# Interview George Ella : Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism



## Mayflower

Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism versus the Law and the Gospel:
A New Focus Interview with George M. Ella

Q. The 18th century controversy regarding Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism seems to have emerged again in recent years and, although your book ´William Huntington: Pastor of Providence` has been welcomed by many, a few voices maintain that you have opened old wounds and should have let sleeping dogs lie. 

A. Wounds caused by cries of Hyper-Calvinism have long been open and much salt has been rubbed in them in recent years. The once sleeping dogs of Antinomianism have been barking loudly for all to hear for some time. My aim in reviving Huntington`s teaching on the full Law and the full Gospel, as also my publications on Cowper, Gill and Hervey were intended as Gospel balm to heal these wounds and give the stray dogs of Antinomianism a training in rules of behaviour to make them fit guide dogs for the legally blind. 

Q. Nevertheless, there are those who feel that in writing about men who they believe are tainted with Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism, you are laying yourself open to the same charges. 

A. This is the way of all flesh. The more Huntington fought Antinomianism, the more he was given that name. Reversing the comparison, I suspect that the more people accused Huntington of Antinomianism, the greater was their own arrogance concerning the Law. It is no secret that those who called Huntington an Antinomian were Neonomians, Sabbath-breakers and adulterers. Recently a Sunday trader accused Huntington of being an Antinomian though he lost a good job through refusing to work on the Sabbath. When I pointed out the anomaly in his own behaviour, the Sabbath-breaker told me sanctimoniously that it was honouring the Lord of the Sabbath that constituted keeping the Sabbath which did not rule out Sunday trading as such. This is the kind of hypocritical Antinomianism that Huntington abhorred. 

Q. What then is your attitude to the Moral Law? 

A. I do not like the term Moral Law as it smacks of Greek Idealism and Humanism. The Bible speaks of the Law of Moses and I would like us to stick to that terminology. Modern evangelicals are emphasising man`s duty to keep the moral law irrespective of the spiritual and theological factors involved. The Mosaic Law is primarily theological showing that the law breaker is not only immoral, he is an enemy of God. This Law which shows us the will of God must be part and parcel of Gospel preaching. It is the Law that Christ has perfected, kept and established in Himself and is the Law that God will use on the Day of judgment to separate the goats from Christ`s sheep. Not a jot or tittle of it will ever disappear. 

Q. You believe then that the Law is the rule of life for a Christian? 

A. The Mosaic Law is a very necessary rule but it can never be the sole rule of life for anyone. The Law is there to display the holiness of God and to show that man, left to himself, is a law-breaker by nature. If the Mosaic Law were his sole rule, man would be fully lost. But God has not left man to himself and his vain efforts to keep the law of works. He has supplied him with what the Bible calls the law of Christ and the law of faith (Rom. 3:27, Gal. 6:2). The rule of Law without the rule of Christ and the rule of faith is dead. It is a mere condemning codex on tablets of stone which kills and buries a man in his own sins without an offer of life and hope issuing from it. The rule of Christ and the rule of faith establish, continue, deepen and revitalise the Law and enable the dead sinner to live again in Christ, the Eternal Lawkeeper. As Peter says, all things pertaining to life and godliness are found in Christ. The believer no longer has an external law on tablets of stone as his guide but is caught up in Christ and his very heart and being is infused with Christ`s law-keeping nature, indeed Christ himself. He can thus testify that Christ his Righteousness lives in him and he is under the Law in the sense that he is under Christ. Without Christ`s rule and without faith in Christ to rule his life, the rule of Moses brings merely death and damnation. This death and damnation, however, is the way God has chosen to humble man and make him receptive to the law of Christ and the law of faith. Thus evangelists who do not first preach the terrors of the Law but merely appeal to the sinner`s sense of duty and preach ´Come to Christ because He loves you` and camouflage this by calling it ´the free offer` are not doing their duty. If such an evangelist, once the sinner is allegedly converted, tells him to go to Sinai to find his only rule of life, he is an outright Antinomian and abuses the Law. Cowper sums up the work of a true preacher succinctly: 

“By him the violated law speaks out 
Its thunders; and by him, in strains as sweet 
As angels use, the Gospel whispers peace” 

Thus, where Law alone rules, there is no Gospel; where the Gospel rules, Christ`s perfect law-abiding nature prevails. The duty-faith lobbyists, however, want peace without the storms of conscience so that they might be placed under a thunderless law after conversion. This is supererogatory Neonomianism, a subtle form of Antinomianism. 

Q. What about Hyper-Calvinism? I must admit that a few critics, who have objected to your writing so warmly about John Gill, are associating you with that title. 

A. There will always be people who feel they ought to go beyond Scripture in their legal zeal. Calvinists are in danger of hyping it as are Fullerites and Wesleyans. Incidentally, it is usually the Hyper-Fullerites who accuse Gill of being a Hyper-Calvinist. But seriously, how can people who deny limited atonement and the total fall of man accuse Gill of being more than a Calvinist when they, themselves, are far less? They are merely drawing attention to their own limits. 

Q. Your answer may be seen as avoiding the question. Put directly, do you believe that there is no point in preaching repentance to sinners? 

A. What a strange thought? The Lord came to call sinners to repentance and there are a lot of unrepentant sinners out there to whom we have a duty to urge both to repent and to believe. This task is a world-wide one and a permanent one until Kingdom come. Nobody realised this as much as John Gill who was the most successful Baptist in the first half of the 18th century in putting the great commission into practice. Even in his burial services to ´insiders`, Gill emphasised the world-wide scope of the Gospel beginning at the individual church member`s place of work. 

Q. The mark of a Hyper-Calvinist is that he does not believe in commanding and calling the sinner to come to Christ. If God wants a soul, he believes, He will convert him without human aid. Is this your view? 

A. Obviously not, as must be clear by now. I would, however, question your definition. Surely Arminians and the like call Calvinists ´Hyper-Calvinists` because they do not believe in indiscriminate invitations, commands, offers etc. to persuade the ungodly to believe. This view was never part of Reformed teaching and is certainly less Calvinistic than Calvin. The Holy Spirit calls whom He will and when He will and it is obvious that His work is discriminating. This is why He transports Philip into the desert and William Carey to Serampore. Calvin explains this in Book II, Chap 21 of his Institutes: 

"The covenant of life is not preached equally to all, and among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with the same reception. This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God`s purpose of eternal election." He argues that God, "does not adopt promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what He denies to others. It is plain how greatly ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs true humility." 

Q. Forgive me for digging deeper but someone wrote recently that the Hyper-Calvinist believes “the dogma that fallen humanity is beset by an inability to turn from sin and turn to God. So what men cannot do in their own strength, they need not do.” What do you say to that? 

