Transcript

ANNOUNCER: When it comes to theological debate and discussion, there’s this thing called proof texting. It is using a verse or passage of Scripture to show evidence for a certain belief, and the term proof texting seems to have a negative connotation most of the time. But let’s look at how can it be good and how can it be used illegitimately. Thank you for joining us, friend, on Grace in Focus. We’re delighted you’re here. Grace in Focus is the radio broadcast and podcast ministry of the Grace Evangelical Society, and we have a website where you can learn more about us. It is faithalone.org. One thing not to miss there is our magazine. It has a free subscription, and the name of the magazine is also Grace in Focus. It’s published six times a year by monthly, very attractive, colorful, great articles, and yes, I did say free, and that is true all but the postage if you live outside of the 48 contiguous United States you need to pay the postage. Otherwise, it is free. And we’d love you to subscribe to it today. Find out more, details at faithalone.org. 

Now with today’s question and answer discussion, here are Bob Wilkin and David Renfro.

DAVID: Welcome to Grace in Focus. 

BOB: Okay, thank you, David. Do you have a question there for someone? 

DAVID: It’s from Greg. He has an interesting question here. He says there seems to be a lot of argument that those of the Reformed persuasion use many different texts as quote “proof text” to prove their point, and then he says, is it possible that we Free Gracers are using John 20:31 to quote “prove” that the Gospel of John is the only evangelistic book in the Bible? 

BOB: Okay, this is a great question, Greg, and I love the name Greg because grēgoreō means watch in Greek and we’re to be watchful Christians. 

So, Greg, there’s a couple of questions. First of all, you’re talking about to prove a point. You know what we call that? That’s called a proof text or proof texting. Now proof texting can be very bad if you’re taking verses out of context and misusing them, right? 

DAVID: Yes, and also keep in mind that texting doesn’t mean you use your phone to do this. 

BOB: Okay, if people send me a text, I mean, you know, some people they’re looking at their phone all the time, not me. 

Anyway, getting back to this, proof texting is not in and of itself bad. I do it in every article I write. I want to prove my point by citing verses in parentheses or even quoting the verses. If you’re using a verse in context and properly interpreting it, it’s appropriate to say this verse—for example, if I want to prove justification by faith alone, apart from works, I think it’s completely appropriate to use Romans 3:21 to 4:24 or pick some verses in there or to use Galatians 2:16. It shows justification is by faith, apart from works of the law. That’s an appropriate use of a proof text. 

A bad use of a proof text would be to take a verse that’s not intended to teach what the people say it teaches. For example, James 2:14 is often used to prove that you must add works to your faith in order to get into the Kingdom and have true saving faith. Well, that’s not the issue in James 2:14 at all. That verse is teaching that if we believe something in God’s Word and we do not apply it, then we’re going to experience God’s judgment in this life. He’s writing to believers about the salvation of believers from judgment in this life. In fact, all five uses of the word “save” in James are that way. And people misuse all five uses of save in James. 

It’s sad, but coming back to proof texting, there’s nothing wrong with proof texting. Calvinists tend to proof text incorrectly when they’re defending their doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and also when they’re defending their doctrine of eschatology, because they don’t believe in the Rapture, most of them don’t believe in the Millennium. And so as a result, they misinterpret lots of Scripture. 

DAVID: Well, a lot of that has to do with their approach. It’s like if you look at the book of Revelation and you’ve already preconceived that this is not historical, it’s allegory of the eternal conflict between good and evil. You’ve already assumed how to interpret Revelation. 

BOB: I know you love and have taught the book of Revelation many times, but the Calvinists oftentimes are what are called partial preterists. Some of them are full preterists. A full preterist believes the entire book of Revelation has already been fulfilled. 

DAVID: It takes a lot of creativity to come to that conclusion. 

BOB: Well, I think you have to somehow be drinking the Kool-Aid because it doesn’t make sense. And the Calvinist view of salvation doesn’t make sense. 

DAVID: Well, I’ll give you a good example. You mentioned James in the word “saved”? Obviously James never uses the word “saved” to mean eternal salvation from hell. I actually heard one time. I cannot remember who it was, but it was a TV preacher or evangelist or somebody that went to the James 5 passage. You know, if somebody is sick, pray for them that they may be saved. 

BOB: And they took that as salvation from eternal condemnation? 

DAVID: No, they did even worse. They said, look, if you get physically ill, you’ve lost your salvation. 

BOB: What? 

DAVID: Yes. 

BOB: Oh, man. 

DAVID: That’s why I tell people. I said, look, proof texting, we all do it. The key to me, you’ve got to make sure that that text that you’re using is interpreted in context. Context is the biggie. If I take something that you say out of context, I can paint you as a serial killer. 

