A reader recently sent me an email asking for answers about assurance of salvation. The reader’s questions are reprinted here by permission, with my responses following. I hope this Q & A will be helpful for others who may be struggling with questions about assurance:
“Is assurance the ‘sine qua non’ of saving faith as they say? If so, then doesn’t that mean that being saved and having doubts about one’s salvation are mutually exclusive? If a person has doubts, then did they ever truly believe? How does Hebrews 11:1 fit into this? Is a person who doubts just a person who never fully believed? What of Calvinists who believe you can’t have absolute assurance? Are they lost? And secondly, and somewhat related to this, Bob Wilkin insists on the belief in eternal security in order for a person to be saved. He has a lot of things to back it up, of course. Do you agree with him? Are all Arminians lost then? If someone believed they were saved before they came to believe in eternal security, were they mistaken? I know many Calvinists and Arminians whom I genuinely believe to be saved. Some of them are very dear friends and even family. Am I compromising the truth because of my love for them?”
I don’t fully agree with the Grace Evangelical Society’s view of saving faith and assurance. We see examples in the Bible of people who doubted: when John the Baptist was in prison he doubted if Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 11:1-6). Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn. 20:24-25), hence the name “doubting Thomas”. Different people doubted; I think of the man in the Gospel accounts who said, “Lord I believe, help my unbelief!” (Mk. 9:24). So my view of saving faith is that a moment of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will save someone’s soul for eternity. Even if it’s only “faith as a mustard seed”! It’s the object of faith that is the key, not how strong or weak my faith is. I think though that some of the Reformers taught that assurance is the essence of faith. Don’t quote me on that but in some of my research I came across some statements by Luther and possibly others and it seemed like that’s what they were saying. But I don’t fully agree with that view. I would say I agree with it but with caveats. For example, I agree that faith is being “fully persuaded” of something, as Paul says in Romans 4:21. But I don’t take that to mean that a person can’t have doubts along the way. The way I understand it (and God knows a person’s heart), is that if at any time even for a second they trust Christ (as the hymn says, “there’s life for a look at the Crucified One”): that’s saving faith! It doesn’t have to be a long drawn-out thing, it can be momentary faith; or why can’t it be? The fact of doubt, I think, shows this to be true. Because otherwise you’d have to say that ANY doubt nullifies saving faith, which I think is absurd. I mean, who would say that a true Christian never doubts? Maybe some people say that; I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say that. Like I said, I see examples in the Bible of believers who had real doubts in matters of faith, even about Christ and/or things that Christ said (see Matt. 11:1-6; Matt. 14:31; Mk. 16:14; Jn. 20:24-25).
So you asked about Hebrews 11:1, and the way I understand it is that yes, it is being assured of what God has said, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be an ongoing or never-ending assurance. It can be, I would say, a momentary assurance: that initial assurance or faith in Christ is saving faith! That’s how I understand it. And then if there are doubts after that, there are doubts. I think everyone has doubts, or I would think most people or at least a lot of people do. That doesn’t mean they’re not saved, it just means they’re human. I mean, if John the Baptist doubted, if the apostles doubted, you can’t get any better humanly speaking than that unless you’re God Himself! Jesus even said in regards to John the Baptist that there is no one born of a woman greater in the kingdom of God than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11), and he doubted Christ! I mean think about it. He doubted whether or not Jesus really was the Messiah. While John was in prison he sent word to Jesus to ask Him, “Is it you or should I look for someone else?” Matthew records John the Baptist saying: “Are Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:2-3). I just want to quote Lewis Sperry Chafer because he has a good thought that I’ve liked ever since the first time I read it. In his book Salvation, Chafer asks the question (p. 112): “What if a believer’s faith should fail?” To which Chafer gives the following very insightful answer: “Faith, it may be answered, is not meritorious. We are not saved because we possess the saving virtue of faith. We are saved through faith, and because of the grace of God. Incidentally faith is the only possible response of the heart to that grace. Saving faith is an act: not an attitude. Its work is accomplished when its object has been gained.” So that’s an excellent and very well-said statement regarding saving faith, and faith in general. And what I said goes right along with that: i.e. that it’s that initial and possibly even momentary and possibly even dare I say fleeting faith in Christ that secures for us the free gift of eternal life. It’s not my strong faith, it’s not my ongoing faith, it’s not my never-doubting faith, it’s my possibly small-as-a-mustard-seed-faith, that single and simple act of faith, if it be in the Right and True Object of Faith, namely the Lord Jesus Christ, that secures for me all the blessings of salvation! Praise the Lord!
