# The apparent contradictions in 1st John



## rpavich

I have been dealing with a few people on YouTube who say that REAL CHRISTIANS don't sin. They keep citing 1st John 3:6 like a mantra: 

"Everyone who resides in Him does not sin" and similar.

I had pointed out the obvious that John also says: "...but if we do sin we have an advocate with the Father...etc." in 1st John 2:1-2 so we must sin at least some of the time!

I also cited of course 1st John 1:8-10 "...if we say we have no sin, we are a liar...etc"

But what good came out of it was this: I was forced to study this whole thing more closely, and now my quandary is this: 1st John seems to be littered with these contradictions; do we sin? Do we not? etc.

I've read solutions that range from saying that John was using hyperbole to an appeal to grammar used, in the "present participle." (sins vs keep on continuously sinning)

I was leaning towards the "present participle" explanation but Daniel Wallace seems to say that's just not a solid way to look at it. (pg 524/525)

So to my question: What do you see as the way to harmonize all these statements *and why?*


----------



## JML

The two explanations that I have heard for 1 John 3:6 and 3:9 are:

1) It is speaking of a continual pattern of sin.
2) Our new nature does not sin. When sin occurs it is our old man that sins. The new nature that is born of God cannot sin. Since we currently have remaining corruption, we do sin but it is not due to the new man.

I had always been taught #1. I had never heard of #2 until just a few weeks ago when I heard a pastor who held this view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't see any apparent contradictions unless you force John to say something he is not. He clearly states the pattern that he is speaking about in 1 John 1:6-7.


> 6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
> 
> 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


John essentially says, in this Epistle, what Paul is teaching in Romans 6. We have been redeemed and have been united to Christ in His death and resurrection. Though sin still occurs in the Christian life, it is no longer the case that we are _slaves to Sin_. Christ has put Sin, as power, to death on the Cross. Though indwelling Sin is still a powerful enemy within us, it is the recognition that our union with Christ assures us that we can resist Sin and we can live unto righteousness. We have been recreated toward that end and not that we would merely confess Christ while walking as if we were still Sin's slave.


----------



## rpavich

Joshua,
Well, I used the phrase "apparent" because if I were to say "contradictions" then somebody would point out that there are none..etc.

-------------------------------------------------

I guess where I'm going with this is...when you both answered, then my next question is: how do you know?

You've both stated your opinions...on what basis do you answer?

Why is your interpretation any more sound than the looney who says:

Interpretation: "See! It says Christians don't sin!!"

------------------------------------

Semper:
You've stated a mouthful but on what basis do you assert this?

here is another interpretation:
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
Interpretation: "See Christians who sin aren't saved"

And 

7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Interpretation: "See we won't sin because we are cleansed of all sin!"


Now I'll state again...why is your interpretation any more valid that mine? 


It's the "basis" or foundation that i'm trying to get at.


----------



## CharlieJ

*#1 good, #2 very bad*



John Lanier said:


> The two explanations that I have heard for 1 John 3:6 and 3:9 are:
> 
> 1) It is speaking of a continual pattern of sin.
> 2) Our new nature does not sin. When sin occurs it is our old man that sins. The new nature that is born of God cannot sin. Since we currently have remaining corruption, we do sin but it is not due to the new man.
> 
> I had always been taught #1. I had never heard of #2 until just a few weeks ago when I heard a pastor who held this view.



#1 has been a standard Reformed position for a long time. #2 is the position of Zane Hodges, a radical free grace theologian whose soteriological errors are mind-boggling. He rejects that 1 John presents "tests of assurance" because he teaches that God preserves people in salvation regardless of their perseverance, even if they should stop believing. He also denies that regeneration entails a moral renovation. Thus, he must get rid of any passage that speaks of good works or fruit as a necessary consequence of believing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

rpavich said:


> Joshua,
> Well, I used the phrase "apparent" because if I were to say "contradictions" then somebody would point out that there are none..etc.
> 
> I guess where I'm going with this is...when you both answered, then my next question is: how do you know?
> 
> You've both stated your opinions...on what basis do you answer?
> 
> Why is your interpretation any more sound than the looney who says:
> 
> "See! It says Christians don't sin!!"



How we know is the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Also, the Spirit has given gifts to Christ's Church in teachers who use the appropriate tools of knowledge that God has given us to reconcile the totality of what Scripture says on the subject. The proper exegesis of Scripture is not to consider texts in isolation as a pretext for a teaching but the Word of God coheres in a Systematic whole to account for the totality of doctrine found therein.

In this case, we don't have very far to go in this case. John clearly informs us that the people who are teaching perfectionism have no Truth within them.


----------



## rpavich

Seal,
Darn! I have the Systematic theology by Reymond! he doesn't discuss 1 John 3:6 though.
From what I saw his view is the "two natures" view...the one nature doesn't sin...the other one does.

That's one view.

And as far as the "abiding" that you mentioned in your second citation, that would be fodder for the "sinless perfection" folks; "see! Those who practice righteousness; people who are righteous, i.e. those who don't sin"

-------------------------------

charlie,
I understand what you said about the view #1 but is that sound? Does the present participle really justify that view? Dan Wallace says no.


---------------------------------

I think that for me at least, the solution would have to be the "analogy of scripture" that Joshua spoke about; 1st John doesn't exist in a vacuum...there is just no other way to work it out and retain a good foundation. 

------------------------------------


----------



## Quickened

Joshua said:


> *Because, the book of 1st John does not exist in a vacuum.* Because we do not take the seemingly less clear portions of Scripture and interpret them apart from the light of the more clear passages of Scripture elsewhere. We know that by the Analogy of Scripture that Christians will still sin post conversion. Thus, unless we're willing to say that Scripture contradicts itself, John _cannot_ mean that a Christian will _never_ sin again.
> 
> So how do I know? By sound interpretation.



Thats huge in my opinion. People have a tendancy to look at a passage like this by itself and completely dismiss what the rest of scripture shows. Then their belief system is developed by this one verse because they seemingly fail to take other books/scriptures into consideration.

Good point Josh!


----------



## toddpedlar

This is all sounding very odd and a highly convoluted way of explaining what isn't that difficult a passage to read.

The fact of the matter is that "you" are "you", and you sin. You are flesh and spirit, together united. There is not a "real" you (i.e. spirit) and a "false" you (i.e. flesh). You are both, and you (whole you) sin. 

If you are in Christ, you are a new Creation, this is clear from the Scriptures. The whole you. There is no sense in talking about part of you that's a new creation, and part that is not. 

Back to this again: You sin. You are guilty of it. Period. Paul did not mean to excuse himself of sin in Romans 7 by saying that his flesh within him sins. That flesh within him is every bit as much "Paul" as is his spirit. 

To argue that 1 John somehow is speaking differently about you when it says
"if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves"

and 

"whoever is born of God does not sin, because His seed abides in him"

is an exceedingly convoluted way of talking about this passage. It also smacks of
a perfectionism that is completely unbiblical. There are many people who argue that because we are new creations in Christ, and because it is merely our flesh that sins, we need not confess sin or repent of it any longer. Their arguments are very like those that are advanced here... the only true "you", they say, is that "new creation" that doesn't sin (so your daily repentance is unnecessary).


----------



## toddpedlar

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> *
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all sounding very odd and a highly convoluted way of explaining what isn't that difficult a passage to read.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that "you" are "you", and you sin. You are flesh and spirit, together united. There is not a "real" you (i.e. spirit) and a "false" you (i.e. flesh). You are both, and you (whole you) sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good sir, are you saying that the New nature or Seed of God in me is the one desiring to look at the girl who just walked by my cubicle???  Paul teaches us to put the Flesh to death does he not.
> *


*

Yes, but that flesh is you, every bit as much as your spirit is.




No one on here that I've seen advocated a view of a real your and a false you. Let keep it biblical. There's the New Nature or Spirit man at war with the Flesh. Thus the Language here defines every Christian man/women who has been born again. Thus Paul is not a mad man in Romans 7.

Click to expand...


No, he is not a mad man. He is a real human being, who is not fully sanctified. 







If you are in Christ, you are a new Creation, this is clear from the Scriptures. The whole you. There is no sense in talking about part of you that's a new creation, and part that is not.

Click to expand...


Flesh and Blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God. If the whole you (including the Flesh) was made a new Creation can you explain to me the purpose of our New Body that will be given to us at the Resurrection?

Click to expand...


You're pulling the "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" quote out of context and applying it in a way that is inappropriate, but this is really beside the point. 

