of the day; and the third, “Invitations to the Backsliders,” contained practical considerations for erring Christians."
Our author cites these word from Davis' history (page 38):
"John Myles began to preach about the year 1645. He was the founder of the Baptist church at Swansea, Galmorganshire, South Wales. He was one of the greatest advocates for close communion in the Principality, in his time, and the leading minister of the Baptist denomination in Wales."
"In 1651, he was sent as the representative of all the Baptist churches in Wales, to the Baptist minsiters’ meeting at Glazier’s Hall, London, with a letter giving an account of the peace, union, and increase of the Baptist churches; and returned with a written letter from the London ministers to their brethren in Wales..."
"At this time, please note the close connection with the old church at Olchon, or the Hay, with the newly formed churches under the ministry and care of John Myles. They were not separated from the London Particular Baptist churches, but in very close connection with them. They even represented at the London Particular Baptist meetings when they could do so."
Our historian then writes about "The Particular Baptist Outreach into the Midlands" and says:
"We are not able to tell exactly when the London Particular Baptists reached out into the Midlands, but we are able to show there were efforts there in the early 1640s. How long before then we do not know. That would take us into the terrible times of Laud and his hellhounds. Benjamin Cox and Daniel King were the main movers in the gathering of those old Midland churches. In fact, at least four men who signed the First London Confession of Faith played import roles in establishing the Midlands churches."
"The Midlands Baptist Association owed its origin to:
First, the ministry of Benjamin Cox from London, one of the ministering brethren from the Seven Churches in London; Second, from Daniel King, one of the ministering brethren from the Seven Churches in London, and; Third, from the older Abington Association that came from the Particular Baptists in London. Why, then, is the Midland’s Baptist Confession so different from the First London Confession? For several reasons:
First, it was never designed to be printed in a book form as was the First London Confession. It was copied and placed in a church record book.
Second, it was an abridged form of the First London Confession. Daniel King, doubtless, wrote the Midland’s Confession.
Third, it is no more different from the First London than the Somerset Baptist Confession is. Yet, in their introduction, those who published the Somerset Confession affirmed their oneness with that older Confession and the churches and minsiters in London who issued it. See my remarks on The Somerset Baptist Association and its Confession of Faith.
I have showed that the foundation arguments from Ivey’s work are misleading, deceptive and false. The old Midlands Baptist Association came into being from the London Particular Baptists and may be considered one of their outreaches from London."
Ivey cites these articles from the old Midland confession and then attempts to show how they support Hardshellism.
8. That all men until they are quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly. But faith is a free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead. Therefore (we) consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation.
Concerning this article, Ivey wrote:
"By stating that man is dead and has no power to believe savingly of himself, they removed precursor faith as an instrument of justification prior to actual regeneration. Their order is new birth, belief. They indicated that men who are dead in trespasses and sin cannot believe until they are quickened. This principle eliminates requisite gospel agency in regeneration. Calvinism teaches belief is in reaction to a concerted medium of the Holy Ghost and the gospel; whereby one believes and is justified, and after being justified is born again. This distinction separates primitive faith from Calvinism."
Clearly Ivey is reading Hardshellism into the above words of the confession! First of all, the London confession has similar words about the depravity of man and yet they uphold, nonetheless, the means of the gospel in the work of regeneration. Ivey argues that they insisted upon the ordo salutis that put regeneration before faith and therefore this proves that they were Hardshells, but this reasoning is faulty. Consider the fact that men like James White and R. C. Sproul teach that regeneration precedes faith, but they do not go as far as do the Hardshells, for they affirm that regeneration is only "logically before" faith, not "chronologically before." They did not separate faith from the experience of regeneration! So, Ivey's argument is not valid.
Nothing in the above words of the confession deny that one is made a believer in Jesus when he is regenerated.
Ivey wrote:
"With inclusion of article eight in their Confession of faith, the Midland brethren denied the Arminian tenet of free-willism. However, it is both ironic and significant; it also distinguished the theology of the Midland Churches from all who subscribed to a theology of saving faith through the concerted agency of the Holy Ghost and the gospel. They rejected the theory of saving faith in response to Arminian teachings; but, in so doing, they also rejected the Calvinistic notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Their statement regarding the relationship of regeneration and faith is an acceptable representation of what orthodox twentieth century Primitive Baptists believe."
Ivey is reading all this into the words of the confession. The confession does not deny means in regeneration!
Ivey wrote:
"The Midland Baptists have been variously characterized by Underhill, Tull, Gwynn Owen and perhaps other Baptist historians as hyper-Calvinists. This term implies they went farther with the doctrine of regeneration than did Calvin. Specifically, the distinction between Calvinism and High-Calvinism relates to the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It is a name that is routinely applied to modern Primitive Baptists."
The propositions highlighted are not valid. When the named historians call the Midland Baptists "hyper-Calvinists," they were not referring to the means question.
Ivey wrote:
"An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election."
I have already addressed this supposed statement of Ryland. First, it cannot be proved that he actually said it, and secondly, it cannot be inferred that this means that he denied that one must be "converted" by the gospel to be saved.
Ivey wrote:
"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace."
Owen is referring to the fact that some, like Hussey, had begun to deny the well meant offer of the gospel, but this is a separate issue from whether the gospel is a means in regeneration. For instance, Gill probably denied that Christ is to be "offered" to sinners, by the gospel, but he did not deny that the gospel was a means in regeneration.
Ivey wrote:
"Tull presents a moderately detailed, though prejudicial, description of the theology of the Midland Baptists. His description of circa 1770 Midland Association doctrine resembles present day Primitive Baptist doctrine. He begins, "The enervating effect of hyper-Calvinism stemmed from a rigid view of the doctrine of election. This view held that God had decreed before the world began who would be saved and who would be lost. Therefore, it was conceived to be both useless and highly presumptuous to invite men to repent and believe."
But again, the fact that some in the Midland Association questioned the manner in which sinners were to be addressed does not mean that they denied means in regeneration. Ivey is arguing a non sequiter.
Ivey wrote:
"Speaking of the duty of reprobates according hyper-Calvinist theology, so called, Tull continued: "It was not, therefore, their duty to repent, to have faith, to pray.....It was not their duty, because these were gifts of divine grace, not human attainments. Closely related to the belief that faith was not a duty was the belief that a warrant was necessary to believe. A warrant was an evidence or a sign of a work of divine favor in the soul. Conviction of sin, with its accompanying mental distress, was such a sign or warrant. Such a warrant and the faith which followed were implanted in the heart at the initiative of divine grace, and they could not be initiated by the sinner."
So, what has Ivey proven? That the seeds of Hyper Calvinism were already present in the 18th century? Who denies that? But, by Jason's own admission, "clarity" did not come till the Hardshell controversy of the early 19th century. Nothing that Ivey presented as documental evidence proves that the Midland Baptists denied means. Rather, the fact that their leading preachers were from the London churches, and fellowshipped the London churches, shows that they did not object to the London confession's statement about means!
Now, let me cite from "The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes," one of those old Baptists of the Midland Association and see if it agrees with Hardshellism.
23. I believe that although God can bring men to Christ and cause them to believe in Him for life, yet He has appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith which is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance to the sinner and salvation, and that by Jesus Christ. They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them.
29. I believe that as God prepared a begetting ministry, even so does He also prepare a feeding ministry in the church, who are a people called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord, assembling themselves together in a holy brotherhood, continuing in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking bread and prayer. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Baptist Piety, the last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes, ChristianUniversity Press; Grand Rapids: 1978, pages 89-91.)
Doesn't sound like Hardshellism to me!
Saturday, July 9, 2011
John Spilsbury on Means
Here is an article from John Spilsbury's personal confession of faith.
"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."
It is obvious that John Spilsbury, a signer of the London Confession of 1644, was not Hardshell. Whoever agrees with Spilsbury and the London Confession are the real Old Baptists.
See here
"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."
It is obvious that John Spilsbury, a signer of the London Confession of 1644, was not Hardshell. Whoever agrees with Spilsbury and the London Confession are the real Old Baptists.
See here
Jason on Conversion
In a blog posting titled "Gospel Conversion" our Hardshell apologist, Jason Brown, wrote: See here
"As has been previously noted, Stephen Garrett believes that James 1:18 proves that regeneration is effected by the gospel.
One of the difficulties in taking this view of this text is observed by examining James 1:21, "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." This text puts the acceptation of the word on a volitional level. If the gospel is God's instrument to effect regeneration in verse 18, by verse 21 it would seem to be the case that, since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word (this possibility is established in that James commands his audience to receive the word), they could oppose God's work of regeneration."
Jason speaks of "difficulties" in taking James' words at face value, as affirming that sinners are born again by the word of truth, or word of the gospel. But the difficulties are of his own making, because he cannot harmonize James' words with his preconceived ideas. Gill and our Baptist forefathers did not see these "difficulties" that Jason and the Hardshells see.
