The Doctrine of Providence

Posted on June 19, 2022 by John Samson

From Great Doctrines of the Bible by Martyn Lloyd-Jones

In our consideration of these biblical doctrines we come now to a consideration of the biblical doctrine of providence. I think it is right that we should consider this doctrine before we deal with man in particular, because it follows on, in logical sequence, from the doctrine of creation. Now perhaps the best way of describing what we mean by providence is to define it in terms of its relationship to creation. We can put it like this: creation, as we saw, means calling into existence something which did not exist before. So if that is creation, then providence means the continuation, or the causing to continue, of that which has been called into existence. Creation brings things into existence, providence keeps them, or guarantees their continuation in existence, in fulfilment of God’s purposes. The doctrine of providence does not just mean, therefore, that God has a foreknowledge of what is going to happen, but is a description of His continuing activity, of what He does in the world, and what He has continued to do since He made the world at the very beginning..

Now there can be no doubt at all but that this doctrine at the present time is a very important one for us to consider. Every biblical doctrine, of course, is important, and we must not take any single one for granted, but if you look at the long history of the Church, you will find that in different times and in different centuries some doctrines assume a particular importance. The great doctrine in the early centuries of the Church was, of necessity, the doctrine of the person of Christ. It had to be. That was the doctrine that was most attacked, so the Church placed its maximum emphasis upon it. At the time of the Reformation it was the doctrine of justification by faith only, and so on, at different times. It behoves us to lay very special emphasis upon particular doctrines, and I am prepared to assert that perhaps in this twentieth century of ours the most important doctrine in many ways is the doctrine of providence.

Now I hope that no one will think that I am arguing that the doctrine of providence is more important than the doctrine of the incarnation or the atonement; that is not my point. I am simply saying that there are certain reasons why we must pay particular attention to this doctrine. Let me give you my reasons. The first is the state of the world at this present time, especially the state of the world during the whole of this century up to now. This doctrine of providence is the stumbling-block to a large number of people who are outside Christ and outside the Church. They say, `I cannot believe your doctrine, I cannot believe your gospel. You say that God is a God of love, well, look at the world; look at the things that have happened in the world; look at these two world wars! How can you reconcile something like that with a God of love, a God who you say is all-powerful, so powerful that there is nothing He cannot do if He so chooses? How can you explain all this?’ So you see, the very historical situation in this century concentrates attention immediately upon this great doctrine of providence.

Then another thing that has focused attention on the doctrine of providence is what we call `special providences’. Now special providences are special interventions of God on behalf of individuals or groups of people. For instance, at Dunkirk during the War a kind of mist came down to protect the soldiers while at the same time the sea was unusually calm and smooth, and many people in this country were ready to say that that was a providential act of God. They said that God had intervened in order to save our troops by making it possible for them to be brought back into this country. There are also those who would say the same thing about the wartime defence of Malta. Then, of course, it has been customary and traditional in this country to say that the same thing happened at the time of the Spanish Armada: that what really accounted for the destruction of that fleet was the change in the direction of the wind.

Furthermore, there are people who claim special providences in their own personal lives. `It is most amazing,’ they say. `Do you know, this is what has happened to me …’—and they describe to you how certain things seem to have been arranged particularly in order to suit their special circumstances! And then, when you tell them that they cannot say things like that, they resent the whole doctrine of providence.

Another reason why it is important to be clear about this doctrine, in this century is that most of the thinking of men and women today seems to be determined by what is called a `scientific outlook’. It is undoubtedly the fact that large numbers of people do not even begin to consider the great message of Christianity because, they say, `Your whole message includes the idea of miracles and these interventions of God. For those who take a scientific outlook, as I do, towards the whole of life, such things are a sheer impossibility, and if your gospel contains the supernatural, I just cannot begin to consider it.’

And the last reason I would adduce is this: you cannot begin to talk about prayer, answered prayer, without at the same time introducing the doctrine of providence. So we must consider this doctrine because many other matters presuppose it.

What, then, does the Bible tell us about the doctrine of providence? Again, we are looking at a very difficult subject. The particular doctrines of salvation that we shall be considering are very simple in comparison with a doctrine like this. It is one of those inscrutable doctrines and there is a hymn which reminds us of that. `God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform,’ says William Cowper, and, `Blind unbelief is sure to err.’ And not only blind unbelief, but lack of faith, but a desire to understand that which is impossible, are certain to lead us into trouble if not into error. Therefore let us approach the doctrine of providence with reverence and humility, going as far Scripture takes us, but not going beyond that.

Now the Bible teaches everywhere, very clearly, as I shall show you, that God is in control of all things. Psalm 104 is enough, in and of itself, to establish that doctrine. There is no limit to what He does. Psalm 103:19 also says, `The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.’ Everywhere. And the Bible teaches us that first of all, as over against deism, to which I have referred, that doctrine which regards the universe as a kind of watch made by the watchmaker, wound up by him, and then put down to run itself out. But the doctrine of providence contradicts that, and I rather like the comparison which was once used to show the difference. The doctrine of providence tells us that the universe, and everything within it, is like a great ship which is being piloted from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, second to second, by God Himself. Furthermore, of course, it is over against pantheism also, which says that God is everything, and in everything, and that therefore you cannot differentiate between the universe and God Himself. The doctrine of providence contradicts both these views.

How, then, do we find this doctrine in the Bible? Well, first of all we find it in a number of very direct statements in the Scriptures. I shall give you a list of them later on. Then another very powerful argument for the doctrine of providence is based upon the fact of prophecy. It would not be possible for a man inspired by God to predict what is going to take place, perhaps in several hundreds of years, unless God controlled everything. Prophecy is not merely foreknowledge, it is a guarantee—that the prophesied events are going to happen because God is in control.

Then another great argument, as we have seen, is derived from answers to prayer. If we did not believe that God controlled everything, there would be no point in praying—we would not pray for sunshine, we would not pray for rain; we would not pray for health and for the control of disease. Prayer, in a sense, would be ridiculous if we did not believe in the doctrine of providence. And that is why deists do not believe in prayer. Pantheists do not pray; there is no purpose in it. But those who believe in the doctrine of providence obviously pray because the very idea of that doctrine immediately leads to prayer.

And our last general argument is the argument from miracles. Were it not that the doctrine of providence is true, if it were not the case that God has His hand upon everything, and is controlling everything, then miracles simply could not take place at all.

So then, what exactly do we mean by providence? I cannot think of a better definition or description than this: `Providence is that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures, is operative in all that transpires in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end.’ We shall consider the biblical proof for that statement later on. Now there are three elements in this idea of providence, and we must differentiate between them in thought as well as in practice, though, of course, the three tend to work together. You can look at the three aspects of providence from different angles. The first is the aspect or the element of preservation—`that continuous work of God by which He maintains the things which He has created, together with the properties and powers with which He has endowed them.’Now this is most important. The Bible teaches that God preserves everything that He has made. It is a continuous work. Some have tried to say that this doctrine of preservation simply means that God does not destroy the work He once made, but that is not preservation. It means more than that; it means that He keeps everything in being.

