Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

My defense to those who examine me Is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or Is It only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? (1 Cor. 9:3-6, NKJV).

With so much world-wide attention being given to human rights issues, this may be a good time to put in a word for preachers’ rights. After all, preachers are almost human.

Preachers are in an awkward position. They must “declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), including what the Bible says about their own rights. If they don’t teach it they open themselves to being charged with failure to teach all the Bible teaches. If they do teach it, some may charge that their teaching is self-serving. So, what shall we do? Do what Paul did. Teach it and hope that brethren will understand and learn their duty on the subject. Yet, at the same time, use good judgment about when it is best to use or not use those rights.

The ninth chapter of I Corinthians, as well as other passages, deal with preachers’ rights. It was not Paul’s purpose, nor is it ours, to demand any rights, complain about any personal ill-treatment, nor was it for any personal considerations (cf. vv. 15-16). It was to inform all of God’s will and to show that Paul sometimes would forego lawful rights for the over-all good of the Cause. If Paul could voluntarily forego his lawful rights for the good of the church, why could not the Corinthians forego their lawful right to eating of meats (as discussed in chapter 8) for the good of weaker brethren?

Now, let us look at some of the rights that Paul says that preachers have:

A Right To Be Paid

To establish this right, Paul appeals to common sense (v. 7). If a soldier does not have to pay his own way to war, and a planter of a vineyard can eat from the vineyard, and a tender of flocks can drink milk from the flock – a preacher can live from the gospel. He then appeals to the law (vv. 8-13). He quotes Deuteronomy 24:4. He also shows that those who serve the temple lived from the temple. He concludes, “even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (v. 14).

Brethren seem to have a problem with paying a preacher. They will support him, but not pay him. When they support him, they approach it much like supporting needy saints, i.e., he must show that he is in need before they decide if and how much they will support him. What is wrong with paying a preacher? Paul took wages for his service (2 Cor. 11:8). Jesus told the Twelve to take wages or hire for their labor during the limited commission (Lk. 10:7). These are different words in the original conveying the same idea – pay for service rendered. It is interesting that the word for wages in 2 Corinthians 11:8 is translated charges in 1 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV). Sometimes “necessity” does enter the picture and the support may be considered a gift (Phil. 4:16,17). Yet, the word for gift there is different from the ordinary idea of a free gift or charity. Thayer says it is a “thing given, cf. medical ‘dose’; . . . yet not always gratuitous or wholly unsuggestive of recompense.”

It seems to me that there are some extreme attitudes about preacher’s pay. Some want to base it wholly on “need.” Others want to give no special consideration to preachers that have exceptional needs. Some preachers blatantly declare that “it is nobody’s business what I am paid,” resenting being asked to report all wages received from preaching the gospel to the churches that pay them. Churches need to know how much the preachers to whom they supply wages are receiving from preaching. How else can they judge whether they are being adequately paid for their service they are rendering?

On the other hand, lately, I have seen some wanting a preacher to give the church a detailed report of his personal expenditures before they decide his wages. I wonder how many of these would be willing to submit themselves to the same indignity before those who supply their wages. A preacher’s personal expenditures, like anyone else’s, is none of the brethren’s business unless they know his spending is sinful. How would you like to go to work for a company, asking them how much the job pays, and being told to submit a copy of your personal budget so the company can decide how much your services are worth? Does not this get very close to being a busybody in other men’s matters?

When brethren see that their paying preachers benefits them as much as (and maybe sometimes more than) the preacher they will quit wrangling so much over “how much is enough” to pay. Paul said the fruit that is produced abounds to the church’s account (Phil. 4:17). Maybe we need to say a word about how much.

Some preachers have a hard time because brethren often ignorantly and sometimes willfully under pay them. Brethren need to either wake up or be awakened to this fact. Personally, I have no gripe. Thanks to the generosity of good brethren, my family and I have lived comfortably – probably more so than had I followed any other line of work for which I am qualified. But, I do know what some preachers are making if, reports posted on bulletin boards across the country are telling the truth. Frankly, I would like to know, their secret for avoiding bankruptcy.

