Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.30 → restored 4.52
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
Just before I proceed to the questions, I wonder, would you allow me to say a few words once more about this matter of overcoming? As we have seen from the Epistle of John, it is a topic, uh, that looms quite large in these chapters. Chapter two, the young men are said to be strong, they have overcome the evil one. And here in chapter five, we have read about overcoming the world. In the Gospel of John in chapter sixteen, our Lord says, be of good cheer, in the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.
Similarly, again, in one John four, it is says that we have overcome the evil and false teachers. Then in the revelation that was given to John, you will remember that at the end of every letter addressed to the seven churches, there is a phrase, now to him that overcometh, will I grant this or that or whatever. So that this topic of overcoming is one that is, uh, s- uh, of special importance in the writings of John. I want to comment now just for a few moments on some of the practical implications.
I suspect that if you're anything like me and the majority of the Lord's people, there will be days when you feel, yes, by God's grace, I have overcome, and other days when you feel, no, I haven't overcome, I have been defeated in this or that and the other. So what does it mean? When the Bible talks of overcoming, is it true that every believer by definition is an overcomer, and if so, all the time? Or is it that sometimes we're overcomers and sometimes we're not overcomers? Sometimes we are victorious and sometimes we are defeated. In what sense, then, is the Bible using the term?
So let's look, if we would, to the book of the Revelation. That would make a start, wouldn't it? The Revelation, and this time chapter twenty one and verse seven. As we ought to read in verse six. Revelation twenty one verse six. And he said unto me, they are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But for the fearful and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. And you will see from those remarks that as far as John is concerned, there are but two classes. There are those that overcome, they inherit all things. They are God's sons. And there are the others. Their part is in the lake of fire that, uh, the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.
From which I deduce, at any rate, and I submit to you that, uh, that is what we should de- deduce, that in this sense the term overcoming is synonymous with, it's the same thing as being a believer. He that overcomes as distinct from the unbelieving. In this sense, all believers are by definition overcomers. It wouldn't be true to the gospel as we know it from other parts, would it?
To say that our being delivered from the lake of fire is dependent on our success in daily life, that if we overcome constantly and one hundred percent, then we miss the lake of fire. If on times we fail to overcome, then sorry, you are defeated and you must perish in the lake of fire. That would be to turn the gospel of our salvation into a gospel of works. So then, they who are delivered from the lake of fire are those, to use another phrase, whose names are in the book of life. Or if you like to fra- phrase it otherwise, those who overcome.
And I take it that in the epistle one John five, that this is also implied in the first verse that mentions these things, one John five, verse four: This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Notice the past tense. It has overcome the world. It is the accomplished fact. When someone is brought to repentance and to faith in the Lord Jesus, there is the great war won.
He has overcome. The power of Satan has in that sense been broken. To refer to another passage, that the Son of God keeps the believer and the evil one doesn't touch him, that cannot mean, does it, that the evil one cannot tempt us, that the evil one cannot from time to time induce us to go astray, but that the evil one cannot keep the believer in his grasp. Says Colossians, we have been translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son. It is more than the evil one can do to take back the true and genuine child of God back into his kingdom and under his domination of darkness.
So there is a fundamental sense, it seems to me, in which every believer has overcome one John five verse four together with the verse in the Revelation. But then I submit to you that, as with many things in the Epistle of John, there is the constant overcoming, verse five, and who is he that overcometh, present tense. And here we are to think in what is characteristic of the life of a believer. It is the mark of the normal life of the believer that he overcomes.
Here, however, as John himself would tell us, whereas the normal characteristic of a believer's life is that he does not go on committing sin, nevertheless, there are times when he falls and fails, and, uh, if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father. To deny that we have sinned or that we do sin, that would to be, uh, to be untruthful and certainly unrealistic. But it's not the characteristic of the believer's life to carry on sinning. So much so is that true, that if somebody carries on constantly in the habit of sinning, and constantly and constantly, then the question has to be raised.
Is their profession of faith genuine? Now, when we come to the letters to the churches, it seems to me that we must think in those terms. Says our Lord to one of the churches, uh, I will give to him that overcomes, uh, this, that, and the other, and I shall not blot his name out of the book of life. But you say, no believer will have his name blotted out of the book of life, will he? This is Revelation three verse five. Well, no, no believer will ever have his name blotted out of the book of life.
But our Lord was speaking to a church in which there were some who had the name that they lived, but they were in fact dead. They had the name and profession of being living believers. They weren't, I'm sorry to say, they were in fact dead. Now, no true believer will have his name blotted out of the book of life. But then the thrust of the observation is, isn't it? Well, and are you living as a believer should live? Is there evidence in your life that you are indeed alive?
You say, well, I have, uh, fallen here and I've fallen there. Yes, well, if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, haven't we? Merciful and patient. But where there is true belief to begin with, he will bring the wanderer back, surely. And the believer, as a characteristic, will overcome. So in that sense, in actual practice, there are going to be difficulty, uh, uh, differences, aren't there, in the consistency and the quality of our overcoming.
