The next course I selected as part of my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course, John Part 1, which covers the first half of the Gospel of John. Here are the Discussion Questions for the entire course, along with my responses.
As a reminder, you can find all of my course assignments for the uThM here.
So, let’s get started….
What Do I Already Know?
Before beginning this study, I already knew that John was one of Jesus’ apostles. I also knew that he was the author of the Gospel of John, the Book of Revelation, and the three epistles of John. In addition, I was aware that Chuck Missler often describes John as a mystic because of the unique depth and spiritual perspective found throughout his writings.
What Do I Want to Learn?
My goal in this study is to develop a clearer understanding of all four Gospels. I want to see where they overlap, where they differ, and understand why those similarities and differences exist. Rather than simply knowing the events they record, I want to better understand each Gospel’s unique purpose, perspective, and theological emphasis so that I can appreciate how they work together to present a complete picture of Jesus Christ.
Session 1
Do you think God created the universe in 6 days? Why or why not.
The account in Genesis presents creation in six structured “days” (Hebrew: יוֹם, yom), each marked by “evening and morning” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13), which strongly suggests a literal sequence rather than an undefined span. This is reinforced in Exodus 20:11, where the six-day creation is used as the direct pattern for Israel’s work week. Taken at face value, the text reads as a historical narrative rather than poetry or allegory. From this perspective, a young-earth reading maintains internal consistency with the biblical structure and avoids importing external frameworks into the text.
At the same time, the question often hinges less on the text itself and more on competing explanatory systems. Naturalistic models, such as evolution, struggle to account for the origin of information and ordered complexity, which Scripture attributes directly to God’s creative word (Psalm 33:6). Romans 1:20 states that God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen through what has been made, implying that creation itself is revelatory, not random. The issue is not simply duration, but authority—whether the text defines reality, or external theories reinterpret it.
What are evidences of God as a Trinity? Use Scripture as evidences.
Scripture affirms both the unity of God and a plurality within that unity. The foundational declaration, “The Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), uses the Hebrew echad, which can denote a composite unity. The New Testament clarifies this further: the Father is called God (John 6:27), the Son is called God (John 1:1; John 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is identified as God (Acts 5:3–4). These are not three gods, but one God expressed in three distinct persons (hypostaseis).
This triune nature is most clearly seen in moments where all three persons are present simultaneously. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son is baptized, the Spirit descends, and the Father speaks (Matthew 3:16–17). Likewise, the Great Commission commands baptism “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The Greek term θεότης (theotēs, Colossians 2:9) captures the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ, demonstrating both unity and distinction without contradiction.
With that said, I do not agree that the Trinity is coequal. They are the same in substance, but not the same in hierarchy. Thus, there are things that God knows (who knows everything) that Jesus does not know (John 14:28; Mark 13:32; John 5:19, 6:38).
What is the difference between eternity and having unlimited time?
Eternity is not simply endless time; it is existence outside of time altogether. God is described as the one “who inhabits eternity” (Isaiah 57:15), indicating a mode of being not bound by sequence or duration. In contrast, “unlimited time” would still imply a timeline—just one without an end. Dr. Missler suggested that this framework is challenged by the statement that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8), which suggests that God is not constrained by temporal progression. But it in no way references or explicitly states that time stops or ceases in heaven. Plus, this is assigned to God alone, and no one else (not angels).
The difficulty arises because human experience is bound to time, motion, and change. If eternity is truly beyond time, then it is not static in the sense of inactivity, but rather transcendent to change as we understand it. The Greek concept of αἰών (aiōn) can refer to an age or an eternal state, but God Himself exists beyond even that category. Eternity, then, is not an infinite extension of time, but an entirely different order of existence in which time itself is a created dimension.
Why are there four Gospels? Do you have a favorite? Why?
The presence of four Gospels reflects the biblical principle of multiple witnesses establishing truth (Deuteronomy 19:15). Each Gospel presents a distinct perspective on Christ: Matthew emphasizes Him as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as the Son of Man, and John as the Son of God. Together, they form a composite portrait that cannot be reduced to a single narrative without losing depth. These are not contradictions, but complementary accounts that reveal different dimensions of the same reality.
John often stands out because of its theological and symbolic depth. It is more reflective and “mystical” in tone, focusing on identity and essence rather than just events (John 20:31). While the Synoptics emphasize what Jesus did, John emphasizes who He is, particularly through the “I AM” (ἐγώ εἰμι) statements (John 8:58). The fourfold structure ensures that Christ is not described as a single category, but understood in fullness.
Discuss how “light” is more than a metaphor?
In Scripture, light is not merely symbolic; it is foundational to creation and revelation. God speaks light into existence in Genesis 1:3 before the sun is created, indicating that light precedes and transcends physical sources. The Greek term φῶς (phōs) is used to describe both physical illumination and divine truth. First John 1:5 states, “God is light,” not just that He gives light, but that light is intrinsic to His nature.
Light also functions as the medium of truth and life. Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), linking light directly to salvation and knowledge of God. It exposes darkness (John 3:19–21), reveals reality, and sustains life. Thus, light operates on multiple levels simultaneously—physical, moral, and ontological—making it far more than a simple metaphor.
Is there life on other planets? Do you think it is sinful or sinless?
Scripture does not directly address the existence of life beyond Earth (except possibly John 10:16), leaving the question open. However, it clearly states that all things were created through and for Christ (Colossians 1:16), meaning that all life would still fall under His authority. The biblical narrative centers on humanity, not because it denies other possibilities, but because it focuses on the scope of redemption revealed to us (Psalm 8:4–6).
If other life exists within this creation, the question of sin becomes tied to the fall. Romans 8:20–22 states that “the creation was subjected to futility,” suggesting that the effects of the fall extend beyond humanity to the entire created order. If that is the case, then any life within this system would be affected by that corruption and in need of redemption. However, this remains speculative, as Scripture does not explicitly define the condition of hypothetical non-human life.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 2
Were any of the following metaphors meaningfully clarified? (Logos, Light, Darkness, Grace) How were they clarified?
Yes. Logos was clarified as far more than a word in a sentence or a collection of letters. Missler describes λόγος as the principal thought, concept, expression, utterance, message, communication, and revelation of God. John 1 presents Jesus as the pre-existent Logos: already existing before creation, with God, and God. He is not merely someone who speaks God’s Word; He is the living Word who became flesh and “tabernacled” among us. The uploaded John notes make the same point by connecting John 1:1 with John 1:14: “In the beginning was the Word” and “the Word was made flesh.”
