Begotten By The Gospel
"For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15)
"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." (Philemon 1: 10)
When Paul says that he had "begotten" the first Corinthian converts and the slave Onesimus, he certainly does not mean that God was not the one who had begotten them; no more than he meant that he was the Savior when he said, later in the Corinthian epistle - "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." What he is affirming is that God used him as an instrument. Paul was not the efficient or primary cause of the saving and begetting work, but the instrumental cause. On this verse the great "Old Baptist," Dr. John Gill, wrote:
"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel; which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel"; not through the preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation; nor is the law any other than a killing letter: no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith; and God of his own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men."
Now, who are the real "Old Baptists," the Hardshells who disagree with Gill or the ones who agree with him?
Obviously Paul is not talking about water baptism in talking about this begetting, for he baptized but few of the Corinthians (chapter one), and he says that "Christ sent me not to baptize," but on the other hand, he was sent to be a means in the hand of God in begetting and saving sinners who are dead in trespasses and in sins. (See also Acts 26: 18)
If one looks at all the new testament references to this "begetting" he will see that it uniformly speaks about the same experience, about being "born again" per Jesus in John 3: 1-8. Peter, Paul, James, and John talk about this heavenly birth specifically. John refers to being born or begotten of God more than any other writer. The experience of being "born of God" is referenced frequently by John in his first epistle.
The Hardshells, however, affirm that I Corinthians 4: 15 is a singular exception to the normal usage of the word, for they say that the "begetting" of this verse is not talking about being "born again." They say that this "begetting" is not regeneration, but an optional "conversion" or "time salvation" experience that sometimes occurs only after one has been regenerated or born of God. But why, in this one passage, do Hardshells give a strikingly different significance and connotation to the word "begotten"? Why do they go against the universal meaning and usage of the word in this one instance? Is there anything in the context that would give reasons for interpreting it in an abnormal or unusual way?
There is nothing in the context of I Cor. 4: 15 or Philemon 1: 10 to cause one to interpret the "begetting" differently from all the other times it is referenced by the new testament writers. When a bible interpreter gives an unusually different meaning to a common word or phrase in the bible, he needs to have weighty and clear reasons for doing so. Do the Hardshells have such reasons? Or, rather, are they guilty of several sins in their rejection of the testimony, and in their attempts to change its teaching and meaning? Are they guilty of "twisting the scriptures"? (II Peter 3: 16)
There are no contextual reasons for affirming that the "begetting" work of Paul was not the divine begetting talked about throughout the new testament. The burden of proof is on the Hardshell extremists to give the proof and warrant for interpreting the begetting of these verses in an unusual way and for making them deal with a far different experience.
They are not able to give contextual reasons for interpreting the Pauline "begetting" as they do. So, why do they affirm that the "begetting" of those passages is different and unique? They say that it contradicts their proposition (premise) which says "God does not use means, human means, in regenerating sinners." Their premise, they believe, is what is inspired and what needs to remain unchanged. So, it is the scripture text that needs to be changed. So, they first make a simple denial, saying "we do not believe what it says, so it must be saying something other than what it plainly says." Thus we cannot accept the idea that this Pauline "begetting" is the same as in all the other passages, so we have to make it denote some other experience.
I wrote on this passage in one chapter in my book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," which you can read http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-25-i-cor-4-15.html
Hardshells ignore biblical hermeneutics by such an interpretation. And, there are consequences for this twisted interpretation, which denies that this "begetting" is the same begetting mentioned throughout the new testament, or is regeneration, and affirms that it is talking about a "conversion" experience that often occurs much later, if at all, and that this "conversion" is the work of the sinner in cooperation with God, by the person's free will and God given ability.
Consequences
1) God is not the begetter (only Paul is the begetter)
2) The begetting is not an instance of effectual calling or irresistible grace
3) The one being begotten is not passive
4) The begetting is a free will choice of a person
5) A person can lose what he gets from this begetting
6) The begetting is not credited to God alone (The work is not 100% God's work but a cooperative work between God and Paul and the sinner)
It is ironic that the Hardshells, who emphasize logic and reason in their interpreting of the bible and in learning bible science, should not be able to see the logical consequences of their interpretations and man-made premises.
When Hardshells debate with the Arminians, they affirm that being "begotten" is a passive work, one that is not conditioned on the free choice and ability of the sinner. But, when they debate the means question, "begetting" does not denote that the one begotten is passive! It is not unconditional, but conditional! Is not all the work of God alone! So, what does that do to all their arguments against the Arminians relative to the concept of being "born"? Does it not invalidate them? Does it not show that they are guided by their own whims? That "born" means regeneration when I say it means it and means not regeneration when I say?
Some Hardshell apologists say that it is blasphemy to affirm that the "begetting" of I Cor. 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 is the same experience that Jesus talked about in John 3: 1-8.
Hardshell Zack Guess wrote:
"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in some sense he is the father of these Corinthians and they were his children. The instrument by which they were born was the gospel. Many people interpret this to mean that Paul was the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he had caused them to be born again when he preached the gospel to them. But that this is exactly not what the text is teaching can be shown by the following considerations.
In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people."
John Gill a blasphemer? The signers of the old Baptist confessions were blasphemers? James and Peter to be judged as blasphemers for affirming that men were born again by the word of God preached by them?
Zack's argument forces him to deny that God gets all the honor and glory in his "conversion" to Christ! God alone or Paul (gospel preachers) alone? Are these the only two possibilities? The Hardshells argue that "begotten of God" excludes preachers, and therefore "begotten of Paul" excludes God. Zack argues that God only gets all the honor and glory when he alone is the one involved in the work of salvation and does not get all the honor and glory when he works through human agents and means! By his own admission then, God does not get all the honor and glory for his conversion to Christ and the gospel!
Zack says it is forbidden in scripture to call any man "father" in the sense of obtaining spiritual life, but says it is okay to call a man "father" in the sense of having been "converted" by a man.
Wrote Zack:
"In the second place, this interpretation of the passage betrays an ignorance of how "father," "children," and "begotten" were commonly used in the day in which Paul was writing. Let us study together for a moment and see how these terms were then used. Such study will throw great light on this passage.
J. H. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament Words, p. 113 says, "In a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life." Commenting on the same word in the same passage, John Gill, in his Commentary On The New Testament quotes the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the Law, the Scripture reckons this the same as if he had begotten him."
Arndt and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon, p. 154 say of the same word, "Figuratively of the influence exerted by one person on another...of a teacher on pupils." H. Cremer, in his Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 146, says of this word, "Peculiar is the use made by Paul in some passages of the word to denote an influence exerted on some one, moulding his life, as in Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10." If we put all this together and sum it up, it becomes immediately apparent that Paul was not even hinting to these Corinthians that he had preached the gospel to them and that they had thereby been born again.
Paul is rather saying this, "By my use of the gospel I have brought you over to my way of life: I have taught you the Scriptures; I have exerted an influence on you as a teacher on his pupils; I have helped to mold your life." This, and only this, is what Paul had done to those Corinthians by preaching the gospel to them. And he had this influence only on those who had previously been born again by the direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit and who were thus receptive to his gospel. This can easily be seen by a study of Acts 18:1-17 which records the founding of the church at Corinth. That the word begotten" bears this meaning will not be disputed by an honest and open-minded student.
In line with this, Kittel, in his Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. I, pp. 665-667, in an article entitled "Begetting as Image of the relationship of Master and Disciple" says, "The use of the terms father and son with reference to the master and disciple may be seen already in 2 Kings 2:12. At the time of Jesus it was customary for the rabbi to call his pupil and the ordinary member of the community 'my son.'"
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index14.htm
Yes, of course, by way of accommodation, a teacher may be viewed as a kind of father. If being "begotten" signifies teaching, then why do Hardshells divorce teaching from the "begetting" of John 3: 1-8 and in nearly all other places in the new testament? They will deny that "begetting" signifies teaching in every passage dealing with new testament "begetting" but not in I Cor. 4: 15? Why does the begetting of I Cor. 4: 15 denote teaching but not in any other places where spiritual begetting is talked about?
