Assurance and 1st John

Where does assurance come from?  While in a conversation with @zarotribe on twitter the topic of assurance arose, and the question lying underneath the conversation, though never explicitly stated, is "How can one know they are saved?"  @zarotribe's answer which he bases out of the entire book of 1 John is that genuine salvation is accompanied by fruit (I agree salvation is accompanied by fruit, but fruit is not the source of assurance).  I presume he would appeal to 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:4-6, 1 John 2:10, 1 John 2:29, and more. However if you try to bind this book to handbook style logic without considering its purpose in fighting gnosticism this book will give NOBODY assurance who approaches it honestly.  I recall listening to Paul Washer speak a series of sermons on assurance from this book which affected me profoundly at the time, but later as I honestly looked at this passage Washer's words seemed to strip my assurance because his words were a constant call to look into myself to see if I matched up to the 1 John standard...  and if I didn't measure up, I was probably lost.

Just from the first two chapters (if you take the book at face value negating its offensive against gnosticism) you will find the criteria for salvation assurance to be astounding.


If First John is primarily a handbook on assurance, then to have assurance you must:
walk in the light (1:5-7)
confess sin (1:8-10)
keep His (Jesus') commandments (2:3)
walk in the same way he walked (2:6)
love your brother (2:9-11)
not love the world (2:15-17)
not sin (3:6)
practice righteousness (3:7)
not practice sin (3:9)
must give to brother in need (3:17)
Love God and observe His commandments (5:2)
And more...


Is there anybody willing to stand up and say this list gives them assurance?  Really?  You love God with all heart soul strength and mind?  If you do please let me know in the comments, I would be interested to hear about it.

Unfortunately I believed for a long time, and have taught youth for a number of years that this is the assurance handbook, and I have ran through this thing test by test with many youth while thinking I was doing them a favor.  (Please note I am a fan of Paul Washer, and I certainly appreciate his ministry, and the Lord has ministered his word to me through him, but there are some glaring errors with how he handles this book, and how I have handled it in the past.)  In Paul Washer's sermon series on this he affirmed that 1 John is the assurance handbook typically by going to 1 John 5:13 as the proof text.

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."  

Washer and others, including myself at that time, would state that 5:13 was the purpose statement of the entire letter.  Sounds pretty cut and dried does it not?  Yet read the whole of chapter 5 leading up to vs 13, it is all about belief in the Son, and receiving the testimony about Him.  1 John 5:13 is not intended to sum the entire letter, but the section preceding it.  However, if you want to make 1 John the assurance handbook it is convenient to apply 5:13 to the rest of the letter as it's sole or primary purpose.  That is a touch dishonest though because throughout the letter John explicitly states various other purposes for it

1 John 1:4 ESV  And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

1 John 2:1-2 ESV  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  (2)  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:12-14 ESV  I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.  (13)  I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father.  (14)  I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

1 John 2:21 ESV  I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

1 John 2:26 ESV  I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.

 This letter is laden with reasons for its existence, and to take any of the reasons and make it the primary message of the letter is a mistake.  What if you take 1 John 2:12-14 as the absolute reason of the epistle and neglect 5:13, what do you have?  You have universalism.  What if you take 1 John 2:1 as the absolute reason?  You are advocating sinless perfection.  What if you take 1 John 1:4 as the absoulte reason? Then it was all about John having joy.  You cannot take any of the "write this to you because..." statements to be the absolute purpose of the book.

The focus of this book was to give Christians who had been assaulted with false doctrine assurance that the doctrine they were holding to was true.  Doctrine's such as love of the brethren... confession of sin... the authority of Jesus' teaching.  The gnostics and antinomians who may have divorced faith from practice need to be exposed for what they were.  Those who would be esoteric about god needed exposed.  Therefore strong language correlating works and assurance are made, not to cause believers to question there own faith, but to make them steadfast in the doctrine they received and to question the teachings of those who were leaving their fold and potentially taking others with them (1 John 2:19).  In fact if you look past the 'test' passages you will see a number of passages that give blanket assurance apart from any actions taken by the believer, take 1 John 2:2 for example.  Gnosticism was promoting that God's will could not be known... which is why John is intense on walking in 'light' not darkness, affirming the visible reality of truth as it plays out.

Believers need to be cautious as they read this letter, and know that it is a letter that is on the offensive against the false teachings that was leading people astray, not a blanket letter on assurance of salvation.  If you make this letter entirely about assurance you will find that this letter is on the offensive against you to condemn you.  Yes, 1 John 5:1-13 is about assurance, but read some of the blanket blessings in there for those who believe, and notice how the first 4 verses are qualified by the following verses:

1 John 5:1-13 ESV  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.  (2)  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.  (3)  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.  (4)  For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.  (5)  Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  (6)  This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.  (7)  For there are three that testify:  (8)  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  (9)  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.  (10)  Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.  (11)  And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  (12)  Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.  (13)  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

I will leave it there for now.  Sorry if this post was a snoozer, but a misunderstanding of 1 John leads to despair, and not assurance.