Light was clarified as more than normal terrestrial light. Missler connects light with mystery, revelation, life, and the true illumination of God. John’s “true Light” is not merely sunlight or physical energy; it is the revelation of God in Christ, the One through whom all things were made. Darkness is also more than the absence of light. In Missler’s language, it is a dominion of resistance associated with Satan, yet it cannot overcome or extinguish the Light. Grace was clarified most directly in Video 2: grace is getting what we do not deserve, while mercy is not getting what we do deserve. Missler also contrasts law and grace sharply: the law demands righteousness from man; grace gives righteousness to man.
How have any of these metaphors (Logos, Light, Darkness, Grace) impacted you personally?
The Logos impacted me personally when I was seventeen. After reading 2 Peter 2, the Word of God did something that was not merely intellectual. It supernaturally removed my karmic worldview and replaced it with a biblical one. That fits Missler’s emphasis that the Word is not merely a text to be studied casually, but revelation from outside our time domain. The written Word confronted me with the living Word, and from that moment I received an insatiable thirst to study Scripture.
The Light and Darkness metaphors describe the same transformation from another angle. I was in darkness and deceived, but I thought I was in the light because I had a spiritual worldview. The problem was that it was not the true Light of John 1; it was a worldly spiritual light. Grace explains why I was delivered. I did not earn that moment, reason my way into it, or climb toward God by religion. God gave light, removed deception, and protected me through grace.
How has the perception of the Metacosm been useful or relevant to you personally?
The Metacosm has reframed how I think about creation. Missler argues that our visible universe is not ultimate reality, but a finite subset of a larger reality. That matters because it means the physical world is real, but not complete. The things Scripture describes—angels, demons, Heaven, resurrection, eternity—are not fantasy. They belong to a greater created reality beyond the narrow range of what human senses can measure.
This corrected the way I used to think under a Buddhist-influenced worldview. I used to think that what is perceived is either all there is, or that perception itself is a kind of delusion within a larger universal consciousness. That idea was reaching toward something real, but it could not reach the truth because it lacked revelation. The biblical answer is stronger: reality is not generated by consciousness; reality is created and sustained by God. The Metacosm helps me understand why the physical realm is dependent, finite, and incomplete.
How have these fundamental concepts of creation or redemption impacted you personally? Use Scripture to explain.
Creation impacted me through the realization that all things exist by Christ and continue to exist by His will. John 1 says all things were made through the Logos, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Colossians 1:16–17 says all things were created by Him and for Him, and by Him all things consist. Missler emphasized that Christ not only created all things, but holds all things together. That means existence itself is not automatic. Creation continues because God wills it to continue.
Redemption impacted me even more deeply because it shows that God did not merely create and abandon the world. Missler makes the point that creation cost God only His spoken command, but redemption cost Him His Son. That gives redemption greater personal weight. The same Logos who created the world entered the world, tabernacled among us, and became the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. That means my life is not held together by karma, consciousness, self-effort, or religion, but by Christ’s sustaining power and redeeming grace.
Why (or how) is baptism important to you? Have you been baptized?
I have been baptized, but baptism has not held the same emotional importance for me that it does for some believers. I do not see baptism as the thing that saved me. Salvation is by grace through faith, not by a ritual act. Missler’s discussion of grace is important here: grace is a free gift, not something earned through religious performance. So I would not present baptism as a work that reconciles someone to God. Christ reconciles us to God.
That said, my original answer was too dismissive. Baptism is important because Scripture treats it as public identification with repentance, cleansing, discipleship, and obedience. In John 1, John the Baptist says he baptizes with water, but points beyond himself to the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. That means water baptism is not ultimate, but it still matters as a visible act of obedience and witness. I would not pressure someone into baptism as empty religion, but I would tell them that if they have received Christ, baptism is a biblical step of identification with Him.
What is the difference between “being saved” and “being called”?
Being called is the beginning of God’s summons. It is when God draws a person out of darkness and toward Himself. In John 1, Jesus calls disciples to follow Him, and those who receive Him are given power to become sons of God. Missler also distinguishes between initial belief and the deeper call into discipleship. Being called is not merely hearing religious information; it is being confronted by Christ and summoned into response.
Being saved needs to be stated carefully. In one sense, salvation is already real when a person receives Christ by faith. In another sense, salvation continues as God sanctifies us. And in its final sense, salvation is completed when we are glorified and step fully into eternity. So salvation includes past, present, and future dimensions: we have been saved from sin’s penalty, we are being saved from sin’s power, and we will be saved from sin’s presence. Calling begins the journey, but salvation is the whole work of God from conversion through final glorification.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 3
Why did Jesus turn the water into wine?
Jesus turned the water into wine as the beginning of His signs in John’s Gospel. The stated result in John’s notes is that He “manifested forth his glory” and “his disciples believed on him.” That means the miracle was not merely about solving a social embarrassment at a wedding. It authenticated His authority, revealed His glory, and led His disciples to believe in Him more fully. The PDF also stresses that John’s Gospel is built around selected signs intended to produce belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and life through His name.
At the same time, the miracle also functions symbolically. Missler connects the six empty stone waterpots to man, incompleteness, empty religion, purification, and, finally, new wine produced by Christ’s command. So the miracle shows more than power over nature; it displays Christ transforming what is empty and religious into something full, joyful, and alive. It authenticates His power and authority, but the lecture pushes it further: it is also a sign of glory, belief, joy, and regeneration.
What is the significance of the water used in that miracle?
The water was not random household water. It is identified as water connected with “the purifying of the Jews,” and Missler ties that background to Numbers 19 and the ashes of the red heifer. That matters because the water was used for ritual purification, not for ordinary drinking. The transformation, therefore, moves from ceremonial cleansing to wine, which Missler associates with joy. The “wine had been given out” and “Wine = Joy,” making the miracle point to the joyless condition of Judaism and to Christ’s ability to supply what empty ritual could not.
It was not simply that something ordinary became valuable, though that is partly true. More precisely, something associated with ritual purification was transformed by Christ into excellent wine. That makes the miracle a sign against empty religion and a sign toward regeneration. The waterpots were stone, six in number, empty or incomplete, and used for purification; when filled at Christ’s command, they became the source of new wine. That is the theological weight Missler is drawing from the passage.
