The Gospel - The Means of Grace VIII

Unbelievers Doomed

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 1: 8)

Will those who "know not God" be finally saved? The only ones who affirm that some will, are the Universalists and the Hardshells. This is a heterodox view, one that is heretical and cultic. It is an extreme minority view and is not scriptural. It is a novel view, not according to the "traditions" of the apostles. The salvation experience consists in coming to know God, to place faith in him, to love him. In fact, trusting and loving God implies a knowledge of God, for one cannot trust and love one he does not know. Those who do not know God are not saved, for saved people know God, the "one true and living God," the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Knowing God is not simple theism, for not all who believe in "God," or "gods," are saved. James said - "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2: 19)

Hardshells speak contradictorily on this subject. Some affirm that one comes to "know" God in being saved or born again. Others affirm that the salvation experience does not give any knowledge, of God, or anything else, affirming that it is a metaphysical sub-conscious experience. It is an experience, they affirm, that only makes knowledge possible, but does not impart any knowledge. But, what do the scriptures say? What did the "Old Baptists" say?

Those Hardshells that teach that regeneration imparts knowlege, or that one comes to "know God" in the regeneration experience, are much closer to the truth of scripture and to the teachings of the old Particular Baptists than are those who deny that regeneration brings one into an intimate knowledge of God. Yet, when they affirm that this coming to "know God" does not involve knowing truth about God and his Son Jesus Christ, then they are in serious error and severely contradict themselves. How can they say, on one hand, that regeneration is a coming to know God and yet say, on the other hand, that those who worship idols, or who only know false gods, have come to "know God" in a biblical sense?

In a previous posting I cited the words of the champion Hardshell debater, C. H. Cayce, who taught that the Athenian idolaters (Acts 17), were "regenerated" before they had heard about the one true God. If salvation is defined as coming to know the one true God, and the Athenians did not know him (as Paul said - "whom you ignorantly worship" or who you are ignorant of), then they were not regenerated before they heard and believed the gospel preached by Paul. The true God was an "unknown God" to the Athenians. They did not know him, and thus were not saved.

If coming to know God is defined by Paul as being a salvation experience, then it cannot be defined as being a sub-conscious or non-cognitive experience. Those Hardshells who affirm that the salvation experience is equated with a coming to know God cannot consistently affirm that it is non-cognitive.

This same kind of contradiction exists by those Hardshells who affirm that God makes one a "believer," of some kind, in the experience of regeneration, and yet teach that he is not made a believer in the one true God, or in Jesus, or in the gospel revelation. Teaching that one is made a "believer," of this kind, in regeneration, and yet teaching that regeneration is non-cognitive, is a glaring contradiction.

"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory (rejoice) in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." (Jer. 9: 23, 24)

Lord God calls upon those who know him to rejoice in that knowledge. Is this knowledge given in salvation? In regeneration? Most Hardshells would say that such a knowledge of God is not given in "regeneration," although it is acquired in "conversion," the former being necessary for final salvation, but the latter not. But, here God calls upon people to rejoice in the fact that they know God, know his nature and character. We may ask the Hardshells - "Is God calling upon people to rejoice in regeneration or conversion?" What does God seem to value more? Does he value a "regeneration" that does not bring people to know him or a "conversion" where people come to know him? Which experience, by Hardshell understanding, brings more occasion for rejoicing? By Hardshell explanation, God's work of "regeneration" does not give a man reason to rejoice, but the Hardshell's own work of "conversion" gives such a reason to rejoice.

Paul affirmed that those who "know not God" are they who shall be eternally destroyed. He defined regeneration/conversion as coming to know God and spoke of those who were not converts to the gospel as those who "know not God" ("...even as the Gentiles which know not God" - I Thess. 4: 5) The "Gentiles" are the same as the "heathen," those who are ignorant of the one true and living God, and who worship false gods.

"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." (Acts 14: 15)

"For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God." (I Thess. 1: 9)

This is what happens when a person comes to know God, when he is saved and regenerated. He turns to faith in God from faith in idols. Notice how Paul connects deliverance from the darkness and ignorance of idolatry with being converted by hearing and believing the gospel. Why is this not regeneration? If conversion is what brings a man to know God, and regeneration is also what brings a man to know God, then are they not words describing the same experience? Most Hardshells see the difficulty here and admit that "regeneration," as they explain it, does not bring a man to know the true and living God. Those that do admit that regeneration does bring one to know God have the problem of explaining the difference between regeneration and conversion.

"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (I John 4: 6-8)

In this passage the apostle John speaks about those who are "born of God." He defines those who have been born of God as those who both love and know God. But, one cannot love and know without cognition. Thus, these descriptive words of the apostle uproot the Hardshell understanding of the regeneration experience. Further, John says that those who do not hear the gospel, who do not accept the message of the apostles, are "not of God." This too is contrary to Hardshell teaching for they affirm that there are many who reject the gospel and who are yet "born of God."

"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (I John 4: 13)

To be given the Holy Spirit is to be saved and born again. What does the apostle say results from being given the Spirit? He says "we know" that we dwell in God, the one true and living God. Do Hardshells teach this? No, they do not, but rather teach that many who have been given the Spirit do not know God, and do not know that God dwells in them. Hardshells often talk about people who are saved or born again and yet who do not know it. But, John rejects such an idea. Those who do not know God and know that he dwells in them are those who do not possess the Spirit of God. If a man can be saved and not know it, then he can lose it and not miss it.

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14: 17)

These words of Jesus are similar to those of the apostle. Jesus identifies the unsaved world by saying that they are they who have not "received" the Holy Spirit, and who do not "know" the Spirit. He affirms that those who have the Spirit with them and in them are not ignorant of the fact, as the Hardshells teach.

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10: 14)

These words of Christ present great difficulty for Hardshellism. Jesus says that his "sheep" are they who "know" him. Jesus does not say that only some of the sheep know him, as the Hardshells teach, but that they, as a class, know him. If one does not know Jesus, then he is not one of the sheep.

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you...If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 26, 37, 38)

Again, how does Jesus identify those who are of the class called "sheep"? Not only does he identify the "sheep" as they who hear his voice, and who know him, but are they who believe in him. Further, Jesus is preaching to those who are not sheep, who do not know and trust Christ. But, Hardshells do not believe in preaching the gospel to those who are not elect, or sheep, or born again. Further, what does Jesus admonish these to do? Does he not tell them to "believe" and to "know"? Does he not make it the "duty" of the lost to believe in Jesus and to come to a saving knowledge of him?

"But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (believe in me); and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day...No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6: 36-40, 44, 45)

These words of Jesus completely overthrow Hardshellism's teachings on salvation, and on what it means to be "born of God." In this passage, rather than using the term "sheep" to identify the elect, Jesus uses the descriptive words "all who have been given to me by the Father," or in short, we can say "the given ones." He says that "all," not just some, of the elect will "see" the Son, meaning they shall recognize him, perceive and experience him. They "all" will "come" to him, "all" will "believe" in him. All these are they who have "learned" from the Father. Hardshells have great difficulty with these words of Jesus. If they limit them to their idea of "regeneration," then they have problems. If they limit them to their idea of "conversion," then they likewise have problems.

If Jesus is strictly talking about a "regeneration" that excludes "conversion," then how do they explain the fact that Jesus describes it as including seeing and believing the Son? How can they exclude enlightenment, being taught by the Father? How do they exclude "coming to Jesus"? On the other hand, if Jesus is strictly talking about "conversion," then how do they deal with the fact that Jesus says that all the elect will be converted? Obviously, the experience Jesus is describing is not sub-conscious and non-cognitive.

