My Final Word

Brown says all the examples of "of (from, out) the dead" dealt with physical death.  That most of them do is quite obvious.  But, this does not negate what "out from among the dead" or "away from the dead" connote.  Further, not all the passages that were referenced dealt with physical death.  Notice these words:

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."  (Rom. 6: 4-6)

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."  (Vs. 13)

Paul says that Christ being resurrected (quickened) "from (ek) the dead (nekros)" is "like" the conversion experience of Christians wherein they also were quickened "from (ek) the dead (nekros)."  Before being saved by the Spirit and word of the Lord, they were unconverted, and among the unconverted, literally, and as a class.  They were dead and among the dead.  When they were quickened (converted or regenerated) they were no longer "among the (spiritually) dead," were no longer dead.

Clearly these verses are talking about the new birth, when sinners begin their spiritual existence as children of God, when they are raised from spiritual death to spiritual life.  And, the same phrase is used as in Eph. 5: 14 - "from the dead."  Thus, to rise "from the dead" is used both in the context of physical death and resurrection and in the context of spiritual life and resurrection.

In Ephesians 2:1, the KJV adds the words "hath he quickened."  These words are not in the original Greek but are implied from the context. Paul ended Chapter 1 by affirming that the resurrection of Jesus is the pattern for our Christian resurrection (quickening), just as he did in Romans Chapter six.  Paraphrased, Paul is saying - "Christ was quickened from (out of) the dead and so have you been quickened from (out of) the dead in your conversion and will yet be quickened in your mortal bodies."  The "and you" means "and you also."  Meaning, "and you (also), like Christ, have been raised up from among the dead, or made alive."  Thus, the addition of "has he quickened" is implied.  Paul is clearly showing a likeness between Christ being "quickened out of the dead" and Christians being "quickened out of the dead."  Notice the context of Eph. 2: 1:

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead...And you hath he quickened (raised from the dead), who were dead in trespasses and sins..."    (Eph. 1: 19, 20-2: 1)

Not only does Paul connect Christian enlightenment with spiritual quickening but also faith (belief).  One has experienced Christian revelation concerning Christ and the plan of salvation when he has been quickened. 

Kenneth Wuest translates Eph. 5: 14 as follows:

"Wherefore He says, Be waking up, he who is sleeping, and arise from the dead, and there shall shine upon you the Christ."

Doubtless these words speak of the Christian salvation experience.  A Christian is one who has awakened from sleeping among the dead, has come to life.  In this experience the Christian has been "shined upon" by Christ who is "The Light."  (John 1: 8, 9; 8: 12)  Paul elsewhere spoke of salvation being an experience wherein the light of Christ and of the Gospel has "shined" into the heart "to give the knowledge" of Christ and salvation.  (II Cor. 4: 4-6)  Thus, Paul joins Christian enlightenment with being raised from the dead, showing that they are inseparable.  He who has been raised to Christian life in Christ has also been enlightened by Christ, and knows, loves, and trusts Christ.   Sadly, Hardshells divorce evangelical enlightenment from the experience of being quickened, but the Apostle joined them together. 

Clearly the rising "from the dead" of Eph. 5: 14 is talking about the same experience of Eph. 1: 19-2: 1.  It is not sound interpretation to say that the resurrection experience of Christians (regeneration), described in the introductory verses of Eph. 1: 19-2: 1, to be different from the rising "from the dead" of Eph. 5: 14.  But, this is what Brother Jason does.  He says that the rising from the dead of Eph. 1: 19-2: 1 denotes strict regeneration, and not conversion, but that the rising from the dead of Eph. 5: 14 is not regeneration, but the later experience of conversion. 

So, it is not true that "from the dead," in the fifty six examples I gave, are only used with regard to physical resurrection.  In both Rom. 6 and Eph. 1:19-2: 5, "from the dead" is used with regard to being regenerated or quickened.  And, there is absolutely no justification for making the first usage of "from the dead" in the Ephesian letter (chapters 1 & 2) to be connoting a different meaning of "from the dead" in Eph. 5: 14.

Further, the argument still stands unrefuted, that every instance of "from the dead," when talking either of physical death or spiritual death, denotes that the one "among the dead" was dead.  To make Eph. 5: 14 a singular exception is thus unsound.  If fifty five instances show that to be "among the dead" denotes that the one among the dead is himself dead, then the singular disputed passage of Eph. 5: 14 should be taken in the same sense. 

