a thought

[JM]

JM - I refuse to argue with someone who's only looking to find fault with whatever I say.

God bless.

 

[The Righterzpen]

God bless.

JM - hope you realize I wasn't referring to you.

 

[twin1954]

And in a public forum I have the choice to not respond to you.

Yes, you do.

 

[twin1954]

JM - I refuse to argue with someone who's only looking to find fault with whatever I say.

I apologize once more if I have come across to you as you describe. I am not seeking to find fault at all. I just would like to understand where you are coming from and how you got there. I would love to be helpful to you and others.

I am nothing but a country bumpkin coming from the mountains of West Virginia. The Lord has seen fit to use me in ways that I could never imagine.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I was called, gifted and sent to preach and teach the things of Christ. Were you?

So now you're just a country bumpkin who's trying to help me.

Yeah - OK?

 

[twin1954]

So now you're just a country bumpkin who's trying to help me.

Yeah - OK?

In the post you quoted I was responding in kind. Remember it was you who started with the nastyness. Never mind though, you are a one person who needs no one else’s help.

 

[The Righterzpen]

In the post you quoted I was responding in kind. Remember it was you who started with the nastyness. Never mind though, you are a one person who needs no one else’s help.

So you were "responding in kind" to me telling you to look up Bible verses about repentance? This is where all this started. You told me you wanted me to give you the best verses to "support (my) argument because you didn't have time to look up all of them".

That's when I laughed at you.

From there you went on to tell me that you were no novice. You sat under the tutelage of (who ever) for 30 years and:

"I was called, gifted and sent to preach and teach the things of Christ. Were you?"

Now how is that statement "in kind" to me telling you to look up Bible verses on repentance?

And then you go on to say I was the one who started the nastiness? That preceded your jumping all over me about how you are no novice and you sat under..... and are gifted and called by God and......

Preachers who are really called and gifted by God don't need to tell people that!

From there you go on to tell me how intelligent you think I am.

Like is that suppose to make me say: "Ohh I'm so glad you noticed how smart I am! I've been waiting my whole life for people to tell me how smart I am! Come on, keep telling me how smart I am!"

LOL

Am I smart? According to my IQ tests in high school. I probably have an average IQ - Ehhh.... so what!

I learned an interesting truth almost 20 years ago now out of (all places) Reader's Digest. The subject was about people who become "experts" in their fields. Be they writers, or teachers, or musicians or.... basket weavers! Ones that were really good at it was not because of any inborn talent. It was basically because they put in the time practicing. The article talked about the Beatles being very prolific. Well that's because they spent 8 to 10 hours a day in the studio messing around writing songs and playing their instruments.

Acquisition of knowledge is not rocket science. It takes sitting down and researching it. I takes what ever time one need to spend to sit down and look up every place in the Scripture that the word "predestination" is used, or the word "faith", or - (fill in the blank).

It's not rocket science. I'm not "smart" because I'm "gifted by God". It's more like: "God; what does this really mean?"

Then I sit down with several concordances and a couple of dictionaries and research. And I don't just look up one or two passages. I look up ALL of them. And once I've gotten a good sense of what a word means from all the different contexts it's used in; then I go back to the passage I was originally looking at and see if I can fit it into a reasonable theological frame work that is somehow related to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. I do this because I know: "Low I come in the volume of the book it is written of me." He is the subject of the Book. What ever I find in there will be about Him in one way or another.

That's how I study. I don't read theology books to teach me. I don't look at commentaries. I don't depend on preachers. I've looked at and listened to a bunch of different things and from there I "scan" for things I don't know, or have never heard before. When I find those things, than I turn around and research them too.

I know what I've been told. I know what I've been taught. But I don't take for granted that anything I've been told or taught is the truth. That's why I have half a dozen concordances and dictionaries. Even the dictionaries though. I don't take for granted that anything in the dictionaries is accurate either. That's why I research.

I will say I've been blessed with a good memory. I remember a whole host of details that I'm able to pull together and create narratives out of. It's like putting together a puzzle. "Oh here's this piece, it looks like that one. Does it go here? No, maybe it goes over there? Maybe it goes to a place I haven't put together yet. (Put it aside over there.)

I am blessed that as a service connected disabled veteran, I have a lot of time to do this. I know a lot of information about a lot of subjects, but I'm not exhaustively knowledged in any of them.

I'm also told that I'm a good writer. But even that was a lot of practice.