Others, too, have misunderstood this doctrine. Incidentally, the great Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest theologians that the Christian Church has ever known, that great American who lived two hundred years ago—if ever you find anything written by him buy it and devour it!—Jonathan Edwards himself almost fell into error about this. It is an error which says that preservation means a continuous process of creation, so that God is continually creating, anew and afresh, everything that exists, and everything is kept going by being created in this way from moment to moment. But that is not really preservation, as I understand it, and as it has been traditionally understood. So we will put it like this: everything that has been created by God has a real and permanent existence of its own, apart from the being of God, but that must never be taken to mean that it is self-existent, which belongs to God alone. If things were self-existent they would not need God in order to keep going. That is the difference. God has created a thing, and He keeps it alive. He upholds all things, and they continue to exist as the result of a positive and continued exercise of His divine power.

Notice how Psalm 104 puts it in verses 28-30: `That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.’ Now God does not create these animals of the earth constantly. What He does is to keep life, to preserve what He has already created. Paul, of course, puts this exactly in Acts 17:28: `For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ He means the same thing in Colossians 1:17: `And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.’ They are preserved, they are kept going by Him. It is stated still more strikingly in Hebrews 1:3: `upholding all things by the word of his power’. He has not only made them, He upholds them. There is nothing in the universe that would continue to go forward if God were not upholding it. So we must never think, therefore, of the universe as something which God created and then allowed to work itself out; that is deism.

Second, there is the governmental aspect of providence. This means the continued activity of God whereby He rules all things to a definite end and object, and does so in order to secure the accomplishment of His own divine purpose. `The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice’ (Psalm 97:1). He is the King of the universe. He is the Lord of lords. Everything is under His control: `his kingdom ruleth over all’ (Psalm 103:19). `The nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance’ (Isaiah 40:15). That is the idea of government. Or take the mighty statement in Daniel 4:34-5:

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

The governmental aspect of the doctrine of the providence of God is of vital importance and runs through the Bible from the beginning to the end. `His purposes shall ripen fast, unfolding every hour,’ says William Cowper. There is an end to this creation, a purpose, an object. Everything is leading up to God’s determined purpose for it.

The third aspect of providence that I must emphasise is what has generally been called the aspect of concurrence. It means `the co-operation of God and His divine power with all the subordinate powers according to the pre-established laws of their operation, causing them to act and to act precisely as they do’. If you like, it means the whole idea of the relationship of second causes to God’s ordering of all things. The Bible teaching is that God works in and through the second causes which He has made. We are all clear, I take it, about secondary causes. We find, do we not, that everything that happens has a cause; certain things lead to certain other things. You see that right through the whole of nature. One thing produces another. Now those are the second causes, and the biblical doctrine of providence teaches the existence of second causes. But it is very, very clear in its emphasis that the second causes do not operate automatically or independently. God works through them. They have their own operations, but God is over all these operations.

Now it is important to emphasise this point, because so many people today speak of the powers of nature as if they were something independent. But they are not. There are powers and laws in nature, but not apart from God. God is in direct relationship to them, and uses them and orders them and manipulates them; so we hold the two ideas at one and the same time—the reality of secondary causes, but their dependence upon God and His control of them.

This is a mystery, of course. This is the difficult aspect of this doctrine—how can these things be true at one and the same time? But the Scriptures teach it. You will find it in Psalm 104:20, 21 and 30. Amos 3:6 says, `Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?’ Matthew 5:45 tells us, `. .. for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust’. In other words, these things do not happen automatically as the result of the secondary causes or laws of nature. God is behind them. He is working in them and through them. He is not divorced from them.

So there, briefly, are the three aspects of providence. You can think of them like this: the idea of preservation makes us think of the being of everything that is. The idea of government tells us that this being is guided, and the doctrine of concurrence tells us about how the activity is guided. Being, guidance, and activity.

Then the next question we come to is this: In what way is providence exercised? Or, to put it another way: What are the objects of providence? Now here it is customary to divide providence into general and special. We have just seen that throughout the Bible we are taught that the whole of the universe is being controlled by God. This is general providence. He not only made it, He keeps it going, and He is controlling it.

Then you come to special providence, which can be thought of in three ways. First of all it is God’s care for each separate part of the universe in its relationship to the whole. There are abundant Scriptures to prove that. Psalm 104 is nothing but a great elaboration of that point. God not only controls the whole universe, He controls the brooks and the streams and the trees and plants as well—not only general but also particular.

Special providence also means that God has a special care for all rational creatures: animals and human beings. Throughout the Bible we are told that God controls the existence of all people, evil as well as good. That is why He causes His sun to rise and the rain to fall upon all types of people. God is thus related even to sinners, even to men and women who deny Him and do not believe in Him. Scripture teaches that they are not outside a relationship with God.

But, of course, above all, special providence means God’s special care for His own people, and what He does for them.

So let us come now to the scriptural statements and the scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that God’s providence is exercised over the universe at large. Psalm 103:19, which we have already quoted, says `his kingdom ruleth over all’. We find it also in Ephesians 1:11: `the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will’. God is controlling all things everywhere—the heavens and the earth, and under the earth. He has a purpose behind it all.

Second, God’s providence is exercised over the physical world; I refer you to the whole of Psalm 104, and also, again, to Matthew 5:45.

Third is God’s controlling providence over the brute creation, over the animals. We see that again in Psalm 104 and also in Matthew 6:26, where we read about the birds that `they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them’, while in Matthew 10:29 we are told about the sparrows: `and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father’.

Fourth, we are told that His providence is exercised over the affairs of nations; you will find that in Job 12:24, `He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.’ Or again in Acts 17:26 we read, `And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.’

Fifth, we are told that God providentially governs a man’s birth and his lot in this world. We read in 1 Samuel 16:1, `And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.’ And Paul says about himself in Galatians 1:1516, `But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen …’

In the sixth place, we find that God’s providence determines the outward successes and failures in human life: `For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another’ (Psalm 75:6-7).

The seventh is this: that God governs things which appear to be accidental, or apparently insignificant. My favourite text to prove that is the first verse of Esther 6, where we are told that the king `could not sleep’. ‘Dear me,’ says someone, `surely that has got nothing to do with God’s providence!’ But read the book of Esther, and you will find that it is a crucial point. It is made quite clear that the king could not sleep that night because God kept him awake. So Mordecai was saved, and Esther and her people were saved, through the instrumentality of God causing this insomnia—something apparently trivial and seemingly accidental.

In the eighth place, God’s providence protects the righteous. Read Psalm 4:8: `I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety,’ says the psalmist. Why? The Lord had protected him. Indeed, that is shown beautifully in both Psalms 4 and 5.

And God supplies, in the ninth place, through providence, the needs of His people: `But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus,’ says Paul in Philippians 4:19.

And tenth and last, you will find that every single answer to prayer which is in the Scriptures is just a statement that God providentially orders things in this way for His people.

Now that brings me to what is called `extraordinary providences’, or, in other words, miracles, for miracles come under this heading of providence. A miracle is an extraordinary providence. `What is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary providence?’ asks someone. I would answer that question like this: in ordinary providence God works through second causes, in accordance with the laws which He has placed in nature. But in extraordinary providences, or miracles, God works immediately, directly, and without the secondary causes. A miracle is God working, not contrary to nature, but in a supernatural manner.