Also, consider how Paul demonstrates that he is not using the terms "my little children," or "I have begotten you," to denote the teacher student relationship. "Though you have ten thousand teachers," says Paul, you have not ten thousand "fathers," but one, "for I have begotten you." Clearly Paul is not using "father," or begetter, in the sense of teacher. Paul says your "teachers" are not your "fathers." Thus, the Hardshell explanation is against the text.
What does Paul mean when he says that he had begotten the Corinthians "in Christ"? Does he not mean the same thing that Peter meant when he explained how he had miraculously healed a man? Peter said:
"If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." (Acts 4: 9, 10)
All the credit was given to Jesus for the miracle and yet Jesus did the miracle through Peter! The use of Peter in doing the miracle did not take away from the honor and glory of Christ. "In Christ" means that the success of Paul's preaching was due to the power, providence, and grace of Christ. So Paul testified elsewhere saying, "I have planted...but God gave the increase." (I Cor. 3: 6)
Hardshells believe it is okay to refer to their bible teachers and to those who converted them as "fathers" and spiritual "begetters," but does doing so take away from the honor and glory of Christ in the matter?
We can turn the Hardshell argumentation on the verses speaking about Paul "begetting" sinners on themselves. If "begetting" involves teaching in I Cor. 4: 15 why can it not involve teaching in all the other places in the new testament? And if it involves teaching, why do you describe the regeneration experience as being non-cognitive and on the sub-conscious level?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Gospel - The Means of Grace IV
Born Again By The Gospel Word
Verse 23 of the first Chapter of First Peter teaches the same truth as James 1: 18, that the Christian spiritual birth is "of God" and "through the word." James said that the Father "begat us with the word of truth," and Peter says "being born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God." That "word" through which God effects spiritual rebirth is the same in both instances, being the word of the gospel.
Before we look closely at verse 23, I want us to look at other verses in the context dealing with this birth and salvation.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
Here the subject of the new birth is introduced. Is there anything in these words that opposes Hardshellism's description of it? Yes, there is. Peter says that those begotten are begotten "to" something. Something is the product of this birth. Life is a product of this birth, so had Peter said - "begotten unto life," he would be correct and it would be a statement that Hardshells would accept. Life is indeed the product of this divine "begetting." But, is "life" alone the product or characteristic of it? What does Peter say is also produced in this begetting? "Hope" he says! Is hope created in the begetting work according to the Hardshell understanding of it? No, it is not. But, a man under conviction, and who has not yet believed in Christ, has no hope. So Paul said to the Ephesians that they were "without God" and "without hope" before their conversion to Christ. (Eph. 2: 12) Hope cannot be divorced from faith and understanding. Regeneration produces hope in those who experience it, hope in Christ.
"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (vss. 9-11)
This "salvation of the soul" is what is effected when the soul is "begotten" and infused with hope. To try and make this a salvation that is only temporal represents a refusal to be honest with the text. Does the apostle not define the kind of "salvation"? "Which salvation the prophets testified about," that "salvation" that involves the impartation of divine "grace," that kind that results from the sufferings of Christ. How can Hardshells legitimately deny that this is eternal salvation? Does he not say that it is "received" and that by "faith"? These words deny the Hardshell representation of regeneration.
"...them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." (vs. 12)
Notice that those who preach the gospel do it "with (or through) the Holy Ghost." When the Holy Spirit and his power accompanies preaching sinners are then born again. So we read in the book of Acts, that during such Holy Ghost preaching "the hand of the Lord" accompanied it, resulting in a "great number believing and turning to the Lord." (Acts 11: 21)
Hardshells do not believe that there is power in the gospel, when accompanied by the Holy Spirit and divine power, to raise dead sinners to spiritual life. Yet, Jesus said "my words are spirit and they are life." (John 6: 63) Paul said that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it." (Rom. 1: 16) It saves, it regenerates and converts.
"...who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead..." (vs. 21)
When Hardshells read a verse that says we are born again "of God" or "by Christ," they infer a sovereign irresistible work, a work without the means of the word. But, will they be consistent and argue the same when confronted with these words of Peter who said that we "believe" also "by him"? The truth is, that just as our spiritual birth is "by him" so is our coming to faith and repentance also "by him." As I have shown previously, the work of regeneration is described as being made a believer. (Eph. 1: 19)
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit..." (vs. 22)
Notice that the purification of souls comes through obeying (believing) the truth, the gospel truth, and that this obedience and faith is done "through the Spirit." Now, we know that one is not made a believer apart from the preaching of the gospel per Paul in Romans 10. So, we are made believers by the Spirit's making use of preaching to beget life and faith. What is said of regeneration/new birth in scripture is also said about faith. Compare these two verses.
"They that are in the flesh (not spiritually born) cannot please God." (Rom. 8: 8) "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6) We cannot please God without regeneration and we cannot please God without faith. Faith and regeneration are coupled together because faith, with hope, is created in regeneration at the same time life is generated. Regenerated by faith, purified by obeying the truth.
Notice too the reference to "the truth." This is not a reference to Jesus, though he is "the way, the truth, and the life." But, it is a reference to the gospel.
Paul taught the same in Romans 6: 17, 18.
"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
When were they "made free from sin"? Before their obedience to the gospel? Apart from their faith?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (vs. 23-25)
The Hardshells see how these words, like the words of James 1: 18, teach that the gospel is a means in the birthing of sinners and they go to work on the passage in order to make it say something other than what it plainly says. They will either say that the "word" here is either Jesus Christ or that word that Christ personally speaks to the heart of the dead sinner, on the subconscious level, apart from the gospel, and which makes the soul to live. But, the context will not allow this abnormal usage of the term "word of God" or "word of the Lord."
Throughout the first chapter there is reference to this word, this truth, and it means the divine communication made in the gospel. So, why does it not mean that here? The only reason the Hardshells can give is because it involves means and therefore make "the word" to mean something different than what it denotes in all the verses surrounding verse 23. Bad hermeneutics!
In helping to identify what Peter has in mind when he says "by the word of God which lives and abides forever" all we have to do is to look at the passage in Isaiah that is alluded to by Peter when he says "the word of the Lord endures forever." In looking at the passage in Isaiah 40: 8 we notice how it is the same as "what the mouth of the Lord hath spoken," or to his oracles, and is the same as the "good tidings" or the gospel.
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (2: 2)
I know that the "word" here is not "logos," as in 1: 23, but "rhema," but it still is referring to the gospel.
"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (2: 7-9)
These contextual verses say much that is in opposition to Hardshellism's portrayal of what it means to be "begotten" of God. Since Hardshells divorce faith from regeneration, they cannot see the verse as saying - "unto you which have been regenerated he is precious" - because they deny that regeneration involves imparting love and adoration for Christ. To them a man can be regenerated and yet despise Christ. But, clearly Peter does not divorce faith in Christ from life in Christ. Being made "alive" is all the same as being made a "believer." Further, what does Peter say of those who do not believe and allow Christ? Does he say that they are nevertheless saved and begotten? Or, does he say that they were "appointed" to it, being of those not chosen? When he says "BUT you are a chosen generation," he is contrasting believers with unbelievers. The believers are equated with those who are chosen and those who are unbelievers are equated with those who have not been chosen.
Verse 23 of the first Chapter of First Peter teaches the same truth as James 1: 18, that the Christian spiritual birth is "of God" and "through the word." James said that the Father "begat us with the word of truth," and Peter says "being born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God." That "word" through which God effects spiritual rebirth is the same in both instances, being the word of the gospel.
Before we look closely at verse 23, I want us to look at other verses in the context dealing with this birth and salvation.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
Here the subject of the new birth is introduced. Is there anything in these words that opposes Hardshellism's description of it? Yes, there is. Peter says that those begotten are begotten "to" something. Something is the product of this birth. Life is a product of this birth, so had Peter said - "begotten unto life," he would be correct and it would be a statement that Hardshells would accept. Life is indeed the product of this divine "begetting." But, is "life" alone the product or characteristic of it? What does Peter say is also produced in this begetting? "Hope" he says! Is hope created in the begetting work according to the Hardshell understanding of it? No, it is not. But, a man under conviction, and who has not yet believed in Christ, has no hope. So Paul said to the Ephesians that they were "without God" and "without hope" before their conversion to Christ. (Eph. 2: 12) Hope cannot be divorced from faith and understanding. Regeneration produces hope in those who experience it, hope in Christ.
