1 JOHN

In This Section

1 JOHN 5:16-17, 5:18

1 JOHN 5:16-17

In the context, of 1 John 5, going through verses 6 through 9, John proclaims Jesus Christ and the testimony of God through the Spirit. It is all truth that is contrary to the cultic influences that had permeated the people of the area he is writing to. Then in 1 John 5:10, John gives a fantastic declaration of assurance of salvation and eternal security. It is absolutely beautiful;

"10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:10-13)

The testimony is that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son, and he who has the Son has eternal life (cf. 5:11-12). John wrote these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know, recognize, be assured, not be confused, understand, comprehend, and realize, that you indeed do have eternal life.

John goes into some teaching about prayer and sin, which is important because this teaching leads directly into the passages that are wrongly interpreted by people who believe in the NEST (in accordance to the NEST). We must pay special attention to the flow of thought here as John says,

"14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him." (1 John 5:14-15)

A KEY

John is speaking here of a type of request that we can make as Christians that contrasts another type of request. The type of request that he identifies here is the one that is according to God's will. The point is that if we ask for something by our own determination and it lines up with God's determination, then God will grant the request. This is what John means by saying that God hears us. God hears us no matter what we request, because God is not deaf, is not confused, and has determined all that is, to be. John is using an idiomatic expression which means that God acknowledges our request with a yes answer, and so we have the requests. What this implies is that whenever you ask for something and your request is contrary to God's determination in His answers, then He does not hear you. To not hear you, means, of course, that God will not give you the request; therefor you do not have the request which you have asked from Him. This is part of John's immediate point going directly into the passage that is sometimes used to build the NEST. Keep this in mind, because what we have just covered is the key to understanding one of the most controversial passages in the Bible. The passage we are about to study is so controversial, that we really need to pay very close attention throughout the whole exegetical analysis. Now verse 16,

"16 If anyone sees his brother committing sin ..." (1 John 5:16)

[At this point, we absolutely must recognize that in most English Bible translations, the indefinite article "a" has been supplied to the word "sin" here in the English to render this as "a sin." But "a sin" is not in the Greek. So, with this important translation consideration in mind, we read,]

"16 If anyone sees his brother committing sin not leading to death, he shall ask ..." (1 John 5:16)

[We should note that to ask is to make a prayer request as per John's prior teaching. Continuing,]

"... and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16)

[Remember the key: God "hears" because it is according to His will, and so God gives the request. Continuing,]

"There is sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this." (1 John 5:16)

[So, there is the prayer request that is contrary to God's will. God does not "hear" it (cf. 1 John 5:14-15). Continuing,]

"17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 18 We know that no one who is born of God sins [keeps on sinning ESV]; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. 19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:17-21)

According to the typical interpretation of those who believe in the NEST, there is "a" particular sin that leads to eternal damnation that a saved person can commit. It is said that when a saved person commits the particular sin, then they will experience death, (which is equated with spiritual death and eternal damnation), therefor a Christian should not pray for that brother in respect to that damning sin. Many attempts have been made by those who believe in the NEST, to identify a certain sin in this passage that John is said to be alluding. Some say it is suicide, which not only leads to physical death, but is physical death, and it is said to be unforgivable, which brings spiritual death.

Additionally, those who insist that you must immediately confess a sin in order to be forgiven of it, make the point that suicide keeps one from the confession because the person dies before practicing the formula. So, it is not so much the horribleness of suicide that supposedly damns the person, (though that is certainly taken into account by the NEST) but the fact that the person is not around anymore to earn their much needed forgiveness by confessing the sin that they have just sinned (see footnote 1 below).

