March 3, 2006
-
GORDON CLARK AND ASSURANCE OF
SALVATIONGod doesn’t always use His friends to spread the truth. In fact, He has
caused many unregenerate people to preach the gospel out of envy. Balaam, Judas
and Gordon Clark are just a few.On pages 38-39 of Sanctification, Clark refutes the idea that
assurance can be based on good works. He writes,“Faith, love and obedience, while they do not automatically produce
assurance, are none the less requirements for being a candidate, so to speak, to
receive it. Actually love is one form of obedience, since it is commanded, and
hence belief and overt obedience are the two requisites.There is, however, a difficulty. It is the same one Luther struggled with
before he discovered the doctrine of justification. In Romanism he was supposed
to earn his salvation by good works, penance, flagellation, and various monkish
practices. But, being very sincere, he was troubled because he could never be
sure that he had done enough.A similar difficulty arises here. If we wish to distinguish a valid
assurance from a false assurance, how can we know that we have a sufficient
theological knowledge and a sufficient degree of obedience to have met the
requirements? Do we love deeply enough? Have we satisfied John’s criteria? Is
there any devotional writer who has forthrightly faced this problem? It is hard
to believe that none of them has thought of it. (
Hey, just wanted to thank you for the comment. I read through some of what you wrote above and enjoyed reading someone so dedicated to the true gospel and what some might call the finer points but which I would call the most important points of its doctrine.
I had a book recommendation for you based on all your talk of assurance: “Heaven on Earth” by Thomas Brooks. I’m currently going through it in a book study with my pastor and some other college students. Brooks is a Puritan from the 17th century and is arguing that all true Christians can gain assurance and the great blessing it can bring. We actually just finished a chapter that discussed the inherent misery of being an Arminian regarding the question of assurance.
As far as the points you made in my comments, I’d completely agree that those who truly hold to the Arminian beliefs aren’t saved. But I know from personal experience with my own mother that there are those who call themselves Arminians but (a) don’t really understand the implications of some of what they say and (b) aren’t true Arminians. They use familiar language of free will and making the choice to follow God, but would also willingly admit to the control and sovereignty of God. I know, it’s a complete contradiction, but I must admit I myself use to try to find a happy medium between the two before God opened my eyes to see clearly how my salvation came about. Even a converted and regenerate man struggles to retain some of the control of his life, much to his own detriment. Only by God’s grace do we see clearly that we never were and never will be in control of our own lives and by extention our own salvation.
So thanks again for looking me up and may God bless your proclamation and defense of His true gospel.
Andrew,
Please do yourself and your readers a favor and brush up on logic and try to get it straight. You write here about a missing “Middle Premise” when there is no such animal!
Per G. Clark in his book “Logic”, a syllogism is “an inference with two premises and three terms, the latter so arranged that one term from each premise is also in the conclusion, and one term is in both premises but not in the conclusion”. The two premises are: the major premise (containing the major term) and the minor premise (containing the minor term). The three terms are: the major term (predicate of the conclusion), the minor term (subject of the conclusion), and the middle term (occurring in both premises, but not in the conclusion).
Clark’s “Logic” is available from The Trinity Foundation at a good price, affordable even for one from the land of OZ!
Regards,
Reinhard
Post a Comment