# Is faith a duty?



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

Is faith a duty? How would you prove your answer?


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Is faith a duty? How would you prove your answer?



Acts 17:30..............


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

Chris said:


> Acts 17:30..............



But that only covers repentance which is not faith. The argument that I have some agreement with runs thus:

Repentance is a duty since all men broke the law in Adam. However faith is a gift and is not a part of the moral law. Therefore faith can not be a duty.

The heathen who never hear of Christ are not duty bound to believe in him because they have never heard of him.

Thoughts?


----------



## Arch2k (May 24, 2007)

?????

*1Jn 3:23* And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Beware brother... both are duties. How can you truly have faith that is non-repentant and how can you believe without repenting? Don't separate the two.



Could you explain? This is a subject I have been struggling with.


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> ?????
> 
> *1Jn 3:23* And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.



*1.* Is not this epistle written to Christians? 

Gill writes

*Ver. 23. And this is his commandment,....* Having mentioned the keeping of the commandments of God, the apostle proceeds to show what they are; that they are faith in Christ, and love to one another; which two are reduced to one, because they are inseparable; where the one is, the other is; faith works by love.

*That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ; *Christ is the object of faith, and he is no, as he is Jesus, a Saviour; faith deals with him as such, and will have no other Saviour but he: and now to believe in him, is not merely to believe that he is the Son of God, the true Messiah, the Saviour of the world, that he is come in the flesh, has suffered, and died, and rose again from the dead, is ascended into heaven, and is set down at the right hand of God, makes intercession for his people, and will come again to judge the quick and dead; but it is to go forth in special and spiritual acts upon him, such as looking at him, coming to him, venturing on him, trusting in him for life and salvation, committing all into his hands, and expecting all from him. *And this is called a "commandment", and comes under the notion of one; not that it is properly a law, or belongs to the law; for faith in Christ Jesus is a fruit of electing grace, and a blessing of the covenant of grace; it is the free gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit, and is peculiar to the elect of God, and sheep of Christ; and so cannot belong to the law of works*; but, as the Hebrew words, hrwt, and hwum, both signify any doctrine, and instruction in general; see Ps 19:7; so the word here used designs an evangelical doctrine, a divine instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Gospel, which declares that he that believes in Christ shall be saved; and so the word is used for a doctrine in this epistle, 1Jo 2:7; and that of the next command or doctrine, which follows,

*and love one another as he gave us commandment;* that is, as Christ taught and instructed his disciples, Joh 13:34.​
*2.* Does this apply to those who never hear of Christ?


----------



## JM (May 24, 2007)

Found this from a google...



> _"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.


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

JM said:


> Found this from a google...




Do you know who it is by? Sounds like Gill, Philpot, Brine _et al_.


----------



## JM (May 24, 2007)

S. Trott I think.

Have you read Calvin vs. Hyper-Spurgeonism?

Thoughts?

j


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Yes, Christians too have a duty of belief and faith. Lord I believe..help my unbelief...
> 
> And yes, all men are to kiss the Son. All nations are to obey the rule of God.
> 
> In Acts, in Athens I think, doesn't it say that God commands all men everywhere to repent. This covers the whole world.




I am not questioning the duty of all to repent but rather the duty of all to savingly believe in Christ.


----------



## AV1611 (May 24, 2007)

JM said:


> S. Trott I think.
> 
> Have you read Calvin vs. Hyper-Spurgeonism?
> 
> ...



Will give it a read through. Thanks brother!


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I am not questioning the duty of all to repent but rather the duty of all to savingly believe in Christ.




How, exactly, do you do one without the other? 

'Repent' certainly includes repenting of unbelief in God, His Christ, and the work of His Christ.


----------



## bwsmith (May 24, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Is faith a duty? How would you prove your answer?



First, faith is a gift, and such a gift that enables us to do what pleases God. Knowing, believing and trusting, we enjoy the hope – a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for us, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Peter 1.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (May 25, 2007)

I am thinking that faith is caused by irresistible grace. So, God calls us to believe and enables us to do so. faith=noun and believe=verb


----------



## JM (May 25, 2007)

More food for thought from Joseph R. Holder, it's just an FYI post.



> Faith Is A Work
> 
> Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:28, 29.
> 
> ...



