Introduction

My topic for today in Romans 8 is the foundation of Christian assurance. Mark Twain made an interesting comment in one of his writings that relates to Christian assurance. He spoke of "the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces." This is an odd combination: a Christian-gambling. Twain's point was to help the reader see and feel the confidence he was depicting. It sounds good at first to link Christian assurance with holding four aces, which seem sure to win. But Twain did not appreciate the confidence of a Christian; his view is too weak. If I am not mistaken, in poker four aces is 4^th in descending value. Winning is a high probability but it loses to three other hands. There is confidence here to be sure. But it is not enough to stake your life on. It is not enough on which to stake the orientation of your entire life and your very soul.

By contrast, the calm confidence of a Christian rests upon a much firmer foundation. It rests on the absolute conquest of the Lord Jesus. When this firm foundation is appreciated, the Christian embodies a calm assurance to be sure! The Christian, to use Twain's analogy, has five aces.

Before I state my outline, I would like to speak to the fact that a person could be sure of something and even be cocky about it and yet have no basis for this attitude. This is because assurance is subjective and can be false. One could feel assured or be very confident with a vain confidence resting on thin air and stabbing in the dark. A couple of years after finishing college, I ran into a fellow graduate. In the course of discussion on baptism, he said, "I have never had any problem with baptism" And I got the sense that he had never opened the topic for serious examination-what he was taught as a youth, he now taught as a youth director. This is an "ignorance is bliss" kind of confidence. We need the subjective sense of being assured but it must have a foundation and that foundation must be learned.

Listen to how assurance is expressed in Romans 8: "we know" (v. 28), "we overwhelmingly conquer (v. 37), and "I am convinced" (v. 38). And earlier we considered the feeling of sonship versus fear whereby we cry "Abba, Father" (v. 15). These express the subjective element, but assurance is only as good as its foundation or else we will be like trees without roots. People may call God their Father with false assurance. I remember cutting some trees to clear property for a new building and having the trees remain standing because their branches were intertwined with other trees. Everything looked fine but "looks" can be deceiving: some people are like these trees, they stand tall and are very confident but they have no roots to hold them fast in the deepest storms of life (cf. the candlesticks cut by Zorro: it appears that he missed and that they stand fast, but they fall to the floor at a simple touch showing that appearances can be deceiving).

It is great to be assured instead of burying your head in the sand every time you face a serious challenge. Still, assurance that comes without cost is not worth a plug nickel. In saying this I do not intend to shift assurance to ourselves as if it depends on us. This would be a terrible mistake. Granted assurance is found on the path of obedience but this does not mean that we look at our obedience, measure it, and thus derive a strong confidence to stand tall and impress others.

Disobedience will deprive us of our assurance but we do not culture assurance by looking at how much we obey. Instead, we culture assurance in the way of obedience by looking away from ourselves to the firm foundation of our faith. Acts of obedience need to be always joined with a mindset, with learning, with meditation and absorption of what God has given as the foundation of assurance. We need to be rooted; we need more than a feeling of confidence (we deceive ourselves all too often), we need to absorb the foundation of Christian assurance like that given by Paul in Romans 8:31-39.

We draw our assurance from the love of God and the love of Christ. That is how Paul presents the firm foundation of our faith in closing the section on suffering with Christ. This morning I will concentrate on drawing our assurance from the love of God considering: its context, its evidence, and its implication.

1A. Context of this love

Paul opens this section with the question, "what shall we say to these things?" (v. 31). He indicates that assurance is a response to the doctrinal content suggested by "these things." And he particularizes from the previous material in a response that we should emulate. "These things" look back to what he has been saying but he takes another look from the angle of our response. He answers the question (what shall we say?). He does so by giving a response and grounding it in implications and applications of the previous material on providence, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. So this is an example of the application of doctrine. What shall we say? How does this apply?

Application brings out further nuances. This takes thought. It involves meditation because we are to draw the implications and applications that fit the text, that are logical, and that are practical (nailing things down in an appropriate and meaningful way; cf. sometimes dry wall nails don't hold the dry wall to the wood frame because they miss the studs "hidden" behind the dry wall; we have to search for the truths "hidden" behind the finished wall-this is where things are secured and we find assurance.).

I begin with the love of God because Paul begins with the phrase "God is for us" (v. 31) and ends with love (v. 39, "the love of God").

2A. The evidence of this love

God's love is supremely expressed in the death of Christ. His love is all through this chapter: it is providential love (v. 28), forelove (v. 29,distinguishing electing love), planned and determined love (v. 29, pre—determined), merciful love (v. 30, calling us out of our dark bondage and bringing us to friendship, fellowship, forgiveness and glory).

