The test to distinguish the spirit of God or antichrist

[JennyG]

1 John ch 4 v 2-3:
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

my problem with this is just that it seems such a low bar. I'm sure the Pope for eg would happily confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

One of my commentaries suggests that Rome fails the test because of the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception - but apart from anything else, that was formulated very late in their church's history.

Can anyone shed any light?

 

[louis_jp]

My first thought is that John might be referring to a particular false teaching. His references to antichrist start at 2:18, where he talks about those "who went out from us." He could have certain people in mind. That wouldn't exclude others from also being antichrists.

Secondly, I'm not sure that his references are that restrictive. He says the antichrist is "he who denies that Jesus is the Christ.... he who denies the Father and the Son." (2:22). That could include anyone who denies some essential aspect of Christ's work. The pope believes Christ came in the flesh, but he apparently doesn't think His work was sufficient, as we continue to need their church's sacramental system and the intercession of Mary and the "saints."

(Now I see this point appears to be addressed in Calvin's quote above)

Also, I don't think John is even attempting to provide a full theology of antichrist, so I would say this passage still has to be read in conjunction with others, such as 2 Thess. 2.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John is saying simply this: If you find someone who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (which doctrine can be greatly fleshed out, which you see Calvin doing there above), you are dealing with a spirit of antiChrist. You can be 100% sure of that judgment. It is a denial of a sine qua non of Christianity, "without which" you don't have Christianity. It's some other religion.

 

[Bern]

Jenny, I've often pondered this passage, as there seem to be many false teachers that acknowledge Jesus has come in the flesh and that he is God and man (or at least they say they do).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The point is that John's complete observation is a "positive" test. Positive, meaning that you can make a positive determination about the source of X based on certain statements. The latter portion (concerning denial) cannot be separated from the former.

The positive statement doesn't mean you can turn the whole matter into a "negative" test, i.e. that any man or mouthpiece that claims the former (that Jesus DID come in the flesh) is thereby identifiable as a true believer. John doesn't make that statement.

Note, John says not that men don't make false claims (you could even say that a true believer MIGHT make an erroneous statement about Christ, but not finally mean to contradict the Spirit), but that a truly spiritual confession confesses Christ come in the flesh. False-believers may say true things; but the source of their specific confession (which is a true postulate) is holy, whereas a denial of that cardinal truth is plainly from anti-Christ. You could ask a man, "Did you mean to make that anti-Christ statement?"

The "refusal" to speak in accord with the apostolic witness is the indictment. Any spirit that inspires the contrary witness is obviously attacking Christ. John isn't giving us an unerring method of detecting which professor of the truth really means it. He's pointing to the source of the competing claims. Satan never inspired anyone to say that the Son of God became flesh for us. But he may "borrow" a bit of that truth to salt his own garbage.