"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (vss. 9-11)
This "salvation of the soul" is what is effected when the soul is "begotten" and infused with hope. To try and make this a salvation that is only temporal represents a refusal to be honest with the text. Does the apostle not define the kind of "salvation"? "Which salvation the prophets testified about," that "salvation" that involves the impartation of divine "grace," that kind that results from the sufferings of Christ. How can Hardshells legitimately deny that this is eternal salvation? Does he not say that it is "received" and that by "faith"? These words deny the Hardshell representation of regeneration.
"...them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." (vs. 12)
Notice that those who preach the gospel do it "with (or through) the Holy Ghost." When the Holy Spirit and his power accompanies preaching sinners are then born again. So we read in the book of Acts, that during such Holy Ghost preaching "the hand of the Lord" accompanied it, resulting in a "great number believing and turning to the Lord." (Acts 11: 21)
Hardshells do not believe that there is power in the gospel, when accompanied by the Holy Spirit and divine power, to raise dead sinners to spiritual life. Yet, Jesus said "my words are spirit and they are life." (John 6: 63) Paul said that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it." (Rom. 1: 16) It saves, it regenerates and converts.
"...who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead..." (vs. 21)
When Hardshells read a verse that says we are born again "of God" or "by Christ," they infer a sovereign irresistible work, a work without the means of the word. But, will they be consistent and argue the same when confronted with these words of Peter who said that we "believe" also "by him"? The truth is, that just as our spiritual birth is "by him" so is our coming to faith and repentance also "by him." As I have shown previously, the work of regeneration is described as being made a believer. (Eph. 1: 19)
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit..." (vs. 22)
Notice that the purification of souls comes through obeying (believing) the truth, the gospel truth, and that this obedience and faith is done "through the Spirit." Now, we know that one is not made a believer apart from the preaching of the gospel per Paul in Romans 10. So, we are made believers by the Spirit's making use of preaching to beget life and faith. What is said of regeneration/new birth in scripture is also said about faith. Compare these two verses.
"They that are in the flesh (not spiritually born) cannot please God." (Rom. 8: 8) "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6) We cannot please God without regeneration and we cannot please God without faith. Faith and regeneration are coupled together because faith, with hope, is created in regeneration at the same time life is generated. Regenerated by faith, purified by obeying the truth.
Notice too the reference to "the truth." This is not a reference to Jesus, though he is "the way, the truth, and the life." But, it is a reference to the gospel.
Paul taught the same in Romans 6: 17, 18.
"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
When were they "made free from sin"? Before their obedience to the gospel? Apart from their faith?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (vs. 23-25)
The Hardshells see how these words, like the words of James 1: 18, teach that the gospel is a means in the birthing of sinners and they go to work on the passage in order to make it say something other than what it plainly says. They will either say that the "word" here is either Jesus Christ or that word that Christ personally speaks to the heart of the dead sinner, on the subconscious level, apart from the gospel, and which makes the soul to live. But, the context will not allow this abnormal usage of the term "word of God" or "word of the Lord."
Throughout the first chapter there is reference to this word, this truth, and it means the divine communication made in the gospel. So, why does it not mean that here? The only reason the Hardshells can give is because it involves means and therefore make "the word" to mean something different than what it denotes in all the verses surrounding verse 23. Bad hermeneutics!
In helping to identify what Peter has in mind when he says "by the word of God which lives and abides forever" all we have to do is to look at the passage in Isaiah that is alluded to by Peter when he says "the word of the Lord endures forever." In looking at the passage in Isaiah 40: 8 we notice how it is the same as "what the mouth of the Lord hath spoken," or to his oracles, and is the same as the "good tidings" or the gospel.
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (2: 2)
I know that the "word" here is not "logos," as in 1: 23, but "rhema," but it still is referring to the gospel.
"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (2: 7-9)
These contextual verses say much that is in opposition to Hardshellism's portrayal of what it means to be "begotten" of God. Since Hardshells divorce faith from regeneration, they cannot see the verse as saying - "unto you which have been regenerated he is precious" - because they deny that regeneration involves imparting love and adoration for Christ. To them a man can be regenerated and yet despise Christ. But, clearly Peter does not divorce faith in Christ from life in Christ. Being made "alive" is all the same as being made a "believer." Further, what does Peter say of those who do not believe and allow Christ? Does he say that they are nevertheless saved and begotten? Or, does he say that they were "appointed" to it, being of those not chosen? When he says "BUT you are a chosen generation," he is contrasting believers with unbelievers. The believers are equated with those who are chosen and those who are unbelievers are equated with those who have not been chosen.
Jason's 5th Rebuttal
From Jason's latest rebuttal one can observe how short the rebuttal was, how he did not respond to my questions or answer my evidence, historical and scriptural. In this latest rebuttal, Jason not only omits responding to so much of my proofs, but also repeats himself, and omits bringing up any new arguments or proofs. In this latest posting, Jason cited these words of mine.
See here
"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?""
In response Jason wrote:
"The fact that some Primitive Baptists interpret certain Scriptures dealing with obedience in terms of the regeneration experience is a de facto observation of Brother Garrett, having spent time among the Primitive Baptists. I have no doubt that you can find inconsistencies in the beliefs of many individuals. What his observations reveal is that some modern Primitive Baptists would rather place certain texts in a context of regeneration than admit that some degree of gospel conversion is the natural extension of sonship in our gospel era, which I believe can be inferred from 2 Cor. 4:6 and Hebrews 5:9."
Jason is taking a view that most Hardshells will not accept, in his divorcing "obedience" from the experience of regeneration. Most Hardshells say that the dead sinner obeys the call to life when the Lord speaks to him in the work of regeneration. They typically interpret "my sheep hear (obey) my voice" as talking about the experience of regeneration. They typically, and correctly, say that this obedience is passive obedience, effectual, the kind of obedience Lazarus rendered when he was ordered to come forth from the dead.
II Cor. 4: 6 and Hebrews 5: 9 only say that some of God's born again people will believe in Jesus and obey the gospel? Again, Jason needs to deal with the passages I brought up that say that ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed. Why has he not responded to my proofs on this?
It is interesting how Jason continues to confess that Hardshells are inconsistent in how they preach the experience of regeneration. I find this ironic because he argued that the Hardshell controversy created "clarity" on the subject, and that the Hardshells are the beneficiaries of that new found "clarity." If they are so clear on the subject, why all the inconsistencies and contradictions?
Jason wrote:
"The failure to acknowledge that the Scripture plainly reveals that discipleship is consistent with sonship in this gospel era, and that some degree of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship under the sound of the gospel is representative where some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years. If Brother Garrett would limit his remarks to this as I have stated it, I should have no quarrel with him."
Jason thinks he is giving the sense of the passages on the damnation of all gospel rejecters by affirming that those passages simply teach that the regenerated ones will only likely believe the gospel when they hear, not that they will definitely. Yet, the verses I have introduced do not say that only some of the saved believed the gospel, but that they all did.
Jason then cites these words of mine:
"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..."
He then responds by saying:
"Brother Garrett has misunderstood my position. In order to be "firstfruits of his creatures", the early disciples must have accepted the engrafted Logos (by which they were born again in verse 18), which accompanies the continuing work of sanctification unto glorification. The volitional aspect of verse 18 is contained in the designation of these early believers as firstfruits. This is the manner in which verse 18 and 21 indicate that conversion to the gospel and accepting the Logos that has previously been engrafted in regeneration is the natural reaction of sons."
To become the "first fruit of his creatures" involves actual creation! It means to become his creatures, new creatures, his children. The use of "firstfruits" does not negate the fact that the apostle affirms that God has willed that we be "begotten" and this is all the same as being newly created. Certainly the first converts to Christ are firstfruits. Being born again and created in Christ is "with the word of truth." God ordained that some become spiritual "creatures," some before others.
