J.I. (Calvinist) Packer's "Knowing God"

It sort of comports with what you said. The difference is in our definitions of "believe". You think believing is only a mental assent to the facts of the gospel. For a Calvinist, like Packer, like me, it is more than that. It is seeing the value and significance of the gospel and trusting in Christ and his work. So belief (at least saving belief) is not the same thing as convincing, but rather belief comes as a result of the Spirit's work of convincing.

We're equivocating on "change of mind" here. If by change of mind, you mean the inner change wrought by the Holy Spirit, then it is the same thing as regeneration. If by change of mind you mean the embracing of the the gospel by someone who had previously rejected it, then it comes as a result of regeneration.

I don't think the definition of heart is where the difference is. The difference is in the definition of belief, and theconfusion that comes from the careless use of "change of mind" in two different senses.

 

Gill's buddy Crisp sure did, but with Gill, the jury is out for me. Here is an excerpt from the Body of Doctrinal Divinity, book 4:

V. Fifthly, I shall close this chapter with a brief answer to some queries
relating to faith, repentance, and good works; as, to what they belong,
whether to law or gospel.
1. Whether faith is a duty of the moral law, or is to be referred to the
gospel? to which it may be answered, that as the law is not of faith, so faith
is not of the law. There is a faith indeed which the law requires and obliges
to, namely, faith and trust in God, as the God of nature and providence; for
as both the law of nature, and the law of Moses, show there is a God, and
who is to be worshipped; they both require a belief of him, and trust and
confidence in him; which is one part of the worship of him enjoined therein:
moreover the law obliges men to give credit to any revelation of the mind
and will of God he has made, or should think fit to make unto them at any
time; but as for special faith in Christ as a Saviour, or believing in him to
772
the saving of the soul; this the law knows nothing of, nor does it make it
known; this kind of faith neither comes by the ministration of it, nor does it
direct to Christ the object of it, nor give any encouragement to believe in
him on the above account; but it is a blessing of the covenant of grace,
which flows from electing love, is a gift of God’s free grace, the operation
of the Spirit of God, comes by the hearing of faith, or the word of faith, as
a means, that is, the gospel; for which reason, among others, the gospel is
so called; and it is that which points out Christ, the object of faith; and
directs and encourages sensible sinners under a divine influence to exercise
it on him; its language is,
“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”,
<441631>Acts 16:31.


And, here is one from The Cause of God and Truth, page 454

It is man’s duty to believe the word of the
Lord, and obey his will, though he has not a power, yea, even though God
has decreed to withhold that grace without which he cannot believe and
obey. So it was Pharaoh’s duty to believe and obey the Lord, and let Israel
go; though God had determined to harden his heart, that he should not let
them go. However there are many things which may be believed and done
by reprobates, and therefore they may be justly required to believe and
obey; it is true, they are not able to believe in Christ to the saving of their
souls, or to perform spiritual and evangelical obedience, but then it will be
difficult to prey, that God requires these things of them, and should that
appear, yet the impossibility of doing them, arises from the corruption of
their hearts, being destitute of the grace of God, and not from the decree of
reprobation, which though it denies them that grace and strength, without
which they cannot believe and obey in this sense, yet it takes none from
them, and therefore does them no injustice.​

 

Pastor Larry:

I am currently in DC and haven't been able to get my hands on a computer because of some pressing things until this morning, and lo and behold, I browse the board and see that somewhere in this thread you made another pronouncement about Primitive Baptists.

Will you please tell us poor Primitive Baptists what, according to your expertise about us, is the Duty Faith that you say we deny ?

Thank you.

 

PB,

Relax man. If I am wrong, then please correct me. As I said, I am saying what I have learned from you and others here at the Baptist Board. If you or others have previously miscommunicated, or if I have misunderstood, then please simply say so. There is no rancor on my part, and I would like there to be none on your part. In all the times I have discussed this issue, this is the first that you or any other primitive Baptist have offered any objection to it.

Duty faith is typically the position that it is the duty of all men to believe to be saved. Primitive Baptists deny that man must believe to be saved.

