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.

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?

Only Those Who Continue to Believe actually have Everlasting Life?

The Argument Put Forward

I am sure most of us have heard the argument before; it goes something along the lines of; only those who continue to believe in their life will actually make it to glory. Is this based on sound exegesis of biblical texts? Or is it actually based on mans underlying theology pushing forward an idea that they want to believe? In this post I am going to show that it is not based on sound biblical exegesis, and it is in fact based upon reformed theology being pushed onto the text.

The Core Biblical Text for this Post

The core text for the following post is from John 11:26:

John 11:26 (NKJV)

“And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

In the Greek both “lives” and “believes” are Greek present tense participles. What does that mean? It means basically that in the Greek they are present tense verbs. Some argue that because this is the case then it denotes an ongoing action of both living and believing in order to obtain eternal life (shall never die).

The Sometimes Calvinist and Arminians View of the word “Believe”

Not all, but some Calvinists and Arminians insist that the word believe does always mean an on going process in the application of eternal life. The Calvinist might of course argue that if someone does not persevere to the end in faithfulness they were “never really saved because they were not among the unconditionally elected”. The Armenian may argue that “if someone doesn’t persevere they were either never saved or they have fallen away from salvation”. So therefore both statements above show a classical and typical view that one must continue to “believe” in order to be saved.

Not so Sound Exegesis of John 11:26!

For the typical and classical interpretation sometimes given by some Arminians and Calvinists to be proven wrong what do we need? Well all we need is one verse that proves that belief is not an on going process, either by context or the Greek, or both! Well I think we have it in John 11:26.

Lets think about this, the Calvinist and Arminian arguing such a point is saying this verse reads as follows: “And whoever lives (continues) and believes (continues) in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Premise: One most continue to live and believe in order to be a partaker in eternal life.

Inference: One continues to live and continues to believe.

Conclusion: One is a partaker in eternal life.

Now the above sounds fine doesn’t it. But where is the logic horrifically flawed? Well it’s relatively simple. What if you stop living?

Well if you stop living you have now failed to match both the criteria in the verse on how to be a partaker in eternal life – according to some Calvinists and Arminians. How is this the case? Well if they insist that the Greek present tense participle demands an interpretation of always meaning an “on going process” they cannot deny the fact that both “lives” and “believes” used in the same verse are present tense participles!

Options for Interpretation of John 11:26

I see it this way; you can believe 1 of the 4 things:

1)     You have to CONTINUE to live and CONTINUE to believe in order to have eternal life. If you fail to either “live” or “believe” you fail to qualify.

2)     You have to live ONCE and believe ONCE in order to have eternal life. You have to fulfil both “lives” and “believes” at one point in time.

3)     You have to live ONCE and CONTINUE to believe in order to have eternal life.

4)     You have to CONTINUE to live and only believe ONCE in order to receive eternal life.

Option 4 Examined

I think it would be a very strange exegetical conclusion for any man to come to the conclusion that number 4 is correct. For the bad news would be that once you ceased to live you have been disqualified from one of the requirements (continuing to live). This would also mean that absolutely no one since New Testament times (including the authors) actually obtained eternal life.

This is a rather ridiculous explanation of John 11:26, however I felt it should be shown that I did in fact give some thought to all possible interpretation of the verse.

Option 1 Examined

This is the typical Calvinist and Arminian claim based on purely the use of Greek present tense participles, that an ongoing belief is what is required for eternal life. But the bad news is still the same as that in option 4! What if you cease to live? You are no longer “continuing” to live, so you have not met the requirements for eternal life. Too bad! Here is some bad news, if you cease to continue to live, you also cease in belief! No one dead believes anything! So ultimately in a rather strange way this option is worse than option 4!

Option 3 Examined

I imagine that is how many Arminians and Calvinists think they are reading the text; anyone who lives and then continues to believe has eternal life. So what are the problems with option 3?