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Matt. 11: 25)

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matt. 11: 27)

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 17)

These verses are typically defined as talking about the salvation experience. Certainly the old Baptists of the confessions thought so. "Revelation" is an integral aspect of the salvation or new birth experience. Hardshells are divided on this point. Some think this revelation is part of the new birth, while others say it is not, but is talking about the post regeneration experience of "conversion" or "time salvation." Those who say the revelation is talking about being regenerated, cannot consistently affirm that regeneration is a sub-conscious and non-cognitive experience. Those who affirm that the revelation experience of the afore cited verses is talking about conversion, have the problem of explaining how Jesus spoke of this experience of revelation in terms of sovereign and efficacious grace, in the same manner he spoke of quickening sinners. Does the Father not reveal himself and the Lord Jesus to a sinner when he gives him spiritual life?

"And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD." (I Sam. 3: 21)

The Lord's revelation of himself to Samuel occurred at the time when the Lord called him, or spoke to him. How did this revelation take place? By the Spirit alone? Was it not by the Spirit's use of the "word of the Lord"? How does the Father reveal himself and Jesus today? Is it not through the gospel?

"And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." (Jer. 24: 7)

Is this verse not talking about the regeneration experience? Is that not when sinners are given a new heart? What kind of heart is it? Is it one that is ignorant of God? Again, knowing God is what regeneration effects.

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jer. 31: 34 & Heb. 8: 11)

These verses are in the context of those blessings of the new covenant, of what God has promised to do for his elect as a result of the work of Christ. They are taught to know the Lord. Saved people go out and command others to "know the Lord," and this work will continue until all on earth will know the Lord, or until the "earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11: 9; Hab. 2: 14)

"I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD." (Hosea 2: 20)

What is this "betrothing"? Did not Paul speak of it in Romans 7: 4, when he speaks of saved people being "married" to Christ? Is this experience of being betrothed and married to the Lord not regeneration? Notice that the prophet connects being betrothed to the Lord with coming to "know the Lord." Is the ministry not involved in this work? Paul said:

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

Now, in summation, it is obvious that regeneration is not something different from conversion, and that it is in regeneration/conversion that a sinner comes to revelation and enlightenment, when he comes to know God and believe in him and in Jesus, when he enters into covenant with God. These things are diametrically opposed to Hardshellism.

John Gill, that great Old Baptist, in his Body of Divinity (Book 1, Chapter 3), wrote about "saving knowledge," and wrote: (emphasis mine - SG)

"...there can be no grace without knowledge, no faith without it; the object must be known, or it cannot be rightly believed in.

"The Gentiles, who are described as such who "know not God", are also said to be "without hope", without hope and without God in the world; without hope in God and of good things from him now, and without hope of the resurrection of the dead, a future state, and enjoyment of happiness in it (1 Thess. 4:5,13), an unknown object cannot be the object of love..."

"First, let it be observed, that while men are in a natural, unregenerate, and unrenewed state, they are destitute of divine knowledge; the time before conversion is a time of ignorance; this was not only the case of the Gentile world in general, before the gospel came unto them, but is of every particular person, Jew or Gentile (Acts 17:30; 1 Pet. 1:14), all the sons and daughters of Adam are in the same circumstances..."

"Now while men are in an unrenewed state, and in such a state of darkness and blindness, they are ignorant, 1f1. Of God, 1f2. They are ignorant of Christ, of his person and offices, and of the way of life and salvation by him; as they know neither the Father nor the Son,1f3. They are ignorant of the Spirit of God; "The world seeth him not, neither knoweth him" (John 14:17)..."

"2. Secondly, in every renewed person there is a knowledge of God and of divine things; the new creature or "new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:10). Spiritual and divine knowledge is a part of the new man, which is no other than an assemblage of grace consisting of various members, of which this is one; it is a part of the image of God and Christ enstamped upon the soul in regeneration, and which gives it a disposition godward; concerning which may be observed..."

"2a. First, the object of it, God; before conversion men know not God, but after that they know him, or rather are known of him (Gal. 4:8,9), there is a threefold knowledge of God, or a knowledge of God that is come at in a threefold way."

"2a3. There is a knowledge of God which comes by the gospel, the doctrine of grace and truth, that is by Christ, who lay in the bosom of his Father, and has declared him, his person, his nature, his grace, his mind and will to men; God has spoken by his Son, and made the largest discovery of himself by him; and makes use of the ministers of the gospel to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face or person of Christ, who is the brightness of his Father’s glory and the express image of his person: and it is of this kind of knowledge of God in Christ, that souls are made partakers, when they are renewed in the spirit of their minds; this is not a mere notional and speculative knowledge, such as the carnal Jews had, who had a form of knowledge in the law, and by breaking it dishonored God; and which some who call themselves Christians may have, who profess in words to know God, but in works deny him; who say, Lord, Lord, but do not the will of our Father in heaven: but this is a spiritual and experimental knowledge of God, such as a spiritual man has, and that from the Spirit of God as a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; and which leads men to mind and savour spiritual things. This is a knowledge which is attended with faith in God as a covenant God in Christ; it is a fiducial knowledge, such as know his name put their trust in him..."

"...a knowledge attended with such graces and fruits of righteousness may be called saving knowledge; that is, salvation is annexed unto it and follows upon it; for "this is life eternal", the beginning of it, and in which it issues (John 17:3)."

"2a3a. Every renewed soul has knowledge of God the Father."

"2a3b. Every renewed soul has knowledge of Christ the Son of God (John 17:3)..."

"2a3b4. Their knowledge of him is fiducial; they know his name, his nature, his abilities, his fulness, and suitableness, and therefore they put their trust in him, give up themselves to him, rely and lean upon him, and trust him with all they have, and for all they want, for grace here and glory hereafter."

"2a3b5. Their knowledge of him is experimental, they have their spiritual senses exercised on him; they see the Son and believe on him, see the glories of his person, the riches of his grace, the fulness of his righteousness, the efficacy of his blood, and the virtue of his atoning sacrifice; they "hear" his voice with pleasure and delight, the voice of his gospel, so as to understand it, approve of it, and distinguish it from the voice of a stranger they "feel", they handle him the word of life by faith, lay hold on him and retain him; they "taste" that the Lord is gracious, and "savour" the things which be of Christ and not of men."

"2a3b6. Their knowledge of Christ is appropriating..."

"2a3c. Every renewed soul has knowledge of the Spirit of God, the world does not know him, but truly gracious souls do..."

"2b1. The efficient cause of this knowledge is God; it is God that teacheth men knowledge, and none teaches like him; and this he teaches persons the most unlikely to learn, even such as "are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts"; that is, just weaned, who were but the other day babes and sucklings; this knowledge is from God, Father, Son and Spirit. Such as have "heard and learned of the Father, come to Christ"; that is, believe on him (John 6:45). It is the Father who knows the Son, and reveals him, as he did to Peter, and who reveals the things he hides from the wise and prudent, even unto babes; and "no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Matthew 11:27), he who lay in his bosom declares him, his mind and will, his love and grace; and he "gives an understanding" to "know" himself, who "is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20), and the Spirit, he is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God and Christ; he searches the deep things of God, and reveals them to men; and by him they know the things that are freely given them of God (Eph. 1:17; 1 Cor. 2:10-12)."

"2b3. The instrumental cause or means is the word of God. "Faith", which sometimes goes by the name of knowledge, "comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17), that is, by the external ministration of the word, the Lord owning and blessing it. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, was appointed, commissioned, and sent of God "to give knowledge of salvation to his people"; and the apostles and ministers of the gospel had the treasures of evangelical truths put into their earthen vessels, "to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ". The ministry of the word is appointed as a standing ordinance in the church, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Luke 1:17; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 4:13)."

These citations from Gill are from his Body of Divinity, from that work that Hardshells claim set forth their views on no means, Spirit alone, non-cognitive, "regeneration." Yet, these citations show how in error they are, how Gill had not changed his mind and taught something different in his Body of Divinity than in his Commentaries. They also show that Gill did not view regeneration and conversion as distinct separate experiences, or that one could be regenerated who was not, at the same time, converted.

The Gospel - The Means of Grace VII

Save By Gospel Faith

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 13-17)

The scriptures teach the proposition - "no faith = no salvation."

