Sandemanianism

J.D. · Aug 6, 2007

npetreley said:

JD, I find this a tough one to ponder. I'm beginning to change my mind about the turning point of salvation (at least from our perspective), but I don't think I'm prepared to go as far as sandemanianism.

The Bible is filled with people getting saved by belief. The question is, what does it mean when it says things like, "all who were appointed to eternal life, believed"? Was that the moment they not only believed in the facts, but also began to TRUST?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a tough one. There's a lot of what Clark says that makes sense, and I would like to embrace his system. But there are too many things about that are nagging me, not the least of which is this idea of faith being a purely epistemological process.

I might grant that "faith", or "belief", in and of themselves, are mere functions of the rational mind. But you understand the difference between these two statements:

1. Npet, I believe you.
2. Npet, I believe in you.

Do you see the difference? When we say we have “faith” IN someone, I don’t see any way to exclude trust from that formula.

Also, for Clark, “heart” and “mind” are basically synonymous, and I can agree that they are used interchangeably at times, but they clearly are not interchangeable at other times.

It seems to me that on one side of the spectrum we have sandemanianism which reduces faith to an intellectual activity, and on the other side we have experientialism (Huntington, Gadsby come to mind) which reduces faith to a feeling. I noticed a long time ago that the Gospel Standard confession uses the word “feel” in regards to faith – a statement I found alarming. The problem with both systems is that they are based on the same rational. “Such and such happened when I was saved, therefore, such and such must happen in order for YOU to be saved, or else you are not saved.” It’s an effort to describe salvation by one’s personal experience.

It’s critical to know that you believe in Christ, but it is not critical to know the exact point in time at which conversion took place nor the precise means that brought it about. All we really know for sure is that “once I was blind, but now I see.”

All of this confusion begins to clear when I look at the order of salvation. The reformed/Calvinistic view of regeneration is the only way any of this can make sense. Regeneration is the first direct act upon the elect sinner which enables him to both KNOW and EXPERIENCE his conversion. While this act is direct, it is also secret, hence, we can not identify the exact moment in which we were changed from children of wrath to children of God. All the things we commonly associate with salvation (faith, repentance, love, hope, obedience, fellowship, etc.) are all nothing more than evidences of that first secret work of God, and all of us can identify a time, whether in a particular moment or in a season, in which we became AWARE of our relationship to God through Christ. This event is conversion. I do not accept that regeneration and conversion is simultaneous. Regeneration must precede conversion, and by what amount of time, I’ll leave up to God. I guess this view is unorthodox, but I’m stikin widit till I’m convinced otherwise.

As far as I can tell, a person that bears no evidence of regeneration and conversion in heart and behavior has no right to be assured of their salvation. Weakness of the flesh notwithstanding, a person that has no conscience toward God should not find comfort in their “sinners prayer”, or any other form in which they made their profession of empty faith. If that’s judgmental, then may God forgive me.

Faith alone · Aug 8, 2007

I too am a free grace adherrant. I have heard Zane speak many times, and am a friend of his, as well as Bob Wilkin. There has recently been a split in the movement, in which some, Zane and Bob, for example, now hold to a gospel that I have some issues with. But it goes even deeper than just the condition of faith alone. It has to do with the content of the faith as well, saying that someone today need not understand that Christ has died for them, or perhaps even understand that Jesus was God... I have a problem with that. I hope that I am just not understanding them accurately. Now they do not say that Christ's crucifixion and deity is not crucial, but that it is not essential to salvivic faith. Still, that's kinda scary.

Now I do think that we need to qualify what they say, however. I have spoken with Zane and am confident about this, unless he has changed drastically since last we met a couple of years ago. But they would absolutely agree that if someone came to faith in Christ that they became a new creation at that moment - that they have been changed, becoming a child of God. I imagine that the distinction they would make is that people may not see any evidence of the new creation - only God may see that, in some cases. But they would definitely insist, as has been said, that works may not follow faith.

Bob and Zane also hesitate to use "trust" even as a synonym for "believe," which can lead one to assume that the faith they are referencing is indeed just mental assent. But they would not agree with such a dsecription. I will add a couple of things we should consider though:

1 - Calvin himself said that "assurance is of the essence of faith" and has expressed it as something more passive than is typically viewed in modern circles.

2 - Zane and Bob would most definitely not refer to their understanding of faith as "mere mental assent!" That is how it is expressed by others who oppose them.

3 - What they would emphasize, regarding works following faith, is that the moment a person believed he was regenerated. But that we have no guarantee that works will follow... that has to do with discipleship.

From their perspective, this is an attempt to divorce grace from works in any manner. Some may not agree with what they say, but if we recognize what they are attempting to accomplish regarding the purity of the gospel, well... perhaps we'd have a bit more sympathy.

So I am not sure about this. It does appear that their faith is at least quite close to Sandemanianism, though why such labels should be a concern is beyond me. I know that Bob has debated James White on more than one occasion, I believe. But to just use labels as part of your debating technique to me is not really ethical - if that is what happened.

I could imagine Bob responding to James and saying that James White has a works variety of salvation, which would not be fair to James. (He didn't, I don't think - I'm just hypothesizing here) Why do I say it wouldn't be fair? Because James would never agree that he held to anything but "faith alone" - sola fide. Similarly, if Bob would never agree that his position is one of sandemanianism, then we should not label him as such. We can point out where we disagree with his theology, but such labeling is not profitable or fair, IMO, and should be avoided.