People often get into trouble about this question of miracles because they start by thinking that a miracle is something contrary to nature. But that is quite wrong, and it is wrong because their idea of nature is wrong; they have forgotten that God works in nature. It is simply that God has two different ways of working. Generally He achieves His purposes through the secondary causes; but sometimes He does it directly, and that is a miracle. God is working, as we have been seeing at length, in everything, always and everywhere; so that when you have a miracle, it is still God working, but working in a different way; and to deny the possibility of miracles is to say that God is confined, or bound, by His own laws.

Some people, of course, insist that miracles are impossible because they break the laws of nature. If such people believe in God at all, they mean that God is now bound by the laws which He Himself has placed in nature, and can do nothing about it. They reduce God to a position subservient to His own law. But this denies the doctrine of God all along the line.There is also a tendency, among certain people, to believe in miracles only when they think they can explain them!

Let me illustrate that by a story. I remember once, a man, a deacon, coming to talk to me about his minister; he had been rather troubled about the call of this minister to his church, because he was not quite certain about the soundness and the orthodoxy of this man. But he came to me with great glee and delight one day and said, `You know, our minister now believes in miracles.’

`What has convinced him?’ I asked. `What is your evidence?’

`Well,’ he said, `he was preaching on Sunday night and he told us that some recent discoveries made in the region of Sodom and Gomorrah have revealed that there were certain substances there which might very well account for what is described in the Old Testament.’ So his minister now believed in miracles! But in fact he still did not believe in miracles, for if you can explain a thing scientifically it is no longer a miracle. By definition, a miracle is something that you cannot explain.

Someone else once said that an astrologer had discovered that just about the time—the person talking to me was really quite excited about this, and he was an evangelical—that the children of Israel were crossing the Red Sea, the sun and the moon were so positioned that it was more than likely that a sort of gale had arisen that drove back a part of the Red Sea. So it was possible that the children of Israel had passed over on dry land after all. And this man fondly thought that he was a believer in miracles now! No, no! You will notice, perhaps, that there is a tendency to do this at the present time. It just means that such people are not happy in their belief in miracles, and that they really do not accept the biblical doctrine. A miracle by definition is supernatural. It cannot be explained in terms of the ordinary operation of the laws of nature or of secondary causes. It is God’s direct and immediate action.

I think that the real trouble with regard to a belief in miracles is due to the fact that people always will approach them from the standpoint of science or of nature, instead of from the standpoint of God who is all-mighty and who governs and controls everything. The danger in this century is to deify nature, to regard it as some absolute power with which even God cannot interfere. It is an utterly false notion. Once we have the right idea of God’s providence, I think most of our difficulties with regard to miracles should be removed.

Now we must mention one or two difficulties which people sometimes have with regard to this doctrine of providence. They say that they are ready to believe in providence in general, but they cannot quite understand the idea of a special providence, and they say they have two reasons for this. The first is that God is surely too great and too all-mighty to be troubled and worried by the details of our petty little problems. The second is that the laws of nature make such an interference impossible. But the Bible teaches us that God is concerned with the details of our lives. He answers the prayers of His people, in detail, in very small matters, and He encourages us to take all things to Him. Paul says, `Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God’ (Phil. 4:6). As for that second objection, the biblical teaching denies it utterly. Scripture teaches this special providence of God positively, and miracles, of course, prove it to the very hilt.

But, after all, the great problem is this: if God does govern and control everything, then what is His relationship to sin? All I can do, in answer, is to lay down a number of propositions that are clearly taught in the Scriptures. The first is that sinful acts are under divine control, and occur only by God’s permission and according to His ultimate purpose. If you want proof of that you will find it in the case of Joseph and his brethren. `It was not you that sent me hither,’ said Joseph, `but God’ (Gen. 45:8). God permitted their sinful act and controlled it. You will find the same teaching about the death of our Lord as it is expounded by Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

The second is that God restrains and controls sin. In Psalm 76:10 we read, `Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.’

The third is that God overrules sin for good. Genesis 50:20 puts it like this: `But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.’ God overruled the sin, and He did exactly the same in the case of the death of our Lord.

My last proposition is that God never causes sin, nor approves of it; He only permits, directs, restrains, limits and overrules it. People alone are responsible for their sin. The first chapter of James gives that particular teaching clearly.

Let us finish with two general points. The first is to me one of the most comforting of all. I cannot but believe, having read the Bible, that ultimately the whole of providence is for the sake of God’s people. If you want a proof of that it is in Romans 8:28: `All things work together for good to them that love God.’ It seems perfectly clear to me that, ultimately, God is thus concerned with everything for the sake of His own people, and everything else is being manipulated for our benefit and for our good. It is a wonderful thought, and I commend it to you. As you read your Scriptures keep your eye on that—providence really is concerned about salvation, and everything is kept going in the world for the sake of God’s people. Were it not for His people, everything would be destroyed. All others—all sinners—are clearly going to be destroyed. They are preserved and kept going because of God’s people and because of God’s salvation.

My other point is this: be careful—it is a warning! Always be careful in your application of any particular event. Let me explain: whenever anything good happens to us or to our country we are all very ready, are we not, to say that it was undoubtedly an act of God—the providence of God. I have explained what the doctrine of providence teaches, but I would warn you that it is dangerous to particularise about any particular thing. Take the famous case of Dunkirk. I am not going to express an opinion as to what happened at Dunkirk; I do have an opinion but I shall not give it. All I would do is show you that if you do claim it was an act of God, you must do so in the light of the following. In 1934 German Christians—and very fine Christians among them—issued this statement: `We are full of thanks to God that He as Lord of history has given us Adolf Hitler, our leader and our saviour from our difficult lot. We acknowledge that we, with body and soul, are bound and dedicated to the German State and to its Fuhrer. This bondage and duty contains for us as Evangelical Christians its deepest and most holy significance in its obedience to the command of God.’ That surely makes us think, does it not? Here is another declaration of theirs in 1933: ‘This turn of history,’ they said, referring to Hitler’s coming into power, ‘we say God has given him to us, to God be the glory. As bound to God’s word we recognise in the great events of our day a new commission of God to His Church.’

Now those people were absolutely sincere; they were absolutely genuine. They were evangelical Christians, and they believed that! So I think you will agree that we must be a little cautious when we come to make particular claims. Or again, someone in Moscow once said of Stalin, `He is the divinely appointed leader of our armed and cultural forces, leading us to victory.’ It is a very simple thing to persuade yourself that God has an unusual and a special interest in your country. Let us be very careful lest we bring God and His cause into disrepute by unwise and injudicious claims. Sometimes during the Second World War we had the National Days of Prayer, but terrible things happened almost the next day. Do remember that. My point, then, is this: the doctrine is plain and clear, but let us be judicious and cautious, and have a great concern for the glory and the name of God when we claim any particular event as an instance of His special providence either with regard to us or our country.

Eternal life means a life that can never be taken away from me

Posted on June 17, 2022 by John Samson

Taken from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book “Life in Christ: Studies in 1 John.”, pp 645-655

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

I COME AGAIN TO THIS VERSE because it does seem to me that it is such a vitally important one that we must try to gain the full benefit we were intended to gain from it. We have looked at it in general, from the merely mechanical standpoint, a kind of summary in and of itself of the entire teaching of the Apostle. We have reminded ourselves that John here is saying, “That is why I have written the letter in order that you might have this certain knowledge that you possess eternal life’; and we have considered John’s own particular tests and applied them to ourselves in order to make sure that we really do possess this eternal life about which he is writing.