Strangely enough I feel that the problem is they are ignoring the Greek. They aren’t being consistent. It clearly says “lives” and “believes”, they are clearly conveying the same type of action as they are both present tense participles. Its rather ridiculous to say it means “live once” and “continue to believe” when the two Greek present tense participle words are used at the same time in the same way in the same sentence! Clearly the “lives” and “believes” are the same action in nature. Therefore to say one must “live once” and “believe all the time” does not support what the author (John) is trying to convey, nor does it support the fact that the same action is clearly in view by the use of the same present tense participle. We could of course turn to other scriptures regarding how to obtain eternal life, and analyse the nature and requirements to prove option 3 inherently wrong, which is what it done below, before the final option is examined.

Continual Belief Refuted by Context

Are there any contextual versus showing that continual belief is not what it required in order to be a partaker of eternal life? You bet!

John 4:10-15 (NKJV)

¹⁰ Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

¹¹ The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? ¹² Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”

¹³ Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, ¹⁴ 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.”

¹⁵ The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”

What is this passage teaching? Simply this:

1. Jesus talks about living water that He provides.
2. The woman asks where she can receive this.
3. Jesus goes onto say that whoever drinks natural water (that you and I drink) will become thirsty again. He then creates a direct contrast saying whoever drinks the water Jesus provides never actually becomes thirsty again. In other words; they won't have to keep drinking for they will never thirst again.
4. Jesus explains this with a welling up (eternal life), a person takes one drink and they will never thirst again. The well of eternal life inside them has now sprang up, they won't need to come back to drink.

The fact that Christ contrasts continual drinking with a one time drink should be enough contextually to convince even the most set in their mind individual. There would be no point in Jesus creating a picture of having to continually drink from natural water, then going onto create a picture of having to continually drink from the water he provides. Both would denote an action of continuing to drink, thereby eliminating the contrast Jesus was trying to make. Also how does it make sense of the woman’s understanding? The woman clearly understands one drink is sufficient and that she wouldn’t have to come back to the well to draw. She understood Jesus was talking about a single one time event; Jesus does not correct her understanding.

Option 2 Examined

This is of course the final option; we already deductively know that it is true as all other options are false.

I submit that the only way you can read the verse is: “And whoever lives (once) and believes (once) in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

It supports the fact that the same present tense participle is used for both “lives” and “believes”, showing that the authors intent was to show that both of these things (living and believing) are of exactly the same action. The context also supports this, as we have seen from the other options the context does not support the idea of “living” and “believing” continually, for if you stop doing one, or the other; then you fail to qualify for eternal life. So as long as you die at one point in your life then you have failed to meet the requirements – if the verse is saying we must continually live and believe throughout our entire lives, as the typical Calvinist and Arminian try’s to argue.

Jesus asks: Do you believe this?

In conclusion Jesus is asking you as a person alive today; do you believe that a one time belief in Jesus is enough in order to receive everlasting life?

I do, it is the only way John 11:26 can be read from sound exegesis.

How can I know I am going to heaven?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved… (Acts 16:31)

"Amazing Grace 

How sweet the sound 
Amazing Love 
Now flowing down 
From hands and feet 
That were nailed to the tree 

As Grace flows down and covers me "
- Grace Flows Down by Passion

God Determines All Things?

The following blog post isn't going to be a long one as I don’t think it really needs much explaining! The verse within the post is short and is self explanatory to all who read it. But I am here to look at the verse and how it applies to the determinist Calvinists view on the sovereignty of God.

First of all I feel it is important that I address what I mean by the determinist Calvinist! I mean a Calvinist who believes that humans have no free will, that God turns the heart irresistibly, and God causes all things to happen. The all encompassing determinist is thankfully still rare; however the classic Calvinist isn't far from the group I am addressing in this blog post.

The verse:

Jeremiah 19:5 (KJV)

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

There are some who believe that this verse teaches that God didn’t know what was going to happen in this situation, the problem with this view is that it does not consider the whole counsel of scripture. For example we are told crystal clearly that God knows the end from the beginning:

Psalm 139:4 (ESV)

Even before a word is on my tongue,

    behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.

Scripture cannot contradict scripture, therefore we can say with confidence that the interpretation that this verse is Jeremiah is speaking of God not knowing something is false. Therefore we can explore other possible interpretations of the passage.