How do you feel about the use of wine in Communion?
I would say wine in Communion is biblically defensible, but I personally would not use it. My reason is not that wine itself is forbidden in Scripture. It is false to say that first-century Jews used modern grape juice instead of wine, noting that grapes were harvested in the fall, Passover was in the spring, and that without refrigeration, grape juice would naturally ferment. So the argument that biblical “wine” must really mean grape juice does not hold up well from the material presented in the lecture.
Personally, I do not drink alcohol because I know my own weaknesses and do not want to open a door that could become destructive. That is not legalism; it is wisdom. This also addresses the stumbling-block principle: even if something is permissible, it may not be beneficial. So I would frame it this way: the Bible does not require me to pretend wine was not wine, but love may require me to abstain, especially if drinking in front of another believer could damage their conscience or create confusion. That fits the larger principle that Christian freedom is governed by love, not self-indulgence.
Is there any connection between the Ashes of the Red Heifer and the cleansing of the Temple in this chapter?
Missler presents this cautiously. He points out that the water at Cana was connected with purification, that the background reaches back to Numbers 19 and the ashes of the red heifer, and then he asks whether the water-to-wine miracle and the cleansing of the Temple are connected. The PDF itself says John 2 contains two major events: the changing of water into wine and the cleansing of the Temple, and it explicitly places the water of purification in the background of the first event.
The possible connection is that both events expose Israel’s spiritual condition: their status as “blinded priesthood,” “joyless nation,” and “desecrated Temple.” The water of purification signifies ritual cleansing, yet the Temple itself is corrupted. Jesus transforms the purification water into wine at Cana, then goes to Jerusalem and cleanses His Father’s house. So I would say: there is a conceptual connection between purification, death, joylessness, and Temple defilement, but they do not prove it as a settled doctrine. Missler himself seems to present it as something to “chew on” rather than a dogmatic conclusion.
What other examples relate to “the third day”? Use Scripture in your answer.
The third-day theme is central in this session. In John 2, the wedding at Cana occurs “on the third day,” and Missler connects this with the Jewish idea of the third day as the day of double blessing in Genesis 1. He also connects the third day to Numbers 19, where purification from contact with death involved sprinkling on the third and seventh days. Then, in the same chapter, Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” which John explains as a reference to the temple of His body.
These examples fit the pattern: Matthew 12:40 gives the sign of Jonah, Hosea 6:2 speaks of revival “after two days” and being raised “on the third day,” Matthew 16:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:4 connect the third day directly to Christ’s resurrection, and Acts 10:40 says God raised Him on the third day. Missler also brings in Abraham and Isaac, Jonah, the red heifer procedure, and the resurrection. So the third day functions as a repeated biblical pattern tied to life out of death, purification, resurrection, and Christ’s vindication.
What aspects of our personal architecture has had the most impact on your daily life?
The part that has had the most impact is the distinction between body, soul, and spirit. Missler connects this to the temple imagery and to 1 Thessalonians 5:23: “spirit and soul and body.” He argues that the proper order is spirit over soul over body, but that fallen human life often reverses it, allowing bodily appetite to rule. The body is the physical vessel; the soul is the core of personal identity; and the spirit animates us and connects us to the life God gives.
This framework has shaped my theology by giving me a way to understand human existence beyond mere biology. The John PDF also refers to the believer as the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” and directs readers to the “Architecture of Man” material for this broader framework. Within the limits of the sources here, the safest way to put it is this: personal architecture helps explain why human beings are not just bodies, why inner life matters, why spiritual rebirth is necessary, and why the Word of God is needed to discern what human observation alone cannot discern. That has practical force because it affects how we understand sin, temptation, discipline, worship, and identity. We also have the spirit given to us at birth (maybe before birth) that tethers the body and the soul together and animates them, bringing about life and making the living being.
This architecture has had a profound effect on my life over the last several years. It has shaped my theology, my understanding of scripture, and led me to profound wisdom about who we are as people.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 4
Give examples of “the foolishness of God.” from your life.
The “foolishness of God” in my life is that He gave me the desire and conviction to spend most of my adult life pursuing deep, intense Bible study rather than what most people would call a legitimate career. From the outside, that looks irresponsible, impractical, and unproductive. But God often uses things that appear foolish to confound ordinary human wisdom. Only later did that long preparation begin to bear fruit. The years of study became the foundation for ministry, teaching, and ultimately writing. What looked like wasted time was not wasted. It was preparation. God was building something before I could see what it was for.
What does John 3:16 mean to you personally?
John 3:16 means that God loved the world — κόσμος (kosmos) — and gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. The word “whoever” matters. This was not a narrow offer only for a predetermined subset of humanity. Christ’s death is sufficient for the whole world, which is why I do not accept limited atonement as normally framed in TULIP. This also fits with 1 John 2:2, where Christ is described as the propitiation not only for our sins, but also for the whole world. Eternal life is not only something in the future after death. In John, eternal life begins now through faith. To believe in Christ is to receive life from above now, not merely to wait for heaven later.
When did you become “born again”? How?
It is difficult to identify the exact moment. The first major intervention happened when I was seventeen. I read 2 Peter 2, and before that, I was a committed Buddhist. After reading that chapter, Buddhism and martial arts were taken from me. I could no longer meditate or participate in that world the way I had before. Something changed in me at a level I did not manufacture.
At that point, I no longer believed the God of the Bible was false. The message of Scripture became true to me. But it was six months to a year later that I actually asked Jesus to be Lord of my life, confessed Him before others, and believed God had raised Him from the dead. Later in Germany, God led me to a small Baptist church, where I was baptized and mentored for about two years.
What has been the result (“fruit”) from that event?
The fruit was that my life was redirected. From seventeen onward, I was put on a different trajectory. I received an intense thirst to study the Word of God, and that thirst never really left. My life did not become what I expected it to become. The long-term fruit is ministry, writing, service, and a life centered around Scripture. My wife and I serve in local churches, raise orphans, care for widows, and I write novels aimed at reaching people who may never step into a church. The fruit is not perfection, but direction: my life was bent toward Christ.
How can one become “unborn”?
Strictly speaking, I do not think a genuinely regenerated person becomes “unborn” in the same way a natural birth cannot be reversed. Jesus describes the new birth as being born from above — ἄνωθεν (anōthen) — which means this is God’s creative act, not mere moral reform. A person does not repair the old nature; God gives a new heart and a new life.
