1 John: Know Pt 3

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. Good afternoon everyone. It is Monday, October fourteenth, twenty twenty four. It is currently three six pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, there have been times where I have described this podcast kind of a long and winding road. Right, we kind of just stumble upon an idea or a topic, or a concept or a scripture.

0:46 We kind of sometimes just stumble upon it, and then we just kind of take this long and winding road to see where we end up. And a lot of times one in many cases, I never had, like I don't have let this great detailed plan, it all mapped out and scheduled out wall on this week, I'm going to cover this, and then next week I'm gonna No, I don't do that at all. I kind of just let each day kind of just whatever happens happens, and sometimes whatever we stumble upon, many cases during a live broadcast, then it turns into well, now we're going to talk about this, We're going to talk about this, and and it just it's this long and winding road. Now. Sometimes probably for a listener, that can be frustrating, right because you're like, well, wait a minute, where are we going? Well, I don't know if really really want to go with this, or sometimes you may be thinking, so, where is this actually going? Like I don't, I don't know, like like I need I need an answer, I need a conclusion or where no, I want the short answer type of thing.

1:47 But no, Sometimes it can go one episode, two episodes, three episodes, four episodes. It can turn to a two or three month long series. We never really know. In some ways, I love not knowing. In some ways I love that. But sometimes if I'm being very honest with you, being very transparent, I will be like, what have I done? Right? I could have probably addressed this in a much more simplistic way. I could have just tried to focus on one idea, get the idea, and move on. But I everything here tends to become more drawn out, and we try to go much more in depth and ask a lot of questions, and a lot of times that turns into part two, Part three, Part four, Part five, Part six, and sometimes some of those parts because it's we're in the middle of the long and winding road may not be as interesting, or as dramatic, or as conclusive as Maybe the first part may be more interesting because it's introducing it. The last part may be more dramatic because it's somewhat conclusive. But there's a lot of the little parts, the little twists and turns, the little chapters to get there.

3:06 So I think everyone perceives it differently. A lot of people come in on a Part two or Part three and then immediately, well, that was you know, dumb. Okay, well it may have been dumb, but it's it plays a part in a in this bigger series. So sometimes I look even I get frustrated because I never know what's going to happen, and I'm kind of really frustrated with what we've stumbled upon. All right, so let me try to put this all back together so it makes some sense. We were listening or I Wasum, I guess it's we, because if I hear something, I almost immediately make you listen to it, right, So if you listen to this podcast, you typically hear what I hear all but so we together were listening to a sermon on First John. It was something called five critical things we should know, five critical things we need to know, we should know, need to know, must know. I don't remember the exact world words that were used, but five things we need to know. I think that's was the director of the accurate title or the actual title, and it was all based on First John. Now we we never really got to all five things we need to know.

4:15 They supposedly come from First John chapter three, but it was all about First John. And in the beginning kind of the introductory comments to the sermon, the preacher the speaker made the point that within First John, right within the epistle of First John, so you have five chapters. Within five chapters, the word no is used over twenty five times. Was the statement that I think was made in the sermon, which immediately sparked interest in my mind. I was like, okay, we could go through every no k now not n o k n ow no, the use of the word no, five things you should know, and what we could go through all twenty five, twenty six, twenty seven, twenty eight uses of the word no know in First John. So originally I was thinking that, but I'm like, man, that could that could turn into a lengthy series, and right now we're trying to work on all the Thereforce and Romans, and we're stuck in Romans chapter four because I keep getting diverted about other things. I'm like, I don't know if I really want to jump into that.

5:23 But then I started thinking, well, the word no, no, no, no, why is no used that many times in First John? And immediately I'm like, well, this supports, this supports and hypotheses that I have about First John that I have been speaking on for years now, because I believe most people handle First John in a way that ignores a very important part of it. They will mention it. They will mention it if they if you listen to any SERI a sermon series on First John, they will mention it in the introductory message, but then they ignore it through the interpretation of the entire epistle. And that drives me crazy. And the point is when I see the word no, I immediately think yes. The reason John is using no know no, no, no, no, no no over twenty five times and five chapters is because it's a polemic against gnosticism. We're most evangelical Christians today and fundamentalists Christians today say no no is a book that or no.

6:33 First John is a book that test and tries to prove if you are truly a Christian. It's a test book to prove if you are a Christian. And I want to come back, no, the no, no, it's not. It's a polemic against gnosticism. That's why John uses the word know over and over and over because no knowing known is very much related to gnosticism. So it's a polemic against gnosticism. And I think that everyone agrees that it's a polemic against gnosticism to some level. They say that and then they ignore it in their interpretation of the epistle. They forget the Gnostics and make it about us, even my study Bible that I have here in front of me, the foundation study Bible, First John theme listen.