The determinist has real trouble with this verse; their view of the all encompassing God who determines everything to come to pass suddenly falls apart. Here we have a verse that is crystal clearly saying that God did not:

A)    command what happened at Baal,

B)    did not speak it,

C)    it didn’t come into his mind.

God cannot be saying here that He didn’t know something was going to happen for that would contradict Psalm 139:4, so what does Jeremiah 19:5 actually mean? It means that God did not desire or cause what happened at Baal.

Why did the people at Baal do what they did? Is it because a sovereign God determines absolutely all things that happen in each individuals life and therefore causes all things (without exception) to occur? Well according to this verse absolutely not, God did not determine this to happen, He did not want it.

Soon I will be looking at the story of Jesus and Jerusalem in Matthew 23, so for now I will leave you with that verse to ponder until the next blog post:

Matthew 23:37 (KJV)

 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Ephesians 1:11 and "All things"

It’s a wonderful verse full of wonderful truth, but oh how often it is misused:

Ephesians 1:11 (KJV) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

First of all we have to accept that this verse is teaching that God does work out all things after the counsel of his own will. But the real question is this; what is the “counsel of his own will”?  Well the verse cannot mean that God causes absolutely all things and that this is the counsel of his own will, why? Well for a few reasons:

1)     The verse is all encompassing “all things” is used.

2)     It says that it is the counsel of his will. God’s will is that we do not sin, see John 9:31 (KJV): Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

So the “all things” being talked about here cannot be “all things in the universe that ever happen”, for if we took this conclusion then we turn God into the causation of all sins and all bad things, something we have seen already that God does not cause or desire in the life of anyone. Therefore Ephesians 1:11 isn’t an all encompassing verse that states that God causes absolutely all things in your life (and others) according to the counsel of His will, it means something else. What does it mean? Well I will leave you to do that research for yourself, it’s not a topic I want to cover in this blog post.

But it is not saying God causes absolutely all things, which is what people have imported onto the text and try to fit it into the text, this would contradict the scriptures that teach God does not cause or desire anyone to sin at all at absolutely any time. The following second of this blog post confirms this truth.

Does God cause all things (including sin)?

Think of a bad moment in life when someone has done something hurtful to you, or when you have done something hurtful to someone else. We ask things like “Why did that happen?”, and “why did God put me in this situation and then cause that person to do that?”. If the act that the person performed was a sin then God’s hand was not in it, if it was a good thing the person did that also does not necessarily mean God caused them to do it. God may have turned the heart to do something good to someone else; however God certainly did not turn the heart to do something sinful and negative. People try to avoid this by saying that God does everything he pleases in according to the council of his will (as Ephesians 1:11 above), therefore if a man’s heart is turned to sin it was because God causes it to happen for a specific reason. Let me tell you plain, no way! Do not even think about it, to quote the Apostle Paul; perish the thought! Consider the words of James carefully:

James 1 (KJV) 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

The passage from James goes on to explain more regarding this, the passage is in direct contrast to the notion that God causes all things including man’s sin by turning peoples hearts that way to achieve something in his will. God’s will and desires never include causing man to sin, yes God can use sins committed by man to achieve His own desires, however God will not cause man to sin. There is a big difference. James makes it clear, don’t blame God for when you or someone else sins or when you (or someone else) make a bad choice or move in life.

So when someone says/asks “why did God cause that person to sin? It must be a sign to me from God”, forget about it! God didn’t turn that person’s heart or will to sin, they did it because of their own sinful nature. We all make mistakes, its part of being a sinner.

Conclusion

Ephesians 1:11 is not stating to us that God causes absolutely everything in the universe to occur which would include sin, by people interpreting this verse as a literal and all encompassing “all things” they make God out to be the cause of all sin and all disastrous events that God did not desire (Jeremiah 19:5). Why? Because the verse does say “all things”, therefore we know that this verse isn’t talking about absolutely “all things” but means something else, for if it meant absolutely everything it would mean we had no free will, it turns God into the author of our sin, and that God desires things He has stated already in His work that He does not desire. 

