Are Christians still sinners (based on 1 John 1:8)?

Paul says in Romans – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” —

This is a PRE-Conversion Evangelical Statement of Fact. This is what we tell unbelievers when we are trying to lead them to the Lord.

This is NOT a statement of Fact POST-conversion. This is not the life of a born-again follower of Jesus Christ. We WERE sinners. Not — we ARE still sinners even after becoming a New Creation and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Now — John writes – 1 John 1:8

“…. If you say you have no sin ………………” Verse 8.

This is a reiteration of Paul’s statement in Romans — “…for all have sinned….”

According to many Theologians of the past – they understood that John was speaking to the Gnostics whom taught that we have not sinned and didn’t need a Savior to earn favor to God the Creator.

Adam Clarke (1800) was a well-respected, well revered Theologian of his day.

Adam Clarke writes about 1 John 1:8 —

“…Verse 8. If we say that we have no sin — This is tantamount to 1 John 1:10: “If we say that we have not sinned” —

All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and therefore every man needs a Savior, such as Christ is. It is very likely that the heretics, against whose evil doctrines the apostle writes, denied that they had any sin, or needed any Savior.

“We deceive ourselves” — By supposing that we have no guilt, no sinfulness, and consequently have no need of the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice: this is the most dreadful of all deceptions, as it leaves the soul under all the guilt and pollution of sin, exposed to hell, and utterly unfit for heaven.

“The truth is not in us” — We have no knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus, the whole of which is founded on this most awful truth-all have sinned, all are guilty, all are unholy; and none can redeem himself. Hence it is as necessary that Jesus Christ should become incarnated and die to bring men to God…”

——-END of Adam Clarke’s Commentary ——–

It is important to always remember when reading John, that John ALSO wrote —

“….he who sins is of the Devil…..”

1 John 1:8 and 1 John 3:8 cannot stand side by side as statements of fact. One must interpret the other.

John also wrote –

“Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.” —

So, again, how can John write – “whoever abides in Him DOES NOT SIN” but then turn around and say that if a person says they don’t sin, they are a liar. This is a Contradiction. Unless we understand the CONTEXT of 1 John 1:8.

That Context being — John was refuting the false teaching that not all men have sinned PRE – Conversion.

The entire NT is a treatise on the danger of sin and how to avoid it.

“Walk in the Spirit, and you will not commit the lusts of the Flesh” — Paul.

“Be Perfect for your Father in Heaven is Perfect” — Jesus

Commentary on 1 John 1:8 by the Reverend Malcolm Lavender: Author of many books on the heresy of Calvinism i.e., the 5 Points TULIP.

EXPOSITION OF 1 JOHN 1:8

INTRODUCTION:

The exposition of 1 John 1:8 is largely drawn from material by Rev. R. L. Lavender, my son, who is writing a commentary on the The First Epistle of John. This work will not be finished for a few years, perhaps three or four years. He has made some excellent discoveries from which I have freely drawn.

On the sin issue, Calvinists and sinning religionists interpret the whole First Epistle of John based on 1 Jn 1:8. However clearly John may speak on the sin issue in other places, these interpreters fall back on 1:8 in their insistence for sin in believers.

John did not write to correct a problem with his readers, or to advance their understanding of the faith, or to complain about spiritual lethargy. He said:

“These things I wrote to you concerning the ones that would lead you astray” (1 Jn 2:26).

So, John wrote to warn them of the ever-present dangers of deception. The false teachers are referred to under the general term antichrists, but above they are shown in their manifest character to deceive and lead away from fellowship with Christ. Gnosticism is the issue: to deceive with respect to the nature of the Incarnation, to deceive with respect to sin in relation to Christianity. As we progress, the Gnostic spirit will be discerned as it promotes and combines sin with Christianity, so called. We note as follows:

CONDITION OF JOHN’S READERS:

Commenting on 1 Jn 3:4-10, the Geneva Study Bible states, “He says clearly that in this life no one can be without sin (1:8).” This is the general conclusion of the Gnostic, antichrist spirit noted under The Church Overrun By the Gnostic Mutant: 1 John 1:8.

But John’s statements as to the condition of his readers confirm no such conclusion. His polemic is against the Gnostics, not a correction of his readers. John’s readers were in the know, and had no need to be corrected; they were in a right relationship with God. We note John’s observations as follows:

1) They Know the Truth…Not Being Corrected for Error:

“I wrote not to you [plural] because you have not known[1] the truth, but,[2] because you [plural] have known it” (1Jn 2:21).

“And you have known [perfect tense] that That One was manifested in order that He might take away[3] the sins…(1 Jn 3:5).

For further discussion see on airō at: Accusative of the Person/Thing:

“And the anointing which you [plural] received[4] from Him continues to remain in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the anointing from Him continues to teach[5] you concerning all things, and is true and is not a lie, and as it taught you, you continue to remain[6] in Him.” (1Jn 2:27).

