In the N. T. the salvation of God is presented under three tenses: past, present and future. As a work “begun” (Phil. 1:6), but not completed in a moment of time. “Who hath saved us” (2 Tim. 1:9), “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), “now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Rom. 13:11).

These verses do not refer to THREE DIFFERENT SALVATIONS, but to THREE DISTINCT PHASES and stages of salvation: salvation as an accomplished fact, as a present process, and as a future prospect. First, God saves from the PLEASURE OF SIN, causing the heart to loathe what it formerly loved. That which is displeasing to God is made bitter to the soul, and sin becomes its greatest grief and burden. Next, faith is communicated by the Spirit and the penitent sinner is enabled to believe the Gospel, and thereby he is saved from THE PENALTY OF SIN. Then it is he enters upon the Christian life, wherein he is called upon to “fight the good fight of faith”, for there are enemies both within and without which seek to bring about his destruction.

For that “fight” God has provided adequate armor (Eph. 6:11), which the Christian is bidden to take unto himself. For that fight he is furnished with effective weapons, but these he must make good use of. For that fight spiritual strength is available (2 Tim. 2:1), yet it has to be diligently and trustfully sought. It is in this fight, a lifelong process, a conflict in which no furloughs are granted, the Christian is being saved from the power of sin. In it he receives many wounds, but he betakes himself to the great Physician for healing. In it he is often cast down, but by grace he is enabled to rise again. Finally, he shall be saved from THE PRESENCE OF SIN, for at death the believer is forever rid of his evil nature.

Now it is that third aspect of salvation which concerns us in this present series of articles, namely, the believer’s perseverance: his perseverance in the fight of faith. The doctrine which is to be before us relates to the Christian’s being saved from the power of indwelling sin during the interval which elapses between his being saved from its penalty and the moment when he will be saved from its presence.

Between his being saved from Hell and his actual entrance into Heaven HE NEEDS SAVING FROM HIMSELF, saving from this evil world in which he is still left, saving from the devil who as a roaring lion goes about seeking whom he may devour. The journey from Egypt to Canaan lies not for the most part through green pastures and by the still waters but across an ARID DESERT WITH ALL ITS TRIALS AND TESTINGS, and FEW who left that House of Bondage reached the Land of milk and honey: the great majority fell in the wilderness through their unbelief—types of numerous professors who begin well but fail to endure unto the end.

There are multitudes in Christendom to-day deluded with the idea that a mere HISTORICAL FAITH IN THE GOSPEL ensures their reaching Heaven: who verily suppose they have “received Christ as their personal Savior” simply because they believe that He died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of all those who repudiate their own righteousness and trust in Him. They imagine that if under the influence of religious emotion and the pressing appeals of an evangelist, and assured that “John 3:16 means what it says”, they were persuaded to “become Christians”, that therefore all is now well with them: that having obtained a ticket for Glory they may, like passengers on a train, relax and go to sleep, confident that in due time they shall arrive at their desired destination.

By such deceptions Satan chloroforms myriads into Hell. So WIDESPREAD is this deadly delusion that one who undertakes to expose its sophistry is certain to be regarded by many as a heretic.

[A.W. Pink in his Introduction to ‘Eternal Security]


Straight line with crooked stick


Herman Hanko

It is a surprising fact of history that oftentimes, in doctrinal controversy, the heretic is a nice man, while the defender of the faith is, from many points of view, a miserable character. Athanasius vs. Arius: Arius the suave, diplomatic, likeable denier of Christ’s divinity; Athanasius the stubborn and implacable defender of the Nicene Creed. Cyril vs. Nestorius: Cyril the haughty and cruel defender of the unity of Christ’s natures in the one divine person; Nestorius the popular, gifted heretic who insisted that Christ had two persons.

Augustine the crabby defender of the sovereignty of grace; Pelagius the urbane and witty defender of freedom of the will. Gottschalk the stern and unfriendly follower of Augustine who rotted in prison for his recalcitrance; Hincmar the learned and powerful archbishop of Rheims. And so the list could go on: Luther vs. Erasmus the humanist; Calvin vs. Bolsec the heretic; Knox vs. Mary Queen of the Scots. And those who know their history can find others, perhaps within their own particular denominational history.