How long does Eternal life last?

I guess the blog title question is a bit of a strange one really isn't it? I mean what sort of a question is it? Its like asking how many sides a circle possesses. However many 5 point Arminians will deny that the eternal life Jesus gives is actually eternal. I consider myself a sort of 4 point Arminian, though I do not like to go around saying such. Why? Because many immediately think "He doesn't believe in eternal life!", which of course it laughable! How can someone believe that everlasting (eternal) life has an end at some point? Not only is the logical faulty but the scriptures teach against such a false idea. The book of John was clearly written with the intention of telling believes how to be what we commonly call "saved", it is the book I recommend all new believers read first out of the four gospels. John 10 undoubtedly contains the strongest assertion of the eternal life of the believer, this particular text is what will be addressed in this particular blog post.

First of all, let us establish a very important point regarding Biblical exegesis. The "unclear" passages in the New Testament should always be interpreted in light of the crystal clear passages. For example when Paul sites passaged that seem to indicate we don't have eternal life (unending) then we need to realise this cannot be what Paul actually means, for Paul himself crystal clearly asserts in the eternal life of the believer as do the gospels. So now we turn to what is arguably the best proof text in the whole of the NT regarding the eternal security of the believer; OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved).

John 10:27-30 (KJV):

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Anyone reading this text as it is comes to only one conclusion; we sure are safe! Lets break it down verse by verse. Starting with verse 27.

Verse 27

Jesus here asserts that those who are the sheep are those that hear Jesus and they follow him. The Calvinist loves this verse because they assert that "See! You have to follow Jesus, that is continue to follow him to have everlasting life". This I admit could be a sound reading of verse 27, however it all hangs on this ideas of Calvinists that God from eternity past decided who was going to be saved, this is the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. The flip side of this doctrine of Calvinism is that those who God didn't elect are those doomed to hell from the very start, this sits uncomfortably with many clear passages of scripture! So we can forget the doctrine of unconditional election for this blog post, it will be dealt with another time on my blog. 

So what about the 5 point Arminians? Well they seem to have a leg to stand on at first, until you read all surrounding verses rather than just one in isolation. You see the Arminian can shout "You see! You have to follow Jesus (continually) in order to receive eternal life." But think about this for a second, this is how the 5 point Arminian logic goes when it comes to this text:

1. We continue to believe and receive eternal life.
2. So once we believe we are in a sense "continuing" to believe, this is how we receive eternal life.
3. When we stop believing we stop receiving eternal life.

Now looking at those 3 point above the 5 point Arminian can assert "exactly!", but the problem is that the life you had whilst you "continued to believe" was not really eternal was it? For it had an end point. It ignores the fact that eternal life is eternal, it does not end!

So straight away we can see that the 5 point Arminian and the 5 point Calvinist interpretations cannot be correct, the latter due to the fact all points are inherently unbiblical, but Calvinism is far too large to address here. We can clearly see my fellow Arminians who actually believe the 5th point of Arminianism are wrong. But don't take my word for it, take the Saviours who clearly asserts that eternal life is NOT how the 5 point Arminian understands it, it is not a "continuing to be saved though continuing belief":

John 4:10-15 (NIV)

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

What is this passage teaching? Simply this:

1. Jesus talks about living water that He provides.
2. The woman asks where she can receive this.
3. Jesus goes onto say that whoever drinks natural water (that you and I drink) will become thirsty again. He then creates a direct contrast saying whoever drinks the water Jesus provides never actually becomes thirsty again. In other words; they won't have to keep drinking for they will never thirst again.
4. Jesus explains this with a welling up (eternal life), a person takes one drink and they will never thirst again. The well of eternal life inside them has now sprang up, they won't need to come back to drink.

So what's the problem for the 5 point Arminian? Well they clearly have to pretend that The Lord never actually spoke these words! For they claim you can be:

1. Saved and then through unfaithful behaviour (and some add habitual sin) can become "unsaved", that is to say; lose one's salvation.
2. One must be "born-again" yet again.

