blessed reflects the words of Jesus himself in John 13:17 ('If you know these things')
Christ" (Houston: Thieme Bible Ministries, 1990), 10-12. Published in Spanish as "A Matter of Life or Death: The Gospel of Jesus Christ [sic]" (Houston: Biblical Ministry of R. B. Thieme, Jr., 1993).
3.By emphasizing the words 'inner conviction' and underlining them with the phrase "That (and only that)," Hodges is explicitly rejecting the concept. that faith inevitably produces just behavior. In contrast, the Reformers had a saying: 'Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves never.' she is alone.
4.Probably as a reaction to the justification by the works of the law, a fallacy had arisen among the Jewish Christians suggesting that faith in Christ existing as an inactive principle or merely a belief speculative would be enough without the works. Santiago shows the impossible of similar position." Arthur Carr, "The General Epistle of St. James", Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 35.
5.Roy L. Aldrich, "Some Simple Difficulties of Salvation", Bibliotheca Sacra111/442 (April - June 1954), 167.
6.Robert Johnstone, Lectures, Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of James (reimpr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), 144.
7.Donald W. Burdick, 'James', in The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 11:175.
8.D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 13536.
9.There.
10.Burdick, "James", 176
11. The declaration of Santiago that the maker of the Word will be blessed reflects the words of Jesus himself in John 13:17 ('If you know these things') things, blessed are those who do them") and in Luke 11:28 ("Rather, Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. the 'blessedness' that these verses speak of is the right to birth of all the redeemed.
12.Simon J. Kistemaker, Commentary on the New Testament: Exposition of Santiago and the Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Desafío, 2007), 84.
13.Bo Reicke, 'The Epistles of James, Peter and John', The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 37:32.
14.C. E. B. Cranfield, 'The Message of James', The Scottish Journal of Theology 18/3 (September 1965), 338.
15.Charles C. Ryrie, ed., Ryrie Study Bible - Reina-Valera Version 1960 (Grand Rapids, MI: Portavoz, 1991), 1743.
16.Hiebert, The Epistle of James, 182-85; see also Zane C. Hodges, Light on James Two, Bibliotheca Sacra 120/480 (October-December) 1963), 341-50.
17.Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 13:50.
18.'You do well' is certainly an irony, because to It continues: 'Even the demons believe and tremble.' The verb tremblor note a terror that makes one's hair stand on end. This falls like thunder because a representation of faith has never been presented before a death as shocking as this. Yes, even demons have faith. Will it tell them Is this 'person' enough? Will it suggest that demons are saved by his faith, that the Christian to whom he says 'You have professed your faith' does not need a faith better?" R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 585.
19.Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (London: Nisbet, 1874), 17:113-14.
20.Hiebert, The Epistle of James, 188.
21.These verses are studied in detail in John MacArthur, Jr. True Faith (Chicago, Moody, 1989), 123-31.
22.John Calvin, Instituting the Christian Religion, trans. Cipriano de Valera (Rijswijk: Foundation for Reformed Literature, 1999), II:636.
23.Alexander Ross, "The Epistles of James and John", The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1954), 53.
24.Hiebert, The Epistle of James, 175.
25.It is worth noting that Zane Hodges has published a brochure about Santiago 2 challenges more than four centuries of Protestant scholarship. As recognizes that their perspectives are unusual, suggests that all the conventional interpretations of Santiago 2 are fundamentally mistaken and proposes to correct them in a thirty-two-page treaty. Hodges writes: "Not only is there no commonly accepted interpretation accepted from Santiago 2:14-26 in the Protestantism after the Reformation, but in fact all the most important ways to read this text are wrong. And not only wrong, but very wrong. So these perspectives are incorrect that if Santiago himself were to hear them, he would would surprise and horrify!" Zane D. Hodges, Dead Faith: What Is It? (Dallas: Living Redemption, 1987), 7 (emphasis in the original). Another professor Evaluate Hodges' statements with skepticism: 'Perhaps one of the most intriguing (and puzzling) characteristics of the book by Zane C. Hodges... as far as I know, there has never been another interpreter in all of history. from the church that supports the interpretation of the passages that he considers. That it does not necessarily mean that Hodges is wrong, but certainly it means that it probably is, and it probably means that it hasn't. reflected with sufficient seriousness on the series of connected fallacies with [insert personal assumptions into the biblical text]. D. A. Carson,Exegetical Fallacies(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 137. I mention Professor Hodges' brochure because his voice has a lot of influence among those convinced by the position of the denial of lordship. I have responded to him in the article "Faith According to the Apostle James". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 33/1 (March 1990), 13-34. Much of this chapter has been adapted from that article.
Chapter 10
A PREVIEW OF GLORY
Believers cannot lose the habits, the seeds, or the root of grace, but Yes, security, which is beauty and fragrance, the crown and glory of this (1 Jn. 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:5). These two lovers, grace and security, are not the sufficiently united by God to not be able to separate due to the sin on our part or justice on God's part. If these two lovers, the grace and security remain together, the soul will receive two heavens: one of joy and peace here and one of happiness and bliss beyond. The separation of these two lovers, however, will place the soul in hell here, even if it escapes from he further on. This was well known to Chrysostom, who declared that the desire of the God's pleasure would be for him a much worse hell than the feeling of any. punishment.
1 THOMASBROOKS
Is it possible to have complete assurance of our salvation? Can one
Cristiano rests in the firm and established confidence that he is redeemed and what awaits eternity in heaven?
The Bible responds with a resounding yes, for it not only teaches that the security is possible for the Christian life, but the apostle Peter gave Moreover, this mandate: "Therefore, brothers, strive even more diligently make your calling and election sure" (2 Pet. 1:10). Security is not not only a privilege but also a birthright and the sacred trust of every true child of God. We are commanded to cultivate it. security, do not take it for granted.
True security is a glimpse of heaven on earth, a truth that Fanny Crosby expressed in a well-known hymn:
Grateful certainty; I am of Jesus! Made heir of eternal health.
The Puritan Thomas Brooks observed the same reality and titled his book
about security Heaven on Earth. authentic security is to experience a bit of divine bliss on this side of sky, that is why the greater our feeling of this, we will savor that glory in our earthly life.
Critics often argue that lordship salvation considers that personal security is impossible, something that is not true, but the controversy of lordship certainly has serious implications regarding the topic of the security, which has become one of the main points of discussion. Although I barely touched on the topic in my previous book , the dialogue 2 later seemed to converge inevitably on the question of whether Christians they can be sure that they are in the faith and, if so, how they could do it.
I am convinced that it is good for the discussion to go in that direction. courses, as in contemporary Christianity it is common that the security is ignored or claimed by people who have no right to it She. There are too many who believe they are saved just because someone they told them that they were, but they do not examine them personally, they do not test their security according to the Word of God. They are taught that doubts about their salvation will only be detrimental to their spiritual health and growth, although many of them show no evidence of health or spiritual growth.
Security in the Reform
Once again, the modern controversy of lordship touches on a topic that was in the heart of the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church denied (and denies until this day) that any person on this earth can count with the assurance of your salvation. Like the theology of the Catholic Church considers salvation as a joint effort between God and the sinner, the the outcome must remain in doubt until the end; if the person fails Spiritually, before salvation is complete, one loses eternal life. Since no one can know for sure if they will have the strength to persevere until the end, in reality no one can be sure of heaven . 3 The reformers, on the contrary, taught believers that they can and They should have complete assurance of their salvation. The first Reformers even went so far as to define faith in a way that included the
security. Calvin's definition, which is often quoted, says: 'It is a firm and certain knowledge of God's will concerning us, founded on the truth of the free promise made in Jesus Christ, revealed to our understanding and sealed in our heart by the Holy Spirit . 4 Calvino emphasized faith as knowledge, in contrast with the idea of the Catholic scholars that faith is a naive trust antithetical to knowledge, hence the inclusion of the concept of security in his definition of faith.
In other words, Calvin taught that security is part of the essence faith, which means that as soon as a person trusts in Christ for receiving salvation will have some sense of security. As we have pointed out In chapter 3, Hebrews 11:1 says, 'Faith is the substance of things that are hoped for.' They expect the verification of the facts that are not seen, therefore from The Scriptures seem clear that there is a measure of security inherent in believing.
Many times, however, the certainty of faith is overshadowed by doubt. Calvino also acknowledged that this can coexist with conviction. truthful when writing the following: "When we teach that faith has if it were true and certain, we cannot imagine a certainty that is not tempted by no doubt, nor do we conceive a kind of security sheltered de toda inquietud; antes bien, afirmamos que los fieles han de sostener una uninterrupted struggle against the self-doubt they feel. So we are far from supposing his conscience in perfect tranquility never "untroubled by storms of any kind!" . 5 The Bible is clearly on Calvin's side. Although some certainty it belongs to the essence of faith, the act of believing is not accompanied necessarily of a complete security. "I believe! Help my "Unbelief!" (Mark 9:24) is the sincere expression of the heart of everyone. new believer. Even the Apostles cried out to Jesus: 'Increase our faith' (Luke 17:5)
Later Reformed theologians, recognizing that the true Christians often lack security, they denied that it existed. implicit security some when believing, a point at which they were at disagreement with Calvin, who in his arguments against Rome I sought to emphasize the possibility of immediate security. The later reformers, when facing antinomian tendencies within their own movement, they wanted to emphasize the importance of the
practical evidence in the lives of believers.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith (drafted in 1646), which he differentiated between faith and security, the following was included:
[Chapter 18] Section III. This infallible security does not correspond completely to the essence of faith, but a true believer can wait a long time and struggle with many difficulties before being a participant in such security; (1) however, being empowered by the Holy Spirit to know the things that are freely given to him by God, he can reach them without a extraordinary revelation through the correct use of ordinary means; (2) and by it is the duty of each one to be diligent to ensure their calling and election (emphasis added).
In other words, the Confession taught that security is something different. to faith, so that someone can become an authentic believer, but without being sure of their salvation. For the scholars of Westminster, the security was possible (and even highly desirable) but not automatic, they believed that some Christians needed to 'wait a long time' and to struggle with God before he granted them safety, an opinion shared by most of the Puritans (English reformers of the century) XVII).
So, on one hand, Calvin tended to lay the foundations for a security completely objective, encouraging believers to consider the promises from the Scriptures in order to obtain a sense of personal security; but for Another, the Puritans tended to emphasize subjective means to establish the safety, advising people to examine their lives and behaviors in search of evidence of his election . 6 In fact, some Puritans took their teachings on security to ... impossible extremes. They tended to mystify the matter, implying that the security was something that God grants supernaturally in His time and in special measures to the chosen saints, almost like a celestial vision with that one could be reached, or a new work of grace. Most The Puritans taught that believers could not expect to experience the safety until a long time after the conversion, and only after a life of continued fidelity they tended to consider that the 7 security depended on the believer's ability to live at a level practically unattainable personal holiness. Although the reading of his the works have been extremely beneficial for me, many times I ask myself
how many of them were able to live according to their own demands.
As expected, the demanding preaching of the Puritans led to a widespread security gap among their flocks: for Christians, I was so obsessed with knowing if they were truly among the chosen ones that many fell into a morbid introspection and a deep despair. That explains why much of Puritan literature was written for people who had issues with this security matter.
Security nowadays, on the other hand, very rarely turns out to be a problem. Among those who identify as Christians, few are those who seem to lack security, because evangelistic preaching many Sometimes it is empty of any call to holiness. The evangelists and advisors they generally seek to dismiss doubts about salvation by asserting that make no sense or teaching the converts to see everything as a enemy attack.
Preachers are so afraid of shaking someone's confidence that They seem to forget that false security is a more serious problem than it is. to have it in absolute (cf. Mat. 7:21-23).
Surely there is a middle ground. The Scriptures encourage believers. true with the promise of complete security, making the same uncomfortable time to the false professing and seeking to destroy their false sense of security. The sense of security of a true believer will not increase and it will decrease with emotions as security has to be an anchor even in amid the difficulties of life, but a false practitioner has no right to security. Aren't these two emphases something that our preaching should Reflect? Can we regain a biblical understanding of security?
We must do it, as this is where the debate about lordship almost touches. all Christians at the most practical level. If we confuse the matter of the we will have security, on one hand, crowds whose spiritual lives are they will see paralyzed by doubt and, on the other hand, crowds waiting to be received in heaven but will one day be broken when they hear from the Lord says: "I have never known you. Depart from me, workers of evil!" (Matt. 7:23).
Is security objective or subjective?
The difference between Calvin and the Puritans raises a question that points to
at the heart of the debate about lordship: Should Christians seek the security clinging only to the objective promises of the Bible or else through the subjective self-examination? If we choose only the promises objectives, those who profess faith in Christ while denying Him with their works (cf. Titus 1:16) they may claim a security to which they have no right, but if we say that security can only be achieved through self-examination subjective we turn security into something practically impossible and the we transform it into a completely mystical matter.
The defenders of the subjective perspective will point out that the Bible invites clearly to the self-examination, as we are ordered to examine ourselves regularly, at least as often as when we participate in the Dinner of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:28). Paul also presents this challenge to the church in Corinthians: "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith;" Test yourselves. Or do you not know concerning yourselves that "Christ is in you, unless indeed you are disqualified?" (2 Cor. 13:5). Evidently, Pablo is addressing the issue of security here, given that the Corinthians had to examine themselves to see if they were 'standing firm' in the faith.
But, what kind of self-examination is Pablo asking for? What was the 'test'? What did the Corinthians have to approve? Was the apostle advising them that Will they look inside themselves and base their security on their own kindness? Will the I was challenging myself to look back and remember some moment of faith in which could they fix their hope? Or was he suggesting that they should consider his works and have confidence in his spiritual achievements?
None of these suggestions adequately address the issue. works in themselves cannot guarantee true security, just as not they can be the basis for eternal salvation, because in the end, works externals can be done even by non-Christians. On the other hand, how we have seen, even the most spiritual Christians discover sins when they look inside, so no one's work measures up to the patterns of perfection of God. In this regard, the teachers of the denial of lordship are right: those who only look at their interior to establish your security the only thing they will be securing will be a life characterized by frustration. Security cannot be reached by many works that are done, so that if we had to to base our security solely on something within us or in our
experience, our trust would be resting on some foundations inadequate This perspective of security is too subjective. 8 However, the teaching of the denial of lordship offers this alternative:
God's promises are enough for our security. Although our Works can have value for confirmation, but they are not essential for safety. Everything A believer can be a hundred percent sure of their salvation just by looking at the... promises that the Word of God has for the believer.
One can have firm assurance of salvation and still walk in sin, the which, despite being something horrible, does not necessarily weaken security. The sin only would be able to weaken security if it caused the person
he will turn his eyes away from the promises of God . 9
So, according to the teachings of the denial of lordship, while a person clings to the objective promises of the Word of God, for much that a little won't endanger your safety. Someone who decides "to walk in sin" can be done with the complete assurance of your faith . 10 However, that extreme cannot be upheld either in practice or biblically. Hebrews 10:22 specifically says that to possess the 'full certainty of faith" we must have "purified hearts from evil "consciousness." 2 Peter 1:5-10 lists several essential virtues for salvation: faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, devotion, fraternal affection and love. "He who does not have these things is blind and he has short sight, having forgotten the purification of his sins past (v. 9, emphasis added).
Those who "walk in sin" may be convinced in their minds that his salvation is secure, but unless his heart and conscience are tremendously hardened will have to admit that sin spoils your security. The perspective of the denial of lordship regarding security too objective.
What are the biblical foundations of security?