So let's ask you directly: Is it the duty of all men to exercise faith and repentance to be saved and is such faith and repentance necessary for salvation?

 

No. I do not deny that it is the duty of all men to believe to be saved.

However, let us understand a few words and terms here.

First, man.

Is it all of mankind, as in the semi-pelagians' use of the term "God wants all men to be saved" ? Is it generic in meaning ?
If you say it is, then what of the typical Calvinists' position that not all men are chosen unto salvation, and that not all men have the ability to come to God, except if they have a regenerate heart and God draws them to Christ ?

If it is a particular term, as in any class or race of man, then we are probably more in agreement, since I understand the word "man" and the term "men" as referring not to mankind generically, but men in a particular sense.

Then we have the word "duty".

If one is not chosen, and one is not to be regenerated by the Spirit, then whence comes his "duty" to exercise faith and repentance in order to be saved ? I will then have to agree with the usual atheists' and semipelagian Arminians' protestation about God being a cruel and nonsensical God, in that He requires faith and repentance of those whom He fully knows cannot exercise such because these things must emanate from Him.

And thirdly comes the word "saved".

Saved from what ? Saved from the fires of hell ? Saved from the wrath of God ? Saved unto eternal union with God ? But you and I know that this is a salvation which is all OF God, all OF Grace, and none of man. This is a salvation that required no input from man, since this is a salvation that was planned in eternity, looooooong before God hung the first star in heaven.

This is a salvation for which the blood to be shed in time, was deemed shed in eternity past, covering the sins of saints chosen in Christ before the beginning of time, and for which God in His wisdom and grace referred to His eternal Son as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Therefore, this "duty faith" as you call it, is not intended for all mankind, just as the Bible itself tells us that the Word of God was written only for the benefit and learning of God's people, and is not for the purpose of eternal salvation, more than it is for the purpose of understanding whence cometh that eternal salvation, and what to do about it as elect children of God who will soon judge this condemned world.

This "duty faith" is required of all those whom God had elected unto eternal salvation AND comes under the hearing of the gospel, and does not seal their eternal salvation as does the blood of Christ, but CONFIRMS it, for if the elect does not come under the hearing of the gospel, how can he be expected to come out of false precepts and doctrines and repent of his sin by turning from false gods unto the Living God, here in time, fully experience the joy and blessings of Christ ? And indeed, there those of the elect of God who will not come under the hearing of the Gospel in their lifetime here on earth, or if they do, such gospels may not even be the gospel of and about the true Christ !

Paul:

"1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (again, saved from what ? either Christ alone saves, or Christ PLUS faith and repentance saves. PB)
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.................
14 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?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" Romans 10:1-3,14-15.

I have more to say on this, but have no intentions to derail this thread, so let me start another thread on this thing called "duty faith" which you all wish to impose on mankind, and maybe we can have a grander time discussing there.

And I apologize for seeming to be "of rancor".

Despite my differences with some of my Primitive Baptist brethren on the issue of missions and other modernisms that have crept in, I love them all dearly, whether they be "missionists", "non-missionists", "old school", "new school", or "absolute predestinarians", and have the tendency to react at any misconstrued or properly construed hostility or sarcasm towards them.

My apologies.

 

Thanks, PB. This is what I said the first time and you got uptight about it and said I was misrepresenting the view of Primitive Baptists. I didn't think I was, and now you have confirmed it.

You do deny that it is the duty of all men to believe in Christ for salvation. That's what I thought you had said previously, and that view is typically considered a hyperCalvinist position. I think that is what sets you apart from mainstream Calvinism. Don't fret over the label. The label is simply a shorthand moniker for a set of beliefs.

 

PL , how could it be the duty of all people to believe in Christ for salvation if the majority have never even heard of Him ? That's nonsensical .

 

No sense at all, Rippon. Like I said, that line of theology gives ammunition to atheists' and semipelagians and Arminians' charge that those of the Doctrine of Grace preach an irrational, despotic God who demands faith and belief of those whom He fully well knows are unable to practice such on their own according to Calvinist theology.

