Tags
command, duty, Evangelism, faith, Gospel, Religion & Spirituality
The following is a very interesting article sent to me by D.R. Leach on the subject of ‘duty faith’. The article itself is written by Peter L. Meney. Thoughts?
Peter L. Meney:
It is popular in modern evangelical circles to preach that it is the duty of all men to believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. This teaching spawns numerous errors and is so widespread that to question it results in faithful men having their characters and ministry blackened. However, every fashion has its day and we look forward to the time when our brothers and sisters in Christ turn their back on the mongrel gospel of duty faith and return once again to the true gospel of free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ.
Here are ten arguments with which to rattle and pierce the empty barrel of duty faith.
1. Christ did not teach duty faith
All who examine the Lord’s own ministry will quickly see that the greatest preacher who ever lived did not preach duty faith. Indeed, our Lord was very careful to properly distinguish between those who were labouring under sin, heavy laden with guilt, sick, hungry, thirsty and seeking spiritual rest, and those who were self-righteous or simply curious. To the former the Lord lovingly applied the gospel of free grace, while the latter were sent to the law of Moses.
By making this distinction our Lord showed that He did not make faith the duty of all men and women. On the contrary, when a lawyer stood up to and asked “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The Lord’s reply was “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (Luke 10:26). When the rich young ruler came running to Jesus, asking for eternal life (Mark 10:17), the Lord did not impose on him a duty to exercise faith. Christ again turned him to the law and its proper use; the breaking up of self-righteousness pride and rendering men guilty before God.
This approach of the Master is sufficient proof that Christ did not make His gospel the rule of men’s duty. Modern duty faith preachers are failing in their duty to preach the gospel as Christ preached the gospel. If faith rather than law is made the duty of all men then faith is not properly presented to sinners, nor is the law properly applied to the self-righteous. Consequently, those who misrepresent faith and misapply the law are the true antinomians.
2. Duty faith flips on its head the Father’s plan of salvation
If the unconverted are told it is their duty to believe in Christ then it is as sure as telling them it is their duty to make themselves alive in Christ, their duty to regenerate themselves, their duty to make themselves new creations in Christ and their duty to walk in that faith which it is their duty, apparently, to possess and exercise.
This is quite contrary to the way and means of grace. A child cannot walk before he is born and a man cannot believe before he is born again. Faith is a gift bestowed upon sinners, not a duty imposed upon the self-righteous who see no need of Christ. Believing is the fruit of faith, not the instigator of faith. Duty faith turns salvation on its head by breaking into the divinely appointed model of the new birth; hearing, receiving and believing. Duty faith preachers need a good argument to overthrow the New Testament precedent for preaching provided by Christ and his apostles (Luke 10:21,22; Romans 10:20).
3. Duty faith wrests the work of regeneration from the Holy Spirit
Requiring faith from unbelievers will not receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit. It is God the Holy Spirit alone who effects the change in a sinner’s heart by which a spiritual obedience of faith can be prosecuted. To put it bluntly, within the covenant of grace it is the Holy Spirit’s duty to give faith to those for whom Christ died. It is not everyman’s duty to appropriate this task to himself.
We suspect that a duty faith preacher would be offended if upon arriving at church one Lord’s day morning he found some upstart already preaching in his pulpit. Yet they see no similarity in their doctrine dispossessing the Holy Ghost of his office. It is the glory of God to bestow free grace upon a sinner and elicit new life and genuine evangelical obedience. No believer at conversion every thanks God for enabling him to do his duty.
The Holy Spirit will never honour a doctrine that relieves Him of His role or robs Him of His glory. Duty faith will not bring a single individual to proper faith in Christ. It is a blurring doctrine that disrupts the knowledge of the truth. It raises up man’s imagined ability and erodes the doctrine of the Spirit’s vital energy (1 Peter 1:22).
4. Duty faith encourages false assurance
Turning to the content of the duty faith call we may ask what is it that all men are duty bound to believe? If they are duty bound to believe that Christ died for them then they must also believe that Christ died for all men since all men have this duty. They are therefore duty bound to believe a lie. If they are duty bound to believe that “all who come believing will be accepted by God” then that is no lie, but it is not the same as believing in Christ, or trusting the Lord for salvation. Simply believing that “all who come believing will be accepted” is not the same as being saved. The Devil knows and believes that to be true but the Devil is not saved.
