Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

John’s letters were not written to prove, predict, or prophesy the possibility of apostasy. They were written that the joy of those in fellowship with God “may be full” (1 Jn. 1:4). Further, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 Jn. 5:13). These stated purposes assert and assure the salvation and security of them that “walk in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7; cf. 2 Jn. 4, 6, 9-11; 3 Jn. 4, 11). The eternal security of one who abides in Christ and “doeth righteousness” is not doubted or denied; it is declared and displayed (1 Jn. 2:28, 29; 3:6-10, 24). Let that not be forgotten as we are forced to leave this point and grapple with the errors of men.

Advocates of the impossibility of apostasy (once saved, always saved; once in grace, always in grace) frequently and fervently turn to John’s triplets to forge their views. It is these arguments that we shall review.

1 John 2:1, 2

The Text: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

From this passage it is argued that Christ is the propitiation for all our sins past, present, and future. So, when the child of God sins, he is in no danger because Christ’s atonement has taken care of his sins. Once you are saved, you need not fear the wages of sin. Christ is your propitiation; hence, you cannot be condemned by sin.

There is a germ, an element of truth in that argument. Christ is indeed our propitiation. But note that He is “also” the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” Is the whole world thereby saved? No, because there is a great difference between God’s provision and man’s acceptance. The Bible does not say that God will do something to atone for your sins if you will obey the gospel. It says God has made the reconciliation possible. He has accomplished what the lost need. Now, it is up to man to accept. We have access by faith into this grace (Rom. 5:2).

The “whole world” in sin is not unconditionally saved by Christ’s propitiation and reconciliation. Nor is the child of God unconditionally forgiven by Christ’s provision and propitiation. If, however, one argues that the saved are automatically forgiven on the basis of Christ’s death, then he must argue the same thing for the alien sinner because the text says, “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” To so reason will prove universal, unconditional salvation. That is obviously false. Therefore, the reasoning is fallacious.

1 John 2:19

The Text: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

From this passage Calvinists argue that if a person who was allegedly saved turns back to the devil he never was truly saved. He was a professor, not a possessor of eternal life, or so they contend.

John Connally, a Texas politician, was a member of the Democratic party, a protege’ of President Lyndon Johnson. In the 1970’s, he switched to the Republican Party. He was no longer of the Democratic Party’s persuasion, so he left. That does not mean that he never had been a Democrat. He lost his faith in the principles and philosophy of the Democratic Party. If he had not, he “would no doubt have continued” with the Democratic Party. His leaving, though, did not prove that he had not been a Democrat.

“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not” (Jude 5). Does that prove they were never truly saved out of Egypt? Some rebelled and revolted against Moses, desiring to return to Egypt (Num. 14:4). Suppose they had returned. Would that have meant they were not “saved out of Egypt” in the first place?

Turn it around. Children of the devil become children of God.. The lost are found and saved. Does that indicate they were never lost to begin with?

Immediately after 1 John 2:19, John warns the saved “concerning them that seduce you” (vv. 24-28). In effect, he is saying, “Remain, abide in Him; do not be like the ones mentioned in verse 19.” They did not “continue,” or “remain,” or “abide in Him.” “Do not let that happen to you,” John warns. According to the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, John should have said, “If you do not remain, continue and abide, then you are not saved.” John did not say that, but he should have and would have if he had taught what Calvinists argue from verse 19.

1 John 3:6, 9

The Texts: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” “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.”

Brother Guy N. Woods, in his commentary on Peter, John, and Jude, answers the contention of the advocates of the impossibility of apostasy. Note his timely remarks.

“Whosoever keeps on abiding in him sinneth not.” Here, too, the apostle gives utterance to an idea which is often expressed in one way or another in his Epistles. (1 John 2:24; 3:9; 5:18; 3 John 11). (1) Whosoever abides in him sins not; (2) whosoever is begotten of God does not sin; (3) he that does evil has not seen God. These propositions are developed in much detail throughout the first Epistle; and the ideas which they contain were favorite ones with John. The apostle did not intend to affirm that one who abides in Christ is not capable of committing a single act of sin; such a concept would be in conflict with his affirmation of the universal prevalence of sin, even among the saints (1 John 1:8); moreover, the designation of the means by which to overcome sin through the intercession of Christ (1 John 2:1), implies its possibility. Thus to teach it is possible or even probable that one will attain to a life of sinlessness here, is in conflict with his own teaching in the instances cited, and must not be attributed to him here ….

