“This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:5-7)
While approaching the text of 1 John 1:7, some have become too focused on individual words at the expense of the overall context of the passage, and scripture in general. Some do this to find a proof text that would justify them acting in ways contrary to scripture. Some approach this text seeking assurance of their fellowship with God, and venture beyond the context, resulting in potential for great harm. In approaching this text, one must do so with integrity, and no ulterior motives. There must be a desire for the message the Holy Spirit is seeking to convey in the context.
The Error of Continual Cleansing
The error of continual cleansing rests on the phrase, “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” “Cleanses” is emphasized by those who believe and teach this doctrine as a word with a perpetual nature. They assert that Christ’s blood continually cleanses one of sin even as he sins. An illustration of a windshield wiper on a car has been offered in explanation. While driving through a rain storm, the windshield wiper continually wipes away rain, granting vision to the driver. Christ’s blood is the windshield wiper, and the rain is sin. As soon as we sin Christ’s blood cleanses us from our sin. An implication of this is that nothing must be done on the part of the sinner to be forgiven. The cleansing is instantaneous. This naturally raises the question concerning the first part of verse 7. What about the obvious condition for the cleansing of Christ’s blood given by the inspired apostle – “if we walk in the light as He is in the light?” If sin is darkness, and the condition for cleansing is walking in the light, how might one be cleansed “even as he sins?” The doctrine already begins to fall apart.
Firstly, the term “cleanses” is not of necessity perpetual. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” can be observed as a simple statement of fact. What does the blood of Jesus Christ do? It cleanses us from all sin. It may be that the blood of Christ is continually available, but it cannot mean there is a continual cleansing of sin the instant sin is committed. It is dangerous to hang an entire doctrine on one word. The meaning of “cleanses” cannot reach beyond its contextual limits. The context of 1 John 1, as well as the remote context of Scripture does not allow the word “cleanses” to denote an uninterrupted, continual, and unconditional process.
In part, continual cleansing has been espoused by some because of a fallacious approach to the nature of man, and sin. The influence of Calvinism has infiltrated the church of our Lord. Some posit that sin is inherent within man’s nature. That man, because he is man, will continually sin. Ergo, continual cleansing of sin is necessary for any man to be in fellowship with God. However, this view of man’s nature and his relationship to sin is at variance with the apostle John’s writing, and that of all Scripture. The whole concept of free-will negates the idea that man must sin. Such a gift from God to choose is at the foundation of His scheme of redemption. To have fellowship with God, man must not have sin, for “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). This is the very reason John wrote his epistle – “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin” (1 John 2:1). Either the inspired apostle is mistaken, or not sinning is an option.
John further wrote, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God” (3:9). The advocate of continual cleansing would suggest that one born of God cannot help but sin. The Holy Spirit said one born of God cannot sin – “Let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). This is due to the nature of a child of God. When the Word of life brought light into the world, He gave the right to become children of God to those who were born of the will of God (John 1:10-13). Peter worded it this way, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). When one obeys God’s word he becomes a “[partaker] of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:4). While this nature is something that God is within Himself, this is what we become and grow in as we submit to His ways. While God’s seed – which is His word – dwells in an individual, sin is not present. For, John defined sin as lawlessness (1 John 3:4). The “law of the Spirit of life” (Romans 8:2) is the word of God which directs us toward a life of righteousness. When one fails to keep that law through either commission or omission he has committed lawlessness. He has sinned. So, how can one keep from sinning? The Psalmist said it well: “Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You” (Psalm 119:11).
While man always has a choice to submit to God’s will, and refrain from sinning, even John understands that sin can still occur. He wrote, “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:1-2). John is not in contradiction with himself. His understanding that sin may rear its ugly head does not nullify choice. When one has sinned, it is because one chose to do so. In this case, John offers assurance that all is not lost. Forgiveness is still offered. Jesus is a practitioner of His doctrine, and He taught His disciples, “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). As long as a penitent heart seeks forgiveness from the Lord, forgiveness will be granted.
Yet, despite Scripture’s overwhelming emphasis on repentance as a condition of forgiveness, the proponents of continual cleansing submit that cleansing is offered without it. They do so by suggesting that Christ’s cleansing blood is continuously applied to those who sin in sincerity, ignorance, weakness, or anything short of rebellion. These distinctions of sin are understood, but nowhere in Scripture is there a distinction made regarding the consequences of such sins, nor the conditions of forgiveness of such sins. John wrote that “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” This would include all categories of sin – sincerity, ignorance, weakness, or rebellion. It can only be that Christ’s blood cleanses us from all sin, or no sin at all. John declared the former is true. And, because sin in general separates man from God (cf. Isaiah 59:2), all sin must be cleansed in the same manner.