Jason's "difficulty" lies in his not being able to place any "volition" in the work of regeneration. In receiving gospel truth he sees cognition, faith, and volition, but he cannot accept any volition, revelation, or faith in the experience of regeneration. But, that is his problem, not a problem with the bible writers. Also, traditionally, Hardshells have interpreted the statement - "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" as alluding to what happens in regeneration. So, it seems as though they allow, at times, for volition to be an aspect of regeneration. They also show inconsistency in this area because they will often interpret verses dealing with Jesus being "revealed" to a person as talking about regeneration or an efficacious calling. Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"
Jason is inconsistent here, for his Hardshell brothers have traditionally interpreted Phil. 2: 13 - "it is God who works in you to will (choose)" - as denoting a sovereign work of God whereby sinners are regenerated. Is regeneration not a "receiving" of Christ and the Spirit? If one can "receive" Christ and the Spirit irresistibly, by sovereign grace and power, why can they not also "receive" the gospel in the same manner? Is conversion not the work of God as is regeneration? Jason said - "since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word." Yes, one not only "could," but actually do refuse to receive the engrafted word and are not saved because of it. But, the elect are worked upon with infinite power and this ensures their acceptance of the word. It is as Paul wrote when he said:
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)
Gill and the true Old Baptists interpreted this verse as denoting regeneration and the manner in which it is affected. But, let us suppose it only deals with an optional conversion experience, to a "time salvation," do the above words not make use of language that denotes an "effectual calling" nonetheless?
Also, consider Ephesians 1: 19, 20:
"...And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..."
This verse has typically been used by Calvinists, including Hardshells, to denote that regeneration was effectual and irresistible. But, how does Paul describe this efficacious work? Does he not call regeneration the work of being made a "believer"? How is one made a believer? Is it not through the gospel preached, as Paul affirmed in Romans 10? But, it is not the sovereign work of God, in regeneration, to deliver a man from being a believer in "gods many and lords many"!
Jason wrote:
"Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death."
Yes, we agree, that a "volitional" act is involved in the receiving of the truth and being saved by it, but we deny that this salvation is not a salvation from sin, or is not a being "born again." Again, what do the scriptures say of those who do not believe in Jesus? Let me give a sampling.
1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)
Jason wrote:
"As I have noted, this harmonizes with what we know of Peter's experience in Luke 22:31,32. Peter's experience of conversion much later than his spiritual birth also proves that we are not at exegetical liberty to impose a strict timetable on gospel conversion as it relates to regeneration. James 1:18 summarizes the work of God in regeneration and gospel conversion, and shows that discipleship is consistent with sonship. It does not show that discipleship must follow sonship immediately or to equal degrees."
Making James 1: 18 (the divine "begetting" through the word) and James 1:21 (the "saving" resulting from "receiving" the word) to be dealing with conversion, or to their "time salvation," an experience that Jason and the Hardshells say happen in the Arminian fashion, by free will power and human effort, is bad hermeneutics. Can he name a Baptist theologian who interpreted James 1: 18 and 21 as dealing with only a temporal salvation? You are not "primitive" or "original" if you interpret these verses as dealing with a salvation that is not eternal.
Jason will not accept the idea that the begetting and the salvation of these verses are talking about salvation in the proper sense of the term, not because there is any ambiguity in the words of the apostle, but because the apostolic teachings do not jive with his false ideas and propositions. Because he has convinced himsef that Hardshell premises are taught in the bible, the bible verses must be "harmonized," by twisting and distorting, the words of James. What are some of those Hardshell false propositions, premises that they have arrived at by their use of human reason, rather than upon plain scriptural statements? Here are a few of them as a sampling (which premises are dealt with at length in my book):
False Logical Promises of the Hardshells
(which they take to the bible rather than obtaining from the bible)
1. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then salvation would be insecure, for whatever depends upon creatures is insecure. In other words, salvation is secure and effectual because God uses no human means.
2. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then the salvation would not be all the work of God, not all by grace.
3. If salvation involves volition, and believing, then the infant and the idiot cannot be saved.
4. If salvation was only by the gospel, then most people would be going to hell, but the scriptures affirm that most people will be saved, which statement could not be true if people were saved by the gospel.
I have refuted these false propositions in my writings against the Hardshells. Jason, in using these kinds of arguments, needs to read what I have already written about them and address my disproof of them. He needs to show how these propositions are taught in scripture.
Jason wrote:
"It is evident from Scripture and natural observation that God is discrete in regard to who is blessed with gospel knowledge. The angels desire to know of the mysteries contained. Paul was directed to certain places in his missionary work. We observe that there are many that are ignorant with little understanding of the gospel. If eternal salvation hinges on mental awareness of the gospel, how much of a pure gospel is necessary to ensure eternal life?"
It seems clear to me that Jason's problem and "difficulty" is with the word of God, sad to say. The Bible clearly teaches, if it teaches anything, that those who "know not God and obey not the gospel" will be eternally destroyed. Jason can throw all kinds of logical reasonings out against the plain words of scripture, but those words still ring out clearly - "believe and be saved."
Jason asks the standard Hardshell interrogative when he asks - "how much gospel must one believe" to be saved? Does he not know? If I asked him, "how much gospel do you need to know" to be "converted," or saved in a "time salvation" sense, what would he say? But, there are lots of scripture that answers his question, and he ought to know about them.
Jason wrote:
"The Jews had the gospel purposely obscured by God, according to Matt. 13:10-17 and Romans 11:7-11, 25. The Jewish leaders kept the Jewish people from believing the gospel according to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 11:52. How can these texts be exegeted in an eternal context without embracing Arminianism?"
Jason has here gone from the negative (responding to my arguments) to the affirmative, bringing up arguments to prove Hardshellism. Perhaps I should say that I will answer him when he answers my rebuttal of his writing. He ignores much of my rebuttal, the parts he cannot deal with. I have asked him numerous questions in my rebuttal but get no replies. I have made arguments that get no notice. Now he wants me to answer his questions!
The Lord blinded the minds and hardened the hearts of the rebels and unbelievers and believing this leads to Arminianism? How so? Further, God did not "obscure" the "gospel," in the passage, but acted in judgment to seal their state of unbelief. Paul, in Hebrews 4: 2, said - "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The same gospel preached to us had been preached to those blinded, but their rejection of the gospel kept them from God's rest, God's inheritance, and sealed their doom. Jason would do well to learn what these verses tell us about the necessity of faith in the gospel in order to be finally and eternally saved. Does Jason believe that some of those unbelievers who were blinded and hardened were nevertheless "regenerated" children of God?
Jason then resorts to an argument sometimes made by Hardshells regarding those passages that speak of one man doing something to hinder another man from being saved, and asked me to harmonize it with Calvinism, and show how it does not infer Arminianism. What Jason is saying is that his Hardshell paradigm is able to deal with the "difficulties" of making regeneration a change of the will, thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and emotions. Ironically, he does not see any problem with "conversion" and "time salvation" being a work that others can hinder, but he has problem affirming the same with "regeneration." Therefore, when he reads the above two passages, he brings this preconceived proposition to them, and says that the thing that men were hindered from obtaining is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but conversion or time salvation. So, when Jesus said (vs. 13) - "for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in," Jason is forced to interpret the verse as talking about loss, not of salvation, but a loss of temporal reward. Jason, because he takes his proposition to the text (that says men cannot hinder other men from being eternally saved), he cannot, therefore, interpret "entering" the "kingdom of heaven" as what is denoting salvation, and the not entering as denoting damnation. Yet, in John 3, when Jesus said "you must be born again to enter the kingdom," Jason will have no problem affirming that this "entering the kingdom" denotes final and complete salvation. Jason needs to throw away his unscriptural proposition and quit allowing it to dictate how he interprets scripture.
Let us look at verse 15.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."
Obviously the hindering of people from "entering the kingdom of heaven" is connected with being made a superlative child of Hell! Obviously then, the context is dealing with eternal destinies.
The scriptures teach that, from the human perspective, from the perspective of second causes, we may hinder others from being saved, just as we may help them to be saved. We may be a means in the salvation or damnation of others, a truth that Hardshells do not want to face, for they do not want to feel any responsibility in the matter. It is, to them, all God's responsibility to save people, and they believe that God cannot, will not, use them in the matter. No wonder Boyce Taylor, the great Hardshell killer, said that Hardshells fit the description of the man who buried his talent and gave his Hyper Calvinistic reasons for doing so!
Now, from God's perspective, men do not successfully hinder the elect from finally obtaining salvation, both regeneration and conversion. The passages do not say that the elect are kept from salvation, although they may be hindered for a time, so that they could have been saved earlier than they actually were. Men are hindered from being saved, looking at the matter from the standpoint of means and second causes, or from the human finite perspective.
