The Ultimate "Anti-Duty-Faith" Thread

[wildboar]

Matthew 21:46 - 22:14 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet. NKJ Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

The position of anti-duty-faith and anti-duty-repentance seems to be an absurdity in the light of our Lord's statement that many are called but few are chosen. What are they called to? Are they not being called to repentance? Nor is there any special kind of non-evangelical repentance in the text that it says they are called to. They were not called merely to stop their sinning or to acknowledge their holiness before the law, they were being called to the wedding feast of the Great King. Even when Gill discusses this passage he does not venture into the strange and unusual statements of the Huntingtonians or those short statements he himself makes elsewhere.

[Brandan Kraft]

Wildboar, those of us who deny duty faith do not deny that God commands men everywhere to repent and acknowledge Him as their creator. Men are called to be upright and do as they've been told - to walk in the way God has informed all of mankind to live. However we do not believe that God died for anyone but His sheep! The intention of the call to the reprobate is not that they may savingly believe in and of themselves, but that they may bring even more condemnation upon themselves. Certainly you believe that, don’t you? It is one thing for men to be commanded to subject themselves to Christ and another thing to bid men to save themselves by exercising some sort of inherent faith. By refusing to submit themselves to the Gospel command men pull down upon themselves dreadful judgments and destruction!

Those that are chosen are quickened from death unto life and willingly believe the Gospel not because it is duty, but because they can do no other. They love the Gospel, it is wonderful news to their ears, and they do not see their faith as a “duty”. Remember by preaching duty-faith, you turn faith into a legal obligation for God’s people - it becomes a work. I prefer not to think of faith in this way – what bondage! Faith is a gift that is supernaturally exercised by the Holy Spirit working in His people flowing from love and gratitude to Christ.

Duty-Faith is just the free offer of the Gospel repackaged. Duty-faith people put the condition of salvation on the exercising of faith instead of Christ.

[wildboar]

The intention of the call to the reprobate is not that they may savingly believe in and of themselves, but that they may bring even more condemnation upon themselves. Certainly you believe that, don’t you?

Of course.

It is one thing for men to be commanded to subject themselves to Christ and another thing to bid men to save themselves by exercising some sort of inherent faith.

All men everywhere are commanded to believe and repent and none of these special categories are used in the Scriptures. The context of the statement that many are called but few are chosen has to do with men being told of the Great Wedding Supper of the king, they are not being told to acknowledge Him as the creator. Once again the logical leap is being made that if God commands a person to do a thing the person must be able to do that thing. You are mistaking the imperative for the indicative. As Luther wrote to Erasmus:

The words quoted are imperatives, and only say what ought to be done; for Moses does not say, "Thou hast the strength or power to choose," but, "Choose, keep, do!" He issues commandments about doing, but does not describe man's ability to do...as soon as you get hold of an imperative verb you take it as implying the indicative, as if once a thing is commanded it must forthwith necessarily be done or be possible to do....Even grammarians and street urchins know, that by verbs of the imperative mood nothing else is signified but what ought to be done. What is done, or can be done, must be expressed by indicative verbs.

By refusing to submit themselves to the Gospel command men pull down upon themselves dreadful judgments and destruction!

Of course they do.

They love the Gospel, it is wonderful news to their ears, and they do not see their faith as a “duty”.

Of course they don't.

Remember by preaching duty-faith, you turn faith into a legal obligation for God’s people - it becomes a work. I prefer not to think of faith in this way – what bondage! Faith is a gift that is supernaturally exercised by the Holy Spirit working in His people flowing from love and gratitude to Christ.

Faith is worked in us but it is also something we do. That is why faith cannot be viewed as a condition of salvation because then we would be saved by works.

Duty-faith people put the condition of salvation on the exercising of faith instead of Christ.

This is completely false. Faith is not a condition of salvation but faith is required and commanded each time the Gospel is preached.

If what you are saying is true Paul would never said what he did to the centurion.

Acts 16:30-31 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

[wildboar]

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Those at the Gospel Standard must think themselves to be wiser than our Lord when they say:

So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God (John 12:29, 40; Eph. 2:8; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 4:7). Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Spirit, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."

God was aparently severly in error when He said:
Ezekiel 18:30-32 " Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways," says the Lord GOD. "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 "Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD. "Therefore turn and live!"

He really ought to have only addressed individuals rather than making this proclamation promiscuously.

There is also no evidence from the text following that Jesus was addressing the elect only and it is said that if they do not repent they will perish. If all He is calling them to do is acknowledge God as creator wouldn't they still perish?