There is no way to make a universal hard and fast rule for how much is adequate pay for preachers. Yet, there are some things that brethren need to be aware of as they make that a judgment. Here are some things, I believe brethren need to know:

1. The amount you see on the bulletin board is not “take home pay.” It is not all profit. Many of the withholdings (income taxes, etc.) and fringe benefits that brethren never see on their paychecks have to be paid by the preacher after he gets his check. Also, his operating expenses have to be taken from the amount you see. Because he does not have to punch the clock for secular work, he often can do extra things for the Cause. He is also called on and gladly responds to requests from brethren to do various things that he would not be asked to do if he were not a preacher. Most of the things have extra expenses connected with them. Most preachers put far more miles on their cars than the average person. These expenses must be subtracted from his gross pay to know what he is really making.

2. In 1987, unless he has filed that he is conscientiously opposed to it, 12.3 percent of his pay went to Social Security. If the church furnished him a house to live in, he had to pay 12.3 percent of its rental value – yet, he is not building one dime of equity in that house. If you gave him a housing and/or utilities allowance he had to pay 12.3 percent on that – even though the rental value or allowance is not taxed as income.

3. Some churches pay preachers’ health insurance premiums, but not many. Usually he must provide it from salary. If he gets reasonable coverage, it will likely cost from $200 to $350 per month, depending on his circumstances.

These are just a few things that brethren need to consider to be reasonable and fair in deciding how much to pay preachers.

A Right To Family Life

Paul says he and Barnabas had a right to “take along a believing wife” (v. 5), though they had not exercised that right. Peter, Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, did exercise that right.

Paul is affirming more than the mere right to have a wife. He is affirming that those who preach and live from the gospel have the right to a wife and that she too live from the gospel. If that is not what he is saying, I have missed the point. Verse 5 is part of the discussion of his right to live from the gospel. Verse 4 talks about a preacher’s right to be paid so he can eat and drink. Verse 5 talks about the right to be paid so he can “take along a believing wife.” Verse 6 continues the same subject. In short, preachers have a right to normal family life and to be paid so that they can support their families.

If a preacher exercises this right, then he should take the responsibilities that go with it; not only taking care of his family’s financial needs, but other needs as well. A family requires time to be spent with wife and children. I am afraid too many preachers have exercised their right to a wife and consequently children and then became so busy “saving the world” that they lost their own families to the world. A preacher’s wife and children need the same time and attention that any other brother’s wife and children need. Preachers and brethren who supply their wages and profit from their service need to understand this. Of course, a preacher and his family must be willing to sacrifice for the Cause of Christ – just as with any other Christian and his family.

Preachers’ kids need a daddy to take time and even have the money to do fun things with them, just as much as anyone’s kids. Preachers’ kids have to go to doctors and dentists just like any other kids. In short, preachers’ families are almost normal folks. It would be good if all preachers and all those who supply their wages understood this. There is a simply rule that governs this – it sometimes is called, “The Golden Rule. “

A Right To Stay Put

Many look on preachers as itinerant workers in the church that must always be moving from place to place “to find work.” Some have even formulated doctrines that forbid preachers from locating for a long period with a particular congregation. That was the contention of the old Garrett-Ketcherside team.

The New Testament clearly establishes the right of a preacher to stay put for an indefinite time. Paul told Timothy to “remain” or “abide still” (KJV) at Ephesus. Earlier, Paul had remained there for three years (Acts 20:31). The length of stay is a matter of judgment, not of law, whether three weeks, three months, three years, or three decades. Who can scripturally set an arbitrary time for a preacher to remain at a place? Good judgment must determine the wise course in each case. One of my friends, while talking with some brethren about moving to work with them, was asked, “How long do you usually stay at a place?” He replied, “I have only worked at two places while being fully supported by the church. I stayed at the first place seven years and left at least a year too soon. I have been where I am now for eighteen months and have been there at least a year too long.”