“In this we know that we are out of[7] the truth…” (1 Jn 3:19).

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given[8] us an

understanding, that we might know the true One, and we are in the true One, in the Son of Him, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and life eternal” (1Jn 5:20).

2) They Have Fellowship, Stopped Sinning…Out of Death into Life, Keep Commandments:

“…. And indeed our fellowship is [a state] with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ…(1 Jn 1:3).

“…I am writing to you that you may not sin even once [aorist tense] hereafter [subjunctive mood.[9] And if anyone were to sin once hereafter, we have an Advocate…” (1 Jn 2:1).

“I am writing unto you, little children, because the sins with respect to you[10] have been removed[11] for His name’s sake” (1 Jn 2:12).

For complete discussion see: Atonement That Necessitated the Destruction of the Salvation Vocabulary, 224

“We have known [perfect tense] that we have passed over[12] out of death into the life…” (1 Jn 3:14). [So, a passage out of one state into another—out of death into life.]

“And in this we know that we have known [perfect tense] Him, if we may go on keeping[13] the commandments of Him” (2:3). [Cf. 2:4,5; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3.]

3) Through Calvary’s Victory, They Are Conquerors Over Sin and Satan, Over False Doctrine:

“…. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered[14] the evil one [Satan]” (1 Jn 2:13).

“…everything having been born [perfect tense] out of God conquers the world…” (1Jn 5:4).

“You are of God, little children, have conquered them, because greater is the One in you than the one in the world” (1 Jn 4:4).

4) 1 John 1:8 and 1 Jn 3:9 Are in Full Accord With All the Above:

This and other sections of 1 John will be discussed in my Expository Notes.

THE CHURCH OVER RUN BY THE GNOSTIC MUTANT, 1 JOHN 1:8

John’s polemic was against the ever-present dangers of the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that although they were in sin themselves, this in no way contaminated their spiritual nature. Sounds very familiar, does it not? The prevailing belief in Christendom, advocated by Calvinists and others, is that believers cannot be delivered from sin in the here and now, and that sin does not affect the spirit and consequently does not separate them from God. So, this Gnostic view of sin has mutated through the centuries to our time, proclaimed by Calvinists and others. The doctrine that sin does not separate one from God is one of the most deadly approaches against the Church. So, Gnosticism has been an ever-present danger dogging the church.

In Genesis 2:17, sin was apostasy from God. As rendered by the LXX, God said of the tree of knowledge of good and evil:

“. . . now in whatever day you may eat from it, in death (thanatõ), you will die (apothaneisthe).”

The day Adam and Eve sinned, they were in a state of spiritual death. The noun, death, in the locative case, expresses this. Spiritual death or the death of the soul was immediate—in whatever day.

The fact that sin is apostasy and brings spiritual death and separation from God was not changed in the New Testament.

In Romans 5:18, Paul recalls that through one[15] transgression man was separated from God. One act is emphasized…still plummeted the race into sin and apostasy from God.

Reformation and Reformed systems, as with all forms of the “sinning Christian,” have tenets of Gnosticism. The Gnostic believes that sinlessness can only be experienced by pure spirit; Calvinists believe that one cannot be free from sin while in the body, only after death.[16] The Gnostic believes that the spirit is not contaminated, though the body was inherently sinful. So, both holiness and sin were possible at the same time. Calvinists, as the Gnostics, believe that sin is compatible with Christianity and that one can be sinful and accounted holy at the same time. We note as follows:

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse says:

“. . . do not think for a moment that all that we receive at the moment of our new birth is the remission of sins that have been committed up to the moment of salvation.”

“. . . the moment a person is born again, forgiveness has been provided for all the sins he ever has committed and for all the sins that he ever will commit in the course of his life.”[17]

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer says:

“Through the present priestly advocacy of Christ in

Heaven there is absolute safety and security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning.” [18]

Michael S. Horton says:

“When a person trusts Christ, that very moment he or she is clothed in his perfect holiness, so that even though the believer is still sinful, he or she is judged by God as blameless.” [19]

So the Gnostics, Calvinists and others claim that sin is simply a natural aspect of living in the flesh. But the victory of Calvary makes a sharp dividing line between sin and righteousness. There are no believers in sin and no sinners who are believers. But Calvary’s victory is no longer acceptable to a “sinning church.”

We turn now to show the Gnostic trail that claims sin is normal or unavoidable while in the body. This kind of teaching material has taken the day in the church. So, perhaps reference will be made here to a favorite commentary or study Bible. Even the Spirit Filled Life Bible has its say in behalf of sin, along with the rest of the apostates, as we shall see. And note that it is the Pentecostals and Charismatics that make a big issue of the gifts of the Spirit and cannot get it right on the elementary level about righteousness, much less flow in the gifts of the Spirit. I am aware of no Pentecostal movement that believes in heart purity in the here and now; thus, a gift of the Holy Spirit is impossible, so deception and error.

The notable issue here is how these writers come back to 1 John 1:8 to affirm their point that all Christians must sin, no matter what the Apostle said! So, with respect to sin, the Epistle is interpreted from 1 John 1:8 regardless of other passages, revealing that the Gnostic spirit is still at work today in the church.

Discussion will take place, giving reference to various types of study materials after which my personal comments will follow on some key passages in 1 John.

The New Geneva Study Bible…Notes[20]

1 John 3:4-10—4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6Whoever abides in him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. He practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever 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. 10In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.[21]

“The basic contrast between light and darkness, between the children of God and the world, is now explained as a contrast between those who sin and those who do not. Jesus was sinless, and what is more He came to take away sin (v. 5; John 1:29)…. [Now the church is inoculated with a dose of 21st century Gnosticism.]

“John addresses this absolute aspect of being born again and speaks accordingly. He is not denying that sin and death have influence to the very end (1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 20:14). He says clearly that in this life no one can be without sin (1:8).[22]

Note the teaching of this section of Scripture and how the author came back to 1:8 for his conclusion.

Spirit Filled Life Bible…Notes[23]

1 John 3:6-9—6Whoever abides in him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. He practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever 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.

“See Note on 3:6-9, where John teaches that anyone whose life is unrepentantly characterized by sin does not belong to the family of God…. A Christian does not persist unrepentantly in sin.”

“3:6-9, John does not teach perfectionism; otherwise, he would contradict himself (See 1:8-9).”

Note: It is amazing that the Pentecostal-Charismatic viewpoint cannot get it right on the very kindergarten issues of the faith, but profess the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and claiming the lofty experience of His gifts.

Also, check out my coming major article on Tongues in the New Testament, affirmed from the Greek text.

The NIV Study Bible…Notes[24]

1 John 3:6—No one who lives in him keeps on sinning….9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains I him; he cannot go on sinning because he has been born of God.

3:6—“John is not asserting sinless perfection (See 1:8-10; 2:1)….”

3:9—“Not a complete cessation of sin but a life that is not characterized by sin.”

The Believers Study Bible…Notes[25]

1 John 1:8—If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

“The claim of sinless perfection must always be refuted, especially in light of John’s clear rebuttal in this passage.”

COMMENTARIES, ETC.

The International Critical Commentary…Notes[26]

1 John 3:6—Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him [This commentary uses the Greek text].

“…. They must, of course, be interpreted in the light of 1:8ff, where the writer makes it clear that he does not mean that those who have realized their union with Christ have actually attained as yet to a state of complete sinlessness….”

1 John 5:18—We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

“The preceding section as well as the early part of the Epistle sufficiently

shows that he recognized the actual fact of sin in Christians.”

TheNew London Commentary on the New Testament…Notes[27]

1 John 3:9—Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because

his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.

“That is a very strong and utterly uncompromising statement, to be understood, however, in the light of the interpretation already given of v. 6.”

“This strong statement seems to contradict what John has already written (1:8-2:2)….”

“…. Farrar says ‘the only possible escape from some such modification is by asserting the possibility of sinlessness in this life (which contradicts 1:8), or else by asserting that none of us have seen God, and none of us are children of God (which contradicts the whole Epistle).’”[28]

1 John 5:18—We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

“…whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not, in the sense explained in notes on 3:9.”

The author now explains 1:8:

“John now proceeds to deal with a second heresy, that of perfectionism.[29] In v. 8 he deals with indwelling or original sin, in v. 10 with actual transgressions. Later on we will come to some teaching (3:9, 10) which some may have misunderstood. Whatever be the meaning of that somewhat difficult passage in the third chapter, it does not teach perfectionism.[30] No one who really understands the exacting requirements of God’s law can ever think of himself as sinless.”

Note: To believe that it is safer in sin, some sin, less sin in view of the exacting requirements of God’s law, than sinlessness or Christian perfection, defies all reason. One sin upset the equilibrium of the planet, destroyed harmony in the earth and with God, plunged the human race into spiritual death, apostasy and separation from God. Now this author inoculates his readers with a dose of Gnosticism that sin, some sin is a necessary and better claim than sinlessness, i.e., Christlikeness, or Christian perfection. Imagine such an interpretation…when sin has caused such devastation; if there is any such thing as a demon using men to teach (1Tim 4:1), you just read it in this author’s explanation.

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament[31]

1 John 3:6— Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him [This work uses the Greek text].

“In the earlier passage he says that there is indwelling sin in the believer. The sinful principle (hamartia) remains, and it manifests its presence by lapses from holiness—occasional sins, definite, isolated acts of sin….”

