Sovereign Grace as the Only Rational Basis for Assurance

"Let your souls be filled and enlarged with everlasting admirings [sic] of that grace (that sovereign grace) which has so impregnably secured the salvation of His chosen, that no manner of thing, whether within them or without them, shall be able to defeat it or hinder them of it. No, not the gates of hell. Nay, not so much as one of the stakes thereof shall be removed, and that forever. Shaken you may be, and tossed with a tempest, but not overturned, because ye have an eternal root. Electing love is of that sovereignty that it rules and overrules all, both in heaven and in earth." -Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

In this paragraph, Coles paraphrases and summarizes several passages of Scripture, primary of which is Romans 8:38-39: "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present

nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

The point of both Apostle Paul and Coles is that the assurance of the Christian is secure, not because of the power of the believer to maintain his spiritual condition, but because he is sustained by the same sovereign grace which saved him in the beginning. For, as Paul also says, "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6: see also 2:13). 

Does any Christian believe that God is unaware of our weakness, of our frailty, of the strength of the opposition (I Peter 5:8)? If He weren't, then we could have no rational basis for our assurance of eternal life. When Satan assails us with accusations of our unworthiness, he merely throws in our faces what is absolutely correct! However, Satan will never go to the next step, telling us of the grace and power of God the Son, our Redeemer Jesus Christ, because that would defeat all of Satan's designs against us. It is only in the Word of God that we are blessed with this promise: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29, emphasis added). Our security is assured, not by any strength that we have, for we have none. Rather, it is guaranteed by the strength of the One who holds us.

The Assurance of Perseverance

Arminians like to argue against the biblical doctrine of perseverance by citing the biblical warnings against apostasy. Those warnings truly exist; no Calvinist would say otherwise. The problem is that the Arminian argues further that the existence of the warning logically requires that the apostasy of true believers must be possible. To that the Calvinist objects as an unwarranted leap of logic. 

"That a righteous man may fall is evident. And as evident it is that he cannot fall finally. For, though he fall seven times in a day, as often does he rise again, Proverbs 24:16, and this because 'the Lord upholdeth him with His hand,' Psalm 37:24, and again, 'the Lord upholdeth all that fall,' Psalm 145:14. That is, either He stays them when they are falling, or so orders and limits the matter that they fall not into mischief, as others do, and, to be sure, He will set them on their feet again. The absolute promise cannot be nullified or made uncertain by cautionary words elsewhere delivered" -- Puritan Elisha Coles, A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty. Coles continues, "The Lord does ordinarily bring about His purposes by means, of which cautions are a part. And by which, as a means, He keeps off the evil cautioned against."

Coles' point, which is an important one, is that God's warnings of the consequences of apostasy are one of the means by which He prevents the elect from experiencing those consequences. It is like the parent of a small child, who warns against touching the hot stove. The parent expects his warning to prevent that against which he has warned. Yet the Arminian wants us to believe that the parent's warning implies that the child will, then, proceed to touch the stove and get burned. Not only does the parent have no such expectation,  but God even less so, because He has effectual means for maintaining the faith of the true believer. 

Weariness and the Call of the Gospel

One of the most comforting statements in the Bible comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). His reference to "rest for your souls" is an indication that He was not speaking of physical weariness, or, at least, not primarily. Rather, He was describing the burden of sin, of which He alone is the cure. 

Turning from the weight of sin to liberation in Jesus is something that only the elect person can do. The reprobate, in contrast, while they experience the futility of sin, will turn to any other source for relief, whether it is substance abuse, moral reform, or a false religion. But, by his very nature, the reprobate is unable to depend on the only solution that works, i. e., redemption and sanctification by Jesus, received by grace alone through faith alone. 

An error is often committed here, even among folks who profess the Reformed Faith. And that error is to teach that Jesus is appealing to the undistinguished mass of humanity, whether elect or reprobate, because, they suppose, God wants "all to be saved" (out of context from I Timothy 2:4). They believe that God has two wills at war with each other, the will to save some, elected from prehistory, but not others, and another will that wants all to be saved. This is called by the misleading phrase "the well-meant gospel offer." That is, offered by God. No one disagrees that we men cannot know who is or is not elect, so we sincerely desire everyone with whom we share the Gospel to respond in saving faith. 

God, however, certainly does know. Yet this doctrine, admittedly the majority doctrine, holds that He, nevertheless, desires everyone without exception to believe unto salvation. This is in spite of what Jesus also tells us in another place: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So we have this doctrine of the well-meant offer claiming that God works at cross purposes, both drawing and refraining to draw the same men. How can such a schizophrenic being be God? 