Jason wrote:
"I was attempting to show in my original posting of, "Gospel Conversion", that even in Brother Garrett's system of understanding these texts, he would have to infer a volitional context of gospel conversion to escape Arminianism by James 1:21. Evidently he escapes Arminianism in James 1:21 by claiming that an effectual call of God by the Spirit determines that sons accept the preached gospel."
I do infer a volitional context in those verses. How could I not? Faith involves a recognition and an act of the mind and will. But, I do not divorce the activity of the heart and mind in the work of regeneration. In fact, in scripture, regeneration is often defined in terms of activity! Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one? Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect? Did we not look at those new covenant promises and see how the heart, mind, and understanding were the objects of God's regenerating work?
Who is Arminian on James 1: 21? Jason implies that my view is "Arminian," but ironically, it is his view of the passage that is Arminianism! This reminds me of the battles that Elder Watson and Elder Clark had with Jason's kind of Hardshell. Watson said it was the tactic of the "ultraist" faction (the faction that denied means in regeneration and did not exhort the lost) to call those who believed in means and gave exhortations to the lost to mislabel them as "Arminian." Clark argued that it was Jason's kind of thinking that was the actual "Arminian." Wrote Elder Clark:
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it (Men like Jason and neo Hardshells - SG) are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Those Primitive Baptists today who interpret the verses about God making his people willing by his power, or working in them to will and choose, as dealing with regeneration, are in agreement with their forefathers. To deny that these verses refer to a sovereign efficacious work of God, as the work of regeneration is acknowledged to be, is to manifest Arminianism. Jason's view about conversion is pure Arminianism, and he knows it, and yet he thinks my position, which affirms means in James 1, that the will acts in the experience of regeneration, and that the salvation of the passage is eternal, is "Arminian"! Wonder of wonders! Does Jason deny that God causes men to will and to choose? Will Jason admit it? Or will he deny it and take the Arminian "free will" defense? Well, don't be curious any longer! Here is his denial and his Arminian defense!
Jason wrote:
"However, this would seem to deny the volitional aspect of James 1:21. If the acceptation of verse 21 was effected by the Spirit irresistably (sic), that would categorically preclude man's volition as it relates to the cause of the accepting. This is counter-intuitive to the natural reading of this text; he explains away what intuitively seems to be the volitional acts of men in this text. If they accept the engrafted word irresistably, how is man truly volitional in his acceptance of it? He may want to argue that men are uncoerced in their acceptance, but how are they truly uncoerced if they accept the word by force of grace that is irresistable?"
Jason's logic has produced this premise - "no one accepts the truth of the gospel by the Spirit irresistibly." Is this not what the "Arminians" say? Also, did Paul not accept the truth of the gospel this way in his experience? Was he not regenerated and converted at the same time? Did Paul not say his conversion was a "pattern" to others? Do you not say that John 3: 8 teaches that all are regenerated precisely in the same manner? Then should not all be regenerated and converted at the same time as was Paul? Where is Jason's view taught in scripture? Do the scriptures not rather constantly show that the regeneration experience involved the action of the heart, mind, conscience, and will?
See here
"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?""
In response Jason wrote:
"The fact that some Primitive Baptists interpret certain Scriptures dealing with obedience in terms of the regeneration experience is a de facto observation of Brother Garrett, having spent time among the Primitive Baptists. I have no doubt that you can find inconsistencies in the beliefs of many individuals. What his observations reveal is that some modern Primitive Baptists would rather place certain texts in a context of regeneration than admit that some degree of gospel conversion is the natural extension of sonship in our gospel era, which I believe can be inferred from 2 Cor. 4:6 and Hebrews 5:9."
Jason is taking a view that most Hardshells will not accept, in his divorcing "obedience" from the experience of regeneration. Most Hardshells say that the dead sinner obeys the call to life when the Lord speaks to him in the work of regeneration. They typically interpret "my sheep hear (obey) my voice" as talking about the experience of regeneration. They typically, and correctly, say that this obedience is passive obedience, effectual, the kind of obedience Lazarus rendered when he was ordered to come forth from the dead.
II Cor. 4: 6 and Hebrews 5: 9 only say that some of God's born again people will believe in Jesus and obey the gospel? Again, Jason needs to deal with the passages I brought up that say that ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed. Why has he not responded to my proofs on this?
It is interesting how Jason continues to confess that Hardshells are inconsistent in how they preach the experience of regeneration. I find this ironic because he argued that the Hardshell controversy created "clarity" on the subject, and that the Hardshells are the beneficiaries of that new found "clarity." If they are so clear on the subject, why all the inconsistencies and contradictions?
Jason wrote:
"The failure to acknowledge that the Scripture plainly reveals that discipleship is consistent with sonship in this gospel era, and that some degree of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship under the sound of the gospel is representative where some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years. If Brother Garrett would limit his remarks to this as I have stated it, I should have no quarrel with him."
Jason thinks he is giving the sense of the passages on the damnation of all gospel rejecters by affirming that those passages simply teach that the regenerated ones will only likely believe the gospel when they hear, not that they will definitely. Yet, the verses I have introduced do not say that only some of the saved believed the gospel, but that they all did.
Jason then cites these words of mine:
"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..."
He then responds by saying:
"Brother Garrett has misunderstood my position. In order to be "firstfruits of his creatures", the early disciples must have accepted the engrafted Logos (by which they were born again in verse 18), which accompanies the continuing work of sanctification unto glorification. The volitional aspect of verse 18 is contained in the designation of these early believers as firstfruits. This is the manner in which verse 18 and 21 indicate that conversion to the gospel and accepting the Logos that has previously been engrafted in regeneration is the natural reaction of sons."
To become the "first fruit of his creatures" involves actual creation! It means to become his creatures, new creatures, his children. The use of "firstfruits" does not negate the fact that the apostle affirms that God has willed that we be "begotten" and this is all the same as being newly created. Certainly the first converts to Christ are firstfruits. Being born again and created in Christ is "with the word of truth." God ordained that some become spiritual "creatures," some before others.
Jason wrote:
"I was attempting to show in my original posting of, "Gospel Conversion", that even in Brother Garrett's system of understanding these texts, he would have to infer a volitional context of gospel conversion to escape Arminianism by James 1:21. Evidently he escapes Arminianism in James 1:21 by claiming that an effectual call of God by the Spirit determines that sons accept the preached gospel."
I do infer a volitional context in those verses. How could I not? Faith involves a recognition and an act of the mind and will. But, I do not divorce the activity of the heart and mind in the work of regeneration. In fact, in scripture, regeneration is often defined in terms of activity! Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one? Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect? Did we not look at those new covenant promises and see how the heart, mind, and understanding were the objects of God's regenerating work?
Who is Arminian on James 1: 21? Jason implies that my view is "Arminian," but ironically, it is his view of the passage that is Arminianism! This reminds me of the battles that Elder Watson and Elder Clark had with Jason's kind of Hardshell. Watson said it was the tactic of the "ultraist" faction (the faction that denied means in regeneration and did not exhort the lost) to call those who believed in means and gave exhortations to the lost to mislabel them as "Arminian." Clark argued that it was Jason's kind of thinking that was the actual "Arminian." Wrote Elder Clark:
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it (Men like Jason and neo Hardshells - SG) are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Those Primitive Baptists today who interpret the verses about God making his people willing by his power, or working in them to will and choose, as dealing with regeneration, are in agreement with their forefathers. To deny that these verses refer to a sovereign efficacious work of God, as the work of regeneration is acknowledged to be, is to manifest Arminianism. Jason's view about conversion is pure Arminianism, and he knows it, and yet he thinks my position, which affirms means in James 1, that the will acts in the experience of regeneration, and that the salvation of the passage is eternal, is "Arminian"! Wonder of wonders! Does Jason deny that God causes men to will and to choose? Will Jason admit it? Or will he deny it and take the Arminian "free will" defense? Well, don't be curious any longer! Here is his denial and his Arminian defense!