7:27 Shortly after the Church began, people like the Gnostics, continually tried to recast the Gospel in their own terms. Gnosticism made a distinction between the material or carnal, which was evil to them, and the spiritual, which was pure. John writes as one who was acquainted with Jesus personally, physically and spiritually. He wants the readers to take the Christ he knew at face value, John wants his readers to believe the truth of his experience of Jesus and not the philosophical speculation of the Gnostics. In these letters we see the same themes as in John's Gospel, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, light and death, love and hate. John weaves these themes together with a straightforward skill and fatherly care so that mentions gnosticism. And I think most people when they read first John and they read any introduction or any any background material, they're like, John is writing about gnosticism, and then five seconds later they're telling everyone, this is a test book to prove whether you are saved or not. No, this was about challenging gnosticism. Now that I think is how we should understand it. Now.

8:46 Trying to articulate that to people can sometimes be difficult and be very tedious and trying to work through it because it raises lots of difficult questions. So that is kind of what we've been doing, and we're going to do a little bit more work on it today. Again, this has turned into this is taking longer than I necessarily. Look, the original idea was, hey, I'm listening to a sermon. They mentioned this, here's my hypothesis, here's their hypotheses. Let's move on. But it's turned into they don't really have a hypothesis other than, hey, these are five things you need to know from First John chapter three. But they don't even really deal with the fact that it's using the word no know, even though they mentioned that it's used over twenty five times. They don't really they don't bother to go, well, why is he using like I don't think they even mentioned gnosticism in the entire sermon, which was crazy to me. So I'm trying to go at this a little deeper. So a couple of things.

9:43 I told you to look up all the references to know know in First John. Remember I told you not to just look it up online or in a Bible app, but to take a Bible, go through every page and look for the word know and write out the reference. Put down you know, like First John two to three, and then write out the reference. The reason why is even if this long and winding road doesn't lead to anywhere you even agree with or you even understand, guess what you got to skim First John. You went through all the entire epistle and you wrote down, not only the reference like first John two three, you wrote down the actual words of the verse. So that only helps you know scripture even more. Right, So I think that is important. So well, I told you to write all of them down. Then we did a little discussion about the Greek one of the Greek words used for no like in first John two three, and hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. Well, the Greek word there, I can say it, but I'm just gonna play it for you. We're going to play it for you, because that's what we've been doing. It's this Greek word. Everybody, remember everyone, you know this now Strong ninety seven Genoskosko, Genosko, Genosko. Now, if you look at genosco and gnosticism, gnosis, there is a connection. There is a connection here. Now it's more of a connection

11:16 on the idea of knowledge. Now, there is a there's some commonality between the Greek words. Remember I told you some I gave you some basic information like this, I gave you some basic information. There is a connection in between the Greek word genosco and gnosticism. It is important to distinguish between the common linguistic use of genosco and the philological philosophical system of gnosticism. The Greek verb genosko simply means to know or to come to know, and it is used frequently in the New Testament, including First John, and it's used to describe knowledge and a relational, experiential, and intellectual sense. All Right, we talked about that, right, We talked about that, all right. In these biblical contexts, ganosko refers to a knowing God, to knowing God, knowing the truth, or knowing facts through experience, relationship, or understanding.

12:11 It is not inherently tied to any special or secret form of knowledge, which is how gnosticism would see it. But it's about knowing. But please note knowing in a relation all way. Just keep that in mind, because I know this is going to take a long and winding road. But we're going to get back to that now. If you look at gnosticism, the term gnoscissism is derived from the Greek noun nosis, meaning knowledge. Gnosticism refers to a diverse set of religious and philosophical movements in the early centuries of Christianity that emphasize emphasized esoteric hidden knowledge gnosis, as the key to salvation. All right, Now, all the word genosko to know, and Gnosticism rooted in nosis, share this Greek root. The connection between them is not about how the Gnostics is more about how the Gnostics appropriated the concept of knowledge, rather than any intrinsic connection between the words themselves. So they do have a common root.

13:16 But the main thing is the reason John kept using no no k n ow no no no no no, over and over and over is because he's writing a polemic against gnosticism, who has appropriated this idea of knowing knowledge and they using it in a completely different way. So John is trying to help his readers understand the difference between his the Christian or Biblical idea of knowing versus the Gnostic idea. So it's a polemic against Gnosticism. No, we covered a lot more there, but then we decided, after we did a little bit of work on the Greek and that's all this is all review, then we did a little bit of work on the ors and principles of Gnosticism. Nastissism emphasizes dualism, secret knowledge, the divine spark, and they have a cosmology especially in many and many Gnostic systems, which proposed a complex cosmology, often involving multiple divine beings. All right, Basically, at a lot of times they would have these ideas of a lesser Basically you have multiple divine beings, you would have a lesser ignorant deity, often identified with the God of the Old Testament who created the material world, and then you had this creator God was typically viewed as inferior, even malevolent or almost evil, while the true, unknowable God existed in a higher, purely

14:46 spiritual realm. All right, Well, obviously, when you get to First John, he's combating this code idea. There's one God, right, one God. There's not a difference between the God of the Old test in the New Testament. Well, and then we can go all the different things First John has to say. Right then, we talked about the connection to the idea of knowing and First John, and we looked at the difference between how John used knowing and how the Gnostics would use knowing, and we went into great detail about all of that. It got maybe a little tedious. By the time I finished all of that, I wasn't super happy with it. I wasn't super happy with it.

15:28 But I felt that, you know, I did. We went like an hour trying to work on it, and it's one of those things I think I said at the end, this is one of those times I felt like this would have been more appropriate at church, right in front of a live audience, because I could have seen they could have been asking questions, they could ask clarification, And sometimes it takes on a different a different vibe. But when you're just sitting in an empty studio, right and you're just like, okay, we got to go through all of this tedious information, I didn't quite wasn't happy with it, but I still think it was necessary. So now we're just gonna kind of pick up and move forward and see where we can get. I'm gonna just We're just gonna go and see where we could get. We're still trying to understand and try to draw the importance of the word no and First John, but mainly trying to understand First John and light of its arguments against gnosticism, not the way it's typically preached. Right, So there we go.

16:31 Now I'm going to do a little bit of work here and borrow from different things, and hopefully this will be helpful right, some of this will be a little repetitive, but being repetitive here could have great benefit. Are you ready? Okay? Now again, we've already talked about the word no in First John comes from two different Greek words. We primarily are focusing on gnosco because it has the same route as gnoses. It is used repeatedly in First John, over twenty five times. Its usage is signific, as we've already pointed out, especially when we considered in the context of gnosticism. And that's been my whole hypothesis is, Hey, it keeps using no because it's a polemic against gnosticism. I cannot drive that point home enough. All right. Gnosticism, as we've already discussed, became a very developed heresy in the second century, and it placed a high emphasis on secret knowledge. Gnosis often viewed as a means to salvation accessible only to a select few. However, in First John offers a contrast.

17:41 First John was likely written in the latter part of the first century, when early forms of gnostic thought were already emerging in the Christian community. When First John is written, gnosticism is already emerging within the Christian world, within the Church gnosticism is there. So you can't just take First John and say, oh, this is about lordship salvy. No, it's about a polemic against gnosticism, because it was already arising from within the church. The repetition of the word no and fir John appears to be countering these gnostic tendencies.

18:24 So you have to see no. We say we turn no into being about us. No, the no is to fight gnostic tendencies. So you can't understand First John unless you understand the gnostic tendencies. Then you can see First John and see how it's countering gnostic ideas. Here's some significant places where no appears in the letters. So we're gonna look at just a few places. Now we're gonna we're gonna some of this we're gonna be being repetitive on, but we'll be looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Okay, each time through, we're gonna look at it just a different and add another layer to it. Some of it will be repetitive, some of it will be slightly different, Okay, but repetition is the way. Then you'll start seeing I've got to repeat this over and over and over, and I'm rocking back and forth in my chair. Okay, we have to go through this over and over and over and over and over and over because you have been so conditioned to see First John as oh, this is a test book to try to prove if I'm saved.

19:29 And we've already talked about some of the major issues with approaching it that way. This is more about, hey, there's this, not these the Gnostics. There's Antichrist that were already present. Those Antichrist are the Gnostics. But let's start here. Now. This first one raises lots of difficulties, and that's first John two thirteen, all right, or first John two three, I should say first John two three. I don't know why I'm jumping to thirteen. I don't even think thirteen has the word no in it. All right, right, first John two to three, and here I'm going to go back to first John chapter one, First John chapter two, Verse one. My little children, these things write unto you that ye sin not, And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

20:21 Now immediately this is the idea. What John I think is trying to demonstrate is the Gnostics, as many know, has developed an idea that, hey, the body, the material is sinful. What matters is the knowledge. The knowledge is pure, the end material the spirit that's pure. The body, the material is all sinful. What you do with the body is irrelevant. It's what you know. It's the spiritual aspect the body. It doesn't matter. And John immediately says, my little children, I write unto these things, unto you, that you sin not. Now, obviously we know from experience and from the rest of the Bible that we live in a perpetual state of sin. We're going to continue to sin.

21:05 But what we do does matter in the Christian worldview. In the Christian worldview, it matters what we do with our body. This is contrasting the gnostic idea. It says, hey, I write that you said not, But if you do, you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Righteous. All right, thank goodness, we shouldn't sin, but we're going to sin. Thank God, we have an advocate, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Now we can get into a whole discussion about that. This is where arguments about you, you know, particular redemption, particular atonement, limited atonement. You can get into all kinds of arguments here, we won't get into that right now. The point is he is a propitiation. He has satisfied the wrath of God on our behalf. Praise God, Praise the lad or Jesus for that all right now and hereby we do know that we know him. Now here's the no. Now again it's being used. This is gonosco. This is being used by John to counter to counter the gnostic idea.

22:21 Now we can get into this, are you? This is how it's typically preached in almost every church you will ever go to. How do you know you're saved? You keep his commandments all right? But you won't keep them, you won't keep them perfectly all right? So my end perfect obedience to his commandments is how I know I'm saved? Well, so then how imperfect can I be? Like? It just becomes this very subjective way, right, It become subjective. Right, Well, but I'm still disobeying. Yeah, but it's about how much you obey? But how am I measuring how much I obey? Because no matter how much I obey, no matter how obedient I am no matter how much I obey. Hey, I'm still in a perpetual state of sin. As we discuss.

23:03 We've been discussing continually. Again, I can just demonstrate this. If you violate one point of the law, you're guilty of all of it. Where you're constantly violating one point of the law in some way, shape or form, so then you're perpetually in a state of sin. So then how can I know that I know him if I keep his commandments when I'm constantly in violation of his commandments, Because if I break one, I'm guilty of all. Love God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. Well, you never do that. You're in your inner perpetual state of sin. Be holy, as God is holy. You never do that's through inner perpetual state sin. We've talked about this, so this becomes very difficult. But if we look at it. Wait, this is drawing a distinction in gnosticism. You know secret knowledge, but that it has no bearing on what you do.

23:52 John is trying to say, the knowledge I'm referring to is relational. It's experiential, right, it has impact, you know, and what do we know? We know that Jesus Christ is the eternal son of God born of the Virgin Mary. You know, suffered under ponscious pilot, crucified Barry Rose. The third Day has scended to the right hand of the Father, from which who will come to judge the living in the dead, just giving you you know, the apostles creed there right giving you basic stuff here, so we know this. John's argument is that our knowledge takes into account and impacts what we do to someone. It's not going to make us perfect in any way, shape or form, but it has some impact. It has some connection to what we do. And you could argue that the knowing here is more about the relational fellowship aspect, which we will get into. All right. This verse connects first John two three the knowledge of God with practical obedience, not esoteric or secret knowledge. It emphasizes that true knowledge of God is accessible to all believers, and it is demonstrated through faithful as to His commands, not through some hidden insight.

25:03 The point is the Gnostic idea. It's esoteric, it's hidden. It's knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is knowledge that then moves to something. All right, now, I think before we even move on. I think we have to understand this. This knowing here, I think we got to take this into consideration because, as I've already stated, this turns into such an argument. I think it's possible, and other sources agree with me. Now, now this is one of the most frustrating things you have to learn about the Bible, right, you have to learn about Christianity, you have to learn about hermeneutics. You can have very well studied individuals who have been studying the Bible for twenty thirty forty years, right it backwards, forwards, upside down. They know Greek, they know Hebrew, they know church history, they know hermeneutics, and you can have these individuals come to very different understandings and very different interpretations of a passage of scripture. Now that can be very frustrating. Why because if you're sitting there going, well, wait a minute, that person twenty years of study knows all of this stuff.

26:19 They came to this conclusion. That person has twenty years of study, they came to a different conclusion. What am I supposed to do? And I think it just demonstrates that sometimes the text is not as clear as everyone would like to make it out. To be. I know it's easy when you're a young Christian just say that's what it says, that's what it means. I wish it was that easy, But I think it's possible and even reasonable to understand the use of the word no in First John as referring to knowing God and a relational or fellowship way, rather than in a Salvafic sense. I think the idea is is John because the word gnosco has the relational aspect as we've already seen. Multiple sources say that John is trying to say. The no I'm talking about is different than this esoteric secret knowledge. It's relational, it's it's it has it has something here. And I think this is important, all right. I think this is very important. As a Christian, we are say by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ did alone, has no has nothing to do with what we do, because by faith we are saved by it. Listen and imputed righteousness, which does not change us. My standing before God is based off what Christ has done for me. I'm adopted into the family of God. I am secure because of imputed righteousness. That's my positional standing, my pratic, practical life,

27:53 we can speak of it in a relational way. Practically, I now enter into our relationship with God, but that relationship very much fluctuates, and it has some bearing on what I do and don't do. My positional standing is not touched by what I do, but my practical fellowship relationship is. So I think this idea of no here can be more understood. It's more understood in a relational fellowship way rather than a salvafic sense. If we go with my suggestion here and we remember that salvation by faith alone is maintained, is maintained right, It's maintained because of Christ and the word no gnosco would be understood as describing the depth and quality of one's relationship and fellowship with God, which can vary or be hindered, while salvation itself remains secure. So guanosco here No. It is drawing a distinction between the gnostic idea, and it's doing so by speaking of this is relational, This is fellowship.

