Below is a sermon by Larry Kirkpatrick. What do you guys think about it? Does it cover 1Jn 1:8 thoroughly enough for you?

I have my own concerns about it. I've emailed Pastor K my comments and questions, which I'll post later. I want to see if the same things jump out at you guys.

---

If We Say That We Have No Sin. . .

Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick
Location: Mentone SDA Church, CA, USA
Delivery: 2008-03-09 16:54Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2008-03-09 16:54Z
Type: Sermon
URL: http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/lgt/doc/1ant/kirl-ifwesay.php

Sometimes the texts that vex us carry tremendous insight. Their challenge to our assumptions makes them great allies toward our growing in truth.

Seventh-day Adventists reject the doctrine of original sin, the teaching that men are born guilty, born condemned. We also reject any notion that man was not damaged by the fall. We are decidedly damaged; one might say, born broken. But we are not lost until we choose rebellion. And all who have lived in human flesh, except Jesus, have chosen rebellion at some point; all these, then, need Jesus. The Bible is clear: “All we like sheep have gone astray” (Isaiah 53:6). How thankful we are that in Jesus a Savior is provided!

Some good and godly brothers dispute what has just been stated. They hold that all men have sin at birth, and that all men have sin throughout the full length of their experience. Indeed, they say that men—even “saved” men—die in sin. The belief that in the power of God men can obey His law, that they can live without sinning after Probation closes, mystifies. A favorite text suggested is 1 John 1:8. You recall the text:



Look at it. It would be a fair question, would it not, to ask how we can say that man can live without sinning? And are we not obligated to read the above text in the manner expected by conventional Christianity?

A fair question deserves a fair answer; a biblical one. This we now offer.

Text and Method

What the Text Does and Doesn’t Say

Some hold that this text is teaching that if one claims to be born without guilt (and thus without sin), that person must be teaching anti-biblical error. All men, they say, have sin. To say otherwise—that all men do not have sin—is obviously an indicator of self-deception, a life where the inward warmth of the Holy Spirit is lacking, where truth is rejected and not permitted to indwell. Are such charges right? Is not the Bible plain enough?

It is indeed sufficiently plain. A major goal of the Christian must be to rightly understand the teaching of Scripture. It is not enough to assume that those who have gone before us have rightly interpreted the Word; have prevailed against longstanding biases and mindsets; have avoided traps of mediocrity and confusion, and are not teaching the commandments and the doctrines of men. We need to wrestle with God’s Word, and with all caution and care verify that we are rightly dividing it. If we have the truth in us, no less will do.

Scripture Interprets Scripture

If we would set our method apart from the Roman Catholic, we must proceed under the plan that Scripture interprets Scripture, that Scripture is authoritative in a way that tradition is not. Where a devout Roman Catholic openly states his granting of mighty authority to tradition, and will as often as not gladly share his strong reasons for functioning that way, often a Protestant does not fare as well. Some, at least, are as truly ruled by tradition but refuse to admit it, being either unwilling to confess it, or ignorant of their course.

The Protestant method, truly upheld, is to grant ultimate authority to the Scripture. No, not to popes or traditions, not to pet ideas or themes persisting more from well-worn mental ruts than the Word of God. Scripture, rather, is granted primary interpretive authority over Scripture. We seek, so far as possible, to let the meanings provided by the Word dominate over theological meanings we might, if otherwise incautious, impose upon the Word from outside. Admittedly, perhaps fewer than we would like can be claimed to have soundly applied this principle. And yet, poor execution does not condemn the power of the idea. We must labor to rightly divide the Word, refusing to sunder what God has joined together; that we not divorce the one flesh of inspired Writ.

Proof-Texting and Circles of Context

Another challenge ever at hand is the risk of proof-texting. What is it? Proof-texting illegitimately isolates a text. It lifts a snippet here and a text there. It is another form of false division of the Word. Proof-texting in its most obvious form is a neglect to properly consider the bearing of adjacent portions of text upon a portion which is separated from those neighboring portions. The selected text will be lifted from the longer passage and assertions made about its meaning that fail to take into consideration its meaning as integrated into that longer passage.