In the passage under consideration, the verb sinneth not is the translation of ouch harnartanei, third person singular, of the present indicative active, of hamartano. Inasmuch as the chief characteristic of the Greek present tense is to indicate action in progress contemporary with the time of speaking, whereas the English verb does not distinguish between such action in progress, and a single act occurring, the significance of the verb sinneth, as used by the apostle, does not fully appear in the translation. It can be brought to the attention of the English reader only by an expanded translation thus: “Whosoever continues to abide in him does not keep on sinning” (i.e., habitually as he did before his conversion). Had the apostle intended to convey the idea that one who abides in Christ is incapable of committing a single act of sin, he would have utilized the aorist tense. In such a case, however, he would have been in conflict with his own previous statements which assert the fact of sin in the lives of Christians, and the means provided for their removal. The meaning of the verse is, He who has taken up his abode in Christ, and settled down to a permanent existence in him, has terminated his former manner of life and has ceased the practices then characteristic of him. He no longer engages in habitual and persistent sin. That he has broken the hold of sin in his life, and no longer regularly yields to evil impulses as a manner of life, however, is far from asserting that there are never occasional lapses into sin through weakness or ignorance. (Cf. 1 Cor. 9:27; Phil. 3:12.) For these inadvertent lapses, a plan has been provided. (1 John 2:1)

(Woods comments on 3:9) Why is it thought that the phrase “he cannot sin” may not be correctly interpreted to mean that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? “And he cannot sin” is translated from the phrase kai ou dunatai hamartanein. Hamartarein is a present active infinitive, the force of which is, “he cannot continue to live a life of sin” (as before) . . . . Why, then, cannot one thus begotten persist in sin? (1) The seed (the word of God), which forbids it, is in him, controls his life, and directs his energies. (2) A life of sin is inconsistent with the spiritual parentage of the one thus begotten. But does this mean that it is never possible for one possessed of this nature to sin? No . . . . When, in such instances, sin occurs, it is a momentary lapse; it is due to an imperfect holding of the word in the heart; it is recognized as contrary to the higher impulses of the person thus sinning, and it is confessed and put aside with shame” (Guy N. Woods, Peter John Jude, pp. 263-265, 272).

1 John 5:1

The Text: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”

With this Scripture cited, Calvinists will ask, “Can one be unborn?” You are your Father’s child. Nothing can change that fact. No matter what you do, you will always be the child of your parents. Therefore, when one is born of God, he is God’s child. Nothing can destroy that fact, or so the argument says. In his excellent book, Life In The Son (pp. 89-91), Robert Shank deals with this argument.

But consider three essential differences between physical birth and spiritual birth:

1. Physical birth effects the inception of the life of the subject in toto, whereas spiritual birth involves only a transition from one mode of life to another . . . .

2. In physical birth, the subject has no prior knowledge and gives no consent, whereas in spiritual birth, the subject must have a prior knowledge of the Gospel and must give consent . . . .

3. In physical birth, the individual receives a life independent of his parents. They may die, but he lives on. But in spiritual birth, the subject receives no independent life. He becomes a partaker of the life and nature of Him who begets – a participant, by faith, in the eternal life of God in Christ “who is our life.”

Furthermore, a father may deny and disinherit his children and thereby cut them off from all blessings and inheritance. God will “disinherit” and “deny” those children of his who are unfaithful and who deny him (Num. 14:12; Matt. 25:1, 12; 2 Tim. 2:12).

But Calvinists tell us that we are born children of the devil, totally depraved. We ask, then, can one be “unborn”? Does he ever cease to be his father’s child? Obviously, one ceases to be a child of the devil when he is saved. He is born again. So, one can become a child of the devil; he can, in a sense, be “unborn.”

1 John 5:4

The Text: “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

If you are begotten of God you will overcome the world; the world cannot overcome you; therefore, you cannot be lost once you are born of God. That is the basic argument from this passage. However, what is it that overcomes the world? “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Our faith overcomes the world. But one’s faith may be swerved away from (1 Tim. 1:5, 6), shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19), overthrown (2 Tim. 2:18), and it may fail (Lk. 22:32). What then?

1 John 5:18

The Text: “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himelf, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

See the comments on 1 Jn. 3:6, 9. One that is born of God does not permit sin to reign and rule in his body (Rom. 6:12). He does not live a life of sin, a life devoted and dedicated to sin. That is the thought of the verse. How is this obtained and maintained? The begotten one “keepeth himself.” We are to keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21). We are to hear the word of God and keep it (Lk. 11:28). But what if one ceases to keep himself? Will he be saved anyway? No (Jn. 8:51; 1 Jn. 2:3-5).

Conclusion

“Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (2 Jn. 8). “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (3 Jn. 11).

QUESTIONS

1. Why did John write these letters?
2. Please explain the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy?
3. Are we automatically forgiven of sin simply because Christ died for us? If not, what must the child of God do when he sins? Cite references.
4. See the example concerning John Connally under the heading of 1 John 2:19. Construct a parallel example. What is the importance of the word “continued” in 1 Jn. 2:19?
5. Can a child of God commit sin, a single act of sin? See 1 Jn. 1:8-10.
6. What is the “seed” of 1 Jn. 3:9?
7. What will the Lord do to those who deny Him and who are unfaithful to Him? See the references given under the heading of 1 Jn. 5:1 and also Jn. 15:6 and Rev. 3:16.
8. What is it that overcomes the world?
9. What are some things that may happen to our faith?
10. What does 2 Jn. 8 imply that we might do?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 16, pp. 250-252
April 16, 1981

By Dick Blackford

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrophes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church (3 John 9, 10).