Greater passages on this question are these:
"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 15: 15)
"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11)
Obviously one can hinder another from being saved. Why rebel against them for the purpose of upholding a false proposition and to remove logical "difficulties"? Now, the word "brother" here does not denote a child of God, but a "neighbor" to whom we should treat as brothers. See my writings on this issue in my series on "The Weak Brothers." Paul plainly says that we can be the means of either ensuring the salvation or damnation of others by our testimony. Will Jason interpret these verses as merely dealing with a temporal salvation and damnation?
If conversion is the work of God, as regeneration, then why are all the elect not converted? Why do you have a problem with men hindering God's work of converting but not his work of regenerating?
Jason wrote:
"A basic trust in the gospel message is the natural reaction of sons, if they are under the sound of it, as the gospel is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved (2 Cor. 2:15,16). However, we are not at Scriptural liberty to suppose definitively the eternal destiny of any individual, though we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9), or that Christ has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9)."
It is interesting that Jason would refer to II Cor. 2: 15, 16 as those verses destroy Jason's denial that God uses the gospel as the means of giving "life," or of regenerating. The gospel is a "savor (aroma) of life UNTO life." The gospel is for the purpose of giving life!
Jason wants to say that though not all the elect will hear the gospel, most of the ones who do hear it will embrace it. He is close to the truth, but when he allows that even one of the elect will fail to be converted, fail to repent and believe in Christ, he is unscriptural. When he allows for any unbeliever to be eternally saved then he is in serious error, as I have shown from such verses as II Thess. 1: 8,9. Also, Jason does not want to say that all who die in unbelief, and without coming to know the one true God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, will be lost. He, like his brethren, will not agree with the scriptures on the matter, nor on what Gill, the London Confession, and other records of primitive Baptist testimony affirm. Yet, he claims to be "primitive" on the matter of the condition of the "heathen." Again, Jason wants to argue, as did Cayce, that those Athenian idolaters, before Paul preached the gospel to them, were "regenerated," though they remained in heathenism and paganism!
Jason said - "we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel." Can say it only "generally" and not universally? Which way do the bible writers predominantly state it? Do they say that only some of those who reject Christ and the gospel will be lost, or all of them? Jason affirms that some of those who reject Christ will be saved. Where is that taught in scripture?
In John 10 Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me." How does Jesus relate "hearing" his "voice" (regeneration) and "following" him (discipleship)? Dos he say that only some of those who hear his voice follow him, or that all who hear his voice follow him? What authority does Jason have for teaching otherwise?
Jason wrote:
"It is inconsistent for children of God not to profess Him before a body of believers and submit to Baptism, and for this they ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate. Just like it was inconsistent for the rich, young ruler to not give all that he had to feed the poor, but, at least in that case, Jesus loved him nonetheless, according to Mark."
Yes, it is "inconsistent"! For a man that values logic, this inconsistency must really bother him! We "ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate," testified Jason. Bingo! It is as David Pyles admitted, saying that "we have no right to say anyone is saved who has not believed in Jesus." Do you not agree? But, even though you doubt the regeneration of Christ rejecters, you will not say for sure that all unbelievers will have their place in the lake of fire!
Was the rich young ruler regenerated and saved even though he rejected following Christ? This is what is dangerous about Hardshellism! It tells men that they can be saved even if they reject Christ! Yes, the Lord "loved" him! Jason and the Hardshells think that the fact that Christ loved the Christ rejecter that the Christ rejecter must be one of the elect anyway! But, the truth of the matter is, Christ loves all men. Why would Jason deny this? Why would Jason make Jesus into a sinner by denying that Christ loved all men? Was Christ not under the law? Under obligation to obey the law as a man? Was not the main substance of the law the obligation to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Was Christ not obligated to love all men? Now, of course, this does not deny God's special superlative love for his chosen bride, for his elect. Paul says it like this:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect)."
"As has been previously noted, Stephen Garrett believes that James 1:18 proves that regeneration is effected by the gospel.
One of the difficulties in taking this view of this text is observed by examining James 1:21, "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." This text puts the acceptation of the word on a volitional level. If the gospel is God's instrument to effect regeneration in verse 18, by verse 21 it would seem to be the case that, since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word (this possibility is established in that James commands his audience to receive the word), they could oppose God's work of regeneration."
Jason speaks of "difficulties" in taking James' words at face value, as affirming that sinners are born again by the word of truth, or word of the gospel. But the difficulties are of his own making, because he cannot harmonize James' words with his preconceived ideas. Gill and our Baptist forefathers did not see these "difficulties" that Jason and the Hardshells see.
Jason's "difficulty" lies in his not being able to place any "volition" in the work of regeneration. In receiving gospel truth he sees cognition, faith, and volition, but he cannot accept any volition, revelation, or faith in the experience of regeneration. But, that is his problem, not a problem with the bible writers. Also, traditionally, Hardshells have interpreted the statement - "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" as alluding to what happens in regeneration. So, it seems as though they allow, at times, for volition to be an aspect of regeneration. They also show inconsistency in this area because they will often interpret verses dealing with Jesus being "revealed" to a person as talking about regeneration or an efficacious calling. Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"
Jason is inconsistent here, for his Hardshell brothers have traditionally interpreted Phil. 2: 13 - "it is God who works in you to will (choose)" - as denoting a sovereign work of God whereby sinners are regenerated. Is regeneration not a "receiving" of Christ and the Spirit? If one can "receive" Christ and the Spirit irresistibly, by sovereign grace and power, why can they not also "receive" the gospel in the same manner? Is conversion not the work of God as is regeneration? Jason said - "since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word." Yes, one not only "could," but actually do refuse to receive the engrafted word and are not saved because of it. But, the elect are worked upon with infinite power and this ensures their acceptance of the word. It is as Paul wrote when he said:
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)
Gill and the true Old Baptists interpreted this verse as denoting regeneration and the manner in which it is affected. But, let us suppose it only deals with an optional conversion experience, to a "time salvation," do the above words not make use of language that denotes an "effectual calling" nonetheless?
Also, consider Ephesians 1: 19, 20:
"...And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..."
This verse has typically been used by Calvinists, including Hardshells, to denote that regeneration was effectual and irresistible. But, how does Paul describe this efficacious work? Does he not call regeneration the work of being made a "believer"? How is one made a believer? Is it not through the gospel preached, as Paul affirmed in Romans 10? But, it is not the sovereign work of God, in regeneration, to deliver a man from being a believer in "gods many and lords many"!
Jason wrote:
"Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death."
Yes, we agree, that a "volitional" act is involved in the receiving of the truth and being saved by it, but we deny that this salvation is not a salvation from sin, or is not a being "born again." Again, what do the scriptures say of those who do not believe in Jesus? Let me give a sampling.
1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)
Jason wrote:
"As I have noted, this harmonizes with what we know of Peter's experience in Luke 22:31,32. Peter's experience of conversion much later than his spiritual birth also proves that we are not at exegetical liberty to impose a strict timetable on gospel conversion as it relates to regeneration. James 1:18 summarizes the work of God in regeneration and gospel conversion, and shows that discipleship is consistent with sonship. It does not show that discipleship must follow sonship immediately or to equal degrees."
Making James 1: 18 (the divine "begetting" through the word) and James 1:21 (the "saving" resulting from "receiving" the word) to be dealing with conversion, or to their "time salvation," an experience that Jason and the Hardshells say happen in the Arminian fashion, by free will power and human effort, is bad hermeneutics. Can he name a Baptist theologian who interpreted James 1: 18 and 21 as dealing with only a temporal salvation? You are not "primitive" or "original" if you interpret these verses as dealing with a salvation that is not eternal.
Jason will not accept the idea that the begetting and the salvation of these verses are talking about salvation in the proper sense of the term, not because there is any ambiguity in the words of the apostle, but because the apostolic teachings do not jive with his false ideas and propositions. Because he has convinced himsef that Hardshell premises are taught in the bible, the bible verses must be "harmonized," by twisting and distorting, the words of James. What are some of those Hardshell false propositions, premises that they have arrived at by their use of human reason, rather than upon plain scriptural statements? Here are a few of them as a sampling (which premises are dealt with at length in my book):
False Logical Promises of the Hardshells
(which they take to the bible rather than obtaining from the bible)
1. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then salvation would be insecure, for whatever depends upon creatures is insecure. In other words, salvation is secure and effectual because God uses no human means.
2. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then the salvation would not be all the work of God, not all by grace.
3. If salvation involves volition, and believing, then the infant and the idiot cannot be saved.
4. If salvation was only by the gospel, then most people would be going to hell, but the scriptures affirm that most people will be saved, which statement could not be true if people were saved by the gospel.
I have refuted these false propositions in my writings against the Hardshells. Jason, in using these kinds of arguments, needs to read what I have already written about them and address my disproof of them. He needs to show how these propositions are taught in scripture.
Jason wrote:
"It is evident from Scripture and natural observation that God is discrete in regard to who is blessed with gospel knowledge. The angels desire to know of the mysteries contained. Paul was directed to certain places in his missionary work. We observe that there are many that are ignorant with little understanding of the gospel. If eternal salvation hinges on mental awareness of the gospel, how much of a pure gospel is necessary to ensure eternal life?"
