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.
2. No single standard or set of standards has been (or is) universally accepted as binding on everyone--this includes the Bible.
3. Moral norms vary from culture to culture.
4. What is believed to be right varies from culture to culture.
5. Moral codes causally derive from and are determined by social setting or environment.
The way this works out practically, no moral dispute can be settled because no moral standard exists. Each side is right and true in its own way, though we may have a personal opinion about it.
Try to convince someone who cheats that cheating is wrong and you will have a hard time winning the discussion.
From this philosophy of thinking has flowed such ideas as "live and let live," "just do it," "have it your way," "everybody does it" and "if it feels right, it is right." It also spawned situation ethics that say truth is defined by one's circumstances.
While the Judeo-Christian concept of morality continues to form the basis for civil law, people are embracing the notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are to be decided by the individual and can change from one situation or circumstance to the next.
In describing her view on morality, the President of Planned Parenthood once stated, "…teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others.
In a 2002 column from Fox News, analyst Bill O'Reilly, who asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be..."
Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine where you are as far as morality is concerned, you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life.
Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter.
In our culture it has always been wrong to steal, commit adultery, lie and murder. In our culture it has always been wrong to dishonor your parents and even forsake the worship of God on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day. Even crooked politicians and mob leaders would make sure they attended church.
But since we've kicked God out of our schools, churches and lives things have changed and we say we have no sin.
William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?
In our text John is letting us know that there were people going around saying they had no sin. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether what we believe is right or wrong. Belief doesn't change truth.
Not believing in gravity does not change the objective fact that if you step off the tenth floor balcony you will fall to the ground. Likewise, not believing in moral law does not render it inoperative.
We are living in a time where what the majority believes dictates our laws rather than absolute truth based on God's Word. As a result, this cultural relativism leads to bizarre conclusions.
Imagine an island of 100 people. They take a vote on whether murder is right or wrong and the results are a 50/50 split. The next day some of the "murder is right" side kills one of the "murder is wrong" side. Now the count is 50 to 49 in favor of the "murder is right" side, and murder becomes morally acceptable.
Now let's say the "murder is wrong" side kills two of the "murder is right" side. The vote is now 49-48 in favor of the "murder is wrong" proponents. So now murder is wrong even though it was right when they did it, and so on!
This is the kind of absurd conclusions that can come about when what the majority believes dictates our laws rather than absolute truth based on God's Word.
There are surveys which indicate that about 60% of Americans now believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, up from just over 40% in the mid-1970s. This increase in the percentage of Americans who hold this view has and is currently having an impact on our society.
When the Supreme Court struck down laws banning sex between homosexuals last month, a dismayed Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the court was siding with gay men and lesbians in a “culture war.” He accused the majority of flouting public opinion and of opening the door to legal gay marriages.
But the court’s 6-3 vote to do away with state anti-sodomy laws reflected a nation where polls indicate that most people now believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be allowed.
Polls indicate that most Americans continue to oppose legalizing gay marriages. But in the three weeks since the court’s ruling cited a right of privacy for homosexuals, it has become clear that many American institutions are ready, in various ways, to express support for gay men and lesbians:
*A week after the June 26 ruling, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer and a mainstay of rural and suburban America, said it would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
*On July 6, The Dallas Morning News began running advertising notices of same-sex unions with its wedding announcements.
*Two days later, The Boston Globe editorialized in favor of gay marriage and compared state laws against it to those that once banned marriage between whites and blacks.
We are living in a culture that says it has no sin.
Moral relativism has made its way into our school systems.
Many parents have become dismayed over what is called the "New Math." I remember coming home from school and showing my mother what she called the "New Math." Now there is an even newer math that is taught from a moral relativistic perspective. Under this curriculum--call it New New Math aka "whole math," "MTV math" and "fuzzy math."
This New New Math shuns rigorous memorization of multiplication tables. Teachers of this New New Math send home periodic "Dear Family" notes to third-grade parents with the following advice:
"Don't worry if your child doesn't use a ruler accurately yet--it's a skill that will develop over time, with more and more opportunities to measure."
"Children have very interesting ways to figure out these problems. You can help by asking your child to tell you how he or she got an answer. There are many ways to do these problems--and no single `right' way. What's important for your child to know is how his or her own way works."
A "new new" math curriculum called MathLand follows in the footsteps of the moral relativism by blurring the distinction between the concepts of "correct" and "incorrect." In fact, the actual work of MathLand students, used as illustrations in the guidebook, contains scores of atrocious spelling and grammatical errors. The authors say, "Students see that teachers are more interested in their reasons and explanations for solutions and discoveries, not whether or not everyone gets the same solution in the same way."
In the material there are constant warnings against holding students to strict standards of accuracy. "Don't worry if the students' graphs are not exactly accurate," reads one lesson.