Jason thinks that I have ignored his argument in regard to how Paul, in other passages, addressed saved Christians with the call to wake from sleep (from slothfulness and failure to watch).

Brown wrote (see here):

"I want to say first, (nay, scream, rather) has Brother Garrett addressed 1 Thess. 5:6 and it's use of katheudo? Has he addressed the general context of 1 Thess. 5:5-10 and Romans 13:11-14 and what it surely implies to the same practical section of Ephesians 5:14 that we find in Paul's epistles? No he has not. I wonder why? What more needs to be said unless he gives us a good reason to see katheudo differently than how Paul used it himself?"

But, it is not true that I have not addressed this.  Notice these two citations from my previous rebuttals.

"Normally the word "sleep" refers to the slumber of the living but sometimes for those who are dead, as Jason admits.  So, how are we to determine which it is in a given verse?  Does the context not decide the issue?  When Christ spoke of the sleeping of Jairus' daughter, the context shows he is referring to death.  So likewise the context of Eph. 5: 14 shows that death is under consideration for the second part says "AND rise from the dead."

"Jason admits that the Greek word for "sleep" (katheudō) is used to refer to those who are physically dead.  However, he argues that it is not used with regard to those who are spiritually dead, that the word "nekros" is used exclusively to refer to the spiritually dead.  But, the passage in Eph. 5: 14 uses both katheudo and nekros in regard to the same condition of the same people."  ("More on Eph. 5: 14" - see here)

So, though I did not mention specifically I Thess. 5: 6; 5: 5-10; Rom. 13: 11-14, yet I did clearly refer to them indirectly when I said that sleep (katheudo) normally refers to what the living do.  I agree that the passages named mainly is a call to Christians, to those already alive from the dead.  But, I have shown that the context and syntax of Eph. 5: 14 show that sleep is used with regard to those who are dead just as in the case of Lazarus and Jairus' daughter.  So, brother Jason, you ought not to be screaming.  Calm down brother. 

Further, Jason's interpretation of Eph. 5: 14 implies that Paul is presently addressing the Christians in Ephesus, and rebuking them for their sleeping condition.  But, nothing could be further from the truth.  Paul commends the Ephesians for their wakeful condition throughout the epistle.  He could not speak of them as already awake and enlightened, as he does in the immediate context (vs. 8), if he viewed them as still asleep and still in darkness.  Thus, the command to awake and arise is not specifically addressed to the Ephesian Christians for they had already heard Christ say to them "awake and rise from the sleep of death." 

Now, unless Jason offers some new argument or makes some outlandish statement, this will  be my last word on this particular issue.  He can have the last word.

Singular vs. Plural Signification

Jason Brown recently argued that the singular implied pronoun "thou" in Eph. 5: 14 showed that not all who are "among the dead" are addressed, for had they been, the plural would have been used.  He says this is a call to a special group within the larger group of "the dead."  But, he does not see how this argument backfires on him.  His interpretation still interprets the singular as applicable to more than one!  Does he not say that Christ is speaking to all the elect?  Is that more than one?  Does he not say that this command to awake and to rise up from among the dead is directed to all sleeping elect?   To all who are asleep among the dead?

Brown's argument is found in these words:

"As can be seen from the textus receptus of Ephesians 5:14, 'ho' (looks like the 'o'), which is before katheudon, and katheudon itself, are singular. 'Ho' is the singular version of the article 'the'. However, 'ton nekron' is plural, 'ton' being the plural form of the article. This alone proves that the command to 'awake' and 'arise' is directed discretely among the dead to them that sleep, the grammar does not allow that these commands are made to all the dead."

The reason for the singular use of "thou" is because the call is personal and directed at the individuals within the group called "the dead."  Christ says to you, said Paul, who are among the dead, i.e. who are dead, to rise and awake from that condition.  The address is to anyone who is asleep among the dead, i.e. to anyone who is dead.

Many examples in Scripture can be given that show how the singular is used to designate a singular compound group, or as a plural noun, and yet the does not exclude the many who compose the group.  I will give these examples that come to my mind.

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (singular) is, that they (plural - all Israelites) might be saved."  (Romans 10: 1)

"Notwithstanding she (singular) shall be saved in childbearing, if they (plural - the women) continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." 

