1 John 3:4 -9

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The fact that your question is irrelevant to the topic of discussion certainly seems to be beyond YOU.

I still say your scared to say, "Yes..I don't sin". But we all know that's what your emplying. So since that is the case your equal with Jesus..Right?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If John is saying that his audience of regenerated Christians find it impossible to sin then WHY are their exhortations not to ? You do not have to take precautions that a apple tree does not bring forth pears.

Yes, granted, John does rejoice that the one born of God does not and cannot sin. I wouldn't change it if you held a gun up to my head. ...[text shortened]... get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".

===========================================
I never said that it is "automatic". Evidently in his audience there at those who continue to sin that are not yet "born of God". You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin." Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of God" are exhorted to try to get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".
===========================================

That is perhaps a plausible explanation. And we'll test it out.

Let's see who John considers his audience:

" I write to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you because of His name.

I write to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. Iwrite to you, young children, because you know the Father.

I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning.

I have written to you, young men, because you are swtrong and the word of God abides in you andyou have overcome the evil one." (1 John 2:12-14)


Who among these recipients of John's writing would you consider as not yet born again?

I would consider them ALL born again.

How about this instruction to his audience:

"My little children, these things I write to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Chriswt the Rightoeus." (1:1)

On what basis would you claim that John would refer to those NOT born again as his little children ?

Moreover in the previous verse he writes:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us oour sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (v.9)

Please notice that John did not write "If [YOU] confess [YOUR] sins". He included himself - "If we confess [OUR] sins" .

Do you think John entertained some doubt that even he himself had not been born of God yet?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================================
I never said that it is "automatic". Evidently in his audience there at those who continue to sin that are not yet "born of God". You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin." Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of tertained some doubt that even he himself had not been born of God yet?

[/b]Did you not understand my post?

You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin." Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of God" are exhorted to try to get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".

The above is based on what you said you believe which you posed it in the strongest terms:

Yes, granted, John does rejoice that the one born of God does not and cannot sin. I wouldn't change it if you held a gun up to my head. I am glad he wrote it exactly as he wrote it.

You believe that "one born of God does not and cannot sin", therefore you must also believe that "those who continue to sin cannot yet be 'born of God'".

To believe both "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" is completely irrational.

You can't have it both ways.

Do you not understand this?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you not understand my post?

You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin." Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of God" are exhorted to try to get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".

The above i ...[text shortened]... rrational.

You can't have it both ways.

Do you not understand this?[/b]

To believe both "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" is completely irrational.
-----ToOne--------------

No it's not if John is talking about wilful sin (ie the deliberate intention to sin) as distinct from sin per se.

The same applies to Jesus's utterances on sin.

Infact , given what Jesus and John teach in other places it's the only rational conclusion. It's also backed up by the fact that we know that Judaism DID have different catagories for sin that included wilful sins and sins as a result of humanity.

To assume without thought that whenever sin is mentioned in scripture it always refers to the same concept is rigid thinking , and it actually makes Jesus's teachings contradictory.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you not understand my post?

You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin." Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of God" are exhorted to try to get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".

The above i rrational.

You can't have it both ways.

Do you not understand this?[/b]

===================================
Did you not understand my post?
==================================

I understood your post. It is not difficult to understand your post.

================================================
Evidently in his audience there at those who continue to sin that are not yet "born of God".
=========================================


Evidently, John the apostle has not excluded HIMSELF completely out of the realm of those who possibly MAY need to confess thier sins:

"If WE confess OUR sins He is faithful and righteous to forgive US OUR sins and cleanse US from all unrighteousness." (v.9)

Not only in his audience does John anticipate the need to confess occasional sins but he HIMSELF includes HIMSELF.

Are you suggesting that John is writing about being born of God when he knows he HIMSELF has not yet had the experience ?

=======================================
You said that you agree that one who is "born of God does not and cannot sin."
=======================================

That is right. And I also said that this kind of utterance leans toward the consummation of the process, the climax.

I have already detailed how the letter makes no sense otherwise. "It has NOT YET been manifested what we what we WILL be" (3:2)

There is a process of growth and maturity to those born of God.

You are arguing that full consummate maturity is ALREADY manifested. John would disagree with you no matter how much you tried to remind him of the event of the new birth.

John writes "WE WILL BE LIKE HIM, because we will see Him even as He is" (v.3:2)

John would not agree with you that the Christians are already fully like Him BEFORE they see Him even as He is in the future. It doesn't matter how much you play games of symantics trying to force an illogical interpretation.

Furthermore John says that the world hates the ones born of God - "Do not marvel, brothers if the world hates you." (3:13)

One of the manifestations of the worlds hatred for the Christian brothers is to try to use their own Bible to invalidate their new birth and argue that they have not been born of God.