Another more subtle form of proof-texting is to disregard larger circles of context. Context has its ever expanding circle, from the text itself, to passage, to chapter, to book, to testament, to the whole of Scripture, to the whole of inspired writings. And there are other considerations, such as literary genre. The Bible contains history, wisdom literature, messianic and apocalyptic prophecy, epistles, etc. Thus, when crossing from one type to another, care should be exercised in order to avoid treating one form like another form. For example, the literal history found in Genesis and the highly apocalyptic imagery found in Daniel are as equally inspired, but they are different types of texts. We take care so as not to interpret Genesis overly symbolicaly, or the apocalyptical portions of Daniel over-literally. Our purpose is to rightly divide the Word.

We should understand that having proper regard for circles of context is not intended as a way of preventing one text from having its proper bearing on another text, but of our benefitting from internal safeguards that God has provided in His Word. It is a basic principle that we let an author define his own meaning according to his own language. General meanings will not differ greatly, but important nuances in usage will be seen and aid us in rightly dividing the word.

Searching Elsewhere in 1 John

The most immediate context for the passage of 1 John 1:5-10 is the book of 1 John. Here we find the topic of sin/transgression/unrighteousness noted many times (beside 1 John 1:5-10, also 2:1, 2; 3:4, 5, 8, 9; 4:10; 5:16, 17). A careful review of the passages involved lends no suggestion that John elsewhere in these passages writes of sin as birth-nature. Rather, the tenor of these references to sin is that it can and must be overcome.

Searching Elsewhere in John

The next broadest level of context for us is the Johannine corpus. We expand our consideration to include the Gospel of John, Second and Third John, and Revelation. If the idea of sin as a persistent and ineradicable feature of the human condition is intended by John in 1 John 1, surely then we will find some indication of this same theme at least somewhere in the other four Bible books authored by him. If we consider sin/transgression/iniquity/unrighteousness, etc. beyond 1 John, the texts to be reviewed are found in John 1:29; 5:14; 7:18; 8:7, 11, 21, 24, 34, 46; 9:2, 34, 41; 15:22, 24; 16:8, 9; 19:11; 20:23; Revelation 1:5; 18:4, 5. A review of these texts offers no support to the idea of anyone being born guilty.

Pre-Birth Sin Ruled Out as Cause for Blindness

One passage at least, should have our attention: John 9. Jesus is passing by a man who was born blind. The disciples ask Jesus, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is an illuminating question because of what it tells us about the disciples understanding of sin and punishment. The disciples had apparently understood that being born blind is a specific punishment by God. Their question was, Was this case a punishment of the child, or of the parents of the child? Their query, “Who did sin” shows that they thought that blindness was a punishment for sin.

Jesus’ answer was, Neither case A nor case B: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” (John 9:3). Blindness in the context of birth is not a direct punishment by God for sin. Jesus explicitly ruled out such an idea. Jesus finished by stating that while it was not the case that child or parent had sinned and were being punished for the sin via the blindness of the child, that the blindness was permitted “that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

Although Jesus did not here elaborate on the specific reason for blindness in a child, the Scriptures elsewhere make clear that the entrance of sin into the world carries with it a host of effects. Genesis tells us that after the entrance of sin, death entered also, that thorns grew up in the previously thornless vegetation (Genesis 3:18), that the environment was affected.

The whole creation groaneth, waiting for the restoration of man (Romans 8:19-23). A world groaning under the imposition of sin is waiting for God to draw him and for man to return to Him. Thus, we see the results of sin in our world.

God never cooperates with Satan, but Against satan’s wishes, He brings good out of evil. The man had been permitted to be born blind that the works of God should later be made manifest in him, which they were when Jesus healed him. Blindness is one of many indirect results of a world groaning under sin. The impositions of sin upon our world give God opportunity to work in blessing. The man had not the capacity, as a prenatal infant, to intelligently and intentionally choose rebellion against God; he could not sin. He had no birth sin. Neither did his parents have it or transmit it to him. Guilt is not like genetics, and does not transmit from one generation to another. We may be sure that his parents had chosen sin and that he himself, after coming to an accountable, responsible age, had sinned. But his blindness from birth was no specific divine judgment on him or them for sinning.

The Passage

We start with a verse or a passage of interest. Today, ours is 1 John 1:8. From there, we seek to determine the main block of Scripture within which it is found. In this case, we find that in 1 John 1:5-10:



Let’s pause to consider a brief word on the importance of knowing how to tell where the passage begins and ends. This is one of the key issues in working out a helpful understanding of a passage. We need to be able to determine where the section is so as to concentrate our efforts onto it. How can we tell where the passages begin and end?

We look for patterns in the words and themes. While we do not believe in “word” inspiration, we do accept that in a cooperative process, God guides the writer’s thoughts, assuring their suitability and of the expressions chosen for His purposes.

Five “Ifs”

Here we look closely at 1 John and we find what? Reading through, we suddenly begin to see the word “if” all over the place. There are five “ifs” in vv. 5-10. A closer look at those five “ifs” reveals that not only is the word “if” repeated, but other patterns are present. Try this:

if we say
if we walk
if we say
if we confess
if we say

You see the pattern. “If we say” is present in verses 6, 8, 10. These are all negative statements.

Why do we take these five “ifs” and ignore the 13 other “ifs” found in 1 John (2:1, 3, 15, 19, 20, 21; 4:11, 12, 20; 5:9, 14, 16)? Well, there are certainly some interesting things and relationships going on in some of those other references. But we can hardly probe them all in depth in one sermon that is too full already. So we stay with just 1:5-10.

Now let’s carry on and notice vv. 6, 8, 10.

If we Say We Have Fellowship With Him

First in v. 6 we have “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” First is the claim that we have fellowship with Him. Who? Verse five said God, who is light and in whom there is no darkness at all. Since it is a claim of fellowship with Him, it is a claim about Him. You are known by the company you keep, and God is known by the company He keeps.

If we claim to have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie. Notice that the lie is manifest in our making a false claim. The claim is false because we are not doing the truth. Notice also that it says “we lie,” and the implication is that we know we are making a false claim.

(The bulk of our discussion of fellowship is addressed later in our study.)

If We Say That We Have No Sin

Let’s look at the middle statement, v. 8. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Here is another claim. But in this case, the claim says more about us than about God. The claim to sinlessness is made without reference to God. To claim sinlessness is to provoke self-deception.

Just a quick jump to larger contexts for a moment. Recall Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah warns us of the preeminent deceitfulness of the heart of fallen men. Nothing is more potentially deceptive than the heart. It is not merely wicked, but “desperately” wicked. In that light Jeremiah asks the provocative question, “Who can know it?” When it comes to reading our own sinlessness or righteousness, we are exceeding poor judges. Of all creatures, we must maintain a deep humility.

But this is not all. We all have read these familiar items from the book Steps to Christ:



If we would see our own sinfulness, we need to see Jesus first. See how it does not imply a glance, but a clear viewing: “as we behold Him.” And it is as the light shines into our souls that we see “how impure” we are. This indicates that although the human heart unaided cannot see with clarity, the human heart reviewed in the light of Jesus will be more accurately revealed. Just one ray that penetrates makes distinct our defilement, deformity, and defects. Notice that these are defects of character, not nature.

The two men went up to the temple to pray. The repentant one was forgiven and made righteous, but the Pharisee stood marking out his imagined sinlessness. He had, we are told, no sense of his own defilement. The farther away you are from God, the more righteous you appear to yourself. The closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. That is, the more you actually “have fellowship with Him,” the less you will be inclined to indulge in any claim that you “have no sin” (1 John 1:8).

