What Does It Mean to Be Saved?

John loves to use simple, everyday words to get across grand truths. Words like light, darkness, bread, know, walk, all have deep meaning within John’s writings. Here are the different ways John describes our salvation in his first epistle. I did not try to list all the ways John writes of our salvation. Nor do I list all Scripture references for each concept. Many of these he mentions several times. I also understand that some of these are causes of our salvation and others are effects of our salvation. We often view our salvation in a narrow way. The different ways John describes our salvation can help open our eyes to what it means to be saved. Rather than comment on them I am going to list them to show the variety he uses.

Being saved means we have eternal life and have passed from death to life (I John 1:2, 2:25, 3:14, 5:11, 13).

Being saved means we have fellowship with the apostles, with the Father and the Son, and with each other (I John 1:3,7).

Being saved means we walk in the light (I John 1:7, 2:10).

Being saved means that by the blood of Jesus our sins are cleansed and forgiven (I John 1:7, 9).

Being saved means that Christ is the propitiation for our sins (I John 2:2).

Being saved means we know God and know the truth (I John 2:3, 21).

Being saved means we keep the commandments of God (I John 2:3-4).

Being saved means we abide/remain in God and abide/remain in the light (I John 2:6, 10).

Being saved means that God abides/remains is us (I John 4:4, 13).

Being saved means we are anointed (I John 2:20, 27).

Being saved means we are children of God, have been born of God, and God’s seed remains in us (I John 3:1, 9).

Being saved means we believe on the name of Christ (I John 3:23, 5:13).

Being saved means we love God and the brothers (I John 3:17, 4:7, 19).

Being saved means we have the Spirit (I John 4:13).

Being saved means we confess that Jesus is the Son of God (I John 4:15).

Being saved means we have overcome the world (I John 5:5).

Being saved means we believe the witness/testimony of God (I John 5:9-11).

John Murray on Regeneration

I have been enjoying Redemption-Accomplished and Applied. I have not read it before. Murray is not the most exciting writer on the planet. But he is precise and clear. All of these quotes come from Part II, Chapter III. Here is his definition of regeneration.

God effects a change which is radical and all-pervasive, a change which cannot be explained in terms of any combination, permutation, or accumulation of human resources, a change which is nothing less than a new creation by him who calls the things that be not as though they were, who spake and it was done, who commanded and it stood fast. This, in a word is regeneration. 

And later in the same chapter

Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us,  and all saving grace is exercise on  our part proceeds from the fountain of regeneration. (emphasis his)

And later commenting on several verses in I John (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18)

This simply means that all of the graces mentioned in these passages are the consequences of regeneration and not only consequences which sooner or later follow upon regeneration, but fruits which are inseparable from regeneration. 

Finally:

Far too frequently the conception entertained of conversion is so superficial and beggarly that it completely fails to take account of the momentous change of which conversion is the fruit. And the whole notion of what is involved in the application of redemption becomes so attentuated that it has little or no resemblance to that which the gospel teaches. Regeneration is at the basis of all change in heart and life. It is a stupendous change because it is God’s recreative act. A cheap and tawdry evangelism has tended to rob the gospel which it proclaims of that invincible power which is the glory of the gospel of sovereign grace. 

 

Sin to Death in I John 5:16~My Position

Yesterday I posted what several commentaries say about I John 5:16, which is one of the more difficult verses to interpret and apply in the New Testament. Here is the verse:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. (ESV)

Here are my thoughts on the text.

First, I lean towards the “brother” in the first part of the verse as being a true Christian, even though “life” in John’s writings usually refers to eternal life.  John is clear in chapters 1 and 2 that Christians do sin. The “his” at the beginning of the verse would also indicate that this brother is a Christian. Colin Kruse’s suggestion that “life” refers to resurrection life is a tempting interpretation, though I have not researched it enough to say for sure.