Hebrews 6:4–6 creates a serious warning about those who taste the goodness of Christ and then fall away. But 1 John 2:19 also says that those who depart reveal they were not truly of us. So I would say if someone appears to accept Christ and then permanently walks away, the best explanation is that they were exposed to the truth, maybe even deeply affected by it, but were never actually born from above.
Are there other examples where an Old Testament reference has an anticipatory “apologetic” value?
The clearest example is Isaiah 53. It describes the suffering servant bearing sin before the New Testament events unfold. That has apologetic value because it anticipates the logic of the cross: the innocent one suffers for the guilty, and His suffering is not accidental but redemptive. Numbers 21 is another example from this session. The bronze serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, and Jesus explains in John 3 that this pointed forward to the Son of Man being lifted up. The serpent represents sin; bronze represents judgment. So the image anticipates Christ being made sin for us and judged on the cross. That is not random symbolism. It is a prophetic pattern placed in the Torah before the crucifixion existed as a method of execution.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 5
Why did Jesus have to go to Samaria? What was the reaction in Samaria?
Jesus had to go through Samaria because He was being led by the Spirit and had a specific divine appointment there. John says He “must needs” go through Samaria, which means this was not merely a matter of geography or convenience. It was intentional. He went to meet the Samaritan woman at the well to expose her need, reveal Himself as the Messiah, and show that salvation would not remain confined to Jerusalem, Judea, or the Jewish leadership.
The reaction in Samaria was more receptive than the reaction Jesus often received from the Jewish leaders. The woman first recognized Him as a Jew, then wondered if He was greater than Jacob, then perceived He was a prophet, and finally encountered Him as the Christ. Many Samaritans believed because of her testimony, and then many more believed after hearing Jesus Himself. They recognized Him as “the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
Why was an angel at the pool of Bethesda? What was the impact?
Based on the session, the angel at the pool of Bethesda is not treated as a settled biblical fact. Missler argues that the statement about an angel troubling the water is textually questionable because it does not appear in some of the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, as well as certain early Syriac and Coptic witnesses. However, later Byzantine manuscripts do contain the passage. To say that the earliest manuscripts do not contain the verse is simply a textual observation. What we cannot say with certainty is whether the longer reading was added later or whether the shorter reading resulted from an earlier omission. The evidence shows that a textual variant exists; it does not tell us with certainty who altered the text or in what direction. For that reason, I am cautious about drawing conclusions. While some scholars suggest the angel reference was added to explain the troubling of the water described in the passage, that remains speculation. It may be a reasonable theory, but it is still a theory. Our responsibility is to identify the variant, present the evidence fairly, and allow readers to wrestle with the passage alongside Scripture, study notes, commentaries, and the wisdom of their local church family.
I also think Missler’s statement that there is “never any evidence in the Bible of an angel being involved in healing” is too broad. Scripture contains multiple examples of angels intervening in the physical realm on God’s behalf. In Daniel 3, a heavenly figure appears in the fiery furnace with the three Hebrews (though I personally believe this is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ rather than an angel). In Daniel 6, angels shut the mouths of the lions and preserved Daniel’s life. While there is no other clear example exactly like John 5:4—where an angel periodically stirs water, and the first person entering is healed—Scripture certainly does not rule out angelic involvement in God’s acts of deliverance or restoration. Regardless of how one resolves the textual question, the central point of the passage remains unchanged. The pool had become a place where suffering people gathered in hope, yet the system resembled a “first-come, first-served” arrangement that left the weakest behind. Jesus enters that setting and bypasses the entire process. He does not wait for the water to move. He simply speaks, and the man who had been crippled for thirty-eight years is healed immediately by the power of Christ alone.
Why did the Holy Spirit indicate that the impotent man had his ailment for 38 years?
The 38 years matter because they connect the man’s condition to Israel’s wilderness wandering. In Deuteronomy, 38 years mark the period of wandering after Sinai before entering the land. In John 5, the man is helpless, unable to move himself into healing, and trapped in a condition he cannot escape. That becomes a picture of Israel’s spiritual condition. The lesson is that neither the law nor the religious system can ultimately bring a man to wholeness. Jesus did what the man could not do for himself. He commanded him to rise, take up his bed, and walk. The Greek command for “rise” is a direct command. The healing was immediate, complete, and permanent. Those points go beyond physical healing to the greater truth that only Christ can deliver from spiritual helplessness.
What were the distinctive lessons from the three healings?
The first healing is the Samaritan woman. Her “healing” is not physical but spiritual. She is an outcast, morally broken, and confused about worship, but Jesus meets her directly and reveals Himself to her as the Messiah. The lesson is that Jesus crosses ethnic, religious, and moral boundaries to seek the lost. He gives living water, not religious procedure. The second healing is the nobleman’s son, which shows the power of Jesus’ word over distance. The nobleman wanted Jesus to come physically, but Jesus simply said, “Your son lives,” and the man believed Him. The third healing is the impotent man at Bethesda, where Jesus heals a man who does not even seem to know who He is yet. Together, the three healings show Jesus reaching Samaritans, Gentiles, and helpless Israel, each by His own initiative.
What are the distinctives between the two resurrections?
The two resurrections in John 5 are not the nobleman’s son and the impotent man. The nobleman’s son was healed from sickness; the text does not say he died and was physically resurrected. The two resurrections Jesus describes are broader than that: the resurrection of life and the resurrection of judgment.
The first resurrection is for those who hear the voice of the Son of God and live. This connects to eternal life as a present possession. The second resurrection is the resurrection of damnation or judgment. The distinction is severe: those born twice die once; those born once die twice. Jesus is not merely a healer here. He is claiming authority over life, death, resurrection, and judgment.
Explain how the fourfold witnesses are relative to today. To you?
Jesus presents a fourfold witness because self-testimony alone was not treated as legally sufficient. The first witness is John the Baptist, a human witness who pointed to Christ. The second is Jesus’ works, which testify that the Father sent Him. The third is the Father Himself. The fourth is the Scriptures, which Jesus says testify of Him. The command to “search” the Scriptures carries the idea of careful, serious investigation, not casual reading.
