32 Bible Doctrine – The Doctrine Of Duty Faith

A transcript of the video teaching

I would like to welcome you back to another study in Bible Doctrine. In our previous study, I laid out for you the covenantal framework for 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. There is a covenant of works God made with Adam on behalf of the human race, requiring perfect obedience to the law inscribed upon the heart; and there is a covenant of redemption, otherwise known as the covenant of grace, God made with Himself on behalf of the elect. The conditions of this covenant are the electing love of the Father, the redeeming grace of the Son and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. I pointed out that this framework was not only a refinement of the covenantal scheme of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism, but also a repudiation of the three major doctrines which were derived from it—duty faith, the free offer and the ten commandments as the believer’s rule of conduct. It also viewed the teachings of Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller as perversions of the gospel. For the next three studies, I would like to speak about the controversial issues connected with the doctrines of duty faith, the free offer and the ten commandments as a rule of conduct for the believer’s life, beginning in this study with the doctrine of duty faith.  

The doctrine of duty faith asserts the unregenerate sinner is under the spiritual and/or moral duty to exercise saving faith in Christ. It is set forth in the three major confessional statements of the 17^th century—(1) The 1646 Westminster Confession—“requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved”; (2) The 1658 Savor Declaration—“requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved”; (3) 1689 Baptist Confession—“requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved”. 

A distinction must be made between the spiritual and moral duties of an unregenerate sinner, for they are not one and the same. A spiritual duty refers to the sinner’s ability to exercise saving faith, whereas a moral duty refers to the sinner’s covenantal authority under which he/she is responsible before God. According to Arminianism, the unregenerate sinner not only has the spiritual ability to exercise saving faith in Christ, but is also under the biblical mandate or moral duty to do it. On the other hand, whereas those who subscribe to 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism do not believe the unregenerate sinner has the spiritual ability to exercise saving faith in Christ, yet they insist it remains his/her moral duty to do it. The argument is sometimes put like this—“a sinner’s spiritual inability to savingly believe on Christ does not negate his/her moral responsibility to do so.” And with this argument, they believe they have checkmated those who deny this doctrine. 

I need not deal with the Arminian view, that there is a spiritual ability in the unregenerate heart to savingly believe on Christ, for both branches of Hyper-Calvinism (17^th and 18^th century) reject this teaching. 17^th and 18^th century Hyper-Calvinists understood saving faith is the gift of God imparted to the soul by virtue of the new birth; saving faith is the result of regeneration. Of course, there are modifications to this teaching introduced by men such as Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller, and which tend to be widely accepted by mainstream Calvinists today. These modifications view the work of regeneration to take place through some sort of means such as gospel preaching—that is, one cannot be born again unless he/she hears the gospel preached, or is brought under the persuasions of a gospel preacher. While this is true for the doctrine of conversion, which takes place after that of regeneration, it is certainly not true of regeneration. Regeneration is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, uniting the soul with Christ, wherein the sinner is entirely passive in the process. Conversion, on the other hand, is a cooperative work between God and the sinner, taking place after regeneration, with the Spirit of God working in the sinner the saving virtues of Christ, and the regenerate sinner working out his/her salvation with fear and trembling. Mainstream Calvinists today tend to conflate regeneration and conversion, thereby undermining a full and free gospel. Putting to the side, though, these modified views, 17^th and 18^th century Hyper-Calvinists understood saving faith to be the result of regeneration, and therefore it is agreed, saving faith is not a spiritual duty, but a gift of God by virtue of the soul’s union with Christ. The issue, therefore, which separates 17^th and 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism is whether it be the unregenerate sinner’s moral duty to savingly believe on Christ. 

According to 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism, their understanding of the covenant of grace is an agreement God makes with sinners in time, requiring of them saving faith in Christ. On the one hand, they will say this covenant of grace is unconditional, for they know saving faith is a gift, but on the other hand, they will say this covenant is conditional, for saving faith is required in order to be saved. It is in this way they believe saving faith remains the moral duty, or the covenantal duty, for unregenerate sinners to exercise saving faith in Christ, though they cannot do it until the Spirit of God regenerates them.