In the end, does any of that type of thing matter? Only to the extent that it makes people think and say - Hey let me look that up myself! I never tell anyone to believe anything I say. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You may (and probably will) learn something I don't know. And when you come back to me and say: "I learned this." I say: "OK, hey I know X,Y and Z about that." or "I don't know A, B, or F. Let me look it up."

I do not assume "Come ask me. I will give you the answers." I say: "Interesting subject. That made me think of.... so now I want to go look up....." And when I get people who say: "Yeah, interesting! I found this; even though I don't understand that. I now want to go look up this other that over there." "Great! tell me what you find. I'm going to go look over here."

I tend to gravitate toward people who have the humility to admit they are teachable; regardless of how much information they've accumulated over the years. I know a lot of crap; but all the crap I know is only as useful as it inspires someone else to investigate.

Paul was a smart guy. But he was driven by this "I need to know You God..... I want to know You, in the power of the resurrection and the fellowship of Your sufferings. I want to really understand that if You be not raised than my faith is in vain and I am above all men most miserable." That's why Paul was smart. He wasn't smart because he was smart. He was smart because he was and continued to remain eager to learn.

 

[twin1954]

So you were "responding in kind" to me telling you to look up Bible verses about repentance? This is where all this started. You told me you wanted me to give you the best verses to "support (my) argument because you didn't have time to look up all of them".

That's when I laughed at you.

From there you went on to tell me that you were no novice. You sat under the tutelage of (who ever) for 30 years and:

"I was called, gifted and sent to preach and teach the things of Christ. Were you?"

Now how is that statement "in kind" to me telling you to look up Bible verses on repentance?

And then you go on to say I was the one who started the nastiness? That preceded your jumping all over me about how you are no novice and you sat under..... and are gifted and called by God and......

Preachers who are really called and gifted by God don't need to tell people that!

From there you go on to tell me how intelligent you think I am.

Like is that suppose to make me say: "Ohh I'm so glad you noticed how smart I am! I've been waiting my whole life for people to tell me how smart I am! Come on, keep telling me how smart I am!"

LOL

Am I smart? According to my IQ tests in high school. I probably have an average IQ - Ehhh.... so what!

I learned an interesting truth almost 20 years ago now out of (all places) Reader's Digest. The subject was about people who become "experts" in their fields. Be they writers, or teachers, or musicians or.... basket weavers! Ones that were really good at it was not because of any inborn talent. It was basically because they put in the time practicing. The article talked about the Beatles being very prolific. Well that's because they spent 8 to 10 hours a day in the studio messing around writing songs and playing their instruments.

Acquisition of knowledge is not rocket science. It takes sitting down and researching it. I takes what ever time one need to spend to sit down and look up every place in the Scripture that the word "predestination" is used, or the word "faith", or - (fill in the blank).

It's not rocket science. I'm not "smart" because I'm "gifted by God". It's more like: "God; what does this really mean?"

Then I sit down with several concordances and a couple of dictionaries and research. And I don't just look up one or two passages. I look up ALL of them. And once I've gotten a good sense of what a word means from all the different contexts it's used in; then I go back to the passage I was originally looking at and see if I can fit it into a reasonable theological frame work that is somehow related to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. I do this because I know: "Low I come in the volume of the book it is written of me." He is the subject of the Book. What ever I find in there will be about Him in one way or another.

That's how I study. I don't read theology books to teach me. I don't look at commentaries. I don't depend on preachers. I've looked at and listened to a bunch of different things and from there I "scan" for things I don't know, or have never heard before. When I find those things, than I turn around and research them too.

I know what I've been told. I know what I've been taught. But I don't take for granted that anything I've been told or taught is the truth. That's why I have half a dozen concordances and dictionaries. Even the dictionaries though. I don't take for granted that anything in the dictionaries is accurate either. That's why I research.

I will say I've been blessed with a good memory. I remember a whole host of details that I'm able to pull together and create narratives out of. It's like putting together a puzzle. "Oh here's this piece, it looks like that one. Does it go here? No, maybe it goes over there? Maybe it goes to a place I haven't put together yet. (Put it aside over there.)

I am blessed that as a service connected disabled veteran, I have a lot of time to do this. I know a lot of information about a lot of subjects, but I'm not exhaustively knowledged in any of them.

I'm also told that I'm a good writer. But even that was a lot of practice.

