Featured Lapsarianism

I do not believe in Duty Faith.

 

from: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/kazee.thoughts.n.election.html

Election is not "Hard-shellism." The belief commonly referred to as "Hard-shellism" says that God elects and saves without the gospel. Therefore, consistently, those who hold to this belief do not propagate missions or evangelism.

But election takes in the means (gospel) by which the elect are called (II Thessalonians 2:13-14). This passage includes the whole scope of God's purpose in election:
(1) chosen.
(2) Chosen from the beginning.
(3) Chosen to salvation.
(4) To be sanctified (separated or made fit for the Master's use) by means of the Spirit and belief in the Word of God (the gospel).
(5) It is to be realized by faith - "belief in the truth," through the enabling power of the Spirit.
(6) The elect are called "by our gospel." (See also Romans 10:8-21.)



Here are some questions to make us think through this problem:

1. Is the sinner free, as far as God is concerned, to choose for himself?
The answer is "yes."

2. If the sinner is finally lost, is it his own fault or God's?
The answer is, it is his own fault.

3. Is the sinner a free moral agent?
Yes, if by moral we mean decisions on issues among men. Man's relationship to man is moral, and he can, in a limited way at least, make decisions in that realm.

4. Is the sinner a free spiritual agent?
That is, can he make decisions that concern his relationship to God?
Not in himself.
His will is bound by a nature that is opposed to God, and he cannot will to do God's will.



The Sinner's Depravity The depravity of the sinner consists in thus being bound by a nature that hates God and His rule.

The natural man is devoid of all spiritual goodness, though he does possess some moral goodness.

Morality consists in obedience to a standard set up by men.

Spirituality has to do with a standard set up by God, and in this realm the sinner is incompetent. Spiritual goodness is foreign to man's nature. The depravity of the sinner is set forth in such passages as Romans 8:7, Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 1:18-32.

(1) He is by nature a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

(2) When he had light and knowledge from God, - such as in the beginning of his family life on earth, at the flood and afterward, and at many other incidents of miraculous manifestation of and communication with God, - he rejected that light, dishonored God by making Him after the likeness of men, birds, beasts, and reptiles (Romans 1:19-32). Thus, in every case, man proved his hatred of God and became "god-less," turning to other gods of his own and becoming idolatrous.
(3) God gave him over to a reprobate mind, shut him up to his own way and cut him off from any manifestation of God or communication with Him.

(4) Man in every case buried himself in trespasses and in sins. Not only is he a child of wrath by nature, but, having light from God in miraculous manifestation and communication at various times in history, thus becoming accountable for his sins and knowing better (as nearly all men will readily admit if you ask them), he practiced rebellion against the light and knowledge of God which he had (and which he now has).

Man knows he should obey and honor God, but in every case he refuses to do it. His universal decision is against God's will. To every appeal from Heaven he replies: "We will not have this man to reign over us."

Sometimes men argue for "free will" as if the doctrine of election were robbing man of his opportunity to accept Christ and be saved, while ignoring the fact that the thousands who do have the opportunity willfully reject it.

Thus, there is no question about man's freedom to decide, as far as God is concerned, and there is no question about what his decision will be.

According to his sinful nature he will exercise his will against God's invitation.

He is free to decide like a man is free to fall from the top of a house: he will never decide to fall upward.

It is not God that has taken away man's power to decide in God's favor; it is the sinful nature with which he is born.

His will is bound to one decision.

Thus, if there were nothing more than the freedom of man's will to bring him to salvation, NOT A SOUL IN THE WORLD WOULD BE SAVED!

As Isaiah says, "We have turned every one to his own way," and that is man's decision.

The only way by which he can be saved, then, is for God to get him to change his mind.

This is repentence.

Except men repent, they shall all perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

We all by nature and by the exercise of our wills belong to the class of "whosoever won'ts."

God's work through the Word and the Spirit is to draw (not drive) us to Christ. If He did not do this, nobody would be saved.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; he goeth astray as soon as he is born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:8).

"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life" (John 5:40. See also John 8:36-47).

"No man can come unto me except the Father which sent me draw him" (John 6:24).

So man is born of the spiritual nature of his spiritual father, the devil (John 8:34), and, because he is by nature of a Satanic mind, (though just as Satan knows better so does he), he will not turn to God.

He is at enmity with God just as Satan is, therefore, God must come to him with a power stronger than that of Satan to break the bondage and deliver the sinner.

