1 John 3 and a true believer?

[Sovereign Grace]

First off, thank you all for suffering through my many OP's that ask questions that I need answers to. This thread is no different.

First off, I want to preface this by saying I do not advocate sinless perfection. I read in 1 John 3 how John teaches that believers do not practice sinning. Several years ago a pastor came forth to admit to having a three year affair with another woman (I am sure most here know who I am referring to, but Ill leave it there). My question(s) is(are) this(these): if a true believer does not practice sin, then how can we call this person (or any other person who has done the same thing) a true believer? If someone is a preacher and having a three year long affair, that has to fall under the category of practicing sin, correct?

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning[; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.[1 John 3:4-10]

The things bolded and underlined are what makes me think that anyone who is having an affair for three (or more) years falls under those things bolded and underlined. Any and all help is much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Yes, you are right. I believe this is case-in-point of what John was referring to.

 

[Polanus1561]

Did said person repent? Or just a mere confession?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Did said person repent? Or just a mere confession?

They repented, or so they said. I haven’t followed up since then. But my concern is how a true believer, especially a pastor, have an affair of three years? I know Christians can, and do, sin. My question surrounds can a true believer have an affair that long? I don’t believe scripture teaches they can.

 

[jwithnell]

In this age, there is always room for repentance and restoration. That sheep can be brought back into the fold. That doesn't exclude consequences -- a marriage may be destroyed, a person named unfit for church office, etc . -- but restoration is always the hope when we see a brother stumble, even badly.

 

[Polanus1561]

The tension between 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 3 is a tension which we are to walk with in this life. The believer can do devilish works. The questioning does not come at the time of revelation of sin but it takes time to see if it manifests (1 Jn 2.19)

 

[Sovereign Grace]

In this age, there is always room for repentance and restoration. That sheep can be brought back into the fold. That doesn't exclude consequences -- a marriage may be destroyed, a person named unfit for church office, etc . -- but restoration is always the hope when we see a brother stumble, even badly.

Thanks for your reply but my question is not a matter of repentance and restoration, as we know all sheep sin, some more severely than others. But rather, can a true believer sin the same sin over and over for three (or more) years? Abram told Sarai to lie, but does he keep on lying and/or telling her to lie? David committed adultery and murder, but did he keep doing it? I don’t think they did.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I pray none think I’m trying to be a legalist, as that’s not my intent whatsoever.

 

[MyCrows]

David did repent, but it took time, and him being confronted with his sin. If we were his immediate contemporaries, our perspective on his lifestyle before, and after his being confronted, would be night and day I think.

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

1 John 5:16-17

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

James 5:19-20

 

[jwithnell]

Thanks for your reply but my question is not a matter of repentance and restoration, as we know all sheep sin, some more severely than others. But rather, can a true believer sin the same sin over and over for three (or more) years? Abram told Sarai to lie, but does he keep on lying and/or telling her to lie? David committed adultery and murder, but did he keep do it? I don’t think they did.

Many years ago, I knew two men. One was pugnacious, unfaithful to his wife, and was excommunicated. He eventually got into an argument in a gas station and was shot dead. There is no longer hope for restoration. The other was also unfaithful and took up with the other woman. I have prayed for him for 30+ years. I recently heard he has begun attending a Baptist church. As long as he is alive, and especially because he is hearing the gospel, I can hope and continue to pray.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

King David waxed long in his shameless adultery, and quenched his conscience over the murder of Uriah; till at length he was broken and brought to repentance.

Manasseh was possibly the worst king of Judah, certainly the longest on the throne in the record. His crimes were so monstrous, and went on for so long, that the prophet records a proverb: he "filled Jerusalem from one end to another" with blood, 2Ki.21:16. He seems quite unlikely to be someone found by God, still another prophet records his repentance, 2Chr.33:12-13, "When he was in distress, he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God."

The latter example is of someone who "did evil in the sight of the LORD," said twice over in the record, 2Ki.21:2 & 2Chr.33:2. Normally, we should think such a description fully marked a man as a reprobate, living and dying far from God. The longer a man goes without repenting, the more you can be sure he is a poor candidate for ever turning to (or back to) God. But let us not judge a man for his delay, once he has repented. Better late than never. And we are harsh judges if we think so late a turn makes the reversal itself suspect.

There can be lots of reasons for caution regarding someone who claims repentance; yes, there can be ulterior motives for such representations making them false. But the fact of a long meander, or a late petition of "guilty," is not accordingly a good reason.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I pray none think I’m trying to be a legalist, as that’s not my intent whatsoever.

I don't think anyone thinks that, brother, and the topic of holiness should not be treated in a taboo way. The Bible surely has many passages to discuss such topics and how to recognize people by their fruits.

If I were to ever commit such heinous sins while being in the Church, and do them for that much longevity, there's no way I would even think about calling myself a Christian, and I would not expect others to view me as a Christian either.