According to the covenantal framework of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism, the doctrine of duty faith was outright rejected, many viewing it as a perversion of the gospel. On this point, I wish to read for you a statement made by a Strict and Particular preacher named John Foreman (1792-1872). He was a historic Hyper-Calvinist, and his view is representative of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. He was appointed the Pastor of Mount Zion Chapel in London, serving this position for close to forty years. In 1860, he published a book against the doctrine of duty faith entitled, “Duty Faith”. James Wells, another Strict and Particular Baptist pastor, preaching to a weekly congregation second in size to that of the Metropolitan Tabernacle under the care of Charles Spurgeon, wrote a preface to this book with the commendation, “These Letters, by Mr. John Foreman, ought to be read by all the Churches in Christendom. They are a wholesome handful of meal, suited  to counter act the deadly poison passed off for Gospel in the present day. Never was decision for truth and vital practical godliness more needed than at this time of hollow and superficial religious pretension.” Now, as I read for you the words of Foreman, I will compare them to the covenantal diagram of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism:

”Of the several covenants mentioned in the word of God, there are but two which we may properly call un-circumstantially permanent, and of eternal consequences to the soul of man. The one being the nature covenant with Adam and all the human race in him, having the law of works for its ministry; and which, through man’s sin, is called the ministration of death. And the other, the covenant of grace with Christ and all his seed in him, having the law of faith for its ministry, called the ministration of life, because it is the gospel of the grace of God only. And every man of the whole human race is under one or the other of these two laws; either by legal right and contract under the former, or by favor it only under the latter. If a man by the Holy Spirit, and regenerating grace and favor of God, be under grace, and so under the law of faith, he is not, nor can he be under the law of works at the same time; even so the natural man being under the law of works, cannot be under grace and the law of faith at the same time. And a man’s duties and obligations, both in the nature and extent of them, are prescribed and determined by the law that he is under…Perhaps this mode of argument will be considered too rigid an adherence to covenant distinctions, order and arrangement; but I feel confident that it is no more than the word of God intends and fully supports, to the very utmost exactness and unfaltering certainty, in drawing the line of order and distinction, between the living by grace, and the dead in sin; the man who is under the law, and the man who is under grace; and also between the law of works and its claims, and law of faith and its blessings; and in the systematic terms and characters also by which those distinctions are denominated.”

You see then, how Foreman distinguishes between the authority of the covenant of works, under which all unregenerate sinners are held accountable by God and remain in relationship TO Him, and the authority of the covenant of grace, under which all regenerate sinners are held accountable by God and are in relationship WITH Him. It is on this basis Foreman sets out his arguments against the notion that saving faith is a moral duty imposed upon the unregenerate, whose responsibility towards God is determined, not by the gospel of the covenant of grace, but by the heart-law of the covenant of works. It is only after the sinner has been regenerated that he/she is experientially delivered from the authority and obligations of the covenant of works, and brought under the authority and blessings of the covenant of grace, thereby giving the warrant (authority/moral duty) for the sinner to savingly believe on Christ. 

It is here I would like to insert my own explanation, building a case against the doctrine of duty faith, based on seven propositions.

First, with reference to the definition of a covenant. 

A covenant is an agreement between two or more persons, with certain obligations binding them together. This word obligations could be replaced with the words commands, duties and responsibilities. A covenant is an agreement between two or more persons with certain commands, duties or responsibilities binding them together. 

Second, with reference to the significance of a covenant. 

Every relationship is based upon the authority of a covenant. This is true of the relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, friend with friend, etc. The husband and wife make a formal and verbal agreement, exchanging a set of vows before witnesses. Those vows are the obligations each has agreed to, which bind them together within a marriage union. The parents and children are also in covenant with each other, but their agreement is informal and unspoken. There is an inherent understanding between the parents and the children as to what their obligations are towards each other. The parents expect from their children reverence and obedience, while the children expect from their parents unconditional love evidenced by things such as shelter, clothing, food and corrective discipline. These expectations, or obligations, are what bind together the relationship between parents and children. Two friends are also in covenant with each other and their agreement is also informal and unspoken. There is an inherent understanding between them that each will be honest, kind, generous, reliable and sympathetic towards the other. Now, the nature of these relationships, and others like them, is based on the covenantal relationship of Jehovah Himself. I don’t know if you have ever considered it, but if every relationship is based upon the authority of a covenant, so the relationship between the three Persons of the Godhead is based upon the authority of a covenant. There is an interpersonal covenantal relationship between the Father, the Son and the Spirit, which binds them together. And, it is this interpersonal covenantal relationship of the TriUne Jehovah which serves as the prototype around which all other relationships are based. When God brought the angelic hosts into existence on the first day of creation, He established with them a covenant which set out the terms upon which they would enjoy a relationship with Him. And then, when God brought the human race into existence on the sixth day of creation, He established with Adam (as covenant head of the human race) a covenant of works which set out the terms upon which they would be in relationship with Him. Also, before the foundation of the world, the TriUne Jehovah drew up a covenant of grace on behalf of the elect, agreed upon by the three Persons of the Godhead, securing for them salvation from their sins. My dear friends, it matters not the type of relationship—every relationship is based upon the authority of some kind of covenant.

