The Sword Room

We men are notorious for forgetting things–just ask our wives. Connie will remind me to do something in the morning, and then that night when she asks if I did it often I must admit that “I forgot.” Or if she sends me to the grocery store for an item, which happens almost every Thanksgiving, I inevitably run into someone in the produce aisle and talk for twenty minutes. Then I forget what I came to buy, or I get the item right but wrong brand. Lists have always helped, but cell phones have all but eliminated at least the “what?” problem if not the “where?” question (“Where are you-you left the house an hour ago!”).

The fact is that lack of focus and convenient memory lapse are no excuse for irresponsibility. In large measure we remember what we want to remember, and we pay attention to what interests us. I can’t count all the teenage boys who complain that they cannot pay attention in class but who can stay riveted to the video game screen until three in the morning (thanks also to energy drinks). True, staying focused takes effort and practice, but it is doable and beneficial.

In Hebrews Chapter Two the writer is speaking to a group of people who have at least heard the Apostles and witnessed the miraculous phenomena produced through them by the Holy Spirit. Some might even have seen and heard the Savior Himself. Like the Israelites of old who witnessed the mighty acts of God through the Exodus and ministry of Moses, these First Century hearers have some in their midst who have allowed themselves to slip back into the old familiar patterns or disobedience and unbelief. It becomes clear as you read this epistle that some of the readers had fully embraced the Gospel and trusted Christ alone, while others were living with one foot in the church and one foot in the old obsolete covenant. To these drifters the writer issues a stern warning: you will not be able to plead ignorance or memory loss when God calls you to account. To whom much is given much is required. If God judged those who disobeyed the Word in Moses’ day, how much more severe will the consequences be for those who have rejected the revelation given through Christ and the Apostles?

Throughout the epistle warnings are given to those who are on the fence with respect to faith in Christ. The judgment spoken of here could be two-fold. Physical death came upon all those who did not flee Jerusalem in 67 AD, in obedience to Christ’s warning in the Olivet Discourse to get out of town at the sight of the surrounding Roman armies. The Christians evacuated Jerusalem while the Jews remained and huddled in the temple thinking  they would be safe there. Of course there is also the danger of eternal damnation, which is a sober albeit unpleasant reality.

In America we have received tremendous testimony of the Gospel from our nation’s birth to the present day. And yet we see our culture at-large abandoning Christ’s great salvation for psychobabble, self-help, Scientology, eastern religions, materialism, hedonism, and just flat-out atheism and agnosticism. Our current president claims he is a “Christian.” And since the term “Christian” can mean virtually anything in our culture it consequently means nothing. The salt has lost its savor. God has been barred from the schoolhouse to the courthouse and nearly everywhere in between. The book of Hebrews is a warning to those who drift away from the truth into a stupor of self satisfaction. Like the frog in the kettle or the ox being led to slaughter those closest to judgment are often the most unaware of its imminence.

This is how the world, flesh, and devil would have it; for once the axe is laid to the root of the tree it will be forever too late. Maybe you are reading these words today and you are on the fence as far as trusting in the person and work of Christ. Or, you have allowed yourself to drift farther and farther from your spiritual roots. There is never any better time than now to wake up and change your course. The New Testament is replete with exhortations to be alert, awake, and of sober mind. If you have been out of fellowship with other believers then get back to church. Get back to the Word. Get back to prayer. Get back to Jesus. Don’t procrastinate or plead memory loss. Excuses will not cut it any longer.

I have been very zealous for the LORD of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life (1 Kings 19:14).

Perhaps you can understand how the prophet felt. I imagine Jesus could after being forsaken by His disciples on the night of the betrayal. I am sure Paul could as well as he languished in the Roman dungeon. We might also mention Luther the great reformer hiding in the castle of Wartburg after his excommunication by the Roman Catholic Church.

We live in a religious climate not completely unlike that of Elijah in one particular: both cultures were/are glutted with professing saints whose beliefs and behaviors told/tell a different story. Many in ancient Israel gave lip service to Yahweh while in practice devoting themselves to the worship of Baal. In 2009 77% of Americans polled identified themselves as Christians. If these figures are applied against the total population, the estimated number of professing Christians in North America is around 224 million. The only reason these numbers have even any apparent validity is that the word Christian has become so generic as to mean virtually anything. And when a term can mean whatever you want it to mean, it consequently means nothing. Obama is a Christian, Romney is a Christian. Glenn Beck is a Christian. Donald Trump is a Christian. How does one become a Christian? Simple: just say you are a Christian. You say it, I believe it, that settles it. And even if I don’t believe it that still settles it. Your saying it is all that counts.

But Scripture seems to indicate that the path to eternal life is a narrow one which only a minority of the human population finds (Matther 7:13-14). As history marches on many will fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-5). Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? (Luke 18:8). The implied answer to this question is: no, or at least, not very much. According to Jesus, apparently, lip service and faith are not synonymous.

But although Elijah felt all alone, he was not. Of course God was with him; but also: Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him (1 Kings 19:18). Notice: they had not reserved themselves–God had reserved them. God keeps His elect from apostasy. The faith he ignites in their hearts at regeneration he fans and keeps alive by His sustaining grace, so that they persevere in the faith to the end. What an encouragement it must have been to Elijah to know there were likeminded saints in Israel that stood with him for the glory of the true and living God.

Last night after dinner, as Connie and I relaxed and tried to cool down after a long work week in what was surely the hottest day of the summer, there was a knock at our front door. Connie answered it and returned a few minutes later. There ‘s some old guy here to see you. It was none other than Walter Thomas “Tom” Steele, Jr., from Fort Oglethorp, Georgia. I had not seen brother Steele in a decade, and he definitely looked older, at age 64 now. But as we sat out on the back porch in the shade in a couple Adirondack chairs catching up I recognized the same Tom I roomed with for two years in Bible College (1974-76). The same Tom who used to sit in the back alcove of the dorm and pray and discuss the word with me. The same Tom who used to pass out gospel tracts in front of the adult book store in Blaine, along with atomic fireball jawbreakers as a playful reminder of where the recipients would be going if they died without Christ. As we talked it was as if the years melted away. Jesus–the same yesterday, today, and forever–is alive and well in Walter Thomas Steele, Jr.