Some have heard the strong claims that we make on behalf of Christianity, that a final generation will, in the grace and power of God, cease from sinning, and have quite wrongly inferred that in saying that we were making laying claim to sinlessness. But this is illogical. We look at a text like Revelation 14:1-5 and see unambiguously that those composing the last generation will have drawn exceeding close to Jesus. That means that the brightness of His spotless purity will be shining upon these followers more than it has ever shone on any other group. Thus, the group that in all history will feel the most sinful, will in fact be this end-time group. Not only will they feel more sinful than any other humans ever have, but they will actually have more depraved, more disordered human natures than any other group of followers has ever had. Then to think that followers of Jesus in this last generation would be uttering claims of being without sin, begs the imagination! Rather, if there is any people apt to be restrained in personal claims to heightened spirituality and sinlessness, it is precisely these. How dangerous and unchristian it is to infer such supposed claims to sinlessness, and to use such unfair representations to discredit our desire to answer Jesus’ desire that we sin not (Exodus 20:20; Psalm 4:4; Ezekiel 3:21; John 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:34; Ephesians 4:6; 1 John 2:1, etc.).

And so, even apart from the sampling of precious Ellen G, White statements from Steps to Christ, we still have the very clear statement in Jeremiah 17:9 telling us that we cannot be too sure about our own spiritual estate. In light of these things, it is exceptionally clear that if we would say that we have no sin, we would deceive ourselves, and the truth could not be in us.

If We Say That We Have Not Sinned

The third statement in series is v. 10: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” Where the first statement, that fellowship was had with God (v. 6) cast God in a false light, and the second (v. 8) reflected mostly on the one claiming to be without sin, this third in series now claims that one has not sinned. It is the most obscene claim of all.

This statement casts God in the worst kind of false light. It makes “Him a liar.” The statement would not have made Him a liar before Adam sinned. It would not have made Jesus a liar, for He was tempted “in all points like we are; yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). But, when it comes to all the rest of us who have attained to moral accountability, then it is true, and we have unambiguous evidence for that, Romans 3:23—“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” To say that we have not sinned is to deny the truth of Romans 3:23. Romans 5:12 echoes the point again, telling plainly that “death passed upon all men, for that [because] all men sinned.”

To “make God a liar” in v. 10 does not actually make Him a liar; it makes Him out to be a liar; it causes it, superficially, at least, to appear that He is a liar. It makes Him a liar in His assertion that all men have sinned, because one is claiming to be an exception to the statement. To make God out to be a liar is to impugn His character. But this is opposite the mission of the last generation; our purpose is to be used of God in vindicating His character. Few claims do more to undermine His character and gospel than to misrepresent God (as being untruthful) and man (as not standing in need of redemption).

There is a linkage between all three of these “if we say” ifs. First, in (v. 6), one lies about himself, claiming to have fellowship with God (but in works denying it). In v. 8 he deceives himself with his claim that he has no sin. Finally, in v. 10 he is so self-deceived that he can claim never to have sinned. The progression is from knowing lie, to self-deception, to utter delusion. There is sometimes seen a similar progression in those who became stubbornly involved in congregational conflicts. Original claims are stretched by being retold again and again. The story changes. At last, the person who cherished his bitterness comes to see the matter not as it was but as they have reimagined the story. How important is the counsel of Scripture warning not to let the sun go down on our wrath (Ephesians 4:26), and to find resolution with those we are set at odds with (Luke 12:58).

There is a further linkage: All of these are claims that are contrary to fact. In v. 6 the claim-maker does not have fellowship with the Father. In v. 8 the claimer is not without sin, for he is disagreeing with the divine warning that he cannot lay such a claim. His fallen human equipment is fallible. Remember, he claimed fellowship with God in verse six, but the closer we come to Jesus the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. Inspiration uses words like wicked, deceitful, impure, defiled, defect, faulty, imperfect, moral deformity to describe our sense of sinfulness. In v. 10 his abandonment of God and His Word is such that he presents to the world the strongest character misrepresentation.

If We Walk In the Light

We have examined the dreary “if we say” series. But vv. 6, 8, and 10 are interspersed with verses 7 and 9. As 6, 8, and 10 go together, so do 7 and 9. Consider closely now those two verses again:



You will immediately see some parallels. First, both have action at the front. Whereas the three “if we say” statements all made claims that were falsified by the actions of the one laying the claims, in v. 7 and v. 9 there is no claim to start with; these start with action.