Unless God does this, the sinner does not want to turn to God.

Thus, if God does not give this "holy disposition" to the rebel mind, nobody would be saved.

This He does out of free grace, without the sinner's merit, through the preaching of the Word and the power of the Spirit.

So far as we can see now, only these will be saved."

 

Right.

There are two views, which don't help to clarify exactly what "Duty Faith" is.

...

First view: "Duty Faith" is O.K.

Pink came out against those who oppose what they are saying "Duty Faith" is.

Pink was saying that he doesn't find the big dead with what they are saying "Duty Faith" is.

"Duty Faith" by A.W. Pink

“But you will say, if unregenerate men be dead men, to what purpose is it to persuade them to arise and stand up? This difficulty is solved in this very text (Eph. 5:14): though the duty is ours, yet the power is God’s” (J. Flavell—1680—Vol. 2, p. 423).

“It is the known duty of a sinner under the Gospel to turn to God through Christ; and it is also declared in the same Gospel that none can of themselves turn to God and believe in His Son without the help of special efficacious grace; it must hereupon be a man’s duty also to pray for that grace which may enable him thereto” (J. Howe—1690—Vol. 2, p. 346).

“This (Gospel) call contains the command of faith by which all men without exception, to whom God vouchsafes the same, are enjoined to believe in Christ, in that way and manner which is revealed in the Gospel: ‘look unto Me and be ye saved all the ends of the earth’: Isaiah 45:22” (H. Witsius—1690—Vol. 3, p. 353).

“Neither will this assertion make it a vain thing to preach the Gospel to natural people, and to exhort them to true repentance and faith in Christ for their conversion and salvation” (W. Marshall—1692—The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, so highly commended by James Hervey, p. 121).

“And even not coming to Christ, and believing in Him in this spiritual manner, when He is revealed in the external ministry of the Word, as God’s way of salvation, is criminal and blameworthy, notwithstanding men’s want of both will and power” (John Gill—1735—The Cause of God and Truth, p. 87).

...

Second view: "Duty Faith" is NOT O.K.

I believe it was kyredneck who posted this article that is DEAD Against "Duty Faith" the way they define it.

The Association of Historic Baptists » Duty-Faith is Denied by All Strict/Particular Baptists

“Duty-Faith is Denied by All Strict and Particular Baptists”, the following statement is found:

“Duty-faith is the doctrine that it is the duty of natural men to exercise spiritual Faith in the Lord Jesus, and so to obtain salvation. Its emphatic denial is a distinguishing feature of the Strict and Particular section of the Baptist denomination."

 

I agree with the above. And strongly disagree with two other groups on this site. One group believes that their own soul, untouched by the Holy Spirit, is sufficiently able when given the information about the gospel, to choose to repent and come to Christ and be saved.

The other group believes so strongly that salvation is monergistic that they take that to mean that a man never "decides" to believe or never chooses to come to Christ or never realizes his undone condition and then desires Christ but that he just somehow ends up born again.

I believe that man's depravity and inability is real and it is moral in nature and is properly illustrated by the statements above. The essential work of the Holy Spirit is done there - the mental processes of being a human are still in operation.

What's this mean in practice? Group 1 is furious if you suggest that faith is a gift or that your rational decision was not the prime cause of you believing. Honestly, if they just said they believed and left it there I would have no problem with that. But they instead cause great animosity by denigrating Calvinism of all types and anyone who won't let them have their sovereign free will.

Group two, if they just said that they found themselves believers and knew it was the result of the Holy Spirit - actually they are right and that is a good description of being born again. But instead, many of them tear into Puritan Calvinists, even high-Calvinists like Owen because he preached in a way that invites and encourages people to come to Christ. What a narrow minded and arrogant way of looking at things. And they themselves have a vague, almost non existent message to others. I mean, what can they really say beyond just wait for it to happen. So you get what appears to be an arrogant nastiness towards everyone else or just an off in the corner relishing of the wonderfulness they feel now that they have declared themselves "elect".

 

Yes. Those whom God chose before the world began, His elect, He will make them willing in the day of His power(Psalms 110:3) by regenerating them and giving them a new heart(Ezekiel 36:26-27) and they will look to Christ alone as the Lord their Righteousness.

And, yes, the reprobates will never be made willing by God. Romans 9:18-21 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

It is that simple. And that is sufficient. And some Calvinists do convolute it beyond recognition. But many of the best and sharpest like Jonathan Edwards don't so don't paint with such a broad clumsy brush. That is a falsehood and a slander unless it's done in ignorance.

