Featured What do you guys think of Author Pinks handling of "Duty Faith"?

I know who Jesus was speaking to, sinners dead in sin, being a sinner isnt confined to a particular ethnicity, Jesus told those sinners, jews they may be, that they cannot hear Gods word, and then He tells them and us, that those who are of God [regardless of race] hears Gods words. Jn 8:43,47

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

BTW these men were children of the devil as well

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

There will wasnt free either !

 

Correct, Jesus did it, but not for all, only for Gods elect, His Sheep, or Church, everyone He did it for will be given the Gift of Faith to believe on Him Phil 1:29

29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

I don’t matter… only Christ matters.

 

This is a real problem and another example in a long list of instances of division and obfuscation by adding doctrines/dividing doctrines by a subset of the Christian mainstream so called. The scriptures are clearly presented to us in easy to understand language without having to add descriptive terms that does nothing but complicate matters in the long run.

I have never heard of this doctrinal distinction called "duty" faith and "duty" repentance until now. So, I have to try to figure out where this strange new extra-biblical terminology came from and what it means and how I should react to it. It gets really tiresome, especially since the scriptures addresses everyone and there is not a certain meaning of faith and repentance for one here, and another meaning for one over there and on and on for different groups. I fully understand the simple meaning of faith and repentance. It is not difficult to understand. The scriptures are written in simple words that 5th graders can grasp.

I can just imagine entering a church on Sunday morning wanting to hear from God only to hear the preacher say, "well, today I am going to preach on this new doctrine I have made up called duty faith and duty repentance."

It is just not for me and I am likely to label that fellow a false teacher.

 

I probably have never stated my beliefs clearly on BB. So here goes. I believe in election by grace I believe in the doctrine of original sin and man’s inability to rescue himself from his fallen state by his own freewill ability. I believe that sinners are called converted, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and all are so regenerated and born again by the spirit of God shall never fall away. I believe sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Hope that clarifies my stance and beliefs succinctly enough.

 

I agree! Imagine it’s around the 1790’s and your in a Particular Baptist church and Andrew Fuller starts teaching that the death of Christ is “sufficient for all mankind; efficient for the elect.” Well says Fuller, that’s my system of salvation … I call it ‘Duty Faith.’ You as the stunned parishioner ask yourself, what’s this guy talking about? … I don’t understand. Of course you don’t, nor does anyone else. Blah blah. Thus it begins, the systematic demolition of existing Monergistic theological beliefs. My sons response would be “shifty” better word used today is “shady” and most young people can see all this and are disgusted by this slight of hand… any wonder why they drop out of Christian churches!?! Thus the continued erosion of Christianity.

 

What text is the man preaching from and how does he claim it becomes efficient for those to whom it is sufficient?

 

JD. What you are observing is a division among Calvinists. All duty faith means is that anyone who hears the gospel message is responsible before God to respond. Every good Baptist believes that but it came a "thing" because:
There is, among Calvinists, a belief that the people that Christ did not die for, the non-elect, have no part in any of this and no duty to repent because they were created as already destined for damnation and there is nothing to be done about it.
Most Calvinists though, like them or not, do believe that men need to repent and believe, and that they are doing a great willful sin if they refuse. Even Calvinists that have a very strong view that belief and repentance are completely a work of the Holy Spirit believe this. Honestly, it surprised me that A.W. Pink did but there it is.

 

Beats me… go ask the followers of Fuller… they will give you a good political answer

 

So how do you respond when your dead in your sins? See this is a shuttle plan to distort the doctrines in order to introduce another one… one that introduces man into the plan of salvation.

 

All he is saying is an attempt to take the idea of a limited atonement and explain it is such a way that does not seem to be the prime cause of knocking many people out of the gospel before they were even born. It allows a theology that respects God's sovereignty in salvation and accepts the need for the work of the Holy Spirit in the whole process of salvation - yet does not make it seem like the prime causal effect of being lost is that Christ didn't die for you - rather it is your own sin, or your refusal to believe.

 

Let me try to make this clear. Some of you guys attacked me in areas like this for being wishy washy and reading too much. What is being said here is what I have been trying to say all along. If you are a moderate Calvinist or even a strong enough Calvinist that you go by the WCF or the London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith you are faced with an unresolvable issue:
Man is truly responsible toward God, and fully accountable for not believing the Gospel and repenting of his sins.
And, man is not about to do this because of his own nature and own will. In that sense he can't.

You can go full hyper-Calvinist with every detail causally determined by God. Or you can go full free will with all responsibility and all ability ascribed to man. Or you are stuck with a "shuttle plan".

This "shuttle plan" was done in practice and in their preaching by Edwards, Bunyan, Watson, Owen, Spurgeon, Fuller, Bonar, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, even MacArthur and Begg. I myself was surprised, and happy, to see support for it by Pink, who I thought was more in the hyper camp.

 

When confronted with God, the mind of a sinner never thinks that God is good. It turns away because it doesn’t want God to be sovereign over it. The way it proceeds is actually the way of alienation and misery, the end of which is death… see humans really think that sin is best. Therefore unless God changes the way you think (which He does by the miracle of the new birth) our minds always tell us to turn from God.

 

earth wind fire

When does this Justification in the sight of God by the imputed righteousness of Christ take place from your understanding ?

 

Oh so it’s out… we are hyper Calvinist now! You are something else you are.

 

Paul wrote, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:9). Men are not saved accidentally or by chance, but according to God's eternal purpose, which God purposed before the world began.

 

No. Read the post. A hyper-Calvinist doesn't have the logical difficulty I outlined. Neither does the full scale free willer. Anyone in between does. I didn't say YOU were a hyper-Calvinist. Don't be so sensitive.

 

Duty faith wrests the work of regeneration from the Holy Spirit. To put it bluntly, within the covenant of grace it is the Holy Spirit’s duty to give faith to those for whom Christ died. It is not every man’s duty to appropriate this task to himself…The Holy Spirit will never honour a doctrine that relieves Him of His role or robs Him of His glory. This reminds me of the Roman Catholics attempt to replace the Spirit with Mary the-mother of Christ. Still more attempts to unseat the Holy Ghost from his appointed tasks… could it be subtleties designed to destroy the Trinity in favor of man made directives?

 

So you are advocating a pseudo Arminian theological position … a Calminian “hodgepodge” stew by throwing into t he pot man’s efforts to include Gods works?

 

Would you put John Gill under the Hyper Calvinist column?