Policy Against Housing False Teachers

Compare with 1 John 4:1. John speaks of an essential Christian doctrine - the full humanity of Christ (see below). John uses Christ's full name Jesus Christ to stress both his human and divine natures. See 1 John 4:2-3.

The deceivers were docetists, who denied the reality of Christ's human nature (cf. 1 John 4:2-3). Not only are these people who deny the full humanity of Jesus Christ deceivers, they are also antichrists. See 1 John 2:18-19. As Stott says:

Jesus himself warned the apostles of the rise of "false Christs and false prophets" who would attempt to deceive even the elect, and of whom they were to take heed (Mark 13:22-23). The Lord's prophecy was fulfilled. John wrote in his first letter of the "many false prophets" who were abroad (1 John 4:1) and here he calls them many deceivers. In both passages, although there the tense is perfect and here aorist, he describes them as having gone out into the world. The verb exelthon may refer to their having left the church, for the same verb occurs in the same tense in 1 John 2:19. But it seems more likely that the language is deliberately reminiscent of the mission of Christ and of his apostles. Christ was being aped by antichrist. The Son had 'gone out' from the Father into the world (John 7:29; 8:42; 13:3), and had sent forth the apostles into the world (John 17:18; 20:21; cf. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 and 3 John 7 which also has exelthon). Perhaps the implication is that as the apostles were sent forth into the world to preach the truth, so these false teachers had gone forth to teach lies, as emissaries of the devil, the father of lies. At all events, we are to think of them as itinerant false prophets, travelling along the great Roman roads of Asia Minor, seeking to insinuate their error into the churches they visited. "From their own point of view, they were Christian missionaries. From the standpoint of the Presbyter they were impostors" (Dodd).

in the flesh, antichrist. See notes on 1 Jn. 2:18-19; 4:2-3. One of the key marks of Christian identity is a clear confession of apostolic Christology. In his first letter, John described those who do not believe Jesus has come from God in the flesh are not born of God, but are anti-Christ (see notes on 1 John 4:1-3). Their denial of the incarnation negates Jesus' mission to give himself as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of his people (see notes on 1 Jn. 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10). Those false confessors who left the fellowship and "went out into the world" are still trying to deceive the faithful.

According to Marshall, "The Christian life leads in the end to a reward, and failure to persevere in the truth (and in right conduct) can lead to loss of what God has promised to his people." 2 John 1:8 does not speak about the possibility of losing one's salvation. This is impossible. See "The Perseverance and Preservation of Believers: Can I Lose My Salvation?" below. Failure to persevere in Christ reveals one was never saved in the first place! Note, Christians work hard for many reasons, but not to earn their salvation (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit 2:14) because salvation is the work of Christ alone. See BC 24.

A person who welcomes a false teacher into his house actually promotes the purpose of his visitor. In effect, the Christian gives his blessing to the work the false teacher performs. This is not an innocent and insignificant act. John calls it sharing in wicked work that originates with Satan (cf. 1 John 3:12).

lose, reward. See BC 24. John is concerned, not that church members will lose their salvation, rather, that they will lose rewards in heaven (see notes on Matt. 6:20; Mk. 9:41; Lk. 19:16-19). Having worked so hard together to cultivate their congregation in the ways of Christ, they could compromise their congregation if they allow the false teachers to lead other people astray. Some Greek manuscripts say what we have worked for, as John has worked hard with them to build this community. He does not want them to lose the ground they have gained through well-intentioned but harmful practical support offered to false teachers in the form of hospitality.

See WCF 10.4.

"Runs ahead" refers to leaving the truth behind. Regarding this, Kistemaker says, "The words imply that a church member at times ventures beyond the boundaries of established doctrine." The true teachings of Scripture and true Church doctrines are like the painted lines on a highway that are saying by their imagery, do not go to the left or to the right, stay in the middle or you will crash.