That is so against common reason and logic, that that would be like me having a white cat as a pet, but believing and telling other people that it is a black dog.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic or without mercy, and if somebody does repent, that is a beautiful thing and it is never too late for them to come to the Lord.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

David committed adultery and murder, but did he keep do[ing] it?

Fixed a typo in the quote and put it in bold to make it obvious. Wasn't David's marriage to Bathsheba adulterous in and of itself, as opposed to an isolated single occurrence? I'm thinking of verses like Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9. Phrased differently, wouldn't David's adultery with Bathsheba have been continuous in some sense, given the circumstances? I've had similar thoughts about Solomon and his many wives despite the prohibition in Deuteronomy 17:16-17. That could be another example of continuous, long-term, habitual sin.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Fixed a typo in the quote and put it in bold to make it obvious. Wasn't David's marriage to Bathsheba adulterous in and of itself, as opposed to a one time thing? I'm thinking of verses like Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9. Phrased differently, wouldn't David's adultery with Bathsheba have been continuous in some sense, given the circumstances? I've had similar thoughts about Solomon and his many wives despite the prohibition in Deuteronomy 17:17. That could be another example of continuous, long-term, habitual sin.

It can't be adulterous if her husband is dead. His sins were committing adultery while Uriah was alive, and then killing him. Marrying the mother of his child, though, was actually the correct thing to do.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

It can't be adulterous if her husband is dead. His sins were committing adultery while Uriah was alive, and then killing him. Marrying the mother of his child, though, was actually the correct thing to do.

Thanks for clarifying this. But was Bathsheba not one of many wives? Would David not be guilty of Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in such a case? If so, this would be an example of long-term, continuous sin, wouldn't it?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Thanks for clarifying this. But was Bathsheba not one of many wives? Would David not be guilty of Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in such a case? If so, this would be an example of long-term, continuous sin, wouldn't it?

That's an interesting verse. I thought polygamy was something that the Lord permitted, but did not necessarily endorse. But then there is also the issue of taking wives that were not of the people of God.

 

[Polanus1561]

That's an interesting verse. I thought polygamy was something that the Lord permitted, but did not necessarily endorse. But then there is also the issue of taking wives that were not of the people of God.

2 Sam. 12:8. Hmm.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Fixed a typo in the quote and put it in bold to make it obvious. Wasn't David's marriage to Bathsheba adulterous in and of itself, as opposed to an isolated single occurrence? I'm thinking of verses like Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9. Phrased differently, wouldn't David's adultery with Bathsheba have been continuous in some sense, given the circumstances? I've had similar thoughts about Solomon and his many wives despite the prohibition in Deuteronomy 17:16-17. That could be another example of continuous, long-term, habitual sin.

I corrected my faux pas, thanks for the head‘s up. I’ve often wondered why there seemed to be an allowance of multiple wives (and concubines) under the OT economy and can’t come to any understanding why.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

2 Sam. 12:8. Hmm.

LOL. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Deleted member 13126]

2 Sam. 12:8. Hmm.

This is a very interesting verse. How do we reconcile it with Deuteronomy 17:16-17. Particularly for Solomon?

 

[MyCrows]

This is a very interesting verse. How do we reconcile it with Deuteronomy 17:16-17. Particularly for Solomon?

Solomons main folly was marrying wives that led him astray from the Lord. It would have been folly even if it was one wife who was a pagan.

"And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin."

Nehemiah 13:25-26

 

[Polanus1561]

This is a very interesting verse. How do we reconcile it with Deuteronomy 17:16-17. Particularly for Solomon?

Richard Philips says, "Moreover, like the rich man in the parable, David had more than he could possibly have needed, especially when it came to feminine charms. It is evident from 2 Samuel 12:8 that when David assumed Saul’s position as king, he claimed Saul’s household possessions, including his harem. This reference should be taken not as an endorsement of David’s multiplication of wives but rather as a simple recognition of the fact that he had no need to take another man’s only wife. David had been blessed by God’s grace with a glorious destiny and a household the likes of which a man such as Uriah could scarcely have imagined. The deep pit of David’s sinful desire was magnified by the backdrop of grace and divine provision against which it was committed."

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Richard Philips says, "Moreover, like the rich man in the parable, David had more than he could possibly have needed, especially when it came to feminine charms. It is evident from 2 Samuel 12:8 that when David assumed Saul’s position as king, he claimed Saul’s household possessions, including his harem. This reference should be taken not as an endorsement of David’s multiplication of wives but rather as a simple recognition of the fact that he had no need to take another man’s only wife. David had been blessed by God’s grace with a glorious destiny and a household the likes of which a man such as Uriah could scarcely have imagined. The deep pit of David’s sinful desire was magnified by the backdrop of grace and divine provision against which it was committed."

This is informative, but my question remains. In light of Deuteronomy 17:16-17, are these instances of David and Solomon taking multiple wives to themselves an example of continuous, ongoing sin? Why or why not?

 

[Polanus1561]

This is informative, but my question remains. In light of Deuteronomy 17:16-17, are these instances of David and Solomon taking multiple wives to themselves an example of continuous, ongoing sin? Why or why not?