Now I repeat, this matter is of vital importance. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the great theme, the greatest theme even, in the New Testament itself. It is the whole object of the New Testament, and it is extraordinary, is it not, how constantly we seem to forget that. We are interested in forgiveness, we want to know that our sins are forgiven and that we do not go on to punishment and perdition, and we are interested in living a good life. But for some remarkable reason we tend to persist in forgetting that the ultimate thing that is offered us in the New Testament is nothing less than this very quality of eternal life. The New Testament is really a book that is, in a sense, just meant to tell us that this is what God offers us in Jesus Christ. Is not that the real object that every part of the New Testament has in view?

Why, for instance, do you think that the four Gospels were ever written? Why did the early church not just go on preaching the message of salvation and leave it at that? Now, there can be only one real answer to that question, and it was the answer given by John towards the end of his own Gospel. Having written it, he sums it up like this: ‘And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name’ (John 20:30-31). That was why John wrote his Gospel; he was led by the Holy Spirit to do so for that reason.

And what is true of John is equally true of the writers of the other three Gospels. They wrote them not only to give a portrait of the Lord Jesus Christ, but also in order to give this proof and demonstration that Jesus of Nazareth is none other than the Son of God and is indeed the Christ of God, the Messiah, the one who has come into the world bringing life to men and women. You find this as a theme running right through the Gospels. Take that great word which our Lord said to the people: ‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly’ (John 10:10); nothing less than that. So we must be clear about the fact that He is the Son of God and that He is the one who brings life.

In the same way the book of Acts is designed to do the same thing. It has that great evidence about His ascension and about the sending of the Holy Spirit on the early church. That is the final proof, as we have already seen, of the fact that He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the promise of the Father about which the Old Testament speaks so much. At last the promise has come to us, and this is the promise of the Holy Spirit, that by Him and through Him we receive this eternal life. And all the records that you have in the Acts of the Apostles are nothing but an elaboration of that one theme. Those first preachers went around saying that they were witnesses of these things; they said, ‘We heard His preaching, we saw His crucifixion, we saw Him buried, we saw the stone rolled over the mouth of the grave. But we saw Him risen again, we saw the empty grave, we saw Him ascend, and we received this gift of the Holy Spirit.’ That is the testimony!

The Apostle Paul was as ‘one born out of due time’ (1 Corinthians 15:8). He had not been one of the disciples; he had not heard Christ’s teaching in that sense. But he was given a special sight of the risen Lord in order that he might bear his witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the one, therefore, who gives more abundant life to mankind. Furthermore, as I am never tired of pointing out, that is the great object that lies behind the writers of the New Testament epistles. These letters were written to people who had already believed the gospel. They were written to churches; they were not open letters to the world, but particular letters to groups of Christian people or to individual Christian believers. But why were they written? They were written because all these Christians lived in a difficult and gainsaying world. They had their difficulties; they were tempted perhaps at times to doubt; they were sometimes defeated by Satan and were falling into temptation. Various things were going wrong in various ways, and the letters were written to them in order that they might be strengthened and encouraged and helped to go forward on their journey.

And the great message to all of them is just this self-same message, that everything they need is in the Lord Jesus Christ; that they have but to realise that it is His life that they need and that without it they can do nothing. So the argument of the New Testament from beginning to end is just that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world to give us this eternal life, and this is the most momentous and the most important thing that has ever come to mankind.

In other words, we must once and for ever get rid of this idea that the New Testament is but a book that contains an exalted teaching that we are meant to practise and to put into action. Not at all! It is not an exhortation to us to rise to the level of some wonderful teaching; it is an announcement, it is a proclamation! It calls itself ‘good news,’ and the amazing good news is that God is giving this gift of eternal life to all those who have realised their need of it and are ready to receive it. That is the whole argument, and it is one that is based very solidly upon facts. So the Gospels and all the details were written in order to demonstrate to us that this is not some wonderful idea, some great dream, or some sublime thought. No; this is something concrete: a person has appeared in this world who is, in and of Himself, the bearer of this eternal life that God is giving to mankind. So the one thing to be certain about is that we know Him.

In a sense, therefore, the New Testament says that the greatest tragedy that can ever happen is that anyone should be uncertain about this, that anyone should go on still searching or hoping or saying, ‘Of course I am not to have that while I am in this life and world; perhaps after death …?‘‘Not at all!’ says John; ‘these things I have written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life’—now, not at some future time.

Now, I put it like that in order that I may lead up to this question: why is it that there is anyone who is at all in difficulty about this subject? We have looked at some of what I would call the purely theological reasons. Some people, because of their view of faith, seem to think that this is impossible, and we showed how that contradicted the New Testament teaching. But I want now to give some more practical difficulties that I often find mentioned when people discuss this together. There are those who seem to be in trouble about this matter and uncertain as to whether they have eternal life or not, because they will persist in thinking of it in terms of experience, or in terms of feeling, rather than in the terms that are indicated here. That very often happens in this way. There is always this fatal tendency to standardise the experience of certain notable or outstanding incidents and illustrations.

This is something, I suppose, that is more or less inevitable. There is a tendency in mankind to pay great attention to and to concentrate upon the unusual and the spectacular. We seem to do that instinctively; I suppose it is one of the results of the Fall. Anything unusual or exceptional always attracts attention much more than the usual and the ordinary; that is why some sort of calamity or extraordinary thing in nature always attracts and interests us much more than the perpetual and wonderful things of nature from day to day. Wordsworth discovered that when he said about himself at the end of his great Ode:

To me the meanest flower that blows can give

Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

That is right, and we ought all to put it like that. But the trouble with most of us is that because it is always there we do not marvel at it; that little flower in the hedgerow does not give rise in us thoughts that ‘lie too deep for tears.’ But if we see a tree struck by lightning we are interested because it is unusual, because it is exceptional.

Now, we tend to do that self-same thing in the whole matter of Christian experience. I attribute this to the Fall, and, of course, one must point out in passing that this is something that tends to be organised and often becomes a business. Those who produce books know that the spectacular always appeals to the mind; so they pick out these exceptional cases and give them great publicity. So we ordinary people who read about them say, ‘That is marvellous. If only that had happened to me, then I should know that I have eternal life.’ But it has not, and therefore the query arises in my mind as to whether I have eternal life or not. This is the tendency to think of it in terms of experience or feeling, something that comes to us suddenly. I may have gone on for months and years living at a certain level, and suddenly I get some thrilling experience, and I know that from then on all is well. Thus we tend to say that is the only way in which this certainty is to be obtained, and we may well spend a lifetime in waiting for the unusual and the spectacular.

But all that, of course, is just to contradict the essential New Testament teaching. The New Testament never lays stress upon the way in which this comes to us; what it is interested in is the fact that it has come. How often, in dealing with enquirers after salvation, does one have to point out that the New Testament never says, ‘Whosoever feeleth shall be saved,’ but ‘whosoever believeth.’ People often say, ‘In a sense I do accept that teaching; but, you know, I cannot say that I have felt anything.’ To which the simple reply is that the New Testament does not insist upon feeling. It says, do you believe; are you prepared to venture your all upon this? So it is sufficient for you to say, ‘I live by this; whether I feel or whether I do not does not matter; we are not saved by feeling but by believing.’

