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 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!

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.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

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.

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?"


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 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.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

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.

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!

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/gi...1/book1_06.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...1/book1_04.htm

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I have to spend more time reading Gill.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

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".

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.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

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.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

I never said anything about Christ being revealed in nature.

<snip irrelevant rabbit trail>


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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

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.

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)

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.

I have read Clarke and he was a Sandemanian or at least leaned towards Sandemanianism.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Like I said, you're not following the ball. Go back and read what I wrote again.


"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."

No one said they were the same, yet both repentance and faith are gifts of God and both are commanded.

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.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

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.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

This was a good thread.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

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.

__________________
Tyler Upchurch
Talkative Fellow
Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church
Mason, TN
- - - - - - -
My Library!

Tyler, does your church have a website?

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov