1 John, Assurance, and Eisegetical Assertions

Yesterday I addressed Antonio da Rosa on the issue of assurance in my post “True Assurance: Reformation Theology vs. the ‘Free Grace’ Movement.” He has since responded via the comments section. When it comes to this issue, Antonio continues to make the same mistakes. First, he starts with the assumption that Reformed theology does not offer certainty concerning the matter of assurance. Reformed theology unequivocally disagrees. He has also shown that he does not understand the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. But Antonio’s error is worse than this. The mistake that Antonio continually makes is to start with his position on assurance and eisegete it into the texts addressed. While he does not state these words, his unspoken principle is “John simply cannot mean that.” We will see this permeate his response. Rather than addressing the text, he speculates against what is explicitly presented and concludes with the assumptions he had in the first place. His error is undeniable.

***QUOTE***

Your tests cannot give you a certain assurance that you are saved. 1) You cannot pass those tests with flying colors. You may contend that you can, I contend greatly that you can’t. 2) Even if you delude yourself to pass with flying colors, there is no assurance that you will pass with flying colors anytime in the future.

***END-QUOTE***

It is evident that Antonio misunderstands the nature of the test. In my last post, I stated, “The true Christian either passes the test, or repents if he is in sin.” This has nothing to do with “flying colors.” This has to do with how we deal with our sin. This is the test.

***QUOTE***

I am very confused that you can say that you can have absolute assurance in Reformed theology. You cannot. You may have some measure of assurance based on your works, but what kind of assurance is that?

***END-QUOTE***

This is the assurance that John gives us. Note that Antonio fails to address the passages that have been presented. John wrote that we might know that we are saved; and as I have shown in my last post, he gave us a means of knowing. But Antonio chooses to stand in the face of John and ask him, “What kind of assurance is that?” Why, Antonio, do you disagree with John? Why is your opinion more important that the God-breathed words of Scripture?

***QUOTE***

Your number seven for those who are not Christians: will keep on sinning. I don’t know, have you reached sinless perfection? Do you not have to keep confessing your sins day in and day out? You must not be a Christian!

***END-QUOTE***

My point number seven for the category of those who are not Christians came straight from the words of John as he stated, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9). What is Antonio’s response? His unspoken principle is “John simply can’t mean that!” Rather than making the slightest attempt to address the passage from which the point was taken, Antonio simply speculates the point. His error is unmistakable.

However, his questions reveal his misunderstanding of the point in the first place. Neither John nor I am talking about “sinlessness.” Rather, we are talking about the lifestyle of sin. The ESV renders this verse, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning.” And John earlier stated in his book, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Antonio’s speculations, therefore, are simply distractions.

***QUOTE***

Do you understand what fellowship is? It is participation with God. Any time you sin, you are not walking in fellowship with God. God is only in the light. If you are not participating with Him in the light, guess where you are? You are walking in darkness. Anytime that you sin, you are walking in darkness. You don’t get caught up in any of the sins of the world? When you sin against God, prefering that which comes from the world over Him, you are loving the world and not loving God at that time. Can you say that you are loving God at the same time that you are sinning against Him succumbing to the temptations of the world? Frankly I do not have to go on. If your conscience does not affend you with any of those tests, then there is something wrong.

***END-QUOTE***

Why is Antonio rambling on in this manner? What does this have to do with the information I have presented? Where does this address the principles put forth in 1 John? The only conclusion that I can make from this is that Antonio continues with the error that I am advocating sinlessness as a means of proving one is a Christian. But I have nowhere said this, and Antonio does not have anything relevant to say.

***QUOTE***

You are either sinless or self-righteous. Any sincere look of instrospection using your tests will betray that you are not fulfilling all of those requirements you give for assurance. You can’t have assurance that way! Calvin knew it and Luther knew it and I know it, and you know it. Certain assurance of salvation will never come from looking to works, or from fulfilling your tests.

***END-QUOTE***

Once again, Antonio takes everything that John has to say in his book and throws it in the garbage. Why does he have such little concern for the Word of God? Antonio “claims Calvin.” It is a classic move when enemies of the Reformed position seek to convince their audience via irrelevant argumentation. But Antonio, I have one request: see what Calvin has to say about 1 John. See if he agrees with you there. See if he chucks John’s statements to the ground in speculation.

I have presented assurance from a Biblical perspective. Antonio denies this. But what assurance does he have? His confession of faith? The emotions he experienced as he responded to an altar call? John states, “If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth” (John 1:6). Ignoring for the moment that Antonio will respond with his unspoken principle of “John simply can’t mean that” accompanied with speculation of the phrase “walk in darkness,” we notice that John states that a confession in itself is meaningless unless it is married with “walking in the light.” Obedience demonstrates the veracity of faith. Faith is the means of justification. But obedience demonstrates faith. If faith is not accompanied by obedience, then it is simply not saving faith (James 2:14). John has taken the time to write a letter to us that we might know that we have eternal life. But for some reason, Antonio wishes to disagree with the “these things” that John wrote in order that we might know we are saved. Why someone would wish to do that is beyond me.

Antonio later writes:

***QUOTE***

How do you do that in Reformed theology? Only by persevering in faith. Can you find out that your faith is genuine after one day of believing in Christ? How about a week, a month, a year, 10 years, 3 decades?

…You may only have a spurious faith! Don’t be so presumptuous to assume that your faith is genuine. You haven’t persevered enough, you haven’t passed the tests, your consciousness may be fooling you.

***END-QUOTE***

And thus Antonio misunderstands perseverance. The elect will persevere to the end. But perseverance isn’t the basis of assurance. Faith that saves is. What is the basis of my assurance? My confession of faith. But how do I know that my faith is genuine, saving faith? Via James, John, and the New Testament as a whole, I know that obedience demonstrates the veracity of my confession of faith. How do you know that you have faith that saves verses faith that doesn’t save? Is all faith saving faith in your theology? James asks, “Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). There is obviously faith that is genuine saving faith and faith that is based upon subjective emotions. Which one do you have, and how do you know it? The unanswered questions stack high.

***QUOTE***

Well, enough of this. I am going to go pray. The notion that a Calvinist can be SURE and CERTAIN of his salvation is, unfortunately, laughable, when the evidence is considered.

***END-QUOTE***

No, what is laughable is that you use the word “evidence” yet have not even made an attempt at addressing the evidence! Until Antonio will address the Biblical texts rather than speculating the Reformed conclusions and eisegeting his assumptions into the texts, he is to be ignored.

Evan May.