We will have a new body, indeed. The flesh isn't skin and bones though. When Paul speaks of "the flesh" he's not making some kind of "physical vs. spiritual" distinction. My mind is "the flesh" every bit as much as my right big toe is "the flesh".







Back to this again: You sin. You are guilty of it. Period. Paul did not mean to excuse himself of sin in Romans 7 by saying that his flesh within him sins. That flesh within him is every bit as much "Paul" as is his spirit.

Click to expand...


Guilty how is the question? Is this sin committed by the New Man? I don't believe Paul would ever try to excuse himself of the struggle within himself. However he does have a clear perspective of what sins in him and what is not sinning...Which is the Implantation of the New Man given by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit Groans and is grieved....DEFINATELY, not by sins he living within us has committed...but by the sins the Flesh commits.

Click to expand...


Paul did indeed say all this. My only point in bringing this up is to say that YOU are BOTH spirit AND flesh. Paul's point in saying that his flesh is sinning was not to get himself off, as you note. He sins and he abstains from sin. Both are true of him, both are characteristic of him, and both are fully HIM. One can't make some kind of additional division in us so that somehow we're body, soul and renewed spirit. That kind of tripartite view of man fails the test of being true to Scripture. 




Or could one say that after they sin, the Holy Spirit made me do it. I'm not jesting you, good sir, but these are my points.

Click to expand...


Actually none can ever say "the Holy Spirit made me do it " even if he believed the "new man" sinned.

Look, my point is this -for John to be introducing the "new man/old man" distinction in this letter would be very strange indeed. He is teaching something instead that I think you understand and accept. That is, that one who is regenerate does not live a debauched and sinful lifestyle. He sins, yes, but he does not live in that sin as characterstic of him. 

To begin the letter saying that "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves" and then later say (via your interpretation) "the new man doesn't sin" makes no rhetorical sense at all. I do honestly believe that the issue of new man / old man is being thrust into this letter for some unfathomable reason. It is MUCH more straightforward to understand John in terms of #1 that was introduced previously in the thread.*


----------



## rpavich

Todd,
Although I agree with you....all you did was state assertions and I'm trying to get to WHY you assert what you do.

Example:

Assertion: Christians sin. Where 1st John says they don't it's being misunderstood. 

Why? Because I just think so, that's why!

Bad answer.



Assertion: Christians sin. 1st John is being misunderstood.

Why? Because of the grammar of 1st John and the word "hamartain" involved, and they present tense participles he uses; look at the pattern, it's consistent in his writings. Now notice that it also harmonizes with the rest of scripture.


Good answer.

------------------------


I think that the most solid way to look at it is two fold:

1.) The analogy of Scripture only allows for one way to look at it.
2.) The grammar backs that up.


thanks everyone for chiming in. I appreciate it.


----------



## toddpedlar

rpavich said:


> Todd,
> Although I agree with you....all you did was state assertions and I'm trying to get to WHY you assert what you do.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Assertion: Christians sin. Where 1st John says they don't it's being misunderstood.
> 
> Why? Because I just think so, that's why!
> 
> Bad answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Assertion: Christians sin. 1st John is being misunderstood.
> 
> Why? Because of the grammar of 1st John and the word "hamartain" involved, and they present tense participles he uses; look at the pattern, it's consistent in his writings. Now notice that it also harmonizes with the rest of scripture.
> 
> 
> Good answer.
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 
> I think that the most solid way to look at it is two fold:
> 
> 1.) The analogy of Scripture only allows for one way to look at it.
> 2.) The grammar backs that up.
> 
> 
> thanks everyone for chiming in. I appreciate it.



I'm sorry I did not give a full out exegesis for my position, but your "good answer" is more or less what I said. Scripture teaches very clearly (shall I count the ways) that saved Christians sin. 1 John also says this. Then, 1st John goes on to say something about those who are born of God do not. I am born of God, and I sin. Does that mean I'm not born of God? Of course it doesn't - it must mean something else. The explanation that is usual for this is exactly what has already been said by many (I didn't feel the need or responsibility to repeat the Scriptural arguments that are traditionally used among Reformed Christians). 

The "other" point of view, wherein this letter speaks primarily about "the new man" not sinning, and that being John's main point is novel. *IT* is the point of view that needs backing up and defense. If anyone needs to make an exegetical argument to defend their point it's those who are running contrary to the understood Reformed position. (or do I need to defend God's special creation by doing an exegetical paper every time I want to claim that God created ex nihilo?)


----------



## rpavich

Todd,
I meant no offense by what I said...I'm just a newbie and things that most people probably already know here on the PB and don't mention because they are just "common knowledge" I usually don't know...

that's all I meant...it was in context to a person that I've been talking to who is anything BUT reformed and uses the 1st John passages to say that CHRISTIANS DON'T SIN!

if you'd like to see a video; his name is openairpreacher and he's all over youtube.

You can just about pick any video you like but he's got one called "Born again Christians cannot sin" that is most relevant to our discussion.


----------



## VictorBravo

Because Gordon Clark's name was raised in the debate, I thought it good to see what he had to say for himself, seeing that he wrote a commentary on 1 John. Clark squarely agrees with the classic position that John Lanier outlined as (1) in his post:



John Lanier said:


> The two explanations that I have heard for 1 John 3:6 and 3:9 are:
> 
> 1) *It is speaking of a continual pattern of sin.*
> 2) Our new nature does not sin. When sin occurs it is our old man that sins. The new nature that is born of God cannot sin. Since we currently have remaining corruption, we do sin but it is not due to the new man.
> 
> I had always been taught #1. I had never heard of #2 until just a few weeks ago when I heard a pastor who held this view.



From p. 95 of his commentary (Trinity Foundation paperback version) discussing 1 John 3:6:



> This verse and another a bit further down have been used by Wesleyans to support sinless perfection. If the present indicative and present participle are taken in such a sense, it would follow that only sinless and perfect people have known Christ. On this showing 99 percent of the most devout and orthodox believers have neither seen him nor known him.
> 
> That John had no such thought in mind is perfectly clear from 1:8,9. In fact, John in those verses says not only that his addressees sin, he acknowledges that he himself sins. The explanation should be well known: *the present tense can and here must refer to habitual conduct*. It does not have to do with sporadic acts of sinning.



Clark later, in addressing verse 9, concludes that the seed that remains in the believer is the word, as in Scripture (p.100-101)(citing James 1:18 'Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth'). There is no mention of an old-man/new-man battle, but instead, quoting Shedd, it is addressing a "holy inclination." 

So Gordon Clark, at least, harmonizes the verses in the classic reformed way without recourse to identifying the seed as the "new-man."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

The NLT 2007 translation does a decent job of emphasizing the persistent pattern of sinning aspect:

1 John 3:6-9 (NLT 2007)
_6 Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.
7 Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. 
8 But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. 
9 Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God._

AMR


----------



## rpavich

Thank you everyone who chimed in...it's much appreciated.

Here is what the NET bible notes have to say about it:

tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1–2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1–2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ("Biblical Greek" §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215–17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).

sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (”I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1–2 and 3:6–9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1–2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4–10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.


----------



## Michael Doyle

rpavich said:


> Todd,
> I meant no offense by what I said...I'm just a newbie and things that most people probably already know here on the PB and don't mention because they are just "common knowledge" I usually don't know...
> 
> that's all I meant...it was in context to a person that I've been talking to who is anything BUT reformed and uses the 1st John passages to say that CHRISTIANS DON'T SIN!
> 
> if you'd like to see a video; his name is openairpreacher and he's all over youtube.
> 
> You can just about pick any video you like but he's got one called "Born again Christians cannot sin" that is most relevant to our discussion.



I am pretty sure I know this guy, I believe his name is Jesse. He is an open air preacher in a gang of oa preachers who go around vehemently opposing Calvinism. They are admitted open theists and perfectionists. They are terribly frustrating as I have dealt with them on evangelism boards. I believe they are all home churchers and they have you tube videos of Sunday school classes with adolescence teaching them the "heresy" of Calvinism. All very disturbing.


----------



## rpavich

Michael,
No...that's not Jesse Morrell, that's Michael Markley; aka OpenAirPreacher. There is another one called Kerrigan Skelly who is the same; they and Jesse are all cut out of the same bolt of cloth.

The sad thing is; when I started street witnessing; Kerrigan was the guy who I went out with my first time so I could learn a little something; he was great; kind, easy going, and not at all like he is now.


