The logic is this:

Paul teaches that the Law reveals sin.

He also teaches that the Law brings condemnation as a result.

However, he goes on to teach that the law of conscience is equally condemnatory of both Jew (who has the Law) and Gentile.

So, both Jew and Gentile are under condemnation.

However, if they would repent they would have their sins forgiven.

And the OT in general (and of course the NT) is laced with commands to repent that are uttered either as commands and pleas and invitations of themselves or as parts of prophetic lawsuits. One can even find the Pslsms (81: 13 - 16) talking about what God would do if His people would do the right thing.

And Scripture never says anything about repenting because the sacrifices/atonement/the cross is “sufficient” or “for you” or “for every man.” Rather Scripture simply issues the command/invitation, etc.

So, the warrant to believe / repent comes from the Law and the Word of God and the conditions of the covenant, whether the explicit command of the Law - which I might add included sacrifices, et.al. which presume repentance to be acceptable (a fact spelled out in Scripture in places like 1 Sam. 15 and Hosea) - or the implicit commands of the law of conscience - for men’s religions have invariably called men to turn from evil and do good and many even to make sacrifice to God.

This shows men already know they have a duty to repent from sin - we don’t need to provide some “warrant” based on their moral ability or their election or, yes, even the efficiency or even the sufficiency of the atonement.

The “free offer” only tells them what the proper object of faith and repentance is; it does NOT reveal their duty, for they already know their duty. The external call, on that level, is only confirming to the pagan what he already knows and to those who are exposed to the truths of Scripture what they have been taught.

Thus, we affirm duty faith.

The warrant to believe is therefore not in election or atonement, but in the command - the Law itself, in whichever form it takes. Ergo we affirm what we call duty faith.

I might add that this shows that the sacrifices rest on the covenant, not vice versa, which explains why God can say in the OT that He isn’t concerned about sacrifices as much as faith, obedience, and repentance.

And the OT sacrifices are just pictures of Christ anyway, so God could say that knowing Christ was yet to come.

And thus the sacrifices - and by extension the atonement - rests on the covenant, not vice versa. That’s basic covenantalism, see Vos, for example.

Which of course, negates objections to limited atonement that would say things like “the sufficiency of the atonement must underwrite the free offer / duty faith” for the offer to be bona fide. No, for the atonement is objective and resting on the covenant. The terms and conditions of the covenant as presented and the Law as commanded and revealed are what underwrite the free offer. It may be true that the sufficiency of the cross is such that His work is fit for any sinner, but this does not, thereby mean that it directly underwrites the free offer. That would be hyper-Calvinist logic to say that, for it moves the warrant from election (old hyperism) to the atonement, which only moves the question to another element.

To say that faith/repentance as a duty rests on ability is just a way of saying that ability limits responsibility. Put another way, iff you don’t have the ability, you aren’t responsible. That’s Arminian logic, and, to another extent hyper-Calvinist logic too, for they used that logic to teach antinomianism. In fact, finding a warrant to believe, whether in election or the atonement is simply a way of saying that ability limits responsibility.

Consider:

Ability limits responsibility, ergo, if I am unable to believe I don’t have to believe.

This is the way the hyper-Calvinist denies duty faith and its the conclusion Arminians draw in their objections to us and the reason they use a doctrine of universal prevenient grace or outright deny men are able to do spiritual good accompanying salvation.

This logic appears again here:

I don’t know if I am elect, ergo, I have no warrant to believe and I don’t have to do so.

I don’t know if Christ died for me, ergo I have no warrant to believe and I don’t have to do so.

I don’t know if the atonement is sufficient for every sinner, ergo I have no warrant o believe and don’t have to do so and/or the “free offer” is not bona fide.

That’s why I have serious problems with those who use the sufficient/efficient distinction to say things like “if you negate sufficiency, you negate the free offer” while calling high Calvinists in particular “Gillites” and “hyper-Calvinists.” In the end, THEY are the ones using that logic.

“The warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is not in himself in any sense or in any manner, but in the fact that he is commanded there and then to believe on Jesus Christ.”

“I believe that the tendency of that preaching which puts the warrant for faith anywhere but in the gospel command, is to vex the true penitent, and to console the hypocrite.”

“The gospel command is sufficient warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus Christ.”

All three quotes are from his sermon “The Warrant of Faith” in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit vol. 9 (1863), 663-78.

Thanks for bringing that up (the duty faith and repentance). A cursory look at 17th century Puritan literature would evidence the free offer of the gospel and the call for sinners to repent and believe among Dortian Calvinists.

If you have time, could you elaborate some more on duty resting on the command versus endowment? Do you know if Spurgeon speak to this? I am familiar with his sermon “The Warrant of Faith” and Murray’s book Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, but I cannot recall what Spurgeon said. Just curious.

The difference is that the HyperCalvinist and libertarian rest duty on endowment. The Calvinist rests duty on the command to repent itself. The warrant to repent/covert; the duty to do so, rests on the command, for the command reveals sin, and where sin is revealed, repentance is automatically demanded - and this includes those under the Law’s commands and those under the law of conscience, so the duty is universal.

As Thomas Boston says - our duty to repent of sin and covert to Christ does not rest on our ability (whether natural or by way of prevenient grace); it is what God says it is at any given time.