Fellowshipping With The Father And The Son - Part 6

Review

The Gnostics were the false teachers who believed matter to be evil, the spirit good, and salvation to come by secret knowledge (gnosis) granted to those who were part of their clique.

John is teaching all of this to combat a heresy circulated by the Gnostics called Antinomianism.

"What is antinomianism?" Antinomianism comes from the Greek words "anti" against, and "nomos" law-- "against law".

Antinomians believe in freedom from the obligation to obey the Moral Law to be saved. They believed, "The more you sin the more you have God's grace; so you can live anyway you want to because of God’s grace.”

In our text John combats the Gnostics who teach antinomianism by making two points:

God is Light, and darkness in Him does not exist, not even one bit (vs.5)

God is light, physically, intellectually and morally. Because God is light His nature demands that He judge sin.

One cannot live in sin and fellowship with God at the same time (vs. 6)

(1 John 1:6 NKJV) If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

There is no koinonia or fellowship between the one who walks in darkness and God who is Light. There is no joint participation with God and this person because there are no things held common by both either. Why?

This person walks in darkness. He is not walking in God because God is light; no darkness is in God. This person is walking in darkness which means what he is doing is sinning.

In verse seven of our text John describes the walk of the one who has fellowship with God.

(1 John 1:7 NKJV) But if we (continuously) walk in the light as He is in the light, we (us and God) have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son (continuously) cleanses us from all sin.

Today's Lesson…

(1 John 1:8 NKJV) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1.) When people say they have no sin they are claiming sinless perfection.

The Gnostics were making the claim of sinless perfection. They taught that no action was sinful. The problem, according to the Gnostics, was the fleshly body itself – it was not our hearts or actions.

Wouldn’t you like an excuse like that for your sin?

One could steal something and when confronted about it say, "My flesh was the one who did this; it is what is guilty not me."

This reminds me of the insanity plea used in our courts of law today. "It wasn't me that slashed his body to pieces, it was my deranged mind taking control of my body that did the crime."

In Christian circles a form of this teaching can be found in many churches.

In the Persian version of the Gnostic religion they believed that a good god rules the spiritual world and a bad god rules the physical realm. This philosophy teaches the problem of evil is solved by blaming everything that goes wrong on the bad god (the devil); the good god is seen as no more than a counterbalance. One is left with the impression that the two gods each possess equal power both in quality and quantity. Everything that is wrong in the world is the fault of the bad god. And it's up to the initiate or believer to make sure the good god wins.

When Jimmy Swaggart defied the orders of the Assemblies of God to refrain from preaching for one year, he assured the public that he was free of moral defect, for, he said, Oral Roberts had cast out the demons from his body over the phone. Oral Roberts confirmed Swaggart's report, insisting Swaggart had demons and their claws deeply embedded in his flesh.

For Swaggart, the problem of his sin was replaced with the problem of Satan. Like Jimmy Swaggart, many Christians blame the problem of their sin on the devil rather than take personal responsibility.

Today, there is a more sinister form of the Gnostic heresy of sinless perfection. The Gnostic heresy of sinless perfection has evolved to a more sophisticated brand we call--moral relativism.

2.) When people say they have no sin they are claiming moral relativism.

William Provine, Professor of Evolutionary Biological Sciences at Cornell University gives us the general understanding of relativism in The Scientist magazine (September 5, 1988, p. 10):

No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.

In the same vein, philosophers have derived these five assumptions to describe relativism:

1. No universal moral rules or standards exist.