In contrast to the falsified claim of the one who says he has fellowship with God, but does not have such fellowship and is walking in darkness, John presents here a class of believers who are doing more than saying. They are walking in the light. And here is the key to understand the phrase walking in the light: “as He is in the light.” Who? Jesus (1 John 1:1-3). The Christian walks in the light, not according to some plan offered by a rabbi or a PhD or an expert in spirituality or psychology. He walks in the light according to the pattern-man: Jesus Christ is his pattern.

And where do we acquire our representation of Jesus Christ? From the inspired writings. These are our source. In contrast to the one claiming that he has not sinned (v. 10) and thus testifying against the authenticity of Scripture, these are of a different sort. These follow the Lamb wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4). Consequently, in them is seen the reproduction of the pattern.

If we do this—if we walk, that is, if we are in motion, actively acquiring the image and copying it, reproducing it, living as He is in the light, then we have fellowship. What fellowship? The fellowship indicated in v. 3: with John and his associates, with the Father, and with the Son Jesus Christ. It is a fellowship of believers; a “fellowship one with another.” It is the fellowship that the liar claimed in v. 6 but did not actively pursue; he was a talker, a chatterer. But these are seeking to be like Jesus and supporting one another, strengthening one another, walking one with another, fellowshipping one with another, enduring one another, and growing with one another. They are participants in a church setting.

Now this may perplex some. How can it be that if we walk like Jesus we have fellowship one with another and that fellowship could be related in any way to the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleansing us from all sin? Some will say that this borders on a legal, works-salvation emphasis, or even crosses the line. How to answer?

We are going to support John on this. It matters not that someone’s understanding comes crashing up against the impervious wall of Bible truth. People are used to functioning in terms of systematic theology. Systematic theology endeavors to combine the broad sweep of Scripture testimony into a systematic understanding of salvation. This is not a bad goal. Unfortunately, if core principles of such an understanding are faulty, then you can inadvertently begin to bend Scripture to match the system, instead of revising the system to conform to Scripture. We need to stay close to biblical Theology and take our strongest cues from the text itself and not from our derived understandings.

Combining together in a church relationship is a special and unique kind of experience. It is voluntary. It has many friendly benefits, but also so many frustrations. It means putting yourself in the path of so many... people. Some are too positive, some too negative, some are to brusque, some are not conscientious enough, some are too conscientious, some are like Peter (talking before engaging the brain), and some like John (let’s bring down fire from heaven and destroy these blasphemers). Some are like Judas, too. But Proverbs 27:17 remains especially true in the church setting: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”

If we are walking in the light as He is in the light, that will mean none of this fakery as in vv. 6, 8, 10. It will mean agreeing with the statement at v. 5 that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” Talk is cheap; action costs something. Copying Jesus costs something. Judas could not have things both ways and neither can we. The New Testament is adamant. We walk in the light as Jesus is in the light, or we are just clanging cymbals, chatterers, pretenders, walkers in darkness, claimers.

The epistle of 1 John builds upward from its very first verses. John affirms that he has, truly, touched Jesus; he has seen and experienced the real thing. God is real, authentic (1 John 1:1). The epistle also builds from the affirmation in verse 5 that there is no darkness in God; He is all light. And if we are His followers, there will be no darkness in us. We will be all light. Paul understood: “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8).

God is light: First John’s behavioral exhortations all flow from this principle. If He is light and if we have fellowship with Him, we will not make false claims. Our Christ-like actions will speak. The world will know that we have “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). I say again, as we live the lives of believers, mix together in worship, labor side-by-side in service, as we truly give our hearts to follow Jesus, God will work in us to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). In this washing in His blood (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5) we will be cleansed from all sin.

If We Confess Our Sins

Here is another parallel thought between v. 7 and v. 9. At the end of v. 7 we are cleansed from all sin, and at the end of v. 9 we are cleansed from all unrighteousness. The parallel is unambiguous; the same thing is meant. Even 1 John itself affirms that “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17).