Today, those same witnesses still matter. Human testimony still points people toward Christ. The works of Christ are still seen in transformed lives and the continuing effects of His word. The Father’s witness is received through spiritual conviction. The Scriptures remain the fixed written witness that points to Jesus. Personally, I can see all four: the testimony of others, what God has done in my own life, the inward work of the Spirit, and the Bible as the enduring witness to Christ.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 6
What are the main lessons from the “Feeding of the 5000”?
The feeding of the 5,000 shows that Jesus is not limited by visible resources. Philip looks at the situation analytically and sees only impossibility. Andrew at least brings what is available, even though five barley loaves and two small fish seem useless against such a massive need. But once the little that was available was placed into Christ’s hands, it became more than enough. The lesson is not that human resources are sufficient, but that Christ is sufficient, and He can use even small things when they are surrendered to Him.
The other lesson is that Jesus wastes nothing. After everyone was filled, He commanded the disciples to gather the fragments “that nothing be lost.” These points go beyond leftover bread. It becomes part of the larger theme in John 6: that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him, and He will lose nothing. The feeding is not only about provision; it is about abundance, order, stewardship, and security in Christ.
In what ways were Manna and Christ similar? How were they different?
Manna and Christ are similar in that both are presented as bread from heaven. The manna sustained Israel physically during the wilderness wanderings, and it was given by God, not ultimately by Moses. In the same way, Jesus presents Himself as the true bread from heaven, the one who gives life. Manna preserved physical life for a season; Christ gives eternal life. But the differences are more important than the similarities. Manna was temporary, given only to Israel, and those who ate it still died. Jesus is given for the life of the world, and whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will never hunger or thirst. Manna sustained the body; Christ sustains the soul. Manna was a shadow. Christ is the reality.
Why did Jesus “walk on the water”? What was the impact?
Jesus walked on the water to reveal His authority over creation and to strengthen the disciples’ faith. They were in darkness, in a storm, rowing against the current, and unable to control the situation. Jesus came to them in a way that showed He was not subject to the same limits they were. He was not merely a teacher or miracle worker. He had authority over the sea, the storm, and the entire situation.
The impact was fear first, then reassurance. Jesus says, “It is I,” from the Greek ἐγώ εἰμι, though here it functions as identification rather than one of the formal theological “I AM” statements. Still, the effect is the same: they must receive Him by faith. Once he enters the boat, they arrive safely. The picture is clear enough: human effort cannot save us, but Christ comes to us, speaks into our lives, and brings us where we need to go.
Give contemporary examples of each of the four types of Hebrew hermeneutics.
The four levels are Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod. Peshat is the plain meaning of the text. For example, John 6 plainly records Jesus feeding a multitude with five loaves and two fish. Remez is a hint of something deeper. The command that “nothing be lost” hints beyond leftover bread to Jesus’ later statement that He will lose none of those given to Him by the Father. Derash is the practical application. From John 6, I can apply the lesson that what I have may seem insufficient, but I am still responsible for placing it in Christ’s hands. Sod is the hidden or deeper mystery. An example would be seeing Christ as the true bread from heaven, greater than manna, and recognizing the deeper communion language in eating His flesh and drinking His blood. That is not merely surface-level teaching; it points to spiritual union and continual dependence on Christ.
What actually happens during “Communion”? Do you feel it?
I do not believe communion becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. I reject transubstantiation. I also do not think the elements themselves contain some automatic spiritual power apart from faith and obedience. Communion is a memorial. It is an act of remembrance, proclamation, self-examination, and renewed fellowship with Christ. I do not usually “feel” something mystical happen during communion. But that does not mean nothing matters. Communion forces me to realign myself with the cross, with the body and blood of Christ, and with the seriousness of pursuing Him. It is not about chasing a feeling. It is about obediently remembering Him, examining myself, and returning again to the reality that my life depends entirely on His sacrifice.
How are each of the metaphors of “Light,” “Water,” and “Bread” distinctive?
Light, water, and bread all point to Christ, but they emphasize different needs. Light deals with revelation, truth, and exposure. In John, light reveals what is real and exposes darkness. Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. So when Christ is presented as light, the issue is not merely information. It is the truth that confronts blindness, sin, and falsehood. Water emphasizes life, cleansing, satisfaction, and the work of the Spirit. Jesus offers living water to the Samaritan woman, something that satisfies at a deeper level than ordinary human appetite. Bread emphasizes sustenance and dependence. In John 6, Jesus is the Bread of Life, the one who must be received, trusted, and continually depended upon. Light reveals. Water satisfies and gives life. Bread sustains and nourishes. All three expose the same truth from different angles: Christ is not optional; He is life itself.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 7
What “rhetorical devices” (figures of speech) do we commonly encounter in conversations today? What are their strengths and weaknesses of use.
We commonly use similes, metaphors, analogies, allegories, exaggeration, irony, sarcasm, and puns in ordinary conversation. A simile explicitly compares one thing to another, while a metaphor speaks of one thing as though it were another. We use these devices because strict literal language is often inadequate for describing emotions, relationships, spiritual realities, or complicated ideas. Scripture does the same thing through similitudes, patterns, types, and other rhetorical devices. As Hosea 12:10 states, God spoke through the prophets and “used similitudes.”
The strength of figurative language is that it can make an abstract truth understandable, memorable, and emotionally powerful. Its weakness is that it can be misunderstood, taken too literally, or stretched beyond what the speaker intended. This is especially dangerous in biblical interpretation. We must first determine what kind of language is being used and then allow the context to control its meaning rather than inventing meanings that the text does not support.
Give examples of the use of puns in the Scripture.
One example is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” The Greek uses Πέτρος (Petros, Peter) and πέτρα (petra, rock), creating an intentional play on related words. Another example appears in John 3:8, where πνεῦμα (pneuma) can mean either “wind” or “spirit.” Jesus uses that double meaning while explaining the work of the Holy Spirit to Nicodemus: the wind blows where it wishes, and so it is with everyone born of the Spirit.
Names can also function as wordplay. Isaac’s name is connected with laughter because Sarah laughed when she heard that she would bear a son. Scripture uses these devices to connect ideas and make them memorable, but the wordplay is often clearer in Hebrew or Greek than in English. This is one reason examining the original language can help us recognize relationships that are obscured in translation.
Which Jewish holidays do you observe? Why?