Third, with reference to the governance of a covenant. 

Every covenant is governed by its own law. The law which governs the marriage covenant is quite different from the law which governs the parental covenant; the law which governs the parental covenant is different from that which governs the friendship covenant; the law which governs the angelic covenant is different from that which governs the covenant God made with Adam on behalf of the human race; the law which governs the covenant made with Adam on behalf of the human race is different from that which governs the covenant God made with Moses on behalf of the nation of Israel; the law which governs the covenant God made with Moses on behalf of the nation of Israel is different from that which governs the covenant He makes with Himself on behalf of the elect. There is no justification for taking the law which governs the Mosaic covenant, for instance, and making it the law which governs the covenant of grace. Neither is there any justification for taking the law which governs the covenant of grace, and making it that law which governs the covenant of works. Each covenant is governed by its own law, uniquely designed for that covenant. 

And as a sidenote, for I do not intend to make it a major point in this line of argument, all relationship conflicts are the result of one or more persons transgressing the law which governs that covenant binding them together. If you have relational conflicts with a spouse, or with a parent, or with a child, or with a friend, or with the Lord, it is the result of someone in that covenantal agreement transgressing its governing law. And of course, there are only three ways to deal with relational conflict—(1) Avoidance—pretending like it doesn’t exist, which only increases the conflict in the long run; (2) Separation—severing relational ties and setting boundaries so as to not again cross paths, which is certainly an proper and honorable solution if the conflict cannot be resolved; (3) Reconciliation—the two parties resolving their differences through repentance and forgiveness, which is the best of all solutions. But now, back to the main points:

Fourth, with reference to the number of covenants. 

Since every relationship is based upon the authority of a covenant, so there are an enumerable number of covenants. It is not surprising, therefore, that the scriptures speak of many. Some of the biblical covenants are what many refer to non-essential, in the sense that they are minor agreements made between various individuals; whereas there are other biblical covenants that stand out with more significance, in the sense that God is the one who establishes them with people. There are several covenants God established with the Jewish people as a nation, including those made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David. However, none of these covenants have anything to do with the spiritual relationship God sustains with members of the human race. In this regard, there are only two spiritual and perpetual covenants—a covenant of works under which all unregenerate sinners are in relationship TO God, and a covenant of grace under which all regenerate sinners are in relationship WITH God. The covenant of works is governed by the law inscribed upon the heart, whereas the covenant of grace is governed by the law of Christ. They are two different laws, each given by God, but designed for different purposes and governing different covenants. 

Fifth, with reference to the jurisdiction of the covenant of works. 

Since unregenerate sinners are under the authority of the covenant of works, so they are held accountable by God under its terms and promises. The terms of this covenant is perfect obedience to the law inscribed upon the heart. This is a twofold law—to love God supremely and to love one’s neighbor as himself. In consequence of transgressing this law, the sinner is brought under the curse of this covenant, which is death. There is a spiritual death which separates the soul from God; there will be a physical death which separates the soul from the body; and there will be an everlasting death which separates the sinner from heaven. What then, are the responsibilities of the unregenerate sinner, if he/she is in breach of this law? Well, the obligations of the covenant have not changed. Even though the sinner is in breach of the law, and is suffering the consequence of spiritual death, yet God requires he/she still perfectly obey it. Henceforth, the unregenerate sinner is responsible to (1) believe in the one true God; (2) love Him supremely; (3) love one’s neighbor as himself; (4) repent of the sins that have been committed. However, God has given no provisions or promises under the covenant of works which are able to save the sinner from his sins. This means that while he/she is responsible to obey the law, yet obedience to the law cannot earn for him/her favor with God and/or cancel out his/her sins. There is absolutely no provision or promise of salvation given to sinners under the terms and promises of the covenant of works. All who are under its jurisdiction are subject to its curse and are without help or hope of salvation. There are no gospel provisions or promises that belong to the covenant of works. 