Verse 9 has “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is the text among all these that we are the most familiar with. If we admit to God that we have sinned, He will forgive us. But surely in the mind of John was Proverbs 28:13: “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” The very context of 1 John 1:9, comparing true-hearted action (vv. 7, 9) with mere claims that do not match one’s actions (vv. 6, 8, 10), tells us that saying one is confessing is not enough. God is not mocked. The prophet Isaiah marked such: “this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me...” (Isaiah 29:13). We must not only confess but also forsake our sins.

Here is yet another point. These are not mere generic sins or faults. If we confess “our” sins. We take ownership, responsibility. Pause to consider the echo in Steps to Christ, p. 39:



Again, true confession is specific:



If we confess our sins—and forsake them—“He is faithful and just.” Perhaps we have in time past emphasized how God’s forgiveness was actually unfair, how we did not receive that which we deserved. Be careful with this. Sins that God has forgiven us have indeed been paid for; it is only that Jesus rather than us has paid the price. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus died in our place; He bore the full, undiluted penalty. Justice was indeed served. It is righteous of God to make the transaction He makes. Jesus becomes sin for us that we may become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). He is within His rights to do what He wants to with His own (Matthew 20:15), and we are bought with a price and we are His own (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). No man has been forgiven in a way that is not both merciful and just.

He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. “Forgive” is a big word for us, isn’t it? But you might be interesting in knowing that in all five writings of John found in the Bible, the word is used only once: 1 John 1:9. Now, once is enough. Still, we should notice that John’s main focus may not have been the low-grade kind of forgiveness we may be used to thinking about. Forgiveness in John is no mere declaration but an event of both, forgiveness and cleansing. This is what He does. You see the parallel in these verses. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It is a complete forgiveness. Just as the confession must include forsaking, so God’s forgiveness must inevitably include cleansing.

We should not miss the dual dynamic for God’s people found in these six verses, especially the two positive ones (vv. 7, 9). In v. 7 you see the corporate dimension of true Christianity. As we live in harmony with one another in church, as we bite our tongue and keep to ourselves our frustrations, or as we, led of God, quietly and humbly approach a brother or sister in private and thoughtfully offer not our rebuke but our gentle counsel, as we remain Christlike when the local complainer approaches us, we are showing forth this community aspect. We are shaping one another, hopefully by our positive Christianity, but sometimes by quietly enduring an unchristian tirade. And as we are patient and merciful, praying for those who misrepresent Jesus and His cause, we ourselves grow.

We so quickly embrace v. 9 and its personal aspects of confession and forgiveness and even cleansing. But v. 9 is not isolated from v. 7 and we cannot have the reality of v. 9, fellowship with God, if we do not humble ourselves and do our part in making fellowship with our fellow believers (v. 7) a living reality. Let me be plain: some have missed this. One who knows something of “Last Generation Theology” asked me quite specifically about this communitarian dimension and where it fits into LGT. One way that it fits is as indicated in this passage.

If you want to be cleansed of all sin by the blood of Christ, you must keep self under, and that will not mean locking yourself away in a room but that along with study and prayer and personal piety in the closet, action and evangelism and personal labor with souls is spent in and out of the churches. It means character growth as we interact with, and in God’s grace, find blessing also in one another.

Being Without Sin

Finally, consider the incongruity of affirming that 1 John 1:8 is teaching that we cannot be without sin—a point of which some are quite sure—and of denying the cleansing from “all sin” and from “all unrighteousness” spoken of in vv. 7 and 9. Why would we take v. 8 at more than what it says, and verses 7 and 9 at less? They do say that Jesus cleanses from all. Neither verse puts this cleansing off into the distant future. In v. 7 it comes as we interact with fellow believers, in v. 9, as we go aside into private and truly confess and forsake our sins. Thus, if we can have fellowship now, we can have cleansing now, and it is cleansing from all.

Let us have a care, and go neither farther nor any less far than Scripture. First John 1:8 certainly holds a warning for us. We should never say that we have no sin; we should never presume to have more power of self-discernment than Scripture permits of. Our hearts cannot be trusted. Who can know them?