It is with irony that the author notes that Diotrophes “who loveth to have the preeminence” is given a very non-preeminent place in the Scriptures. He is mentioned only one time (occupying only two verses) in what is next to the shortest book in the whole Bible (2 John has thirteen verses and 3 John has fourteen). Even worse, what is said about him is bad. We do not know who or what he was beyond what is stated in the text. In contemplating such irony we hear the words of Jesus as they echo up through the centuries, “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Mt. 23:12). Though Diotrophes is mentioned only once, there are numerous warnings against his disposition throughout the Scriptures.

Before proceeding, it is needful to consider some definitions. Pride means to have “inordinate self esteem; conceit of one’s talents, ability, wealth, station, etc.; disdainful behavior; contempt for those beneath us in station” (The Comprehensive Analysis of the Bible, Montgomery F. Essig, p. 421). Humility means `freedom from pride and arrogance; a modest estimate of one’s worth . . . ” (Ibid. p. 250). Essig adds, “When we are humbled we do not attribute to ourselves any goodness or virtue that we do not have, we do not overrate ourselves, we do not take immoderate delight in ourselves, we realize our imperfections and we ascribe all goodness and good works to God.”

What Is The Spirit of Diotrophes?

It is one of pride, arrogance, haughtiness, and conceit the opposite of humility, lowliness and meekness. This disposition is depicted by other expressions in the Bible. Elsewhere, John calls it the “pride (vainglory) of life” (1 Jn. 2:16). He says it is not of the Father, but of the world (cf. 3 Jn. 11). Peter calls it “lording it over God’s heritage” (1 Pet. 5:3). This happens when one becomes a tyrant or boss. Paul says an elder must not be a novice, “lest being puffed up (conceited, NASV) he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6). It is serious enough to cause one to be eternally lost. And James illustrates it by telling of a man who comes into the assembly with a gold ring and fine clothing and is given a preeminent place while a poor man in vile clothing is given an insignificant place (Jas. 2:1-10). It is as wrong for others to promote a man to a preeminent place in the kingdom as it is for him to seek first place. The answer to who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven has not always been accepted by men (Mt. 20:20-28). Some continue to push themselves into the chief seats of preeminence. Verily, they have received their reward.

The Character Of Diotrophes Stated, Illustrated, And Condemned

It is unknown whether Diotrophes was a preacher, elder, deacon, or simply the chief decision-maker in the absence of elders. We do know that he was ambitious of the highest place and the greatest power. His attitude was “I am the greatest.” As we proceed to discuss Diotrophes, it would be well to remember the words of the wise man: “Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18).

The character of Diotrophes is illustrated by his conduct. First, he rejected the highest authority. John had written a letter to the church and Diotrophes had rejected its message. John, whom some believe was the apostle who was closest to the Lord, spoke by the inspiration of God. Jesus had said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me” (Lk. 10:16). In this third epistle John had commended Gaius for his hospitality toward preaching brethren that were strangers to the congregation in which he and Diotrophes were members (vs. 5-8). Diotrophes did not like it one bit and was determined that he would run the church.

Second, he defamed the character of John by making unjust accusations. His religion was vain for not bridling his tongue. In order to promote himself, he had to tear down others. This he did without basis. “When a man has done wrong to another, he finds it necessary either to confess the wrong or to say false and wicked things against him he has wronged, hoping thereby to justify himself’ (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22, comments on 3 John 9, 10). In defaming John, Diotrophes was indirectly guilty of blasphemy against God. In verse 11 John said, “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.” Diotrophes was in the latter group. John was teaching the will of God when he wrote the church that they should show hospitality to these missionaries. Diotrophes was hindering the spread of the gospel and saying wicked things about those who promoted evangelism. He elevated his opinion to the level of God’s law. “For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers with the truth” (3 John 7, 8).

Third, Diotrophes forbade the performing of a grand privilege and a sacred responsibility. After his “prating against us with wicked words,” John says “not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church” (v. 10). Diotrophes would not practice hospitality toward these deserving brethren. He would not aid them in their work of spreading the gospel. He would not allow others to help and went so far as to excommunicate those who were doing the right thing. Not all withdrawing is scriptural. Because he was a lover of self, many were hurt by the actions of Diotrophes. He hurt John, he hurt the men who needed support and hospitality, he hurt those who helped the ones in need, he hurt those to whom these were sent, and he hurt the Lord and his church! Like a rock thrown into the water, the consequences of sin are far-reaching. Self-promoters will often step on others in their ambitious aims to climb to the top.

John is called “the Beloved.” But he was not mushy and spineless as some act who claim to be imitating him. He was willing to stand up to Diotrophes. He would prove his own authority as an apostle. He would vindicate the work of the men who were spreading the gospel and needed support and hospitality. He would set the church in order. And he would rebuke Diotrophes. There is a place for pity, compassion, and gentleness. And there is a time to deliver such an one unto Satan.