But to drive all this home Paul asks, "what shall we say?" And he answers with "God is for us." Then he rises a step higher to God's work in Christ; he gives us a well from which to draw our assurance. So pointedly he directs us to His work through Christ: "He did not spare His son but gave Him up for us all" (v. 32). Above all else that evidences God's love for us, we have this profound fact: God did not spare His own Son. God's love is shown in this giving of His own beloved Son. That word "spare" conveys a lot especially with a "not" in front of it. God did not spare His hand of judgment. Some modern notions reflect on this. A spare tire is a substitute, thus, God did not substitute someone or some other course of action in place of His Son. Instead, Jesus is our substitute-to spare us. To spare means to refrain from destroying or harming by showing mercy. We are spared but the Lord Jesus is not spared. To spare the rod is to refrain from punishment. He was punished; we are spared.

We must be reminded that God is a God of burning wrath. This could cause us to dread His presence, to dread confrontation due to our sins and the fact that we deserve to be punished severely.

My wife reminded me of God's forgiveness and His declaration that comforts our distress when Adam washed a five gallon pot in the sink and scratched the surface of the sink. He was upset and troubled at the damage. Mom said "it's only paint, it's only a sink." And she related the story of her father and an incident where as a kid she tried to clean tar off the new car with an SOS pad. His reaction devastated and humiliated her. How she wishes he had said "its only paint." Before God the analogy to these mistakes are serious sins and God gives the reassuring word, "you are justified." He does not say, it's only paint; instead He gave His only Son, and thus He says, no charge can be laid at your feet (v. 33).

Obviously, charges are made against us by people who are against us. But no one can be against us to our defeat or ultimate harm and no one can lay a charge at our feet that can stick because God is for us and has justified us through a supreme love demonstrated in the death of Christ. "Mine are the transgressions, but thine the awful pain." "How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?" Thus, it is "beneath the cross of Jesus that I take my stand…a shelter/rock…"

3A. With this evidence before us, think with me now about the implication of this love.

Paul does some reasoning here. It calls for thought, study and reflection. This is truly a well from which to draw and draw again.

The apostle uses what is called an "a fortiori" argument. This is a powerful way of arguing that is based on something more in relation to something less. You can reason from the lesser to the greater or from the greater to the lesser. Recall the use of this form by Jesus when He said, the Father cares for the lilies, the lesser, so "how much more" will your Father care for you his children, the greater (Mt. 6:30). Note the move from the lesser to the greater.

Here in Romans the reasoning is from the greater to the lesser: if God gave His own Son for us (the immeasurably greater) then how much more will He give us all things! Notably, "all things" are the lesser. All the things that we receive now and hereafter in the full inheritance of glory make up the lesser. The giving of Christ is the greater.

And the implication is a matter of certainty. All for whom Jesus died will receive all things. It is impossible and inconceivable that it be otherwise! It is this impossibility that necessitates limited atonement. The terminology "limited atonement" is misleading because it accents the matter of scope (limited vs. unlimited) when the real concern of this doctrine called limited atonement is on the nature of the atonement. I think it is helpfully put in the form of this question: will God save everyone for whom Jesus died? In terms of our text the question is: will God give all things to each person for whom Jesus died? The essence of the third point of Calvinism in the tulip (T, U, L-limited atonement, I P; five aces!) is the affirmative answer to these questions. Besides John 17, I know of no clearer passage than Romans 8:32 that teaches limited atonement (i.e. that teaches the saving nature of the atonement to be such that all whose sins were borne away to the cross will eventually arrive safely to heaven).

Some better terms for this point of doctrine are particular atonement, definite atonement, and probably the best is efficacious atonement. Think hard about this argument. In effect, by raising it, Paul says "think hard about the fact that if God delivered up Christ as a sin offering (Rom. 8:3) for us all then all of us will in fact inherit the earth and eternal glory." Reasoning from the greater to the lesser, it is impossible that it be otherwise. Efficacious atonement means that on the cross Jesus secured eternal redemption for all for whom He died (Heb. 9:12, it was obtained by His blood once for all; our release forever was obtained at the cross!). God's love for us is a saving love from beginning to end; it in no way depends on us or on our decision. This is why God's love is a well of assurance of unending supply.

Concluding Remarks (beginning with some questions)

Does God love all? This love of God in Christ is not for all people but for the elect (who shall charge God's elect?). It is impossible that it be for all unless all will in fact be saved by His death. This is so because all for whom He died will receive all things (not "maybe so, maybe no" depending of how they respond to the offer of the gospel; rather, it insures the response of saving faith).

Does God love all people with a love as defined in Romans 8? No.

Did Christ die for all men and women? No.

Does Christ intercede for all people? No.

These are all facets of the same question, "can anyone for whom Jesus died perish?" Absolutely not according to Romans 8:32, if He was not spared for someone then that someone will receive all things in glory.