The Bible suggests that a well-founded security has both a objective foundation as a subjective one the goal is the completed work 11
through Christ in our favor, including the biblical promises that are yes and Amen in Him (2 Cor. 1:20), while the subjective is the progressive work of Holy Spirit in our lives, including His work of conviction and
sanctification. Romans 15:4 mentions both aspects of security: For what was written previously was written for our instruction to end of what, due to perseverance [subjective] and the exhortation of the Scriptures [objective], let us have hope.
Both the objective basis of our security and the subjective one are applied by the Holy Spirit, who "bears witness together with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16).
The objective basis of our security includes justification by faith, promise that Christ will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5), the guarantee of our security in Christ (Rom. 8:38, 39) and all the truths objectives of the Word of God on which our faith rests. The foundation objective question: "Do you believe?" and if it is really like that, you can be sure that you are saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).
The subjective basis asks: 'Is your faith authentic?', just like Paul did. in 2 Corinthians 13:5.
Here we return to the question that arose earlier but has not yet we have responded: what kind of self-examination was Pablo asking for in that verse? We know that he was not suggesting that Christians could find security in themselves or in their works. What is then the test that we have to overcome?
Pablo had hinted at the answer seven chapters earlier in the same epistle, when writing in 2 Corinthians 3:18: "Therefore, we all, looking at unveiled like in a mirror the glory of the Lord, we are transformed from glory to glory in the same image, as by the Spirit of the Lord. When true Christians look at themselves in the mirror of the Word of God They should see the reflection of God's glory, although obviously this will be faint: "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12). However, this pale reflection of his glory is what constitutes the subjective basis of our security (not something inherent to our person).
Even Calvino recognized the subjective basis of security, although it would not be one of the most important points of his teaching. Although he emphasized that none of our works are meritorious, he said that good works of the believers with 'gifts from God, by which [the believers] recognize his kindness, and as signs of his vocation, which serve to remind them of his
election for it is the work of God in us, not our own achievements. In 12
In this same context, Calvino quotes a prayer of Augustine: 'I do not praise the... works of my hands, for I fear that when You, Lord, have looked at, you will find many more sins than merits. This is only what I say; this is what I ask for; this is what I desire: that you do not underestimate the works of your hands. Look, Lord, at your work in me, not mine. Because if you look at my obra, Tú la condenas; mas si miras la tuya, Tú la condenas. Porque todas How many good works I have, they are yours, they proceed from you (Augustine in Conversations about the Psalms, Ps. CXXXVII, 18) . 13 If we are true believers, what we will see in the mirror is the glory of God, although it will be a pale reflection of it. This is the test that Paul he presented to the Corinthians: Can you see the glory of God reflected in you, even if it's darkly? "Examine yourselves to see if you are firm in the faith; test yourselves. Or do you not know about you yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are already "reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5, emphasis added). The image of Christ in us. it provides the subjective foundation for our security. In other words, Christ in you is the hope of glory (cf. Col. 1:27).
Just so you know...
The epistles of the New Testament are full of sufficient material about from safety to fill a good number of comments, from there that in a book like this it is not possible to make a complete presentation about the New Testament doctrine of assurance. Even the first epistle of Juan, written to deal precisely with the issue of security, is so rich. in material that we cannot do justice to in these few pages, but I want to underline some key points of this appreciated epistle and its clear teaching on this topic, for surely no other passage from the Bible confronts more strongly the theology of the denial of lordship that this brief but powerful letter.
Juan's statement of purpose is very explicit in 1 John 5:13: I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that they may know that they have eternal life apostle expresses his intention: he is not trying to make the believers duden, but he wants them to have complete security. What has to
saying no will not shake genuine believers, although it will undoubtedly alarm those who have a false sense of security.
Notice that the apostle assumes faith in Christ as the foundational stone. certainly: "I have written to you who believe...". There is no place for introspection outside of faith in Christ, so everything that John says about security is predicated on faith in Christ and on the promises of the Scriptures . 14 Throughout the epistle, John maintains a careful balance between the objective and subjective foundations of security: objective evidence it constitutes the doctrinal proof and subjective evidence is not proof of works but rather a moral test. Juan moves back and forth between these two types of tests. These are the evidence that according to him will be present in everything authentic believer
True believers walk in the light
If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have communion with one another and the blood of His Son Jesus cleanses us "cleanses from all sin" (1 John 1:6, 7). In the Bible, light is used as a metaphor to represent truth, both intellectual and moral.
