Common Grace .... not a Reprobation thread

[cygnusx1]

Duty as you well know belongs to the law and so in order to prove that faith is a duty one must show that faith is a part of the law. This is imposible to do for nowhere does Scripture suggest that faith is a part of the law for if this were so obvious then one would assume you would have rushed to it.

I see no reason to continue this discussion for it seems you have no real answers.

You are making the same blunder Gill made , but then again you are way passed listening .


For the sake of those who are sincerely interested and open enough to have a teachable spirit please read this page and make your own observations , thankyou ;

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...e/impot_06.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

For those not entrenched by tunnel vision here is a good place to find the truth , for others , I pray for you ;


Thanks for bringing up this issue. Too many people (including Nettles' poor treatment of the subject) are of the opinion that Gill was not hyper (he IN FACT was in that he denied the free offers and duty-faith), but Spurgeon's own view is on record in his Commenting and Commentaries, as you well know:

"Gill is the Coryphaeus of hyper-Calvinism, but if his followers never went beyond their master, they would not go very far astray."

Commenting and Commentaries, page 16, Kregel 1998.

http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2...om-london.html

He is Professor of Historical Theology at the Southern baptist Theological Seminary and "is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America". (see)

http://www.amazon.com/His-Grace-Glory-Historical-Theological/dp/0801067421

mmmmmm ,


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Moonlight Blogging:[/FONT] Just a question: In what way is Nettles' treatment of Gill poor? I only ask this because as I read through Gill's commentaries I find them to be good; I've even used them as I go through Romans in the Sunday School material at church. I will in no way argue that Gill was an ardent, missionary sending evangelist, and there is no excuse for that in any way: it's wrong. However, is there any place where Gill explicitly denies free-offers and duty-faith? I'm not being contentious, just curious.
5:11 AM, January 09, 2006


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]YnottonY:[/FONT] Hi Moonlighting,

If you have Nettles' book By His Grace and For His Glory, then you can check those places where he cites Gill's The Cause of God and Truth. You may have difficulties because Nettles' even gets the page numbers wrong on occassion (that's one small criticism of his "scholarly" work). When reading that book by Gill, you will see that he makes a distinction between natural repentance (which fallen men can do in order to escape immanent physical judgement), and evangelical repentace (which is given by God to the elect). In those passages where you think (if you are sound in the faith) God reveals men's responsibility to believe/repent in the evangelical sense, Gill will argue that they refer to natural or civil faith/repentance. Nettles' totally misses that significant way in which Gill argues against duty-faith. Also, if you check The Cause of God and Truth, you will see that he CLEARLY denies free offers. The denial of duty-faith and free offers is classic hyper-Calvinism, and Nettles doesn't see it. To that extent, I argue, he's blind to Gill's position and doesn't properly critique him. That's what I meant when I said it's a "poor" treatment.

Also, I didn't say Gill's commentaries are bad or unuseful. I am only speaking about his manifest hyper-Calvinistic theology as being horrible, not that I dismiss all that he says in his commentaries or elsewhere.

Hope that helps...
6:05 AM, January 09, 2006

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:pDmXGbjcF5UJ:phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/

 

[heymikey80]

From the way you have been ranting that those who deny duty faith are un-Scriptural one would think that it would be rather a simple thing for you to do to show from the plain words of Scripture that faith is a duty upon all men.

Yet off you go running to Pink. I am not interested in how many Puritans Pink quotes nor what Pink thinks. I desire the pure word of God which up til now you have been unable to post. One reading this exchange must be left with the feeling that none exist...funny that.

I hate to come dropping in like this, but it would seem to me ... if we try to distinguish two kinds of faith here, there's indeed an error in doing so, here.

I've pretty-much concluded that God often commands things to people which are not in their capacity to perform. Jesus' statements seem replete with such things, "You must be born again", "If it weren't given to you by my Father, you would have no power". So to me, the faith God is commanding of everyone is full and entire: it is faith of the heart, which issues forth in dutiful reliance and action.

So when people write articles which slough over, attacking "two-phase" faith (one heart-faith, the other duty-faith), the argument is often lost on me. That happened at the start of my reading of http://www.go-newfocus.co.uk/pages.php?section=21 . In fact I couldn't find an argument that didn't rely on this issue. Once it's admitted that rebirth causes faith, I couldn't thread out an argument that really ... worked for me, there.

On the other side of this is indeed the general call to faith and repentance, its presentation as a duty for every person, as the cause of judgment against every unbeliever. It's explicit, as Calvin himself thought. God commands everyone everywhere to repent their sinful deeds. This is clear from Paul's summons on Areopagus. "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness ..." Acts 17:30-31a. Among many Reformed theologians, repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin.

Jesus Himself pointed out that people are condemned already for not believing -- which if the judgment is just, would mean they had some duty to believe in Him: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Jn 3:18

Often people try to split these up into "this kinda faith" and "that kinda faith" -- but I just can't. The condemnation on unbelievers is just one kind of unbelief. So the acceptance of believers is solely through true faith, and some other kind of faith is not real.

However, these verses point out the universality of the external call -- a summons to true faith, even for those who are not born of the Spirit. This is a call with a purpose -- a summons to the truth, among those who are false. To fulfil the purpose of God's command, the false must rely -- believe -- on the true. It doesn't matter whether they are able or not; faith is what matters, not ability.

But it is indeed an offer in earnest, as well. It is not a vacuous offer to the reprobate. In fact it is the most real, the most earnest offer they will ever hear in their lives. It's the true thing. It's just that the false have nothing true to respond with. As a result we'd all be sunk, were it not for the inward call or summons; were it not for our rebirth by the Spirit of God. He brings that true faith to life in us. It's required of everyone. But no one has it without God's regeneration.

 

[Iosias]

I hate to come dropping in like this, but it would seem to me ... if we try to distinguish two kinds of faith here, there's indeed an error in doing so, here.

The reason why duty-faith is false is becasue it means that God has placed all men under the duty of believing a lie. For how can it be the duty of all men to believe that Christ died for them when Christ died for the elect alone?

Now whilst all men have broken the Law of God they must indeed repent of that...however all that they are capable of is natural repentance not evangelical repentance. As far as I am concerned Gill is correct in stating:

Acts 17:30

Ver. 30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance:

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 {a} call repentance hbwvth twum, "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; Mt 28:20.

{a} Tzeror Hammor, fol. 157. 4.[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[cygnusx1]

The reason why duty-faith is false is becasue it means that God has placed all men under the duty of believing a lie. For how can it be the duty of all men to believe that Christ died for them when Christ died for the elect alone?

This arguement is nothing but a construct. All men are not duty bound to believe Christ died for them , but they are duty bound to believe Christ died for sinners , Pink and Packer both believe in duty faith and Definite atonement , as do most Calvinists.

 

[Iosias]

This arguement is nothing but a construct. All men are not duty bound to believe Christ died for them , but they are duty bound to believe Christ died for sinners , Pink and Packer both believe in duty faith and Definite atonement , as do most Calvinists.

Whilst you are correct "Pink and Packer both believe in duty faith and Definite atonement" I think that they were mistaken in doing so.

What then must a person believe before they are saved? That Christ died for sinners? What about it being personal? 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,[4] 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." (see)

I agree fully with Gill when he says "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: though this act of his may be attended with many doubts, fears, questionings, and unbelief. And what is short of this I cannot apprehend to be true faith in Christ, as the Lord our righteousness." (see)

This being true faith can in no way be a duty. You may disagree but you are yet to prove otherwise. I doubt most Calvinists have thought through this issue.

 

[Iosias]

As an aside you may like this by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Sandemanianism as well as this.