Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey
Prayer by Phil Roberts.
2 Timothy 1:12.
2 components of assurance:
1. Certainty that one is saved.
2. Certainty that one in a state of grace will remain in this state.
What is the basis of assurance?
3 components:
1. Present certainty
a. Denied by Council of Trent, Canon 15, which says present certainty only comes through special revelation. (John Calvin pointed to the Bible as special revelation granting assurance.)
b. The Reformers taught that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. All who come to faith have assurance in the moment of their salvation, even if there are subsequent doubts.
c. However, certain doctrines of the Reformers undermine this assurance
i. The distinction between the revealed and hidden will in God.
ii. The doctrine of Limited atonement.
iii. The doctrine of temporary faith given to the non-elect.
d. The Puritans believed that assurance was logically deduced:
i. Whether the Puritans followed or deviated from Calvin is debatable
ii. The Puritans based assurance on sanctification
iii. The Puritans had great anxiety concerning their assurance
iv. The Puritans had a strong doctrine of temporary faith
- Conference-goers were shown on PowerPoint William Perkins’ detailed chart from The Golden Chain, in which the reprobate are given false faith, only discernible from genuine faith after life.
-Perkins almost drove his congregants “nuts”- to the point of near-suicide- with questioning their own salvation; Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners is a miserable book, with Bunyan struggling for years on the question of his salvation.
The use of logical syllogisms:
1. The practical syllogism: If effectual grace is manifested in me, then I am one of the elect.
2. The mystical syllogism: If I experience inward confirmation in the spirit, then I am saved.
The Puritans based assurance on sanctification, rather than on justification.
Augustine and the Arminians taught that apostasy is possible; one may be saved and later lost.
Karl Barth taught that apostasy is impossible through an implicit universalism.
Calvinist and Dispensationalist view is once saved, always saved:
1. Grace Evangelical Society
a. Ignores or explains away warning passages
b. Encourages laxity in Christian commitment
c. Gives false comfort to false believers
2. Demarest teaches that good works are a test of genuineness
a. Example of Peter and Judas
b. Warning passages given to discern between true and false believers
Mediating views: Apostacy is genuinely threatened but not possible.
Dr. Tom Schreiner and A.B. Canneday teach that perseverance is the means by which we are saved. These warnings do not merely threaten believers with loss of rewards, but threaten Hell. The warning passages, however, only speak of conceivable, but not actual consequences. The threats of damnation produce assurance and confidence: they are signposts along the way as the believer runs the marathon of faith. Schreiner and Canneday say that perseverance is the basis of justification.
Critique of this view:
1. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, was Paul concerned he may go to Hell? (If so, this does undermine our assurance.)
2. Just how conceivable is the believer’s apostasy?
3. In their model, what happens to those who don’t persevere?
4. Are they not setting up the same problem that the Puritans dealt with?
5. How is this view not works-based salvation?
Quote from Schreiner:
“Yes, works are necessary to be saved. No this is not works righteousness, for the works are hardly meritorious.”
This is not close to Trent, this is Trent.
A modest proposal:
1. The only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ.
a. Any model that begins with Christ but ends with man is doomed to failure.
b. Christ and Him alone is the basis for assurance.
2. Assurance is the essence of saving faith.
a. Works provide warrant, but not a basis for assurance. Works are the buttress, but Christ and His work are the foundation.
c. Assurance is analogous to how a Christian knows that God loves him even in times of suffering; the Christian may not feel loved, but the Bible reveals that God does love.
3. Saving faith perseveres or remains until the day when it gives way to sight.
a. Perseverance should be viewed more as a promise than a requirement
b. Faith necessarily leads to good works
c. Indifference concerning godliness is more of a “red flag” than weakness in godliness
d. The indwelling Holy Spirit assures that there is no such thing as a happy backslider
4. There are rewards to gain or lose subsequent to faith
5. Assurance comes from Christ alone.
Comments (8) »
1. John Meche
November 7, 2008
4:29 PM
Yay! They got one right.
2. John
November 7, 2008
6:15 PM
The Grace Evangelical Society is a very poor example of dispensationalism. Most dispensationalists that I’m familiar with emphasize the need to persevere, and most hold to a view of assurance pretty close to that taught by Schreiner and Caneday.
3. S Feather
November 7, 2008
7:33 PM
After reading all the other entries from the conference, this is the one that got me a bit more riled up.
Calvinism…
b. Encourages laxity in Christian commitment
c. Gives false comfort to false believers
Why is it you are more likely to find regenerate church membership in a Reformed congregation than in a free-will church?
4. Gene M. Bridges
November 7, 2008
9:23 PM
Schreiner and Canneday say that perseverance is the basis of justification.
No, what he says is that without persevering to the end one cannot be saved…that’s the difference between a living and dead faith.
Then he says this is Trent. Dr. Keathley has made a serious accusation, and, of course the irony is that Dr. K. is closer to Rome given his Molinism. I hope Dr. Schriener responds and soundly so. He does NOT teach that the basis of justification is perseverance. One of the consistent problems with the other side of the theological aisle is the confusion of terms like regeneration and justification with “salvation.” Another is the lobbing of bombs like this without a chance for the opponent to respond. Had I been there, I would have called Dr. Keathley out on this one quickly.
5. Russell Fletcher
November 8, 2008
7:05 AM
Your notes are with mine, almost letter for letter. I sat through the entire conference, except Q&A. I am still formulating my reaction to what was said, but some initial questions are: What is the SBC afraid of: Calvinism, Mohler, revival of Reformed theology, what? Why wasn’t Mohler’s seminary represented and him invited to speak? Why did this turn into exactly what the PR material said it wouldn’t be, a ‘bash the Calvinists’ conference? And why did most of the speakers, as eloquent as they all were, use so very little Scripture to support their positions? (Lectures on the history of Baptists, Calvin, the Synod of Dort, etc. are not convincing proofs of the rightness of their positions.) I know it wasn’t formatted as a debate but having just one Reformed speaker to offer a response would have added a much needed balance to the event. All of that being said, there was some phenomenal preaching, much wisdom was shared with us by some giants of the faith, and I do happen to believe that God was glorified.
6. Drew
November 8, 2008
10:57 AM
@Gene,
Thanks for helping to clarify Schriener’s position. I have heard him lecture on assurance and I think he is spot on. He is miles away from Trent and the accusation was really unfair. I am not sure how that is not Calvinist-bashing? You take one our premier and most accomplished theologians and throw down his name and call him a Roman Catholic without giving him or anyone else the opportunity to respond. That was a gross misunderstanding of Schriener and I think someone from this conference should admit it.
This conference is supposed to be something of an answer to T4G—but T4G is not a conference on Calvinism. They don’t come up and lecture on the 5 points—nor do they throw down names of Non-Calvinist pastors and what they believe.
In fact Mohler in his lecture on the history of penal substitution cited I. Howard Marshall (famous non-Calvinist) favorably! I just think this is miles different than T4G and Building Bridges.
7. David Hollar
November 8, 2008
1:05 PM
My opinion is that predestination dilutes the meaning and value of John 3:16.
8. Andrew Lindsey
November 10, 2008
8:06 AM
David,
Your view of Scripture, however, must take into account that both John 3:16 and predestination are in the Bible (look up “predestined” in your concordance)!
Grace and peace,
-Andrew