Some have said that the sin is idolatry; where a Christian supposedly turns against the One true God and starts worshipping false gods. The result is that this sin leads to spiritual death (see footnote 2 below). This whole NEST belief is what drives the specious Roman Catholic categorizations of sins that are called venial sins, and mortal sins. According to the Roman Catholic theory of Venial sins in their catechism (see footnote 3 below):

"Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to exist in us." [Each point quoted here in the sermon is numbered respectively as is in the Catholic Catechism; (cf. 1875]

"One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent." (cf. 1862)

"... However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. 'Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'" (cf. 1863)

In the Roman Catholic religious system, venial sins are bad, but not bad enough for you to lose salvation. Mortal sins are different. They are considered sins unto spiritual death, as the Catholic catechism states,

"Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him." (cf. 1855)

"To choose deliberately--that is, both knowing it and willing it-- something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death." (cf. 1874)

This is false doctrine that Catholics believe, but what is really disheartening is that they fall for the NEST philosophy that one can commit so much venial sin that the person ultimately falls into mortal sin. The fall into mortal sin supposedly occurs because of the quantity of venial sins. The Catholic catechism goes on,

"Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. ..." (cf. 1863)

The above is one NEST philosophy, which is wrong because the New Covenant makes no such distinction between something called venial sins and something called mortal sins, nor does it remotely imply the concepts behind the philosophy.

This leads us to recognize another NEST philosophy, which is along the line of the mortal sin theory, and that is that some have suggested that John is talking about a particular sin called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They find such a sin in the record of what Jesus said in Matthew 12, where blasphemy against the Spirit was to accuse the Holy Spirit of being Beelzebul, (cf. Matthew 12:24-27), who is the ruler of demons, which is Satan, (cf. Matthew 12:26). After Jesus was accused of this, Jesus immediately says;

"'31 ... any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.'" (Matthew 12:31-32)

When we examine the passage with a critically honest adherence to the facts presented, it is plain to see that this sin, that Jesus mentions, is not committed by brothers in Christ who are truly saved people who have been born of God. The sin in Matthew 12 is committed by those who hate Christ, and are opposed to Christ; namely the Pharisees who pushed for Christ's execution. More precisely, it is the sin of saying that the Holy Spirit is Satan, which is something said by people who clearly despise and hate the Messiah. Additionally, John speaks of sin, and not a sin, so John is not giving us any indication that he means any one particular sin that leads to death. Therefor to try and relegate committing sin to one particular sin alone, is possible, but not provable.

Aside from the above view, according to another faction of the NEST, (which is the hyper eradicationist faction) it is asserted that John is teaching that no born again person sins any sin whatsoever. So, hyper eradicationists go on to say that if anyone sins, then they can not be born of God, therefor they are not saved.

Even though John does not go on to explain what he means in more intricate detail (something that would have cleared up all the confusion for future generations), we do have enough information to determine that the above views are wrong. Further, we can definitely get the essence of what John is talking about. In refuting those wrong views, we must look at two primary views which oppose the NEST interpretations. One states that this teaching is concerning those who profess to be brothers in Christ, but are really not brothers in Christ. The second states that this is a teaching concerning Christians but it is not addressing eternal damnation.

<1>
Let's briefly look at that first view. It asserts that the brother reference is not a reference to a Christian, but rather to anyone who claims to be a Christian brother, yet is not really a Christian brother. In this view, it is pointed out that the person who is called a "brother" who is in sin, is actually committing sin, as the Greek word hamartanonta indicates as a present active participle. It is then pointed out that John utilizes the present tense description of sinning consistently throughout the rest of the letter to refer to unsaved people (cf. 1 John 1:8, 3:4, 6, 8); particularly any unsaved people who are fake brothers in Christ, such as those mentioned in 1 John 2:9, 2:11, 3:15 and 4:20. With this view, it is suggested that the prayer is for a so-called brother (who really is not). He is said to be continually and habitually practicing sinning as a matter of his unsaved nature, which would be his affinity as one who is spiritually dead. Therefor it is suggested that one should not pray for such a professed, yet fake, brother as his sin leads to spiritual death anyway.

