1 John 1

NT Commentary

1 John © Training Timothys

Selected Passages

1 John (Theme)

1 John 1:1-5

1 John 2:15-16

1 John 2:20, 27

1 John 3:6-10

1 John 3:18-

4:2

1 John 4:1-3

1 John 4:12

1 John 4:13

1 John 5:6-11

1 John (Theme) [3.6.B.1]

It is this very thing that the Apostle John is so eager to explain in his epistle.

While the Apostle’s purpose for writing his Gospel was “that you may believe that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life

in His name” (21:31), his purpose in 1 John is, “I write these things to you who

believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have

eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

His goal in his Gospel is the salvation of unbelievers, while his goal for the epistle

is assurance for believers. 1 While the Apostle John claims in his Gospel that it was

Christ’s physical miracles that authenticated Him as the only way of salvation (cf.

John 14:6; 20:30), he claims in his epistle that it is our miraculous, objective virtue

that proves we have such salvation.

B.1) The Apostle John’s Support of Objective Assurance

The Bible’s most concentrated teaching on the assurance of our salvation is 1

John. However, the Apostle never points his listeners to some subjective, assuring

1 Dr. Stott remarks regarding the central subject of John’s epistles:

The predominant theme of these letters is Christian certainty. Their characteristic verbs

are ginōskein, 'to perceive' (twenty-five times) and eidenai, 'to know' (fifteen times), while a characteristic noun is parrisia, 'confidence of attitude' or 'boldness of speech'.

The certainty of Christian people is twofold - objective (that the Christian religion is true) and subjective (that they themselves have been born of God and possess eternal life). Both are expounded by John, who takes it for granted that this double assurance is right and healthy. His teaching about these certainties, their nature and the grounds on which they are built, urgently needs to be heard and heeded today. . . . A fresh certainty about Christ and about eternal life, based upon the grounds which John gives, can still lead Christian people into that boldness of approach to God and of testimony to

the world which is as sorely needed as it is sadly missing in the church today. (Letters of John, (TNTC) [Eerdmans, 1988], 56, 60)

1 John 2

ministry of the Spirit, but rather to the objective evidence He manifests in our lives. 2

While we deal with most of these passages elsewhere, some will be discussed here. 3

Contrary to some who teach that it is gifts of the Spirit, such as speaking in

tongues, that proves our salvation, we contend that it is the fruits of the Spirit (cf.

Gal 5:22-26; Col 3:12-15). Against the common teaching of our Roman Catholic and

Lutheran brothers that our water baptism gives us assurance of our salvation, we

would claim that it is the life transformation that comes with spiritual baptism (cf.

Eph 1:13-14). And against many Reformed and Evangelical theologians who suggest

some inner, subjective feeling of assurance that the Spirit communicates to our

spirit, we insist that the real “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation is the

objective, observable virtue that flows out of the born again Christian’s life. 4

It is this very thing that the Apostle John is so eager to explain in his epistle.

While the Apostle’s purpose for writing his Gospel was “that you may believe that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life

in His name” (21:31), his purpose in 1 John is, “I write these things to you who

believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have

eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

His goal in his Gospel is the salvation of unbelievers, while his goal for the epistle

is assurance for believers. 5 While the Apostle John claims in his Gospel that it was

Christ’s physical miracles that authenticated Him as the only way of salvation (cf.

2 Nonetheless, no less a Christian scholar than William Craig writes:

John repeatedly emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit who imparts to the believer the knowledge that his Christian beliefs are true. In John's gospel Jesus tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things (John 14:26), and in his first epistle John underscores this fact by rejoicing that his readers have no need that anyone should

teach them, since the anointing they received from God, which abides in them, teaches them about all things (1 John 2:20, 26-27).

Similarly, in John's gospel, Jesus promises to send the Spirit of truth to abide in the disciples so that they might know that they are in Christ and Christ in them (John 14:16-17, 20). And in his first epistle John again underlines the reality of this promise: "This is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.... We

know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit" (1 John

3:24; 4:13). John uses his characteristic phrase "we know" to emphasize the confidence Christian believers have that our faith is true, that we really do abide in God and he in us. (Craig, 32)

Unfortunately, Dr. Craig is using these scattered references to support the doctrine of a

subjective “testimony” of the Spirit to salvation. However, we believe a reading of the Book

14 will demonstrate the correct meaning of these passages. See especially chapters 14.13-14.15.

3 For further discussion of the passages in John and 1 John 2:20, 27 regarding the revelatory

work of the Spirit see chapters 14.13 and 14.15. 4 For further discussion regarding the “testimony of the Spirit” and our assurance of salvation

see chapter 3.4. 5 Dr. Stott remarks regarding the central subject of John’s epistles:

The predominant theme of these letters is Christian certainty. Their characteristic verbs

are ginōskein, 'to perceive' (twenty-five times) and eidenai, 'to know' (fifteen times), while a characteristic noun is parrisia, 'confidence of attitude' or 'boldness of speech'.

The certainty of Christian people is twofold - objective (that the Christian religion is true) and subjective (that they themselves have been born of God and possess eternal life). Both are expounded by John, who takes it for granted that this double assurance is right and healthy. His teaching about these certainties, their nature and the grounds on which they are built, urgently needs to be heard and heeded today. . . . A fresh certainty about Christ and about eternal life, based upon the grounds which John gives, can still lead Christian people into that boldness of approach to God and of testimony to

the world which is as sorely needed as it is sadly missing in the church today. (Letters of John, (TNTC) [Eerdmans, 1988], 56, 60)

1 John 3

John 14:6; 20:30), he claims in his epistle that it is our miraculous, objective virtue

that proves we have such salvation.

For example, he writes in simple and straightforward terms:

We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands.

The man who says, "I know Him," but does not do what He commands

is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word,

God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are

in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John

2:3-6)

In other words, the certainty of our salvation rests not in feelings or subjective

revelations from the Spirit, but rather in the objective evidence of our Christ-like

virtue. John Stott, in his superb commentary on 1 John, comments on this passage

as follows:

The Gnostics in particular laid claim to the knowledge of God. They had been

enlightened with the true gnōsis. John does not deny the possibility of knowing

God, since both the Old Testament and the Gospel promise it (e.g. Jer. 31:34;

Jn. 17:3). But he insists that no religious experience is valid if it does not have

[objective] moral consequences (cf. Tit, 1:16). It is not the person who claims

to be a Christian and to know God who is presumptuous, but the person whose

claim is contradicted by his conduct. He is a liar (v. 4). 6

The Apostle repeats this truth several times in this short letter. He writes again

in chapter 2:

Anyone who claims to be in the light [correctly believing what is necessary

for salvation] but hates his brother is still in the darkness [i.e. unsaved].

Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him

to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness

and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going,

because the darkness has blinded him. (1 John 2:9-11)

Granted that the supernatural and superior virtue of Christians proves the truth

of Christ, how do we know if we possess the truth of Christ? The Apostle writes:

If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does

what is right has been born of Him. (1 John 2:29)

No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to

sin has either seen Him or known Him. Dear children, do not let

anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as

He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil . . .

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed

remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of

God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the

children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a

child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:6-

10)

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our

brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. (1 John 3:14)

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions

and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth,

and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence whenever our hearts

condemn us. (1 John 3:18-20)

6 Stott, Letters, 95.

1 John 4

Dr. Stott comments regarding these latter verses:

It is implied that we shall be able to do this [be assured of our salvation] only

if we know that we belong to the truth. It is the mind's knowledge by which

the heart's doubts may be silenced. But how can we know this? What is the

meaning of the this is how with which the verse begins? . . .