Duty faith preachers are being disingenuous to their hearers when they tell them they will be saved if they believe. Every Arminian preaches this gospel. They make the work of believing the ground of hope and the assurance of eternal life. This is works salvation and makes spiritual new life conditional upon the unregenerate man’s obedience to a set procedure that is nothing to do with evangelical repentance and faith.
Nevertheless, countless numbers of church goers today fully expect to go to heaven, not upon the merits of Christ’s blood and righteousness, but upon the merits of their believing and the promise of duty faith preachers that upon their belief sins are forgiven and eternal destinies assured.
5. Duty faith builds its requirements upon the will of man
Scripture categorically states that salvation is not based upon man’s will but God’s mercy (Romans 9:16). Many duty faith preachers will tacitly agree with this and yet do so with complete disregard for the implicit contradiction in their system. It is not simply the case that the unregenerate will not believe it is that they cannot believe (John 12:37,40).
Duty faith preaching appeals to the will of man and then judges and condemns him for not doing what he should to be saved. However, the true gospel comes to those who cannot believe except the grace of God comes to them first. There is all the difference in the world in these two platforms for preaching. Luke clearly pronounces against the duty faith approach to preaching when he declares, “I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you” (Acts 13:41).
6. Duty faith confuses goats with sheep
It is not the Christian preacher’s responsibility to goad goats but to feed sheep. The gospel is good news to lost sheep. It is spiritual food to the spiritually hungry, pure spiritual water to the spiritually thirsty, new life to the spiritually dead. On the other hand it is foolish and offensive to the infidel and unregenerate. Despite all the protestations of duty faith preachers for a gospel of common grace, in truth the message of the gospel comes to some as the savour of death unto death.
Duty faith mixes law and gospel. It brings goats who are under the law under the gospel with no scriptural warrant, and sheep who are under the gospel under the law with, again, no scriptural warrant. Christian ministers will be better advised to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel with a view to being obedient to the Lord’s command to Peter (John 21:16,17).
Feeding the Lord’s sheep is not accomplished by enforcing the duty of all men upon them but by preaching the power of Christ in them. Challenging duty faith preachers of his own day William Huntington once said, “Do as you are bid; feed the sheep, feed the lambs; the goats will never believe the gospel, though they may believe your doctrine”.
7. Duty faith is an ‘uncertain sound’
Duty faith preachers speak with a forked tongue, confusing and confounding what is clear in scripture. The result is an uncertain sound, a mix of law and gospel, natural obligation and evangelical obedience that speaks to no one in particular and answers nothing but the preacher’s own desire for trophy-converts. Again, Huntington rejected this double-speak saying,
The voice of the chief shepherd is directed to the sheep: I have other sheep, which are not of this fold, and they shall hear my voice. My sheep hear my voice, and follow me: But, as for the law, the voice of that is directed to the unconverted. Now we know, that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law.
But you frustrate the grace of God on the one hand, and are partial in the law on the other; for you set the law before the believer, as his only rule of life and conduct; and the gospel is set before the unconverted, as their only rule of duty. The carnal man has got an evangelical rule, and the heir of promise has got a legal one; the life-giving commandment is palmed upon the congregation of the dead, and the ministration of death is saddled on the children of the resurrection; the believers are all sent to Moses and the unconverted are sent to Jesus; Moses is to have the legitimate sons, and Christ is to have the bastards.
Today in many evangelical churches people are lamenting the cold and insipid attitude that prevails even amongst professing believers. Perhaps the problem lies as much in the pulpit as the pew. Perhaps the rallying cry that once rang clear from free grace pulpits is lost in the cacophony of uncertain sound. Should we therefore be surprised when few seem prepared for spiritual battle? (1 Corinthians 14:8).
8. Duty faith mars the glory of free grace
Free grace in Christ is a thing of beauty. Paul speaks of ‘the glorious gospel of Christ’ with good cause. The covenant of grace, the saving purpose of the Sovereign God in its conception, in its execution and in its accomplishment is a thing of wonder and majesty. Duty faith instead of honouring the glory of the gospel brings it down to the level of man, his desires and his abilities.
Faith is not a dead man’s duty. It is a living man’s treasure. It is the ring on the finger of the prodigal, a mark of sonship, a glorious gift of grace. Faith offers an excellent sacrifice, carries us into new life in Christ, pleases God, inherits righteousness, inspires obedience, looks for a city whose builder and maker is God. We could go on.
