1 John 5:17-19

[Cruxis117]

Alright, this was presented to me by a Protestant, who I later figured out was trying to misconstrue my words. I had said that one who is born again through baptism can reject his baptismal promises and still sin. This is what he presented:

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 5:17-19[/BIBLEDRB]

He was saying that I (and the Church) was teaching that one is both a child of the Devil and of God. Before he could let me explain (the idea that technically, yes in the sense that the person still retains the baptismal mark, but now sides with Satan) he decided to leave. I am asking, When presented with these verses, what does one tell the Protestant? And if you were in my position, and had said the things I said and with him trying to present the verses like this, what would you respond with?

 

[someguy14]

Mark 9:40 KJV
For he that is not against us is on our part.

Maybe he was claiming to be protestant. Depends on how your view of protestants are.
Some still searching for God may not be christians though they may be aspiring to become a Christian(follower of Christ). Only by God can any come to God. So that person, regardless of “title” assumed, may have misunderstood the conversation and vice versa.

My response is to hold fast to what God has taught and pray for him as a human being and also pray to God for discernment for yourself. Gods will be done.

 

[thenobes]

Alright, this was presented to me by a Protestant, who I later figured out was trying to misconstrue my words. I had said that one who is born again through baptism can reject his baptismal promises and still sin. This is what he presented:

John 5:17-19 (Douay Rheims)
17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

It would seem that if they took this literally, they could claim they never sinned. However, John in the same letter says that he who says he is without sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So one or the other verse is an exaggeration. I believe your friend would say that “sinneth not” in verse 18 must mean “as a regular intentional thing”.

On the other hand “born of God” may itself mean “as a regular thing” implying being born of God is not a one time thing but a continuous process, where baptism would be the beginning of this process…

How does your friend respond to this?

peace
steve

 

[fbl9]

It would seem that if they took this literally, they could claim they never sinned. However, John in the same letter says that he who says he is without sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So one or the other verse is an exaggeration. ** I believe your friend would say that “sinneth not” in verse 18 must mean “as a regular intentional thing”.**On the other hand “born of God” may itself mean “as a regular thing” implying being born of God is not a one time thing but a continuous process, where baptism would be the beginning of this process…

How does your friend respond to this?

peace
steve

How then is all sin equal before God.

 

[thenobes]

How then is all sin equal before God.

It isn’t. Jesus says that some is worse than others. Some is worthy of more punishment than others

Jesus says that some sin will make you the least in the kingdom of heaven. We know other sin will send you to Hell. There is a inequality there.

You may say that James says to transgess one law is to thransgress all. But he doesn’t says the seriousness of the transgression is always the same.

All sin is rebellion against God, However mortal sin is rejection of the Life of God within us. Venial sin is a waekening of our attachment to the Life of God within us.

But this is not the OP argument.

peace
steve

 

[Cruxis117]

It isn’t. Jesus says that some is worse than others. Some is worthy of more punishment than others

Jesus says that some sin will make you the least in the kingdom of heaven. We know other sin will send you to Hell. There is a inequality there.

You may say that James says to transgess one law is to thransgress all. But he doesn’t says the seriousness of the transgression is always the same.

All sin is rebellion against God, However mortal sin is rejection of the Life of God within us. Venial sin is a waekening of our attachment to the Life of God within us.

But this is not the OP argument.

peace
steve

I think that he was saying that I should say that to my Protestant opponent. Not that he actually adhered. Because they say “all sin is equal”, then that must mean that those who sin that are born again are doing something equal to the reprobate’s sins. Though I think they would counter by quoting 1 John 2:1.

 

[thenobes]

I think that he was saying that I should say that to my Protestant opponent. Not that he actually adhered. Because they say “all sin is equal”, then that must mean that those who sin that are born again are doing something equal to the reprobate’s sins. Though I think they would counter by quoting 1 John 2:1.

Ouch my brain hurts!

You make a good point, as FBL9 does then.

But…

1 John 2
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

…this appears to contradict:

We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him, and the wicked one toucheth him not.

This then “born of God” has t be a continuous process in order to make any sense. So I believe that one can indeed reject his baptism, rejecting his “born of God” status This is probably due to one’s will resisting God in a venial way, yet building to a mortal break with God, moving himself into the hands of the wicked one.

peace
steve

 

[someguy14]

Romans 8:10 KJV
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

1 John 5:17-19 KJV
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

 

[beehumble]

Jeff Cavins in his Great Adventure series explained sin as this:

I believe he said the Torah has a root that means the mark (or perfection). (The Torah is the Law). To follow the Law perfectly is to hit the mark, the bullseye. The root of the Hebrew word for sin is that of ‘missing the mark’.

In that sense, James is saying “To miss the mark because of not following one Law is to miss the mark.” Missing by one, or six or all ten does not matter in that we missed the bullseye of ‘being perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.’

However, John in the passage quoted above and also Jesus indicated there are some ‘misses’ that result in death, as in the second death of Revelation 20 - consignment to the lake of fire. And of course another word for deadly is mortal; these are what we call mortal sins because they result in being in the lake of fire if one does not repent.

God bless you.

 

[Rocks_91]

Born of God in that verse is not referring to baptism. Simple as that.

It’s characteristic of Protestants to take a scripture verse out of context while ignoring any other verses that contradict their argument. St Paul, in his epistles, mentions the possibility of a person who’s tasted the grace of God to fall away again. If Abraham was justified solely by faith (solely nowhere being mentioned in scriptures), then heck why do we even need Jesus. Jesus sowed for us, and yes, the harvest is ready, but we still have to go out in the fields and work and reap it or what. tanstaafl.