Here (as in 4:6) it seems to refer back to the preceding paragraph about love.

It is 'everyone who loves' who 'has been born of God and knows God' (4:7).

Love is the final objective test of our Christian profession, for true love, in the

sense of self-sacrifice, is not natural to human beings in their fallen state. Its

existence in anyone is evidence of new birth and of the indwelling Spirit (3:24;

4:12-13), and it shows itself 'with actions'.

'There are actual things we can point to - not things we have professed or felt

or imagined or intended, but things that we have done' (Law). If we thus love

'in truth' (v. 18), we may indeed have full assurance in our hearts. 'The fruit of

love is confidence' (Westcott). 7

The Apostle John also explains why love is the ultimate proof of our standing with

God:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever

does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)

The kind of love that God is requiring can only come from Him, and He only gives it

to those who know Him. 8

Notice the Apostle’s focus on loving Christians rather than non-Christians. He

says, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our

brothers” (3:14; cf. 2:9-11; 3:12, 15-17; 4:20-21). We would suggest as we

discuss further elsewhere, that this is because being kind to strangers is relatively

easier than bearing with the weaknesses of Christians in your local church. Cults do

the former, only Christians can and will do the latter. Supernatural love is really

demonstrated in how we treat those we know the most. 9

Obviously, in none of these statements is the Apostle implying that a born again

Christian cannot sin. First of all, he has already said that to claim sinless perfection

is to be deceived (cf. 1:8, 10), and secondly, he has promised that, “if anybody

does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus

Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1).

Also, we would contend that the clearest, most immediate proof of our spiritual

regeneration is our desires, not our practice. It is our desires to be holy that change

rather powerfully and immediately when real conversion occurs, because we

immediately receive “a new heart and . . . a new spirit” (Ezek 36:26), which is

Christ’s own heart and Spirit because He has come to live inside of us. However,

while our desires change rather powerfully and immediately, it will require our whole

Christian life for our consistent practice to catch up. God changes our desires

radically and instantly at conversion, but we still need to, “be transformed by the

renewing of [the beliefs of our] mind” (Rom 12:2) so that we more consistently

practice what we desire.

Therefore, it is not our fluctuating performance which we should base our

assurance of salvation on, but our ardent, abiding, enormous hatred of sin in our

lives. This is precisely what is illustrated in the life of the Apostle Paul in Romans

7 Stott, Letters, 149. 8 For a discussion of 1 John 3:18-4:2; 4:13; and 5:6-11, which some claim would support a

subjective, mystical “testimony of the Spirit” see section 5.5.A.1. 9 For further discussion of the superior apologetic nature of loving other Christians see chapter

5.14.

1 John 5

7:14-25. His struggle with sin in him, even after over 20 years of being an Apostle

of Jesus Christ, 10 was very real. 11 But even more real was his great hatred for that

sin. He wrote:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but

what I hate I do. . . . As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is

sin living in me. . . . So I find this law at work: When I want to do

good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in

God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body,

waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of

the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I

am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—

through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom 7:15-25)

Do you sense the passionate “hate” for indwelling sin in the Apostle’s words? It

was not the absence of sin that alone demonstrated the Apostle possessed the Holy

Spirit, but his great desire to be holy. Accordingly, it is not only the victories over

sin that prove our salvation, but the very fact that we are “waging war” against it

at all, tells us the Holy Spirit lives in us.

So much so that the Apostle recognized that, in a sense, “it is no longer I

myself who do” the sins he hated, but the sinful habits and lies still operating in the

unrenewed parts of his mind. On the contrary, he said, “in my inner being [my

real regenerated self] I delight in God’s law,” which is something the unregenerate

will never do. And it is that very “delight” in obeying God, and our passionate

hatred for sin, that will inevitably result in the practically holier life that the Apostle

John describes so clearly. 12

10 NT scholar and Pauline expert F. F. Bruce dates the Apostle’s conversion in A. D. 33 and the

writing of Romans in A. D. 57. (“Paul the Apostle,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., [Eerdmans, 1988], III:699, 709)

11 There is a great deal of debate regarding whether or not the Apostle is speaking of a

regenerated believer in Romans 7:15-23. In the end, identical language in Galatians 5:16-17, which seems most clearly to refer to the internal moral struggle of believers, provides strong evidence for our position that the Apostle is speaking of the same thing in Romans. For further discussion see 7.?

12 Many will feel that the Apostle John’s rather dogmatic and unqualified statements must be

balanced with the honest warning of the Apostle Paul: What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom

you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each His task. 6 I planted the seed [the church in Corinth], Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, Who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters [the local church]

have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building [a local church].

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation [planted the local church in Corinth] as an expert builder, and someone else [another pastor/teacher] is

building on it. But each one [pastor/teacher] should be careful how he builds [the local church]. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one

already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man [pastor/teacher] builds [the local church] on this foundation using

gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his [pastoral/teaching] work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s [pastoral/teaching] work. 14 If what he has built [specifically regarding the local church] survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer

loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor 3:10-15)

1 John 6

First, it is important to notice that the context here specifically regards those involved in

ministry, like a Paul or Apollos (vs. 5-9), and the “work” being evaluated is specifically their

efforts to “build” the local church. As NT scholar Gordon Fee puts it: This text . . . is neither a challenge to the individual believer to build his or her life well on the foundation of Christ, nor is it grist for theological debate [e.g. a proof text for purgatory]. Rather, it is one of the most significant passages in the NT that warn--and encourage--those responsible for "building" the church of Christ. In the final analysis, of

course, this includes all believers, but it has particular relevance, following so closely as it does vv. 5-9, to those with teaching/leadership responsibilities. (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1987], 145)

Likewise, Charles Hodge wrote concerning 1 Corinthians 3:15: The apostle is here speaking of those teachers who, although they retain the

fundamental doctrines of the gospel, yet combine them with error. This is plain from v. 12, “If any man shall build on this foundation.” It is not enough, therefore, that a minister hold fast to fundamental truth; he must take heed what he teaches in connection with that truth. If he mingles with it the wood, hay and stubble of his own philosophy, he will find himself a loser on the day of judgment. (Commentary on the

First Epistle to the Corinthians, online at ccel.org; cf. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999]; Anthony

Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 2000], 296; contra Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1985], and John MacArthur (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997]). C. K. Barrett apparently has no specific opinion, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Henddrickson, 2000])

Accordingly, we are reminded of the warning in James: “Not many of you should

presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). Evidently, the King will more rigorously evaluate the work of Pastors and Teachers on that Day, specifically how Christ-centered their philosophy of ministry was.

Nonetheless, such a truth need not be seen as a correction of the biblical expectation that all born again Christians will bear significant and recognizable amounts of virtuous fruit. In

other words, isn’t it possible for a minister to exhibit the fruits of love and holiness in his

personal life, but allow false doctrine and worldly wisdom to influence how he proceeds to teach, grow and lead the local church? We think so, and this is specifically what the Apostle Paul is speaking of.

Accordingly, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton writes: The argument [of 1 Cor 3:5-17] flows on from what has been established in 1:18-3:4 [the dichotomy between Christ-centered wisdom and worldly wisdom]. . . . The

background contrast between “two wisdoms” . . . provide two evaluative frames of reference within which assessments of ministers, the ministry, and ministerial activity appear in very different lights. (296)

Along the same lines, Dr. Fee explains:

It is unfortunately possible for people to attempt to build the church out of every imaginable human system predicated on merely worldly wisdom, be it philosophy, "pop"

psychology, managerial techniques, relational "good feelings," or what have you. But at the final judgment, all such building (and perhaps countless other forms, where systems have become more important than the gospel itself) will be shown for what it is: something merely human, with no character of Christ or his gospel in it. Often, of

course, the test may come this side of the final one, and in such an hour of stress that which has been built of modem forms of sophia [wisdom] usually comes tumbling down.