Is it the infidel’s duty to possess the father’s ring or is it the son’s privilege? Why must duty faith preachers bring something so beautiful and glorious as faith in Christ down to the grubby level of man’s depraved will?
9. Duty faith confuses the curse of the law with the call of the gospel
If a man does his duty will he be saved? Is the law of duty and doing to be found anywhere in scripture as a step towards eternal life? All commandments are God’s but not all commandments are alike. There is a legal commandment that condemns the transgressor and brings him under guilt and condemnation and there is a life giving commandment that brings forth life from the dead. There is a command that kills and a command that causes to live. Christ commanded Lazarus to come forth. He commanded the widow’s son to arise from his bier. He took a young maid by the hand, returned life to her corpse and commanded her to arise.
The first command was given by Moses and is a duty of obedience imposed upon all men indiscriminately under pain of death. The second command comes by Christ upon certain individuals and is empowered with divine purpose. The end of the first command is judgment and eternal condemnation. The end of the second command is liberty and eternal life. Duty faith confuses the two and is a vain attempt to apply the blessings of Christ universally to those for whom it never was intended and by whom it never can be received.
There is only a certain number who will believe. They are identified in scripture as those who are ordained to eternal life. Such was the Philippian Jailer, and Lydia, the seller of purple, whose heart the Lord opened. To such as these comes the life-giving command to repent and believe the gospel. It comes with power and accomplishes salvation. This is not the command of duty faith but the command of gospel obedience. It is not preached indiscriminately with no power to effect change, but specifically and directly to the heart of the sinner by the power of the Holy Spirit.
This power is in the Word preached. This is why Paul calls the preaching of the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).
The advocates of unscriptural duty faith preaching make the Gospel not only a law, but even a harder law than that of Moses. God gave Adam, as His upright creature, a certain ability to obey the law under which he was created. But God never gave even to Adam in the state of innocence any spiritual ability to believe with the faith that is now required of unregenerate men. To require of Adam’s fallen posterity the duty of believing in Christ to the saving of the soul, is to require more of the children in sin than God even gave their father ability to perform when in innocence.
10. Duty faith trashes the fruit of the Spirit
Paul tells the Galatians that faith is the fruit of the Spirit. Faith is not the fruit of the law, no more than love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance, being spiritual graces, can be produced by law. Paul explicitly states this (Galatians 5:23) and ought not to be contradicted. Consequently, duty cannot be called upon to produce that which it never was intended or equipped to produce.
Faith is the fruit of the Spirit and it is no more the duty of every man to have faith in Christ than it is the duty of the Spirit to give faith in Christ to every man. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8).
As faith is the fruit of the Spirit so evangelical obedience is the fruit of faith in the life of the believer. There are no good works outside of Christ. There is no such thing as carnal obedience. All of a Christian’s obedience to God must be spiritual obedience, every good work must be spiritually motivated. If faith is a good work, if faithfulness is obedience to God and well pleasing in His sight then it must come and can only come through the Spirit. There is therefore no such thing as duty faith.
- Peter L. Meney
This article seems to imply that ability and responsibility must acompany one another, i.e., I can’t be held responsible to believe if I have no ability to believe. This is the error of both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. One insists sinners must be able because they are responsible; the other insists sinners are not responsible because we are unable. I wonder if the writer would deny “duty repentance” on the same basis. Paul preached that God now COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent. Sounds like a duty to me. Does that imply that sinners are able to repent? Don’t think so!
GRACEWRITERANDY has beat me to the punch and is spot on.
The Apostle Paul makes clear that in point of fact, because of who God is (Sovereign) it is our duty – every last human that is, was, or ever will be to not only repent, but it is, was and ever will be the duty the created human owes to his Creator to fully obey God.
The fact that we all are incapable of doing this because of the consequences of the fall in no way mitigates or relieves that duty. The fall was the fault of man, not God.
Why it is that Peter L. Meney has gone off on a tear about this may be another matter. ‘Duty faith’ is yet another false teaching. I don’t see enough about it here (well, I have seen enough, but I’m not sure I’ve seen the full exposition of it) to understand why Mr. Meney has put down what he has, but one thing is clear – he isn’t much of a student of Romans or of Jesus.