It seems clear to me that Jason's problem and "difficulty" is with the word of God, sad to say. The Bible clearly teaches, if it teaches anything, that those who "know not God and obey not the gospel" will be eternally destroyed. Jason can throw all kinds of logical reasonings out against the plain words of scripture, but those words still ring out clearly - "believe and be saved."
Jason asks the standard Hardshell interrogative when he asks - "how much gospel must one believe" to be saved? Does he not know? If I asked him, "how much gospel do you need to know" to be "converted," or saved in a "time salvation" sense, what would he say? But, there are lots of scripture that answers his question, and he ought to know about them.
Jason wrote:
"The Jews had the gospel purposely obscured by God, according to Matt. 13:10-17 and Romans 11:7-11, 25. The Jewish leaders kept the Jewish people from believing the gospel according to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 11:52. How can these texts be exegeted in an eternal context without embracing Arminianism?"
Jason has here gone from the negative (responding to my arguments) to the affirmative, bringing up arguments to prove Hardshellism. Perhaps I should say that I will answer him when he answers my rebuttal of his writing. He ignores much of my rebuttal, the parts he cannot deal with. I have asked him numerous questions in my rebuttal but get no replies. I have made arguments that get no notice. Now he wants me to answer his questions!
The Lord blinded the minds and hardened the hearts of the rebels and unbelievers and believing this leads to Arminianism? How so? Further, God did not "obscure" the "gospel," in the passage, but acted in judgment to seal their state of unbelief. Paul, in Hebrews 4: 2, said - "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The same gospel preached to us had been preached to those blinded, but their rejection of the gospel kept them from God's rest, God's inheritance, and sealed their doom. Jason would do well to learn what these verses tell us about the necessity of faith in the gospel in order to be finally and eternally saved. Does Jason believe that some of those unbelievers who were blinded and hardened were nevertheless "regenerated" children of God?
Jason then resorts to an argument sometimes made by Hardshells regarding those passages that speak of one man doing something to hinder another man from being saved, and asked me to harmonize it with Calvinism, and show how it does not infer Arminianism. What Jason is saying is that his Hardshell paradigm is able to deal with the "difficulties" of making regeneration a change of the will, thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and emotions. Ironically, he does not see any problem with "conversion" and "time salvation" being a work that others can hinder, but he has problem affirming the same with "regeneration." Therefore, when he reads the above two passages, he brings this preconceived proposition to them, and says that the thing that men were hindered from obtaining is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but conversion or time salvation. So, when Jesus said (vs. 13) - "for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in," Jason is forced to interpret the verse as talking about loss, not of salvation, but a loss of temporal reward. Jason, because he takes his proposition to the text (that says men cannot hinder other men from being eternally saved), he cannot, therefore, interpret "entering" the "kingdom of heaven" as what is denoting salvation, and the not entering as denoting damnation. Yet, in John 3, when Jesus said "you must be born again to enter the kingdom," Jason will have no problem affirming that this "entering the kingdom" denotes final and complete salvation. Jason needs to throw away his unscriptural proposition and quit allowing it to dictate how he interprets scripture.
Let us look at verse 15.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."
Obviously the hindering of people from "entering the kingdom of heaven" is connected with being made a superlative child of Hell! Obviously then, the context is dealing with eternal destinies.
The scriptures teach that, from the human perspective, from the perspective of second causes, we may hinder others from being saved, just as we may help them to be saved. We may be a means in the salvation or damnation of others, a truth that Hardshells do not want to face, for they do not want to feel any responsibility in the matter. It is, to them, all God's responsibility to save people, and they believe that God cannot, will not, use them in the matter. No wonder Boyce Taylor, the great Hardshell killer, said that Hardshells fit the description of the man who buried his talent and gave his Hyper Calvinistic reasons for doing so!
Now, from God's perspective, men do not successfully hinder the elect from finally obtaining salvation, both regeneration and conversion. The passages do not say that the elect are kept from salvation, although they may be hindered for a time, so that they could have been saved earlier than they actually were. Men are hindered from being saved, looking at the matter from the standpoint of means and second causes, or from the human finite perspective.
Greater passages on this question are these:
"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 15: 15)
"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11)
Obviously one can hinder another from being saved. Why rebel against them for the purpose of upholding a false proposition and to remove logical "difficulties"? Now, the word "brother" here does not denote a child of God, but a "neighbor" to whom we should treat as brothers. See my writings on this issue in my series on "The Weak Brothers." Paul plainly says that we can be the means of either ensuring the salvation or damnation of others by our testimony. Will Jason interpret these verses as merely dealing with a temporal salvation and damnation?
If conversion is the work of God, as regeneration, then why are all the elect not converted? Why do you have a problem with men hindering God's work of converting but not his work of regenerating?
Jason wrote:
"A basic trust in the gospel message is the natural reaction of sons, if they are under the sound of it, as the gospel is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved (2 Cor. 2:15,16). However, we are not at Scriptural liberty to suppose definitively the eternal destiny of any individual, though we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9), or that Christ has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9)."
It is interesting that Jason would refer to II Cor. 2: 15, 16 as those verses destroy Jason's denial that God uses the gospel as the means of giving "life," or of regenerating. The gospel is a "savor (aroma) of life UNTO life." The gospel is for the purpose of giving life!
Jason wants to say that though not all the elect will hear the gospel, most of the ones who do hear it will embrace it. He is close to the truth, but when he allows that even one of the elect will fail to be converted, fail to repent and believe in Christ, he is unscriptural. When he allows for any unbeliever to be eternally saved then he is in serious error, as I have shown from such verses as II Thess. 1: 8,9. Also, Jason does not want to say that all who die in unbelief, and without coming to know the one true God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, will be lost. He, like his brethren, will not agree with the scriptures on the matter, nor on what Gill, the London Confession, and other records of primitive Baptist testimony affirm. Yet, he claims to be "primitive" on the matter of the condition of the "heathen." Again, Jason wants to argue, as did Cayce, that those Athenian idolaters, before Paul preached the gospel to them, were "regenerated," though they remained in heathenism and paganism!
Jason said - "we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel." Can say it only "generally" and not universally? Which way do the bible writers predominantly state it? Do they say that only some of those who reject Christ and the gospel will be lost, or all of them? Jason affirms that some of those who reject Christ will be saved. Where is that taught in scripture?
In John 10 Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me." How does Jesus relate "hearing" his "voice" (regeneration) and "following" him (discipleship)? Dos he say that only some of those who hear his voice follow him, or that all who hear his voice follow him? What authority does Jason have for teaching otherwise?
Jason wrote:
"It is inconsistent for children of God not to profess Him before a body of believers and submit to Baptism, and for this they ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate. Just like it was inconsistent for the rich, young ruler to not give all that he had to feed the poor, but, at least in that case, Jesus loved him nonetheless, according to Mark."
Yes, it is "inconsistent"! For a man that values logic, this inconsistency must really bother him! We "ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate," testified Jason. Bingo! It is as David Pyles admitted, saying that "we have no right to say anyone is saved who has not believed in Jesus." Do you not agree? But, even though you doubt the regeneration of Christ rejecters, you will not say for sure that all unbelievers will have their place in the lake of fire!
Was the rich young ruler regenerated and saved even though he rejected following Christ? This is what is dangerous about Hardshellism! It tells men that they can be saved even if they reject Christ! Yes, the Lord "loved" him! Jason and the Hardshells think that the fact that Christ loved the Christ rejecter that the Christ rejecter must be one of the elect anyway! But, the truth of the matter is, Christ loves all men. Why would Jason deny this? Why would Jason make Jesus into a sinner by denying that Christ loved all men? Was Christ not under the law? Under obligation to obey the law as a man? Was not the main substance of the law the obligation to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Was Christ not obligated to love all men? Now, of course, this does not deny God's special superlative love for his chosen bride, for his elect. Paul says it like this:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect)."
Friday, July 8, 2011
Jason on Osbourn
In a blog posting titled "Garrett's Use of Osbourne" our Hardshell apologist wrote the following in response to my recent posting on Elder James Osbourne.
"The quotations he cites of Osbourne do not clearly indicate that Osbourne believed that the gospel effects regeneration; rather, they indicate that the gospel converts the regenerate, bringing them to a knowledge of their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1:10). On this basis, all Primitive Baptists would accept these quotations. Obviously from the quotations Osbourne believed that only the sinners ordained to eternal life would believe, so though the call of the preached word might fall on the ears of the damned, it would only be efficacious to those who knew they were sinners by the new birth."
But, you see, I never affirmed that Osbourne believed in means in "regeneration," but did believe in means for a conversion he believed was the new birth and was as much necessary for going to heaven as regeneration. That was the point. Osbourne did not believe that the salvation coming from believing the gospel was a "time" or "temporal" salvation, but an eternal salvation. That is the point! Jason and today's Hardshells do not believe as did Osbourne and the first founding fathers of Hardshellism! He wants us to believe that he is in basic agreement with Hardshellism, but the facts of the case show them to be fundamentally different.
