Interview George Ella : Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mayflower

Puritan Board Junior
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
 
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?
 
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! :lol: Is this the 'Fuller' behind the seminary in Pasadena?
 
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.
:think:
 
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.
:think:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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. :)
 
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

resize.asp
 
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
 
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
 
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???!?
 
OK. What is wrong with this?

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

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

:amen:

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
 
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. :coffee:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top