1 John 1:8 and the doctrine of entire sanctification.

[justbyfaith]

1Jo 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Notice it does not say, "If we say that we do no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us".

If that were the case, it would be in contradiction to 1 John 3:4-9.

But it (interpretation #1) is speaking of indwelling sin.

That is, the element of sin dwells within us but it can be rendered dead (Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any authority over what we do (Romans 6:14).

Interpretation #2:

1 John 1:8 is qualified by Hebrews 4:15.

Heb 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

That is, that Jesus was without sin in that when He was tempted, He never gave in and therefore He never sinned even once in His lifetime.

1 John 1:8 then meaning that if we say that we have no sin in this sense (saying that we have never sinned), then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If this is the interpretation, then 1 John 1:8 is not speaking of indwelling sin and neither is it saying that we cannot live in victory and freedom over sin. It would merely be stating that we must agree with Romans 3:23 and believe that we have sinned at some point during our lifetime.

And if this is the case, then 1 John 1:10 is merely reiterating what is written in 1 John 1:8 in slightly different words.

Col 2:11 (nlt), When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.

This scripture would appear to substantiate the idea of "sinless perfection" (interpretation #2) as opposed to "entire sanctification" in interpretation #1.

Also in substantiation of this idea, 1 John 3:5 and 5:20.

1Jo 3:5, And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1Jo 5:20, And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

If we are in Him, and in Him is no sin, then there is no sin in __.

However, I do believe that Romans 6 teaches us that we are to reckon ourselves as being utterly sinful in its full context.

Here is the teaching on that.

Rom 6:7, For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8, Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9, Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10, For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11, Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In v. 10, Jesus died to sin. How did He do so? For He was sinless from His conception onward.

The answer is in the following.

2Co 5:21, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of the Lord in Him...He became utterly sinful when He died on the Cross and took the penalty for our sins.

Now, in verse 11, "LIkewise"...

In the same manner that Jesus became utterly sinful on our behalf, we are to reckon ourselves to be dead to sin in the same manner...as utterly sinful in the flesh...

so that in that we are dead, we are freed from sin; but in that we are dead unto sin, we are utterly sinful.

Thus, Romans 6:7-11 bears out interpretation #1 rather than interpretation #2.

So, I will say that we can rehash 1 John 3:5 by putting a note next to it.

1Jo 3:5, And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no (sin / sinful behaviour.)

With this added note, we find that 1 John 3:5, in conjunction with 1 John 5:20, does not teach sinless perfection of the believer; while it does teach "entire sanctification"

"entire sanctification" (interpretation #1) being the teaching that we can walk in absolute freedom and victory over the power of sin so that we do not sin any more as believers.

"sinless perfection" (interpretation #2) resulting in the same result (that we do not sin any more) and yet being in contradiction to interpretation #1 of 1 John 1:8 as well as what I have preached to you of Romans 6:7-11. Its teaching would be that sin is eradicated from us and that we are delivered from the presence of sin in this lifetime, rather than just its power.

 

[justbyfaith]

1Th 5:23, And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24, Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Heb 10:14, For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

1Jo 3:9, 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.
.
.
.
1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1Jo 3:3, And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

1Jo 2:6, He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
.
.
.
1Jo 3:6, Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1Jo 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth (sinneth not) for ever.
.
.
.
Jde 1:24, Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Heb 2:18, For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

2Pe 1:10, Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1Jo 2:10, He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

 

[justbyfaith]

Just going to put this at the forefront...

 

[justbyfaith]

*

 

[justbyfaith]

It may be that the following:

1Jo 3:9, 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.

is John using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point).

If so, what point is he trying to make?

It is that when we come to Christ and are born again, we have made a 180-degree turn away from sin, death, hell, and satan...towards righteousness, life, heaven, and God.

We are walking in a new direction.

As it is written,

Pro 4:18, But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.

and I would say that in this, the perfect day is an obtainable goal.

 

[justbyfaith]

I am bothered by the contention that I do not accept the Trinity and the Nicene creed.

I do accept the Trinity (I believe that there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead)...

I just don't accept a few of the tenets (that I find to be unbiblical) that are laid out in the Nicene creed.

More on this here:

Oneness--coexistent modalism as the true Trinity

I have decided to post this in this section of the forums as in this post I will express a certain dissent with what is written in the creeds. To the moderators, I give you the option of changing my status so that I can only post in this section or else trust in the fact that I will not post...

christianityhaven.com

 

[Lees]

I am bothered by the contention that I do not accept the Trinity and the Nicene creed.

I do accept the Trinity (I believe that there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead)...

I just don't accept a few of the tenets (that I find to be unbiblical) that are laid out in the Nicene creed.

Modalism or Sabellianism is not the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. So, no, you do not accept the Trinity. You accept a false philosophical trinity.

Lees

 

[justbyfaith]

Modalism or Sabellianism is not the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. So, no, you do not accept the Trinity. You accept a false philosophical trinity.

Lees

coexistent modalism (as it has been labeled) is not the exact same thing as modalism.

In it, there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead (Trinity).

You would have to look into everything the doctrine entails before judging it; for it is not modalism just as hyper-Calvinism isn't Calvinism.

 

[Lamb]

I just don't accept a few of the tenets (that I find to be unbiblical) that are laid out in the Nicene creed.

That is why you will remain in the Unorthodox user group here on the site. The Statement of Faith for Christianity Haven is acceptance of the Nicene Creed and that means the Trinity according to that creed in order to post in the Christian Only sections of the site.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is why you will remain in the Unorthodox user group here on the site. The Statement of Faith for Christianity Haven is acceptance of the Nicene Creed and that means the Trinity according to that creed in order to post in the Christian Only sections of the site.

