# The Duty to believe



## Pergamum

Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?




Also, before 1700, were there any who denied this?


----------



## Gev

Somebody correct me if i'm wrong but repentance seems to be a command given by God.

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, (ESV)


----------



## Iconoclast

Pergamum said:


> Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, before 1700, were there any who denied this?



Yes, it always has been. Especially after this text

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. 

I cannot think of a time where men were allowed to dis-obey their Creator.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Iconoclast said:


> I cannot think of a time where men were allowed to dis-obey their Creator.





We are commanded to obey God perfectly. Just because fallen man has no ability to do this does not change the command. That's why every time a lost person rejects the outward call of the gospel he falls deeper and deeper into covenantal curse with God. It's a savor of death unto death.

*Romans 2:1-9*, "_Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile_;"


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?



O boy will I get into trouble but my answer is that it is not the duty of all who hear the gospel to _savingly_ believe in Christ. I will now go and hide 



Pergamum said:


> Also, before 1700, were there any who denied this?



I am not sure, were there any who taught it was?


----------



## Pergamum

AV1611: I asked the question because hyper-calvinists usually answer in the NO and deny "duty-faith"- just as you have.


What are the reasons for your answer? Biblical support? What are the implication for evangelism?


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> What are the reasons for your answer? Biblical support?



Because I find no evidence of the apostles calling upon their hearers to believe in Christ indiscriminately. As Gill notes in _The Cause of God and Truth_ 

...ministers, in exhorting men to believe in Christ, do not, and cannot consider them as elect or non elect, but as sinners, standing in need of Christ, and salvation by him; and that either as sensible, or as insensible of their state and condition; not as insensible of it; for I do not find that any such are exhorted to believe in Christ for salvation; but as sensible of it, as the jailer was, who trembling said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? When the apostle exhorted him, saying, Believe in the lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved (Acts 16:30, 31).​


Pergamum said:


> What are the implication for evangelism?



It means that the gospel is presented in a more God honouring way.

*Augustus Toplady:*
The joyful sound of what? Of that free grace which it is the business of God’s ministers to proclaim, saying, Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near (Isa. 57:19). That joyful sound which says, Ho, every one (without exception of time, or place, or person), Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters (Isa. 55:1) of life, joy, and salvation. But observe that even this is not a universal call. God forbid that I should be misunderstood by any who hear me this day. Do not imagine that I am hoisting the Arminian colors, and hanging out the false Arminian flag. No, by no means. I suppose there is hardly a more indefinite call, in all God’s Word, than that which I quoted last. But then, take notice, it is addressed only to those that thirst: i.e., to those who so far know the joyful sound as to wish for an experimental participation of the blessings it proclaims. It would be frivolous to call them to the waters who do not thirst. It would be ridiculous mockery, should we invite the dead to sit down at table, and lay a plate and knife and fork before them, and ask them why they will not eat? The plain fact is, they cannot eat nor drink. They must be made alive ere they can have so much as an appetite to either.​
*John Gill:*
And this is the business that you, my Brother, should be constantly employed in, in instructing men that they are not to be saved by their own works, duties and services; that God saves and calls men, not according to their works, but according to his purpose and grace; that men are to expect the pardon of sin, not on the account of their repentance and humiliation, but through the blood of Christ, and according to the riches of God’s grace; that by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in the sight of God but that a man is justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ, without the deeds of the law; that men are not saved by the best works of righteousness done by them, but by the abundant mercy and free grace of God, through Christ. You are to acquaint all that you are concerned with, that salvation is by Christ alone; that God has chosen and appointed him to be his salvation to the ends of the earth; and that he has appointed men to salvation alone by him; that he has sent him into the world to be the Saviour of them; this is the faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, you are to publish and proclaim, that Christ came into the world to save the chief of sinners; and that by his obedience, sufferings, and death, he is become the author of eternal salvation to them; and that there is salvation in him, and in no other; and that there is no other name given under heaven among men whereby they can be saved. Souls sensible of sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree of life unto them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin; and in his name you are to preach the forgiveness of it to them; you are to direct believers, under your care, to go by faith daily to Christ the mediator, and deal with the blood of sprinkling for the remission of their sins, and the cleansing of their souls; which sprinkled on them speaks peace and pardon, purges the conscience from dead works, and cleanses from all sin. You are to point out the righteousness of Christ, as the only justifying righteousness of men, by whose obedience only men are made righteous; the ministration of the gospel is a ministration of righteousness, even of the righteousness of Christ, which is revealed in it from faith to faith; and such should he your ministration. You are to acquaint men, that this righteousness is unto all, and upon all that believe; and that, such are justified from all things by it, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses; and that the acceptance of men with God, is only in Christ the beloved. You are to observe to men the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God and to direct them, as one of the cherubs did, pointing to him, and saying, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! John 1:29, to bid them view the sin-bearing and sin-atoning Saviour, and look to the Lamb in the midst of the throne as though he had been slain; by whose slain sacrifice sin is put away, and they perfected for ever that are sanctified. But more of this may be observed.​
And later in the same sermon

And this, my Brother, is a principal part of your work, as one of the cherubs, to direct to Christ the mercy-seat, the channel of the grace and mercy of God to the souls of men; as God set forth Christ in his eternal purposes and decrees to be a propitiation, ιλαζηθιον, Romans 3:25, the same word the Greek interpreters use for the mercy-seat in Exodus 25, so you are to set him forth in your ministrations as the propitiation, propitiatory, and mercy-seat: let the mercy-seat be ever in view; keep in sight in all your ministrations the doctrine of atonement and satisfaction by the blood and sacrifice of Christ; let this be the pole-star by which you steer the course of your ministry; direct souls to the throne of grace, to the mercy-seat, to God in Christ, where they may hope to find grace and mercy to help them in time of need: and, for your encouragement, observe the situation of the cherubim, they were upon the mercy-seat, at the ends of it, being beaten out of the same mass of gold with that; denoting the nearness of ministers to Christ, their union to him, and dependence on him, and support by him, who holds the stars in his right hand: and also his presence with them; for between the cherubim, the shekinah, or glorious majesty of God, dwelt; and Christ has promised to be with his ministers unto the end of the world.​
Hope this helps


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O boy will I get into trouble but my answer is that it is not the duty of all who hear the gospel to _savingly_ believe in Christ. I will now go and hide
Click to expand...


We've covered this ground before - but this is an interesting twist.

What, Richard, is their duty? _non-saving_ belief? 

Perhaps before this discussion goes much further we ought to define "duty".


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> What, Richard, is their duty? _non-saving_ belief?



Their duty is to believe the testimony of God made known to them i.e. Jesus that is the Messiah. You will, I am sure, be aware of the many types of faith we find in Scripture and that the Puritans helpfully point out, such as an historical faith. 

Those who have only an external revelation of Christ by the ministry of the word, are obliged to believe no more than that which is included in that revelation, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who died and rose again, and is the Saviour of sinners, etc., but not that he died for them, or that he is their Saviour. 

There is also the issue of saving faith and of what does it consist? Too many in the Reformed churches believe that saving faith is but a mere intellectual assent to the truth of the gospel, others would accept that saving faith is more than this but would remove any subjective element of saving faith.

John Gill helpfully explains:

"An assent unto Christ as a Saviour, enters into the true nature of faith; not a bare naked assent of the mind to the truth of the person and offices of Christ; that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, Prophet, Priest, and King, such as has been yielded to him by men destitute of true faith in him, as by Simon Magus and others, yea, by the devils themselves (Luke 4:34,41). "Of all the poison, says Dr. Owen, which at this day is diffused in the minds of men, corrupting them from the mystery of the gospel, there is no part that is more pernicious than this one perverse imagination, that to "believe in Christ" is nothing at all but to "believe the doctrine of the gospel!" which yet we grant is included therein.’... Such a proposition, that Christ is the Saviour of the chief of sinners, or that salvation is alone by him, is not presented merely under the notion of its being "true", and assented to as such, but under the notion of its being "good", a suitable, acceptable, and preferable good, and to be chosen as the good part was by Mary; as being both a "faithful saying" to be believed as true, and as "worthy of all acceptation", to be received and embraced as the chiefest good. Faith is an assent to Christ as a Saviour, not upon an human, but a divine testimony, upon the record which God has given of his Son, and of eternal life in him. Some of the Samaritans believed on Christ because of the saying of the woman; but others because of his own word, having heard him themselves, and knew that he was indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world: true faith, in sensible sinners, assents to Christ, and embraces him not merely as a Saviour of men in general; but as a special, suitable Saviour for them in particular: it proceeds upon Christ’s being revealed "in" them, as well as "to" them, by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him as a Saviour that becomes them; it comes not merely through external teachings, by the hearing of the word from men; but having "heard and learned of the Father", such souls come to Christ, that is, believe in him (John 6:45), not the doctrine of him only, but in him himself."

"That faith by which a man is said to he justified, is not a mere assurance of the object, or a bare persuasion that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ; but that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ for him; and therefore he looks unto, leans, relies, and depends on, and pleads this righteousness for his justification: ... And what is short of this I cannot apprehend to be true faith in Christ, as the Lord our righteousness."​


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, Richard, is their duty? _non-saving_ belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their duty is to believe the testimony of God made known to them i.e. Jesus that is the Messiah. You will, I am sure, be aware of the many types of faith we find in Scripture and that the Puritans helpfully point out, such as an historical faith.
Click to expand...


And if this is their duty (their only duty) what benefits to them are derived from doing what is their duty?