Philpot:
_
As dying, and, behold, we live._ –2 Corinthians 6:9

Though we die, and die daily, yet, behold, we live; and in a sense, the more we die, the more we live. The more we die to self, the more we die to sin; the more we die to pride and self-righteousness, the more we die to creature strength; and the more we die to sinful nature, the more we live to grace. And this runs all the way through the life and experience of a Christian. Nature must die, that grace may live. The weeds must be plucked up, that the crop may grow; the flesh be starved, that the spirit may be fed; the old man put off, that the new man may be put on; the deeds of the body be mortified, that the soul may live unto God. As then we die, we live. The more we die to our own strength, the more we live to Christ's strength; the more we die to creature hope, the more we live to a good hope through grace; the more we die to our own righteousness, the more we live to Christ's righteousness; and the more we die to the world, the more we live to and for heaven.

This is the grand mystery, that the Christian is always dying, yet always living; and the more he dies, the more he lives. The death of the flesh is the life of the spirit; the death of sin is the life of righteousness; and the death of the creature is the very life of God in the soul.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 25, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Faith is not a work; it is the channel of our union with Christ, received freely as a gift.
> 
> Why do you have faith and another does not, because of God's grace. It was clearly not generated out of your own merit.



It seems to me that there is absolutely no necessary contradiction between the two statements "Faith is a gift" and "All men are commanded to believe (i.e. to have faith". Why must a contradiction be seen between these?

The fact that Faith is a gift simply means that nobody can conjure up faith or the ability to savingly believe, of themselves. It is a gift of God that no man may boast. The fact that all men are commanded to believe is a statement about the means of salvation, and that faith, a full trusting and resting in Christ alone for salvation is the only Way. This is incumbent upon ALL - if any is to be saved, he must trust Christ alone. It is, therefore, most certainly the duty of every single human being to believe on Christ - and that duty failed begets condemnation and death. 

God gives what God requires (as Augustine poignantly prayed) to those who are His, who were given to Christ from before the beginning of time. There's no contradiction.

A second question - what would the implications of saying "not all men are duty-bound to believe in Christ"? I guess I'm asking this of Richard - if not all men have a duty to believe, what does this mean (in your estimation) about those who do NOT have a duty to believe (and who are they)?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 25, 2007)

I must admit that I have never really looked at this question. I did, after reading this thread, run into this piece arguing against duty faith. I am reserving judgment untill I have examined it more closely.

10 ARGUMENTS AGAINST DUTY FAITH


----------



## AV1611 (May 25, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> A second question - what would the implications of saying "not all men are duty-bound to believe in Christ"? I guess I'm asking this of Richard - if not all men have a duty to believe, what does this mean (in your estimation) about those who do NOT have a duty to believe (and who are they)?



I would say (thinking aloud here) that we have a duty to believe in God in so far as the revelation we have made know to us but the issue is this. Does God demand of men to live when they are unable?

I see that the command is such that it shows what pleases God and shows men their need of faith but I am still loath to call an evangelical grace a duty upon all.

More study needed I think. 

Gill notes when commenting upon Acts 3:19

"It should be observed, that repentance is either evangelical or legal, and this either personal or national. *Evangelical repentance is not in the power of a natural man, but is the gift of God’s free grace.* Legal repentance may be performed by particular persons, who are destitute of the grace of God, and by all the inhabitants of a place, as the Ninevites, who repented externally at the preaching of Jonah, though it does not appear that they had received the grace of God, since destruction afterwards came upon that city for its iniquities; and such a repentance these Jews are here exhorted to, on the account of a national sin, the crucifixion of Christ, with which they are charged (vv. 14-18), and in the guilt and punishment, of which they had involved themselves and all their posterity, when they said, His blood be upon us, and upon our children (Matthew 27:25). Likewise *the conversion here pressed unto us, is not an internal conversion of the soul to God, which is the work of almighty power, but an outward reformation of life, or a bringing forth fruit in conversation meet for the repentance insisted on.* *Besides, exhortations to any thing, be it what it will, do not necessarily imply that man has a power to comply with them. Men are required to believe in Christ, to love the Lord with all their heart, to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit, yea, to keep the whole law of God; but it does not follow that they are able of themselves to do all these things. If, therefore, evangelical repentance and internal conversion were here intended, it would only prove that the persons spoken to were without them, stood in need of them, could not be saved unless they were partakers of them, and, therefore, ought to apply to God for them.*"

I am unsure wether he is correct with his first view or more his second?