This is contrary to the Hardshell view. Dr. (Elder) Charles Waters in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:

"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."

Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):

"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river."

This position was not the original Primitive Baptist position and when it was advocated in the latter quarter of the 19th century, many Primitives objected to it, especially elders Burnam and Pence. Burnam had been an associate editor on Zion's Advocate when Elder Clark edited it. In 1890, however, Elder Clark was no longer living.

During the last quarter of the 19th century, the "ultraist" wing of the Primitive Baptist movement gained the ascendancy. It was a novel idea to affirm that faith and repentance are not required for regeneration and eternal salvation, and one so dramatically opposed to the clear teachings of scripture. Let us see what the scriptures say.

"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess. 2: 12)

"...he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark16: 16)

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

"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (II Thess. 1: 7-9)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)

These verses could not be clearer about the fate of those who reject the gospel. The rejection of their obvious teaching, by the Hardshells, is fantastic and demonstrates their cult status. It is heresy to deny what they teach.

In defending Elder Waters assertion that faith was not required for regeneration and salvation, Elder J. R. Daily, a later editor of Zion's Advocate, wrote:

"The position of the Elder (Burnam) seems to be that the Spirit gives these graces to the unregenerate sinner, and then leaves him to exercise these gifts as a condition of his regeneration. Right here we beg leave to join issue with Elder Burnam. This is the great dividing line between us and the Arminian World and ever has been, and we enter a denial that "it was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth to the notion of regeneration without faith," or rather before faith. Birth was given to that notion by divine inspiration."

Of course, Elder Daily did not state things accurately in his portrayal of the views of Elder Burnam and of those Primitive Baptists who believed in means and that faith was a requirement for being eternally saved. Elder Burnam did not believe that "graces" were given to the unregenerate with the expectation that the unregenerate must use them in order to be regenerated. What he believed was that faith and regeneration were concurrent, that one could not have one without the other. Also, Elder Daily was falsifying when he said that it was the "Arminian World" that taught that faith was connected with regeneration. Calvinists have also asserted the same. The London Confession of 1689 affirms that faith is a requirement for being saved. Dr. Gill affirmed that faith was required. Also, Daily offered no proof that the Hardshell view was not a novelty. He only denied it, affirming that the scriptures teach it. Of course, he is clearly in error on this. The bible does not teach that unbelievers will be saved, as the scriptures I have cited demonstrate.

Further, Burnam did not accept the Arminian teaching concerning "prevenient grace," as Daily implied. Burnam, like the real old Baptists, did believe that there was grace that preceded regeneration, that there was preparatory work that often preceded it.

Daily wrote:

"We wish it understood that what Elder Waters stated in those articles is still the doctrine of Zion's Advocate and we pledge ourselves ready to stand by it."

It may have become the view of the editors of Zion's Advocate after the death of Elder Clark, but it was not the view of it from 1854-1890, during the lifetime of Elder Clark.

Daily wrote:

"Elder Burnam then says, "In the first place, the Holy Scriptures in the clearest manner show that faith in God is essential to spiritual or eternal life," and refers to a number of passages as negative and affirmative proof, not a single one of which says or implies that "faith is essential to eternal life."

I don't know what particular verses were cited by Elder Burnam, but it must have included some of the verses I have cited. Daily can deny that they teach that faith is a requirement of salvation, but he is just stubbornly refusing to confess the obvious, and is intent on twisting their meaning to conform with his proposition, which proposition denies that faith is necessary for salvation.

Daily wrote:

"Elder Burnam does not show, nor can he show, that any one passage in the Bible teaches that one must believe in order to receive eternal life. It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration, for if belief is to be exercised in order to the work of regeneration, as the Eld. asserts in the beginning of his article, and faith and eternal life are given at the same time, then it follows that one has eternal life before he is regenerated."

"It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration"? Why is that not enough?

Besides, there are numerous verses that affirm that faith is a means for eternal life, some of which have already been cited. But, notice these:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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." (John 1: 11-13)

Elder Daily is arguing for a strict chronological order in which regeneration precedes faith. But, the scriptures do not insist on this order, as the scriptures cited demonstrate.

See here for Daily's words

C. H. Spurgeon said:

"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."

(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

Spurgeon's predecessor, John Gill, in commenting upon Romans 10, wrote:

"...there can be no true calling upon God without faith, no faith without hearing, no hearing without preaching, and no preaching without a divine mission."

Elder T. S. Dalton, years later, after Elder Waters and Daily promoted the view that faith was not required for eternal life and salvation, testified in the famous Mt. Carmel church trial. He was asked this interrogative: "You believe that God given faith is essential to the salvation of God's people, do you not?"

Elder Dalton answered:

"I will say this, that there is a belief produced through the preaching of the Gospel and there is a belief of the sacred truth of God; but that belief which is produced through the preaching of the Gospel is not a necessary adjunct in the eternal salvation of the sinner. But there is a faith that is implanted by the Spirit of God in the soul of every man that will ever enter Heaven, and no man will ever go to Heaven without that Divine eternal faith by the Spirit of God." (See this also in "Faith," from "Studies in Bible Doctrine," page 6 - emphasis mine)

Paul says that "faith comes by hearing" and that faith is necessary to be eternally saved. So, how do the Hardshell cultists handle this? They say that there are two kinds of "faith," one kind that comes by the preaching of the gospel, and another kind that comes without it. One kind of faith is necessary to eternal salvation and another kind is not necessary. One kind of faith can be possessed by infants in the womb and by the mentally incompetent, but another is possessed only by adults who are mentally competent. All this is, of course, a perverting of the teachings of scripture. Paul does not say that a certain kind of faith is produced by the gospel, but "faith." To say that some faith comes apart from preaching is to deny the plain teaching of Paul.

My dad, a leading Hardshell preacher and apologist, wrote:

"First, let me say that I believe all those dying in infancy are of the elect of God. God implants a faith in these infants as he did John the Baptist. See Luke 1:15 and 1:44."

”All of these verses prove that there is a faith that is implanted in us supernaturally when we are regenerated. No one will go to heaven without this faith. The preacher has nothing to do with this faith.”

What kind of faith is it that comes apart from knowledge of the truth? What kind of faith is it that does not know or believe anything? Where is the scriptural warrant for such an interpretation? Is it not an invention of those who refuse to believe what God has declared? If the Hardshells want to say that John the Baptist had the kind of "faith" that did not come through a knowledge of the gospel truth, why did John the Baptist "leap for joy" when the gospel was preached? According to Hardshells, the Athenian idolaters, while still in their heathen idolatry, had this kind of "faith"!

Scriptures on the utility and necessity of faith for salvation

"And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 9)

"...which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 18)

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3: 21-26, 28)

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect...Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." (Romans 4: 13, 14, 19))

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5: 1, 2)

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 16)

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (Gal. 3: 7-9, 14, 22)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2: 8)

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3: 9)

"the faith of God's elect." (Titus 1: 11)

"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (I Peter 1: 9)

"Means" Hymn #1

It probably goes without saying that inconsistencies exist between what some professed Christians sing and what they actually believe. The greatest example would be that of 'Amazing Grace'. Multitudes of souls sing this wonderful hymn but yet profess a works system for salvation, and therefore do not truly agree with the contained message of salvation by grace alone.

When I was among the Primitives I noticed how this was especially true, as some of the hymns sung were contrary to the doctrine being taught from the pulpit. An anti-means theology is preached, but a means theology would often be sung! The words to many songs contain concepts, phrases, and doctrinal points peculiar to Calvinistic theology, and which therefore are not believed. Nevertheless, they are still sung with no apparent objections. I used to wonder if any others recognized this, and if there would be any attempt in the future to correct it.

In my previous posting, in order to demonstrate the inconsistency between the anti-means or time salvation paradigm with some of the more popular hymns which are sung, I asked this question:

Is it hypocritical to sing the following words 'I Know Whom I Have Believed' in the song service?

