Why does Limited Atonement Matter?

[Semper Fidelis]

2. Faith is a work/duty

No. Faith is an evangelical grace:

"I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened."

The WCF says that “it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly” (WCF 15.5). Such repentance is repentance unto life as is the title of chapter 15. Faith and repentance are called both a “requirement” (WCF 7.3) for salvation and a “condition” (WLC 32) of salvation. In the Westminster description of the law, both “condition” (WCF 7.2) and “require” (WLC 99) are similarly used, thus shedding light to Charles Hodge’s words which state that the response to the call of the gospel “of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates… [and] is in this respect analogous to the moral law.” This is not neonomian language as has been suggested, but simply Hodge is recognizing the similarities that the Westminster finds and acknowledges that man has this duty, namely to savingly repent.

I don't know if you realize how much you are skipping over to get to 15.5. The very first clause of WCF 15 states:

I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace...

15.6 states that every man is bound to repent but this is clearly connected to those who have received this evangelical grace and cannot be generalized to all men as you have erroneously inferred.

What you call duty/work the Confessions call evangelical graces. You have not established some major premises in your ignoring of the Standards on this point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Notice what Dordt says about Faith:

Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).

Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

Article 6: God's Eternal Decision

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

You are conflating belief/unbelief with faith. Man is commanded to believe. He is not commanded to exercise faith. Faith is seen as a gift.

 

[timfost]

Believe is a verb, faith is a noun. They have the same root and mean the same thing (see Rom. 4:3,5,9).

Just because faith is an evangelical grace does not mean it is not a work. It is an evangelical grace because it is given to those who cannot produce it, though God requires it of them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Believe is a verb, faith is a noun. They have the same root and mean the same thing (see Rom. 4:3,5,9).

Just because faith is an evangelical grace does not mean it is not a work. It is an evangelical grace because it is given to those who cannot produce it, though God requires it of them.

That is simply not consistent with any Reformed writing. Show me a single Reformed writer or Confession that attribute the work of faith to any but the work of the Holy Spirit.

You have claimed that faith is a duty and work but everywhere that faith is spoken of the work of faith is seen as a gift of God.

You need to do some language study and learn about root fallacies. There is much more to exegesus and theology than understanding the root of a word. The demons believe (same root) but do not have faith that saves (which is the only type we're interested in). It is consistent with the Reformed confessions that all men are callled to believe but saving faith is not something that is ever seen as something that is equivalent to that general call in the Reformed confessions. It is always and evangelical grace and evangelical graces belong to the elect alone. You will have to establish in Reformed writing to the contrary and you have not done so either for faith or for repentance unto life.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Calvin:

8. But before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to make some preliminary observations for the purpose of removing difficulties which might otherwise obstruct the reader. And first, I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen as to formed and unformed faith.285 For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation; as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith. Still, however, though the whole Scripture is against them, they dogmatically give the name of faith to a persuasion devoid of the fear of God. It is unnecessary to go farther in refuting their definition, than simply to state the nature of faith as declared in the word of God. From this it will clearly appear how unskillfully and absurdly they babble, rather than discourse, on this subject. I have already done this in part, and will afterwards add the remainder in its proper place. At present, I say that nothing can be imagined more absurd than their fiction. They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit, by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption. Hence it is childish trifling in them to inquire whether the faith formed by the supervening quality of love be the same, or a different and new faith. By talking in this style, they show plainly that they have never thought of the special gift of the Spirit; since one of the first elements of faith is reconciliation implied in man’s drawing near to God. Did they duly ponder the saying of Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” (Rom. 10:10), they would cease to dream of that frigid quality. There is one consideration which ought at once to put an end to the debate, viz., that assent itself (as I have already observed, and will afterwards more fully illustrate) is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect. For this reason, it is termed “the obedience of faith,” (Rom. 1:5), which the Lord prefers to all other service, and justly, since nothing is more precious to him than his truth, which, as John Baptist declares, is in a manner signed and sealed by believers (John 3:33). As there can be no doubt on the matter, we in one word conclude, that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hodge:

The question, What is Faith? is a very comprehensive one. In one view it is a, metaphysical question. What is the psychological nature of the act or state of the mind which we designate faith, or belief? In this aspect the discussion concerns the philosopher as much as the theologian. Secondly, faith may be viewed as to its exercise in the whole sphere of religion and morality. Thirdly, it may be considered as a Christian grace, the fruit of the Spirit; that is, those exercises of faith which are peculiar to the regenerated people of God. This is what is meant by saving faith. Fourthly, it may be viewed in its relation to justification, sanctification, and holy living, or, as to those special exercises of faith which are required as the necessary conditions of the sinner’s acceptance with God, or as essential to holiness of heart and life.

Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic theology (Vol. 3, pp. 41–42). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hodge again:

§ 3. Different Kinds of Faith

Though the definition above given be accepted, it is to be admitted that there are different kinds of faith. In other words, the state of mind which the word designates is very different in one case from what it is in others. This difference arises partly from the nature of its objects, and partly from the nature or form of the testimony on which it is founded. Faith in a historical fact or speculative truth is one thing; faith in aesthetic truth another thing; faith in moral truth another thing; faith in spiritual truth, and especially faith in the promise of salvation made to ourselves another thing. That is, the state of mind denominated faith is very different in any one of these cases from what it is in the others. Again, the testimony which God bears to the truth is of different kinds. In one form it is directed especially to the understanding; in another to the conscience; in another to our regenerated nature. This is the cause of the difference between speculative, temporary, and saving faith.

Speculative or Dead Faith

There are many men who believe the Bible to be the Word of God; who receive all that it teaches; and who are perfectly orthodox in their doctrinal belief. If asked why they believe, they may be at a loss for an answer. Reflection might enable them to say they believe because others believe. They receive their faith by inheritance. They were taught from their earliest years thus to believe. The Church to which they belong inculcates this faith, and it is enjoined upon them as true and necessary. Others of greater culture may say that the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, both external and internal, satisfies their minds, and produces a rational conviction that the Scriptures are a revelation from God, and they receive its contents on his authority. Such a faith as this, experience teaches, is perfectly compatible with a worldly or wicked life. This is what the Bible calls a dead faith.

Temporary Faith

Again, nothing is more common than for the Gospel to produce a temporary impression, more or less deep and lasting. Those thus impressed believe. But, having no root in themselves, sooner or later they fall away. It is also a common experience that men utterly indifferent or even skeptical, in times of danger, or on the near approach of death, are deeply convinced of the certainty of those religious truths previously known, but hitherto disregarded or rejected. This temporary faith is due to common grace; that is, to those influences of the Spirit common in a measure greater or less to all men, which operate on the soul without renewing it, and which reveal the truth to the conscience and cause it to produce conviction.

Saving Faith

That faith which secures eternal life; which unites us to Christ as living members of his body; which makes us the sons of God; which interests us in all the benefits of redemption; which works by love, and is fruitful in good works; is founded, not on the external or the moral evidence of the truth, but on the testimony of the Spirit with and by the truth to the renewed soul.

What is meant by the Testimony of the Spirit

It is necessary, before going further, to determine what is meant by the testimony of the Spirit, which is said to be the ground of saving faith.
God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain. This testimony, as has been seen, is partly external, consisting in prophecies and miracles, partly in the nature of the truths themselves as related to the intellectual and moral elements of the soul, and partly special and supernatural. Unrenewed men may feel the power of the two former kinds of testimony, and believe with a faith either merely intellectual and speculative, or with what may be called from its ground, a moral faith, which is only temporary. The spiritual form of testimony is confined to the regenerated. It is, of course, inscrutable. The operations of the Spirit do not reveal themselves in the consciousness otherwise than by their effects. We know that men are born of the Spirit, that the Spirit dwells in the people of God and continually influences their thoughts, feelings, and actions. But we know this only from the teaching of the Bible, not because we are conscious of his operations. “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.)
This witness of the Spirit is not an affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God. Neither is it the production of a blind, unintelligent conviction of that fact. It is not, as is the case with human testimony, addressed from without to the mind, but it is within the mind itself. It is an influence designed to produce faith. It is called a witness or testimony because it is so called in Scripture; and because it has the essential nature of testimony, inasmuch as it is the pledge of the authority of God in support of the truth.