Wow! These are the students who will be designing the cars and planes you and I will be traveling in.
Moral relativism says anything goes …but does it? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?
You and I can't answer that question without the Scripture. We cannot go by our feelings. We cannot guarantee that since child abuse offends our culture now, it will be considered as abuse by the culture of the future.
There is an organization called the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that believes it is every child's right to pursue sexual freedom. Listen to a couple of paragraphs from their website:
NAMBLA believes that any child, regardless of age, should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to any person. The child should have the right to initiate the relationship, as he often does. He should have the right to enjoy and develop the relationship without fear of shame or ridicule, or of harassment by parents or police. Children should have free access to factual information about sexual relationships of all kinds, and the right to control their own bodies without interference from adults. No child is harmed by any consensual sexual experience, but children are harmed by society's condemnation and persecution of their bodily pleasures.
NAMBLA believes that children need more than just sexual freedom, but it also recognizes that the denial of sexual pleasure can inflict severe and lasting pain. It is not the proper role of the state to attempt to enforce private personal morality, nor to "protect" children from themselves by denying them exposure to homoerotic or other sexual pleasure, if they so desire. The state should stay out of private bedrooms. Unfortunately, as the current FBI and police repression against NAMBLA shows, the authorities do not hesitate to break up friendships between men and boys in their vendetta against man/boy love. The state flaunts its power over the ruined lives of innocent lovers. Only by standing up for our right to love can we ever hope to end this injustice.
This is the kind of thinking that moral relativism produces. Since there is no moral compass, anything goes in their thinking and practices. These people say they have no sin.
To these people, it is not a sin for a man to have sexual relations with a boy. But the Bible says the opposite.
(Lev 20:13 NKJV) 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
The person who as John writes, "says they have no sin," is making an attempt to erase the thought and fear of God from their lives. Perhaps this person's conscience has already been seared or numbed from repeated exposure to moral relativistic thinking or teaching.
Moral relativism is also responsible for the current battle over abortion.
Since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade court battle for abortion rights for women, there have been 43,358,592 abortions. Why? Because there are those who say they have no sin.
There are several methods to abort a baby--from surgical removal to chemically inducing an abortion with drugs such as RU 486.
One of the more notable battles between Pro Life and Pro Choice opponents over whether the technique called Partial Birth Abortion should be banned. Partial Birth Abortion is also clinically known as "Dilation and Extraction" (D&X), or "intact D&E" (IDE).
Just in case you don't know what Partial Birth Abortion is let me describe it for you:
This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.)
Then the abortionist inserts scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.
Moral relativism questions whether what is growing in the mother’s womb is a baby. The question of whether this procedure is good or evil is relative to individual values and cultural diversity. In other words, truth is what you make it out to be. Truth for you may not be truth for me.
It is sad that the abortion debate is resolved by moral relativism in the following way:
When you don't want a baby, it is not a baby but a blob of fleshly material to be removed from the host.
If the pregnant woman is murdered both she and her unborn baby become victims of the crime and the suspect can be found guilty of two counts of murder.
In both cases it is an unborn baby. The truth of the matter is that it is still an unborn baby. The Bible says:
(Psa 139:13 NKJV) For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
(Psa 139:14 NKJV) I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
(Psa 139:15 NKJV) My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
(Psa 139:16 NKJV) Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
What happens is our acceptance of the truth changes according to our selfish desires. It is a baby when we say it is a baby. It is a blob when we say it is a blob. If it is a blob we haven’t done anything wrong. We have no sin.
Jesus said in John 17:17, "…Thy Word is truth." When you and I reject this truth we reject the God of the truth and in essence say we have no sin.
John writes to correct those who say they have no sin. His words are relevant for today because there are people who through their relativistic thinking are saying what you call 'evil' might be evil for you but not for me and what you call 'good' may not be good for me. In essence there is no right and wrong.
God says He is going to deal with these kinds of people:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! . . . who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! . . . They have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Therefore the anger of the Lord is aroused against His people; He has stretched out His hand against them and stricken them, and the hills trembled. Their carcasses were as refuse in the midst of the streets. (Isaiah 5:20-21, 23-25)
Relativism is a prime example of Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."
But God's way is so different:
Psalm 119:142-144 says, “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth. Trouble and anguish have overtaken me, yet Your commandments are my delights. The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting; give me understanding and I shall live.”
God’s testimonies say we do have sin
John tells us in our text, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
God tells us that we do have sin. We have sin as a result of two ways:
1.) We inherited it:
(Rom 5:12 NKJV) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned;
We inherited sin from our parents who inherited it from their parents and so on back to Adam. And, just so we can point our finger back to our parents or Adam the Bible says that each one of us is guilty of personal sin.