The Spirit Of Diotrophes And Its Bearing On Present Issues

In a sense this passage has bearing on issues of today. Some who have taken a loose and liberal view of grace and fellowship have accused those who oppose their error as possessing the spirit of Diotrophes (while depicting themselves as John, the Beloved). While no one (regardless of convictions) is immune to the temptations to which Diotrophes submitted, let us notice why such is not a valid accusation.

First, John, Gaius, and others who resisted Diotrophes were not teaching false doctrine as are those of the socalled grace-fellowship movement. When one opposes and refutes false teaching, that does not make him guilty of Diotrophes’ spirit. John was not advocating fellowship of instrumental music, institutionalism, etc. (It is not the purpose of this article to discuss those errors).

Second, sarcastic and satirical writings (such as mock publications of journals of conservative brethren by those who are afraid to reveal their identity) and other similar tirades have not indicated the spirit of John, the Beloved. No one should get the idea that John was going to handle the problem by writing an anonymous satire on Diotrophes.

Third, while John is speaking of a local church problem, one could manifest this attitude on a larger scale (“brotherhood”). However, it remains to be proven that brethren who oppose the new unity movement have elevated their opinions to the level of God’s law. These issues need to be probed, examined, and investigated in a wholesome public discussion.

Principles To Guide Us

Every man must guard against the temptation to promote self. Jesus said the “last shall be the first, and the first last” (Mt. 20:16). Satan is ever at work trying to get us to ignore such statements of inspiration. “Whosoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 18:4). Human wisdom wants to argue against that, for this principle rarely works in the kingdoms of men. Genuine love (not the “honey-coated sentamentality” kind) will go a long way in helping each individual not to seek preeminence. For love is not arrogant or rude. It does not brag on itself or insist on having its own way (1 Cor. 13:4, 5).

God hates pride and arrogance (Prov. 8:13). “Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, but humility goes before honor” (Prov. 18:12). Therefore, no man should “think more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). Instead, we should “be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation” (Rom. 12:16). Salvation is beyond those who cannot humble themselves down as a little child (Mt. 18:3, 4).

QUESTIONS

1. Explain the difference between pride and humility.
2. List some expressions used elsewhere in the Bible which describe the disposition of Diotrophes.
3. What is our Lord’s answer to who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Give Scripture.
4. What did the writer of Proverbs say about pride and the haughty spirit?
5. The arrogance of Diotrophes caused him to commit at least three sins. What were they? Can you name others?
6. Who did Diotrophes hurt by his self-promoting?
7. What should we remember about the consequences of sin?
8. Since John was “the Beloved,” was he afraid to stand up to Diotrophes? Discuss this.
9. Who is immune to the temptation to seek preeminence in the kingdom?
10. What bearing does the spirit of Diotrophes have on present issues over grace and unity?
11. In what way can love help each individual not to seek preeminence?
12. With what words did Paul teach the Romans to be humble people?
13. Is humility essential to salvation? Give Scripture.
14. Is rebuking false teachers a manifestation of the spirit of Diotrophes?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 16, pp. 248-249
April 16, 1981

By Ron Halbrook

Some Application

The applications which follow are not meant to be in order of importance, but are simply designed to show how rich and useful 2 John is for us today. This study is not exhaustive and the diligent student will think of other important applications.

1. As goes the home, so goes the church. If our homes are to produce children who walk as God commands, our homes must be training centers and bastions for truth. At the feet of godly parents, let children learn the vital connection between truth, love, and obedience. Let them not hear in the home carping and sniping about elders, preachers, and churches which fight error, or murmurs of sympathy for the false teacher. Rather, let those precious children learn that their home is the unwavering enemy of error, while the home’s hospitality and aid serve the cause of truth without compromise. Then we may expect to hear from someone who loves the truth – someone perhaps whom the children learned to know from his visits in their home – that he has crossed paths with our children in some distant place where he found them faithfully serving the Lord.

2. John defends apostolic authority. What the Apostles received from the beginning of their training is what they taught from the beginning of their ministry. In other words, they received from the Lord all that they taught. They were personal ambassadors of Jesus Christ, the King enthroned at His Father’s right hand. What they commanded, Jesus first revealed and commanded. The “apostles’ doctrine” of Acts 2:42 is “the doctrine of Christ” of 2 John 9. We must abide in this, if we abide in Him. That includes facts, commands, and promises. It encompasses all which the New Testament reveals – terms of pardon; the work, worship, organization, and discipline of the church; the family relationship; principles of conduct, dress, and speech; wholesome recreation; what it means to earn an honorable living; and, all else composing the whole counsel of God.

3. Truth, love, and obedience are inseparably intertwined. When we believe what God says, when we love Him with all the heart, mind, and soul, we find that obedience to His will is our highest aim and greatest pleasure. This is true spirituality. That lesson has never been learned by folks who complain that John was too strict in verse 9 and too harsh in verses 10-11. Obedience .is the product, pleasure, and evidence of true love for God. This obedience is not cold, formal, or separated from love but is wholly encompassed by it. All of this explains the rest of John’s letter. “Such hatred of error was the outcome of a firm grasp, and profound love, of the truth” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22: The Second Epistle of John, p. 2).