And it is exactly the same in this matter of assurance, with this question of knowing that we have eternal life. Let me use an illustration that I once heard an old preacher use. He pointed out that two men may arrive at the end of a journey with their clothes wet all through. But if you enquired as to how it happened to the two men, you might find that it happened in a different way in each case. One man might say that he set out on the journey with the sun shining brilliantly. He had not brought an umbrella or a macintosh as there was no suggestion it was going to rain; but halfway along the road, suddenly the clouds gathered and a veritable downpour took place, and in a moment he was soaked through. The other man’s story is a very different one. There was a kind of drizzle all the way through the journey, so he could not tell you when he got wet. The first man could, and the second man could not, but what really matters is not how the two men got wet, but the fact that they are both wet all through. Whether it happened suddenly or imperceptibly is utterly irrelevant.

So, the vital question is not whether I can point to some vital experience in my life in which I was given certain assurance. The vital question for me is this: as I face these tests in this first epistle of John, do I know that I have life? Whether I have the same experience as somebody else or not, as I examine the tests of life that are given can I say that in spite of my not having had that climactic experience or that thrilling feeling I must have life or I could not say yes to these questions?

Now thinking of it in terms of experience and feeling is a very common cause of trouble. God grant, if there is anyone who has been held in bondage by that kind of difficulty, that they may see the folly of it and may see that what matters, if I may so put it, is not precisely how and when we were born, but the fact that we are alive!

But the second difficulty is this: there are those who feel that before they can say they have eternal life, they ought to be perfect and sinless. They say, ‘It is a very great thing to claim that I know I have eternal life, but surely before I can claim that, I ought to be in a position to say that there is no sin and no failure in my life. After all,’ they say, ‘eternal life is a very wonderful thing, but I cannot say I have it. I am conscious of the fact that I fall and fail and sin; and surely while I am in that condition I cannot make the claim that I have it.’ That view, again, is very common.

The simple reply is that John has already dealt with that in the first chapters of this very epistle where he has gone out of his way to say, ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us’ (1:8-10). The whole of the New Testament, in a sense, is constantly repeating this self-same argument. I wonder whether I can help with regard to this particular difficulty by putting it like this: not only does the New Testament not tell us that we must be able to claim sinless perfection before we can claim we are the possessors of eternal life, but I go so far as to assert that the New Testament itself teaches us quite plainly and clearly that the fact that there is a real struggle in our lives is proof in and of itself of life. ‘For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would’ (Galatians 5:17).

Now, I know that this is teaching that we may wrest to our own confusion, but it is New Testament teaching, and there is a sense in which all New Testament teaching is dangerous. I mean that its teaching is so deep that if we want to misuse it we can do so; hence you have antinomianism. So it means this: before we receive the gift of eternal life, we are dead in trespasses and in sin. There is a stage in which we are at peace; there is no struggle. Of course, we may have heard the moral teaching that is glibly applied by the world, and in our own way we may be concerned and may be striving to reach up to a certain level. But that is not the struggle the New Testament speaks of. The New Testament says that when we receive the gift of eternal life, a new man comes into us, so that we are now two men, and the two are different and contrary—the spirit and the flesh—and there is a struggle and a conflict.

Now those who are aware of that, who though they sin and fail are aware of the fact that there are these two men in them, that there is a struggle between the two—these people have given proof positive that they have received the gift of eternal life. There is no spiritual struggle in the life of unbelievers. There may be a moral struggle, there may be a struggle to live up to a certain code that they have set up, they may struggle to do certain things and if they do not achieve them they are ashamed of themselves—but I am not referring to that. I am referring to a spiritual struggle, to those who are aware of a conflict between two essential things, the one of God and the other of themselves. So you must not allow the devil to depress and discourage you because you occasionally fall into sin or because you say, ‘I am not satisfied with my achievements.’ If there is this struggle in a spiritual sense, then, according to the New Testament, that of itself is proof that you have eternal life.

Or, to put it slightly differently, there are many who do not say that we must be sinless and perfect before we can make this claim, but after reading the lives of some of the outstanding saints they look at themselves and say, ‘Can I claim that I have eternal life when I look at that man or woman?’ You must have had that experience; after, for example, reading the life of a man like Hudson Taylor you may have felt you were never a Christian at all. If you have not, there is something wrong with you, for I would regard that as the normal reaction of any Christian. You contrast yourself and you say, ‘How can I say I have eternal life when I see such a difference between that man and myself?’ and the devil would have us believe that we have no life at all.

Well, again, if we believe that, we are just flying in the face of plain, clear New Testament teaching. The Scripture tells us that we are born into this Christian life as babes, babes in Christ. John in this epistle has been writing to ‘little children,’‘young men and old men’; he has a classification and a division (see the second chapter). All that development is possible in this life, so that I think we can answer this particular difficulty by saying, and thank God for this, that a little life is nevertheless life. The baby that was born an hour ago is as much alive as I am; the fact that he is a baby does not mean he is not alive. He is not full-grown, he is not developed, he cannot think and reason, he cannot speak and express himself, but he has life. The babe is as much alive as the old man, and that is the New Testament teaching. So do not let the devil discourage you and rob you in that way; if you are alive at all, you have life.

One of the most gracious words, I think, in the Gospels is that precious word spoken by our Lord where he quotes Isaiah and says, ‘The smoking flax he will not quench.’ When you look at that flax you may wonder whether there is any fire there at all; it seems absolutely lifeless. But it is all right—there is fire, there is something there; and the smoking flax He will not quench. He will, rather, fan it until it becomes a flame. Though you may have but little life, hold on to the fact that you have life, and thank God for it.

But to sum it all up, we fail to remember that this thing is life, and life is something that shows itself in different ways. Life does not only show itself in feeling and experience—it does so in performing some of the most ordinary common tasks in life; and that is a true test to apply to one’s profession of faith. If I have this manifestation of life that John has indicated, I am not interested in feelings, I am not interested in other people’s experiences. I face the tests of life, and I see that these things are in me; therefore I must be alive, for a dead man cannot do things like that and would not be like that.

So I would put it in a practical form at this low level. If you are concerned about this question of eternal life, if you feel you have not got it and if it is your greatest ambition to know that you have got it, then you may know that you have got it or you would not have this desire. If you feel that you are empty, if you feel you are nothing, if you feel you are poor and wretched and blind, if you hate your inclination to sin and have any suspicion of a feeling of self-loathing and hatred, you can take it from me that you have eternal life, for no one ever experiences such things until the life of God comes into his or her soul.

There are some further reasons why we should make sure that we have this eternal life. If only we realised the value of this, we would not rest for a moment until we were absolutely certain. Here are some of the reasons: the life that is offered us is nothing less than the life of Jesus Christ; the life you see in Him is the life that He offers. ‘I am come,’ he says, ‘that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly’ (John 10:10). It is His own life; He gives Himself for the life of the world. We must eat of His flesh and drink of His blood; that means we partake of Him, not the sacrament—we take of Him. ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,’ He says (John 6:63).

In other words, the life that is offered us is the life of God Himself. What an amazing, what a wondrous thought! Yes, but let me go further and say that this life that is offered us is an everlasting life. I know we are often told that eternal life means a quality of life, but it also means duration, and thank God that it does. ‘Eternal’ includes everlasting, and that means that it is a life that, once I have it, can never be taken away from me. Read the tenth chapter of John. If God gives me His life, and if His life enters into my life, if I am born again of that divine seed, that is an action that is irreversible. Our Lord says of His sheep, ‘My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand’ (John 10:29). To me, that is one of the most glorious and amazing things we can ever know, that already there is started in us here something that will go on for ever and ever.