----------



## toddpedlar

A lot of what we've been discussing boils down to misunderstanding and misinterpretations of words, so I'm going right down to the end where the chief disagreement is.



sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Inside of a Man is both desires and both men. Therefore, Paul is explicitly clear that they war with one another. That's just plain scripture. In no way and I saying Christians a sketso's with multiple personalities...LOL... But weight of the scripture affirms that inside of us there is a war going on.
> 
> You above just admitted that we are not yet sanctified. Therefore what are we being sanctified from??? The old man, the flesh, the works of the flesh...puting on the new man, new creation, and righteousness of God. Thus our Ortho praxy is being conformed to that of the New man. So, both men are definately there in one person. John teaches that it will be evident whom the seed of God (Who can't sin) resides in.



Yes I agree with you wholeheartedly. There is a war going on. I just totally disagree with your introduction of this concept into John's epistle. It just doesn't appear in the text there. 



toddpedlar said:


> Look, my point is this -for John to be introducing the "new man/old man" distinction in this letter would be very strange indeed. He is teaching something instead that I think you understand and accept. That is, that one who is regenerate does not live a debauched and sinful lifestyle. He sins, yes, but he does not live in that sin as characterstic of him.
> 
> 
> sealdaSupralapsarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly agree. Our disagreement is that the seed of God in a man can never sin.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to agree, though, because you are saying that John discusses the new man in these verses - and I don't read these verses as saying anything at all about the new man. The new man is never specifically discussed. "The Christian" is the subject of all these sentences we've talked about.

See below. 1 John does not say that the seed of God never sins. It doesn't predicate anything active at all about the seed of man, but uses the presence of the seed of God in a man to explain his actions. 



sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Which I'm sure you don't believe it's just that we are clunking heads on the Flesh and the New Man being seperate. You say they are one I say they are seperate. I believe that's our disagreement.



What I said is that they are united in one person, namely, you. I didn't mean to say that the flesh (the old man) and the new man are the same identical thing - they are, however both YOU.



sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Again, the vs says the seed of God doesn't sin which I certainly believe. Therefore, my view affirms exactly what you are saying plus answers the question of what seems to be a contradiction but can be explained away with scripture. I believe terms 1 and 2 compliment one another and they are much more thorough together.



Where does the text say "the seed of God doesn't sin"? It says "He who is Born of God" doesn't sin, and it gives a reason - because "the seed of God is in him." It pays to look at what is called the seed of God in the rest of Scripture. "The seed of God" is not ever a synonym for "the new man" (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

This is what I have been saying all along. You have introduced this idea that what is being talked about is the new nature - but that is not in this text at all. It's a really convoluted way (which is what I began saying) to understand this passage when there is a very simple way to understand it. As has already been said repeatedly, the text suggests quite strongly that what is being said here is that the Christian does not live in a repeated pattern of sin, but is gradually sanctified, from glory to glory, until he should die or the Lord should come again. In this sense, he does not "keep on sinning" as some translations say.


----------



## Michael Doyle

rpavich said:


> Michael,
> No...that's not Jesse Morrell, that's Michael Markley; aka OpenAirPreacher. There is another one called Kerrigan Skelly who is the same; they and Jesse are all cut out of the same bolt of cloth.
> 
> The sad thing is; when I started street witnessing; Kerrigan was the guy who I went out with my first time so I could learn a little something; he was great; kind, easy going, and not at all like he is now.



Robert, yes, I have met Kerrigan also at EBC 15 and he was much different than he is now. We need to be praying for these guys. Sorry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me ask a question here. John mentions two types of sin in the book of John. One that is unto death and another that isn't unto death. Could it possibly be that the Christian does not commit sin unto death but does commit sin as 1 John 1:8 says. The sin unto death being that one no longer believes that Christ came in the Flesh? 

Just pondering.


----------



## CharlieJ

*Some Metaphysical issues*

Seal, I think there is a root metaphysical problem that leads to your position. What is born again is not "the new man" as conceived of as a part of a person coexisting with other parts. "The new man" is the whole me. That which is born again is the same thing that was born the first time, a person. 

"The new man" is not an addition to an already existing person; it is the transformation of that person in all parts, though to a progressive degree. In other words, the Christian IS a new creation, not just HAS a newly created part. So no, there is no "hypostatic union" of spirit and flesh in the believer. That would imply 2 natures in one person, something only true of Christ (his being divine and human). The sin nature/spiritual nature dichotomy is a Keswick, not Reformed, position. In Reformed theology, you are either an unregenerate person or a regenerate person in whom the process of reformation is incomplete.