I know you also asked about Bob Wilkin and if I agree with him that a person has to believe in eternal security to be saved. No, I don’t quite take that view. Wilkin equates “eternal life” with “eternal security”. Of course the two things are related, but they are not quite the same. Eternal life is the fact, eternal security is the result or the corollary to that. The Bible says “eternal life”: that’s the promise of God. Whether or not a person understands that as implying eternal security is another step along the way, I would say. It’s like when the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”. Well, the meaning of course is that Christ died for ALL our sins, that’s what the Scriptures teach and that is what Paul means since he doesn’t qualify it or specify otherwise. So that’s the gospel, or at least the heart of it: the heart of the gospel. But whether or not a person believes or understands that to specifically mean “eternal security” is another question. Eternal security is the logical conclusion of the fact that if Christ died for all my sins, then that means that no sin can ever cause me to lose my salvation. But that realization or understanding is an extrapolation or a deduction based on the facts of the gospel. You see the difference? Eternal security is not explicitly stated, that’s the logical or we could probably even say the obvious conclusion, but it’s not explicitly stated. A person has to extrapolate that out. A person has to take the next logical step to get to that conclusion. Wilkin says, no a person has to understand that up front. Well, why? Where is believing in specifically “eternal security” ever made a requirement in the Bible or even in the Gospel of John? Wilkin says, well because Jesus says He gives “eternal life”. Okay, but that just proves my point that He didn’t say “eternal security”. Wilkin says, well a person has to understand or interpret it as meaning “eternal security”. Well, that’s writing John’s Gospel, not interpreting it. John used the words “eternal life” and a person has to believe that, not necessarily understand all the implications of that, nor even fully understand what that all means. Lewis Sperry Chafer affirms that: “A man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed.” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 75.) Does a person have to pass an exam in theology to get saved? Wilkin is the one who calls us (traditional Free Grace people) the “theological legalists” because we teach that the required content of saving faith is to not only believe in the person of Christ but also His work (1 Cor. 15:3 ff). But now it seems that Wilkin is being the “theological legalist” by requiring people to pass “Basic Theology 101” in order to get to heaven! It’s like you give them a test with one question and ask them: How do you interpret the phrase “eternal life”? There’s one right answer and if you get it right then you can go to heaven, but if you get it wrong then sorry you go to hell. And the right answer according to Wilkin is “eternal security”. Excuse me, anybody see a problem with that? That’s reading your preconceived theological viewpoint into the text, that’s what’s called eisegesis. The proper way to interpret the Bible is called exegesis: getting the meaning out of the text. But eisegesis is reading your own views into the text. That’s backwards! “Eternal life” means exactly what it says: “eternal life”. Wilkin wants to redefine it to mean “eternal security” but that’s not what Jesus said. And the troubling thing about what Wilkin is doing is he’s not just redefining “eternal life”, but he also has redefined other biblical terms such as “Christ”, “repentance”, and “salvation”. To Wilkin, the term “Christ” doesn’t mean “Son of God” (as in John 20:31), but instead Wilkin says it means “Guarantor of eternal life”. And Wilkin says repentance doesn’t mean “to change one’s mind” but instead it means (according to Wilkin), “turn from sins” or in other words, “get in harmony with God”. And “salvation” according to Wilkin is no longer in reference to justification, but it only has to do with sanctification and deliverance for Christians. So again, anyone see a problem here?? Wilkin is reading his preconceived theological bias or viewpoint into the biblical text and coming up with these new meanings. That is not proper hermaneutics; that’s not proper Bible interpretation. So I think it helps to see the big picture of what Wilkin is doing because he’s basically twisting Scripture. We have to be careful about that.