Every time I talk with Tom, or any other brother from back in the day, or when one of them responds to a post here, I feel good knowing there are a few likeminded brothers God has kept in His grace. Not that any are without temptation or sin; but their simple trust in Jesus Christ and their desire to walk with Him are such an inspiration and encouragement to me. I rub elbows with people all week long that to have fellowship with means talking to them on a level they can relate to; and that means the weather, sports, politics, relationships, you name it, from a Christless perspective. But when a guy like Tom walks through the door, you don’t have to wait too long for Jesus to be front and center, and the koinonia is going full-steam. At the same time I feel saddened at the thought of so many who seemed to make a good start but today by their lips and their lives make no pretense or profession of trusting Christ.

To all you brothers out there who have not bowed the knee to Baal, I want you to know that you moral and prayer support, and your sharing of yourself in any measure with me is appreciated beyond words. Sometimes I wonder why, after all these years, it is Pete who trusts Jesus and wants to feed on His word and glorify Him. There are so many who have not persevered. And then I think of some of you who, like Tom, are walking with the Lord, and I am encouraged. True, sometimes we seem to barely limp along; but we’re still moving.

To me this is a great evidence of the Lord’s reality and motivation to press on to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

This entry had to wait a couple days, having been interrupted by the terrible news last Friday out of Aurora, Colorado. Why it had to wait is that, at least from my perspective, time was needed to recoil from the shock of yet another senseless act of violence in which families were bereaved of loved ones. Our prayers and thoughts of deepest sympathy go out to those friends and families of the victims.

As is always the case immediately following such events, people ask why? Many Christians would say that James Holmes acted according to his free will. That sounds reasonable to me in a sense: he did what he wanted to do with no apparent coercion or outside influence; and he should be thus held responsible for his actions. Of course that explanation begs the question of why anyone would want to do such a thing. Dr. Drew and other pop “experts” who have never met him were quick to diagnose Holmes as a “sick” person in need of treatment. Others, like Piers Morgan, immediately used the situation to push tighter gun laws. Such responses sicken me because they trivialize and cheapen the lives of the victims in the interest of promoting agendas which marginalize the glory of God and reality of sin. If it sells soap run with it.

This blog was to be about prayer, specifically as it relates to the will of God.

Now this is the confidence we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him (1 John 5:14-15).

When we talk about the will of God our meaning might go in one of two directions. First, we might be referring to the revealed moral will of God; that is, those things we ought to do or not do based upon the commands and prohibitions of God recorded in scripture. The other sense in which we speak of God’s will is in terms of His secret sovereign decree. That is the sense in which it is used in passages like James 4:15: Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”

Now in the 1 John prayer passage just cited it seems obvious for two reasons that the sovereign secret will of God is referred to. First, many times we pray for ourselves and others to operate within the parameters of God’s revealed moral will, and they do not. When I was in Bible college in the 1970′s I prayed a lot for my unsaved family members–and still do. An older Canadian pastor once assured me that those family members would be saved because it was God’s will. But two of those family members have since died, and as far as I know they were not saved, even though trusting Christ is what they ought to have done based on God’s word. My heart is heavy just thinking about this.

Which brings us to the secret sovereign will of God. I am convinced that is what John was referring to above. God does not answer prayer outside the bounds of His sovereign will for one simple reason: nothing can come to pass in God’s universe apart from His sovereign will. Scripture tells us that He works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11). This means that somehow diseases, natural disasters, and the evil choices of human beings are under the umbrella of God’s will.

And what about man’s free will? James Holmes chose to do what he did, and for that reason he alone is responsible and should be punished. God did not choose that Holmes should go on the shooting rampage in that crowded theater–He simply allowed it to happen. If this is your line of reasoning my question is a simple one: could God have stopped Holmes from killing and wounding all those people? If your answer is yes then you must conclude that God chose to let it happen. It was His sovereign will to let it happen.

You will argue that God does not violate our free will. Excuse me, but there are many examples in scripture and daily life that prove that notion false. God often stops us from doing what we choose and want to do–and thank God for it. What puzzles all of us is why He doesn’t stop all of our evil sinful choices. And to that question we must all plead ignorance.

And don’t get all bent out of shape that I am reasoning thus. Don’t write this off as a theoretical exercise divorced from real life. Nothing could be more practical than relating the events of daily life, no matter how painful, to the truth of the word of God. I am not an unfeeling ogre. I know that when someone is experiencing agonizing pain you deal with the pain. Recently my daughter experienced a severe ear infection which resulted in unbearable pain. Of course what any feeling human being does at a time like this is try and find a way to relieve the agony. Just over a month ago I sat with a woman as she broke the news to her nine-year son that he would never see his daddy again, as he had been struck dead that morning with a stroke. The expression in those sad little eyes is forever burned into my mind.

But at some point that poor boy and all the rest of us must come to grips with the reality of the sovereign God of Scripture in the face of the pain and suffering that go with the territory of living in this fallen world. When it comes to evils committed against us and others hopefully we will have the spiritual maturity to say with Joseph that, you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (Genesis 50:20). The only other option is unbelief and rebellion against God.

God is completely sovereign and man is at the same time totally responsible. We see these two truths side-by-side in the case of Judas Iscariot:

The Son of Man goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born (Matthew 26:24).

And of the role of the Jewish leaders in the death of Christ Peter says this:

Being delivered up by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death (Acts 2:23).

For sheer wickedness all else pales in comparison with the betrayal and execution of our Lord and Savior. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10). And again: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things (Isaiah 45:7).

But if all this is true, why even pray in the first place? The answer to this question is that we do not pray to bend the will of God to ours; but rather we pray to align ourselves with what God is doing. We pray for others because as fellow human beings we are supposed to care about their pain, and we are supposed to want to help them in their times of grief.

But God in His essence is not a human being, and we have to accept what He tells us about His ways and character–even when His truth cuts against our fleshly human notions of fairness and right-ness.

As long as we are in 1 John we ought to devote at least one entry to the subject of assurance of salvation, since this is a theme woven throughout the epistle. Here we are not discussing whether a person is genuinely saved or not, but whether they know they are saved.

There are four possible categories one might fall into with regard to assurance of salvation, as illustrated below.