Mt. 5:48 – “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect”. Does God have trouble expressing Himself? Surely someone who understands the full disclosure of Scripture would understand: a) Christ wasn’t joking around, He fully meant it – we are to be perfect; b) since we cannot attain to this on our own (as to why, Mr. Meney should read Chs. 1 through 3 of Romans, over and over if need be, until he understands the fall and who is responsible for it), and since Christ commands it, there must be another way of attaining it or He would not have bothered to state it in the way he did; c) imparted righteousness obtained when one faiths in Christ is the way of being accounted perfect in the sight of God.
Who can do this? Only those God calls. That doesn’t diminish the scope of the requirement that God expects all to be perfect. That is a decree to all mankind from their Sovereign LORD. Likewise it doesn’t mitigate the universal requirement of repentance. Whether one can attain either or not doesn’t lessen the legitimacy of requiring both of fallen humanity. If some can attain it by faith through grace that is God’s mercy on display. If some cannot that is His justice on display. In the end the inability to do either and the fault rests with our federal head, Adam. The ability to be saved by faith through grace is a gift from God the Father bestowed through the atoning work of our new federal head, Christ Jesus; made possible by the regeneration that the Holy Spirit bestows on those God has called.
I understand it, but am underwhelmed by the dismissive response that this is just “hypercalvinism” from Andy. And contrary to Andy, I see little practical (or theological) connection to Arminianism in the Meney article.
By the way, I do not consider Acts 17:30 as necessarily the final word on this subject (when considered in context) any more than I consider John 3:16 the final word on the atonement or purposes of God when it spills forth from the lips of Armninians or Universalists.
I sent this to Joel NOT to blindly advocate for it, but to simply ask Joel to ponder it and let me know what he thought. I am glad he did not just utter with disdain the word “hypercalvinism” as though it were an evil magical word in the way Arminians do when they turn their noses up when they hiss the words “Calvinism” or “sovereign grace.”
Does a regenerate believer by the Sovereign Grace of God seek to live a life pleasing to Him out of a sense of “duty” or gratitude, love and as acts of worship? If duty well I am not sure you have a right understanding of what it means to be a Christian. God made us bondslaves- those who willingly serve not slaves who serve out of sense of fear( as in afraid) and compulsion. We show our love for him through our obedience. Very dissapointed with the first two commenter’s reactions. Not sure how you could have missed the boat so badly and still be reading this particular blog.
William,
One thing of which I am sure is that you didn’t understand my post. What I wrote has nothing to do with the spirit in which believers serve Christ. The issue is whether all have a responsibilty to believe though they have no ability to do so. What you have stated concerns another issue altogether.
Brother each,
Oh, sorry! It’s Leach.–and my name is Randy, not Andy. In reality, I did not call anyone an Arminian or a Hypercalvinist. I merely observed that Arminians believe sinners must have ability because they have responsibity, and hypercalvinists deny responsibility because sinners have no ability. It is difficult, if not impossible to ignore this implication from the article. The apostle Paul writes that he preaches the gospel to the Gentiles for the “obedience of faith.” That would seem to indicate that the gospel call is a sovereign call that demands obedience. In other words, it is a “duty.”
If you don’t like the term “hyper-calvinist” to describe those who deny sinners have a responsibility in spite of their inability, what term do you prefer?
Brother Leach,
I certainly agree that Acts 17:31 does not mean every individual on the face of the earth is commanded to repent. Only those who hear the gospel are commanded to repent. It refers to the gospel command being issued to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. No longer does God allow the gentile nations to walk in their pre-cross ignorance.
My point is that to all to whom the gospel comes, it comes as a command to repent, even though all who hear the gospel do not have the ability to do so.
*[The "William" that posted above is not me, though I have posted several previous times as William also, esp. on New Calvinism. This is confusing, I feel others may wrongly associate posts of mine with the other. Not sure if I begin to use a gravatar if that would distinguish posts already made].
Ten Arguments Against Duty Faith vs. FULLERISM
If I am not mistaken the issue raised here is one that brought great differences about in the 19th century and really what seems to be the birth of the “evangelicalism” (William Cary, Judson, Taylor, ecumenical Bible Tract Society, etc.) and subsequent from which divergent Baptist sects have sprung. The issue of “duty faith” is called often “Fullerism” (faith as a duty, to be preached as such; also whether the heathen are damned for lack of faith without hearing the gospel) and was raised among English and Southern Baptists in particular who questioned Andrew Fuller’s written article called “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation”.
