Reeves - Garrett Debate, S. Chancellor
On November 8, 2010 brother Bruce Reeves, preacher for the Highway 65 church of Christ in Conway Arkansas, met with Stephen Garrett, from the Cross Roads Baptist Church in Monroe, North Carolina, for a four night discussion of the doctrine of election. The debate took place at the Cross Roads Baptist Church in Monroe, and both speakers handled themselves with the decorum acceptable in such an honorable pursuit. The proposition affirmed by Brother Reeves on the first two nights stated; “The Scriptures teach that God’s election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals.”
The purpose of this review is to whet the appetite and encourage the reader to either listen to or watch the entire debate for themselves. The material is available at www.hwy65churchofchrist.org. Hopefully, after reading this review, those who do listen to the debate will have a heightened awareness of the obvious differences in approach between the two disputants these differences are obvious and also valuable to recognize. Both the exegete and the isogete were at work in this debate, the one finding meaning in contextual examination and supporting texts, the other wresting preconceived notions from abused scripture despite the protest of both context and reason. Hopefully the reader will avail himself of the opportunity to investigate with an open mind both the approach to scripture and the doctrines discussed so that their knowledge and faith might be increased.
Before sharing my impressions of this discussion, a little background information may be helpful to the reader. This debate happened as a result of the Reeves-Cook debate that took place in 2005. Mr. Garrett felt that Calvinism had not been accurately represented and desired to better articulate what he felt were the views of historical Calvinism. Mr. Garrett had stated that he taught in a Baptist Seminary and that they would be glad to host this debate. The impression he gave was that of a small college setting with an audience of Baptist preachers. Brother Reeves felt that this would be an interesting opportunity and agreed to the discussion. The truth turned out to be far less than the impression given. The debate was held at a modest church building, and the “seminary” was located in an adjoining building that in actuality was a classroom building/fellowship hall. As it turned out, the studies were less for the training of Baptist preachers than they were the Bible Class program of that local congregation.
Monday night Brother Reeves began the affirmation of his proposition with a study of Ephesians 1. One thing quickly became apparent; while debates concerning election and the corollary discussions have been complex, the truth of scripture regarding this subject is not. As noted above, Brother Reeves affirmed that God chose a class of people to deliverance from sin. The class of chosen people is described as being “in Him,” and was chosen “before the foundation of the world,” according to Ephesians 1:4. Brother Reeves demonstrated that “entrance into the chosen class was conditioned on faith in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3) thus showing that the type of people in this class would be believers. The notion that the passage deals with the choosing of each individual to be regenerated before time was clearly disproven.
By tying Isaiah 42:1 into the passage, Brother Reeves did show that one individual was chosen before time, Christ, thus making the election of this class of people in Him possible. With this foundation in place Brother Reeves went to Ephesians 2 and showed that those outside of Christ were, “having no hope” (vs. 12), while the saved are “reconciled in one body” (vs. 16), “fellow citizens” and “God’s household.” In Ephesians 3:1-11, he pointed out that the saved were “fellow members of the body” (vs. 6), and that God’s “eternal purpose” was carried out “in Him” vs. 11. Each of these phrases would clearly indicate a group or class rather than an individual. This consistent view in the book of Ephesians gained even more support as Brother Reeves went to passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:12, and 1 Peter 2, which use the same corporate language to describe the saved in Christ. In conclusion he asked, “What did God choose before time?” In answer he stated that God chose the head, i.e. Christ; the class, i.e. the Church; the sphere, i.e. in Him; the type, i.e. faithful obedient persons; and the motive, i.e. God’s good pleasure.
Mr. Garrett’s first negative reflected a totally different approach to both debate and study of the scripture. Mr. Garrett spent ten full minutes talking about past debates and the questions that he asked Brother Reeves. When Mr. Garrett moved on to the debate at hand it became rather obvious that he had a basic misunderstanding of Brother Reeve’s argument. Although he conceded that Brother Reeves was not arguing the historical Armenian viewpoint, i.e. that God elected individuals based upon foreseen faith, he continually discussed and debated faults of that position. Mr. Garrett pointed out that, in his view, faith is a gift which God bestows upon the elect and thus cannot possibly be the cause of the election. It seemed that Mr. Garrett failed to understand the entire concept of an elected class and continually discussed the problems with conditionally elected individuals. His failure to grasp the argument became extremely obvious when he attempted to read Ephesians 1 and insert Brother Reeve’s position into the passage. He read verses 3-6 emphasizing the collective personal pronouns and inserted “corporately not individually” after each occurrence of “us” or “we” in the context. This did nothing more than emphasize the validity of Brother Reeve’s affirmative.