A. This is typical of the confusion of ideas prevalent in modern Fullerism, going back to Fuller himself who built a school of rational thought on his misunderstanding of Gill`s clear Gospel. Obviously all fallen men are dead in trespasses and sin. This includes, says Calvin, man`s body and soul including his rational powers. Fuller will not accept this. He says a dead man cannot be held responsible for not believing so man must have enough life in him to respond to the Gospel. This is the ´natural light` philosophy that Fuller obtained by reading the Cambridge Platonist John Edwards whom he mistook for Jonathan Edwards, the New England revivalist. Fuller`s logic, however, is built on his high view of man and his low view of the Fall; two very unscriptural positions. He sees the total fall as a rejection of Christ. Up to then, there is an Esau and a Jacob in all men, one or the other waiting to come out. The Bible teaches that man is doomed to death for disobeying the Law for which he is held responsible by God even though he may not have encountered Christ one way or the other. Thus what men in their own strength cannot do, they are entirely responsible for not doing. This was so much a part of Gill`s conviction that he had it anchored in his church`s Declaration of Faith in 1729. I agree with Gill because he agrees with Scripture. 

Q. If you will bear with me, I have one more question. Do you believe that it is the duty of all men to love the Lord? It has been suggested recently that Hyper-Calvinists must answer the question negatively, whereas Calvinists are bound to say ´yes`. 

A. Allow me to answer in words from Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth. 

"Is it the duty of all men to love the Lord? Absolutely! Because they are the creatures of his making, enjoy the care of his providence, and are supplied by him with the blessings of life; therefore all men must joyfully love the Lord (p. 170)." 

Gill and Huntington could not have been more different as men. What united them was a clear calling to the ministry and the simple, highly effective message to sinners which they preached. Repentance and faith in Christ. Antinomians cannot talk about repentance, and Hyper-Calvinists do not believe in preaching repentance and faith to sinners. This is, however, our high calling in Christ Jesus. I am not a preacher and have not the privilege of proclaiming this Gospel from the pulpit. I do, however, feel very much called to spread the good news by retelling the stories of men of God such as Cowper, Gill and Huntington, who were masters at their evangelistic craft. Heaven is fuller because of their work in the Lord. 

http://www.evangelica.de/New Focus Interview on Hyper-Calvinism.htm


----------



## Magma2

Great interview. I've read some pieces by Ella in the past, but really don't know anything about the man. What can you tell me about him?


----------



## Mayflower

Magma2 said:


> Great interview. I've read some pieces by Ella in the past, but really don't know anything about the man. What can you tell me about him?



More information, see his website: http://www.evangelica.de/


----------



## KMK

> Obviously all fallen men are dead in trespasses and sin. This includes, says Calvin, man`s body and soul including his rational powers. Fuller will not accept this. He says a dead man cannot be held responsible for not believing so man must have enough life in him to respond to the Gospel. This is the ´natural light` philosophy that Fuller obtained by reading the Cambridge Platonist John Edwards whom he mistook for Jonathan Edwards, the New England revivalist.



Is this true? If so, that is hilarious!  Is this the 'Fuller' behind the seminary in Pasadena?


----------



## JM

Mayflower said:


> Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism versus the Law and the Gospel:
> A New Focus Interview with George M. Ella




I visit New Focus often.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Mayflower said:


> Q. If you will bear with me, I have one more question. Do you believe that it is the duty of all men to love the Lord? It has been suggested recently that Hyper-Calvinists must answer the question negatively, whereas Calvinists are bound to say ´yes`.
> 
> A. Allow me to answer in words from Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth.
> 
> "Is it the duty of all men to love the Lord? Absolutely! Because they are the creatures of his making, enjoy the care of his providence, and are supplied by him with the blessings of life; therefore all men must joyfully love the Lord (p. 170)."



Here Ella maintains that it is the duty of all to "love" God. Elsewhere however he denies "duty-faith".

Some of the issue (in my mind) may be semantics, but I am not clear on this. Tom Nettles and David Engelsma suggest that the denial of duty-faith is the crux of hyper-Calvinism, yet Ella denies the Hyper charge not only against himself, but Gill.


----------



## Magma2

Gomarus said:


> Here Ella maintains that it is the duty of all to "love" God. Elsewhere however he denies "duty-faith".
> 
> Some of the issue (in my mind) may be semantics, but I am not clear on this. Tom Nettles and David Engelsma suggest that the denial of duty-faith is the crux of hyper-Calvinism, yet Ella denies the Hyper charge not only against himself, but Gill.



I'm really not well up on the duty-faith debate, but it seems to me that for those who oppose "duty-faith" it's their belief that implied in the idea that it's everyone duty to believe the gospel that men have the ability to do their duty. 

Is that it in a nutshell?

While it seems to me to be a similar error in kind as those who want to infer a desire on God's part for the salvation of all men even through the preaching of the gospel, I guess I fail to see how this is a more serious error? It is certainly a less popular error than the idea that God desires the salvation of all men which also wrongly attempts to infer something in the indicative from something written in the imperative. I think both are errors, just the WMO variety is more prevalent, hence more dangerous.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> I'm really not well up on the duty-faith debate, but it seems to me that for those who oppose "duty-faith" it's their belief that implied in the idea that it's everyone duty to believe the gospel that men have the ability to do their duty.
> 
> Is that it in a nutshell?



I would deny "duty faith" on two grounds; (1) I do not believe that God will punish those who never hear of Christ for not believing in Christ. (2) I believe that faith is personnal and so a part of saving faith is believing not the axiom of "Christ died for sinners" but rather "Christ died for me" and that being true faith can in no way be a duty for otherwise God has placed man under the duty of believing a lie for Christ died not for all.

See here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=978192&postcount=38

*Re Ella*; he is a good man and is knowledgeable and I have obtained profit from his work but he can in controversial issues be too personal but then we are all guilty of that...I know I am.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> I would deny "duty faith" on two grounds; (1) I do not believe that God will punish those who never hear of Christ for not believing in Christ. (2) I believe that faith is personnal and so a part of saving faith is believing not the axiom of "Christ died for sinners" but rather "Christ died for me" and that being true faith can in no way be a duty for otherwise God has placed man under the duty of believing a lie for Christ died not for all.



I don't disagree with either point, but I'm not sure this is what is meant by those who oppose "duty faith"? 

Per a Pink piece posted (too many p's  )by Phil Johnson (who is one of the most obnoxious defenders of the heresy of the WMO), Pink quotes "A certain denomination in England" which denies "duty-faith" because they *"deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God (John 12:29, 40; Eph. 2:8; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 4:7)." * 

Again, it seems to me that they (opponents of duty faith -- and not necessarily you) infer from the command for all men to repent and believe the gospel that one has the ability to do as they are commanded, which is why they reject "duty faith." 

Am I missing something?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I would assume that the command to repent and believe is reflective of God's Preceptive (Revealed) will and thus establishes man's "duty" or obligation to believe. What am I missing? Unless one argues that there is no gospel command to the non-elect?