To one church, our, our Lord writes, and he says that they have less- left their first love. It's a very bad thing if they continued in that attitude completely and forever, wouldn't it? What would it suggest? The church that had lost its love for the Lord and completely and forever lost its love for the Lord. Oh dear, what does it mean? If they are genuine believers, they will listen to the Lord's words calling them to repent, will they not? And they will repent, and the matter be put right. As I'm never tired of quoting, Peter denied the Lord.
That's a very serious thing. Our Lord is on record as saying that if anybody denies me before men, I shall deny him before my Father. Ah yes, you say, but Peter's denial was but a temporary aberration. It was so, and thank God for that. Temporarily defeated, you say, but he overcame presently, didn't he? And all of us will feel ourselves very much like Peter. If I am a true believer, well, in one sense I have already overcome the world. I can sing with gusto the great hymn, 'Tis done, the great transaction's done. I am my Lord's, and he is mine.
That's the war settled. But in the ongoing battles... and the mark should be that of consistency I should be marked by overcoming, but very often I shall be inconsistent, shall need to confess it, and our Lord is faithful and to just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But with that, now let me take courage in both hands, you need it in some cases, and attempt to begin to answer your questions, and thank you for them, and I have a tremendous lot of them, and, uh, I shall do my best to cover them all in the time available.
And if the answers I give are not what you would, you think ought to be given, please interrupt, as our chairman has said, stamp your feet or interrupt or something or other. Don't let error prevail, whatever you do. Question number one here, a technical thing arising from one John five. You may remember I said that in one John five, older versions, like the authorized versions, they have a verse in one John five that says there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
And I this morning left out that verse, and I said it wasn't, eh, what John originally wrote. The question is, could you please clarify such omissions as one John one verse seven? Also, John's Gospel, chapter seven fifty three uh, up to chapter eight verse eleven. which you may remember is the story of the woman taken in adultery, and many manuscripts omit that story completely. And also Romans eight verse one and the second half of the verse, which in the authorized version reads, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.
But you'll find that most modern translations leave out that last bit, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, and simply put, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. And the question is, how can we be sure about such things, therefore, whether they should be included in the Bible or omitted? And I understand the, the kind of thinking that is behind that. It's confusing, isn't it? You read your Bible with all good intention in the world and come across a verse and, uh, think about it and learn it, and then some awkward man comes along, like your lecturer, and says, oh, but that verse isn't in the Bible.
How on earth are you to know, do you see? And is not the man, uh, taking away from the word of God by saying such things shouldn't be there? The reason is not a question of translation here. How are you going to translate this? The question is first, um, what are you going to translate? The Bible, as we know, was not issued at first in a printed edition. Every copy had to be written out by hand. I don't know how many of us would have a Bible if we had to write our s- our own out by hand.
Still say. When you write things out by hand, in the end, I I would defy anybody to write out a whole New Testament without making a mistake somewhere or other, however careful you are. When we look at these copies, these ancient copies written out by hand, I'm telling you nothing but the sheer truth, you will find that in them there are many, many mistakes. Mercifully, they're not all in the same place, you see, they're in different places. And therefore, when we come to translate the New Testament, we've first got to take those manuscripts, compare them one with another, and where they differ because of mistakes or additions or s- or somebody's gone and left a bit out or something, we first have to decide what was the original text.
Now that evident- obviously is a task for experts. It is a gigantic task. Nowadays they use computers for it. Part of the reason is that there are so many hundreds and thousands of manuscripts anyway. Let me tell you at once the verdict of people who know in these things, the great experts, is that having compared all these things, these manuscripts together, the amount of uncertainty as to whether this or that was what was originally written is less than two percent. And of that two percent, mostly it concerns little matters that don't make any difference to the sense whatsoever.
And thirdly, no major doctrine of the faith remains uncertain, because in the wisdom of God, no major doctrine of the faith depends on one isolated verse. And the major doctrines are taught us all over the place. So if you cannot consult the ex- the the the the manuscripts yourself, then be assured by your friends who can that this is the situation. Now, some translations of the Bible and some editions of the Bible will themselves give you that information i- in the margin or in the footnotes.
Here is a very ancient translation by a good gentleman known as J. N. Darby, of whom some of you will have heard. His, um, faith in the inspiration of scripture was second to none, absolute immovable faith in the inspiration of scripture. And here in one John five, he has a little, uh, note, you'll see. To avoid any mistake, he says, I add in a note at the bottom of the page what I have omitted in the text. So if you look at his text, you'll, you'll find that that verse that I omitted, JMW omitted too. And you might think I'm a little bit doubtful, but I hope you don't think that his faith in inspiration of scripture was doubtful.
Mm. Excommunicate me, don't excommunicate him. I might warn you he might excommunicate you, but that's another story. But he, as your good brother in the Lord, is telling you what he knows from having consulted the manuscripts, that that verse was not part of the original, it was added later on. Or if you have a large edition of the, uh, uh, of the New, uh, International Version at that place, it too, I think I'm right in saying, will have a footnote to, um, tell you about it. It says this verse that's omitted.
