Can a Christian sin and still be saved?

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

I wouldn’t, because that comment has no basis in knowledge of Greek (which is why, I presume, it was deleted; I was only able to even see it through your quoting of it). It makes no difference on whether or not the word “continue” is “in the text," because Greek, unlike English, does not rely on words to relay this type of verbal communication—commonly called "verbal aspect." Rather, these types of verbs (commonly called customary) are communicated in the tense of the verb, not by a mere word. (As far as I am aware, biblical Greek has to word for “continue” in this sense—again, because it doesn't need it.)

Of course, that being said, he is at least partially right; the translation in the NIV still seems to be lacking. Here is Daniel Wallace, who is one of the world’s leading experts on Greek grammar (to whose knowledge of Greek we should bow):

“Many older commentaries have taken the highlighted presents (as well as others in vv 4-10) as customary (a view especially popularized by British scholars, principally Westcott): does not continually sin . . . does not continually sin . . . does not practice sin . . . is not able to habitually sin. Taking the presents this way seems to harmonize well with 1:8-10, for to deny one’s sin is to disagree with God’s assessment. But there are several arguments against this interpretation: (1) The very subtlety of this approach is against it. (2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes ‘brother’ with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement. (3) Gnomic presents most frequently occur with generic subjects (or objects). Further, ‘the sense of a generic utterance is usually an absolute statement of what each one does once, and not a statement of the individual’s customary or habitual activity.’ This certainly fits the pattern.

“How should we then take the present tenses here? The immediate context seems to be speaking in terms of a projected eschatological reality. The larger section of this letter addresses the bright side of the eschaton: Since Christians are in the last days, their hope of Christ’s imminent return should produce godly living (2:28-3:10). The author first articulates how such an eschatological hope should produce holiness (2:28-3:3). Then, without marking that his discussion is still in the same vein, he gives a proleptic view of sanctification (3:4-10)—that is, he gives a hyperbolic picture of believers vs. unbelievers, implying that even though believers are not yet perfect, they are moving in that direction (3:6, 9 need to be interpreted proleptically), while unbelievers are moving away from truth (3:10; cf. 2:19). Thus, the author states in an absolute manner truths that are not yet true, because he is speaking within the context of eschatological hope (2:28-3:3) and eschatological judgment (2:18-19).”[1]

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 524–25; various emphases original.

Daniel Wallace is clearly wrong with his knowledge of Greek on 1 John 3:9, and Bible translations like the NIV are indeed correct. The use of the "present tense" in such cases, is clearly to show a "continuous state". His arguments clearly show that he is doing so for "theological" reasons and not what the Greek grammar and context clearly teach. Bishop Brooke Westcott, is by far a better Greek scholar than the majority of moderns like Wallace. Both Dr A T Robertson, and Marvin Vincent agree with the NIV reading aganist Wallace. This is what Robertson says:

"Doeth no sin (hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in verse 1Jo 3:4 like hamartanei in verse 1Jo 3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin. His seed (sperma autou). God's seed, "the divine principle of life" (Vincent). Cf. Joh 1. And he cannot sin (kai ou dunatai hamartanein). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means "and he cannot commit sin" as if it were kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartêsai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean "and he cannot go on sinning," as is true of hamartanei in verse 1Jo 3:8 and hamartanôn in verse 1Jo 3:6. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartête and hamartêi in 1Jo 2:1. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here. Paul has precisely John's idea in Ro 6:1 epimenômen têi hamartiâi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartêsômen in Ro 6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive)."

And, on 1 John 5:16

"If any man see (ean tis idêi). Third-class condition with ean and second aorist active subjunctive of eidon (horaô). Sinning a sin (hamartanonta hamartian). Present active predicate (supplementary) participle agreeing with adelphon and with cognate accusative hamartian. Not unto death (mê pros thanaton). Repeated again with hamartanousin and in contrast with hamartia pros thanaton (sin unto death). Most sins are not mortal sins, but clearly John conceives of a sin that is deadly enough to be called "unto death." This distinction is common in the rabbinic writings and in Nu 18:22 the LXX has labein hamartian thanatêphoron "to incur a death-bearing sin" as many crimes then and now bear the death penalty. There is a distinction in Heb 10:26 between sinning wilfully after full knowledge and sins of ignorance (Heb 5:2). Jesus spoke of the unpardonable sin (Mr 3:29; Mt 12:32; Lu 12:10), which was attributing to the devil the manifest work of the Holy Spirit. It is possible that John has this idea in mind when he applies it to those who reject Jesus Christ as God's Son and set themselves up as antichrists. Concerning this (peri ekeinês). This sin unto death. That he should make request (hina erôtêsêi). Sub-final use of hina with the first aorist active subjunctive of erôtaô, used here as in Joh 17:15,20 (and often) for request rather than for question. John does not forbid praying for such cases; he simply does not command prayer for them. He leaves them to God."