God can know them. He can cleanse them. He can heal them. He can remove all unrighteousness—all sin—from them. It is not a paper removal only, a declaration from some distant corner of the heavenly bureaucracy. It is not a fiction.

Mrs. White spoke plainly as she prepared to quote the very passage we have studied today.



The claim to “have no sin” is exceeding offensive to God and never encourages others to think rightly of Him and His gospel. We may urge that Jesus has power to cleanse from sin and will cleanse from sin, and that we may live without sin now, that “We may go to Jesus and be cleansed, and stand before the law without shame and remorse” (The Great Controversy, p. 477).—but we should never claim to have no sin.

Let us go further. On the basis of the issue of presumption, we offer that neither should we even entertain the thought in our hearts that we have no sin. After all, the closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. How can that be reconciled with saying, “Well, just between the two of us, I can say that I have no sin”? Danger lurks in such an attitude. The greatest danger is that of misrepresenting what Seventh-day Adventists believe to others. The second greatest is self-deception. John says that if we say this, we deceive ourselves. That, at least, is plain speaking, and we need to receive it with plain hearing.

The passage itself makes clear that God can cleanse us from all sin and he can do it now. We let the fact of cleansing rest with Him. For our part, we should keep low to the ground and plead with Him always, in this manner:



His grace is sufficient for us and if He leads us to repent He will also abundantly pardon. Praise Him to the heavens for His goodness and kindness to undeserving men, and His Scripture which explains His Scripture. LGT

Does this mean that it is theoretically possible that a human would be born who would live its entire life without choosing rebellion? Would such a human then be eligiable to salvation without the salvation provided through Jesus? I wonder if adventism really is that far from original sin as is suggested here. Yes, if humans are born without sin, the text would not apply to all humans. Maybe it only applies to humans who are capable of telling themselves anything about sin, in other words children only after the age when they can understand the concept of sin?I fully agree with the above two paragraphs. I wonder about the last sentence here. Recognizeing important nuances in usage may very well lead to major changes in the take-home message. Depending on how diligently one was previously proof-texting ones way through. 1 John is a short book, lets just read it all for proper context. I think Johns point is as was suggested above that sin must be overcome, but if(when?) we fail, Jesus is there to help us up again. Many of the texts refered to speak about cleansing from sin, the one who do not sin need no cleansing. They offer mainly two views of sin. One of sin as being disbelief in Jesus and the other as sin being unrighteousness. Sin as disbelief in Jesus is of course acquired, but are newborns really righeous in themselves?Could it be summarised as "talk is cheap"?Looks right to me.Hmm...Think there is some to ponder in this part. I think the above is quite good. If this is not a contradiction to what was written above, it is at the very least very close and anyone not very carefull is risking to cross the line. In conclusion I think in the main parts this is a good sermon that shows why remnant theology and the idea that the last generation will stand in its own merits rather than in Jesus merits as everyone else are so dangerous.

The sermon is very long and, due to special time constrictions this week, I still wasn't able to read it all. But I disagree with this:


This means, as Thomas pointed out, that those who weren't yet able to choose rebellion, that is, babies, are not lost and do not need Jesus.

I liked many parts of the sermon, but, like others, there were parts that didn't look quite right.

One of those questionable parts is that one is lost only after he indulges in known, willful rebellion. So, yes, it is theoretically possible for a person to "live its entire life without choosing rebellion." Yes, babies are not lost until they choose rebellion. This is a point over which Pastor K and I have wrestled many times before.

But he does say that babies still need Jesus to die for their "disordered human organism," if I understand him correctly. Essentially, they have no sin that needs atonement, but they need atonement for their fallen flesh. It's not a satisfying explanation as far as I'm concerned, but he has stuck with it so far.

As for Romans 3:23, he does not believe that the verse applies to those younger than the oft-invoked "age of accountability."

Here are some LGT definitions (from http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/lgt/ori/ori-glossary.php)
Note that willful violation is required for sin and guilt. Unknown violation is not a sin, and incurs no guilt.