29:07 We know Him, and this knowing, this relational knowing is impacted by obedience, but it is not dealing with my salvation, because my salvation is not based on my obedience. It's based off the obedience of Christ, and his obedience is imputed to me by faith alone. Right, So I'm I'm gonna read as one source. Put this all right? Gonna I'm gonna read as one source. Put this all right? To understand the use of the word no in First John as referring to knowing God in a relational or fellowship based way rather than a Salvafic sense. And this interpretation salvation by faith alone is maintained, and the word no ganosko would be understood as describing the depth and quality of one's relationship and fellowship with God, which can vary or be hindered, while salvation itself remains secure. Here are some key points to support this view. Number one, salvation by faith alone justification. The New Testament consistently teaches that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ, apart from works or continued performance Ephesians two, Romans three. Right.

30:28 Just note that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works or continued performance. This means that at the moment a person believes in Christ, they are justified, declared righteous based on christ finished work. This is a positional standing before God which is secure and is not based on the believer's ability to perfectly obey love or even maintain fellowship. Since salvation is by faith alone, the believer's positional relationship with God remains intact even if their experiential fellowship with God fluctuates. So I am forever in a positional right relationship with God because that relationship is not based on anything I do. It's based on everything Christ did that's imputed to my account by faith alone. But in my practice, in my practical not the position, but my practical spiritual life, it fluctuates. It's about a relationship with God that has its ups and downs, and I and it has. My behavior may even impact that, But my salvation is secure.

31:32 This everybody wants to test our salvation by what we do. You cannot test a salvation that is accomplished by the finished work of Jesus Christ and it is made secure because of an imputed righteousness. You cannot test imputed righteousness by practical actions. You can't go to First John and say, well, if you do this and this and this and this, you're truly saved. Well, then you can't test imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is only accredited to my account. If I was, say, by an infused righteousness, you could test it. So if we truly believe salvation is by faith alone, based off an imputed righteousness, then one John two three, hereby we know him if we keep his commandments, cannot be a test to prove my salvation. I think this is saying knowing Him in a relational way, Yes, my fellowship, my practical relationship, not my salvation is connected to obedience, which is completely different than the Gnostic idea. So salvation by faith alone would support this distinction that I'm trying to make relational knowledge. The use of the word no in first John often emphasizes the ongoing relational aspect of a believer's experience with God. This knowledge is not about salvation itself,

33:03 but about how one lives in fellowship with God. Consider the following verses firs. John twoy three. By this we know that we have come to know Him if we keep his commandments. This verse suggests that knowing God is evidenced by obedience. However, this knowledge is relational, not salviafic. It indicates that obedience as a sign of close fellowship with God not a prerequisite or even a proof for salvation. The word no here refers to a deeper experiential relationship, not the act of being saved. This is a relational knowledge, My closeness, my fellowship with God is greatly impacted by my obedience, demonstrating that this relational knowledge does impact or is connected to obedience, which separates it from the gnostic idea that just knowing for the sake of knowing and it has no impact on what you do. This is saying no, my knowledge is relational and when you enter it into a relationship, well, then there will be impact on behavior to some level. Now, of course not going to be perfect. We already know that. Look at first John four eight would be another example. Anyone who does not love God does not know God. This is another example where knowing God is tied to our relational aspect expressing love. The implication is that what a believer loves,

34:36 that when a believer loves, they're were reflecting their fellowship with God. However, a failure to love does not mean the person is unsaved, but that their fellowship with God possibly is disrupted. And why why do we have to do that? Because if we go to first John four eight, uh, he that loveth he that loveth know, No with not God, for God is love. Ladies and gentlemen, we're in trouble. We're supposed to love God with all our heartmind, body, and soul. You say, well, it's not a perfect love, so I it's an imperfect love that can still prove that. I'm saying no, this would be majorly problematic if you try to judge someone's salvation on this. No. Ever, when we I've looked at the test based off first John, all the sermons are like, you have to obey, but you're not going to do it perfectly. You have to love, but you're not going to do it perfectly, which turns it all into a subjective test. No, no, no, no, this is about the knowledge John is speaking of is a relational knowledge. And my love, my loving others and loving God, and my seeking to obey and obeying greatly indicates my fellowship with God to some level. My fellowship, not my salvation. Now you say, well, it could still be subjective. It's much better to be subjective and trying to determine my closeness with God than being subjective and trying to determine whether I'm saved or not. How about

36:12 First John three six whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. Whosoever sinneth shall not, shall not see him, neither know him, or known him. All right, let me read this again, First John three sixth, whoever abideth in him sinneth not. I mean, what do you even do with that? Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him well? Or so you're gonna say. The way I know I'm saved is if I stop sinning completely. So then people come and try to modify this. No. See, if we make it about salvation, you've now you're you're done, You're finished.