The older Greek scholars, like Westcott, and J B Lightfoot, and F Hort, and C Ellicott, who were British, are of a different "league" to the likes of Wallace and even Mounce.

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

Hi Oldmantook, I believe God promised us that all of His saints will persevere in the faith to Glory, because He will make sure that we do .. e.g. Philippians 1:6, 2:13; Hebrews 7:25.

Also, if a true believer can lose his/her salvation, then passages like this one cannot be true.

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and .. of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." ~John 6:37-40 (excerpt)​

There are reprobate who spend their entire lives in the church who are apparently all but indistinguishable from true believers .. Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (see v29 in particular), and even believe (or at least appear to believe) that they have an intimate relationship with the Lord/have done miraculous works in His name when, clearly, they don't know Him and never did .. Matthew 7:22-23.

Yours and His,
David

John 5
24 He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, HAS eternal* life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
​

*(αἰώνιος [aionios] "eternal" NEVER means "temporal" or "probationary" life)
.

Regarding your definition of the Greek "αἰώνιος", as never meaning "temporal", and therefore always meaning "eternal, without end". What do you make of Philemon 15, where Paul writes, "τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὥραν, ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς", where "αἰώνιον" clearly does not mean "forever" as in "without end"?. Clearly Paul was speaking of the "life-time" of Philemon.

Indeed, the first meaning given by the Greek Lexicon of H Liddell and R Scott, says of "αἰώνιος", "lasting for an age, perpetual, eternal", which like the Hebrew "olam", is used for "a duration", which also does not always have to denote "without end".

 

[Neostarwcc]

Of course! If a Christian had to be sinless to be saved NOBODY would EVER go to heaven. Because, we ALL sin after we are saved.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Daniel Wallace is clearly wrong with his knowledge of Greek...

Hmmm. Listen to one of the world's leading Greek scholars and textual critics, who wrote the standard Greek grammar(s) used in advanced Greek exegesis courses in the world's leading seminaries (including my own), or listen to an unknown, talking icon on a random, meaningless forum thread?

Such a difficult choice...

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

Hmmm. Listen to one of the world's leading Greek scholars and textual critics, who wrote the standard Greek grammar(s) used in advanced Greek exegesis courses in the world's leading seminaries (including my own), or listen to an unknown, talking icon on a random, meaningless forum thread?

Such a difficult choice...

Just because Wallace has written a few books on Greek grammar and textual studies, does not mean that he is the "be-all-and-end-all" on this! His own rejection of 1 John 5:7 as being part of the original Epistle of John shows his lack of sound judgement in textual matters, as he is content in following his "master", Bruce Metzger, who had a very low opinion on the Authority of the Holy Bible, in relation to its Infallibility and Inerrancy! Read my own indepth studies on 1 John 5:7, where I have shown beyond any doubt from the Greek grammar, that the disputed words MUST form part of this passage, or else the Greek grammar of the Apostle John, writing under the Supervision of the Holy Spirit, is faulty!

http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/jerome.pdf

http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/cyptert.pdf

You should not judge people without actually knowing them!

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course! If a Christian had to be sinless to be saved NOBODY would EVER go to heaven. Because, we ALL sin after we are saved.

I agree and have stated this in many posts dealing with this concept..


Show me a Christian that states that they no longer sin and I will show you someone who is either a liar or ignorant of their on going sin....

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

I agree and have stated this in many posts dealing with this concept..


Show me a Christian that states that they no longer sin and I will show you someone who is either a liar or ignorant of their on going sin....

Surely these arguments are moot, as no born-again Christian would ever say that they are sinless!

 

[Hammster]

Surely these arguments are moot, as no born-again Christian would ever say that they are sinless!

Well, you'd be surprised. It's why we had to add a rule to the SoP stating that sinless perfectionism cannot be taught or promoted.