I do not formally observe any Jewish holidays because I am not Jewish and I am not under the Mosaic Law. Paul states in Colossians 2:16–17 that believers are not to be judged concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, or Sabbath days because these things were shadows pointing toward Christ. The feasts are valuable for understanding Scripture and God’s prophetic patterns, but they are not requirements by which a Christian is justified or made more acceptable to God. My family and I have considered observing some of them for memorial purposes, but we have never felt compelled to add more holidays to our calendar. Ironically, the biblical feasts are deeply Christ-centered because they foreshadow His death, the formation of the church, and His eventual return. I can study and appreciate them without pretending to be Jewish or placing myself back under a covenant from which Christ has set me free.
With regard to studying the Jewish culture in the Old Testament what are the advantages and dangers?
Studying Jewish culture, customs, language, feasts, and patterns helps us understand the environment in which the Old Testament was written and the New Testament was revealed. The Old Testament is not disposable background material. As Romans 15:4 teaches, what was written beforehand was written for our learning. The feasts, sacrifices, tabernacle, priesthood, and historical events provide patterns and types that help us understand Christ and God’s plan more clearly.
The danger is that fascination with Jewish culture can lead Christians back into legalism. Someone may begin by studying the feasts and eventually start treating dietary restrictions, Sabbath observance, circumcision, or other elements of the Mosaic covenant as obligations for Christians. That undermines the completed work of Christ. Jewish background should illuminate the gospel, not become a replacement for it or a new system of religious bondage.
Should a Christian be circumcised? Why? (or why not?)
A Christian is not required to be circumcised for salvation, covenant membership, or obedience to Christ. Circumcision was given to Abraham before the Mosaic Law and became an outward covenantal sign for his physical descendants. The New Testament makes it clear that Gentile believers are not required to receive that sign or place themselves under the Law. Physical circumcision contributes nothing to justification, which comes through faith in Christ apart from works of the Law.
A Christian may still be circumcised for medical, cultural, or family reasons, but that is a separate issue. The procedure itself is neither spiritually beneficial nor spiritually harmful unless someone treats it as necessary for salvation or acceptance by God. The meaningful circumcision under the New Covenant is the inward work of God upon the heart, not the removal of flesh from the body.
What was the most significant personal lesson you received from this session?
The most significant personal lesson for me was the balance between understanding the Jewish background of Scripture and refusing to place myself back under the Law. The feasts, appointed times, types, and patterns give me a much fuller understanding of Christ. They demonstrate that the Old and New Testaments are part of one integrated revelation and that the events of Christ’s ministry did not happen randomly.
At the same time, these patterns point me toward Christ rather than toward religious observance. I do not come to God through a feast, a ritual, a church organization, a minister, circumcision, or any other outward practice. I come directly to Christ. The background is valuable because it helps me understand Him more clearly, but it becomes dangerous the moment the shadow begins to replace the person to whom the shadow points.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 8
What happened subsequently to the woman accused in vv.1-11?
We do not know what happened to the woman afterward. Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” She left His presence uncondemned, but that does not mean Jesus declared her adultery acceptable. He acknowledged the reality of her sin while extending mercy to the sinner. Her accusers had departed, leaving no witnesses to carry out the sentence required by the Law.
I would like to believe that she obeyed Jesus, turned away from her sin, and became one of His followers, but the text does not tell us that. Missler points out that she called Him “Lord,” which may be significant, but he also acknowledges that we cannot know whether she was saved or what she did afterward. The passage ends with Christ’s command, leaving us with the same responsibility she had: receive His mercy and stop living in sin.
What did Jesus write on the ground?
No one knows what Jesus wrote on the ground because John does not tell us. Anything beyond that is conjecture. What makes the action interesting is that He wrote with His finger, which Missler connects with the finger of God writing the commandments on stone. Jesus wrote twice on the ground, just as the commandments were written on two sets of tablets.
Missler suspects that Jesus may have written the secret sins of the accusers, perhaps beginning with the oldest, because they departed one at a time after being convicted by their own consciences. He connects this possibility with Jeremiah 17:13 and Psalm 90:8. He also suggests that Jesus could have written the seventh commandment, the name of the missing man, or something else that exposed their hypocrisy. However, Missler is careful to say that this is only speculation. The honest answer remains that no one knows.
In what way(s) is Jesus “the Light of the world”?
Jesus is the Light of the world because He is the truth and reveals God as He actually is. Light exposes what is hidden, and Jesus exposed both the woman’s sin and the hypocrisy of her accusers. He did not judge according to appearances, as the Pharisees did. He knew their hearts, their motives, and their secret sins. He is not merely someone who teaches truth; He later declares that He is the truth. Jesus is also the only source of spiritual life and salvation. Anyone who follows Him will not remain in darkness but will have the light of life. He is intimately knowledgeable about the whole creation because He created it. The world was made through Him, and nothing that was made came into existence apart from Him. Therefore, He alone can reveal the truth about God, humanity, sin, judgment, and salvation.
How does this opening scene relate to the rest of the chapter?
The opening scene introduces the major themes that continue throughout John 8: sin, judgment, darkness, truth, freedom, and the identity of Jesus. The woman was genuinely guilty, but her accusers used the Law hypocritically in an attempt to trap Jesus. When He exposed their own guilt, they withdrew one at a time. Immediately afterward, Jesus declared, “I am the light of the world.” The Light had exposed what they were trying to conceal.
The same pattern continues throughout the chapter. The Pharisees judge Jesus according to the flesh, question His Father, claim spiritual freedom while remaining slaves to sin, and claim Abraham as their father while seeking to murder the One Abraham rejoiced to see. The chapter begins with them attempting to stone a sinful woman and ends with them attempting to stone the sinless Messiah. They came to expose the woman, but the Light exposed them instead.
How do you avoid the dangers implied in this chapter? Give examples.
One danger is judging other people hypocritically. The woman’s accusers were willing to expose and punish her sin while concealing their own sin and ignoring the man involved. I cannot avoid this all the time, as there are endless times in which I am guilty of one sin or another. But I am reminded that I am also guilty before God and have no righteousness of my own. This does not mean pretending sin is acceptable. Jesus neither denied her guilt nor excused her behavior. He extended mercy and then commanded her to sin no more.
Another danger is claiming to know God while refusing to receive His Word. The Pharisees were religious, knew the Law, and claimed Abraham as their father, but their conduct revealed that they did not know God. I avoid this by continuing in Christ’s Word rather than relying on family, church membership, theological knowledge, or religious activity. I also need to guard against slander and accusations. When I believe another Christian has sinned, I should follow the proper biblical process rather than spreading allegations or condemning someone publicly without hearing the matter fairly.
