# What is Sandamanianism?



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2010)

?

Anyone heard of Sandemanians? Or maybe Sandemanianism?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 5, 2010)

Sandemanianism. After Robert Sandeman, (18th century) who held that intellectual assent to the facts of Christ's work is all that is required for saving faith. Google it with that spelling and you should find all sorts of discussion on it.

Edit to add:

Here is one link that goes into it: Founders Ministries | Old Error Rediscovered


----------



## Skyler (Dec 5, 2010)

Michael Faraday was a Sandemanian, I believe.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Glasite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jambo (Dec 5, 2010)

The founder was a Scot, John Glas, but the 18th century movement was named after his son in law, Robert Sandeman. Glasites and Sandemanians are the same name for the one movement with the latter being the more popular name. It would appear that Glas was meek and mild whilst his son in law was harsher and more extreme. They were a narrow minded Calvinist sect which practised footwashing.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2010)

Wow, foot-washing too?


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 10, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> ?
> 
> Anyone heard of Sandemanians? Or maybe Sandemanianism?


 
For a good introduction see Martyn Lloyd-Jones's 1967 paper, Sandemanianism in _The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors_ from which the following is abridged.

Founded by John Glas in the 1720's and propagated by Robert Sandeman in _Letters on Theron and Aspasio, _which put forward, among other things, a particular view of saving faith. The reaction was very strong by the 1780's and 90's with Andrew Fuller writing _Strictures on Sandemanianism in Twelve letters to a friend. _

The key point is that Sandemanianism holds that "the sole requisite for justification and acceptance with God" is intellectual accepetance of the Apostolic report "concerning the work finished by Christ in His death proved by the resurrection to be all sufficient to justify the ungodly." The man who so accepts the apostolic report "is justified and finds relief to his guilty conscience" 

But this teaching, disagreed Principal John MacLeod (as cited by MLJ "is fitted to put a premium upon what is held to be orthodox doctrine and to lay less stress than is called for on the reaction of the emotional nature to the truth of the gospel and on the activity of the will as that goes out in the trust of the heart and its attendant obedience in the life." 

Andrew Fuller concurred, saying that Sandemanianism is "a bare belief in the truth. It excludes all pertaining to the will and the affections except as fruts produced by it." "They will not hae even a hearty persuasion, but emphasize only notional belief. It is knowledge with approbation.

And William Williams the great Welsh theologian put it this way:: "it sets naked faith as the chief thing, believing without power, making little of conviction and of a broken heart." 

In fairness to Glass and company, they were "trying to safeguard the doctrine of justification by faith only; and they felt that the others were introducing works. One of the later Sandemanians put it that to include good dispositions, holy affections . . . was to re-introducer works.

Their great text was Rom 4:5 interpreting "ungodly" here as "those who were enemies of God at the very time they believed." 

Three questions are at issue: 
What is the nature of saving faith, naked and notional only, or aare the feelings and the will included? 
Does faith precede or follow repentance? 
Does faith precede or follow regeneration? 

Summarizing MLJ's answer to the first question: Andrew Fuller pointed out that the case of Abraham cited in Rom 4 makes the Sandemanian interpretation impossible. For at the time when Abraham trusted God who justifies the ungodly he had been a godly man for some years. Same with David. 
Also Rom 10:9,10 where the "heart" although not limited to the affections includes them.
Also since faith is something given by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 13, it cannot merely be a notional response to a report.

MLJ concluded that there was a good deal of this teaching abroad in 1967, both in Arminan and Calvinist circles. On the Arminian side Finneyan type decisionist preaching has some of its roots here, yet Calvinists who find themselves hard of heart of spirit, mechanically performing duties without life or love rising from the heart may find profit in examining their hearts.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 10, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Anyone heard of Sandemanians? Or maybe Sandemanianism?



It resurfaced as Martinism in the 1800's among Texas Baptists.


----------



## alhembd (Dec 11, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone heard of Sandemanians? Or maybe Sandemanianism?
> ...


 
Being as I am from Texas, I would have to say that the majority of Texas Baptists today are Sandemanians. Think: Zane Hodge. Dallas Theological Seminary.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 11, 2010)

I wouldn't isolate it to Texas or Baptists  .


----------



## Bradwardine (Dec 11, 2010)

The position of Glas / Sandeman is illustrative of the danger that often faces Christians (and sadly which they often fall in to): when a church/denomination/group strays from the path into error and there is then a reaction against the error (reformation), rather than simply stepping back into the path there is an over-correction (to get as far from the error as possible) and they end up straying from the path to the other side. Sadly this happens repeatedly We do well to remember Deuteronomy 5:32 (and similar passages).


----------

