Q: In Matthew 8:29, a group of demons is depicted. They say to Jesus, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Have You come hither to torment us before the time? Notice that they called Jesus "Son of God." In First John 4:15, the author says, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. So, logically, God dwells in the devil and the devils dwell in God. Absurd!
A: Theres no flaw in the logic of the objection, but there are flaws in the foundations of the premises. One point which makes a difference is that First John 4:15 refers to the testimony of human beings in the church, not demons. Its quite a stretch to imagine any of Johns readers reading 4:15 and applying it to the speech of demons. Specific church-centered language is all over the place here: just taking verses 10-17, for the general context, its stuffed with we and us.
A second point is that John uses generalities throughout the book of First John. For instance, John can write in 3:8, He who sins is of the devil, and in 3:9, Whoever has been born of God does not sin. But earlier, in 1:8, he writes, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Taken literally and absolutely (like, any animal with wings is not a horse), these ideas seem mutually exclusive, but John is depending on his readers not to take them that way; he seems to expect his statements to be appreciated like facets of a jewel.
I think it's obvious that First John's generalities were intended to be received more as artistic theology rather than as a basis for systematic theology, and the problem ends when this is realized. But lest that seems to be a case built on assumption, there's a tidier resolution. The term confess in First John 4:14 is not the ordinary word for says. It refers to the sort of formal statement that a believer made as part of his surrender to Christ. Clearly that is not the sort of statement that the demons in Matthew 8 were making.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Theres no flaw in the logic of the objection, but there are flaws in the foundations of the premises. One point which makes a difference is that First John 4:15 refers to the testimony of human beings in the church, not demons. Its quite a stretch to imagine any of Johns readers reading 4:15 and applying it to the speech of demons. Specific church-centered language is all over the place here: just taking verses 10-17, for the general context, its stuffed with we and us.
A second point is that John uses generalities throughout the book of First John. For instance, John can write in 3:8, He who sins is of the devil, and in 3:9, Whoever has been born of God does not sin. But earlier, in 1:8, he writes, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Taken literally and absolutely (like, any animal with wings is not a horse), these ideas seem mutually exclusive, but John is depending on his readers not to take them that way; he seems to expect his statements to be appreciated like facets of a jewel.
I think it's obvious that First John's generalities were intended to be received more as artistic theology rather than as a basis for systematic theology, and the problem ends when this is realized. But lest that seems to be a case built on assumption, there's a tidier resolution. The term confess in First John 4:14 is not the ordinary word for says. It refers to the sort of formal statement that a believer made as part of his surrender to Christ. Clearly that is not the sort of statement that the demons in Matthew 8 were making.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