(144) Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:5-15 is not a clear statement that we can expect genuine

believers in general to live a life that bears so little fruit of the Holy Spirit living in them, that in the end, they have virtually nothing to show for it. On the contrary, the Apostle’s focus here is on one particular type of Christian work, that of pastors and teachers building the local church. Even the imagery of “escaping from the flames” seems to refer to the

metaphorical building, which is the local church, being spoken of throughout the passage, and what specifically is burning then is that work, or the building (as a noun and verb), of a local church.

1 John 7

The Apostle John’s concern, then, is not the struggle with a sin here and there

that all Christians experience. Rather, he is writing of the habitual and persistent

pursuit, practice, and even pleasure of sins against God and our conscience.

Christians do not habitually practice sin, do not persistently pursue it, and certainly

do not enjoy living in it. This is what makes us radically and miraculously different

than we were before our rebirth, and from the rest of the world who are still “all

under sin” (Rom 3:9).

One could hardly make our point better than the renowned NT scholar F. F. Bruce

(1910-1990) who wrote concerning the kind of assurance of salvation taught in 1

John:

Whatever high claims may be made by one who indulges in sin, that indulgence

is sufficient proof that he has no personal knowledge of Christ. . . . [T]he new

birth involves a radical change in human nature; for those who have not

experienced it, sin is natural, whereas for those who have experienced it, sin is

unnatural—so unnatural, indeed, that its practice constitutes a powerful

refutation of any claim to possess the divine life. 13

Some may find the Apostle John’s instruction on the proof of salvation too

dogmatic and unqualified. However, we should be careful of watering down his

statements. Of course, theoretically, one could “not do what He [Christ]

commands,” be one who “hates his brother,” and “one who continues to sin”

and still be a Christian, even though the Apostle says they would be “a liar,”

“still in darkness,” and have never “known Him” (1 John 2:4, 9; 3:6). Perhaps a

real born again Christian could live for an extended period of time in a hateful, sinful

lifestyle, although we doubt it. For certain they would be miserable, and if not, than

they truly would have no basis to believe they belong to Christ.

And this is the Apostle John’s point. We doubt he intended to exclude all

possibility that there could be someone whom God knows is a Christian, but whose

life is so barren of holy, virtuous fruit at the moment, that to a discerning human it

would not seem so. Nonetheless, in such cases we can lovingly and biblically warn

people that although their claim to be saved may be true, neither we nor they have

reason to believe it is true. This is because, as the Apostle John so clearly teaches,

all that humans have to go on is the presence or absence of the objective

supernatural virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And this is why throughout

Scripture, those who claim to know Christ are encouraged to, “be all the more eager

to make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet 2:10; cf. Phil 2:12; Heb 3:7-19; 6:1-

12; 10:26-39).

While the Apostle John’s appeal to objective moral fruit for the assurance of

salvation is clear, some take some of his statements out of context in order to

suggest otherwise. For example, the Apostle writes: “And this is how we know

that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us” (3:24). Interpreted

in isolation, this may be implying some subjective assurance of the Spirit of our

salvation. However, in the immediate context, both before and after this statement,

the Apostle specifically tells his readers that this assurance of the Spirit is not based

on a subjective feeling, but demonstrable virtue.

The full passage says:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions

and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth,

and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence whenever our hearts

condemn us. . . .

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence

before God and receive from Him anything we ask, because we obey

His commands and do what pleases Him. And this is His command: to

believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as

13 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Eerdmans, 1970), 90, 92.

1 John 8

He commanded us. Those who obey His commands live in Him, and He

in them. And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by

the Spirit He gave us.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see

whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone

out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh

is from God. (1 John 3:18-4:2)

In verses 18-19, the Apostle clearly teaches that our assurance of salvation is to

be based on the objective fact that we “love . . . with actions.” In verse 24, the

proof that we “live in Him and He in” us is the objective evidence that we “obey

His commands.” The Apostle then immediately states, “And this is how we

know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us,” because it is

by the Spirit that we can love others and obey God. And if someone wishes to

interpret the Apostle as saying that this work of the Spirit is direct, subjective and

sufficient, he goes on to warn us about trusting any spirit without objective evidence.

It is simply inexcusable exegesis to insert a subjective work of the Spirit in the

immediate context of objective works of the Spirit. 14

Accordingly, Dr. Stott adds concerning 1 John 3:24:

It may at first sight seem that this reference to the Holy Spirit within us

introduces a subjective criterion of assurance . . . which is inconsistent with

what has gone before. But this is not so.

The Spirit whose presence is the test of Christ's living in us, manifests himself

objectively in our life and conduct. It is he who inspires us to confess Jesus as

the Christ come in the flesh, as John immediately proceeds to show (4:1ff.; Cf.

2:20, 27). It is also he who empowers us to live righteously and to love our

brothers and sisters (cf. 4:13; Gal. 5: 16, 22).

So if we would set our hearts at rest, when they accuse and condemn us, we

must look for evidence of the Spirit's working, and particularly whether he is

enabling us to believe in Christ, to obey God's commands and to love our

brothers; for the condition of Christ dwelling in us and of our dwelling in him is

this comprehensive obedience (24a), and the evidence of the indwelling is the

gift of the Spirit (24b). 15

Another verse that could be misinterpreted on this topic is 1 John 4:13 where we

read, “We know that we live in Him and He in us, because He has given us of

His Spirit.” Again, we would insist that in the context, the Apostle points to

objective evidence in our lives for proof that “He has given us of His Spirit.”

Again, Dr. Stott writes:

This, then, is the sequence of thought [in 1 John 4:12-16]: we know that we

live in God and God in us 'because he has given us of his Spirit' (13), and we

know he has given us of his Spirit because we have come to 'acknowledge that

Jesus is the Son of God' (15), and to live 'in love' (16). 16

Finally, some have derived a subjective, mystical operation of the Spirit from the

following as well: 17

14 Which makes it difficult to explain why John MacArthur in his commentary on Romans 8:15-

16 claims that 1 John 3:18-21 includes “subjective evidence” that sets, “our hearts at rest” in God’s presence when we question our standing before Him. (Commentary)

15 John Stott, The Letters of John (TNTC), (Eerdmans, 1988, repr. 1999), 154-5. 16 Ibid., 168-9. 17 For example, William Craig writes concerning this passage:

In fact, in a remarkable passage, John actually appears to compare the degree of certainty generated by the inner witness of the Spirit with that furnished by the

1 John 9

This is the One Who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come

by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit Who testifies, because

the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and

the blood; and the three are in agreement.

We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the

testimony of God, which He has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the

Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God

has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God

has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal

life, and this life is in His Son. (1 John 5:6-11)

First, we should notice that “the testimony God has given about His Son” (v. 10)

is that “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son” (v. 11). Therefore,

“the testimony” relates to our assurance of salvation.

How is this communicated and authenticated? The Apostle says, “there are three

that testify” to this: “the Spirit, the water and the blood” (vs. 7-8). What do these

mean?

While there are various interpretations as to what the Apostle meant by the

“water and blood,” we agree with Dr. Stott who remarks:

We need . . . to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and

blood both historical experiences ‘through’ which he passed and witnesses in

some sense to his divine-human person.” 18

We would suggest that John’s statement that Christ, “came by water and

blood” is a reference to his physical birth which occurs with a great deal of both.