Further, all through I Cor. chapter eleven Paul uses the singular "the woman" when what he says is applicable to all women.  So, the fact that the words of Eph. 5: 14 is addressed to the one (singular) who is dead, it is applicable to any who are dead.

Who is Old Baptist?

Brown wrote:

"As we have observed in a recent blog dealing with Garrett's Fullerism, Brother Garrett is not an Old Baptist.

Brother Garrett stated:

"But, God has absolute foreknowledge, and knows who will believe and who will not. Therefore, Christ died only for those whom he foreknew would believe."

The London Confession plainly states in Chapter 3, paragraph 2:

"Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions,5 yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

I demand he change the title of his blog, the "Old Baptist". What a farce."

The charge that I am not an Old Baptist is truly comical coming from a Hardshell!  The Hardshells reject what the old confession says about regeneration being by means of the word, reject what it says about predestination and the decrees, reject what it says about saving faith and repentance, and reject what it says about perseverence!  I accept what the old confession says on all these points.

Further, Jason wants to accuse me of being a "Fullerite" and yet he has not proven it.  As I have said before, "Fullerism" is a bugaboo word with the Hardshells.  To them Andrew Fuller was a rank heretic.  Though I disagree with Fuller on the atonement question, I consider Fuller to be an Old Baptist.  I never have thought that his views were of the category of "heresy" and that the Hardshells should never have made it an issue of church fellowship.

I have repeatedly affirmed in all my posts that Christ died, as an atoning substitute, for the sins of believers only.  Thus, Jason is uttering falsehood when he represents me otherwise.  He needs to repent of doing such things.

Jason also further accused me of being Fullerite and against the Old London Confession (and therefore not legitimately an "Old Baptist") because I said that God foreknew who would believe.  Does Jason deny this?  What Jason must know is that I did not say that God based his choice on who he foresaw would believe.  I have always affirmed that men are chosen to faith, not because of faith.  I even stoutly defended this view when in debate with Bruce Reeves of the "Church of Christ" when we debated the doctrine of election for four nights. 

I cited the words of Scripture where it is said that Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not.  (John 6: 64)  My point was that the Lord knew not only who would believe (because of being predestined thereto) but also who would not believe, who would reject his offer of salvation and atonement.  Had the Lord foreseen any of the non-elect believing and repenting, then certainly Christ would have actually atoned for them. 

It seems that I have gotten under the skin of Brother Jason for he has become irritated and hostile.  The heat in the kitchen is not having a positive effect on him.  I pray the Lord comes to his aid.

This Ought To Settle The Matter

Jason Brown said:

"This fact agrees and establishes that just because the sleepers came out of where the dead were does not and cannot mean they were dead themselves. They are sleeping when they are called upon to awake, not dead."  (see here)

The following are all the scriptures that speak of being "from," "of," or "among" the dead.  Some of them use the preposition "ek" (out) and some use "apo" (away from).  Many of them are of the same Greek construction as Eph. 5: 14 - "ek ton nekron."  Let us see if any of these passages speak of living people being among the dead.  Let us see how being "among the dead" means that one is dead.

"...the Son of man be risen again from the dead."  (Matt. 17: 9)

Was Christ physically alive while he was among the dead? 

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead."  (Matt. 22: 31)

Is being resurrected "from among the dead" the same as coming to life? 

"He is risen from the dead."  (Matt. 27: 64)

"...he is risen from the dead."  (Matt. 28: 7)

"John the Baptist was risen from the dead." (Mark 6: 14)

"...he is risen from the dead."  (Mark 6: 16)

"...till the Son of man were risen from the dead."  (Mark 9: 9)

"...questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."  (Mark 9: 10)

"...when they shall rise from the dead..."  (Mark 12: 25)

"John was risen from the dead..."  (Luke 9: 7)

"...if one went unto them from the dead..."  (Luke 16: 30)

"...will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."  (Luke 16: 31)

These two references are from the story of the rich man and Lazarus who were dead, and therefore among the dead.  To go out from or away from the dead means to come to life, to be quickened or resurrected (to rise).