When some told Jesus “about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,” (Luke 13:1) Jesus indicated by His response that all sins, no matter what degree of severity they may seem to be, must be repented of – “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (v. 3). This was true for these men, and it remains true for all today. The eternal fires of Gehenna await those who do not break free from sin in mind and practice. It matters not about sincerity, ignorance, weakness, or rebellion. God cannot have fellowship with sin.
The proponent of continual cleansing would suggest there are those in liberal and institutional congregations who are sincere, and ignorant about the error of their teaching and practice. To justify fellowship with such individuals, the doctrine of continual cleansing has been espoused. So long as they are sinning in ignorance and sincerity, Christ’s blood continually cleanses them from their sin. Therefore, fellowship can be extended to them. Yet, Paul clearly taught the Athenians that ignorance does not exempt one from the consequences of sin, or the conditions of forgiveness – “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). A pattern is given in this account. The Athenians were ignorant, yet lost in sin. To receive salvation, it was necessary for their ignorance to be exposed, and for them to obey the gospel (cf. Romans 1:16). Paul was the preacher sent to proclaim the message they needed to hear (cf. Romans 10:14-17). The honest heart, hearing the message of the gospel, would repent and obey. Nothing less would save the souls on Mars’ Hill. For those lost in unauthorized practices of the worship, work, and organization of the church, their only hope is the truth. Nothing is gained by fastening blinders to our eyes, and extending our right hand to them. The darkness must be exposed that they might escape it.
The same is no less true for one who sins in weakness. Christ’s blood does not continuously cleanse the impenitent whose sin is a product of weakness. Christ’s blood will only cleanse that sin if it is repented of, and forgiveness is sought. Paul commanded, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1). Restoration of such a one is unnecessary if their sin was cleansed as soon as it was committed. Yet, Paul said to restore him. There was an occasion where Paul had to do the same with a fellow apostle. Peter had played the hypocrite by withdrawing himself from the Gentile brethren when those of the circumcision were present (cf. Galatians 2:11-13). Paul wrote, “I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (v. 11). Peter’s sin was not high-handed rebellion. Nor was it ignorance. He knew God was impartial (cf. Acts 10:34), yet showed partiality. It was under the pressure of his peers that Peter folded, and stood guilty of sin. His only way of recovery was repentance, and confession of his wrong doing.
The claim that the distinction between the sins of ignorance, sincerity, and weakness, and that of rebellion is a mitigating factor is illogical. Any limit offered as to what specific sins of ignorance, sincerity, and weakness are continuously cleansed is arbitrary. If followed logically, any sin can be continuously cleansed so long as it is done in ignorance, sincerity, and weakness. This ranges from ignorance in the worship and work of the church to ignorance in gross immoral conduct. One could even argue for sins of rebellion. Any time a sin is committed, weakness is involved. Are sins of rebellion continuously cleansed even as they are committed? Something which proves too much proves nothing at all.
Scripture is clear regarding the universal conditions of forgiveness. The text of 1 John 1 teaches the same. The condition of the cleansing of Christ’s blood is “walk[ing] in the light as He is in the light” (v. 7). Therefore, the cleansing of sin cannot be instantaneous and continuous because sin is darkness. When one sins, he must do what God says to put him back into the light. By doing such he walks in the light. Verse 9 informs, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” A simple mathematical principle is helpful in this context – two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. The condition for receiving cleansing in verse 7 is equal to that of verse 9. The walking in the light as He is in the light, and confessing our sins are the same in 1 John 1.
Lastly, it is important to note that repentance is implied in 1 John 1:9. John does not write, “If we confess we have sinned,” rather, “If we confess our sins.” It is necessary for one to know what one did to commit sin. That specific sin must be repented of to be forgiven. This must be acknowledged in prayer to God. Otherwise, that sin leads to death, and God will not forgive such a sin (cf. 1 John 5:14-17).
The doctrine of continuous cleansing comes from Satan, not God. It must be refused and refuted, and God’s word must be followed.