Late manuscripts of the Vulgate have this added, and that is so. It came first into the Vulgate as a result of some of the theological speculations, uh, of the theologians at that time about the Trinity. And they added this verse in the Vulgate, and from the Vulgate it found itself, its way into later manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It never was original. So it's not a question of cutting out some of the Bible. It is a question of doing our best to get back to what the original manuscripts had.
Of course, uh, for our missionary brethren, that is a very real and practical problem, isn't it? When they go out to the mission field and they've got to translate the Bible into some impossibly new language, do they, they first have to decide, well, now what are we going to translate? And for them, scholars have written quite a largest book, oh, it would be the size of this at any rate, that goes through the New Des- New Testament over such big issues as this and discusses with you. Now here the manuscripts go differently, uh, do you see? Now which one should you follow here? And they will discuss with you the reasons why you should follow this one or that one, though of course they leave the decision to you.
And if you're interested at that level, well, go down to the uh Hibernian Bible Society down there in Howard Street or wherever it is, and they'll gladly sell you a copy of the book, and you can see the kind of discussions that the scholars go through as they examine the manuscripts and come to decide for this one rather than that one in any place. There is no great mystery about it, uh, you'll see, though the matters are technical and difficult. One little question cropped up on our team. Uh, that doesn't cast any reflection on the rest of the ninety eight percent that you referred to. Uh, most of us are not scholars. We're not really terribly interested in translations.
Uh, we want to know what God's saying to us. Amen. We can take the rest of it for ourselves. Is that? Oh, amen. And let me add, you'll see, uh, I am or was a textual critic, not of New Testament, but Old Testament. Textual critics are animals that look after manuscripts and study them and, uh, come to decide, uh, which, when they differ, which better represents the original in any place. It was my task for some years to think about these things in the Old Testament, and that, I might tell you, is a far more complicated thing than the new. And having spent my, a great deal of my life in it, I tell you here and now, I believe in the inspiration of the word of God one hundred percent.
Yeah. If I wanted to, I could tell you about difficulties. I don't want to this afternoon, but in spite of all the difficulties, I believe in it one hundred percent. That said, we must be realists. It's no good saying, well, I believe it because it's in the authorized version, and if you deny that, you're d- you're, you're destroying the word of God. The question is, where did the authorized version come from? From what manuscripts was it translated? Were they good manuscripts or not so good? Take the worst old manuscript you ever set eyes on, and if that's the only one you've got, use it, my brother. There's enough in it of the truth to get folks converted and see them home to heaven. Mm.
Well, now, where do we begin? Uh, here comes a question that arises out of our recent study. Can I pray in faith for my children to be saved and be sure that they will be saved? That is talking about confidence. We can have confidence before God in prayer. Well, I haven't got any children, so I must hear, I suppose, what the parents say. I can tell you what my own parents, uh, did. My own father used to tell us, his children, that when we were born, each time he kneeled down by our cradle and claimed the verse given in Acts sixteen to the centurion, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved in thy house.
And he claimed it for us and asked the Lord that if we were ever going to grow up, not to be believers, rather than that to take us home before we came to the age of responsibility. And he meant what he prayed. And I can tell you all his children are believers. For my own part, it seems to me that, uh, as far as knowing the will of God is, God himself has declared himself. He does not will that any should perish. That's not his will, that any should perish. And I personally, if I were a parent, would take my stand on that.
And on the positive side, he would have all to be saved. Now, for my own part, and I say this in the haste of this moment, you'll see, but in all due respect to others who would disagree, but I take our Lord's wor- uh, uh, the words of scripture that God would have all men to be saved, not to mean simply that he would have men of all kinds to be saved, but that he means what he says when he said he would have all men to be saved and would stretch out his hands even to the disobedient. Wasn't our Lord's fault that Jerusalem wasn't saved. Oh, Jerusalem, I would, he said. And presumably he meant what he said.
And presumably he wasn't misrepresenting the Father when he said, I would, and many times I would have gathered your children. If they're not gathered, if they're lost, it's your fault. So without discussing the great complications of man's free will, yet as far as God's will goes, if I were a parent. The promise is to you and your children. Yes. Is it right to rely on the promise of God as far as your children are concerned? Well, sir. Good question. Yes, good question. My brethren sitting around, you know, I got my eye on them, uh, ha ha.
I was careful what I say. In that chapter, strictly speaking, the promise is to you and your children. Peter is addressing the Jewish nation and therefore quoting from the Old Testament prophecy and promise to the Jewish nation, to you and your children. Yes, it doesn't do away with the fact that many of those children chose to reject the promise, does it? And certainly they had, uh, free will. But as far as God is concerned, I was merely asking a question. If we know that we pray according to his will, well, in praying for our children, surely we pray according to his will.
But, uh, I'm not a parent, and so I better cease. There are many parents here. What do you feel? To put it the other way around, my children prayed for me, and I came to the Lord. Oh, amen. You see, I feel a very great sorrow here, um, problem, and I don't want to increase anybody's anguish. When genuine dear believers in the Lord prayed years for their children, and they've gone out into the world and sometimes come to their end without giving any indication of repentance. Now, what do parents say to me when I, when I say these things?
Christian parents, come on. I think the question of mastery will must be Surely. Surely. I don't think it's fair to refute the verse, train up a child and await him to go, and when he is old he shall not depart. And to make the corollary there, if the child does depart, it must be in parents' fault. I don't think that's Oh, surely not. No, surely not. Surely not. I think it's a fair privilege and duty and responsibility to pay for the children from birth or even before it, and after that, the environment in which the children are brought up, the parents should, uh, live a life that would recommend the gospel or the Christianity.
Mm-hmm. My, my father, I must say, didn't leave it in that sense. You know, he prayed on the one side, on the other he had us taught in scripture. By the time I was ten, I knew all about Ahab and a good deal about Jezebel as well, and all sorts of things. He had my mind stored with Holy Scripture long before I came to personal faith. There is another question, perhaps we ought to move on then. Uh, another question on this sheet. What is the sin unto death mentioned in the chapter that we read, chapter five? There is a sin unto death.
And as you saw in the talk, I skated around it, uh, coward as I am, you see, hoping that you would settle it in your discussion groups. What is the sin unto death? As far as I know, three suggestions have been made. One, the one I gave you. Based upon such passages as one Corinthians eleven, Which says of believers that if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, so that we should not be condemned with the world.
For this cause, says Paul, many are sick and weakly among you, and many sleep, and some rather have sleep, some have fallen on sleep, meaning presumably under the discipline of God. For if as believers we do not discern ourselves and we do not judge ourselves and we go on living carelessly. Then the Lord will deal with us. We'll see, every time we take the cup of the Lord at the Lord's Supper, we are taking the cup of a covenant, whereby our Lord guarantees and pledges himself that he will write God's laws on our heart. Now, normally he does that with our cooperation, as we, uh, judge ourselves and confess our sin and seek his grace to overcome it.
But if we grow careless, then the Lord will take us in hand. He pledged to do it, so that we shall not be condemned with the world. If it is so that a believer has so misbehaved, that the Lord has decided in this case he must take him home, better for all concerned, better for the testimony, better for the church he's in, better for his family, then there's a sense in which, whatever you say, the Lord won't listen to your prayers.
I don't say that you should pray for such a one, says John. But there are other cases where the Lord might be disciplining his people and is prepared to listen to the intercessions of some godly friend of theirs, like he listened to Abram's intercessions and spared Lot from destruction in the city of Sodom. That's one explanation then. Others have thought that the sin unto death is not just a, a, a, a, a, a, when a believer has sinned grievously and the Lord has decided to take him home, but it is talking about the unpardonable sin.
Uh, somebody has committed a sin and there is no possibility of renewing such and one to repentance, and therefore you waste your breath if you try to pray for them. You'll see. Well, I suppose it could mean that. I think the difficulty is going to be when you come to the other side, those that don't sin unto death, then who are they? Who nonetheless need life given them. For the question is praying for those who have sinned but have not sinned unto death and need life. In what sense, therefore? In my own thinking, uh, someone that, uh, in the sense of Hebrews six, who having tasted of the heavenly gift falls aside, I think that passage is talking of apostates, and in my book, I don't think apostates were ever true believers at all.
They were like the men of whom we read in chapter two. They went out from us because they were not of us. They never were. They made a profession. It wasn't real. They were illuminated, but they never did repent or believe. They were never born again. With their eyes open, they have turned away from the gospel. You won't renew them again to repentance, even if you try, you'll never get them to change their minds. Some have said a third case, that this is talking about the ordinary unconverted person, who, while he goes on sinning, has not yet rejected the gospel knowingly, with his eyes open, and that if you pray for him, God will give you life.
That is, he'll bring the man to conversion. But of course, if it's a case of a person who, having heard the gospel and had his eyes opened and has knowingly rejected it, they have committed then the unpardonable sin. Of those three, the one that, uh, seems to me to be better, eh, is the first one. Anybody here would like to, to urge the other ones? Anyone feel that there is some consideration that is conclusive? The Bible talks about those that attributed the miracles and works of Jesus to beelzebul. They did indeed. Was that not a sin?
Oh, it was, I'm afraid, and it was a sin, uh, uh, of which our Lord warned them with neither forgiveness, neither in this age or in the age to come. I think, to my mind, that is a pardon, unpardonable. Oh, surely. It's not the unpardonable sin. But an a unpardonable. Is there such a thing as the unpardonable sin? Oh. Well, sir, thank you for it. The, the, the place you quote where our Lord did a miracle in the power of the Holy Spirit, and his enemies, at least some of them, they didn't deny that it was a supernatural power. They couldn't deny it. There was the evidence straight in front of their eyes. They couldn't deny the miracle had taken place.
It was there in front of their eyes. It was a supernatural power, but they were so determined not to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, that they were prepared to attribute that miracle to the devil then. And our Lord takes the occasion to argue with them and to show them that they are being deliberately and utterly perverse. In maintaining that he was of the devil, they were contradicting every axiom of thought and behavior that they would normally apply. They were being knowingly and deliberately and utterly perverse.
