How can I avoid enabling someone else's sin?

He then who has anything to say to the defamer of Christ which could be fairly interpreted as a sanction, let it be ever so small, becomes a partaker of his evil deeds. It is not a question of being a partner in his evil doctrine. The elect lady and her children were of course believed to hold sound doctrine; but they are here peremptorily called to refuse any measure of countenance to one who did not bring the doctrine of Christ — not only not to receive him into the house, but not to salute him outside it. It was a part of the loyalty they owed to Christ.

In turning to Scripture let us keep clearly before our minds the question at issue. Does association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defile; or must the false doctrine first be imbibed before defilement is contracted? In 2 John: 10 and 11, we read, "If there come any to you, and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that bids him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." This passage clearly contemplates two persons; one holding false doctrine as to the Person of Christ, the other a person who wishes him God speed. The passage does not say, or imply, that this second person holds the false doctrine, but that he identifies himself, by an act of fellowship, with the man that does, and, so doing, God calls this person "a partaker of his evil deeds." If then God calls this man a partaker of evil deeds, he is surely a defiled man, and that, not because he has imbibed the evil doctrine but because he is knowingly associated with a man that holds the false doctrine.

It is the word of God that we follow, and the word of God shows quite plainly that association with evil does defile. As the sister was told in the 2nd epistle of John that she mustn't even give greetings, or invite into her house somebody who did not bring the doctrine of Christ because if she did that or condoned the evil then she partook of the evil herself. That was association with evil.

We read that Timothy was enjoined not to be partaker with other men's sins.

The startling statement is now made in the next verse 'He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds'. He who has fellowship with such a one shares in his wicked ways. He is just as bad as if he transgressed against the doctrine of Christ himself. In fact, as one has said (J.N.D.) he is morally worse. For the denier of true doctrine is sincere and believes that he is speaking the truth. He is deceived and probably believes that he is honouring Christ. But the one who condones his evil way by having fellowship with him knows it is wrong and does it with his eyes open. As he partakes in the evil deeds of the false teacher, he obviously must be treated in the same way and no fellowship can be given to him. If these instructions are given to a lady with regard to the fellowship in her home, how much more are they appropriate to the holy table of the Lord! Surely no faithful assembly would allow fellowship to one who was offending in this way!

Is it possible for saints to remain in fellowship where serious evil teaching is held, though not holding such teaching themselves, and yet not be defiled? There is nothing more deadening to the conscience than this. Such saints are defiled—“a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” In tacitly submitting to evil doctrines they become “partaker of his [the propagator of doctrines subversive of Christianity] evil deeds” (2 John 11).

These, it may be said, are rules for the individual. They are so, and therefore absolutely binding upon the individual, but upon each and all. If any gathering of Christians then would link me up with moral or doctrinal evil, my separation from them ecclesiastically is as much enjoined upon me as my separation from the evildoers in question, for they would bind me to disobedience to my Lord. Nay, their case is in this respect worse than his who brings the false doctrine, that he is blinded by it, while they, with their eyes open to its evil, practically sanction it by their association with it. Justly therefore does scripture decide, that whosoever salutes him who brings not the doctrine of Christ is partaker of his evil deeds.

It is not sufficient for the Christian to be clear personally of this evil teaching, for it is subversive of Christianity, but he must be clear also of the person who teaches it. Anyone personally clear of the evil teaching, and yet remaining in fellowship with the teacher of this evil doctrine, is a partaker of his evil deeds, and therefore has to be refused, even as the author of the heretical teaching himself.

Scripture is not silent as to their great sin. "Come out," therefore, brother, that you partake not of the sins and so receive not of God's strokes.

*A brother pressed upon me not to touch this case, because of H. Craik's great grace and services. I have no sympathy with this principle at all: it really amounts to this, that I am to sanction Satan because of God.

206 The real question then is: Is the church of God to accept communion with blasphemers of Christ as a principle, and whether individuals are to be allowed to impose on the church their judgment and walk, which affirm it should do so? Bethesda has as a body declared that her principles are that, when she knows blasphemies are in question, she will in spite of all Christians receive those involved in them. You choose in your private opinion to justify, that is, to identify yourself with her, and dare the church to reject you. My answer is, you are in the worst kind of sin - worse than any act of sin when you do it deliberately, as you avow. Do you require scripture to shew the church should not receive blasphemers of Christ's Person? Bethesda has done so deliberately and in principle. You think right to identify yourself with Bethesda; that is, you will sin, you claim the liberty to sin if you have not done it, and require the church to admit you with this claim (that is, to put her sanction upon your sin by receiving you knowingly into her communion). The church is guilty of it if she does, and ceases to be a church at all, for the church of God is not the deliberate sanction of sin. It is true that many had become so lax, that common action was in certain cases impracticable, and individual faithfulness was called for and the reproach that always accompanies it incurred.

If scripture be soberly required to prove that saints should not be indifferent to blasphemies in their public walk, "Cease to do evil," would be enough; "From such turn away," "Him that bringeth not this doctrine, receive not into your house." Can I in spirit more effectually sustain and help such doctrines than by receiving into communion those who are in them and support them, and actively in spite of remonstrance on all sides? Bethesda has done this.