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, Richard, is their duty? _non-saving_ belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their duty is to believe the testimony of God made known to them i.e. Jesus that is the Messiah. You will, I am sure, be aware of the many types of faith we find in Scripture and that the Puritans helpfully point out, such as an historical faith.
> 
> Those who have only an external revelation of Christ by the ministry of the word, are obliged to believe no more than that which is included in that revelation, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who died and rose again, and is the Saviour of sinners, etc., but not that he died for them, or that he is their Saviour.
> 
> There is also the issue of saving faith and of what does it consist? Too many in the Reformed churches believe that saving faith is but a mere intellectual assent to the truth of the gospel, others would accept that saving faith is more than this but would remove any subjective element of saving faith.
Click to expand...


By the way, you're setting up a strawman here. Nobody here agrees with the error that saving faith is mere assent to historical propositions. Let's deal with the present reality. 

You say that all men everywhere are commanded only to historical faith as their duty. I ask, so what if
they do their duty? What if they do what you say is that which is required of them? Also, what of the command given by God upon every man, everywhere to repent? Is that not a duty required of all?


----------



## Pergamum

toddpedlar said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O boy will I get into trouble but my answer is that it is not the duty of all who hear the gospel to _savingly_ believe in Christ. I will now go and hide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've covered this ground before - but this is an interesting twist.
> 
> What, Richard, is their duty? _non-saving_ belief?
> 
> Perhaps before this discussion goes much further we ought to define "duty".
Click to expand...




TOdd: Haven't we coveredjustabout EVERY major topic on the PB before?  Thanks for indulging me. I want to hear the full justification and how it all ties together from someone who believes this belief first hand. AV1611 seems to have thought this out at least moderately well.


----------



## Pergamum

AV1611:

Would you call yourself a hyper-calvinist?


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> And if this is their duty (their only duty) what benefits to them are derived from doing what is their duty?



*1.* The creatures are to obey their creator simply because of their creature status, i.e. they are to obey because they are being told to believe by their creator.
*2.* There can however be benefits albeit temporal. For example, if they mended their ways externally then there are great blessings say for example they were unmarried but now they amended their ways externally and got married there are great benefits to that. The same if before they were drunkards but gave up getting drunk after amending their lives externally. I am sure you can come up with other examples. And of course if the nation had repented in Acts 3 they would have avoided AD70 as John Gill explains well here saying

These Jews had crucified the Lord of glory, and for this sin were threatened with miserable destruction; the apostle therefore exhorts them to repent of it, and acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah; that so when wrath should come upon their nation to the uttermost, they might be delivered and saved from the general calamity; which, though these would be terrible times to the unbelieving Jews, yet would be times of refreshing to the people of God from troubles and persecutions.​


toddpedlar said:


> By the way, you're setting up a strawman here. Nobody here agrees with the error that saving faith is mere assent to historical propositions. Let's deal with the present reality.



I was simply raising the point that some in the Reformed camp have a view of faith that is close to Sandemenianism (if that is the correct spelling).


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> Would you call yourself a hyper-calvinist?



Nope. Let us not forget that John Owen went further than Calvin but would we call Owen a hyper-Calvinist? I think not. What argument would you put forward to say that all those who hear the gospel are obligated to believe in Christ _savingly_?


----------



## toddpedlar

What else will save them from the wrath to come? Faith in Christ, saving faith, of course, is the only thing that can save them. Is this not properly put forth as an obligation upon all - i.e. if you would be saved, come to Christ? Why is this wrong to do? Why is it wrong to put this in terms of a requirement, or duty, that all men face? I'm really not sure of the cause of your objection, Richard.


----------



## toddpedlar

Is it that you don't like the word "duty", Richard? If this is just semantics concerning the word "duty" let's get beyond that. What is the implication that you take issue with, if we say "everyone is obligated, or has the duty, to come to Christ in saving faith." What do you think that does to harm evangelism? And - how do you think evangelism is properly conducted in light of your statement that some subset of people (I take it you mean the non-elect) are NOT obligated to believe on Christ?


----------



## Iconoclast

*Some verses to consider*



AV1611 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you call yourself a hyper-calvinist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Let us not forget that John Owen went further than Calvin but would we call Owen a hyper-Calvinist? I think not. What argument would you put forward to say that all those who hear the gospel are obligated to believe in Christ _savingly_?
Click to expand...


In Jn.8 Jesus said; 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 

In verse 46,Jesus asked "why do you not believe me" as if it were required. in verse 47 he explains to them their depraved condition, like the goats in Jn 10;26
25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 

26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 

27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me



Or, Mt.23:3737O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 

38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 

or this, 2 pet2: 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.


----------



## AV1611

Iconoclast said:


> In Jn.8 Or, Mt.23:3737 or this, 2 pet2



None of which are relevant.

I will get back to you later Todd....off to uni now.

I would preach:

Come, ye sinners, poor and needy,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, love and power.

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._

Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome,
God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._

Come, ye weary, heavy laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you’re better,
You will never come at all.

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._


View Him prostrate in the garden;
On the ground your Maker lies.
On the bloody tree behold Him;
Sinner, will this not suffice?

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._


Lo! th’incarnate God ascended,
Pleads the merit of His blood:
Venture on Him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude.

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._


Let not conscience make you linger,
Not of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth
Is to feel your need of Him.

_I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O there are ten thousand charms._


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> What else will save them from the wrath to come? Faith in Christ, saving faith, of course, is the only thing that can save them. Is this not properly put forth as an obligation upon all - i.e. if you would be saved, come to Christ? Why is this wrong to do? Why is it wrong to put this in terms of a requirement, or duty, that all men face? I'm really not sure of the cause of your objection, Richard.



I do not see it as an obligation. Yes faith in Christ is the way of salvation however I do not see that in saying "If you would be saved, come to Christ?" implies faith is a duty. I would be happy to preach it. 



toddpedlar said:


> Is it that you don't like the word "duty", Richard? If this is just semantics concerning the word "duty" let's get beyond that. What is the implication that you take issue with, if we say "everyone is obligated, or has the duty, to come to Christ in saving faith." What do you think that does to harm evangelism? And - how do you think evangelism is properly conducted in light of your statement that some subset of people (I take it you mean the non-elect) are NOT obligated to believe on Christ?



I believe that is standing in the pulpit saying "God commands that you live, that you make yourself alive and believe" is dishonouring to the sovereignty of God and is unfounded upon Scripture.

*Commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith
ARTICLE 26 - On Duty Faith
by J.H. Gosden*​
_"We deny duty-faith and duty-repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."_ 

Whatever our worthy predecessors intended by the terms of this Article, they certainly did not mean to minimize the sin of unbelief. The purpose was to rebut the flesh-pleasing error taught by the Arminian that man in his natural state (that is, dead in trespasses and sins) is possessed of some latent power to exercise savingly the spiritual acts of faith and repentance. Our belief is that fallen man has neither power, nor will, nor inclination to anything spiritual. Scripture abundantly teaches this (I Cor. 2:14 Rom. 8: 7,8; Matt. 15: 19; John 1:11-13; 3:3-7). But this notwithstanding, we believe that all men are under obligation to believe and obey God. Though the Adam Fall utterly depraved and alienated human nature from God and goodness, rendering him as entirely incapable as unwilling to submit to God's law, yet the divine Lawgiver has not lost His power to command and to judge. Man's inability does not exonerate him. While some entertain a wholesome fear of the very term duty in relation to God, through its frequent misapplication, both Solomon and his divine Antitype speak of man's duty. On the completion of his extensive survey, the wisest man came to the conclusion that to fear God and keep His commandments is the whole duty of man (Eccl.12:13). And the all-wise God-Man said, "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). 

To the unregenerate the thought of duty Godward either does not arise or is soon dismissed with some formal religious service. What to innocent humanity must have been delightful is to sinful man irksome. Before regeneration he is capable neither of acceptable obedience nor worship. At the same time, unbelief is a chief sin, the root of all other sins (John 16:9; Rom. 1. 19, 28). But what is every man duty-bound to believe? Surely not that each individual is himself interested in the redemption work of Christ, Man is not called upon to believe a lie. No, but as God has revealed Himself in His Word and works, man is inexcusable in his unbelief. Here caution is needed. Men require to be thoroughly warned of their lost state under the law, convinced of their inability to meets its demands and told of their accountability to God and of his revealed wrath against all unrighteousness of men. Thus warned of "wrath to come" repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ may be properly preached (Acts 20:21). As the convincing power of the Holy Spirit attends the ministry, the elect are soughtout and brought in guilty before God. To them Christ will be attractive as held forth in the gospel. It is the sick soul who wants the Physician, and it is the minister's duty and privilege to minister the consolations of the gospel to such. 

Faith being the peculiar gift of God's grace, and repentance a spiritual grant of heaven (Eph. 2:8 Acts 11:18; 5:31), neither can originate in the will or power of the creature or be the act of the unregenerate. Even when duly convicted, a sinner proves that to exercise repentance and faith is more than he is able for [capable of], apart from the empowering grace of the Holy Spirit. "Dutyfaith" and "duty-repentance" are little use to one who feels himself lost and helpless. To demand it from such s to strike the dying dead. But it is as life from the dead when he is enabled bv the blessed Spirit so to believe in Christ as to find power and courage to confess sin (unbelief is well as all other sins) to God, and to plead for pardon and mercy for His sake. Then, when witness is borne in upon the confessing sinner's heart of his grace-given interest in the redeeming blood of Christ, and the love of God is shed abroad in his heart with sweet dissolving efficacy producing deep contrition, it is the believer's delightful privilege (call it duty who will) to believe and to repent with an evangelical repentance unto salvation not to be repented of (2 Cor. 7:10). Accompanying this faith and repentance is deep reverence and unbounded happiness and sweet liberty. True worship, embracing adoration, admiration, trust, thanksgiving, praise, submission and absolute surrender, flows front the liberated spirit of the pardoned child; while the gracious fruits of humility and love and beauty to the garments of salvation which clothe the soul (Psa. 149:[email protected] Isa. 61:10). This is the purpose of the gospel ministry, as said Christ to the Apostle Paul: ". . . to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me" (Acts 26:18). Paul "warned every man, and taught every man" of the Colossian church in order to their being presented perfect in Christ Jesus (Col. 1:28). He did not unconditionally exhort every individual to believe in Christ, but showed those to whom He was sent "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance 11 (Acts 26:18-21). 