In the end, does any of that type of thing matter? Only to the extent that it makes people think and say - Hey let me look that up myself! I never tell anyone to believe anything I say. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You may (and probably will) learn something I don't know. And when you come back to me and say: "I learned this." I say: "OK, hey I know X,Y and Z about that." or "I don't know A, B, or F. Let me look it up."

I do not assume "Come ask me. I will give you the answers." I say: "Interesting subject. That made me think of.... so now I want to go look up....." And when I get people who say: "Yeah, interesting! I found this; even though I don't understand that. I now want to go look up this other that over there." "Great! tell me what you find. I'm going to go look over here."

I tend to gravitate toward people who have the humility to admit they are teachable; regardless of how much information they've accumulated over the years. I know a lot of crap; but all the crap I know is only as useful as it inspires someone else to investigate.

Paul was a smart guy. But he was driven by this "I need to know You God..... I want to know You, in the power of the resurrection and the fellowship of Your sufferings. I want to really understand that if You be not raised than my faith is in vain and I am above all men most miserable." That's why Paul was smart. He wasn't smart because he was smart. He was smart because he was and continued to remain eager to learn.

OK. You started getting nasty at post 41. Before that it seemed a good conversation. I was trying to give you wha I have learned through years of Bible study. I made a simple statement about not having time to look up a bunch of references, I have other responsibilities, and you jumped all over it. If you were “teachable” then we could have had a great discussion.

I have been through all of this many times. Your attitude is nothing new to me. I have tried more than once to reconcile with you but reconciliation takes both sides. You already think you know more than I do, as is obvious from your recent posts, so I will bow out. I will let others here who are familiar with me respond.

 

[JM]

JM - hope you realize I wasn't referring to you.

When Brothers Dwell in Unity

Psa 133:1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Psa 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

 

[The Righterzpen]

OK. You started getting nasty at post 41. Before that it seemed a good conversation. I was trying to give you wha I have learned through years of Bible study. I made a simple statement about not having time to look up a bunch of references, I have other responsibilities, and you jumped all over it. If you were “teachable” then we could have had a great discussion.

I have been through all of this many times. Your attitude is nothing new to me. I have tried more than once to reconcile with you but reconciliation takes both sides. You already think you know more than I do, as is obvious from your recent posts, so I will bow out. I will let others here who are familiar with me respond.

Ok I will tell you I’m sorry for post 41. I’m sorry you were offended by my telling you to look up the word repentance.

You though have stated rather fanatically that you do not believe in progressive sanctification. You claim that “the new man in you is without sin”; yet you do acknowledge (after being quoted many Scripture verses) that you do sin.

So my question to you. Over the 30 years that you yourself claim you were called/ gifted to be a preacher. (These are your words, is that not true?)

Are you the same person you were 30 years ago, seeing no growth and no becoming more obedient as those 30 years have gone by?

Now if you answer “yes” to that question; than that is “progressive sanctification” and you would have to stand corrected and confess that you do believe in progressive sanctification.

Now if you answer no to that question, than something is wrong with your faith, because faith without works is dead.

So which is it?

If you finally come to the conviction that progressive sanctification is doctrinally sound; than I will fully apologize to you for misjudging you.

Yet if you will not confess this is doctrinally sound, than I will tell you to repent. For at that point, I would question whether or not you know God at all.

And if it be the point that you do not know God, than at least at this point you would not be a “brother in the Lord”.

 

[twin1954]

Ok I will tell you I’m sorry for post 41. I’m sorry you were offended by my telling you to look up the word repentance.

You though have stated rather fanatically that you do not believe in progressive sanctification. You claim that “the new man in you is without sin”; yet you do acknowledge (after being quoted many Scripture verses) that you do sin.

So my question to you. Over the 30 years that you yourself claim you were called/ gifted to be a preacher. (These are your words, is that not true?)

Are you the same person you were 30 years ago, seeing no growth and no becoming more obedient as those 30 years have gone by?

Now if you answer “yes” to that question; than that is “progressive sanctification” and you would have to stand corrected and confess that you do believe in progressive sanctification.

Now if you answer no to that question, than something is wrong with your faith, because faith without works is dead.

So which is it?

If you finally come to the conviction that progressive sanctification is doctrinally sound; than I will fully apologize to you for misjudging you.

Yet if you will not confess this is doctrinally sound, than I will tell you to repent. For at that point, I would question whether or not you know God at all.