But why speak of these negatives regarding such an important topic? Why all the "nos" mentioned above. They are stated only to help clarify. The "not…but" method of communication has a knack for bringing out what something is precisely. It clears away much foggy thinking. For example, recently a local church presented the gospel of Good Friday as the death of Christ for the sins of all men. This was called a triumph that culminated in resurrection Sunday. But how do we have a triumph by His death and resurrection if He died for all (and intercedes for all, since His death and intercession are inseparable) and multitudes for whom He died in fact perish in their sins? His death is not a triumph if people for whom He died are defeated eternally by sin.

Some then try to argue that the triumph is found in man's acceptance or non-acceptance of Christ. But this shifts the accent from the objective to the subjective, from the work of God in Christ to our response. But then the basis of our assurance is to be found in ourselves, in something we do rather then in what He did. What He did is relativized. His work is made effectual only relative to our response.

This shift to our response runs against the grain of the text and it cuts out the core of the foundation of Christian assurance. For example, consider these words of a hymn: "it is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me." On the view that many for whom Jesus died in fact perish, it is not enough that Jesus died and knowing He died for me cannot be a ground of assurance. A person says to himself, "I know He died for me because I know He died for all: Adam and Eve, Pharaoh and Judas, for all people from the beginning to the end of the world." But if people for whom He died may perish then I may perish. I cannot say that since God's love was expressed in the death of Christ for me/us all then I/we shall inherit all things.

But, it is asked, what about the promises of God to all who believe? My reply is that these promises are a great resource but on the unlimited view two things happen: a) assurance is cut off from the work of God, the supreme work of God that manifests His love supremely: it is cut off from the death of Christ as the delivering up of the Father's love for us. b) assurance is shifted to our subjective response of faith since promises must be believed. And as one becomes more and more consistent in their thinking they get farther and farther away from the objective foundation of assurance and become more and more subjective. An example is Robert Shank's Life in the Son. Listen to some of his comments on Romans 8:31f.:

But we must be careful to distinguish between all the foes which Paul enumerates (every possible foe) and the believer himself. There is no possibility that some power or circumstance may snatch from Christ's hand even the weakest one who trusts in Him. There is perfect safety and security in the Saviour and in the Father for the weakest sheep who follows the Good Shepherd and listens to His voice (John 10:27-29). The sole peril is that we may fail to listen to His voice and to follow Him. We may fail to abide in Him (John 15:4-6) and thus fail to continue to share His life and victory (208).

He quotes Westcott as saying, "We cannot be protected against ourselves in spite of ourselves."

In marked contrast, Paul's subjective claims (we know, I am persuaded) are grounded in God's objective work, in God's gift of His son as the supreme expression of His love. If He has done this for us then it is inconceivable that we not receive all things. It is impossible that the victory depends on "the free-will of the Christian himself" (contra. Shank, 208). It is impossible that the ultimate issue of eternal life depends on our faith and our love (Shank, p. 211, likes the Williams paraphrase of Rom. 8:28, "those who keep on loving God" where the paraphrase omits the call of God that causes us to love Him, cf. 1 Jn. 4:19).

One way to nail down the foundation of Christian assurance is to consider that receiving all things must include everything necessary for justification unto eternal life. If we need to be born again, the death of Christ secured that for us. If we need faith, the death of Christ secured faith for us as His gift. As Jesus told us, no one can believe (Jn. 6:44) but when I am lifted up on the cross I will savingly draw to myself people of all nations (Jn.12:32). These two verses teach us that the new birth, calling, regeneration, and faith are the gifts of the cross (sinners cannot believe…I will be lifted up…sinners will come to me/believe in me). The foundation of our hope stands sure because it does not rest in ourselves but in the saving love of God. Efficacious (limited) atonement is rock sure.

So consider this wrong question. Some want to ask, "how do I know Christ died for me?" Scripture does not move in this orbit. It does not identify the elect by name. The question to be asked in light of the efficacy of the death of Christ is,
"What should I now do?" The answer is, "Trust in Christ, look away from yourself to Him alone, entrust yourself to Him, give yourself away to be the Lord's." Having done that, the answer is, "Be thankful and work hard to be His loving servant."

May God grant us the assurance, the knowing, the persuasion, the confidence, that has five aces, that is rooted, that is rooted in the love of God who delivered Jesus up to the cross. May He give us true assurance rooted in the saving love of God in such a way that no one for whom Jesus died will perish but will receive all things. May we fall down before the majesty of our God in utter thankfulness. May the Lord show us our sin, our bondage, the severe punishment we deserve, and may He show us the good news that Jesus will save each and every person for whom He died on the cross because the love of God is a saving love, the death of Christ is a saving death, and the work of the Spirit is a saving work. Glory to the triune God, Amen.