"On this basis" they will accept Osbourne's words? What does that mean except "we will accept Osbourne's words if we can twist them to mean such and such"? It is much the same way his forefathers, in Fulton, in the year of our Lord 1900, said - "we can accept the old London confession if we can twist them to mean such and such"! It is the same way they do certain passages of scripture dealing with means, "oh we can accept that because we think it says such and such"!
Jason wrote:
"Primitive Baptists who argue that the gospel is addressed to "believers" only mean by this that only those who have been born again can rejoice and appreciate the gospel."
Addressed to "believers" in what? I have already asked Jason to tell us about this and he has run from addressing it! What do the "believers" believe before they have heard the gospel? Again, as I said, the Hardshells dispute what Paul said in Romans 10, for he said one cannot be a "believer" before he hears the gospel. Hardshells say one is a "believer" before he hears the gospel! Obviously it is not the gospel they believe.
This kind of "believer," that one is before he knows anything about Jesus, was he made such in regeneration? So infants and idiots believe something as part of their regeneration? So, it is not on the subconscious level?
Jason wrote:
"The plain truth is, we do not know who the elect are; therefore, the gospel ought to be preached indiscriminately to all men that will hear it."
But, what does this prove? It is a dodge! Suppose you did know a person to whom your were preaching was not elect? Not born again? Would you still preach the gospel to him? Would you call upon him to repent and believe the gospel? To invite him to come to Christ for salvation? Did Jesus not know who was dead and alive when he preached the gospel? What did he preach to those he called "children of the devil"? What did John the Baptist preach to the vipers? Did he not warn them to flee from the wrath to come?
Jason wrote:
"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
Clark was not inconsistent. How can Jason say this? Will he produce the evidence where Clark ever advocated that hearing and believing the gospel were unnecessary for eternal salvation? Did he not say that the "voice" of Jesus, that raises the spiritually dead, was the "gospel"? Jason should read my series of chapters titled "Addresses to the Lost" and be corrected in his thinking.
"The quotations he cites of Osbourne do not clearly indicate that Osbourne believed that the gospel effects regeneration; rather, they indicate that the gospel converts the regenerate, bringing them to a knowledge of their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1:10). On this basis, all Primitive Baptists would accept these quotations. Obviously from the quotations Osbourne believed that only the sinners ordained to eternal life would believe, so though the call of the preached word might fall on the ears of the damned, it would only be efficacious to those who knew they were sinners by the new birth."
But, you see, I never affirmed that Osbourne believed in means in "regeneration," but did believe in means for a conversion he believed was the new birth and was as much necessary for going to heaven as regeneration. That was the point. Osbourne did not believe that the salvation coming from believing the gospel was a "time" or "temporal" salvation, but an eternal salvation. That is the point! Jason and today's Hardshells do not believe as did Osbourne and the first founding fathers of Hardshellism! He wants us to believe that he is in basic agreement with Hardshellism, but the facts of the case show them to be fundamentally different.
"On this basis" they will accept Osbourne's words? What does that mean except "we will accept Osbourne's words if we can twist them to mean such and such"? It is much the same way his forefathers, in Fulton, in the year of our Lord 1900, said - "we can accept the old London confession if we can twist them to mean such and such"! It is the same way they do certain passages of scripture dealing with means, "oh we can accept that because we think it says such and such"!
Jason wrote:
"Primitive Baptists who argue that the gospel is addressed to "believers" only mean by this that only those who have been born again can rejoice and appreciate the gospel."
Addressed to "believers" in what? I have already asked Jason to tell us about this and he has run from addressing it! What do the "believers" believe before they have heard the gospel? Again, as I said, the Hardshells dispute what Paul said in Romans 10, for he said one cannot be a "believer" before he hears the gospel. Hardshells say one is a "believer" before he hears the gospel! Obviously it is not the gospel they believe.
This kind of "believer," that one is before he knows anything about Jesus, was he made such in regeneration? So infants and idiots believe something as part of their regeneration? So, it is not on the subconscious level?
Jason wrote:
"The plain truth is, we do not know who the elect are; therefore, the gospel ought to be preached indiscriminately to all men that will hear it."
But, what does this prove? It is a dodge! Suppose you did know a person to whom your were preaching was not elect? Not born again? Would you still preach the gospel to him? Would you call upon him to repent and believe the gospel? To invite him to come to Christ for salvation? Did Jesus not know who was dead and alive when he preached the gospel? What did he preach to those he called "children of the devil"? What did John the Baptist preach to the vipers? Did he not warn them to flee from the wrath to come?
Jason wrote:
"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
Clark was not inconsistent. How can Jason say this? Will he produce the evidence where Clark ever advocated that hearing and believing the gospel were unnecessary for eternal salvation? Did he not say that the "voice" of Jesus, that raises the spiritually dead, was the "gospel"? Jason should read my series of chapters titled "Addresses to the Lost" and be corrected in his thinking.
"History In Perspective"
In a blog posting titled "History In Perspective" Hardshell apologist Jason Brown responds to my posting on the Pence-Potter debate.
Jason wrote:
"Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott."
Garrett, however, was not confusing at all, the confusion Jason is experiencing comes from his blindness, not from the lack of clarity in what I wrote. I gave proof that the first Hardshells of the anti mission movement did not believe as does Jason and today's Hardshells. They are not "original" because they do not express the faith of those Baptists who wrote and endorsed the old confessions, and they are not even what the "original" first Hardshells believed. Jason did not refute our evidence. In my writings on Hardshellism, and in the Gadfly blog, as well as here in the Old Baptist blog, I have given citations from the first leading Hardshells which show that they rejected Jason's views.
Gilbert Beebe believed that all the elect must be both regenerated and converted, conversion being the experience of being "born again." Jesus said "you must be born again" to be saved in heaven, and Beebe, and his cohort, Trott, believed that this being "born again" was being converted by faith in Christ and the gospel. I too believe that this new birth is the same as conversion. Does Jason agree with Beebe and Trott? Who is more "Old Baptist" on this point, using Beebe, a founding father of hardshellism, as a criterion, Jason or I? This was the standard view that was set forth in the first three Hardshell periodicals of the movement. Those three periodicals were: 1) "The Signs of the Times," edited by Elder Beebe, 2) "The Primitive Baptist," first published in North Carolina with the support of the Kehukee Hardshells, and edited by Burwell Temple, 3) The "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," published first in New York and then in Ohio, edited by Daniel Jewett. In reading the old issues of these first periodicals one can see that the "three stage model" (See chapter 39 in my book) of the new birth was the common standard view of the first Hardshells, the same view of many old Regular Baptists today, and some Presbyterians. These divided up the experience of salvation into three stages, the first was the divine begetting or sowing of the divine seed into the heart, followed by deep conviction of sin, revelation of one's lost state, similar to the state of a newly begotten fetus in the womb. This womb analogy defines the state of the quickened, regenerated, or awakened sinner, as one in which the person comes to realize his need of Christ and salvation, but who is as yet trying to save himself, like a Pharisee, and who needs deliverance from the bondage of the convicted and hopeless state, and that this deliverance (salvation) from this state is the new birth, what is required to be saved in heaven. There was no chance for the regenerated soul not to reach the state of conviction, and likewise, according to the first Hardshell leaders, no one in the convicted, or regenerated (begotten) state, would fail to reach the state of being delivered or born of the gospel. So, the question being debated today among the Hardshells - "will all the elect hear the gospel and be saved by it" - Beebe and the first Hardshells would say - "why yes, of course."
I have evidence in my writings, and in my research files, to prove that the following leading Hardshell founding fathers, accepted this "three stage" paradigm of the saving process.
Gilbert Beebe, Daniel Jewett, Richard Newport, Joel Hume, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Wilson Thompson, Stephen Gard, James Osbourn, John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, Hosea Preslar, John Clark.
Though I reject this model, it is far closer to the truth and the Old Baptist faith than what Hardshells believe today! The first Hardshells did not say that only some of the elect would be converted by the gospel, but all of them! Does Jason? The first Hardshells wrote articles of faith that said - "we believe ALL the elect will be regenerated AND converted," all will be "begotten" (regenerated) first and then later they will all be "born" of the gospel. Does Jason and today's Hardshells accept this? Beebe did not "throw out the baby with the bath water" as regards means in regeneration. He did omit means in the first stage of regeneration, like some Presbyterian writers, but he did not omit them in the second and third stages! But Jason and today's Hardshells will not equate the new birth of John 3:1-8 with conversion! Yet this was the view of the founders of his own denomination and yet he claims to be "original" in his views!
Jason wrote:
"The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance."
