How do we stay in Christ?

[backwoodsman]

There are a couple of things that lead me to believe that there may be more to these verses than the "keep on" or "continue to" interpretations, although I appreciate the hope they offer.

Considering that A. T. Robertson was one of the preeminent New Testament Greek scholars of the 20th century, it seems unwise, at best, to reject his work without the support of very solid scholarship.

Concerning context, 1 John 3:5 states, "You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin."

The keyword there is "context." John didn't write in riddles; his meaning is crystal clear if one doesn't pull out one verse and try to make it say something inconsistent with the clear meaning of the verses before & after it.

If there is no sin in Him and we are in Him- what happens between sinning and repenting?

Grace.

If we add words to verses- is it possible that we could miss something, hide something, or twist something

I would say, not only possible, but guaranteed. But, who is adding words?

Jesus also commanded for us to "be perfect" as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Could we justifiably change it to "be mostly perfect" or "be as perfect as you can be"?

(Matthew 5:48) Another good place to apply context and language scholarship. Start at v43, or better yet, v1; notice the "therefore" in v48; then look up the meaning of the word translated "perfect" in Robertson, Thayer, or Wuest (Strong's is often a little too concise to be of much use).

Additionally, if we are to walk as Jesus walked, did Jesus sin and ask for repentance?

The only logical place to go with that is that when we sin we lose our salvation until we repent -- clearly not a Biblical teaching. For starters, see 2 Tim 2:13.

I may be misinterpreting some of your comments in this thread, but they remind me of people I've known who went way off the deep end into legalistic extremism. You seem to take ideas you get about individual verses pulled out of context, over the clear meaning of Scripture as a unified whole. Of course we need the Spirit to illuminate Scripture -- but the Spirit will never contradict the written word. I would encourage you to seek counsel from those around you, make use of readily available language scholarship, commentaries, etc., and consider it all very carefully before holding too tightly to interpretations with which other believers have serious issues.

[dseusy]

Backwoodsman wrote:
Considering that A. T. Robertson was one of the preeminent New Testament Greek scholars of the 20th century, it seems unwise, at best, to reject his work without the support of very solid scholarship.

I can understand being sharpened by another man, but I don't believe passing all truth through the intelligent guarantees gleaning the best spiritual truth. What is solid scholarship? Commonly accepted or most in line with the full teaching of God's Word? If the latter, I suggest we leave scripture as the source and not squelch those who, perhaps, see something legitimate.

In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul explained that he didn't come with superiority of speech or with wisdom while proclaiming the testimony of God. He resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.'" Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21

"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God." 2 Corinthians 2:10

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him." 1 John 2:27

Backwoodsman wrote:
The keyword there is "context." John didn't write in riddles; his meaning is crystal clear if one doesn't pull out one verse and try to make it say something inconsistent with the clear meaning of the verses before & after it.

I agree that he didn't write in riddles but he was writing concerning a spiritual mystery and if you take his words at face value (without spiritual understanding) he contradicts himself. We trust that He doesn't, so there are spiritual truths which make his words 100% congruent. For instance:

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8

"We know that no one who is born of God sins" 1 John 5:18a

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" 1 John 5:1a

At face value, these verses contradict themselves and leave us without the hope which the rest of the Bible offers. Without adding words to change the interpretation, there is a spiritual understanding which allows for hope.

Backwoodsmen wrote:
Grace.

How can I be in Christ where there is no sin and sin?

He took away my sin... 1 John 3:5- once... Hebrews 10:10-14:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

Backwoodsman wrote:
who is adding words?

If "keeps on sinning" is what John meant, why didn't he write it? How did A. T. Robertson or the NIV (and other "more readable" versions) come to the conclusion that adding to God's Word is an improvement? The Greek, NASB, & KJV all state it without these extra words, which is congruent with its context. As soon as you add these words then you can be in Christ (where there is no sin) and sin. Isn't it more of a contradiction to add these words?

Backwoodsman wrote:
(Matthew 5:48) Another good place to apply context and language scholarship. Start at v43, or better yet, v1; notice the "therefore" in v48; then look up the meaning of the word translated "perfect" in Robertson, Thayer, or Wuest (Strong's is often a little too concise to be of much use).