I take it, as Mr. Gilpin says, that if a man has his eyes opened like that and can see that this is a supernatural power and can see really this is the Holy Spirit, but is determined not to give in and therefore says that the Holy Spirit is the devil. Then what else has God got left with which to convince the man? There comes a point, doesn't there, when God has given all he can give. The last evidence God has got to give is his Holy Spirit directly illuminating the mind of a man or woman. When God has done that, if the person said no, what has God got left with which to bring them to repentance anyway?
That is a very solemn thought. It is possible for God to show himself to a man, and the man and woman finally say no, and go their way. I myself would think that whether in our Lord's lifetime or subsequently, unpardonable sins, sins of which there can be no repentance, are sins of that order. Could we move on then? We shall have to for time's sake, I think. Uh, let's come here. Well, that one's done. You mentioned that light is or can be a metaphor of moral qualities, namely holiness and purity.
Could you please show how it is used as such a metaphor in scripture, expanding a little on what you have said already? Well, in our first Saturday, I was suggesting that light, in the first place, uh, has to do with things intellectual and of the mind. God's self-revealing of himself intellectually, the opposite of darkness, of ignorance and falsity. It is truth. But also, I suggested, it is a matter of moral purity, not just intellectual. If you want a citation of a verse that seems to say that, Isaiah, for instance, chapter five and verse twenty seems to me to be using the metaphor in that sense.
Isaiah five twenty: Woe unto them that call evil good. So now we're in the realm of things moral, that call evil good, and good. And then illustrating it, he adds, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. And then illustrating it again, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Here then the words light and darkness are used in a moral context, light standing for what is good, darkness standing for what is evil.
And God complains that the people confound the two. In the New Testament, it seems to me its usage indicates that it's not merely a matter of truth, but also of moral quality. John chapter three is the verse I would quote. Everybody that doeth good cometh to the light that his deeds may be made evident that they are wrought in God. Everybody that doeth evil, he doesn't come to the light, he hates the light because his works are evil. And though there is the idea there of exposure, what it's exposing is moral evil or moral worth.
But now to a more difficult question. The question says, the text in one John chapter four, uh one John chapter four, verse two: Hereby know you the Spirit of God. Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. Or every spirit that confesses that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh is of God. And the remark here is the text in chapter four verse two doesn't seem very comprehensive, especially in the light of Mark five, six, and seven.
So now we better look at Mark five, six, and seven. Mark five, six, and seven talks about the demoniac, man inhabited by many demons. When he saw Jesus from afar, Mark five, six, he ran and worshiped him, and crying out with a loud voice, he says, what have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not. For he had said unto him, come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man. And you see what the questioner is saying.
Here is a man inhabited by a legion of evil spirits. In spite of that, when they protest, he or they or both acknowledge Jesus as the Son of the Most High God. And therefore our question is states, well, how is the test given us in one John four two any good? Because, uh, if spirits, evil spirits are prepared to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, well, then they, if the test were applied to them, they would come through it with flying colors. But that isn't quite true, is it?
When we are dealing with evil spirits, then we are aware, must be aware that we're dealing with something exceedingly sophisticated. You will notice that one John four two doesn't say every spirit that confesses that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God is of God, does it? It doesn't actually, no. What you're required to confess is not that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, but that he is the Christ come in flesh. You'll see many spirits and many false systems like theosophy, if you ask them about the Lord Jesus, would have said, of course he's the Son of God.
Then they'd add, we're all sons of God anyway. And God being the Most High, yes, Jesus is the Son of God Most High. Everybody is the Son of God Most High anyway. What they wouldn't confess if you pressed them is that Jesus is the Christ. Because though they believe he is in some sense, not in our sense, but in their sense, the Son of God. They hold that the Christ is the great world spirit. They will not admit that Jesus is the Christ. They'll twist all the ways around, they know how.
They'll say that Jesus, the Christ used Jesus, or Jesus was filled with the Christ. They will not admit that Jesus is the Christ. And I take it that John is being exceedingly exact when he lays down this test. Not then is Jesus the Son of God Most High, for spirits will normally admit that. They'll then add that we all are sons of God Most High anyway. One of the things to nail them is what John exactly says, is he the Christ come in the flesh. Hello.
I just would like to read it out and maybe make a bit of comment on it. Matthew, uh, chapter, uh, seven, verse twenty one, and it gives us, gives us quite a, an open into what can happen. Not everyone that said unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Then he will profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that worketh for mephitai. Now that's very strong words given. Well, I, I think here we must take our Lord very, very seriously. We've been thinking in, uh, our studies through the Epistle of John of the tests that are given us as to whether, uh, we are, our profession of faith is genuine. Now, we are to notice that in those tests, John doesn't say, look, if you have prophesied or if you have cast out a demon, you are a child of God. It's possible to prophesy and cast out demons and not to be a child of God.