A person is either: (A) saved with assurance, (B) saved with no assurance,  (C) not saved with assurance, or (D) not saved with no assurance. I would include in (C) those unsaved individuals who are not worried about assurance because they do not believe in salvation, heaven, hell, etc. If you are unsaved it would seem that position (D) is most desirable because it is at least realistic. The two categories that I will spend time on here are (A) and (B). Let’s begin with (B).

Back in 1985 when I was a church planter in New Mexico I met a man I’ll call Joe, who had trusted Christ several years previous to our acquaintance but lived with a nagging doubt about his salvation. Joe had been married and divorced twice and was on his third wife when I met him. He had been raised a staunch Roman Catholic, and his church and family were not supportive of his divorces, conversion and departure from Catholicism, and his present marriage to a non-Catholic evangelical woman. Joe had been taught that divorce was the unpardonable sin. He also was plagued with guilt about how he had treated his previous wives. Somehow it didn’t seem right to him that he should be so happy and fulfilled given his history.

Bill’s story was different, but he too lacked assurance of salvation. He had trusted Jesus as his savior at age six when his mom explained the good news to him and knelt with him to pray at his bedside. Bill grew up to be a handsome successful businessman with a taste for women. Even though he had a wonderful Christian wife, he had numerous adulterous affairs over the years. Miraculously his wife stayed with him and he eventually cleaned up his act. But he, like Joe, was under a dark cloud of doubt as far as his salvation was concerned.

I spent extensive time with both men, assuring them that they could not undo their past sins or make any kind of restitution. We pored over those many verses in the New Testament which teach that forgiveness and justification come by faith alone in Christ alone (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). 1 John 5:13 was oft-repeated in the times we spent together: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. I would remind them that they had believed in Christ at a specific point in time, and that based on their profession of faith as well as the fact that God cannot lie, they had every reason to be fully assured that should they die heaven would be their home.

That approach never cut it for either of them. I was quite baffled. It is one thing to deal with a professing believer who is walking in flagrant ongoing unrepentant rebellion against God. Of course this kind of individual–even if he is saved–will most likely not experience assurance of salvation. The prodigal son never feels like a son after he has blown his inheritance on booze and hookers and is eating pig slop. Nor should he–until he comes to his senses and returns to his father. But these two guys seemed to be making every effort to walk with the Lord.

It was not until I studied 1 John in depth that it dawned on me that scripture does not reinforce assurance of salvation as I had to Joe and Bill. Observe the following verses from 1 John on knowing we are saved:

By this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments (2:3).

But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him (2:5).

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren (3:14).

Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him and He in him. By this we know that He abides in us, by His Spirit whom He has given us (3:24).

By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit (4:13).

Notice that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is linked to the moral and relational tests. The implication here is that the Holy Spirit does not grant assurance of salvation to the believer in abstraction from our personal walk with Him. In other words, the means the Holy Spirit uses in assuring us that we are saved is our ongoing obedience relative to the moral, doctrinal, and relational tests. This point is reinforced by the context of Paul’s statement in Romans 8:16 that the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. In the discussion leading up to this promise Paul had been talking about being led by the Spirit resulting in life, rather than walking according to the flesh resulting in death. The apostle declares that, as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (8:14). Notice he does not say that as many as have recited the sinner’s prayer are the sons of God.

Does this not smack of salvation by works? Not at all. Joe and Bill lacked assurance because they were thinking of it in terms of pie-in-the-sky based on something they had done in the past. The emphasis of scripture, however, is assurance based on what God is doing in our lives right now! We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing it is God who works in us both to will and do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). The focus is on the present and on God. The Holy Spirit in us is not dead. We do not work at loving God and brother, keeping His commands, and embracing sound doctrine as a means of gaining merit with God. We do it because God has given us a new heart that wants to do these things as a loving response to His grace. When we behave in this way we know we are new creatures in Christ because when we were in the flesh we couldn’t have cared less about serving anyone but ourselves. Herein lies the real reason Joe and Bill lacked assurance: They didn’t really believe they were changed men. I tried until I was blue in the face to convince them they were heaven-bound based on their past professions of faith; but until they could recognize the present sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lives they felt like the same miserable sinners they had been before.

They were like the criminal who stops committing crimes but is still a criminal on the inside. Gary Ridgway is no longer strangling prostitutes to death, but he is still a murderer on the inside. When does a murderer stop being a murderer? He stops being a murderer when he becomes something other than a murderer. Now I believe both Joe and Bill were new creatures in Christ before they had assurance, but they were looking in the wrong place to find that assurance. They were looking to what they had done in the past as the basis of a fire insurance policy to be redeemed in the future. What they should have done was glorify and praise God for their ongoing inner desire to serve Him now.

And so, brothers, let me close with this. Do you desire to trust Jesus with your life today? Do you long to love and obey Him and to love those born again by His grace? Do you hunger for His word and thirst for His righteousness? Like Paul do you wish to forget those things that are behind you and to press on to the prize of your high calling in Christ Jesus? Do you see that all the fleshly things which once meant so much to you are worthless dung in comparison to a life of service to Him? If this describes your heart, then rejoice! Your flesh would never produce these longings in a million years–or want to. Their presence in your life is proof positive that He is at work in you and that you are His child. You are not perfect, and neither am I. We have this treasure in earthen vessels.

In 1 John 5:16-17 we find what many consider to be a difficult concept: the sin unto death.

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

In identifying the sin leading to death it will be helpful to rule out two possibilities. First, the sin leading to death is not the same as the unpardonable sin of Matthew 12:31-32. There the sin is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan, and it is performed by obvious unbelievers. In our immediate text the theme is prayer, and the context implies that at least professing believers are in view. Secondly, the unpardonable sin is unto eternal spiritual damnation, whereas the sin described here in First John leads to physical death. We know this to be the case because all sin leads to spiritual death (Romans 5:12; James 1:13-15), or alienation from God. The only way it makes sense to speak of one sin leading to death and another not leading to death is with reference to physical death.