And if it be the point that you do not know God, than at least at this point you would not be a “brother in the Lord”.

Please go back and read post 66.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I should probably try to clear up the water I have muddied.

I am not saying that we don’t grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. We most certainly do and it is a process. But it isn’t biblical sanctification. Holiness is directly connected to sanctification and there can be no degrees in holiness. You either are or you are not.

Now growing in grace and knowledge of Christ is something different from sanctification. The Lord Jesus grew but He didn’t become more holy. We grow in faith as we learn of Him. We learn to trust Him more and follow Him more but we do not become more holy. We seek to be without sin in this body and desire holiness but we still carry the dead and stinking old man with us. Our thoughts are full of sin and we seek to renew our minds. But that is growing not sanctification.

Now just so you don’t think it is just a matter of semantics allow me to show you why it is not.

Puritan Reformed Progressive Sanctification was founded on the idea of desiring holiness in this life. Knowing that it cannot be achieved as long as we are in this body they came up with Progressive Sanctification. The teaching is that as we progress we become more and more holy until we are ripe for Heaven.

As much as I admire the Puritans on many things this is a harmful doctrine. It denies the continuing existence of the old nature in us. It set us up to look for evidence for assurance instead of to Christ alone. It makes us judgemental of others and brings about a subtle works conditioned salvation. It makes the weak in faith to question their salvation and the strong to be self-righteousness. This is why it is important to know the difference between sanctification and growing.

I did go back and look for this particular post. I'd never quoted a response to this particular post directly to you. I think I did respond to someone else about definitions of words. And I may have responded to parts of this in different posts.

Here identifies though some of the issues we are having.

Here is one issue with "Christianieze" we need to get straitened out. Your definition of "progressive sanctification" (or at least in the context of this conversation) is based off of what the puritans said in the 1600's.

Yet is it not possible that what the puritans said, is not what I'm referring to; or what other people are referring to? You can get yourself into a lot of unnecessary arguments using definitions that are 400 years old, especially if the people you are talking to don't know this is the definition you are using.

The next list of items we'd have to define from the Scripture is:
What is holiness?
What is sanctification?
How do either of those two words relate to obedience?
Do these terms relate to each other and if they do than how?
Are these terms interchangeable?

For example, dispensationalists will say "the kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" are two different things. They aren't.

And what about passages that tell us to examine ourselves? What does that mean?

Lastly, some of your statements here: Would they be true?

Does examining yourself to see if you bear the fruit of the Spirit and are obedient to Christ cause:
"It makes us judgemental of others and brings about a subtle works conditioned salvation."
"It makes the weak in faith to question their salvation and the strong to be self-righteousness."

Is that true for people who really are regenerated?

So, if the degradation of this conversation was the result of misunderstanding of terminology, not making clear of what is meant by a term; and not an actual issue of heretical belief. Then I apologize to you for what I misunderstood of your intent.

Frankly though, I would not have been offended by someone telling me to look up the word repentance; or asking me about the use of concordances.

Statements of "I have a life outside of...." "I don't have the time.." "I sat under the tutelage of...." "I was called.... " Yeah, yeah, who cares. People generally are not going to respond positively to those types of statements.

And there were obvious errors you made in your interpretation of certain Scriptures. And when you were not truthful about those errors. That did not help your case, or my opinion of you. (Like the "in Him is no sin" in 1 John 3:5 is a reference to Christ.) So if you can not admit to those types of things, than yes; the accusation that you have an issue with pride is not made baselessly. (The other one was the preacher is not the gift - that was also taking Scripture out of context.)

So yes, I apologize for misunderstanding the intent in the terminology you used. I wish you had made your definition of that terminology more clear from the onset.

 

[twin1954]

I did go back and look for this particular post. I'd never quoted a response to this particular post directly to you. I think I did respond to someone else about definitions of words. And I may have responded to parts of this in different posts.

Here identifies though some of the issues we are having.

Here is one issue with "Christianieze" we need to get straitened out. Your definition of "progressive sanctification" (or at least in the context of this conversation) is based off of what the puritans said in the 1600's.

Yet is it not possible that what the puritans said, is not what I'm referring to; or what other people are referring to? You can get yourself into a lot of unnecessary arguments using definitions that are 400 years old, especially if the people you are talking to don't know this is the definition you are using.