Psalm 119:105 says, 'Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.' "path" and verse 130 adds "The unfolding of your word gives light;" makes understanding of the naïve; Proverbs 6:23 says: 'For the Commandment is a lamp and instruction is light." These verses speak of the truth as something that can be known and obeyed, which is so much doctrinal and moral. The light of all truth is embodied in Christ, who He said: 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness.' but will have the light of life" (John 8:12).
Walking in darkness is the opposite of following Jesus, because all people without salvation they walk in darkness while Christians have been released and brought to light: "In another time they were darkness, now they are light in the Lord. 'Walk as children of light!' (Eph. 5:8); 'But you, brothers, do not "they are in darkness" (1 Thess. 5:4); "Walking in the light" means living in the kingdom of the truth. Thus, all true believers walk in the light, even when we sin, but when that happens 'the blood of His Son Jesus'
"cleanses" (1 Jn. 1:7). The verb tense here indicates that the blood of Christ cleanses us continually clean and that when we sin we have already been cleaned for may the darkness never hide the light in which we remain (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9).
"Walking in the light" describes a reality that is both positional and practical for the believer: trusting in Jesus Christ is walking in the light and walking in the light is giving pay attention to this and live according to it. So, in this first test the apostle points out both the objective foundation and the subjective one of the safety, so that to determine if we walk in the light besides the objective question "Do I believe?", we should also answer the question subjective 'Is my faith real?'.
True believers confess their sin
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all wickedness. But if If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. it is in us. My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. Jn. 1:8—2:1)
The word 'confess' (gr.homologeō) means 'to say the same', in such a way to 'confess our sins' refers to coming into agreement with God about them. Agreeing with God regarding one's own sins. it is a characteristic of every true Christian; it entails hating sin instead of loving him, recognize that we are sinners, but also that we have they are forgiven and we have an advocate before the Father (2:1).
Here it seems that the apostle is suggesting an objective test of the "Do you believe?" that is, "Do you agree with what God has said? about your sin?
The true security of salvation always goes hand in hand with the awareness of our own sinfulness and, in fact, the more secure we are of our salvation, the deeper the consciousness of our sin. John Owen wrote: "A man, then, can have a deep sense of sin all his days, walking continuously under that sense, to loathe oneself for their ingratitude, unbelief, and rebellion against God, without any discredit to their security This may seem paradoxical, 15
but it is the only thing that prevents Christians from falling into the most absolute desperation: we know that we are sinners, we agree on that. with God; it does not surprise us to discover sin in our lives, but of all we despise it in many ways; we know that we are forgiven and cleansed, and that Christ is our advocate. Far from using that knowledge to justify our sins, however, we see it as a motivation to mortify sin as much as possible: "I write these things to you so that you do not small (2:1, emphasis added).
True believers keep their commandments
In this we know that we have known Him: in that we keep His commandments. commandments. He who says, 'I know Him' and does not keep His commandments he is a liar and the truth is not in him" (2:3, 4); "In this we know that We love the children of God when we love God and keep His... commandments. For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (5:2, 3).
Here the apostle focuses on the subjective foundation of security, Well, it is prompting us to ask the question: 'Is my faith real?'. The way what we can be sure of knowing is if we keep its commandments, as it is a test of obedience. The Greek word translated as "to keep" in 2:3 and 4 reflects the idea of a zealous obedience and insightful, not something that is produced solely as a result of pressure. external. It is the yearning obedience of one who 'keeps' the commandments divine as if they were something valuable that must be protected.
In other words, it refers to an obedience motivated by love, something that verse 5 declares: 'But whoever keeps his word, in him' Truly the love of God has been perfected. For this we know that we are in it.
Those who profess to know God but despise His commandments are. liars (v. 4): "They profess to know God but deny Him by their deeds;" "they are abominable, disobedient, and reprobate unto every good work" (Titus) 1:16).