Accordingly, Jesus Himself referred to natural birth as being “born of water” (John

3:15 19). Christ’s “natural” birth would testify to his humanity, and precisely against

historical testimony of the ministry of Jesus. . . . The "water and the blood" in this passage probably refer to the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus as marking the beginning and end of his earthly ministry, and "man's testimony" to the apostolic witness to the

events of that ministry.' John, who in his gospel lays such weight on the apostolic

testimony to the signs of Jesus' ministry in order "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31), now says that the testimony of the Spirit is even greater than the apostolic testimony. As Christian believers we have the testimony of God living within us, assuring us of the veracity of our faith. Although John is eager to present evidences for the truth of Christ's claims, it is apparent that he does not consider such evidence necessary for knowledge of those claims. (Craig, 32)

We would suggest that Dr. Craig is right in saying that the testimony of “water and blood”

concerning Christ point to objective, historical evidences. However, he is wrong to assert that the accompanying testimony of the “Spirit” is subjective, mystical, and even more assuring than physical, historical, objective evidence.

18 Ibid., 180. (See Stott, John, 46-7).

19 Some contend that when Christ says “born of water,” (John 3:5) He means Christian

water baptism. And then they conclude that water baptism is essential to being “born again.” However, although water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are at times

mentioned together (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:5; Rom 6:1-11), Christ makes it clear that He is speaking of a person’s physical birth as a baby, not water baptism.

His statement that “Flesh gives birth to flesh” in verse 6 is synonymous with being “born of water” in verse 5, just as the “Spirit giv(ing) birth to the spirit” is synonymous with being “born of . . . the Spirit.” So the meaning of being “born of water” is defined by the meaning of the statement, “Flesh gives birth to flesh.” And the clearest understanding of that is that Christ is talking about a person’s physical birth.

This interpretation is strengthened by Nicodemus’s statement that a person, “cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” All Christ is saying is that

only people who are physically created by God and then spiritually born again by the Spirit of God, will be saved.

1 John 10

what the false teachers that John was concerned about were denying: The

incarnation of God. It was this “testimony” or historical evidence of Christ’s

humanity through being physically born “by water and blood” that is in the “heart”

of the believer (v. 10). Remembering that the biblical concept of “heart” is virtually

synonymous with the cognitive reasoning functions that produce our beliefs, desires,

and decisions, we recognize that the Apostle is stressing objective evidence for our

faith.

While the testimony of coming to Earth “by water and blood” clearly proved

Christ’s humanity, the testimony of the Spirit working through Him and even raising

Him from the dead proved His deity. There is no need here to find some obscure,

mystical testimony of the Spirit to Who Christ was. The Apostle himself had

emphasized in His Gospel that the Spirit-empowered miracles of Christ had provided

such testimony:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples,

which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you

may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by

believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31; cf. 10:24-26,

38; 14:11; 15:24; Acts 2:22)

The ultimate testimony of the Spirit to the deity of Christ and His exclusive claim

to saviorhood was Christ’s resurrection by the Spirit witnessed by the Apostles, not

some immediate revelation of the Spirit to the individual human heart. (cf. Acts

5:30-32; 17:31; Rom 8:11; 1 Pet 3:18). 20

1 John 1:1-5 [7.3.D]

This distinctly indirect and communal nature of divine revelation is reflected in

how the New Covenant and Christianity itself was founded. God did not, nor ever

has, directly revealed the Gospel to the vast majority of His people as He did to the

Apostles (cf. Gal 1:12-13). Accordingly, the Apostle John writes:

That which was from the beginning, which we [Apostles] have

[personally] heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have

looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the

Word of life. The life appeared; we [Apostles] have seen it and testify to

it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father

and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and

heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our

fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write

this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard

from Him and declare to you. (1 John 1:1-5)

Notice that the Apostle is celebrating the fact that we can have fellowship with

Christ and complete our joy through the indirect relationship provided through the

Apostolate. He does not apologize for being an intermediary, nor suggest that

something more personal and direct is available to the believers he is writing to.

Commenting on the Apostle’s description of the indirect and communal nature of

divine revelation in the current Church age, the great Dutch theologian Abraham

Kuyper (1837–1920) wrote:

The Apostle's reasoning is as transparent as glass. Life was manifested in such

a way that it could be seen and handled . . . They who saw and handled it

20 For further discussion of the Holy Spirit’s objective testimony of authenticating Christ see

sections 3.1.C and 6.14.B. Some will suggest the 1 John 2:20-27 is biblical support for a

subjective “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation. This passage is dealt with in section 14.15.B.

1 John 11

were the Apostles; and they were also to declare this life unto the elect. By

this declaration, the required fellowship between the elect and the apostolate is

established and in consequence of this, there is fellowship also for the elect

with the Father and the Son. . . .

[E]very child of God must exercise communion with the Father and the Son

through the apostolate. . . . [T]his is St. John's positive claim. . . Only when

these things are clear to the soul, the glorious word of Christ, "Father, I pray

not for them alone, but for them, also which shall believe on Me through their

word," will be well understood. 21

We should not only affirm, but rejoice in the Christ-like authority that the

revelatory Apostles and their writings have, because they are our only link to hearing

everything Christ would have us believe and obey. Perhaps we have over-

emphasized the “friendship” nature of our relationship with Christ (cf. John 15:15)

which would imply continual, personal, individual communication. On the other

hand, when we remember that Christ is the King, and we are His subjects, perhaps

the God-ordained method of generally communicating to us through representatives

will be more acceptable. Regardless, the communal nature of divine revelation is

biblical, primary, and increasingly disparaged in American Christianity.

1 John 2:15-16 [5.8.D]

And the world will have a power over the unregenerate that will expose their true

lack of virtue. Unbelievers will love the world and be controlled by it, real believers

will not. The apostle John says:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the

world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-

-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of

what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world.

(1 John 2:15-16)

John makes it clear throughout his epistle that if “the love of the Father is not

in” you, God is not in you and you don’t have God. 22 And this is the condition of

“anyone [who] loves the world.” And the love for the world in the unbeliever’s life

will eventually draw out of them the immorality that really rules their hearts. The

enticements of this world will cause selfishness, pride, greed, fear, and lust to raise

their ugly head and the superficially spiritual or moral person will be exposed for who

they really are. Jonathan Edwards noted:

21 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946),

144.

22 Other translations of 1 John 2:15 make it more apparent that John is saying to love the

world is to not have God. The RSV renders it: “If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.” The TEV is the same. The NEB reads: “Anyone who loves the

world is a stranger to the Father’s love.” Likewise, the CEV has it: “If you love the world, you cannot love the Father.” Other statements in John concerning the love of

God being in us indicate that this is another way of John saying that we are Christians, and to not have such love in you is not to be a Christian (cf. 2:15; 3:17; 4:12, 16-18). Accordingly, John Stott writes regarding this verse:

The reason why we are enjoined not to love the world is because 'love for the Father' (RSV) and love for the world are mutually exclusive. If we are engrossed in the outlook and pursuits of the world which rejects Christ, it is evident that we have no love for the Father. 'Friendship with the world is hatred towards God' (Jas. 4:4). 'No-one can serve

two masters' (Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13), and if we cannot serve God and mammon, neither can we love the Father and the world. (Letters, 104)

1 John 12

A man may be restrained from sin before he is converted; but when he is

converted, he is not only restrained from sin, his very heart and nature is

turned from it unto holiness: so that thenceforward he becomes a holy person,

and an enemy to sin. 23

The spiritually regenerated hate sin and the temptations that cause it. But the

unregenerate are no enemy to sin at all, and in fact welcome it as a friend when it

serves their purpose. And sooner or later, sin will serve the unbeliever’s purpose

and their true moral and spiritual poverty and inconsistency will be exposed.