 

[fbl9]

It isn’t. Jesus says that some is worse than others. Some is worthy of more punishment than others

Jesus says that some sin will make you the least in the kingdom of heaven. We know other sin will send you to Hell. There is a inequality there.

You may say that James says to transgess one law is to thransgress all. But he doesn’t says the seriousness of the transgression is always the same.

All sin is rebellion against God, However mortal sin is rejection of the Life of God within us. Venial sin is a waekening of our attachment to the Life of God within us.

But this is not the OP argument.

peace
steve

I think that he was saying that I should say that to my Protestant opponent. Not that he actually adhered. Because they say “all sin is equal”, then that must mean that those who sin that are born again are doing something equal to the reprobate’s sins. Though I think they would counter by quoting 1 John 2:1.

Ouch my brain hurts!

You make a good point, as FBL9 does then.

But…

…this appears to contradict:

This then “born of God” has t be a continuous process in order to make any sense. So I believe that one can indeed reject his baptism, rejecting his “born of God” status This is probably due to one’s will resisting God in a venial way, yet building to a mortal break with God, moving himself into the hands of the wicked one.

peace
steve

Thanks.
So all sin being equal really means that all sin is equal because it is wrong. There a measure of how wrong a sin is though.

 

[Perplexity]

I think many Protestants will interpret these passages (and really 1 John 5) to mean that the one who is justified can still commit sin, but all his or her sin debt has been payed, so their sins aren’t deadly. Therefore, the ‘born again’ cannot sin [deadly], yet they have sin within them.

 

[fbl9]

I think many Protestants will interpret these passages (and really 1 John 5) to mean that the one who is justified can still commit sin, but all his or her sin debt has been payed, so their sins aren’t deadly. Therefore, the ‘born again’ cannot sin [deadly], yet they have sin within them.

May i ask your view of these verses.
Also from what you wrote, i take, a born again person’s sins can not seperate them from God no matter what the sin is.

 

[Perplexity]

May i ask your view of these verses.
Also from what you wrote, i take, a born again person’s sins can not seperate them from God no matter what the sin is.

I’m not sure to be honest. This seems like one of those texts which multiple, incompatible interpretations can make perfect sense of. It depends where we start. If we start with the belief that the justified cannot have sin-debt held against them, the protestant interpretation makes perfect sense. etc. So, I’d say we should interpret the more ambiguous texts in light of the clearer texts. The author of 1 John presumes his audience’s knowledge when he writes, a knowledge we’re not privy to from 1 John alone. It’s the audiences presumed knowledge we need to grasp when reading this text. Did they believe as protestants or as catholics? etc.

 

[jamison]

I’m not sure to be honest. This seems like one of those texts which multiple, incompatible interpretations can make perfect sense of. It depends where we start.

All the more reason that everything starts with Matthew 16:18 and so forth follows 2000 years of Church History and teaching.

 

[fhansen]

I think many Protestants will interpret these passages (and really 1 John 5) to mean that the one who is justified can still commit sin, but all his or her sin debt has been payed, so their sins aren’t deadly. Therefore, the ‘born again’ cannot sin [deadly], yet they have sin within them.

Yes, this amazes me now-they’ve managed to make sin no longer sinful-so nothing changes with this theology-man can remain in his sin, just like he wants.

 

[fhansen]

When presented with these verses, what does one tell the Protestant?

Another verse used is:
So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. 2 Cor 5:17

I remember a pastor I once had telling the congregation that after he was “born again” , he was a new creation in Christ-and never wanted to sin again. A couple of years later his marital infidelity would break up his church. It’s really just holier than thou stuff. In reality, the struggle away from sin and towards love for God and neighbor is a process-a good fight, what we’re here for actually, because it’s the means of becoming truly just.

The CC teaches that we’ll all struggle with concupiscence-the tendency to sin-until the day we die. So while St John can hold up the ideal we should all strive for, scripture also balances it with other verses which admonish us to live by the Spirit, keep oil in our lamps, invest our talents, etc, with a dire consequence-the loss of the kingdom/eternal life-if we don’t.

Whether a person thinks their sins are simply no longer counted against them, so that if they sin it’s of no consequence so long as they’re in Christ Jesus whose righteousness is imputed to them, or if, OTOH, they believe they actually no longer sin, they’re in error either way.

Would St Paul have written the following if he believed some one-time born again “experience” was sufficient?
**But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Phil 3:7-11

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. **Phil 3:12-

Or would we still be obliged to take care lest we slip and live by the flesh (sin), thereby losing eternal life?
**12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. **Rom 8:12-13

Would it be possible for a believer to be pruned off?
**17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! Rom **11:17-24
So much for OSAS

 

[fhansen]

What we do counts:
**31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
**Matt 25:31-46

 

[Perplexity]

All the more reason that everything starts with Matthew 16:18 and so forth follows 2000 years of Church History and teaching.

Meh, I don’t think that starting point is any less contentious than EO’s or Protestants, especially when u really dig into what the early Church believed: there are sooo many patristic scholars in the arena from different faiths, it’s hard to say the issues r black & white.

 

[fhansen]

Meh, I don’t think that starting point is any less contentious than EO’s or Protestants, especially when u really dig into what the early Church believed: there are sooo many patristic scholars in the arena from different faiths, it’s hard to say the issues r black & white.

This is true. In fact so much of the Christian faith can be perplexing that I rather doubt we could ever hope to understand much of it with certainty without the guidance of the HS given to the Church via an authority such as that of the magistereum.