"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus thru the Word,
Creating faith in him."

For anyone who is aware of the anti-means theology declared by today's extremists, you can easily see how it would be utterly inconsistent to sing such words as this and yet teach a doctrine which denies it. There are three major things in the verse which are not compatible with the time salvation paradigm advocated today. First, the very mention of saving faith. This is a doctrine commonly found in Calvinistic circles and is used to convey the truth that not all faith is saving, and that some men make a mental assent to Christ and His Word, but yet are not saved. Today's ultraists have a very difficult time with the subject of faith, many of whom would not be caught dead using the expression saving faith. To some of the more extreme ones, there is no such thing, as no faith of any kind is essential for salvation. Still others might possibly use the term, but only if it is understood that seed faith, or subconscious faith, is what constitutes saving faith. If the idea were pressed, however, that faith is set forth in the scriptures as cognitive, and that THIS is what is essential for salvation, then there is no way such an expression would ever be condoned.

Second, the hymnist declares that this saving faith comes by means of the Word. This is the kicker! It's so blatantly obvious in the verses that it's a wonder that an anti-means advocate could sing it and be honest with himself. The hymnist mentions two things: 1) believing in His Word, and 2) Revealing Jesus thru the Word. But believing in God's Word does not constitute saving faith according to our modernists today. Rather, it will simply usher in an optional gospel faith connected to a temporal salvation. Nor will it be believed Christ is revealed 'thru the Word'.

Third, this same faith is recognized as a creative act of God. If they are being consistent with their own paradigm, today's extremists must deny this as well. Since gospel instrumentality is mentioned, their premise that no means are involved in eternal matters would be violated. It is quite clear to the hymnist, however, that created faith, gospel faith, and saving faith are all phrases which denote the same thing.

'I Know Whom I Have Believed' is a "Means" hymn, obviously written by one who agreed with the same. As a result, it is entirely strange to sing it when something entirely different is declared in the pulpit. The very words which come forth as the fruit of the lips must therefore, in this case, be denied. As Brother Garrett has often stated in his writings...'Consistency, thou art a jewel!'

No exception here!

SUMMARY CHALLENGES:

1) Is there such a thing as saving faith?

2) Is saving faith created by God?

3) Does saving faith come thru the Word?

4) Is Jesus revealed thru the Word?

5) Does the Spirit of God convince of sin? For all the elect, or some only?

The Gospel - The Means of Grace VI

Saved By Gospel Dynamite

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1: 16)

This passage destroys the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" or "No Means" paradigm of "regeneration," of being born again, of being called and quickened. The "gospel" has the power to "save." Hardshells deny this. They deny that it has power to save from spiritual death. It can help the one already saved, saving him from temporal pitfalls and earthly grief and loss, but it cannot save him to heaven or from the guilt of sin.

By their interpretation the gospel is not the power of God to save in the sense of quickening, regenerating, begetting, or eternally saving the dead sinner. One must be born again before he can hear and believe the gospel, say the Hardshells, and therefore the hearing and believing of the gospel can be no means in it.

The consequences of this view are several. First, it denies that the gospel has power to "save" in every respect, that it has power in itself to save from spiritual death, or to regenerate. Second, it denies that the gospel has power to save any and all, but only those of the elect who, by their own free will decision, choose for it to save them, temporally speaking.

Hardshells interpret "everyone who believes" as "everyone who is regenerated." But, for most of them, this presents a problem. Do they believe that EVERYONE of the regenerate is saved by the gospel? No. Yet, the verse says, using their own interpretation, - "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to EVERY regenerated person." How will they answer this? Will they say that it is only potentially the power of God to all the regenerated or that it is actually? If they say actually, then they will be denying Hardshellism, which denies that all the elect will be both regenerated and converted. If they say potentially, then they believe the very idea they elsewhere condemn when combating "Arminianism." They condemn the idea that the gospel is potentially the power of God to save any and every person in the world.

God, gospel, power, salvation, and faith, all in the same sentence! What is the relation of each to the other? It takes divine power to save sinners, that is obvious. God is the Savior. Who does he save? He saves the believer. What does the believer believe? What is his faith? The Hardshells cannot tell us, yet they affirm that the one who is called a "believer," in Romans 1: 16, is one who is such before he has heard the gospel. He is not a "believer" in terms of the gospel. He is not a believer in the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is not a believer in the lordship of Jesus, but believes in other gods and lords. The Hardshells will say that this kind of "believer" was made so in regeneration. But, again, we ask them to tell us what this "believer" believes! Also, how can he say one is made a believer in regeneration but then say that there is no knowledge, revelation, or cognition in regeneration? Is the Hardshell regenerated infant a believer?

Romans 1: 16 sets the context for the entire book of Romans. Does this book deal with a temporal salvation for a small remnant of the elect, or with eternal salvation for all the elect? Whatever salvation is the theme of the book of Romans is the salvation first introduced in Romans 1: 16. To say the book of Romans deals with eternal salvation but Rom. 1: 16 does not, is to disregard context in bible interpretation.

Obviously the gospel is the potential power of God unto salvation to everyone unbeliever who hears it, but it is only actually the power of God unto salvation to those unbelievers who repent and believe. When Paul says "to everyone who believes," he means "to everyone who believes the gospel."

This verse is not saying that the gospel is the power of God to save the saved. That would be nonsense.

On this verse, the old Baptist theologian, Dr. John Gill, wrote:

"...it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force: the extent of this power is,

unto salvation; the Gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to lay hold upon it."

Paul uses no adjective before "salvation," which he would do if he were talking about a limited aspect of salvation, but speaks of salvation in the general, in all its parts. The normal, nigh universal, usage of the term "salvation," in scripture, respects eternal salvation from the guilt and consequences of sin. To affirm that the "salvation" of Romans 1: 16 represents an abnormal significance requires proof from the context to demonstrate it. But, Hardshells can offer no contextual reasons for denying that the "salvation" is the same salvation spoken about throughout the new testament. If Paul were a Hardshell he would be afraid of being called an "Arminian" and would not want to be misunderstood as affirming that the gospel was a means in eternal salvation and so he would have put a qualifier before the word "salvation." But, Paul was no Hardshell.

This salvation was the topic of the book of Romans and deals with that salvation affected by Jesus Christ for the redemption of sinners.

Jesus said that he was sending Paul to the Gentile world in order that the lost might be "turned from the power of Satan unto God," that they might "be turned from darkness to light," that they might be enlightened with a knowledge of Christ, that they might "receive the forgiveness of sins." (Acts 26: 18) This is the salvation that the gospel, as the power of God, produces.

The Greek word for "power" is "dynamis," where we get our word "dynamite." That is what the Gospel is when wielded by God on the hearts of his elect. It is spiritual dynamite to explode and break their hard hearts and to create in them a new heart. God's word is "fire" and a "hammer" (Jer. 23: 29). As a fire it can burn away the old sinful nature and as a hammer can easily break rocky hearts.

Jason's 5th Revised

Jason, in his latest attempt to rebut the arguments I have presented, 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."

Not only are discipleship and sonship "consistent" but so are regeneration and conversion. But, what Jason means by "consistent with" is simply that the regenerated will possibly or likely be converted to Jesus, not that they absolutely will. But, I have consistently shown how regeneration and conversion are linked together in scripture and in the old Baptist confessions so that you cannot have one without the other. I need not continue to reply to Jason's mere assertions to the contrary.

I cited a verse that says, absolutely, that all who know not God and who obey not the gospel will be eternally punished but Jason interpreted the verse (II Thess. 1: 8, 9) to simply say that only some of those who disobey the gospel and reject Christ will be lost. How is that for biblical hermeneutics? In regard to categorical propositions Jason wrote:

"It is plain that qualifications are in order before we can simply embrace that it is categorically true that "ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed".