True believers love their brothers.
This test and the previous one are closely related: "In this..."
they reveal the children of God and the children of the devil: Everyone who does not practice Justice is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother" (1 Jn. 3:10); Whoever claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness. He who loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness; and does not know where for the darkness has blinded their eyes" (2:9-11); "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers. He who but love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him" (3:14, 15); "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments" (5:2).
The reason that these two tests have such a close relationship is that Love is the perfect fulfillment of the law: 'Owe nothing to anyone except loving one another, because the one who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the law Love for God and neighbor fulfills all moral law. 'Jesus said to him... He said: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with' all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is similar to him: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Of these two The commandments depend on all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).
The love for brothers in faith is a particularly evident sign. important for authentic faith, although the truth is that this love is not intrinsic to us nor something that springs from our own goodness: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God. And everyone who loves has born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7, emphasis added). The love that is evidence of true faith is the love of God, which is being perfected in us: "If we love one another, God remains in we and His love has been perfected in us" (4:12). Once again, it is a pale reflection of the glory of God in us that provides the foundation subjective to our security.
True believers proclaim sound doctrine
Here we return to the objective foundation: 'But you have the anointing of part of the Holy One and know all things. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, otherwise why do they know it and why does no lie come from it truth. Who is a liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is
the antichrist: the one who denies the Father and the Son. Anyone who denies the Son he does not have the Father either. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. 23); "In this, know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, comes from God... We are from God, and he He who knows God hears us; and he who is not of God does not hear us. In this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (4:2, 6).
Juan was writing to oppose an early form of heresy. Gnostic, which denied that Jesus Christ was fully God and completely man. What he refers to is that no person truly save can fall into errors or heresies that are serious enough to to deny Christ. Why? Because "you have the anointing from the Holy One And the anointing that they have received from Him remains in you, and you do not have the need for someone to teach them. But, as the same anointing teaches you about all things, and it is true and not false, just as he taught them, "remain in Him" (2:20, 27). Once again, it is the divine work in us, not our own capabilities or achievements, which provides a firm foundation for our security.
And what about those who completely depart from sound doctrine? Juan explicitly answers that question: "They came out from among us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. But they left so it would be evident that not everyone was from "we" (2:19). The teaching of the denial of lordship contradicts shamelessly the Scriptures regarding this point (cf. USTG, CL), already that those who turn away and deny Christ only demonstrate that their faith it was never authentic, from the beginning, an idea we will examine carefully in chapter 11.
True believers seek holiness
If you know that he is righteous, know also that everyone who does righteousness is "born of him" (2:29); "And everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself to himself, as he is also pure. Everyone who commits sin also it infringes the law, for sin is a transgression of the law" (3:3, 4); "Everyone whoever remains in him does not continue to sin. Everyone who keeps on sinning does not he has neither seen nor known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices justice is just, as he is just. He who practices sin is of the devil,
because the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God: to undo the works of the devil. Everyone who has been born of God he does not practice sin because the seed of God remains in him, and he cannot to continue sinning because he was born of God" (3:6-9).
These verses have caused many to stumble. The key to their meaning is the definition of sin in 3:4: 'sin is the transgression of the law'. The term Greek for "violation of the law" esanomia, which literally means "without law" and describes those who lead immoral, ungodly, and unjust lives as a continuous practice. These hate the justice of God and live permanently as if they were sovereigns over the law of God, so that that they cannot be true Christians.
It is very clear that the apostle is not talking about perfection without sin. one of the signs of salvation, for after all he began his epistle saying: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" the same and the truth is not in us" (1:8).
It is also not discussing the frequency, duration, or magnitude of the sins, for as we have observed in chapter 8, all Christians pecan. The question that Juan is referring to here has to do with our attitude towards sin and justice, the reaction of our heart when we sin and the general direction of our walk.