Generational Belief

A week ago I wrote "Dual Covenant IS Replacement Theology" and the principles of that post have a tremendous bearing on how we read the entire Old Testament.  If we hold to a 'Dual Covenant' understanding, then the promises of the OT can be simply relegated to Israel and the Church can be placed under a different paradigm.  However if their is one covenant people, and has always been one covenant people then the OT promises to Israel have some bearing on the NT Church.  (If you have no idea what I am talking about, read that post.)

Throughout the Old Testament we see generational promises made to the Old Testament saints.  For instance:

Genesis 17:7-10 ESV  And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.  (8)  And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."  (9)  And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.  (10)  This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Clearly the OT covenant of circumcision was generational, intended not only for Abraham, but for his sons.  This is not something that was dependent on the faithfulness of his sons, they were to be circumcised prior to their ability to believe.  It was a covenant that was independent of the will of those who entered into it.

Throughout the Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy we see an emphasis on generational blessing and cursing, and a generational expectation.  The faith has always been expected to be handed down parent to child, one generation to the next.  The very curse in the garden was generational.  There are countless examples like Genesis 17:7-10 that we could draw on.

Deuteronomy 7:9 ESV  Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations

 The idea of generational blessing and cursing is an integral component of our faith.  So what does this have to do with Dual Covenants and Replacement Theology?  It has everything to do with it.  If we affirm (which I do not) Dual Covenants, one for the Church one for Israel, then we will presume the generational blessings belong entirely to Israel whereas the Church enters the covenant individually based on their moment of conversion.  I contend that the lack of understanding of the generational nature of God's work on our behalf has given revivalism a foothold and has caused the church to be incredibly individualistic.

If someone asks you, 'How did you come to believe?' it is perfectly acceptable to answer because my parents did and I was raised to believe.  That doesn't sit well with most conservative Evangelicals but it sits very well with the scriptural norm.  I do not deny that everyone must be converted, and that we all 'generationally' inherit Adam's sinful nature, nonetheless in a very real sense parents are a means of grace to their children and many children are converted well before they are aware that they were lost.  Again, I know this will not sit well with many, but why not?

The idea that the Church is blessed in an entirely different way than 'ethnic' Israel is an idea that has destroyed generational Christianity.  In the dual covenant scheme, the generational promises apply only to Israel, and Christan's 'get in' one at a time.  How does this play out practically?  Well for one, kids who have believed and loved the Lord their entire lives are told they aren't 'born-again' and are led down to an altar to be saved... even though they were already redeemed.  This happens more than you think.  It leaves people looking to their moment of conversion as a source of hope, and not to God's faithfulness to them through their parents, grandparents, and so on.  It leaves us feeling helpless as we raise our own children, and even questioning how we are going to manage to get them to have a 'salvation experience' when they have seemed to believe for so long already.  People end up looking at the back of their pocket testament to see their date of conversion, instead of celebrating the faithfulness of their parents in bestowing the faith to them from an early age.  It even leads to generational disrespect towards those who went before us.  Can you see the implications, I am sure there are more.  If you can ditch the bogus Dual Covenant notion, and begin applying the generational nature of our faith to the church, many of these problems go away.

I do not believe someone is saved just because their parents are!  I believe people are saved because Christ atoned for them on the cross.  The reality is that this truth, and the application of this truth to the individual happens through generational means, and through evangelism... not evangelism only.

Funeral Assurance

The preaching assurance post from last week seemed to generate a little interest and I have been thinking much about this topic lately.  I thought I would go a step further in this post and up the ante a bit more.  It seems to some people absurd that you would ever preach in such a manner as to give your congregation assurance.  The objection is that the preacher has no way of knowing who believes and who does not so there is no way the preacher should ever give assurance, it is not his to give.  We talked about that in the last assurance post, and I don’t care to explain myself again.  I would say that the possibility of giving false assurance frightens many people, so they end up withholding assurance from everyone.

Like I said I am going to up the ante a bit.  I have had the privilege of officiating 7 funerals in my first 5 months as the Pastor of Delta UMC.  At funerals even if the one who has died apparently died in unbelief, and the majority of the family assembled seems to not be believers I still preach assurance.  Let me rephrase, I preach assurance at a funeral regardless of the circumstances surrounding the funeral, and regardless of who is in attendance.  This must bother a reader or two, but I cannot think of a better place to preach assurance.  I think that one of the great confusions that people have in this issue is that preaching assurance and pronouncing someone to be redeemed are two very different things.  I preach with full confidence at every funeral that Christ has lived, died, and rose for us, and that because of the work of Christ we can have confidence in sin forgiven.  I make no statement with regard to the eternal destiny of the dead, or the living, yet I do proclaim the sure work of Christ on the cross for those in attendance, and for the one who has died.

Of course the Calvinist asks how I can do that if I believe in a limited atonement.  My answer is pretty simple.  Christ died for all, the atonement is only applied to the Elect by faith.  The atonement is limited, the sacrifice was not.  I certainly do not go so far as to give full peace regarding the deceased, but I also do nothing to withhold peace.  Now the Arminian of all people should have no problem with this because of their staunch belief that Christ died for all.  Yet it seems that the Arminian is the first to shy away from this type of funeral proclamation.