Preachers and congregations need to learn to let other factors determine the length of time they work together, rather than some notion that preachers need to move ever so often just for the sake of moving. I know some good men who have quit fulltime preaching because they felt that they and their families needed some roots. It is easy to say that if one preaches then he should be willing to make such sacrifices – and I agree, if a move is really needed for the sake of the Lord’s work. However, if a preacher is really doing the Lord’s work at a given place, why should his family be uprooted simply for the sake of making a change? It is my considered judgment that both preachers and churches need to be more considerate of preachers’ wives and children in this matter of arbitrarily moving them about. Often preachers are just as inconsiderate as the brethren in this thing.

A Right To Waive His Rights

There is no Scripture that says that a preacher must “live from the gospel.” Or that he must have a wife. Or that he must stay at a place many years. Circumstances may dictate to the preacher what he does about such rights. Sometimes it might even be unwise to exercise any or all such rights given him under the gospel. Yet, these rights should not be denied to him by brethren who ought to know better. For example, he may choose, as Paul did, to remain unmarried. He may even think it is best for him, his circumstances, and the particular work that he wants to do in the Lord’s vineyard. Yet, Paul declared that a sign that men had departed from the faith would be that they “forbid to marry” (1 Tim. 4:3). There is a vast difference in one voluntarily waiving his rights under the gospel for the gospel’s sake and having these same rights taken away by brethren who would bind their will (not the Lord’s) on another.

A Right To Be Different

Just because Peter, a faithful apostle and preacher, was married did not mean that Paul had to be – or vice versa. Just because some brother decides that he can serve the Lord by being fully paid from his preaching does not mean that all who preach must. Preachers may differ greatly from each other in matters of personal judgment and rights under the gospel and all still be faithful to the Lord and preach his gospel. There is too much judging the worth and faithfulness of men based on how much they are like our favorite brother in matters of personal judgment. If we know a wonderful preacher who does a wonderful work and is married, then it is easy to conclude that for any preacher to do a good work he must be married. We may know a wonderful preacher who does a marvelous work while depending on the gospel for his living and decide that unless one elects to live from the gospel that he cannot do a good work.

This list goes on. One preacher may deliver sermons with a little different twist or style or even length than what we would prefer and still be a good preacher. One may be stronger in certain areas of preaching than another. One may be strong in public speaking. Another may be more apt at “personal work.” Another’s strong suit may be writing. Each may choose to “major” in those areas where he feels he can be the most effective. Does his placing his major emphasis at a different place than that of our Brother Favorite make him any less worthy of respect and support? Do not preachers have the right to be different if they do not sacrifice any principle of the gospel in the process?

We should not deny anyone any right given him by the Lord. We need to respect the rights of others to exercise or waive their rights under the gospel. If one exercises his rights in a way that violates God’s law and damages his cause, then that is another matter. Paul discusses such a possibility within the context of our text. One would do well to read and heed it all.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, pp. 180-182
March 17, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

Fanny J. Crosby penned the words to the comforting hymn, “Blessed Assurance.” Blessed assurance is blessed confidence. It is tied to that “blessed hope,” “which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast” (Tit. 2:13; Heb. 6:19). The faithful child of God rests, reposes and resides in blessed assurance (1 Jn. 5:13).

Unfortunately, Baptist preachers and others have tried to taunt and tantalize Christians, saying, “You don’t know from one minute to the next whether you’re saved or lost, but,” they say, “I know I am saved forever and cannot be lost.” Thus, the Baptists’ blessed assurance is welded directly to the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, or “once saved, always saved.” Their alleged assurance is placed in a system of unconditional salvation. That is one way to secure blessed assurance. It is not the way of truth, however. Salvation is conditional (Jas. 1:12; Rev. 2:10), so our assurance is not in unconditional forgiveness.