Indiscriminately to call upon all in a mixed congregation to do their duty, i.e. savingly and spiritually to believe in Christ, is to imply either that each individual person in the assembly is regenerate and convinced of sin, or that there is in those who are dead power to act Godward. This appears contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit who instructs gospel ministers both what to preach and where. Even the apostles were forbidden to preach the Word in certain places for certain periods. Presumably most Godsent ministers know in some measure the influence which emanates from the Holy Spirit through the presence of some in their congregation whom He inhabits, or whom fie will bless and instruct through the ministry-, and the totally different influence sometimes felt when some particular opposition to the truth is being entertained by some hearers. Mysteriously, but no less trulv, the Holy Ghost controls the ministry of His Word according to the purpose of electing love and the condition of those present. In former and better days this was more clearly manifest than now. 

We are charged by some with preaching only to the elect, instead of "evangelizing" the world. We have no zeal to boast,but can appeal to the great Searcher of hearts that we are painfully anxious for the success of the gospel the weight of immortal soul's is heavy. But we are equally anxious not to deceive into a false notion of faith (as we much fear is frequently the case) those who have never been convinced of sin. We venture to say that those who think themselves quite capable of exercising faith at will because it is their duty to believe, and are satisfied with their faith, have probably never yet learned the power of God in which Paul desired the faith of the Corinthians should stand (I Cor. 2:5), nor yet discovered the true Object of faith a revealed, not a "letter" Christ. 

One good man said: 

_"O could I but believe,
Then all would easy be:
I would but cannot, Lord, relieve,
My help must come from Thee."_

Paul attributed to the Holy Ghost the power through which hope, joy, peace and faith should abound in the Roman saints (Rom. 15, 13). lie also prayed that God would fulfil in the Thessalonians "the work of faith with power." All which implies what every child of God proves in experience - that faith is the gift of God's grace, Christ is its Author, and for every subsequent prevailing act of faith the believer is dependent upon the reviving power of the Spirit of Christ who said, "I am the resurrection and the life." Definitely Paul teaches believing to be the result of the exertion in the soul of that very same power exerted in raising Christ from the dead (Eph. 1:19, 20). So that to reach that saving faith is a mere duty, for which a sinner is quite capable, is solemnly wide of the truth. Truly the just shall live by his faith - not on it, but by it, as it is drawn out into exercise upon its blessed Object, its Author and End, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Besides, it appears very far removed from the compassion (which it affects) to command unconvinced people to believe. The creation of believers is not a work for mere man, though "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). The mercy of God, which is His compassion, is shown in giving faith. "He bath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all" (Rom. 10:32). And it is most solemnly written: "He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth" (9. 18). "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18), and "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (15:9). "Not of ourselves" but "the gift of God" is the saving faith of God's elect, and of a totally different nature from the faith into which impenitent unregenerate sinners may be persuaded. The latter does not purify the heart, nor work by love, nor separate from the world and sin. "It is dead, being alone" (James 2. 17). The professing world is filled with these nominal believers. But in giving living faith to some, the Lord makes effectual the preaching of the gospel, as in the case of Peter: "God at first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name" (Acts 15:14), 

If Adam's guilt is transmitted to the human race, and all are born in sin and are dead to God by nature (Eph. 2:1) is it not a grievous error to suggest that by a general exhortation men can be awakened from that sleep of death, and of themselves savingly repent and believe the gospel? As good Berridge says: 

_"None can raise to life the dead
But He who raised Himself indeed,
And for dead sinners died."_

While we definitely believe that it is the duty of man to believe all God has declared, and that unbelief is guilt, we consider it seriously erroneous to call upon all persons indiscriminately to perform such spiritual acts as repentance and faith as if they possessed in themselves an inherent power of spiritual life. In the fervency of a minister's appeal, much depends on the spirit and the emphasis; but all vitality depends on the Holy Ghost. Vital power does accompany the preaching of the gospel, both in conviction and killing, in making alive and delivering, and it is an unspeakable honour to be the instrument of conveying the gospel ministerially to poor lost sinners. But as we have so frequently pointed out, there is a vast difference between preaching the gospel in a mixed congregation, and offering Christ and salvation indiscriminately to all. Some who came to John's baptism were met with a solemn rebuff: "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matt. 3:7,8). Owen most truly says "Faith without repentance issues in presumption; repentance [that is, conviction] without faith issues in despair. 

Isaiah asks: "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" plainly implying that faith results from divine revelation. It was something more than response to mere human exhortation to believe that enabled Peter to declare his faith in such emphatic terms: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," The Saviour Himself declared whence that faith came: - Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17). 

We conclude with the simple statement that whereas we believe it to be every man's duty to credit God's Word both as to the law's dernands and the record God has given of His Son, yet to address assemblies in such a way as to suggest that every person is capable of exercising saving faith and producing evangelical repentance is but to mock men. But solemnly to tell sinners that they have broken the holy law of God which therefore condemns them, and that "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" but that of the Lord Jesus Christ who is exalted a Prince and Saviour for to give repentance and forgiveness of sins; to testify that Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth in Him, that in Him there is full pardon and plenteous redemption, and that God honourably justifies the ungodly who believe in Christ; to declare that however deeply convinced of sin, Christ is able to save to the uttermost all who come by Him to God, and that He will in no wise cast out any who come; to proclaim to all who deeply feel their ignorance that there is an infallible Teacher,the Holy Spirit, whom Christ hath promised shall be give to, who asks Him, of the, Father (Luke 11:13), to guide them into all truth (John 16:13)- this we believe is to preach according to the tenor of the Word of God. 

But though faith, "cometh by hearing", it does not necessarily come to all who hear. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Application is the sovereign prerogative of the Holy Ghost. The great apostle, perceiving that in preaching Christ he was the savour of life unto life to those who were saved and the savour of death unto death to those who were lost, exclaimed, "Who is sufficient for these things?" How much more reason have we to confess our insufficiency! Our mercy will be ever to prove with Paul that "our sufficiency is of God." This will not impair the earnestness of our appeals to the unconverted, but it will temper our addresses with a sobriety becoming the solemnity of the eternal issues involved.​


----------



## AV1611

*Commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith
ARTICLE 24 - On Gospel Invitations
by J.H. Gosden​*
"We believe that the invitations of the gospel, being spirit and life (that is, under the influence of the Holy Spirit), are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Savior, and to repent of and forsake their sins." As distinct from general invitations and promises of temporal benefits and national blessings, which are conditional, divine gospel invitations and promises cannot be fortuitous, but must surely be determinate (Eph. 1. 11). If God intends saving good to a person, nothing can frustrate that intention (Rom. 8:28-31). Through the effectual operations of the Holy Ghost, gospel invitations eventually meet with a heart-felt response from those to whom they are given, as being exactly answerable to their condition. They are spoken to definite characters, and usually have attached to them gracious promises of suitable blessing upon compliance. What, for instance, could be more fitting for heavy laden, weary labourers than to be invited to come to the Lord Jesus Christ, who assures them rest in Himself (Matt. 11:28)? But what meaning would such an invitation and promise have for those who never felt the weight of guilt, and were never wearied with labouring without success to keep the whole law of God. How suitable to thirsty people is an invitation to the all-satisfying waters of divine life and grace, mercy, love and truth which issue from the river of God which is full of water and the streams whereof make glad the city of God (Isa. 55:1, Psa. 46:4)! And what more congruous than for bankrupts, fraudulently insolvent, to be bidden come and regale themselves with wine and milk, and enrich themselves with gold tried in the fire, on gospel terms -without money and without price?" Christ charged on the Laodiceans the folly of an ignorant imagination of independence., and discovered to them their entire wretchedness, before inviting them to "buy" the enriching provisions of His free market (Rev. 3:16-18).

God's intention does not rest upon the concurrence of the persons invited, but their compliance arises from the divine determination to do them good (Jer. 31 40; Phil, 2, 13). Without doubt there is a concurrence between the inscrutable sovereign will of God (His intention of grace) and the renewed will of a regenerate sinner. Divine power brings this about, according to the important and discriminating word of Christ: "All that the, Father giveth Me shall come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). Very definitely the Savior denies that any others ever do come to Him (ver. 44). Who would say that the invitations and promises are intended for those who never come? Would an all-wise and righteous God invite those from whom He withholds the requisite influence of invincible grace to bring them into compliance with His holy gospel? Or is His knowledge so imperfect that He is unaware who will and who will not respond, and consequently must issue invitations promiscuously? It is surely blasphemy to think thus! Can it therefore be other than misleading for ministers indiscriminately to scatter invitations among a mixed congregation?

