Debate By Religious Twins (Garrett-Donahue Debate)

My dad, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, "Primitive Baptist" ("Hardshell") preacher (Ohio), and Patrick Donahue, "Church of Christ ("Campbellite") preacher (Alabama) concluded a one night debate in Middletown, Ohio this past Monday night. I have just listened to the audio of the debate from Patrick's web page (http://bibledebates.info). The topic dealt with the subject of "Unconditional Election," with dad affirming the Bible teaches such while Patrick argued for a "conditional election."

I want to give my analysis of this discussion and have titled it "Debate By Religious Twins." The reason for this? Well, that is what popped into my head as I listened to both these gentlemen debate their disagreements. As B.H. Carroll, Jr. said, the Hardshells and the Campbellites are "twin brothers." I have also mentioned the same in my writings on Hardshellism, as has Brother Bob Ross. (See his "History and Heresies of Hardshellism." ) I will be expanding upon this idea (of these sects being "twins") in a later chapter in my book, a chapter to be titled "The Twins." In that chapter I will deal with the oddities, similarities, and differences between these two sets of apostate sects from the Baptists.

Both these Twins have been debating with each other ever since they were born. Like Jacob and Esau, these two groups have fought with each other since their births. I have read many of the historic debates between these two groups. I have always found it interesting that most of the debates, since the birth of these two groups, have been with each other, and very few with the Baptists who remained where the Baptists had always stood (where I stand today, by the grace of God). Yes, men like J.R. Graves, and W.P. Throgmorton, and others, did debate with these two groups, but the bulk of the debating took place between these two twins, more than with their mother, the Old Baptists (of the Confessions). When they get together and debate it is never without some excitement and hilarity. This debate continued that tradition. I had several good laughs listening to both of them.

Agreement With The Hardshells

I agree with the proposition that the Bible teaches "unconditional election." I agree with Dad and the Hardshells on that proposition of truth. God choosing us was not in response to an act of ours, but was God's free, sovereign, and independent choice, out of his own good pleasure, and teleologically, for his own glory. Patrick, of course, denied that "election" was "unconditional," believing rather that God chose on a "conditional basis," in other words, that "God chooses those who choose him." (More on that later)

I had talked to Dad on several occasions prior to this debate and knew what arguments he was going to use. We even had our own little debates on some of those verses (more on that later too). I agree with Dad that II Thess: 2:13 is definitely talking about election unto eternal salvation, and not some election to something strictly temporal. Some Hardshells are denying that this verse talks about eternal salvation, but Dad sees "red flags" when he hears reports of some Hardshells taking this view. But, more on this later also.

I agree with Dad that "election is UNTO salvation." Patrick argued that people must get saved first and then God will choose to save them. Yes, yes, I know, that is laughable! It is Campbellite "logic" side by side with that infamous Hardshell "logic"! You will see why I would naturally think of Brother Carroll and his description of these sects as "twins."

Disgreement With The Hardshells

Where I disagree with Dad and the Hardshells concerns their not understanding salvation, the thing the Scriptures say we are "chosen unto." What is it that, to borrow a scriptural expression, "accompanies salvation?" (Hebrews 6:9) The Hardshells, as I have been showing in my book on Hardshellism, do not believe anything accompanies salvation. Oh yes, they will talk about God giving the "regenerated" sinner "life" (that really is no "life" for it has no activity) and some kind of "implanted faith" (that really is no "faith," for it believes nothing), and they will also speak of people being "born again" without knowing it, being something that occurs on the "sub-conscious level."

So, they know that election is a free act of God, pure unconditional love, but they err in not knowing what we have been chosen to when we are said to be "chosen unto salvation." In being chosen and predestined to salvation, what kind of a state is this, this state of salvation?

II Thess. 2:13,14)

"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: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The error the "firstborn twin" (Hardshell Dad) made was to say that the "belief of the truth," in the passage, has nothing to do with anything, not with the election, nor with the salvation. This brings me to the matter I alluded to earlier in regarding some Hardshells beginning to believe that the election and salvation of this passage must not, after all, concern eternal salvation but a "time salvation." These Hardshells will end up like a lot of other Hardshells and become "Universalists." On the other hand, there is the problem that some Hardshells have, who do not want to make the passage deal with "time salvation," but still have to explain how to fit "belief of the truth" into the paradigm of the passage's structure. They feel like they can handle the first part of the passage, dealing with "sanctification of the Spirit," and would be willing to admit that this is a description of the salvation men are chosen unto. Thus, just like I do, they would say that we are "chosen unto salvation," and that this equally means to be "chosen unto sanctification." But, why would they be willing to do that? Because there is only the mention of the work of the Spirit, in this "sanctifying of the elect," in this part of the passage, following the word en, (through) and they feel safe, with that expression, as it seems to harmonize with their Hardshell views on "regeneration." But, they cannot handle the second part, "in belief of the truth." Dad never did address this difficulty.

Another difficulty for the Hardshell brotherhood, on this passage, is verse 14 -- "Whereunto he called you BY our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

What does "whereunto" look back to in the passage? Does it not look back to "salvation" and its constituent characteristics, holiness and faith? We are "called to holiness by the gospel." We are "called to belief of the truth by the gospel," we are "called to salvation by the gospel," and we are "called by the gospel to the obtaining of the eternal glory of Christ."