Our Lord warns us about it. So that we must be very careful, you see, to listen to these things, these tests that our Lord himself gives us. It's not because he's narrow-minded or something like that. In that day, people will come and say we cast out demons in your name, we prophesied in your name. Our Lord will say, sorry. But that is not the test as to whether a person is a child of God or not. I don't want to be rude, but you see Balaam's donkey prophesied at one stage, didn't he? Not necessarily a test that somebody is a child of God. So thank you very much, David.
And on this very same line, in John chapter two verse uh nineteen, talking of false teachers, John says, they went out from us, for they were not of us. Compare that, he says, with Jude verse fourteen— uh, sorry, verse four, which says, evil men crept in. That's the opposite movement, you see, unawares. Does that suggest the Christian community that John speaks of was in a more spiritual state than that to which Jude wrote? Because John says the false teachers have gone out of ours, and Jude has to say, well, I'm sorry, but the bad boys have crept in ours, do you see?
Well, it may be because the, um, uh, group to which Jude wrote was, um, not being vigilant that this has happened. So it could be because they weren't so spiritual. On the other hand, uh, be it noticed that the false teachers that John speaks of were already in the church, weren't they? And one would hesitate to attribute that to the fact that John and his contemporaries had not been as careful as they could. So that, uh, I don't know that we must necessarily blame the people in Jude. Paul has to complain to the Galatians that certain men have crept in unawares, you see, spying out our liberty and so forth.
It was a trouble in the ancient church. It should remind us, I think, that being a member of a Christian church, formally and externally, is no guarantee that you are a genuine believer, is it? So while we're not to be, uh, uh, heresy hunting, we take it to our own hearts. We must make sure that we are saved. Yes, and to go on further, concerning various heresies abroad today, which John was aware of, could you please clarify the fact that Christ was the eternal Son? Well, if I wanted to clarify the fact that Christ was the eternal Son, I think the first verse I would go to is in one John, and chapter two, Whoso- verse twenty three: whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.
He that confesseth the Son has the Father also. Now I must be careful what I say because there are folks about whose salvation we have no doubt, who nonetheless have decided that the term Son, when used of the Lord Jesus, is a term that denotes an office that he took up when he became incarnate. They hold that he existed before, he was the second person of the Trinity from all eternity, but before he was incarnate, the relationship he had with God was not that of son to father.
So they believe in his eternal existence, that he was eternally the second person of the Trinity. They feel that the term son was a something that was given him at his incarnation. Their intention is not to cast any doubt upon the person of our Lord, you'll see. And they will quote to you verses such as, this day have thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, suggesting that this was a thing in time rather than eternity. With all due respect, nonetheless, I would point them myself to verse twenty three.
Whoso denieth the son, the same is not the father. I take that to be a logical consequence. If there is no son of God, then you can't have a father, can you? What? Can't be a father of nothing. So if there was a time when Jesus wasn't the Son, there was a time when the first person in the Trinity wasn't the Father, surely. And therefore, if, if, if you say that the relationship Father-Son was something that only happened at the incarnation, you would be obliged to hold that God wasn't the Father until then. That I should want to say is false.
According to John chapter five, that, uh, my Father, he said, worketh hitherto, and I work hitherto. Whatever the Son sees the Father doing, that he does in the same manner. Could I ask something about verse twenty Yeah. of First John two. The second part in the authorized version is in italics. Yes. Does that mean that when we see italics in a verse, that that is not included in the original manual? Yeah, exactly right, sir. That is to say, if you're reading an authorized version, that was the device that the authorized translators used when they put in words that weren't in any Greek manuscripts whatsoever.
They just put them in to help out the sense. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just to explain the Yes, the translator adding a word to try and bring out what he thinks the sense is. Yes. But the fact they put it in italics means that they didn't find it in any Greek manuscript whatsoever, but are adding it as translations, translators to help out the sense. Well, let's try and, uh, and move on. Uh, we shall need... Oh dear, dear, dear. Um, uh, let me appear to be arbitrary. In Hebrews, we have the phrase in the days of his flesh. You'll see. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had uttered up, offered up prayers with supplication and tears. In the days of his flesh, which seems to imply that for Jesus, those days are past.
Hear what it said. In the days of his flesh, he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, referring presumably to Gethsemane, and implying that those days are past, as distinct from what he is now. And therefore the question says, can it then be said that at his second advent Christ will come in the flesh? You see the point. I would suggest that here we, we start by listening to actual verses. Acts chapter, uh, one said the angels about the rising Lord to the apostles, this same Jesus shall so come.
The Jesus who in the resurrection appeared to them was a Jesus who said, a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as you see me have. I do have flesh and bone, even in the day of his resurrection. As he went up, they said this same Jesus shall come again. How then can Hebrews talk about the days of his flesh? I take Hebrews to be meaning, using its term to denote this, that our Lord now has a resurrection body. One Corinthians fifteen explains it. There is a natural body, there is a spiritual body. When our Lord was born here on earth, he had a natural body.