Gospel – Doctrine

4. “Gospel” and “doctrine” cannot be distinguished in content. Periodic attempts to distinguish “gospel” and “doctrine” as separate messages have had the effect of weakening the standard of apostolic truth. Such error unravels the twine of truth, love, and obedience. According to the theory, “gospel” means only 5 or 6 or 7 facts about Jesus. The acceptance of these facts guarantees salvation, whether a person does or does not receive the additional message called “doctrine.” The theory differs from person to person as to whether “gospel” includes any command (baptism, moral conduct, etc.) or whether all commands fall under “doctrine.” The theorists unite in saying that matters such as the work, worship, and organization of the church are “doctrine.” They also teach that “doctrine” is not essential to salvation and that God will only judge our “attitude” in “doctrine.” For instance, a person may be sprinkled rather than immersed, or may worship with instrumental music all of his life, and still be considered a “man of faith” saved by the “gospel” because God sees a “good attitude.” Recent theorists include W. Carl Ketcherside (St. Louis, Missouri), Leroy Garrett (Denton, Texas), Edward Fudge (Athens, Alabama), Arnold Hardin (Dallas, Texas), and their cohorts scattered from place to place. Their theories relate to the so-called ecumenical, new unity, or grace-fellowship movement.

The gospel-doctrine theory is knocked topsy-turvy by 2 John 9-11. The brother who violates the teaching of Jesus has not God and may not be received by the faithful. If the gospel-doctrine theory is true (gospel not doctrine determines relationship to God), John should have used the word “gospel” and not “doctrine” in verse 9. Finding the coattail of their theory on fire, false teachers have tried to douse the fire by claimng that “doctrine” sometimes refers to “gospel” (but, conveniently, they find “gospel” never refers to “doctrine”). They claim support in verse 7 because John singles out a group of men who denied Jesus Christ coming in the flesh (“gospel”). Therefore, John really said, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine (gospel) of (about) Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine (gospel) of (about) Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” The arguments for this reinterpretation of 2 John 9, and the dangerous implications of such a theory, are reviewed in detail in the author’s Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints (published by and available from Cogdill Foundation Publications, Box 88, Fairmont, IN 46928).

The truth is that John shows in verse 9 why (1) in verse 7 certain men are deceivers – they have violated the Divine standard or apostolic truth; (2) in verse 8 their followers are lost – they have not God; and (3) in verses 10-11 any who aid them will share their fate – the fate of all who have not God. Verse 9 states the origin and standard of all truth, “the doctrine of Christ,” which the heretics in verse 7 violated in one way at a given time and which other apostates violate in other ways at other times. John refers to the doctrine of Christ, of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans – always referring to their message or teaching, not to one or some few facts about them (2 Jn. 9; Rev. 2:14-15). Other New Testament writers uniformly do the same (Matt. 16:12; Mk. 7:7; Acts 2:42; 13:12; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:10), as can be seen from the chart which follows (borrowed from Tom O’Neal in booklet on Bible Unity VS A `New Unity’ Movement, p. 4):

Doctrine of . . .
a. God. 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:10	Does doctrine of denote
b. Devils. 1 Tim. 4:1
c. Pharisees. Mt. 16:12	teaching about these or
d. Lord. Acts 13:12
e. Balaam. Rev. 2:14	teaching which originated
f. Nicolaitans. Rev. 2:15
g. Christ. 2 John 9-11	with them?
REV. 2:14 shows the ‘doctrine of Balaam’ was what he ‘taught’

Greek scholars and commentators nearly always argue that “the doctrine of Christ” means “the doctrine which Christ brought, and which He brought first in His own person, and then through His followers,” because “the usage of the N.T. is uniformly in favor of” this meaning (Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 230). J.H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says, “the doctrine which has God, Christ, the Lord, for its author and supporter” (p. 144). “Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching,” says the famous grammarian A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, VI:254). Rarely do conservative scholars limit “the doctrine of Christ” to some teaching about him. Only occasionally do scholars who are theological liberals. In any case, those who make this attempt are moved by “preconceived notions of what the author ought to have meant rather than of what his words indicate,” said A.E. Brooke in the liberal International Critical Commentary (The Johannine Epistles, p. 177).

“Gospel” and “doctrine” do not signify separate messages any more than “truth,” “Commandments,” “will,” and “word” do. Each synonym tells us something about the nature of the one message which the Lord gave and the Apostles relayed to us (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:2, 13; Gal. 1:8-9; Col. 1:5-6; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19). It is “gospel” or “good news” to the sinner in search of salvation, and is communicated to intelligent beings by teaching, therefore “doctrine” or “a thing taught.”