Though at first glance this view may seem compelling, this view is to be rejected, because in recognizing each word in each point in the whole passage, we know that:

{a}
Unsaved persons are already spiritually dead. They do not need to commit sins leading to spiritual death. They are already "dead in their trespasses and sins" according to Ephesians 2:1 (cf. Colossians 2:13, etc.). If they remain unsaved, then they will simply continue to go the course of death in damnation in eternal spiritual doom.

{b}
In their unbelief, all non-Christians are committing the sin of unbelief, and of course that sin does not "lead" to spiritual life. Remember, "17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death."

{c}
Even something like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in claiming that Jesus casts out demons by a demon, is still a charge brought about by men who are already spiritually dead. In other words, spiritually dead people are the ones who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, so any so-called fake brother is already in that category. Therefore, they are already spiritually dead if they commit this sin, and they are already spiritually dead if they do not commit this sin.

{d}
We do not pray eternal life (spiritual life) into someone who is spiritually dead. We can certainly pray for salvation for someone, and in God's sovereign control in motivating us to pray that prayer in His predetermined will, God may save that person alongside the motivated prayer action (in concurrence); but we must understand that God has already elected to save that person before we ever pray, and He elects to save that person only for Himself as God. God has elected to give eternal life to people for Himself, but not for the sake of those praying. This is why it is important to remember that John says,

"... he shall ask and God will for him give life to those ..." (1 John 5:16 emph. mine)

<2>
Looking at the second view, which is the physical life, and physical death, view, we need to remember the contextual flow. Remember the key that was stated above. John has just begun teaching to pray concerning the will of God. Now here, John demonstrates the two types of prayer requests that he just began teaching on in context, and he does it in regard to seeing a brother committing sin. There is the one type of request that is in God's will, and there is the other one that is a request that is contrary to God's will. According to this second view, John is intentionally using the words, "life" and "death" to describe surviving and dying. It is in God's will for Christians to pray for "life" for a certain brother because such a prayer is a good prayer to pray. This is a prayer request that God "hears," and will give the request of physical life for the brother. The other request is not heard by God, and so God will not give the request, and the reason is because sin that must lead to physical death for a brother qualifies that the prayer to give life here is contrary to God's will concerning where this sin must necessarily lead (which is death). With these things in mind, it is asserted that the life and death that John is talking about is physical, not spiritual, and it is for Christians who are indeed Christians already. This is argued from various points:

First, because the request is said by John to be for "his brother," which, as typical language among gentile congregations, is a normal reference to a Christian brother, rather than a family brother, or an ethnic Hebrew brother. The context of 1 John indicates that "brother" and "brethren" are normal Christian relationship terms as per 1 John 3:14, 3:16; which designates a truly saved person. Further, the "his" person who is identified as the one who prays would not have the same possibility of fakeness applied to him in an honest analyzation of the text. In other words, the "his," pronoun reference is readily, and rightly, recognized to be a real Christian brother; albeit, of the other brother. It follows, then, that the brothers are both Christian. So, the point is that since truly saved people already have spiritual life, then physical life and physical death must necessarily be the subjects in this teaching.

Concerning this point, it is true that John has directives in this letter that are written to specifically confront false Christian brothers, but what absolutely must be recognized is that in every single instance, those fakes are identified as being fakes. In fact, this is the only reason why John mentions them--to identify their fakeness. Additionally, the fake is always identified by John as hating "his brother," (cf. 1 John 2:9, 2:11, 3:10, 3:14-15, 4:20). On the other hand, when John talks to the the true brothers, he never identifies a fake brother as being "his brother" of the real Christian. If John does so in this place, as his one exception, then we are left confused from both doctrinal and textual considerations as to why he would do such a thing. So, whenever John speaks of fake brothers in this epistle, he identifies them. Here, in our passage, John does not make such an identification. For example, in our immediate contextual flow, going from 5:1 on through here, John says in verse 13, as he starts this whole section;

"13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13 emph. mine)

This is an important address starting out this section. John is getting the attention, so to speak, of "you who believe." They have eternal spiritual life. John is still talking to "you who believe" on through to the next verse, which is John's teaching on prayer, and then in that respect, the one who believes is to pray for, "his brother." John does not switch over to teaching how to identify fakes that manifest the mark which exposes them (namely that they hate true brothers). No, John simply says to pray for "his brother." So based upon this, it is sensible to understand John to mean that the Christian brother is to be praying for "his" fellow Christian brother to live, and since he is spiritually alive already, then physical life would logically be the desired outcome to pray for.