"...the resurrection from the dead..."  (Luke 20: 35)

"...to rise from the dead the third day..."  (Luke 24: 46)

"When therefore he was risen from the dead..."  (John 2: 22)

"Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead."  (John 12: 9)

"Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record."  (John 12: 17)

"...that he must rise again from the dead."  (John 20: 9)

"...after that he was risen from the dead."  (John 21: 14)

"...whom God hath raised from the dead..."  (Acts 3: 15)

"...preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead."  (Acts 4: 2)

"God raised from the dead..."  (Acts 4: 10)

"...after he rose from the dead."  (Acts 10: 41)

"But God raised him from the dead..."  (Acts 13: 30)

"...he raised him up from the dead..."  (Acts 13: 34)

"...and risen again from the dead..."  (Acts 17: 3)

"...in that he hath raised him from the dead."  (Acts 17: 31)

"...when they heard of the resurrection of the dead..."  (Acts 17: 32)

"...of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."  (Acts 23: 6)

"...that there shall be a resurrection of the dead..."  (Acts 24: 15)

"Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question..."  (Acts 24: 21)

"...he should be the first that should rise from the dead..."  (Acts 26: 23)

"...by the resurrection from the dead..."  (Rom. 1: 4)

"...him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead..."  (Rom. 4: 24)

"Christ was raised up from the dead..."  (Rom. 6: 4)

"Christ being raised from the dead..."  (Rom. 6: 9)

"...those that are alive from the dead..."  (Rom. 6: 13)

"...to him who is raised from the dead..."  (Rom. 7: 4)

"...raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead..."  (Rom. 8: 11)

"...to bring up Christ again from the dead..."  (Rom. 10: 7)

"God hath raised him from the dead..."  (Rom. 10: 9)

"...but life from the dead?"  (Rom. 11: 15)

"Christ be preached that he rose from the dead..."  (I Cor. 15: 12)

"But now is Christ risen from the dead..."  (I Cor. 15: 20)

"...and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..."  (Gal. 1: 1)

"...when he raised him from the dead..."  (Eph. 1: 20)

"...the firstborn from the dead..."  (Col. 1: 18)

"...who hath raised him from the dead."  (Col. 2: 12)

"...whom he raised from the dead..."  (I Thess. 1: 10)

"Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead..."  (II Tim. 2: 8)

"Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead..."  (Heb. 11: 19)

"...that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus..."  (Heb. 13: 20)

"...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead..."  (I Peter 1: 3)

"...that raised him up from the dead..."  (I Peter 1: 21)

"...the first begotten of the dead..."  (Rev. 1: 5)

None of these passages speak of the living coming out from among the dead.  None of them imply that the living are among the dead and are simply being called to separate themselves from the dead.  In all cases "rising from the dead" denotes coming to life.  It never speaks of the living coming out from among the dead.  Now let us notice the passage in dispute.

"Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."  (Eph. 5: 14)

To interpret the "rising" from "among the dead," in this passage, as not involving a resurrection to life is to give the words "from the dead" a signification that it has no where else in Scripture.  This should settle the case for any honest interpreter.  I challenge Jason to show us where rising from the dead means that the living are among the dead. 

Brown wrote:

"Garrett's insistence that 'among the dead' is never used in the bible where those 'among the dead' are not actually dead is a non-cogent argument when one gives this text an honest appraisal - this text alone proves it."

Then let Jason show us which of the NT passages uphold his view that "among the dead" does not equate with being dead!

In a prior posting (see here) Brown wrote:

""Ek" means 'out of', so the rendering is, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise out of the dead". 'Dead' is in the genitive case, and is the object of the preposition 'out of' (ek). The relevance of 'dead' as an adjectival noun in this prepositional phrase is to show the origin of those that sleep, as Strong's puts it, "suggesting from the interior outward", in a general way. It does not imply that the ones who sleep are dead, and it is unlikely this was the focus of Paul because the phrase 'out of the dead' is meant to primarily convey where the subject arose from, not an emphasis on the ontology of them that sleep."

This is all nonsense.  I never argued that "among the dead" in Greek denoted that the ones among the dead were dead.  It is the usage in Scripture that shows that to be "among the dead" means that one is dead!  And, all the Scriptures cited where "among the dead" is used, show that the one among the dead is dead.  Why would the living be among the dead?  The living are "among the living."

The passage I referred to where the angels asked - "why seek ye the living among the dead" was conclusive to any unbiased mind.  There is a contrast between "among the living" and "among the dead."  To be among the former means that one is alive and to be among the latter means one is dead. 

