Sunday, February 11, 2007

On the issue of Assurance of Salvation (part 2)

[continued on from the previous post here]

Faith is the "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). Redemption is the process whereby a price is paid to redeem something which is yours (i.e. redeem a pawned watch). Redemption in the theological sense is thus the process whereby God paid a price to save a people for Himself. Justification is the process by which a person is deemed to be innocent. It is typically used in a legal context, and thus the picture is that of the accused being declared innocent before the court by the Judge (no Jury here) and thus is considered guiltless of the charges which are brought against him. In the biblical sense of the word, Justification is the process whereby a sinner is considered as being sinless in the sight of God the Judge. Propitiation is the means by which God declares the sinner righteous in his sight. Closely linked to this concept is the idea of substitutionary atonement, that God died for sinners as a substitute in their place, which is the means by which an all Holy God could ever justify anyone in the first place. So what is propitiation? Propitiation is the process described in 2 Cor. 5:21, where it is written:

For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21)

He (God) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin; that is, God imputes to His Son Jesus Christ the sins of His people. Even though Jesus "knew no sin", i.e. was sinless, He became the sin bearer, the Lamb who was slain, in order to pay the penalty for our sins, which is death. Thus, he was sentenced to death on the Cross for our sins and died on our behalf. In the words of Scripture:

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed (Is. 53:5)

He took our place. Even though we deserve to die, he died in our place, so that we do not need to die. And what's more, he gave us life in him. In 2 Cor. 5:21b, it is further stated that he died "so that we might become the righteousness of God". What, you say? Become the righteousness of God? But we are still sinful! We sin daily, and the more we try NOT to sin, the more we sin. But this is what Scripture says, that we through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ might become the righteousness of God. Not based on our own effort, but based on the righteousness of Christ alone, which theologians have termed the "active righteousness of Christ". As the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF, Chapter XI — Of Justification, Sentence I)

Thus, propitiation is the process whereby our sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ's obedience and sastisfaction made on our behalf is imputed to us (Double imputation).

Finally, what is reconciliation? Reconciliation is the effect of the death of Christ, which is that those of us who were once alienated from God, are now brought near to God, the dividing wall of hostility that once stood between an holy God and depraved sinners (Rom. 5:10), and Jews and Gentiles, are torn asunder (Eph. 2:13-16). Whereas before we were enemies, God has become our friend.

Therefore, biblically, the basis for our salvation is Christ and his work on the Cross. As we shall see later, it is all of Christ, none of us. It is Christ that redeems us; it is God the Father who justifies us based upon the propitiation by the blood of Jesus, and thus saves us; it is Christ who reconciles us with God. Everything is from God and by God.

So what has all of this profound theological stuff got to do with the (simple) doctrine of Assurance of Salvation? Plenty! Tell me, upon what basis is a person saved? By works, or by faith? Based upon something on Man's part or everything on God's part? If we don't even know the basis of our salvation, then how can we even begin to understand how we can go about having assurance of salvation? If we are saved by works, then how does anyone ever be assured of their salvation? Shouldn't they be afraid that, regardless of all the good works and obedience they have done unto the Lord, they might apostasize on their death bed, thereby sending them into an eternity in hell? More pertinent to us historic Evangelicals, if the basis for our salvation depends partly on our choice, therefore one can choose Christ one day and then reject him the next, then shouldn't we be afraid that we might just deny Christ on our deathbed, and therefore spend the entire eternity in hell? After all, we ALL have free will, right?

The question regarding the basis of our salvation, and thus the foundation upon which we can have the assurance of our faith for us historic Evangelicals, is regarding the role of God and Man in salvation. Definitely, we believe in salvation by faith alone apart from works (Eph. 2:8-9). However, do we contribute anything of value to the entire process? If we do, then salvation is partly by us, and therefore, we can undo our salvation also. However, if salvation is not in any way determined by us, then we can't "undo" our salvation, so to speak, and therefore full assurance of salvation is possible.

This question is at the core of one of the most controversial debates in Church history; — the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, controversial not because the issues are difficult to resolve, but because humanism is such a strong force even within those who turn to Christ, and bring their humanism with them to the study of God's Word. It is not my wish to re-exposit the various verses to prove the Calvinist/Reformed position as the correct one (Interested readers can look at the two articles here and here), so here I would by and large assume the position as the biblical one and post some relevant verses relating to the topic.

With regards to the basis of our salvation, verses like Jn. 6:37 are a constant comfort to the saints, which would only make sense within a Reformed soteiological matrix. Here are some verses that I would like to concentrate on later:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (Jn. 6:37)

For this is the will of the Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (Jn. 6:40)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (Jn. 6:44)

Truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life (Jn. 6:47)

And those whom He predestined, he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say of these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justified. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the cone who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall seperate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

"For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, no heights, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to seperate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:30-39)

[to be continued]

11 comments:

Evangelical books said...

Perhaps you may wish to tighten your definition of "Propitiation".

Evangelical books said...

Sorry, but you did not make clear what "faith" is - apart from a single prooftext at the beginning. Assurance and faith are linked and are 2 sides to the same coin.

Daniel C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel C said...

Hello Jenson,

when you mention about tightening the definition of the term "propitiation", are you talking about the L in TULIP, i.e. the extent and intent of the work of propitation of our Lord Jesus Christ through His blood? Or defining the meaning of imputation as opposed to infusion? Or defining it further as the process of turning away of wrath? Or something else?