The different views split Baptists with Strict Baptists (following Gadsby), Primitive, Predestinarian or Hardshell Baptists (who are referred to as hyper-Calvinists) in particular forming their own denominations (and claiming to retain the positions of John Gill and rejecting the Evangelical and Missions Movement as an innovation in Christianity, largely limited to apostles and ‘evangelists’ in the Bible) and seceding from fellowship with more moderate, some of which denominated themselves (following Fuller’s position) as ‘Missionary Baptists’.
Gracewriterrandy seems to have summarized the differences and framed the issue clearly which is helpful. But this issue of Fullerism is worthy of some exploration in evaluating both the doctrine and its outcome, i.e. the Missionary Movement, which seems to be responsible for what is now Modern Evangelicalism, which seems to make Christian activity in fundraising and missions the predominant and supposed “fruit” of true and authentic conversion and churches while it is very evident that missionary and high-octane activity of todays churches is neither a proof of sound doctrine nor of any authentic fruit, as acknowledged by many Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists today. In fact it could justly be stated the Fullerism which brought about the Missions Movement has largely brought about Arminian Evangelicalism in both doctrine and practice. Could this be what undercut and led the decline of Calvinistic doctrine in America? (It is precisely the claim that Calvinists are not evangelizing people that remains the first objection always raised to it). It is worthy of consideration!
Banner of Truth publicly denies that Fullerism is an error while others, mostly Strict and Primitive Baptists today, possibly others, take the other side, while there maybe be others who hold position in between but have no denominational identity. The Southern Baptist Seminary today has an Andrew Fuller Center with interesting online lectures and appears to take his position, as if to hold him up as the example to follow while Particular Baptists historically, such as William Gadsby were of a formidable and contrary view. (Yet Fuller’s name today, the seminary in particular, is often associated with Liberalism).
“Examine everything” we are told, which is what historic Baptists did with Fuller’s teaching.
William (the latter) has said quite a lot and said it very well in relatively few words. I will likewise observe – the fruits of Fullerism seem to me in some measure antithetical to a sound sovereign grace understanding. He (William) asks (I assume rhetorically) ” Could this (Fullerism) be what undercut and led the decline of Calvinistic doctrine in America?” Clearly so, to my thinking. One thing seems obviouis to me – Fuller wrote unevenly, and seemed sounder at the start than at the finish. Fuller has his champions. but I believe there are many Baptists of his age, and today, more sound in understanding than he.
William,
Interesting post. I must admit, however, I am not sure where you would land on the issue. I believe you are right concerning the history of the issue. Perhaps, if there is further discussion of this issue, it might help for someone to define hypercalvinism. My understanding would be that hypercalvinism is characterized by an inability, a hesitation, or an unwillingness freely to offer the gospel to any sinner without precondition. If we feel constrained in making such a free offer freely to sinners who show no evidence of being awakened to their need for the redeeming work of Christ, we are probably hypercalvinist. That is, if we must first ascertain if they are the elect before we can offer Christ freely to them, we are probably hypercalvinist.
Additionally, hypercalvinist believe God will accomplish his purpose apart from the use of means, This mentality was evident in the opposition that Fuller encountered. Perhaps someone else could provide a better definition.
I don’t believe Fullerism is the cause of of the decline of Calvinistic doctrine in America. I think it is more likely the decline of Calvinistic doctrine occurred because pastors and teachers didn’t have the backbone to consistently proclaim an unpopular doctrine. Their guilty silence has led to the deplorable situation we find ourselves in today.
Randy (yes, Randy, not Andy – ok at least I got that right!) I disagree with the pass you give Fullerism. It is hard for me to fathom you do not see the superhighway between Fullerism and the decline of Calvinistic doctrine, and the slide of many Baptists (historically) into full blown Arminianism who started with a form of Fullerism.
I suppose I might be classified a “hypercalvinist” by some – but oddly enough – I’m all for preaching the Good News to sinners. And beyond that, even among those I have known personally who would certainly be classified by you as “hypercalvinists” …I don’t recall a man among them that believed “we must ascertain if they are the elect” before preaching the gospel. That is a sort of slander it seems to me the Armininiams heap on every stripe of Calvinist. However, as an aside, I personally do not believe the preaching of the gospel regenerates men,anyway, I believe God does that work by His Spirit.
