I was contrasting being converted vs. not being converted. You responded that a person in "that condition," which, to me, was simply a converted person, could not fall into temptation. I was wishing to clarify if you were understanding what I meant and that when you said "in that condition" that you meant the same thing that I did when I described the condition. In other words, I was wanting to confirm that you were talking about the same thing that I was. Because I disagree with your assertion that a person "in that condition" cannot fall into temptation, I wanted to clarify what "that condition" is.



The question is what the statement means. Two things are good to bear in mind in understanding this. One is the context. What is John talking about? In particular, what is sin in the context of his statement? E.g., a few verses later:



The context in John's epistle is not the development of a theology that converted people cannot sin, but what are the characteristics of a converted person. A converted person will love his brother, by showing compassion.

A second point is that the present active indicative is used in the Greek for "does not sin" and "can not sin" from above. This can mean "does not ever sin" or "does not habitually sin", and similarly for the second usage. For example, here are a few translations which bring out this idea.









In addition to being grammatically correct, these fit with the context of what John is saying.



What do you think this means? Jesus Christ was humanity and divinity combined, wasn't He? Was it possible for Him to sin?



How does this relate to your assertion that a converted person cannot fall into temptation?

I don't see the dichotomy. A converted person doesn't sin, he loves his brother, he shows compassion. Those go together.


So we have 2 incompatible possibilities there. Which one is correct?

I believe the correct understanding is "does not ever sin." I believe that the converted person can experience, by God's grace, uninterrupted victories over sin. That is, of course, as long as he stays converted, living under grace.

But Johns wasn't the only one who taught that. Here's Paul:

"Sons of God" matches John's "born of God." They're talking about the same group of people.

Paul says they are "led by the Spirit of God." Does the Holy Spirit lead us into temptation? James says He does not.

So, if you go into temptation, are you led by the Spirit? No. Hence, you're not a son of God. Therefore, 1Jn 3:9 does not apply to you.

But if you are led by the Spirit, He always leads into truth and righteousness.


Possible. But since He was always led by the Spirit, He did not sin, not even by a thought. So it may be with us.


The converted person is a partaker of the divine nature. As such, God is able to keep him from falling.

Now I'm going to add an even bigger promise. Jesus hated sin with a perfect hatred. By God's grace, we can come to the same point. Not only can we constantly walk as Jesus walked, but even the thought of walking where He does not lead can become hateful to us.

This doesn't fit with the context. John says if anyone sins, he has an advocate. If believers never sinned, they wouldn't need an advocate. John would not need to have said this.



Yes, Jesus demonstrated this.



This looks to be saying as long as a person doesn't sin, he doesn't sin. A converted person can fall under temptation anytime he's tempted.



Why are you asking this?



We wouldn't know this if not for James?



God does not tempt us, but this does not mean that if one is tempted that one is not being led of God. Even Jesus Christ was tempted. Where are you wanting to go with this?



If you're tempted?



1 John 3:9 says nothing about temptation. It's talking about the characteristics of a believer, like the rest of the epistle. It's present active indicative, indicating a habitual action.



And the devil tempts you. And our sinful nature tempts us. And there are temptations in the world. And people can tempt us. And this probably isn't comprehensive. To be tempted is not to sin.

Tom,

Your last post tells me that it's time to stop. We are having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye on very basic principles. Time for milk.

I'll close with this: For the converted, sin is not an option.

If we agree on what it means to be converted, we will agree that such a person does not sin.

A converted person is a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (i.e., someone who has accept Christ as their personal Savior).

Savior from what?

No, I don't consider them synonymous. God's creatures served Him before the inception of sin, and will continue to serve Him after its erradication. I think that serving God is loving Him, living for Him and doing what pleases Him. This may involve fighting evil, but goes much beyond it.


I also think they are distinct things. I think there is a difference between fighting against God and resisting the prompts of the Holy Spirit (which latter, I think, is what you refer to). A creature who has comitted the unpardonable sin my fight against God, and goes along with evil, but that creature no longer resists the prompts of the Holy Spirit - doesn't even feel them.

What did you have in mind? (I mean, what choices). "Savior from sin" is, of course, what everyone says, but if you're asking the question, you must have some reason for doing so.

In the context of our discussion, serving God is dealing with fallen humans. Given that it goes much beyond fighting evil, this just makes what I said even more true. That is, if serving God is does not require more effort than fighting against Him, then fighting evil cannot require more effort than this, since serving God requires more effort then fighting evil(since it encompasses fighting evil, but also much more).



Fighting against God, in the context of our discussion, means fighting against Him in the context of the promptings of the Holy Spirit, yes. This seemed clear to me. It also seemed clear to me that we were dealing with fallen humans.

To summarize, if serving God is not more difficult than fighting against Him, then fighting evil cannot be more difficult than not doing so (assuming that to not do so requires fighting against God, which it does). This follows, right?

You defined a converted person as "a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (i.e., someone who has accept Christ as their personal Savior)." I'm asking, in the context of your definition, what do you believe Jesus has saved the converted person from?

Given that everyone gives "Savior from sin" as the answer, is that your answer also?