----------



## AV1611 (May 25, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I must admit that I have never really looked at this question. I did, after reading this thread, run into this piece arguing against duty faith. I am reserving judgment untill I have examined it more closely.
> 
> 10 ARGUMENTS AGAINST DUTY FAITH



I have read that and found it helpful in the past. The problem is, in my opinion, were the Reformed men of past ages wrong on this? I have no issue whatsoever with what the Canons teach here:



> *Head 1, Article 3 - The Preaching of the Gospel*
> So that men may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends heralds of this most joyful message to whom He will and when He wills. By their ministry men are called to repentance and to faith in Christ crucified. For how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? (Rom_10:14, Rom_10:15)





> *Head 3/4, Article 8 - The Earnest Call by the Gospel*
> But as many as are called by the gospel are earnestly called, for God earnestly and most sincerely reveals in His Word what is pleasing to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He also earnestly promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.



However this article is slightly more troublesome:



> *Head 2, Article 5 - The Universal Proclamation of the Gospel*
> The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, *together with the command to repent and believe*.



The 39 Articles are silent on this issue and some Anglicans in the past have held to a very High Calvinism (Toplady and William Nunn).

In a previous discussion elsewhere I stated:



> Where is Christ revealed in nature? Note I am not talking about God as general but specifically rejecting Christ as a Saviour. As Paul states:
> 
> Rom 10:13, 14 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
> 
> ...





> I agree fully [that Inability does not remove duty] but when did God place all men under the duty to have faith in Christ? Also how are they who never hear of Christ duty bound to believe in him? All men were given the duty to keep the law but not all men know about Christ and so the two are not equal.
> 
> Indeed duty belongs to Law however faith is a grace and not a part of Law and so is not a duty as Gill well explains:
> 
> 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).





> What worries me is twofold:
> 
> 1. You turn a covenant blessing into a duty, and
> 2. You turn faith into a mere intellectual assent to axioms.
> ...


----------



## JM (May 25, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I must admit that I have never really looked at this question. I did, after reading this thread, run into this piece arguing against duty faith. I am reserving judgment untill I have examined it more closely.
> 
> 10 ARGUMENTS AGAINST DUTY FAITH



The fella in your avatar was a Gospel Standard Baptist and would have denied faith as a duty.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 25, 2007)

JM said:


> The fella in your avatar was a Gospel Standard Baptist and would have denied faith as a duty.



I know that for sure. So far I am in agreement with the 10 arguments. However, brother Philpot was just a man still.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 25, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I would say (thinking aloud here) that we have a duty to believe in God in so far as the revelation we have made know to us but the issue is this. Does God demand of men to live when they are unable?
> 
> I see that the command is such that it shows what pleases God and shows men their need of faith but I am still loath to call an evangelical grace a duty upon all.
> 
> More study needed I think.



Hi Richard -

What about Acts 16:30, however? Are you of the mind that somehow Paul was prescient, and knew the jailer to be elect? Or, do you think he was putting forward the actual means by which God chooses to save people - explicit faith in Christ Jesus? The Jailer was told in no uncertain terms that he needed to trust in Christ. There wasn't any "pre-evangelism" done there - the duty to believe was presented to him.

Perhaps this "duty" language is unhelpful. Surely you do believe that in order to be saved there is no substitute for placing one's trust fully and completely in Christ for salvation? Is this not incumbent upon ALL men, whether or not they actually ever hear the gospel? The standards and Scripture teach this in no uncertain terms.

Todd


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (May 25, 2007)

I love Joseph Holdre's insight into this scripture. So often scripture is used to explain how we have to work. But this scripture (checking scripture with scripture) blows the whole works thing apart. I love it! God brings me back to this so many times when I feel like I need to _do _something. 



JM said:


> More food for thought from Joseph R. Holder, it's just an FYI post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (May 26, 2007)

Hi Todd,



toddpedlar said:


> What about Acts 16:30, however? Are you of the mind that somehow Paul was prescient, and knew the jailer to be elect? Or, do you think he was putting forward the actual means by which God chooses to save people - explicit faith in Christ Jesus? The Jailer was told in no uncertain terms that he needed to trust in Christ. There wasn't any "pre-evangelism" done there - the duty to believe was presented to him.