Jason wrote:
"However, this would seem to deny the volitional aspect of James 1:21. If the acceptation of verse 21 was effected by the Spirit irresistably (sic), that would categorically preclude man's volition as it relates to the cause of the accepting. This is counter-intuitive to the natural reading of this text; he explains away what intuitively seems to be the volitional acts of men in this text. If they accept the engrafted word irresistably, how is man truly volitional in his acceptance of it? He may want to argue that men are uncoerced in their acceptance, but how are they truly uncoerced if they accept the word by force of grace that is irresistable?"
Jason's logic has produced this premise - "no one accepts the truth of the gospel by the Spirit irresistibly." Is this not what the "Arminians" say? Also, did Paul not accept the truth of the gospel this way in his experience? Was he not regenerated and converted at the same time? Did Paul not say his conversion was a "pattern" to others? Do you not say that John 3: 8 teaches that all are regenerated precisely in the same manner? Then should not all be regenerated and converted at the same time as was Paul? Where is Jason's view taught in scripture? Do the scriptures not rather constantly show that the regeneration experience involved the action of the heart, mind, conscience, and will?
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Gospel - The Means of Grace III
Begotten Through Gospel Truth
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word (logos) of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures...Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted (implanted) word (logos), which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word (logos), and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1: 18-22)
These words of the apostle destroy the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" view of regeneration/new birth. God begets, gives birth to, sinners and he does this via an instrument, through "the word of truth." Hardshells, because they will not accept any verse that destroys their premise of "no means regeneration," and because they will not give up the unscriptural premise, must twist and distort these words of the apostle and affirm that they are not talking about being "born again" that Jesus talked about in John 3. They affirm that the new birth that Jesus talked about, with Nicodemus, is accomplished without the means of gospel truth, and so, when they read these words in James, will not affirm that they are talking about the same experience. There is, of course, nothing in the context, either of James, or of the scriptures in general, to warrant affirming that James is not talking about the same "begetting" or "birth" that Jesus talked about in John 3.
Jason, our Hardshell apologist, with whom I have been debating the past week, takes the traditional Hardshell view that the "word of truth" is a reference to Jesus who is called, in several places in the writings of the apostle John, the "word of God." Those who take this view interpret the "begetting" of James as being the same as talked about by Jesus in John 3. But, they say, the "word of truth" is Jesus and so James is saying "of his own will begat he us with Jesus." Others believe that the "word of truth" is the gospel, but make the "begetting" not to be regeneration, or being "born again" per John 3, not a sovereign efficacious work of God which all the elect experience, but a "conversion" experience, or "time salvation," what is not necessary for being eternally saved.
Jason was inconsistent on this passage, for he affirmed that the "word of truth" was Jesus and that the experience was conversion, and not regeneration. Yet, if he excludes the gospel, why can he not make it regeneration?
An honest bible interpreter will want to know what James had in mind when he wrote his inspired words. Was he talking about the new birth or to an optional post regeneration work of "conversion"?
The times in scripture where Jesus is called, by name and title, "The Word of God," it is only by the apostle John. There is no clear text where any other writer of scripture called Jesus by this title. Thus, the burden of proof is on Jason and the Hardshells to show, from the context, that James is using the Johannine title of Jesus. The apostle John's reference to the Lord Jesus by this title is couched in language and a context where it is clear that Jesus is meant. In John's gospel, chapter one, Jesus is called "The Word," and we know this by what John said about it. He said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He also said, "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory." All this clearly identifies "the Word" as being a person, to Jesus, the Son of God. Also, in I John 5: 7, where John says "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," the language clearly identifies "the Word" as being Jesus. So too in the Book of Revelation, the title of "Word of God" is in a context where there is no doubt that it is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Rev. 19: 13)
Where in the context or language of James 1: 18 is there any indication that James is alluding to Jesus Christ? The burden of proof is on the Hardshells to prove it. We can say for sure that the only apostle to clearly use "the Word" as a reference to the person of Christ was John and therefore to say that James is using it as such would contradict its strictly Johannine usage. Also, the places where Jesus is called the "Word of God" in scripture have a context that clearly establishes it as such. But, the language of James has nothing in the context to indicate that he is, like John, talking about Jesus Christ. Besides all this, Jesus, in the Johannine instances, is called simply "the Word" or "the Word of God," never "the word of truth." This is further evidence that James is not referring to Jesus as "the Word of God."
James mentions God's "word" in other verses in his epistle. Do they likewise refer to Jesus? Or, is James 1: 18 the only place? If the only place, why? Notice these verses in the context of verse 18 that clearly has reference to gospel truth.
Several are in bold in the opening words of James, cited at the heading of this posting. This is "the word" that they are to "receive with meekness," and to hear and obey. Most Hardshells will acknowledge that "the word" in these verses refer to new testament teaching, or to the gospel. But doing so makes them inconsistent in making "the word" of verse 18 to be different from "the word" in the same context.
Finally, it is not properly the language of scripture to say that the Father begets through Jesus. Rather, this begetting is said to be done either "through the Spirit" or "through the word," but not "through Jesus." True, it is done for Jesus sake, on the basis of what he has done, but it is not typical of the bible writers to say the Father begets through the Son.
The normal, common, or usual usage of "the word of God," whether "logos" or "rhema," in scripture, denotes divine communication of truth, often to the written oracles. It's abnormal, rare, and unusual usage is when it refers to Jesus Christ. The reference "word of God" is used hundreds of times in scripture, but only a half dozen of times does it refer to Jesus Christ. It is a rule of biblical interpretation to take words in their normal sense unless context or common sense dictates otherwise. Applying this rule to James 1: 18 means that "the word of truth" refers to the biblical revelation and not to Jesus Christ. The burden of proof is on the Hardshells to give evidence and reason for their abnormal interpretation of the passage.
Now let us look at the normal use of the term "begotten" (or to one of its forms) in scripture.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1: 12, 13)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3: 3-8)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23)
"If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." (I John 2: 29)
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9)
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." (I John 4: 7)
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." (I John 5: 1)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4)
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 58)
"For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15)
"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." (Philemon 1: 10)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
I contend that all these verses are talking about the same "begetting," the same "birth." Hardshells will admit that they are all talking about regeneration, except for the ones that mention the word of God as a means, in which case, some Hardshells will try to make such birth not to be regeneration. The majority view does however interpret these verses as talking about regeneration, but will say that both James and Peter, when speaking of being born again "by the word of truth" or "word of God," are talking about Jesus. But, the context of both passages show that Jesus is not intended by the term.
Here is what the Old Baptist preacher, Dr. John Gill, said about James 1: 18 (emphasis mine - SG):
"The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration; and he pitches upon a very proper and pertinent one, since this is the first gift of grace God bestows upon his people openly, and in their own persons; and is what involves other gifts, and prepares and makes meet for the gift of eternal life; and therefore may well be reckoned a "good" one, and it is also a "perfect one"; it is done at once; there are no degrees in it, as in sanctification; a man is born again, at once, and is born a perfect new man in all his parts; no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another: and this comes from above; it is called a being born from above, in John 3:3 as the words there may be rendered..."
"...with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see Eph 1:13 and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers. Faith, and every other grace in regeneration, and even the Spirit himself, the Regenerator, come this way: and the end is..."
Gill emphatically denies that "the word of truth" is a reference to Jesus and so he was no supporter of Hardshell hermeneutics.
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word (logos) of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures...Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted (implanted) word (logos), which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word (logos), and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1: 18-22)
These words of the apostle destroy the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" view of regeneration/new birth. God begets, gives birth to, sinners and he does this via an instrument, through "the word of truth." Hardshells, because they will not accept any verse that destroys their premise of "no means regeneration," and because they will not give up the unscriptural premise, must twist and distort these words of the apostle and affirm that they are not talking about being "born again" that Jesus talked about in John 3. They affirm that the new birth that Jesus talked about, with Nicodemus, is accomplished without the means of gospel truth, and so, when they read these words in James, will not affirm that they are talking about the same experience. There is, of course, nothing in the context, either of James, or of the scriptures in general, to warrant affirming that James is not talking about the same "begetting" or "birth" that Jesus talked about in John 3.
