“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