"It seems clear that Garrett has committed a category mistake in ascribing damnation to all who disobey the gospel; if it is maximally true that all who disobey the gospel are damned no one would be saved."

"...even after regeneration they need the perfecting influence of the Spirit in sanctification. The only way to understand the text is as a maxim, not an absolute rule ..."

"You cannot surmise qualifications from the text; therefore, logically, more than a general statement of what is characteristic of the damned should not be advocated."

All this is strange coming from someone who claims to have studiesd philosophy, for logic is a basic part of such a study. Understanding categorical propositions and syllogisms is a fundamental part of logic and Jason shows he has no knowledge of how to tell the difference in a universal versus a particular proposition. There are four types of categorical propositions, They are designated alphabetically as:

A proposition is a universal affirmative: All S is P
E proposition is a universal negative: No S is P
I proposition is a particular affirmative: Some S is P
O proposition is a particular negative: Some S is not P

If we look at Paul's words in II Thess. 1: 8, 9, can we tell which proposition it is? Is it universal or limited? Does Paul say "some of those who know not God and obey not the gospel will not be eternally destroyed"? Does Paul affirm that some of the saved, who escape "eternal destruction," nevertheless did not know God and did not obey his gospel? Jason argues that the language is not universal but limited, avowing that Some S (unbelievers) are P (saved). But, the language of Paul will not allow a limited proposition. I do not need to use the words "all" or "every" in the proposition to affirm a universal proposition. They are necessarily implied (deduced). The absence of such words do not imply a limited categorical proposition.

What are Paul's categorical terms? Those who know God versus those who know not God. Those who obey the gospel and those who do not obey. There is eternal destruction and eternal salvation, or the saved class and the damned class. The questions are: 1) Are there any of the class of "those who know not God" who will not suffer eternal destruction? 2) Are there any of the class of those who "obey not the gospel" who will be eternally saved?

If I say "humans are creatures" I do not mean that only some humans are creatures. I am saying that there is no entity in existence that can be called a human non-creature. I could say "all humans are creatures," but I would simply be stating what is already implied and doing it for emphasis. A person who affirms particular and limited propositions will always use terms of limitation, such as "some," "many," "most," "few," etc. Those adjectives limit the proposition and argues that not all of class P are of class S.

Jason's attempt to make Paul's universal categorical propositions into limited ones is an example of resisting the text and refusing to submit to it.

In my previous rebuttal I cited these verses from the scriptures that speak in universal propositions.

1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)

Jason then responded by saying:

"These passages, like 2 Thess. 1:7-9, can be rebutted with the same logic I used."

These passages cannot be "rebutted" with Jason's Hardshell "logic." His logic on II Thess. 1: 8, 9 was shown to be invalid. Instead of the word "rebutted" we can substitute the words "resisted" and "twisted," and have Jason's word to read - "these passages, like II Thess. 2: 1: 7-9, can be resisted and twisted with the same logic."

Let me add another verse to II Thess. 1: 8, 9, one in the same epistle and context.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 9-13)

"All" who "believed not the truth" shall be "damned"? Is this not clearly a universal categorical proposition? Do Jason and the Hardshells believe this? Paul identifies the unbelieving as not chosen to salvation. Those who believed the truth, however, he identifies as the chosen. Notice also that Paul says that "salvation" is the result of "receiving" the truth. Is this not eternal salvation? How can the Hardshells deny it?

Notice also these words of Paul:

"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath." (Rom. 2: 8)

What does Paul say will be the destiny of those who obey not the gospel truth? He says they will receive "indignation" and "wrath."

Let us ask Jason if discipleship is the "natural consequence" of regeneration in the same sense that breathing is a "natural consequence" of being alive?

"Some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years"? Has not Jason also departed from the beliefs of those Baptists who wrote the confessions? Has Jason also not departed from the beliefs of the founding fathers of Hardshellism? Did the founding fathers of Hardshellism not believe that all the elect would be converted and such conversion was spiritual birth per Jesus in John 3?

Jason, in responding to my reference to John 10, where Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me," said - "It is clear that John 10:27 is not referring to regeneration." He says this and yet he claims to be an old Baptist! Can he name a Baptist theologian prior to the 19th century who believed as he does? I have already asked him to give evidence of Hardshell beliefs prior to the 19th century and he has produced none! Revealing is it not?

Does Jesus not equate "the sheep" with "the elect"? When Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice," does he mean only some of them, or all of them? As a categorical proposition it is universal, what is true of all the class identified as "sheep." If I say "humans are mortal," do I mean only some humans, or all humans? How Jason can read the words of Jesus and interpret them to mean that only some of the sheep will hear his voice is a clear example of Hardshell stubbornness to accept what the scriptures say and an example of their twisting of scripture.

When Jason reads John 5: 25, 28, about the "dead" ones "hearing" the "voice of the Son of God," and being quickened, does he not argue that this "voice" is not the gospel? That it is always effectual and irresistible? Yes, he does. Then why does he take a totally different view about hearing the voice of Christ in John 10? In John 10 the voice of Christ is the gospel, but not in John 5! In John 5 regeneration is the result of hearing the voice of Christ, but in John 10 conversion is the result of hearing the voice of Christ. In John 5 the voice cannot be resisted, but in John 10 it can be resisted!

John Gill wrote:

"And the sheep hear his voice...the shepherd's, even the voice of Christ; and which is no other than the Gospel, which is a voice of love, grace, and mercy; which proclaims peace, pardon, liberty, life, righteousness, and salvation; and which is a soul quickening, alluring, delighting, refreshing, and comforting voice: this the people of Christ are made to hear, not only externally, but internally; so as to understand it, delight in it, and distinguish it from another: and these are called "sheep", and that before conversion; not because they have the agreeable properties of sheep; nor because predisposed unto, and unprejudiced against the Gospel of Christ, for they are the reverse of these; nor can some things be said of them before, as after conversion, as that they hear the voice of Christ, and follow him; nor merely by anticipation, but by reason of electing grace, and because given to Christ the great shepherd, under this character, to be kept and fed by him. And they are so called after conversion..."

"For they know his voice; in the Gospel, which directs and encourages them to exercise grace in him, and to walk in the path of duty: this they know by the majesty and authority of it; and by the power with which it comes to their souls; and by its speaking of him, and leading to him; and by the evenness, harmony, and consistency of it."

"and I am known of mine; not in a general way, as devils and external professors may know him, but with a special, spiritual, and saving knowledge: Christ's own approve of him, as their shepherd and their Saviour, and desire no other; they love him above all, in the sincerity of their souls, and with a love as strong as death; they trust in him as their shepherd, believing they shall not want; and appropriate him to themselves, as their own; and care for him, his cause and interest, his Gospel, ordinances, and ministers; and are not ashamed to own him as theirs, in the most public manner."

"and they shall hear my voice; in the Gospel, not only externally, but internally; which is owing to his powerful and efficacious grace, who quickens them, and causes them to hear and live; unstops their deaf ears, and gives them ears to hear; and opens their hearts, to attend to his word, and gives them an understanding of it."

"Ver. 26. But ye believe not,.... In me, as the Messiah:

because ye are not of my sheep; they were not among the sheep given him by his Father, were they, they would have come to him; that is, have believed in him, according to Joh 6:37, they were not the chosen of God, predestinated unto eternal life; for as many as are ordained of God to eternal happiness, do believe in God's own time, Ac 13:48; but these not being the elect of God, had not the faith of God's elect."

"Ver. 28. And I give unto them eternal life,.... Christ gives eternal life to his sheep, or people now; he gives them a spiritual life, or a life of grace, which issues in eternal life; he gives them himself, who is the true God and eternal life, and whoever has him has life; he gives them the knowledge of himself, which is life eternal..."

