Interview George Ella : Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism

[AV1611]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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).​

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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]

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]

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.

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!

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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.

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)

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.

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]

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]

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 Bro 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?