It is no marvel that you persist to invalidate even the experience of the Apostle John himself. For since John addresses his own need for and Advocate to handle his confessions, along with his audience, you apparently count John as not having been regenerated.

This is not only invalidating his apostleship but invalidating him even as a regenerated disciple of Christ.

================================
Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God".
=======================

That is not the way I would put it at all. I would rather say as John himself says, that they are not walking "IN THE TRUTH".

"For the sake of the TRUTH which abides in us and will be with us forever... I rejoice greatly that I have found [some] of your children WALKING IN TRUTH, even as we received commandment from the Father." (2 John 2,4)

John writes that some of the members of this sister's congregation are walking in truth. I think that is how John would put it. I do not think he would say "Some of your children are not born of God."

It is a matter of walking in truth, or walking in THE truth - "I have no greater joy than these things, that I hear that my children are walkingin the truth" (3 John 4)

In other words they were WALKING in the normal experience of abiding in the new life that they have received.

You can say if you want to that I am not born of God because I do need everyday to confess my errors, shortcomings, sins, failures, and transgressions. You may say if you wish "Well jaywill, since you confessed a sin today, according to First John, you are not born of God."

Go ahead and make that accusation if you wish. It doesn't bother me.

And while you do so spend some time to read the account of Balaam trying to curse the children of Israel in Numbers 22:1 - 25:18

There a prophet was hired by a Gentile enemy of Israel to utter divine accusations against the Hebrews. It is a wonderful lesson which we discipls of Christ learned long ago. Sometimes it seems that an accusation is speaking for God. Yet God is not standing with the accuser. And no matter what angle the accuser uses or what apparent good ground he seems to have to make his accusation, God only sees His beautiful redeemed people.

Your handling of First John reminds me of Balaam's futile attempts to harrass the children of Israelin Numbers 22:1 - 25:18


===========================================
Therefore, those who continue to sin cannot yet be "born of God". Those who are not yet "born of God" are exhorted to try to get there. By the same token, those who continue to sin cannot yet "abide in Him".
=====================================

There is no "there" to try to get to as far as the new birth is concerned. It is a GIFT. You receive the GIFT.

Then you learn to abide in Him as He and His apostles exhorted.



Yes, granted, John does rejoice that the one born of God does not and cannot sin. I wouldn't change it if you held a gun up to my head. I am glad he wrote it exactly as he wrote it.


=====================================
You believe that "one born of God does not and cannot sin", therefore you must also believe that "those who continue to sin cannot yet be 'born of God'".

To believe both "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" is completely irrational.

You can't have it both ways.

Do you not understand this?
=================================

I understand your logic. And it does not take into account anything other than what you WANT to notice in the letter.

All you want to see is "BORN of God CANNOT sin".
You have to accuse the apostle John of being irrational then.

John teaches of the rich provision of the cleansing blood of Jesus to all those children of God who confess their sins.

You wish to act as the Accusing Prosecutor. But we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. That is the RIGHTEOUS.

His intercession for His children is RIGHTEOUS. And Paul tells us WHO is the one who can condemn us children of the new birth:

"Who shall bring a charge against God's chosen ones? It is God who justifies.

Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and , rther, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who ALSO INTERCEEDS FOR US." (Romans 8:33,34)

So we who have been born of God seek to walk in the truth. And that truth includes the fact that the sinless One has been born into our being as a divine seed of life. There is no sin in Him. He overcomes sin. And we must learn to abide in Him, walk in Him. Then we too, being born of God overcome the fallen Adamic nature because of the new birth.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Did you not understand my post?
==================================

I understood your post. It is not difficult to understand your post.

================================================
Evidently in his audience there at those who continue to sin that are not yet "born of God".
========= len Adamic nature because of the new birth.

[/b]C'mon jaywill.

You can say you understand my post, but your response indicates otherwise.

YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.

For example, if those who continue to sin can be "born of God", then logically one born of God can sin. To have the position that they both continue to sin and cannot sin is illogical.

This has to do with YOUR position. It is YOUR position that is irrational.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill.

You can say you understand my post, but your response indicates otherwise.

YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.

For example, if those who continue to sin can be "born of God", then logically one born of God can sin. To hav ...[text shortened]... illogical.

This has to do with YOUR position. It is YOUR position that is irrational.[/b]

Like I said, I understood your post. It is not difficult to understand your argument.

And I don't feel it necessary to re-answer it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill.

You can say you understand my post, but your response indicates otherwise.

YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.

For example, if those who continue to sin can be "born of God", then logically one born of God can sin. To hav ...[text shortened]... illogical.