36:53 If you take the test in First John, you have to either water them down and grade them on a curve that makes the test meaningless. Right, So then you can just decide, I guess anyone can just if you're it's like there's just no objective standard. If you make it the objective standard as it is written, then nobody is saved. Or you can say, wait a minute, this is dealing with my fellowship. So this is how one source would put it. The idea of knowing God is tied to abiding and not living in habitual sin. But we are all living in habitual sin. That's the issue. Be holy as he is holy. You never do that, you're in habitual sin. If you break one point of the law, you're guilty of all. You're an habitual sin.

37:33 If someone is living in an ongoing sin, John says, they do not know God in the experiential sense of abiding in His presence. But this does not apply a loss of salvation. Rather, it refers to the quality of their ongoing relationship with God. Now, I still don't like to use of the word habitual there, but I do agree if I look at it from an experiential relational part, what impacts my relationship with God? What impacts my relation my practical fellowship with God? I should say my salvation is not impacted by anything because it's based off the finished work of Jesus Christ. But obeying, loving, sinning, those have impact on my fellowship with God. I think we can all. I think every Christian should be able to agree with that. What will impact your relational relationship with God?

38:25 Your fellowship? Obeying, loving, and sinning? Right, the distinction between relationship and fellowship. The interpretation that I'm putting forth would fit well with a broader Biblical teaching positional relationship. This is the believer standing before God. It is secured by faith alone and Christ's work. It does not fluctuate based on behavior or performance. Experiential fellowship knowing God. This refers to the ongoing daily relationship with God character by obedience, love, walking in the light. Fellowship can be affected by sin, disobedience, or neglected of spiritual neglect of spiritual practices. This does not mean a person loses their salvation. Doesn't mean a person is not saved. John frequently talks about abidying in God or walking in the light as a part of knowing Him. These ideas suggest to focus on intimacy and closeness and the believers walk with God rather than a test of whether one is saved. A believer can be out of fellowship with God due to sin, but still be saved. Well, I hope that we can still. I hope that we can still be saved and sin because we're in perpetual state of sin. So obviously, then what do sin impact? It impacts my fellowship, It cannot impact my salvation. And again you cannot judge salvation which is based off an imputed righteousness. By looking at practical righteousness,

39:56 you can't look to someone and say, well, if you do this, or you do this, or you do this, not saved. No, my salvation is based off an imputed righteousness. Everything you told me to do, Christ did for me, and his righteousness is imputed to my account. So you can't say I'm not saved if I do the wrong thing, because Christ did the right thing for me, and his obedience is mine by faith, So that doesn't work. In fact, if you judge salvation based off what people do, you say, well, this proves or disproves they're saved, then you are looking at salvation from an infused righteous perspective and not an imputed one. But I can say obedience, love, and sin directly impacts my fellowship knowing God because it is relational, it is experiential, and it can fluctuate. One John one six through seven says, if we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the lot as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus's son cleanses us from all sin. Fellowship is the key idea, not salvation. Walking in darkness disrupts fellowship, but the blood of Christ continually cleanses the believer, securing their salvation even when fellowship is broken. And First John one to nine. Now, so the next thing we can look at is the idea of confession. First John one nine. Confession of sin

41:27 is presented as a means of restoring fellowship, not securing salvation. When believers sin, their fellowship with God is disrupted, but their positional relationship remains secure. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and justin forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This is an ongoing process, indicating that while sin hinders fellowship, it does not cancel out salvation. Confession restores the relationship or the relational experiential aspect, allowing the believer to continue to walk closely with God. Why do we continue to confess our sins Not that we won't lose our salvation, not that we won't prove that we're saved. We confess because we are in a relational aspect with God. A fellowship with God. Confession is a is to continue maintain relational the relationship, not salvation.

42:22 Salvation is completely based off faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. The use of know in One John reflects the Biblical theme of knowing God relationally rather than salvifically. This is consistent with other parts of the New Testament, where knowing God refers to growing intimacy and understanding and fellowship. Philippians three ten, that I may know Him in the power of his resurrection. Paul, was already a believer, expresses a desire to know Christ more deeply, indicating that knowing God is an ongoing relational process. Yes, so now, according to the one thing I looked up, it is possible and philologically consistent to understand the word no in First John as referring to knowing God in a relational way, speaking of the quality of one's fellowship with Him, rather than as a test of salvation. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ's finished work, while knowing God in First John is about maintaining close, ongoing fellowship with Him, evidenced by love, obedience, and walking in the light. This knowledge can fluctuate due to sin or disobedience, but salvation remains secure as the believer is justified by faith and is continually cleansed by Christ's atoning work. So let's put this together. First, John is a polemic against gnosticism. Gnosticism looks at knowledge

43:57 as some esoteric, kind of mistical secret thing. And it's about the knowledge, and that knowledge is not worried about what you do with your body, because the body is already sinful to just do whatever you want. It almost separates knowledge from any kind of practical ramifications. Right, It doesn't care about in a sense ethics or morality, and that sense you just know, and knowing is the key. John wants you to know that knowing is different the knowing John is used and looking at the Greek word. Okay, as we've talked about, when you go back to the Greek word, the idea is that it's relational, it's experiential.

