What Is Sandemanianism? An Introduction Part 1

ROOTS OF EASY BELIEVISM?

This is a video by John Piper explaining Andrew Fuller's refutation of the Sandemanian heresy. It begins about the two min. mark.

Fuller at the time he writes his Strictures on Sandemanianism, fifty years prior was a teaching by John Glas and Richard Sandeman that had gained some widespread acceptance by some professing Christians. Robert Sandeman was the son-inlaw of John Glas. John Glas originated this teaching in Scotland in 1730. Robert Sandeman made his way to America in the late 1700’s and with him brought this teaching. Later it found it’s way to Halifax, Nova Scotia.
This teaching knew no discrimination as to the denominations of orthodox Christianity it has stricken with some influence. Mr. Fuller is writing a series of refutations not primarily to Mr. Glass but to Richard Sandeman. Richard Sandeman's version of this teaching was what was more prevalent in his area. Mr. Fuller states "that this teaching of both Glas and Sandeman, gave a new turn and character to almost everything pertaining to the religion of Christ". Sandeman's teaching was not only spread through his speaking but in his many writings and publications. Fuller coins Sandeman's teaching a “system” he calls Sandemaniaism named after Richard Sandeman because as Fuller writes “it not only as I have said affects the whole of Christianity but induces all who engage it to separate from other Christians". Sandeman desired that those who were associated with him and held his teachings as truth to unconnect with all others and that they should be considered the only true churches of Christ". Fuller calls Sandemaniasim a "distinct species of religion". So it requires a name of its own for distinctions sake and designates it to be named after its author.

Fuller writes “if Mr. Sandeman and his followers, had only taught that faith has revealed truth for its object or that which is prior to being believed, or not. That the finished work of Christ exclusive of every act, exercise or thought of the human mind is that for the sake of which a sinner is justified before God- that no qualifications of any kind are necessary to warrant our believing in Him, in that the first scriptural consolation received by the believer arises from the gospel, and not from reflecting on the feelings of his own mind towards it they would have deserved well of the church of Christ".In other words, when we speak of the faith which justifies, we dare not separate the act of faith from the object of faith. It is Christ the object which lends all its force and efficiency to the act of faith, and hence we find the Scriptures declaring concerning justifying faith what cannot be affirmed in regard to any merely intellectual act, that "it works by love," "purifies the heart," and "overcomes the world." It is, in short, a thoroughly practical principle influencing the whole heart and life of man, thus sanctifying while it saves. It is an undoubted truth that faith in itself without reference to its object, but viewed simply as a fundamental principle of the human mind, may be regarded as a purely intellectual act.
Fuller writes "subjective religion is as necessary in its place as objective religion. It is as true that without holiness no man shall see the Lord as that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin”.Sandeman objected to any notion of one having examined himself and on that examination be found to be in the will of God. He equated that examination as to having confidence in ones flesh and such self-examination being repugnant to the whole tenor of scripture.
According to Fuller “a system may contain much important truth, and yet be blended with so much error, as to destroy its salvific efficacy. Mr. Sandeman has expunged from Christianity a great deal of false religion; but whether he has exhibited that of Christ and His apostles, is another question. It is much easier to point out the defects and errors of other systems, then to substitute one that is even less exceptional; and talk of simple belief, and simple truth, then to exhibit the religion of Jesus in its genuine simplicity".Fuller knows that the principals or errors on which Sandeman’s teaching’s rest are many and some of them so minute as to almost allude detection but the effects produced from Sandeman’s teaching most importantly , the effects on the gospel of Jesus Christ was well worth refuting. “The seed is small, but the branch is not so” states Fuller.
Those who are in main line denominations such as Presbyterian, Independents, and Baptists had been affected by these errors of Sandeman, although these mainline denominations would say they object to Sandeman’s teachings, they were nonetheless affected. This error is still to be found in one form or another still to this day. But yet often goes undetected.

Next the letters of refutation by Andrew Fuller.