Paul says the same thing, in Romans 8:38-39: ‘I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life . . . shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ This is something no one can rob us of, so that whatever may happen to us in this life and world, we have this grand and glorious security. We may be tried and tested and feel ourselves shaking and almost going under, but we have this eternal guarantee behind us.

The work which His goodness began

The arm of His strength will complete,

His promise is yea and amen

And never was forfeited yet.

AUGUSTUS TOPLADY

This is a life that will go on to all eternity; so what we are offered here is a foretaste—these are New Testament terms. We taste the first fruits, so that here on earth, according to this promise, I can begin the great feast that will keep me through the countless ages of all eternity. What a wonderful truth, that here in this world of time I can already sit at the banqueting table and begin to partake and go on without end.

But let me remind you again of what this means. To have eternal life means, as John has reminded us in the third chapter, that I shall see God. If I have this life, I shall see Him; I shall see Christ as He is, and I shall stand in His presence. It is only those who have His nature and share His life and who have been born again who will go on to that; and those who have it will see Him and will be like Him, and they will spend their eternity in glory with Him, enjoying it in His glorious presence.

I remind you of these things, my friends, in order that I may urge anyone who is uncertain to make certain. Would you not like to know you are destined for these things; would you not like to enjoy them here and now? ‘That is what is offered,’ says John, ‘that you may know it now and not lose a second.’ But it also helps us in a very practical sense in that if I know I have eternal life already, then I know there is a great life principle working in me. ‘Work out your own salvation,’ says Paul, ‘with fear and trembling: for it is God which worketh in you. . .‘ And if He is in me in this life, He is working in me ‘to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Philippians 2:12-13). He is sanctifying me; He is getting things out of my life because He has destined me for that glory; and having destined me for that glory, He will fit me for it.

I have the assurance, therefore, that if this work has begun, the work will end. I ‘know’ that if I have eternal life, I shall stand one day faultless and blameless, without spot and blemish, in the presence of God’s glory. So as I meet temptation and sin in this world, I realise that I am not left to myself. I cease to feel helpless and frustrated. I say, ‘If God is in me, if God has destined me for that, then He will come and hold me though all hell and the devils be opposed to me.’ That was the mighty argument of a man like Martin Luther. It was because he knew he had eternal life that he could defy all those enemies the way he did, and all those who have this hope in them can say the same thing.

And were this world all devils o’er

And watching to devour us,

We lay it not to heart so sore;

Nor they can overpower us.

If we have eternal life and know that we have it, we know that God’s work in our souls will be carried on until it eventuates in that ultimate perfection and glory. As Paul puts it in that mighty bit of logic in the middle of the eighth chapter of Romans, ‘Whom he called, them he also justified; and whom’—you see the jump—‘he justified, them he also glorified.’ If He starts, He will finish, so that if the life is in me, I can be certain of the glory. Far from presuming on that in order to sin, while I am in this life and world I rather say with John, ‘Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure’ (1 John 3:3). God grant that having listened to these great inducements we all may know for certain that we have eternal life, the life of God in our souls.

Conversion – Repentance and Faith

Posted on June 17, 2022 by John Samson

Conversion: Repentance toward God and Faith toward Christ

Taken from Great Doctrines of the Bible by Martyn Lloyd-Jones

We come now to a kind of turning point in our consideration of the work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. So far we have been looking at His work as He does various things to us, in the depths and recesses of our being. All that we have considered so far in terms of the effectual call and regeneration and our union with Christ can be described in that way. It is something that the Spirit does and of which, at the time, one may not be actively conscious, or at least our consciousness is not essential to the work being done.

Now we come to what we may describe as the manifestations and the results of that work. But though I put it like that, we must again be very careful in the use of chronological sequence. So many of these things really cannot be divided up in terms of time like this. We must keep them clear in our minds, we must keep them clear as ideas, but so many seem to happen at almost exactly the same moment. It has been argued by some of the greatest teachers of the Church that a person may be regenerate for a number of years without its manifesting itself. I find it very difficult to subscribe to that, but I hesitate to pit my opinion against such great authorities. Again, I say that simply to show the kind of distinction that I am drawing.

So we must now consider the manifestations of all that we have considered together and here, too, the question of the order of these doctrines is most interesting. Once more, people disagree as to which doctrine should be put next, but for myself, the next is the biblical doctrine concerning conversion. Here is the regenerate person, the regenerate soul. Now that person is going to do something, and that action marks the moment of conversion.

What do we mean by conversion? It is the first exercise of the new nature in ceasing from old forms of life and starting a new life. It is the first action of the regenerate soul in moving from something to something else. The very term suggests that: conversion means turning from one thing to another. The term is not used very frequently in the Scriptures but the truth which the word connotes and represents appears constantly.

You will find that in the Scriptures the term itself is sometime used in a more general way for any turning. For instance, it is sometimes used even of a believer. Our Lord rebuked Peter on one occasion and said, `When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32). He meant: When you come back again, when you have turned back. Here the word does not refer to Peter original coming into the Christian life, he was already in it, but he was going to backslide, he was going to go astray and then come back. That is described as conversion, but in the consideration of biblical doctrines, it is well to confine the word `conversion‘ to the sense which is normally given to it when we talk together about these things, that is, it is the initial step in the conscious history of the soul in its relationship to God, it is the first exercise, the first manifestation, of the new life that has been received in regeneration.

This, of course, is something which is essential and there at many statements to that effect. It is stated specifically in Matthew, 18:3: `Verily I say unto you,’ says our Lord, `Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ But all the texts which we have already considered in dealing with the doctrine of regeneration are equally applicable here, texts such as, `The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God’ (1 Corinthians 2:14), and, `the carnal mind is enmity against God’ (Romans 8:7). Men and women must come from that before they can be Christians; they must turn from that to this other condition. So conversion is essential. Nobody is born a Christian. We were born in sin, ‘shapen in iniquity’ (Psalm 51:5); we were all `the children of wrath, even as others’ (Ephesians 2:3), we are all subjects of original sin and original guilt, so we must all undergo conversion; and the Bible is quite explicit about this.

The next question, therefore, to ask is: How does it take place? What is the agency in conversion? And here the answer is quite simple. It is first of all and primarily the work of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit does it through the effectual call. We have considered that doctrine and that is how this process of conversion takes place. The call becomes effectual and it is that which leads to the next step—what you and I do. You notice that we are mentioning this for the first time, but in any definition of conversion you must bring in the human as well as the divine activity. The call comes effectually and because it comes effectually we do something about it. That is conversion: the two sides, the call—the response. We have seen how all this becomes possible, but in dealing with conversion, of necessity we must give equal emphasis to the activity of human beings. Now in regeneration and in the union, we are absolutely passive; we play no part at all; it is entirely the work of the Spirit of God in the heart. But in conversion we act, we move, we are called and we do it.

