The Whole Christ (part 11)

Gospel Assurance in The Whole Christ

Two more weeks of going through the whole Christ. This is the book by Sinclair Ferguson talking about the marrow controversy. Elder Brown has the handouts now. We are going into the third section of the book.

So the book talks about antinomianism, legalism, and gospel assurance. And so we're going to, I think Corey started talking about gospel assurance a couple weeks ago. And now we're going to talk about it a little bit more.

We're going to talk about the theological aspects of gospel assurance today. So if you've been with us from the beginning, thank you. I hope that this has been an encouraging and a helpful study for you.

It's been certainly helpful for me to really dissect this controversy, and specifically legalism and antinomianism, and get a really good understanding of these two things in a deeper way than what we typically experience in the daily Christian life.

And so don't spend too much time reading the sheets. We're going to work our way through the sheets. I'm going to lose you if you just spend your time in the sheets this morning. But I promise, Lord willing, in the 40 minutes we have remaining, I will do everything I can to get through this sheet, even if Caroline is making faces at me.

The Nature of Assurance as Faith's Reflex Act

OK. Does anybody remember the simple definition of assurance that Corey started with a couple of weeks ago? Would anybody like to define assurance for me? You know that you know. You know that you know.

OK. Anything else? Assurance. Joni. OK. That is excellent, and we will get to that. That is something that we'll get to in a little bit. Plainly put, assurance is being completely convinced of your salvation.

You're assured of your salvation. So that was where Corey started when he talked about assurance. And he worked through some of the foundational truths of that. He looked at the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and he began to really develop in depth what this assurance was and what it meant.

And then he touched briefly on a point that Ferguson makes just at the beginning of chapter 10, which is where we're going to be today. And that is that even though assurance is not the essence of faith, there is a certain assurance in faith.

Why is that? Anybody want to wager a guess? Well, we'll talk about it today, but before we really get into it, why is that? Even though assurance is not the essence of faith, there is a certain assurance in faith.

OK, good. It gets you to think that faith is a gift from God, right? We know that, Ephesians 2. And if it's from God, then it is certain, because it is from God, right? Anything else? Gary? Sure, Hebrews 11 .1.

Faith is assurance of things hoped for. So Ferguson talks about direct acts of faith and reflex acts of faith in the text. Do these terms sound familiar? Do you talk about these? OK. I was in and out.

Does anybody know what these mean, direct act of faith? No? No? Yes? Other than you? All right. Let's take a step back. What is faith? We're in remedial Sunday school mode this morning. What is faith?

Ephesians 2. Faith is a gift from? Come on, guys. Work with me here. Faith is a gift from God, right? It is not of ourselves. So the direct act of faith says Christ is able to save. That's belief, right?

We have this gift of faith given to us. We respond with belief. Christ is able to save. And so as we place our faith in Christ, which, again, is something that is given to us, it's based on this foundational truth.

Christ is able to save. Assurance, on the other hand, is, as Ferguson calls it, a reflex act of faith. The object is not Christ, but self, right? Direct act of faith, the object is Christ. Reflex is us.

The reflex act says, I am someone who has been saved through faith in Christ, right? So direct act, Jesus Christ has accomplished this thing. He is able to save. I put my faith and trust in him. Reflex act is seeing that.

I am someone who has been saved through that. That's what assurance is, is knowledge of that saving faith. These two things, belief and assurance, share a common foundation. And assurance cannot exist without faith.

And that's something that we're really going to spend some time exploring today. But in light of the awareness of this link, Corey left us at the end of chapter 9, beginning of chapter 10, with a more in-depth definition, which is what Joni was talking about, which is assurance is the knowledge, belief, and persuasion that Christ died for me, and that he is mine, and that whatever he suffered, he did and suffered for me.

It's a more in-depth belief. It's not just, I know that I'm saved. So let's take this. Let's take this more complex definition of assurance, and we'll look at where it comes from and what it means. Where is it in scripture?

How do we find it in scripture? Belief and assurance, we know they both spring forth from faith, but how can we understand how these two things are actually related to each other? Scripture talks about the fruits of the spirit.

We know what those are. Assurance is the fruit of faith. Assurance grows from faith, from saving faith. The initial faith that we have that is given to us, we respond to with belief and submission, comes from our recognition that we cannot save ourselves.

When I talk to my kids, it's really not hard to convince my kids that they don't disobey mom and dad. They get that part of it. Dealing with the reality that that means they're sinners, I don't think they like the label part of it, but they get it.