This in no way guarantees reconciliation with that individual. In fact, most often, if you stand on principle and use the biblical process, you will most often lose that individual because they will not usually receive your correction personally.
How did Jesus’ childhood in Nazareth impact the rest of His life? How does it impact yours?
According to Missler, it was apparently common knowledge that Mary had become pregnant before she and Joseph came together. People who rejected the virgin birth would therefore assume that Jesus had been conceived through fornication. The Pharisees appear to use this accusation when they ask, “Where is thy father?” and later emphasize, “We be not born of fornication.” Missler connects this with Psalm 69, where the speaker bears reproach, becomes a stranger to his brethren and an alien to his mother’s children, and becomes the subject of gossip and the songs of drunkards.
If Missler’s interpretation is correct, Jesus endured mockery, gossip, rejection, and accusations of illegitimacy throughout His childhood and into His adult life. He bore that shame even though He was completely innocent. This affects me because He endured being treated as an illegitimate son so that I could become a legitimate son of God through Him. It also reminds me that Christ understands prolonged rejection and false accusation. I should not determine another person’s identity by gossip, appearances, family history, or popular opinion, but by the truth.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 9
What was the biggest miracle in this chapter? Why?
The obvious miracle in John 9 is that Jesus gave sight to a man who had been blind from birth. According to Missler, this is the only biblical account involving the healing of someone born blind. Jesus made clay from the ground and His saliva, placed it on the man’s eyes, and told him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. The man obeyed while he was still blind and returned able to see.
However, I think the greater miracle was his movement from physical blindness to spiritual sight. At first, he described Jesus merely as “a man.” Later, he called Him a prophet, argued that He must be from God, and finally believed in Him as the Son of God and worshiped Him. His opened eyes were the visible miracle, but his recognition of Christ was the lasting one.
Did John write this Gospel before or after his experience at Patmos? Why do you think that?
Missler believes John probably wrote his Gospel after his experience on Patmos. His argument seems to be based on similarities between the Gospel and Revelation, including repeated expressions, structural markers, and John’s treatment of themes such as light, testimony, judgment, and the identity of Christ. Missler also sees possible echoes of Revelation in the way John organizes and explains certain events.
I do not think the transcript proves the date conclusively. Missler presents it as his judgment rather than an established fact. It is an interesting possibility, especially when the Gospel and Revelation are read together, but I would not build any major doctrine upon the order in which John wrote them.
Is there “generational sin”? Can you share what might be yours?
I do not believe in generational sin in the sense that a specific sin or spiritual curse is automatically passed from a parent to a child. The disciples assumed that either the blind man or his parents must have sinned to cause his condition, but Jesus rejected their assumption. He said that neither the man nor his parents had caused his blindness in that way; instead, the condition would become an occasion for the works of God to be revealed.
There is inherited sin in the larger biblical sense. Adam and Eve were created without sin, but every person born after the fall enters life with a fallen nature. Families can also pass down destructive habits, attitudes, consequences, and examples, but that is different from inheriting personal guilt for an ancestor’s particular sins. I am responsible for my own response to God, even when I have been shaped by patterns established before me.
List the parallels between the blind man in this chapter and ourselves.
The blind man was blind from birth, helpless to change his condition, without resources, and dependent upon someone outside himself. Missler presents him as a picture of the natural person, who is born spiritually blind and unable to perceive the things of God. The man did not seek Jesus or ask to be healed. Jesus saw him, approached him, and initiated the entire encounter. In the same way, Christ sought us before we understood our own condition or knew how to seek Him. The man then obeyed Christ while he was still blind. After receiving his sight, he shared only what he knew, and his understanding of Jesus grew through the chapter. He first called Him a man, then a prophet, then one sent from God, and finally the Son of God whom he worshiped. That resembles the believer’s growth: Christ opens our eyes, we testify to what He has done, and our recognition of Him deepens as we continue walking in the light we have received.
What is the cure for our blindness? How are you pursuing the cure?
The cure for spiritual blindness is not religion, education, human effort, or membership in an institution. The cure is Christ Himself. Missler emphasizes that Jesus used different methods in different healings so that people would not turn the method into the message. The clay, saliva, pool, and washing were not the true source of the man’s sight. Jesus was.
I pursue Christ daily through Scripture, prayer, obedience, and continual submission to Him. This is not an attempt to earn sight or salvation. It is the response of someone whose eyes have been opened and who wants to continue walking in the light. The more faithfully I respond to what Christ has shown me, the more clearly I understand Him and His work.
Create and discuss a list of possible reasons Christians have trials and difficulties. Is this fair?
Christians may experience trials for several different reasons. God may use them to glorify Himself, correct known sin, prevent us from falling into greater sin, protect us from pride, strengthen our faith, produce spiritual growth, teach obedience and discipline, prepare us to comfort others, demonstrate the reality of Christ in us, or provide a testimony to both people and angels. A trial may also exist because God is accomplishing something beyond our present understanding, as He did through the man born blind.
Whether this is fair depends upon whether I assume God owes me an easy life. He does not. He is sovereign, and He may use suffering to accomplish purposes I cannot yet see. That does not mean every difficulty is direct punishment or that we should casually explain another person’s suffering. The disciples made that mistake. My responsibility is to submit to God, examine myself honestly, remain faithful, and allow the trial to produce whatever work He intends.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 10
How can we be “anxious for nothing”?
I think the practical answer is to remain in continuous prayer, remain continuously in the Word, and surrender ourselves to God’s will and to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Anxiety grows when I begin trying to control circumstances that I cannot control or when I start depending on my own ability to determine the outcome. Prayer and Scripture continually redirect my attention away from the circumstances and back toward God.
But I can be “anxious for nothing” because ultimately my salvation and eternal destiny do not depend upon my ability to hold onto Christ; they depend upon His ability to hold onto me. Jesus says that He gives His sheep eternal life, that they will never perish, and that no one can pluck them from either His hand or His Father’s hand. Missler describes this as the “eternal fist” of the Father and the Son. If my salvation depended upon me, I would have plenty of reason to be anxious. If it depends upon the completed work of Christ and the faithfulness of God, then I can surrender the outcome to Him.
What is an apostate? How does one become one? Are you one?