I know you also asked about Calvinists and Arminians and if they are saved. I wouldn’t want to make a hasty generalization or jump to conclusions. I think it would be wrong to make a blanket statement and say they’re all going to hell. I mean, I think common sense indicates otherwise. For example, I’d say that some Roman Catholics are saved in spite of the fact that they are Roman Catholic. I’ve personally met some saved Roman Catholics. They believe salvation is by grace apart from works, they just don’t want to leave the Roman Catholic church for whatever reason. One lady I met didn’t want to leave the Roman Catholic Church because she thought she had more of a ministry to people in the Church by being in the Church herself. I met another person, he was a Roman Catholic, and he believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; and he of course disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church on that. But he didn’t want to leave the Church because he had grown up in it and to him it was what he was familiar with all his life; and he was apparently enamored by the tradition and nostalgia of it. So his reasons were sentimental. If I remember correctly, I think he also said that he felt he’d be a better witness to Roman Catholics by being inside the Church. We talked about it at length on several different occasions, and I believe he’s a saved man. I don’t agree with him about staying in the Church, but I believe he’s a saved man. A Christian friend of mine, a brother in Christ, also talked with him about it and came to the same conclusion: that this man is saved in spite of the fact that he’s a Roman Catholic. So I think we can’t just make a hasty generalization, but we have to take everyone on a case-by-case basis. So that’s how I would answer your question in regards to anyone who is a Calvinist or an Arminian. It’s not as simple as that, there’s more to it than that; it’s deeper than merely asking the question: Are you a Calvinist? Or, Are you an Arminian? Or, Are you a Roman Catholic? The real question is: Who or what are you trusting in for salvation? Or, Was there ever a time in your life when you did trust in Christ alone apart from works? And to answer those questions we have to consider each person individually and evaluate each situation on a case-by-case or individual basis. So that’s how I would approach it and look at it and that’s how I would answer your question about that. I hope that helps. God Bless!
By His Grace,
Jonathan
8 comments:
For more information see the GraceLife Ministries article by Dr. Charlie Bing titled:
"Does John's Gospel Demand Belief in Eternal Security for Salvation? (GraceNotes, No. 79).
The link to the PDF on the GraceLife Ministries website is below:
https://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/pdf/gracenotes79.pdf
David R. Anderson (an advocate of traditional Free Grace Theology) writes the following very helpful information in his article “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?” CTS Journal (Spring 2008), pp. 52-54:
Eternal Life Equals Eternal Security [Anderson is critiquing this view.]
“Part of the confusion over plugging eternal security into the justification equation is that the biblical use of ‘eternal’ and ours are not the same in every instance. When we say, ‘eternal security,’ ‘eternal’ has reference in our minds to linear time. But there are many biblical uses of ‘eternal,’ even when descriptive of ‘life,’ that have nothing to do with linear time. Eternal life can be laid hold of by fighting the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12) and by giving money (1 Timothy 6:17-19, as well as Galatians 6:6–9). In Titus 1:2 eternal life is connected with the full knowledge of truth and presented as a hope instead of a guarantee. In Titus 3:7 people who have been justified are looking forward to an inheritance (often understood as a reward in Paul) and the hope of eternal life that goes along with such inheritance. A similar use is in Matthew 19:29, where inheriting eternal life is presented by Jesus as a reward to those who have forsaken things in this life for His kingdom’s cause. And in Romans 6:23 eternal life is presented as the daily experience of being free from the tyranny of our sinful natures, not some sort of existence that lasts forever in linear time. Accordingly, Romans 6:23 is the gospel to saints, not to sinners.
The point is that ‘eternal security,’ as we understand it in modern theological circles (once saved always saved) is not an apt and equivalent substitution for ‘eternal life’ in many biblical examples. Even in John’s Gospel ‘eternal life’ does not always refer to the gift of life forever in linear time. Sometimes it does (John 3:15, 16, 18; 4:14, 36), and sometimes it does not (see John 12:25, where the reference is to self-sacrifice and following Him, as in Matthew 16:24–27, where eternal life refers to rewards). We need to be careful in our biblical theology to use words biblically. Even when we say that he ‘guarantees eternal life’ instead of eternal security, most people are thinking of linear time. When John wants to make linear time perfectly clear, he uses eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, i.e., ‘with a view to the ages of the ages,’ usually translated ‘forever and ever’ (Revelation 4:9, 10; 5:14; 10:6; 15:7).
Another problem with equating eternal life with eternal security is that the latter conjures up many questions and doubts not raised by the promise of eternal life:
1. ‘Yes, I believe eternal life is a gift from God, but that doesn’t mean He can’t take the gift back again.’ How many times have we heard this one?
2. ‘Yes, I believe eternal life is a gift from God, but that doesn’t mean I can’t give the gift back.’ Chuck Smith and his followers teach this.
3. ‘Of course, when I believe, God gives me eternal life through Christ, but what if I stop believing?’