They understand disobedience. They understand the necessity for discipline, even if they don't like it. So we get this idea that we are unable to save ourselves. If we make the consequences of their disobedience so great that they can't pay for it, which is essentially what we're talking about here, then what are they going to do?

See, we have, here's the problem. You all know Elliot. We have this thing in our room called the ransom box. So this is, many of you parents are familiar with the ransom box. They leave their clothes out.

They leave their toys out. We clean up all their toys. We put them in the ransom box. This is convenient, because it means I don't have to figure out where they go. I just put them in the ransom box. And then we have, I think I got this from, this is Laguna Witch.

We have a jar, which is, these are the ransom chores. And they have to do chores from the ransom chore jar in order to get something back from the ransom box. Well, apparently, some of these chores are kind of fun for Elliot.

So he doesn't really mind. So the consequence isn't really there. So he's like, eh, whatever. You'll put them in the ransom box. I'll get them later. Not the right goal. Right? This faith is a recognition that we are wholly unable to save ourselves, not that getting toys out of the ransom box is fun.

We're convicted through the preaching of God's word, and we're convinced through scripture of the salvific act of Christ. So belief has within it a component of assurance of salvation. Because why would we believe in something if we were not convinced that it would be so?

It's something I talk about with people at work all the time. They're like, look, if I did something or said something and I sound like a meathead, it's probably because I don't know something that you think that I should know.

So let me know, because I wouldn't be a meathead on purpose. So why would we respond with belief if we didn't have conviction and assurance that Jesus Christ would save us? So Murray writes about the position of the Christian with regard to salvation and with regards to assurance.

And he says this. Now listen carefully, because I'm going to ask a question. However weak may be the faith of a true believer, however severe may be his temptations, however perturbed his heart may be, respecting his own condition, he is never, as regards consciousness, in the condition that preceded the exercise of faith.

The consciousness of the believer differs by a whole diameter from that of the unbeliever. At the lowest ebb of faith and hope and love, his consciousness never drops to the level of the unbeliever at its highest pitch of confidence and assurance.

What does that mean? Right. The minimum amount of, I mean, I don't know if I would use the word faith, but that's the right answer. The minimum amount of faith or assurance or their minimum salvific condition, the minimum salvific condition of a believer is greater than the maximum salvific condition of an unbeliever.

Now this is really, really important because I think that within the confines of the church, we have kind of a myopic view of the Christian life. And I think we lose sight of the relationship between salvation and assurance, right?

Especially at BBC. Oh, I said something bad about BBC. OK. What do I mean when I say that? I mean, when we struggle with issues like assurance of salvation, sanctification, or any of these other things that crusty old erudite Christians, the things that we cogitate over, it's really easy for us to forget how fundamentally different saved and unsaved are, right?

They're so completely different. They're different worlds. We went to see My Fair Lady last night. And it's the story of Eliza Doolittle. And she's a homeless flower girl on the street. And she goes to lovely Henry Higgins' house and learns how to act like a lady, right?

The worlds are so completely different. And it's a powerful story because this person goes from one completely separate world to a completely different separate world, right? People don't cross that gap.

These are like class divides, right? It's a weird thing that brings someone from one place to another. And so as we work through all these issues and we spend, I don't know, 15 sessions discussing antinomianism and legalism and gospel assurance, it's really easy for us to forget that fundamentally, when we think about what repent really means, they are completely separate worlds from each other.

To use courtroom language, frequently the tactic of a defense attorney isn't, unless it's pursuant to the case, it's not to convince people that the defendant is a really nice guy, he's a wonderful guy, right?

It's not about that guy's character. What is it about? Did he do it or not? Is he guilty or is he innocent, right? I don't care if I'm a defense attorney. I don't care if everybody in the courtroom hates that guy.

But my job is to get the jury to say that that guy is innocent, right? OK. We could put Billy Graham, R .C. Sproul, L. Seuss Johnson, whoever your legendary hero of the faith in the modern era is. I actually put John MacArthur on the list, and then I realized all the other theologians are dead, and that would be really awful, so I took him off.

Sorry. Put all of them, right? They're all in heaven, right? We presume. I mean, there's really no reason for us to think otherwise. Guess who else is in heaven? The thief on the cross is in heaven, right?

Now, are the rewards in heaven different? I'm sure they are. But guess what? They're still both there. They're still all there. And that's the difference that we're talking about here, right? The position of the best, most moral, most enlightened, kindest, maybe even Bible-teaching pagan, right, because they exist, is lower than the believing Christian at their lowest point.

The paragon of unbelieving humanity is in a worse position salvifically, no matter how good they feel about themselves, than Peter was when he heard the rooster crow. So what does that mean? Let's keep this in mind, because it's really, really important.

These two things, when we talk about salvation, saved and unsaved, are hugely different things. Let's keep that in mind when we talk about this. This is the practical syllogism that Ferguson presents in the chapter.

He says, first, we have the belief of the Christian. I take Jesus Christ as my Savior. Therefore, later in life, at the core of their assurance, they claim what? It's on your sheet. You can cheat now.

Practical syllogism. I take Jesus Christ as my Savior. Therefore, later in life, at the core of their assurance, they claim what? Jesus is mine. See, if I write out your answers, I get responses from the audience.

I like it. That's it. That's the core. Everything centers around this initial faith and the reinforcement of that initial faith. Neither implicit nor explicit assurance exists apart from faith. Ferguson, why is this so important?

It means we cannot have a meaningful pastoral conversation on the following presupposition. But leaving aside the reality of my faith for a moment, how can I have assurance of salvation? Right? That's what he's saying here.

OK. Why is this important? Why is it so important that everything centers around initial faith and reinforcement of that initial faith? Because you cannot have a meaningful pastoral conversation about assurance apart from faith.

They are one and the same. Now, here is my controversial statement of the morning. Here we go. There is something that Pastor Mike says. That, I will say multiple times, I 100 agree with. That can cause a problem in the life of the believer.

Again, he's 100 right. I'm not disagreeing. I'm going to say that multiple times. But bear with me. OK. What is Mike's response when someone says to him for the first time that they believe in Christ?

Does anyone know what's his response? Keep believing. OK. Number one, I'm going to say it again. I 100 agree with Pastor Mike. I'm not disagreeing with him. But I'm making the case this morning that that can damage our assurance.

Why? You told them to do something. When our belief that our salvation is based on something that we do, that creates in us a fear that if ever we stop doing that thing, what happens? We lose it. Right?

So again, I'm just going to remind you, I 100 agree with Pastor Mike. But if our vision, if our view, and we're going to cover this again later when we talk about strands, because I don't know if Ferguson really likes this whole strand thing.

If we lose sight of the fact that our salvation is wholly caused by the actions of Jesus, by the work of Jesus Christ, and we here keep believing. Now remember, this is being said to an immature Christian.

We here keep believing. That can give us a little hitch on our step, right? So again, I completely agree with Mike. I'm not disagreeing. Please do not throw rocks at me. Any comments from the piano gallery, by the way, before I say anything?

Dave? Well, I mean, first of all, describing complex theological truths in two words is always going to miss something, right? It's a broad brush. But I don't even think it's that. I think it is ultimately just a response to say, I don't know whether your faith is genuine or not.

I have no idea. Maybe it is. So it's not necessarily a statement that says, well, you think you do. That's cute. But keep it up, and we'll figure it out. It might be awesome. Don't stop, right? Excel still more.

Of course he would. Well, but we're Calvinists, and yet we say repent and believe, right? So there's a lot of complexity there. Corey, do you have something, too? Oh, now it's trash Mike Day? No, no, no, no, no, no.

We would. It's the practical syllogism of Pastor Mike. Keep believing, and also, if there was anything you could possibly do to lose your salvation, you would have already done it, right? Yes? Right. And there's a lot of theological truth in the statement, I believe, help me in my unbelief, right?

There's a lot of self-conscious awareness of his own condition, right, when he says that. So any conversation about assurance of faith must take place in the context of faith. There is no alternative.

Grace, Faith, and the Dangers of Works Righteousness

Our culture is super scientific, right? All I could think about when I was reading through this in this passage was that this is a very scientific perspective. We have an idea, right? There are multiple engineers in the audience, so I better speak carefully.

We have an idea, OK? We can accomplish a task using a method, method A, right? And then we want to prove it works, right? We need corroboration. We need to convince people that this thing works. And so we compare the results of process A against process B, which is tried and true, and everybody knows that it's a process that is generally accepted, right?

This is how process improvement works. And we say, through repetition, OK, process A, my new and improved, costs less, uses less materials process. Process A, here's the old scandalous process B, which takes up all this time and money and whatever.