True, our knowledge of who are the Lord's elect people can be but very imperfect and partial. "By their fruits ye shall know them," is a divinely-given rule. Consequently it is imperative first to describe the character of sin, to show the condition of mankind under the law, their need of mercy and salvation; then to preach salvation as accomplished by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to "testify repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20. 21), describing the character of those who are invited - the lost, the lame, the halt, the blind, the sick, and not the whole. Fitness for Christ's outstretching invitations and His attractive promises is not in creature merit, but is in an urgent felt need of the very blessings contained in the gospel of salvation. Hunger and thirst after righteousness is a condition indicative of soul life and health, into which divine grace alone can bring one. These only are the intended objects of gospel invitations and promises; to them God determines and ultimately conveys the blessings of a full and free and everlasting salvation. Similarly, the state of godly mourning for sin, fitting a person for the enjoyment of divine pardon, accompanies free grace, and is pre-supposed in the invitations. Inviting people to repent or to come to Christ, apart from such "breaking up of the fallow ground," is much like sowing amongst thorns, which appears strangely inconsistent (Jer. 4:3; Hos. 10. 12), Yet we must guard against discouraging a coming sinner by imposing conditions. One hymn-writer puts it very simply: 

_"All the fitness He requireth, 
'Tis to feel your need of Him: 
This He gives you 
Its His Spirit's rising beam."​_
Whilst it is solemnly true that in a state of nature NONE of the sons of men will come to Christ for life (John 5:40), it seems most inappropriate to invite such as have no realization of their desperate need to come for what they can have no desire, Let a man be first convinced of his sin and ruin, and shown the all sufficiency of Christ for salvation, then invitations are blessedly fitting, and gospel promises most attractive and amazing. Yet such is the condition of a convicted sinner that the invitation requires almost to take on the nature of "compulsion" to overcome the diffidence frequently felt.

_"Why was I made to hear His voice, 
And enter while there's room 
When thousands make a wretched choice, 
And rather starve than come?​_
_"'Twas the same love that spread the feast 
That sweetly forced me in, 
Else I had still refused to taste, 
And perished in my sin-​_
It behooves us poor, ignorant, sinful mortals to consider with deepest reverence divine "intentions," But in-so-far as God has revealed Himself in His Word, it is preposterous to think otherwise than that He intends precisely what He says, and says exactly what He intends. "I saith not to the seed of Jacob. Seek ye me in vain" (Isa. 45:19). When He said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find-, knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Christ was inviting His disciples to importunate prayer, assuring them of success (Luke 11:1-13). For whom would this be intended but for those who felt needy, helpless, outcast and poor? How many fearful, tempted sinners not as yet assured of their interest in the blessings of the gospel, have been emboldened by such divine invitations to venture to ask, seek, knock and to wait with an expectancy based upon the gracious pledge of success! When a minister perceives in his congregation such poor, hungry, guilty, troubled sinners how he will "draw out his soul unto them" (Isa. 58:10) and "compel" them to come in (Luke 14:23)!

But it will be said that that very parable shows many who were bidden but found excuses, and does not that really prove that the invitations of the gospel are intended for them also? We think not, The secret purpose of God concerning every individual of the human race (and every angel and devil), though hidden from us, is determined in the divine mind (Rom. 9:18 2Pet.2:4-5). That many never repent or believe the gospel, who yet come under the outward sound of the Word and hear mention of the invitations, is not in our mind the same thing as God intending to bless them with salvation if only they will concur. That would make gospel blessings contingent on man's will. Ultimately all the elect of God are "made willing in the day of Christ's power" in their own experience, and being then thoroughly convinced of their sin and brought to repentance, the invitations and promises of the gospel are made spirit and life in their producing a heart-felt thankful response.

_"Lo, glad I come. and Thou, blest Lamb, 
Shalt take me to Thee as I am 
Nothing but sin I Thee can give, 
Nothing but love shall I receive."​_
When the Lord Jesus circulates that broad invitation, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17) His intention was to extend it - and to limit it to those possessed of a willingness. Whence comes this willingness? Divine grace alone produces it, changing that inveterate "will not" of John 5:40 into a sweetly compliant, "Behold, we come unto Thee for Thou art the Lord our God" (Jer, 3:22). Where is a willing sinner but is taught the truth of Hart's word:

_"Death's within thee, all about thee 
But the remedy's without thee: 
See it in thy Saviour's blood"​_
In regard to the solemn inexcusability of all who despise the gospel under the sound of which they may be brought through divine providence, the Lord's own words are': "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust" (John 5:45). Grace, through faith and repentance - Christ's own precious gifts - alone can deliver from condemnation. If yye believe not that I AM (He), ye shall die in your sins." "Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish" (John 8:24. Luke 13:3). Paul strikes a solemn note of warning: How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" - an antidote to fatalism, without suggesting a contingent salvation.

"Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest and causest to approach unto Thee" (Psa. 65:4), Making divine invitations effectual in the heart's experience. Eternally blessed they who shall receive that final invitation, that welcome command: "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34).


----------



## AV1611

John Brine's sermon on the issue is found here.


----------



## KMK

It seems the Divines believed in 'duty-faith' unless I am not understanding them properly.



> Chapter VII:III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; *requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved*, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> It seems the Divines believed in 'duty-faith' unless I am not understanding them properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter VII:III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; *requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved*, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
Click to expand...



Ken, I just noticed the wording of this part. It appears to say something to the effect that since the first did not work, God made a second. This cannot be what is meant here can it? Not to digress, but the COG is eternal and first, preeminent made with Christ and not man.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Richard, I must prefer Samuel Trott than Gosden:

Duty Faith & Repentance
by Samuel Trott

From: SIGNS of the TIMES: Vol.7 (1839)

An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray.

PART 1. Brother Beebe: - I will now notice the charge which Brother Meredith has been informed is made against the Old School Baptists, that they hold it "not to be the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray." I will in my examination of this charge endeavor to show what there is of truth and what of falsehood in its several items. I will commence with the subject of belief. The charge that we hold it "not to be the duty of the unregenerate to believe," has originated evidently from persons who do not know or distinguish the difference there is between believing the Son, and believing on the Son, or between believing the record that God gave of His Son, and believing on the Son of God. See John 3:36 & I John 5:10. Such distinction not only is made in the texts above referred to, but is evidently manifested in christian experience. The one, the believing on the Son of God, is no other than the exercise of that faith which is the gift of God, and is distinguishingly denominated the faith of God's elect. It is a reliance on that obedience which Christ has rendered to law and justice in behalf of His people, as our alone and complete righteousness before God and redemption from under the law, and a trust in Christ, as our whole salvation. But it is evident that, from a very early period in the travel of the church on to this day, a great proportion of the professed church of Christ have mistaken a simple belief of the truth of the record which God has given of His Son; or indeed a simple belief in the truth of the scriptures, for that faith which characterizes one as a believer in Christ. That is, the revelation made of Christ in the scriptures has been considered as a proposition presented to the minds of men for their reception; and the reception of this proposition either as dogmatically laid down, or on examination, has been understood as constituting one a believer in Christ, and the rejection of it, the ground of condemnation. Hence the solicitude that has been manifested to instill into the minds of children the knowledge and belief of certain summaries of what was considered essential points to be believed in order to constitute them christians. Hence the catechumenical system in the earlier ages of the church, and Sunday School and Bible Class plans of our day. Hence also creeds and catechisms as essential summaries of christian doctrine which must be driven into the minds of children by parental and priestly authority, and often beaten in by the rod of the schoolmaster, in order to make christians of them.

Owing to the mistake which has thus existed, when it has been asserted that the natural man is not required of God to exercise that faith which is peculiarly the faith of God's elect, and is not condemned for not exercising it, it has been construed into a denial of its being his duty to believe, that is, the record which God has given, or the testimony of the scriptures. The fact is, so far as I understand what is the Old School or apostolic Baptist doctrine on this point, it is this; that the peculiar faith which constitutes one a believer in Christ, in a gospel sense, and which goes out from one's self and from all he has done or felt, to rest upon, and plead Christ's obedience to the law, as his whole righteousness, and ground of acceptance with God, &c.; is a belief which the law knows nothing about; for the law is not of faith; and which can in no sense be considered a natural duty, it being not the acting of any natural powers or faculties of man as created of the earth earthy, but is the peculiar exercise of that spiritual life which was created in, and is derived from the Son of God, as the Head of His people; and which requires that a person be born of God to exercise it. Hence this faith in contra-distinction from its being a legal duty, is declared to be the gift of God. On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10 and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation.

The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration. This owing to the confusion into which it has been thrown by the introduction of the various systems of conditionalism, and other causes is a difficult subject rightly to understand and explain in all its bearings. My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God. But as it is highly important that we should understand the true import of the scriptures on this subject, I have at different times elicited considerable enquiry from me; and such as I have, give I unto you. I will add that ever since I knew by experience what repentance is, as given by Christ, (as I have a hope that I do know it to some extent,) I have been fully convinced that the manner in which repentance is held and preached by the conditionalists of all grades, is altogether foreign from the scriptural view of it. On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones.

I shall lay down the following positions, as waymarks, in the investigation of this subject. First: If we suppose that the original law of man's creation, or the law as published in Ten Commands from Sinai, commanded repentance as one of its requisitions, it will lead to the following insuperable difficulties. 1st. Repentance presupposes sin, therefore the law's commanding repentance as one of the conditions of its fulfillment, would be to command the previous existence of sin. 2nd. If the law commands repentance, then repentance is essential to that righteousness which the law requires, and consequently Christ in bringing in that righteousness and magnifying the law in behalf of His people, must have repented for them, as well as obeyed in their behalf in other respects. This supposition therefore I think cannot stand. 3rd. If we suppose that the gospel commands repentance as a condition of acceptance with God, then the gospel must in some sense be a law under which the human family exists. Consequently a failure to obey this command would involve condemnation. And if the gospel thus comes from God who changes not, with its demands upon the human family at large, then from the moment any individual existed as an accountable creature to God, he was obligated to render obedience to this gospel-law, and failing at any moment to do it, he incurred condemnation from it. If he lived twenty years, or more, or less, in impenitency or in transgression of this command of the gospel, and then became a penitent, his after repentance could not make satisfaction for his former neglect of it. Hence it is evident that all must be viewed as transgressors of this gospel-law. Now Christ redeemed His people from the curse of the law; but who is revealed as a redeemer from the condemnation of the gospel? And if not redeemed from it, must we not lie under the condemnation or suffer the penalty? If then no Redeemer is provided to save from gospel condemnation, who can be saved? If it be said that Christ redeemed from this as from the law, then as before He must have repented for His people. This is but one among several absurdities arising from a supposition of this kind.