At 1 Jn 2:21 the author gives this illustration:

“An experience is an anchor to the soul in time of storm. ‘Tell me,’ said the dying Cromwell to a minister, ‘Is it possible to fall from grace?’ ‘No, it is not possible.’ ‘Then I am safe, for I know that I was once in grace’ (Morley’s Oliver Cromwell, V. x.).”

Torch Bible Commentaries[32]

1 John 3:6— Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not….

“Apparently a contradiction of 1:8-10—and of experience.”

The Epistles of John[33]

1 John 3:6—whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

“Every believer does sin, see 1:8. Yet the believer is one who has seen Christ, and by faith, knows Him.”

The Renaissance New Testament[34]

1 John 3:9—

“…he is unable to go on sinning continuously as he did before although he may sin iteratively. The verbs poiei and dunatai are present tense, not ingressive aorist. To translate, as though they were aorist, ‘they do not sin once’ is to contradict 1 John 1:8,10 as well as experience.”

Thus, essentially the Christian (?) world endorses these lies. Consequently, the teachings proclaimed above by the advocates of the “sinning Christian” have no more saving essence than that of the heathen.

Thus, the view of the Christian religion is no higher than that of the heathen of long ago.

The Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus said:

“How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is possible, to strive not to sin.”[35]

Earlier the Greek philosopher, Plato, had articulated these words:

“But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him.” [36]

Note the corresponding kinship between Greek philosophy and false Christianity . . . that both despair of all hope for deliverance from sin in the body. From the writers quoted above, we have heard the outbreak of hopelessness in what we call the Christian Church as the advocates of the “sinning Christian” speak in behalf of sin and its permanence in the Church of God.

OTHER CONFUSED AUTHORS

Life in the Son[37]

Robert Shank, who probably wrote the greatest book ever written against Calvinistic perseverance or eternal security, so called, has, nevertheless, fallen into the trap that “Christians sin.” He states:

“But Christians do sin. And the fact of our sin confronts us with two perils. First, we may deny that we sin. To do so is to deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8) and to fail to confess our sins and to find forgiveness, cleansing and continued fellowship with the God who is light, and in whom is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5-2:2)”.[38]

Note: Evidently Shank’s position is that Christians necessarily sin along the way, but he makes no claim for security while sinning; we must “confess our sins and to find forgiveness, cleansing….”

“Christians sin. There is no need to labor the point. ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;’ we insinuate that God is a liar, ‘and his word is not in us’ (1 John 1:8, 10).”[39]

“‘My dear children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. But if any man sin….’ Despite our best intentions and holiest aspirations, we do sin.”[40]

Note: More on this in my notes. Classical definition of sin

A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology [41] [In Transition]

Surprisingly, J. Kenneth Grider, a theologian of the Church of the Nazarene, says:

“But the blood of Christ cleanses us moment by moment from the state of acquired sinfulness that results from involuntary transgressions committed while we are walking in the light as Christians—a moment-by-moment cleansing. So, in I John 1:7, the singular noun (in the genitive case) hamartias refers not to original sin but to the state of sinfulness that results from nonwillful breaches of God’s will. The hamartias, here, cannot refer to original sin (1) because its cleansing is gradual, since the word for cleansing, katharidzei, is in the present tense and not in the aorist tense; and (2) because this is a cleansing that happens not by faith (see Acts 15:8-9; 26:18) but simply as the believer is walking ‘in the light.’”[42]

Note: Grider’s statement will be revealed as false under discussion of 1 Jn 1:7-9.

His arguments are contaminated by Calvinistic tenets—mistakes and involuntary acts are sin. The denial that this is a cleansing from the Adamic nature is more Calvinistic than Wesleyan, certainly not Scriptural. It is thus unfortunate that a movement would shift into a transition mode by the publication of error of this magnitude, when it might otherwise be considered as a leader in holiness theology!

EXPOSITORY NOTES ON PASSAGES FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

It is necessary here to recall the CONDITION OF JOHN’S READERS: they were in the know, had stopped sinning, were conquerors over sin and the world, etc. With this in mind we now proceed to the exposition of a few passages:

1 John 1:3-10—Since we have learned the condition of these Christians, it is obvious to any honest mind that they:

Verse 3—have fellowship with the Father…: Fellowship is a key term in this Epistle. It is that intimate, mutual, common relationship between God and His people, and His people with each other because of fellowship with God. Fellowship also pertains to “the mind of Christ” and a participation in the things that pertain to Him. This excludes darkness or sin or unrighteousness (vv. 5, 7).

Certainly, God cannot share in common with His people sin and darkness as taught by the Calvinists! God is light. God is holy, righteous.