And look, they always result in the same outcome, but they're completely and wholly separate from each other. Therefore, we know that process A is a valid process. You want to prove that the process to get to heaven involves faith?

OK, take another process that also gets you to heaven and see if both get you the same result, right? That's 3M's entire MO. That's what they do. There is, however, no detour, right? We talk about there's only one way to heaven, right?

Even if it takes you 10 miles out of your way on 190 north. There is no detour. There is only one way. So how do we recognize this? So we don't have an external source by which we can validate our assurance.

We only have this one way. What can we do? How do we analyze ourselves to validate our assurance? And so Ferguson, in his tried and true method, suggests that the proper self-conscious awareness of genuine faith develops within three dimensions, or strands, or whatever.

They are handily on your sheet. So that means that if I don't finish, you still have the close notes, and I would be happy to fill you in later if necessary. The first one of these is grace and faith.

Faith seeks and is nourished by understanding, and in particular, assurance is nourished on a clear understanding of grace. Divine grace is such a foreign concept to us because our society is very transactional, right?

I will do this thing for you if you do this thing for me. It's difficult to comprehend the acts of God with the right perspective because the acts of God are not driven from a transaction. The acts of God are driven from grace.

Because of that, there are three main dangers, or enemies, to our understanding of grace. I've already touched on one of them, and we'll get back to it again. But these enemies of our understanding of grace are, therefore, enemies of our assurance because our assurance is rooted in grace and faith.

The first one you have on your sheet is what? That's how to make sure you're in the right place on the sheet. Does anybody not have a sheet, by the way, that needs one? I don't know if there's any more.

There's no more? Well, I guess I know how many people are here. Okay, the first one on the sheet is drifting into works righteousness. We started talking about this when I mentioned keep believing. Well, what is that?

If we fear that at some point we could stop believing and that would affect our salvation, then that means that we have some inkling, though we would never cop to it by name, of works righteousness. Now again, is it important to keep believing?

Yes. But at the same time, if we believe that our salvation hinges on our ability to do that, then we're in trouble. Question. Is this statement a good thing or a bad thing to say? Of course it was appropriate that God was gracious to me.

He knew that I would become the growing Christian that I now am. Look, it was in the book. People are laughing at me and shaking their heads. I mean, that's a good thing. That's good. No, it is not a good thing.

Our minds easily fixate on this idea of self-accomplishment in a salvific context. This is capitalist America. Pull your solo bootstraps, all right? But the reality is that even if you want to talk about it in a transactional context, which you can, that transaction had nothing to do with us other than us being the recipient of it.

The transaction was between God the Father and God the Son. So that's number one, drifting into works righteousness. Number two. By the way, this one is probably my favorite. This is pre-number two, hand-raising?

Sure. Only in the sense that if we believe that our salvation hinges on our ability to keep believing. The key part in there being our ability to keep believing. Get in stereo. So I would say this. The ordo salutis clearly shows us when we put things out in this pseudo-chronological salvific context.

Ordo salutis, the order of salvation. It is really an exercise to show us, to explain to us, to put in writing our understanding of the various things that need to happen in order for us to be saved by God.

And for the most part, I say pseudo-chronological because with the exceptions of the very beginning and the very end of it, it pretty much all happens at the same time. But it helps us with a logical progression of those things.

And as we study that, we see that we are given a saving faith and our response to that is belief. It is irresistible grace. And so if indeed God has saved us, we can't not keep believing. But many times, I don't want to say every time, the immature Christian might not have a clear understanding of that.

And so if the first response is, I believe in Jesus, is keep believing, and they don't have a clear understanding of what irresistible grace is, then immediately it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what happens if I fail?

What happens if I stop? What happens if I don't do a good job? Because by definition, in order for someone to come to Christ and say, I am unworthy, they have recognized that they are morally a mess. They recognize that they are sinful.

And so if I've come to this, put yourself back to when you were saved. If I come to this and I say, okay, I have now recognized that I'm wholly incompetent to come before a thrice holy God, and then you're going to tell me that I better keep believing, I'm dust, forget it, it's not going to happen.

Because that's the context in which that response happens. And obviously, like you said, there's a lot more that goes into it than just keep believing, but it's very difficult for us to have that clear understanding of what the grace of God is and how that grace enables us to persevere as Christians.

Not through anything we've done, but through what Christ has done on our behalf. Yes, I think it's also pushing against the altar call idea where you can make a confession of faith and then you're done.