The effects of this inward testimony are, (1.) What the Scriptures call “spiritual discernment.” This means two things: A discernment due to the influence of the Spirit; and a discernment not only of the truth, but also of the holiness, excellence, and glory of the things discerned. The word spiritual, in this sense, means conformed to the nature of the Spirit. Hence the law is said to be spiritual, i.e., holy, just, and good. (2.) A second effect flowing necessarily from the one just mentioned is delight and complacency, or love. (3.) The apprehension of the suitableness of the truths revealed, to our nature and necessities. (4.) The firm conviction that these things are not only true, but divine. (5.) The fruits of this conviction, i.e., of the faith thus produced, good works,—holiness of heart and life.

When, therefore, a Christian is asked, Why he believes the Scriptures and the doctrines therein contained, his simple answer is, On the testimony or authority of God. How else could he know that the worlds were created by God, that our race apostatized from God, that He sent his Son for our redemption, that faith in Him will secure salvation. Faith in such truths can have no other foundation than the testimony of God. If asked, How God testifies to the truth of the Bible? If an educated man whose attention has been called to the subject, he will answer, In every conceivable way: by signs, wonders, and miracles; by the exhibition which the Bible makes of divine knowledge, excellence, authority, and power, If an uneducated man, he may simply say, “Whereas I was blind, now I see.” Such a man, and indeed every true Christian, passes from a state of unbelief to one of saving faith, not by any process of research or argument, but of inward experience. The change may, and often does, take place in a moment. The faith of a Christian in the Bible is, as before remarked, analogous to that which all men have in the moral law, which they recognize not only as truth, but as having the authority of God. What the natural man perceives with regard to the moral law the renewed man is enabled to perceive in regard to “the things of the Spirit,” by the testimony of that Spirit with and by the truth to his heart.

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture

1. That this is the Scriptural doctrine on the subject is plain from the express declarations of the Scriptures. Our Lord promised to send the Spirit for this very purpose. “He will reprove the world of sin,” especially of the sin of not believing in Christ; “and of righteousness,” that is, of his righteousness,—the rightfulness of his claims to be regarded and received as the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world; “and of judgment,” that is, of the final overthrow of the kingdom of darkness and triumph of the kingdom of light. (John 16:8.) Faith, therefore, is always represented in Scripture as one of the fruits of the Spirit, as the gift of God, as the product of his energy (πίστις τη̂ς ἐνεργείας του̂ Θεου̂) (Colossians 2:12). Men are said to believe in virtue of the same power which wrought in Christ, when God raised Him from the dead. (Eph 1:19, 20.) The Apostle Paul elaborately sets forth the ground of faith in the second chapter of First Corinthians. He declares that he relied for success not on the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but on the demonstration of the Spirit, in order that the faith of the people might rest not on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Faith was not to rest on argument, on historical or philosophical proof, but on the testimony of the Spirit. The Spirit demonstrates the truth to the mind, i.e., produces the conviction that it is truth, and leads the soul to embrace it with assurance and delight. Passages have already been quoted which teach that faith rests on the testimony of God, and that unbelief consists in rejecting that testimony. The testimony of God is given through the Spirit, whose office it is to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us. The Apostle John tells his readers, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things … The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” (1 John 2:20, 27.) This passage teaches, (1.) That true believers receive from Christ (the Holy One) an unction. (2.) That this unction is the Holy Ghost. (3.) That it secures the knowledge and conviction of the truth. (4.) That this inward teaching which makes them believers is abiding, and secures them from apostasy.