John is saying, then, that there are cases where God takes the life of a professing believer as judgment for sin. An obvious example of this would be the case of Ananias and Saphira in the fifth chapter of Acts. Another possibility would be Paul’s statement to the Corinthians that as a result of their abuses of the Lord’s table, many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11:30). My own opinion–and I can’t prove it–is that the sin leading to death is not a particular kind of sin, but the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back after an ongoing pattern of rebellion against the Lord in which He judges the professing believer by taking his life. This theory fits the case of the Corinthians; and it is my sanctified hunch that the final deception of Ananias and Saphira, far from being an isolated incident, was symptomatic of deeper darker issues.

In any event the question is: Why does John mention the sin leading to death? We cannot be sure because we don’t know exactly what the situation was at Ephesus when John wrote his first epistle. Perhaps some of the believers had died, and the surviving Christians were wondering whether God had taken them home due to sin. In the ancient world it was not uncommon to attribute birth defects, natural disasters, sickness, and death, to some act of sin. For example:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:1-2).

We see the same mind set reflected in Luke 13:1-5 when Jesus tells His followers that those whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices and those eighteen persons upon whom the tower of Siloam fell were no worse sinners than they. As a final example I will remind you of Job and his friends.

Reading between the lines it seems like all John is trying to say is that, yes, there is a sin that leads to physical death. Sometimes God takes professing Christians out of the game. The context is prayer, so we might surmise that John’s readers had either prayed about this sin or were considering it. At the end of v. 16 John says they should not pray concerning this sin. But this is not his usual word for prayer. Instead he uses a term that usually means not to ask as a request, but as a question or inquiry. So not only ought believers not be praying about the sin leading to death; they really should not be spending much time asking questions about it either. In other words, understanding it is not essential to one’s spiritual growth.

What I find interesting is that after the short discussion of the sin leading to death John repeats a theme from earlier in the epistle:

We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him (5:18).

This statement is added specifically to tell us that a truly born again believer cannot commit the sin leading to death. God can sovereignly allow a believer to die of cancer, heart attack, or some other means, but not specifically as a judgment for personal sin.  The truly regenerate believer does not continue in an ongoing pattern or lifestyle of unrepentant sin. If you have been wondering why I have made reference to professing believers throughout this posting, now you know the reason. John’s statement here cuts two ways: it gives encouragement to the true believers, and pulls the rug out from under the impostors.

Someone once asked J. Vernon Magee if he taught the security of the believer. He answered that, yes, he held to the security of the believer. And then he quickly added: But I also teach the insecurity of the make-believer!

What, then, is the purpose of the sin leading to death? Simple: it is God’s way of getting dead wood out of the way. Call it accelerated church discipline. I view the whole incident in 1 Corinthians chapter five in light of what we see here in 1 John. The man at Corinth was having an ongoing adulterous affair with his step-mother. Paul turned him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. The proof was in the pudding. If he were a true child of God he would repent and be restored–which he did. If he were not one of the elect, the destruction of his flesh would run its course and he would die.

But at the end of the day the sin leading to death is probably very rare, and in most cases we are not in a position to detect it. The point of the text seems to be that we should not spend time whenever a fellow believer dies an untimely death wondering whether they were truly regenerate or if God took their life. We are not to wish the sin leading to death on anyone in prayer, nor are we to spend time discussing it or asking questions about it.

There is more to be said about the doctrinal test. In today’s Christian culture the moral and relational tests are pushed to the forefront in terms of their importance, while sound theology is downplayed. But in the early church the most heated disputes were around the major doctrines of the faith. Doctrine is important because false teachers are a reality, and truth matters.

Jesus warned about false teachers and false prophets, but also told us they would not go undetected. There would be a means of testing them.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:15-20).

Usually when we hear the phrase, You will know them by their fruits, the reference is to moral behavior–lying, stealing, cussing, sexual sin, etc. But notice Jesus is talking about recognizing false teachers who look just like sheep on the outside. The point is that nothing in their outward appearance or behavior will tip you off as to their identity. Notice also that the bad tree cannot bear good fruit, nor the good tree bad fruit. If this were a reference to outward behavior it would not be a true statement. Genuine believers frequently bear bad behavioral fruit, and sometimes the squeaky clean false prophets (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses) put Christians to shame when it comes to “good” behavior.

The bad fruit of the false prophet is doctrinal fruit. If a man is a heretic he might look and act like a true believer in many ways. For awhile he will get by on good behavior, but eventually his bad theology will give him away. He will deny core truths essential to the gospel in the areas of theology (God), Christology (Christ), hamartiology (sin), and/or soteriology (salvation). He will deny the person and work of Christ and he will preach a false gospel. If he is a bad tree he will inevitably bear bad fruit, whereas the true believer by definition embraces those truths which comprise the faith once delivered. Jesus is here giving us a very concrete and objective means of weeding out the false prophets under the metaphor of spiritual fruit inspection. In other words, the doctrinal test. Now perhaps you can see why knowing your Bible is so important.

But there is also a subjective aspect to the doctrinal test. It is called the anointing:

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the anointing teaches you all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him (1 John 2:25-27).

Usually we hear about the anointing as an empowerment from the Holy Spirit that comes upon the preacher or teacher or some other leader. Certainly it is used this way in the Old Testament. Here it seems to be an endowment that protects the hearers from error. Immediately we can dismiss the idea that teachers are completely unnecessary in the church. Passages in the New Testament which stress the primacy of teaching would refute such a notion (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12-14; Ephesians 4). It seems that the purpose of the anointing is not to teach actual content or information, but rather to tip the believer off to the falsity of the message. It is like an intuitive red light that warns you to stop: something is wrong. There are times when a teacher is not available to consult, and the false teacher is too cunning for the believer. Here is where the anointing teaches that there is error to be shunned.

An example may clarify what I think the text is getting at. Right after I was saved I went to a movie theater with some friends to see a Billy Graham film. In the lobby were some folks passing out pamphlets, and they claimed to be Christians. They seemed very docile and friendly, but something about them gave me the creeps. I just knew something was wrong, and the friends with me sensed it too. Later I noticed the tract they had given me was from the Unification Church, and it had been written by their leader Sun Myung Moon. Eventually I learned that these Moonies were cultists and not really true believers. But I was a novice in the scriptures and in a debate these cultists would have eaten me for lunch. I am sure you have had experiences like this when you have been confronted at your doorstep or in some public place by these kinds of heretics. That chill that went up your spine and warned you to run the other way was the anointing. You needed no other teacher to tell you that you were dealing with Satan’s minions. Over the years as a pastor wolves in sheep’s clothing infiltrated the churches where I served. Often before we had a chance to question these heretics the anointing warned us about them intuitively. Upon further inquiry we were able to see their bad doctrinal fruit and cordially invite them to get out and never come back.