Some deny that these absolute boundaries even exist. We observe this in the legalism and antinomianism movements within the Church today. The ever-present danger in the so-called postmodern church (see below), or emerging church, is their rejection of absolute truth and creation of their own values outside the boundaries set by the Word of God. In its relativism, this faction for many leads to denying the established biblical boundaries of Scripture, thus confirming the y never knew Christ at all. See "The Church: Visible and Invisible: Is Everyone in the Church Saved?" below.

goes on ahead. The teaching of John's opponents may have offered a "further and deeper spirituality" than John's gospel. But John's imagery warns readers they should not leave behind the gospel they heard from eyewitnesses in the beginning. John's point here is to urge his readers to resist false teaching that separates knowing God the Father from knowing his Son, Jesus Christ (see notes on 1 Jn. 5:12-13). On Father and Son, see note on Jn. 14:23. Both the Father and the Son indwell a Christian through the Holy Spirit.

See WCF 20.4. In these verses, John is telling his readers how they can practically deal with itinerant false teachers. In ancient culture, travelers depended on hospitality from family and friends. However, by accepting a person into their home, a host would be saying to the rest of the community that their guest was worthy of respect. John warns his readers not to host false teachers who are trying to disrupt and deceive Christian communities.

Itinerant teachers in the early Church frequently received hospitality from local Christians (cf. 3 John 1). The error against which John warned was so serious that he advised total separation. The rejection of fellowship with false teachers contrasts sharply with the exhortation in 3 John 1:5-8,10 to welcome believers who were proclaiming the true gospel. See WCF 20.4; BC 7. Kistemaker remarks:

But is this prohibition not a departure from the early Christian rule to entertain strangers (Heb. 13:2), that is, travelers who seek shelter and food? Some commentators, therefore, have suggested that we may "decline to accept the Presbyter's ruling here as a sufficient guide to Christian conduct." We demur. John is not talking about the traveler who needs lodging for the night. He is referring to the teacher who intends to destroy the church of Jesus Christ.

As is evident from the New Testament (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2), churches often met in the homes of individual persons. In other words, the expression house may have a broader connotation.

Should a Christian be concerned about the soul of this teacher? Yes, by taking full control of the situation, he should instruct the teacher in the doctrines of Christ. But he must never allow the teacher to enter the Christian's home and permit him to teach! The word teacher in Jewish and early Christian circles was a title that demanded deference and submission. "Pupils were in duty bound to respect and obey their teacher." Christians, then, ought to pay homage to a teacher but never to a false prophet.

do not receive. See BC 7. From the beginning, Christian missionaries have depended on the hospitality of others (see notes on Matt. 10:9-14 and 3 Jn 5-6). Some travelling philosophers would charge fees for their teaching, but Christians normally demonstrated practical support by providing food and lodging. However, John establishes a policy to turn away known false teachers.

John instructs his readers not to enable or encourage the work of those who actively oppose the real Gospel. Smalley summarizes it this way:

This verse belongs with 2 John 1:10, and must be interpreted in the light of what the elder has just said. In 2 John 1:10 he has spoken of the need to resist the peddlers of doctrinal error who, in their travels, seek a platform from which to spread their false ideas about the person of Jesus. Such are not to be welcomed officially, for this implies a real participation in their "evil deeds."

2 John 1:11 also relates to the visible Church or denomination today. If false teaching springs up in a Church (denomination) that one is attending, then the attendee has an obligation to: (1) confront the false doctrine (Matt 18:15 ff; Gal. 6:1 ff) and (2) if there is no repentance, to no longer support the work of said Church by word, deed, giving, etc. However, the saint must be careful to discern what is false and what is error. As Dr. Albert Mohler explains in "Should I Stay or Should I Go?":

When should an evangelical Christian separate from a church? That question is asked often these days, and it betrays more than one problem in contemporary Christianity. Far too many church members have become church shoppers. The biblical concept of ecclesiology has given way to a form of consumerism in which individuals shop around for the church that seems most to their liking at that moment. The issue can concern worship and music, relationships, teaching, or any number of other things. The pattern is the same, however - people feel free to leave one congregation for another for virtually any reason, or no reason at all.

Church shopping violates the integrity of the church and the meaning of church membership. When members leave for insufficient reason, the fellowship of the church is broken, its witness is weakened, and the peace and unity of the congregation are sacrificed. Tragically, a superficial understanding of church membership undermines our witness to the gospel of Christ.

There is no excuse for this phenomenon. We have no right to leave a church over preferences about music, personal taste, or even programming that does not meet expectations. These controversies or concerns should prompt the faithful Christian to consider how he might be of assistance in finding and forging a better way, rather than working to find an excuse to leave.