----------



## Magma2

Gomarus said:


> I would assume that the command to repent and believe is reflective of God's Preceptive (Revealed) will and thus establishes man's "duty" or obligation to believe. What am I missing? Unless one argues that there is no gospel command to the non-elect?



Pink begins his piece on duty faith; "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith." http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm

Again, unless I'm missing something, Pink begins by making a very strong point. 

I admit I'm almost hesitant to provide the link above, because Johnson does such a pathetic job in framing this short piece and he attempts to infer from Pink things he never says. He also praises the unconscionable slicing and dicing of the Banner of Truth (isn't that an ironic name) editors who attempted to neuter Pink's great book, The Sovereignty of God.


----------



## VanVos

Duty faith as a precept is binding upon all men in everyplace at all times, in the sense that man is morally obligated to believe whatsoever God says to be true. In other words, when the command to repent and believe is revealed one is morally obligated to believe that revealed will i.e. repentance and faith.

VanVos


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> Is this true? If so, that is hilarious!  Is this the 'Fuller' behind the seminary in Pasadena?



No. He is referring to Andrew Fuller (1754-1815). See here and here. 

Fuller Theological Seminary is named for the radio evangelist Charles E. Fuller (1887-1968) who co-founded the seminary.


----------



## Magma2

Here's the entire quote from the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith Pink mentions that denies duty-faith:



> "We deny duty-faith and duty-repentance—these terms signifying that it is every man's duty to spiritually and savingly repent and believe (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Matt. 15:19; Jer. 17:9; John 6:44, 65). We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God (John 12:29, 40; Eph. 2:8; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 4:7). Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Spirit, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."



It would seem then the gospel is not to be promiscuously proclaimed because to call on unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel would imply "creature power" and deny the doctrine of election. On the face of it neither of these charges follow from the promiscuous proclamation of the gospel and the biblical command to believe. 

Like I said, it seems to me that these folks too make the same error as those who believe in the so-called WMO only in a different direction. Both attempt to infer something in the indicative ("a person has the creaturely power within them to do as they're told"- "God loves all and desires all to be saved") from something written in the imperative; The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Besides, what about our other duties to Scripture as Christians, particularly Rom 10:14; "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Good question. How do Gospel Standard folks answer this question? Per the Pink piece he catches Huntington in a glaring contradiction on this point. 

The above declaration also assumes that one can preach only to a congregation made up of only elect persons and that is absurd.

I like the fact that Pink quotes Gill too in this regard:

"And even not coming to Christ, and believing in Him in this spiritual manner, when He is revealed in the external ministry of the Word, as God's way of salvation, is criminal and blameworthy, notwithstanding men's want of both will and power" (John Gill—1735—"The Cause of God and Truth," p. 87).

OTOH I can't agree with Pink when in response to the Gospel Standard that we should"repudiate all reasoning upon spiritual things as utterly worthless." That's no solution. Besides it appears from their own confession that their conclusions simply do not follow. However, to see that would be to affirm reasoning upon spiritual things as being completely valuable. This portion of Pink's reply is not him at his finest. His reply to Huntington redeems him though.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> Am I missing something?



I would suggest that you read the writings of those who are GS and see how they understand their own articles:

*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. 149:4, 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.

http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=343

From


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> Pink begins his piece on duty faith; "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith." http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm
> 
> Again, unless I'm missing something, Pink begins by making a very strong point.



Which raises in my mind some questions:

*1.* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who _do not _hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ? 

*2.* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then grace becomes a duty, the gift of faith becomes a duty of all hearers which in my opinion is blatantly absurd. How can grace be a duty? Duty belongs to Law, faith belongs to Grace the two are mutually exclusive.

*3.* "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." J. H. Gosden


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> I like the fact that Pink quotes Gill too in this regard:
> 
> "And even not coming to Christ, and believing in Him in this spiritual manner, when He is revealed in the external ministry of the Word, as God's way of salvation, is criminal and blameworthy, notwithstanding men's want of both will and power" (John Gill—1735—"The Cause of God and Truth," p. 87).



But not when he states:

Besides, *God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only Save the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc., not to believe these things is the sin of all that are under the gospel dispensation, as it was of the Jews; who though they saw his miracles, and heard its doctrines, yet, through the corruption and prejudices of their minds, did not believe the to be the Messiah, and therefore died in heir sins; nor had they a just excuse, or sufficient plea, why they should not be punished or condemned, for their infidelity an a unbelief respecting the Messiah, even though: they could not come to him, or believe him to the saving of their souls, without the special grace of God; they were not condemned for the want of that they had not and which was not bestowed upon them; but for that which was really in them, the sin of unbelief; nor were they, nor are any, condemned for not believing that Christ died for them, but for the transgressions of the law of God, and the disbelief or contempt of his gospel. And as for those, who besides the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent.* I make no use of e reply commonly made on our side the question, "that we all had sufficient strength to believe, in our first parent Adam, which we have lost by our fall in him; and though we have thus lost our power to believe, yet God has not lost his authority to require it, and may deal with us as if we had it still;" since, according to the scheme I proceed upon, that, as is the revelation God makes to the sons of men, such is the faith he requires of them, there is no need of it. However, cannot consider it as such a lamentable weak pretense, and so sure a sign of a desperate cause, as our author, from Dr. Claget, represents it to be; for, that Adam, in a state of innocence, had a power of believing in Christ, and did believe in him as the second Person in the Trinity, as the Son of God, cannot well be denied; since with the other two Persons, he was his creator and preserver; the knowledge of which cannot well be thought to be withheld from him. And his not believing in him as the Mediator, Savior, and Redeemer, did not arise from any defect of power in him, but from the state, condition, and situation in which he was, and from the nature of the revelation made unto him; for no doubt, Adam had a power to believe every word of God, any revelation that was, or might be made unto him, Now all mankind were in him, in such sense, as Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid tithes in him long before he was born; yea, they were in Adam as their federal and representative head, and so had representatively the power he had, which when they sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression, they lost; hence followed a depravation of nature, an enmity to God, an opposition to his will, and an impotence to sit that is spiritually good, which is the root and source of infidelity; but though men have lost the power of believing, and are shut up in unbelief, God may justly require them to give credit to, and believe, whatever revelation he is pleased to make. *As for those texts of Scripture, I know of none, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ for salvation; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an external repentance and reformation, and an historical faith in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah. Our blessed Saviour’s marveling at the unbelief of his countrymen, and at the faith of the centurion, is to be understood of him as man, and no way contradicts men’s disability to believe: he marveled at the unbelief of his countrymen, that they should be offended at him, and reject him as the Messiah, on account of the meanness of his parentage and education, when they had such large means, by his ministry and miracles, to convince them that he was the Messiah; whom they might have believed in, and received as such, though they lay under a disability of coming to him, or believing in him to the saving of their souls, without the special grace of God: he marveled at the faith of the centurion, that he, who had such small means, and such little knowledge of him, yet should so strongly believe in him: which greatly argued the mighty power of God in him, and is what our Lord designed those about him should take notice of to the glory of God. **The instances from Scripture of Christ’s. upbraiding persons for their, impenitence and unbelief, respect himself as the Messiah, and not assenting to him as such, and not repenting of their rejection of him, when they had such plain proofs, demonstrations, and examples; and are far from disproving man’s disability to repent and believe in a spiritual manner. The *parables of the marriage-supper, and the talents, are foreign to, the purpose; the design of the one being to show that men may be externally called, by the ministry of the word, and not be chosen; and have neither the grace of God, nor the righteousness of Christ; and so will, at the last day, be speechless, and have nothing to say why they should not be condemned for their many ‘actual sins and transgressions, from which, the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ, could only save them; though they could not obtain, procure, and merit either of these by their own deserving, since, as they were destitute of them, so they were unconcerned about them, made no application for them; but, perhaps, slighted and contemned them. The design of the other, is to show the nature and use of external gifts for the ministry, which men may have, and use, and improve, as they ought, and as they have power to do, even though destitute of the grace of God. But these instances, as they do not properly belong to this branch of the argument, so most, If not all of them, have been considered in the first Part of this performance, which the reader may consult. 