Rather, God gives a general outward announcement of the gospel, to which He has decreed that a portion, the elect, will respond in saving faith.  To the reprobate, the hearing of the Gospel is not an invitation to believe, but is, instead, a declaration of judgment, because God has decided to harden them against the word that they hear. That increases their judgment. It is not an effort at cross purposes to the secret will of God. 

The doctrine of the well-meant gospel offer seems to be an effort by Calvinists to take the edge off the doctrine of election, to make it more palatable to the Arminians around us. Yet, how can the insult to the omnipotence of God be worth any softening of our opponents toward us? Not that I believe that Arminians are made any more hospitable thereby. The doctrine puts God in violation of the logical principle of non-contradiction; it violates the Scriptures that tell us that God necessarily achieves His will (e. g., Daniel 4:35 and Psalm 135:6). In support of it is no Scripture or logically-consistent principle. 

Therefore, I am compelled to reject it. 

How Can I Know that the Bible Is the Inerrant Word of God?

The Christian philosopher and apologist Gordon Clark once wrote, "Because God is sovereign, God's authority can be taken only on God's authority. As the scripture says, 'Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself' (Hebrews 6:13)" (from God's Hammer, p. 39). His point was that confirmation of authority comes from higher authority. However, there can be no authority higher than God by which to confirm what He says. By His own authority, therefore, He declares His own truth and authority. 

The thoughtful person sees this and asks, "But isn't this circular reasoning?" And it is. Yet, we can see the impossibility of an alternative if we ask a parallel question: "How can you prove logic without presupposing logic as the basis for its proof?" 

The thoughtful Christian might ask whether the unbeliever would be convinced by that argument. And the obvious answer is that an unbeliever would not be convinced. Yet we must deny that his disbelief is based on a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, his rejection would arise from his own presuppositions against God's authority. Those presuppositions are the inherent nature of unbelief (Romans 1:18). 

On the other hand, we know that there are many Christians who receive the Bible as God's word, and that it is necessarily, therefore, inerrant. I am one of those Christians. Yet that belief did not arise from a consideration of a chain of logical arguments or archeological verifications. 

So, from where did my belief come? 

Clark quotes from the Institutes of John Calvin: "It is, therefore, such a persuasion as requires no reason; such a knowledge as is supported by the highest reason and in which the mind rests with greater security and constancy than in any reasons; in fine, such a sense as cannot be produced but by a revelation from Heaven" (I. vii.5). By "revelation," Calvin meant no such thing as a voice whispering in the believer's ear. Rather, in the process of effectual calling, the Holy Spirit causes the man's spirit to recognize the truth of the Scriptures as he reads them or hears them preached. 

This concept was picked up later (1646) in the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith (I:5), the doctrinal statement of the world's Presbyterians: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." The Westminster divines added to Calvin's argument that Scripture provides good reasons for recognizing it as the Word of God. Yet the unbeliever suppresses his awareness of those qualities (Romans 1:18). He cannot recognize them exactly because of his unbelief (I Corinthians 2:14). He cannot be argued out of his unbelief, because his unbelief is a matter of sin, not ignorance. 

The case here demonstrates why we never see an apologetical situation in the New Testament in which Jesus or the Apostles ever argued for acceptance of Scriptural proofs. Even when Jesus faced Satan and when Paul preached to the pagan philosophers of Athens, each argued from Scripture as his starting point, not as a subsidiary point requiring proof. 

We must remember the promise of God: "So shall My Word be, that goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). God promises success to His word, not to our attempts to appeal to the fallen intellect of the unbeliever. "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (James 1:18). There has never been any other way by which God has converted His elect (Romans 10:8-15).

The Conversion of Israel As Proof of the Saint's Perseverance

"I will establish his [i. e., David's] offspring forever, and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake My law, and do not walk according to My rules, if they violate My statutes, and do not keep  My commandments, then I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him My steadfast love or be false to My faithfulness. I will not violate My covenant or alter the word that went forth from My lips" (Psalm 89:29-34). 

These are the words of God in His covenantal promises to King David. Paul echoes them in II Timothy 2:13: "If we are faithless, He remains faithful - because He cannot deny Himself." In both passages, God's faithfulness to His people is never founded on our faithfulness to Him. Rather, even when we are unfaithful, He remains faithful, because to do otherwise would be to deny Himself. To violate His covenant promises would be a betrayal of His own nature, and is, therefore, unthinkable. 

We know the history of Israel, though it was still future to the time of the writing of the Psalm. She was, indeed, unfaithful, and God did, indeed, bring down on her fearsome judgments, especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians, and the carrying away by them of the bulk of the population into captivity. This was a judgment only succeeded by the later judgment under the Romans in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was again looted and the temple destroyed, and an estimated 1.1 million Jews were massacred. From that judgment, the Jews have not yet recovered. Rather, Israel lies under a judicial hardening for her rejection and murder of her Messiah. 