Luke 13:1-5 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Do you believe that Paul's statement on Mars Hill that God was calling all men everywhere to repent only had to do with acknowledging Him as creator. Why bring Christ into it?

Acts 17:30-32 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."

Could you provide one clear statement in the Bible where people are warned not to tell everyone to believe and repent in an evangelical way but only to tell them to acknowledge God as creator?

[wildboar]

Just one more thing. Those at the Gospel Standard know that what they teach is in contradiction to what the Apostles did. They are engaging in a form of historical criticism in which they say that our situation is different than theirs and so we ought not preach the Gospel in the same way that they did. If you don't believe me just look at their articles of faith in which it is said:

We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have, of the way in which the Apostles, under the immediate direction of our Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely different circumstances. And we further believe that an assumption that others have been inspired as the Apostles were, has led to the grossest errors among both Romanists and Protestants. Therefore, that for ministers in this present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

[wildboar]

Okay, just another thing, I really mean it this time. Pink does an excellent job dealing with those who deny duty-faith and he was no friend of the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I highly recommend the following chapter of one of his books: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...e/impot_06.htm

[Brandan Kraft]

All men everywhere are commanded to believe and repent and none of these special categories are used in the Scriptures.

What I’m denying is that men are commanded to savingly believe.

Once again the logical leap is being made that if God commands a person to do a thing the person must be able to do that thing.

I never made that leap. God commands all men everywhere to believe the Gospel. However, this believing is not a duty nor is it a saving belief. God is responsible for exercising faith, not men.

This is completely false. Faith is not a condition of salvation but faith is required and commanded each time the Gospel is preached.

Yes, faith is required because it is a manifestation of regeneration and imputation; but who is responsible for exercising that faith? Men or God?

If what you are saying is true Paul would never said what he did to the centurion.

Acts 16:30-31 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

I do not see any duty-faith being preached here. It is a trustworthy saying that those who believe will be saved. I have no problem proclaiming that either! I’ll shout it from the rooftops, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Amen! All of God’s people will BELIEVE! However, what I take objection to are those who say that the actual act of believing is what actually saves the individual (conditionalism). This is what Arminianism actually teaches – men don’t have faith in the Christ, but faith in their faith. Instead of preaching, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, men put the condition “if” in that sentence. Instead I hear “If you will only believe on the Lord Jesus and accept His gospel, then you will be saved. See, it’s your DUTY to believe, and because you perform that duty - God saves you.” Charles this is a false gospel and I will have none of it. I know you don’t believe this, but when you use phraseology such as duty-faith, it can give people the impression of conditionalism. Most who preach duty-faith do in fact mean that faith is a condition. I would advise that you separate yourself from them as much as possible.

[wildboar]

Most who preach duty-faith do in fact mean that faith is a condition. I would advise that you separate yourself from them as much as possible.

I am not willing to try to avoid one error by running headlong into another. I will separate myself from those who are actually in error. The PRCA and happily as I recently discovered the WELS as well as A. W. Pink both deny the well-meant offer and still teach duty-faith. There is both a passive and active aspect to faith. Faith is worked in us but it is not as if we do not also believe. We will not believe unless God works that faith in us but it is a sin for man not to believe. The fact that everyone is not given that faith does not make it any less sin.

I’m not denying that at all. What I’m denying is that men are commanded to savingly believe.

So you really believe that all this commanding of men to believe is nothing but a command to acknowledge God as creator? That's what the Great Commission was all about? Perhaps Answers In Genesis then is doing a better job of spreading the Gospel than any church is.

[Brandan Kraft]

So you really believe that all this commanding of men to believe is nothing but a command to acknowledge God as creator? That's what the Great Commission was all about? Perhaps Answers In Genesis then is doing a better job of spreading the Gospel than any church is.

I'm denying that men have a duty to be saved.

[Brandan Kraft]

Look, I do not like the terms responsibility and duty. CHRIST IS RESPONSIBLE.... END OF STORY.

I am not responsible for anything. I am not responsible for my faith. I am not responsible for my repentance. I am not responsible for my sanctification. I am not responsible for regeneration, justification, glorification, or any other blessing of salvation. CHRIST IS. PERIOD!

Men will be held accountable for rejecting the Gospel of Grace. But reprobate men are not responsible to believe it. How COULD they when it's not even for them? God's promise of salvation is only to His people, and we are in Christ. Christ and all of His blessings are only for the elect. SO how in the world is everyone in the world responsible to believe God's promise and repent - especially when the promise is only to His people?

How can men be responsible for the imputation of Christ's righteousness? This is what I hear you saying Charles. That men are. Because without imputation, there is no faith. I order to "responsibly" exercise faith, men must first have the garment.