Furthermore, we must once again consider what is probably the most important truth along this line, and that is that our prayers are never guaranteed to bring spiritual life to anyone, even if one believes you can have spiritual life, and then lose it later! Once again, John says,

"16 If anyone sees his brother committing sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life ..." (1 John 5:16 emph. mine)

Our intercessory prayers are not the way eternal life will be imputed, or guaranteed for anyone. Is there a NEST believer who even remotely believes that you can spiritually save other people by your prayers? To word it a bit differently, our intercessory prayers are not the way salvation is imputed, or guaranteed for other people.

So, with these considerations, it is asserted that this is a prayer teaching about physical life for a Christian on one hand, and physical death on the other. In other words, there is sin that Christians can commit that will result in physical death, and so John says plainly, "I do not say that he should make request for this," but, if anyone sees his brother committing sin, and it is sin that must not concretely lead to death, then when he asks, God will, for the man praying, give life to those who commit sin. The result proves that obviously the sin-committing that is seen in these instances did not have to necessarily lead to death.

There are plenty of biblical examples given to support the principle that there is sin that leads to death. There is Adam and Eve. Their sin led to death. There is the case of Saul, who was Israel's first king. We read that,

"Saul died for his trespass which he committed against Jehovah, because of the word of Jehovah which he did not keep;" (1 Chronicles 10:13)

Then there is the case of Uzziah, the priest who reached out to steady the Ark of the covenant, (cf. 2 Samuel 6:6-7). God struck him down for his sin of "irreverence," (cf. 2 Samuel 6:7). Uzziah sinned and he died. David's sin of lusting after Bathsheba, committing adultery with her, and then having her husband killed was a sin that led to death; but, in this case, the sin did not lead to David's death; rather, it led to the death of his first son. David even prayed, fasted, and wept for his child, hoping that God would change His mind, but all David's pleading was to no avail. This was a sin that had to lead to death. There is also Achan, who took some silver coins and a large wedge of gold out of Jericho for himself after Jericho's defeat. This was a direct sin against the Lord, and it had to lead to Achan's death. There are New Testament examples of this too, where sin led to physical death. In Acts 5, there is the fascinating, yet morbid story of Ananias and Sapphira. This husband and wife team sold some property and then gave money from the sale to the apostles. Ananias lied and said that he had donated all the money from the sale, but he really kept some for himself, so Peter prophesied, and said to Ananias,

"Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3)

Peter then informs Ananias that he is going to die. The next thing that happens is that Ananias dropped dead right in front of Peter. Peter was seeing Ananias committing sin leading to death. Subsequently Ananias died as a result of committing sin. Later Sapphira came in and lied about the same thing, and so Peter prophesied that she would die too, and she did. Peter was seeing Sapphira committing sin leading to death. Another example is found in the Corinthian celebration of communion at Love Feasts as recorded in 1 Corinthians 10. Paul says that there is a penalty for partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, saying,

"29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not discern the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep." (1 Corinthians 10:29-30)

The ESV translation team renders "sleep" here as "death." Scholars disagree on what "sleep" here means, but death is one interpretation that is consistent with how the word sleep was often used, (as in a few chapters earlier to describe a husband who dies, in 1 Corinthians 7:39). The point is that in considering this interpretation, we recognize that this is an interpretation that supports this second view of our passage which counters the NEST, in that if sleep really means physical death, then we have another Biblical example here of sin leading to mortality.