1 John 2:20, 27 [7.12.B.2]

B.2) The Sufficiency of the Divine Revelation from the New Nature

The Scripture-like authority of the New Nature is not only found in that it is

likewise equated with God Himself, but it is also similarly sufficient as a divine

revelation of God’s will. If we conform our life to it we will, “be like God in true

righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24).

We believe this sufficiency of the indwelling Spirit to provide divine revelation

from God is also underscored when the Apostle explains to the Thessalonians, “Now

about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves

have been taught by God to love each other” (1 Thess 4:9). We suggest the

Apostle is referring to the “teaching” of the Holy Spirit through the New Nature as he

just reminded them in the previous sentence, “God . . . gives you His Holy Spirit”

(v. 8). NT scholar John Stott comments here:

In what sense were they 'God-taught'? Of course God had taught his people

in the Old Testament to love their neighbor, and Jesus had given his disciples

his 'new command' to 'love one another'. But Paul's reference seems to be to

teaching given neither by the Father in the Old Testament, nor by the Son

during his public ministry, but rather by the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts.

The prophets had promised that in the Messianic age all God's people would

receive the Spirit, be 'taught by the Lord' and know him (Is. 54:13; Je. 31:34)

and in the New Testament it was believed that this promise had been fulfilled

(Jn. 6:45). In consequence, strictly speaking, beyond the 'anointing from the

Holy One' (probably a reference to the Holy Spirit) no human teachers are

essential. (1 Jn. 2:20, 27; cf. Gal. 5:22) 24

We believe the Apostle John is saying the same thing when he writes:

[Y]ou have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the

truth . . . As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in

you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing

teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not

counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (1 John 2:20, 27)

We would suggest that the “anointing of the Holy One” is the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. This indwelling is an important concept in the Apostle’s letter (cf. 3:24;

4:1-3, 6, 13; 5:13, 16). The Apostle, of course, is not saying that these Christians

do not need teachers, as in verse 24 he says, “See that what you have heard

[from the Apostles] from the beginning remains in you.” However, he is

certainly describing how sufficient the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit is regarding

23 John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Powhatan, VA:

Berea, 1991), III.7.

24 John Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians [Intervarsity, 1994], 89.

1 John 13

divine revelation for our life. Indeed, the divine revelation received through our New

Nature, the Holy Spirit, “teaches [us] about all things” necessary for a God-

pleasing life. This “teaching” of the New Nature particularly applies to the love and

holiness that the Apostle emphasizes throughout the epistle and which the Gnostic

teachers he is battling against denied the need for. 25 This, again, is what makes the

revelation of the New Nature so sufficient, because the whole will of God is love and

holiness.

Accordingly, Martin Luther (1483–1546) wrote in his treatise, Concerning the

Letter and the Spirit:

[The Christian] lives in the Spirit as the law demands; indeed, he no longer

needs any law to teach him, for he knows it now by heart. Everything the law

demands has become his nature and essence through the Spirit. . . .

[W]herever the Spirit of God exists, there is freedom, as St. Paul says [2 Cor

3:17]; there no teaching or law is needed; everything happens as it should

happen.

It is just like the man who has healthy, good vision; he does not need anyone

to teach him how he should see. His vision is unhindered, and he has more

than any teaching could help him get or give to him. But if his vision is not

healthy, he is no longer free, and there is not enough teaching to help and

protect him. He will have to worry about every single glance and have a rule

about it in order to see.

Thus it is St. Paul's opinion, [I Timothy 1:9], that "the law is not laid down for

the just:' for the Spirit gives him everything that the law demands. Thus when

he says, "God has made us preachers of the Spirit and not of the letter:' he

means that in the New Testament only grace and not law should be preached,

so that men become truly godly through the Spirit. 26

This is why so many Christians in the first 250 years of the Church could be so

loving, holy, fruitful, and powerful even though they did not possess the NT

Scriptures. The moral will of God was immediately known and empowered by the

Holy Spirit living in them.

Of course, mega mysticism 27 claims that the more general moral revelation

provided by the New Nature simply isn’t specific enough to be adequate. What they

seem to be forgetting is the great ability that our Holy Spirit-renewed mind has in

determining customized applications of the nature of Christ in all kinds of

circumstances. We do not need new, divine, direct revelations of God’s will for our

life, but rather, because God Himself lives in us we have been given the capability of

knowing what to do in a given situation in order to please God. 28 In addition, mega

mysticism’s preoccupation with seeking some kind of amoral divine will, can distract

them from the glory and importance of the moral will of God which He has revealed.

It may also reveal a misplaced definition of success in that mega mystics think it

involves amoral issues, when from God’s perspective, it is moral ones.

25 For further discussion on the proper interpretation of the “anointing” of the Spirit (cf. 1 John

2, 20, 27) see section 14.15.B. 26 Martin Luther, “Concerning the Letter and the Spirit,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological

Writings, Timothy F. Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 85.

27 Mega mysticism is the claim of frequent, extra-biblical, and confidently recognized divine

revelation from God for personal guidance. It is believed that God desires to directly lead and guide us in amoral, extrabiblical matters on a rather continual basis through divinely inspired impressions, impulses, and desires derived apart from any other means such as Scripture, our New Nature, or reason. For further discussion see chapters 3.24-3.27.

28 For further discussion of the fact that God’s will for our life is essentially moral, and

therefore completely known by Scripture and the New Nature, see section 3.6.B.2.

1 John 14

[14.15.B]

B) The Spirit’s Annointing: 1 John 2:20, 27

In his first letter the Apostle John writes:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the

truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but

because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. . . . 24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If

it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is

what He promised us—even eternal life. 26I am writing these things to

you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the

anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need

anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things

and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you,

remain in Him. (1 John 2:20-21, 24-27)

As noted elsewhere, Dallas Willard comments on this Scripture:

John became so confident of the inner teacher that he could tell his children in

the faith--even as he was warning them about those trying to deceive them-

that they had no need of anyone other than the inner teacher, the Holy Spirit. 29

Likewise, the Charismatic leader Michael Green writes concerning this passage:

This means that if a man is truly brought to faith in Christ, he is not dependent

on human teachers to lead him on, helpful though these may be. He has the

heavenly Spirit to be his teacher. 30

Here, again, we have full-blown mega mysticism. A faithful application of the

interpretation of Willard and Green would conclude that we do not need Scripture,

Pastors, or even the Church, but can expect the Holy Spirit to speak directly to us

apart from all these things. In other words, the claim here is that the Holy Spirit

alone is sufficient and superior, not Scripture. Does John’s statement support such a

thing?

First, we would simply ask why must we assume that the “annointing” John

speaks of refers to a promise that God will guide us through mystical mental

impulses as Dr. Willard suggests? In light of the rest of the Bible’s teaching on such

a matter, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of mega mystics to prove

this verse supports their view.

In fact, when the literary context of 1 John is known, a mega mystical

interpretation is impossible. While interpreting the “anointing” as direct revelation

from the Spirit poses problems for the authority of Scripture in the Church today,

such an interpretation would have presented difficulties in John’s day as well. This is

because there is virtually universal agreement that the false teachers whom John

was combating were Gnostics, and, as noted in a previous chapter, one of their

central heresies was the claim to direct, divine revelation apart from Scripture. 31

29 Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God

(Intervarsity, 1999), 168.