[harald]

In my convinced judgment duty faith and duty repentance are very serious errors, so serious that I would not hesitate to call them heresies. I see nowhere in the New Testament that so-called saving faith is a duty or an obligation of lost men and lost men. Saving faith or like precious faith is a gift of and from God which belongs to the covenant of grace, and to the persons legally confined within this covenant through Christ Jesus, the Covenant Head of God's elect. Men and men are judged for the wickedness of not giving assent to the truth(s) of the true Gospel when they hear it. To give assent to the truth of the Gospel when one hears it or otherwise learns it is a duty of all men. Because the Gospel is THE truth of God par excellence, it is a revelation of God to men. But men and men are not duty bound to "savingly believe" the Gospel according to Paul (which is Christ's Gospel), and "on the Lord Jesus Christ". Saving faith so-called cannot be a duty of non-elect men, because God is no deceiver, He cannot lie. Nor is it a duty of the elect, because faith as relates to them is a gift of God, and grace gifts and duty do not mix. My judgment is that preachers who go on preaching duty faith and duty repentance have not been called of God, but are running the errands of their own belly. Of the such kind was Charles H Spurgeon, and many others past & present. This type is only one kind of Satan called preachers.

Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

Thank you Harald for so eloquently explaining what I have been struggling to convey. I must admit that you portrayed in one paragraph the truth much better than I did with my incoherent rambling! I agree with you that duty-faith is an error that is VERY serious. So much so that if people really believe the logical implications of such teaching, they have no knowledge of grace. It is heresy. It goes hand in hand with common grace, free offer preaching, "two wills" of God teaching, denial of sovereign reprobation, etc.... What I can't figure out is why Charles is so willing to defend it when he trashes the rest as dung as we rightfully should.

[Brandan Kraft]

Of the such kind was Charles H Spurgeon, and many others past & present. This type is only one kind of Satan called preachers.

My opinion of Charles Spurgeon shrinks more and more each day. I definitely need to take his picture off the library page! I can't believe how much error I have unknowingly endorsed on this site over the last few years. I thank the Lord for revealing truth to me and pulling me out of the influence of false gospel preachers.

[Brandan Kraft]

Do you believe that Paul's statement on Mars Hill that God was calling all men everywhere to repent only had to do with acknowledging Him as creator. Why bring Christ into it?....Could you provide one clear statement in the Bible where people are warned not to tell everyone to believe and repent in an evangelical way but only to tell them to acknowledge God as creator?

Gill had this to say about Acts 17:30

Acts 17:30, (GILL), 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.

[harald]

Brandan. I am content to hear you agree, because I believe I spoke truth. As for the Wild boar (Charles) he must himself explain why he believes so. As for Spurgeon he has misled many many. Some have exposed or criticized him during the years, but very few of them have been bold enough to speak the plain truth about him and his ministry.

Gill's comments are worthy of a hearing, in my opinion. Then another thing to consider as to the Acts verse under consideration is that the verb "to repent" is in the present tense infinitive, not aorist. To be considered how this fact affects the interpretation of the verse. When it is in present it appears that a strictly one time repentance is not so much in view, but the force seems to me to be something like "to be repenting", "to begin repenting". An interesting fact in connection with this is that "when Christ began His public ministry" (as they say) He used the verb "to repent" in the present tense, imperative, not aorist imperative, also the verb "to believe" in the same sentence is present imperative. This speaks to me that a strictly one time repenting and faithing is not in view as some versions seem to say. I found it, it is Mark 1:15. Thus in this verse I can think of three possible forces, "be ye repenting/believing", "begin repenting/believing", or, "keep repenting/believing". NOT a "repent at once!" type of command, which would correspond to aorist, but it's not employed here.
Then another famous verse, Luke 13:3. Likewise here Christ uses the present tense with subjunctive. Which means the force is not "except ye repent at once"; i.e. a one time act of "saving repentance" (so-called) or change of mind is not in view. I wonder how these facts would affect the popular hell evangelism of some religionists if they understood the implications of them. Or could they care less, I guess not. Probably they would go on preaching according to their paternal traditions.

Harald

[tomas1]

Is it a duty for reprobates to acknowledge their creator? Is it in their power with out the Holy Spirit to do so? How can even this limited good come from the evil that is in them? If good can come from evil then total depravity is false. If it is not possible for a reprobate to acknowledge his creator then does not the same objections hold to this limited duty as to faith, it makes God a deceiver etc.