44:43 So John immediately connects this knowledge to love, obedience, not sinning, walking in the light, not walking in darkness, demonstrating that this knowledge is different. So, first and foremost, it's drawing a distinction between the nost idea and the biblical ideas. That's the main idea here. Now, other Christians come along with No, this is a test to prove you're saved again. There's all the theological issues with doing that. You cannot judge someone's salvation, which is based off an imputed righteousness by looking at practical righteousness. Practical righteousness cannot be used to judged imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness does not change you.

45:25 Imputed righteousness does not do anything in you. Imputed righteousness declares you to be what you are, not infused righteousness. You can use practical righteousness to judge it, because it's something working in you. All right, So already we know we have to go a different route. So I think John, right, if you look using the Greek word, he's giving you the clue. This knowledge is about relationship, fellowship, it's relational, it's experiential. So you, in a sense, as a Christian, you are saved by faith alone because of what Christ has done you. Knowing God is experiential and relational. So first John, if you want to make it a test, it's a test first of all, to ensure that you're not buying into the gnostic idea. And you understand this.

46:15 Knowing God is much carries on far more weight than the Gnostic idea. And if you want to make it some kind of test. It's challenging you to check your fellowship, not your salvation. It's the only thing to the only way to make it make sense. Or you're gonna have this idea that, hey, this is a test to prove you're saved, but nobody's going to do it perfectly. So then it's some subjective test and it makes it literally makes no sense. We've talked about it before. We've looked at the test. MacArthur's test, Jonathan Edwards, you wretched radio. They even had a test. Everyone has these tests. Here's how you know. You're saying you do this, you do this, you do this. No, if you're gonna say that's the test to prove that I'm saved, I'm going to take the test to Jesus Christ, and I'm going to hand the test to Jesus Christ, and he's going to say, my obedience passes this test perfectly, and by faith, my obedience is imputed to you. So you pass the test in me, not by what I practically do. But when you want to look at a test, my relationship, my fellowship, my closeness with God is impacted by obeying, loving walking, all those types of things. That is the distinction that has to be made or we destroy the Gospel. Now,

47:49 is that perfect? I'm not saying it's perfect, it's not. It's messy. First, John is messy. Let's just be honest with it. It is very, very, very very messy. And the reason it's so messy is because we've been taught a certain way to look at it our entire Christian life. I'm just saying, if I look at it the way I've been taught my entire Christian life, I literally systematically destroy the Gospel I am. I am destroying the idea of being saved by an imputed righteousness. And I'm walking right back into the Catholic system of an infused righteousness as non Catholics. It's October, the Reformation Day is about to be here. Remember, the whole concept of the Reformation is not justified by an infused righteousness, but by an imputed righteousness. Well, imputed does not make me righteous, It declares me to be that which I am not. Now Christians saying, yeah, well, but but sanctification, sanctification, Well, then that we talked about sanctificy you look at just go back and look at the message I just preached yesterday on sanctification redefined. I think our understanding of sanctification is utterly flawed as well. Now the question would be how is our fellowship Now I'm not an expert on that in any way, shape or form. I think that that's a very complicated concept because no matter look, I if my fellowship just even looking at it this way, it's

49:22 still problematic. All right, let's not act like I've fixed anything here. I haven't fixed anything. I just am trying to protect the gospel. Right, But the fellowship, if this is a test for fellowship, it's still just as problematic. I know I know him in a relational fellowship way if I obey him. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm in a perpetual state of disobedience. So are you be holy as God? As holy? Have you done that today? You've been in sin all day? Love God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. Have you done that today? Well, you're in perpetual state of sin. Love your neighbor as yourself. Have you done that today? You're in a perpetual state of sin. Love your enemy. Have you done that today? You're a perpetual state of sin. Do all things without murmurying and complaining.

50:04 Have you done that today? You're in a perpetual state of sin. You were in sin every single day. We're in a perpetual state of disobedience to his commands because if your violate one, you're guilty of all. So then how can I even judge my fellowship? I don't know. If you know him, you will sin not Okay, Well, now what people say, Well, it's not perfect obedience, it's not perfect sinlessness. It's just like you will just and they try to find some semantics to get around, well, we're talking about the entirety of your life. Well, the entirety of my life is a perpetual state of sin, as I've already articulated. So even making this about fellowship doesn't really help me at all. Now we could look at it. Now, this is where I don't know how it would work against gnosticism, right if we do this.