_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3, pages 165-7


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> But not when he states:
> 
> ... He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; ...



OK. What is wrong with this? How can the heathen without any external revelation, be required to believe in Christ. How can you believe something you have no knowledge of? 

And was that really all one paragraph???!?


----------



## AV1611

Civbert said:


> OK. What is wrong with this?



Absolutely nothing (I deny duty faith) but I was criticising Pink for selectively quoting Gill.



Civbert said:


> How can the heathen without any external revelation, be required to believe in Christ. How can you believe something you have no knowledge of?



 



Civbert said:


> And was that really all one paragraph???!?



Yes, see http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 3/section_03.htm


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> Absolutely nothing (I deny duty faith) but I was criticising Pink for selectively quoting Gill.



Sorry . I was going to delete my post. I'm too tired right now the follow all this so I better stay out of the discussion.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> Which raises in my mind some questions:
> 
> *1.* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who _do not _hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?



This doesn't follow.



> *2.* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then grace becomes a duty, the gift of faith becomes a duty of all hearers which in my opinion is blatantly absurd. How can grace be a duty? Duty belongs to Law, faith belongs to Grace the two are mutually exclusive.



First, the Scripture say: "And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Are men responsible to obey a divine command? If yes, then how do you define duty? 

Second, even if faith is a duty it doesn't follow that grace is a duty too. 



> *3.* "While we definitely believe that it is the duty of man to believe all God has declared,



I don't think it's clear you believe this at all. All men evidently don't have a duty to believe the gospel even though God has commanded it.



> 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." J. H. Gosden



No one says that all persons indiscriminately can preform acts of repentance and faith. That's besides the point. Nothing is implied in the idea that it is the duty of all to do as they're divinely commanded. Nothing is implied in a command at all. Again, you're trying to infer something in the indicative from something written in the imperative. To put it another way, you can't get a "can" from an "ought." 

I'll read the material you provided from the GS folks when I get the chance, but seeing that their confession of faith is irrational, I can hardly imagine their explanation will be any better. Why don't they just write a rational and defensible confession to begin with?


----------



## MW

God's command to believe presupposes man's ability to do so. (1.) His original ability, lost by the fall. (2.) A renewed ability, in which the Holy Spirit determines the will of the elect so that they can receive and embrace the gospel offer. Hyper-Calvinists deny duty faith on the basis that man now has no ability to believe, but the creditor does not lose His right simply because the debtor has lost his estate.


----------



## Pilgrim

How about Acts 17:30



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


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> This doesn't follow.



My question was whether it does because I think that the key issue is that noone is going to argue that it is the duty of _all men _to believe the gospel but the issue is whether it is the duty of _all who hear _the gospel to believe it.

I just want to be clear of the parameters of debate.


----------



## JM

A quote about the foundation of duty faith:



There is a sense in which God loves all men.
 God deals with all men in "common grace."
 There is a sense in which Christ died for the sins of all men.
 And there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit tries to convince all to believe.

Do you agree?


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> A quote about the foundation of duty faith:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a sense in which God loves all men.
> God deals with all men in "common grace."
> There is a sense in which Christ died for the sins of all men.
> And there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit tries to convince all to believe.
> 
> Do you agree?




No


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> My question was whether it does because I think that the key issue is that noone is going to argue that it is the duty of _all men _to believe the gospel but the issue is whether it is the duty of _all who hear _the gospel to believe it.
> 
> I just want to be clear of the parameters of debate.



I think you were very clear. Why would anyone have a duty to believe a command they've never heard? Like I said, your argument was a non sequitur. Actually, all three arguments in opposition to duty-faith were non sequiturs. 

Perhaps the objection is just to the word "duty-faith"? It's perhaps not the best phrase to capture the idea that all are bound to obey God's commands. It seems to me that your objections are directed more at connotations related to the phrase and not so much the idea itself since you affirm all are responsible to obey what God tells them to do.


----------



## Magma2

JM said:


> A quote about the foundation of duty faith:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a sense in which God loves all men.
> God deals with all men in "common grace."
> There is a sense in which Christ died for the sins of all men.
> And there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit tries to convince all to believe.
> 
> Do you agree?




I don't agree either. Like I said, the heresy of the WMO is a similar but a more serious and prevalent error.


----------



## JM

What is the foundation of duty faith?

What's WMO?


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> Like I said, your argument was a non sequitur.



I am sure it was...what ever a non sequitur is 

How about answering my question?

*My Question:* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who _do not _hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?

*Your Answer:* ...


I would say no.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> What is the foundation of duty faith?



Good question.

I thought you would like this:

*Duty Faith 

Peter L Meney*​
Duty-faith. Say the words again and think about them. Duty, faith. They should not even be spoken in the same sentence, far less linked together and presented as the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet preaching man’s duty to trust in Christ is said by some to be the foundation of a proper gospel ministry.

Duty is an obligation, a responsibility. Faith, on the other hand, is a gift. The two are distinctly different. Duty is about law. Faith is about grace and our new nature in Christ. Duties, when followed, produce efforts, faith, when given, produces spiritual life. Efforts do not save sinners, but grace does.

Yet we are assailed by those who make duty-faith the foundation of their preaching and the basis of their message. Why is this? Is it because they cannot bring a word from the Lord if they have nothing in their pockets for their hearers to do? Is it because they must mix the efforts of the creature with the mercy of the creator? Where does a phrase such as duty-faith come from? Not from holy scripture, that’s for sure.

Duty faith is not saving faith for it is founded on man’s own efforts to please God by doing something commendable. Nor is it spiritual faith. Spiritual faith is the gift of God by the Holy Spirit who is the source of true faith and the giver of genuine lively trust in Christ and the efficacy of His sacrifice. Duty faith tries to lay on men an obligation to believe when they cannot, and a warrant to believe what they know not. 

