Doctrine divides. That famous saying is true. That is why some churches and parachurch ministries do not allow discussion of certain issues considered controversial, such as eternal security,i speaking in tongues, the pre-Tribulation Rapture, the age of the earth, etc.
The purpose of John’s first epistle is not considered a controversial topic by most Evangelicals. That’s because it is widely accepted that First John was written to give professing believers various tests by which they may be assured of having everlasting life. This understanding is known as the tests-of-life view. It was popularized by Robert Law in a 1909 book by that name (The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of John).
A lesser-known view is called the tests-of-fellowship view. That view was popularized by Zane Hodges.ii It says that John was not asking readers to question their eternal destiny. In fact, he repeatedly affirmed their eternal security (e.g., 1 John 2:12-14, 24-26, 28; 5:9-13). Instead, John asked them to abide in Christ—even as they were challenged by false teachings from traveling teachers—so that they would have boldness rather than shame when Christ returned (1 John 2:28).
Hodges comments on the purpose of First John:
In 1 John, the apostle writes out of a concern that certain false teachers may be given a hearing in the church or churches he is addressing. Since they essentially deny the fundamental truth of the Christian faith, namely, that Jesus is the Christ come in flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:3), their doctrine strikes right at the heart of all Christian experience. The readers, who are clearly Christians themselves (2:12–14, 21; 5:13), are therefore not in danger of losing eternal life—which cannot be lost—but are in danger of having their fellowship with God the Father and with Jesus Christ His Son seriously undermined. Thus, the stated general aim of the epistle is fellowship (1 John 1:3).
In the process of discussing the terms, conditions, and experiences connected with genuine fellowship with God, the apostle also takes time at appropriate points to deal with the false teachers and their fellowship-threatening doctrines. Thus, a statement of purpose for First John could also include the thought that he writes to sustain and promote fellowship with God in the face of the theological errors that constitute an attack on this fellowship (1-3 John, p. 35).
In part 2, I will consider the evidence that tells us which view is correct. My purpose in this blog is to identify the major difference between these two views.
Doctrine not only divides; it matters. What we believe matters. What we teach matters.
The tests-of-life view means that we cannot be sure of our eternal destiny until we die. Under that view, the best we can achieve in this life is a high degree of confidence that we will persevere to the end of our lives in faith and good works. We can’t be sure we won’t fall away. Under this view of First John, if we fall away and die out of fellowship with the Lord, we will be eternally condemned.
If we seek assurance based on our works, we cannot be sure where we are going until we die. Even if we think we’re on a trajectory that suggests we’ll probably persevere, we can’t be sure we will (cf. 1 Cor 9:27). According to Scripture, including First John (1 John 5:9-13), assurance is found solely in the promise of everlasting life to everyone who simply believes in the Lord Jesus.
But as bad as it is for a believer to be duped by the tests-of-life view and lose assurance, it is far worse when an unbeliever is duped by that false gospel. If an unbeliever believes the tests-of-life view, it becomes less likely that he will ever believe in the gift of everlasting life given to the person who simply believes in the Lord Jesus.
How we understand the purpose of First John makes a big difference in our worldview. This is no small issue.
Keep grace in focus, and you will remain sure that you have everlasting life that can never be lost.
i Yes, eternal security is a doctrine that causes divisions. In 2008, the Evangelical Free Church denomination removed eternal security from its doctrinal statement. I remember that many of my friends who were E-Free pastors were very disappointed by the change.
ii Others who have written books defending this view include John Mitchell and Gary Derickson.