The Misapplication of “Walk”
In an effort to find assurance, some brethren have placed emphasis on the word “walk” in 1 John 1:6-7. “Walk,” they say, is a word denoting a continual action. Therefore, an isolated act of sin does not mean one “walks in darkness.” The phrase, “a step is not a walk,” has been coined to illustrate the principle. This approach to the text is taken by some who do not advocate continual cleansing. It is still understood that, to be right with God, one who has sinned must repent, confess, and ask forgiveness. However, this approach to the text is both illogical, and inconsistent with the context. It is also an unnecessary attempt to find assurance when assurance is already offered. The result of this approach is more harmful than good. If an isolated sin does not mean one “walks in darkness,” there is only one alternative: despite an isolated sin, one is still “walking in the light.” Regardless of the emphasis placed on the need for repentance in addition to this view, there remains a semblance of assurance that one continues to be in the light despite the sin they have committed. Some may go as far to say that, because of one’s general walk in the light, God’s grace will cover that isolated sin if their life ended before they could repent. This tends to undermine the Bible view of the severity of sin, and the design of the gospel to impress those who have committed such with their pitiful state, and dire need of forgiveness.
Vine defines the Greek word, peripateo, translated “walk” – “figuratively, ‘signifying the whole round of the activities of the individual.’” John uses the word in this way to signify that a person whose life is characterized by darkness does not have God, and a person whose life is characterized by light does. However, like “cleanses” of verse 7, the word can only indicate what its natural and contextual limits allow. In other words, “walk” as used to signify the whole round of the activities of the individual cannot indicate that one who has committed an isolated sin, though their life is generally characterized by light, is still walking in the light despite that sin. Verse 5 acts as a Divine commentary on verse 7 when the negative description of God is added to the positive description of God in verse 7 – “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light [‘and in Him is no darkness at all’], we have fellowship with one another.” The purest, and most complete description of darkness is the absence of light. The same can be said for light – it is the absence of darkness. Ergo, an isolated sin is a walk in the darkness, places one in darkness, and severs fellowship with God, for an isolated sin is “darkness at all.”
Consider other uses of the word “walk” in scripture:
- “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things” (Philippians 3:17-19). Paul’s “walk,” or whole round of activities, was characterized by gaining Christ at all costs, and pressing toward the goal. He encouraged the Philippians to act the same. Those of “the mutilation” (v. 2), i.e. the Judaizing teachers, had a “walk” characterized by satiating their fleshly appetites, having no restraint, and living to gain the world. Paul discouraged the Philippians to act in that way. Was Paul implying that, if the Philippians’ general character mirrored his own, an isolated act like “the enemies of the cross of Christ” was not a “walk” like they “walk?” Would Paul say, “Do not worry. A step is not a walk?” No. Paul would rebuke them, “Do not walk that way! Repent, and imitate me.”
- “Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Ephesians 5:1-2). Paul encouraged the Ephesians to have their whole round of activities characterized by love. Was he implying that, if the Ephesians’ general character was that of love, an isolated instance of hate would not change their label as “imitators of God?” Like John, he would warn, “He who does not love his brother abides in death” (1 John 3:14). He would call them to repentance, for they no longer have God because they no longer “walk in love.”
It is valid to note that an isolated sin does not characterize an individual’s whole round of activities as darkness. However, it is wrong and dangerous to imply in any way that an uncharacteristic “step” in darkness is anything less than destructive; that it accomplishes anything less than severing fellowship with God. Is an isolated sin darkness? Yes. Then it is “darkness at all,” and “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” Therefore, fellowship is severed because that one is now in darkness. There is no benefit in harping on the word “walk.” Only harm comes from doing so.
Consider a logical illustration which shows the folly of the “a step is not a walk” mentality. Suppose that, while patronizing a local business or restaurant, one happened upon a sign in the grass. The sign read, “Do not walk on the grass.” Does the message allow for a “step” on the grass? After all, “a step is not a walk.” Would it be logical to assert that one who took a “step” on the grass had done the very thing the sign said not to do? Would not the owner of said business or restaurant be unhappy with the patron for ignoring his wishes? Or, would the owner watch for a second “step” that would constitute a “walk,” and then rebuke the person?
Consider also the logical inconsistency with suggesting a single “step” does not constitute a “walk.” When approaching the debate about the start of human life with those who advocate abortion, the arbitrary and ambiguous nature of their argument for the start of human life is exposed. Conception is the only logical and consistent answer for the start of human life. Any other answer is completely subjective, and without supporting evidence. The same can be said for that which constitutes a “walk.” If the first step is not the beginning of a “walk,” how many steps does it take? The only logical answer is that a “walk” begins with the first step. Any other explanation is completely arbitrary. What ratio of steps in darkness to steps in light constitutes a “walk” in darkness or light? The very nature of such reasoning is asinine. God was black and white about the matter: “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Any darkness, even just a “step” in darkness, places one in darkness and severs fellowship with God.