Nazarenes and others have contended for “a second work of grace.” Simply stated, they believe the Holy Spirit performs an operation, an amputation, and cuts out the “old sinful nature.” Thus, some have denied that they sin at all (see 1 Jn. 1:8,10). This is another means of claiming blessed assurance. It is not, though, the Bible method. We do sin, so our assurance is not based on sinless perfection as some charge.

Other sectarian spirits have said that all sins, past, present and future, already are forgiven. The truth is that provision for the forgiveness of the sins of all men has been made (1 Jn. 2:1,2). But that is not the issue. The question is, “When is the provision applied and appropriated?” If the erring child of God has his sins already forgiven, why are not the sins of the alien also already forgiven? Christ is the propitiation for one as well as for the other (1 Jn. 2:1,2). If he automatically and unconditionally forgives the child of God who sins, then he must also- have forgiven the sins of alien sinners. The climax of that argument is universal salvation. The collapse of ‘that argument is seen in the- rec6gnition of ‘ the difference between the universal provisions of grace And the conditional application of those provisions.

Still others have argued that sins of the fleshly, carnal nature — the outer man, as they designate him, do, not affect the soul. There are various twists to this theory. The body sins, they aver, but the soul does not. The body, the outer man, is a child of the devil, they avow, while the soul, the inner man, is a child of God. If all of the above is true, please explain:

(1) Why did Paul say to cleanse flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1)?

(2) Why does Ezekiel 18:20 talk of the “soul that sinneth”?

(3) How we can present our bodies “holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1)?

(4) How we may glorify God in our body (1 Cor. 6:19,20)?

(5) Why did Paul say we are to “receive the things done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10)?

(6) How “fleshly lusts” could “war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11)?

(7) Why are “both soul and body” to be destroyed in hell (Matt. 10:28)?

(8) Why did Paul say that saints have “crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal. 5:24)?

If the body sins, but the soul does not, or is not affected, how does one explain the passages above? But we are not through. Notice further:

(9) John says the Christian is to purify himself (1 Jn. 3:3), But the body cannot be purified and the soul does not need to be according to the doctrine noted above. So, how could one purify himself?

(10) How could the soul of an erring brother be 66sdved,from death” (Jas. 5:19,20)?

(11) Why did Paul pray that “your whole spirit and soul and body be preserv9d blameless” (1 Thess. 5:23)?

Catholics and others have taught that some sins are mortal and some are venial. Some sins condemn and some do not. Again, that is another step to the land of blessed assurance, but it is not in the path of truth. The Bible does not provide a list of “safe” sins, ones that will not be held against us, so our assurance is not in a distinction of sins,

How, then, does the faithful child of God have “blessed assurance”?

(1) In the Assured Word. One may cling to the truth and never be disappointed. Paul told Timothy, “But continue thou in the things thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). The Hebrew writer wrote of “the full assurance of hope.” “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:10-12). Hence, when one diligently continues in the things he has learned from the word of God, he will, “through faith and patience inherit the promises.” In this context, there can be no doubt. This is “blessed assurance.”

(2) In The Assured Faithfulness of God. Paul knew he could trust in God’s power, ability and willingness to deliver on his promises (2 Tim. 1:12). Peter said, “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). “In well doing,” one may work safely, knowing in whom he has believed. A man may fail to reward his benefactor. An employer may not pay an employee, but God is trustworthy. Therefore, the faithful child of God has the blessed assurance of God’s unchanging hand of grace, mercy and love. He is not unrighteous; he will not forget.