 

[JacksBratt]

Surely these arguments are moot, as no born-again Christian would ever say that they are sinless!

One would think so but surprisingly...... this is not the case.

 

[Living Soul]

The truth being that not one of us is the Judge, so not one of us can absolutely say who is saved and who is not. Only God the Father holds that power.

With that said, God has made a contract with us in John 3:16 that He will never withhold from anyone. Choosing to believe in Jesus saves you. What that truly means is up to God the Father, but I can't imagine that someone who truly believes will continue down the same road of sin they were on originally.

So my answer is yes, Christians can and will sin, and can still be saved.

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

Well, you'd be surprised. It's why we had to add a rule to the SoP stating that sinless perfectionism cannot be taught or promoted.

Is that right? Wow, I wonder how can any human being ever not sin? Even the most godly have struggles with various sins and weaknesses!

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

One would think so but surprisingly...... this is not the case.

they must be deluded!

 

[Vicomte13]

Can a Christian sin and still be saved?

Jesus gave the answer to this.

Of course men continue to sin. And when they do, God will forgive them seventy-times seven times, if they forgive others. To be forgiven sin by God requires you to forgive the sins of others.

That's what Jesus said, and he's the one we're to listen to. So yes. Christians sin, and they don't have to fail final judgment after they do. They have to forgive other men, and then God will forgive them.

However, a Christian who refuses to forgive other men will not be forgiven his sins, will fail final judgment and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for the second death.

Jesus said that too.

Other voices are all over the place and complicate what Jesus made clear and easy.
And what did God say from Heaven about Jesus?
"THIS is my beloved son, listen to HIM."

Therefore, since HE is the son of God, and God said to listen to HIM, do so, and the answer is clear.
If anybody else makes it unclear and muddies up the water, completely ignore that other person - either he is wrong, or he writes so confusingly and opaquely that he can't be properly understood.

In any case, what anybody else has to say about the subject is totally irrelevant and without authority.
Jesus - just him - is God's beloved Son, and God commanded everybody to listen to HIM.
Not him PLUS others. Just him.

And he made the answer crystal clear: yeah, you'll sin. And yeah, you'll be forgiven by God - if - and ONLY if - you forgive other men their sins. If you refuse to forgive other men, then Jesus is going to throw you into hell, because your sins were not forgiven, and you directly defied him to his face, refused to listen to him, and did something else.

And that is entirely your fault if it happens to you.

So don't let it happen to you. You're a Christian. You have sinned since you became a Christian. You're going to sin again. And God will only forgive you your sins IF - and ONLY if - you forgive other men their sins. If you forgive everything, God will forgive you everything. If you don't, God won't forgive you either.

Jesus said this directly and explicitly - even told us all to pray to be forgiven our sins AS we forgive those who sin against us.

To deny that Jesus said and meant this is a sin.
To try to say that anything overrides Jesus is a sin.

If you are inclined to do either of those things, you are wrong. Shut up and stop deceiving yourself and everybody else. Stop being an occasion for sin and stop lying. Shut up, and FOLLOW HIM - Jesus - like God said. HE SAID that you're forgiven seventy-times seven (and no, that doesn't mean that you're doomed on your 491st sin - stop it! If you're going to do THAT with the text, you're better off not reading it at all!)

Accept what Jesus said, obey him and do what he said, and you're fine.
If you're inclined to argue with what Jesus said, you're wrong. Shut up and obey.

 

[TaylorSexton]

His own rejection of 1 John 5:7 as being part of the original Epistle of John shows his lack of sound judgement in textual matters...

Oh, I see where this is going to go very quickly. Sorry, but I have no interest in arguing with someone who has decided a priori what another person believes. I have no time for that foolishness. For now, I will just let you bask in the irony of the fact that you reject Wallace for rejecting the Comma, yet you quoted Brooke Westcott as "a far better Greek scholar."

I would suggest picking up a few books on the subject of textual criticism before making any more foolish blunders.

Good-bye.

 

[Hammster]

Is that right? Wow, I wonder how can any human being ever not sin? Even the most godly have struggles with various sins and weaknesses!

It's easy to "justify" sin when you set the bar low. Think rich young ruler.

