Why does John knowingly blatantly contradict himself?
Are you asking yourself that question as well
Here are some thoughts on the matter (concerning what the Apostle has written about this in his First Epistle) from a small portion of Dr. Boise's commentary if you'd care to read them:
Can a Christian Sin?
The point that John makes is inescapable, for it is made strongly: Sin has no place in the Christian life. However, the fact that he makes it strongly produces a problem. John says that the one who abides in Christ does not sin. But is that really true? Can we say that? Or again, since John has already written, “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1 John 1:10), can we even believe that John is consistent? Ought we not rather simply to discount his words on sin entirely? The difficulty in dealing with these and similar questions has produced a wide variety of interpretations of these verses by commentators.
1. The first interpretation goes back to the days of the early church and is reflected by some Reformation theologians. It restricts the “sin” in this passage to particularly heinous sins—murder and the like. In Catholic theology the distinction is expressed as that between mortal and venial sins. It is enough to answer in reply to this interpretation that, in addition to the fact that John is obviously not making any such distinctions in the passage, Christians do on occasion commit heinous sins. Besides, in the Bible’s evaluation sins such as murder are not necessarily more evil than sins of the spirit such as pride, of which all are guilty.
2. A second view is that what is sin in an unbeliever is not so regarded by God in the life of a believer. But this is simply not true. Sin is sin, wherever it is found. Moreover, it is probably the development of this precise double standard by the Gnostics that John is opposing.
3. Some have distinguished between the old nature and the new nature in a believer, arguing that the new nature cannot sin because it is from God. This is true in a sense and may even be supported by statements such as “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6), drawn from the Gospel. But it is dangerous, for it can easily suggest that the individual is not responsible for the sins of the old nature or that he need not fight against them. One might argue that Paul makes such a distinction in Romans 7. But whether it is actually this distinction or not, it is surely a sufficient answer to note that John at least is not making any such distinction here. Indeed, he is calling for the individual Christian to turn from sin to righteousness; he is not calling upon the Christian to allow one nature rather than the other to dominate him.
4. A more recent and quite widespread interpretation of these verses is that John is here speaking of an ideal. But if this is so, the question must then be asked, “Did he expect Christians to attain the ideal in his life?” If he did, we have not escaped the problem; we have only changed its contours. On the other hand, if he did not, then his entire moral test becomes meaningless.
5. There is a qualified form of the idea of an ideal that is characteristic of the holiness movement. It is the view that John is indeed stating an ideal but that it is an attainable ideal to the extent that the Christian truly “lives” in Christ (1 John 3:6). Here Stott’s reply is incisive. He notes that, while this is a possible interpretation of verse 6 (in which the Christian clearly has an obligation to abide in Christ), nevertheless it is obviously inadequate as an interpretation of 1 John 3:9 (in which all Christians, rather than just some, are included). The only way around this latter difficulty is to suggest that one can be born of God and be sinless, then, as a result of sin, cease to be born; in other words, to be born and unborn repeatedly. But this is contrary to John’s teaching and runs against his entire emphasis on the Christian’s need to be sure of his salvation. The Christian could hardly be sure of his salvation if each sin he committed alienated him from God’s family.
6. The sixth view is that the sin which the Christian cannot do is willful or deliberate sin. But this is only a variation of the first interpretation and is disproved by the acknowledged conduct of all too many Christians. We do sin willfully and deliberately. Consequently, we should not be under any illusions regarding our need to confess our sin and seek cleansing.
7. The last and only adequate interpretation of these verses is that the sin which a Christian cannot commit is lasting or habitual. Here the interpreter is assisted by the tenses of the Greek verbs, all of which are present tense. If John had used an aorist tense as he does, for instance, in 1 John 2:1, he would have been referring to a specific sin committed at some particular point. This Christians do, as the earlier reference tells us. The cure for it is confession before Jesus Christ, our great High Priest and advocate. In this passage, however, John uses the present tense three times to indicate, not a particular sin once committed, but rather a continuance in sin over an indefinite period. Each phrase indicates this. In verse 6 he says that “no one who lives in him keeps on sinning,” that is, “continues in sin indefinitely.” In verse 9 he says that “no one who is born of God will continue to sin.” In English this distinction seems somewhat superficial and even unjustified, but it is not so in the Greek language, in which John wrote. In Greek John is simply saying that although a Christian may sin, and in fact often does sin, it is nevertheless impossible for him to go on persisting in sin indefinitely. Were this not so, righteousness could not be considered a true test of whether or not one is truly a child of God. ~Boice, J. M. (2004). The Epistles of John: an expositional commentary (pp. 88–89). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
--David
1 John 3
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. (ESV/NASB)