30 Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004), page number unavailable. 31 Regarding the mega mysticism in ancient Gnosticism see section 14.8.B. In reference to

the background of Gnosticism in I John specifically, Donald Guthrie writes: “It is, at least, certain that these false teachers came within the general category of Gnosticism.” (New Testament Introduction [Intervarsity, 1990], 865.). Dr. Stott makes a lengthy and

convincing argument for this, detailing specific false teachings among the Gnostics, and comparing them with what is being addressed in 1 John (see The Letters of John, TNTC, rev. ed., [Eerdmans, 1988], 48-55).

1 John 15

John’s attack on common Gnostic teaching is apparent even in the passage under

discussion. First, John stresses that all the Christians he is writing to have

knowledge of the truth (v. 20). He then directly addresses the false teachings in

Gnosticism that Jesus was not the Son of God (vs. 22-23). Thirdly, he points his

readers to the teachings they had received when they were converted (v. 24) instead

of some direct, subjective revelation.

Our first problem with the mega mystic’s interpretation of 1 John 2:20-27 then is

that it does not fit the context of 1 John. John is writing to protect these early

Christians from Gnostic teaching which centered around the idea of direct, individual,

mystical revelation that gave them superior knowledge (gnosis). It is difficult then

to interpret John as saying virtually the same thing as his opponents, and insisting

that Christians receive this kind of subjective, mystical revelation too. Willard’s

interpretation is a fine argument in support of Gnosticism, but not historical orthodox

Christianity.

This fact needs to be noticed when attempting to interpret what John means by

saying that the recipients of his letter “do not need anyone to teach” them (v.

27). An unbalanced mega mystical interpretation makes John contradict himself and

the NT on the importance of teaching. As NT scholar John Stott notes, “we must see

this verse in the context of a letter in which John is, in fact, teaching.” 32

Just three verses earlier, John had reminded them, “As for you, let that abide

in you which you heard [from Teachers/Evangelists/Apostles] from the

beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also

will abide in the Son and in the Father” (v. 24 NASB). We quote the NASB here

because it better reflects the Greek text which repeats the reminder to remember

their former teaching twice, which is rather missed in the more stylistic NIV.

Later in this same letter John will write, “We [true Teachers as opposed to false

teachers, cf. 4:1-5] are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but

whoever is not from God does not listen to us” (1 John 4:6). Therefore, John

claims that a refusal to listen to Christian Teachers was an indication that such a

person neither knows God or is from God. In John’s second letter he writes,

“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ

does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father

and the Son” (2 John 1:9). And the source of this “teaching” was no doubt the

Apostles and Teachers mentioned in the verses noted above.

Finally, John surely would not have contradicted the rest of the NT which

repeatedly refers to the importance of Teachers in the Church (cf. Acts 4:18; 5:28,

42; 2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph - 4:11; Rom 12:6).

It is possible that his reference is to the Gnostic teachers who insisted that the

Christians needed their teaching in order to possess some supposed secret

knowledge from God in addition to what they had been taught by their Christian

teachers. However, it is more likely that John is referring to the ability of the

indwelling Spirit to lead us in a virtuous life as we simply live according to, and under

the control of, the New Nature He has given us. Accordingly, we have written

concerning a parallel passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:9:

The Spirit Who lives within us through our New Nature instinctively knows when

and how to love God and people in every circumstance of life that we

encounter, thus fulfilling the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), the Great

Commandments (Matt 22:36-40), and God’s whole will for our life. . . .

We believe this sufficiency of the indwelling Spirit to provide divine revelation

from God is also underscored when the Apostle explains to the Thessalonians,

“Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you

yourselves have been taught by God to love each other” (1 Thess 4:9).

We suggest the Apostle is referring to the “teaching” of the Holy Spirit through

the New Nature as he just reminded them in the previous sentence, “God . . .

32 Stott, Letters of John, 119.

1 John 16

gives you His Holy Spirit” (v. 8). 33

Therefore, we would simply suggest that the “annointing” that John is speaking

of refers to the spiritual regeneration that all Christians experience at the time of

conversion. That conversion regenerates our conscience and will, and gives us a

New Nature that instinctively knows the truth about God’s moral will. 34 We do not

believe that John is speaking of any kind of revelation that goes beyond Christian

morality. Our view would not only fit well with John’s consistent appeal in this letter

for love and holiness, but would address another Gnostic tendency, the teaching that

morality doesn’t matter. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

The Scripture-like authority of the New Nature is not only found in that it is

likewise equated with God Himself, but it is also similarly sufficient as a divine

revelation of God’s will. If we conform our life to it we will, “be like God in

true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24). We believe this sufficiency of

the indwelling Spirit to provide divine revelation from God is also underscored

by the Apostle John when he writes:

[Y]ou have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the

truth . . . 27As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains

in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His

anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real,

not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (1 John

2:20, 27)

We would suggest that the “anointing of the Holy One” is the indwelling of

the Holy Spirit. This indwelling is an important concept in John’s letter (cf.

3:24; 4:1-3, 6, 13; 5:13, 16). . . . Indeed, the divine revelation received

through our New Nature, the Holy Spirit, “teaches [us] about all things”

necessary for a God-pleasing life. This “teaching” of the New Nature

particularly applies to the love and holiness that John emphasizes throughout

the epistle and which the Gnostic teachers he is battling against denied the

need for.

Of course, mega mystics claim that the more general moral revelation

provided by the New Nature simply isn’t specific enough to be adequate. What

they seem to be forgetting is the great ability that our Holy Spirit-renewed

mind has in determining customized applications of the nature of Christ in all

kinds of circumstances. We do not need new, divine, direct revelations of God’s

will for our life, but rather, because God Himself lives in us, we have been given

the capability of knowing what to do in a given situation in order to please God. 35

1 John 3:6-10 [5.10.B.1]

B.1) The Growing Popularity of “Humble” Apologetics

While an overemphasis on intellectual apologetics has tended to detract from

virtue apologetics, the unwarranted influence of pluralism 36 and postmodernism 37

33 Excerpt from sections 7.12.B.1-2. 34 For further discussion of the guiding revelation provided by the indwelling Spirit and the

application of this interpretation of 1 John 2:20, 27 see section 7.12.B.2. 35 Excerpt from sections 7.12.B.2.

36 Pluralism is essentially the belief that all moral religions provide salvation. For further

discussion see section 2.19.B.

1 John 17

would seem to have made it unpopular as well. There is a great lack of boldness in

contemporary Christianity to compare religions on the basis of virtue. It may be

helpful at this point to be reminded of the Apostle John’s approach in defending and

distinguishing Christianity in the pluralistic world he lived in. He simply and

unapologetically wrote:

Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is

right is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is

of the devil . . . No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because

God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has

been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are

and who the children of the devil are [the only two kinds of people on the

planet]: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor

is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:6-10)

Far too many Christians today think such words are too simplistic and too bold.

Accordingly, we fear that among some modern apologists and theologians that there

is a greater desire to be politically correct, rather than biblically correct. James M.

Boice (1938-2000), a very respected Reformed Bible teacher of our day wrote of this

growing tendency when he said:

We live in such a mindlessly pluralistic society that it is thought uncouth if not

wickedly immoral to suggest that some religions may be better than others or,

even worse, that some religions may be wrong. But some are wrong. In fact,

all are wrong that do not call us to faith in Jesus Christ. 38

1 John 3:18-4:2 [3.6.B.1]

Let us reiterate that we think it can be demonstrated that every verse of

Scripture used to support a subjective assurance of salvation from the Spirit actually

applies to the provision of the objective evidence of our salvation.

