John 20: 30-31 (Proof Text #7)
"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 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." (nkjv)
I just don't see how anyone can deny that it is by faith that we have life. In fact, it needs little comment. I have both chuckled and become bewildered at the attempts by the life before faith advocates to deal with this text, seeing how it clearly uproots their proposition. Life does not come before believing. It comes after believing, because it is by believing that the sinner becomes united to Christ and all follows this union. This is the original view of Calvin and of the signatories of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Let me give two examples of how the born again before faith advocates deal with it. The first will be from Monergism.com, which is an advocate for this view.
One teacher at Monergism's web page in attempting to answer a query as to how the above text can be reconciled with the born again before faith view, wrote the following in reply (See here emphasis mine):
"Justification & Eternal Life is granted by God to those who place our faith in Christ alone. All Christians affirm this truth. Calvinists, Arminians, Monergists and synergists. But does this single Text exclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit works to change our hearts prior to faith? To use an isolated text like this to try and prove that the Holy Spirit is not active in opening our eyes and ears to the gospel prior to faith is simply refusing to look at the entirety of revelation, especially when the full counsel of Scripture, in countless places, says otherwise. The Bible teaches that the word alone will not persuade people who are hostile to God by nature (Rom 8:7)."
First, notice how this citation begins by saying that "eternal life," like justification, is granted to those who believe. But, this is really not what this web page advocates in most other places. In fact, in the rest of the quote there is an attempt to put regeneration/life before believing, or before faith. Further, when the author of the above words says that "all Christians" affirm the necessity of faith for salvation he is wrong, for most of our Hardshell brothers do not believe it.
Calling attention to the pertinency of John 20: 31 in the debate over which comes first (faith or life) is a case of using an "isolated text" to prove it? Any honest person can see through this kind of commentating. Do not the advocates of the regenerated before faith view also cite passages that they think show that life precedes faith? Are they not using isolated texts? Texts like I John 5: 1?
Obviously this person does not believe that there is any work of God in the heart and mind of the sinner before he comes to faith and salvation, before he is regenerated or made alive! He thinks that what God does in opening eyes and ears "prior to faith" is proof of regeneration and spiritual life. It is easy to see how this person is trying to overthrow, by circumlocution, what the text plainly says.
The author next asks whether the Holy Spirit works to change hearts prior to faith? He says this because he wants to define "regeneration" as the first thing God does in the heart in bringing it to faith and salvation. He therefore allows for no work or act of God prior to regeneration.
Also, notice that the author does not show how John 20: 31 is in harmony with the regenerated before faith view. He next says:
"No one will believe in Jesus Christ unless God grants it through the quickening work of the Spirit. So YES, God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel that they might have eternal life."
What contradictory remarks! He says the quickening (spiritual life) precedes believing and yet the text says just the opposite. He asserts what the text denies! The text denies that life precedes faith and our commentator says "quickening" precedes the believing. Great commentary! After affirming that quickening comes before believing he turns right around and says men believe "that they might have eternal life." As silly as it is, this is the kind of commentary that we often see from the born again before faith view when they are faced with such passages as John 20: 31.
Now let us look at a radio discussion that Elder James White (Reformed Baptist who promotes and defends the born again before faith view). In "Ask a Greek Scholar – 1 John 5:1 compared with John 20:31" (here) we have these words (emphasis mine):
"But again, I really think that the 1 John 5:1 interpretation really goes back to an illustration of the baggage that we bring into this discussion and that is if we have a non biblical anthropology (the study of man) – if we have an anthropology that does not take seriously what is said concerning the inabilities of man – think of John – how many times does he emphasize the ability of God but then uses ou dunatai of man – not able – John chapter 6, John chapter 8, John chapter 10, over and over and over again."
It is ironic that Dr. White would mention bringing "baggage" to a discussion of John 20: 31 when he does this very thing when he begins to talk about his understanding of "biblical anthropology," or the doctrine of man's total depravity. He then makes deductions based upon his understanding of that subject and tries to make John 20: 31 square with it. But, that is not the way to do exegesis. It is ironic that White would comment upon that passage in a way that belies his reputation for exegesis.
Dr. White had a very difficult time, in this radio talk, dealing with John 20: 31 as respects his "ordo salutis," where he, in opposition to the text, puts regeneration and spiritual life before believing. In fact, he says that the text says nothing about the ordo salutis. If you read the transcript of this radio discussion, you will see how White stammers and speaks incoherently in addressing this text.
Dr. White continued:
"And so, yeah – John 20:31 – great text, but if someone’s trying to create an ordo salutis out of it – the problem is you have a present participle then with a subjunctive and its expressing means, purpose, result, things like that – its not functioning in a syntactically parallel way to 1 John 5:1."
Of course the structure of the sentence of I John 5: 1 is not exactly like John 20: 31 but how does that fact prove that the language of John 20: 31 does not deal with the order between life and believing? Further, I John 5: 1 should not even enter into the discussion about what is the plain meaning of John 20: 31.
You can see how his not speaking in ordered sentences in expressing his understanding of the text shows how he is not comfortable with the text.
The "hina" clause of the passage is a thorn in the side of White and those who believe as he does and you can see how what he says about it reveals such. The Greek "hina" means "in order that," being a word expressing purpose. Why believe? "That (hina) you might (subjunctive) have life through his name." This is so clear that White ought to allow John 20: 31 to guide his understanding of I John 5: 1, rather than the other way around!
John Calvin in his commentary on John 20: 31 wrote:
"That believing, you may have life. This effect of faith was also added, to restrain the foolish longings of men, that they may not desire to know more than what is sufficient for obtaining life. For what obstinacy was it, not to be satisfied with eternal salvation, and to wish to go beyond the limits of the heavenly kingdom? Here John repeats the most important point of his doctrine, that we obtain eternal life by faith, because, while we are out of Christ, we are dead, and we are restored to life by his grace alone. On this subject we have spoken largely enough in our exposition of the Third and Fifth Chapters of this Gospel."
I'll take Calvin on this rather than White. Further, we need not know any Greek at all to see what it means when John says that it is by believing that we have life through his name. His idea about the present tense of "believing" denoting durative or linear action, ironically, is the very thing he should apply to I John 5: 1! He should see "believing ones" as gnomic present. (See my posting on this here)
I think Dr. White is trying to say that the "life" must be that life which is to be received at the second coming, being an eschatological entering into life, and therefore not talking about obtaining life in regeneration. This would have John saying to the regenerated, to those who already have spiritual life, that they must keep on believing so that they can obtain life in the resurrection. Though that is true, it is not what John is saying. He is telling us why he wrote his Gospel narrative. It was so that people would come to belief, and that the ones believing (whether now or in the future) may have life. This verse is saying exactly what John had elsewhere stated in the Gospel of John. The previous proof texts we have examined from John 5: 40 and 6: 44-45 say that life follows coming to Christ in faith and John 20: 31 says the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment