quote:

---

Question:

If, as St John says, "he who is borm of God does not sin, because his seed dwells in God, and he cannot sin" (1 Jn 3:9), and yet he who is born of water and Spirit is himself born of God (cf Jn 3:5-6), then how are we who are born of God through baptism still able to sin?

(Maximus the Confessor)

---

quote:

---

[First John 3:6 & 9] reads as follows:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:6-9, NIV)

Notice that the translation uses the words "continues" in verse 6 and "continue" in verse 9. These words have been included to convey the "continuous" aspect of the Greek present tense. The passage is therefore understood to mean that those who are born of God do not continuously or habitually sin. In other words, sin no longer characterizes a believer's lifestyle. This does not exclude occasional sinning but it says that sin is no longer the dominating characteristic.

From what I understand, however, inclusion of the words "continues" and "continue" overstresses the contribution of the present tense. In fact, some have argued that the continuous aspect is not inherent at all in the present tense, but rather is conveyed by other means. Sakae Kubo and J.P. Louw have both written important articles stating this. I can post quotations and references from both if you want, but I don't have them with me at the moment. I have heard that R.E. Brown, I.H. Marshall, S.S. Smalley, and C.H. Dodd make similar observations concerning the force of the present tense aspect in their commentaries on John's epistles. Some of these reference appear in the citations below.

Zane Hodges writes:

What is called "aspect" in the Greek verb system is very poorly understood by many people who have studied (and written about!) the significance of the Greek tenses. The words of Zerwick are a caution frequently ignored. He writes: "NB: The aspects, as was said above, present the action as [italics his] a simple fact, etc.; the use of tense is determined not so much by the objective reality (which commonly admits all three aspects according to what the speaker wishes to express [italics added]) as by the speaker's needs: he will use the aorist for an action which objectively lasted a long time or was repeated, if what he wishes to express is simply the fact that the action took place; or the present for an action which is of its nature momentary [italics added], if what he wishes to express is the nature or kind of action as distinct from its concrete realization." Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963), p. 78. The idea that the Greek present tense automatically suggests on-going or continuous action is a linguistic myth. No doubt it is believed by many (even some scholars) but it is mythical nonetheless. [Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 2d ed. (Dallas: Redencion Viva) p. 164, n. 10; italics as noted in Hodges.]

The NET Bible comments in the "translator's note" for 1 John 3:6:

tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense hamartanei in this verse (and 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 hamartanei 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, 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…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). [NET Bible, www.bible.org]

And at 1 John 3:9, the NET Bible adds:

tn The problem of the present tense of poiei here is exactly that of the present tense of hamartanei in 3:6. Here in 3:9 the distinction is sharply drawn between "the one who practices sin" in 3:8, who is of the devil, and "the one who is fathered by God" in 3:9, who "does not practice sin." See S. Kubo ("I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?" AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56) for a fuller discussion of the author's argument as based on a sharp antithesis between the recipients (true Christians) and the opponents (heretics). [NET Bible, www.bible.org]


Of course there has been vigorous debate over the significance of the Greek verbal aspects in recent years. But the relevant point for this discussion is the Greek present tense, by itself, does not convey a continuous aspect; other qualifying words must be present for this sense to be communicated. In other words, the inclusion of "continues" and "continue" in 1 John 3:6 & 9 is unwarranted. John is indeed stating unequivocally that the one who is born of God does not sin--at all!

But if anything, this has reinforced the difficulty you originally pointed out; it certainly has done nothing to explain it.

Here is what I take 1 John 3:5-9 (and therefore, also 1 John 5:18) to be saying. I will paraphrase what I believe to be the flow of thought.

In Christ, there is absolutely no sin (v.5) and therefore, those who are in him do not sin either (v.6). The reason for this is because sin finds its source in the devil (v.8), not in God's seed, which those who are born of God possess. That seed remains completely sinless (v.9).

A few additional things to point out about this interpretation:

(1) This sharp contrast between sin/don't sin is typical of John's polarizations elsewhere in the epistle (e.g., light/dark, love/hate). John is not concerned with gray areas, but rather, he is contrasting pairs of opposing spheres within which the believer might abide. His language carries an "absolute" tone to it.

(2) The seed of God which remains in us is elsewhere described as "imperishable" (1 Peter 1:23), so this is not the only time where it is described as something which is without defect. I think the idea is that when we sin, the source of that sin is not God's seed which is in us, but rather the devil. Those who are born again possess this seed which cannot, in an absolute sense, be the source of sin. Perhaps, this mistaken idea is indicative of the Gnostic/proto-Gnostic/Revisionist views against which (as is often understood) John was writing.

At any rate, this view has satisfied my questions about this text. I contribute this knowing that most will not accept it, but I thought I'd throw this out as a potential solution to the problem.

---

The implication of this is that John is not commenting on whether or not, or even how much, believers sin. If this interpretation is correct, then we must toss out explanations which find in these verses a criterion for distinguishing "true" believers from "professing" believers on the basis of the number or frequency of sins committed.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

quote:

---

Someone living in the 7th century (b. 580) wrote this

quote:

---

Question:

If, as St John says, "he who is borm of God does not sin, because his seed dwells in God, and he cannot sin" (1 Jn 3:9), and yet he who is born of water and Spirit is himself born of God (cf Jn 3:5-6), then how are we who are born of God through baptism still able to sin?

(Maximus the Confessor)

---

ANY THOUGHTS?



Edited by - fred on 06/18/2003 4:00:53 PM

---

quote:

---

It is, I believe, a bad translation. The weight of the passage (and I believe the Greek),

---

"He who is borm of God does not sin, because his seed dwells in God, and he CAN not sin"

quote:

---

John just got done saying that if any man does sin, he has an advocate with the Father (1:8-9)--but that one won't PRACTICE sinning anymore. In other words, the heart and mind are changed, though the flesh isn't. There's a clear departure from the "old" heart and mind...

---

quote:

---

John

They don't knowingly continue in (practice) sin, indeed, they cannot live that way any longer (Rom. 6:1), for they are born of God, and God's Spirit within them leads them into a life of holiness/wholeness.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

John

They don't knowingly continue in (practice) sin, indeed, they cannot live that way any longer (Rom. 6:1), for they are born of God, and God's Spirit within them leads them into a life of holiness/wholeness.

---

Is this true.

---

quote:

---

'Maximus's "realized eschatology" (see Ad Thalassium 22 below) informs his whole understanding of the "potentiality" and "actuality" of the grace of deification. The full fruition of the grace of adoption is already present, at least potentially, in the believer, before it becomes actually operative in the spiritual life.

---

quote:

---

Question

If, as St John says, he who is born of God does not sin, because his seed dwells in God, and he cannot sin (i Jn 3:9), and yet he who is born of water and Spirit is himself born of God (cf Jn 3:5-6), then how are we who are born of God through baptism still able to sin?

Response

The manner of birth from God within us is two-fold: the one bestows the grace of adoption, which is entirely present in potency in those who are born of God; the other introduces, wholly by active exertion, that grace which deliberately reorients the entire free choice of the one being born of God toward the God who gives birth.

---

quote:

---

So what does 1 John 1:8-10 really mean then?

We are actually able to say that we are without sin even though this is in direct defiance of the meaning of these verses? Isn't this precisely what it means to deceive ourselves? How does that work?

---

quote:

---

fred

I once lived with a lot of Nazarenes. Some of them said that they knew of people who "didn't sin any more." If they meant that those people didn't have to struggle with sin's potentialilty, then they were wrong. And if those people themselves thought they were above the struggle, then I suppose they would have to be deluded.

John

No major holiness writer, not Wesley, Clarke, Finney, or any other that I am aware of (and I have studied their works in great detail for some years now) would ever say that entire sanctification exempted one from struggling with sin's potentiality, nor that they were above the struggle. Further, no major holiness writer ever taught Christian perfection was anything more than HUMAN moral perfection; i.e., loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself.

All of these writers go to great lengths to explain that they by no means intend to say that Christians can ever reach a point this side of heaven in which they do not struggle with temptation, tendencies, and the like, nor that they are ever exempt from mistakes, errors in judgment due to ignorance, and so forth. Their understanding was that with very few exceptions, sin was "a willful transgression of a known law."

That is, a tempting thought is not a sin so long as it stops there and one does not choose to pursue the thought and dwell on it. Ultimately in holiness theology, morality lies in the intentions of the heart, though of course one cannot truly intend to love God and his fellow man and not act upon it, if possible. (The thief on the cross would be an example of how one could love Jesus and yet not be able to do much to show it, but this is of course an extreme example of inability that does not fit many, if any, today).

---

quote:

---

Nice "slam dunk", John.I put that one up on the backboard, and hoped that someone would take it. (I think some of tyhe Nazarenes I was around--not all of them--didn't know their own Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. Too much interference from Charismatics.) Thanks for doing an OUTSTANING job of responding!!!

Fred

---

quote:

---

It was not my intention to "slam-dunk" the discussion, if by that you mean "end" it.

---