Theology for Today (Part 2)

Insufficient Biblical Theology

 “The argument from biblical theology that one must believe in eternal security or some guarantee of eternal life that can never be lost is based on a number of assumptions:

1)         John is the only NT book written to unbelievers. Hence, it is the last word in matters of evangelism.

2)         The authorial intent of John is evangelism.

3)         Eternal life = Eternal Security.

4)         Other NT books are written to believers for the purpose of edification. Hence, anything they say related to the gospel assumes a preunderstanding of gospel truth that does not need to be spelled out in complete form.

We would like to challenge these assumptions one by one.

John—the only NT Book Written to Unbelievers

This may or may not be true. It cannot be proved. For example, one third of the NT was written to Theophilus. The consensus of scholarship is that Theophilus was a Gentile God-fearer who was drawn to Judaism, but felt out of place in the all-Jewish community. This new brand of Judaism was his answer—Christianity. It is not at all a proven fact that Luke-Acts was written to believers. As Donald Nolan suggests:

Indeed, I thought then, and think now, that the ideal first-century reader for much of the Gospel of Luke (and of Acts) is a God-fearer; one whose birth is not Jewish and whose background culture is Hellenistic, but who had been attracted to Judaism, drawn to the God of Israel . . . . Such a God-fearer would have experienced the ambiguity of his situation in Judaism: welcomed, but at the crucial divide still considered to be an outsider to the promises of God. . . . . now he stands at the crossroads. On the one hand Christianity is being offered to him as the completion and fulfillment of the Judaism to which he has been drawn, . . . On the other hand there are his Jewish friends . . . who urge our God-fearer to make the break and to abandon his Gentile identity once and for all and to come all the way into Judaism, to become a Jew.[1]

And Darrell Bock in his commentary on Luke makes a similar statement when he says:

It is debated whether Theophilus is already a Christian or is thinking of becoming one. Theophilus appears to be a man of rank (Luke 1:3) who has associated himself with the church, but doubts whether in fact he really belongs in this racially mixed and heavily persecuted community.[2]

Thus it is tenuous at best to categorically declare that the Gospel of John is the only NT book written for unbelievers and, therefore, the final word in the NT on evangelism.

The Authorial Intent of John is Evangelism

And what about John? How do we even know it was written to unbelievers? Who were they? Did they reside at Rome or somewhere in Turkey? Was this a long gospel tract (which would require the death of many valuable goats to produce a copy) passed out to unbelievers as they entered the Coliseum? If they didn’t have a printing press to produce thousands of individual tracts, how did they get the unbelievers together to hear the Gospel of John read?

Again, we have unproven assumptions. The usual evidence marshaled to try to prove that John was written to unbelievers comes from Jn 20:31—“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” It is explained that we have gotten to the end of the Gospel of John, and the purpose statement is given. But if that is true for John, it should be true of 1 Jn 5:13—“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.” Both verses come at the end of their respective books; both use tauta for “these” or “these things”; both use the verb graphō. If Jn 20:31 is the purpose statement of John, then 1 Jn 5:13 should be the purpose statement of 1 John, especially when reading the same author. But no, people in the free grace movement do not want to claim 1 Jn 5:13 as the purpose statement of 1 John since that would make the book one about the tests of life, exactly what is claimed by those who hold to perseverance theology.

In order to get out of reading 1 Jn 5:13 as the purpose statement of 1 John, the argument is made that the tauta (these things) is a reference to what immediately precedes, and the purpose statement of the book is exactly where you would expect to find it, that is, at the beginning (1 Jn 1:3-4). It’s a book about fellowship, not assurance. But, if that is sound argumentation for 1 John, it should be sound for the Gospel as well. The tauta (these) of Jn 20:31 refers back to the eight signs John has chosen to write about in his Gospel and referenced in Jn 20:30. And these eight signs were written about in order to persuade unbelievers to believe. But the material containing the eight signs hardly comprises the entire book. There is an entire section written about Jesus’ interaction and revelation of intimate truth for believers (the Upper Room Discourse, John 13-17). In that section of John the unbeliever (Judas) is sent out because that which was to be shared was not for him. Why include this section in a book written to unbelievers?

Now the Upper Room Discourse could be explained as a leit motif in John, or a parenthesis not germane to the argument of the book as so many do with Romans 9­­–11. But in sound exegetical hermeneutics, if one part of the proposed whole (the heuristic genre, a la E. D. Hirsch) does not “fit,” then one does not understand the correct whole (the intrinsic genre). Back to the drawing board. We need to find something which incorporates truth to unbelievers and truth to believers. Might that not be found exactly where it would be expected, that is, in the introduction to the Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). Jn 1:4 says, “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” Perhaps this reference to “life” incorporates both the concept of quantity (eternity) and quality (a richer, “abundant” life). If so, then “life” in John is broader than just post-resurrection life. It would include truth for unbelievers and truth for believers.

Even Jn 20:31 doesn’t have to be understood as only evangelistic. The promise is “life” (notice it does not say “eternal” life), just as it was in Jn 1:4. When unbelievers initially believe, they receive life. But after initial faith, there are more opportunities to believe and our quality of life gets better and better as our faith grows. For example, in Jn 1:50 Jesus recognized and stated that Nathaniel “believed” in Him. But in Jn 2:11 Nathaniel believes again. In Jn 2:22 we have another record of the disciples believing in Him subsequent to their initial belief. Even at the end of the Upper Room Discourse we find the disciples believing again: “Now . . . we believe that you came forth from God. Jesus answered them, ‘Do you now believe?’” And at the beginning of the Upper Room Discourse we have Jesus making a prediction about Judas in order that (hina) the disciples might believe (subjunctive) after the prediction comes true that Jesus is who he claimed to be (Jn 13:19). Wait. I thought they already believed He was who he claimed to be. So maybe this is the purpose of John—that believers might believe. This isn’t to say that on going faith is a requirement for justification. But it is a statement that on going faith is a requirement for “life,” an existence in which the emphasis is not so much on quantity as quality. After all, everyone exists forever, assuming linear time continues.

We are not making the claim here that John does not have an evangelistic thrust. We are just saying it is not as cut and dry as some would claim. John seems to have some significant developments which do not fall under the evangelistic umbrella.

Eternal Life = Eternal Security

Part of the confusion over plugging eternal security into the justification equation is that the biblical use of “eternal” and ours are not necessarily the same in every instance. When we say “eternal” security, “eternal” has reference in our minds to linear time. But there are many biblical uses of “eternal” even when descriptive of “life” that have nothing to do with linear time. Eternal life can be laid hold of by fighting the good fight of faith (1 Tim 6:12) and by giving money (1 Tim 6:17-19 as well as Gal 6:6–9). In Titus 1:2 eternal life is connected with the full knowledge of truth and presented as a hope instead of a guarantee. In Titus 3:7 people who have been justified are looking forward to an inheritance (often understood as a reward in Paul) and the hope of eternal life that goes along with such inheritance. A similar use is in Matt 19:29 where inheriting eternal life is presented by Jesus as a reward to those who have forsaken things in this life for His kingdom cause. And in Rom 6:23 eternal life is presented (note the syntactic parallelism with the word for a daily ration from a commanding general to his mercenary soldiers—opsōnia) as the daily experience of being free from the tyranny of our sinful natures, not some sort of existence that lasts forever in linear time. As S. Lewis Johnson used to say when he taught Romans, Rom 6:23 is the gospel to saints, not sinners.

The point is that “eternal security,” as we understand it in modern theological circles (once saved always saved) is not an apt and equivalent substitution for “eternal life” in many, many biblical examples. Even in John’s Gospel “eternal life” does not always refer to the gift of  life forever in linear time. Sometimes it does (Jn 3:15, 16, 18; 4:14, 36), and sometimes it does not (see Jn 12:25, where the reference is to self-sacrifice and following him as in Matt 16:24–27, and eternal life refers to rewards). We need to be careful in our biblical theology to use words biblically. Even when we say “guarantees eternal life” instead of eternal security, most people are thinking of linear time. When John wants to make linear time perfectly clear, he uses eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, “with a view to the ages of the ages,” usually translated “forever and ever” (Rev 4:9, 10; 5:14; 10:6; 15:7).

Another problem with equating eternal life with eternal security is that the latter conjures up all sorts of questions and doubts not raised by the promise of eternal life:

1)         “Yes, I believe eternal life is a gift from God, but that doesn’t mean He can’t take the gift back again.” How many times have we heard this one?

2)         “Yes, I believe eternal life is a gift from God, but that doesn’t mean I can’t give the gift back.” Chuck Smith and his followers teach this.

3)         “Of course, when I believe, God gives me eternal life through Christ, but what if I stop believing?”

The questions go on and on, none of which was probably in the mind of the new believer when he first believed God’s promise(s).