Twenty two minutes into his first thirty minute speech Mr. Garrett finally turned in his Bible to Ephesians 1. I was hopeful that he would spend his remaining time demonstrating his understanding of this passage from the context. However, this was not to be the case. Having directed our attention to the passage he simply said, “this passage of scripture teaches individual election.” He made absolutely no effort to prove his assertion from the text. Instead he went on to discuss what individuals were chosen. He pointed out that the chosen in the text were chosen to be holy, not chosen because they were holy. Again, this completely missed the point which Brother Reeves had argued, which was that the chosen class was holy. He then said “my opponent will argue that God is choosing those (individuals S.C.) that get themselves into Christ,” again missing the entire argument expressed in the proposition. After a thirty minute exegesis of Ephesians 1 in the affirmative, it was honestly disappointing that the only attempt to even read a passage so central to the discussion was the misguided ridicule mentioned above.
Brother Reeves then carried on with the argumentation from his first affirmative beginning in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-15, showing again that a class of people was elected to salvation. Brother Reeves did a good job of working through the context noting the language, which indicates two different classes, unbelievers who would be lost and believers who would be saved. Brother Reeves also answered the charge of believing one could earn salvation by pointing out that it is only because of Christ and His revealed Gospel that we can believe unto salvation. It is because of His redemptive work and the Gospel that followed that we can submit to God in faith and thereby be added to that elect group. Brother Reeves then went back to Ephesians 1 and reiterated the textual work from his first affirmative.
On Tuesday night, Brother Reeves continued his affirmative with a study of Romans 9 throughout both speeches. This passage of course is central to the election debate and so deserved detailed treatment. Brother Reeves began by pointing out that chapter 9 is part of a larger section consisting of chapters 9, 10 and 11 in which Paul discusses God’s extension of mercy to all people including the Gentiles. While any context that deals with the Messianic promise is necessarily tied to the salvation of man, Brother Reeves demonstrated that the context of Romans 9 does not deal with any particular individual’s salvation, rather with the provision of salvation for all men. In so doing he presented a very cohesive argument, which seemed in this writer’s opinion to solve many of the difficulties often encountered in the context. Brother Reeves argued that Paul anticipated certain Jewish objections relevant to this and in chapter 9 Paul gives answer to those objections. These objections are found in verses 6, 14 and 19 and each comes from Jewish misconceptions and arrogance in regard to God’s purpose.
The first objection Paul anticipated was a charge that God’s word has failed if any of ethnic Israel were lost. This objection stemmed from a basic misunderstanding of God’s purpose for and promises to Israel. Brother Reeves pointed out that the “purpose of God according to election” (vs. 11) was to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham and that this blessing was to be accomplished through Jacob and his descendants rather than Esau. This choice was not based on anything those two boys did, or for that matter on the actions of their descendants, nor did this choice have anything to do with their individual salvation.
Brother Reeves showed that the second objection was a complaint that God was unjust in condemning the unbelieving Jew based on a lack of belief in Jesus. The Jews felt that as descendants of Jacob they had no obligation to believe in Jesus and that God by including Gentiles who believed while excluding unbelieving Jews, was unjust in His offer of mercy. Brother Reeves went on to say that verse 15 and 16 answer this objection by saying no man has the right to dictate to God to whom He can show mercy, nor does any man have the right to dictate the terms of mercy to God.
Brother Reeves dealt with the third objection in his second speech. Found in verse 19 this objection revolves around the question “who resists His will.” The anticipated objection is that since God raised up Israel and made them who they were in order to accomplish His purpose, He is responsible for their sin and therefore unjust in condemning them. This slanderous objection, Brother Reeves pointed out, is very similar to the Calvinistic argument and particularly with the view of Mr. Garrett. Brother Reeves demonstrated this with a quote from a previous debate of Mr. Garrett’s in which he said, “. . . Brother, when you talk about God loving somebody and God hating somebody, are you not talking about eternal salvation? He hated Esau before He was born and He says it was not based on any evil that he did.” This begs the question neither Mr. Garrett nor the Jews of Paul’s day could prove, that God was responsible for their sin. Brother Reeves pointed out that Paul rejected this notion in verses 21-24 by showing that man cannot argue against God for the conditions placed on his mercy and that God would not call on them to repent if they were not in need and capable of repentance.
Brother Reeves did an excellent job of showing the importance of understanding Paul’s illustrations throughout Romans 9. First, Paul uses Jacob and Esau to illustrate God’s promise to use Jacob’s descendants to bring the Messianic promise. Second, he uses Pharaoh to demonstrate the foolishness of rejecting God’s terms for mercy. Third, he uses the potter and clay illustration to demonstrate the need of man to repent, the ability of man to repent, and God’s divine right to demand this condition be met.