The questions go on and on, but none of them was probably in the mind of the new believer when he first believed God’s promise(s).”
[Continued below....]
“That eternal security is a doctrine to be embraced after justification is evidenced by the Book of Romans. While many treat Romans 9–11 as some sort of parenthesis on the sovereignty of God that does not really advance the argument of Romans, I would suggest that these chapters form the climax of the first thrust of the book. According to Larry Crabb and Abraham Maslow, man’s two greatest needs are for security and significance. We usually grab on to all sorts of things in this world to meet these two needs. But ultimately they can only be met by God. In Romans 1–11 God shows us how He will meet our need for security; in Romans 12–16 He shows us how He can meet our need for significance.
At the end of Romans 8, the imaginary Jewish objector, who has been dogging Paul throughout the epistle and raising questions which seem problematic for Paul’s theology, challenges Paul’s last point. Paul has just claimed that nothing can separate believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus. But the objector raises his hand and says, ‘Wait a minute. God has rejected the elect before, and He can do it again. Just look at Israel. They were His chosen people, but He has cast them away because of their unfaithfulness.’ This is a challenge to eternal security. The next three chapters answer that objection. Paul seals the doctrine of eternal security when he punctuates his argument with these words: ‘The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable’ (11:29).
But here is the point. This indispensable letter takes us from the unbeliever to the fully devoted and serving follower of Jesus Christ. The point on security comes long after the teaching on justification and even progressive sanctification. Yet its positioning before Romans 12–16 is of paramount importance. Before a believer can serve with the proper motive, he must know that he is secure, but a person does not need to know he is secure to be saved (justified). If he did, Paul would have included the teaching on security at the same time or immediately after the teaching on justification. Someone could object that security is implicit in the teaching on justification. If so, why include it at all? To say security is implicit in the faith required for justification flies in the face of the carefully constructed order of the book, and again, it is an argument from silence.”
Source: David R. Anderson, “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?” CTS Journal (Spring 2008), pp. 52-54.
Furthermore, I should point out that in passages such as John 3:14-17 for example, "eternal life" is the RESULT of believing in Christ, not the required content of faith. So here again Bob Wilkin is twisting Scripture by turning the result of saving faith (i.e. "eternal life") into the required content of saving faith.
And I'm not the only one to point this out. Yankee Arnold points this out in his sermon titled "No Cross, No Gospel", and Ken Wilson also points it out (and discusses it in more detail) in his book Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society. I don't fully agree with everything that Wilson says in his book (e.g. he thinks that "faith + works" although wrong, is still a saving message!?), but I do agree with him in regards to the error of the GES gospel.
To highlight the absurdity of Bob Wilkin's position, take a simple illustration based on John 3:16. Keep in mind that Wilkin is the one who teaches that all a lost person has to believe to be saved is snippets of text from the Gospel of John. So accordingly (using Wilkin's logic and his slogan "Believe in Him for life"), if a lost person only hears the words "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish..." (Jn. 3:16a), is that person saved or lost? (Notice that in the previous example the promise of "eternal life" is left out!) Based on Wilkin's public statements, he would have to say that such a person could hear and believe that promise of Jesus and still be unsaved because the promise of specifically "eternal life" was missing! Yet Jesus nonetheless promised that whosoever believes in Him should "not perish", i.e. would be saved! So I'm just pointing out that the promise of "eternal life" is really not part of the content of the gospel message (even according to Wilkin if he were consistent with what he teaches) because if the promise of specifically "eternal life" was required to believe, then Jesus would be lying when he said that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM would "not perish", because believing in Him is really not enough to save if believing in the promise of specifically "eternal life" is also required. Just a thought that I had pointing out the inconsistency of Wilkin's position. Because remember, his entire ministry (GES) is build on the mantra: "Believe in Him for life". But he doesn't really believe that! If he were intellectually honest, he would have to say that in his view a lost person must "Believe in Christ [AND IN HIS PROMISE OF 'ETERNAL LIFE'] for life." Wilkin might respond by saying, well that's included implicitly, or the slogan implies that. Well then he just disproved his entire premise, because traditional Free Grace people say the same thing: we say that to believe in Christ includes and implies an understanding of other facts such as His person and work. So Wilkin's entire ministry is build on a self-refuting premise, which is that it's really not enough to "Believe in Him [i.e. HIS PERSON] for life" — a person must also believe in HIS PROMISE of specifically "eternal life". So it's belief in His person AND His promise; whereas traditional Free Grace people say that the saving message is to believe in His person and work: not His person & promise, but His person & work. But at least we are consistent because we tell people that up front. But Wilkin calls us traditional Free Grace people "theological legalists" for requiring belief in Christ's person & work, when in reality he (Wilkin) does the same thing only using different theological content! So Wilkin has a double standard and his views are self-refuting. I just wanted to point that out and hopefully open some people's eyes to what he's doing. It's all very subtle and deceptive. Beware of the GES Gospel!