1 Corinthians 2:14.

Equally explicit is the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” The things of the Spirit, are the things which the Spirit has revealed. Concerning these things, it is taught: (1.) that the natural or unrenewed man does not receive them. (2.) That the spiritual man, i.e., the man in whom the Spirit dwells, does receive them. (3.) That the reason of this difference is that the former has not, and that the latter has, spiritual discernment. (4.) This spiritual discernment is the apprehension of the truth and excellence of the things discerned. (5.) It is spiritual, as just stated, both because due to the operation of the Spirit, and because the conformity of the truths discerned to the nature of the Spirit, is apprehended.

When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God, our Lord said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17.) Other men had the same external evidence of the divinity of Christ that Peter had. His faith was due not to that evidence alone, but to the inward testimony of God. Our Lord rendered thanks that God had hidden the mysteries of his kingdom from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. (Matt. 11:25.) The external revelation was made to both classes. Besides this external revelation, those called babes received an inward testimony which made them believers. Hence our Lord said, No man can come unto me except he be drawn or taught of God. (John 6:44, 45.) The Apostle tells us that the same Gospel, the same objective truths, with the same external and rational evidence, which was an offence to the Jew and foolishness to the Greek, was to the called the wisdom and the power of God. Why this difference? Not the superior knowledge or greater excellence of the called, but the inward divine influence, the κλη̂σις, of which they were the subjects. Paul’s instantaneous conversion is not to be referred to any rational process of argument; nor to his moral susceptibility to the truth; nor to the visible manifestation of Christ, for no miracle, no outward light or splendour could change the heart and transform the whole character in a moment. It was, as the Apostle himself tells us (Gal. 1:15, 16), the inward revelation of Christ to him by the special grace of God. It was the testimony of the Spirit, which being inward and supernatural, enabled him to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The Psalmist prayed that God would open his eyes that he might see wondrous things out of his law. The Apostle prayed for the Ephesians that God would give them the Holy Spirit, that the eyes of their souls might be opened, that they might know the things freely given to them of God. (Eph. 1:17, 18.) Everywhere in the Bible the fact that any one believes is referred not to his subjective state, but to the work of the Spirit on his heart.

Proof from the Way the Apostles acted

2. As the Scriptures thus expressly teach that the ground of true or saving faith is the inward witness of the Spirit, the Apostles always acted on that principle. They announced the truth, and demanded its instant reception, under the pain of eternal death. Our Lord did the same. “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18.) Immediate faith was demanded. Being demanded by Christ, and at his command by the Apostles, that demand must be just and reasonable. It could, however, be neither unless the evidence of the truth attended it. That evidence could not be the external proofs of the divinity of Christ and his Gospel, for those proofs were present to the minds of comparatively few of the hearers of the Gospel; nor could it be rational proof or philosophical arguments, for still fewer could appreciate such evidence, and if they could it would avail nothing to the production of saving faith. The evidence of truth, to which assent is demanded by God the moment it is announced, must be in the truth itself. And if this assent be obligatory, and dissent or unbelief a sin, then the evidence must be of a nature, to which a corrupt state of the soul renders a man insensible. “If our gospel be hid,” says the Apostle, “it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them … [But] God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:3–6.) It is here taught, (1.) That wherever and whenever Christ is preached, the evidence of his divinity is presented. The glory of God shines in his face. (2.) That if any man fails to see it, it is because the God of this world hath blinded his eyes. (3.) That if any do perceive it and believe, it is because of an inward illumination produced by Him who first commanded the light to shine out of darkness.

Proof from the Practice in the Church

3. As Christ and the Apostles acted on this principle, so have all faithful ministers and missionaries from that day to this They do not expect to convince and convert men by historical evidence or by philosophical arguments. They depend on the demonstration of the Spirit.