Verse 5—God is light: Light is the opposite of darkness. The two conditions are mutually exclusive. Light is a monadic construction, as is darkness. The same person cannot be in righteousness and sin, light and darkness at the same time. We so argue from the monadic constructions[43] in the New Testament. A noun is said to be monadic when it is

indivisible and the only thing of its kind. This construction may have the article the, or it may be anarthrous, i.e., the article is not used.

For example, light is the only thing of its kind. Darkness is the only thing of its kind. But the two cannot be brought together in which circumstance each of these only-such-things occupies the same space. A room cannot be light/dark or dark/light; it must be one OR the other—light or dark![44]

Righteousness is the only thing of its kind. Sin is the only thing of its kind. Likewise, the two cannot be brought together in a circumstance in which these only-such-things occupy the same life, any more than light and dark can occupy the same space. Thus, a life cannot be “righteous/ sinful, believing/sinner,” etc., and in Christ. One is either in Christ, OR he is not!

darkness…no not one single speck:[45] As darkness cannot be in God Who is light, it cannot be in His people who are in Christ, and so, in the light.

Verse 6—we lie to ourselves[46]…: We so lie by claiming to be in a common relationship with God while walking around in darkness. The if we statements are of interest: if we say, v. 6; if we walk, v.7; if we say, v. 8; if we confess, v. 9; if we say, v. 10.

Verse 7—if we were to continue to walk about[47]…: The notion of walking speaks of deportment, behavior and is moral in nature. The walk is continuous; it is potential, i.e., in the subjunctive mood.

in the light: This construction is a locative of sphere, literally, location. So, the sphere of this walk is in the light, light excludes darkness, sin.

as He is in the light: And how are we to walk in this sphere of light? as He is in the light. And there is no darkness in Him.

The above statements state the condition of fellowship and cleansing.

the blood…continues to cleanses[48] us from[49] every conceivable[50] sin:

continues to cleanse: Hamartias refers to original sin. For further discussion on this aspect of sin see:

Katharizei (keeps on cleansing) is a “customary present” and denotes “. . . that which habitually occurs . . . the act or state is assumed to be true in the past or future, as well as the present.”[51]

Thus, the blood continues to cleanse believers throughout the “gospel day,” as well as keep.

In Matthew 10:8, Jesus told the twelve:

“You keep on healing (present imperative) the sick, you keep on cleansing (present imperative) lepers, you keep on raising (present imperative) dead men. . . .”

That these are all in the present tense cannot possibly mean continuous action; i.e., they do not keep on raising the same dead people all the time! Obviously, the sense of the present is the same sense as in I John 1:7—a “customary present.”

from: Note that this passage makes a further affirmation. In the original the word sin is in the ablative case, the case of separation. The believer is thus cleansed or sin is removed. Thus, the relation between the believer and sin is spacial. The preposition from (apo, used only with the ablative case) is used in the text to help the noun sin affirm more vividly and emphatically the believer’s separation from sin; hence, the cleansing of the believer from all sin.

Verse 8—If we were to say that we have no sin: “Because,” said the Gnostics, “sin never defiles the soul but the body only, and hence we need no cleansing, having in our spirits no sin to be cleansed from.” To have sin is a reference to the Adamic nature, resulting from the Fall; to sin as an act is behavior according to kind, evolving out of the inner nature…the Adamic nature.

we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us: That John’s readers are not deceived is unmistakable.

REFER TO CONDITION OF JOHN’S READERS

At verse 9 it will be noted that harmony between verses 7 and 9 shows that verse 8 cannot mean that Christians sin.

If we were to say [aorist tense] hereafter [subjunctive mood]:[52] John’s readers were not saying they did not have sin

when they did. They were free from sin, because we read:

“And the anointing which you [plural] received[53] from Him continues to remain in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the anointing from Him continues to teach[54] you concerning all things, and is true and is not a lie, and as it taught you, you continue to remain[55] in Him.” (1Jn 2:27).

“We have known [perfect tense] that we have passed over[56] out of death into the life…” (1 Jn 3:14). [So, a passage out of one state into another—out of death into life.]

Life and death cannot exist together in the same life any more than can sin and righteousness.

we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us: Not the present condition of John’s readers:

“I wrote not to you [plural] because you have not known[57] the truth, but,[58] because you [plural] have known it” (1Jn 2:21).

“In this we know that we are out of[59] the truth…” (1 Jn 3:19).

So, would you say the truth is “in us”?

have no sin: An expression of the sin or Adamic nature. John’s readers never denied the sin nature.

Verse 9—If we were to keep on agreeing:[60] …we were to keep on agreeing is a “customary present” and denotes “. . . that which habitually occurs . . . the act or state is assumed to be true in the past or future, as well as the present.”[61] This does not mean that as Christians keep on sinning they are to go on and on being cleansed throughout life. It does mean that throughout the “gospel day,” there must be agreement with God with respect to sin. Agreement about sin implies forsaking, for sin is rebellion.

with respect to our sins: A corporate reference to the sin nature, our sins, not sins as an act.

may remove [aphē] our sins: and cleanse us: Note that cleanse in verse 7 is continuous action; cleanse in verse 9 is a once-for-all act and the two agree.

