“Why? If God exists, why is there suffering? Why doesn’t He snap his fingers and fix everything in an instant? If we had the power to fix everything, we would. Is He not good? Why does it take the Creator so long if He created the whole universe in six days? Does He lack the power? Why does God condemn people to Hell? Why am I the wrong one? Why isn’t everyone saved? If God knew that all this evil would occur, why did He make everything? If He knew people would sin and be sent to Hell, why did He make them? Why didn’t He just make the saved people? I would rather not exist than be sent to Hell.”

Continue reading »

Its Attainment

In writing to a company of the saints an Apostle was inspired to declare, “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform (or “finish”) it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). That is what distinguishes the regenerate children of God from empty professors, from those who while having a “name to live” are really spiritually dead (Rev. 3:1). This is what differentiates true Christians from deluded ones. And in what does this “good work” which is “begun” within the saved consist? It is variously described in different Scriptures. It is the heart being purified by faith (Acts 15:9). It is the love of God being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). It is the Law of God being written in their hearts (Heb. 8:10). Thus, the nature of Christian assurance is a well-founded knowledge that I am a child of God. The basis of this assurance is an unmistakable agreement between my character, experience, and life, and the description which Holy Writ furnishes of the characters, experiences and lives of God’s children. Therefore, the attainment of assurance is by an impartial scrutiny of myself and an honest comparing of myself with the Scriptural marks of God’s children.

A reliable and satisfactory assurance can only be attained or reached by means of a thorough self-examination. “O therefore, Christians, rest not till you can call this rest your own. Sit not down without assurance. Get alone, and bring thy heart to the bar of trial: force it to answer the interrogatories put to it to set the qualifications of the saints on one side, and the qualifications of thyself on the other side, and then judge what resemblance there is between them. Thou hast the same Word before thee, by which to judge thyself now, as thou shalt be judged by at the great day. Thou mayest there read the very articles upon which thou shalt be tried; try thyself by these articles now. Thou mayest there know beforehand on what terms men shall then be acquitted or condemned. Try now whether thou art possessed of that which will acquit thee, or whether thou be in the condition of those that will be condemned; and accordingly acquit or condemn thyself. Yet be sure thou judge by a true touchstone, and mistake not the Scripture description of a saint, that thou neither acquit nor condemn thyself by mistake” (The Saint’s Everlasting Rest, Richard Baxter, 1680). Continue reading »

Its Basis

The task set before us is by no means easily executed. On the one hand, we wish to be kept from taking the “children’s” bread and casting it to the “dogs”; on the other, it is our earnest prayer that we may be delivered from casting a stumbling block before any of God’s “little ones.” That which occasions our difficulty is the desire to expose an empty profession and to be used of God in writing that which, under His free Spirit, may be used in removing the scales from the eyes of those who, though unregenerate, are resting with carnal confidence on some of the Divine promises given to those who are in Christ—for while a sinner is out of Christ, none of the promises belong to him: see 2 Corinthians 1:20. Notwithstanding, it behooves us to seek wisdom from above so that we may write in such a way that any of Christ’s who are yet unestablished in the faith may not draw the conclusion they are still dead in trespasses and sins.

Having before us the twofold object named above, let us ask the question, Is a simple faith in Christ sufficient to save a soul for time and eternity? At the risk of some readers turning away from this article and refusing to read further, we unhesitatingly answer, No, it is not. The Lord Jesus Himself declared, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Repentance is just as essential to salvation as is believing. Again, we read that, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). A “simple faith” which remains alone, a faith which does not purify the heart (Acts 15:9), work by love (Gal. 5:6), and overcome the world (1 John 5:4), will save nobody. Continue reading »

Its Nature

“Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation? Answer: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before Him (1 John 2:3) may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the Truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made (1 John 3:14, 18, 19, 21, 24, etc.), and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God (Rom. 8:16), be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace and shall persevere therein unto salvation (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:12).”

“Assurance is the believer’s full conviction that, through the work of Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture promises to him who believe.”

The careful reader will perceive a considerable difference of doctrine in the two quotations given above. The former is the product of the Puritans, the latter is a fair sample of what the boasted enlightenment of the 20th Century has brought forth. The one is extracted from the Westminster Catechism of Faith (the doctrinal standard of the Presbyterians), the other is taken from the “Scofield Bible.” In the first, the balance of Truth is helpfully preserved: in the second, the work and witness of the Holy Spirit is altogether ignored. This example is only one out of scores we could cite which sadly illustrates how far we have gone backwards. The answer given by the Puritans is calculated to lead to heart searching; the definition (if such it may be called) of the popular dispensationalist is likely to bolster up the deluded. This brings us to consider, more definitely, in regard to assurance, its nature. Continue reading »

The following is the first part of A.W. Pink’s exposition of the doctrine of assurance of salvation.  I hope it challenges you as it has me.

Introduction

By way of introduction and in order to acquaint the reader with the particular angle or viewpoint from which we now approach our present theme, let it be pointed out that changing conditions in Christendom call for an ever-varying emphasis on different aspects of Divine Truth. Did space allow, and were the writer fully equipped for such a task, it would be both interesting and instructive to give in detail the history of the preaching of Assurance throughout this dispensation. Instead, we can barely outline it. At different periods the true servants of God have had to face widely different situations, and meet errors of varied character. This has called for a campaign of offense and defense adapted to the exegencies of many situations. The weapons suited to one conflict were quite useless for another; fresh ones needing to be constantly drawn from the armoury of Scripture. Continue reading »

It was suggested to me by a seminary professor (not my own, but a friend’s dad) that in order to grasp a clearer understanding of Arminianism and its defense (against my Calvinistic beliefs), I ought to check out the book Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell (two professors at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky).  I finally got around to doing that, buying both the book and its companion Why I Am Not an Arminian, and have made it through the first two chapters thus far.  I figured I would write some commentary as I go through.  I’m trying to avoid critiquing any ideas before I’ve read enough to fully grasp them, since Joe and Jerry do a great job at explaining their ideas in detail but not necessarily in immediate context.

On the whole, so far, reading this book has been edifying; I am no more convinced of Arminianism (or rather, against Calvinism since the book is really a polemic rather than apologetic) than before, but I have much more appreciation for Arminians.  Somewhat to my shame, I was one of those Calvinists (there are many of us on both sides really) who wrote off Arminianism as simply ignorant of Scripture and wholly concerned with humanism and philosophy.  But of the works I’ve encountered so far, Why I Am Not a Calvinist provides the most exegesis, and thus, is a worthwhile read for understanding the classical (Wesleyan, as well) Arminian position. Continue reading »

IV. The Total Picture

A. My problems with the “traditional method.”

1. This method compromises God himself by maintaining that his existence is only “possible” albeit “highly probable,” rather than ontologically and “rationally” necessary.

2. It compromises the counsel of God by not understanding it as the only all-inclusive, ultimate “cause” of whatsoever comes to pass.

3. It compromises the revelation of God by:

a. Compromising its necessity. It does so by not recognizing that even in Paradise man had to interpret the general (natural) revelation of God in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God through special revelation. Natural revelation, on the traditional view, can be understood “on its own.” Continue reading »