Is 1st John comfort for scared Christians or just scary?
How Jonathan Edwards shot us in the foot
I wrote this about 10 years ago in the process of a spiritual migration out of the evangelical church, finally ending up in the Confessional Lutheran Church, where I happily remain to this day. At the time, like many things in my twenties, my own personal crisis seemed like the crisis facing American Christianity. But by the time I wrote this, it became clear that American Christianity wasn’t trending towards a New England Puritan hysteria but rather, like lemmings off a cliff, out of faith itself.
Today, I think Christians could use a little more religious introspection and fretting over keeping God’s law. Jonathan Edwards had devastating theology but we all need to fear with Charles Wesley, “the judge with glory crowned and the flaming skies”. Caveats aside, I think my critique and evaluation of 1st John stands for those Christians in the search for assurance of salvation. But now I would have saved a few paragraphs at the end and talked more about the sacraments.
This is almost blasphemous to say in American Evangelicalism, but I'm not a huge fan of Jonathan Edwards or the puritans. Don't get me wrong, Edwards is certainly an immense genius. However, George Marsden's biography of Edwards reveals an interesting and troubling facet of his spirituality: he wasn't sure if he was saved. The puritans of Edward's day (like many earnest Christians today) were very concerned about 'false conversion'. To combat this they constructed an elaborate criteria to determine true regeneration. This concept of proving regeneration is an idea that Edward's embraced uncritically and it apparently caused him no shortage of anxiety.
Edward's 65 Resolutions are often hailed as a landmark of Christian piety. What never seems to emerge in the promotion of these Resolutions is that Edwards wrote them in fits of doubt about his salvation and that after he wrote them, he was unable to meet the criteria that he set for himself. With the Resolutions, Edwards was trying to amass evidence that Hellfire didn't await him when he died, and the evidence was always inconclusive.
Make no mistake, none of us will ever reach Edward's theological heights, or match his strict piety. However Edward's doubt of his own salvation should make us question if he is an ideal role model or if we should unhesitatingly accept his criteria for determining true regeneration. After all, if Jonathan Edwards, puritan genius, can't be sure that he's saved, what hope do we have?
The danger that I see with unflinchingly adopting Edward's criteria is that many pastors are crushing those with weak, fearing hearts--the very people that most need the Gospel. Perhaps these weak hearts heard the good news that God justifies sinners through faith, apart from the law, through the work of his Son on their behalf. These weak hearts hear the Gospel, they despair of all their works, and joyfully trust in the work of Christ. However they quickly discover that sin is still embedded in their heart, the same as it was before they believed. /Does this mean that I'm not a Christian?/ they wonder. Here Edwards replies, "Maybe. Here's a set of criteria to check to see if you're really saved." They look over the list (it's a long one) and their heart sinks. By this standard, they're definitely not saved. What's more it looks like it might take decades of consistent spiritual effort to reach any kind of certainty. "I thought that we didn't have to do anything to be saved, only trust in Christ," they say. The reply is: "Ah yes, but you can only know that you've /truly/ trusted in Christ by meeting this criteria." Now where salvation was initially joyful and liberating, the Christian life is anxious and despairing. These weak hearts looked to Christ for their salvation only to be pointed back into the bottomless pit of their soul to search for some hope that they are truly saved. To quote Michael Horton: "[Some puritan ministers], aiming at separating the sheep from the goats, tortured consciences as mercilessly as any medieval priest or Anabaptist perfectionist."
Edwards (and the puritans) say that we are justified by Christ alone and yet demand evidence for that justification outside of Christ. Where the Biblical standard of human holiness is The Law and The Law alone, the puritan standard is a labyrinth of navel gazing that leaves the Christian even more condemned except this time there is no Christ to fulfill this law and bear the punishment for our failure. Make no mistake, Christ only promises to save complete sinners, guilty of breaking the whole law; Christ doesn't promise anything to those who don't bear marks of regeneration or who fail to have Christian affections.
I grew up in this maze. Sure, I was saved by faith but I was often reminded that I needed to authenticate my faith by works. This left me desperate to see real progress in holiness somewhere in my life but the Law always put it so far out of my reach that I could only live in alternating states of pharisaic denial ("at least I'm doing better than all of my friends") and despair ("I'm a hypocrite and probably going to Hell"). It was only when Paul by way of Luther yanked me out of the puritan maze and stapled me to the foot of the cross that I could taste the real fruit of regeneration. We should reject any teaching that takes our eyes from Christ and makes us look for signs of hope outside of Christ. We should be extremely suspicious if the teaching points us back to ourselves.
So I've made my little case for rejecting Edward's tests of true conversion. I think Paul and Peter are on my side. But my brothers who insist on these tests of conversion never use Paul or Peter to make their case; it's always John. 1st John is the repeated reference point for constructing this conversion test. It seems that if we want to stop looking at ourselves for proof of salvation, we need to grapple with the Apostle John. So I'm going to briefly engage with 1st John and see if it will send me back to Edwards with a note of apology.