Here we note the harmony between cleanse in verse 7 and cleanse in verse 9, in addition to its proper exposition, show the further impossibility that verse 8 could teach that all Christians necessarily sin.

Insoluble textual problems exist between verses 7 and 9 if verse 8 teaches that Christians sin. Verse 7 is a contradiction to verse 9, as we shall see. Verse 7 shows that in the “customary present” cleansing habitually occurs throughout the gospel day. Verse 9 shows that on the condition that we may agree (homologõmen) with God with respect to our sins:

“. . . He is faithful and righteous in order that He may remove (aphê, aorist subjunctive) our sins and cleanse (katharisê, aorist subjunctive) us. . . .”[62]

So, the cleansing here is a finished work on the ground that the condition has been met—we agreed with God with respect to our sins. But the cleansing in verse 7 is ongoing in some sense. If a continuous cleansing of the same person is insisted upon, then, the finished cleansing of verse 9 is impossible. We can only have a continuous and finished cleansing in harmony if we admit a “customary present.” Thus, a false interpretation of the present forces a contradiction between the two verses. If in verse 7, then, some sin is ongoing and needs continuous cleansing, and in verse 9, all unrighteousness is cleansed once-for-all, there is a contradiction—both cannot be true!

Truth and error cannot be mixed, thus truth is always in harmony with itself. Consequently, we have a “customary present” in verse 7, and an aorist subjunctive in verse 9 in full accord with each other!

A NOTE OF INTEREST

In an attempt to prove accidental sin, some impose a classical meaning on hamartia (sin)—nonwillful, etc. But the New Testament does not so use hamartia. It uses the term in the sense of rebellion—defiant acts, an attitude not subject to God. So, there is no such thing as an ignorant, nonwillful, or an accidental sin (hamartia) under grace.

Ignorance, etc., is an infirmity and cannot be construed as sin, though theological error may so construe it. Infirmities are neither forgiven nor cleansed, though they need sympathy from the Almighty. Thus, “we have not a High Priest not being able to sympathize with our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15). Christ, then, is Saviour, Sanctifier, and Helper. An infirmity is an attribute of any created being, who may be perfect in that all expectations are met, but imperfect or infirm because created. Though infirm, the Christian “. . . is righteous, just as He is righteous” (I John 3:7b).

Verse 10—If we were to say we have not sinned: In verses 7, 8, and 9 sin refers to the fallen Adamic nature with which we were born; here John refers to sin as an act, a deed. Johns readers never denied sin as an act. Refer to CONDITION OF JOHN’S READERS.

2:1-2—that you may not sin even once hereafter: Here is a prohibition expressed by an aorist subjunctive used “…to forbid a thing before it has begun; i.e., it commands never to do a thing.”[63] There is no admission to a sinning religion here! While the imperative—with a certain futuristic aspect—commands to do/not do something, the aorist subjunctive, as used here, forbids ” never to do a thing.” And you cannot forbid ” never to do a thing” if you have already been doing it from time to time. There is no contradiction here with 1:8; accordingly, it is not necessary to twist or deny the truth here in an attempt to adjust Scripture to suit the apostate doctrine that Christians sin while in the body. Sin was apostasy in Eden and it still is; it was apostasy for Adam and Eve and it still is for all the rest of us. I challenge the world of Christendom to bring forward one Scripture where this axiom or truism with respect to sin was ever annulled, repealed, or revoked—in any dispensation, at any time!

It may be noted also that sinful acts here are the manifestations of the Adamic nature referred to in vv.7, 8, and 9.

Verse 1—Children…you…ye: Note the plural here—children…you…ye. John wrote to them as a Christian community to prohibit/command them that they might not ever sin even once. Then he shifts to the singular:

if anyone were to sin once [aorist] hereafter [mood]…: If, not when! For further discussion on aorist subjunctive see: v. 8 and footnote 52.

If anyone…if, not when…anyone, not plural as previously—children…you…ye. The plural reference admonish the Christian community to not sin. The singular, if anyone were to sin once…of the Christian community, shows that sin is not a fact of Christendom, but that the potential to sin exists as a real fact. Further, this construction shows that it is absolutely not an axiom or established rule that Christians sin so long as they are in the body as claimed by Calvinists and other false teachers.

3:6—Whoever keeps on abiding in Him does not keep on sinning. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor has he known Him.

…keeps on abiding: A continuous present tense.

…not keep on sinning: A continuous present in the negative! On the condition of continuous abiding, the believer keeps on not sinning.[64]

Verse 9—at 1 Jn 3:9… ou dunatai and apo tou nun just above.