[wildboar]

Look, I do not like the terms responsibility and duty. CHRIST IS RESPONSIBLE.... END OF STORY.

Then you rightly bear the label of antinomian and are a legitimate card-carrying hyper Calvinist. The modern misconception is that he who emphasizes the sovereignty of God too strongly is a hyper-Calvinist. This is false. They Hyper-Calvinist is he who denies human responsibility. The Arminian denies God's Sovereignty. The Bible teaches both human responsibility and God's Sovereignty. In Romans 9 when Paul brings up the argument of the one who says how can God find fault, Paul does not say that he isn't responsible. The Arminian says that man is responsible and that God isn't Sovereign and so once again the Arminian would never have the argument Paul had. The hyper-Calvinist seeks to do away with one Biblical teaching the same way the gnostic does who claims that Christ was not really human. The Gnostic sees Christ's humanity as a threat upon His deity and so he throws out the humanity. Theology must always be biblical and not based upon the way we wish God would do things. We must be willing to accept Biblical teachings which threaten our own system.

How can men be responsible for the imputation of Christ's righteousness? This is what I hear you saying Charles.

If this is what you are hearing then you aren't reading. Never have I said anything close to this and for you to say this shows you are afraid to deal with what I actually said. You must construct a straw man and knock him down. Go rip the straw man apart who says that we are responsible for the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

SO how in the world is everyone in the world responsible to believe God's promise and repent - especially when the promise is only to His people?

The argument of Erasmus continues, you are still confusing imperatives with indicatives. How can God command everyone to perfectly obey His law when we are sinful creatures? I suppose this lies within man's grasp as well.

It goes hand in hand with common grace, free offer preaching, "two wills" of God teaching, denial of sovereign reprobation, etc.... What I can't figure out is why Charles is so willing to defend it when he trashes the rest as dung as we rightfully should.

Only in your mind and the minds of those who subscribe to the unscriptural statements of the Gospel Standard.

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 Jews were wrong about a great many things, if we are to trust them we ought not to accept Christ as the Messiah. He falls into the Erasmian trap.

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

How in the world would repentance contradict evangelical repentance? He ought to stop right here and remember what he just said. Repentance as a command does not suppose it to be in the power of men. This is absolutely true!! If only Gill had listened to himself!!!

Also, I posted this on another forum but this is a response I got from Prof. Engelsma on another forum when I asked what men are being commanded to believe. It may clear up some things in the minds of others who are reading this. I believe his statements on this are clear and Biblical.

In the New Testament, all in the audience of the apostles are externally called to repent of their sins and to believe in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God in human flesh, the only Savior from sin and death. The promise is that every one who does so repent and believe will be saved (Acts 13:38-41; 17:30).
The mission audience is not called to believe that Jesus died for them, or that God loves them.
The only way anyone can know that Christ died for him personally is by believing.
The missionary calls men to believe on Christ.
This is the duty of every human who comes under the preaching of the gospel. So much is this true that refusal to believe aggravates the wickedness of those who do not believe (John 3:18).

[Brandan Kraft]

Then you rightly bear the label of antinomian and are a legitimate card-carrying hyper Calvinist.

Wow... them's fightin' words!

How in the WORLD am I an antinomian because I ascribe 100% of salvation to Christ!?!?!?!?! I love God's law! I'm not free to go break it at will. I hate sin, and I strive not to sin. So tell me how in the world I'm an antinomian.

Don't tell me Charles that you actually believe you contributed some part to your salvation. Please don't tell me that...

[wildboar]

Don't tell me Charles that you actually believe you contributed some part to your salvation. Please don't tell me that...

You are an antinomian because you deny man's responsibility. Are you reading what I actually post and thinking about it? It seems you are reading someone else's post. When did I say you were an antinomian because you believe you didn't do a thing for your salvation?

[Brandan Kraft]

You are an antinomian because you deny man's responsibility. Are you reading what I actually post and thinking about it? It seems you are reading someone else's post. When did I say you were an antinomian because you believe you didn't do a thing for your salvation?

Brandan wrote: Look, I do not like the terms responsibility and duty. CHRIST IS RESPONSIBLE.... END OF STORY.

WildBoar wrote: Then you rightly bear the label of antinomian and are a legitimate card-carrying hyper Calvinist.

Then I wrote: How in the WORLD am I an antinomian because I ascribe 100% of salvation to Christ!?!?!?!?!

By claiming that Christ is responsible for 100% of salvation, I HAVE to conclude that I am responsible for 0%. Tell me Charles, if men are responsible for salvaton, what percentage did you contribute? What percentage does Christ contribute? This is all new to me! Please give me the math