Interestingly enough, it seems taking many wives is the cause of sin (for this verse at least) and not the sin strictly prohibited clearly in this verse. "Do not take wives so that you will not sin"

Currid: "The king is not to amass horses for large royal stables, or wives, or an inordinate amount of wealth. In the ancient Near East, these were the normal marks of the success of a king: all three reflected strength and power. Accumulating many horses probably signifies having a huge and mighty army; many wives denote many political alliances; and much wealth perhaps reflects a powerful, centralized government supported by a huge tax base. The Israelite monarch is not to mimic the other nations in these respects."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is informative, but my question remains. In light of Deuteronomy 17:16-17, are these instances of David and Solomon taking multiple wives to themselves an example of continuous, ongoing sin? Why or why not?

Here's my
Polygamy, or the practice of taking multiple wives (spouses), is contrary to a natural norm, which most evidently shows--by a nearly equal rate of natural production across the human race--the one man/one woman or 1:1 balance. The taking of multiple wives, in the nature of the case, is a "status" thing. The wealthy and powerful do/did it, because of ability, because in general their status afforded them luxury of maintenance of a "household" that was abnormally large.

Some would plead necessity, e.g. for the sake of alliances (mentioned above), which only shows how easy "expediency" justifies that which is objectively wrong. However, there was a "special case" enshrined also in Israelite constitution, namely "leverite marriage" for the sake of inheritance and social provision. It isn't obvious that regular, ongoing conjugal "duty" was required in these cases; but it is clear (from a text like Ruth) that simply assuming the duty of a goel (redeemer) required ongoing maintenance and the added risk of supplying the wants of two or more mouths potentially for years. Evidently. even in the special case, adding a wife implied possession of the wherewithal to provide.

Spouse-swapping is an affront to the natural family and the needs of children in their vulnerable formative years especially, which further condemns the state of unattached persons begetting and bearing children by sundry partners. The Lord forbade his covenant people from divorcees returning to their previous spouses if another marriage intervened, thereby preventing circumvention of this standard by legal chicanery.

Arguably, therefore, the natural order should only be violated upon the utmost and demonstrable need. Yet, this odd allowance opens the door to numerous unwarranted violations, justified on various grounds: necessity (asserted), expediency, reasonableness; or as matters get even further out of control: desire, status, authority, power, etc. It should be plain enough that Jesus Christ our Lord returns to the simplicity of the natural order as the norm for his kingdom, when he endorses one-spouse marriage. His will is echoed by the apostle, when he declares that no one with multiple wives is suitable for the eldership of the church.

In answering the question: whether the kings of Israel/Judah were in continual sin respecting their harems, one should consider the following:
1) We all sin continuously all the time; only the manner of our sins is distinct. We only truly serve the Lord repentantly when we live ongoing lives of repentance.

2) It was the case that those kings should not have indulged them in the habits of the kings of other nations; pleading necessity or expediency or wisdom ignored both natural order and the promise of divine protection. As soon as the people asked for a king, they had rejected their true King. Even the best of their kings partook of the sinful qualities of human kingship. But the grace of God made a check of the worst that could result.

3) Once married, it would have been a gross sin and indecency to dispose of one or more wives, sanctimoniously pleading for returning to the monogamous ideal. Having set the norm aside, it was also indecent to keep adding wives (and maintenance and conjugal duties); but it would be even worse to throw out the wives and the duties already assumed!

It is just as wrong for missionaries converting members of polygamous cultures to destroy households that are unnaturally large, by advising men with many wives to dispose of all but one. If polygamy is common, it will take a generation to purge it from the church (in a single family); but that is a timetable far more conducive to repairing the natural order than casting out the dependent women and children. A polygamous man will not make a church officer (no matter his other qualities); but his sons trained up properly may well be.

4) God is pleased to bring good out of ill. He made Jacob a great nation, using the multiple wives he took (though there was strife in his house because of its unnatural order). He used Abraham's and Sarah's "expedient" concerning Hagar--which brought the household great unrest--to teach important spiritual truth to them and to believers ever since.

*************

Combining what we've seen, here are some conclusions: the natural 1:1 order for marriage is not hard to see; real emergency "exceptions" are rare (and better solutions to primitive crisis issues arise over time and social development); status-dominating figures only make natural pairing harder to find by reducing the available female pool, increasing unattached male pool (a perverse side effect sees military action as opportunity to raid for women); marriage is better than keeping mistresses, or concubinage; but having made a spouse, it is a legal status that may not be simply reneged upon without doing even greater damage to the natural marriage institution.

Those patriarchs, kings, and others (Elkanah comes to mind, 1Sam1:2)--indulgent as they were of their sexual prowess (or whatever reasoning they used to approve themselves)--were blind or willfully ignorant of the bounds that should have restrained them. Yet, there were worse sins that might have snared them; and they seem to have seen their obligations as husbands seriously, and fulfilled them to their whole household.