Second, while the “sin to death” might mean blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, this seems unlikely given the context of I John. I John revolves around three main tests to see if one is a believer: the doctrinal test (believe Jesus came and died), the ethical test (obey God), and the relational/social test (love the brothers). I John orbits around these three ideas. In I John these three ideas are inseparable, though I would argue that the doctrinal test forms the foundation for the other two. John writes his letter so his readers can know who is in and who is out by looking at these three sign posts. That is not all John is doing, but it is a large part of what he is doing. The “sin to death” is a reference to someone who either denies Jesus came in the flesh, rejects obedience, and/or refuses to love the brothers. More than likely all three of these are involved in the “sin to death.” I think it is referring to an apostate.

Third, but it is important to remember what type of apostate this is. We are not talking about a man who simply walked away from the faith. We are probably talking about teachers or those who want to teach who are trying to lead John’s readers astray and who have denied by both word and life central tenets of the Christian faith. John is not talking about some who slipped quietly into the night. He is speaking of someone who has visibly rejected Christ in both doctrine, life, and love.

Fourth, I do not think John is commanding us not to pray for the apostate. I think Yarbrough’s suggestion that John is stating an option is a solid one. We are obligated to pray for the sinning brother. We are not obligated to pray for fire-breathing apostate.  The phrase, “I do not say that one should pray for that,”is awkward in the Greek and could have been stated as a command, but wasn’t. John does not say, “Don’t pray for him/that situation.” John says, “I am not saying he should pray for that.” He seems to leave the reader the freedom to make the choice whether or not to pray for that man.

Finally, while a situation like this is rare, it does happen. There are people who leave the Christian faith, deny its central tenets, and begin teaching others to do the same. When someone does that John does give us the option of crossing them off our prayer list.

Sin to Death in I John 5:16~What the Commentaries Say

Recently a parishioner asked me about I John 5:16

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. (ESV)

Here is the verse broken down into parts:

Person A: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.

Person B: There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.

John has just encouraged his readers to be confident in their prayers (I John 5:14-15). He then applies this exhortation by telling his readers that if they see a brother committing a sin not to death and they pray for that brother God will give the brother life. John goes on to say that if someone is sinning a sin to death we should not pray for him. This is a very difficult verse to interpret and apply. The strangest part is the phrase to “not pray” for the person who has sinned to death. There are two main questions: What is the “sin to death?” and Why shouldn’t we pray for the person?

I have several commentaries on I John. Here is what they say about the passage. I am not going to give all the arguments they put forward, but try to summarize their position.

John Stott
Stott’s viewpoint is that neither person is a Christian. So the first prayer that leads to life is a prayer for salvation. The sin to death is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Therefore we should not pray for this person because they cannot be forgiven (Matthew 12:31).

John Calvin
Calvin does not view the first person as unregenerate, he sees him as a wayward brother.  He argues that the second person is an apostate, which includes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. However, he does not emphasize blasphemy against the Spirit because that is not mentioned in I John. Calvin admits that it can be hard to tell if someone has totally fallen away. He also notes that this is seldom the case, but when it is we should not pray for that man.

I. Howard Marshall
Marshall does not say it explicitly, but he implies that the first man is a Christian who is struggling with sin, while the second man is an apostate. He thinks the second person is someone who refuses to repent and refuses to believe on Christ. He does not mention blasphemy against the Spirit. He extensively qualifies the command to not pray for the second man so that his exegesis almost leaves no room to ever stop praying for someone.

Colin Kruse
Kruse sees the first man as a true brother who sins. He sees the “life” as resurrection life. He sees the second man as someone who has rejected that Jesus came in the flesh and atoned for our sins. The second man is an “antichrist.” His rejection of Christ puts him outside the realm of forgiveness. Kruse does not believe the sin to death refers to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because no where does John accuse these men of attributing the work of Christ to the Devil, which is a sign of blasphemy against the Spirit (Mark 3:22-30).

F.F. Bruce
He spends very little time on the first person. He does put brother in quotes, which may mean he does not consider him a Christian, but it is hard to tell. He thinks the sin to death is either a sin that leads to physical death, as with Ananias and Saphira or apostasy.  In the first instance, we should not pray for the person because they are dead. In the second place, we should not pray for them because they are past the point of repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6). He views this as an exceptional situation.