Now, do the Hardshells accept these words of Dr. Gill, the leading representative of the "Old Baptists" of the 18th century? They know they do not. How can they be taken seriously then, when they say "we are the real old Baptists"? Jason takes a minorty view of today's Hardshells when he argues that the "voice of Christ," in John 10, is a different "voice of Christ" than talked about in John 5: 25-28. Most Hardshells would say they are the same voice, that voice that calls effectually and is irresistible for the elect. Jason says the "voice of Christ" in John 10 is heard in gospel preaching, but that the "voice of Christ," in John 5, is heard apart from gospel preaching.

Most Hardshells would disagree with Jason is his interpretation of John 10, with his denial that it is dealing with regeneration and with eternal salvation. Most Hardshells accept the idea of passive obedience, a thing condemned by Jason. Jason is parroting the ideology of Elder J. H. Oliphant, a Hardshell patriarch of yesteryear, who taught, in his book on "Thoughts on the Will," that the word "obedience" can never be said to be "passive," but is always active, necessarily involving a free, unforced decision. When I read this book years ago, my first thought was that this idea was nothing but "Campbellism" in a Hardshell skin. Campbellites also argue that creature "obedience" necessarily entails the free acquiescence of the heart, mind, or will. If God cause, or force, a man to obey, then it could not properly be called "obedience."

We already know how Jason is a disciple of Elder Lemuel Potter, Jason acknowledging Potter as one of the Hardshell great ones. However, Potter was a renegade Hardshell who became vocal in his views in the last quarter of the 19th century. Potter was a leader in the minority faction of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists that rejected the gospel as a means in regeneration, new birth, or in eternal salvation. He was the leader of that group that Elder Watson called "ultraists" and "modern innovators." He debated Elder Throgmorton on the question - "Who are the Old Baptists?" (1887) He argued for the direct speaking, no means, view of regeneration, and that knowledge of, and faith in, Jesus, was not necessary to be saved. Potter later had a debate with some of the PBs who still retained a belief in means and in the requirement of faith, in the early 1880s, about this question. The two leading men on the means side were Elders Pence and Burnam, the latter an associate editor of Zion's Advocate with Elder John Clark.

In the Mt. Carmel church trial, in the early 19th century, Elder Burnam testified that it was not till the latter quarter of the 19th century that the "Primitive" Baptists began to wholeheartedly rejecting means and faith in regeneration. Burnam was correct and the historical records back him up. So, when Jason holds up Elder Potter as a man to be admired, I must disagree. Potter can rightly be called one of the founders of Neo-Hardshellism.

Along with Potter, we cannot ignore Elder Oliphant, the man who was voted president of that body of esteemed elders who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, and who did a "hatchet job" on the 1689 London Confession. Oliphant and Potter both helped to "clarify" the Hardshell's novel soteriological system.

Are Oliphant and Jason right? Does the word "obedience" necessarily involve resistibility and freedom to do or not to do? Was the hearing of the voice of Jesus, by the sheep, an act of obedience? When the Lord calls the dead forth to life, by a command, do the dead obey the command when they come forth?

Jason wrote:

"As touching this idea of "passive obedience" in regeneration, this concept is oxymoronic. Lazarus was not obedient, not even "passively", in the moment of creation ex nihilo in coming from death to life. It could be said that Lazarus was obedient in coming forth from the tomb, but this assumes he came out of his own power..."

"Notice how Garrett confounds obedience, which presupposes uncoerced volition, and an effectual call of God, which regenerates apart from the will of man."

"...that which is effectually worked by God as a cause cannot be volitionally willed by man as the same cause."

According to Webster, to "obey" means "to follow the commands or guidance of," or "to conform to or comply with." Obedience also involves submission.

If I say - "falling objects obey the laws of physics," do I mean that they do so by a free will choice, or imply that falling objects may disobey the laws of physics? When the scriptures say that "the winds and the waves obey him (Matt. 8: 27)," do they imply that the winds and the waves could have resisted the Lord's commands? Jesus said that a man of great faith can say to a tree "be plucked up by the root and be thou planted in the sea," and that the tree would "obey." Therefore, the Hardshell notion that "obedience" always implies the possibility of successful resistance, or a free will decision, is false. If I say - "the dog has learned to obey several commands," do I mean that the dog chose to obey? James wrote:

"Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body." (James 3: 3)

Did James use the wrong word here? Did James not know that horses can't "obey"? That "obedience" always involves volition, as Jason affirms?

Jason wants to divorce any and all kinds of "obedience" from regeneration and eternal salvation. But, the scriptures will not support him in this enterprise.

"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him." (Mark 1: 27)

Was the obedience of these demons compelled? Was the command of Christ not irresistible?

Wrote Paul:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 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." (Rom. 6: 16-18)

Jason teaches that there are many who have been "made free from sin," or justified, who have never obeyed the gospel, or "that form of doctrine." Interesting also is the fact that, in the Greek, the obedience is passive - "obeyed that form of doctrine into which you were delivered." Passive obedience!

Paul said a man is not made free from sin until he has believed the gospel, but Jason and the Hardshells would disagree with Paul and affirm that a man is saved, justified, and born again, before faith and conversion. Paul says sinners "believe UNTO righteousness." Hardshells say that sinners believe because of an already possessed righteousness.

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5: 9)

"All them that obey him" - who are they? Just some of the saved or all of them? Just a few of the elect, or all of them? Jason reads this verse and says - "he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him, yes, but he is also the author of the eternal salvation for many who do not obey him."

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." (I Peter 1: 22)

Soul purification by obedience to the gospel? Soul purification in the context of being "born again"? (vs. 23) Also, does Paul not say that this obedience to the gospel is "through the Spirit"?

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (I Peter 4: 17)

What did Peter believe would be the "end" or destiny of those who "obey not the gospel"? Did he believe like Jason that many of them will be saved in heaven nonetheless?

Here is what John Gill said about it:

"what shall the end of such be? in this world wrath came upon them to the uttermost, ruin upon their nation, city, and temple; and in the world to come everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and eternal vengeance in flames of fire."

"Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD." (Eze. 37: 4)

God told Ezekiel to command the dead bones to "hear." Thus, the hearing of the preaching of the word was obedience to a command.

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze. 36: 27)

These verses teach sovereign irresistible grace in the work of saving sinners through the new covenant. God says, in covenant promise, "I will," and the effect is "they shall." God effects all the items named in the text. Do any have God's "spirit"? Then they can thank God for it, the one who graciously promised to give it to him before the world began. Do any walk in the statutes of the Lord, according to the gospel? Then God is the "cause" of it. Do any keep God's word? Then God is the reason. If these verses do not show that the obedience of the people of God is wrought in them efficaciously by God, then none could. Will Jason not give God all the credit for his obedience or will he take a measure of credit for himself?

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts..." (Psa. 65: 4)

A man "approaches" God. Does God not command it? Does he not cause it in the one he has chosen? Is approaching God not obedience?

"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isaiah 26: 12)

Jason cannot affirm what these words affirm. They give God all the credit for the good deeds, for all the obedience, of his people.

"Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee." (Psa. 66: 3)

Do these words not say that God will effectually cause his enemies to submit (or obey)?

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)

Like Isaiah, does not Paul also give credit to God and his grace and power for all his obedience?

Jason believes that all the obedience of God's elect, including their sanctification, is "synergistic," but their regeneration is monergistic. Will our obedience in glory be synergistic? Will it be possible for some not to obey? Why not? Will there be any "obedience" in glory if God has so fixed our nature that it cannot help but obey?

Jesus said "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." (vs. 4)

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (vs. 14)

Is the word "know" not a "cognitive" word? If I said - "that is my wife's voice," would that not imply that I knew her? Two things about those who are designated as God's "sheep." First, they know Christ. That is, they recognize him, being knowledgeable of him. Second, they "know his voice." How can this be a non-cognitive, unconscious knowing? Further, Jason would argue that there are many sheep (elect and regenerate ones) who do not know the voice of Christ and do not know his person and character.

