I have been reading through the Strictures on Sandemanianism by Andrew Fuller. It is a tough read due to the writing style of the 18th century author. But, it is rich with doctrine and theology. Fuller writes this refutation of the Sandemanian heresy in a form of letters primarily to a Mr. Mclean who is espousing this false doctrine. His writings on the subject were published in the early 19th century. Fuller came in contact with this teaching in Scotland. Mr. Sandeman eventually brought this teaching here to America. Unfortunately it is still being taught in the form of the "easy believism" gospel. Although what we see in most cases today is not as obvious as the Sandemanian heresy that Fuller wrote against in the middle 18th century, it is still being preached and taught in a more subtle form in many churches today.
Sandemanianism refers primarily to an aspect of theology regarding the nature of faith promoted by Robert Sandeman (1718-1781), (from which it derives its name) and his father-in-law John Glas (1695-1773) in Scotland and England during the mid 18th century.
I read that those who are against Lordship salvation can and often do fall into this heretical view. I decided to check it out for myself since I have been involved in a few discussions about the Lordship teaching with those who consider LS as heretical, or a false gospel.
So,I came across articles on the Internet that referenced Andrew Fuller's work as being a very thought out refutation of the "intellectual only, assent to the gospel " as all that is necessary for salvation. After reading several summaries of what Mr. Fuller wrote in his Strictures on Sandemanianism, I have now began the "slooow" plod through his actual work on the subject. I am amazed that the same arguments he dispels centuries ago, are most often, the same arguments that the non Lordship advocates use today.
What really intrigued me was how he referenced the use of the Law and the gospel as it relates to repentance and faith. As you read notice how important Mr. Fuller understands the importance of a sinner coming to grips with himself as a Law breaker. That is, the importance of someone seeing themselves as guilty of breaking God's Holy Law. The importance of the individual seeing this as the Holy Spirit convicts him of his sin (transgressing the Law of God), before the Gospel is most often presented effectually. How important is presenting the Holy Law of God to those we witness to? How important did these men of old believe this to be?
How this should spur us to use the Law of God in witnessing.
Andrew Fuller writes:
There is, I apprehend, an important difference between the case of a person, who, whatever be his convictions, is still averse from giving up every claim, and falling at the feet of the saviour, and that of one whose convictions lead him to take refuge in the gospel, as far as he understands it, even though at present he may have but a very imperfect view of it. I can clearly conceive of the convictions of the first as having no repentance or holiness in them, but not so of the last. I believe repentance has begun to operate in many persons of this description, who as yet have not found that peace or rest for their souls, which the gospel is adapted to afford.—In short, the question is, whether there be not such a thing as spiritual conviction, or conviction which proceeds from the special influence of the spirit of God, and which in its own nature invariably leads the soul to Christ? It is not necessary that it should be known by the party, or
by others, to be so at the time, nor can it be known but by its effects, or till it his led the sinner to believe in Christ alone for salvation. But this does not prove but that it may exist. And when I read of sin " by the commandment becoming exceeding sinful"—of our being " through the law, dead to the law, that we might live unto God—of the law being appointed, as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith"—I am persuaded it does exist; and that to say all spiritual conviction of sin is by means of the gospel, is anti scriptural and absurd.
In places where the gospel is preached, and where persons have long heard it, it is not supposed that they are necessarily first led to think of the law, and of themselves as transgressors of it; and then, being convinced of the exceeding sinfulness of sin by it, are for the first time led to think of Christ. No. it is not the order of time, but that of cause and effect, for which I plead. It may be by thinking of the death of Christ itself that we are first led to see the evil of sin ; but if it be so, this does not disprove the apostolic doctrine, that " by the law is the knowledge of sin." If the death of Christ furnish us with this knowledge, it is as honouring the precept and penalty of the law. It is still therefore by the law as exemplified in him, that we are convinced.
It has been common to distinguish repentance into legal and evangelical; and I allow there is a foundation in the nature of things, for this distinction. The former arises from the consideration of our sin being a transgression of the holy, just, and good law of our Creator; the latter from the belief of the mercy of God as revealed in the gospel, and the consideration of our sin being committed notwithstanding, and even against it. But it appear* to me, to have been too lightly taken for granted, that all true repentance is confined to the latter. The law and the gospel are not in opposition to, each other; why then should repentance, arising; from the consideration of them be so opposite as that the oue should be false and the other true ?
If we wish to distinguish the false from the true, or that which needs to be repented of, from that which does not, we may perhaps with more propriety denominate them natural and spiritual; by the former understanding that which the mere principles of unrenewed nature are capable of producing, and by the latter, that which proceeds from the supernatural and renovating influence of the Spirit of God.
Natural repentance thus defined, is sorrow for sin chiefly with respect to its consequences, accompanied however with the reproaches of conscience on account of the thing itself. It is composed of remorse, fear, and regret, and is often followed by a. change of conduct. It may arise from a view of the law, and its threatenings, in which case it hath no hope, but worketh death, on
account of there being nothing but death held out by the law for transgressors.
Or it may arise from a partial and false view of the gospel, by which the heart is often melted under an idea of sin being forgiven when it is not so ; in this case it hath hope, but which being unfounded, it not hwithstanding worketh death in a way of self-deception.
Spiritual repentance or sorrow for sin as sin, and as committed against God. It may arise from a view of the death of Christ, through which we perceive how evil and bitter a thing it is, and looking on him whom we have pierced, mourn as one mourneth for an only son. But it may also arise from the consideration of our sin being a transgression of the holy, just, and good law of God, and of our having dishonoured him without cause. Such a sense of the evil nature of sin, as renders it exceeding sinful, includes the essence of true repentance : yet this in the apostle did not arise from the consideration of the gospel, but of the commandment. It was therefore legal repentance: yet, as. its tendency was to render him " dead to the law" as a medium of justification, and to bring him to Christ for life, it was spiritual. It was repentance unto life
No comments:
Post a Comment