We come, then, to consider the characteristics of conversion and this, I sometimes think, is one of the most important topics that Christian people can consider together. Why is that? Well, it is vital that we should consider the biblical teaching about conversion because there is such a thing as a `temporary conversion’. Have you noticed how often that is dealt with by our Lord Himself in His own teaching, how at times He almost seems to discourage people from going after Him? There was a man who said, `I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest,’ and our Lord, instead of saying, `Marvellous!’ said, Wait a minute. `The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head’ (Matthew 8:19-20). `Do you realise what you’re doing?’ he said in effect. `It’s a very foolish man who goes to war without making sure of his resources. It’s an equally foolish man who starts building a tower without making certain that he’s got sufficient material to finish it.’

Our Lord, because He knew the danger of a `temporary something’ happening, was constantly dealing with it, and seemed to be repelling people. Indeed, they charged Him with making discipleship impossible. Take that great sixth chapter of John where the people were running after Him and hanging on to His words because of the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, and our Lord seemed to be trying deliberately to repel them. So a large number, who thought they were disciples, went back, we are told, and walked no longer with Him. It is quite clear that our Lord was giving that teaching quite deliberately because He was drawing a distinction between the spirit and the flesh. He knew that they were carnal and He was anxious to stress the vital importance of grasping the spiritual.

Take also the parable in Matthew 13—the parable of the sower—and our Lord’s own exposition of it. Notice particularly verses 20 and 21: ‘But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.’ But notice what our Lord says about this same man: he, `anon with joy receiveth it [the word]’. That is what I mean by a temporary conversion. He seems to have received the word, he is full of joy but he has no root in him and that is why he ends up with nothing at all. Now that is our Lord’s own teaching; there is the possibility of this very joyful conversion and yet there is nothing there in a vital, living sense, and it proves temporary.

There is also further teaching in the Scriptures about this same thing. Take Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8. We are told in verse 13, ‘Simon himself believed also: and … was baptised.’ And yet look at the end of that man’s story. He was `in the gall of bitterness’ (v. 23), and Peter simply said to him that he had better ask God to have mercy and grant him repentance.He seemed to be a true believer, but was he?

Then Paul speaks, in 1 Timothy 1:19-20, of `Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.’ Now that is very serious teaching and he says the same thing in 2 Timothy 2. Here Paul is writing to Timothy about certain people who seemed to have been believers but were now denying the resurrection, as a result of which some frightened Christians thought that the whole Church was collapsing. It is all right, says Paul: `Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his’ (v. 19). God knows; He is not deceived or deluded. There is such a thing as temporary conversions, temporary believers, but they are not true believers. That is why it is so vital that we should know the biblical teaching as to what conversion really is.

What about the case of Demas, I wonder? There are many who would say that Demas was never a believer at all. I would not like to go so far. He may have been backsliding: ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world’ (2 Tim. 4:10). But at any rate he is a doubtful case. And then you come to that great classic passage in this connection in Hebrews 6, with a similar passage in the tenth chapter of that epistle. `It is impossible for those who were once enlightened . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance’ (Hebrew 6:4,6).

Therefore I deliberately use this heading of `temporary conversion’. There is obviously something wrong with these people, so we must ask questions. We must consider, we must have definitions, because `All that glisters is not gold.‘ All that appears to be conversion is most certainly not conversion according to our Lord’s own teaching and the teaching of the inspired apostles. So I know nothing that is so dangerous, reprehensible and unscriptural as to say, `But you mustn’t ask these questions.’ No, no, let them come. Always ask: Does the Scripture entitle us to say that? If we are to be true teachers of the word, and helpers of others, and concerned about the glory of God, we must realise that there is such a thing as a temporary conversion which is based upon misunderstanding.

My second reason for being concerned about precise definitions is that there are not only temporary conversions but even counterfeit conversions. Now I draw a distinction, you will notice, between the two and the difference is that in the case of a temporary conversion, conversion is something that has happened as the result of the presentation of the biblical truth. In the case of a counterfeit conversion, it is a phenomenon which, though closely resembling and simulating Christian conversion, has been produced by some other agency that is not the truth. So we must draw the distinction.

This was never more necessary than today, because there are so many people who seem to think that as long as there is a great change in the person’s life, it must be a true conversion. If a man gives up sins and lives a good life and does good, that, they say, is Christian. But it may not be. It is possible for a man to undergo a great, profound, climactic change in his life and way of living and experience which has nothing to do with Christianity. People may even come out of the world and join a church, and their whole life from the outside may apparently be different, but it may be a counterfeit conversion. It is a conversion in the sense that they have left one thing and have come to another, have given up sins and are now doing good but it is counterfeit because they lack the necessary essential relationship to truth. If you are only interested in phenomena, if you are only interested in someone who can get up and say, `My whole life is absolutely changed,’ then you need only go to books on psychology. Psychology has been very popular now for many years, and it makes a most powerful attack upon the Christian faith—that is why I am so concerned about it. I heard a man say that if his Christian faith were attacked, it would not worry him. He would simply reply, `I don’t care what you people say; I don’t care what science says, I know because of what’s happening to me.’

Now my response to that was, `Yes, and every psychologist in your audience would smile. They would say, “We agree that you have had a psychological change and experience. But, of course, many things can do that.” And they would continue to dismiss the whole of Christianity.’

No, the defence of the Christian faith must never rely simply upon some experience that you and I have had. The defence of the Christian faith is objective truth. So unless we are careful at this point in defining conversion the danger is that we shall have nothing to say to those who have undergone one of these counterfeit experiences.

Then there is one other thing—and here we leave the counterfeit and the temporary and come to something which is more immediately practical. There are variable elements in connection with conversion, and because of these we must be very careful that we know what the essential elements are. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take the time element, the time factor in conversion. Must it be sudden? Is it impossible for it to be gradual? Well, I would say that the Scripture does not teach that it must of necessity be sudden. The great thing is that it has happened, whether sudden or gradual. The time element is not one of the absolute essentials; it may have its importance, but it is not vital.

Secondly, must one’s conversion of necessity be dramatic? We all tend to emphasise these, do we not? They have human interest, we say, and we must be interesting. But must conversion be dramatic? Now if you read just one chapter in the Scriptures—Acts 16—you will see that you have no right to say that. Of course, if you only read the story of the Philippian jailer, then you will say conversion must be full of drama. But I am equally interested in the story of Lydia and there is nothing to suggest that about her conversion. Not at all! It may have been quite quiet, but it was equally a conversion. So here we have another variable element. Dramatic quality may be there, but it may not be. It is not essential.

Then there is the old vexed question of the place of feelings. Of course, they must be there, but there are feelings and feelings. They may be very intense, or they may not be, but they are still feelings. We all differ by nature and temperament, and in this matter of feelings we differ very much indeed. The most demonstrative person is not always the one who feels most.

To me the meanest flower that blows can give

Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

W. Wordsworth

So it is not the one who is weeping the most copiously who is of necessity the most intensely feeling. Another person may be feeling so deeply that his feelings are down beyond the very possibility of tears, as it were. Feelings are variable and express themselves variously in different people. They must be present, but God forbid that we should insist upon a particular intensity or display of feelings.

And then there is the whole question of age. Some have said that unless you are converted when you are an adolescent, you will never be converted at all, because the requisite psychological factors can never be there again. What utter rubbish! How unscriptural! I have never seen a more striking conversion than I once saw in a man aged seventy-seven: thank God for that! No, there is no age limit; age does not make the slightest difference. We are talking about something the Holy Spirit produces. There is as much hope for the man who is shivering on the brink of the grave and of hell as for the adolescent—if you are interested in true conversion, that is. If you are interested in psychological experiences, then I agree, adolescence is the right time for it. Everything is very explosive at that point; you merely strike a match and there it is. But we are not interested in psychological changes; we are talking about true, Christian, spiritual conversion. And there age, thank God, is a complete irrelevance.