4th. If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise? This I will endeavor to answer, after a little. The difficulty on this subject has frequently been attempted to be solved by a reference to the fact of there being two kinds of repentance spoken of in the scriptures. There certainly are these different repentances brought to view, designated by different words in the original of the scriptures; but I find there is but one word in its formation and derivations, used in all those passages of scripture which are immediately connected with our present enquiry; such as Matt.3:2; 4:17; 11:20,21; Acts 8:22; 17:30; the same also is used in these, and the like texts, namely: Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; also the word repentance as found in II Cor.7:9,10. (The word repented in this 10th verse, is a different word in the original and of different import.) Hence I think there is but the one kind of repentance we have to do with in this case. And I know not that it is here necessary for our present enquiry to consider this repentance as classed into outward, and heart repentances, or the like. The original word used in the above texts, metanoco, according to its etymology, signifies "To reflect on, or to be wise after the act, or to return or come to a right understanding." This repentance therefore imports a change of mind after an act has been committed, and which therefore implies a condemning of the act, and of course, sorrow for it, and a change of conduct. This sorrow may be natural or worldly sorrow, or it may be godly or spiritual sorrow, as the act is viewed in the light of reason, or in the light of the Spirit. If the former, it needs to be repented of again. But the main point in the idea of repentance, is I think altogether missed by conditionalists, and perhaps is frequently overlooked by others, and which in fact, is the substance of the thing. It is this, that as repentance is self-condemnation, it stands in direct opposition to all self-righteousness, self-justification, or reliance on our own acts for acceptance with God, &c. Hence the utter absurdity of making repentance a condition of salvation. In pursuing the enquiry concerning the obligation of men to repent, I shall have again to refer to the law of Ten Commands; and as I had occasion in the preceding communication, and have again in this to speak of it in distinction from the original law under which man was created, I wish here to guard against being understood as meaning that they are separate laws. I understand them to be in substance the same law, but differently revealed. In the original creation of man the law requiring him to love God with all his heart, &c., was not delivered to him verbally in so many words, nor in a series of implied prohibitions as in the Decalogue; but was written in indelible characters upon man. I do not say, nor mean in his heart; but upon his existence as a rational being, and upon all by which he was surrounded, for all declared the wisdom, power, and goodness of their Creator, and therefore reflected the obligation of man to love his Creator with all his powers and faculties. Thus it is said, Rom.1:19,20. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Had man continued in the state of uprightness in which he was created, he would not have needed the specifications contained in the Decalogue to show him what was right or wrong. Though a test of his love and subjection to God was needed, and that was given him in the prohibition of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But man having sinned and come short of the glory of God, and sunken into a state of condemnation, God, in bringing in that dispensation which was particularly designed to typify the salvation in all its parts, of spiritual Israel; as well as to prepare the way for the manifestation of the Messiah, saw proper, to give a new edition of the law, or to declare it in Ten Commands from Sinai, which commands are but so many specifications by which are showed man's entire departure from the standard of right. Hence says Paul; "I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said Thou shalt not covet." Rom.7:7. This law was given in the letter of it, in covenant form to national Israel; and was written on tables of stone to show that the law in itself cannot give life; that its commands in their outward address to man leave the heart as lifeless and hard as the stones on which they were written.

This law of Ten Commands, in its spirituality and as addressed to all, both Jews and Gentiles, I understand was given expressly to teach repentance. I do not say, to show that repentance was a part of the original requisition of the law, and a part of the righteousness it required; but that it is addressed to man as depraved and condemned, to call him off from self-confidence, and to repentance. I feel myself fully supported in this by the declarations of scripture, that the law was added by reason of transgression; entered that the offence might abound, &c.; and especially by this text, "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" - for what? - "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." What is this but self-condemnation before God, that is designed to be accomplished by the declaration of the law? And what is such self-condemnation, but repentance toward God? It is then I think clear, that it is the law of Ten Commands in its spirituality that calls for repentance. But it may be asked, Is it the laws thus calling for repentance that makes it the duty of man to repent, or thus to be humbled and abased before God? I answer no; for the law calls for it only as it shows the nature and truth of man's case, that he is a guilty condemned creature, polluted in all his ways. The fitness, propriety and obligation of man to repent arises from the nature and truth of the case. If it is a duty of man to practice truth toward God and toward man, then it is his duty thus to be humble and abased before God and men, because the truth is that he is thus debased by his transgressions of the law; and to plead or trust to his works for justification is to plead and trust a falsehood, as showed by the Decalogue; for his works condemn him. However I would here remark that I doubt the propriety of using the term duty in a strict sense in relation to repentance, although it may be admitted in a loose sense. Of the fitness of repentance, and of the obligation man is under to exercise it, from his still existing as the creature of God, and a subject of His moral government, I have no doubt, that is, so far as the light of reason and external revelation can show them the evil of sin.

Let us now look a little at christian experience on this point; for the Spirit's teaching is truth. When a person is led by the teachings of the Holy Spirit truly to know the law and by it to know his guilt and depravity, he at once falls prostrate at the footstool of mercy, acknowledging the justice of his condemnation, and feels that from the fitness of things, he cannot be too much abased and humbled before God against whom he has sinned. It is true that in the former stages of his exercises, he may have sought to work himself up to a repentance, as a something that was to make amends for his transgressions and make his peace with God; but he now abhors this attempt to mock God and dishonor His law as much as any of his former open sins. And he would no sooner think of pleading the condemnation and contrition he now feels as a reason why he should escape punishment, than the criminal before a court would think of pleading the fact of his being clearly proved guilty, as a proper ground for his being cleared. This contrite penitent sees and feels that there is no way by which in justice he can be released from enduring the curse of the law, until he is led by faith to behold that satisfaction which Christ has made to the law for such sinners as he. He now feels that there is a natural fitness that he and every other person should be abased and humbled before God as transgressors of His law and abusers of His goodness. But further, being brought into the light of the gospel, he sees that it was sovereign grace alone which brought him thus to repentance, and that the condemnation which man lies under in consequence of his awful departure from God, is that he should be given over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, or fit, or as the Master saith, that he should love darkness rather than light.

In accordance with what I have above shown as taught by experience, of the fitness and propriety of men's being thus humbled before God, the Apostle speaks of the goodness of God, that is, in the riches of His goodness, forbearance, &c., toward man, leading him to repentance, or in other words, as naturally tending to produce in him humbleness and contrition of heart, if he rightly viewed himself, but that instead of its having this proper effect, he, after his hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto himself wrath against the day of wrath, &c. See Rom.2:4-5. Now I understand the Old School doctrine thus to teach the natural fitness that all men, to be consistent with truth, should be abased and penitent before God as transgressors of His law. And farther, I understand it to be in accordance with Old School doctrine for a person, when he knows of another's committing any sin, whether he be regenerated or not, to exhort him to repent of that sin, as Peter exhorted Simon, Acts 8:22. But this exhortation will of course with propriety, be nothing other than a persuading of the person to use that light which God has given him, relative to this sin, whether that be the light of reason, or of grace. Such exhortations however must not be considered as, peculiarly a part of the ministerial office. If the above comes up to what others would import by saying that it is the duty of the unregenerate to repent, let them have this phrase, to convey the idea that men can or are required of themselves to exercise that repentance which is unto life, or that it is their duty to exercise repentance as a part of legal righteousness, or to make amends for a deficiency in that righteousness, or as a condition proposed by the gospel, in either of these senses the Old School doctrine does not represent it to be the duty of the unregenerate to repent.

Although I have already drawn out this subject to what many will think an unprofitable and unreasonable length, yet I cannot as I have entered upon it, feel satisfied without pursuing the enquiry as to what constitutes the preaching of repentance both under the day spring, and the sun rising of the gospel.

PART II. The branch of the above enquiry now before us is, What constitutes preaching repentance both under the day spring, and the sun rising of the gospel day? The day spring of course comes first, and under this we find both John and Christ preaching, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In order to come to a proper understanding of the import and design of this preaching, it is necessary to refer back to the peculiar standing of the Jews. I have already remarked on another branch of this inquiry, that the law of Ten Commands in the letter of them, were given in covenant form to national Israel. Connected with these commands and as conditions of the same covenant, was the observance of the whole Jewish ritual as commanded by Moses. In the offering of sacrifices and in other rites, repentance or an acknowledgment of guilt and condemnation was implied and taught; also the hearing and reception of the Messiah, when He should come, was commanded. Deut.18:15-19. Hence the "foundation of repentance from dead works" is named, Heb.6:1,2, among the principles or first rudiments of the doctrine of Christ, which the believers from among the Hebrews were called upon to leave. Hence also when Messiah came, it was according to the Divine and revealed plan of His manifestation, that He should first present Himself to the Jews, nationally, for their reception or rejection; on the principles of the Sinai Covenant. Hence it is said, Christ "came to His own and they received Him not," &c. John 1:11. It was as I understand it, in accordance with this arrangement, and the provisions of the Sinai Covenant, that John came preaching repentance and that Christ preached it; and also that the Seventy were sent two and two to give notice of His coming, or that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They preached repentance to show that according to the order of Messiah's kingdom, and to what had been figuratively taught in the Sinai ritual, repentance, and not self-righteousness, was requisite to a right reception of the Messiah, and to entering into His kingdom. They called upon them thus to repent upon the principles of that covenant under which they as a nation in a peculiar manner existed, and according to which Christ thus first presented Himself to them as the Messiah for their reception or rejection. It is true, as Brother Beebe said, in his remarks on repentance, that a special design of John's being sent preaching repentance was "to make ready a people prepared of the Lord." But still I think John's preaching, saying Repent, &c., was addressed to the Jews nationally upon the principles of their covenant; and that it was thus left to the Holy Spirit, whose province it peculiarly is, to make manifest the "people prepared of the Lord," to lead such through John's preaching to be convinced of their sinfulness and just condemnation, and to hope for the immediate manifestation of the Messiah; and as a fruit of their repentance, to renounce their self-righteousness, and their dependence on, having Abraham for their father, for justification; and were accordingly prepared to come to John's baptism as a baptism - not of self-righteousness for justification, but of "repentance for the remission of sins." Hence in the text already quoted, John 1:11, after it is said "He came to His own, that is nationally, and His own received Him not, it is further declared that to as many as received Him, to them gave He power, &c., which were born not of blood," &c. Thus showing that their being distinguished thus from the nation, was peculiarly of God. From this view of this subject, Pedobaptists may think it consistent to preach repentance according to John's manner of preaching, because they imagine their children to have been brought in under the Abrahamic covenant; but surely no consistent Baptist will think of blending the principles of the Sinai covenant with the gospel ministry in calling upon men to repent as a self-preparation for receiving the gospel.