The Faith and Fellowship

5. Matters of the faith are matters of fellowship. John’s epistle shows that whatever is a matter of “the truth, ” “the commandments,” or “the doctrine of Christ” “the gospel” to be preached to every creature, “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Mk. 16:15; Jude 3) – is also a matter of fellowship. The whole point of the epistle is that our faith and practice determine whether we are in proper relationship with God and one another. The man who continues to act in violation of “the doctrine of Christ” is not received by God. God requires that we recognize this fact and not receive any such man.

Proponents of the “new unity” or grace-fellowship movement have often admitted that the New Testament pattern of truth requires something (such as immersion) or excludes something (such as church-sponsored recreation or instrumental music in worship). These men have said they will teach the thing required and shun the thing forbidden, but claim that those who sin in these matters are accepted by God in His grace. Therefore, those who sin are to be accepted as faithful brethren by faithful brethren, with the single exception that we not participate with them in a given sinful activity. John’s epistle contradicts these theories. Those who are violating the doctrine of Christ have not God and are to be rejected rather than received.

On a number of controverted questions not involving the terms of pardon or local church function, some brethren confidently affirm that such-and-such is bound by “the doctrine of Christ” just as certainly as are faith, repentance, and baptism or the work, worship, and organization of the churhc. But, when asked, these brethren say they do not intend to make this matter “a test of fellowship.” These matters are usually questions of personal conscience and choice which can be done or not done without affecting the practice of someone else who differs. May women ask questions in Bible classes? Must women wear a special religious garb during public worship? Only during public prayer or also during private devotion, Bible reading, and prayer? May individuals operate a school which includes Bible instruction? May they operate a business to publish gospel papers, tracts, workbooks, and the like? If so, can the business give away portions of its product for various purposes? Is it right to vote, hold public office, serve as a policeman, or enter the armed services? May Christians join labor unions? These are examples which periodically recur.

Not every religious differences is a matter of the faith and fellowship. We must say that all differences are matters of the faith and fellowship, none are, or else only some are. The last position is true. Issues of private, individual significance fall under the purvue of Romans 14. Each person is taught to keep his own conscience clear, to hold his convictions as private property rather than proclaiming them as gospel, to not cause those who differ to sin against their own conscience, and to generally promote mutual edification and peace. Where such matters are at issue, the command is to receive one another without regard to these differences. Where the doctrine of Christ is unquestionably involved, the command is to not receive the one who transgresses. The Bible nowhere teaches that a thing can be a matter of the faith without being a matter of fellowship with God and among His people.

6. This epistle also shows that fellowship has a general dimension in addition to the dimension of the local church. If a teacher has not God and cannot be received into our homes to extend aid and comfort, then obviously he could not be received with approbation into a local church, whether as a member or a travelling evangelist. But John deals with a dimension to brotherly relations which extends beyond the limits of local church action and beyond relations between members of a local church. He instructs the elect lady as to action in her own home and with reference to anyone – not just members of the local church where she worshipped – who might come to her home claiming right relationship with God and the brotherly privileges of that relationship (cf. 3 Jn. 5-8). Peter and Paul could exchange the right hands of fellowship in recognition of their common Father, common salvation, common message, and common work, though they were not members of the same local church (Gal. 2:9). We should not hesitate to apply the same principles today, both positively as to acknowledging and receiving brethren and negatively as to rejecting false brethren.

Some proponents of the new unity movement argue that fellowship is only a local church affair and; therefore, discussions in various journals and among brethren generally as to whether certain brethren with their doctrines can be received or fellowshipped are irrelevant, misguided, and ludicrous. In fact, such discussions reflect an unbiblical concept of fellowship, it is argued. Sometimes brethren who say that such-and-such an issue is a matter of the faith but not of the fellowship have found the above argument appealing. It has been used by some when asked if the matter they are pressing will be made a test of fellowship, and especially when asked, “Can you recognize me as sharing the same God, gospel, and salvation which you proclaim, though I differ from you on this point which you say pertains to `the faith’ but not `the fellowship’?” To avoid wrestling with this aspect of the question some respond, “Fellowship is only a local church affair; the question reflects unbiblical concepts of fellowship and I will not engage in such questions. Besides, if you were honestly studying the issue itself, you would not ask such a question.” The elect lady was taught by an Apostle that saints may face the question of unity and fellowship beyond the local church level. This is a valid and necessary concern with reference to the doctrine of Christ.

Deceivers Still Deny the Doctrine of Christ

7. There are still many false teachers who violate the specific element of the doctrine of Christ mentioned in verse 7. The man known in history as Jesus of Nazareth, who lived in the flesh some 33 years, is the Christ, the Son of the living God. His full Deity is denied by so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses who claim that Jesus Christ is a created “god.” The “oneness” branch of Pentecostalism claims that the Father is the Son, but John’s epistle speaks of “both the Father and the Son” as sharing the nature of God (vv. 3, 9). Theological modernism or liberalism compromises.when it does not forthrightly deny the full Deity of Jesus Christ.