So it was also with Gomarus. Even his friends found him obnoxious at times and barely tolerable. His opponent, Jacobus Arminius, popular with students and ministers, gracious, kind, tolerant, filled with concern for friend and foe alike, presents quite a contrast. But Arminius was the heretic, and Gomarus stood for the truth.

Why does God work this way in the history of the church? Why is the nice guy so often the enemy of the faith, while the old curmudgeon is the champion of the truth of God? I do not think that we can find a complete answer to this question. But part of it is that the truth is not popular and defenders of the truth can sometimes become crabby because of the fierce and unrelenting attacks of opponents. Sometimes the deceit and double-tongued language of heretics who hide their heresy with honey-coated words can only be exposed by sharp and impolitic language. Sometimes the defense of the faith requires a stubborn man who will not budge no matter what the consequences; and he is presented by his enemies as being unreasonable and wickedly stubborn, so that the truth for which he fights may be maligned along with him. But always God uses weakest means to fulfill his will.

There is an important truth here — a truth to which few pay attention. So many are persuaded of their position by the character of the men involved: the nice guy has got to be right; the nasty fellow cannot possibly be correct. Yet the truth must be decided on other grounds than that of personalities: it must be decided by the Scriptures alone, regardless of any personal likes and dislikes. Without excusing what is sometimes wicked conduct on the part of orthodox men, it is important that the church remember that the truth is determined by God’s Word alone. Gomarus, for all his shortcomings, was a champion of the Reformed faith. And one must, for the truth’s sake, overlook personal faults.

There can be no question about it that Gomarus was a difficult man, hard to get along with, prone to extreme statements, sometimes violent in his opposition to Arminius and Arminianism. He never “beat around the bush.” He never left any doubt in anyone’s mind as to what he believed. He never worried about “stepping on people’s toes” or offending them if they were not heart and mind committed to the truth.

Sometimes descriptions of him are biased, and bitterness against his staunch defense of the faith pours out in diatribes against his personality. Thus one author can write: “[He] displayed a most violent, virulent, and intolerant spirit, and endeavored by various publications to excite the indignation of the States of Holland against his rival.”

But some of this was true. Even Junius, later related to Gomarus through marriage, said: “That man pleases himself most wonderfully by his own remarks. He derives all his stock of knowledge from others; he brings forward nothing of his own: or, if at any time he varies from his usual practice, he is exceedingly infelicitous in those occasion changes.”

There is a story somewhere, whether true or apocryphal it is hard to say, that at the Synod of Dort, one elder was appointed to sit alongside Gomarus to tug him back into his seat when he leaped to his feet and rather too forcibly made a point.

In any case, Gomarus was a staunch defender of the faith. Perhaps it took a man such as he to stand against the growing tide of Arminianism. God’s providence prepares men who are “stubborn” about the right things. And if this seems to condone their sins, the fact is that, though it does not, God can, as the proverb has it, draw a straight line with a crooked stick. And sometimes only very strong language will do to put to flight the clever designs of heretics.

At the Synod of Dort Gomarus defended not only orthodoxy but Supralapsarian orthodoxy. And, although his views in this respect did not prevail on the Synod, for the Canons are infralapsarian, his supralapsarianism was not condemned by the Synod and his defense of the faith was of inestimable service as the Synod struggled with the errors of Arminianism.


Gomarus would allow only one book to determine his theology: the sacred Scriptures. In a sort of album in which he kept various letters, tokens of friendship, and something of a diary, he had written in Hebrew: “Thy (God’s) Word is Light.”

He was of the stripe of Calvin, Gottschalk, Augustine, and Athanasius. He was the forerunner of others to follow, of whom one has got to be Herman Hoeksema. We need not always approve of the way in which they did things (although we can take a long and hard look at ourselves in this respect), but we ought to thank God for them, for they were men of courage and conviction who fought for truth and right against all odds. To concentrate on their weaknesses and foibles, so as to condemn their defense of the faith is to be unfaithful to the truth. To look beyond personalities and weigh all in the light of Scripture is to be faithful. To fight is the courage of faith. May God grant men like these to the church today — even if they sometimes have difficult personalities. The church needs more than nice men.