And I'm saying that the "apparent contradiction" DOES NOT NEED TO BE RESOLVED.
And I am objecting to an interpretive framework that NEEDS to resolve the "apparent contradiction" because it does not take into account the function of 1 John 3:9 in the author's overall hortatory purposes. Nor does it take into account the impact of the 1 John 3:2 context: Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet made manifest. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him... And everyone having this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. That should make it clear that while we are NOW children of God, we are NOT YET in the ontological state where we cannot sin. Until then, we are to learn to practice NOW what we will be THEN.
I agree.
1 John 3:7-10
. 7Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
Some take verse 9 to mean that man cannot sin if he is IN CHRIST.
I see this often to refute my verse John 15:2 that a branch IN JESUS can be removed.
The reply is that if someone is IN JESUS he cannot sin, as is noted in 1 J 3:9
This is noted by some that do not even agree with sinless perfection,
but must find some way to get out of John 15:2
The easiest way to explain that refutation is to say how 1 J 3:9 must surely mean something else is to show that it conflicts with 1 J 1:9
We are surely not in the ontological state of complete pureness as when we will be like Him.
But, I might try this next time around.
Reading in context and assessing the author's overall argument are basic reading comprehension skills that everyone who learned English as their first language should have learned by high school. But no, everyone pulls 1 John 3:9 out of context and says, "It's a contradiction! It contradicts 1 John 1:8!" And what's worse, the translators of NIV, NASB, ESV, NET et al effectively acknowledge this "apparent contradiction" and use the continuing-action aspect of the Greek Present Indicative verb tense to add words like "practice sinning", or "continue sinning" when they know better. This obscures the author's original argument and perpetuates nonsense like "if you're still sinning, you're not 'born again' and you're going to Hell", and "If I unfortunately still sin, is it a 'practice' slash 'lifestyle'?" and "I must be sinless, because I had an experience I understand as being 'born again'".
Right.
Of course you're right in all the statements this brings about.
But I do have to say that verse 6 does create a problem...
1 John 3:6
6No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
IF we ABIDE, which is an ongoing condition, then we will not sin.
But it also states that IF we sin, we have not known Him.
THAT, in my humble opinion, is the problematic statement.
It seems to me that the actual conflict would be between Jesus' own words in John 15:2
and John's teaching in 1 J 1:9 and 1 J 3:6-9
It's apparent that one could not produce fruit and be cut off the vine.
John 15 also states that IF one abides he WILL produce fruit.
It all seems to make sense to me...
the problem is always explaining it to those that insist on OSAS and it skewers so much scripture.