Christians cannot look to this question as merely a matter of consumerism. We are called to love the church and to pray for its peace and unity, not to look for an opportunity to move to another congregation.

There are times, however, when it is right to separate from a congregation or denomination. But in such a case, the issue is not taste but theology.

No congregation or denomination is perfect, and doctrinal conversations are often a sign of congregational health. The question of separation from a church should arise only when a matter of urgent theological significance is at stake - when it would violate both integrity and gospel witness to stay.

In the end, the only sufficient reason for separating from a church is theological. A faithful Christian must separate from a congregation or denomination when that body obstinately rejects efforts at doctrinal correction over an issue of true significance.

That said, the difficulty comes in the terms of this assertion. The history of the Christian church includes a few thrilling and encouraging accounts of congregations, denominations, and Christian institutions that, once committed to aberrant doctrine or outright heresy, were later convinced of their error and corrected by the Bible.

Sadly, there is a vastly larger list of churches and denominations that have refused and rejected all attempts at correction. Once committed to a trajectory of doctrinal error and heresy, many churches are completely resistant to correction by the Word of God.

The first hard issue we face lies in defining what kind of doctrinal issue merits this urgency. This requires a structure of careful theological analysis rooted in a serious consideration of which issues are of greatest importance - false teachings and beliefs that would, if obstinately held, require separation.

Christians today face the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular challenge and to the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God's truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.

I have long argued for what I call a structure of theological triage. I first encountered this concept in a hospital emergency room. There is observed the process of medical triage. This process allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical urgency. Given the chaos of an emergency room reception area, someone must be armed with the medical expertise to make an immediate determination of medical priority. Which patients should be rushed into surgery? Which patients can wait for a less urgent examination? Medical personnel cannot flinch from asking these questions and from taking responsibility to give the patients with the most critical needs top priority in terms of treatment.

The word triage comes from the French word trier, which means "to sort." The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age. We must learn to sort theological and doctrinal issues as part of our Christian responsibility.

With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith alone, and the authority of Scripture. These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.

Without an affirmation of the Trinity, there is no true Christianity. Without an affirmation of the full deity and humanity of Christ, there is no gospel. Without an affirmation of doctrines essential to the gospel of Christ, there is no saving message in Christianity at all.

These first-order doctrines would include the virgin birth of Christ, His bodily resurrection, and other doctrines clearly taught in the Bible and necessary to understanding who Christ is and what His atonement accomplished. Thus, justification by faith alone is also rightly categorized in this first-order rank, for without this truth the church falls.

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

First-order issues determine Christian identity and integrity. Second-order issues determine ecclesiology.

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.

Christians should never separate from a church over third-order issues, much less over issues that do not even rise to this importance. Believers in Christ are obligated to see all issues of biblical truth as included in our stewardship of the gospel, but the New Testament makes clear that, while unity on essentials is vital, diversity on other questions need not threaten the unity of the church.

In our day, issues such as homosexuality and women in the pastorate represent issues that strain our attempts at triage. A rejection of the Bible's authority on an issue such as homosexuality is a theological problem - not merely a moral controversy. No church can remain divided on this question, and no faithful believer should remain in a church that refuses to be bound to God's Word. A church that ordains women as pastors may be orthodox on many other issues, but on this question it sets itself against Scripture.

In so many churches and denominations, this obstinate refusal to be corrected by Scripture presents faithful believers with a hard choice - but remaining in a church that obstinately refuses correction is not an option. Efforts at "renewal" in many of these churches have been consistently rejected. At some point, the refusal to separate becomes complicity in the heresy.

These are hard questions indeed, but the serious believer must use extreme care in considering when to stay and when to go. In the end, the deciding issue must be truth, and the decision must be made with prayer, heartbreak, and resolve.

(From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul, Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk).

See "Legalism and Antinomianism: Why do I have to obey God's law?" below. greets, participates. The Christian community should be known for welcoming strangers (see notes on Matt. 10:11-14; 1 Tim. 5:10; 1 Pet. 4:8-10; Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2), but not people who are known as false teachers. To do so, according to John is equivalent to partnering in their work. Moreover, the strength of this warning may also be because the word house could reference a church (see notes on Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15).