Brother Leach,
I, too, am considered a hypercalvinist by many simply because I believe in the five doctrines of grace. Usually, people define a hypercalvinist as anyone who is more Calvinistic than they are. In my view, if you believe in the use of divinely ordained means and in offering the gospel freely to sinners, not as “awakened sinners” or as sinners who have somehow come to believe they are God’s elect for whom Christ died in particular, then you are not, in my view, a hypercalvinist. Forty-five years ago I used to listen to a Progressive Primitive Baptist preacher from Ohio who plainly stated that all of God’s elect would be saved even if they never heard the gospel. He also stated that gospel preaching was not for the salvation of the lost, but so that the elect might rejoice in it. That in my view is hypercalvinism. Call it slander if you like, I am just reporting the facts as I heard them. It was that sort of mentality Fuller was battling. If his disagreement with that point of view has led to Arminianism, it is only because people can take valid biblical truth to terribly wrong conclusions.
It has been many years since I read “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.” Perhaps you could refresh my memory concerning the portion of that book that you belieive has led to Arminianism.
Perhaps you would believe I am an Arminian since I believe Christ’s redeeming work is sufficient for all, though it was designed to accomplish the everlasting salvation of the elect and the elect only. As I recall, that was Fuller’s position. I fail to see how that would lead to Arminianism. If Fuller’s followers misunderstood and abused his teaching, that is another matter.
Obviously, preaching the gospel does not regenerate men (or women either for that matter). If it did, all who heard the gospel would be regenerate.
“Concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it, referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered the question in a scriptural way in saying, It was for sinners as sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving His Son to die, and the design of Christ in laying down His life, I should answer, It was for His elect only.” “Particular Redemption”, Rushton pg 18 quoted from the third part of Fuller’s “Dialogues, Letters and Essays” on the Atonement
I fail to see how such a statement could lead to wide-spread Arminianism. If you should refer to the Canons of Dort, you would find a statement that is very similar to this. It is difficult to see how the original statement of what we now know as five point Calvinism, could lead to wide spread Arminianism.
Here is the statement from the Canons of Dort. If fail to see how it differs from Fuller’s statement.
Article 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Article 4
This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Saviour for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5
Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6
And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Article 7
But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
Randy:
(1) I have NEVER used or liked the term “awakened sinners.” In fact, the first time,I heard it if I recall correctly, was from the lips of L R Shelton and I cringed when I heard it, for I sensed Shelton was creating a third category of humanity: lost, saved and “awakened.” No such third category exists in Scripture in my view.
(2) I agree with your definition of hypercalvinism by way of your example of the Ohio preacher.
(3) My view is that the gospel is “sufficient for all” is sophistry since that is neither it’s purpose or design. If you well excuse the crude analogy, it is akin to me building a road from San Antonio to Austin and saying “it’s purpose is to travel from San Antonio to Austin, but it is SUFFICIENT to go to Anchorage Alaska.” So I find the notion of “sufficiency” more a salve for possible deep seated uneasiness about God’s purposes via election and Christ’s specific atonement that expressing any real Scriptural profundity. If you press me and say, “Yes, but is the atonement SUFFICIENT for everyone hypothetically?” – I would simply answer – Of what use is a hypothetical atonement? It is the source of ABSOLUTELY ZERO sinners ushered into the saving presence of God. If what one REALLY means by the notion of “sufficient for all” is that God could have saved all if it were His purpose to save all, I would agree. The only problem is that clearly if Scripture is to believed that is not the purpose of God. If one intends the use of “sufficient for all” to broaden and enlarge the atonement of Christ, even if only in a hypothetical way, it makes me wonder – is an atonement that is for a specific number ipso facto remiss and in need of an intellectual or spiritual rescue by the notion of “sufficient for all?” And finally ( I could say more, but this is getting too lengthy anyway) of what pragmatic use is such a notion? Do you go to unbelievers and argue thus: “Christ died only for His sheep, but theoretically, that death was sufficient for the goats.” Do you teach such in your assembly? Call me simplistic, but it seems to me that the atoning death of Christ served one real and solid purpose, and no hypothetical ones. Christ gave His life for His sheep.
By the way, for those of you who think Fuller is the cat’s meow, I have a The Complete Works of Fuller published by Bohn in 1845, leather spine and complete in one volume. Make me a handsome offer!