Now he has a spiritual body. His body could come through doors without the doors opening, you may remember. So I take it when Hebrews is talking, using its phrase, the days of his flesh, it is talking about the days, in other words, when he had a natural body. That natural body he doesn't have now. I take it that the term flesh in that context refers to that natural body, as distinct now from his spiritual body. That spiritual body has flesh and bone, but it is predominantly energized, moves by a different principle. It is a spiritual body.
Hence the contrast between the days of his flesh and now the times when he has a spiritual body. Does the gift of discernment still exist today when dealing with spirits? One Corinthians twelve ten. My answer would be, well, I should hope so. Huh. We need every help we can get, aren't we? And some men have, uh, given them of God a power of discernment that all is not well in certain situations. Deceivers, when Satan himself can turn himself into an angel of light. It needs sometimes God-given discernment, doesn't it, to detect, hello, hello, hello, something is not right here.
This is false doctrine, actually. And sometimes it is difficult for people at large to see it is false doctrine, and it requires God-given discernment. If a man has Christ and eternal life, he is my brother in Christ, and we share a common life, that is fellowship. What differences in doctrine, if any, should I consider important enough to cause me to break fellowship with him? And this cites the gifts of the Spirit and the role of women in the church and such like things. I think here we have to attempt, by God's grace, to hold the kind of balance that John would hold.
When we talk of heretics, we must be aware of what we're talking. We're talking about enemies of God. We must never allow our desire to stand loyal to the Lord and to stand against heretics to topple over into hardness of spirit against true believers, surely. The Old Testament tells us of a man whose name was Jephthah. After fighting some splendid battles for the Lord, he went down to the fords of Jordan. And when fellow Israelites came across, he said, say Shibboleth. And some of them, they meant to say it, but couldn't quite say it the right way around, and they went and said Siboleth. So he cut their heads off. They were his own Israelite brethren.
At a slightly different pronunciation, but meant the same. But he cut their heads off. He's not surely held out to us as an example to follow. We must be, uh, able to distinguish between enemies of God and children of God, surely. That said, we must distinguish, mustn't we must go on the other side. Notice what scripture says, that true love for the children of God will mean that we keep the commandments of God. Now, surely there are bigger and lesser things.
There are things that are fundamental. There are things that are not fundamental. But in the governing of a church, for instance, elders will want to see that church carry out the commandments of God as they understand them, won't they? And therefore, when it comes to the Lord's people, some of us don't always obey Holy Scripture as we should. And here, I s- presume elders in a church have a right to ask members of the church to obey Holy Scripture. At least what it this church, this is what this church believes is the commandment of the Lord.
And where not, if they hold a different opinion on that, well, then they who hold the different opinion will presumably respect the order of the church and not ruin the order of a church in order to press for something that even they themselves do not regard as a fundamental. In other words, again, receiving all who are the Lord's people, yes, surely we are commanded to. On the other hand, whom we allow to teach in the church, that's a different story altogether. And sometimes we confound those two things, don't we?
Yes, receive, I repeat, all the Lord's people who are living godly lives, but who you allow to teach, well, that's a different story. Uh, to press on, in as much as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me. Does this mean that... I suppose that's that. The good we do to others who are not our brothers, that is, for instance, to the third world, is not regarded as done unto and for the Lord? Now, this question arises for something I said, as I say so many things in great haste and therefore lack of clarity, last week.
I was talking about loving the children of God, that it is an evidence that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. And I said, we need to be very careful. This is not loving people in general. This is loving the brethren, that is, the true children of God. And I made the point rather hastily that sometimes the parable in Matthew twenty five is quoted by the world at large, where our Lord says, in as much as you've done it unto the one, the least of these, my brethren, you've done it unto me. And therefore, the world takes the words to mean that if they've given their pound to Oxfam, they are, uh, they've done it unto Christ.
And what I was trying to point out there was that that is not necessarily so at all. What our Lord is talking about in that parable is giving to one of Christ's brethren, and doing it because he is Christ's brother. When the Lord comes, he will reward that as though it were done to himself, because it has been done to one of his brethren. If you then ask, how do you become one of Christ's brethren? And are all men Christ's brethren? Well, the answer, of course, no, they're not all Christ's brethren, are they?
He loves mankind, but they're not all his brethren. You wouldn't call Caiaphas a brother of Christ, would you? And how we become Christ's brethren is be by being born again. So that was what I was trying to say. But now my questioner very fairly comes at it the other way round and says, right ho, but what about a believer here, do you see, some dear lady who is a believer and does give some money to famine relief to the third world? Will not the Lord say, yes, you've done it unto me? Will he not reward her? And the answer is, of course he will. You've done it unto the Lord, says Paul to Christian slaves who are working for the most unregenerate masters you could possibly get, bad old rapscallions, cursing blackguards.
Do your job for them, and you'll get a reward for the Lord. For in our daily life, even working for the boss, we're serving the Lord Christ, and he will reward you. So if you've given to the famine relief in the third world, of course the Lord will reward you. Yes. You'll count it as though you'd done it to him. All I was saying that the other way around isn't true. If a kindly atheist now gives his Oxfam relief to somebody who is also an atheist, he mustn't suppose that the Lord is regarding that as having been given to one of his brethren. That's all. And why that is important is this, that in that parable, when the sheep are divided from the goat, the criterion that is used is, how have you treated my brothers?