In the same posting Brown wrote:

"If it was the intention of Paul to emphasize that the sleepers were, in fact, spiritually dead, nekros would not be controlled by "ek", and "ek ton nekron" would not be modifying 'rise up'. Paul would simply have used nekros, and not katheudo at all, as nekros was already employed by Paul in Ephesians 2:1 to refer to the state of death from which the unregenerate actively commit sin."

This is more nonsense!  Let him apply his reasoning to all the other passages where "among the dead" is used and see if it works!

More on Eph. 5: 14

"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

Are two different persons or groups under consideration in this passage?  In other words, are those who are asleep believers (those who are spiritually alive) while those who are dead (or among the dead) unbelievers?  Notice the pronoun "thou."  Is the same "thou" to be applied to the second clause?  Can we read it thusly - "awake you who sleeps and arise (you) from the dead"?  Is "the sleeper" different from the "the dead"?  Jason, and those who he cites as in agreement with him, argue that the "you" of the first clause is not to be understood as being the subject of the second clause.  But, this is untenable.  The same class that is called to "awake" from sleep are the same class that are called to rise from the dead.  They are not two different classes.  Both clauses are not only directed to the same persons, but speak of the same experience.  In other words, waking from sleep is equated with rising from the dead.  They are not talking about two different experiences.  In other words, waking from sleep is further defined as rising from the dead.  It is saying the same thing in different ways.

Some of the commentators that Jason cited believed that the first clause refers to believers and that the latter clause refers to unbelievers.  Jason thinks both clauses are addressed to believers, to those spiritually alive.  Jason cannot count those commentators who interpret the first clause to believers, but the latter to unbelievers, as in league with him.  Very few of them consider the latter clause to be addressed to those who are "alive among the dead."

Further, Jason has never met my challenge to show where being "among the dead" can apply to people who are alive.  It is revealing how he cannot meet this simple challenge.  He is trying to find the living among the dead and he cannot.  Will you give us the Scripture that shows that "among the dead" applies to the living?  The case of David being among the dead was answered and his latest rejoinder has not shown how David was viewing himself as alive among the dead. 

Jason admits that the Greek word for "sleep" (katheudō) is used to refer to those who are physically dead.  However, he argues that it is not used with regard to those who are spiritually dead, that the word "nekros" is used exclusively to refer to the spiritually dead.  But, the passage in Eph. 5: 14 uses both katheudo and nekros in regard to the same condition of the same people.

If the same group of persons are referred to in both imperative clauses, then clearly the apostle views nekros as defining what he means by katheudo.  In rising from sleep one is rising from death.

In Psalm 76: 6 the psalmist mentions a "dead sleep."  That is the kind of death Paul is talking about in Eph. 5: 14.  In Daniel 12: 2 we read:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 

The Greek Septuagint translates the word sleep as καθευδοντων! 

Brown wrote:

"Even if Calvin is not making a fundamental difference in the katheudo and the nekros, none of these commentaries explain the use of both words, but assume that they are generally synonymous. So what is the difference? If you can't answer this question, don't pretend like the words should be treated as practical synonyms when they are clearly two distinct words."

I never said that they were synonyms!  What I have argued is that the latter clause explains what Paul meant by "sleeping" in the former clause.  Calvin and other commentators see this.  Normally the word "sleep" refers to the slumber of the living but sometimes for those who are dead, as Jason admits.  So, how are we to determine which it is in a given verse?  Does the context not decide the issue?  When Christ spoke of the sleeping of Jairus' daughter, the context shows he is referring to death.  So likewise the context of Eph. 5: 14 shows that death is under consideration for the second part says "AND rise from the dead."  Jason must feel the weight of this for he interprets "and rise up from the dead" to mean "you living ones, get up out from among the dead."  But, again, he ought to be able to find another supporting verse that shows that the living are so addressed.  But, universally, the call to rise up from among the dead means to come to life.  The resurrection angels said that the living are not among the dead!  Why not answer the witness of the angels on the point?

The command to "awake" and to "arise" are joined together to denote the same phenomenon.  To awake from the sleep of death means the same thing as to rise from the dead.  Notice these words:

"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."  (Isa. 26: 19)

Brown wrote:

"In other words, katheudo refers to unregenerate elect, and the general nekros refers to the world of the non-elect. The problem with this idea for Brother Garrett is that the gospel proclamation in Ephesians 5:14 is presented to the katheudo, not the general nekros."