Among those who generally accept the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement, it is often heard by way of explanation that “the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” In fact this terminology may be found in some of the most respected Reformed theologians such as Hodge, Shedd, Buswell and others. While no Calvinist would deny the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death for the redemption of all men had God so designed and intended it, I find the use of such phraseology dubious.
Maintaining the infinite intrinsic value of Christ’s death is not the same as saying “He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect.” The latter seems to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention to die in the place of all men, and to benefit all by the proper effects of His death as an atonement or propitiation. This inference is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement. My purpose here is to show that this phraseology is ultimately meaningless and fails to adequately perceive the nature of the atonement. In the final analysis, it does not distinguish a definite atonement from a general or universal atonement.
From an article by Jim Ellis
Brother Leach,
I think you have missed my point. I will return to it in a moment. First, I want to speak to what you have written re: the advisablity of speaking of the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all. I believe we should do so to clarify our position concerning particular redemption. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone to believe there is any limit to the value of Christ’s death. If I gave the impression that is what I was teaching, I would have misrepresented the Bible’s teaching at that point. It is as simple as that. It is the design of Christ’s death that is at issue. Was it designed in any way to make all sinners saveble (whatever that means)? No! Would it save all if they believed? Yes, of course, since that is God’s promise. But, they must come as sinners, not as elect sinners or as awakened sinners (I never liked the term either, whether used by Sheldon or anyone else). I suppose we could discuss this issue endlessly to no purpose. I think we agree that Jesus’ death was of infinite value whether we feel the need to state that in the articulation of the doctrine or not.
If we should speak of the infinite value of Christ’s death, we would be speaking neither or its design nor its purpose.
Now, back to my point. It was that there is little, if any, difference between Fuller’s statement and that of the Canons of Dort relative to the sufficiency and design of Christ’s death. It can hardly be maintained that Fuller’s theology (It seems to me the points at issue here are his views regarding Christ’s death and the free proclamation of the gospel) can be blamed for the descent of the modern church into Arminianism any more than than we could blame the Canons of Dort for such an effect since they state essentially the same doctrines. If saying Christ’s death is sufficient for all or that distinct from its design to secure the eternal redemption of God’s elect, Jesus died for sinners as sinners has led to Arminianism, would we not have to say the statement of the Canons of Dort should lead to Arminianism. How could the initial and classic statement of particular redemption lead to Arminianism?
Bro Randy: I may be misreading you, but you seem to suggest that one reason you wish to insist on advocating for the “sufficiency of Christ’s death for all” is that, in your words, “I don’t want to anyone to believe there is any limit to the value of Christ’s death.” But I ask you – does not EVERY Arminian believe we do just that by teaching that Christ died only for His people? Do you believe the expression “sufficient for all” really matters when in fact and as a practical matter, you know and I know and our Arminian critics know we believe that NO ONE outside of the provision of Christ’s death for His people could be or will be saved? How then do you imagine that any consternation Arminians have concerning election and a particular redemption will be allayed by a concession of Christ’s atonement as being “sufficient for all?”
Call me a “hardshell” or “hypercalvinist” if you will, but I tell you, even as a young man in the Army 36 years ago, stationed in Germany and being exposed to sovereign grace soteriology for the first time- had it come up, I think I would have sensed great tension between the meaningless speculation of “sufficient for all” and the Scriptural reality of John 10: 14,15.
I do not personally use the mantra “sufficient for all; efficient for the elect.” Still, I fail to see how stating that Christ’s death is “of infinite value and is abundantly sufficient for the expiation of the sins of the whole world,” says anything about its design or purpose. What distinguishes a definite atonement from a general atonement is our statement concerning its design, not whether we state its all-sufficiency or not.
Brother Randy – I confess, you confuse me. Can you explain what “sufficient for all” means in light of the truth that Christ lays down His life for His sheep? This expression seems to me but mischief or nonsense to either placate Arminians or otherwise soften unpopular truth. In what possible sense can we seriously say as believers in specific electing grace and a definite atonement that the atoning death of Christ is “sufficient for all” when by design and application of the Father and Son such “sufficeincy” was never so much as imagined? This murky thinking seems to me to fit much better within the theological domain of the confused Arminians than those who believe and espouse sovereign grace. Is it not genuinely a much wiser, and an infinitely more scriptural expression to say that the atoning death of Christ was “sufficient for the elect” for whom it was designed? For what possible reason ought we ascribe the worth of the atonement, even in some abstract theological sense – to those whom God never intended it?