Additionally, there is also the consideration that committing sin can lead to death in and among society. In other words, there are men and women who claim to be Christians who commit sin in which a society would require the death penalty according to its laws. This, then, would also be a way of committing sin that leads to death. Further, there is committing sin that leads to death as a self inflicted consequence of sin actions, such as receiving a disease through sin, or a Christian being mortally injured because of, or during, the commitment of sin, and so those involved in the sin end up dying. The point is that there are logical examples of the principle of sin leading to death, that are found both in scripture and out. Again,

"16 If anyone sees his brother committing sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death." (1 John 5:16-17)

Therefore, according to this view, John is simply stating that if a brother prays for a Christian that is seen sinning, and the sin happens to be of such a kind that God does not deem to necessarily lead to death, (though it seems to our human understanding that death could be the possible outcome if the prayer is not prayed), then God will "give life" to the brother in such approved cases. We pray, hoping that their lives would be, and can be spared, as the sin may only possibly be leading them to physical death. Nevertheless, in keeping with John's introduction on how to pray, only God knows with 100% surety what the outcome of any prayer will be. In the same way, only God really knows for sure which sins must necessarily lead to physical death, (see footnote 4 below). So, assuming that the person is not completely sure of how God wants to ultimately answer him, all he can do is ask. Certainly he does not demand. Only God knows how He wants to answer any prayer. Logically and alternately then, there is sin that always results in death as a matter of God's will. This is why we absolutely must recognize that John says, simply,

"I do not say that he should make request for this," (1 John 5:16)

If you do make such a request, then you are just going to get a no answer every time.

SOME OBJECTIONS

An objection to this view is that supposedly John would not refer to a Christian as sinning by using a present active participle simply because John did not do it in the rest of the letter. But that objection does not take into account that John is talking about a brand new subject here at the end of the letter--a different subject requiring different language. John is now talking about what one may "see" a Christian doing. If the brother is not doing the sinning then you can not see it now can you? So, John must use the present tense (present active participle, hamartanonta) because that is when "anyone sees" sin happening as one sees it happening!

Additionally it has not been proven that John has established a rule that only non-Christians sin as a present active participle simply because John used the term earlier for people who are not saved who are sinning. (This supposed rule, is driven by a presupposition that degrees of frequency in sin is what identifies one's salvation status). On the contrary, this passage serves to establish the rule that committing sin is a reference used for both the unsaved and the saved alike, depending on the context. The same Greek word is used to describe saved people sinning in such passages as 1 Corinthians 8:12, and 1 Corinthians 15:34. The word is also used of Elders sinning in 1 Timothy 5:20. There is no reason to assume that John would not do the same in instructing Christians in prayer for what they see another true brother doing. In other words, when it comes to views, it is sensible to understand that John thinks it is necessary to use the present active participle to get his point across that the Christian brother is entangled in committing sin, and so he needs prayer. Subsequently, you are the one who sees him, so you are the one who prays. This is why John would say to pray for him in the first place.

A second objection to this view is that it is pointed out that there is a usage of certain Greek words in 1 John for life. It is pointed out that throughout John's epistle the Greek word used in 5:16 for life is associated with eternal life, or spiritual life. Using this observation as a standard, it is suggested that John would not use this same Greek word, zoe, to describe physical life in 5:16, but rather, he would have used one of the others. But, to hold this view a certain number of facts must be ignored. One is that there is no rule anywhere that states that a word must have this kind of uniform meaning within one epistle. Further, this view is not a consistent argument when extended to the full Johanine corpus. For example, in both John's Gospel, and in Revelation John uses the Greek terms for life interchangeably for biological and spiritual life (which we argue that he does here in 1 John too, thus adding to the examples). Both the Gospel of John, and Revelation demonstrate that John's consistent practice is to give the Greek words for life a more dynamic interchangeable meaning (see John 12:25, Revelation 11:11, 16:3 where John uses the Greek word, zoe for physical life). Therefor, the fact that John interchanges these terms in his writing style, establishes a rule that He interchanges these terms! Finally, as is pointed out in {a} through {d} above, and following arguments, this objection does not make sense in respect to the rest of the considerations that refute the view it attempts to support.