So what of you?  How would you preach a funeral?  Would you dangle a carrot out and tell people if they only do this or that then they can be redeemed?  Or would you tell them that Christ has lived, died, and resurrected for them.  Again I ask the question, what are you afraid of?  Are you afraid that someone in faith would actually believe those words to be true and receive assurance?

(btw, see comment policy on right sidebar)

Preaching Assurance

It is a job of preachers of the Gospel to give their congregation assurance of sins forgiven.  A number of people have a huge problem with that statement, and I wonder why.  Of course the common objection is “only God can give assurance of sins forgiven”, or there is the fear that a preacher would give someone assurance who really should not have assurance.  Certainly I understand the objections, but I am not convinced that they are biblically founded.  The question comes up, “How can you know they are forgiven, or how can you know who to assure and not to assure?”  The simple answer is that I do not know, nor do I need to.  Yet this begs the question, “Jay, if you do not know who is redeemed and who is not, how can you attempt to give blanket assurance to an entire congregation?”  This is a reasonable question, but it is not a question that is scripturally informed.  Consider when Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Jesus, and three times he was met with “Feed my sheep”.  Question; who was Peter to determine who Christ’s sheep were?  Nonetheless he was give the command.  Or what about Paul’s blanket statements of blessing to the churches he wrote to?  Were there not bound to be unbelievers gathered in their midst?  If Paul can write words of assurance to a group of people he has not even met, how much more appropriate is it for preachers of the Gospel to seek assurance for their congregations!

Unfortunately a lot of preachers, many who are rising greatly in popularity are making a great name for themselves in doing the very opposite of what I propose here.  Now I have a great respect for men like Paul Washer and I certainly would agree that he possesses a great gift for preaching.  His stuff on marriage and manhood has been indispensible to me, his preaching on Song of Solomon is some of the most beautiful preaching I have ever heard.  Moreover when he preaches the Gospel, and paints a picture of the magnitude of the cross and the substitutionary work of Christ of Christ on behalf of the believer I would contend that there are few who are more gifted than him.  Nonetheless I greatly diverge from Washer and others like him when it comes to preaching assurance.  I am not sure if people would consider Washer reformed or not, he is certainly a Calvinist when it comes to his soteriology, but not sure beyond that.  He calls himself a “5 point Spurgeonist” which I think means a Baptist with a soteriology that mirrors Calvin.  You can, however, see that he diverges from reformation theology when it comes to assurance, and the role of ecclesiastical authority in giving assurance.

Now, whether you know of Washer or not, the issue at hand here is whether or not the church, specifically the preaching pastor, should attempt to give assurance to the congregation.  The reason this post is pertinent to this blog is that the conservative or ‘confessing’ Methodist is typically very Washeresque when it comes to giving assurance.  Of course the favorite passage is “examine yourself to see if you are in the faith, test yourselves, or do you not know this about yourself that Christ Jesus is in you, unless of course you fail the test.”  The very conclusion of that chapter, which is the last chapter in II Corinthians, is a passage of assurance.  When looking at this passage in context you will see that Paul is giving assurance to the weak, not calling to looking inwardly at the strength of your profession or the fruit of your life to determine whether or not you are really a believer.  The other text that seems to always come up when folks who hate to give people assurance take to the pulpit is the end of Matthew 7.  The beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (which concludes at chapter 7) establishes assurance for the disciples who were listening.  The clear wording of Matthew 7 is ‘beware of false prophets’ and that passage qualifies the later words ‘many will say unto me Lord Lord... and I will say depart from me I never knew you.’   That passage in Matthew 7 is a very powerful means of making people question their assurance and I have preached that text myself to do just that.  However the force of the text has nothing to do with your personal assurance (which you should go to the beginning of Matthew 5 to get) instead it is to put you on your guard against false prophets.  Preaching that portion of Matthew 7 and making it about biblical assurance is out of bounds.

The point is that the role of the pastor is to shepherd the sheep, grow the sheep, and lead them to take comfort and refuge in their king.  It is about proclaiming grace to them, and ASSURING them of the work which Christ has done for them.  Pastor, your job is not to get into the pulpit and make people question their salvation, it is to get into the pulpit and remind them of the salvation which is in Christ for them.  Don't beat up the sheep by misappropriating 2 Corinthians 13:5 or Matthew 7:21-23 to be passages designed to cause believers to question assurance.

I am not sure why people fear giving false assurance.  What is it?  Are we afraid that someone might actually believe that Christ died for their sins and then trust him as their redeemer?  Isn’t that kind of the point?  The problem with preaching 2 Corinthians 13:5 and Matthew 7 as a means to bring us to question our assurance is that we are always left looking inwardly to determine whether or not we are saved.  We are always looking to our work, our desires, our evidence, to see if we indeed are Christian.  The only reason we have for assurance is an external work of God in Christ for us, that we are given belief in by the work of His Spirit.