8. John refers to the false teachers as deceivers, pointing to their subtle and seductive nature. In their efforts to expand the realm of unity, some brethren argue that we must receive anyone who professedly accepts Jesus Christ as Lord. If we protest that many claiming to accept Him do not abide in His teaching, we are told that John only meant to oppose self-proclaimed heretics. “Real heresy is so obvious as to be self-proclaiming: denial of the divinity and lordship of Jesus Christ . . . I will know he is an heretic and he will know – and I must not walk with him” (James W. Russell, Outreach, May-June 1980, p. 10; this journal has been asscoiated with the new unity movement since about mid-1970’s). To the contrary, 1 John shows that the subtle deceiver will confidently claim to walk in the light, to know God, to abide in Him, to obey the commands, to love God, and to love the brethren. Jesus said that some folks would falsely claim to accept His lordship (Matt. 7:21-23; Lk. 6:46).

9. 2 John 9-11 is for every age. People seeking to loose the restraints given by the Holy Spirit through John in verses 9-11 say that John for one reason or another gave a temporary rule which is a “bad law” if generally followed today (DeWette, C.H. Dodd, William Barclay, Leroy Garrett, and others). They caricature these verses as forbidding us under any circumstances to say, “Hello,” or to visit with those in error. But these verses are not talking about business or family obligations. The one thing forbidden is aiding the false teacher in the advance of his cause. Other folks have caricatured John or those who try to obey his letter as shutting out of the house every’brother who is confused, immature, or wrong on any point of Scripture. Division will come between every level of growth and over every difference of understanding, these critics cry. No, John specifies those who abide in sin, those who advocate and lead out in practicing some violation of New Testament teaching (see also 1 Jn. 3:4, 8-9). Simple misunderstading is not sin (see Rom. 14).

Making a cartoon caricature of John’s words will not make them go away. They are the teaching of Christ, revealed by the Holy Spirit, and necessary to fellowship with God and faithful saints. The problem is that some brethren would rather laugh at these verses than to obey them. Some folks are so super nice that they are nicer than the Apostles, nicer than God Himself! Of course, the super nice use super sharp fangs on those who, like John and the elect lady, consistently oppose their advance.

10. Let us ever abide in truth, love, and obedience by abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Let us ever keep before us the line of demarcation between whatever is clearly revealed in the teaching of Christ and what men have added as the agents of Satan. The terms for an alien sinner’s pardon are clearly stated – faith in Jesus, repentance from sin, confession of Jesus Christ, and water baptism for remission of sins. The new life of a Christian, the privileges of repentance and prayer when he errs, are written for all men of all ages to enjoy. The faith and practice of the New Testament church – its spiritual mission, simple worship, and local organization – are recorded too plainly to be missed: Let us never fear that the doctrine of Christ is beyond human understanding or ability.

Let us not be discouraged because the devil renews and repeats his efforts to lead the elect of God away from His Word. So it will be until time is no more. Let us fervently love God out of a pure heart and keep our eyes fastened on the full reward. Thus in eternity as in time, we shall have both the Father and the Son.

QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the relationship between spiritual strength in the home and in the church.
2. Why was it imperative for John to defend apostolic authority?
3. John’s insistence on truth and obedience show a lack of love and spirituality. True or false? Discuss.
4. Discuss the gospel-doctrine theory of the new unity movement, and what 2 John 9 teaches.
5. John shows that what the doctrine of Christ teaches is not a matter of fellowship among brethren. True or false? Discuss.
6. Practical application of fellowship is or is not limited to our relations in the local church? Discuss.
7. Who are some modern teachers who violate the specific doctrine mentioned in verse 7?
8. Are false teachers subtle and seductive or obvious and self-proclaimed?
9. Verses 9-l 1 are “bad law” for us today. True or False? Discuss.
10. How can we abide in truth, love, and obedience?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 16, pp. 244-247
April 16, 1981

By Johnny Stringer

John says, “He that committeth sin is of the devil” (v. 8). Like the verbs used in verse 6 and discussed in article no. 2, the verb used here denotes habitual action. Hence, John has reference, not to one who commits an occasional act of sin and then penitently seeks God’s pardon, but to one who persists in sin. Such a one is of the devil. In verse 10 he declares, “In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” Clearly, then, the one who lives a life of sin is a child of the devil.

But what about the one who has become a child of God in the past, but has since that time forsaken the Lord and gone into a life of sin? Is not such a one still God’s child, even though he is in sin? I believe that in one sense he is. In 2 Thess. 3:15 Paul is discussing one who has departed the Lord and is living impenitently in sin, so that he must be withdrawn from; yet, Paul teaches that he is still to be regarded as a brother. Therefore, he is still in God’s family. My conclusion is that when the church is viewed as a family, with God as the Father and us as His children, those who go into sin are still in His family; and in the sense ^: still being in the family (the church), they are still His children.

However, the word “child” can be used in different senses. John divides all men into two classes – children of God and children of the devil – and makes it quite clear that those who live in sin are not God’s children, but children of the devil – regardless of whether they were once faithful or not. There is obviously a sense in which the one who departs from the faith he once practiced ceases to be a child of God, and becomes a child of the devil.