Suppose a preacher berates his congregation: “It is your duty to trust in Christ. It is your responsibility to have faith in the sacrifice He has made.” “Do it now”, he declares, “And God will save you.” What does such a preacher mean? If the sinner does his duty, will he be saved? If the sinner does not do his duty, will he be more damned than he already is?

Now suppose that, indeed, one of this preacher’s listeners resolves to do his duty. He will obey the preacher’s call. He decides, in all sincerity, that he will do as he is told and have faith. After all, it is his duty. Can he ‘will’ faith into being? Can he, upon a decision, spark himself into spiritual life? Can he manufacture trust because this preacher tells him to? Sadly, we have become so inured to the language of free-will offers and the decisionism of the Arminians and Fullerites that many do not even flinch at such a prospect.

Where does Christ instruct a preacher to play upon the natural inability of a sinner in this way? Where are we told that it is the natural man’s duty to do what grace alone enables a sinner to do, or to be what God alone makes a believer? Quite simply, duty-faith preaching is telling the flesh to do the work of the Spirit and it has no place in a sovereign grace pulpit. Men cannot win other men to Jesus; nor can a man save himself. It is foolishness to preach legal obligation when only the power of the Holy Ghost falling upon a dead sinner can bring him to life. 

The law-bound manipulations of modern preachers are a mockery of God’s great salvation. Let those who lament too-little preaching and blame everyone but themselves, consider if the problem is not those whom they wrongly call hyper-calvinists, but rather those who preach law instead of gospel and duty instead of grace. Clearly, when faith is given, we have a duty to use it, but then it is used according to the law of faith and not the law of Moses. 

Properly preached, the gospel humbles sinners by exalting Christ. It does not meddle in the duties of the dead but extols free grace and the sovereign purpose of God to save sinners by the righteousness of Christ and the regenerating gift of faith.

http://www.go-newfocus.co.uk/pages.php?section=24


----------



## Magma2

JM said:


> What is the foundation of duty faith?
> 
> What's WMO?



The so-called Well Meant Offer or what's sometimes called the Sincere Offer. It is the imagined view that God desires the salvation of those for whom Christ did not die and are not predestined for life. Basically, it's the belief that God does not accomplish all that He desires.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> I am sure it was...what ever a non sequitur is



From Wikipedia:

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. 



> How about answering my question?
> 
> *My Question:* If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who _do not _hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?
> 
> *Your Answer:* ...
> 
> I would say no.



Again, and now that you know what it means, your question is invalid because it is a . . . . non sequitur. That's my answer.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, and now that you know what it means, your question is invalid because it is a . . . . non sequitur. That's my answer.



I am not sure how my question is _non sequitur _so I will ask simply this: *Is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?*


----------



## Magma2

Now answer my question, since you didn't the first time I'll try again.

You said: "we [whoever "we" are] definitely believe that it is the duty of man to believe all God has declared."

Per the verse cited above: "And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

And per the one "Pilgrim" provided Acts 17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

Is it the duty of man to believe these things God has declared?


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> I am not sure how my question is _non sequitur _so I will ask simply this: *Is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?*



How could it be the "bounded duty" of those who do not hear something to do whatever it is they never heard about? That is just silly.

I think you really need to understand why your statement, which you repeated in the form of a question, is invalid first. This might help you to see that your opposition to the idea that men are responsible to obey God's commands, even the commands to believe the gospel to all who hear, is without any merit whatsoever.

You wrote: If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?"

Do you see why the conclusion (then it is the bounded duty of all who do not hear . . . ) does not follow from any of the premises in the first clause?

Let me just add, and frankly it just hit me, that your argument is also invalid because it equivocates on the world all. All hearers of the gospel and all men in general are completely different classes of men so the word "all" cannot be understood in the same sense in both cases. Ironically, you are making the Arminian error in logic only in another direction. Like I said, your arguments in opposition to duty-faith and the arguments of those who advance the WMO are cut from the same cloth.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> You said: "we [whoever "we" are] definitely believe that it is the duty of man to believe all God has declared."



The "we" was written in J. H. Gosden's _What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe_ and so refers to GSBs.



Magma2 said:


> Per the verse cited above: "And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."



This is a ministry specific to Jews as I think is clear. 

*And saying, the time is fulfilled,.... *Either that which was fixed for the end of the law and prophets, the legal and Mosaic dispensation, and the Jewish church state; or the fulness of time for the Messiah's appearance in the world; which was agreed upon between the Father and the Son, was predicted in various prophecies, and the people of the Jews were in a general expectation of:

*and the kingdom of God is at hand: *the same with the kingdom of heaven, in Mt 3:2, see the notes:
See Gill on "Mt 3:2",
See Gill on "Mt 4:17".

*repent ye, and believe the Gospel.* He called them to repent, not only of their former sins and vicious course of life, but of their bad principles and tenets, concerning a temporal kingdom of the Messiah; concerning merit and free will, justification by the works of the law, and salvation by their obedience to the ceremonies of it, and the traditions of the elders: these he exhorts them to change their sentiments about, and to relinquish them, and give into the Gospel scheme; which proclaims liberty from the law, peace, pardon, and righteousness by Christ, and salvation and eternal life by the free grace of God.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Mark/Mark_1.htm




Magma2 said:


> And per the one "Pilgrim" provided Acts 17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.



Indeed he does, all have broken the law in Adam and so all are duty bound to repent for it but natural men are only able natural repentance and so are only duty bound to repent after that fashion.

Gill points out:

There is a legal one [repentance], which is a mere work of the law, and the effect of convictions of sin by it, which in time wear off and come to nothing; for,

There may be a sense of sin and an acknowledgment of it, and yet no true repentance for it, as in the cases of Pharaoh and of Judas, who both said, "I have sinned" (Ex. 9:27; Matthew 27:4), yet they had no true sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, nor godly sorrow for it.

There may be a kind of sorrow for it, not for the evil of fault that is in sin, but on account of the evil of punishment for it, as appears in some cases, and in Cain’s (Gen. 4:13).

There may be a great deal of terror of mind because of sin, a great outcry about it, a fearful looking for of judgment for it, abundance of tears shed on the account of it, as were by Esau for the blessing, without success; the devils believe and tremble, but do not repent;[6] there are weeping and wailing in hell, but no repentance.

Such a repentance, if no more than a mere legal one, issues in despair, as in Cain, whose words may be rendered, "My sin is greater than that it may be forgiven"; it is a repentance that may be repented of and is not unto life, but ends in death, as it did in Judas; it is "the sorrow of the world which worketh death" (2 Cor. 7:10).​



Magma2 said:


> Is it the duty of man to believe these things God has declared?



Yes indeed.