That is fine, I will accept it as being "persecution for righteousness' sake".

Of course the Nicene creed expresses dissent with the biblical teaching of Romans 1:3.

But it is fine with me that my posting privileges are restricted over the fact that I hold to what the Bible says over your "creed".

I am blessed (Matthew 5:10-12, Luke 6:22-23, 2 Timothy 3:10-12).

Act 24:14, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

(this would not be a verse in the Bible unless the way of truth would some day be counted as heresy).

 

[Lamb]

That is fine, I will accept it as being "persecution for righteousness' sake".

Of course the Nicene creed expresses dissent with the biblical teaching of Romans 1:3.

But it is fine with me that my posting privileges are restricted over the fact that I hold to what the Bible says over your "creed".

I am blessed (Matthew 5:10-12, Luke 6:22-23, 2 Timothy 3:10-12).

Act 24:14, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

(this would not be a verse in the Bible unless the way of truth would some day be counted as heresy).

It's not persecution at all. Just stop trying to play the victim.

 

[justbyfaith]

Just stop trying to play the victim.

As I said, I am blessed.

 

[justbyfaith]

It's not persecution at all.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Lamb]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

You agreed to the terms of this site when you signed up. Don't bear false witness now.

 

[Lees]

coexistent modalism (as it has been labeled) is not the exact same thing as modalism.

In it, there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead (Trinity).

You would have to look into everything the doctrine entails before judging it; for it is not modalism just as hyper-Calvinism isn't Calvinism.

You reject the Christian Trinity and try and form 'some other sort of trinity'. You present it as a sort of modalism but then say it is not modalism. So why call it modalism at all?

If you believe God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distnict 3 Persons in the One Godhead, and have existed forever as such, why deny the Christian Trinity?

No, any inclusion of modalism is an automatic reject.

What is the Church denomination that holds to your doctrine?

Lees

 

[Lees]

Of course the Nicene creed expresses dissent with the biblical teaching of Romans 1:3.

(Rom 1:3) addresses Jesus 'being made of the seed of David'. Thus it is addressing His humanity. Not His Deity.

Just as (Heb. 10:5) does. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The Son was never made or created.

Lees

 

[justbyfaith]

You reject the Christian Trinity and try and form 'some other sort of trinity'. You present it as a sort of modalism but then say it is not modalism. So why call it modalism at all?

Because I was merely accepting the label that someone else placed upon the doctrine.

In all reality, in order to understand the doctrine, you have to delve into every detail of what it is about.

Because modalism identifies God as one Person wearing three different "hats";

Whereas what I am preaching presents God as three distinct Persons within the Triune Godhead.

If you believe God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distnict 3 Persons in the One Godhead, and have existed forever as such, why deny the Christian Trinity?

That's the point...I do not deny the Christian Trinity.

No, any inclusion of modalism is an automatic reject.

I would say that the label that was put upon this doctrine was therefore unfair and an attempt to deny that it is the Trinity...when in all reality it is truer to the doctrine of the Trinity than any other doctrine.

Do you not see that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrapped up in the incarnation of God?

The Son was never made or created.

He was actually the Father prior to the incarnation (Isaiah 9:6-7, John 14:7-11); and therefore the Person of the Son, being the Son in that He is come in flesh, was in fact begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

 

[justbyfaith]

You agreed to the terms of this site when you signed up. Don't bear false witness now.

The statement was not bearing any kind of false witness...rather it was an exhortation to you to do what helps you the most in your conscience.

 

[Lees]

Because I was merely accepting the label that someone else placed upon the doctrine.

In all reality, in order to understand the doctrine, you have to delve into every detail of what it is about.

Because modalism identifies God as one Person wearing three different "hats";

Whereas what I am preaching presents God as three distinct Persons within the Triune Godhead.

That's the point...I do not deny the Christian Trinity.

I would say that the label that was put upon this doctrine was therefore unfair and an attempt to deny that it is the Trinity...when in all reality it is truer to the doctrine of the Trinity than any other doctrine.

Do you not see that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrapped up in the incarnation of God?

He was actually the Father prior to the incarnation (Isaiah 9:6-7, John 14:7-11); and therefore the Person of the Son, being the Son in that He is come in flesh, was in fact begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

You accept the label because it is your doctrine.

All heresy has elements of truth in them. And most all hersey pertains to the Person of Jesus Christ. So, no, I don't need to 'delve' into every detail of your doctrine to know it is false.

And when you say the Father became the Son at the incarnation, you present 'modalism'.

No, you do deny the Christian Trinity. You simply present your type of modalism and want to call it the true Christian Trinity. I have asked you what Christian denomination, church, holds to your doctrine, yet you didn't answer. So I ask it again. Please answer.

The doctrine of the Trinity involves the incarnation. It is not wrapped up in the incarnation. The Trinity existed before the incarnation. But as I have shown elsewhere, you are in error concerning the incarnation.

And there is your modalism. (Is. 9:6-7) and (John 14:7-11) say no such thing. They prove that the Son is one with God. Not the same Person as the Father. The Son, who existed with the Father and Holy Spirit eternally, was given at the incarnation. The child was born. The Son was never the Father. He and the Father are two Persons in the Godhead. The Son was incarnate, born into the family of man. Not the Father.

(Luke 1:35) declares that that which is born of Mary shall be called the Son of God. Because He is in fact the Son Who has existed with the Father and Holy Spirit eternally. It in no way declares the Father was incarnated. That is more of your error.

So, again, give me the name of the Christian denomination, or Church, that holds to your doctrine?

And don't forget post #(16).

Lees