The next list of items we'd have to define from the Scripture is:
What is holiness?
What is sanctification?
How do either of those two words relate to obedience?
Do these terms relate to each other and if they do than how?
Are these terms interchangeable?

For example, dispensationalists will say "the kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" are two different things. They aren't.

And what about passages that tell us to examine ourselves? What does that mean?

Lastly, some of your statements here: Would they be true?

Does examining yourself to see if you bear the fruit of the Spirit and are obedient to Christ cause:
"It makes us judgemental of others and brings about a subtle works conditioned salvation."
"It makes the weak in faith to question their salvation and the strong to be self-righteousness."

Is that true for people who really are regenerated?

So, if the degradation of this conversation was the result of misunderstanding of terminology, not making clear of what is meant by a term; and not an actual issue of heretical belief. Then I apologize to you for what I misunderstood of your intent.

Frankly though, I would not have been offended by someone telling me to look up the word repentance; or asking me about the use of concordances.

Statements of "I have a life outside of...." "I don't have the time.." "I sat under the tutelage of...." "I was called.... " Yeah, yeah, who cares. People generally are not going to respond positively to those types of statements.

And there were obvious errors you made in your interpretation of certain Scriptures. And when you were not truthful about those errors. That did not help your case, or my opinion of you. (Like the "in Him is no sin" in 1 John 3:5 is a reference to Christ.) So if you can not admit to those types of things, than yes; the accusation that you have an issue with pride is not made baselessly. (The other one was the preacher is not the gift - that was also taking Scripture out of context.)

So yes, I apologize for misunderstanding the intent in the terminology you used. I wish you had made your definition of that terminology more clear from the onset.

I haven’t misquoted a passage of Scripture nor ha
ave I been untruthful about anything. It seems you are going to have a low opinion of me no matter what I do. Bye.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I haven’t misquoted a passage of Scripture nor ha
ave I been untruthful about anything. It seems you are going to have a low opinion of me no matter what I do. Bye.

OK - if you at this point are going to choose to refuse to engage. Not my problem.

 

[twin1954]

OK - if you at this point are going to choose to refuse to engage. Not my problem.

I have been here for a long while and people know me. You come here and leave a bad impression from the beginning. Enough said.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have been here for a long while and people know me. You come here and leave a bad impression from the beginning. Enough said.

Well..... OK... If I'm so horrible; why you keep talking to me? You seem to need my approval for some reason? That I recognize you for the wonderful preacher that you espouse to be.

So... do you want to go over those Scripture verses or not? Shall we dig through faith and sanctification and what does examine yourself mean? Or do you just want to tell me how horrible of a person you think I am? Despite the fact that I did apologize to you - but anyways!

I guess like Sergeant Shultz on Hogan's Heroes would say: "Interesting very interesting."

 

[twin1954]

Well..... OK... If I'm so horrible; why you keep talking to me? You seem to need my approval for some reason? That I recognize you for the wonderful preacher that you espouse to be.

So... do you want to go over those Scripture verses or not? Shall we dig through faith and sanctification and what does examine yourself mean? Or do you just want to tell me how horrible of a person you think I am? Despite the fact that I did apologize to you - but anyways!

I guess like Sergeant Shultz on Hogan's Heroes would say: "Interesting very interesting."

Sure we can continue as long as the insults don’t come from either of us.

I have already given the uses of the word sanctify or sanctification in the Scriptures. I will repeat them if you want.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Sure we can continue as long as the insults don’t come from either of us.

I have already given the uses of the word sanctify or sanctification in the Scriptures. I will repeat them if you want.

Let's clear up interpretations of past Scripture passages first:

Shall we start with 1 John 3?

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

(Are you still holding to this underlined portion of verse 5 not being Jesus?)

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

 

[twin1954]

Let's clear up interpretations of past Scripture passages first:

Shall we start with 1 John 3?

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

(Are you still holding to this underlined portion of verse 5 not being Jesus?)

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

What John is saying is that in Him we have no sin. Of course it is Jesus John is speaking of but his meaning is as I said. John is not telling us that Jesus has no sin, though that is true since He took it away by the sacrifice of Himself. He bore the sin of His chosen and purged it with His blood. It no longer exists as far as justice and the Godhead is concerned. In HIM IS NO SIN! Being in Him, united to Him by faith, we have no sin.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What John is saying is that in Him we have no sin. Of course it is Jesus John is speaking of but his meaning is as I said. John is not telling us that Jesus has no sin, though that is true since He took it away by the sacrifice of Himself. He bore the sin of His chosen and purged it with His blood. It no longer exists as far as justice and the Godhead is concerned. In HIM IS NO SIN! Being in Him, united to Him by faith, we have no sin.

