The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Strange view on Assurance

Tracy,

Wow.... yes there is a lot of material there which one would need more space and time to reply to than is prudent on this Board. But I would like to make just a few brief comments which hopefully will provide some salient rebuttals of this person's views, re: faith and assurance.

1. His view of faith is not biblically sound, i.e., simple assent to the promises of God. This view was made popular by Robert Sandeman (1718-1771) and latter retained his name to describe it; "Sandemanianism". Today, it is more popularly known as "Easy Believism". For more details as to its history, development and rebuttal, see this article by Michael Haykin: Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanians.

2. For one to have a "full" assurance, i.e., one which is unassailable and undoubted, it would require one possess a perfect faith, which from my reading of Scripture only the Lord Christ owned. The rest of us yet to be perfected sinners are in the process of being sanctified and thus we experience "lows and highs" in our relationship with God. When we sin, our objectively secure union with Christ is effected subjectively, i.e., it becomes "blurred" and results in doubts, fears, etc. This is not only documented in the lives of biblical characters but also in the lives of countless saints throughout recorded history. Peter knew of this experience also and counseled readers of his epistles to therefore, "make your calling and election sure" (cf. 2Pet 1:10). Briefly put, there is a vast difference between the impregnable salvation merited for the elect by Christ and the vacillating experience of that salvation in the life of a believer due to myriad factors.

3. Lastly, the author has a faulty hermeneutic re: interpreting the experience of David in the Psalms. The biblical model for interpreting the Scriptures is: "Historico-Grammatico"; i.e., one must take into account the history of when and where it was written and the language/grammar used. It seems this author has either ignored or rejected the historical aspect in his interpretive method. What I mean is that he has totally rejected the FACT that the Psalms have a real-life aspect to them and apply first to David (or any of the other authors) and then they may be applicable in a spiritual sense, if warranted, to someone or place elsewhere in the future. Thus David's trials, tribulations, joys, etc., were his actual experiences.

In His grace,