For example, the Apostle John writes: “And this is how we know that He lives

in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us” (3:24). Again, interpreted in

isolation, this may be implying some subjective assurance of the Spirit of our

salvation. However, in the immediate context, both before and after this statement,

the Apostle specifically tells his readers that this assurance of the Spirit is not based

on a subjective feeling, but demonstrable virtue.

The full passage says:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions

and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth,

and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence whenever our hearts

condemn us. . . .

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence

before God and receive from Him anything we ask, because we obey

His commands and do what pleases Him. And this is His command: to

believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as

He commanded us. Those who obey His commands live in Him, and He

in them. And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by

the Spirit He gave us.

37 Postmodernism in its most radical form, denies the possibility of any absolute, objectively

authoritative truth. For further discussion see sections 2.2.D; 2.5.A; 2.5.E.1; 2.9.C.4.e; and 2.11.A-C.

38 James M. Boice, “A Better Way: The Power of the Word and Spirit” in Power Religion: The

Selling Out of the Evangelical Church, Michael S. Horton ed. (Moody, 1992), 119.

1 John 18

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see

whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone

out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh

is from God. (1 John 3:18-4:2)

In verses 18-19, the Apostle clearly teaches that our assurance of salvation is to

be based on the objective fact that we “love . . . with actions.” In verse 24, the

proof that we “live in Him and He in” us is the objective evidence that we “obey

His commands.” The apostle then immediately states, “And this is how we

know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us,” because it is

by the Spirit that we can love others and obey God. And if someone wishes to

interpret the Apostle as saying that this work of the Spirit is direct, subjective and

sufficient, he goes on to warn us about trusting any spirit without objective evidence.

It is simply inexcusable exegesis to insert a subjective work of the Spirit in the

immediate context of objective works of the Spirit. 39 And this objective,

authenticating work of the Spirit is, in fact, the point that he stresses throughout the

letter (cf. 1:6-7; 2:3-6, 9-11, 15, 19; 3:6-10, 14-15, 18-20, 24; 4:7-8, 15, 20-21;

5:1-5, 18).

Accordingly, NT scholar John Stott adds concerning 1 John 3:24:

It may at first sight seem that this reference to the Holy Spirit within us

introduces a subjective criterion of assurance . . . which is inconsistent with

what has gone before. But this is not so.

The Spirit whose presence is the test of Christ's living in us, manifests himself

objectively in our life and conduct. It is he who inspires us to confess Jesus as

the Christ come in the flesh, as John immediately proceeds to show (4:1ff.; Cf.

2:20, 27). It is also he who empowers us to live righteously and to love our

brothers and sisters (cf. 4:13; Gal. 5: 16, 22).

So if we would set our hearts at rest, when they accuse and condemn us, we

must look for evidence of the Spirit's working, and particularly whether he is

enabling us to believe in Christ, to obey God's commands and to love our

brothers; for the condition of Christ dwelling in us and of our dwelling in him is

this comprehensive obedience (24a), and the evidence of the indwelling is the

gift of the Spirit (24b). 40

1 John 4:1-3 [3.4.C.4]

Something as subjective as the mere claim of the presence of the Holy Spirit

cannot be the ground of certainty for a human. 41 How do we know that it is the Holy

39 Which makes it difficult to explain why John MacArthur in his commentary on Romans 8:15-

16 claims that 1 John 3:18-21 includes “subjective evidence” that sets, “our hearts at rest” in God’s presence when we question our standing before Him. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Hiawatha, IA: Parsons Technology, 1997].

40 John Stott, The Letters of John (TNTC), (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988, repr. 1999),

154-5. 41 The uselessness of the kind of subjective authentication in the “testimony” is illustrated

when Dr. Ramm writes: Because it is in the heart or spirit, it has been called a secret witness or an inner witness. It is common to all Christians but not to all men. It is inner and therefore not a datum available to psychologists or philosophers. There is a great objectivity here and

at the same time a real subjectivity. All Christians have sympathetic rapport with those fellow Christians who have the same witness in their hearts. Yet this witness can in no sense be made a public object. Therefore most philosophers and psychologists will

1 John 19

Spirit? By objective tests. This is precisely what the Apostle John was claiming

when he wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see

whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone

out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh

is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not

from God. (1 John 4:1-3)

For the Apostle, not even God the Holy Spirit was self-authenticating. And he did

not instruct us to authenticate divine revelation (whether from a prophet or

otherwise) through subjective feelings, but rather objective evidence, such as a

verbal confession of the Incarnation.

[14.15.E]

E) “Testing the Spirits”: 1 John 4:1

M. Blaine Smith relates yet another common proof text for mega mysticism when

he writes:

Another largely misunderstood verse is 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, do not believe

every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God." It's widely

held that the testing of spirits in this verse refers to judging personal feelings

as to whether they are divinely produced or not. In context, however, the

reference is to judging the doctrinal teachings of teachers who call themselves

Christian. 42

In addition, it is clear that John did not expect his readers to judge spirits by

some subjective flutter in their gut, but rather, gave them an objective test.

Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

Something as subjective as the mere claim of the presence of the Holy Spirit

cannot be the ground of certainty for a human. 43 How do we know that it is

always suspect its integrity, which need cause Christians no concern. If it is true that only the pure in heart can see God, then there is nothing more to say except that

spiritual realities must be spiritually discerned. (Witness, 52)

It may be noticed that we start with the same kind of subjective claims concerning the superiority of the Christian faith in chapter 2.2 when we point out that we have experienced regeneration and no one following other faiths has. If we would have left it at that, our argument would have had the same subjective weakness as Dr. Ramm’s description of the “testimony.” However, we followed our subjective claims with an attempt to prove them

with the objective evidence of virtue apologetics in chapters 2.3 and 2.4. Dr. Ramm seems to glory in the fact that he does not even attempt the same thing in his defense of the “testimony.”

42 M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God's Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (Intervarsity, 1991), 166-7.

43 The uselessness of the kind of subjective authentication in the “testimony” is illustrated

when Dr. Ramm writes: Because it is in the heart or spirit, it has been called a secret witness or an inner witness. It is common to all Christians but not to all men. It is inner and therefore not a datum available to psychologists or philosophers. There is a great objectivity here and at the same time a real subjectivity. All Christians have sympathetic rapport with those

fellow Christians who have the same witness in their hearts. Yet this witness can in no sense be made a public object. Therefore most philosophers and psychologists will always suspect its integrity, which need cause Christians no concern. If it is true that

1 John 20

the Holy Spirit? By objective tests. This is precisely what the Apostle John was

claiming when he wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see

whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone

out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh

is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not

from God. (1 John 4:1-3)

For the Apostle, not even God the Holy Spirit was self-authenticating. And he

did not instruct us to authenticate divine revelation (whether from a prophet or

otherwise) through subjective feelings, but rather objective evidence, such as a

verbal confession of the Incarnation. 44

1 John 4:12 [7.12.A]

What then is a source of divine revelation of the attributes of God apart from

Creation and Scripture? We are, by virtue of our new creation, when God in us is

controlling us. Our love and holiness is a revelation of God’s love and holiness, and

perhaps the most powerful revelation of these things available to human kind.

