1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned.
1 John 1:10 changes the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief.
It may be a gnostic belief but it is also the belief of many non-gnostic non-believers, too. I'm sure this was the case in John's time just as it is now.
This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because
1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us.
If we neglect to keep God's commandments
as a common and persistent practice, we lie about knowing God. But the believer who in his struggle against sin occasionally stumbles and falls is not a liar about knowing God any more than the mathematician who makes the occasional error in his calculations is not a mathematician. Now, a mathematician who is
always getting his sums wrong cannot claim to be a mathematician, but the
occasional calculation error happens to the best of mathematicians - just as the occasional sin happens to the best of Christians.
The OSAS's interpretation on
1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on
1 John 2:3-4.
It is only in conflict if one reads
1 John 2:3-4 in a sinless perfection manner. Reading it in the way I have just explained above results in no conflict at all.
You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of
1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill
1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments.
Yes, I would agree. One who is
always sinning is not one who has ever been saved, just as John states.
Especially when
1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on
1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (
1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (
1 John 2:4).
??? See above.
In fact, the New English Translation says this for
1 John 1:8,
"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (
1 John 1:8 NET).
This is a very uncommon translation of the verse. I looked at over a dozen different translations of this verse and not one of them renders it the way the NET does. I'm not, then, going to use this unusual translation to define how I understand the verse.
In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their sins are paid for: Past, present, and future by Jesus.
Well, on what basis is a believer made acceptable to God? It is our sin that separates us from God. What did Jesus do to reconcile us to God, then? He paid the penalty of our sin on the cross. Look up Penal-Substitutionary Atonement. Dr. William Lane Craig has some great videos on this view of the Atonement. It explains how Christ bore the penalty of our sin on the cross (
1 Peter 2:24) and so freed us from that penalty (
2 Corinthians 5:21), freed us from having to pay for our sins ourselves. If Christ has done this, if he has paid the penalty for our sin, then what have we to be guilty of? It is Satan, the Accuser, who comes before God pointing at the Christian's sin in condemnation. And it is Christ, our Advocate (
1 John 2:1), who defends us before God's throne, declaring to be free from condemnation we who are in him (
Romans 8:1). This is so because Christ is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (
John 1:29) No believer, then, stands under the threat of judgment and hell. (
John 5:24; 1 John 4:16-17)
Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus.
I believe no such thing. And this is why I call these statements you make about what I do or don't believe Strawmen. I don't "deny the existence of sin partially." Sin exists - even in the life of a believer. I don't know what it means, though, for sin to exist "on a spiritual level." But I do know that Jesus has obtained for me the forgiveness of God by paying the penalty for my sin on the cross. Do you deny that he has? Do you deny that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World? I sure hope not.
In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for
1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because
1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.
But I do believe this. I believe in every Christian person there are secret nests of sin they don't even know exist. I believe there are subtle sins of attitude and belief in each of us that require supernatural power to be revealed. I believe there is sin with which each of us are so comfortable, that have become so reflexive, that we cannot recognize the sin for what it is. Over time, God roots these sins out of us, making us progressively holy. But it
does take time - all of our lifetime, actually.
When a Christian suggests to me that they are entirely free of sin, I recognize how little they understand of God's holy perfection. I understand also that they have a correspondingly inordinate view of their own goodness. God is so far beyond us in terms of His holiness, so infinitely distant from us in His moral purity, that to suggest we can ever be truly holy as He is holy is, in my opinion, hubris of the most grotesque and astronomical proportions. We certainly ought to be moving in the direction of greater holiness all the time, but to think we can actually attain to God's holy perfection echoes of the pride of the devil.
The proper way to deal with sin is not to ignore it in some way by saying it is paid for by Jesus by having a mere belief on Him, but we are to deal with sin by confessing sin in order to be forgiven of it (
1 John 1:9).
??? Did I ever say sin ought to be ignored? No. I have never said such a thing.
RE:
1 Corinthians 5,
1 Corinthians 6:
Not sure how that helps you here. These chapters mention how sins can separate and cause a loss of salvation (See
1 Corinthians 5:11-13, and
1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Ah, but they don't. They are examples of
believers in serious, willful sin.
RE:
2 Corinthians 12:20-21:
You have to keep reading. In
2 Corinthians 13:5, Paul says prove that Christ be in you, unless you be reprobate.
And this, you think, negates the clear import of Paul's words about believer's being guilty of sin? I don't see how. Paul was worried that the Corinthian
believers would be acting in sinful ways. In fact, at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter Paul says:
2 Corinthians 13:1-2
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:
In context, Paul appears to be referring to Corinthian believers who've sinned - very likely the ones he rebuked in his first letter to the Corinthian church. You know, those carnal, babes-in-Christ, Christians.
I don't doubt that some of those among the Corinthian believers were not actually saved. Paul mentions a number of such people within the Early Church. And so he urges the members of the Corinthian church to examine themselves and to be sure they are actually in Christ and he in them. I don't see how any of this negates the fact that genuine Christian believers were sinning, however.
RE:
Galatians 2:11-14:
Not sure how this helps you.
It describes an instance where the apostles themselves (Peter and then Barnabas) were guilty of being "respecters of persons." They kowtowed to the pressure of the Jews that had come from James, forsaking association with the Gentile believers for fear of what the Jews might think. Paul rebuked them rather sharply. This looks to me like a good example of believers acting sinfully.
Galatians 3:1
1 O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Paul here accuses the Galatian believers of being "bewitched" and failing to obey the truth of the Gospel. Sounds like wrongdoing by believers to me...
RE:
2 Timothy 4:2:
Not sure how this verse helps you. It talks about rebuking others according to the Word.
Rebuking implies wrongdoing. One is not rebuked for doing right, typically. It would be Christians, though, that Timothy, a pastor, would be rebuking.
Yet, you think that a Christian can be carnal (which describes the list of believers above) and still be saved. Sorry, the Bible does not support your belief.
Be as sorry as you like; it doesn't change the fact that Scripture indicates that Christians can and do sin and remain Christians.
RE:
Hebrews 12:5-11:
The purpose of goal of the chastening is the fruits of righteousness.
Chastening is the response to wrongdoing. A father does not chasten his children without such a cause. To do so would be unjust. Essentially, the writer of Hebrews is acknowledging that believers sin, and when they do, God enacts corrective discipline upon them because they are
His children whom He loves.
Hebrews 12:5-7
5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?
A rebuke only comes in response to wrongdoing; and what father would scourge his son, except in response to wrongdoing? Here, perhaps more than any other place in Scripture, it is clear that not only do children of God sin, but
God expects it and has promised to discipline His children when they do.
You want me to believe that believers always sin as per
1 John 1:8. So correction or chastening does not even make sense in light of your belief.
Strawman. Believers are always living in sin, (conditionally, not positionally) which is why they need the righteousness of Christ imputed to them in order to be acceptable to God. But this fact does not alleviate believers of the responsibility to become progressively more holy, to root out sin as God reveals it. When a believer refuses to do so, God chastens them, usually by letting sin bear its destructive fruit in their life, thereby provoking them to resume the sanctification process God is working in them.