However I do not think we can depend on the subjective anointing alone. My position is that we cannot turn the anointing on and off at will. What we do have control over is our intake of the word and study of sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is like a protective grid that filters incoming data and intercepts false teaching. Within this framework the Holy Spirit uses the anointing as He sovereignly sees fit.

John uses the first person singular (I) and second person plural (you) as the primary means of addressing his readers (e.g., 2:1, 2-8, 12-14, 5:13), which would seem like the normal way to write a letter to a group. But he also uses the third person singular and plural (he/they) to describe the impostors, or false brethren (1:4; 2:4, 9-11, 19, 26). The first person plural (we) is used in a collective sense, literally and hypothetically, to describe John and the believers as a group (1:6-10; 3:1-2, 14; 4:13-14, 19). When we see this interchange between person and number we can easily understand John’s meaning.

But John uses the third person plural in a way that evokes one of my dad’s favorite questions: Who’s we–you got a ______ in your pocket? Far from being a dry grammatical exercise, the answer to the question of John’s meaning is crucial to understanding test number three–the doctrinal test.

John opens his epistle with a reference to himself and others (we) who had been present during Christ’s earthly ministry and had seen, heard, and touched those things concerning the word of life (1:1-5). There is nothing hypothetical or editorial in the language: John is giving a collective testimony to the truth of the gospel and reality of Jesus Christ. He includes himself and his fellow eyewitnesses. This can only refer to the witness of the apostles, who were commissioned to tell the world of what they had seen and heard from the Lord. So strong and authoritative was their testimony that John was able to tell his readers that:

They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; and he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (4:5-6).

These verses state the doctrinal test in a nutshell. So binding is this apostolic witness that John tells his readers not to extend hospitality to anyone who shows up preaching any other message (2 John 9-11). Paul says that anyone preaching any other gospel is to be placed under the divine curse (Galatians 1:8-9). The writer of Hebrews fearfully warns us of the danger of drifting away from the apostolic message (Hebrews 2:1-4). In those days there were living apostles present to arbitrate and clarify doctrine. Today we have the testimony of the apostles deposited in the New Testament writings–all of which were either written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostles.

How the doctrinal test is to be used varies with each situation. For example in Galatians the test was around the issue of justification. There Paul assures his readers that the gospel he preached to them was not from man, but was the result of a revelation made to him by Christ. Then he goes on to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the litmus test of the false teachers infecting the churches with heresy. In 1 John we see the doctrinal test applied in the area of Christology. The liar and antichrist is he who denies that Jesus is the Christ (2:22). In denying that Jesus was the anointed one predicted in the Old Testament scriptures they are denying his deity. But the false teachers also deny the humanity of Jesus (4:1-3). Denial of either the full divinity or humanity of Christ is a failure of the doctrinal test.

When we survey early church history we see that the great doctrinal debates were over the nature of Christ and the trinity. The early confessions, such as the Nicene Creed, reflect this concern. A few years later the controversy centered around the doctrines of sin and salvation, and Augustine championed the apostolic doctrines in his refutation of the heresy of a British monk named Pelagius. Today we apply the doctrinal test when we deal with cultists who deny salvation by faith alone, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection. In denying these apostolic doctrines they are denying the true gospel and by so much are placing themselves outside the pale of authentic Christianity.

Here is one example of why the doctrinal test is so important today. Many Christians are getting mixed up in political zealotry. They hear popular leaders like Glenn Beck call themselves Christians and talk about their faith in Christ. Beck and others like him espouse family values, honesty, and morality. Gullible evangelicals assume that these men must be brothers in Christ based on this as well as the fact that they are conservatives. Not too long ago I saw popular author and television preacher Joel Osteen on Piers Morgan. Morgan talked about how many evangelicals are suspicious of Mitt Romney because he is a mormon, and some have even referred to him as a cultist. Then he point-blank asked Osteen if he thought Romney was a fellow believer. Osteen stammered and hem-hawed a bit, but Morgan nailed him down. Finally, Osteen sheepishly said something to this effect: Well, Piers, aaah just don’t feel Chrast has called me to judge the man. Aah believe in Chrast and he says he believes in Chrast, so who am aah to judge. Aah accept him as mah brother in Chrast. Bottom line–Osteen is a spineless wimp or a biblical ignoramus–take your pick. Romney and Beck as committed mormons fail the doctrinal test.

However, a final caution is in order. The doctrinal test applies only in those core issues on which the gospel hinges. Applying the doctrinal test in peripheral areas like eschatology, the mode and subjects of baptism, and the filling and gifts of the spirit is an exercise in hair-splitting that needlessly divides true believers. As staunch a Calvinist as I am, I would never go as far as some and say Arminians are not true believers. Now I do believe Arminians are out to lunch theologically when it comes to the so-called doctrines of grace, but with respect to the apostolic witness to Christ and the gospel we are on common ground.

I will have more to say about the doctrinal test in my next entry.

One question raised by the previous entry is: How can you call a test like the moral test an assurance? It smacks of legalism, or salvation by works. Before we look at the relational test today, let’s take a few minutes to address this question.

All through the epistle John makes it clear that his purpose in writing is to give his readers assurance. There is no doubt in his mind that they are secure in Christ.

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you children, because you know the Father. I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one (2:12-14).

I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and no lie is of the truth (2:21).

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

These verses sound an awful lot like John’s stated purpose of his gospel narrative: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).

We thus see that John’s purpose is to assure his readers of their standing before the Lord. But there is another purpose behind what he writes to them: These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you (2:26). Therefore the three tests–moral, relational, and doctrinal–are not designed to stir up doubt as to their own spiritual condition, but rather to help the readers distinguish the true sheep from the wolves, or impostors. This intention is clearly stated by John. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother (3:10). By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (4:6). In this last verse the reference is clearly to those who pass or fail the doctrinal test–adherence to apostolic teaching. A quick reading of the epistle reveals several other similar statements.