(3) In the Assured Sacrifice. The “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” is the basis, the foundation, of our “blessed assurance” (Heb. 10). The initial redemption of the alien sinner is accomplished through the offering or the sacrifice of the blood of Christ (Heb. 10; 1 Pet. 1:18,19; Eph. 1:7). It is the ground of all hope and assurance. When the sinner obeys the terms of pardon, when he responds to the conditions of faith, repentance, confession and baptism, he is cleansed by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9; 6:3,4,17,18; 10:9,10; Heb. 5:8,9; Acts 2:38).

Likewise, the child of God can appeal to the blood of the cross (1 Jn. 1:7; 2:1,2). As the alien sinner must comply with the conditions set forth in order to be forgiven, so the child of God, when he sins, must meet the terms of pardon (1 Jn. 1:9). He is not, as some would argue, forgiven while he sins. See the quote which follows.

“‘Through the priestly advocacy of Christ in Heaven there is absolute safety and security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning. . . .’

“. . . The New Testament writers do not contend that ‘there is absolute safety and security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning.’ Quite to the contrary, they warn against the peril of presuming to continue in grace while consenting to deliberate sinning. . . .” (Shank, Life In The Son, p. 133).

One who is “overtaken in a fault,” is not forgiven “even while he is sinning,” since he must be “restore(d)” (Gal. 6: 1). If he were forgiven by the blood of Christ as he sinned, how could Paul speak of his need to be restored? Further, one may “err from the truth” (Jas. 5:19). He is not automatically forgiven even as he errs or sins, for James shows he needs to be converted after he has erred from the truth.

Blessed assurance is inseparably linked to the blood of Christ. It cannot be moved, “seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). The child of God, therefore, can trust in it as he penitently and prayerfully turns from “the error of his way.”

Through the years, denominational preachers have argued that obedience to commands dims and demeans the grace of God. It is a false charge. The Corinthians, for example, heard, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8), yet they had “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). The Ephesians were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), still Paul said they were saved by grace (Eph. 2:5). Hence, conditions do not diminish or tarnish the grace of God. Accordingly, when an erring child of God is told to repent, confess and pray (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9), the grace of God is not being belittled. Rather, it is being exalted. “For we have no, pan high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15,16).

One may present endless difficult scenarios and situations with respect to a person’s salvation. It is possible to “what if. . . ” and “what about. . . ” ourselves to distraction and confusion. I do not have all the answers. I do not even know all the questions. But, while there are a lot of questions I cannot answer, there are a lot of answers I cannot question.

Let us be content and rest in confidence and blessed assurance in the veracity of the word of God, in the integrity of the faithfulness of God and in the constant and continuous availability of the grace of God. As we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, we may know assuredly and believe confidently that an entrance shall be administered unto us abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:5-11; 3:17,18).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, pp. 176-177
March 17, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 56-60.

Allan Bloom, currently a professor at the University of Chicago, has had a distinguished academic career, teaching also at Yale, the universities of Paris, Tel Aviv, and Toronto. During the 1960s he was a professor at Cornell, resigning in protest over the capitulation of that school’s administration to campus radicals.

His Closing of the American Mind became an unexpected bestseller, indeed, something of a cultural phenomenon, during 1987. While we do not endorse everything in the book, several passages are well worth reflecting upon.

“The other element of fundamental primary learning that has disappeared is religion. As the respect for the Sacred – the latest fad – has soared, real religion and knowledge of the Bible have diminished to the vanishing point. . .

“The cause of this decay of the family’s traditional role as the transmitter of tradition is the same as that of the decay of the humanities: nobody believes that the old books do, or even could, contain the truth…. In the United States, practically speaking, the Bible was the only common culture, one that united simple and sophisticated, rich and poor, young and old, and – as the very model for a vision of the order of the whole of things, as well as the key to the rest of Western art, the greatest works of which were in one way or another responsive to the Bible – provided access to the seriousness of books. With its gradual and inevitable disappearance, the very idea of such a total book and the possibility and necessity of world-explanation is disappearing. And fathers and mothers have lost the idea that the highest aspiration they might have for their child is for them to be wise – as priests, prophets or philosophers are wise. Specialized competence and success are all that they can imagine.