Robertson states that the word perfect here (Teleios) is the idea of being whole... If we are to be whole as our Father in heaven is whole (in the context of, "you have heard it said this, but I tell you this"), I don't see how this changes my point... adding words which change the interpretation is robbing ourselves of a better hope.

Backwoodsman wrote:
The only logical place to go with that is that when we sin we lose our salvation until we repent -- clearly not a Biblical teaching. For starters, see 2 Tim 2:13.

This may be the only logical place to go (which I agree is clearly not Biblical), but I don't believe it is the only place to go because I believe the spiritual trumps the logical (human logic).

"Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, 'I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.'" John 8:12

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4

"for we walk by faith, not by sight" 2 Corinthians 5:7

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh" 2 Corinthians 10:3 (Ephesians 6:12)

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh." Galatians 5:16

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." Galatians 6:15-16

Backwoodsman wrote:
I may be misinterpreting some of your comments in this thread, but they remind me of people I've known who went way off the deep end into legalistic extremism. You seem to take ideas you get about individual verses pulled out of context, over the clear meaning of Scripture as a unified whole. Of course we need the Spirit to illuminate Scripture -- but the Spirit will never contradict the written word. I would encourage you to seek counsel from those around you, make use of readily available language scholarship, commentaries, etc., and consider it all very carefully before holding too tightly to interpretations with which other believers have serious issues.

I appreciate your caution here and the wisdom behind it... I did experience a season of legalism in my life, and I know I still view God's gift of eternal life in part- however, God is revealing the most freeing things to me which give me every incentive to never go back to legalism. Where the Spirit of the Lord is- is freedom. It was for freedom that Christ set us free.

[backwoodsman]

What is solid scholarship?

That's a really good question, and I'm glad you asked it. Fortunately, it has a really good answer.

Anyone who knows more than one language knows that some words have direct one-to-one translations, and others require a little more to translate their meaning -- knowledge of not only the dictionary definitions, but also the grammar, culture, idioms, etc. The farther apart the languages & cultures are, the more important those things become. The Bible, of course, was written in languages and cultures quite alien to our own.

That's why men like Robertson, and many others through the ages, are so important. Without them, we'd all have to be experts in Biblical Greek and Hebrew language, grammar, culture, idioms, etc. just to read the Bible. Of course, the basics of salvation are clear enough with just a simple translation, but there's a lot in the Bible that can't be completely understood without benefit of their knowledge. Maybe the translators sacrificed some accuracy and completeness for the sake of readability; maybe they translated in an era before archaeological discoveries shed more light on the languages and cultures in question; maybe an English word has changed in meaning since they translated it, as is sometimes seen in the KJV; maybe they deliberately "dumbed down" their translation, as in some of the more recent translations and paraphrases; or maybe their theological views occasionally turned them into interpreters, rather than translators.

Now, if one were to confuse this language scholarship with theological commentary -- that is, men's opinions and interpretations -- he would end up right where you are: Mistakenly thinking that looking a bit more deeply into the meanings of words in the original language is "adding words" to Scripture, and looking for some seemingly more spiritual enlightenment on its meaning. But in fact, the reverse is true -- if we want to understand what a writer intended to say, we have to understand what the words he used meant to him and his intended readers. Failure to do so, for whatever reason, results in failure to understand the text.

Once this is understood, I think the rest of your questions and points will resolve themselves.

[Paidion]

Since Jesus commanded forgiving 70 x 7, I think He would take His own advice and you would be good until sin # 491.

So now I know what the "unforgiveable sin" is. It's #491!

[dseusy]

Backwoodsman,

Isn't stating, "Although the verse states this, it really means this", an interpretation or theological commentary?

[steve]

All understanding of language involves interpretation. What Backwoodsman is saying is that language experts do a different kind of work than do the commentators. The latter impose their theological paradigms on passages. The former (when doing their work properly) simply tell the meaning of words in their grammatical settings.

You do not seem to realize that a verb, in a certain tense, means "to keep on doing X" without requiring the extra words used in English. To point this out does not impose any particular theological opinion upon them. However, it may save us from drawing the wrong theological opinions from them.

[dseusy]

Steve,

I understand these things but my suggestion is that 1 John 3:6 states something simply with common Ancient Greek words... no one abides sins. Any inference of this particular verse which suggests "keeps on" or "continues to" is interpretation, not linguistics. Let's consider a verse which follows shortly after:

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

This is a common teaching throughout God's Word.