I will now come to the preaching of repentance under the sun rising of the gospel day. On this point we have a plain direction in Luke 24:47, where Christ after His resurrection teaches His disciples that, "Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." This I understand to be the particular instruction given how repentance is to be preached since the ascension of Christ.

1st. It is to be preached in His - Christ's - name. Not in Moses' name. Not as a demand of the law; nor as John preached it to the Jews on the principles of the Sinai covenant. Neither does preaching repentance in the name of Christ, consist with calling upon men to repent, for this implies that the repentance called for is such as the natural man can exercise, or the reflections of the natural mind will produce. Hence this preaching tends to build men up in the notion of their own ability and to satisfy them with such repentance as they are capable of exercising; and therefore tends to produce in their minds the very reverse to that repentance which Christ gives, a being abased in the dust as guilty, ruined, helpless sinners.

Repentance is truly preached in the name of Christ, when the law in its exceeding broadness, unchangeableness and spirituality as taught and illustrated by Christ, and established by the gospel is preached, as cutting off all human works as the ground of acceptance with God, "Stopping every mouth and presenting all the world as guilty before God." This is the preaching which, when the heart is opened by the Holy Ghost to receive it, and by Him applied, produces the fruits of genuine repentance, namely: a being stripped of all self glorying and self confidence and an abhorring of one's self and being humbled as in dust and ashes. But further in preaching repentance in the name of Christ, as He is "exalted as a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins," the sensible sinner [text obscured in original] should be pointed to Christ as Him who alone can melt his heart and give him that repentance which needeth not to be repented of. And the intimate connection between this repentance, and the receiving of the forgiveness of sins, must be clearly held forth; so that none, on the one hand shall indulge in the hopes of experiencing pardoning mercy through Christ, unless brought to know and feel the odiousness and exceeding sinfulness of sin; and on the other hand, that those who are mourning over their own vileness and ruin may be encouraged to hope for the forgiveness of their sins through Christ. Now I will leave it to Brother Meredith and others who have been alarmed at the cry against our Old School preachers, that they do not preach repentance to sinners, to judge whether the above described kind of preaching; or the calling upon the unregenerate to repent and the trying to scare them to it by dwelling on the horrors of hell, and thus leading them to infer that repentance is a bodily exercise, a mere excitement of the passions, appears the most consistent with gospel doctrine and preaching, and the most like preaching true "repentance toward God." But there is another point which it is incumbent on me to notice before I quit this subject, namely; Acts 17:30. "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." We must first notice the import of the expression now commandeth. If the obligation of the Gentiles to repent, rests upon this command, as a new law then instituted, as those who dwell so much upon this text seem to intimate, then their previously gross idolatry afforded no just ground for repentance, and they were guiltless in practicing it. But such a conclusion is entirely inconsistent with Paul's view of their case given, Rom.1:18-32. The true import of this expression as connected with the idea that God had heretofore winked at the times of this ignorance, appears to me to be this, namely: That although hitherto the law of Ten Commands as designed to teach the knowledge of sin, was confined mostly to the Jews, while the Gentiles were left without any special revelation to teach them their sins; yet now under the gospel dispensation, this law as connected with the gospel proclamation was "to be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations," showing the absurdity and wickedness of idolatry, and the guilt and condemnation of all as transgressors of the divine law. Hence wherever the gospel came among the Gentiles thus accompanied with the proclamation of the law, those Gentiles whose hearts were opened to receive the word, were led to renounce all their hopes arising from those idolatrous rites which they had performed and to fall prostrate before God as guilty sinners, needing His pardoning mercy; as were the Jews stripped of their legal righteousness. And not only this, but God is so revealed in the external testimony of the law and the gospel as human reason becomes convinced comes are more or less made to feel that they are dependent on, and accountable to the living God. In accordance with this view of the import of this text, I will add that the primary idea of the word here rendered command, is to instruct, teach, direct, and hence also it came to be used to denote commanding as one mode of directing; it further signifies to give notice or warning, &c. Hence I understand the text as designed, not to intimate that under the gospel God had instituted a new command or law for the Gentiles, or laid them under a new obligation to exercise repentance; but to show the bearing and effect the gospel proclamation as embracing an illustration of the spirituality of the law was designed to have upon all people, and that it was thus addressed to all, in distinction from what was the case under the former dispensation.

Lastly, the subject of prayer, or the enquiry whether it is the duty of the unregenerate to pray, demands attention. If the charge that Old School Baptists "believe it is not the duty of the unregenerate to pray," is designed to convey the idea that they do not hold, or preach that it is the duty of unregenerate persons, or right for them, to read or say over a form of prayer, as a regular or occasional task, and as means of salvation, or a condition of acceptance with God, whilst their hearts are insensible of the wants their words express; every consistent Old School Baptist, and every other person who knows the wickedness of mocking God with lip service, while the heart is far from Him, must plead guilty to this charge. But as this charge imports that we do not admit it right for any person, under a sense of his dependence on God and feeling his need of divine mercy or aid in any case to ask God for it; I think the charge is false. I for one believe it right for anyone to pray to God for any aid or mercy that he truly feels the need of, and is authorized by the Scriptures to believe that God bestows upon the sons of men.

To say it is the duty of unregenerate persons to pray, as a form of worship is to say that God requires of them that worship which is neither spiritual, nor from the heart. But Christ informed the woman of Samaria that, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him, must worship Him in Spirit and in truth." John 4:24. But for a person to pray, not as a form of worship, but simply to ask God for mercy because he feels he needs it, is the privilege of any; hence Peter exhorts Simon to pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him; under the impression, undoubtedly, that Simon from the sharp rebuke and warning he had given him, would see and feel the wickedness of his thought and the need of forgiveness.

I have thus traveled over a good deal of ground upon these subjects, whether Brother Meredith will be any better satisfied than with Brother Beebe's brief explanation, I know not. The confusion into which these subjects have been thrown by conditionalists and their use of them, seemed to require a general and particular examination of them. I cannot say that after all I have said, and my anxiety to place the subjects in a clear light, I have succeeded to any degree.

But I leave it. God may enable some others to set the subject in a clearer light, or may lead some to comprehend the ideas, I have attempted to convey; and if they are wrong to show the right.

Yours in the gospel of Christ,
Samuel Trott


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Richard,

I find that you're missing a very important piece of what the Gospel really is by focusing too much on how ministers present it and not enough upon what the Truth of it represents with respect to a man's status before God. Incidentally, your quotes of Gill only reinforce that there is much that I disagree with that he wrote.

If you read the book of Romans beginning from Romans 1, Paul states that he is not ashamed of the Gospel because the righteousness of God is revealed in it. In fact, it is _only_ the Gospel that rightly acknowledges the righteousness of God. It is no mistake that Paul launches into the _unrighteousness_ of men who supress the knowledge of God.

Now, we can certainly agree that a fallen man is not going to embrace the Gospel but, put another way, all we're acknowledging is that a fallen man is not going to acknowledge the righteousness of God. He will willfully and wantonly *suppress* God's righteousness.

The question is: Does he have a _right_ to do so? Of course not.

In fact, as God's creature he *is* required to acknowledge the righteousness of His creator. It is the very reason God's wrath is poured out on him. It is the very reason he will be judged.

To deny his duty to believe the Gospel is to deny his duty to acknowledge God's righteousness and, hence, is to call into question whether or not God is righteous in condemning him.


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> Richard,
> 
> I find that you're missing a very important piece of what the Gospel really is by focusing too much on how ministers present it and not enough upon what the Truth of it represents with respect to a man's status before God. Incidentally, your quotes of Gill only reinforce that there is much that I disagree with that he wrote.
> 
> If you read the book of Romans beginning from Romans 1, Paul states that he is not ashamed of the Gospel because the righteousness of God is revealed in it. In fact, it is _only_ the Gospel that rightly acknowledges the righteousness of God. It is no mistake that Paul launches into the _unrighteousness_ of men who supress the knowledge of God.
> 
> Now, we can certainly agree that a fallen man is not going to embrace the Gospel but, put another way, all we're acknowledging is that a fallen man is not going to acknowledge the righteousness of God. He will willfully and wantonly *suppress* God's righteousness.
> 
> The question is: Does he have a _right_ to do so? Of course not.
> 
> In fact, as God's creature he *is* required to acknowledge the righteousness of His creator. It is the very reason God's wrath is poured out on him. It is the very reason he will be judged.
> 
> To deny his duty to believe the Gospel is to deny his duty to acknowledge God's righteousness and, hence, is to call into question whether or not God is righteous in condemning him.