Accordingly, the Apostle John writes, “No one has ever seen God; but if we love

one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us” (1 John

4:12). Likewise, Jesus said he would “continue to make [the Father] known

[egnōrisa: “reveal”], the result for the disciples being “the love” that God the Father

has for God the Son “may be in them and that I Myself may be in them”

(17:26). The amazing implication here is that the very best revelation of God that

others can receive is the one in us as we allow Christ to control us. Accordingly, one

of our favorite NT scholars, John Stott, writes:

We are not to think of love only as constituting God's eternal being and as

historically manifested in the sending of his Son into the world. For God who is

love and has loved still loves, and today his love is seen in and through our

love. . . . It is significant that this is not the only occurrence in the Johanine

literature of the phrase No-one has ever seen God. It comes also (in almost

identical words) at the end of the Prologue to the Gospel (1:18). How then can

he be known?

In the Prologue to the Gospel John continues that 'God the only Son, who is

at the Father's side, has made him known' (cf. Col. 1:15). But here, to our

astonishment and confusion, John goes on to say that if we love each other,

God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. That is, the unseen God,

who once revealed himself in his Son, now reveals himself in his people if and

when they love one another. 45

only the pure in heart can see God, then there is nothing more to say except that spiritual realities must be spiritually discerned. (Witness, 52)

It may be noticed that we start with the same kind of subjective claims concerning the superiority of the Christian faith in chapter 2.2 when we point out that we have experienced

regeneration and no one following other faiths has. If we would have left it at that, our argument would have had the same subjective weakness as Dr. Ramm’s description of the “testimony.” However, we add to our subjective claims an attempt to prove them with the objective evidence of virtue apologetics in Book 5. Dr. Ramm seems to glory in the fact that he does not even attempt the same thing in his defense of the “testimony.”

44 Excerpt from section 3.4.C.4.

45 John Stott, The Letters of John (TNTC), rev. ed., (Eerdmans, 1988), 166-67.

1 John 21

This divine revelation of who God is comes through the operation of our New

Nature which produces the fruits of the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22-23) which are simply the

foremost attributes of God. It is by virtue of the indwelling Sprit

It is interesting to think a moment about how we ourselves have come to a

confidence that God loves us? Of course we have the revelation of this in Scripture,

we have the experience of our regeneration, and perhaps the evidence of miraculous

interventions in our life. But perhaps nothing teaches us the love of God more than

experiencing it through flesh and blood people. Accordingly, we have probably

learned more about God’s love for us through the New Nature of others than any

other divine revelation. Which is one more reason why fellowship is so important to

the Christian’s life. How better do we learn the grace and forgiveness of God then

when someone personally treats us in this way. Remarkably, because we possess

the New Nature, we can be God to others, revealing to them what He is like.

1 John 4:13 [3.6.B.1]

Another verse that could be misinterpreted on this topic is 1 John 4:13 where we

read, “We know that we live in Him and He in us, because He has given us of

His Spirit.” Again, we would insist that in the context, the Apostle points to

objective evidence in our lives for proof that “He has given us of His Spirit.”

Again, Dr. Stott writes:

This, then, is the sequence of thought [in 1 John 4:12-16]: we know that we

live in God and God in us 'because he has given us of his Spirit' (13), and we

know he has given us of his Spirit because we have come to 'acknowledge that

Jesus is the Son of God' (15), and to live 'in love' (16). 46

1 John 5:6-11 [3.6.B.1]

Finally, some have derived a subjective, mystical operation of the Spirit from the

following as well: 47

This is the One Who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come

by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit Who testifies, because

46 Ibid., 168-9. 47 For example, William Craig writes concerning this passage:

In fact, in a remarkable passage, John actually appears to compare the degree of certainty generated by the inner witness of the Spirit with that furnished by the

historical testimony of the ministry of Jesus. . . . The "water and the blood" in this passage probably refer to the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus as marking the beginning and end of his earthly ministry, and "man's testimony" to the apostolic witness to the events of that ministry.' John, who in his gospel lays such weight on the apostolic

testimony to the signs of Jesus' ministry in order "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31), now says that the testimony of the Spirit is even

greater than the apostolic testimony. As Christian believers we have the testimony of God living within us, assuring us of the veracity of our faith. Although John is eager to present evidences for the truth of Christ's claims, it is apparent that he does not consider such evidence necessary for knowledge of those claims. (Craig, 32)

We would suggest that Dr. Craig is right in saying that the testimony of “water and blood” concerning Christ point to objective, historical evidences. However, he is wrong to assert

that the accompanying testimony of the “Spirit” is subjective, mystical, and even more assuring than physical, historical, objective evidence.

1 John 22

the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and

the blood; and the three are in agreement.

We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the

testimony of God, which He has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the

Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God

has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God

has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal

life, and this life is in His Son. (1 John 5:6-11)

First, we should notice that “the testimony God has given about His Son” (v. 10)

is that “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son” (v. 11). Therefore,

“the testimony” relates to our assurance of salvation.

How is this communicated and authenticated? The Apostle says, “there are three

that testify” to this: “the Spirit, the water and the blood” (vs. 7-8). What do these

mean?

While there are various interpretations as to what the Apostle meant by the

“water and blood,” we agree with Dr. Stott who remarks:

We need . . . to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and

blood both historical experiences ‘through’ which he passed and witnesses in

some sense to his divine-human person.” 48

We would suggest that John’s statement that Christ, “came by water and

blood” is a reference to his physical birth which occurs with a great deal of both.

Accordingly, Jesus Himself referred to natural birth as being “born of water” (John

3:15 49). Christ’s “natural” birth would testify to his humanity, and precisely against

what the false teachers that John was concerned about were denying: The

incarnation of God. It was this “testimony” or historical evidence of Christ’s

humanity through being physically born “by water and blood” that is in the “heart”

of the believer (v. 10). Remembering that the biblical concept of “heart” is virtually

synonymous with the cognitive reasoning functions that produce our beliefs, desires,

and decisions, we recognize that the Apostle is stressing objective evidence for our

faith.

While the testimony of coming to Earth “by water and blood” clearly proved

Christ’s humanity, the testimony of the Spirit working through Him and even raising

Him from the dead proved His deity. There is no need here to find some obscure,

mystical testimony of the Spirit to Who Christ was. The Apostle himself had

emphasized in His Gospel that the Spirit-empowered miracles of Christ had provided

such testimony:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples,

which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you

may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by

48 Ibid., 180. (See Stott, John, 46-7).

49 Some contend that when Christ says “born of water,” (John 3:5) He means Christian

water baptism. And then they conclude that water baptism is essential to being “born again.” However, although water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are at times

mentioned together (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:5; Rom 6:1-11), Christ makes it clear that He is speaking of a person’s physical birth as a baby, not water baptism.

His statement that “Flesh gives birth to flesh” in verse 6 is synonymous with being “born of water” in verse 5, just as the “Spirit giv(ing) birth to the spirit” is synonymous with being “born of . . . the Spirit.” So the meaning of being “born of water” is defined by the meaning of the statement, “Flesh gives birth to flesh.” And the clearest understanding of that is that Christ is talking about a person’s physical birth.

This interpretation is strengthened by Nicodemus’s statement that a person, “cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” All Christ is saying is that

only people who are physically created by God and then spiritually born again by the Spirit of God, will be saved.

1 John 23

believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31; cf. 10:24-26,

38; 14:11; 15:24; Acts 2:22)

The ultimate testimony of the Spirit to the deity of Christ and His exclusive claim

to saviorhood was Christ’s resurrection by the Spirit witnessed by the Apostles, not

some immediate revelation of the Spirit to the individual human heart. (cf. Acts

5:30-32; 17:31; Rom 8:11; 1 Pet 3:18). 50

50 For further discussion of the Holy Spirit’s objective testimony of authenticating Christ see

sections 3.1.C and 6.14.B. Some will suggest the 1 John 2:20-27 is biblical support for a

subjective “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation. This passage is dealt with in section 14.15.B.