Great Christian Biographies with John Piper: Andrew Fuller 2

Now he was wide open about who his mentors were and who his influence was. You read his writing. He doesn't try to hide anything or make himself look more original than he was. We need to know who these people were.

You already know who they are. You just don't know the connection perhaps. He searched the scriptures and he searched the history of Doctrine to find whether or not high Calvinism.

Was so.

Biblical or not.

Hyper-Calvinism and the Duty to Believe

Now, what was it? It was the view that opposed the offering of the gospel to all men or the urging of all men to repent and believe and it said that the reason was It could not be the duty of unregenerate men to believe on Jesus and Therefore one should not tell them to believe on Jesus because it was not their duty to do so because the Bible makes clear the unregenerate the natural man cannot receive or Respond to the things of the Spirit.

Here's here's Fuller's way of describing Hyper-Calvinism now, please you men should know this. So let me say it's obvious but The way people out in the boondocks used the term hyper-calvinism, I'm a hyper Calvinist they just mean really Calvinist.

That's not historically the meaning of the term it was a very technical term in the late 18th century and here is Fuller's explanation of it. Neither Augustine nor Calvin who each in his day Defended predestination and The other doctrines connected with it ever Appear to have thought of denying it to be the duty of every sinner who has heard the gospel to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Neither did the other reformers nor the Puritans of the 16th century nor the divines of the Synod of Dort who opposed Arminius nor any of the denominations of the 17th century. So far as I have any acquaintance with in their writings so much as hesitate upon this subject in other words He couldn't find high Calvinism anywhere except in the particular Baptists.

He was surprised like where did this come from. Didn't come from Bible didn't come from Augustine did from Calvin didn't come from the Puritans. What in the world are we dealing with here? John Calvin Played a relatively minor role in shaping Fuller's thinking directly.

He was immersed in Puritans Mainly and quoted from Charnock and Goodwin and Bunyan and Owen. Way more than he quoted from Calvin quotes from Calvin are very few and far between in his writings by his own Testimony John Owen ranks first in his affections.

Here's what he said. I never met with anything of importance in his writings on which I saw any reason to disagree. So far from it that I know of no writer for whom I have so great and esteem. Which surprises people in view of Jonathan Edwards impact on his life?

So he just said I have no greater esteem for any writer than for John Owen but almost everybody who does serious study of Andrew Fuller agrees the greatest impact was Jonathan Edwards and That is not necessarily contradictory.

That you learned very decisive Breakthrough insights from man does not necessarily endear your heart to him like it does to John Owen perhaps so I'm not saying there's a contradiction here just know there's a distinction in the historical understanding of Andrew Fuller.

John Owen ranked in his own mind highest in his affections and esteem and Externally at least myself included believe he got his breakthrough for Sandeman ism and his breakthrough for hyper Calvinism from Jonathan Edwards actually got it from the Bible and he had some categories supplied for it with Jonathan Edwards and he admits he admits that he got very decisive things from Edwards the key that unlocked the door out of hyper Calvinistic Reasoning and out of Sandeman Ian ism, which I haven't explained yet.

David Bebbington has written one of the most Paradigm Shaping books about evangelical ism in Britain.

And he says.

Jonathan Edwards stands at the headwaters of the 18th century Evangelicalism in other words. He sees Edwards as the as the spring from which everything is flowing in the 18th century and would trace Evangelicalism as we know it today.

Back to Jonathan.

Edwards.

That is certainly true. For Andrew Fuller he was a spring from which Fuller drank Deeply and which helped him get free. Let me give you a flavor. I love this quote. This is about my favorite quote of Andrew Fuller Concerning Jonathan Edwards.

He gave this May 7 1815 just 10 days before he died. We have heard some Who have been giving out of late that if Sutcliffe now, that's one of his band of brothers if Sutcliffe and some others had preached more of Christ and less of Jonathan Edwards. They would have been more useful.

If those who talked us preached Christ half as much as Jonathan Edwards did and Were half as useful as he was their usefulness would be double what it is. It's kind of the way his mind worked. Hmm, I think I agree with that.

He was born.

1754.

Four years before Edwards died and the same year that Freedom of the will was published Edwards philosophically most important book and the one that contained the key Which the particular Baptist like Fuller read with relish Which set them free?

To be.

Not hyper-calvinists the hyper-calvinist reasoning went something like this. Again the words of Andrew Fuller. It is absurd and cruel to require of any man What is beyond his power to perform. And As the scripture declares that quote no man can come to Christ except the Father draw him.

And that quote the natural man Receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them? Because they are spiritually discerned it is concluded by the hyper-calvinists that these are things To which the sinner while unregenerate is under no obligation.

There's the key Since you cannot as an unregenerate man Do an act which only regenerate man can do it would be cruel and false contradictory to require it to say it is an obligation of the unregenerate man to do an act of regenerate man.

Believe. Fuller said it is a kind of maxim with such persons That none can be obliged to act spiritually, but spiritual men. That's hyper-calvinism in a sentence. None can be obliged to act spiritually but spiritual men.