BOB: And by the way, if you don’t use the context, we’re really using the verse as a pretext. To prove our point. But that’s not what it means. For example, in James, when he does want to talk about eternal salvation in James 1:18, he says, “He brought us forth by the word of truth”, brought us forth, refers to the new birth, “that we might be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” So he brought us forth by believing the word of truth. 

ANNOUNCER: We will rejoin in just a moment. But years ago, Zane Hodges wrote the Gospel Under Siege. Sadly, this is still true. And GES president Bob Wilkin has recently written its sequel. Bob’s new book, The Gospel is Still Under Siege, is a book about theological clarity on the Biblical teaching about eternal salvation. It is available now. Secure yours today at the Grace Evangelical Society’s Bookstore. Find it at faithalone.org/store. That’s faithalone.org/store. Now back to today’s content.

BOB: Well, let’s now come to the question that he has about John chapter 20 and verse 31. Greg is not saying that we’re misinterpreting John 20:31, but he’s asking is it possible? 

DAVID: Are we doing the same bad thing that the Reformed people do and use quote “proof texting”? 

BOB: Right. And we are using proof texting, but in the right way, because John 20:31 does teach that whoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ has everlasting life and will never perish. Let’s read John 20:30 and 31. Could you do that, David? 

DAVID: Okay, John 20:30, “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.” 

BOB: Okay, now to believe that in Greek is pisteuo hoti. To believe in Jesus like John 3:16, John 5;24, John 6:47, John 11, 25 and 26, to believe in Him is pesteuo eis, eis is a preposition. So to believe that Jesus is the Christ is the same as believing in Him. And we see that in John 11:25-27, because twice Jesus refers to those who believe in Him and He says they will be glorified, they will be resurrected into his kingdom. And He who lives and believes in me, pesteuo eis, will never die. So there’s no spiritual death for the believer. And then when He says, do you believe this, Martha says, yes, Lord, I believe that, pisteuo hoti, You are the Christ, the Son of God who is to come into the world. 

Well notice how John 11:27 ties in with John 20:31, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that—I would argue this is the manner, by believing you may have life in His name. The life here is obviously everlasting life. 

And so what John 20:31 is saying is that the purpose of John’s Gospel is that the unbelieving readers, and it’s very clear the readers are unbelievers, is that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. So they didn’t believe it before he started writing this Gospel tract that you may believe that he’s the Christ, the Son of God. And by believing that you may have life in His name, you’ve got that in a number of places, John 1:12, “But to as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” And you also have that in John 2:23, “Many believed in His name when they saw the signs that He did.” And so to believe in His name is the same as believing in Him, and it’s the same as believing that Jesus is the Christ. And so when we do believe in Him, we have everlasting life. And so I don’t think there’s any way we could be misinterpreting John 20:31 to say that John’s purpose is not evangelistic. 

Now, some people argue that because, for example, in the Upper Room Discourse, John 13 through 16, or if you want to include His high priestly prayer, John 13 through 17, because there is discipleship teaching there that there’s a secondary purpose of John’s Gospel that’s not stated here. I agree with the message Zane Hodges gave, and we published it in our journal, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, you can go to faithalone.org and look up the article. And Zane Hodges argued that even the Upper Room Discourse is designed to lead the unbelieving readers to faith in Christ. Because it’s important for the unbeliever to recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ wants more for people who believe in Him than simply them to have everlasting life. He wants them to enjoy fellowship with Him. He wants them to enjoy fullness of life. 

The point is with Jesus, in the Upper Room Discourse an unbeliever seeing this would be motivated. Now, are there discipleship truths that a believer can get from the Gospel of John? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that was the purpose of the book. The purpose of the book was written to unbelievers for evangelism, but we do know from 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17 that all Scripture is profitable for the believer. So there is much profit in this, not only do we learn how to share our faith clearly, which, unfortunately people who reject the evangelistic purpose of John’s Gospel, do not. But on top of that, there are some key discipleship truths here as well. 

So Greg, that is really a good question. I like it. I would encourage you to go to our website. We have a number of articles about John 20:31 and that defend the view that I’m suggesting. 

So thanks so much, Greg, and thank you all. And David, what are we wanting people to do? 

DAVID: Keep grace in focus. 

ANNOUNCER: We would love to know where you are when you are listening to us. Please take a short minute to send us the call letters of this station and the city where you are listening and how many times a week you listen. Thank you. You will be helping us with our stewardship. Send it to radio@faithalone.org. That’s radio@faithalone.org. We are so thankful for our financial partners who keep us on the air. Every gift is tax-deductible and very much appreciated. If you’d like to find out how you can give, go to faithalone.org. 

On our next episode, in the scatalogical judgments, there are timelines reconsidered. Please join us and until then, let’s keep grace in focus.