Where did Jason get this hermeneutic rule?  Surely he made it up himself.  Can he give us any Greek scholar who says this? 

Further, Jason has put himself into a bind by saying that katheudo refers to the unregenerate!  He has surrendered the whole argument.  Why?  Because he does not believe that God commands the unregenerate, in the Gospel, to rise from their unregenerate sleep!  By the above remarks he believes that the unregenerate are addressed in both clauses!  God says to the unregenerate elect - "rise up from your unregenerate sleep."  God says to the unregenerate non-elect - "rise up from among the dead."  Consistency thou art a jewel!  Further, he is again guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  In his earlier posts he asserted that the command to "rise from the dead" was addressed to the "quickened" child of God but now says it is addressed to "the world of the non-elect"! 

The "gospel proclamation" of Eph. 5: 14 is not addressed to "the general nekros"?  Is he not speaking to those who are dead?  When he says - "rise from the dead," this is not speaking of the dead in general?  Did Jason not say that the dead here refers "to the world of the non-elect"? 

Brown wrote:

"Brother Garrett has 5, maybe 6, resources that take his view of this text."

No, Garrett had more but felt like he had given sufficient citations from the leading commentators to show that they felt like it was a reference to those who are spiritually dead.  And, Jason, sometimes, agrees with this, when he says that the "unregenerate elect" are in view!  Further, as I said, some of the commentators he cited applied the former clause to those already alive in Christ and the latter to those dead in sin.  But, again, what does it matter since Jason has admitted that the entire command is addressed to the unregenerate?  But, of course, he contradicts himself, for he at first said that the command was addressed to those already "quickened" (regenerated) and now says it is addressed to those not regenerated!  Consistency thou art a jewel! 

Brown wrote:

"We are not debating whether the nekros refers to the spiritually dead, but whether katheudo refers to individuals that already believe."

And what is your view?  Do you not contradict yourself when you say that the command is to those who are already "quickened" and now later say it is a command to the "unregenerate"? 

Brown wrote:

"So, that gives the Primitive Baptists Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Albert Barnes, John Gill, and all the resources pasted below...for a total of 16, almost 17, including, possibly, Calvin. The Primitive Baptist view is 3-4 times more prevalent than the support Brother Garrett offers. I think it's fair to say that that is a vast majority. These resources could hardly be thought of as having bias toward the Primitive Baptists."

JFB applied the first clause, as do other commentators, to Christians, but the latter clause to the lost.  But, as I have shown, this is totally untenable as the same class of people are addressed in both clauses.  But, JFB does affirm that the command to "rise from the dead" is addressed to the spiritually dead via the Gospel.  Those who affirm that "rise up from the dead" is a command to Christians is the minority view and is without foundation.  Not until one can show that being "among the dead" does not equate with being dead will such a stance have weight and validity. 

Further, let us ask Jason how many of the commentators he cites will agree with him that men are born again apart from the preaching of the Gospel?  If he wants to go by the majority view of the commentators, then let him accept what they say about James 1: 18, I Cor. 4: 15, and I Peter 1: 23.

Brown wrote:

"Now, come to, Brother Garrett, it is high time for you to repent of your excesses."

But, until you prove that I am guilty of excess, the exhortation is meaningless.  Why don't you repent of your Hardshell presuppositions and twisted hermenuetics? 

Why is it that Jason is fighting the idea that God addresses the spiritually dead through the Gospel?  Is it not because it uproots Hardshellism?  But, of course, he sometimes agrees that the address of Eph. 5: 14 is to the unregenerate and spiritually dead and then at other times says it is addressed to the regenerate and spiritually alive. 

Both John 5: 34 and Eph. 5: 14 truly uproot Hardshellism and its Pelagianism.

Brown's Statements

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

Spurgeon said:

Spurgeon said:

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown wrote:

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

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

Brown On Eph. 5: 14

Brown wrote (see here):

"So, since Brother Garrett cannot deny that Ephesians 5:14 seems to be teaching that children of God can be sleeping and slothful, he wants to suggest that this interpretation cannot be correct because no other passage teaches it?"

Garrett "cannot deny that Ephesians 5: 14 seems to" apply to those already alive?  Jason obviously cannot read plain English.  I not only can deny it, I did deny it.  I showed that to be "among the dead" meant that one was dead, and yet Jason failed to even respond to this argument! 

What I was saying is that Jason needs to show another passage where the call to rise from among the dead showed that those called are alive among the dead.  The intent was to say this:  if Eph. 5: 14 is questionable, then find another passage where rising from among the dead refers to the living coming out from among the dead.  The call to find another passage was not to question that Eph. 5: 14 was addressed to the sleeping dead.  Is it not a fact that every other passage that speaks of people rising "out from among the dead" shows that the people rising were themselves dead?  That is the point!  How could you miss it brother?  Can you give us clear proof that those among the dead are not dead?  This argument destroys Jason's view.  All the other NT passages that speak of people among the dead shows that they are dead. 

Brown wrote:

"Psalms 88:5 states that David, in his abject spiritual condition, was counted 'among the dead', seemingly totally cut off from all spiritual blessings. There is nothing unbiblical about this idea."

On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:

"...he looked upon himself as a dead man, as one belonging to the state of the dead..."

Further, the context defines clearly what it means to be "among the dead."  It is to "lie in the grave" and to be "cut off."  David is not looking upon himself as alive among the dead, but looking upon himself as dead among the dead! 

Jason says "there is nothing unbiblical about this idea," and yet he cannot show that it is biblical!  Again, give us the passage where being "among the dead" is applied to the living! 

Brown wrote:

"The fact is that a different Greek word is used for both 'sleeping' and 'dead'. To interpret them as synonyms in the same context is counter-intuitive. Shrygley argues that they both referred to the same spiritually dead state for emphasis (what emphasis?), and he refers to Matt. 9:24 where Christ said, "...the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." The problem is, besides that the word for dead, ἀπέθανεν, in this text is not the same as the 'dead' of Ephes. 5:14, νεκρῶν, is that this text is in a plain context of physical death, not spiritual death, so the contrast of the two senses of death is not the same contrast or context."

The point is that the bible writers often used the word "sleep" in reference to "dead" and sometimes in the same context, whether the word for the dead is apothnēskō or nekros. 

The question to be decided is whether Paul uses the word "sleep" in Eph. 5: 14 in the sense of "dead," and the context makes this clear, since those who are called to awake are "among the dead," and never is "among the dead" applied to the living!  Address that argument brother Jason and quit dancing all around it!

Jason wrote:

"Now, I'm not intending to fallaciously appeal to consensus, but the fact is that the vast majority of New Testament scholars and commentators view Ephesians 5:14 as the Primitive Baptists do."

How Jason can make such unfounded statements without any proof is astounding.  I say the reverse is true.  Notice these commentators (both from Calvinists and Arminians):

Matthew Henry

"The apostle further urges this duty from the example of God or Christ: Wherefore he saith, &c. (v. 14); as if he had said, "In doing this, you will copy after the great God, who has set himself to awaken sinners from their sleep, and to raise them from the death of sin, that they might receive light from Christ." He saith. The Lord is constantly saying in his word what is more particularly expressed in Isa. lx. 1. Or, Christ, by his ministers, who preach the everlasting gospel, is continually calling upon sinners to this effect: Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead."

JFB

"Believers are called on to "awake" out of sleep; unbelievers, to "arise" from the dead."

Adam Clark

"Awake, O thou who sleepest, And from the dead arise thou, And Christ shall shine upon thee. See Rosenmuller, Wolf, and others. But it seems more natural to understand the words he saith as referring to the light, i.e. the Gospel, mentioned ver. 13. And the dio legei should be translated, Wherefore IT saith, Awake thou, &c. that is: This is the general, the strong, commanding voice of the Gospel in every part-Receive instruction; leave thy sins, which are leading thee to perdition; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he will enlighten and save thee...they were asleep-in a state of complete spiritual torpor, yet they might be awoke by the voice of the Gospel..."

Charles Hodge

"As light is thus efficacious, and as it is accessible, or may be obtained, therefore the Scriptures call even upon the sleeping and the dead to arise and meet its life-giving beams...Those asleep and the dead are in darkness, and therefore those involved in spiritual darkness are addressed as sleeping. The light which comes from Christ has power to reach even the dead--as our Lord, in the use of another figure, says, "The hour is coming, and now is, that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live," John 5, 25. This does not mean that the dead must be revived before they hear the voice of the Son of God, but his voice causes them to hear and live. So the passage before us does not mean that those asleep must arise from the dead and come to Christ for light; but that the light which Christ sheds around him, has power to awake the sleeping dead."