Thank you, Rich. You've spoken clearly and concisely. I just can't fathom why it is hard for some to accept the fact that ALL are obligated to believe God and heed his call to faith. I'm quite sure that none here would argue that all are able to do this, but since when does obligation require ability? It doesn't. 

Again, to piggy back on Rich's question, Richard - if not all are duty bound to believe the Gospel (which means truly believe, truly put faith in Christ, etc. and so forth) then what of those who are free of that duty, that obligation? You have said that they are duty bound ONLY to believe that Christ is the Son of God, etc. - that they are duty bound to have "historical" faith. 

What accrues to them (you've never answered this question, unless I missed it in your large extracts from other authors) if they DO obey and do their duty? What good does that do them? If they've done all their duty, then what?

Fact is, Richard, they are duty bound to believe Christ, and ON him, and come to faith, else they perish. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging this as a duty that ALL face (so long as we recognize God's sovereignty and the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit regenerating the hearts of the elect who DO, having been regenerated, exercise true faith). To call faith a duty, an obligation, by the way, is NOT to make it a work. Perhaps this is your problem with such language?


----------



## KMK

AV1611 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you call yourself a hyper-calvinist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Let us not forget that John Owen went further than Calvin but would we call Owen a hyper-Calvinist? I think not. What argument would you put forward to say that all those who hear the gospel are obligated to believe in Christ _savingly_?
Click to expand...


From Theopedia



> The term Hyper-Calvinism refers primarily to a theological position that historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700's. It can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771).
> It is called Hyper-Calvinism by its critics, who maintain that it deviates from the biblical gospel by (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.



I am not much into labels, but if you are not a Hyper-Calvinist, who is? What do you consider the definition of Hyper-Calvinism? And do you agree with WCF 7:3?


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> In fact, as God's creature he *is* required to acknowledge the righteousness of His creator.



True.



SemperFideles said:


> It is the very reason God's wrath is poured out on him.



God's wrath is poured out upon him is because he is a sinner and falls short of the holy standard of God.



SemperFideles said:


> It is the very reason he will be judged.



See above.



SemperFideles said:


> To deny his duty to believe the Gospel is to deny his duty to acknowledge God's righteousness



No it does not.



SemperFideles said:


> and, hence, is to call into question whether or not God is righteous in condemning him.



Not at all.


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> Richard - if not all are duty bound to believe the Gospel (which means truly believe, truly put faith in Christ, etc. and so forth) then what of those who are free of that duty, that obligation? You have said that they are duty bound ONLY to believe that Christ is the Son of God, etc. - that they are duty bound to have "historical" faith.



Indeed.



toddpedlar said:


> What accrues to them (you've never answered this question, unless I missed it in your large extracts from other authors) if they DO obey and do their duty? What good does that do them? If they've done all their duty, then what?



I answered this in an earlier post where said: There can however be benefits of anhistorical faith albeit temporal. For example, if they mended their ways externally then there are great blessings, for example if they were unmarried but now they amended their ways externally and got married there are great benefits to that. The same if before they were drunkards but gave up getting drunk after amending their lives externally. I am sure you can come up with other examples.



toddpedlar said:


> Fact is, Richard, they are duty bound to believe Christ, and ON him, and come to faith, else they perish.



*1. *You make this assertion but where is your Scriptural evidence?
*2.* I agree if by that you mean all are to have faith in Christ is they hear of him and that faith commanded is historical.
*3. * I found the following interesting:

According to Peter Toon John Owen taught: "It was the duty of unregenerate sinners to believe:
1. The truth of the Gospel in general.
2. That faith in Christ is the only way to salvation.
3. That every sinner stands in great need of a Saviour.
4. That there is a sufficiency in Christ which is able to save the sinner if that sinner gives himself up to Christ, in Christ's appointed way."

Also Toon points out that Thomas Goodwin "taught that men are only to accept the Gospel with natural faith" quoting Goodwin:

Wicked men are blamed now for not believing the word of the law and gospel so far as such natural light as was in Adam would have enabled them thereunto seeing the law given was confirmed at first by such works and voices, as evidently would have argued to that first natural light that it was God that spake it, and they, if they had that light remaining, would have owned in their hearts. And the gospel also delivered by Christ was confirmed by signs and wonders: Hebrews ii. 3, 4, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” And the whole word written, derived to us, and then delivered, hath such peculiar characters of divine authority engraven upon it, so as even to natural light (if we had it pure as Adam had) would evidence itself to be of God, and so bind all men to believe it. And therefore men are both justly commanded to believe it, and justly blamed for not believing it.​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, as God's creature he *is* required to acknowledge the righteousness of His creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the very reason God's wrath is poured out on him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's wrath is poured out upon him is because he is a sinner and falls short of the holy standard of God.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny his duty to believe the Gospel is to deny his duty to acknowledge God's righteousness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, hence, is to call into question whether or not God is righteous in condemning him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
Click to expand...


So, when Paul says that the Gospel is the righteousness of God revealed then that just means nothing to you at all? It has no meaning for the unbeliever? The fact that the righteousness of God is revealed in Romans 1:16 has no role in informing what it is that is unrighteous in men?

I find your responses, in fact, to be quite facile and did not interact with how Romans deals with the subject of what the Gospel _is_, especially since Romans 10 makes very clear that the attainment of righteousness _is_ what Jews were after and missed it by missing the Gospel. Men are required to be righteous. It is not an option.

It is not enough to say that men merely fall short of a standard for behavior especially since Paul reveals that all the behavior and the fact that men are falling short of it _begins_ with them losing the knowledge of God in their minds.

If you've missed that then you've missed the whole _point_ of the Gospel Richard in spite of whether or not you say you have.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.*


Hence, as I noted, the wrath of God is against men for their supressing the righteousness of God and what is known of Him. Now you may say, No to this but you are saying No to the Scriptures at that point.

Period. This is so fundamental to Reformed theology that it is elementary.


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What accrues to them (you've never answered this question, unless I missed it in your large extracts from other authors) if they DO obey and do their duty? What good does that do them? If they've done all their duty, then what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this in an earlier post where said: There can however be benefits of anhistorical faith albeit temporal. For example, if they mended their ways externally then there are great blessings, for example if they were unmarried but now they amended their ways externally and got married there are great benefits to that. The same if before they were drunkards but gave up getting drunk after amending their lives externally. I am sure you can come up with other examples.
Click to expand...


I fear you've missed my point. If they've done their duty, why are they condemned by God?


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> God's wrath is poured out upon him is because he is a sinner and falls short of the holy standard of God.



So the unbeliever HASN'T done all his duty. Am I hearing you correctly?


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> Hence, as I noted, the wrath of God is against men for their supressing the righteousness of God and what is known of Him. Now you may say, No to this but you are saying No to the Scriptures at that point.



Read on into verse 19: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

You are correct to say that "the wrath of God is against men for their supressing the righteousness of God and what is known of Him" but that in no way implies a duty to savingly believe in Christ.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> So, when Paul says that the Gospel is the righteousness of God revealed then that just means nothing to you at all? It has no meaning for the unbeliever? The fact that the righteousness of God is revealed in Romans 1:16 has no role in informing what it is that is unrighteous in men?
> 
> I find your responses, in fact, to be quite facile and did not interact with how Romans deals with the subject of what the Gospel _is_, especially since Romans 10 makes very clear that the attainment of righteousness _is_ what Jews were after and missed it by missing the Gospel. Men are required to be righteous. It is not an option.
> 
> It is not enough to say that men merely fall short of a standard for behavior especially since Paul reveals that all the behavior and the fact that men are falling short of it _begins_ with them losing the knowledge of God in their minds.
> 
> If you've missed that then you've missed the whole _point_ of the Gospel Richard in spite of whether or not you say you have.



What I am saying is that what you have said has no bearing on whether or not it is the duty of the reprobate to believe savingly in Christ.

*For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ,....* The reason why he was so ready and willing to preach it, even where he ran the greatest risk of his character and life, was, because it was "the Gospel of Christ" he preached, and he was not ashamed of it. This supposes that some were, though the apostle was not, ashamed of the Gospel; as all such are who hide and conceal it, who have abilities to preach it, and do not: or who preach, but not the Gospel; or who preach the Gospel only in part, who own that in private, they will not preach in public, and use ambiguous words, of doubtful signification, to cover themselves; who blend the Gospel with their own inventions, seek to please men, and live upon popular applause, regard their own interest, and not Christ's, and cannot bear the reproach of his Gospel. It expresses, that the apostle was not ashamed of it; that is, to preach it, which he did fully and faithfully, plainly and consistently, openly and publicly, and boldly, in the face of all opposition: and it designs more than is expressed, as that he had the utmost value for it, and esteemed it his highest honour that he was employed in preaching it: his reasons for this were, because it was "the Gospel of Christ"; which Christ himself preached, which he had learnt by revelation from him, and of which he was the sum and substance: and because 

*it is the power of God;* not essentially, but declaratively; as the power of God is seen in making men ministers of it, in the doctrines held forth in it, in the manner in which it was spread in the world, in the opposition it met with, in the continuance and increase of it notwithstanding the power and cunning of men, and in the shortness of time, in which so much good was done by it in the several parts of the world: it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force: the extent of this power is, 

*unto salvation; *the Gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to lay hold upon it. The persons to whom it is so, are in general, 

*everyone that believeth: *this does not suppose that faith gives the Gospel its virtue and efficacy; but is only descriptive of the persons to whom the Gospel, attended with the power and grace of God, is eventually efficacious: and particularly it was so, 

*to the Jew first; *who as they had formerly the advantage of the Gentiles, much every way, through the peculiar privileges which were conferred on them; so the Gospel was first preached to them by Christ and his disciples; and even when it was ordered to be carried into the Gentile world, it was to begin with them, and became effectual for the salvation of many of them: 

*and also to the Greek; *to the Gentile; for after the Jews had rejected it, as many being called by it as Jehovah thought fit, at that time, it was preached to the Gentiles with great success; which was the mystery hid from ages and generations past, but now made manifest.