"Only rhetorical or semantical significance"? What is he saying? That what Beebe, Trott, and the first Hardshells wrote on this topic was only "meaningless rhetoric"? What kind of indictment of Hardshell's founding fathers is this?
"Redefined"? No, Hardshellism is the party who "redefined" things from what they had been.
Jason wrote:
"Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel."
Because today's Hardshells do not equate conversion with being "born again" (John 3), though their forefathers did so, are they therefore primitive or original? The fact that the first Hardshells equated being born again with being converted, or delivered, shows further that they did not believe that the experience was optional, or what only characterized a few of God's people. They believed all the elect would be regenerated and born (converted) and that irresistibly. They did not say that conversion was time salvation, or by works, in an Arminian fashion, as do today's Hardshells, but that conversion was as much the work of God as was regeneration. Conversion was "effectual" as regeneration.
Jason wrote:
"Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner."
Jason is "blowing smoke" in this reply! Creating a veritable "smoke screen." He avoids the main issue!
First of all, I have proven that "the typical manner" of the first Hardshells was to equate conversion with being born again, and to believe in a three stage model of birth (a view believed by A. W. Pink), and so did not think that "conversion," or being born again, by the gospel, was optional, as does Jason and his fellow neo-Hardshells. Does Jason think that today's Hardshell view, one that does not equate "conversion" with being being "born again" (John 3), is the "typical manner"? It may be the typical neo-Hardshell view to not see conversion as the necessary birth of John 3, but his forefathers did, and so, Jason and today's Hardshells are not primitive at all.
Jason wrote:
"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need."
Jason offers the view that the Hardshells of the anti mission movement, by their debate and contention, helped the Baptists to "clarify" their views, to improve and correct them! This is what all "reformers" cry! Alexander Campbell used the same tactics. Jason argues that the Baptist were in error on the subject of regeneration and the new birth and it was the Hardshell controversy that brought doctrinal "clarity" and greater accuracy to Baptist understanding of regeneration! What arrogance! What a cultic view of things! It is saying - "we are the ones who are now refined in doctrine," and "we are the only ones who have clarity on the subject of regeneration."
Jason wrote:
"Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper."
First of all, it is a falsehood to say that the writers of the London confession did not know that they were condemning the Hardshell "no means" theory when they wrote the confession. I have already alluded to the debate that John Spilsbury had with Bakewell on this very point!
Jason wants us to not mention the London Confession, wants us to disregard its testimony on the subject of means in regeneration! I wonder why? The confession has "little cogency" as to who are the real Old Baptists? Is he implying that the writers of the confession would have changed their minds had they been privileged to be around when the Hardshells arose to clarify things? He admits that there was a "lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions" and tries to dismiss this fact as though it were insignificant. He says that these authors of the confession just were not "clear" on the subject, but later debate would clear matters up!
Jason wrote:
"Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48."
Jason speaks of "extremes" arising out of the anti mission movement. This is true. And, just who were representive of those "extremes"? Is it not Hardshellism and Campbellism?
Jason says that it is "Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion." But, I have already addressed this mere assertion by Jason. Jason gave us no scripture that defined regeneration as being, for instance, experienced apart from gospel knowledge and faith, or on the subconscious level, but I have given biblical definitions of the experience of regeneration. But, it is remarkable that Jason would so markedly contradict himself in the above few words. First, he says that he can distinguish regeneration from conversion and then says that the scriptures meld them together, i.e., does not distinguish between them! These are examples of Hardshell hermeneutics. I plan to write a couple chapters yet in my book on the Hardshells about their hermeneutical methods, something that Elder Watson also felt that his Hardshell brethren needing teaching about.
Jason wrote:
"James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction."
Notice how Jason handles this Hardshell-killing verse! Does he approach the verse honestly? Without pretext? Does he tremble before it and wonder if he might not be twisting it "to his own destruction"? What if Jason is wrong? What if James 1: 18 does teach what it prima facie seems to teach, i.e., that God's elect are regenerated or born again by the gospel? Jason resorts to the same argument he made in a previous blog posting, and one which I have already rebutted. The gospel was the "presence" or "environment" in which many regeneration experiences were taking place, but this does not mean that the gospel was a cause of the regeneration experiences, like a room not being the cause of what happens within it. Is that all he really believes James is saying? That the gospel was the mere environment in which regeneration was taking place? This view is a carnal invention, intended to rebut the force of the apostle's words relative to the word of truth being the instrumental cause of the new birth.
Concerning "Peter's experience," and about his need for "conversion," after regeneration, I have already addressed that and showed that the term "conversion" does not always denote regeneration, but that it usually does. I would ask Jason - "when Jesus said that we must be CONVERTED, as little children," was he talking about regeneration? When Peter addressed a crowd, composed of both elect and non-elect (it can be safely assumed), and said "repent ye and be converted, that your sins might be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19), was he not talking about eternal salvation? Is "blotting out sins" not the meat of the experience of salvation?
Jason wrote:
"Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction."
"Fully converted," correct! Conversion, like sanctification, has both an initial application, and an ongoing application in the life of the believer. We are not converted from all our false ideas when we are initially converted. But, initial salvation and regeneration is a conversion! Does Jason deny that there is a "change" in regeneration? Do not the words "repent" and "conversion" denote change? Jason admits that there are degrees and stages of the conversion process, but why does he deny that conversion is an integral part of regeneration?
Jason then argues that James 1: 18 is talking about conversion, a gospel experience. Wonderful! Now, let us ask him to apply all his arguments, against the Arminians, about the fact that being born of God is unconditional, how being born "of God" denotes that this is all the work of God, and does not depend upon the will and actions of those born, to his admission that the gospel conversion experience (i.e. his "time salvation") is a being "born of God." Why does he argue that "born of God" denotes sovereign grace, and effectual calling, in regeneration being a birth of God, but not in conversion's being a birth of God?
Jason wrote:
"It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment."
Jason admits that the gospel is to be preached to unregenerate men, but not to offer them any hope, or to compel them to believe and repent, to acknowledge Christ as Savior and Lord?
All Jason can say of Cayce's view on Acts 17 is that it was "not his finest moment"? He can treat the matter in such a frivolous manner? When a preacher tells pagans that they can be elect, be saved, be God's children, even though they worship other gods and lords, he is guilty of no trifle. That is what Cayce taught! Cayce's view is anti gospel and you can cast it aside as a slight thing?
Jason wrote:
"It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds."
I am again pleased with the confession of Jason about his Hardshell brethren. They have "gone to doctrinal extremes"! It is good that Jason fights against those Hardshells who say that the gospel is only to be preached to the elect. The question is, is the gospel preached so as to offer salvation to all? About his distinction between being born again and being a disciple I have already discussed in previous postings. But, I will add this. Jason's view is that being born again does not make one a believer in, or follower of Jesus! A man can be "born again" who is not a follower of Jesus?! Absurd consequences! That is what Cayce was saying and Jason agrees with it and yet says Cayce's article was not his finest!
Jason wrote:
"In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible."
Jason again spouts his apologetic for novel Hardshell views on the new birth, saying that the rise of the Hardshells brought doctrinal clarity to the Baptist church! But, we have shown how farcical is that apology.
Jason wrote:
"Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott."
Garrett, however, was not confusing at all, the confusion Jason is experiencing comes from his blindness, not from the lack of clarity in what I wrote. I gave proof that the first Hardshells of the anti mission movement did not believe as does Jason and today's Hardshells. They are not "original" because they do not express the faith of those Baptists who wrote and endorsed the old confessions, and they are not even what the "original" first Hardshells believed. Jason did not refute our evidence. In my writings on Hardshellism, and in the Gadfly blog, as well as here in the Old Baptist blog, I have given citations from the first leading Hardshells which show that they rejected Jason's views.
Gilbert Beebe believed that all the elect must be both regenerated and converted, conversion being the experience of being "born again." Jesus said "you must be born again" to be saved in heaven, and Beebe, and his cohort, Trott, believed that this being "born again" was being converted by faith in Christ and the gospel. I too believe that this new birth is the same as conversion. Does Jason agree with Beebe and Trott? Who is more "Old Baptist" on this point, using Beebe, a founding father of hardshellism, as a criterion, Jason or I? This was the standard view that was set forth in the first three Hardshell periodicals of the movement. Those three periodicals were: 1) "The Signs of the Times," edited by Elder Beebe, 2) "The Primitive Baptist," first published in North Carolina with the support of the Kehukee Hardshells, and edited by Burwell Temple, 3) The "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," published first in New York and then in Ohio, edited by Daniel Jewett. In reading the old issues of these first periodicals one can see that the "three stage model" (See chapter 39 in my book) of the new birth was the common standard view of the first Hardshells, the same view of many old Regular Baptists today, and some Presbyterians. These divided up the experience of salvation into three stages, the first was the divine begetting or sowing of the divine seed into the heart, followed by deep conviction of sin, revelation of one's lost state, similar to the state of a newly begotten fetus in the womb. This womb analogy defines the state of the quickened, regenerated, or awakened sinner, as one in which the person comes to realize his need of Christ and salvation, but who is as yet trying to save himself, like a Pharisee, and who needs deliverance from the bondage of the convicted and hopeless state, and that this deliverance (salvation) from this state is the new birth, what is required to be saved in heaven. There was no chance for the regenerated soul not to reach the state of conviction, and likewise, according to the first Hardshell leaders, no one in the convicted, or regenerated (begotten) state, would fail to reach the state of being delivered or born of the gospel. So, the question being debated today among the Hardshells - "will all the elect hear the gospel and be saved by it" - Beebe and the first Hardshells would say - "why yes, of course."