So before we move on and discuss the relational test, let’s answer the original question. John repeatedly assumes his readers are genuine believers. Nothing he writes savors of legalism or salvation by works. However, also implicit in the three tests is the assumption that the readers pass them–that is, as an ongoing pattern of life they practice righteousness, love other believers, and adhere to apostolic doctrine. They may not be perfect, but their habit patterns clearly distinguish them from those masquerading as true sheep. Were this not the case the three tests would be meaningless.

Now for the relational test.

He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But he who hates his brother is in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes (2:9-11).

Two common responses to these verses will need to be addressed. First, walking in darkness could technically describe a Christian, so that these statements cannot be used as a test to distinguish a believer from an unbeliever. Secondly, the contrast is between the absolutes of love and hate. But what if you neither love nor hate your brother? Is a neutral position possible? To answer these objections we will need to see what else John has to say about the relational test.

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, neither he that does not love his brother. For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that does not love his brother abides in death. Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (3:10-16).

Two very sobering points are made in this passage. First, the contrast of believer and unbeliever is unmistakable: the relational test weeds them out. Secondly, the contrast between loving and hating one’s brother is re-stated as loving and not loving. Read the passage carefully and you will see that hating and not loving are virtually synonymous–there is no neutral ground. As difficult as it looks on the face of it, there can be no misunderstanding of John’s meaning: loving the brethren is not optional. We might spend volumes defining and expounding on the nature of love and how it ought to look in real life, but of its necessity in the life of the believer there is no room for argument. Next:

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that does not love does not know God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us…If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also (4:7-12, 20-21).

According to John, the born-again child of God loves others who are born of Him (believers). Those who do not love are haters who are said to be in darkness, children of the devil, abiding in death, murderers, and devoid of eternal life. They neither know nor love God. But, again, the test is not meant to stir up doubt but to differentiate the true believers from the fakes. John seems to assume that his readers are walking in obedience and that they love one another. He nowhere tells them to try hard to love one another. It would seem that in John’s thinking for a true child of God loving other believers is a very natural thing. You would no more need to teach a believer to love the brethren than to teach a fish to swim or a cow to eat grass.

The Bible does not tell us that practicing righteousness, loving the brethren, and holding sound doctrine make you a Christian. On the contrary–being a Christian makes you do these things. Adherence to the three tests is not a means of salvation, but rather the natural result of it. Again, the emphasis in 1 John is not perfect compliance, but a heart attitude of willing loving obedience. Apparently the phonies in Ephesus not only completely failed all three tests, but saw no need to even be concerned about their unrighteous unloving conduct and their rejection of apostolic teaching. The contrast must have been stark.

Yesterday as I sat in the worship service reflecting, a thought popped into my mind: Be who you are! Do what your heart desires! And then a verse: 

Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy (Revelation 12:11).

Brothers, the time for playing games has long since passed. Do you really want to walk in sin? Do you really want to remain aloof and apathetic with regard to the body of Christ? Do you really want to listen to the philosophy of the world instead of the truth of God? Do you want to be dominated by the world, flesh, and devil? No, I did not ask if you want to escape hell someday and go to heaven. Everyone wants that. It might just be, however, that for you heaven would seem like hell. If you love sin, what makes you think you would enjoy being in a place where there is no sin? If you hate the brethren, why would you want to be stuck with them in heaven forever? If you shun truth for false doctrine, how would you feel living in a heresy and apostasy-free environment?

I am on my face this morning before the Lord. That hunger and thirst for Christ I once knew is growing. I am sad to say I have wasted far too much time and squandered too much opportunity. As a steward of the talents God has given me I have a meagre showing. No longer can I sit back and make excuses, and neither can you. My thirty-two years of working in churches left me jaded, critical, and defeated. If you think you have seen Christians at their worst, trust me, you’ve seen nothing. I can top anything you can relate. But at the end of the day it is all so much blame-shifting and excuse making deflecting the light of God’s word away from the real problem–ME!

No more. The honest desire of my heart today is to know Christ and to live as HE directs me in His word and by His Spirit. He is looking for those who will worship Him in Spirit and truth. I want to be one of those worshippers today. It won’t take me long to fall on my face, but by His grace I will get back up and keep moving forward.

Who will come with me?

The plan in this series is not to go verse by verse through the book of 1 John, but to hit the high points or major themes. In this epistles there are three tests or assurances of a truly regenerate person: (1) the moral test, (2) the doctrinal test, and (3) the relational test. Today we will spend some time looking at those verses in 1 John which emphasize moral test or assurance. 

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked…If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him (2:3-6, 29).

At first glance these words can be confusing because they seem to be saying that being born again, knowing Him, and abiding in Him are contingent upon our practicing of righteousness, or keeping of His commandments. But if you look more closely the emphasis is on our assurance of salvation–knowing we are born again. If this is not a clear declaration of salvation by works, then it is at least a statement of assurance based on works.

In a sense this is a sound conclusion, but let’s take a closer look. The commandments referred to here are not the Ten Commandments, but rather commandments stated by Him (Christ). Most commentators agree that here we have a reference to the two-fold great commandment of Matthew 22:36-40 to love God and neighbor. One reason for this conclusion is John’s statement that the love of God is truly perfected in Him who keeps His word. The Greek expression love of God is called a objective genitive, meaning that the noun in the genitive case (God) is understood as receiving the action. In other words God is the one being loved, so that the love of God here speaks of our love for Him being perfected through obedience. As Jesus Himself said in John 14:15, If you love Me, keep My commandments. Christ’s sheep hear His voice and follow Him lovingly and obediently.

But we are not out of the woods yet. None of us keeps the commandments of Christ perfectly. Often we are guilty of not loving God or neighbor. However, the Greek verb tenses used in this passage emphasize continuous action, and the assurance is for him who keeps on practicing righteousness. The child of God does not keep Christ’s commandments perfectly. At any given snapshot in time any one of us might be seen acting like an unregenerate sinner. There might even be seasons of doubt, discouragement, and disobedience. But as a general rule the believer does not continue in an ongoing lifestyle or pattern of flagrant unrepentant un-confessed sinful behavior. If he does he should not and most likely will not enjoy assurance of salvation based on his decision for Christ or having invited Jesus into his heart. It doesn’t mean he isn’t saved, just that he doesn’t really know it. Nor do these verses license us as official fruit inspectors in the lives of others. We have enough to keep us busy with the beam in our own eye to be trying to pick the speck out of our brother’s eye.

