Andrew Fuller's Denial of Substutionary and Definite Atonement

[Bob Higby]

Many teachers of hypo-Calvinism and low-grace predestination today promote Andrew Fuller as some great light in the advance of the Reformation. The following links to articles of Dr. George Ella clearly debunk this false promotion of Fuller by men such as Ian Murray ("Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism), Phil Johnson (a proponent of Murray's view), Tom Nettles, and a host of other teachers today who denigrate Grace doctrine into a carnival freak show (church services and pulpit included) of autonomous free-will and duty faith.

I prefer Ella's critique of the errors of duty faith as more accurate than that of many Primitive Baptists. Though the non-elect have no duty or ability to believe the gospel, they will still be judged and condemned for laughing at it as nonsense.

Andrew fuller denied substitutionary atonement, Definite atonement, and agreed with the Arminian scholar Hugo Grotius on governmental atonement (which is largely Socinian), that the atonement proves that God is fair and applies universally but is not substitution of God's wrath executed on Christ in place of the elect sinner. To promote Fuller as a great teacher who made a big jump in Reformation teaching is the worst lying bull snort imaginable.

From Ella: The Scriptures clearly state that Christ and his disciples commanded their hearers to repent and believe the Gospel otherwise they would perish. Paul, too, commanded his hearers to repent and warned them of the consequences awaiting them if they did not. There is, however, a difference in commanding an action, which, if disobeyed, will bring damnation and if obeyed salvation and inviting men to perform an action which all are fully capable of doing. The former case is in keeping with the Scriptural teaching that the bondservants are separated from the true sons by responding or not responding to the Father’s voice. Christ’s sheep hear his voice and respond, the others do not. The second puts all on the same level. Sons and bondservants, sheep and goats, have all been given the same duties to perform to their Heavenly Father. This is indeed Fuller's teaching in The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.

http://evangelica.de/articles/doctrine/the-atonement/4/

http://evangelica.de/articles/doctri...pel-fullerism/

http://evangelica.de/articles/doctri...andrew-fuller/

http://evangelica.de/articles/tom-ne...lla-on-fuller/

[Brandan]

In my latest livestream, I commented on Duty Faith - here are some good quotes from Gill on it....

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.

As is the revelation which is made to men, such is the faith which is required of them. If there is no revelation made unto them, no faith is required of them; and unbelief, or want of faith in Christ, will not be their damning sin, as is the case of the heathens; ‘for how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?’ No; they will be condemned not for their want of faith in Christ, or His Gospel, which they never heard of, but for their sins committed against the law and light of nature, ‘As many as have sinned without Law shall perish without Law’: if a revelation is made, this is either external or internal; if only an external revelation is made, the faith required is an assent unto it, and a reception of it; and such who do not attend to the evidence it brings with it, or reject and despise it, shall be damned: but if besides the external revelation, an internal revelation is made by the Spirit of Wisdom, in the knowledge of Christ; or if God by His Word calls men effectually by His Grace, and reveals His Son in them, as well as to them; this kind of revelation comes with such power and influence upon the mind, as certainly to produce a true and living faith in the soul, which infallibly issues in eternal life and happiness; and of such persons, and of such only, acts of special faith in Christ are required.

as for special faith in Christ as a Saviour, or believing in him to 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", Ac 16:31".

[Bob Higby]

Hebrews 10:28-31:

He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So, I disagree with Gill on this: "they will be condemned not for their want of faith in Christ, or His Gospel, which they never heard of, but for their sins committed against the law and light of nature". Too many other scriptures contradict this emphatically and I'm not going to make a list right now. But I deny duty faith. For me, the fact that God will seriously judge unbelief of the gospel is not contradictory to the additional fact that the enemies of His Grace were/are unable to believe, destined to not believe, and therefore have no assigned duty to believe.

Charles Spurgeon had to be the greatest master of paradox of all professed teachers of Grace, uncompromisingly affirming his extreme admiration of John Gill and a host of others from that period (calling Tobias Crisp 'the most faithful preacher of the gospel to all creatures under heaven in history') and equally affirming Andrew Fuller as the greatest theologian on Earth from the period immediately following Gill. So, a false teacher who denied the atonement of Christ as bearing God's wrath in our stead (affirming the views of Arminian false teacher Grotius), denied the atonement was made for specific predestined individuals, and taught the gospel must be packaged and taught in salesmanship 'offer' language (this wonderful love of God deal is FOR YOU!) was apparently the basis of Spurgeon's own 'evangelistic' (?) zeal.

Bob

[Brandan]

"they will be condemned not for their want of faith in Christ, or His Gospel, which they never heard of, but for their sins committed against the law and light of nature".

Bob, I think Gill was speaking there to whom the Gospel has not been presented to... Is the Gospel something that is presented in nature? I don’t think it is.... Those that hear the Gospel message (externally) will be judged for laughing at and disregarding this message. It is a sinful thing to turn one’s back on Christ and His message of salvation for the elect. I think Gill would agree with this... But what about those those who have never heard the Gospel? They won’t be judged for rejecting something they have never heard, but for what light that has been presented to them.

[Bob Higby]

Gill does not quite explain why Paul states there are some who 'perhaps' will be excused in conscience due to such light (what God has created), those who worship the creator in some manner until further light is received. Some of these are elect.

But to continue with the subject--I would also deny duty-law/keeping as much as duty faith. This is because no one has a duty to obey the law (except maybe a falsely 'perceived' duty) because they have no ability to obey it perfectly--which is the only law obedience that might please God. Since the law is not of faith, but he who does them shall live by them, none can be justified by law. So keeping the law to please God is impossible, hence it is not the duty of man due to inability.

The elect cannot be justified on the merit of faith and the non-elect cannot be justified on the merit of works.

The non-elect who hear nothing of the apostolic gospel in this life will still confront it with hatred on judgment day--because they want to be justified by works and not a redemption provided solely in God. The sole difference between the elect and non-elect for eternity will be that one class wants to be justified to some degree by a personal rightness and the other realizes this is 100% futile and totally rest in the work of Christ by faith.

Anyway, I don't think we have a disagreement of substance.

Grace and peace,

Bob

[Brandan]

The non-elect who hear nothing of the apostolic gospel in this life will still confront it with hatred on judgment day--because they want to be justified by works and not a redemption provided solely in God. The sole difference between the elect and non-elect for eternity will be that one class wants to be justified to some degree by a personal rightness and the other realizes this is 100% futile and totally rest in the work of Christ by faith.

Great quote. I would agree with this 100%