Thursday, January 4, 2024

Believing, But Not Understanding

Bob Wilkin says that in order for a lost person to be saved, they must interpret the phrase “eternal life” to mean specifically “eternal security”.[1] This is the correct interpretation and understanding of “eternal life” according to Bob Wilkin. But besides the fact that he is turning the result of saving faith into the required content of that faith, there is another glaring problem with Wilkin’s reasoning. As Lewis Sperry Chafer has said, “The man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed”![2] Wilkin’s attitude in regards to understanding eternal security up front for salvation reminds me of the three young men in the following story, which illustrates the point well:

“‘I will not believe anything but what I understand,’ said a self-confident young man in a hotel one day.
‘Nor will I,’ said another.
‘Neither will I,’ chimed in a third.
‘Gentlemen,’ said one well known to me, who was on a journey, and who sat close by, ‘do I understand you correctly, that you will not believe anything that you don’t understand?’
‘I will not,’ said one, and so said each one of the trio.
‘Well,’ said the stranger, “in my ride this morning I saw some geese in a field eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Certainly,’ said the three unbelievers.
‘I also saw the pigs eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Of course,’ said the three.
‘And I also saw sheep and cows eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Of course,’ was again replied.
‘Well, but the grass which they had formerly eaten, had, by digestion, turned to feathers on the backs of geese, to bristles on the backs of swine, to wool on the sheep, and on the cows it had turned to hair; do you believe that, gentlemen?’
‘Certainly,’ they replied.
‘Yes, you believe it,’ he rejoined, ‘BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?’
They were confounded and silent, and evidently ashamed, as they well might be.”[3]

A lost person can believe the words of Jesus that “whosoever believes in Me should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16) without fully understanding the concept of “eternal life”, much less interpreting it as specifically “eternal security”! If a man is drowning and I throw him a life raft, assuring him that I will pull him to safety if he grabs hold of it, must the drowning person understand the intricacies of the life raft’s design and how it floats, or does he simply trust the person to save him? Wilkin is essentially making understanding the life raft a requirement to be saved, when Jesus says rather to simply “believe in HIM” – that is, to simply believe in His person and work!
 
 
ENDNOTES:
 
[1] See the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Affirmations of Belief” web page under the heading “What We Believe – Fuller Statement”, where it says under the sub-heading “Assurance of Salvation”: “Assurance is of the essence of saving faith. That is, if a person has never been sure that he personally is eternally secure by faith alone, then he has never been regenerated. Assurance is always present at the moment of saving faith, though it is possible that a Christian may later doubt his salvation.” (“Affirmations of Belief,” emphasis added. https://faithalone.org/beliefs/) Note: Bob Wilkin is the founder and Execute Director of the Grace Evangelical Society.
 
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), vol. 1, p. 75.
 
[3] “Believing, But Not Understanding,” Good News, November 2, 1868, no page number. www.google.com/books/edition/Good_news/wBoFAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PP321&printsec=frontcover (accessed January 4, 2023).

3 comments:

Jonathan Perreault said...

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.

Jonathan Perreault said...

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.

Jonathan Perreault said...

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.