Conclusion: 1 Jn 1:8 does not save the false doctrine of the sinning religionist; although, they have engaged in one of the most studied efforts in theology, they cannot save their lie.

Finally: 1 Jn 2: 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him….6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked….8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

By Malcolm L. Lavender, Litt.D.

[1] Have not known is in the perfect tense. “The perfect is the tense of completed action. Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished results…. It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its culmination and existing in a finished state” (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, § 182).

[2] But translates all’, for alla, a strong adversative; may be translated: but, except, certainly, in fact.

[3] He might take away translates arē, from airō:“ to raise, take up, lift or draw up;… to bear, carry;… to bear or take away, carry off, remove;… of the taking away sin by Christ, Jo 1:29, 1 Jo 3:5.”

[4] Received is aorist tense, active voice, and indicative mood; received sometime in the past.

[5] Teaches is a continuous present here.

[6] Remain may be either indicative, or imperative as translated here.

[7] Out of translates ek; so out of the truth as to the source of their moral condition and understanding.

[8] Has Given is perfect tense; for meaning see footnote # 1.

[9] You may not sin even once hereafter, translates mē hamartēte, an aorist tense, subjunctive mood construction. I am aware of no instance in which the full force of the aorist subjunctive is translated: A simple way to say it is the tense is expressed by even once, giving point action, and the mood by may…hereafter, showing futurity of the potential or subjunctive. One of the difficulties in translating this word in English is, the translation of a single word in Greek sometimes takes several words in English and for euphony the words have to be separated in various positions in an English sentence.

[10] With respect to you translates humin, a dative of respect.

[11]Have been removed translates a perfect tense, from aphēimi; for meaning see footnote # 1. Aphiêmi (to remove) maintains a spacial relation to the condition of which it speaks, and to the careful reader this relation is discernible. Aphiêmi, when we have Christian experience in mind, means to remove, not forgive. Note that aphiêmi is a verb com­pounded of apo (from) and hiêmi (to send away, dismiss, etc.). Hiêmi already expresses a spatial meaning and the preposition apo is combined with it to give special force to the spatial aspect. But it is a healthy word and accommodates numerous meanings. We note some of its variety:

· In Matthew 3:15, it means permit, even here the spacial nuance is discernible

· In Matthew 5:40, it is translated let, allow

· In Matthew 6:12, it is properly translated forgive, i.e., resentment or desire to punish is relinquished

We here note several New Testament passages where the spacial relation is distinct:

“. . . and . . . having left (aphentes, an aorist participle) the nets, followed Him” Matthew 4:20.

“And they . . . having left (aphentes) the boat and their father, followed Him” (verse 22).

“Peter began to say to Him: ‘Behold, we left (aphêkamen) all and have followed You’” (Mark 10:28).

“He left (aphêken) Judaea and went away again into Galilee” (John 4:3).

“The woman left (aphêken) . . . her water pot and went away into the city. . . ” (verse 28).

“. . . I leave (aphiêmi) the world and go to the Father” (John 16:28).

“. . . the males having left (aphentes) the natural use of the female. . . ” (Romans 1:27).

“. . . you left (aphêkas) your love, the first love” (Revelation 2:4). For further discussion see: Atonement That Necessitated the Destruction of the Salvation Vocabulary, 224

[12] See footnote # 1 on perfect tense.

[13] We may go on keeping translates tērōmen, a subjunctive mood, present tense, and active voice conditional construction—the test of knowing God… We may go on keeping the commandments of Him.

[14] You have conquered is a perfect tense; for meaning see footnote # 1.

[15] Henos, one, as used in this v. of the two Adams, emphasizes single acts of far-reaching results. The act of the first Adam resulted in judgment; the act of the second Adam resulted in righteousness as a fact, not positional.

[16] “We maintain, therefore, that sin always exists in the saints, till they are divested of the mortal body . . . .” Institutes, 3.3.10.

“But when God is said ‘to cleanse his church’ from all sin, to promise the grace of deliverance in baptism, and to fulfil it in his elect,—we refer these phrases rather to the guilt of sin, than to the existence of sin” 3.3.10.

[17] Donald Grey Barnhouse, Life by the Son, Philadelphia: American Bible Conference Association, 1939, pp. 65, 67, cited by Robert Shank, Life in the Son, Springfield, Missouri: Westcott Publishers, 1961, p. 132.

Barnhouse’s presupposition that future sins are forgiven at conversion is utterly false, making those who believe it candidates for hell. Further, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ offers no Protestant Penance!

[18] Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1953, p. 54, cited by Robert Shank, Life in the Son, p. 133.

[19] Michael S. Horton, Editor-in-Chief, Modern Reformation, March/April 1994, p. 18.

[20] General Editor, R. C. Sproul.

[21] Bold print added to emphasize certain statements.

[22] Emphasis added.

[23] General Editor, Jack W. Hayford.