That's what John is saying. We know we've passed from death unto life because we love the brothers. Yes, those that have treated Christ's brothers that way will inherit eternal life, says the Lord. It's the evidence that they are true believers. But an atheist giving relief to a fellow atheist is no evidence at all that the man is a true believer. Ah, we're getting through. Mm. One Corinthians three twelve would seem to indicate that one may be just, sorry, that one may just be saved as through fire.
Could you please clarify how this teaching tallies with that of First John? And there were a number of questions along that very same line. John writes in what seems like extreme terms. Things are either black or white. To understand what he has written, we seem to be weakening his statements. Is this correct? If so, is this what John intended? And what these two questions have in mind is this. John says that he that sinneth is of the devil, full stop. He that does righteousness is of God, full stop. And you might get the impression that there's no in between.
Have we weakened it? Have I weakened it when I said that it means he who continues to practice sin is of the devil. Am I weakening what John says? I would want to say no, and say it on a linguistic basis. Sorry, this language thing, but in Greek, a present tense can have a number of connotations. It can mean a point action, I do something right now. Or it can indicate a repeated and constant action. I am doing something, or I normally do something, or I constantly do something.
Uh, and which it, um, uh, means we have to settle by the context. Our English word is similarly difficult. When is your auntie coming? Today or tomorrow? Oh, she is coming. Huh. Funny, isn't it? How English is a funny language. She is coming, what at the moment? Tomorrow. A present tense used of tomorrow. That's very funny, isn't it? Only we know our English well enough not to be upset by that kind of thing. We're quite happy to use a present tense of the future. Some of the other continentals thinks we're cracked, of course. They might be right. They can't use their present tense of a future event tomorrow.
So you have to know the language and know which of its uses is being used in any one context. Some Indian friends say, my father is coming from Madras. You say, what, on the night plane or something? No, no, no, no, they mean my father comes from Madras. But they haven't got quite our English usage, you see, our present tenses, and they've heard us say my father is coming from Madras, meaning on the night plane tonight. And then they want to tell us my father originates in Madras, so they say my father is coming from Madras. But then they should be, we know what they mean, so we don't embarrass them, but uh uh, they meant to say my father comes from Madras, yes?
There's difficulties of language, aren't they? And sometimes in the New Testament, a present tense will mean one thing, and sometimes it will mean another. I take it in these passages, it's being used as a durative, as we call it, means he that practices sin. And what strengthens me in that belief is what John himself says, because having made this remark, he that doeth sin is of the devil, do you see? He then tells us that, of course, if we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves, and if we say we have no sin, likewise, you see, we make God a liar. And as if any man sin, John himself allows the possibility that the believer from time to time does slip up and fail.
But then he has the advocate and the propitiation, and the believer normally doesn't go on continuing in sin. The other question on the orange paper reminds me that in one Corinthians three twelve, it is implied that a believer can go very far into sin and still be a believer. Eh, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ and our works are investigated, Paul envisages the possibility that a man's works will be burned up. That's a very poor life, isn't it? Adds, but he himself shall be saved, yet though as by fire.
From which we observe, surely, how patient the Lord is, how far we can go in our inconsistencies. You say, where does the line come that you could say very definitely that this man, who professes to be a believer, but he isn't living as he should, ah, he is a believer that's temporarily inconsistent. And this man, he professes to be a believer, but I think he's gone beyond the limit and can't be a believer at all. Where comes the, the deciding line? As far as I know, we don't know, brethren. It's not given for us to say, is it? We are well to take the advice of Paul. The foundation of God stands sure.
The Lord knows them that are his. That's God's side. But on our side, let him that nameth the name of Christ do, uh, depart from iniquity. I want myself to be regarded by my fellow believers as a genuine believer, then I have the responsibility to depart from iniquity, and if I don't, I'm raising very severe doubts as to whether my profession of faith is genuine. The Lord is the final arbiter. The Lord knoweth them that are his. Now we have no minutes left, have we?
Pardon? No, we have, we have, um... Pardon? The tape's still running. Keep going. Tape's still running. Oh, but I've got too many questions to answer. Yes, sir. Well, I- I think in fairness to you, and and perhaps for those that have to travel a distance, that we should maybe call it to a halt at that point. Uh, there's no way we're going to get all the questions, and a number of these are really not, uh, concerned with our seminar studies of this kind of First John, although they have evolved from that. Uh. I think there is one way of doing it. No. And come back next year.
And if we call the meeting to a formal end now, those of you who have put in questions and haven't had answers, if you would care to, I shall not rush away, and I'm quite happy to sit down and answer your question privately. But I think we ought to keep, uh, faith with the people, call the meeting to an end formally, and let those who wish depart. Just before I proceed to the questions, I wonder, would you allow me to say a few words once more about this matter of overcoming? As we have seen from the Epistle of John, it is a topic, uh, that looms quite large in these chapters. Chapter two, the young men are said to be strong.
They have overcome the evil one.