B. W. Johnson

"Wherefore he saith. Who says, or where, is uncertain. There is a similar thought in Isaiah 60:1,2 and Isaiah 26:19. He probably means that God, in substance, says. Awake, thou that sleepest. The sleeper represents one not converted. Arise from the dead. From death in sin (2:1). Conversion is often described as a spiritual resurrection (Rom. 6:4-6; Col. 2:12). And Christ. Christ gives light to all who come to him. The Greek quotation is in verse, and has been translated,

Sleeper, awake; rise from the dead,
And Christ on thee his light shall shed."

John Calvin

"14. Wherefore he saith. Interpreters are at great pains to discover the passage of Scripture which Paul appears to quote, and which is nowhere to be found. I shall state my opinion. He first exhibits Christ as speaking by his ministers; for this is the ordinary message which is every day delivered by preachers of the gospel. What other object do they propose than to raise the dead to life?"

Now, brother Jason, you want to retract what you said?

Arise From The Dead!

Jason Brown wrote (see here):

"This same principle is taught by Paul in Ephesians 5:14, "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee light." The context of this text is an exhortation for those that serve God to "reprove the unfruitful works of darkness (vs. 11)", to "walk as children of light (vs. 8)", "Be not partakers with them (the unregenerate) (vs. 7)", "let no man deceive you with vain words (vs. 6)", and to "walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise (vs. 15)".

The gospel plainly calls the quickened from among the dead..."

Jason interprets the passage as though the text reads -  "Wherefore he says unto the living, Awake from your sleep, and arise from among the dead, and Christ will give thee light."   But, obviously, the words are not spoken to the living but to the dead.  Such a twisted interpretation is the result of believing that the Lord does not speak to the spiritually dead with the imperative words "arise" and "awake."  Such an interpretation makes the "sleep" to be what the living do, not what the dead do.  It affirms that some living are slumbering among the dead and the call is for them to come out from sleeping in such a place. 

Jason admits that the call is to those who are asleep among the dead.  But, he will not admit that those asleep among the dead are themselves dead.  Also, he will not admit that the call is to life and resurrection, but a call for the living to come out from sleeping among the dead.  Jason sees these living souls, who are asleep among the dead, as descriptive of those spiritually alive souls who are dwelling among the wicked and equates this call with such words as these:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."  (II Cor. 6: 17)

Since the world is full of spiritually dead souls, then the call to "come out from among them" is a call to come out from among the dead, but not with the implication that the call is to the living. 

In the Scriptures, to be "among the dead" is to be dead.  Only dead people are "among the dead."  Notice these words of the resurrection angels.

"And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?"  (Luke 24: 5)

But, in his interpretation of Eph. 5: 14, Jason is "seeking (and finding) the living among the dead"! 

We can find all kinds of Scripture to support the idea that to be "among the dead" is to be dead.  Living souls are not "among the dead."  To be "among the living" is to be alive, and to be "among the dead" is to be dead. 

There is clearly a prejudice in the mind of Jason and the Hardshells to accept the fact that the Lord, in the Gospel, addresses dead sinners with the command - "awake and rise from the dead."  So, he gives a forced interpretation which shows his stubborn refusal to simply accept what the verse says. 

Was Jesus preaching to the spiritually dead in John 5: 40?  Did he not condemn them for not coming to him for "life"?  Was he not condemning them for not waking and rising from their spiritual death?

The phrase "from the dead" or "out from the dead," never, in any scripture passage, implies that the ones being called forth are NOT themselves dead.

I challenge any Hardshell to show us one passage of scripture, besides the one in question, where the phrase is used to call forth living people from the society and place of the dead.

I wrote on this in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."  (see here)

Jason thinks that the context shows that Paul is addressing Christians, those already alive, and calling them to "come out from among the dead."  But, clearly the Ephesians were already "out from among the dead" and "among the living."  Paul said to them in verse eight:

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light..." 

Obviously they were no longer in the darkness of death, already had the light shine upon them.  So, the command in verse 15 is not for them to become light, or to be among the living.  Jason's interpretation forces him to affirm that the Ephesian Christians were still "among the dead," and still not shined upon by the Lord.