2.) We commit sin
(Rom 3:23 NKJV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
Sin - hamartia (noun) hamartano (verb), means "to miss the mark"
The Bible lets us know that God's holy standard is the bull’s eye on a target. You and I might try with all of our might, skill, intellect and finesse to meet His holy standard but we will miss every time--we will fall short.
The illustration I used to give when I was doing Open Air Evangelism down the Inner Harbor is that if both you and I tried to throw a rock across the harbor over to a pier on the other side one of us might get closer to the target but both would fall short.
The point is that we sin. The sad thing is that many of us, even Christians, when we think about sin we think of sins like stealing and murder and drinking and fornicating. But sin according to the Bible is "missing the mark."
God sets holiness as the target and we try as we may to achieve His standard of righteousness we miss the mark.
What people don’t realize that even if they were born totally paralyzed, without the ability to see, hear or speak, they would still be guilty of missing the mark. We all inherited Adam’s sin and are thus unholy. This truth is demonstrated as we live, move and open our eyes, ears and mouths.
Still, well-meaning people have set out attempting to please God by doing good deeds.
"I'll just try to be a good person."
"I'll put in 30 hours of street witnessing each week."
"I'll stand on the street corners and medium strips selling stuff to raise money for our organization."
"I'll make sure I attend church/mosque/synagogue each week."
"I'll get baptized."
"I'll lay off the drugs"
"I'll treat my fellow citizen with dignity."
"I'll work with the Big Brothers or Big Sisters."
This is like going to a rifle shooting contest and trying to pay off the judge. The judge says, “Shoot the target” and we say, “I’m a good person.” What does being good have to do with hitting the target?
We do not please God by our works! The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please God…" In Romans 8:8, Paul declares "So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." In Galatians 2:16, Paul again declares, "… a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ."
Sin is missing the mark of God's high standard of holiness. None of us can attain this righteousness so God has to give it to us. None of us can hit the target so God has to say, “Step aside. Let me do it for you.”
This is precisely what Jesus came to do.
In Romans 15:15 Paul writes, “For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.”
Romans 8:3 says, “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us…”
Sin is also a transgression of the law. The word transgression means "A violation of a law, command, or duty." It also means "to overstep a line, boundary or limits." The New Testament uses the word "trespass."
Romans 4:15 tells us "…where there is no law there is no transgression." In other words, God's Word tells us not to do something. When we violate His command we are crossing over the line into disobedience—this is a transgression.
From God's perspective we all are sinners.
I can't blame it on my body and say, "It wasn't me" like the Gnostics were trying to do. When I sin, it’s me that is guilty. I can't try to reason away my sin like some are trying to today--"It all depends what 'is' is."
I only sin three times a day…
Perhaps you say you’re a "good" person; you sin only three times a day – one sinful thought, one sinful word and one sinful action.
Did you know that’s 1,000 sins a year, and if you’re 35, that’s 35,000 sins?! The Bible teaches that each sin requires the death penalty. Imagine standing before a judge with 35,000 capital offenses and telling the judge you’re a "good" person and should be let off!
REMEMBER THE DUCK
There was a little boy visiting his grandparents on their farm. He was given a slingshot to play with, but only in the woods. He practiced in the woods, but he could never hit the target. Getting a little discouraged, he headed back to dinner.
As he was walking back, he saw grandma's pet duck. Just out of impulse, he let it fly, and hit the duck square in the head and killed it. He was shocked and grieved. In a panic, he hid the dead duck in a woodpile only to see his sister watching. Sally had seen it all, but said nothing.
After lunch that day Grandma said, "Sally, let's wash the dishes." But Sally said, "Grandma, Johnny told me he wanted to help in the kitchen today didn't you Johnny?" And then she whispered to him, "Remember the duck?" So Johnny did the dishes.
Later, Grandpa asked if the children wanted to go fishing, and Grandma said, "I'm sorry, but I need Sally to help make supper." But Sally smiled and said, "Well, that's all right because Johnny told me he wanted to help." And she whispered again, "Remember the duck?" So Sally went fishing and Johnny stayed home.
After several days of Johnny doing both his chores and Sally's, he finally couldn't stand it any longer. He came to Grandma and confessed that he killed the duck. She knelt down, gave him a hug, and said "Sweetheart, I know that. You see, I was standing at the window and saw the whole thing. But because I love you, I forgive you. But I was wondering just how long would you let Sally make a slave of you."
Like Johnny, we allow ourselves to be enslaved by our unwillingness to confess our sins. We just go on living and sacrifice all of the peace and forgiveness that God wants to give us.
In verse 9 of our text John tells us to confess our sins to God.
(1 John 1:9 NKJV) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
God knows how we have fallen short of His glorious perfection and has sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins. If we confess them and turn to Him, we will be washed clean and set free from guilt. But as long as we claim we haven't sinned there can only be bondage to our past and our need to cover it up from ourselves
He is waiting to hear from you.