Proof from Analogy

4. This doctrine, that the true and immediate ground of faith in the things of the Spirit is the testimony of the Spirit, producing spiritual discernment, is sustained by analogy. If a man cannot see the splendour of the sun, it is because he is blind. If he cannot perceive the beauties of nature and of art, it is because he has no taste. If he cannot apprehend “the concord of sweet sounds,” it is because he has not a musical ear. If he cannot see the beauty of virtue, or the divine authority of the moral law, it is because his moral sense is blunted. If he cannot see the glory of God in his works and in his Word, it is because his religious nature is perverted. And in like manner, if he cannot see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, it is because the god of this world has blinded his eyes.

No one excuses the man who can see no excellence in virtue, and who repudiates the authority of the moral law. The Bible and the instinctive judgment of men, condemn the atheist. In like manner the Scriptures pronounce accursed all who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. This is the denial of supreme excellence; the rejection of the clearest manifestation of God ever made to man. The solemn judgment of God is, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha.” (1 Cor. 16:22.) In this judgment the whole intelligent universe will ultimately acquiesce.

Faith in the Scriptures, therefore, is founded on the testimony of God. By testimony, as before stated, is meant attestation, anything which pledges the authority of the attester in support of the truth to be established. As this testimony is of different kinds, so the faith which it produces, is also different. So far as the testimony is merely external, the faith it produces is simply historical or speculative. So far as the testimony is moral, consisting in the power which the Spirit gives to the truth over the natural conscience, the faith is temporary, depending on the state of mind which is its proximate cause. Besides these, there is the inward testimony of the Spirit, which is of such a nature and of such power as to produce a perfect revolution in the soul, compared in Scripture to that effected by opening the eyes of the blind to the reality, the wonders, and glories of creation. There is, therefore, all the difference between a faith resting on this inward testimony of the Spirit, and mere speculative faith, that there is between the conviction a blind man has of the beauties of nature, before and after the opening of his eyes. As this testimony is informing, enabling the soul to see the truth and excellence of the “things of the Spirit,” so far as the consciousness of the believer is concerned, his faith is a form of knowledge He sees to be true, what the Spirit reveals and authenticates.


Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic theology (Vol. 3, pp. 67–74). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[MW]

Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity (1838 ed.), p. 323:

The moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength, as Pharaoh required brick, but gave no straw; but the gospel bestows faith on the elect; the gospel sweetens the law, it makes us serve God with delight.

 

[MW]

Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity (1838 ed.), p. 357:

God gives strength to do what he requires. The law called for obedience; but though it required brick, it gave no straw; but in the gospel, God, with his commands, gives power, Ezek. xviii. 31, "Make you a new heart." Alas! it is above our strength; we may as well make a new world, Ezek. xxxvi. 26, "I will give you a new heart." God commands to cleanse ourselves, Isa. i. 16, "Wash you, make you clean." "But who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job xiv. 4. Therefore the precept is turned into a promise, Ezek. xxxvi. 25, "From all your filthiness will I cleanse you." When the child cannot go, the nurse takes it by the hand, Hos. xi. 3, "I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms."

 

[MW]

Herman Witsius, The economy of the covenants, volume 1, pp. 367-368:

XII. Besides, when God proposes the form of the covenant of grace, his words, to this purpose, are mere promises, as we have lately seen from Jer. xxxi. and xxxii. Our divines therefore, who, in consequence of the quirks of the Socinians and Remonstrants, have learned to speak with the greatest caution, justly maintain that the gospel, strictly taken, consists of pure promise of grace and glory.

XIII. And indeed, if we are to take the promises of the covenant of grace altogether without exception, we could not, so much as in thought, devise any thing in us, as the condition of these promises. For whatever can be conceived as a condition, is all included in the universality of the promises. Should God only promise eternal life, there might be some pretence for saying, that repentance, faith, and the like, were the conditions of this covenant. But seeing God does, in the same breath, as it were ratify both the beginning, progress, uninterrupted continuance, and, in a word, the consummation of the new life; nothing remains in this universality of the promises, which can be looked upon as a condition of the whole covenant.