Why is John writing the letter?
First off, this Epistle, like much of John's writing, is rather confusing. John is something of a 'stream of consciousness' apostle and sometimes seems to be writing poetry rather than delivering a linear thought. However, he states his purpose at the conclusion of the Epistle:
> "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" (1 John 5:13)
Right off the bat, it strikes me as curious that so many Christians under the influence of the puritans, interpret this letter as delivering a series of tests for confessing Christians to understand if they truly have eternal life. John does not say, "These things I have written so that you may know *if* you have eternal life". No, he says "*that* you have eternal life." They already have it. Nor does he say, "These things I have written to you who pass these tests…". No, he says, "These things I have written to you who *believe* in the name of the Son of God." He is certain that his audience possesses eternal life because they believe in the Son of God. He is writing them, not to give them a criteria so they can make their faith certain, but to tell them their faith is certain and their hope is sure.
This is the setting: A small church, in the twilight of the apostles, is being persecuted from without, and attacked from within. Powerful, charismatic teachers appear, belittling this church's faith, claiming that they've misunderstood Jesus, that the apostles were wrong. They are amazing orators, combining popular Greek philosophy with teachings about Jesus. They make the church feel small and foolish. In this context the last living apostle writes to his flock. John does not write to test them, but to tell them that, in Christ, they have already passed the test.
Why does it seem to contradict itself?
I confess that I recently read through 1st John and I finished completely confused. John seemed to be deliberately contradicting himself, sometimes in the same sentence. Like I said before this is not a linear book but was John being deliberately opaque? Clearly I was missing something.
However, I was pretty sure that puritans were wrong to try to make 1st John into a slam-dunk test for assurance. For example: "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him." (1 John:6) If John, as one pastor says, is delivering 'a series of tests to determine whether you possess eternal life' then we have a big problem. Even the most optimistic puritan admits that sin is still a reality after conversion but according to the "John-Test" if we sin /at all/ it's proof that we we never knew him. There are many more instances like this where John seems to be setting the bar impossibly high, leaving one to wonder how on earth is this supposed to be /encouraging/? If these are the tests then me and everyone I know is Hell-bound. This appears to be the most damning Epistle ever written.
Here's where we all need to take a deep breath and back away from the ledge. John wants to encourage these Christians, not destroy them. Clearly, I was missing something key. On a second and third read a clear pattern emerged.
How should we read 1st John?
The key to understanding 1st John is to pay careful attention to who he's addressing. When John uses the language of "we" and "Little Children" the letter explodes with grace and promise. Whenever he switches his target to "those who" and "the one who", the letter becomes damning. Let me elaborate:
There is one audience for 1st John, those "who believe in the name of the Son of God". They are sinful yet "cleansed from all unrighteousness". They have an "Advocate with Father". They have "propitiation for sins". Their "sins are forgiven for his name's sake". They "know Him who has been from the beginning". They have "overcome the evil one". They are "strong and the word of God abides" in them. They have no need for anyone to teach them. They know the truth. The love of the Father is "lavished on them". They are called the Children of God and that is what they are. They have eternal life. Every blessing is poured out on them in Christ.
But there is another group that John addresses in this Epistle. "Those who are trying to deceive…", "Antichrists". How do we identify when John is speaking about these deceivers? Watch whenever the language switches from inclusive to those who are outside, then John's tone changes. When John speaks of those outside of Christ, he says: "The one who hates his brother is the darkness and walks in the darkness." These deceivers have "blinded eyes". These supposedly sinless ones are in fact deceiving themselves and the truth of God is not in them. They are "lawless". They "practice sin". They are murderers like Cain. They are from the world. They have the spirit of error. They cannot love God. How can we know who these deceivers are? John tells us: "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)
For John there are only two different people: those who confess Christ and those who deny Christ; those who abide in Christ and those who are outside Christ; those loved by the Father and those condemned by the Father. To John those outside Christ are obvious. They fail to confess Christ and therefore they fail every test. Those inside of Christ are equally obvious. They confess Christ and therefore they pass every test.
So does 1st John contain a series of tests? I'm not sure that 'tests' is the best word. I think 'proofs' is more appropriate. 1st John contains numerous proofs of the condemnation of those who deny Christ. This is key to understanding 1st John as a comforting book. It reiterates all the promises of Christ to the scared Christian and it proclaims all the curses of Hell to the confident deceiver. It is a book to assure the Christian and to damn the antichrist.