I have evidence in my writings, and in my research files, to prove that the following leading Hardshell founding fathers, accepted this "three stage" paradigm of the saving process.
Gilbert Beebe, Daniel Jewett, Richard Newport, Joel Hume, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Wilson Thompson, Stephen Gard, James Osbourn, John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, Hosea Preslar, John Clark.
Though I reject this model, it is far closer to the truth and the Old Baptist faith than what Hardshells believe today! The first Hardshells did not say that only some of the elect would be converted by the gospel, but all of them! Does Jason? The first Hardshells wrote articles of faith that said - "we believe ALL the elect will be regenerated AND converted," all will be "begotten" (regenerated) first and then later they will all be "born" of the gospel. Does Jason and today's Hardshells accept this? Beebe did not "throw out the baby with the bath water" as regards means in regeneration. He did omit means in the first stage of regeneration, like some Presbyterian writers, but he did not omit them in the second and third stages! But Jason and today's Hardshells will not equate the new birth of John 3:1-8 with conversion! Yet this was the view of the founders of his own denomination and yet he claims to be "original" in his views!
Jason wrote:
"The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance."
"Only rhetorical or semantical significance"? What is he saying? That what Beebe, Trott, and the first Hardshells wrote on this topic was only "meaningless rhetoric"? What kind of indictment of Hardshell's founding fathers is this?
"Redefined"? No, Hardshellism is the party who "redefined" things from what they had been.
Jason wrote:
"Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel."
Because today's Hardshells do not equate conversion with being "born again" (John 3), though their forefathers did so, are they therefore primitive or original? The fact that the first Hardshells equated being born again with being converted, or delivered, shows further that they did not believe that the experience was optional, or what only characterized a few of God's people. They believed all the elect would be regenerated and born (converted) and that irresistibly. They did not say that conversion was time salvation, or by works, in an Arminian fashion, as do today's Hardshells, but that conversion was as much the work of God as was regeneration. Conversion was "effectual" as regeneration.
Jason wrote:
"Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner."
Jason is "blowing smoke" in this reply! Creating a veritable "smoke screen." He avoids the main issue!
First of all, I have proven that "the typical manner" of the first Hardshells was to equate conversion with being born again, and to believe in a three stage model of birth (a view believed by A. W. Pink), and so did not think that "conversion," or being born again, by the gospel, was optional, as does Jason and his fellow neo-Hardshells. Does Jason think that today's Hardshell view, one that does not equate "conversion" with being being "born again" (John 3), is the "typical manner"? It may be the typical neo-Hardshell view to not see conversion as the necessary birth of John 3, but his forefathers did, and so, Jason and today's Hardshells are not primitive at all.
Jason wrote:
"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need."
Jason offers the view that the Hardshells of the anti mission movement, by their debate and contention, helped the Baptists to "clarify" their views, to improve and correct them! This is what all "reformers" cry! Alexander Campbell used the same tactics. Jason argues that the Baptist were in error on the subject of regeneration and the new birth and it was the Hardshell controversy that brought doctrinal "clarity" and greater accuracy to Baptist understanding of regeneration! What arrogance! What a cultic view of things! It is saying - "we are the ones who are now refined in doctrine," and "we are the only ones who have clarity on the subject of regeneration."
Jason wrote:
"Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper."
First of all, it is a falsehood to say that the writers of the London confession did not know that they were condemning the Hardshell "no means" theory when they wrote the confession. I have already alluded to the debate that John Spilsbury had with Bakewell on this very point!
Jason wants us to not mention the London Confession, wants us to disregard its testimony on the subject of means in regeneration! I wonder why? The confession has "little cogency" as to who are the real Old Baptists? Is he implying that the writers of the confession would have changed their minds had they been privileged to be around when the Hardshells arose to clarify things? He admits that there was a "lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions" and tries to dismiss this fact as though it were insignificant. He says that these authors of the confession just were not "clear" on the subject, but later debate would clear matters up!
Jason wrote:
"Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48."
Jason speaks of "extremes" arising out of the anti mission movement. This is true. And, just who were representive of those "extremes"? Is it not Hardshellism and Campbellism?
Jason says that it is "Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion." But, I have already addressed this mere assertion by Jason. Jason gave us no scripture that defined regeneration as being, for instance, experienced apart from gospel knowledge and faith, or on the subconscious level, but I have given biblical definitions of the experience of regeneration. But, it is remarkable that Jason would so markedly contradict himself in the above few words. First, he says that he can distinguish regeneration from conversion and then says that the scriptures meld them together, i.e., does not distinguish between them! These are examples of Hardshell hermeneutics. I plan to write a couple chapters yet in my book on the Hardshells about their hermeneutical methods, something that Elder Watson also felt that his Hardshell brethren needing teaching about.
Jason wrote:
"James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction."
Notice how Jason handles this Hardshell-killing verse! Does he approach the verse honestly? Without pretext? Does he tremble before it and wonder if he might not be twisting it "to his own destruction"? What if Jason is wrong? What if James 1: 18 does teach what it prima facie seems to teach, i.e., that God's elect are regenerated or born again by the gospel? Jason resorts to the same argument he made in a previous blog posting, and one which I have already rebutted. The gospel was the "presence" or "environment" in which many regeneration experiences were taking place, but this does not mean that the gospel was a cause of the regeneration experiences, like a room not being the cause of what happens within it. Is that all he really believes James is saying? That the gospel was the mere environment in which regeneration was taking place? This view is a carnal invention, intended to rebut the force of the apostle's words relative to the word of truth being the instrumental cause of the new birth.
Concerning "Peter's experience," and about his need for "conversion," after regeneration, I have already addressed that and showed that the term "conversion" does not always denote regeneration, but that it usually does. I would ask Jason - "when Jesus said that we must be CONVERTED, as little children," was he talking about regeneration? When Peter addressed a crowd, composed of both elect and non-elect (it can be safely assumed), and said "repent ye and be converted, that your sins might be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19), was he not talking about eternal salvation? Is "blotting out sins" not the meat of the experience of salvation?
Jason wrote:
"Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction."
"Fully converted," correct! Conversion, like sanctification, has both an initial application, and an ongoing application in the life of the believer. We are not converted from all our false ideas when we are initially converted. But, initial salvation and regeneration is a conversion! Does Jason deny that there is a "change" in regeneration? Do not the words "repent" and "conversion" denote change? Jason admits that there are degrees and stages of the conversion process, but why does he deny that conversion is an integral part of regeneration?
Jason then argues that James 1: 18 is talking about conversion, a gospel experience. Wonderful! Now, let us ask him to apply all his arguments, against the Arminians, about the fact that being born of God is unconditional, how being born "of God" denotes that this is all the work of God, and does not depend upon the will and actions of those born, to his admission that the gospel conversion experience (i.e. his "time salvation") is a being "born of God." Why does he argue that "born of God" denotes sovereign grace, and effectual calling, in regeneration being a birth of God, but not in conversion's being a birth of God?
Jason wrote:
"It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment."
Jason admits that the gospel is to be preached to unregenerate men, but not to offer them any hope, or to compel them to believe and repent, to acknowledge Christ as Savior and Lord?
All Jason can say of Cayce's view on Acts 17 is that it was "not his finest moment"? He can treat the matter in such a frivolous manner? When a preacher tells pagans that they can be elect, be saved, be God's children, even though they worship other gods and lords, he is guilty of no trifle. That is what Cayce taught! Cayce's view is anti gospel and you can cast it aside as a slight thing?
Jason wrote:
"It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds."
I am again pleased with the confession of Jason about his Hardshell brethren. They have "gone to doctrinal extremes"! It is good that Jason fights against those Hardshells who say that the gospel is only to be preached to the elect. The question is, is the gospel preached so as to offer salvation to all? About his distinction between being born again and being a disciple I have already discussed in previous postings. But, I will add this. Jason's view is that being born again does not make one a believer in, or follower of Jesus! A man can be "born again" who is not a follower of Jesus?! Absurd consequences! That is what Cayce was saying and Jason agrees with it and yet says Cayce's article was not his finest!
Jason wrote:
"In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible."
Jason again spouts his apologetic for novel Hardshell views on the new birth, saying that the rise of the Hardshells brought doctrinal clarity to the Baptist church! But, we have shown how farcical is that apology.