[24] General Editor Kenneth Barker

[25] Editor, W. A. Criswell.

[26] The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Under the Editorship of Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912; used here Latest Impression, 1964.

[27] The New London Commentary on the New Testament, General Editor, Ned B. Stonehouse; The Epistles of James and John, Alexander Ross, London-Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

[28] Author’s footnote 2 at 3:6.

[29] Perfectionism for the sinning religionist is the teaching that believers live above sin in the here and now.

[30] Perfectionism is also a euphemistic or better sounding word with less backlash than to say out and out that Christ like people are also sinners. So, the Christian who claims to be Christ like is simply accused of the heresy of perfectionism.

[31] The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Edited By W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, April 1990, Vol. V.

[32] Torch bible Commentaries, General Editor, John Marsh, Bloomsbury Street London: SCM Press LTD, 1962.

[33] The Epistles of John, W. E. Vine, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

[34] Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament, 18 Vols., Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 1998, Vol. 17.

[35] Epictetus, iv., 12, 19, cited by Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 Vols., Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946, Vol. 2., p. 319.

[36] Plato, Protagoras, 344, cited by Ibid.

[37] Robert Shank, Life in the Son, Springfield, Missouri: Westcott Publishers, 1961.

[38] Robert Shank, Life in the Son, p. 131.

[39] Ibid. p. 141.

[40] Ibid. p. 136.

[41] J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1994.

[42] J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, p. 272; bold print added.

[43] See James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, Inc., 1988, pp. 73-74.

[44] See I John 1:5-6. Also, Zechariah 14:7 is of interest.

[45] Not one single speck translates oudemia, an emphatic construction, an absolute denial that darkness can be in God whatsoever.

[46] We lie to ourselves, translates pseudometha, a present tense, middle voice construction. The middle voice means that the action bends back on the subject in some way. Example: I wash my face. The English language does not have a middle voice construction.

[47] If we were to continue to walk about, translates peripatōmen, a present tense, subjunctive mood construction; and so, both the potential and continuous aspects of walking are emphasized.

[48] Continues to cleanse, translates katharizei. That cleansing has to do with complete removal is illustrated by the cleansing of the leper in Matthew 8:2-4. The passage reads: “And, behold a leper, (lepros, masculine gender) came, was worshipping Him, saying: ‘Lord, if you might will, you are able to cleanse (katharisai) me.’ And He stretched out the hand, while saying: ‘I will, you be cleansed (katharisthêti) right now!’ And immediately his leprosy (lepra, feminine gender) was cleansed (ekatharisthê). And Jesus says to him ‘. . . You go show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded. . . .’”

1) Jesus understood the request for cleansing to be a removal of the problem. Request granted! 2) Just as the leper was completely cleansed/healed, just so, men are cleansed from all sin in this life and indwelt by a holy God; and as members of the body of Christ, they are under the control of the Head—Christ!

[49] From translates apo, an ablative of separation, used here to help the noun sin, also an ablative, express more vividly the separation from sin by cleansing.

[50] Every conceivable translates the force of pasês without the article. See Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, Renewed ©1984, §1174, C.

[51] Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, §172, (2).

[52] Both tense and mood translated; mood not usually translated. Mood expresses the potential (If we were to) also futurity (hereafter) aspect of the verb; tense expresses kind of action…point action, say.

[53] Received is aorist tense, active voice, and indicative mood; received sometime in the past.

[54] Teach is a continuous present here.

[55] Remain may be either indicative, or imperative as translated here.

[56] See footnote # 1 on perfect tense.

[57] Have not known is in the perfect tense. “The perfect is the tense of completed action. Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished results…. It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its culmination and existing in a finished state” (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, § 182.

[58] But translates all’, for alla, a strong adversative; may be translated: but, except, certainly, in fact.

[59] Out of translates ek; so out of the truth as to the source of their moral condition and understanding.

[60] If we were to keep on agreeing translates homologōmen, compounded of homos, one and the same, and legō, to say. So, to say the same thing as another or, agreement; and is a present tense, subjunctive mood construction.

[61] Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, §172, (2).

[62] It is of interest that in both verses 7 and 9 respectively, cleanse takes the accusative of the person: “Keeps on cleansing us,” and “may cleanse us.” Thus, persons with the Adamic nature engrained in their being are cleansed and their relation to the thing—sin/ unrighteousness—is spatial, not intimate.

[63] Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, § 290.

[64] Note, in verse 5, “And you know that (oidate hoti);” and John uses the construction and oidamen hoti in I John 5:18 to call attention to a generally understood truth, namely, that our sins may be taken away and that the believer does not sin. (See Arndt and Gingrich, p. 558, 1.e.).

The prophetically acclaimed Prophet, John the Baptist, announced the same truth— “. . . the Lamb of God, the One taking away the sin of the world.”