Mr. Garrett’s first negative speech on Tuesday night completely ignored the arguments offered on Romans 9. Instead he chose to argue against the class election discussion which Monday night centered around. The majority of the speech dealt with three individuals, Naaman, Abraham and Saul of Tarsus, which he argued were elected or chosen by God on an individual basis; this seemed to be an attempt to re-plow the ground covered on Monday night but again failed to grasp the concepts expressed by Brother Reeves. Mr. Garrett did a good job of demonstrating the individual nature of their choosing, however he completely ignored what they were elected too. This argument missed the point of the proposition, specifically that the choosing under consideration in the debate was election to salvation. While Mr.Garrett demonstrated choosing or election of these individuals, he failed to notice that they were chosen for a purpose other than salvation; Saul of Tarsus was chosen to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, Abraham chosen to be the progenitor or the Messianic lineage. The discussion of Naaman was particularly interesting. Mr. Garrett stated that he felt leprosy was typical of sin and that Naaman was chosen to be saved of this ailment on an individual basis. Granting this typology for arguments sake we now have a man who has heard of salvation offered by God, believed in this offer, and was faithfully obedient to the conditions of the offer which sounds very much like the description of the elect class of people in Ephesians 1.
In his second speech, Mr. Garrett finally got to the subject at hand. It does bear pointing out that Mr. Garrett again seemed to misunderstand the arguments made in Romans 9. He repeatedly accused Brother Reeves of picking and choosing, taking one verse in the chapter to deal with individual salvation and another verse to deal with lineage. Hopefully as discriminate listeners, those who watch or hear the debate will make a determination on this matter for themselves; however it seems to this writer that the exposition Brother Reeves made of Romans 9 was consistent with the context. I for one never heard him teach any part of the passage dealt with individual salvation as Mr. Garrett charged. Mr. Garrett made no attempt to refute the idea that Paul was writing to answer anticipated Jewish objections, instead he centered the majority of his argumentation on Paul’s use of Isaac and the term “seed”. He argued that since Isaac was a child of promise and Romans 9:8 says the children of the promise were “children of God” that Isaac was elected on an individual basis for salvation. He went on to argue that Isaac was brought forth through a “super-natural birth.” He stated that since Abraham and Sarah could do nothing to bring Isaac into the world all children of the promise are brought forth supernaturally by the election of God. This seems problematic in light of the actual facts of scripture. For Mr. Garrett’s point to hold true, Isaac would have had to be the product of immaculate conception and childbirth without labor; instead we find in Romans 4 that Abraham and Sarah’s activity was needful to bring about Isaac’s birth. So again we see Mr. Garrett’s illustrations do not demonstrate his proposition. Granting for arguments sake that the birth of Isaac is typical of individual salvation, which the passage does not state, we have this life brought forth once Abraham believed God and obeyed in faith, again the very description of the saved class in Ephesians 1.
Thursday night Mr. Garrett began his affirmation of the proposition, “scriptures teach that God chose, before the world began, a definite number of people to be saved, without respect to any act on their part as a condition.” The majority of this first speech was a recap of the two previous nights during which Mr. Garrett complained that Bro. Reeves had not answered passages which had been presented by Mr. Garrett. Bro. Reeves pointed out accurately that there were no arguments made on these passages, they were simply sighted during the Mr. Garrett’s negative speeches. When affirmative material was produced it centered primarily on John 6 and Mr. Garrett attempted to prove the need for unconditional election based upon the Calvinistic notion of total depravity. True to the form of the previous two nights Mr. Garrett spent little to no time actually in the context proving his point, instead he hopped from passage to passage primarily describing the choosing of Israel by God and completely ignoring the context and to what they were elected. He asserted that these passages dealt with salvation and ignored any concept of being elected to service. Mr. Garrett finally returned to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and argued that regeneration is the effect of election not the cause. Men, he said, were chosen for salvation unconditionally.
The statements made about John 6 pointed out clearly the ugliness of Calvinistic doctrine. We were told very clearly and emphatically that faith and repentance were possible only when one was enabled by God, this of course was reserved for the elect. Jesus, we were told, taught the doctrine of total depravity in order to teach the doctrine of election that man is not able to repent unless God works efficaciously to allow them to do so, unless He first gave them the “will and power” to believe they could not and so they had no hope of salvation.
Mr. Garret, attempted to cloud the issue through two different means. First of all, throughout this speech Mr. Garrett attempted to cloud the idea of class election as taught by Brother Reeves by asserting that Bro. Reeves did not believe that individuals took part in election. This of course was far from what Bro. Reeves taught and he pointed this out quickly in the negative. Secondly, Mr. Garrett applied type/antitype relationships very loosely in order to attempt to prove his point. Primarily in this affirmative he attempted to draw an analogy between Psalm 139:16, in which the Lord is said to have known the members of David’s physical body prior to them being formed, and the spiritual body of Christ as described in Ephesians 1. His point seemed to be that since God knew David’s members before they were formed then God knew the individuals who would comprise Christ’s spiritual body before they entered into the saved class.