 

[MW]

Herman Witsius, The economy of the covenants, volume 1, pp. 370:

The covenant of grace, or the gospel, strictly so called, which is the model of that covenant, since it consists in mere promises, prescribes nothing properly as duty, requires nothing, commands nothing; not even this, Believe, trust, hope in the Lord, and the like. But it declares, sets forth, and signifies to us, what God promises in Christ, what he would have done, and what he is about to do. All prescription of duty belongs to the law, as, after others, the venerable Voetius has very well inculcated. And we are by all means, to maintain this, if, with the whole body of the reformed, we would constantly defend the perfection of the law, which comprehends all virtues, and all the duties of holiness.

 

[MW]

Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:300:

For if this be so, then inevitably we must first obey Christ as a king, by repenting and believing, in order to our being justified by him as a priest; besides many other dangerous consequences which are unavoidable upon this new law-scheme. All which are avoided, by teaching, with the strain of orthodox divines, that there are no precepts in the gospel strictly taken; and that Christ in the gospel gives no new laws, but enforces the old law, namely, the moral, which being adapted to the gospel-dispensation, obliges us to believe in Christ upon his being revealed to us in the gospel, and consequently to repent also in an evangelical manner. For that these duties of faith and repentance, as to their essence, are required in the very first commandment of the moral law, is indisputably evident; and I do think it strange, to find it controverted by any who embrace and own the doctrine of the church of Scotland, particularly the Larger Catechism, where that point is plainly determined, in the explication of the foresaid first commandment.

 

[MW]

Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:527-528:

You would know, that the gospel, strictly taken, is a word of promise. The first gospel that ever was preached to our first parents, when a dismal cloud of wrath was hanging over their heads in Paradise after the fall, was in a promise, Gen. iii. 15: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent." The gospel preached to Abraham, what was it but a promise of Christ? "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," Gal. iii. 8. And I think it observable, that the same thing which the apostle calls the gospel, ver. 8, he calls the promise, and the covenant, ver. 17—19. So that the gospel, strictly taken, is a word of promise: so Heb. iv. 1, 2, compared, -- what the apostle calls "a promise of entering into God's rest" in the 1st verse, he calls the gospel in the 2nd verse. And a God of love and grace dispenses his grace in a promise, for our encouragement to take hold of it in a way of believing; for there is nothing in which the faithfulness of God is so much engaged as in a promise, the very design of which is to be believed.

 

[MW]

Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:383:

The unbeliever is already condemned in the gospel-court. Now, do not mistake this way of speaking, as if, when I speak of the gospel-court, I meant, that the gospel, strictly considered, condemned any man: the gospel, like its glorious Author, "comes not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through" it, "might be saved." Neither do I mean, as if there were new precepts and penalties in the gospel, considered in a strict sense, which were never found in the book or court of the law. This is an assertion which has laid the foundation for a train of damnable and soul-ruining errors; as of the Antinomian error, in discarding the whole moral law as a rule of obedience under the gospel; the Baxterian error, of an evangelical righteousness different from the imputed righteousness of Christ; the Pelagian and Arminian error, of a sufficient grace given to every man that hears the gospel, to believe and repent by his own power.

 

[MW]

James Fisher, Shorter Catechism explained, question 45:

...in the gospel, strictly and properly-taken, as it is contra-distinct from the law, there can be no precept; because the gospel in this strict sense, is nothing else than a promise, or glad tidings of a Saviour, with grace, mercy, and salvation in him, for lost sinners of Adam's family: according to the following scriptures, Gen. iii. 15; Isa. lxi. 1, 2, 3; Luke ii. 10, 11.

 

[MW]

Ralph Erskine, Sermons 1:213:

Hence we may see, if Christ be given for a covenant of the people, that the gospel strictly and properly taken, is a bundle of good news, glad tidings, and gracious promises; our text is a sum of the gospel, and it is a free promise, "I will give thee for a covenant of the people:" there is no precept nor commandment here. The law is properly a word of precept, but not the gospel: the law commands all, and the gospel promises all. It were a disparagement to the divine law, if it were not perfect and exceeding broad, if there were any duty we are called unto not enjoined therein.