Gill teaches:

Fifthly, I shall close this chapter with a brief answer to some queries relating to faith, repentance, and good works; as, to what they belong, whether to law or gospel.

*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).

*Whether repentance is a doctrine of the law or of the gospel?* the answer to which is, that such who sin ought to repent of sin; this God has commanded, the law of nature teaches; and so far as this is to be considered as a duty incumbent on men, it belongs to the law, as all duty does; but then the law makes no account of repentance for sin; nor does it admit of it as a satisfaction for it; nor gives any encouragement to expect that God will receive repenting sinners into his grace and favor upon it; this is what the gospel does, and not the law; the law says not, repent and live, but do and live. Moreover, there is what may be called a legal repentance and contrition; for by the law is the knowledge of sin, without which there can be no repentance; and it works a sense of wrath in the sinners conscience, and a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation from an incensed God; but if it stop here, it will prove no other than a worldly sorrow, which worketh death. The Spirit of God may make use of this, and go on and produce spiritual repentance, such a repentance as is unto life, even life eternal; and unto salvation, which needeth not to be repented of: but such a repentance is not the work of the law; for life and salvation come not by any work of the law; but true repentance, which has salvation annexed to it, is, as faith, a blessing of the covenant of grace; a grant from God, a gift of Christ as a Saviour, and with it remission of sins; a grace produced in the soul by the Spirit of Christ, by means of the gospel, which only encourages to the exercise of it; (see Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:10; Gal. 3:2). And so is a doctrine of the gospel, and not of the law, as appears from the ministry of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, who exhorted and encouraged to repentance from gospel motives; and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4). But what has the law to do either with baptism or the remission of sins? His ministry was evangelical, and ran in the same strain with the apostles, as appears from their answer to a question put to them; "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" A serious question, put upon thought and reflection by persons upon the bottom of a covenant of works, as the Jews rally were; and especially under a sense of guilt, as those were, desirous to know what must be done by them, that they "might be saved;" as it may be supplied from the jailor’s words, when in the same case; or whereby they might make atonement for, and obtain the pardon of so great a sin, of which they were guilty: to which a proper answer is returned, putting them off of legal works for such purposes, and directing them to evangelical ones; "repent and be baptized, everyone of you, for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:37,38). And this is also clear from the story of Christ himself; who came, not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance; which was not a legal, but evangelical repentance. He began his ministry thus; "repent, and believe the gospel" (see Matthew 9:13; Mark 1:15). With which agrees the ministry of the apostles in general; who, by the direction of Christ, preached repentance and remission of sins in his name; which most certainly was the gospel; the one, as well as the other, a doctrine of the gospel (Luke 24:47). And the apostle Paul, who was a most evangelical preacher, divides his whole ministry into these two parts; "repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21).​


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> How could it be the "bounded duty" of those who do not hear something to do whatever it is they never heard about? That is just silly.



That, brother, was what I have been after 



Magma2 said:


> You wrote: If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?"
> 
> Do you see why the conclusion (then it is the bounded duty of all who do not hear . . . ) does not follow from any of the premises in the first clause?



Oh I understand that if I made the statement 

If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then *it is* the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ. 

I would be committing a _non sequitur_ but I did not say that! I asked

If "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then *is it* the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?

Notice what I said *is it* (a question hence the "?") and what you read *it is* (a statement) and that may clear up the imagined _non sequitur_


----------



## JM

Magma2 said:


> The so-called Well Meant Offer or what's sometimes called the Sincere Offer. It is the imagined view that God desires the salvation of those for whom Christ did not die and are not predestined for life. Basically, it's the belief that God does not accomplish all that He desires.






Thanks.

As for "it doesn't follow," does Romans 10 come into the argument at all? 

A few quotes:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

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?

Just wondering, not trying to smart or anything, but this is what came to mind when reading this thread.

RJS, this stood out from the article by Meney you posted.



> Duty is an obligation, a responsibility. Faith, on the other hand, is a gift.



Peace,

j


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> That, brother, was what I have been after



Great. And how does this contradict "duty-faith"?



> Notice what I said *is it* (a question hence the "?") and what you read *it is* (a statement) and that may clear up the imagined _non sequitur_



I'll try this one more time. You wrote: "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?"

If you will not concede your above statement is invalid, then it is pointless for me to continue with you. If you cannot see that, you cannot see anything.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> Great. And how does this contradict "duty-faith"?



You said "How could it be the "bounded duty" of those who do not hear something to do whatever it is they never heard about?" In saying this you thereby show that you adhere to the view that man is only duty bound to do that which he knows about. Hence you must accept that unbelief is not a sin for those who never hear of Christ.

How does this refute duty-faith? Well what is it they are duty bound to believe? That Christ died for them? In no wise and yet true saving faith is to say "the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20) and so the reprobate can not be duty bound to have saving faith.

A better starting point would be to ask, what is faith?



Magma2 said:


> I'll try this one more time. You wrote: "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?"



I did not, I wrote; 

IF [then I quoted Pink saying] "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" [I then posed the question] *THEN IS IT * THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF ALL WHO _DO NOT_ HEAR THE GOSPEL TO SAVINGLY TRUST IN Christ [ending with a question marke denoting I was not stating anything but asking a question]?

*IF* x is true, *THEN IS* y true*?*



Magma2 said:


> If you will not concede your above statement is invalid, then it is pointless for me to continue with you. If you cannot see that, you cannot see anything.



It was not a STATEMENT rather it was a QUESTION!

Look at my sentence structure.

You think I said 

*IF* x is true, *THEN* y *is* true.

What I said was

*IF* x is true, *THEN IS* y true*?*

The question was really, *is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?* which you have already provided an answer for and so the issue is rather moot.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> You said "How could it be the "bounded duty" of those who do not hear something to do whatever it is they never heard about?" In saying this you thereby show that you adhere to the view that man is only duty bound to do that which he knows about. Hence you must accept that unbelief is not a sin for those who never hear of Christ.



Actually, this doesn't follow either since all men understand there is a God innately "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (See Roman 1). Yet, men suppress these truths, these innate ideas, in unrighteousness. By suppressing the truth, they can't be said to also believe these innate truths which God has revealed "within them," since belief is an assent to understood propositions. Therefore, the sin of unbelief extends to all those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and not just those who disbelieve the gospel when they hear it. QED.



> How does this refute duty-faith? Well what is it they are duty bound to believe? That Christ died for them? In no wise and yet true saving faith is to say "the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20) and so the reprobate can not be duty bound to have saving faith.



Again, this doesn't follow. You seem to constantly confuse and conflate categories. Which makes sense I suppose, since your confession I quoted is an irrational and incoherent jumble of half-truths and outright errors. 

Those who are duty bound to believe the gospel are those who actually hear it. Jew and Greek are indiscriminately commanded to repent (change their minds) and believe (assent to the truth). The fact that they will not and cannot do as they are commanded does not somehow makes them less responsible. Frankly, coming under the preaching of the gospel, i.e., tasting the good things of God, makes them more responsible not less so. 