There is another objection to this view. It is the question of why ask for life if the brother is committing sin not leading to death? The answer is back where John starts this section, and is based on the fact that we, in our finite humanity, all have limited knowledge in respect to the sure outcome of things, which is John's underlying point. We already touched on it a little already. But let us look at the key verse once again, where John starts out his point with verse 14,

"14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. 16 If anyone sees his brother committing sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death." (1 John 5:14-16)

When we see verse 16 in context with 14-15, then we see that we know our own will, but we do not always have a complete and detailed understanding of God's will in every single event. There is not anyone who always knows what God's will is for the ultimate outcome of prayer requests. When the actual outcome passes, then God's will has been seen as manifest. You may see a brother committing a really horrible sin. The sin is so horrible that you think you need to pray for the brother's physical life. You do not know for sure whether it is God's will that this sin must, and will, lead to death even if you pray. If the sinning is, as the first part of the instruction qualifies "not leading to death," then the fact that you pray, and the brother lives, simply proves that this qualification was the case.

The essence is that you ask for God to not take a brother's life because you see your brother sinning sin that seems detrimental to that level of severity. If in fact, you ask this according to God's will, (cf. 1 John 5:14), God "hears" you. And if you know that God hears you in whatever you ask, you know you "have" the request which you have asked from Him, (cf. 1 John 5:15). Once again, we look at the passage for clarification sake,

"16 There is sin leading to death; [meaning that it always does] I do not say that he should make request for this." (cf. 1 John 5:16)

What is going on here, is that John does not want to be misunderstood, or misquoted concerning the prior three verses of his contextual point, and since this is his teaching on prayer, John makes sure he clarifies a prayer that God will not say "yes" to here (no matter what). Since in fact, there is sin that must lead to death, John is saying that it is inevitable, and so John does not say, as in teach, to make a request for what is already in God's will to have happen, made evident by the sin that leads to the inevitable outcome. To do otherwise is to get a "no" answer from God. It is the "no" answer of not having "the requests which we have asked from Him," (cf. 1 John 5:16). Once we see that John is clarifying his prayer instruction intent, this all makes sense. This is why he takes pains to qualify, "I do not say" (cf. 1 John 5:16). John does not want people to misunderstand his teaching, which is the point. He does not want to be taken wrong, because John knows that there are people who commit sin who end up dying, even if one fasts and prays for them. John clarifies, saying further,

"17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death." (cf. 1 John 5:17)

Since "all" unrighteousness is sin, and you see a brother committing unrighteousness, and you want to see him live, and you think it is not a sin that must necessarily lead to death, then pray for him anyway, because there really is sin that does not lead to death. Pressing the point further, we see how vital contextual flow is. We also see how much we must stick closely to the same flow, and remember that John's whole point, according to context, is starting back in verse 14, which is that if we ask for something by our own choice and determination and it lines up with God's sovereign determination, then God will grant the request. If not, then you get a "no" answer.

Therefore, we see, concerning this aspect of the passage, that it does not remotely refer to losing one's eternal salvation, gaining it through self effort, or keeping it secure by maintenance.

1 JOHN 5:18

This brings us to the final passage that is highlighted by people who believe in the NEST; 1 John 5:18. This passage, in the same manner as the last passage examined above, (cf. 1 John 5:16-17) is a difficult passage to understand;

"17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 18 We know that no one who is born of God sins [keeps on sinning ESV]; but He [Christ] who was born of God keeps him [saved person], and the evil one does not touch him."