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (vs. 9)

Jesus is talking about the salvation of the sheep, the sheep being identified as they who know Christ, who know and follow his voice. Is it proper to say that the sheep "obey" the voice of the shepherd? Do they not do this automatically, by habit, and instinctively? When we say that the sheep "recognize" the shepherd and his voice, does the word (concept) or recognition involve cognition?

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (vs. 26-28)

Jason thinks his view about the voice of Christ, in John 10, being the gospel, frees him from difficulty, but it does not. Jesus said that his sheep, all of them, would hear his voice, come to him, and follow him. But, does Jason believe that all the sheep will hear and believe the gospel?

Jason wrote:

"It is not the life-giving voice of the Son of God that the Jewish leaders fail to hear, for, like Lazarus, they would have been resurrected to new life effectually and immediately if they were addressed thusly."

Christ's has two voices now? One that is life-giving and one that is not? This is typical Hardshell hermeneutics. When they cannot reconcile scripture with their Hardshell heresies, they give dual meanings to words. They do this with salvation, saying that there is an eternal salvation and there is a time salvation. They do this with perish, saying there is eternal perishing and temporal perishing. They do this with faith, saying there are two kinds of faith, one that is cognitive and one that is a kind of "seed" that is latent in a person.

Yes, the non-elect hear the voice of Christ, but not to salvation. The sheep (elect) hear it and believe it. Why the difference? It is the election that makes the difference. (I Cor. 4: 7) The purpose of God is what makes the difference.

Jason wrote:

"It is perfectly evident from the text that it is the message and ministry of Jesus that the Jewish leaders failed to believe, as Jesus refers to His earthly ministry that the evil Jews witnesseed (vs. 25). This unbelief in the words and teaching of Christ marked the Jewish leaders as unregenerate men, just as belief in the words and teaching of Christ mark those that are born again."

How did the unbelief of the Jewish leaders "mark" then as "unregenerate men"? If you admit that some regenerate men reject the gospel, then you cannot say absolutely that the unbelieving Jewish leaders were unregenerate.

Jason says that the unregenerate Jews were hearing the voice of Jesus and that this voice of Jesus was in the preaching of Jesus. Why will he not do the same with the voice of Jesus in John 5: 25-28? Most Hardshells would disagree with Jason and affirm that the voice of Christ is the same in both chapters, and that the gospel is not the vehicle for hearing the voice of Christ, in John 10. Why do they reject Jason's view? Is it not because they see the language of irresistible grace and effectual calling in the words of Jesus to the sheep? If these two factions could each give a little, and meet in the middle, they would come over to the Old Baptist position. The majority needs to accept Jason's interpretation about the voice of Christ being heard in the preaching of the gospel, and Jason and the minority need to accept the majority view that the effects of the voice speaking is an irresistible and effectual work.

Jason wants to make the experience and behavior of the sheep to be a "conversion" experience that only some of the sheep (elect) experience, rather than a "regeneration" experience that all of the sheep (elect) experience. But, Christ states universal categorical propositions in relation to the sheep, not limited ones, as Jason wants to avow. He is indeed attempting to use his "logic" to distort the text and make it harmonize with his unscriptural propositions. Who has the right to take God's universal propositions and make them limited and particular? Jesus says "my sheep," meaning all of them, "hear my voice," that is, hear my voice in the gospel, as John Gill affirmed, and as Jason himself agrees. All Jason can do is see a limited proposition that says "some of my sheep hear my voice and follow me." At least the majority view sees how the words are universal propositions, stating what is true of all members designated as in the class of "sheep."

Jason wrote:

"This passage (John 10) clearly presupposes that being born again is a necessary context for belief in the gospel. It presupposes a distinction between sonship and discipleship. The main point of Christ is that belief and trust in Christ (vs. 24) - the gospel - is the nature of sheep - those that have been regenerated."

Where in the chapter does Jesus put being born again "before" faith and conversion? Where does he separate them? Where does he imply that one can be a born again unbeliever? Yes, they are "sheep" before they are regenerated and before they believe, but the term "sheep" is not to be equated with "regenerated ones," but with "elect ones." People are chosen to salvation before they are actually saved. Interesting how Jason says that one must be spiritually alive first, in John 10, before he can know Jesus and hear his voice, but not so in John 5. In John 5 one hears the voice of Christ before he is made alive. This doesn't represent doctrinal "clarity" but a dirty window's view.

Jason wrote:

"I said doctrinal division always creates clarity in the positions of those dividing. I have not argued that every single PB member has preserved this clarity with the mental precision of Lemuel Potter. While present PB's do have clarity on the subject of immediate regeneration..."

I have already written in regard to Elder Potter. Potter's "mental precision" involved "cision," a cutting up the word of God, and a failure to "rightly divide the word of truth." Today's Hardshells have "clarity" on the subject of regeneration? I have shown how false is that statement!

Jason wrote:

"As to James 1:21, I do not exegete this passage in terms of a "timely salvation". The text is not dealing with regeneration primarily, as the Logos has already been engrafted, but the reference, "which is able to save your souls", refers to the Logos, not the accepting of it. The salvation is necessarily eternal, therefore. The volitional nature of the passage is addressed to the individual with the engrafted Logos to submit to it, and to it's converting and sanctifying direction of the perfect law of liberty of verse 25. This is my understanding of the text. Most of my previous writing on this text outside of this post (and some in this post) was a reductio ad absurdum argument of Brother Garrett's position."

Jason says that he does not interpret James 1: 21 as dealing with a "timely salvation" and yet that is exactly what he does! Why would he deny his own stated views? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth in regard to the salvation under consideration in the passage. The context also shows that the "word" is not Jesus and Jason avoids the context. Notice the next two verses.

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass."

These words clearly show that "the word" refers to the instruction, to the gospel teaching.

Jason wrote:

"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."

Garrett only claims, however, what the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions claim.

Jason wrote:

"What a curious question he asks, "Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one?", right next to, "Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect?" Regeneration is never shown in the Scripture to be a process, so activity in relation to it on the part of man is precluded. Notice the contradiction he makes, which seems to be a theme for Garrett, if "coming to life" is an activity caused by God in the latter statement, how can it possibly be "an activity on the part of the dead one"? His "moderate Calvinism" only exists by embracing contradiction. He has to embrace this farce because he will not bend to the superior logical alternative that regeneration precedes faith and repentance, which is clearly implied all over the Bible, as in John 10:25-27."

I find Jason's logic to be twisted. And yet he speaks of his "superior logic." First, why does he deny that "coming to life" is what the dead experience, not God! Experience involves action and activity. Certainly it is God's action that causes the action of resurrection. But, how could anyone deny that resurrection or quickening is an experience that involves action? Think about the story of Ezekiel's preaching to the valley of dry, dead bones. Did those bones not have action and activity involved in their coming to life?

It may be "logical," by human wisdom, to say that regeneration precedes faith, but is it scriptural? Our Old Baptists, like the scriptures, put regeneration and faith together in the same way it puts regeneration and life together. Let me ask Jason - "does regeneration precede life"? And, "does regeneration cause life?" People like James White may avow that "regeneration precedes faith," but he will say this is true only logically, but not chronologically. Will Jason affirm that? He would be lots closer to the truth if he took White's position. Some of the Old Baptists did say that regeneration preceded faith, but they did not believe it preceded it chronologically. Other Old Baptists, the more knowledgeable ones, argued that they were concurrent and that debates over which comes logically first is unnecessary and unprofitable.

Besides, there are passages of scripture that clearly give the priority to faith. Notice these:

1) "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

Which comes first in this passage, believing or life?

2) "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (I Tim. 1: 16)

Does Paul say that one believes because he already has eternal life, or believes "to" it?

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)

"Coming to" Jesus, in this discourse, is equated with "believing" in Jesus. Does one "come to Jesus" because he already has "life," or that he may obtain it? To harmonize this with his Hardshellism, Jason would have to change Jesus' words to say - "and you do not have life that you might come unto me."