*For therein is the righteousness of God revealed,.... *By "the righteousness of God", is not meant the essential righteousness of God, the rectitude of his nature, his righteousness in fulfilling his promises, and his punitive justice, which though revealed in the Gospel, yet not peculiar to it; nor the righteousness by which Christ himself is righteous, either as God, or as Mediator; but that righteousness which he wrought out by obeying the precepts, and bearing the penalty of the law in the room of his people, and by which they are justified in the sight of God: and this is called "the righteousness of God", in opposition to the righteousness of men: and because it justifies men in the sight of God; and because of the concern which Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit, have in it. Jehovah the Father sent his Son to work it out, and being wrought out, he approves and accepts of it, and imputes it to his elect: Jehovah the Son is the author of it by his obedience and death; and Jehovah the Spirit discovers it to sinners, works faith in them to lay hold upon it, and pronounces the sentence of justification by it in their consciences. Now this is said to be "revealed" in the Gospel, that is, it is taught in the Gospel; that is the word of righteousness, the ministration of it; it is manifested in and by the Gospel. This righteousness is not known by the light of nature, nor by the law of Moses; it was hid under the shadows of the ceremonial law, and is brought to light only by the Gospel; it is hid from every natural man, even from the most wise and prudent, and from God's elect themselves before conversion, and is only made known to believers, to whom it is revealed: 

*from faith to faith;* that is, as say some, from the faith of God to the faith of men; from the faith of preachers to the faith of hearers; from the faith of the Old to the faith of the New Testament saints; or rather from one degree of faith to another; for faith, as it grows and increases, has clearer sights of this righteousness, as held forth in the Gospel. For the proof of this, a passage of Scripture is cited, 

*as it is written, *Hab_2:4; 

*the just shall live by faith:* "a just", or righteous man is, not everyone who thinks himself, or is thought by others to be so; nor are any so by their obedience to the law of works; but he is one that is made righteous by the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, which is before said to be revealed in the Gospel. The life which this man lives, and "shall live", does not design a natural or corporeal life, and a continuance of that, for such die a natural death, as other men; nor an eternal life, for though they shall so live, yet not by faith; but a spiritual life, a life of justification on Christ, of holiness from him, of communion with him, and of peace and joy; which spiritual life shall be continued, and never be lost. The manner in which the just lives, is "by faith". In the prophet Habakkuk, the words are, "the just shall live" באמונתו, "by his faith" Hab_2:4); which the Septuagint render, "by my faith": and the apostle only reads, "by faith", omitting the affix, as well known, and easy to be supplied: for faith, when given by God, and exercised by the believer, is his own, and by it he lives; not upon it, but by it upon Christ the object of it; from whom, in a way of believing, he derives his spiritual life, and all the comforts of it.

*For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven,.... *The apostle having hinted at the doctrine of justification by faith in the righteousness of Christ; and which he designed more largely to insist upon in this epistle, and to prove that there can be no justification of a sinner in the sight of God by the deeds of the law, in order to set this matter in a clear light, from hence, to the end of the chapter, and in the following ones, represents the sad estate and condition of the Gentiles with the law of nature, and of the Jews with the law of Moses; by which it most clearly appears, that neither of them could be justified by their obedience to the respective laws under which they were, but that they both stood in need of the righteousness of God. By "the wrath of God" is meant the displicency and indignation of God at sin and sinners; his punitive justice, and awful vengeance; the judgments which he executes in this world; and that everlasting displeasure of his, and wrath to come in another world, which all through sin are deserving of, some are appointed to, God's elect are delivered from, through Christ's sustaining it, in their room and stead, and which comes and abides on all impenitent and unbelieving persons. This is said to be "revealed", where? not in the Gospel, in which the righteousness of God is revealed; unless the Gospel be taken for the books of the four Evangelists, or for the Gospel dispensation, or for that part of the ministry of a Gospel preacher, which represents the wrath of God as the desert of sin, the dreadfulness of it, and the way to escape it; for the Gospel, strictly taken, is grace, good news, glad tidings, and not wrath and damnation; though indeed in Christ's sufferings for the sins of his people, which the Gospel gives us an account of, there is a great display of the wrath of God, and of his indignation against sin: but this wrath of God is revealed in the law, it is known by the light of nature, and to be perceived in the law of Moses, and may be observed in the Scriptures, where are many instances and examples of divine wrath and displeasure; as in the total destruction of the old world by a world wide flood, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, the plagues of Egypt, and the several instances mentioned in this chapter. This wrath is said to be God's wrath "from heaven", by the awful blackness which covers the heavens, the storms and tempests raised in them, and by pouring down water or fire in a surprising manner, on the inhabitants of the world; or "from heaven", that is, openly, manifestly, in the sight of all; or from God who is in heaven, and not from second causes; and more especially it will be revealed from heaven, when Christ shall descend from thence at the day of judgment: the subject matter or object of it, 

*against,* or "upon" which it is revealed, are, 

*all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men; *that is, all ungodly and unrighteous men; or all men who are guilty of ungodliness, the breach of the first table of the law, which respects the worship of God, and of unrighteousness, the breach of the second table of the law, which regards our neighbours' good: and these persons are further described as such, 

*who hold the truth in unrighteousness:* meaning either such who know the Gospel, which is "the truth", and do not profess it openly, but hold and imprison it in their minds, which is a great piece of unrighteousness; or if they do profess it, do not live up to it in their lives: or rather the Gentile philosophers are designed, who are spoken of in the following verse; See Gill on Rom_1:22; who had some knowledge of the truth of the divine Being, and his perfections, and of the difference between moral good and evil; but did not like to retain it themselves, nor communicate all they knew to others, nor did they live according to that knowledge which they had.

*Because that which may be known of God,.... *There are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous: and this 

*is manifest in them,* or "to them"; by the light that is given them: it is light by which that which may be known of God is manifest; and this is the light of nature, which every man has that comes into the world; and this is internal, it is in him, in his mind and conscience, and is communicated to him by God, and that by infusion or inspiration; see Job_32:8; 

*for God hath showed it unto them;* what may be known of him by that light; and which is assisted and may be improved by a consideration of the works of creation and Providence.


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> I fear you've missed my point. If they've done their duty, why are they condemned by God?



Because they are still sinners, that historical faith is not saving faith hence they are not clothed with the righteousness of God.



toddpedlar said:


> So the unbeliever HASN'T done all his duty. Am I hearing you correctly?



The law commands perfect obedience, but no-one is able to perform this save Christ. What you need to do is prove that saving faith in Christ is a part of the moral law.

Gill:

Whether faith is a duty of the moral law, or is to be referred to the gospel? to which it may be answered, that as the law is not of faith, so faith is not of the law. There is a faith indeed which the law requires and obliges to, namely, faith and trust in God, as the God of nature and providence; for as both the law of nature, and the law of Moses, show there is a God, and who is to be worshipped; they both require a belief of him, and trust and confidence in him; which is one part of the worship of him enjoined therein: moreover the law obliges men to give credit to any revelation of the mind and will of God he has made, or should think fit to make unto them at any time; but as for special faith in Christ as a Saviour, or believing in him to the saving of the soul; this the law knows nothing of, nor does it make it known; this kind of faith neither comes by the ministration of it, nor does it direct to Christ the object of it, nor give any encouragement to believe in him on the above account; but it is a blessing of the covenant of grace, which flows from electing love, is a gift of God’s free grace, the operation of the Spirit of God, comes by the hearing of faith, or the word of faith, as a means, that is, the gospel; for which reason, among others, the gospel is so called; and it is that which points out Christ, the object of faith; and directs and encourages sensible sinners under a divine influence to exercise it on him; its language is, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).​


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear AV,

[1] Your position appears to have Scripture directly against it.

Firstly, it can be shown that Christ called people indiscriminately to salvific-faith:

John 12:35 (NIV) Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36 *Put your trust [or believe, pisteuete] in the light while you have it*, so that you may become sons of light."

There is Jesus calling _all_ his audience to believe / trust (_pisteuo_), not in the sense of just assent-faith precisely so they will become "sons of light".

Secondly, Christ will punish people for not embracing the gospel, something he couldn't do, if the gospel was not is a sense _for _them:

2The 1:7 (NIV) [...] This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and *do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus*.

Here are people punished precisely because they did not respond to the "gospel". In other words, the gospel is to be preached to all and all are called to obey it (i.e. faith and repentance). Not to obey the gospel, is a sin.

[2] John Owen is _not _on your side. He did not make the distinction of "duty-faith" as did Gill when it came to preaching the gospel to unbelievers. That distinction is a development _after_ Owen's time.

AV, your position is basically hypercalvinism, and you would do well to recognise it for what it is.

[3] I suggest you read Andrew Fuller's brilliant work, _The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation_, which shows the fruits of his own research, which led him away from the position of John Gill (_et. al.)_, and the concomitant deadness toward mission that characterised the 18th century baptist hypercalvinists.

[4] Could you let me know where the (i) Toon references are taken from, and (ii) where the Goodwin quote is taken from?

God bless you brother AV.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear AV,
> 
> [1] Your position appears to have Scripture directly against it.


It is not a mere appearance and it has no place on this board.

Thank you Marty.

The discussion on whether or not men are permitted to suppress the unrighteousness of God is not one permitted here.

To turn the table and say that the reprobate are not required to believe savingly in Christ is to MISS THE POINT.

The reason they don't believe upon Christ is *because* they suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness - something they are required NOT to do and something they will be judged for.

PERIOD. This discussion is over.


----------