Jason, our Hardshell apologist, with whom I have been debating the past week, takes the traditional Hardshell view that the "word of truth" is a reference to Jesus who is called, in several places in the writings of the apostle John, the "word of God." Those who take this view interpret the "begetting" of James as being the same as talked about by Jesus in John 3. But, they say, the "word of truth" is Jesus and so James is saying "of his own will begat he us with Jesus." Others believe that the "word of truth" is the gospel, but make the "begetting" not to be regeneration, or being "born again" per John 3, not a sovereign efficacious work of God which all the elect experience, but a "conversion" experience, or "time salvation," what is not necessary for being eternally saved.
Jason was inconsistent on this passage, for he affirmed that the "word of truth" was Jesus and that the experience was conversion, and not regeneration. Yet, if he excludes the gospel, why can he not make it regeneration?
An honest bible interpreter will want to know what James had in mind when he wrote his inspired words. Was he talking about the new birth or to an optional post regeneration work of "conversion"?
The times in scripture where Jesus is called, by name and title, "The Word of God," it is only by the apostle John. There is no clear text where any other writer of scripture called Jesus by this title. Thus, the burden of proof is on Jason and the Hardshells to show, from the context, that James is using the Johannine title of Jesus. The apostle John's reference to the Lord Jesus by this title is couched in language and a context where it is clear that Jesus is meant. In John's gospel, chapter one, Jesus is called "The Word," and we know this by what John said about it. He said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He also said, "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory." All this clearly identifies "the Word" as being a person, to Jesus, the Son of God. Also, in I John 5: 7, where John says "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," the language clearly identifies "the Word" as being Jesus. So too in the Book of Revelation, the title of "Word of God" is in a context where there is no doubt that it is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Rev. 19: 13)
Where in the context or language of James 1: 18 is there any indication that James is alluding to Jesus Christ? The burden of proof is on the Hardshells to prove it. We can say for sure that the only apostle to clearly use "the Word" as a reference to the person of Christ was John and therefore to say that James is using it as such would contradict its strictly Johannine usage. Also, the places where Jesus is called the "Word of God" in scripture have a context that clearly establishes it as such. But, the language of James has nothing in the context to indicate that he is, like John, talking about Jesus Christ. Besides all this, Jesus, in the Johannine instances, is called simply "the Word" or "the Word of God," never "the word of truth." This is further evidence that James is not referring to Jesus as "the Word of God."
James mentions God's "word" in other verses in his epistle. Do they likewise refer to Jesus? Or, is James 1: 18 the only place? If the only place, why? Notice these verses in the context of verse 18 that clearly has reference to gospel truth.
Several are in bold in the opening words of James, cited at the heading of this posting. This is "the word" that they are to "receive with meekness," and to hear and obey. Most Hardshells will acknowledge that "the word" in these verses refer to new testament teaching, or to the gospel. But doing so makes them inconsistent in making "the word" of verse 18 to be different from "the word" in the same context.
Finally, it is not properly the language of scripture to say that the Father begets through Jesus. Rather, this begetting is said to be done either "through the Spirit" or "through the word," but not "through Jesus." True, it is done for Jesus sake, on the basis of what he has done, but it is not typical of the bible writers to say the Father begets through the Son.
The normal, common, or usual usage of "the word of God," whether "logos" or "rhema," in scripture, denotes divine communication of truth, often to the written oracles. It's abnormal, rare, and unusual usage is when it refers to Jesus Christ. The reference "word of God" is used hundreds of times in scripture, but only a half dozen of times does it refer to Jesus Christ. It is a rule of biblical interpretation to take words in their normal sense unless context or common sense dictates otherwise. Applying this rule to James 1: 18 means that "the word of truth" refers to the biblical revelation and not to Jesus Christ. The burden of proof is on the Hardshells to give evidence and reason for their abnormal interpretation of the passage.
Now let us look at the normal use of the term "begotten" (or to one of its forms) in scripture.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1: 12, 13)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3: 3-8)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23)
"If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." (I John 2: 29)
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9)
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." (I John 4: 7)
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." (I John 5: 1)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4)
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 58)
"For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15)
"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." (Philemon 1: 10)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
I contend that all these verses are talking about the same "begetting," the same "birth." Hardshells will admit that they are all talking about regeneration, except for the ones that mention the word of God as a means, in which case, some Hardshells will try to make such birth not to be regeneration. The majority view does however interpret these verses as talking about regeneration, but will say that both James and Peter, when speaking of being born again "by the word of truth" or "word of God," are talking about Jesus. But, the context of both passages show that Jesus is not intended by the term.
Here is what the Old Baptist preacher, Dr. John Gill, said about James 1: 18 (emphasis mine - SG):
"The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration; and he pitches upon a very proper and pertinent one, since this is the first gift of grace God bestows upon his people openly, and in their own persons; and is what involves other gifts, and prepares and makes meet for the gift of eternal life; and therefore may well be reckoned a "good" one, and it is also a "perfect one"; it is done at once; there are no degrees in it, as in sanctification; a man is born again, at once, and is born a perfect new man in all his parts; no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another: and this comes from above; it is called a being born from above, in John 3:3 as the words there may be rendered..."
"...with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see Eph 1:13 and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers. Faith, and every other grace in regeneration, and even the Spirit himself, the Regenerator, come this way: and the end is..."
Gill emphatically denies that "the word of truth" is a reference to Jesus and so he was no supporter of Hardshell hermeneutics.
The Gospel - The Means of Grace II
The Life Giving Spirit (Gospel)
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Cor. 3: 6)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"The law is "the letter", not merely because written in letters, for so likewise is the Gospel; but because it is a mere letter, hereby showing what is to be done or avoided, without any efficacy in it, or communicating any to enable persons to obey its commands, to give life to its observers, or either to sanctify or justify any who are under it, or of the works of it; it is a mere letter, as observed by an unregenerate man, who only regards the externals of it, being unacquainted with its spirituality. The Gospel is "the spirit"; see Joh 6:63 it contains spiritual things, and not things merely natural, moral, and civil, as does the law, but spiritual blessings and promises; it penetrates into the spirit and soul of man, and comes from, and is attended with the Spirit of God."
"...but the Gospel is the spirit, which giveth life; it is a means in the hand of the Spirit of God, of quickening dead sinners, of healing the deadly wounds of sin, of showing the way of life by Christ, and of working faith in the soul, to look to him, and live upon him; it affords food for the support of the spiritual life, and revives souls under the most drooping circumstances."
I agree with Gill that Paul is contrasting the law with the gospel in this chapter, or comparing the old covenant with the new. The "spirit" of the letter is the gospel.
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Cor. 3: 6)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"The law is "the letter", not merely because written in letters, for so likewise is the Gospel; but because it is a mere letter, hereby showing what is to be done or avoided, without any efficacy in it, or communicating any to enable persons to obey its commands, to give life to its observers, or either to sanctify or justify any who are under it, or of the works of it; it is a mere letter, as observed by an unregenerate man, who only regards the externals of it, being unacquainted with its spirituality. The Gospel is "the spirit"; see Joh 6:63 it contains spiritual things, and not things merely natural, moral, and civil, as does the law, but spiritual blessings and promises; it penetrates into the spirit and soul of man, and comes from, and is attended with the Spirit of God."
"...but the Gospel is the spirit, which giveth life; it is a means in the hand of the Spirit of God, of quickening dead sinners, of healing the deadly wounds of sin, of showing the way of life by Christ, and of working faith in the soul, to look to him, and live upon him; it affords food for the support of the spiritual life, and revives souls under the most drooping circumstances."
I agree with Gill that Paul is contrasting the law with the gospel in this chapter, or comparing the old covenant with the new. The "spirit" of the letter is the gospel.
The Gospel - The Means of Grace I
Aroma of Life unto Life
"But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God." (II Cor. 2: 14-16 NIV)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...by 'his knowledge' is meant, either the knowledge of God, who causes the ministers of the Gospel to triumph; or the knowledge of Christ, in whom they triumph; or rather of both, of the knowledge of God in Christ; and designs the Gospel, which is the means thereof..." (Commentary)
"...but that the Gospel and the ministers of that, should be the savour of death unto death, may seem strange, but so it is. These preach up salvation by the death of Christ, and so are the sweet savour of the death of Christ; but this being despised and rejected by the sons of men, is "unto the death", and issues in the eternal death of the despisers and rejecters of it..."