Now on to our next text:

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother (3:6-10).

We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him (5:18).

These verses obviously cannot be understood in an absolute sense. In 2:1 we are exhorted not to sin, but then immediately given the assurance of propitiation if we do. In 1:7 sin is assumed in the promise of continual cleansing by the blood of Christ. Denying that we have indwelling sin (1:8) or that we have committed acts of sin (1:10) is dishonest and self-deceptive. The promise of 1:9 presupposes that there will be sins in the believer’s life to be confessed. Thus it is clear that sinless perfection is not the meaning here.

Then what is the meaning? Here is where a little background is helpful. It is commonly accepted among scholars that John is writing in response to false proto-gnostic elements that had crept into the church at Ephesus. These false teachers were all over the map doctrinally. Some denied the humanity of Christ, and some denied the reality and seriousness of sin. Apparently these false teachers were very arrogant and loveless in their treatment of others. They were antinomian, or lawless. They were the forerunners to some present-day higher-life pietists who understand salvation myopically as a solely judicial positional affair, with no real constitutional change in the life of the convert. To such heretics one’s personal daily conduct has no connection whatever to salvation; thus one may safely continue in sin that grace might abound.

But scripture nowhere teaches this false doctrine. According to the word of God salvation involves a crossing over from death to life (John 5:24; Ephesians 2:1-6), in which the believer receives a new heart that desires to love and serve God (2 Corinthians 5:17; Hebrews 10:16). Indeed, John tells us that he who is born of God does not keep sinning because His seed remains in him. The tenses in Greek denote not one-time actions but a continuous habitual pattern. A true believer as a general rule does not continue to live in flagrant ongoing rebellion against the Lord. This is also the import of those passages in Paul’s epistles which list various vices and warn that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:5-7). The emphasis is on the habitual lifestyle, not the single or sporadic offense. It is also what James meant when he said we are justified by works (James 2:14-26). The concept of justification is used in both a declarative and demonstrative sense in the New Testament. We are declared righteous by faith at conversion; but we demonstrate that we are born again through the ongoing daily practice of righteousness. Peter put it like this:

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10-11).

Once I knew a woman who was called to the bedside of her dying brother. He was in his early sixties and lay languishing with a failing liver from an entire life of drunkenness. He never prayed, read a Bible, or darkened the door of a house of worship. He went through multiple wives, whom he abused physically, verbally, and emotionally. He had two daughters, both of whom he raped. He could barely complete a sentence without cursing God’s name. When his sister arrived at the hospital it was too late: her brother had slipped into a coma and died the following day. When she made the funeral arrangements she told the pastor officiating that she had peace in her heart that she would one day see her brother in heaven. You see, this man had been in a church only once in his life at age five when his sister took him to a vacation Bible school program. There, at her encouragement, he raised his hand at the invitation and said some words to the effect that he was inviting Jesus into his heart. From this one incident she was assured of her brother’s salvation.

But if what I have just shown you from God’s word is true, then she had absolutely no biblical foundation for her assurance. Nor do you or I if we continue in stiff-necked rebellion to the Lord. It is not my job to inspect you, nor you me. I am in no position to judge or determine the eternal destiny of any man. But we must not be deceived–God is not mocked. Don’t play it fast and loose with God, brothers. Spiritual Russian Roulette is a fool’s game.

On the other hand, when we willingly and lovingly obey God from the heart it is an evidence and assurance of His presence in our lives. Praise God for His grace and continue in it. Loving and serving the good Shepherd is the ultimate joy in the hearts and lives of His sheep.

John’s first epistle is full of dualisms. He is fond of coupling opposites like life and death, light and darkness, love and hate, truth and lies, and lawlessness and righteousness. These expressions are meant to show us the sharp antithesis between the way of Christ with the way of Satan. Many are troubled with the dichotomous black-and white way in which John frames the Christian life because he doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room. Tolerance and celebration of religious diversity were not his thing apparently. Nor was talking the talk without walking the walk.

In the first chapter he contrasts light and darkness (vv. 5-10). He takes two opposites from everyday life and uses them as metaphors of spiritual realities. To understand the meaning we need to think about how light and darkness function in the physical realm. The most obvious quality about light is that it enables you to see: vision is impossible without it. In the absence of light a man with 20/20 vision is as blind as a man with no eyes. Light enables you to see what’s actually there; it exposes what’s physically real. In ancient times there were no good forms of artificial lighting, and people had to schedule their work and travel during the daylight hours. We might stretch the metaphor beyond its intended meaning by discussing how most light sources generate enough energy to radiate heat, but we would be missing the main point. Light enables sight, and sight facilitates effective functioning in the physical world.

Scripture uses the metaphor of light to describe spiritual enlightenment: Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path (Psalm 119:105). In the physical realm there is no moral implication involved in the presence or absence of light. Light and darkness simply are, and it is not your fault that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down in the evening. When the power goes out in a thunderstorm and you are groping your way around a pitch-black house, it simply is what it is. But when scripture uses the metaphors of light and darkness to speak of spiritual realities, there is a clear moral dimension:

And this is the condemnation,that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (John 3:19-20).

Scripture tells us that unregenerate sinners walk in a continual state of spiritual darkness (Ephesians 4:17-18; 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5). Even though a spiritual light source is available to them, they suppress it and reject it, and their foolish hearts are darkened even more (Romans 1:21), resulting in a slide into the spiritual abyss. The moral implication is that even though light is available in the form of general revelation (creation and conscience) and special revelation (God’s word, the Bible), sinners prefer darkness because deep down they love sin and hate Him who is the source of all spiritual light. Even after we are saved and given a new heart that loves the Lord and His word, there is a part of us (the flesh) that gravitates toward darkness.