Jesus says in this passage that the person shall never thirst again, the 5 point Arminian says that they will indeed thirst again and will need to come back to drink once again. This is not what Jesus is saying.

Therefore the correct view is this; Jesus sheep hear him and they trust in him for eternal life and they instantaneously receive it as the passage in John 4 shows, they then possess eternal life for eternity. Thats what eternal life means!

Verse 28

Could the verse be any clearer? The Calvinists from this point onwards agree with everything that I will have to say (generally), it is just the interpretation of verse 27 where myself and my fellow brother and sister Calvinists part into separate directions. However the Calvinists and eternal securest Arminians (like myself) will no doubt unite in dispelling the false belief of 5 point Arminians, which is what I will be doing here in this section. Jesus says:

1. He gives us eternal life (unending).
2. We shall never perish (never perish spiritually)
3. No one shall ever pluck us out of His hand (we cannot be plucked from his hand).

It is a clear cut 3 fold assertion from the Lord. So what does the Arminian do? Well if you're anything like well known heretical teacher (on this issue) David Pawson then its fairly easy what you do. You ignore the first 2 points, I have actually caught him doing this on a YouTube video regarding his address of "Once Saved Always Saved?". He says something along the lines of that we cannot be plucked out of God's hand but we can freely leave his hand. This is something I have heard quite commonly, presumably such individuals have learnt it from Pawson, or Pawson has learnt it from someone else. Problem is that of the 3 fold truths that are held in verse 28 he ignores the first 2 and skips to the last, but I wonder if he realises what he has done? He has denied that:

1. Eternal means everlasting.
2. We cannot perish.

Lets say for a moment that Pawson and his ilk could be right, that we could voluntary jump out of the Fathers hand (as Pawson asserts). Well they are left to refute the above 2 points that we can lose something everlasting and that we can perish. The text does not support such an assertion. So what is a better understanding of the term that we cannot be plucked from God's hand? Literally what it says! No one, that means you and all other people cannot jump out or be plucked from God's hand. For if we could we would perish and loose everlasting life, something the text speaks solidly against! 

Verse 29

The text here asserts something clear, the Father is greater than all, and that no man is able to pluck himself or someone else from the fathers hand. So what does the 5 point Arminian do? Well they assert, perhaps unwittingly that:

1. They are greater than the Father!
2. That when the text says that "no man" does not mean himself/herself. It only means other people.

But is that what the text says? Well obviously not! Go back and read verse 29 for yourself and listen to what the text is saying. It is saying that the Father is greater than all, and for someone to be taken from the Fathers hand they need to be greater than the father. Who is greater than the father? Are you or I, or anyone else greater than the Father? No, perish (ho-ho) the thought. 

So what does the 5 point Arminian have to assert here? Well I have already stated above, that they have to say ultimately that they as a limited and time bound human being are greater than the Father and that when the text says "no man" it does not include themselves. Whilst at the same time denying all the points of verse 28.

What Does Eternal Mean Anyway?

Simply using Google translate to translate the word and its meanings in English reveals what it actually means:

1. Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
2. (of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

These are the English definitions of the word "eternal", however we do need to understand what the Greek definitions of the word actually means! This is vitally important as the New Testament was written in Greek, it was not written in English. 

Go to the Online Greek Bible and look up John 10:28 and then click on the word "αἰώνιος" which is the Greek word used here that we translate as "eternal". It brings up a definition of what the word actually does mean. Here is the definition taken straight from the website:

αἰώνιος,a  \{ahee-o'-nee-os}

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and  always will be  
2. without beginning  
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting 

So we can see here we have 3 different definitions of the word. To understand which one is relevant to the text we need to consider the context of the passage itself. Definition 1 cannot be correct, why? Well because eternal life has a beginning, you receive it upon believing in Jesus. You did not have this eternal life before you believed, in essence; it has a beginning. Based upon this we can also dispel definition 2 given, as I have already stated that given the context of the passage we are given eternal life when we respond to God and accept the eternal life that He gives. So our eternal life has a beginning. So we are left with the final definition of the word eternal (3), that it is without end, never to cease, it is everlasting. This is the correct definition for the following reasons:

1. Eternal life has a beginning, it begins the moment we believe. We did not have it "without beginning".
2. Everlasting means that once we receive it (with beginning - when we are saved) then it does not end.
3. This is why many call it "everlasting life", as its more clear. It had a beginning but it does not have an end. 

