Sunday, January 22, 2006

Living water


Acording to Reformed theology, salvation is contingent on linear faith. Jesus' offer to the Samaratan women (John 4) at the well thus turns from "whoever drinks of the water that I shall give them shall never thirst again" into "whoever CONTINUES to drink of the water I give them shall never thirst again".

What a mistake! Of course if you continue to drink something you will never thirst! How is that contrasted with the physical water in John 4 that must continually be drawn?

What a concept! Keep drinking and you will never thirst! Wow what a prolific statement Christ makes here!

Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; 14 and whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him might thirst again; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life, well maybe." (John 4:13-14)

Could it really be said that the woman believed Jesus if she reinterpreted His words in this manner?

This is how you must interpret this, for to "drink of" is not enough in your theology. You must CONTINUALLY drink.

No, but Jesus is clead: a moment of faith (a drink of the living water) causes one to never thirst again!

John 4:13-14
Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Notice “drink of”. All one must do is merely “drink of” the water Jesus gives and he will never thirst again. Why? Because that one drink becomes a perpetual fountain. The single exercise of faith in Christ for eternal life brings with it absolute eternal security/eternal well-being.


# posted by Antonio : 1/21/2006 9:34 PM


i) To say that in Reformed theology, salvation is contingent on linear faith is grossly simplistic.

In Reformed theology, justification is contingent on faith, but salvation (which is inclusive of justification, but more extensive than justification) is contingent on divine grace, which is the source of faith.

ii) I don’t know why Antonio introduces Jn 4:13-14. I never cited this to prove that salvation was contingent on linear faith.

The distinction in Jn 4:13-14 is not between punctiliar faith and linear faith, but between literal water and figurative water—where the latter stands for the salvific work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 3:5ff.; 7:38-39).

As far as faith is concerned, the key distinction between the Reformed position and the antinomian/Sandemanian position of Antonio is not between punctiliar faith and linear faith, but between nominal faith and regenerate faith.

In Reformed theology, regeneration is the source of saving faith, while the source of regeneration is the Holy Spirit.

This is why one can’t reduce saving faith to punctiliar faith, inasmuch as saving faith is the effect of a “linear” cause rather than a punctiliar cause, which is the continuous activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the elect, to regenerate, sanctify, and preserve.

A Calvinist believes in salvation by sovereign grace. The work of the Father in election is objective. The work of the Son in redemption is objective. But the work of the Spirit in regeneration, sanctification, and preservation is subjective.

Whether objective or subjective, it is sovereign, and therefore efficacious.

1 comment:

  1. I never said the distinction in the passage was between linnear and punctilliar faith in the passage, it is between physical water that must be continually drawn and the living water that need only be drinken of to at once appropriate eternal life. The implication is the difference between continuous drawing and drinking only once, obviously.

    Yet, please don't put words into my mouth. Yes the implication to punctilliar faith is there, you can't get around it. And, there is no speaking of linnear faith here anyway, only of a punctilliar action of appropriation spoken of in terms of the one who merely "drinks of" (appropriates by a mere act of punctilliar faith)and doing so shall never thirst again.

    Your answer to me is the usual tiptoeing and evading of my arguments. You do not answer my argument, you only refer us to your Calvinistic doctrines of man, to your man-made theology, in order to refute my textual argument.

    So thus you use theology to argue against exposition of Scripture. This is quite telling.

    It reminds me of this rebuke from Jesus to the Pharisees:

    Matt 15:6-9 have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

    "These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
    And honor Me with their lips,
    But their heart is far from Me.
    And in vain they worship Me,
    Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

    You well do abrogate the grace of God by your doctrines of men which teach works-salvation/works-righteousness. You qualify faith by works! and by doing so "grace is no longer grace" (Romans 11:6).

    It is sad when theology becomes the argument against clear exposition of Scripture.

    And Jesus is clear: one mere drink appropriates the living water that becomes a perpetual spring.