But LGT supporters do hold that all people, with the exception of Jesus, have chosen or will choose to willfully violate God's law. Hence, Romans 3:23 will become true.

My big problem with this position is the fact that people can be born filled with the Holy Spirit (e.g., John the Baptist). Taken to the logical conclusion, this facet of LGT denies the possibility that those filled with the Spirit can remain filled with the Spirit and abstain from all known sin. Their explanation of the AA quote that tells us that men who would rather die than commit known sin still confess the sinfulness of their nature also goes in this direction.

Here's what I sent to LK the day after his sermon.

Whether or not infants who die before the age of accountability are saved is a matter settled by Jesus. He knows all the factors involved. He will make the right decision. That all need a Savior is abundantly clear. All have sinned; there is none righteous; all are under sin; all need grace.

No one can claim to be without sin. All have sinned. No one can claim to have never sinned.

Nevertheless, Jesus has promised that if we are born again, if we abide in Jesus, if we walk in the Spirit and the mind of the new man - we do not and cannot commit a known sin. This is not to say we have no sin; for all have sinned. Our record and memory of sin will not be blotted out until after we judged and found "worthy" of eternal life.

No one will inherit eternal life if they are practicing known sins, if they are not abiding in Jesus, if they are clinging to pet, darling sins.

To claim to be without sin would mean that one has never committed a sin, so it will never be possible to claim that, this side of Jordan.

Regarding the question of the basic definition of sin, an important factor to consider is that our behavior results from our beliefs and feelings regarding God. The serpent convinced Eve to believe that God did not have her best interests at heart (God knows when you eat the fruit, you will be as gods. God doesn't want that. He wants to keep you low. He doesn't want what's best for you).

The result of distrusting God is seen by Adam and Eve's hiding from God when He went to be with them for their daily walk. That God was not angry with them is evident by how He acted. He asked them questions, and the tone of His voice was such that they lost their fear, and came out of hiding. They must have perceived that God was not angry at them.

Sin does not change God, but it changes us. Profoundly. It causes us to view God in a way He is not. This confusion in regards to God's character is how Satan is able to enslave.



Satan deceives us by investing his own evil characteristics upon God. Few, even among Christians, really believe that God is good, like Jesus is.

What this all points out is that our behavior is but the tip of the iceberg. The real issues of the Great Controversy involve the character of God. If we are convinced of God's goodness, and the rightness of His principles, we will "sign on" and our service to His cause will be from the heart. If the law is written on our heart, our behavior can't help but follow.

I think LGT is correct in pointing out the possibilities, and emphasizing the reality, of our being able to overcome sin by faith in Christ. However, I think the lack of emphasis on God's character causes a message to be presented with an emphasis which isn't right.

TE: The result of distrusting God is seen by Adam and Eve's hiding from God when He went to be with them for their daily walk.

MM: Where does this idea come from? It makes it sound like God was unmindful of the Fall.

TE: Sin does not change God, but it changes us. Profoundly. It causes us to view God in a way He is not.

MM: They had every reason to be afraid. Fear is the result of faithlessness, of unfaithfulness, of being separated from Jesus. They hadn't heard of the plan of salvation, yet, so how could they not be afraid? Being alone, without hope, is a fearful thing. Even Jesus, on the cross, cried, Why have you forsaken me? For a time, He was lonely and afraid. Of course, the source of fear was different for A&E.

This comes from Genesis 3. God was not unmindful of the fall. He was dealing with it as gently as possible. That He was successful is shown by the fact that Adam and Eve presented themselves to God, even though they had been hiding from Him.



I'm not seeing how your response here to do with what I wrote, which is that sin causes us to view God in a way He is not.

Tom, what you said about God showing up for "their daily walk" makes it sound like the fact A&E had sinned was no big deal. This idea is not biblical.

Being afraid of God was right and natural for A&E after they had sinned. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Their fear was not simply a result of sinning and misunderstanding God. It is how it is when sinners are without hope. They hadn't learned of the plan of salvation yet, so being afraid of God was right and natural.