The test is this: What is the object of your affection, sin or justice? If sin is what you love the most, then you are 'of the devil' (3:8, 10), but if you love and practice justice you are born of God (2:29). What is the direction of your feelings? As John Owen rightly wrote: "Your state not it is measured in no way by how much sin opposes you, but by how much do you oppose him . 16 Those who cling to the promise of eternal life but without worrying about the holiness of Christ has nothing to be sure about because such people do not really believe: or professed to have "faith" in Christ as a absolute farce, or they are simply living in deception. If they really had their hope in Christ would be purified, just as he is pure (3:3).
True believers have the Holy Spirit
This is the general test that encompasses all the others: Does the Spirit live? Saint in you? Juan writes: "In this we know that we remain in him and he in 17
we: in what he has given us of his Spirit" (4:13); "He who believes in the Son God has the testimony in Himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar. liar because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son" (5:10, 11).
These verses echo Pauline theology, for Paul wrote: The Spirit Himself bears witness together with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16). The Bible says that "By the testimony of two or three witnesses will decide a matter" (Deut. 19:15; cf. Mat. 18:16; 2 Cor. Romans 8:16 states that the Holy Spirit adds his testimony to that of our spirit, thus affirming our security.
This completely clears the idea that self-examination equates to to deposit faith in the works one does. The evidence we seek for the fruit of the Spirit is nothing other than the result of self-examination (Gal. 5:22) 23), the proof that he lives within us: that is the testimony through which confirms our security.
The danger of false security
Before moving on to the next chapter, we must briefly address the issue of false security. Throughout 1 John, the apostle attacks the false profession of those who do not have the right to security: "He who says: 'I know him' and does not whoever keeps his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (2:4); "But He who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness; and does not know to where he goes because darkness has blinded his eyes" (2:11); "Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either" (2:23); "Whoever practices sin is "of the devil" (3:8); "Anyone who hates their brother is a murderer, and you you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (3:15); "Whoever does not love has not known God" (4:8); "If someone says: 'I love He who does not love his brother is a liar. Because he who does not love his brother. Whoever has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen
One of the dangers of the radical teaching of the denial of Lordship is who ignores the danger of false security. How? First of all, this the perspective considers security and saving faith practically as In a nutshell, the message [of the gospel] brings with it the security of salvation... When a person believes, they have the assurance of
eternal life. How could it be otherwise? ...To doubt the guarantee of the eternal life is to doubt one's own message. In summary, if I don't believe that I am However, I do not believe in what God has offered me... The person who has never... he is sure of his eternal life, he has never believed in the saving message of God
So, in accordance with this perspective, a conviction of security in the The mind of a person is by all accounts the best evidence of salvation. "People know if they believe in something or not, and that is what matters in relation to God concerns" (CL). It is obvious that in this perspective there is no room for a false sense of security, hence encouraging all who profess to trust in Christ to declare 'one hundred percent certainty'. All who profess security is accepted as genuine believers even if the lifestyle of that person opposes everything that Christ represents.
The conscience protests against such doctrine! It promises a 'security' that the heart will never affirm and does not offer true peace to the soul, but which instead makes security an entire intellectual property. The the doctrine of the denial of lordship is therefore obliged to deny the subjective basis of security, because self-examination would reveal immediately the void of hope without foundation of all false professor. Despite establishing only half of the foundation, this doctrine declares that the building is complete. The objective proof is everything that can tolerate: if the mind is convinced, there is no need to involve the awareness. That is the epitome of false security.
John Owen called false security the 'conceptual apprehension of forgiveness of sin . El efecto de tal seguridad, según creía Owen, es que "prefiere 18 secretly suggest words of encouragement to the soul to continue in [the sin]"; "There is no one in the world who relates worse to God than those who have an unfounded persuasion of forgiveness... The carnal daring, the formality and contempt of God are common problems in such a concept and ideology When the conscience accuses, [false security] must provide. 19 the defect Owen was not afraid to point out that those who transform grace 20 our God in libertinism is, after all, wicked (Jud. 4): "That Confess what you want," Owen wrote, "they are ungodly. . 21 The theology of the denial of lordship obstinately tells the wicked that They can rest secure in the hope of heaven, even though that may not be one. authentic security. True security springs from the faith that works and us