And where do you get that interpretation from? I ask you this because grammatically it makes no sense. And if you're willing to follow this; I can demonstrate that interpretation makes no grammatical sense.

Let's play a little game here and do some word replacement and see what contextually makes the most sense.

1 John 3: (Jesus version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus; for we shall see Jesus as Jesus is.

3 And every man that hath Jesus hope in him purifieth himself, even as Jesus is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in Jesus is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in Jesus sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Jesus, neither known Jesus.

1 John 3: (Believer version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew believers not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when believers shall appear, we shall be like believers; for we shall see believers as believers (are). is.

3 And every man that hath believers hope in him purifieth himself, even as believers is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that believers was manifested to take away our sins; and in believers is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in believers sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen believers, neither known believers.

1 John 3: (mixed version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus?; for we shall see Jesus? as ? is.

3 And every man that hath ? hope in him purifieth himself, even as ? is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in believer is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in ? sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen ?, neither known ?.

Greek version with grammatical notations:
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us (plural), that we (plural) should be called the sons (plural) of God: therefore the world knoweth us plural not, because it knew Him (personal / possessive - singular) not.

2 Beloved, now are we (plural) the sons (plural) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we (plural) shall be: but we (plural) know that, when He (aorist subjective - singular) shall appear, we (plural) shall be like Him (personal / possessive - singular); for we (plural) shall see Him (personal / possessive - singular) as He (present indicative active - singular) is.

Aorist subjective = the "he" is attached to the verb "appear" so thus is subjective to the conjunctions "that when"; or as they are translated in the KJV "shall". It's "subjective" to it's own occurrence because it has not occurred yet.

3 And every man (singular) that hath this (demonstrative pronoun, accusative - singular) hope in him (personal / possessive - singular) purifieth himself (reflective pronoun - singular), even as He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) is pure.

A demonstrative pronoun points to a specific thing. The demonstrative pronoun of the word "this" is relating to "hope". They are both in the accusative case. The accusative expresses the object or goal of the verb. The verb in this portion of the verse is "has". This could be correctly translated "has hope in this" or "has hope in Him" The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun.

Or "And every one having His hope in him purifies himself, even as He is pure." That would probably be the most accurate translation that makes the easiest sense in English.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye (plural) know (perfect indicative active) that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) was manifested to take away our (aorist subjective active - singular - not the best translation of this verse) sins (plural); and in Him (Demonstrative pronoun singular) is no sin (singular).

Here is what a word for word Greek translation looks like:

And you (plural) know that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) appeared so that the sins (plural) He (aorist subjective active - singular) might take away; and sin (singular) in Him (demonstrative pronoun - singular) not there is.

Now as mentioned before a demonstrative pronoun is pointing to a specific thing.
The subject of the sentence is "you".
The object is "He".
"Know", "appeared", "take", "is" are verbs.
"You", "Him" and "sin" / "sins" are nouns.

"You know" are connected together.
"He appeared" are connected together.
"sins He take (away)" are connected together.
"sin Him (not) is" are connected.

Those are the "word clauses" in the sentence. The verb and nouns that are connected to each other.

Notice - "and sin in Him not there is". "Him" is singular. That can not be a reference to believers, because believers are plural. We know this because "you" in the beginning of the sentence is plural. Also, it would make no contextual sense to be speaking of one believer.

6 Whosoever abideth (present participle active) in Him sinneth (present indicative active) not: whosoever sinneth (present participle active) hath not seen (perfect indicative active) Him, neither known (perfect indicative active) Him.

Now verse 6 is interesting because all of the nouns (including "sins") are all in the singular. Whosoever is singular. Him is singular and "sin" is singular.

Present participle active = We commonly put an "ing" on in the English. This makes it a "contemporary action".

Present indicative active = Actions that are current facts.

Perfect indicative active = Actions that are current facts seen as a whole on a continuum that transverses a time period.

So, in conclusion:
The "and in Him is no sin" at the end of verse 5 is talking about Jesus Christ, not believers; because grammatically speaking to say that it is talking about believers makes no contextual sense; to that verse or the rest of the passage.