Sixth, with reference to the jurisdiction of the covenant of grace. 

Since regenerate sinners are under the authority of the covenant of grace, so they are held accountable by God under its terms and promises. The terms of this covenant are the electing love of the Father, the redeeming grace of the Son and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. While the electing love of the Father and the redeeming grace of the Son are things done to and for the sinner, the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit is that which is done experientially in the sinner. It begins with the work of regeneration, wherein the Spirit of God unites the soul with the Lord Jesus Christ, by virtue of which the life of Christ flows into the soul, making him/her alive unto God, and the graces of Christ flow into the soul, among which is saving faith. It is this spiritual union with Christ that is called the law of Christ and the perfect law of liberty. Henceforth, the law which governs the covenant of grace is the soul’s union with Christ, with the Spirit of God working in both to will and to do of His good pleasure, enabling him/her to work out his/her salvation in fear and trembling and with good works. Good works are the expressions of spiritual fruit, all of which flows from Christ to the regenerate sinner. It is then, at the point of regeneration, that the sinner is experientially delivered from the authority and curse of the covenant of works, and brought under the authority and blessings of the covenant of grace. And you see, it is only at that point the sinner has a warrant, or is given the authority, or made responsible, to exercise a saving faith in Christ. 

Seventh, with reference to the exclusive nature of a covenant. 

No one is under the authority of more than one covenant at a time. When a person is brought into this world, he/she is brought under the covenant of works, for he/she is conceived in sin, shaped in iniquity and is a child of wrath, having his/her headship in Adam. So long as he/she remains in an unregenerate condition, he/she is held accountable to God according to the terms and promises of the covenant of works. However, when the Spirit of God regenerates a sinner, he/she is immediately delivered from the authority and curse of the covenant of works, and is brought under the authority and blessings of the covenant of grace. It is then the regenerate sinner looks to Christ as the keeper of the heart-law, and enjoys the blessings of the law of Christ under the gracious covenant. Saving faith, therefore, is a duty, or should I say privilege, only of those given the authority, or the warrant, to believe, after he/she has been brought experientially under the authority of the covenant of grace. 

So, you might ask, what about the biblical command in Acts 17, where the Apostle Paul exhorts a group of unregenerate sinners to repent—“But now [God] commandeth all men every where to repent:” (Acts 17:30) This can’t be any clearer, they say, it is God’s command that the unregenerate repent of their sins and turn to Christ for salvation. Well, I have already pointed out, it certainly is the responsibility of the unregenerate to repent of their sins. They are under the authority of the covenant of works, and it is required by God that they perfectly obey the law inscribed upon their hearts. It is their duty, under the covenant of works, to repent of their sins, loving God supremely and their neighbor as themselves. However, this type of repentance has nothing to do with the gospel. Not only do the unregenerate lack godly sorrow that leads to repentance, for that comes only after the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, but the type of repentance they are responsible to exercise belongs under the jurisdiction of the covenant or works, not the covenant of grace. I hope you see, my dear friends, by rejecting the doctrine of duty faith, we are not minimizing the responsibility of the unregenerate, rather, we are establishing the proper boundaries of their responsibility. 

Again, you might ask, what about the biblical command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation; doesn’t the Apostle Paul impress it upon the Philippian jailor—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31) Does this not clearly show, they say, that in order for the jailor to be saved, he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Well, it is usually assumed the jailor was not yet born again when he asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, and therefore, when Paul told him to believe on Christ, it must have been a command given prior to the jailor’s new birth. However, the text does not say that. It may also be assumed the jailor, at the time he stood before Paul trembling, asking what he must do to be saved, had already been born again, and Paul, discerning the grace of God that had gripped his heart, lovingly entreated him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the proper counsel to give to all sinners that have been regenerated by God. We cannot know for sure the exact nature of this interaction between Paul and the jailor. We do know, however, the apostles were given special gifting, one of which was a spirit of discernment. You may remember Peter exercised this type of discernment when conversing with Simon, recorded in Acts 8. He said to the man, “For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) He exercised perception, or discernment, or judgment on the true nature of Simon’s profession of faith, coming to the conclusion that he was an unregenerate sinner. Why then do we not permit the Apostle Paul that same gift of discernment when conversing with the Philippian jailor? Upon concluding the jailor had experienced the regenerating power of the Spirit, he embraced him as a brother in Christ with the encouragement, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Now, this type of discernment was not peculiar to the apostles, for it is a gift imparted to us all. Each of us have a measure of this gift, capable of exercising judgment on whether a sinner has the root of the matter in his/her heart. Our judgment is not perfect, but that doesn’t negate the gift itself. I hope you see, my friends, we are not opposed to encouraging sinners to believe on Christ, nor are we opposed to inviting them to trust on the Savior, but these encouragements and invitations are extended to those who have been given eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to feel. Those who are thirsty for Christ are invited to freely come; those who labor and are heavy laden are invited to freely come; for these have been brought experientially under the authority of the covenant of grace, and it is within the commission of the preacher to make these loving appeals and invitations to the Lord’s people. 