"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." 1 John 5:18

"She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.'" John 8:11

[steve]

dseusy wrote:

my suggestion is that 1 John 3:6 states something simply with common Ancient Greek words... no one abides sins. Any inference of this particular verse which suggests "keeps on" or "continues to" is interpretation, not linguistics.

I am not sure how someone, like yourself, who apparently discredits and does not understand the role of grammar, can be so confident in your assertion that John "states something simply with common Ancient Greek words". Without consulting the grammar ("linguistics," as you call it), how can you know whether the meaning of the "common Ancient Greek words" is stated "simply" or not? If you care nothing for the grammar of a Greek sentence, then you will be totally disqualified to be taken seriously in any discussion of New Testament teachings.

I myself am no Greek scholar, but I care a great deal to know what the Greek grammar of the sentence would clarify about an otherwise ambiguous statement. While I have numerous reference works to consult about such things, two of the most accessible to a non-specialist like myself (and like yourself) are Spiros Zodhiates (himself a native Greek speaker and a Bible scholar) and A.T. Robertson (one of the most respected Greek scholars of his generation, mentioned by Backwoodsman, above). I am not sure that you are a person interested in testing his own views against legitimate biblical exegesis, but, if you are, you may be thankful for the following information:

1) In 1 John 3:9, the word translated "practices [sin]" is in the Present Indicative Active. According to Zodhiates, this tense "asserts something which is occurring" and gives as an example: "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit"—which obviously speaks of the regular habit of the tree, rather than a one-time event. According to A. T. Robertson, this tense "means the habit of doing sin."

2) In the same verse, the verb in the phrase "he cannot sin" is in the Present Infinitive Active, which (according to Zodhiates) "pertains to continuous or repeated action." Robertson writes about this: "The Present Active Infinitive hamartanein can only mean 'and he cannot go on sinning.'"

3) The Present Indicative Active (see #1, above) is the same tense you find in the word "sins" in 1 John 5:18. On that verse, Robertson says it should be translated "does not keep on sinning."

4) In the command, "From now on sin no more," in John 8:11, the verb is the Present Imperative Active, which, "when negated [is] a command to stop doing something" (so Zodhiates).

Obviously, all of these verses are talking about a way of life—that of practicing or not practicing sinful actions. John (along with Jesus) obviously is saying that Christ's followers must not continue in the habit of sinning—a habit which characterized their lives prior to conversion.

[Roberto]

When I first heard the explanations of these verses in 1John, it appeared to me that the interpretation that says that a true Christian does not "practice sin" left a lot of unanswered questions. For starters, what constitutes "practicing" sin? More than one fall into a specific sin?

[Paidion]

When I first heard the explanations of these verses in 1John, it appeared to me that the interpretation that says that a true Christian does not "practice sin" left a lot of unanswered questions. For starters, what constitutes "practicing" sin? More than one fall into a specific sin?

What is required in order to correctly call someone "a sinner"? Is a person who sinned only once in his life "a sinner"? I think it is incorrect to so designate a person as "a sinner". A sinner is one who practises sin, in which sinning is a way of life.

Compare it to the word "farmer". If 16-year-old Joe Bloe visits his uncle in the summer and helps him with the haying, does that qualify Joseph to be called "a farmer"? I don't think so. The apellation of "farmer" can be applied to Joe only if he makes farming his occupation, his way of making a living, at least part time.

So I don't think one can say that Joe Bloe can be correctly called "a sinner" because he sinned once last week — any more than he can be called "a farmer" because he worked on a farm once last week.

I know you can ask, just how often does a person have to sin in order to be "a sinner"? I don't think one can specify , "If you sin more than once a day, then you are a sinner". The best you can do is to say that if you make sinning a way of life, then you are a sinner. Christ sacrificed Himself in order to do away with sin (Hebrews 9:26) and any true Christian aims to eliminate sin entirely from his life. We must leave it to God to judge how successful each person has been in fulfilling that aim. Only God can assess it aright, and He will take the appropriate action to correct us.

Some Christians think they are being humble by saying they are "only a sinner saved by grace". But such people need to be careful that they are not excusing the practice of sin. Paul wrote:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. I Corinthians 6:9-11