"Two Heads"
Under a posting - "Two Heads Are Better Than One?" - Hardshell apologist Jason Brown writes about Elder Fralick and myself:
"Kevin Fralick has joined Stephen Garrett in a new blog entitled, "Old Baptist", in an effort to prove that all Baptists historically believed that the new birth is normally effected by God through the gospel as preached by men. Primitive Baptists have claimed the title of "Old Baptists" historically, but have denied that God effects regeneration through the gospel."
Yes, and brother Kevin and I, together with several others who are in support of our efforts, want to see the counter evidence from Jason and the Hardshells about their beliefs being the same as the first Baptists of the old confessions. Brother Kevin and I represent the views of the real "Old Baptists."
Jason wrote:
"By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is."
Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?
Jason wrote:
"Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith."
Well, at least, here, Jason does make an attempt to address the passages in question! But, does he give any exegesis of the passages? No, but rather simply denies that they teach that God begets through the gospel! Then he falls back upon the use of his human reason and says "it seems higly unlikely to suppose"! He then speaks of Luke 22 where Jesus addresses Peter as though he was not yet "converted," yet for what reason I cannot discern. How does the reference to Peter's need of "conversion" explain the passages teaching means?
Certainly Peter was regenerated in Luke 22, though he still needed to be "converted." But, this "conversion" is not that which is synonymous with regeneration. The word "converted" generally connects with regeneration, but not always. The word means to "change" one's thinking and behavior, and certainly regeneration changes one's thinking and behavior, but there is still need for conversion in the lives of God's regenerated people. James 5: 19, 20 demonstrates this. James speaks of "converting" a "brother" from the "error of his ways" and "saving (preserving) a soul from death."
Jason wrote:
"1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction."
When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?
Jason wrote:
"A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life."
Hardshellism is to be believed, according to Jason, because it is a logical "neccessity" to harmonize the scriptures on this matter! Laughable! I have shown this to be false in my writings.
Jason wrote:
"Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony."
Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?
Jason wrote:
"We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn."
If God is "not clear" on how infants and idiots are saved, then why is Jason building his entire soteriology upon their cases? Incredible! He affirms that he is "at liberty" to twist scripture on the subject. He is "at liberty" to speak where the bible is silent.
Jason wrote:
"We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence."
Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!
Jason, in conclusion, wrote:
"So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God."
The key words in the above is "the same as." Rather than dealing with what scripture says on the issue, Jason uses logical argumentation founded on the case of infants and idiots, and yet he has not proven from scripture that these characters are not begotten by the gospel, and who do not have revelation of Jesus in their hearts and minds. Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?
"Kevin Fralick has joined Stephen Garrett in a new blog entitled, "Old Baptist", in an effort to prove that all Baptists historically believed that the new birth is normally effected by God through the gospel as preached by men. Primitive Baptists have claimed the title of "Old Baptists" historically, but have denied that God effects regeneration through the gospel."
Yes, and brother Kevin and I, together with several others who are in support of our efforts, want to see the counter evidence from Jason and the Hardshells about their beliefs being the same as the first Baptists of the old confessions. Brother Kevin and I represent the views of the real "Old Baptists."
Jason wrote:
"By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is."
Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?
Jason wrote:
"Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith."
Well, at least, here, Jason does make an attempt to address the passages in question! But, does he give any exegesis of the passages? No, but rather simply denies that they teach that God begets through the gospel! Then he falls back upon the use of his human reason and says "it seems higly unlikely to suppose"! He then speaks of Luke 22 where Jesus addresses Peter as though he was not yet "converted," yet for what reason I cannot discern. How does the reference to Peter's need of "conversion" explain the passages teaching means?
Certainly Peter was regenerated in Luke 22, though he still needed to be "converted." But, this "conversion" is not that which is synonymous with regeneration. The word "converted" generally connects with regeneration, but not always. The word means to "change" one's thinking and behavior, and certainly regeneration changes one's thinking and behavior, but there is still need for conversion in the lives of God's regenerated people. James 5: 19, 20 demonstrates this. James speaks of "converting" a "brother" from the "error of his ways" and "saving (preserving) a soul from death."
Jason wrote:
"1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction."
When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?
Jason wrote:
"A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life."
Hardshellism is to be believed, according to Jason, because it is a logical "neccessity" to harmonize the scriptures on this matter! Laughable! I have shown this to be false in my writings.
Jason wrote:
"Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony."
Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?
Jason wrote:
"We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn."
If God is "not clear" on how infants and idiots are saved, then why is Jason building his entire soteriology upon their cases? Incredible! He affirms that he is "at liberty" to twist scripture on the subject. He is "at liberty" to speak where the bible is silent.
Jason wrote:
"We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence."
Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!
Jason, in conclusion, wrote:
"So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God."
The key words in the above is "the same as." Rather than dealing with what scripture says on the issue, Jason uses logical argumentation founded on the case of infants and idiots, and yet he has not proven from scripture that these characters are not begotten by the gospel, and who do not have revelation of Jesus in their hearts and minds. Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?
"Garrett's Error"
Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, under a posting titled "Garrett's Error" wrote the following:
"Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832."
First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching.
Jason cites from the work of my dear friend and associate, Brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, from his work "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," where Bob wrote this:
"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)"
Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?
Jason wrote:
"The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance."
Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Bakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Bakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?
Jason wrote:
"...by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration."
I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?
Jason wrote:
"Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue."
Jason wrote:
"The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta."
Again, all this is funny, because all Jason and the Hardshells need to do is to cite Baptist records, prior to the 19th century, where the Baptists believed hardshellism! All he does is make statements about history without any shred of evidence to prove his statements. Does not their universal acceptance of the Philadelphia confessions show that the Baptists were united in the view that sinners are born again by the gospel? Notice again how Jason speaks of what is "rational" and "irrational." Reason/logic is his determining factor in what he believes!
I can generalize (induce) from the writings of the 17th and 18th century that the Particular Baptists universally believed that the gospel was the means God used to beget his people. How can Jason induce hardshellism from the historical records when there are no records of hardshellism being the faith of Baptists prior to the 19th century rise of the Hardshells?
Jason resorts to a typical Hardshell approach to my writings by speaking of some "personal vendetta" that I am judged to have. Jason can't meet the arguments and proofs so he makes ad hominem attacks, and seeks to "poison the well." How can Jason excuse his own self in the matter of "personal vendetta"? Is his response to my writings not a "personal vendetta"? How can he judge my writings as such but not his own?
Jason wrote:
"The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9)."
This statement is repitition from a previous posting and I have already, in my previous rebuttal to that posting, dealt with these things. Jason is arguing that some (albeit not all, nor the majority), of those who are "regenerated" will accept Christ and believe his gospel. And what of those "regenerated" ones who reject the gospel? Will they be saved? What does Paul say about all those who do not believe the gospel in II Thess. 1: 8, 9? Jason affirms that a man can be "regenerated" and yet be a gospel and Christ rejecter? He can be antichrist and still be "regenerated"!
Jason writes in conclusion, saying:
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
"Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832."
First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching.
Jason cites from the work of my dear friend and associate, Brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, from his work "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," where Bob wrote this:
"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)"
Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?
Jason wrote:
"The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance."
Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Bakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Bakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?
Jason wrote:
"...by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration."
I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?
Jason wrote:
"Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue."
Jason wrote:
"The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta."
Again, all this is funny, because all Jason and the Hardshells need to do is to cite Baptist records, prior to the 19th century, where the Baptists believed hardshellism! All he does is make statements about history without any shred of evidence to prove his statements. Does not their universal acceptance of the Philadelphia confessions show that the Baptists were united in the view that sinners are born again by the gospel? Notice again how Jason speaks of what is "rational" and "irrational." Reason/logic is his determining factor in what he believes!
I can generalize (induce) from the writings of the 17th and 18th century that the Particular Baptists universally believed that the gospel was the means God used to beget his people. How can Jason induce hardshellism from the historical records when there are no records of hardshellism being the faith of Baptists prior to the 19th century rise of the Hardshells?
Jason resorts to a typical Hardshell approach to my writings by speaking of some "personal vendetta" that I am judged to have. Jason can't meet the arguments and proofs so he makes ad hominem attacks, and seeks to "poison the well." How can Jason excuse his own self in the matter of "personal vendetta"? Is his response to my writings not a "personal vendetta"? How can he judge my writings as such but not his own?
Jason wrote:
"The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9)."
This statement is repitition from a previous posting and I have already, in my previous rebuttal to that posting, dealt with these things. Jason is arguing that some (albeit not all, nor the majority), of those who are "regenerated" will accept Christ and believe his gospel. And what of those "regenerated" ones who reject the gospel? Will they be saved? What does Paul say about all those who do not believe the gospel in II Thess. 1: 8, 9? Jason affirms that a man can be "regenerated" and yet be a gospel and Christ rejecter? He can be antichrist and still be "regenerated"!
Jason writes in conclusion, saying:
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)