 

[Fílos-tou-Iisou]

What about people like the ex-pastor from the UK, Roy Clements who is a Reformed Evangelical, who in 1999 announced to his wife and children and his Church, that he had become a homosexual. Read his recent "testimony" here.

Why I am still an evangelical Christian by Roy Clements – delivered at EF Autumn Conference 2014 | The Evangelical Fellowship

 

[TheSeabass]

Can a Christian sin and still be saved?

If he repents of his sin, yes.
If he remains impenitent, no.

 

[CoolDude68]

Can a Christian sin and still be saved?

This was asked of me in a previous thread.

So, what say you?

We ALL sin, therefore no one is perfect. We were born with a sinning nature and only through the blood of Christ can we be saved. Even though someone is saved, we will continue to sin in some capacity because of our imperfections. (we slip from time to time no matter who you are) They key is repentance. People who continue to sin knowingly may not ever see His kingdom, even though they were saved at some point. Jesus might say, "I never knew you." if one does not truly repent from their evil doings. I think this also depends on your relationship with our Lord. He knows the heart and knows our individuals struggles. He knows if we're trying.

So, my answer would be Yes. Christ has already saved us if we believe in Him and repent. The real question is will we be a resident in His kingdom if we slack on our repentance.

 

[doctorwho29]

Of course. We all sin sometimes. Christians are forgiven, not perfect

 

[TheSeabass]

I find the NIV to be "watery" in that it plays fast and loose with the translation at times.
I gave the KJV.

For instance, there is no "continue" in the Greek in that verse; and where the NIV puts "go on," the Greek has dynamai which means "have the power to..." Rather different connotation there.

"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".

The verbs underlined above are present tense that denotes a current ongoing, continual action. The verbs show the Christian cannot habitually sin, cannot practice sin. If one were a habitually liar or thief but converts to Christianity, then he cannot habitually continue in those sins. It does not mean it is impossible for him to ever tell a lie again.

(A) In Paul's letter to the Corinthians he wrote: (1 Cor 6:8-11)

"(8) Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. (9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Before becoming Christians, those Corinthians were engaged in various sins but upon conversion to Christianity Paul says of sins "such were some of you". Before conversion they were habitually engaged in these sins yet upon conversion they cannot habitually go on committing those sins ("were you"). Becoming Christians therefore did not mean it was impossible for them to sin, for in verse 8 Paul clearly tells them "ye do wrong and defraud". In the first Corinthian epistle from chapter to chapter Paul is correcting various sins the Corinthians had engaged in. If it were impossible for Christians to sin, then 1 Cor makes no sense.

(B)the idea it is impossible for the Christian to sin contradicts what John says in 1 John 2:1; 1 John 1:7-10; 1 John 5:16

1 Jn 1:8 "If we say that we have (present tense) no sin, we deceive (present tense) ourselves, and the truth is (present tense) not in us."
John is not talking about past sins and past condition only but speaks of one's present state. There would be no present tense state of 'truth not in us' if there were sinless perfection of Christians.


(C) 1 John 3:2-3 "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.
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."
In writing to Christians, John tells them their future state has not yet been manifested but when Christ returns/appears we shall be like Him. Therefore Christians that have this hope to be like Christ "purifieth himself, even as He is pure". Why would a Christian have to purify himself if he is sinless? He has nothing to be purified of for he is already perfectly pure in his sinless state as Christ is pure.


(D) Peter sinned when denying Christ.

(E) In Rev chapters 2 and 3 there were Christians at various congregations in Asia who had sinned and commanded to repent or else. If it were impossible for a Christian to sin, that is, if the Christian were perfectly sinless then he cannot repent for he has no sins to repent. The command to Christians to repent implies they sinned, in fact some of the sins they committed are specified. Furthermore the meaning of repent is to make a change. So if a Christian is perfectly sinless then what would he make a change to? Change to sinning, change to being imperfect?

(F) 2 Peter 2:1 there were Christians, those who had been "bought" (past tense - see also 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23) yet turned back to sinning, became hogs and dogs.

(G) John's language would be similar to the language Christ used about sin "And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." John 9:2-3

Jesus used definite language when He said "Neither hath this man sinned, not his parents" yet does this mean, with total, absolute certainty, they had never sinned? No (Romans 5:12) it means they had not committed any sin to cause the blindness. Likewise John is not speaking in absolute terms when he uses "doth not" or "cannot" for the Christian can sin but not habitually sin.