Is not the question in this context "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (*Act 16:30*) a sign of regeneration or at least an awakened conscience? Further in Acts 2 the question "what shall we do?" was as a result of " they were pricked in their heart".

The problem that I have is whether a gift can be a duty.



toddpedlar said:


> Perhaps this "duty" language is unhelpful. Surely you do believe that in order to be saved there is no substitute for placing one's trust fully and completely in Christ for salvation? Is this not incumbent upon ALL men, whether or not they actually ever hear the gospel? The standards and Scripture teach this in no uncertain terms.



The point brother is that duty belongs to the law and so whilst the heathen who never hears of Christ is duty bound to repent (he broke the law in Adam) how can he be duty bound to believe in Christ which is a spiritual act? Can I tell my neighbour that he has a duty to trust in Christ for salvation? Does this not deny limited atonement?


----------



## Herald (May 26, 2007)

Regarding the salvific aspect of faith:



> John 3:18 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."



Can we rightly ascertain from this passage than man is commanded to believe (regardless of whether he does or not)? If man is commanded to believe then we know he can only believe by faith (Eph. 2:8). By extension would it be proper to say that men are expected to exercise faith, or that it is their duty to do so? 

Regarding faith and the believer:



> John 14:15 15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."





> Hebrews 11:6 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.





> Romans 14:23 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.



Believers are commanded to obey. Obedience is our duty. But what is the impetus of obedience? Is it not faith? 

Not completely settled on the question of the OP, just some observations for continued discussion.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 26, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> The point brother is that duty belongs to the law and so whilst the heathen who never hears of Christ is duty bound to repent (he broke the law in Adam) how can he be duty bound to believe in Christ which is a spiritual act?



In part, because mere repentance (that is not attached to belief in Christ) is NOT ENOUGH. Repentance without the blood covering of Christ's atonement is useless and an evil act before God. He is duty-bound to believe in Christ because he is in a state of condemnation, and without faith in Christ, he is lost. Whether it has been or will be granted to him (since faith must be a gift and cannot be conjured up from within) is an irrelevant question when it comes to presenting him the truth.

How can someone be "duty bound to repent" but not "duty bound to believe in Christ"? Again, repentance without faith in Christ (which of course NEVER are separated, NEVER) is useless. The hypothetical standing of one who repented of sin, but failed to trust in Christ is no better than one who steadfastly refuses to repent. Both are lost. But again, there is no such thing as someone who truly repents who does not trust in Christ.



> Can I tell my neighbour that he has a duty to trust in Christ for salvation? Does this not deny limited atonement?



Why must you put it in "duty" language? Does he not NEED to trust in Christ for salvation? Is that not a FACT? Is he not hell-bound if he is resting in himself?

NONE of this discussion has any bearing at all on limited atonement. Whom Christ died for doesn't enter in - the fact of the matter is that Christ is the only Way to salvation, and that if any is to be saved, there must be a fundamental trust in Christ. This can be communcated to all people without damaging at all the Scriptural doctrine of limited atonement.


----------



## etexas (May 26, 2007)

I would like Richard to be more exact (hi Richard), if he would on what he means by "duty".


----------



## AV1611 (May 26, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> How can someone be "duty bound to repent" but not "duty bound to believe in Christ"?



Just a quick note: because repentance is LEGAL whilst faith is GRACE.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 28, 2007)

Does not God's preceptive (or revealed) will establish what man ought to do, i.e. his duty? And ought man believe and repent? If so, then it is his duty to do so even though unable. It's related to the old responsibility = ability issue. 

The Scriptures do not teach that responsibility implies ability. But both Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists think it does. The Arminian conclusion is that men _are able_, the Hyper conclusion is that _it cannot be man's duty_.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Just a quick note: because repentance is LEGAL whilst faith is GRACE.



Hm. That's interesting in light of the fact that it is the kindness of the Lord that leads us to repentance, and also of the fact that neither repentance nor faith is possible without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.

So ... given these things, why again is it appropriate for repentance to be pressed as a duty upon all men, but faith only upon ... some group, whom I'm not sure you've specified? I do quite honestly believe you've driven a wedge where none exists...


----------

