@bdavidc wrote:
Referring to John’s use of “we” as the “royal we” still does not fix the problem. John was not addressing himself as a king speaking ceremoniously about himself. John repeatedly says “we,” referring to himself and his fellow believers in Christ:
“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us” (1 John 1:3).
He continues:
“If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1:7).
Are you seriously going to claim that “we” in verse 7 is also the royal we? John is clearly talking about believers walking in fellowship with God by walking in His light. He does not redefine what “we” means in verses 8–10 because those verses conflict with sinless perfection.
You changed John’s words. First John 2:1 does not say, “If we sin not when we sin.” It says:
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
John’s point is that Christians are not to sin. But “if any man sin” recognizes that sin is possible, and John directs the believer to our Advocate in Jesus Christ. That is not encouraging sin. It is the remedy God has provided when a believer sins.
I never skipped over 1 John 3:6–9. Those verses teach that a true Christian is incapable of living a life of continual, unrepentant sin. They do not teach that a Christian is incapable of committing an individual act of sin. If they did, John would contradict what he already wrote in 1 John 1:8–10 and 2:1. He would also contradict himself later:
“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life” (1 John 5:16).
Notice that John still calls him his “brother” while acknowledging that he may sin.
First John 3 is talking about the consistent practice and character of a believer’s life. A person born of God will not continue in an unrepentant practice of sin as though sin were compatible with being born of God. His seed remains in that believer, so sin will not have dominion over his life.
John is contrasting walking in righteousness with walking in sin. He is not claiming that believers have attained personal sinlessness. That is why he can use both “that ye sin not” and “if any man sin” in the same paragraph without contradicting himself.
I am not cherry-picking verses to suit my argument. I am reading 1 John 3 in light of 1 John 1, 1 John 2, and 1 John 5. Your interpretation has John contradicting himself and then dismisses his repeated use of “we” as a literary device without proof.
There is a difference between refusing to live in sin and claiming that you have no sin. John commands the first and bluntly warns us against the latter.
My reply:
There is a state when one does not sin, as quoted, but it can be fallen from, and will be in the early days of walking in the Light, in and out till one is able to stay there.
Then it is *IF* I sin not *when* I sin which it would be walking the usual way of believers in the flesh as we will sin countless times a day in thought, word or deed. It will be occasionally.
You haver to explain why so many other verses contradict you and say if you walk in the Light you do not sin.
In this case however, John was meaning those affected by Gnosticism.
thanks for being considerate btw and not giving me too much to reply to.
.
Referring to John’s use of “we” as the “royal we” still does not fix the problem. John was not addressing himself as a king speaking ceremoniously about himself. John repeatedly says “we,” referring to himself and his fellow believers in Christ:
“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us” (1 John 1:3).
He continues:
“If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1:7).
Are you seriously going to claim that “we” in verse 7 is also the royal we? John is clearly talking about believers walking in fellowship with God by walking in His light. He does not redefine what “we” means in verses 8–10 because those verses conflict with sinless perfection.
You changed John’s words. First John 2:1 does not say, “If we sin not when we sin.” It says:
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
John’s point is that Christians are not to sin. But “if any man sin” recognizes that sin is possible, and John directs the believer to our Advocate in Jesus Christ. That is not encouraging sin. It is the remedy God has provided when a believer sins.
I never skipped over 1 John 3:6–9. Those verses teach that a true Christian is incapable of living a life of continual, unrepentant sin. They do not teach that a Christian is incapable of committing an individual act of sin. If they did, John would contradict what he already wrote in 1 John 1:8–10 and 2:1. He would also contradict himself later:
“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life” (1 John 5:16).
Notice that John still calls him his “brother” while acknowledging that he may sin.
First John 3 is talking about the consistent practice and character of a believer’s life. A person born of God will not continue in an unrepentant practice of sin as though sin were compatible with being born of God. His seed remains in that believer, so sin will not have dominion over his life.
John is contrasting walking in righteousness with walking in sin. He is not claiming that believers have attained personal sinlessness. That is why he can use both “that ye sin not” and “if any man sin” in the same paragraph without contradicting himself.
I am not cherry-picking verses to suit my argument. I am reading 1 John 3 in light of 1 John 1, 1 John 2, and 1 John 5. Your interpretation has John contradicting himself and then dismisses his repeated use of “we” as a literary device without proof.
There is a difference between refusing to live in sin and claiming that you have no sin. John commands the first and bluntly warns us against the latter.
My reply:
There is a state when one does not sin, as quoted, but it can be fallen from, and will be in the early days of walking in the Light, in and out till one is able to stay there.
Then it is *IF* I sin not *when* I sin which it would be walking the usual way of believers in the flesh as we will sin countless times a day in thought, word or deed. It will be occasionally.
You haver to explain why so many other verses contradict you and say if you walk in the Light you do not sin.
In this case however, John was meaning those affected by Gnosticism.
thanks for being considerate btw and not giving me too much to reply to.
.
Last edited:
