1 John
1Jo 4:1-3 - The Test of Truth and Error
by Joe Holder
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1Jo 4:1-3)
Although first glance would suggest that John briefly deflected from the major error he confronted in this letter, careful study will show that he actually continued with it throughout. You see the gnostic philosophy taught that no mortal (In fact not even the lesser gods) could know or approach the ultimate deity. He was unknowable and unapproachable. Yet they taught that they had access to a superior and secret knowledge not available to historic Christians. They claimed superiority status and assurance based on this knowledge, not based on a living relationship with God and mirrored in the life of the believer. When John developed his thoughts on assurance through pleasing God, keeping His commandments, answered prayer and related activities, he was actually establishing that the historic and traditional Christian knowledge was in fact superior to gnostic knowledge and philosophy. Why settle for lesser gods and underlings when you can freely communicate with God Himself? And receive communication from Him!
We do not live in an ideal world in which we may safely listen to any and every person who claims to believe in God and to know God's Word in Scripture. As in John's time, so in ours, many people claim more insight than they possess. Many claim to be sincere beyond challenge, but in fact they aim to deceive. It should not go without notice that people do not join the cults or fringe-pseudo-Christian groups because these groups offer superior theology! They do not. Rather they join these groups because a member of these groups stepped into their life during a time of intense need and helped them. If that attracted them to the cult, what do you think will attract them away from the cult to Biblical Christianity? You can't engage them in a front door dialogue on theology and expect them to run to your church next Sunday. If you hope to win them to Christ and His truth, you must become intimately involved in their life and fill a personal need more effectively and self-sacrificially than the cult members who attracted them to their cult. Are you willing to invest this kind of effort on behalf of your Lord and your faith? A well-known Christian radio program that deals with many of the errors proposed by the cults often closes its program with a question. "Are you willing to do for the truth what the cults are willing to do for a lie?" This is a soul-searching question, one we need to answer.
Believe not every spirit. Don't take everything at face value. Sincerity and appearance alone do not meet the Bible criteria. The next question we should readily anticipate. How then do we know which spirit or teaching comes from God and which comes from error? Since John did not write a comprehensive confrontation of all error (How could anyone do so? The volume would be so overwhelming no one would attempt to read it. Further it would require frequent revision to expose the endless stream of new errors!), but one specific error. Perhaps this error was, and is, one of the most insidious errors ever to appear in Christian garb. In this instance, and a primary assessment tool for all error, the criteria for exposing and ejecting error is rather simple. What do they think of Christ? Specifically, what do they think of His incarnation?
At the risk of repetition, we should rehearse the primary error of the Docetic gnostic philosophy. It rejected all elements of the incarnation, of God coming in material human form. God could not condescend to touch, much less live in, human flesh. To explain the physical appearance of Jesus in His incarnation, they said He appeared as a "spirit body," whatever that means. Much like the superstitions of ghosts and goblins, He appeared to be physical and human, but in fact it was nothing more than appearance. He was not human or material in any way. So how does John expose the error? Jesus was God incarnate, dwelling in literal human flesh. Therefore any teaching that denies that basic truth of the incarnation is error and should be rejected.
We live in a theological culture where many teach that the end is drawing near and a final ultimate "antichrist" figure will soon appear. Often Christian teachers who hold to this idea will single out a charismatic world leader as the antichrist. For example, during the Cold War, Christians of this view often named leading communist leaders as the looming antichrist. Whether or not an ultimate and final antichrist will appear is immaterial to John's teaching here. He singled out this abysmal error as the essential antichrist, and he viewed it as already existing in his world and time. He did not reserve antichrist exclusively for the end times. Neither should we! We may live in the end times and we may not. But when such grievous error appears in pseudo-Christian trappings, we should confront it and reject it with John's teachings.
Why should we view this teaching with such fierce opposition? It strikes at the heart of Christian truth. It attacks the foundations of Biblical theology. And it certainly is not a newer, better or more accurate revelation of Bible truth. It is error in its worst form.
How do you reconcile John's image as the apostle of love with his intense opposition to Docetic error in this letter? How do you reconcile Paul's admonition to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3) with his near fierce "I am set for the defense of the gospel"? (Php 1:17) The point actually reconciles itself. When talking with believers who love the Lord, even when they do not fully understand all the points of Bible truth, speak graciously and in love. When talking with people whose attitude and teachings insidiously violate Bible truth, oppose and reject their teaching. Even here, however, we should take a cautious approach. Occasionally when factional Christians break fellowship within churches over trivial and non-essential matters, zealous advocates of one or the other view will quote from 1Jo 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us...". Typically this citation will be followed by excessively harsh words against other believers. This reference sadly and harshly misrepresents the passage and the people against whom it is hurled.
This particular error apparently, from early Christian writings, originated outside historic Christianity and attempted to invade the faith, pretending to be Christian. Early Christians immediately recognized its deep error and firmly rejected it. This kind of grave error should never be compared with disagreements over minor points of interpretation or church practice.
Further, we should always approach those who hold to error, even grave error such as this, with a full measure of humility. We must sufficiently equip our minds with Scripture and rational thinking based on Scripture so that we recognize error and do not fall into it. But when we confront someone who holds to it, we should reject their error, not their person. Once I heard a zealous Christian tell about a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. When they ended their conversation, the Christian turned to the Jehovah's Witness and said smugly, "My sins are forgiven. Too bad yours aren't." This attitude represents an arrogant attack on the person and has nothing to do with rational and Biblical arguments that expose the error involved. Oppose the error, not the person. Model gracious Christian conduct in every way possible as you reason with this person from the Scriptures. And prepare yourself fully to reason from the Scriptures before you engage them in dialogue! Often advocates of these errors will be well prepared and ready to answer every objection you raise to their teachings. They will likely misrepresent Scripture and give false or partial definitions of words in Scripture, but they will not approach you from a basis of ignorance. They have been well trained. What kind of witness will you leave with them if you can't provide reasonable answers to their false claims? A word of caution, do not enter a nuclear war unarmed! Equip yourself before your conversation with them. Do not enter the discussion uninformed! What kind of witness does open ignorance leave with these people? There are good solid Bible answers to their teachings and interpretations, but you learn them through dedicated study and thoughtful reflection with Scripture.
1Jo 4:4-6 - Of God, Not Becoming Gods