 

[timfost]

Rev. Matthew,

Thank you for the quotes. They seem very relevant to the conversation. I've downloaded the Witsius as that has been on my mental "to read" list since the early summer.

Rich,

I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the reason for your quotes. I thoroughly agree with all of them, and am little bit confused what you were trying to argue. I have never denied that faith is a gift, so it seems you are arguing something that we both agree on.

Honestly, I think you have made an erroneous distinction between faith and belief, if I understand you correctly.

Rom. 3:4 "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

9 "For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness."

This allows Paul to use them interchangeably in 5:

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

In English, we simply have different words for πίστις (pístis) when it is a noun and when it is a verb. I am fairly confident that you have erred in this distinction. Have you found support for distinguishing from any reformed writings? You might want to look into that...

I really do appreciate you engaging me on this subject and for your time.

Blessings

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tim,

The point I'm making is that there is faith and there is saving faith. There is belief that natural man is capable of and there is belief that is the gift of God. Hodge's quotes demonstrate the different kinds of faith that exist and demonstrates that saving faith is a gift. Thus we can say that all men are commanded to believe the Gospel but saving faith is an evangelical grace. There's no way to jump from the command to believe (which natural man is condemned for unbelief) to making saving faith a duty/work. It is not, it is something created. It is something that (as quoted) is created in the hearts of men by the Spirit through the proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[timfost]

I'm not trying to be a pain, but when Christ calls people to repent and believe (Mark 1:15), is it not unto salvation? Paul says: "For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake..." (Phil. 1:29) Obviously that belief granted is an evangelical grace, but does this mean that it is also not the the duty of all men, or put differently what all men ought to do since it is commanded? I'm not trying to say that any man can exercise saving faith by himself, but all men are commanded to exercise saving faith. The marvel of the grace of God is that He would provide us with that which we cannot produce so that we (the elect) meet the condition held forth in the gospel.

I'm also confused... what is the difference between faith and saving faith? Are you saying that just faith is historical faith or temporary faith? Faith in Christ is always saving faith as I understand it. Or is the faith that's commanded in scripture non-salvific?

 

[MW]

Tim, I think Witsius will be beneficial. His work on the Covenants provides a more systematic treatment. His Irenical Animadversions makes the same points but specifically addresses the dispute between Antinomianism and Neonomianism.

 

[timfost]

Tim, I think Witsius will be beneficial. His work on the Covenants provides a more systematic treatment. His Irenical Animadversions makes the same points but specifically addresses the dispute between Antinomianism and Neonomianism.

Thanks again for providing! I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[timfost]

Rich,

Here is a quote from A W Pink from his writing on duty-faith:

It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith. They reason that it is "inconsistent" to call upon the spiritually dead to perform spiritual duties.

 

[JimmyH]

Forgive me for jumping in the middle. I'm not trying to prove a point, merely seeking a clarification. When Paul says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14) Doesn't that preclude 'all' mankind being capable of belief without the intercession of the Spirit ?

The quote in Philippians 1:29, isn't Paul speaking to believer exclusively there ? Martyn Lloyd-Jones frequently pointed out that it wasn't fair to expect an unregenerate man to live as a Christian is asked to live.

 

[timfost]

Forgive me for jumping in the middle. I'm not trying to prove a point, merely seeking a clarification. When Paul says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14) Doesn't that preclude 'all' mankind being capable of belief without the intercession of the Spirit ?

Yes

The quote in Philippians 1:29, isn't Paul speaking to believer exclusively there ?

Yes

Martyn Lloyd-Jones frequently pointed out that it wasn't fair to expect an unregenerate man to live as a Christian is asked to live.

I haven't read Jones on this, but there is no expectation that the unregenerate man can, though he is required to. (Rom. 9:19-21)

 

[timfost]

Here is another helpful quote from Andrew Fuller's The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation; or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ p. 59:

But unbelief cannot be a sin, if faith were not a duty. I know of no answer to this argument, but what must be drawn from a distinction between believing the report of the Gospel, and saving faith ; allowing the want of the one to be sinful, but not of the other.