Who are some modern day examples of antichrists? John Shelby Spong springs to mind, the Episcopalian Bishop who eloquently dismisses the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. A simple Christian might be intimidated by Spong's charisma, his intellectual gravitas, they may feel foolish hearing his smug arguments against their faith in Christ. They may wonder if their faith is misplaced and if they have misunderstood the Bible all along. Here the Apostle John appears to confidently reassure them in one breath and break Spong's spell in the next. The Apostle reveals Spong as the warped, hateful, ignorant man he truly is. Spong, says the Apostle, has lost. He can't teach the Christian a single thing because he's trapped in darkness and captive to the spirit of error. The Christian knows everything because the Spirit of Truth has revealed everything to them. The Christian has won.
Another antichrist might be the Jehovah's Witness who appears on the Christian's doorstep. Twisting the scripture, they attempt to undermine the faith of the simple Christian. Outwardly they appear pious and zealous. They befuddle unprepared Christians with seemingly scriptural arguments, claiming that Jesus is not God. Again, the Apostle comes to the Christian's aid. Don't be fooled by their pious outward appearance, he warns, they are sinful. "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning." Throw this in the face of the JWs. Ask them if they have sinned even once and when they admit to it, tell them they're from the devil. When they say "then who can be saved?" tell them "You certainly can't. You've denied the Son and set yourself against the Father. You have no advocate, no mediator, and Hell awaits you. You hate God's beloved church and are trying to pull his elect back into the darkness where you live. There is no hope for you. I am a Christian and my hope is made certain in Christ, the Son of God."
This is how we must read 1st John. For the weakest, most fearful child in Christ, it is full of promise, assurance, and victory. For those who set themselves against Christ, it is full of damnation and terror.
Are there any warnings for us?
Returning again to the puritans who would use 1st John as a standard for true conversion, we should ask ourselves is there any standard to be found here? Are there any warnings for us who believe in Christ? Yes, but they aren't the proofs of damnation that belong to those outside of Christ.
John, like every true apostle, is writing so that we will put our faith in Christ. He reminds us of every promise we have in God's Son. But he also warns of the fate of those who would persecute the church and deny the Son of God. Here are some questions for anyone reading John's letter:
Do you doubt Christ's person and work and do you enjoy confounding simple Christians with clever arguments to prove your superiority and their foolishness in fully trusting Christ?
Do you sow fear and doubt among Christians, subtly making them wonder if Christ is really enough to save them?
Do you boldly and publicly question Christ's godhood?
Do you deny God's law, claiming that your sin is not sinful?
Do you find hope in worldly philosophies more than the promises found in Christ?
Do you claim to hate Christians, especially the weak and foolish ones, and yet somehow love Christ?
Do you exploit the Gospel to take advantage of your neighbor?
To one who answers yes to any or all of these questions, John's letter should be terrifying. It should feel like a punch in the gut. Hell awaits them. Their only hope is flee to Christ and throw themselves on his mercy and cling, with the Christians they hated, to the forgiveness found at the cross.
Is it real?
In his pamphlet "Is it Real?" John Macarthur, under the influence of Jonathan Edwards, lists 12 tests from 1st John for determining if you have true faith ranging from "Do You See a Decreasing Pattern of Sin in Your Life?" to "Have You Suffered Rejection Because of Your Faith?". He says "If you don't pass these tests, you'll know where you stand and what you need to do. If you do, you'll have reason to enjoy your eternal salvation with great assurance." I think Macarthur's interpretation here of 1st John is fundamentally flawed and condemns the scared Christian and kills comfort.
Our job as Christians ministers and lay people is to condemn sinful humanity through the law and point to Christ and his work. This will bear fruit in all who believe but it will never look the same. Some who appear to be the most pious, deserving of all assurance, may indeed be Hell-bound. Other's who appear to be wallowing in sin and completely unregenerate may be beloved by God and washed of all unrighteousness. Any criteria we construct outside of God's Law and Gospel to determine true conversion will, ironically, only create legions of false converts (who have finally found a law they can keep) and condemn God's true elect (who despair of keeping any law). Only God knows the hearts of his church and only he can separate the sheep from the goats. This is not our job.
God gives us no promise of his favor outside of Christ and his promises to us. Assurance of God's love cannot come from anything inside of us. Any time we look away from God's Word to ourselves for some hope, we only find mounds of evidence for our damnation. We will never progress enough, love enough, repent enough, weep enough, obey enough, sanctify enough to warrant any sort of hope that we may be saved. God's law stands in fierce opposition to such hope. Only by placing all hope in Christ--by betting everything on his finished work and holiness and despairing of our own--can we have true assurance. To have assurance is to say that we have no true Christian affections and hope all the more in Christ.
So is it Real? Is what real? My faith? Probably not. But that's not the question the apostle wants us to ask. Is Christ real is the ultimate question. Is his blood real blood, is his body real flesh? Is he really the Son of the Father? Is his death a real death, sufficient to pay for my very real sins? Is his life real life? Is his victory real victory? Is his love real love? Yes? You pass the test. Well done, good and faithful servant.