Now we have considered these things because there is always a tendency to standardise the variable aspect of conversion. Sometimes it works out in the evangelist, in his desiring everybody to become a Christian in the same way, and he is doubtful of the converts unless they are all the same. But it may happen in us, too, we all desire to be the same. That is always one of the dangerous things about reading of somebody else’s experiences; consciously or unconsciously we tend to reproduce them. It is a part of our makeup and of our nature, we are imitators, and if we like a thing that we see in someone else, then we wish that to be true of us, too.

Then we also tend to concentrate on particular manifestations of conversion. The feelings, for instance, are only one aspect, yet we put all our emphasis on them. This can be extremely dangerous because feelings, as I have indicated, are one of a number of variables, and this way may lead to tragedy. Some people are always insisting upon the presence of a variable quality, which is not essential. Thinking it was essential, and not having experienced it, they say that they have never been converted. And this can lead to untold and unnecessary unhappiness. In a way, the great instance of that is John Wesley who thought, immediately after his experience in Aldersgate Street, that that was his conversion, that he had never been a Christian until that moment. Years later he said that he had been quite wrong about that and that he was a Christian already but was `more like a servant than a son’. All that happened to him there, he said, was that he realised his faith.

Well, Wesley may have been right or not; we do not know. But all I am indicating is that if we postulate something that is variable, and insist upon it, we may do ourselves or somebody else great harm. We may tell other people that they are not converted because they do not conform to our particular standard. So we must be very careful that we do not go beyond Scripture and say things which the Bible does not say. Therefore, how vital, how essential it is, that we should have clear definitions in our mind.

What, then, are the permanent and essential elements in conversion? Now these are made quite plain in Scripture, but not only there. We know that what we shall now be considering must be true because of the previous doctrines. This is something that really thrills me! There is such a consistency in the scriptural teaching. These doctrines are all consistent with one another, and if we allow ourselves to be led by the Bible, we shall not be denying at one point what we have said at another. And the doctrines we have already considered make the truth of these permanent and essential elements in conversion inevitable and clear.

Another argument—and I do want to emphasise this—is that what the Scriptures tell us about the permanent and essential elements in conversion has always been repeated in all great revivals in the long history of the Christian Church.That is most important. If you start saying that, because this is the late twentieth century, we can expect something different or that things need not be the same, you are being unscriptural. If this is the work of God, I do not care what century it happens in, it will have the same marks upon it, the same stamp. Read the history of revivals and you will find that they have always reproduced similar characteristics. It has often been said that every revival is nothing but a return to the book of Acts. Every true sign of religion is first-century religion coming up again. Always! There is a standard pattern, and all the histories show that the revivals conform to these great essential elements.

It is not only true in the history of revival. It is equally true in the history of persons, individuals, the saints who have been converted. Men and women of God are always the same. I do not care where they are, from what country, what century, or what time—it makes no difference. The fact is that they are men and women of God, and it is their relationship to God that determines what they must be. And that does not change throughout the centuries because God does not change. There is no special type of man or woman of God for the twentieth century, and do not believe it if anybody tells you there is. They must be the same, they always have been. You can read of them in the early centuries, in the Middle Ages, at the time of the Reformation, in the period of the Puritans, the evangelicals of the eighteenth century—they are always the same. And each one reminds you of the others.

What, then, are these permanent elements? There are two essential elements in conversion, and these are emphasised everywhere in the Scripture, in the Gospels, in the book of Acts and in the epistles. Paul, fortunately, has put it all in a phrase for us, in Acts 20:21, on that moving occasion when he said farewell to the elders of the church at Ephesus. I have sometimes thought that if there was one scene in history more than any other at which I should like to have been present, it was just that. `I’m going,’ Paul says, in effect, to the elders, `you’ll never see me again, and I want you to hold on to the things I’ve told you, and to remember what I did when I was with you.’ What was this? `Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.‘ That is conversion. Those are the essential and the only essential elements in conversion. Repentance and faith. Sudden or gradual, it does not matter. Repentance must be there; faith must be there. If one is missing it is not conversion. Both are essential.

At this point, let me ask a question. In which order do they come? Which comes first, repentance or faith? Now that is a fascinating question. There is a sense in which faith is bound to come before repentance, and yet I shall not put it like that, and for this reason: when I am talking about faith, I mean it in the sense that the apostle Paul used it—faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not faith in general. There must be faith in general before you can repent, because if you do not believe certain things about God, you do not act upon it and there is no repentance. But I am referring to faith in the special sense of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In that case, repentance comes before faith and Paul puts them in that order: `Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Why must repentance come first? Well, you will find that it always comes first in Scripture. Who was the first preacher in the New Testament? The answer is John the Baptist. What did he preach? The `baptism of repentance for the remission of sins’ (Mark 1:4). This was the message of the forerunner and the forerunner always comes first. Then the second preacher was the Lord Jesus Christ and if you turn to the Gospels and observe the first thing He ever said you will find that He again exhorted the people to repent and to believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). So, exactly like John the Baptist, the first thing He taught was repentance.

Then what did Peter preach? Take the great sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter preached and the people cried out saying, `Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ This was the reply: `Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’ (Acts 2:37-38). Repent. And, as I have already quoted to you, repentance was the message of the apostle Paul. He started with repentance. He did it in Athens: God ‘. . . . commandeth all men every where to repent’ (Acts 17:30).

Repentance is of necessity the first message, and it surely must be. It is scriptural, yes, but Scripture also enables us to reason. Let me put it to you like this: Why should men and women believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? It is no use just asking them to believe in Christ. They are entitled to ask, `Why should I believe in Him?’ That is a perfectly fair question. And people do not see any need or necessity for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ if they do not know what repentance is. Of course you may be inviting them to Christ as a helper, or as a friend, or as a healer of the body, but that is not Christian conversion. No, no, people must know why they must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The law is our schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24) to bring us there and the law works repentance.

In other words, the primary point about conversion, the primary thing in the whole of Christian salvation, is to bring us into the right relationship with God. Why did Christ come? Why did He die? The answer is that He did it all to bring us to God. And if we think about these things in any way except in terms of being reconciled to God, our view is entirely false. I say it hesitatingly because I know the danger of being misunderstood, but there is far too much Christianity today, it seems to me, that stops at the Lord Jesus Christ and does not realise that He came and did everything in order to reconcile us to God. Indeed, it was God who was `in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself’ (2 Corinthians 5:19). I think the greatest weakness in evangelical Christianity today is that it forgets God. We are interested in experiences, we are interested in happiness, we are interested in subjective states. But the first need of every soul, as we shall see, is to be right with God. Nothing matters but that. The gospel starts with God, because what is wrong with everybody is that they are in a wrong relationship to Him.

So we must put repentance first; it is the original trouble, the main consequence of the fall and original sin. God is orderly in His working, and He starts with the big thing, the first thing. Therefore, in the next lecture, we shall go on to deal with repentance.

Effectual Grace

A blog by John Samson

Monthly Archives: June 2022

The Doctrine of Providence

Eternal life means a life that can never be taken away from me

Conversion – Repentance and Faith