Tag Archives: assurance

The Assurance Anomaly

Posted on by
1

This post is the third in a series exploring the Grace Reaction, or the logical order of events in salvation. In this series we have compared this to a chemical reaction. In the Justification Transposition, I  proposed the following logical order of steps in salvation:

Dead → Grace → Faith → Justification → Reconciliation → Regeneration/Life

Science seeks to propose theories to explain the physical world using the data that we have at hand. Breaking Bad - Assurance Anomaly3In a similar fashion, theology seeks to describe God.

In both science and theology, you might think you have something figured out. But then you notice, or more likely someone notices and points out to you, an anomaly. Something that doesn’t fit in with the explanation or theory that you have provided.

This is not a bad thing. It helps us learn and grow. Did you know that it was a conflict in the theories proposed by Maxwell and Newton that allowed Einstein to find an anomaly in Newton’s laws that further led to the Theory of Relativity. It was also an anomaly that rocked the world when scientists reported they measured subatomic particles traveling faster than light (an impossibility according to Einstein). Further testing could not reproduce the effect and the original anomaly is considered the result of faulty hardware.

Reformers would consider the first part of 1 John 5:1 as an anomaly to the logical order of events that were proposed above.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God …

This passage, they contend, supports the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Continue reading →

Interpreting 1 John based on the 3 groups represented (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

In part 1 (which you might want to read if you haven’t already) I suggested that how we understand the community and false teachers (two of the three groups) addressed in the book shapes which interpretive framework we will use to interpret 1 John. This proposal is based on John’s writing containing a series of tests, which are written out as a comparison of competing claims. One set of claims is made by John (and the apostles). The other set of claims is made by the false teachers.

For example, the test for whether a person’s claim to know God is true or false is based on obeying the commandments (2:3-4) and the test for whether a person is abiding in the light is based on loving and hating others (2:9-11).

In posing the tests in this way John is asking the community – who do you have more in common with – the apostles (who know God, abide in light etc) or the false teachers (who do not know God, abide in light etc)? Whom you choose to partner (or fellowship) with (1:3-7) through shared beliefs and common practices will speak volumes about you. It will be the basis on which you may know whether you are saved (Test of Life) or mature (Test of Fellowship). This idea of asking the community to choose who they are partnering with draws some support from 2 John 1:7,10-11 as well. Here John warns the community not to partner with the same false teachers.

If both the community that John writes to and the false teachers whom he refutes are both considered reborn and in possession of eternal life then the Test of Fellowship framework, which evaluates our spiritual walk and maturity, fits the book. 1john_fellowship

However, if John assumes that the false teachers are unsaved and writes to encourage the community, whom are saved but struggling with assurance because of the counter claims of the false teachers, then the Test of Life view, which evaluates whether we have eternal life or not, is a better framework. Continue reading →

Interpreting 1 John based on the 3 groups represented

Posted on by
2

Reading through and interpreting 1 John can be a challenge. The author would make a good software developer as he deals with things in a very binary way. His statements are  absolute, black and white leaving little wiggle room for readers. However, this writing is very repetitive in nature, echoing the same themes, and saying the same thing over and over. In the software world, we would say that this writing needs some major refactoring (changes that are made to improve readability and eliminate complexity and duplication).

There are two major views on how to interpret 1 John. One view is known as the Test of Life, the other view is commonly identified as the Test of Fellowship. Both views acknowledge that John is providing his readers with a series of tests. They differ on what these tests are being used to evaluate.The Apostle John

The Test of Life view focuses on salvation. The tests are given to help the readers have confidence that they possess eternal life. Failing the tests would indicate that one is unsaved (or at a minimum should have very low assurance that they are).

The Test of Fellowship view focuses on our relationship with God. It starts with the premise that the readers are already saved. The tests are given to determine the strength of our relationship with God. Failing the tests means that one has a weak relationship with God and lacks maturity (but still possesses eternal life). Continue reading →