The change of the life of the believer is a dramatic and complete change that persists for the rest of their life. And it's not just, I did a thing, I'm all set. Well, I will say this, this is my punt, which is really a function of time and not because I don't want to answer the question.

Mike's here today. So our lives, and the next major bullet point is walking in faith. Our lives as Christians are to be defined by our continued belief, our continued faith, and as a consequence of that, our desire to submit to the law as rule of life.

And so it is, as we work out our salvation, if you're in trembling, that idea. It is a continued reinforcement of belief in our lives. But I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth, even though I guess I already kind of did.

When he says keep believing, I don't think it's that deep. I think he's simply saying, great, you've made an initial confession of faith. Continue in that. I don't think he's going into this deep theological, sociological schism and, well, what side do you fall on and all this kind of stuff.

I think it's really just, this is something that perseveres. If it is truth-saving faith, it is something that perseveres and keep doing it. I think that that's ultimately what he's saying. Bob, you look ready to say something.

It's less important what you believed, past tense, but what you believe right now. So, point two. We didn't even get to point two of sub-points. There's a lot of points. This, I think, in this whole study that I did coming into this week, this is the one that is, for me, the most beautiful.

And so, who knows? I don't know. Anyway, believing our justification is because of Christ's independent action. So we're talking about the enemies of grace and faith as ways that we can look at our assurance.

We talked about this before. What is wrong with this statement? God loves me because Christ died for me. Perfect answer. The issue is the word because. If we take God loves me because Christ died for me, we can change that to be theologically accurate by saying, God loves me and so Christ died for me.

Although people would love to present, especially the Old Testament God, this way, God the Father is not a wrathful, vengeful, bloodthirsty divinity whose lust for punishment is thankfully and mercifully assuaged by the actions of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

When we have this perspective, it does a couple of things. Number one, Ferguson says, when grace no longer reaches back to the very fountainhead, then deep and suspicious thoughts of God the Father develop.

God the Father is absolutely, completely, and totally to us what he reveals himself to be in Christ. So, what does that mean? When we have this kind of perspective, God loves me because Christ died for me, we become fearful of God the Father.

And certainly there is scriptural language about Jesus as intercessor. But theologically, and this is where this is amazing to me, if we believe this, if we give this any credence, God loves me because Christ died for me, then we rob God the glory of a perfectly united trinity.

What do I mean by that? The elect were chosen in eternity past. The triune Godhead chose the elect together. God the Father sent the Son specifically to save those whom they, the Trinity whom he had chosen.

God the Father knew who would be saved when Christ came. Jesus' intercession for us was planned in eternity past by the unified Trinity, by God the Father, by Jesus the Son, by the Holy Spirit. And so, when we look at this perspective, this idea that God loves me because Christ died for me, when we look at Christ's death as the causation for God's love, then we rob God of the unity of the Trinity, the harmony of the Trinity.

So, I just think that's cool. That was one of those, like, Selah moments for me, right? I was like, this is cool. Let's take this in and ruminate on this for a little while. Number three, the third enemy of grace and faith as elements of our assurance, as ways by which we can validate our assurance.

Failure to recognize that justification is final and complete. There's another good one. I like this a lot too. Justification is final and complete. How do we know that justification is final? How do we know that justification is complete?

These are not rhetorical questions. Anyone? Let's take the first one. How do we know justification is final? No one will take them out of my Father's hand, right? That would talk about the perseverance of the saints.

Let's talk about justification specifically. What is justification? Let's take a step back. What's justification? Being declared righteous, right? It's not just just as if I'd ever sinned, but also the righteousness of Christ imputed upon us.

And that is what, by the way? It is a legal term. I'm getting messages. Lucky me. So, why is justification final? It's based on God's decree. Good. That is good. Okay. This is a legal definition. When does this legal definition happen?

When does this legal term happen? If we look at the corpus of human history from start to finish, at what point was the decision made that we would be justified, that Mark Kranz would be justified, that Andrew Smith would be justified?

When is the legal statement made, bang, justified? Mark? When Jesus says it is finished on the cross? No. Outside of time altogether. In eternity past, the decision is made, but it's not applied until one is regenerated.

And on the last day, on judgment day, when we are judged, finally, we are declared righteous. Right? That is when it happens. That is in the future. That is why this declaration, the decision, the application, the declaration is in the future.

That is why it is final. There is no opportunity for it to change after that. Make sense? No. Because it is God's decree. Thanks, Dave. So, okay. Good point. Excellent point. So, where does heaven exist?