Jason finds it repugnant and unscriptural to view "regeneration" and spiritual "birth" as a "process," although he allows for "sanctification" to be a process. So, what if regeneration is a process? Are there any scriptures that deny that it is so? How do you define "process"? Certainly regeneration is no "process" if one thinks that it denotes what happens slowly, over a long time. I do not believe that regeneration is a "process" in this sense. Coming to life is instantaneous. But, even that which happens in a "split second" can have a process to it. A process involves a procedure, or logical stages or steps. Does Jason deny that God has a procedure? Consider also the fact that God often has a long process of preparatory work before he regenerates a soul.

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett goes on to claim that I espouse Arminianism in James 1:21 in supposing that accepting the engrafted Logos is contingent on the will of man. This is false because accepting the engrafted Logos in this text is in a context of gospel conversion in which the regenerated man (engrafted is in the past tense) wills in synergy with the influence of the Spirit in a process of progressive sanctification unto glorification, which presupposes regeneration. It is Brother Garrett who insists that James 1:21 refers to a "process" of regeneration in which the contradictory melding of God's effectual call and man's free will is supposedly both present and preserved. It is Garrett's contradictory embrace of both Calvinism and Arminianism that is erroneous."

Jason earlier denied that he interpreted the "salvation" of James 1 as being a Hardshell "time salvation," but here he equates the salvation with "conversion," which is all the same as "time salvation" in Hardshell jargon.

Jason argues for monergism in regard to "regeneration" but for synergism in regard to "sanctification." This, however, is grossly inconsistent and contradictory. Is God not the author of both? Does Jason deny that God will progressively sanctify his regenerated people effectually? Does Jason believe that some of the regenerated will fail to progress in holiness?

Jason wrote:

"I was certainly not advocating that regeneration is primarily in view in James 1:21. What I argued is that for Garrett, who believes regeneration is primarily in view in this text, he is forced to concede an Arminian view of free will, which he seems to affirm as co-existent with the effectual call of God. However, this is a blatant contradiction as to the cause of regeneration."

I need not repeat here what I have shown before. But, again, Jason contradicts himself by again denying that regeneration or eternal salvation is under consideration, but then has the nerve to say that the sees the salvation, in the text, as eternal, and not as a time salvation.

Also, I never affirmed an Arminian view of free will in regard to the passage, but it was shown that Jason is the guilty one in that regard.

Jason then cited me and responded:

"Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"

They are not unconnected with regeneration in the sense that in this gospel era since the New Testament the revelation of the gospel elucidates the fundmental trust in God imparted in the new birth, so such revelation always presupposes regeneration, showing that gospel revelation is fully consistent and the natural extension of sonship."

"Fundamental trust in God" is "imparted in the new birth"? In this statement Jason is again contradicting his own self, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Can one have fundamental trust in God apart from cognition? Is this the one true God? Jesus Christ? How did they get this trust in God in the new birth? Apart from hearing the gospel? Can a man trust in a person he knows nothing about?

Jason said:

"Brother Garrett is incorrect. If Primitive Baptist individuals have said that Phil. 2:13 refers to regeneration, they are incorrect."

Notice how Garrett's understanding of James 1:21 makes the volitional nature of the text illusory. "Those that end up damned refuse the gospel, as they were not effectually worked on by God, and the elect are irresistibly drawn to accept the gospel. Garrett fails to uphold his own hermeneutical standard of embracing the "obvious" meaning of a text, which, in this case, ought to lead him to embrace Arminianism..."

The volition of the text is only "illusory" due to Jason's faulty definition of "volition." Jason denies that volition can be God caused. He says that if God cause one to choose, then there was no choice at all. But, this is both illogical and against scripture. I have already cited Phil. 2: 13 where Paul says that God works in his people "to will," or "to choose."

I cited I Thess. 1: 4, 5 and made some observations and Jason then responded with this commentary.

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)

It denotes the utter inconsistency of affirming sonship without discipleship for those sons under the sound of the gospel, but to say that effectual calling extends to discipleship makes it difficult to understand how Peter could deny Christ or for serious disobedience in the children of God. David and Samson had grievous sins that make it difficult to harmonize to an irresistable grace in the lives of children of God."

Where is the difficulty but in Jason's own mind? Did not Paul say - "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me"? Did I not cite Isaiah 26: 12 - "for thou also hast wrought all our works in us"? Let me ask Jason - "why does one of God's people live obediently to the Lord and another does not?" What was Paul's answer? See I Cor. 4: 7 for his answer.

Jason wrote:

Given the context is the gospel era of the New Testament, many individuals were/are regenerated under the sound of the gospel (or with a great deal of intellectual knowledge of the gospel), or like Paul - in the face of Jesus Christ. In this gospel era, knowledge of the gospel is readily accessible to the regenerate. Such a text as Ephes. 1:19, 20 does not prove that gospel knowledge is to be equated with the principle of grace given in regeneration; what it proves is that to a man like Paul who already had extensive knowledge in an unregenerate state, the missing component was trust in Christ, not knowledge of Christ."

Did Paul know that Jesus Christ was Lord prior to his Damascus road experience? He may have had some knowledge of Christ and the gospel, but he did not have the revelation that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," the kind Peter had and which Christ said had been revealed to him by the Father. What did the "exceeding greatness of his power" accomplish? Was it not to make the elect into believers in Jesus? Further, does Paul not call this a being "quickened" from spiritual death? (2: 1)

Jason wrote:

"I do see the salvation as eternal. (James 1: 18) The volitional nature of submitting to the direction of the engrafted Logos leads to being blessed on this earth in that work, according to James 1:25. Surely that is a timely blessing. It is obvious to question whether the forgetful hearer ever had the Logos engrafted, as James states that such a one deceives himself (vs. 22)."

The salvation is both "eternal" and "timely"? Jason has already identified the experience of salvation, in the passage, as dealing with "conversion," and not with regeneration, so why is he saying it is "eternal" salvation?

Jason wrote:

"This is humorous exegesis. The context of Matt. 23:15 is "obviously" a condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders. This text is not in a contextual flow that justifies the belief that the "hindering" of verse 13 is necessarily eternal. And if it is, how can individuals enter eternal salvation in part only to be finally hindered by the Jewish leaders? This is highly problematic outside of an Arminian system of access into eternity by free will. Eternal salvation cannot logically be understood to be had in part, as the text alludes, unless we make the possession of it contingent on the will of man. The fact remains that Garrett twists the intuitive meaning of this text to harmonize with Calvinistic presuppositions - a method of hermeneutics of which he accuses Primitive Baptists."

I do not know what Jason is talking about when he mentions "entering salvation in part." But, I have clearly shown that being made into a "two fold more child of Hell" demonstrates that the salvation and damnation are eternal. Not being able to enter the kingdom of God speaks of eternal doom. Jesus asked the unbelievers - "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Jason does not want to say this means that they were eternally lost? Yet, ironically, he decries the historical problems with universalism and no-hellism among his people?

I cited this verse:

""For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)

I then made these comments:

"Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect).""

Jason responded by saying:

"The Greek word for 'Saviour' in this text is 'soter', which obviously means deliverer, not 'lover'. Does Brother Garrett deny limited atonement? The reference of "all men" refers to kinds of men, not each individual man. If Christ loved all men in a covenant of creation sense it would go without saying that he loved the rich, young ruler. The fact that it is stated that he 'loved' him implies a distinctive love - a love by virtue of the covenant of creation would be redundant and manifest. This line of reasoning preserves the natural impression of the text; whereas, Brother Garrett's is counter-intuitive - a position he must advocate because he cannot accept the "plain declarations of Scripture".

I know that the word "soter" denotes "savior." That was not the point! The point was to borrow the language of Paul relative to what is general and what is special. Does Jason deny that God, in any sense, loves all men? That Christ was under obligation to love his neighbor as himself?

About Christ loving the rich young ruler who rejected following him, Jason thinks this means that he will be saved in spite of his refusing to believe in Jesus!