It also legitimizes the claim of freewillers that there is an offer of salvation to all mankind where there is no offer of salvation - even to the elect. Salvation is a given gift dispensed sovereignly by the Creator of the Universe in and through Christ with designated and elected recipients among those of His own who are in the ranks of fallen humanity.

 

First of all, it is the duty of all men to repent because God said it was. When he “commands all men everywhere to repent,” I think he means that.

Second, people’s inability to repent is moral. They don’t want to. They are happy in their sins. This, contrary to PB’s claims, does not make God irrational and despotic, though that would hardly be problematic since he is God, and he gets to do what he wants. PB says it gives ammunition to others. Fine. Let it be. Our purpose of theology is not to remove ammunition but to believe and say what God has revealed to us.

The statement that there is no offer of salvation to all mankind flies directly in the face of the revelation of Scripture. When God promises salvation to all who will believe, that is an offer, and it is a universal one. It is limited only by a person’s belief. The fact that some are unable to believe does not change the necessity to believe for salvation. Consider, as a flawed analogy, the issue of a man drowning. He is unable to swim and unable to breathe. Does that exempt him from the requirements to do such? Of course not. He dies.

The fact that a man is unable to believe hardly exempts him from the requirements. He refuses to believe and does not want to. He is kept from belief and salvation by nothing other than his own willing sinfulness.

So here, in these two posts by you and PB, we have two fairly explicit direct denials of Scripture, and one misunderstanding of inability. To oppose the offer of salvation with salvation as a divinely and sovereignly given gift is a false dichotomy.



This is sidetracking us here, but the upside is this: PB has confirmed my original statement, even though he tried to make it sound like I didn't know what I was talking about. Turns out I was right about what he believes.

 

This is where we disagree. If I can't do anything about it, I can't be held responsible for my decision. My decision was made for me that I couldn't use my own volition to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. No, that isn't works.

We as humans do not contribute to our own salvation. It is the work of God, (Eph. 2:8-9). God does not contribute to our unbelief. That is our volition. God alone does the saving. We as humans must do the believing. God must get all the glory and all the credit.

"Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But My people would not hearken to My voice; and Israel would none of Me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. Oh that my people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways!" (Psalm 81:10-13)

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My Word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

 

You're wrong. You are responsible anyway. If you could do something about it, then Jesus didn't need to die. Galatians 2 is clear that if righteousness could come by the Law, then Christ died needlessly. The fact that Jesus had to die means you were unable to be saved any other way, but you were still reswponsible for your sin.

Your point is very logical. It just doesn't have anythign to do with Scripture.

 

Pastor Larry, we will always disagree. God offering something or asking us to do something that it is impossible to do would be superficial. I don't believe God created some of mankind to be robots and the others don't have a chance. If you mean to or not, you are saying that God does not contribute to our unbelief, I don't buy that. We both can quote Scripture back and forth, so I would say we shall agree to disagree.

 

I meant to say, if you mean to or not, you are saying that God does contribute to our unbelief, I don't buy that.

Where do some come up with the concept that one finds fulfillment and bliss in liberating oneself from subordination to God’s word, his permissions and his denials. Man is not suddenly metamorphosed from a puppet to a free and independent thinker. In fact, he never was an automaton. If man had lacked the ability to choose, the prohibition from God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would have been superfluous, as would be if each person can not accept or reject God's free offer of salvation. One is not told to abstain from something unless he has the capacity not to abstain or is one told to accept if he can not accept.

Sorry we disagree, but better theologain than you and I ( I know better than me)have not been able to settle this differents and I don't think we will either. Have a great Lord's day.

 

No we won't.

No it's not. It is in his word. It is therefore not superficial. You don't get to make up your own rules. God has told us what to believe in his wor.d

I don't either. I don't know anyone who does.

[quote[ If you mean to or not, you are saying that God does contribute to our unbelief, [/quote]I am nowhere close to saying that. I totally disagree. God doesn't contribute to our own belief, and nothing in what I have said could possibly be interpreted that way legitimately.

Well, yes we can, but the Scripture you quote doesn't refute me; the Scripture I quote does refute you. So that makes a difference.

 

Again we disagree, I believe the Scripture I quote refute you.
Again have a great day. Off to Va.