"But thanks be to God, who always leads us in His triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?"




> A better starting point would be to ask, what is faith?



If you want the long answer, see Gordon Clark's _What is Saving Faith?_ For the short answer; faith is an assent to an understood proposition. Saving faith is an assent to the propositions of Scripture, specifically the gospel. 




> I did not, I wrote;
> 
> IF [then I quoted Pink saying] "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" [I then posed the question] *THEN IS IT * THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF ALL WHO _DO NOT_ HEAR THE GOSPEL TO SAVINGLY TRUST IN Christ [ending with a question marke denoting I was not stating anything but asking a question]?
> 
> *IF* x is true, *THEN IS* y true*?*
> 
> It was not a STATEMENT rather it was a QUESTION!




I took your question as being rhetorical. In either case, the conclusion *does not follow.* But since we've already established that this can no longer be an objection against the idea that all hearers of the gospel message are responsible to repent and believe, I think we can conclude that the GS confession is without any biblical warrant or merit.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> Actually, this doesn't follow either since all men understand there is a God innately "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (See Roman 1). Yet, men suppress these truths, these innate ideas, in unrighteousness. By suppressing the truth, they can't be said to also believe these innate truths which God has revealed "within them," since belief is an assent to understood propositions. Therefore, the sin of unbelief extends to all those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and not just those who disbelieve the gospel when they hear it. QED.



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?"

This clearly teaches that unless Christ is declared to them in the gospel then they are unable to be saved, i.e. Christ as saviour is not declared through the light of nature. As the Canons of Dordt teach "To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But he is so far from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature" and goes on to teach; 

"What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God performs by the power of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation, which is the gospel of the Messiah, by which it has pleased God to save men who believe, both under the old and new dispensation...Under the old dispensation God revealed this mystery of His will to few. Under the new dispensation, however, He took the distinction between the peoples away and revealed it to more. The cause of this very distribution of the gospel is not to be ascribed to the worthiness of one people above another, nor to the better use of the light of nature, but to the sovereign good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore we to whom so great a grace is granted, beyond and contrary to all we deserve, ought to acknowledge it with a humble and grateful heart. But as regards others to whom this grace is not given, we ought with the apostle to adore the severity and righteousness of the judgments of God..." 

Now whilst all men are duty bound to love God and to worship him and serve him, this does not include having saving faith in Christ or even believing in him.

The heathen in deepest darkest Amazonia know there is a god by the light of nature but they do not know of Christ unless a preacher preaches Christ to them.

Therefore how is God able to justly condemn the heathen who have never heard of Christ for their not believing in him?

As Gill notes:

It is urged, that "it cannot be consistent with divine equity and goodness, to make that a condition of any man’s happiness, which he cannot know to be his duty, or knowing, cannot do. Hence it is evident, that the knowledge of any revelation made to Jew or Christian, cannot be necessary to the happiness of heathens in general, much less the practice of any purely Christian duty; and therefore faith in Jesus Christ cannot be necessary to the salvation of as many of them as have never heard of him." I answer; that the heathens will not be condemned and punished for their ignorance of that revelation which was never vouchsafed to them, nor for the non-performance of and purely Christian duty, such as baptism and the Lord’s supper; nor for not believing in Christ, of whom they have never heard, only for those sins which they have committed against the law and light of nature; but inasmuch as they are without any true knowledge of the way of atonement for sin, and without any revelation from God of the method of salvation from it, they must be considered as destitute of the means of grace, and as far from true happiness and felicity." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 8, pp 217)​
*Question:* Is Christ revealled in nature or by the light of nature? If not then your point above does not apply...i.e. yes all are duty bound to believe in God but that is not the issue...the issue is wether they are duty bound to believe in Christ. 



Magma2 said:


> Those who are duty bound to believe the gospel are those who actually hear it. Jew and Greek are indiscriminately commanded to repent (change their minds) and believe (assent to the truth).



*Repentance:* All have broken the law and so all are duty bound to repent.
*Faith:* I affirm with Gill that "As for those texts of Scripture, I know of none, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ for salvation; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an external repentance and reformation, and an historical faith in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah." (Gill)

Concerning Acts 17:

*but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent;* that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given: the Jews call repentance מצות התשובה, "the command of repentance", though they do not think it obligatory on men, as the other commands of the law. The law gives no encouragement to repentance, and shows no mercy on account of it; it is a branch of the Gospel ministry, and goes along with the doctrine of the remission of sins; and though in the Gospel, strictly taken, there is no command, yet being largely taken for the whole ministry of the word, it includes this, and everything else which Christ has commanded, and was taught by him and his apostles; Mat 28:20.​
But no where is faith made a duty upon all men!



Magma2 said:


> Saving faith is an assent to the propositions of Scripture, specifically the gospel.



The object of saving faith are are not bare axioms or propositions as Gill correctly teaches:

"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."​
What worries me is that you turn faith into a mere intellectual assent to axioms.

You so deny a sinner can say with Paul:

*1Ti 1:15* This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
*
Gal 2:20* I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 

Once you remove that subjective element from saving faith you destroy it.

"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."​
Part of saving faith is saying Christ "gave himself for me". Now because faith contains this it cannot be a duty for how can the reprobate, those for whom Christ died not shed his blood be duty bound to believe that he did! So if you are correct and faith is a duty you have said that God has placed all men under the duty to believe a lie and then punishes them for not believing this lie!

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Practical_Divinity/Book_1/book1_06.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Practical_Divinity/Book_1/book1_04.htm


----------



## JM

I have to spend more time reading Gill.


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> You so deny a sinner can say with Paul:
> 
> *1Ti 1:15* This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.




I noticed the semicolon. It seems to me to say the the faithful saying is limited to "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners". 



AV1611 said:


> *
> Gal 2:20* I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
> 
> Once you remove that subjective element from saving faith you destroy it.


 I don't see why.

Well let's see: If I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that He died for the forgiveness of sins, and that all men are sinners, and the rest those "dry impersonal axioms" of the gospel. Well then by implication I also believe that Jesus died for me. In other words, believing the general objective and rational propositions of the gospel implies that I as a rational thinking person created in the image of God also believe he died for me - a sinner who can only be saved by faith in Christ.

So even if saving faith is limited to believing the propositions of the gospel, this necessitates (if I truly believe) that I believing the personal truth that Jesus died for me. You can't really believe the gospel is true and then say Jesus certainly did not die for me without contradicting myself. Either you don't believe the propositions of the gospel, or you do believe Jesus died for you.

However I can still doubt my own belief in Christ (the gospel) is genuine. But my salvation does not depend on my feeling genuine. My hope is not within me, but is with Jesus, and him crucified. I can doubt myself and still be saved.


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> What worries me is that you turn faith into a mere intellectual assent to axioms.