You can see why Hardshells, though believers in "unconditional election," nevertheless do not see how the Lord saves (in execution of his decree of election) through the means of faith in the gospel message.

The error of Patrick, (a religious descendant of the "second born twin," Alexander Campbell) concerns his interpreting "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" to mean "because of," which it obviously does not. His interpretation was that God chose those who got themselves sanctified first, who believed and obeyed the truth first, and then God chose them "to salvation." The absurdity of this is that THE PASSAGE SAYS CHOSEN TO SALVATION, NOT CHOSEN BECAUSE OF SALVATION, which it would have to say if Patrick's interpretation was correct. If Patrick's interpretation is correct we would have the following construction:

"Because you are sanctified, and because you believe and obey the truth, I will choose you to salvation."

But, are not those who are sanctified, and who believe and obey the truth, ALREADY SAVED? Yes, obviously. How can election be unto salvation if God chooses those who are saved already? How can he choose us to be holy if he chooses those who are already holy? How can he choose a person to a state where we are "saved" and "believe the truth" if these things are the cause of election?

We are "chosen to faith." We are "chosen to repentance," and we are "chosen to every evangelical grace." We are predestined to do good works and the good works we do are a result of God's election, not the cause of God's choosing us.

Here is what the Bible teaches.

1. We “love him because he first loved us.” (I John 4:19)
2. We “chose him because he first chose us.” (John 15:16)
3. We “know him because he first knew us.” (Romans 8:29)

My friend Patrick simply believes the reverse. He believes God will love us if we first love God. He believes that God will come to know us intimately if we come to know him first. He believes God will choose us if we first choose him. I believe the Bible truth on election and salvation is a simple proposition (and one that Patrick and I are discussing in regard to some possible debates between us in the coming months, but more on that later). It can be stated this way:

"The Bible teaches that election is UNTO regeneration." Regeneration is the effect of election, NOT the cause of election. "Election unto regeneration" is all the same as saying, "election unto faith," and "unto repentance," and "unto gospel obedience," etc. Those whom God has "chosen to salvation" he actually saves in time by calling them by his word and Spirit and creating in them faith and repentance, and causing them to obey the gospel and live a holy life. Every good deed we do is the result of this divine election.

So, the Hardshells err in not seeing that the "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" is descriptive of the state or condition of "salvation" that we have been chosen to obtain or reach. The Greek word en, translated as "through" in the KJV, may mean "in" and may refer to a quality of state or condition. To what does this refer back to? To the word "chosen" or to the word "salvation?" In other words, does God elect "in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"? Of course not. A "saved state" is what is being talked about. Anyone who reaches a "saved state or condition," will reach it because God chose and predestined him to reach and obtain it. That "saved state" has its characteristics and they are given here and elsewhere in Scripture. A man is not in a "saved state," nor show himself to be one of the "elect," if he has not been "sanctified by the Spirit through the gospel," who has not come to a "knowledge and belief of the truth" (of the gospel), who has not been "called by the gospel."

Patrick's Absurd Statements

"God predestinated that those who would conform themselves to the image of Christ be saved."

This is contrary to the text (Romans 8:29). For it says, "for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son..."

Patrick says if we conform ourselves to the image of Christ then God will predestinate us." But again, this is absurd and against the plain text. His interpretation would be as such:

"Those who conformed themselves to Christ's image God predestined to be conformed to Christ's image"!

Patrick also said:

"Romans nine has nothing to do with Jacob’s and Esau’s salvation (or damnation)." That is about the most blinded statement I have ever heard. Perhaps if Patrick will agree to debate election we can show him how blind it really is to what is said in that glorious chapter.

Patrick then made this unscriptural statement.

"Ordained to walk therein" (Eph. 2:10) means "choose us and ordain us because we walk therein."

Again, how one can read Ephesians 2:8-10 and conclude that God chooses us and predestines us because of our good works is a mystery of iniquity. The text says, "which God foreordained (predestined) that we walk therein" The walking in good works is the result of God's election and predestination, not the cause of it. The passage also says that we are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Good works follow our creation in Christ Jesus and our creation in Christ Jesus follows our election in Christ by the Father.

We have a series of causes and effects, leading to other causes. God is the first cause by choosing, predestining, the fate of every elect person. God's choice causes us to come to Christ, to believe the gospel when we hear it, to stay faithful to Christ.

Patrick seems to have difficulty with the affirmative I sent him on election. It read as follows:

1. "The Scriptures teach that election is unto regeneration."

I suggested the reverse for his negative (so that we could stay on the same topic, just switch places). Here is how it read.

2. "The Scriptures teach that regeneration is unto election."

Patrick wrote back that he did not understand the proposition I had sent to him on election. I was surprised. I told him I did not like to affirm a negative. To affirm that election is unconditional is the same as affirming that it is not conditional. So, I put into positive form what we, as Baptists, believe about what is called in Reformed theology, "unconditional election."

Faith is either the cause of God choosing us or the effect of his choosing us. It is that simple. I am putting "faith" for being regeneration." So, I was not expecting him not to fully understand this. So, I will keep all informed about how he and I progress on our debate negotiations.

This concludes my analysis of the debate by the "twins."