The Bible is clear about the severity of one isolated sin. Regardless of whether one has generally walked in the light over an expanse of time an isolated sin severs them from God, and until they return to the Lord in penitence, their soul is in danger of eternal separation from Him. Consider the case of the sorcerer of Samaria, Simon (cf. Acts 8). Simon was a man of great influence. With his sorcerous trickeries he “astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great” (v. 9). Yet, while he practiced pseudo miracles, a humble man full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom healed the paralyzed and lame of Samaria, and cast out unclean spirits (v. 7). Philip was preaching the gospel, and God was bearing witness with miracles. Hearing Philip and seeing the miracles he performed, many believed the gospel, Simon along with them (vv. 12-13). Simon’s life was changed by the gospel. Before, he lied to the people, calling on occult powers and practicing sorcery. After hearing the truth, he followed the one and only true God of omnipotence – “and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done” (v. 13).
By verse 20 of the same chapter, a drastic change occured in Simon’s spiritual journey. Having heard of the conversion of the Samaritans, the apostles Peter and John came to impart spiritual gifts to those who had believed (vv. 14-17). Seeing this ability to give the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, Simon offered Peter and John money that they would give him the same power (vv. 18-19). Peter’s words clearly indicate the request was sinful (vv. 20-23). Simon had his sins washed away in baptism, but found himself guilty of sin once again.
The Scripture says that Simon “continued with Philip” after initially obeying the gospel. It is not simply that he followed Philip around, but that he continued to witness the miracles, and continued in the message they affirmed. Similarly, those converted on the day of Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). Simon raised from baptism to walk in newness of life which was molded and characterized by the eternal wisdom and will of God. Having been convinced of the gospel truth, he continually submitted himself to it.
The sin Simon committed was in connection with the imparting of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The apostles alone had this ability. For this reason, Peter and John came to Samaria after they heard about the conversion of the people there. In antiquity, before modern transportation and communication, Peter and John had to receive word of the conversions in Samaria, and travel 30 miles to the city. It was during this length of time that Simon “continued with Philip” in the things which he taught concerning the gospel. Was Simon walking in the light? Was the whole round of the activities of the converted Simon characterized by light? We have no reason to think otherwise. Was the sin committed by Simon uncharacteristic of his post conversion life? If he was walking in the light it was. When Simon made the carnal request to Peter and John, did he walk in darkness? Some would say he did not; that his isolated sin was a “step” in darkness, but not a “walk.” This logically implies that, because he was not “walking in darkness” despite his isolated act of darkness, he was still “walking in the light.” If Simon would have perished before repenting of his sin would he have the assurance of salvation? Would God’s grace have somehow covered Simon’s sin without any action on his part because he had generally walked in the light after initially obeying the gospel?
Peter was clear about the condition of Simon’s soul after he made the request. It mattered not that he was a new convert. It mattered not that, since his baptism, Simon was characterized as one who walked in the light. “Peter said to him, ‘Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity’” (vv. 20-23). According to the apostle, Simon’s isolated sin placed him in a position before God that would perish; he no longer had a part in the work of the church; his heart was not right with God; he was one with wickedness; he was once again in the bondage of sin.
After committing his sin, Simon was no longer walking in the light. His soul was in danger! Peter did not hold back the truth of his condition. He did not seek to make a distinction between a “walk” and a “step.” Simon had committed an act of darkness, and God cannot have fellowship with darkness, so Simon was lost in sin. There was no assurance for Simon’s salvation in the fact that the action was uncharacteristic of his life since becoming a Christian. There was no assurance in the idea that he “stepped,” not “walked.” The assurance of fellowship with God that the apostle offered him was repentance and prayer (v. 22)! Why would we seek assurance in anything else?
What benefit does one stand to gain by making a distinction between a “step” and a “walk” in 1 John 1? What need is there for such a distinction? If anything, the distinction potentially leaves one with a misunderstanding that their sin is not as significant as they might have originally thought it to be. After all, they have generally walked in the light, and God has fellowship with those who walk in the light. However, what is needed is a conviction of sin, and the separation from God which it caused so that the offender can do what needs to be done to mend their relationship with Him.
Conclusion
1 John 1 reveals a fundamental truth about God and man’s relationship with Him so that we can be assured of our fellowship with Him. It is foolish to mince the words of the Holy Spirit in any way to find assurance that is not there. Instead, we must become fools that we may become filled with the wisdom of God. His plan is the only plan that is effective to the saving of the soul. When a Christian sins, even if it be one isolated sin amidst a solid life of faithfulness, he is separated from God, and cannot be reconciled unless the sin is repented of, confessed before God, and forgiveness is requested. What assurance is there for such a one? “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
