Marital Status: Married

ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
So... the question is... How can a man know he is saved? Well, everyone agrees that to know something is true, you need evidence. For example, how do you know Australia exists? I assume you've never been down here. You've never seen it with your own eyes. But would you doubt Australia existing? Of course not. Many people will tell you "I've been to Australia." and plenty of television stations claim to have images of Australia. You have something like absolute certainty that Australia exists, don't you? And your certainty is based on the claims of fallible men. Now, think about this - you're getting absolute certainty after listening to the claims of men - Men who can lie, be mistaken and miscommunicate.

... ok...

Perhaps you're wondering - "What has this got to do with assurance of salvation? Just because I'm often certain about what men say... how does this relate to assurance?" Well - If you are often certain about what fallible men say, won't you always be certain about what an infallible God says? You often gain certainty from your fellow men who lie, so why aren't you always certain of what the God who cannot lie, says? "We receive the testimony of man, but the testimony of God is greater" (1 John 5) You don't need to visit Australia to believe it exists - the testimony of men are enough to assure you of this point. So why isn't the testimony of God that "EVERYONE BELIEVING IS JUSTIFIED" (Acts 13:39) sufficient for you to be assured of your salvation? Why do you need any other evidence than the promises of God?

Think for a moment about the analogies Scripture uses for conversion. For example, would it have been possible for the resurrected Lazarus to have thought "I wonder if I'm still dead"?
Or could the blind man given sight think, "Hmm. I wonder if I am still blind"? Of course not! He says, "One thing I do know; that being blind, now I see." (John 9:25) And it's exactly the same with conversion - you cannot doubt it's happened to you. It's simply impossible to have your mind converted to the truth, but to later think, "Hmm. I dunno, Am I still "darkened in the intellect"? (Eph 4:18).

Conversion is simply hearing/seeing the Gospel to be God's eternal truth. (Luke 8:10ff)

To say a man can believe the Gospel and be unconscious of his belief, is like saying you can be alive and not know you are alive!

Now a lot of people reading this will completely disagree. One person, for example, wrote me, "Is it necessary that someone have a mature doctrinal understanding, or is holding them to a doctrinal position in order to be saved...?"

My response to him was... No! NOTHING is required for salvation. Christ has completely exhausted the Law with his obedience, satisfying every jot and tittle. The Law was never designed to be obeyed for life, except by The Man. Gal 3:17. He's put away sin forever, Heb 9:12. In our hands, the Law is powerless, Rom 8:3, but he came and magnified the Law! Isa 42:21. This is great news - the only Gospel.

So can you believe this, and doubt your salvation? If you know Christ has ALL power in heaven and earth, Mt 28:18, how can you doubt his work is enough? You can't - so anyone that peddles a "gospel" where man must do something ON TOP of Christ's work for assurance and counting Christ's work as insufficient. Clearly, they are NOT part of the "little flock" ruling with Christ in his kingdom now, Mt 25:34. By saying we must do something to enter the kingdom, they deny that the Father gives the Kingdom to the little flock, Luke 12:32. And by insisting that, in order to be saved, we must do something BEFORE we have faith, they make carnal, earthly works of death, the requirements to gain life.

______
Are the Psalms David's own private experiences?

Well, think about this analogy:

Imagine..... A preacher gets up in the pulpit and reads the parable of the sowers. He reflects upon the context of this passage and he also talks about the Jewish agricultural customs in Christ's day. Then based on his grammatical-historical analysis, the preacher concludes by listing what he think the "soils" and "seed" might represent.

Did you notice something? The preacher never looked at Christ's infallible interpretation of the parable.

Most people would accuse him of "exalting himself above Christ". This is true -- the preacher is ignoring Christ's interpretation, and exalting his own methods and ideas above Christ's.

Now -- Why is it OK for preachers to interpret the PSALMS (without looking at Christ's interpretation of the Psalms)?

Christ and the Apostles applied at least 30 Psalms to Christ. So isn't your preacher "exalting himself above Christ" when he says a Psalm is describing DAVID, when Christ said the Psalm was describing HIMSELF ALONE?