Robert Yarbrough
He sees the first person as a fellow believer who is committing some sin. He rejects the idea that the “sin to death” is specifically blasphemy against the Spirit for the same reasons Kruse does. However, he notes that what John is talking about is similar to blasphemy against the Spirit, but a different manifestation since Christ is no longer on earth. He thinks the sin to death is apostasy, specifically the failure to believe, obey, and love that is outlined in I John. Yarbrough believes that John is making a suggestion about not praying, not a command. He is not telling his readers they “must not” pray for this man, but rather that they do not have to. Here are four reasons he gives for why John suggests that we do not have to pray for that man:

1. John did not want to micromanage people’s prayer lives.
2. He understood that actions are often misinterpreted. Yarbrough is not very clear here.
3. To pray for someone means to identify with them therefore we should be careful in praying for an apostate.
4. John’s entire message runs against praying for apostates. They willfully abide in death and therefore are not to be prayed for.

Peter Leithart
Leithart believes the first one is a wayward brother whom we should pray for. He roots the distinction between sins to death and sins not to death in the Old Testament distinction between inadvertent and high-handed sins. He believes the second group is apostate false teachers. He does not think we should pray for these men. He uses Jeremiah to set a precedent for not praying for apostates (Jeremiah 7:16, 11:14, 14:11).

So what do I think…I will put that in the next post.

(Updated 6/12/14 at 9 am.)

Systematic Theology and I John 4:2

Does doctrinal precision have a place in the life of the church? Shouldn’t citing the Bible, chapter and verse, be enough? This is another way of asking, “Do systematic theology and confessions have a place in the life of the church?” There has been a reaction against systematics in recent theological discussion. There is a “back to the Bible” movement that we are seeing. In many ways this is understandable and good. Whenever man creates a system there is always the danger that his system will trump what God’s Word says. We need men to stand up and say, “I am not sure the Scriptures actually teach that.” But when that man stands up and does that there is a subtle, but deadly assumption, that the man has no systematic theology. We think, “Here is a man who is just using the Bible without any creed or confession.” But this is false assumption. Just like every church has a liturgy, every man has a systematic theology.

I want to use I John 4:2 as an example of why systematic theology and confessions are not just necessary, but inevitable.

Here is I John 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

In this passage John tells his readers to make sure they do not suck down every bit of theology they hear because there are false prophets who bring false doctrine. Therefore teaching must be tested. John gives them a very specific test: Do these teachers confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

If we ask someone do they believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and they say, “Yes” is that enough? Have they fulfilled what John requires of true teacher? Is that as far as the testing needs to go? The answer is, “No.” A Mormon could agree with that bare statement. So could a Muslim on some level. A liberal Christian who believes that Jesus was a just a good moral example might agree with this. In fact if you paraphrased it, “Did a man named Jesus Christ live on earth 2,000 years ago” millions of people could answer in the affirmative and not be confessing what John is saying.

There must be follow up discussion. There must be a systematic discussion of who Jesus was, what it means that he came, and what it means that he came in the flesh.

Was he truly God? Was he truly man? Did he come from God? Was he created? Is he the Christ, that is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament and come to fruition in the New? Was he just a good man, a great prophet, a great moral example? One could even ask, especially in light John’s teaching, did he come to offer Himself as a sacrifice for man’s sins? For John the terms Jesus, Christ, flesh, and even came all have specific meaning that can only be filled out by using other texts of Scripture.

That is what systematic theology and confessions do. They take a topic like “Jesus” gather all the Biblical data on the subject and try to give what the Scriptures say about that topic. These systematic theologies and confessions are not God’s Word. They are not a substitute for reading and studying the Bible. They must be tested against God’s Word.  But they are good, necessary, and inevitable. Anyone who rejects them and claims to be just using the “Bible” still has a systematic theology. Their’s is just not written down anywhere. It is floating around in their heads.