Inside or outside of time? Outside of time. Which means that things that happen in heaven will be forever and have always been. Because time is insignificant. Yep. Okay. How is it complete? Justification.

How is justification complete? This is the easy one. Pretty easy. Say your answer again. Because it's God's decree. It is complete because justification removes our sin by placing it on Christ and gives us Christ's righteousness, which we know is complete because on the cross Jesus said, what?

It is finished. And his resurrection proves that. So we see within this dimension of grace and faith that it is critical that we fully understand how Christocentric it is. Right? Our faith is in Jesus Christ.

The key to enjoyment of assurance is precisely because that assurance is not just of our faith, but really it is that he is a great savior and that he is ours. So, there is exactly zero chance that I will finish this.

Did somebody just snort while laughing at me? So, I'll give it a go. One more point. We still won't finish. So, the first thing was grace and faith. Right? It's the first dimension that helps us understand proper self-conscious awareness of genuine faith.

The second one is walking in faith. We still have our practical syllogism, right? I take Jesus Christ as my savior, therefore Jesus is mine. How is this worked out? It's worked out in our second dimension, walking in faith.

The function of this syllogism is that high degrees of assurance are not compatible with low levels of obedience. If Christ is not actually saving us, producing in us the obedience of faith that Paul talks about in Romans.

Remember, we talked about the law not as the ceremonial law or the judicial law or the civil law, but as the rule of life for the New Testament believer. We talked about that in the exegetical strand of antinomianism.

If that obedience of faith is not produced in us, then our confidence that he is our savior is bound to be undermined. What's the great book of the New Testament that talks about assurance? 1 John. In this epistle, John draws out a lot of things, but specifically here, four moral characteristics in the life of the believer that encourage assurance.

There's a lot of similarities here. The first one is obedience to the commands of God. 1 John 2, verses 3 and 4. This is direct refutation of antinomianism. That is exactly what it is. How can we persist with the belief that God's laws have no rule over me when we have scripture like this in 1 John that says we keep his commandments?

And if we don't, then how can we There's a scriptural mandate that we can be assured if we are obedient to the commandments of God. Obviously, we are imperfect humans, so this may manifest first as a desire to be obedient.

We recognize persistent sin in our lives and we want to fix that. We want to figure out, Lord, help me with my unbelief. How do we stop sinning? As much as we would like, you can't just snap your fingers and be like, I'm fine.

It doesn't happen that way. We have to continually work on it, pray through it, study scripture, talk to wiser men and women than ourselves to understand how to get over these things. It may manifest first with a desire to be obedient to the command of God and contrition at the failure to do so.

But again, this is an attestation to the obedience of faith Paul writes about multiple times in Romans. Dave, I see you looking something up. I don't want to move past. Here comes the next one. You ready?

I've got to get through walking in faith and we're going to stop there no matter what. Number two, righteous living. 1 John 2 .29. Did I not put the verses in the thing? I'm awful. I'm terrible. What a useless handout.

I will give them to you if you come up to me after. I'm more than happy to give them to you. Righteous living, 1 John 2 .29. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

This is another way of expressing obedience to the commandments of God. But instead of our first passage from the beginning of chapter 2, this is sort of this idea of a general pattern of righteous living instead of specifically keeping the specific commandment.

Now, implied in keeping the commandment, implied within that is righteous living, but this is sort of filling in the gap. A general tenor of righteous living, an ability to read between the lines of explicit commandments of God and to extend those principles to other facets of life.

This would be, in many ways, being a high character person in ways that are not sinful, which brings us to point number three, which is, conveniently, not sinning. Again, this is a very similar idea, but this is looking at the negative side instead of the positive side.

Not keeping commandments and living a righteous life, but also, P .S., not sinning. 1 John 5 .18a. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning. Obviously, well, maybe not obviously, but this is not talking about the moment by which you are redeemed, the moment by which you are saved, you immediately cease sinning altogether.

As delightful though that may be, we would all live in a gated community of Christians where the gate is locked and everyone inside has their doors open and everybody hangs out with everybody and it's lovely and wonderful.

3 .9, you said? 1 John 3 .9? 1 John 3 .19? I have this and I have this. 1 John 3 .19, excellent. The last one is walking in love, 1 John 3 .14. We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brothers.

Whoever does not love abides in death. Also, 1 John 4 .7, beloved, let us love one another for love is from God and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. How do you love your neighbor? How do you love the brethren?