This has to do with YOUR position. It is YOUR position that is irrational.[/b]

YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.
------ToOne------------

Not if John is talking about wilful sin (ie the deliberate intention to sin) as distinct from sin per se.

If you want to make a conscious choice to only allow for one interpretation possible (ie Your interpretation) then that's your choice.


The same applies to Jesus's utterances on sin.

Infact , given what Jesus and John teach in other places it's the only rational conclusion. It's also backed up by the fact that we know that Judaism DID have different catagories for sin that included wilful sins and sins as a result of humanity.

To assume without thought that whenever sin is mentioned in scripture it always refers to the same concept is rigid thinking , and it actually makes Jesus's teachings contradictory.

Originally posted by knightmeister
YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.
------ToOne------------

Not if John is talking about wilful sin (ie the deliberate intention to sin) as distinct from sin per se.

If you want to make a conscious choice to only allow for one interpretat same concept is rigid thinking , and it actually makes Jesus's teachings contradictory.

KM,

I want to acknowledge that you have a point because translators have indicated the difference in a habitual practice of sinning from a believer's occasional failure.

And Christian history is replete with very mature Christians admitting to failures. Unless we adopt the extreme position that no one has been born of God, it is apparent that John, Paul, Peter, and any other disciple early or late sometimes sinned.

ToO thinks he has a very strong case. But it is pretty much the same if I lifted from Ecclesiastes the passage that says "Money solves everything" (Ecc. 10:19) and held theologians to that one passage.

No need for a Savior, no need for salvation, no need for anything because "money solves everything" (Ecc.10:19) according to Solomon.

Then I boast that my argument is the most rational and biblical one. The Bible said money solves everything so who can argue with the Bible?

This kind of stubburness to me is indicative of obsession not healthy spiritual interpretation of Scripture.

Originally posted by jaywill
Like I said, I understood your post. It is not difficult to understand your argument.

And I don't feel it necessary to re-answer it.

You didn't answer it at all.

You pointed to reasons why you believe that those who continue to sin can be "born of God".

You also reiterated that you believe that ""one born of God does not and cannot sin".

Thus your position continues to be that those "born of God" both can continue to sin and cannot sin.

How you cannot understand that both cannot be true is beyond me. Your position is completely irrational. You are living in a state of denial.

Originally posted by knightmeister
YOUR beliefs that "one born of God does not and cannot sin" and those who continue to sin can be "born of God" cannot be logically reconciled.
------ToOne------------

Not if John is talking about wilful sin (ie the deliberate intention to sin) as distinct from sin per se.

If you want to make a conscious choice to only allow for one interpretat same concept is rigid thinking , and it actually makes Jesus's teachings contradictory.

The teachings of Jesus are coherent without placing words in His mouth which you've shown time and again that you are more than willing to do. You do not believe Him, because you have eyes but cannot see. You have ears but cannot hear.

If something doesn't make your point, you distort it (even beyond all recognition) until it does. It is just one of countless attempts to deceive in your part. You have a long track record of distorting, telling half-truths, telling outright lies, etc. You've lived so long in a world of deceit that it seems natural to you.

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You didn't answer it at all.

You pointed to reasons why you believe that those who continue to sin can be "born of God".

You also reiterated that you believe that ""one born of God does not and cannot sin".

Thus your position continues to be that those "born of God" both can continue to sin and cannot sin.

How you cannot understand that both ...[text shortened]... beyond me. Your position is completely irrational. You are living in a state of denial.

I am living in the same state that the apostle John was living in.

However, John was much further along.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am living in the same state that the apostle John was living in.

However, John was much further along.

There's no reason to believe that John's position is necessarily irrational, but there is no question that your position is irrational.

That you insist on assigning your irrational position upon John rather than admit a lack of understanding on your part speaks to your character.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There's no reason to believe that John's position is necessarily irrational, but there is no question that your position is irrational.

That you insist on assigning your irrational position upon John rather than admit a lack of understanding on your part speaks to your character.

We are in fellowship with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ, and in fellowship with the apostles. This is just as John wrote in 1:1-3.

" And these things we write to you that our joy may be made full." (1:4)

I am sorry if you lack experience. But perhaps one day you will join us.

Originally posted by jaywill
We are in fellowship with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ, and in fellowship with the apostles. This is just as John wrote in 1:1-3.

[b]" And these things we write to you that our joy may be made full." (1:4)

I am sorry if you lack experience. But perhaps one day you will join us.[/b]

Sorry jaywill. That you insist on holding an irrational position points to your level of delusion.

You should consider adopting the teachings of Jesus instead. By and large, the teachings of Jesus are coherent.