Actually, something Bob Wilkin wrote in 2009 shows that the phrase "eternal life" is not exactly the same as "eternal security". The statement I'm referring to is when Wilkin said: "believe in Jesus for everlasting life that can never be lost." (Wilkin, "Four Free Grace Views Related to Two Issues: Assurance and the Five Essentials," Grace In Focus, [July/August 2009]: 1.)
The fact that Wilkin felt the need to clarify "everlasting life" by adding the phrase: "that can never be lost", shows that "everlasting life" and "eternal security" are not necessarily the same; or at the very least Wilkin's clarification shows that someone could believe in "everlasting life" without interpreting or understanding it to mean specifically "eternal security". And that is exactly my point! In other words, Wilkin's clarification (when he adds the words: "that can never be lost") shows that someone could believe they have "eternal life" yet not fully understand what it means, and not specifically connect it with "eternal security".
And in John 3:16 for example, it doesn't say "eternal life that can never be lost", it simply says "eternal life". So my point is that someone could believe the words of Jesus in John 3:16 but not fully understand what "eternal life" means, or maybe they just don't specifically connect it with "eternal security" at first. They believe it, but maybe they don't fully understand it. And Wilkin's own statement shows that this is a real possibility.
Here's another statement by Bob Wilkin that show that "eternal life" is not necessarily the same as specifically "eternal security". In a blog article last year on the Grace Evangelical Society's website, Wilkin wrote the following:
"If someone says, 'I have eternal life,' he may mean I have it right now, but I can lose it. Likewise, 'Jesus gives eternal life,' does not indicate that it’s secure. Both statements could be made by someone who does not believe his salvation is irrevocable." (Wilkin, "Must Assurance of Salvation Be Based on Jesus' Promise?" GES blog, June 8, 2023, emphasis his.)
Exactly. This highlights the fact that believing in Jesus' promise of "eternal life" is not necessarily the same as believing in "eternal security". Furthermore, as I mentioned in a previous comment, John 3:16 doesn't say "eternal life that can never be lost", it simply says "eternal life". Therefore, someone could believe in Jesus' promise of "eternal life" without specifically understanding it or interpreting it to mean "eternal security". And Wilkin even admits it. But such a person still believes in the promise of Jesus! Yet Wilkin would have to say that such a person is unsaved because he or she has not believed in specifically "eternal security". It just shows that Wilkin's requirement for salvation (believing in "eternal security") is not what the Bible teaches. Wilkin is twisting Scripture to make it fit with his new requirement of believing in specifically "eternal security" up front for salvation.
I just found another example of how Wilkin twists Scripture in an attempt to bolster his promise-only gospel. Wilkin writes the following in an article titled "Is Salvation Merely the Result of Believing in Jesus?" (GES blog, Jan 7, 2022), he says: "C.C. asked what verses specifically say that we must believe in Jesus for what He promises? There are scores. John 6:47, which C. C. cites, is one. 'He who believes in Me has everlasting life.'"
But notice that John 6:47 does NOT say (as Wilkin suggests) that "we must believe in Jesus for what He promises". Instead, Jesus says (as Wilkin even admits by quoting the verse), "He who believes in Me has everlasting life." So the key phrase is when Jesus says, "He who believes in Me". Jesus doesn't say, "He who believe in Me and My promise". That is NOT what Jesus says. John 6:47 shows that everlasting life is the result of saving faith, not the required object of faith, nor even the content of belief. Compare John 20:30-31, which says: "these things are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." Again, eternal life is clearly the result of believing in Jesus, not part of the content of faith. Notice too that in John 20:31 the content of faith is stated to be "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God". Oddly enough, Wilkin the his GES folks teach that the unsaved DON'T need to believe in the deity of Jesus (that He is "the Christ, the Son of God") in order to be saved. So Wilkin is twisting John 6:47 in an attempt to support his mishandling of the Gospel.
Post a Comment