“My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards, and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it, not only what was specifically ritual, found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. This is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief.

“I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but cliches, superficialities, the material of satire. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there, and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnished.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 178
March 17, 1988

By Johnny Stringer

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 Jn. 3:9).

In teaching on 1 John 3:9, brethren usually stress that the expression “doth not commit sin” denotes habitual action. John is not saying that the one who is born of God never commits a single act of sin. That idea would contradict other clear passages (1 John 1:8-2:1; Acts 8:13-24). The point is that the one who is born of God does not continue in sin as a way of life. When he sins, he repents of it and seeks God’s forgiveness (Acts 8:22).

The reason the one who is born of God does not and cannot habitually sin is clearly stated: “for his seed remaineth in him.” The seed of the new birth is the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23; Lk. 8: 11). The word of God, working as seed within the heart, will not permit one to persist in sin, but will influence him to be faithful (1 Jn. 2:14,24; Psa. 119:11).

Brethren often make these points in discussing this passage. This is good, but one question is often not adequately answered because a key point is overlooked. The question is, does this mean that if one becomes a Christian, he will never go into a life of habitual sin? The verse says that the one who is born of God does not continue in sin because the seed remains in him and prevents him from doing so. We know that sometimes one who becomes a Christian does later go into a life of habitual sin (1 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 2:20-23), but John seems to be teaching otherwise. Does John mean to teach that if anyone was ever born again, he will not go into a life of sin because the seed remains in him and will prevent it?

The solution to this problem is found in a point that is often overlooked: the tense of the verb “is born.” The verb tense which John uses proves that he is not talking about everyone who was ever born again. He is not saying that anyone who was ever born again does not live in sin. The KJV says, “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin.” It does not say, “Whosoever was ever born of God doth not commit sin.”

The KJVs translation of this verb is good. The Greek verb which is rendered “is born” is in the perfect tense. Concerning the prefect tense, Marshall says, “The Greek perfect can generally be taken as represented by an English present: a past action continuing in its effect down to the present, in contrast to an action wholly in the past” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, p. vii). Machen staes, “The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). Machen goes on to say that the perfect tense is never used unless the past action had a permanent result.

John’s use of the perfect tense, therefore, shows that he is talking not about everyone who was ever born again, but only about the one in whom the relationship begun at the new birth continues – the one in whom the seed continues to work. This is the one who does not habitually sin.

Concerning 1 John 3:9, Vincent says, “The perfect participle indicates a condition remaining from the first: he who hath been begotten and remains God’s child.” The famous B.F. Wescott comments, “The perfect . . . marks not only the single act . . . but the continuous presence of its efficacy. ‘He that hath been born and still remains a child of God.”‘ John is not talking about everyone who was ever born again. Completely out of his view is the one who was born again, but later rebelled against God; such a person is not one who “is born of God.” John is talking only about the one who continues to let the seed work in him. This is the one who does not habitually sin.

The Contextual Point

The point John is making in the context is that those who sin are not of God, but of the devil (v. 8). In verse 10 John divides men into two groups: children of God and children of the devil. He teaches that those who do evil are children of the devil, not children of God. Obviously, he is using the term children with reference to character. Those who partake of God’s character are his children, and those who partake of the devil’s character are his children. For this usage of the term children see Matthew 5:44-48-, John 8:39-44. All who obey the gospel do not continue to be God’s children in this sense; when they go into sin they are children of the devil (1 John 3:8,10).

In verse 9, John simply says that the one who continues the relationship begun at the new birth – that is, continues to be a child of God through the continued working of the seed – does not persist in sin, for the seed will not let him. Those who live in sin, therefore, no longer sustain the relationship that was begun at the new birth. Inasmuch as they have ceased to derive their character from God through the working of his seed, they have ceased to be his children.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 174
March 17, 1988