 

[MW]

Here is a quote from A W Pink from his writing on duty-faith:

I just went back through the list of Puritans which Arthur Pink quoted in that article. The mention of Thomas Goodwin reminded me of an excellent treatment of this subject in his work on Justifying Faith, which might be of help, and shows that the object of faith is an absolute promise made indefinitely to all, not a conditional promise made universally to all. It is as follows:

Now that which I would establish is this, that indefinite promises may be, and are sufficient ground to draw the heart in to believe. By indefinite promises I understand such as are not made universally to all men, as some would have the promises run, as that God hath loved all, and Christ died for all; nor such as particularly design out the persons that shall be saved, or are intended (as conditional promises do, and the promise first made to Abraham personally did design out himself as intended); but they are called indefinite, because they mention that only some of the sons of men are intended by God, not all, and that without mentioning particularly or personally who those persons are; so as they are not indefinite as leaving the thing promised uncertain, for salvation is absolutely pronounced unto some of the sons of men, but only because they design not the persons who are certainly intended. Such are those promises, 'Christ came into the world to save sinners,' 'God was in Christ reconciling the world,' which is made the matter of the gospel's ministry; and though the promulgation of this be made to all men, 'Preach the gospel to every creature,' yet this is not the gospel to be preached, that God hath promised to save every creature, though, upon this promulgation of them, it becomes the duty of every one to come to Christ, and a command is laid on men to do it. Now a soul that is newly humbled looks out for a promise upon which he may come to Christ. He cannot rest on promises conditional, for he sees no qualifications of faith or any grace in himself. It is true, says that soul, 'he that believeth shall be saved,' but I am now to begin to believe, and have not faith yet; and what ground will you give me of believing? For this there is no answer, but to lay such promises before him: 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,' 'Christ came into the world to save sinners,' etc. But how, will the soul say, should I know I am one? That, I say, all the world cannot yet assure thee of; no promise is so general as certainly to include thee, none so certain as to design thee. How then? says the soul. Say I, they are all indefinite, and exclude thee not; they leave thee with an it may be, thou mayest be the man; and it is certain some shall be saved, and there is nothing in thee shuts thee out, for God hath and will save such as thou art, and he may intend thee.

 

[MW]

Another one of Pink's sources is Stephen Charnock, who shows that the duty to believe is founded on the law:

The law of nature teaches us that we are bound to believe every revelation from God, when it is made known to us; and not only to assent to it as true, but embrace it as good. This nature dictates that we are as much obliged to believe God, because of his truth, as to love him because of his goodness. Every man's reason tells him he cannot obey a precept, nor depend upon a promise, unless he believes both the one and the other; no man's conscience but will inform him, upon hearing the revelation of God, concerning his excellent contrivance of redemption, and the way to enjoy it, that it is very reasonable he should strip off all affections to sin, lie down in sorrow, and bewail what he hath done amiss against so tender a God.

 

[timfost]

Thanks for the quote. I'm starting to wonder if we're all working off of the same definition of the gospel. I'll look into it.

Just an interesting note: I believe that Goodwin used the expression "atonement by faith." I think that's a helpful way to understand atonement, since it is not until faith that we are covered in the righteousness of Christ. Thoughts?

 

[MW]

Pink also quoted William Perkins:

With the promises there is joined an exhortation or command to believe, which is more general than the promise; because the promise is only made to believers; but the commandment is given to believers and unbelievers also. For the elect are mingled with the wicked in the same assemblies, and therefore the ministers of the Gospel ought indiscriminately to exhort all and every one to repent.

 

[timfost]

Pink also quoted William Perkins:

With the promises there is joined an exhortation or command to believe, which is more general than the promise; because the promise is only made to believers; but the commandment is given to believers and unbelievers also. For the elect are mingled with the wicked in the same assemblies, and therefore the ministers of the Gospel ought indiscriminately to exhort all and every one to repent.

I'll look into this one. This might help clarify some of our differences.