I think this is because you've bought the idea that _mere _intellectual assent to axioms is lacks something. But if I do truly assent to the axioms of scripture, what is missing? My soul is not divided between my head and my heart - this is a Greek paradigm foreign to Scripture. If my mind believes, I believe, my soul and heart and head and spirit believe. They are all the same thing. And if there is something beyond intellect, then my heart can not know it, and God has not revealed it through his Word - which is the whole counsel of God. 

If I believe (intellectually assent to) the axioms of the Gospel, then the Word tells me I am saved.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> Where is Christ revealed in nature?



I never said anything about Christ being revealed in nature. 

<snip irrelevant rabbit trail>




> *Question:* Is Christ revealled in nature or by the light of nature? If not then your point above does not apply...i.e. yes all are duty bound to believe in God but that is not the issue...the issue is wether they are duty bound to believe in Christ.



Since I never said Christ is revealed in nature, or even God is revealed in nature (unless you mean we’re also part of “what is made”), I'm not quite sure what you're going on about? You said: "Hence you must accept that unbelief is not a sin for those who never hear of Christ." I demonstrated that unbelief IS a sin for those who never hear of Christ. Go back and read carefully. Maybe I wasn't clear enough or perhaps you just didn't keep your eye on the ball? I’m thinking it’s the latter, but if you want further explanation let me know. 



> Concerning Acts 17:
> Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some;



The irony here is that your own confession is at odds with Gill, since it supposes the general command to repent implies some power in men to do as they're commanded. Gill says it does not. I say it does not. Big deal. I've said from the start you cannot infer anything from a command. Does this mean we're back at square one and really haven't gotten anywhere? Is this how you so-called "Gospel Standard" folks work? Just spin around in one big circle?  



> But no where is faith made a duty upon all men!



Your exclamation aside, this cannot be inferred from the Gill quote you cited. If repentance is a command, then it is the responsibility of all who hear to do as they are commanded. You have said as much yourself. This is what is meant by "duty" since this is what the word means. Duty; conduct due to parents and superiors. 



> The object of saving faith are are not bare axioms or propositions as Gill correctly teaches:



Axioms and propositions are not the same thing and Gill is wrong. There is no such thing as a "naked assent of the mind." Read Gordon Clark. He'll clear some of those cobwebs in your mind.  



> What worries me is that you turn faith into a mere intellectual assent to axioms.



I haven't said anything about axioms at all, other than above where you seem to think an axiom is synonymous with a proposition. It may be, but that's not my position and has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of faith already offered. There is also nothing "mere" about assent and "intellectual assent" is a senseless redundancy. Yes, if someone believes the gospel they will be saved. If you mean something more is needed by your disparaging "mere intellectual assent," then you're wrong too because nothing else is needed. Would you like me to adduce the many passages in Scripture where belief alone is all that is needed in order for someone to be saved? Perhaps you GS folks don't believe in justification by belief alone either? 

Anyway, I'm starting to see how this works. You cannot defend your own irrational and defenseless beliefs so you want to start down some irrelevant rabbit trails in the hope that no one else will notice the incoherence of your anti-Christian confession. The Scriptures simply do not support your views. Frankly, the Gill citations you provided don't even support your theology. Thankfully, you're the very first GS person I've ever met, so I have to assume your faith is perhaps even more of a minority report than it was in Pink's day. I will say I've met tons of WMO P&R folks. They make the same errors in logic as you do, but, as I said, only in a different direction. Just think about it, you've got a lot of company and you probably don't even realize it.


----------



## AV1611

Magma2 said:


> I demonstrated that unbelief IS a sin for those who never hear of Christ. Go back and read carefully. Maybe I wasn't clear enough or perhaps you just didn't keep your eye on the ball? I’m thinking it’s the latter, but if you want further explanation let me know.



No what you showed was that unbelief in God was sin, but you failed to prove that Romans 1 teaches that unbelief in Christ was a sin because Christ is not revealled in nature and so you are unable to prove from Romans 1 that unbelief in Christ is a sin.



Magma2 said:


> The irony here is that your own confession is at odds with Gill, since it supposes the general command to repent implies some power in men to do as they're commanded.



I have consistently stated that all men are duty bound to repent. Your statement shows you have not read Gill correctly! "As for those texts of Scripture, I know of none, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ for salvation; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an external repentance and reformation, and an historical faith in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah." (Gill)



Magma2 said:


> If repentance is a command, then it is the responsibility of all who hear to do as they are commanded.



Agreed but where is faith mentioned in the Gill quote after all my exclamation was "no where is faith made a duty upon all men"? Here it is again:

*but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent;* that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given: the Jews call repentance מצות התשובה, "the command of repentance", though they do not think it obligatory on men, as the other commands of the law. The law gives no encouragement to repentance, and shows no mercy on account of it; it is a branch of the Gospel ministry, and goes along with the doctrine of the remission of sins; and though in the Gospel, strictly taken, there is no command, yet being largely taken for the whole ministry of the word, it includes this, and everything else which Christ has commanded, and was taught by him and his apostles; Mat 28:20.​
Repentance and faith are not the same.



Magma2 said:


> Read Gordon Clark. He'll clear some of those cobwebs in your mind.



I have read Clarke and he was a Sandemanian or at least leaned towards Sandemanianism.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> No what you showed was that unbelief in God was sin, but you failed to prove that Romans 1 teaches that unbelief in Christ was a sin because Christ is not revealled in nature and so you are unable to prove from Romans 1 that unbelief in Christ is a sin.



Like I said, you're not following the ball. Go back and read what I wrote again.




> Agreed but where is faith mentioned in the Gill quote after all my exclamation was "no where is faith made a duty upon all men"?



"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."



> Repentance and faith are not the same.



No one said they were the same, yet both repentance and faith are gifts of God and both are commanded.



> I have read Clarke and he was a Sandemanian or at least leaned towards Sandemanianism.



I didn't ask if you've read Clark per se, I suggested you read his treatise on faith in "What is Saving Faith?" Have you read that? If so, then why not interact with his arguments rather than lazily label him a "Sandemanian?" I suppose given your confession I could have simply labeled you a "hyper-calvinist" and been done with you too. 

Pathetic.


----------



## Magma2

AV1611 said:


> I have consistently stated that all men are duty bound to repent.



Then you reject the GS confession which states: 

"We deny duty-faith and duty-repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly *to repent* and believe." 

The two aren't the same thing, but even your confession agrees they go hand and hand and end up denying both.


----------



## JM

This was a good thread.


----------



## polemic_turtle

It makes me wince to see it go as it did. I expected the Clarkian view of saving faith to be a comeback used and I wasn't disappointed. What little I know of duty-faith and such come from its historical origins, so I understood what AV1611 was saying; I don't think brother Gerety is quite understanding the point at hand and his Clarkian view of saving faith may make it impossible for him to.


----------



## JM

Tyler, does your church have a website?


----------