Yet even that judgment points to Psalm 89. 

"It is true [that] the body of that nation, for their unbelief, is now broken off; there is a suspension of the outward part of the covenant. Not that God intends an utter rejection of them. For such as have part in the special election are always saved, Romans 11:7, and the time will come when all Israel shall be saved. For, as touching the election, they are beloved still, though yet unborn. For their sakes it was that 'those days of tribulation were shortened,' Matthew 24:22, which answers to Isaiah 65:8, 'Destroy it not, there is a blessing in it.' The Lord will not so much regard what they have done or deserved as what His covenant is concerning Abraham's seed, which, minding of His covenant, is from the unchangeableness of His purpose. And, therefore, though broken off at present, 'they shall be grafted in again,' verse 24, though driven into all lands, scattered into corners, mingled with the heathen, and become so like them as not to be known asunder. Yet, being His chosen, and within His covenant, He will bring them out of their holes and gather them one by one, Isaiah 27:12. He will do it so accurately, exactly, punctually, that none shall be wanting, 'though sifted among all nations, not one grain shall fall to the earth,' Amos 9:9. The reservation mentioned in Romans 11 was God's omnipotent safeguarding of His elect, when the rest of the nation fell to idolatry. They had gone all, as well as some, had not election held them back. It is, therefore, said to be according to the election of grace. Election was the pattern, and reservation the copy of it" ( Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty"). 

Coles cites the faithfulness of God to His promises to Abraham as the grounds for the sustaining of a faithful remnant among the Jews, and for their eventual national repentance and salvation. And that same faithfulness is why the Christian can be assured that God will enable him to persevere in this life unto eternal life in the age to come. 

Kings Your Foster Fathers and Queens Your Nursing Mothers: Biblical Religion the Duty of the Christian Magistrate

"Kings shall be your foster fathers and their queens your nursing mothers" (Isaiah 49:23). 

In today's America, a supposed religious neutrality is enforced by law, especially by a zealously secular judicial system. I question whether that was ever the intention of the Founders when they adopted the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below is an extended quote from John Bannerman, in his book, The Church of Christ, in which he argues for the doctrine of the established church, as he knew in Scotland. 

"I take it for granted, as a fact not to be disputed, that the state, in all its acts, is to be accounted a moral and responsible agent, as much as any individual that is a subject of it; and that, although not under law to man, the supreme power, or organ of the state, is under law to God. I take it for granted, further, that, in consequence of this responsibility to God, the state is bound, as the first and chief of its duties, to own His will, as embodied in the form of a supernatural revelation from Him, and, in its national capacity, to recognize the authority and the Word of God as its law. And now, with an inspired revelation from God in its hands, what is it that the state learns as to its own interests and duties? It learns, in the first place, the intimate and indissoluble connection between the interests of civil society and the interests of true religion; and that, to promote the wellbeing, or, rather, to insure the existence of the state, it is necessary to call in the aid of powers and influences which the state has not in itself. It finds that what is awanting [sic] in civil society for accomplishing the very end of its own existence, the Gospel alone can supply; and that, for the state to dismiss, as a matter foreign to it, the religious instruction and spiritual wellbeing of the people at large, is to forego the main instrumentality which God has put into its hands for securing the authority of law, for promoting the ends of civil government, [and] for protecting the rights and furthering the peace of society. All this is too plain to need illustration. Without some religion, no society on earth, it is admitted by all parties, could exist at all; and without the true religion, no society can exist happily. Law would cease to be enforced if it had to trust to punishment alone for its authority, without any higher motive to secure obedience to it; and justice between man and man could not be carried into effect if it had no hold upon the conscience and the moral sense of a nation. And can it be alleged that religion is a matter with which states, as such, have no right to intermeddle, when it, in reality, forms the main and only secure foundation on which the authority of state rests - the only sanction sufficient to enforce right and to deter from wrong in a community - the only force strong enough to ensure obedience and respect for law - the only bond that can bind together the discordant elements of human society, and give peace between man and man? To assert that it is no duty of the civil magistrate to care for the religion of the people is nothing less than to assert that he is at liberty to forego the chief or only certain stay of his own authority, and to disregard what is essential to his own existence or wellbeing. If religion be the great and indissoluble cement of human society, then the magistrate is bound, by a regard to his own interests, and for the sake of the grand objects for which a state exists at all, to make the care of religion one of the first duties he has to discharge towards his people." [emphasis in the original]