That eternal security is a doctrine to be nailed down post-justification is evidenced by the Book of Romans. While many treat Romans 9–11 as some sort of parenthesis on the sovereignty of God that does not really advance the argument of Romans, I would suggest that these chapters form the climax to the first thrust of the book. According to Larry Crabb, and even Abraham Maslow, man’s two greatest needs are for security and significance. We usually grab on to all sorts of things in this world to meet these two needs. But ultimately they can only be met by God. In Romans 1–11 God shows us how He will meet our need for security; in Romans 12–16 He shows us how He can meet our need for significance.

At the end of Romans 8 the imaginary Jewish objector, who has been dogging Paul throughout the epistle and serves as a foil to raise significant questions which may seem problematic for Paul’s theology, challenges Paul’s last point. Paul has just claimed that nothing can separate believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus. But the objector raises his hand and says, “Wait a minute. God has rejected the elect before, and He can do it again. Just look at Israel. They were His chosen people, but He has cast them away because of their unfaithfulness.” Ah, a challenge to eternal security. The next three chapters answer that objection. Paul seals the doctrine of eternal security when he punctuates his argument with, “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29).

But here is the point. This granddaddy of the epistles takes us from the unbeliever to the fully devoted and serving follower of Jesus Christ. The point on security comes long after the teaching on justification and even progressive sanctification. Yet its positioning before Romans 12–16 is paramount. Before one can serve with the proper motive, he must know that he is secure. But one does not need to know he is secure to be saved (justified). If he did, Paul would have inserted the teaching on security immediately after the teaching on justification, or, better yet, simultaneously. Someone will say, but security is implicit in the teaching on justification. If so, why include it at all? Just leave it out of the book entirely. To say it is implicit in their understanding of the faith required for justification flies in the face of the carefully constructed order of the book, and, again, it is an argument from silence.

NT books other than John presume a fuller understanding of the gospel than presented.

Speaking of arguments from silence, one of the more egregious is the claim that because a book or epistle is written to believers, they had a preunderstanding of gospel truths to the extent that expressions of the gospel contained in these writings are insufficient to justify the hearers. Of course, this is an argument from silence, but, as already pointed out, it assumes that a book like Acts was written to a believer, an improvable assumption. Take the preaching to Cornelius as a case in point. Here we have a God-fearer (a Gentile attracted to Yahweh—10:22). Peter, who ought to know, says Jesus and the disciples went around Israel preaching peace (a “what,” not a “how” or a “why”). He goes on to preach the resurrection (10:40), forgiveness of sins (10:43), and faith alone (10:43). Never does he mention “eternal life” or even the word “life.” And he certainly doesn’t reference anything that might be construed to be tantamount to eternal security. To suppose that eternal security comes out of the concept of resurrection is a major leap. Resurrection doesn’t prove eternal security. Spiritual life with God doesn’t prove eternal security. The fallen angels had spiritual life with God, but not eternal security. They were cast away—out of His presence forever.

Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit fell upon these Gentiles at the house of Cornelius while Peter was preaching the message of forgiveness of sins. To argue that we do not have the complete message given by Peter, which might have contained a fuller expression of the gospel and specifically words pertaining to “life,” is another argument from silence. Peter makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon and baptized these hearers who believed (11:15–17) when he “began to speak.”

Paul preached a similar message at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13). When he gets to the good news about Jesus, Paul camps on resurrection truth (13:30–37). He then preached “the forgiveness of sins” and that anyone who believed in Jesus was justified (13:38–39). Then Luke tells us that these believers received “eternal life” (13:48). To say that Luke did not give a complete rendering of what was said to the Jews and Gentiles listening to this message just because the readers of Acts were believers with a preunderstanding of what the complete message was stretches credulity like a bungee cord. We either have an accurate record of what was said or we do not. All those who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word will concede that we have an accurate record. But to say that preaching “the forgiveness of sins” is an insufficient gospel presumes that we have an incomplete record of what was preached. Another argument from silence.

Do we really want to build our understanding of a sufficient gospel on improvable assumptions (Acts was written to a believer who had an understanding of the sufficient gospel) and arguments from silence? This is Insufficient Biblical Theology if not outright erroneous and faulty. But Insufficient Historical Theology and Insufficient Biblical Theology lead to Insufficient Systematic Theology as well.”

[1] John Nollan, Luke 1–9:20, in Word Biblical Commentary, 35A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), “Introduction.”

[2] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Yestament, 3A (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 14-15.

Serving Him with you until He comes for us,
Fred Chay, PhD
Managing Editor, Grace Theology Press