I would define an apostate as someone who has departed from the faith he once professed. He no longer has a testimony of faith in Jesus Christ as the payment for his sin and no longer professes Him as Lord. People may arrive there intellectually, becoming convinced by arguments or supposed evidence against Christianity, or emotionally after suffering, loss, disappointment, or some other event that causes them to reject what they once professed to believe.
However, in light of John 10, I would distinguish apostasy from losing salvation. Missler’s argument is that Christ’s sheep receive eternal life and “shall never perish;” salvation is given rather than earned and therefore cannot later be forfeited by demerit. The John notes make the same distinction when discussing apostasy in John 15: the interpretation that a true believer can apostatize and thereby lose salvation is specifically contrasted with passages such as John 10:28. I presently confess Jesus as Lord, believe that God raised Him from the dead according to the Scriptures, and have a continuing testimony of faith in Him. On that basis, no, I would not describe myself as an apostate.
Compare apostates with those who criticize other Christians in conversations, in writing, and on the internet. What can you do?
An apostate and a critic are not necessarily the same thing. An apostate has abandoned the faith he once professed, and apostates may certainly become severe critics of Christianity. But a Christian can also become highly critical of other Christians while continuing to profess faith in Christ. The problem in that case may not be apostasy at all. It may simply be pride, anger, bitterness, lack of control over the tongue, or approaching another believer entirely from a worldly perspective instead of dealing with the issue biblically.
That does not mean Christians should never criticize error. John 10 itself contains severe warnings about false shepherds, thieves, robbers, and hirelings. The answer cannot therefore be that we never confront falsehood. The question is how we do it and on what basis. I need to judge teaching by Scripture rather than personality, reputation, denomination, or personal irritation. I also need to be careful that legitimate discernment does not become slander or an excuse to attack another believer. There is a major difference between exposing false doctrine from the text and simply speaking destructively about someone.
Compare the Shepherd Psalms (22, 23, & 24). What does the Holy Spirit say to you about these?
Missler connects Psalm 22, Psalm 23, and Psalm 24 as the three Shepherd Psalms. Psalm 22 presents the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep—the suffering Savior and the cross. Psalm 23 presents the Great Shepherd, alive and caring for His sheep—the familiar image of the shepherd leading, providing, protecting, and sustaining them. Psalm 24 presents the Chief Shepherd, the exalted King returning in glory. Missler summarizes the three pictures as the Savior’s cross, the Shepherd’s crook, and the King’s crown.
What stands out to me is that these are not three unrelated pictures of Christ. They show a progression. The Shepherd first gives His life for the sheep, then lives to lead and preserve His sheep, and finally returns as their King. That fits John 10 remarkably well. Jesus does not merely save His sheep and abandon them afterward. He knows them, leads them, gives them eternal life, keeps them secure, and ultimately brings them into His kingdom. The Shepherd who died for me is the same Shepherd responsible for keeping me.
Why was Hanukkah endorsed in the New Testament (John 10:22)?
I would probably change the wording slightly: John 10 does not command Christians to observe Hanukkah, nor does it explicitly “endorse” the holiday. John simply tells us that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the “Feast of the Dedication” in winter. Missler identifies this as Hanukkah, the celebration commemorating the rededication of the Temple following its desecration under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It was not one of the feasts established by Moses in the Torah.
According to Missler, the reason the detail matters is prophetic. The historical desecration that produced Hanukkah provides the background for understanding the later “abomination of desolation” that Jesus refers to in the Olivet Discourse. Antiochus had already provided a historical pattern of a ruler desecrating the holy place, and Jesus uses that background when describing something that would occur again. So John 10:22 is not really teaching us to celebrate Hanukkah; according to Missler, it alerts us to historical information necessary for understanding later prophecy.
Are you eternally secure? How do you know?
I believe that everyone whose name is written in the Book of Life is eternally secure. There is nothing that person can do to remove himself from the salvation God has given him. John 10 particularly focuses on this point: Jesus says that He gives His sheep eternal life; they shall never perish; no one can pluck them out of His hand; and no one can pluck them out of His Father’s hand. Missler emphasizes that eternal life which can end or be forfeited would be a contradiction in terms. Salvation is given, not merited, and therefore cannot later be lost through demerit. Gospel-of-John-Missler.pdf
If someone professes faith for a time and then permanently abandons Christ, I would understand that as evidence that the original profession was never genuine rather than that eternal life was genuinely possessed and subsequently lost. As for myself, I presently have a testimony of Christ: I confess Him as Lord, believe that God raised Him from the dead, and continue to trust in Him rather than myself for salvation. I cannot see the Book of Life and read my own name there, but the biblical basis of assurance is not seeing that book anyway. It is trusting the promises of Christ. The stronger conclusion from this session, then, is not merely that I would “wager” that I am secure, but that if I am one of Christ’s sheep, my security rests entirely in Him rather than in my ability to preserve myself.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
The distinction Missler makes between justification, sanctification, and glorification was probably the most useful part of this session. Justification is the past aspect of salvation: separation from the penalty of sin. Sanctification is the present work occurring in the believer: separation from the power of sin. Glorification is still future: separation from the very presence of sin. Keeping those categories separate helps explain why failure in sanctification does not undo justification.
I also found the distinction between salvation and inheritance rather contrived. Missler argues that a believer can suffer discipline and lose reward or inheritance without losing his sonship or eternal life. That does not help reconcile passages warning believers about serious consequences for disobedience with the exceptionally strong security language of John 10. The Shepherd is responsible for keeping His sheep; our obedience affects our fellowship, usefulness, discipline, and reward, but Christ’s completed work is what determines our justification. Likewise, inheritance as Missler describes it would create a merit system in heaven that would only breed a hierarchy; ultimately, bitterness would form in someone, and we would be back at it again.
Conclusions
This was a fun class, a lot of review. Unfortunately, my gospel project has not continued as I had hoped. I think I will continue with the second part of John next, but I’m shifting gears and consolidating my studies around what is being preached at our local church (Romans currently), and what the kids are studying in their homeschool curriculum (Romans). This will hopefully give me more incentive to pay attention during the service and not wander back to my to-do list on my phone.
Until my next assignment….
Some doors shouldn’t
be opened.
But if you’re
still here…
You’re already standing in front of one.
Start reading In the Meadow for free.
Download your copy → here
What do you think?