51:04 The Gnostic idea is that knowledge, says esoteric, it doesn't matter what you do, and God's system and the biblical idea of knowing or no ginosko, is that knowing greatly impacts behavior, it greatly is connected to behavior. Let's say it this, it greatly is connected to behavior because God's law reveals to us what God demands. We know what God demands, and it makes us guilty. Right, I would not have known this is a sin unless the law told me it is a sin. The law shows me by the law, I know this is sin. I know God says, obey his commandments, do not sin. Love. I know that, and therefore I'm condemned by that knowledge. So in a sense, if I take these passages as hey, if you know God, you won't do this. You won't do this, you won't do this, you won't do this.

52:04 The law says, if you know me, you will do this, and I am condemned. So if I see First John as law, then the answer is Christ does these things for me. It still is drawing a distinction between the Gnostic idea, so it's still a polemic against gnosticism. But then we would utilize it as a law. This First John is law. Don't sin, obey, walk in light, don't walk in darkness. Love do these things perfectly. And you're like, well, I can't. I know that I'm supposed to, but I can't. And then Jesus says, but I did for you. So then, because if my salvation is based off Gracelane, wouldn't my fellowship have to be based off that? Right? So is it better to understand First John more from the perspective of law. It's law, and law drives me to Christ.

53:12 But it has the idea of knowing. I know the law lets me know. Knowing makes me guilty. I take these demands of the law and say I cannot, but Christ did them for me. So every demand in First John is accomplished in Christ. Do we need a law gospel approach to First John more than the fellowship idea?

53:54 And can we still maintain that it's a polemic against gnosticists say we need to bring the two worlds together. The knowledge here is more than the esoteric secret knowledge of gnosticism, but the knowledge of the Bible, the knowledge of the Law, simply will condemn you to the eighteenth level of hell. I'm not seeing there's levels of hell, but I know some will argue there is. I'm not getting about to get into that argument. The point is it's going to send you to hell because you're gonna know this is what the law to manager. You're like, I can't, I can't I can't. You can't. You can't obey all of his commands. You cannot stop sinning all of these things. You're never going to love the way God demands love. So it is a different knowledge than gnosticism.

54:36 So it's drawing a distinction. But then this knowledge is to show me my inability to do it, which then drives me to Christ. And then Christ did it for me. Maybe it's more complex than we actually think that it is. The fellowship idea. I want it to work because I can say, yeah, my action impacts my fellowship with God. But how would I even measure that? How would I measure am I in fellowship with God today? I don't know. I'm still not holy as he says to be holy. I still don't love Him with my whole heart, mind, body, and so I'm in a perpetual state of sin. So I'm not obeying his commands. I'm still sinning. I don't love the way to I'm not in fellowship with him. I would never be in fellowship with him. I think we have to look at it from a long gospel distinction.

55:22 That's the only thing in church history that that's the only option. Everything else just makes no sense unless you start playing this subjective game. Well, it's not about obeying perfectly, it's just about the general direction. Well then, how no, your general direction is a perpetual state of disobedience because you're perpetually disobeying. Like it makes no sense. So maybe we spent fifty five minutes going with the fellowship I did, and I just decided to throw all of that out at the end. But then I give you a lot of different ways of looking at it. I guess we could say you have We'll call it the lordship way.

56:04 It's it almost forgets gnosticism, and this is a test about your salvation. And I don't like the fact that it forget forgets gnosticism, but in many cases it tends to do so even if you try to put gnosticism into it, it becomes a test about your salvation. And we see why that falls apart. You're testing imputed righteousness by practical righteousness, which you can't do. It makes no sense. Number two, it's a fellowship thing. Well, you can maintain some distinction between the Gnostic idea of knowledge and the Biblical idea of knowledge and at the same time maintaining salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. But then you get into an issue of how do you measure fellowship or you could look at it from a grace a law gospel distinction, and that First John is maintaining the distinction and knowledge against the gnostics. But this knowledge shows you your inability, which then drives you to Christ, and then Christ fulfills all of these days. Now, well, the only problem is does any of that actually work?

57:07 I don't know, but I know this whatever system you go with, telling you it doesn't work, it's flawed in some way shape perform. You can try to pretend that it's flawed. You can if you make it simple and you don't you don't ask any questions, you can convince everyone sitting in the pew, oh, praise God, I learned First John. And they will tell everyone what it means, but as surface level, and it's not allowing anyone to really ask the tough questions that everyone should ask. And looking at it, the main thing to know is that the know in First John is different than the no of gnosticism. And it's clearly that the use of no in First John is to draw a distinction between the knowing of gnosticism. If you miss that, we've missed the entire point of the entire epistle. All right, I'll stop right there. Thank you for listening. I wish I had more simple answers, but there aren't any simple answers. I can just tell you that, all right, Okay, I hope that makes some kind of sense. I don't know if it does, but I've done my very best. I've given you I've given you lots of hypotheses you can now you can struggle with the point is you should struggle with it, because I'm telling you all the sermons that sound like it's so simple and it's so easy. No, all right, thanks for listening. Everyone, have a great day.

58:33 God bless