With regards to faith, you are correct to point out that I didn't exactly define it here, which is not exactly my main intention here anyway. Perhaps on another post?

Evangelical books said...

All I am asking for is a prayerful consideration about the way you wrote about "propitiation", and rewriting it when necessary.

Your series is interesting to read, have you read Berkhof's little booklet "The Assurance of Faith" (Solid Ground Books)? I quote some of Joel Beeke's thoughts on the book:

"This book is unsurpassed in its clear, classically Reformed presentation of the threefold foundation of assurance of faith: the promises of God, the inward witness of the Spirit, and the testimony of the Christian graces..."

Assurance has always been a difficult subject, even for the most seasoned Christians. There is despair on one hand, and presumption on the other. Hitting the right spot is more difficult and yet simple at the same time.

Daniel C said...

Hello Jenson,

of course I didn't claim to have written everything there is to write regarding the term propitiation, nor that what I write is definitely always as well written as it could be. Perhaps you can tell me what exactly you have in mind to improve on the definition? I would very much like to know more about your thoughts on the subject.

And no, actually I haven't read Berkhof's booklet The Assurance of Faith. I am writing this series partly as a favor to my sister Evelyn, and partly because I need to review my own thoughts on the subject so that I may know how to go about teaching on the topic of assurance of salvation, which is especially needed if two guys whom I am doing evangelistic bible study with receive Christ, which I sincerely hope they will.

I agree with you that this topic is not as simple as most Neo-evangelicals make it out to be, and we need to guard against presumption on the one hand and despair on the other. For this series, I hope that I have managed to show people the correct direction in some small way, and that somehow it would be edifying to the saints.

Do give me more feedback on the entire series. After all, iron sharpens iron... :P

Evangelical books said...

You want to "go about teaching on the topic of assurance of salvation..."? First, live an obedient Christian life, set a good example. It was not for nothing that I discussed with you about Sabbath-breaking and CCC.

What kind of a message are you sending to your friends? All theology will be nothing if your life does not reflect the spirit of the Christian faith.

Daniel C said...

Jenson,

you have accused me of Sabbath-breaking and of being unequally yoked. Let us look at the issue.

With regards to the Sabbath issue, I remembered and I rechecked the archives that the issue was not resolved at all. Your argument on Sunday-only Sabbath makes a lot of assumptions which are not found in Scripture, and which I reject. Just because I am not honoring the Sabbath YOUR way DOES not equal I am not honoring it period. In fact, if you want to talk about work, do you drive to Met Tab on Sunday? If so, have you ever topped up the fuel tank on Sundays if it is empty? What would happen if your car (if you have one) broke down, since going to church through the public transport service would be patronizing it and thus support the working of bus drivers and tube train operators on Sunday? Would you therefore stay at home instead of going to church then? How about cooking? Since the various groups in Met Tab prepare lunch in the church, am I to conclude that cooking is OK as long as it is not done for money, but it is violating the Sabbath if it is done for money? Oh yes, doesn't your definition of honoring the Sabbath precludes the sale of Christian books through the Met Tab bookstore, since profit (no matter how little) will definitely be made!

With regards to CCC, let's just say that I am do not share the same idea of the doctrine of seperation from you. Yes, seperation is important, but not to the extent that the Fundamentalists, especially Dispensational-leaning ones, take it to be. I am not joining CCC officially, and I would be graduating in a few months time, so that's all to it. The way the Fundamentalists do things, they would rather see a Christian be starved of Christian fellowship and thus be susceptible to the attacks of the devil (who btw loves lone Christians) rather than letting him/her join them in their activities, all because the group's organization's international head has compromised in his practice. (eh... 4th degree seperation!) Anyway, after looking at the entire Fundamentalist movement for quite some time, you would pardon me for rejecting the ridiculous extremities upon which they oftentimes take the doctrine of seperation! Seperating from other believers just because that believer is engaged in ministry with another believer who is a close friend of a compromiser!! Totally ridiculous!!

Evangelical books said...

Since you wish to be stubborn about this, I will leave it as such.

You may write all the posts, blogs, even book(s). However, I would like to see you live out your "Reformed" faith....At home, at college and most of all, in church.

Come on, let's see it...

Daniel C said...

Hello Jenson,

if you haven't realized it yet, I came to the Reformed position through Scripture, NOT the other way round!! Since you can not prove your non-essential doctrinal emphasis through Scripture, you do not have the authority of Scripture to back up your claims. Since that is the case, unless you can do otherwise, I will ignore your attempt to force your traditions on me, thank you.

With that said, I am living out the Christian life as the Holy Spirit guides me. Am I perfect? No, but I have faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to preserve me and that the Holy Spirit to guide me in Him. I am not interested in "living out the Reformed faith" as defined by you if that means that I will need to subject myself to the unbiblical traditions of Man. I will rather obey my Lord, thank you.

With that said, I have noticed that you have not answered any of the questions I have raised of your strict Sabbaterianism. Realize that according to your position, you are condemning yourself if you ever take public transport to church on Sunday. You are also condemning anyone who takes public transport to church on Sunday. Guess church for you must be only for those who are either within walking distance of a church, or for those who can afford a car! Or maybe you think that people should walk for kilometers to go to church every weekend!

Daniel C said...

Jenson:

Oh, another thing. Given the fact that I do not own a car, and my church is quite a distance away, would you advise me to walk to church every Sunday so as to observe the Sabbath. I guess that the walk would take about 3-4 hours, so that means I will need to wake up around 4am every Sunday to "observe the Sabbath".