There is another metaphysical problem. Natures do not act; people act. In 1 John, the one who does not love his brother must be a person, because only people, not bare natures, love or hate. Natures do not sin - people do. 

In 1 John 3:9, the "seed of God" is not the new nature; it is the Word. Check out 1 Peter 1:23 - "since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God."

Also, the very grammar precludes the idea that John is referring to a nature. He consistently uses the masculine gender in his pronouns and participles, which implies a person. Without an explicit reference to the "new man" or some other literary device of personification, there is no reason why the masculine would be used to refer to a person's nature. 

Finally, that idea is counter to John's argument. John is not trying to explicate why people sin (old vs. new nature), but rather that regeneration entails certain ethical consequences. So, we can reason backward from certain core characteristics to conclude that some people are not regenerate.


----------



## NB3K

*A reply to a closed thread dealing with the apparent contradictions in 1st John*

I understand the so-called "holiness movement" go around acting like childish fools when they claim christians don't sin. I agree that Christians do not sin, but I also understand they they do sin. 


Where do I get this understanding in Scripture? Let's take a look at Romans 5:13


Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [ESV]

than Romans 7:5-6 states,

Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. 

I understand there is more Scripture that I could lay out, but I rather not sit here digging bit and piece out of God's Word. I hope my readers have a knowledge of Scripture to understand my reasoning.


The reason I say Christians don't sin is, because we're not under the law. Paul states very clearly in Romans 5 that where there is no law sin is not imputed or counted. Therefore the Elect of GOd is righteous, but there is no christian with sound reasoning that will say to himself that he never sins. Besides what utter self glorification is it to say one is holy because they never sin. As if God isn't the one keeping back their flesh, therefore all credit would go to God!

But these pelagian serpents want us to put our faith in ourselves! Instead of what Christ has done on our behalf.

Here is a question. What about the thief on the cross who professed his faith in Christ? He had no good works to show after his confession of faith, but Christ said he would be in paradise with him.

So therefore this is what Christ says in John 6

Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 

and Romans 4

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." 


The only way a man is Justified ie... [FORGIVEN FOR HIS SINS] is by FAITH ALONE, IN Christ ALONE, BY GRACE ALONE, FOR THE GLORY OF GOD ALONE!


----------



## NB3K

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 


THis is the verse that hardened me as a stone in the Doctrine of Sola Fide! I am so greatful to God for bringing me here to this truth. Look at the "Wesleyians" and other "holiness movements" they are working to keep there justification. Why is it that they believe that way and we believe this way? Simply the Grace of God!

Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'


----------



## cih1355

Christians still sin, but they are not dominated by sin. There are no longer slaves of sin. They don't live without sin from conversion to death, but they are not dominated by it.


----------



## Rufus

A big problem with it is why would John say Christians never sin th an go on to say whoever says they don't sin is a liar? There close together that even if the letter was written without doulbe checking it or thinking that it would be anear impossiblity. Plus, 1 John being insipred it can't have any errors.


----------



## Jack K

As a resource on this question I would recommend Sinclair Ferguson's chapter, "Sin's Dominion Ended," in _The Christian Life._ He deals with this issue, and directly with the particular verse from 1 John, simply and clearly and in just a handful of pages. I can't find the text available online anywhere, but the book is inexpensive and downloadable immediately if you have a Kindle.

Ferguson points out that sanctification is both a past experience grounded in our union with Christ—"You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified... (1 Cor. 6:11)—_and_ an ongoing experience. Here's a bit of Ferguson's takeaway:



> The great mistake many of us make is to look only at our sin and failure, and then ask, a little dispairlingly, What can I do? But our need is not to do, it is first of all to understand what God has done; to see that what he has made us through his Son is a man or woman who has died with Christ to newness of life. We are those over whom sin no longer has any dominion.... But this freedom from the dominion of sin is not the end of our struggle against sin. In fact, it is the beginning of a new conflict with it. For while we have died to sin, sin has not died in us.



Again, the whole chapter lays this out very clearly. Highly recommended.


----------



## CubsIn07

I would like to throw my hat in the ring as far as agreeing with Wallace's (or the interpretation of the NET Bible) interpretation. 1 John 3:6,9 puzzled for quite a long time and not until i studied more about verbal aspect theory did I really come to the right conclusion (at least I think I did). If anyone would like a MA or PhD thesis (I can't figure out which one it is) on aspect theory in relation to this passage, just PM me.


----------