"The Gospel preached by Christ's faithful ministers is the means of quickening souls, and giving them "spiritual life"; and of supporting and maintaining that life, and of nourishing them up unto "eternal life"; and so becomes "the savour of life" spiritual, "unto life" eternal."
"But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God." (II Cor. 2: 14-16 NIV)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...by 'his knowledge' is meant, either the knowledge of God, who causes the ministers of the Gospel to triumph; or the knowledge of Christ, in whom they triumph; or rather of both, of the knowledge of God in Christ; and designs the Gospel, which is the means thereof..." (Commentary)
"...but that the Gospel and the ministers of that, should be the savour of death unto death, may seem strange, but so it is. These preach up salvation by the death of Christ, and so are the sweet savour of the death of Christ; but this being despised and rejected by the sons of men, is "unto the death", and issues in the eternal death of the despisers and rejecters of it..."
"The Gospel preached by Christ's faithful ministers is the means of quickening souls, and giving them "spiritual life"; and of supporting and maintaining that life, and of nourishing them up unto "eternal life"; and so becomes "the savour of life" spiritual, "unto life" eternal."
Learned of the Father
"Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6: 45)
Jason, our Hardshell apologist, attempted to define the word "learned" in a strange and novel way, affirming that sinners receive no knowledge or conviction of truth, in this learning, but that it simply means their nature is changed, a change they do not even know they have experienced. The Greek word for "learned" is manthanō and means "to learn, be apprised," It means "to increase one's knowledge, to be increased in knowledge." To say that this "learning" is not cognitive or that it does not involve conscious knowledge is ludicrous.
One cannot divorce the mind being changed in the new birth. Things change in the thinking and behavior of the one born of the Spirit. Paul taught this when he said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5: 17)
Many verses of scripture connect the regeneration experience with a coming to faith, to being convinced of gospel truth, to a receiving of it. The scriptures connect enlightenment and revelation as part of this experience, but if, as Jason teaches, there is nothing of truth learned in regeneration, then enlightenment, learning, faith, and revelation, can have no part of it. But, without all this, is not his "regeneration" experience a "hollow log" experience?
"All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." (Luke 10: 22)
This verse is interpreted by many Hardshells as being a sovereign, effectual, work of God and have traditionally applied it to regeneration. But, applying it to regeneration is problematic for the Hardshells, because they do not believe that regeneration gives knowledge of and faith in Jesus! But, if they make it conversion, then how can they affirm that it is not a sovereign, effectual, work of God as regeneration?
Today's Hardshells do not believe that regeneration brings a person to know God, the one true God, who he is, and to know Christ. They will often be found interpreting verses connecting coming to "know" God with the work of regeneration and yet argue that regeneration teaches a man nothing about truth or the gospel. Can a person know God and not know that he knows him? Can I know someone and not know that I know him?
Jesus, in speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit and his new covenant work of applying the benefits of Christ's atonement and redemption, said: "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (John 16: 8)
Will Jason apply this work of the Holy Spirit to regeneration or to conversion? If he applies it to either, using his definitions and descriptions of each, he has problems, much like he had on James 1: 18, applying it either way. If regeneration is the work described as "reproving" (convincing or convicting) the world of sin, then the work of regeneration is cognitive, for people are not convinced apart from cognition. Also, the Holy Spirit does not merely convict of sin, but convicts of the gospel, convicts the sinner about "righteousness" and "judgment." But, all this involves conviction, faith, and an enlightened understanding.
If Jason makes this work conversion, he has the problem of dealing with his own prior argumentation regarding the Spirit working apart from means. No means are mentioned in this work of the Spirit in convincing men. Yet, Jason, if he applies it to the work of conversion, will agree that the Spirit uses means, even though none are specifically mentioned in the words of Jesus. So, if means can be implied in the work of the Spirit in convicting the world, so too can means be implied in the work of the Spirit (John 3) in begetting sinners.
Jason, our Hardshell apologist, attempted to define the word "learned" in a strange and novel way, affirming that sinners receive no knowledge or conviction of truth, in this learning, but that it simply means their nature is changed, a change they do not even know they have experienced. The Greek word for "learned" is manthanō and means "to learn, be apprised," It means "to increase one's knowledge, to be increased in knowledge." To say that this "learning" is not cognitive or that it does not involve conscious knowledge is ludicrous.
One cannot divorce the mind being changed in the new birth. Things change in the thinking and behavior of the one born of the Spirit. Paul taught this when he said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5: 17)
Many verses of scripture connect the regeneration experience with a coming to faith, to being convinced of gospel truth, to a receiving of it. The scriptures connect enlightenment and revelation as part of this experience, but if, as Jason teaches, there is nothing of truth learned in regeneration, then enlightenment, learning, faith, and revelation, can have no part of it. But, without all this, is not his "regeneration" experience a "hollow log" experience?
"All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." (Luke 10: 22)
This verse is interpreted by many Hardshells as being a sovereign, effectual, work of God and have traditionally applied it to regeneration. But, applying it to regeneration is problematic for the Hardshells, because they do not believe that regeneration gives knowledge of and faith in Jesus! But, if they make it conversion, then how can they affirm that it is not a sovereign, effectual, work of God as regeneration?
Today's Hardshells do not believe that regeneration brings a person to know God, the one true God, who he is, and to know Christ. They will often be found interpreting verses connecting coming to "know" God with the work of regeneration and yet argue that regeneration teaches a man nothing about truth or the gospel. Can a person know God and not know that he knows him? Can I know someone and not know that I know him?
Jesus, in speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit and his new covenant work of applying the benefits of Christ's atonement and redemption, said: "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (John 16: 8)
Will Jason apply this work of the Holy Spirit to regeneration or to conversion? If he applies it to either, using his definitions and descriptions of each, he has problems, much like he had on James 1: 18, applying it either way. If regeneration is the work described as "reproving" (convincing or convicting) the world of sin, then the work of regeneration is cognitive, for people are not convinced apart from cognition. Also, the Holy Spirit does not merely convict of sin, but convicts of the gospel, convicts the sinner about "righteousness" and "judgment." But, all this involves conviction, faith, and an enlightened understanding.
If Jason makes this work conversion, he has the problem of dealing with his own prior argumentation regarding the Spirit working apart from means. No means are mentioned in this work of the Spirit in convincing men. Yet, Jason, if he applies it to the work of conversion, will agree that the Spirit uses means, even though none are specifically mentioned in the words of Jesus. So, if means can be implied in the work of the Spirit in convicting the world, so too can means be implied in the work of the Spirit (John 3) in begetting sinners.
Jason's 4th Rebuttal
Most of what Jason wrote in this rebuttal posting was repetition.
See here
Jason wrote:
"But Brother Garrett believes that regeneration is synonymous with conversion - that it "refers to the same singular experience". Beebe and Trott did not advocate this, as they distinguished between the two. Now, they did believe that all the elect would be converted, but my original point was that they did not believe in means for regeneration."
Certainly I disagree with Beebe and Trott making the new birth different from regeneration, but who is closer to the primitive teaching of the Baptists? Jason's or the first Hardshells? I agree with the first Hardshells that means are involved in eternal salvation, that one must be converted to be saved in heaven. I can sympathize much more with the view of the first Hardshells than with today's Hardshells. Who, at the time of Beebe and Trott, publicly disagreed with them? How can Jason legitimately trace his church lineage through the founding fathers of Hardshellism?
Jason wrote:
"While Primitive Baptists today would reject the view that the effectual call of God extends to conversion, as John Gill even entertains the volitional nature of gospel conversion when he states, "then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe..." (not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe), they would agree with the basic distinction between sonship and discipleship in Beebe and Trott."
We already know that Jason rejects the views of the first Hardshells and yet claims to be "primitive." We already know which view is closer to the truth of scripture and to the old confessions. Beebe's view is closer to the truth and to the primitive faith of Baptists than are Jason's and his neo-Hardshells.