 

There is an Outward Call. Man answers. And he always answers, "no". The Outward Call is always Ineffectual, without exception.

There is an Inward Call. Man answers. And Man always answers, "yes". The Inward Call of God is always Effectual, without exception.

Those Worship the One and Only, True and Living God of the Bible.

 

A Calvinist never answers no. Re-examine TULIP.

 

You have all the answers don’t you…

 

John 10:25 "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,
...

26b; "as I said unto you.

27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
...

29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 "I and my Father are one."

 

You believe that the statements of the two extreme positions (that are each in error), are, themselves, properly demonstrating man's inability and Total Depravity....?

Man, Dave, you really may have all the answers!!

 

Dave never answered my question… do you believe that Jesus was an idealist?

 

You didn't ask me, but this is as close as I see on it: "



BibleAsk Team

February 22, 2018

Was Jesus an idealist or a realist?
Topic: Philosophical


»
There is a major difference between an idealist and realist. An idealist visualizes what an ideal world would be like and then takes steps accordingly towards that ideal world, while a realist views the world as it really is, and takes steps to change it. Based on this definition, Jesus the perfect man was a realist.

God created our world perfect (Genesis 1:31). He made perfect humans with the freedom of choice (Joshua 24:15). Unfortunately, mankind chose to believe the devil (Genesis 3:6) and thus allowed him to demonstrate his rule in our world. The result of our sinful choices is the suffering and death we see in our world today (Romans 6:23).

But the Lord, in His infinite mercy, took upon Himself the burden of saving humanity from sin and its penalty. Jesus the innocent died to set us free from the devil and restore God’s perfect image in man. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). The love and justice of God were fully demonstrated and fulfilled at the cross.

An idealist sees God as only loving, and not also just. They see human nature as good. The idealist believes that everyone will be saved eventually. But the Bible teaches that although God is loving (1 John 4:8), He is also just (Psalms 9:7-9). God’s Holy laws are pure (Romans 7:12). A realist, on the other hand, sees man’s sinful state and the need for the Savior to cleanse from sin. God through Jesus’ death made every provision that sinners may be made whole again (Romans 8:1-39). Everyone that comes to Jesus can be transformed by faith and receive victory over sin (2 Corinthians 2:14).

Jesus was both a perfect man and a realist. As a realist, Jesus taught people perfect morals to live in a sinful world. He said, ‘Love your enemies,’ forsake retribution, grant forgiveness, don’t condemn, and display compassion (Luke 6:27-37). And He added, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Jesus taught us to love God with all the heart mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27).

But Jesus knew that we on our own are completely unable to do what He asked us to do (John 15:5). So, the good Lord provided all the grace necessary to make His commands a reality (1 Corinthians 15:57).

 

No, not at all. What I was trying to say was that the quotes of yours I used were good illustrations of mans depravity:

As for the two groups, they are just as saved as anyone, as are the standard Calvinists who both groups hate.

 

OK, good. So, I can't pin that on you! I tried!

One may think they can "decide", or "believe", or have dead, flesh-driven "faith" for Salvation, without Repentance, Regeneration, or God!

While the other will tell you, right now!, that you are lost, if you say you were under conviction and repented and had faith!

I wasn't trying to say we're lost.
I sure hope they aren't.

..

Isn't that hatred for The Doctrines of Grace amazing? Just Amazing.

Something is wrong in Denmark.

 

"Duty faith" meaning what? [Romans 10:17-18? Hebrews 11:6? Romans 1:16?]

 

Nah. It goes both ways and I'd say on this site Calvinists dish it out as much as anyone, especially if you include the Primitive Baptists in that group.

 

taken from Elder Holder - Primitive Baptist

Perhaps the single most distinctive belief that Fuller put forth has been called “duty-faith,” the idea that it is the duty of every individual human being to exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Often advocates of Fuller’s ideas will use the term “saving faith,” a term that John Calvin used in his writings as well.

In our time many folks whose beliefs are far more akin to Arminian views of salvation by either human works or by some synergistic combination of man and God cooperating in their salvation refer to themselves as “Cal-Minian,” a coined term that attempts to depict a theological ground half-way between Calvinism and Arminianism. It may well be that Fuller was one of the first men to attempt to mark out this turf, though he never used “Cal-Minian” to describe his beliefs.

 

Hardshells!