In 1 John we are told that God is light (1:5), and exhorted to walk in that light (1:7). We will look at this under two points: (1) The meaning of the exhortation, and (2) the promise connected to it. We begin with verse six: If we say are walking in the light and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. Walking was the primary form of getting around in biblical times, and so it was only natural that one’s ongoing habitual daily practice of spirituality be described as a walk. The walk does not refer specifically to your daily mundane routine–waking up, showering and getting dressed, having coffee, going to work or school, etc., but rather to your spiritual state and experience as you go through life. Walking in the light is the opposite of walking in darkness. To walk in darkness cannot mean somehow escaping the presence of the light because the light (God) is omnipresent, and the light of His witness is ubiquitous in the created order. To walk in darkness you must somehow willfully ignore or shield the eyes of your heart and mind from the light. In other words you choose to be spiritually ignorant, suppressing the truth of God and His word in unrighteousness and exchanging the truth of God for a lie. From here the heart only sinks deeper into a spiritual black hole. Obviously this is what the unbeliever does by nature, and that is why there are so many world religions and so-called paths of spirituality. What it inevitably boils down to is a worshipping of the creature/creation instead of the Creator.

Nor is walking in darkness limited to the unregenerate. To a lesser degree a born again Christian can choose to ignore or rationalize away the light of God’s word and attempt to somehow evade the reality of his sinful attitudes and behaviors. Sometimes we do this consciously and sometimes we are not even aware of it. But if we are saved and we know we are choosing to walk in darkness by habitually engaging in an ongoing pattern of flagrant sin, we are lying to ourselves and others if we claim either by word or pretense to be walking in the light. And it is this lie which is of the essence of walking in darkness and distinguishes it from walking in the light. It is not the sin itself that keeps us in darkness, but rather the lie we tell ourselves, others, and God about it. The context ought to make this clear as we proceed, and it is a fact we will do well never to forget.

Now verse seven (Holdaasian Translation): But if we keep on walking in the  light as He is in the light, we keep on having fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His son keeps on cleansing us from all sin. I have translated the Greek present tenses literally to emphasize the nuance of continuous action. Three things are here said to keep on happening: walking in the light, having fellowship with Christ, and having one’s sins cleansed by the blood of Christ. Now a key question is: what, according to this verse, causes fellowship with God to be interrupted? I used to think it happened every time I sinned. Back when I was a new believer there was a little booklet put out by Campus Crusade that taught this concept, and I also heard it on some tapes by a pastor in Houston, Texas named Colonel R.B. Thieme, Jr. For awhile I bought into Thieme’s teaching about rebound technique. According to this teaching every time you sin fellowship with God is broken, and every time you simply name the sin (confession?), fellowship is restored. It’s all up to you how long you allow fellowship to be severed because it’s all on you to name that sin. Viewed this way there is no continuity in our fellowship with God, which we might represent with a broken line (S=sin, C=confession): ___S   C_____S     C______S  C____S   C_______.

But this is in fact not what 1 John 1:7 teaches, and understanding what it really does say will greatly help you in your daily walk with the Lord. As I showed above, walking in the light, having fellowship, and being continually cleansed from sin happen simultaneously as part of a process. Being cleansed continually from sin assumes the presence of sin. In other words, to be cleansed from sin there must be sin present. Obviously, then, it is not the sin in itself that interrupts fellowship. If that were the case ongoing fellowship would be impossible. Let’s face it, we can only deal with the sins we are conscious of. Truth be told, our thoughts, desires, attitudes, words, and actions are tainted by the presence of sin in ways we are not even aware of. The blood of Christ is constantly cleansing us; if not we would stand condemned every minute of every day, and it is only our self-righteous flesh that would dare think otherwise. Mechanistic systems, like Thieme’s rebound technique, are really man centered and in fact reflect a pompous attitude (Have you ever listened to one of Thieme’s sermons?).

So what interrupts fellowship if not the sin itself? Simple–our refusal to walk in the light and our insistence on remaining in the darkness. Let me repeat what I said a few paragraphs back: It is not the sin itself that keeps us in darkness, but rather the lie we tell ourselves, others, and God about it. What lies? There are two basic lies we tell ourselves and others that short-circuit fellowship and keep us in darkness:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (v. 8). Here sin is in the singular, indicating not acts of sin but indwelling sin as a condition–better known as the flesh. If we deny that we are fallen sinners by nature we are in the darkness of self-deception and we are devoid of spiritual truth. In other words, believing anything that either denies, rationalizes, or even minimizes man’s innate sinfulness keeps one in darkness. 

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (v. 10). Here individual acts or practices are in view. In other words, calling something right or permissible that God says is wrong. Or just refusing to face up to it by hiding or evading responsibility. In modern clinical jargon we have a word for such a refusal to face the truth: denial. God’s word calls it walking in darkness. It is so easy to do if you allow the world to press you into its mold of godless humanistic thinking.

Walking in the light requires an attitude of openness and honesty with the Lord: But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (v. 9). To confess sin is to literally say what God says about it. What does God say about sin to us as believers? Obviously God hates sin because it is contrary to His nature and His Law. We too need to see it as a bad thing and grow to abhor it. He also tells us that we must stop doing it. Part of a repentant attitude is a resolve to mortify the deeds of the flesh and offer the members of our body as instruments of righteousness to God. On the other hand sin is covered by the blood of Jesus. Here is why evading the Lord or waiting until the heat is off to face up to our sin is so foolish. Confessing it–and I am not referring to a verbal mechanical naming, but a heart attitude–is what keeps us in the light and enables ongoing fellowship with Jesus. Here is how we might diagram it: S    C           S       C       S            C. The line is unbroken, indicating ongoing cleansing and fellowship. We can only acknowledge sins we are aware of. The promise is that God will forgive us of our confessed sins and also cleanse us from all unrighteousness–that is, the sins we are not even aware of (and I am sure they are many).

Therefore, let us not attempt to hide from God when we sin, as Adam and Eve did in the garden. And let us not rationalize, deny, or blame shift our sin–either as a condition or a behavior. And let us not wallow in ongoing patterns of unrepentant and unconfessed sin. This will only sink us into darkness and misery. There is no need for this. Christ has made great provision for our sin and our ongoing fellowship. The best time to walk in the light is always right now.