Wednesday 27 November 2013

1 John - Test of Life OR Test of Fellowship?

This is a short blog post to look at the question of why the epistle of 1 John was written. There are generally two views on what John was trying to convey in his epistle of 1 John, both will be presented below with an explanation of which view I believe to be correct, and which view I believe to be totally wrong.


What is the “Test of Life” view of 1 John?
Put simply the “test of life” view of 1 John is that John lays out a number of tests in his epistle, if one passes these tests laid out in 1 John then they can “know they have eternal life”, therefore if someone passes the tests they can know if they are counted as either a "believer" or a "unbeliever". 


What is the “Test of Fellowship” view of 1 John?
The test of fellowship view is very different, this view says that John was writing to encourage born again believers to ensure they were in fellowship with God. John does not write a list of tests to see if one is a believer, in stead the purpose of John’s epistle is to encourage believers to continue on in fellowship with God.


“Test of Life” in Arminianism and Calvinism
This blog post won’t address the theological differences between both Calvinism and Arminianism, all I will say is that both systems have got things correct and both have got things incorrect. In my experiences it is generally dortian Calvinism that goes totally contrary to scripture, however I won’t go into reasons that I believe this in this particular blog post.

The Arminian view on 1 John is generally similar to that of Calvinism, they affirm the “Test of Life” view, however add the wholly unbiblical view that a man can loose everlasting life. So they say that man can know that he has everlasting life if he passes all of the tests within the book, however if he fails one of the tests then he cannot know that he has everlasting life (presently). So a man has to examine himself to see if he posses everlasting life currently, notice that I added the word currently. As the vast majority of Arminians affirm that we can be justified (saved) and then loose everlasting life and have to “get it back” – whatever that means! As I whole heartedly reject the view of conditional eternal security (which is a bit of an oxymoron).

The dortian Calvinist view of 1 John is very similar; if the person passes the tests then they can be “pretty sure” they have everlasting life. But because of the dortian Calvinist view of “perseverance of the saints” one cannot know that they are truly saved until they endure to the end of their life in faithfulness and/or holiness.


Why John Did Not Have a “Test of Life” View in Mind
I find this view of “test of life” rather fascinating. Does John have a mini prologue of his epistle to show the reader what ideas he is trying to convey? It would appear so:

1 John 1:3 (NKJV):  that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 

Clearly what John had in mind was to write to the readers about fellowship and not justification, verse 6 and 7 only strengthen this point:

1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV):  6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Note in particular throughout 1 John who he says the epistle is aimed at:

1 John 5:13 (NKJV): These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,

Since we can forget about the Arminian objection due to their conclusion that everlasting life is not in fact everlasting, we can turn to look at the dortian Calvinist view of the verse. Under the “Test of Life” view this makes little sense for a dortian Calvinist, John is writing to someone who believes to say that they can know they have everlasting life. However Calvinism affirms that we cannot actually know until we have preserved, so John’s statement of their ability to know becomes mute!

Second of all John addresses himself and others as believers:

1 John 2:12-14 (NKJV): 12 I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake. 13 I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men,  Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. 14 I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.


1 John 2:25 (NKJV): And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

Notice the use of “us”, John included himself here. It would surely take a brave dortian Calvinist to affirm that John could not know that he was justified until the end of his life?! Was John just mistaken when writing under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit? A view contrary to this just won’t wash. John continues to include himself in the affirmation that he and his readers are everlasting possessing belivers:

1 John 3:1-2 (NKJV): 3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1 John 5:19 (NKJV): We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

It would seem apparent that John himself knew that he was indeed justified and a possessor of everlasting life, this is a bit of a problem for the dortian Calvinist who tries to the epistle into a “test to see if you are saved”.


Why Assurance is Impossible Under the Dortian Calvinists Terms
If the dortian Calvinist wants to continue to affirm that if they pass the tests laid out in 1 John that they can be “pretty sure they are saved” they have to face the problem of interpreting 1 John 1:8,10. The tests that the dortian Calvinist lays before the reader to “pass” in order to know (a good bet!) that they have everlasting life are generally something like this:

  • TEST 1 – WE HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD [2].
  • TEST 2 – WE ARE SENSITIVE TO OUR SIN [2].
  • TEST 3 – WE OBEY HIS COMMANDS [2].
  • TEST 4 – WE HATE THE WORLD AND ALL IT STANDS FOR [2].
  • TEST 5 – WE LOVE CHRIST AND EAGERLY AWAIT HIS RETURN [3].
  • TEST 6 – WE SEE A DECREASING OF SIN IN OUR LIFE [3].
  • TEST 7 – WE HAVE A LOVE FOR OTHER CHRISTIANS [3].
  • TEST 8 – WE EXPERIENCE ANSWERED PRAYER [4].
  • TEST 9 – WE EXPERIENCE THE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT [4].
  • TEST 10 – WE DISCERN BETWEEN SPIRITUAL TRUTH AND ERROR [4].

We read in 1 John 1:8,10:

1 John 1:8 (NKJV): If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10 (NKJV): If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us

No one achieves perfection, so how can we know if we are “continuing to sin”? How can we know that we actually have eternal life? All of these laid out tests of life are subjective as so we cannot know unless we persevere to the end – under dortian Calvinism. So can we know we have everlasting life like John affirms? Not if the dortian Calvinists “test of life” view is adopted.


What is Behind the “Test of Life” View?
How does one come to the conclusion that the epistle is about a test of everlasting life? It is all to do with what the dortian Calvinist believes is the the purpose statement for the epistle of 1 John, they maintain that 1 John 5:13 is the purpose statement for the epistle rather than in 1 John 1:3. Where would you expect the purpose of the epistle to be addressed? Bob Wilkin puts it well:


Those holding the Test-of-Life view of First John suggest, instead, that 1 John 5:13 is the purpose statement for the book. That verse says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” There are several problems with this view. First, the words "these things I have written"(tauta egrapsa in Greek) refer not to all that precedes 5:13 but only to the immediate context (i.e., 5:6-12). The same Greek expression occurs on only one other occasion in the book, in 2:26. There too only the immediate context (i.e., 2:18-25) is in view. [1].


Bob’s point is very relevant! Lets take a look at 1 John 2:26 and the versus preceding each verse, then lets do the same with 1 John 5:13:

1 John 2:18-25 (NKJV): 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

1 John 2:26 (NKJV): These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.

1 John 5:6-12 (NKJV): 6This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

1 John 5:13 (NKJV): These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,[a] and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

It’s clear from 1 John 2:26 that this is not the overall purpose statement of the epistle but to the preceding versus (2:18-25). The exact same phrase of words is used by John in 1 John 5:13, here it is also clear that John was referencing what he had written in the immediate preceding versus (6-12).

Conclusion: 1 John 5:13 is not a purpose statement for the whole epistle, just like 1 John 2:26 it deals with the preceding versus. The preceding versus of 1 John 5:6-12 simply affirm what the Gospel of John teaches; that we can know now we have everlasting life through our one time act of faith in Jesus for everlasting life.


Assurance is Impossible under Dortian Calvinism
John says that we can have assurance we have everlasting life (1 John 5:13), but John gives no assurance that we can know we are in fellowship unless we pass the test of the epistle (1 John 1:6-7). Finally to show that the dortian Calvinists view fails logically consider the following:

1)     One can pass the tests now.
2)     Therefore they can know they have everlasting life.
3)     One can then later fail the tests.
4)     Therefore they can not know they have everlasting life.

Net result: One cannot ultimately know if they have everlasting life until they persevere to the end in faithfulness according to the dortian Calvinist, unfortunately for the dortian Calvinist John was sure he (2:25, 3:1-2, 5:19) and his readers (2:12-14, 3:1-2, 5:19) were believers and were in fact justified and possessed everlasting life (1 John 5:13). John did not write his epistle to test if his readers were "believers" or "unbelievers" as he has already stated that both himself and his readers were in fact eternal life possessing believers, this epistle is not a "test of life" for "believers", such a view that believers do not have everlasting life flies in the face of all understanding regardless of ones view of assurance (current, future, or now!).


Conclusion
I think I will conclude with some thoughts of Zane Hodges:

All of this is extremely simple. There is absolutely no effort on the Apostle's part to add additional "checks," "tests," or "verifications." The believer's assurance that he possesses eternal life is directed totally and unambiguously toward the truth of what God says about His Son. In that truth he is invited to rest.


Amen to that!


References

[1] Bob Wilkin. (1998). Knowing God By Our Works? 1 John 2:3-11.Available: http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1988/88oct3.html. Last accessed 27th Nov 2013.

[2] Michael K. Farrar, O.D.. (2007). Eleven Tests in the Epistles of John That Can Assure Us We are Saved Part One. Available: http://www.godsbreathpublications.com/11-tests-for-assurance-of-salvation-part-1/. Last accessed 27th Nov 2013.

[3] Michael K. Farrar, O.D.. (2007). Eleven Tests in the Epistles of John That Can Assure Us We are Saved Part Two. Available: http://www.godsbreathpublications.com/11-tests-for-assurance-of-salvation-part-2/. Last accessed 27th Nov 2013.

[4] Michael K. Farrar, O.D.. (2007). Eleven Tests in the Epistles of John That Can Assure Us We are Saved Part Three. Available: http://www.godsbreathpublications.com/11-tests-for-assurance-of-salvation-part-3/. Last accessed 27th Nov 2013.

[5] Zane C. Hodges. (Autumn 1990). We Believe In: Assurance of Salvation.Available: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990ii/Hodges.html. Last accessed 27th Nov 2013.

Saturday 9 November 2013

Is “Continual Drinking” a necessary Requirement for Eternal Life according to the John 4?

Introduction
The Gospel of John was written with the explicit intention of informing unbelievers what they must do in order to obtain everlasting life (John 20:31). John is clear that the only requirement is belief; notice that in the whole of the Gospel of John the words “repentance” and “repent” never occur. So the idea of constant repentance of sin in order to be justified is a totally foreign concept to the doctrine of eternal security. Therefore this will not be dealt with here; there is absolutely no question that sin does not cause loss of everlasting life. What will be dealt with is the claim made that someone has to persevere in faithfulness to the end of their life in order to be eternally secure.


Core Passage
The following passage is the core passage for this blog post, parts of the verse that I wish to emphasise are put into bold text to draw your attention to them.

John 4:7-15 (KJV)
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

It is immediately apparent that the core importance I wish to point out from this passage is from verse 13 to 15.


Two Views Stated
The commonest two views regarding this passage are as follows:

Standard Arminian:
One must persevere in faith (belief) in order to retain eternal life, if the person fails to preserve then they fail to meet the requirement by which the offer of everlasting life is offered.

Standard Calvinist:
One is eternally secure due to his election, therefore they will necessarily preserve to the end. Therefore continual belief is the evidence that the person is truly saved and is of the elect.

Free Grace:
One is eternally secure the moment they trust in Jesus Christ for everlasting life, a once for all one time event is in view here.


Exegesis of John 4:13-15 - Verse by Verse

Staring with verse 13:

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

Jesus Christ is talking here about the physical well in which Himself and the Samarian woman are standing at (verse 7,11). Jesus makes it clear that whoever takes a drink from this water will become thirsty again.

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jesus creates a direct contrast to verse 13 by saying that whoever drinks of the water he provides will never thirst. Jesus then goes on to say that the water he gives shall be a well of water inside the person and this springs up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

The woman understood Jesus direct contrast between the water he offers compared to the water at the well. She proves that she understands this by asking Jesus for the water so that she will not thirst, and therefore will not have to return at some later point.


Where the “Conditional Security” Arminians Fall Down
The Arminian states that if someone fails to persevere in belief then they will fail to meet their supposed requirements for everlasting life (continual belief). Therefore the individual would need to come back to Jesus in order to receive the living water Jesus provides. What is wrong with this? Well it makes Jesus direct contrast completely null.

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst;……..

Note the contrast Jesus makes, he is using the physical well to represent a drinking that is direct contrast to that of living water. A physical well requires for someone to come back to the well to drink the water, then when they thrist they have to return to draw water and drink again. It is a loop of coming to the well and drinking. Then Jesus says “But”, and creates the contrast to show what He offers, Jesus says that whoever drinks of the water he gives will never thirst again.

The Arminian interpretation follows the following illogical construct:

(1)   Whoever takes one drink from the well will thirst again and have to come back to draw.

(2)   But whoever takes one drink from the water Jesus provides will never thirst again until they thirst again and have to come back to draw.
                                                                  OR

(3)   But whoever continues to drink from the water Jesus provides     
      will never thirst again, until they thirst again (by stop believing)
      and have to come back to draw.

Regardless of which you would hold to (2) or (3), the passage makes absolutely no sense, because one eventually will have to come back to drink to get “saved again”.

Lets look closely at how (2) cannot be correct:
The first part of the (2) is absolutely correct, whoever takes one drink will never thirst again, however the Arminian then adds “if they continue to believe”, the result of not believing would mean that one would have to come back to Jesus in order to drink again due to thirst. This would make the verse completely wrong as Jesus is creating a direct contrast to thirsting again by saying “shall never thirst”, to say that a contrast is not being drawn would make the passage sound like this:

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him may not thirst again….

But what contrast is being drawn? Basically none, and the verse doesn’t even suggest one may well thirst again, it says “shall never thirst”. Even if we allow, briefly, for the possibility the verse could mean “may not thrist again” this does not fit “shall never thirst”, because ultimately, the person may well thirst. So (2) cannot be correct.

What about (3)? This view basically states that if someone were to continue to believe they would never thirst again, until they thirsted again by unbelief and needed to drink again. Again this just makes the verse and contrast Jesus creates mute, if anyone at any point thirsted again then the contrast Jesus creates becomes mute and is no contrast at all. The Arminian is in effect arguing:

Whoever drinks from the well will thirst again.
Whoever drinks from Jesus offer will never thirst again, until they need to thirst again.

No contrast is given between verse 13 and 14. One would still “thirst again” if it were possible one could become unjustified and loose everlasting life.


Where the Calvinists Don’t Actually Fall Down
The Calvinists should have no problem with this verse for a few reasons; they do assert that one has eternal life. However they only assert this if they are one of the “unconditionally elect”, and in Calvinist thinking this logically leads to the conclusion that if you are one of the elect then you will necessarily “continually believe until the end”, this is called perseverance of the saints.

Therefore the verse does state that a person will never thirst again, Jesus direct contrast remains; one has to drink from the well and come back to drink again, but the water Jesus provides is a one time drink that does not require anyone to ever drink again.

So the Calvinist interpretation doesn’t create a contradiction in the exegesis of John 4.


Free Grace Position
Its quite simple:

Whoever drinks (one drink) from the well will thirst again.

Whoever drinks (one drink) from the water Jesus provides will never thirst again.

The direct contrast remains, the verse remains and no eisegesis has taken place.

Contrast:

One drink from well – will thirst again.

One drink water Jesus provides – will not thirst again.

What the verse doesn’t say:

Continues drinking from the well – will thirst again.

Continuous drinking from the water Jesus provides – will not thirst again, until they need to thirst again when they become “unjustified”.

That’s illogical as a continuous drink from the well would never result in thirsting and would render Jesus contrast using “But” as totally meaningless.


One Final Stand
Finally one last argument could me presented by proponents:

One drink from the well – will thirst again.

Continuous drinking from the water Jesus provides – will not thirst again, until they need to thirst again when they become “unjustified”.

Again, this makes no sense at all. What this view says is that you won’t thirst again until you have to thirst again, which means you will thirst again. Also it destroys the clear contrast Jesus gives by using the word “But”, whatever Jesus means in verse 14 is a contrast to what is meant by verse 13. Therefore as it is clear that verse 13 is talking about taking one drink then thirsting again and verse 14 is talking about one drink and never thirsting again.

One drink is enough for everlasting life.

Do you believe this?