Alright, well, having laid out for you the reason why saving faith is not the duty of unregenerate sinners, but is the privilege and blessing of those who have been born again, allow me to mention some of the names of others who took this view in previous centuries: 

Lewis Wayman (?-1764) was a Congregational preacher, serving at the pastor for the church meeting at Kimbolton, Cambridgeshire for forty-six years. In 1738, he published book entitled, “A Further Enquiry After Truth: Wherein is Shown, What Faith is Required of Unregenerate Persons; and What the Faith of God’s Elect is, Which is a Blessing of the Covenant of Grace. Occasioned by a Pamphlet, Entitled, “A Modern Question Modestly Answered.”

John Brine (1703-1765) was a Particular Baptist preacher, serving as the pastor of the church meeting at Curriers’ Hall, Cripplegate, London, a position he held for thirty-five years. In 1753, he published a book entitled, “Motives to Love and Unity Among Calvinists, Who Differ on Some Points: A Dialogue Between Christophilus, Philalethes, and Philagathus; Wherein is Contained an Answer to Mr. Alverey Jackson’s Question Answered, Whether Saving Faith in Christ is a Duty Required by the Moral Law, of all Those Who Live Under the Gospel Revelation?”

John Stevens (1776-1847) was a Strict and Particular Baptist preacher, serving as the pastor of the church meeting at Grafton Street, London. In 1841, he published a book entitled, “Help for the True Disciples of Immanuel, being an Answer to a Book, Published by the Late Rev. Andrew Fuller, Entitled, ‘The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation; or, the Duty of Sinners to Believe in Christ’.”

William Button (1754-1821) was a Strict and Particular Baptist preacher, serving as the pastor for more than forty years of the church meeting at Dean Street, Southwark. This was a newly formed church, the members of which had separated from Carter Lane Chapel. These persons opposed the pastoral appointment of John Rippon, after the death of their beloved pastor John Gill. In one sense, therefore, Button became the successor of Gill, at least to a core group that were under his pastoral care. In 1785, he published a book entitled, “Remarks on a Treatise, Entitled, The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation, Or, The Obligations of Men Fully to Credit, and Cordially to Approve Whatever God Makes Known, By Andrew Fuller, Wherein The Nature Of Special Faith In Christ Is Considered, And Several of Mr. Fuller’s Mistakes Pointed Out.”

These are only some of the more popular works that have been published on the subject. Well, our time is far gone, so I must draw this to a conclusion. My dear friends, this subject of duty faith is a vital issue, striking at the heart of a full and free gospel. Those who maintain the doctrine of duty faith undermine the grace of God and pervert the gospel of Christ. This is not a minor issue. The Apostle Paul used strong language in his letter to the Galatians, because there were some in those churches who were also undermining the grace of God and perverting the gospel. Such was Paul’s opposition to it, that he even withstood Peter to the face, for he too had been carried away with those perversions. I therefore say to you my friends, do not yield ground on this matter; do not be tempted, for the sake of unity and conformity, or out of desperation to secure to a new pastor for the church, or to gain a husband or wife, to compromise your convictions on this matter. If you give way on this doctrine, especially to those who subscribe to the modified views of Baxter and Fuller, then you will make shipwreck of your faith. I exhort you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, giving no quarter to those who turn the grace of God into a lie, denying the very gospel they claim to defend. 

Until we meet again for our next study, I wish upon you the blessings of the Lord!