Usage of the Word “Child”

Sometimes in the Bible the word “child” is used with reference to character. One is said to be the child of another in the sense that he partakes of the character of that one. Note some examples of this usage of the term “child.”

In John 8:39-44 Jesus told some Jews that they were not children of Abraham. In a sense they were Abraham’s children, for they were his fleshly descendants. Nevertheless, Jesus pointed out that they did not do the works of Abraham, hence were not his children in the sense of partaking of his character. After telling them that they were not the children of God either, He then proceeded to tell them who their real daddy was – the devil (v. 44).

In Matthew 5:44, Jesus teaches us to love and do good to our enemies. Then in verse 45 He says that if we do this we

will be children of our Father of heaven. He then explains why this will make us God’s children, pointing out that God sends sunshine and rain to the evil and unjust, as well as to the good and just. Therefore, if we do good to our enemies, we will be like God, hence, His children.

In 1 Peter 3:6 women are told that if they show the proper respect to their husbands they will be daughters of Sarah. They will be her daughters in the sense of partaking of her character,, for she manifested her respect to Abraham by obeying him and calling him lord.

According to Gal. 3:6-7 those who have faith, as Abraham had faith, are children of Abraham. They partake of his character; they are like him in that they have the faith he had.

It is in this sense that John refers to habitual sinners as children of the devil. They partake of his character. In describing them as children of the devil, John explains, “for the devil sinneth from the beginning.” Hence, those who live in sin are his children in the sense of being like him. Children of God, on the other hand, are like God, as they derive their character from Him.

Children of God (v. 9)

Verse 9 says, “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.” The verb John uses when he says that the one who is born of God does not commit sin, denotes habitual, continual action. John does not mean that he never commits a single act of sin; he means that the person does not continue in sin, that sin is not his way of life. When he does sin he is careful to penitently seek God’s pardon in God’s appointed way (Acts 8:22, 1 John 1:7-9). We demonstrated in our discussion of verse 6 that this was the meaning of “sinneth not” in that verse, and the same proofs that were given there apply here as well (see article no. 2).

The reason that the one who is born of God does not and cannot habitually sin is given: “for his seed remaineth in him.” What is the seed? 1 Pet. 1:23 makes it clear that the seed of the new birth is the word of God. Therefore, the seed that remains in the one who is born of God is the word of God. It is through the influence of the word that God works on our hearts, changes our character to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. This initially occurs at conversion, but John shows that the working of that seed in our hearts is not to stop at conversion. Through its working we are to continue to derive our character from God, hence continue to be His children in the sense of partaking of His character.

John says that the one who is born of God does not live in sin because the seed, the word of God, remains in him and will not permit him to sin persistently. Is this true of everyone that has ever been born again? Does John mean to teach that if anyone has ever been born again he will not go into a life of sin, because the seed remains in him and will prevent it? No, this cannot be the meaning, for this would contradict the plain teaching of other passages such as 2 Pet. 2:20-23.

The truth is that the clause, “Whosoever is born of God,” does not refer to everyone who has ever been born again. Notice the tense of the verb in that clause. John does not say, “Whosoever has ever been born of God does not commit sin.” He says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” (KJV, ASV, and NASV). The tense of the verb is the key to our understanding. The verb is in the Greek perfect tense. Concerning this 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 states, “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 usage of the perfect tense, therefore, shows that he is talking, not about everyone who has ever been 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 that does not habitually sin.

In commenting on this verse Vincent says, “The perfect participle indicates a condition remaining from the first: he who hath been begotten and remains God’s child.” Similarly, the renowned 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 that has ever been 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 the relationship begun at the new birth, continuing to let the seed work in him, so that he remains a child of God in the sense of deriving his character from God through the working of that seed. This is the one that does not habitually sin.

Keep in mind the context. John is distinguishing children of God from children of the devil, showing that those who persist in sin are not children of God, but are children of the devil. In verse 9 he simply says that the one who con= tinues 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.

QUESTIONS

1. In v. 8, the verb “committeth sin” denotes what kind of action?
2. The one who lives in sin is whose child?
3. Can one persist in sin and yet be a child of God in any sense whatever?
4. According to John’s teaching in vv. 8-10, when one departs from the faith and lives in sin, he ceases to be a child of God and becomes a child of the Devil. True or False
5. Explain the sense in which John uses the word “child” and give some other passages which use the word in this sense.
6. In v. 9, the verb “doth not commit sin” denotes habitual action. True or False
7. What prevents the one who is born of God from sinning?
8. What is the seed of the new birth?
9. John said that whoever has ever been born of God does not commit sin. True or False
10. In v. 9, John was talking, not about everyone who has ever been born again, but only about the one who continues in the relationship begun at the new birth, continuing to let the seed work in him. True or False
11. The one who continues to let the seed of the new birth work within him is continuing to be a child of God in what sense?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 16, pp. 242-243
April 16, 1981