Brother Leach,
When I proclaim the gospel, I tell my hearers “Christ died for the most guilty sinner who will believe the gospel.” When I teach believers I tell them “Jesus, according to the Father’s design, effectively secured your salvation on the cross.” When I call on sinners to repent, the issue is not whether they are elect or whether Christ died for them with a particular design, but whether they will heed the gospel call and trust God’s promise to save all who call on him.
Brother Leach,
It appears that our responses to one another have become jumbled so that my responses are not necessarily following what you are asking. Consequently, if those responses don’t seem to speak directly to your questions, it is because they are in response to another question you have asked.
In response to the post beginning “Brother Randy–I confess, you confuse me.” Let me say that it is not my intention to be at all ambiguous. If I have confused you or any other reader, it has not been my intention to do so. Let me state my position on this issue in a number of propostions in an effort to be clear about what I am saying.
1. As regards the purpose and design of Christ’s redeeming work, that purpose was definite and particular. He did not die in a well-meaning but futile and ineffectual effort to redeem all sinners. His intention was never at cross purposes with the Father’s decree.
2. Additionally, I do not believe the purpose of his death was to make all men savable in the hypothetical universalism sense, though, in reality, all could be justified by the same redeeming works if God enabled them to believe and avail themselves of the free offer of the gospel. The gospel announces that anyone who wishes may come and the promise of the gospel is that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
3. The redeeming work of Christ is of such a nature that had he intended to save only one sinner by that work, he would have accomplished what every sinner needs to put him or her right with God. Since all sinners are of the same sinful lump and are all at heart equally destitute of spiritual merit or goodness in the presence of God, what one sinner needs is what every sinner needs. It is not as if there is a great vat of merit to be filled by the blood of Christ that contains only enough to forgive the sins of the elect and once that is exhaused there is no more. Instead, there is a fountain opened for sin and uncleanenss and any sinner who wants to be clean may (note, I did not say “can”) come and be washed clean in the blood of the lamb. This is no attempt “to placate Arminians or otherwise soften unpopular truth.” It is simply a statement of the fact that if his death is sufficient for the elect, it is also sufficient for all other sinners since the nature and necessities of the elect are no different from those of any sinner.
I will stop here for now, since I don’t want this to become so lengthy it will not be posted. I suspect I have written enough already for you to think me less than a full-blown Calvinist.
Randy, just a reminder. You are free to discuss the current post, but this is not a platform for you to teach. Just saying.
Bro Randy, I confess I, having been a more or less middle of the road Calvinist since the mid-seventies – but of late having moved to a what I suppose many would consider a more narrow view – I am still in the process of discussing this subject with old friends and some new ones. That being said, I think you are a Calvinist of the stripe I have been most my life…or at least you are nearly so….since the views you espouse are ones I would have since the mid seventies until the last year or two, I am hardly of a mind to wag my finger at your understanding of Calvinism, though I am certainly happy to challenge it. I suspect you are better educated, more articulate and (perhaps?) not accustomed to challenges over such matters. .
I am quite content to continue this conversation, however since this is not my blog, I can’t expect Joel to carry our discussion ad infinitum. I pray for you all the best in Christ.
Joel,
I just want to be clear about what you will allow here. You said this is not a platform for me to teach. The dictionary defines “teach” as imparting skills or knowledge. Do I understand you correctly that you don’t want me writing anything that everyone does not know already? Also, does that apply to everyone or just to me? The reason I ask is that others have imparted knowledge and you haven’t said anything to them at all.
Randy, feel free to post anytime. All I ask is that you do not belabor a point made. It’s pretty much that simple, and yes, applies to everyone, without exception.
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t aware that I was belaboring a point. Please forgive me. I guess I am going to have to rescind my invitation for you to discuss things with me at my blog, since my page has been shut down for some reason. I have sent WordPress an inquiry but so far have not received a response. Anyway, have a great day.
Joel,
I just wanted to let you know the problem with wordpress has been resolved.
Pingback: The Faith of the Son of God « Bogatzky's Golden Treasury
Pingback: “Spiritual struggles against the terror of the law” « De Profundis Clamavi ad Te, Domine