Jason said - "not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe." Their regenerate nature does not cause them to believe in the one true God and in Jesus! How anti scripture is this teaching! I guess they are not determined to overcome either? Not determined by their nature to persevere? I guess God's giving them a new heart and spirit does not, after all, "cause" the regenerate ones to "walk" in his word? The apostle John believed that the presence of the divine nature and seed would universally cause the regenerate ones to "overcome." (I John 5: 4)
Jesus connected regeneration with discipleship when he said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me."
Jason wrote:
"The "redefinition" of Beebe I spoke of was linguistic - in making regeneration distinct from being "born again". The use of the term "born again" as distinct from the term "regeneration" is a language distinction that neither Brother Garrett or modern Primitive Baptists make. Modern PBs (Primitive Baptists) make such a distinction in principle, though they disagree with necessitating the latter stage, and they believe, like Beebe and Trott, that this latter stage of discipleship is brought about by means of the preached gospel."
Much of this is repetition, hash and rehash. He retorts to minimizing the teaching of Beebe by saying his views were merely "linguistic." Merely meaningless rhetoric!
Jason wrote:
"Brother Garrett was confusing in his argument of this post because he failed to note that it was Beebe's doctrine of God's absolute predestination of all things that separated Beebe from mainstream PBs, not a doctrine of means per se."
Beebe's view about predestination, and the sovereign efficacious work of God in bringing people to the birth (conversion) experience, was not different from what was the "mainstream" view of the first Hardshells. The Hardshells, in the time of Beebe, believed in the absolute predestination of all things, as I also do. They believed that being made a gospel believer was not "conditional" or dependent upon the creature, as the Arminians teach. The division over this issue, in the late 19th century, had several issues involved, not one. It did not only deal with the decrees of God, free will, second causes, etc., but also with whether the conversion experience was the sovereign work of God as was the regeneration experience. It also dealt with the issue of perseverance. Today's Hardshell views did not gain the ascendency till the end of the 19th century.
Jason wrote:
"The texts he references do not indicate that the Scripture equates conversion with the new birth. In fact he seems to fail to realize that the context of Matt. 18:3 is the disciples who were presumably already born again. Jesus tells the disciples that unless they are converted and become as the little child, they shall not enter the kingdom of God."
This words of Jesus were addressed to people who followed him around and who were listening to his teachings. The word "disciple" does not always denote a committed or believing follower, but only someone who is learning the message. Besides, Jason has already acknowledged that the word "convert" may apply to the regeneration experience. We both agree that the word "convert" may denote that change, like sanctification, that progressively occurs in the life of the believer.
Jason wrote:
"Acts 3:19's use of converted is consistent with gospel conversion, not regeneration, as this is what these Jews were called to acknowledge. Repentance and conversion to the gospel accompanies eternal salvation and the forgiveness or blotting out of sin - which gospel it is the nature of the regenerate to accept, as it draws the root trust in God imparted in regeneration."
I have alread made rebuttal to the assertion of Jason about Acts 3: 19 being a command to only regenerate people respecting being converted and pardoned. Perhaps I will have more to say about this verse in future postings.
Now, I have answered all the rebuttal postings of my Hardshell apologist. After he makes more, I will be happy to reply to them. I also plan to make a post soon where we look at the leading passages discussed in our exchange. I have shown how he is not "primitive," "old," or "orginal" in his views on the work of salvation. Jason has produced no records that prove that Hardshellism was the general belief of Baptists prior the 19th century anti mission movement and the rise of the Hardshells.
See here
Jason wrote:
"But Brother Garrett believes that regeneration is synonymous with conversion - that it "refers to the same singular experience". Beebe and Trott did not advocate this, as they distinguished between the two. Now, they did believe that all the elect would be converted, but my original point was that they did not believe in means for regeneration."
Certainly I disagree with Beebe and Trott making the new birth different from regeneration, but who is closer to the primitive teaching of the Baptists? Jason's or the first Hardshells? I agree with the first Hardshells that means are involved in eternal salvation, that one must be converted to be saved in heaven. I can sympathize much more with the view of the first Hardshells than with today's Hardshells. Who, at the time of Beebe and Trott, publicly disagreed with them? How can Jason legitimately trace his church lineage through the founding fathers of Hardshellism?
Jason wrote:
"While Primitive Baptists today would reject the view that the effectual call of God extends to conversion, as John Gill even entertains the volitional nature of gospel conversion when he states, "then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe..." (not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe), they would agree with the basic distinction between sonship and discipleship in Beebe and Trott."
We already know that Jason rejects the views of the first Hardshells and yet claims to be "primitive." We already know which view is closer to the truth of scripture and to the old confessions. Beebe's view is closer to the truth and to the primitive faith of Baptists than are Jason's and his neo-Hardshells.
Jason said - "not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe." Their regenerate nature does not cause them to believe in the one true God and in Jesus! How anti scripture is this teaching! I guess they are not determined to overcome either? Not determined by their nature to persevere? I guess God's giving them a new heart and spirit does not, after all, "cause" the regenerate ones to "walk" in his word? The apostle John believed that the presence of the divine nature and seed would universally cause the regenerate ones to "overcome." (I John 5: 4)
Jesus connected regeneration with discipleship when he said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me."
Jason wrote:
"The "redefinition" of Beebe I spoke of was linguistic - in making regeneration distinct from being "born again". The use of the term "born again" as distinct from the term "regeneration" is a language distinction that neither Brother Garrett or modern Primitive Baptists make. Modern PBs (Primitive Baptists) make such a distinction in principle, though they disagree with necessitating the latter stage, and they believe, like Beebe and Trott, that this latter stage of discipleship is brought about by means of the preached gospel."
Much of this is repetition, hash and rehash. He retorts to minimizing the teaching of Beebe by saying his views were merely "linguistic." Merely meaningless rhetoric!
Jason wrote:
"Brother Garrett was confusing in his argument of this post because he failed to note that it was Beebe's doctrine of God's absolute predestination of all things that separated Beebe from mainstream PBs, not a doctrine of means per se."
Beebe's view about predestination, and the sovereign efficacious work of God in bringing people to the birth (conversion) experience, was not different from what was the "mainstream" view of the first Hardshells. The Hardshells, in the time of Beebe, believed in the absolute predestination of all things, as I also do. They believed that being made a gospel believer was not "conditional" or dependent upon the creature, as the Arminians teach. The division over this issue, in the late 19th century, had several issues involved, not one. It did not only deal with the decrees of God, free will, second causes, etc., but also with whether the conversion experience was the sovereign work of God as was the regeneration experience. It also dealt with the issue of perseverance. Today's Hardshell views did not gain the ascendency till the end of the 19th century.
Jason wrote:
"The texts he references do not indicate that the Scripture equates conversion with the new birth. In fact he seems to fail to realize that the context of Matt. 18:3 is the disciples who were presumably already born again. Jesus tells the disciples that unless they are converted and become as the little child, they shall not enter the kingdom of God."
This words of Jesus were addressed to people who followed him around and who were listening to his teachings. The word "disciple" does not always denote a committed or believing follower, but only someone who is learning the message. Besides, Jason has already acknowledged that the word "convert" may apply to the regeneration experience. We both agree that the word "convert" may denote that change, like sanctification, that progressively occurs in the life of the believer.
Jason wrote:
"Acts 3:19's use of converted is consistent with gospel conversion, not regeneration, as this is what these Jews were called to acknowledge. Repentance and conversion to the gospel accompanies eternal salvation and the forgiveness or blotting out of sin - which gospel it is the nature of the regenerate to accept, as it draws the root trust in God imparted in regeneration."
I have alread made rebuttal to the assertion of Jason about Acts 3: 19 being a command to only regenerate people respecting being converted and pardoned. Perhaps I will have more to say about this verse in future postings.
Now, I have answered all the rebuttal postings of my Hardshell apologist. After he makes more, I will be happy to reply to them. I also plan to make a post soon where we look at the leading passages discussed in our exchange. I have shown how he is not "primitive," "old," or "orginal" in his views on the work of salvation. Jason has produced no records that prove that Hardshellism was the general belief of Baptists prior the 19th century anti mission movement and the rise of the Hardshells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)