Bro. Reeves began his negative with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, emphasizing the two classes seen in the passage: unbelievers, who perish, and believers, chosen based on their belief for salvation. In support of this he noted that the context says that they were “chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Therefore these individuals were sanctified through means and not unconditionally.
In response to Mr. Garrett’s teaching of total depravity, Bro. Reeves pointed out the inequity in enabling certain ones to believe so they might be regenerated while withholding unconditionally this same gift from others. Bro. Reeves pointed out that this would make God Himself responsible for the unbelief and ultimately the condemnation of every lost soul. Bro. Reeves then went to each passage Mr. Garrett cited and noticed key portions of the context which had been ignored in the attempt to force unconditional election into scripture. Bro. Reeves then turned to John 6 and pointed out the simple fact that the text says we are drawn to Christ when we believe those things which are taught in scripture (John 6:45). This of course introduces a condition, and while we are taught of God through scripture, nothing in the context indicates this requires the receipt of some miraculous gift.
In Mr. Garrett’s second and third affirmative speeches he demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of Romans 9, as well as a complete disregard for anything Bro. Reeves stated concerning the text. Perhaps even more disappointing was the utter lack of time spent in exegeting the text itself. After promising each night of the debate to make a verse by verse examination of the entire chapter, Mr. Garrett only managed to devote thirty minutes to this essential text that is so central to the entire discussion. Rather than dealing with the text in a thorough manner, explaining where and how Paul teaches the election of individuals, Mr. Garrett began by demonstrating that Paul was describing a saved class of people, spiritual Israel, which Mr. Garrett said could be identified by their belief. This was the very point that he had attempted to deny with every passage he had cited since Monday night. The rest of his rather light examination of the text consisted of isolating each verse from the context and drawing unsubstantiated parallels from remote contexts.
Mr. Garrett consistently charged Bro. Reeves with equivocating on whether or not Romans 9 deals with salvation. Anyone who listens to the debate will see that Bro. Reeves emphatically stated that Romans 9 deals with the salvation of man. However, Mr. Garrett seemed to want the text to deal with the specific individual salvation of Isaac and Jacob and the specific individual condemnation of Esau and Pharaoh. This was of course contrary to Bro. Reeves teachings but also to Mr. Garrett’s own exegesis of the first six verses of the chapter. Bro. Reeves had stated that the text deals with the salvation of man, in that Paul discusses the right of God to choose the lineage through which the Christ would come so that all men, not just those of Jewish lineage, could experience the salvation of God. Shockingly Mr. Garrett spoke degradingly of the very notion that a discussion of the lineage of the Messiah had anything to with salvation.
In his final speech Mr. Garrett completely abandoned his proposition and launched into a philosophy lesson in which he attempted to justify his Calvinistic views regarding God being the first cause of evil through the teachings of various philosophers, many of them raw pagans, throughout history. He affirmed very little from scripture and dealt with election only in peripheral way as he vainly attempted to paint the lack of justice on God’s part from the Calvinistic viewpoint as reasonable and acceptable. This allowed Brother Reeves in his final speech to reiterate the points made throughout the week and speak about the grace of God demonstrated in His offer of salvation.
In closing, this debate was useful in pointing out the truth of the depraved doctrine known as Calvinism. Both through Bro. Reeves demonstration and Mr. Garrett’s admission the god of Calvinism is a monstrous being with whom there is no justice or equity, he is an absolute respecter of persons and a tyrant of cosmic proportions. On the other hand the God of the Bible is a kind, benevolent and gracious Father whose desire is for man to simply believe in His word and appeal to His grace for their salvation.
In conjunction with that, something very interesting happened during the closing remarks. Mac Griffen, Mr. Garrett’s moderator, in thanking everyone for their attendance, mentioned that there was some misunderstanding concerning Cross Roads Baptist Church and the Seminary which they operated. He stated that some seemed to think that they were Calvinistic and agreed with Mr. Garrett on his teachings regarding election. This, he said, was a false notion. In actuality they had merely agreed to house the debate in a general interest in spiritual matters and the discussion of scripture. This was very encouraging in my estimation, it is good to know that those who for so long have been deceived by those espousing this horrible doctrine are able to come to a knowledge of the truth and reject this malicious teaching. This would suggest to my mind that with time and effort, good work could be done in instructing many from the Calvinistic denominations about the grace of God as revealed in scripture and that these good people can be freed from the needless oppression of theological slavery as taught by the Calvinist.