"That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."
Click to expand...

I think that they may very well agree with this statement. Though to be fair to them, we should just ask them. But you can look up what Zane wrote in a two-part article (available at www.faithalone.org online) entitled "How to Lead Someone to Christ" to see what he believes. I have an issue with some of the following from that article. Hopefully this will clarify his position, since he was really talking about the hypothetical, not real scenarios:

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable.

On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47).

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn’t know enough. For example, he doesn’t know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again the third day. Needless to say, there is a lot more he doesn’t know either, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship of Jesus or the doctrine of the virgin birth.

But why is he not saved if he believes the promise of Jesus’ words? It is precisely the ability of Jesus to guarantee eternal life that makes Him the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term.

and

But what about the cross of Christ? Is it not essential for a man to know about that in order to be saved? … (emphasis added here and throughout this text)

The disciples of Jesus were saved without knowledge of the death and resurrection of their Master. However, some people today would say, “But it’s different now that the cross is behind us. Now we have to believe in that as well.” Do we? Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from the Gospel of John. …

Let me repeat. Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this. If we say that it does, we are reading something into the text and not reading something out of it!

What is my point? That we should not preach the cross of Christ to men? Not at all. I will make it emphatically clear a little later on that I think we should. Instead, I am arguing that we need to focus on the core issue in bringing men and women to faith and eternal life. What is that core issue?

Very simply it is this: We want people to believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny. Of course, we would like them to believe a lot more than this, but this at least must be believed. Our failure to clearly define our goal in evangelism can have a negative or impeding effect on our efforts to lead people to simple faith in Christ.
Click to expand...

But in conclusion, could someone quote where Bob in a debate with James White referred to faith as assent to facts or mental assent? If we don't have such, then I don't think we should claim this to be his position.

Regarding "repentance," (METANOIA), Bob did his doctoral dissertation on this. But he has "changed his mind" about his position regarding repentance since then. He does not see it as a necessary part of the gospel message, nor does Zane. I personally see it as a necessary precursor to the gospel, as do many free gracers.

Oh, one last comment. I would be interested in any quotes to the effect that Ryrie does not hold to the "trust" aspect of faith. I believe he does. He definitely does insist on the necessity of the cross in the preaching of the gospel and does refer to works following faith.

Thx,

FA

GeneMBridges said:

Frankly, Brother, I'm only making that statement based on what they have themselves stated about their own theology.

In the debate with Dr. James White, Bob Wilkin flatly denied that saving faith bears fruit and flatly stated that saving faith amounts to assent to a set of facts. I'm sorry you don't see that as "Sandemanian," but what, pray tell, would qualify them if their own confessions of their beliefs doesn't?

Protestant Christians (of the non-Sandemanian variety - which is the vast majority of Protestant Christendom I might add) see works as a necessary evidence of genuine faith, something that follows conversion and subsequently vindicates one as a true believer as opposed to a mere confessor of the faith.

Works function then, much like the fruit of a tree does, they reveal the underlying nature/root. Just as apples on a tree don't make a tree an apple tree (rather they reveal it to be truly an apple tree) so too works (according to traditional Protestant theology) reveal whether one is truly born again or merely one who professes to know God while still unregenerate (cf. Titus 2:15).

In other words, according to traditional Protestant soteriology, works follow genuine conversion/justification and they do not precede or cause/contribute to it.

Wilkins denies this. Zane Hodges has done so as well.

Bob Wilkin says there are 3 positions on eternal security in that camp. 2 of them, according to him, believe the believer can apostatize from the faith and still be considered "saved." The 3rd does not.

Wilkin admits to denying the third, because he has argued against the perseverance of the saints.

Wilkin flatly admits that repentance is not part of saving faith. He has done so openly for the public.

See here

Click to expand...

Faith alone · Aug 8, 2007

Zane Hodges

Isee that to be fair to Zane, I should include the following portion of his article on how to share the gospel. His view of the importance of sharing the cross when preaching the gospel is clear:

I need hardly tell you, do I, that the Greek word for “gospel” (euangelion) as well as the word for “preach the gospel” (euangelizos) are both words found frequently in Paul. Peter also uses these words a total of 4 times in his first epistle. Luke uses the verb many times in Luke and Acts, the noun twice in Acts. Matthew and Mark have both words.

Are you ready for this? John never uses either word in his gospel. Why? Because, as I have already suggested, John makes the Person of Jesus, not a set of doctrines, the object of the faith that brings eternal life. Fundamentally he is trying to get people to believe in Jesus for their eternal salvation.

But this is precisely where preaching the cross becomes so important. Why should men trust Christ for eternal life? The gospel gives us the wonderful answer. They should do so because Jesus has bought their salvation at the cost of His own precious blood. And God has placed His seal on the work of the cross by raising Jesus from the dead. As Paul states: He “was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25).

The preaching of the cross greatly facilitates the process of bringing men to faith in God’s Son.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

Sandemanianism

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter

Faith alone New Member

Faith alone New Member

Useful Searches

Sandemanianism

J.D. Active Member Site Supporter

Faith alone New Member

Faith alone New Member

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter