Pages

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

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.

5 comments:

  1. Emay, you articulate it well.You theological prowess is clearly good; and here I thought most of what you did (from my experiences in the AOMIN chat) was get hungry. :)

    I look forward to reading more of your material.

    DH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, a guy's gotta eat ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very good exposition. I appreciate your arguments, however I'm not sure I would be so quick to dismiss or ignore. Surely as scripture plainly states, we grow spiritually through trials and hardship. You are actually growing spiritually by contending with the objections he has brought forward, because you are urged by your faith and the holy spirit to offer the conviction of your faith.

    If you were to ignore his objections you may be doing so in spite of the spirit's urging. The fidelity of his arguments are irrelevent, as to the purpose the Holy Spirit has for you. By forcing you to expound on the principles of your faith you may convince others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric:

    I appreciate your insight.

    However, what I meant by "he is to be ignored" was not that I would personally ignore him. I'm sure that he will come back, restate what he has already stated, and have me respond. He doesn't seem like someone who will simply "go away."

    But what I did mean by "he is to be ignored" was that Christians in this blogosphere should not worry themselves about him, considering the fact that he, having failed to address the issues, simply re-asserts his position over and over again.

    Thanks,
    Evan

    ReplyDelete
  5. First let me say I'm enthused about Reformed bloggers, like yourselves, who take up the Free Grace critique and deal with it substantively.

    About the idea that Antonio is to be ignored because of the work load you've given out, if the blogosphere were law school you'd be right! But it's not. He or I or others can handle any of the ideas you've peppered us with, but we have day jobs so be patient.

    One of the verses from 1st John that you challenged Antonio with was 2:9....

    whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness

    Some background about Hodges' position on verses like these. He understands the NT, as you yourselves do, as both refined and forthright. It contains nuance that shouldn't be missed, but it can fully be trusted because it is so very well-crafted. (Both our camps would probably add that that is true as long as it is rightly understood.)

    While the Calvinist model has much to commend it, it is brilliantly cohesive and its internal logic is amazing, a fault I see is that its alignment with the NT seems to be only fair to good. IMO the F/G model's alignment with the NT is excellent.

    You would never find Hodges arguing something as clumsy as the idea that an unregenerate person has 'brothers' in Christ.

    whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness

    If your interpretation is right John would have written an accurate statement, not an inaccurate one. He would have said:

    whoever says he is in the light and hates the brethren is still in darkness

    That would have made sense. As it is, it is clumsy to the point of inaccuracy to have made this statement if his purpose was to say you who don't love other Christians were never saved in the first place. So Hodges' manner of respecting the nuance is shown here. He would agree with your frustration with commentators who seem to say, 'But John can't mean that!'

    On the meaning of John's statement, Hodges has an absolutist understanding of this verse because John seems to be so unequivocal in his statements. While reformed theology admits that there may be periods of backsliding (though they believe these can not last too long or be present at the point death) this verse is saying, in my view, that no one can hate his brother and also be in the light! If we walk in the light of His presence we will not hate the brethren, ever. An idea that follows naturally from 2:6. 'He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.'

    Jn 2:9 certainly is a test, just not the one you imagine. In my view there are a lot of backsliders who think themselves to be superior in spirituality, conscience, and sensitivity to the Scriptures when compared to the church people they are now drifting from. Resenting the brethren is one of the strongest indicators that a person is not walking with the Lord. Phillip Yancey does his readers a disservice by seeming to cater to these self-described 'wounded' people who think they can hate church people and enjoy the presence of the Lord. Really they are self-indulgent and have deceived themselves.

    Again I respect you for taking up these Free Grace ideas in order to show where they are in error. Iron sharpens iron!
    Warmly,
    Jodie

    ReplyDelete