So you do not indiscriminately say to an audience that has Unspiritual people in it. Your duty is to believe. You never would say that it's not their duty. They're not obliged to the practical conclusion that they drew was that faith in Christ is not a duty for the non-elect.

It's not a duty for the unregenerate and therefore you never call for faith indiscriminately. You never stand before a group of people whether in Britain or India and Say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You never exhort plead call command urge. One of the hyper Calvinist namely John Martin wrote pastor of Grafton Street Westminster Sinners in my opinion he said are more frequently converted and believers more commonly edified by a narrative of facts Concerning Jesus Christ and by a clear connected statement of the doctrines of grace and blessings of the gospel.

Then by all the expectations and expostulations that were ever invented. Close quote. The fact is however Hyper-calvinist were not passionately telling the gospel story even in indicative format Leave off all the imperatives.

They weren't going to India to tell the story. It had infected everything. Peter Morton Points out the prevalence of high Calvinism had not only led to a refusal to offer Christ but also to a general suspicion of all human means Such as ministerial training and associating.

The trickle-down effect of this error was Unpredictably vast. The effect of this rationalistic distortion a biblical Calvinism was that the churches were lifeless and The domination of the particular Baptist were dying.

Now Fuller who only knew high Calvinism in his early ministry said in 1774 I Durst not for some years address an invitation to the unconverted to come to Jesus and then he went on to say I Conceive there is scarcely a minister amongst us whose preaching has not been more or less Influenced by the lethargic systems of the age.

There's a great phrase the lethargic systems of the age.

And.

The price had been huge.

In.

1718 the particular Baptist had 220 congregations and 40 years later. They had 150. They were dying.

Under this.

Rationalistic abuse of biblical Calvinism. So if you ask well, how did anybody ever get saved in that kind of thinking or ministry. The answer was It's very crucial that God here and there.

Would.

Awaken a warrant of faith in your heart. Warrant of faith. Now, what was that. A Warrant of faith could be. Various things. The illustration that Fuller gives from his own life was at age 13 a warrant of faith was talked about in terms of a text of Scripture being.

Suddenly.

Strongly impressed upon your heart So that you felt something had happened to you. Then Knowing that something happened to you You had a warrant to believe you might be regenerate and regenerate people can believe and therefore you now had a duty to believe.

That's the way the sequence went. You you waited until you saw warrants of faith Spontaneously rising. And when there was a warrant of faith then faith would become a Duty. And what he saw Was that high Calvinism had shifted the meaning of faith from focusing on the Objective person and promise of Christ on to the subjective state of our own hearts.

This is deadly. In other words saving faith became Faith that I am experiencing or generating work faith that I am elect or as Fuller put it. The high Calvinist said that faith is to believe the goodness of their state.

Faith was to believe the goodness of their state which leads of course to the high Calvinist position. Here's the way he drew out the logic if this be saving faith. To believe that I'm in a good state.

If this be saving faith It must inevitably follow that it is not the duty of the unconverted sinner for they are not in a good estate and Nobody is obliged to believe a lie.

But.

If it can be proved that the proper object of saving faith is not our being Interested in Christ having an interest in Christ But the glorious gospel of the ever-blessed God which is true whether we believe it or not a Contrary inference must be drawn for it is admitted on all hands that it is the duty of every man to believe What God reveals?

In quote.

In fact.

Fuller goes on to show.

Quote.

Nothing Can be the object of faith? Except what God has revealed in his word. But the interest that any individual has in Christ is not revealed. The scriptures always represent faith as terminating on something outside of us.

Namely on Christ and the truths concerning him the person blood righteousness of Christ. Revealed in the scriptures as the way of sinners Acceptance with God are properly speaking the objects of our faith.

For without such a revelation it were impossible to believe in them. That for which we ought to have trusted in him. This is crucial as you men preach. That for which we ought to have trusted in him was the obtaining of mercy in Case he applied for it for this there was complete warrant in.

The gospel.

Declaration. In other words We should not say to unbelievers Wait until you feel a warrant of faith so that you can trust in that rather.

We should say this.

Christ is the glorious divine Son of God. His death and resurrection are sufficient to cover all your sins. He promises to receive everyone who comes to him and he promises to forgive all those who trust in him.

Therefore come to him trust him. You will be saved if you wonder if you are elect or if you are regenerate. Cease wandering and do what Christ has commanded you to do. Receive him trust in him cast yourself upon him for his promised mercy and you will prove to be elect and to Be regenerate.

Fuller is a Calvinist. He says. The scriptures Clearly ascribe both repentance and faith wherever they exist to a divine Influence. He believes in irresistible.

Grace.

But what he's arguing against is that one has to know Before he believes that Grace is being exerted upon him. Here's a great quote on that Whatever necessity there may be for a change of heart in order for one to believe It is neither necessary Nor possible that the party should be conscious of it till he has believed.

It is necessary that the eyes of the blind man should be opened before he can see. But it is neither necessary nor possible for him to know that his eyes are open till he does see.

That's good. That's really good.

Fuller steadfastly refuses to let.

Ostensible.

Calvinistic or Arminian logic override the Bible and. Isn't it ironic? I'll bet some of you picked this up already. Isn't it ironic that high Calvinism and Arminianism are? Here standing on exactly the same logic and he saw this.