Note that in all the definitions of the word in the Greek not one of the three possible definitions ever has the suggestion that "eternal" can mean "with end" at absolutely any point. Two definitions stage that eternal can mean "without beginning" (how God is eternal), however both of these definitions never state that the word eternal means "with end". The reason? Eternal is never defined in the Greek as allowing for an "end". The context of the passage is clear, the definition of the Greek word "αἰώνιος" used in this passage is that of "everlasting", that is "without end", "never to cease", and "everlasting". 

The 5 point Arminian reading this post may try to escape this problem by taking definition 2 which says "without beginning" and note that it does not say "without end". Well no, because that would be the exact same as the first definition given! But lets say it could mean "with end", then we need to turn to the context of the passage that states we shall "never perish". The context makes it crystal clear that definition 2 cannot be held because eternal life does in fact have a beginning and the context of the passage makes it clear that it will not end. 

Conclusion

So what can we conclude from this wonderful passage of truth from the gospel of John? Well its simple; we have everlasting life without end. 

1. God gives us eternal life.
2. We shall never perish.
3. No one (including yourself) can pluck yourself from the Fathers hand.
4. You would have to be greater than the Father in order to pluck yourself from the Fathers hand.

So here are both texts used here in this blog post in the 5 point Arminian translation. First is John 10:27-30

John 10:27-30 (5 point ARMINIAN):

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they continue to always follow me:

28 And I give unto them temporal life; and they shall perish if they are faithless, no man can pluck them from my hand, unless its you, then you can pluck yourself out of my hand,

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, but I am greater than the Father so I can jump out of his hand; and no man apart from himself is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Next is John 4:10-15, this one is good. Once again its 5 point Arminian translation:

John 4:10-15 (5 point ARMINIAN)

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will actually thirst again if he is faithless and needs to come back to take another drink. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to temporal life, until he needs to come back for another drink.”

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty again until I need to come back here again when I become thirsty again.”

The above are obviously not passages taken from the scriptures!

So if you want to be unsaved or lose your salvation I have some bad news, unless you are holding to the brand new 5 point Arminian scriptures you cannot lose or forfeit eternal life. Like you would want to anyway, praise God for your own salvation secure forever.

Blessings in Jesus name,

Andrew (an ex-conditional securest)

Coming Blog Posts

Welcome to my brand new blog!

As the title suggests; I am a free grace advocate, part of what I believe to be further and continuing reformation of the Protestant Reformation. What do I mean by this? I mean that we haven't reformed enough yet!

This blog will be about presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and sharing the good news with all! It will also be about dispelling fairly commonly held but false beliefs. I have learnt over the past several years in my walk with The Lord that many people do hold false beliefs, the reason for this appear to vary. Some hold to these beliefs because they are comforting, others because they believe it is based upon sound scriptural exegesis. So the first few months of this blog will all be about dispelling false beliefs held by many Christians. 

Here are some topics that will be covered, the titles below represents the FALSE beliefs held by many. 

• Eternal life isn't actually eternal.

• God predestines some to heaven, resulting in the remaining people being damned because they cannot choose God.

• God in His sovereignty determines absolutely everything in the universe, including all our actions, steps, and breaths (as well as everyone elses). Aka Determinism (in all forms).

• The Mosaic Law is still binding on the New Testament (NT) believer. 

• God chooses for us a spouse/relationship partner.

• Christians still have to obey the commandment regarding the Sabbath (Ten Commandments).

• We can't know we are actually saved.

Plus many others, these are just some that I can think of right now at this moment in time. There will be thorough critique of Calvinism throughout as well as where I believe Arminians go wrong as well, plus there will no doubt be some thoughts on Molinism thrown in.