The hyper eradicationist segment of the NEST suggests that what John is saying is that Christians do not sin. So, if you sin, then you are not saved. Yet, we know that Christians commit sin as per what John just said in context concerning seeing a brother sin in 1 John 5:16, and in other places such as 1 John 2:1, where John says,

"1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;" (1 John 2:1)

We also see it in other passages such as, 1 Corinthians 8:12, 15:34, and 1 Timothy 5:20, and so forth. So, since we know this, the passage is already cleared up as necessarily meaning something else. But, since the wording is so difficult, has perplexed numerous theologians for centuries, and there are many theories that seem valid, we will look at various considerations for figuring out what John means:

a)
First, it is said that this sin reference is of a continuous action where one keeps on sinning, as is based upon the tense of the word, and so with this in mind, it is said that what John means is that though the Christian sins, the sinning will eventually stop. It will either cease as a specific sin act, or all sin will cease completely as a result of super-glorification in the after life. Keep this view in mind. It is certainly a good consideration.

b)
This leads to a second consideration, and that is that contextually, John may be talking about the fact that a true Christian will not leave Christianity even though he may have gone off and stayed with the cultic group who broke away from the real Christians of the community this letter was sent to. The one who is born of God will not continue in that direction (sinning), because Christ "who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." It sounds possible, but there is no way to know if this suggestion is really correct.

c)
This leads to another principle in a third consideration, and that is that while abiding in Christ in salvation, our new nature, which is in us, and is us, can not sin. We can still sin as a matter of our old nature, which is also in us, and is us, and we are wholly accountable for our sin, but the redeemed, "new man," aspect of us, which is "born of God" does not sin. So, when John says, that we know that no one who is born of God sins, there is the sense that he may be talking about the aspect of a saved person that is the non-sinning righteous, born again, new nature in Christ, who was born of God. This view sounds reasonable (see footnote 5 below).

d)
There is a fourth consideration, which is that this passage is a parallel to 1 John 3:5-9, where only Christians practice righteousness, and so John is referring to what he has already said about Christians sinning, and the fact that unsaved people can only sin as a matter of their one nature. Since all unrighteousness is sin, people who are not born of God are always sinning as their affinity dictates they must necessarily do, even if they think they are being righteous. They may think they are righteous, and are doing "nice" or apparently "decent" acts, but they are immersed in the lost, dark, corruption of sin, so all those so-called good deeds of niceness and decency are really like filthy rags to the Lord. This may be the right interpretive approach to what John is talking about.

e)
This leads to a fifth point, and that is that since John is paralleling what he has already said in 3:4-9, then his reference to sin could be a shift to what he said, when he stated,

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness," (1 John 3:4)

What this would imply is that John is saying that a true Christian will obey Christ's great commandment in its two points;

"23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another," (1 John 3:23)

With this consideration in mind, saved people do not sin as unbelief because they do, in fact, believe in Christ, and do indeed love the other Christians. You can not truly be saved, and at the same time not believe in Christ, and not love the body of Christ, which is His church, (which are His people) which are God's true children. Only non-Christians refuse to believe in Christ, and refuse to love the true brothers in Christ, thus only non-Christians break Christ's great commandment.

The point is that there are multitudes of considerations of this last passage that counter the NEST interpretation. The presupposition laid out in this book is that one of the interpretations is the correct one, though it is not dogmatically identified.

Based upon these plausible considerations, and the whole corpus of Scripture, we can rest assured that John never says that a saved person can lose one's eternal salvation, keep eternal salvation secure by some personal effort, or gain eternal salvation by some personal effort.
__________
FOOTNOTES:
(1) This "confession" theory has been refuted in the first section of this chapter dealing with 1 John. See section; 1 John 1:5-10.

(2) They say it leads to spiritual death, which is a theological theory that is in direct contradiction to God's truth which recognizes that spiritual death is what leads to worshipping false gods.

(3) CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION, FIDEI DEPOSITUM, POPE JOHN PAUL II
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY

(4) unless of course, the Asian Christians had some other information that was taught by John at another time that explained which sins must lead to death, and which ones only might, but we are not aware of any such information from the text.

(5) for a more thorough handling of the theological concepts in this consideration, please consult the section in this chapter that deals with, 1 John 3:5-9.