He pointed it out.

Both.

High Calvinism and Arminianism Argue it is absurd and cruel to require of any man What is beyond his power to perform?

And then he quotes.

They are agreed in making the grace of God necessary to the accountableness of sinners with regard to spiritual obedience the one high Calvinists.

Plead for.

Graceless sinners being free from obligation the other Arminians admit of the obligation But found it on the notion of universal grace. Both are agreed that where there is no grace. There's no duty. But if grace be the ground of obligation it is no more grace but debt.

Close quote. This is a very very thoughtful uneducated pastor. This is profound. I commend this man's wrestlings to you. The whole weight of this objection He says the whole weight of this objection. Rests upon the supposition that we do not stand in need of the Holy Spirit to enable us to comply with our duty.

In other words High Calvinists and Arminians reject the all-famous sentence of st. Augustine. Grant what you wish and command what you will. I say that right? Maybe I didn't read it. Command what you wish and give what you command.

That's Augustine Fuller says. To me it appears that the necessity of divine influence and even a change of heart prior to believing is Perfectly consistent with its being the immediate duty of the unregenerate to believe.

Now that's because he was so biblical. He would not let so-called logic drive him away from that. So here's what he writes. The same things are required to show that.

God.

Gives what he commands and he has a right to command what we ought to give. Even if we're unable to do it and then give it here's his defense. The same things are required in one place in the Bible which are promised in another.

Quote. Only fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all your heart. Quote. I will put the fear in their hearts that they shall not turn from me. So in one place the command of fear. In another place I'll put the fear in when the sacred writers speak of the divine precepts.

They neither disown them nor infer from them self-sufficiency to conform to them. But turn them into prayer. Thou has commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes in fine.

The scriptures uniformly teach us that all our sufficiency to do good or to abstain from evil is from above. Repentance and faith therefore may be duties. Notwithstanding there being the gifts of God.

The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation

Now in his most famous book on this issue the gospel worthy of all Acceptation fuller piles text on text on text. To show that it is the duty of unbelievers. To believe the duty of the unregenerate to believe.

These are his final court of appeal however. It helps. Once you have made your commitment on the basis of Bible to fly in the face of high Calvinist so-called logic or Armenian so-called Logic it helps to have a Jonathan Edwards come along and say it really is rational and he found Edwards distinction between natural inability and moral inability.

Tremendously helpful and I'll just mention how and we'll move on to sandemanianism. Remember the logic went like this. It is absurd and cruel to require of any man. What is beyond his power his ability? to perform.

And in response to That Fuller got his key insight from Edwards who distinguished natural inability. Which is what? Natural inability is the owing is owing to the lack of rational faculties. In other words, you're you're you're insane or you're an imbecile or you're tiny baby bodily powers like you're your hands are handcuffed behind your back with steel and you're commanded to play the piano or External advantages like you're on the other side of the globe.

You never heard of the gospel and you're supposed to believe the gospel. You won't be damned for not believing the gospel. You'd be damned for not believing what you see. That's the way he saw it in text like Romans 2 12 for all who have sinned without the law Perish without the law and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

She's a principal there. So natural inability is lack of rational faculties bodily powers external Advantages no excuse. I mean there's that creates an excuse Not to do what you're commanded to do if those things are standing in the way, however.

Moral inability was different from that moral inability was owing entirely to your Disinclination to do what you're commanded to do if your will is so criminally adverse. To the one telling you to do something you can't do it and That can't is as real as the I can't my hands are tied behind my back.

But they are morally different and the moral inability does not remove obligation. But the natural inability removes Obligation. He found this distinction very very helpful. And so have I over The years here's what he wrote there is an essential difference between an ability which is independent of the inclination and One that is owing to nothing else.

It is just as impossible For any person to do that which he has no mind to do as To perform that which surpasses his natural powers and hence It is that the same terms are used in the one case and the other.

Inability is used in both cases even though they're very different morally speaking so the all-important conclusion from this exegetical doctrinal theological controversial labor was enormously practical.

Here's what he wrote. I Every minister of Christ Plainly and faithfully to preach the gospel to all.

Who will hear it and.

As I believe as I believe it the inability of men to do spiritual things to be holy of a moral and therefore of a criminal kind and that it is their duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for Salvation though they Do not.

I therefore believe free and solemn addresses Invitations calls warnings to them to be not only consistent But directly adapted as means in the hand of the Spirit of God to bring them to Christ. I consider it as part of my duty that I could not omit them Without being guilty of the blood of their souls.

Close quote. So Fuller's engagement at the intellectual rigorous level as a pastor and a family man might seem misplaced. Your wife says you have no time for recreation. The price was high in his church and in his family but the fruit was.

Incalculably.

No one else was on the horizon to do this among the particular Baptists to defeat the church destroying Evangelism hindering missions killing Doctrine exegetical mumbo-jumbo and ostensible logic of high Calvinism.

Fuller did it and In doing it in doing it the platform that he set Was the platform from which?

William Carey.

Was launched.

I'm personally not going to throw any stones at the man that I may owe my very life.