By Dave Wyant
Reformed Theology uses the acronym TULIP to teach its beliefs regarding salvation. The P in this acronym represents the Calvinist doctrine known as the Perseverance of the Saints. John MacArthur summarized the doctrine of perseverance succinctly when he said, “The mark of true justification is perseverance in righteousness to the very end.”i Among other passages, Calvinists like MacArthur use 1 John 2:29 as a proof text:
The regenerated believer necessarily makes a practice of righteousness, as the apostle John says, “Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:29).ii
This article evaluates the logical validity of the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 John 2:29 as support for the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
One of my favorite books is The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, by C. S. Lewis. Four young siblings are sent to the English countryside to live with an eccentric old professor. While exploring his museum-like mansion, Lucy, the youngest of the four, discovers the enchanted land of Narnia behind a wardrobe door. When she tells her older siblings about her adventures in Narnia, they conclude that she is losing her grip on reality. The two oldest siblings, Peter and Susan, decide to inform the wise professor of the situation. However, their genuine concern for their sister is met with a startling response:
“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.iii
After firmly rebutting the children’s objections, the professor grouses, “I wonder what they do teach them at these schools.”iv It’s one of my favorite scenes in the book. Logic is an important aspect of interpretation, whether it’s interpreting a life situation or a written text.
Is John MacArthur’s interpretation of 1 John 2:29 correct? The Apostle John wrote, “everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him” (1 John 2:29). MacArthur concluded that this verse teaches the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints: “Those truly born again…will display characteristics of God’s righteousness.”v We know that what the Apostle John wrote is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. However, is MacArthur saying the same thing John the Apostle said? Do both statements mean the same thing? Does MacArthur’s conclusion follow logically from the Apostle John’s statement?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to compare the two statements, paying careful attention to the order of their clauses. There is an important difference between them. After reversing the order of the clauses in the apostle’s statement, MacArthur then deduced the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints—that is, that genuine believers will be righteous in their practice to the end of their lives. However, when John MacArthur reversed the order of the clauses in the statement made by John the Apostle, he committed the logical fallacy known as affirmatio consequentis, or affirming the consequent.
Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy in which one concludes that the antecedent of a conditional statement is true solely because its consequent is true. This is its textbook definition: “Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that occurs when one argues from the truth of the consequent of a conditional statement to the truth of its antecedent.”vi Here is what this logical fallacy looks like in the form of a syllogism:
Major Premise: P, then Q
Minor Premise: Q
Conclusion: Therefore, P
The consequent is affirmed in the minor premise. The conclusion is false: “This argument is invalid because the truth of Q does not guarantee the truth of P.”vii In other words, the logic doesn’t necessarily flow in the opposite direction.
The classic example that illustrates the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is: “If it is raining, then the grass is wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining.” The key to identifying this as a logical fallacy is to ask whether other explanations are possible. There may have been a heavy dew the night before. Someone may have watered the lawn. This argument is logically invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. MacArthur’s argument for his interpretation of 1 John 2:29 is invalid for the same reason.
John the Apostle said, “Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.” John MacArthur affirmed the consequent when he reversed the logic, “Those truly born again…will display characteristics of God’s righteousness.”viii The logic doesn’t flow in the opposite direction. Here is MacArthur’s argument in the form of a syllogism:
Major Premise: Those who persevere in practicing righteousness are born again
Minor Premise: I think I will persevere in practicing righteousness
Conclusion: Therefore, I think I’m born again
In this argument, the major premise is the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 John 2:29.ix The minor premise is the Calvinist’s hope that he will persevere. The conclusion of this argument is the Calvinistic doctrine of assurance based on the Perseverance of the Saints. By saying, “Those truly born again…will display characteristics of God’s righteousness,”x By reversing the order of what John the Apostle said in 1 John 2:29, John MacArthur makes assurance impossible. The two statements do not mean the same thing. MacArthur’s flawed reasoning produces an incorrect interpretation of 1 John 2:29.
This flawed reasoning has devastating repercussions. This invalid form of reasoning unwittingly adds works to faith as a condition for regeneration.
The only necessary condition for regeneration is faith in Christ alone apart from good works (John 3:16; Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). When a person believes in Jesus for eternal life, he is eternally secure (John 5:24; 10:25-30). It is possible and desirable for regenerated people to practice righteousness. But whether they do or not has no bearing on the fact that they are, in fact, regenerate. Righteous living is neither the cause nor the proof of regeneration. Many unregenerate people do good works for various reasons. Regenerate people can and do fail, sometimes terribly. The Bible is full of tragic examples of believers who did not finish well. King Solomon died an idolater (1 Kings 11:1-10). Nadab and Abihu were Jewish priests who ate the covenant meal with Moses at the top of Mt. Sinai in God’s presence (Exod 24:9-11). However, they did not persevere in righteousness and met a terrible end (Lev 10:1-3).
The reality that someone has been born again does not guarantee that he will practice righteousness. “To infer the antecedent [practicing righteousness] from the consequent [regeneration] of a conditional is invalid, since the consequent may be true for reasons other than the antecedent.”xi A person is born again because he believes in Jesus for eternal life, not because they practice righteousness. The logic does not flow in the opposite direction. The next time you hear someone say that a genuine believer must persevere in righteousness and cannot fall away, you can explain that this faulty doctrine is based on faulty logic. “I wonder what they do teach them at these schools.”
David Wyant is the pastor of Bethel Church of the Brethren in New Middletown, OH, an adjunct professor at SES and GES Seminary, and a part-time hospital chaplain. He has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Baptist Bible Seminary and an MDiv from Moody Theological Seminary. He lives with his wife, Lynn, and their cat, Pixi, in Youngstown, OH.
i John MacArthur, Jr., Saved without a Doubt, MacArthur Study Series (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 149.
ii John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 588.
iii C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: Collier Books, 1970), 45.
iv Ibid.
v John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 1957.
vi Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012), 362–63.
vii Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 13th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2009), 246–47.
viii MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary, 1957.
ix Calvinists wrongly claim that since the Greek verb poieō is in the present tense, 1 John 2:29 should be translated, “everyone who continues to practice righteousness.” They claim that this incorrect translation proves the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
x MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary, 1957.
xi Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
