Bible Study Carnal Christianity.

[Tenchi]

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people,
but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were
not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and
strife among you, are you not of the
flesh and behaving only in a human way?

​

Do genuinely born-again Christians sin?

Some professing believers claim that such a thing is impossible for a truly born-again believer. The person in whom the "seed" of God, the Holy Spirit, dwells is liberated from the power of, and bondage to, sin (Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-4; Romans 8:9-16), only the "fruit" of the "seed" of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their life (Galatians 5:22-23). Any sin in the life of the person claiming to be a child of God, a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), then, is a token of their not being saved; their sin reveals the true nature of their inner-state, you see: A divine "seed" can only bear divine "fruit."

But, then, the New Testament offers to us example after example of born-again believers living in sin. The Christian brethren at Corinth are a prime example. In chapter three of his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul described them as "brethren," "God's field and building," those who belonged to Christ and were in him, and "God's temples" (verses 1, 9, 16, and 23). But, then, in the same chapter, Paul also criticized the believers at Corinth as "carnal," "jealous," living in strife with one another, partisan, and puffed up in their worldly wisdom (verses 1, 3, 4, 18-19). There is no hint in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3 that there was an impossible incongruity in the believers at Corinth being both "carnal" and "in Christ." Nothing in Paul's words in the chapter suggest that he was of the view that their being carnal meant that the "brethren" at Corinth were not actually brethren.

In fact, just to hammer home this point, the apostle Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 3:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—
13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

But this isn't what Paul indicated. Instead, his remarks to the Christians at Corinth defy the sinless perfection view that comes from overstretching the "seed - fruit" analogy. And overstretched the analogy is when the conclusion drawn from it is that a Christian cannot sin. This overstretching is easily exposed by simply pointing out two things:

1.) A human being isn't a plant.
2.) The "seed-fruit" analogy is conveniently restricted to conduct.

A tree, or bush, or grass has no sentience, no self-awareness or consciousness, no soul. As such, it is incapable of choosing what it does, or doesn't do, it doesn't decide whether or not it will produce roses, or apples, or wheat seed; it just does. Like a .45 revolver that can only shoot bullets, not blueberries, or acorns, or bubbles, an apple tree can only produce apples, a rose bush, roses, and wheat grass, wheat seed.

But this isn't the case, obviously, for human beings. They are willful creatures, not puppets (or plants), deciding what they will or won't do, what "fruit" they'll bear in their daily living. There cannot be, then, a strict, mechanical seed-fruit effect that occurs in the born-again person as happens in the mindless, soulless apple tree, or rose bush, or wheat stalk. No, the born-again person must choose every day how they will live, either submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, or wresting from him the "steering wheel" of their life and driving in their own direction. Depending upon what one chooses, one's life will manifest corresponding behavior.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of his other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects? The seeds an apple tree produces contain all that is necessary to make an entirely new apple tree that is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined to say that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce the "fruit" of sinless perfection, why isn't one obliged to say this about all that is true of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit? Why over-extend in this one regard but restrict in others?

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not a particular act of sin.

This conforms very well with other things the apostle John wrote that prevent a sinless-perfection construction being placed on his words in the passage above.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It's always baffling - and horrifying - to me that in the face of this explicit, clear declaration from John, sinless-perfection proponents still assert their view. John could not be more plain in his statement here that to claim sinlessness is to make God a liar and to be self-deceived.

It is in the nature of false teaching, however, to do as Satan did in Eden and say, "Has God said?" Well, in the matter of sinning saints, yes, God has - very directly and unmistakably - stated in His word that saints DO sin and to say otherwise is to blaspheme against the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

In demonstration of this fact, the New Testament is filled with instances where the writers of the letters constituting the New Testament address issues of sinful conduct and doctrinal ignorance (two things that often go together) among born-again believers. Why does Paul explain to the believers at Rome that they ought not to go on sinning that grace may abound (Romans 6)? Obviously, because this was what they were doing. Why did John write to his fellow believers about loving one another if they were already doing so perfectly? Again, obviously, because they weren't doing so. What of Peter's words concerning holiness to fellow Christians? Why did he enjoin them to holy living (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 3:11) if they were, simply by virtue of being born-again, already living in sinless perfection? Well, obviously, because no such thing was true of them.

What is the underlying motive for holding to a sinless perfection view? What could possibly attract anyone to so patently-false a doctrine?

For some, it's fear - fear of themselves, of their weakness against the power of sin, that makes them take up this thinking. They're like the fearful boy who is accused of being afraid, who cries out in denial, "No I'm not! I'm not afraid at all!" It's precisely because the boy is very afraid that he is compelled to say he's not. So, too, some of those who hold to the sinless-perfection view. It's precisely because they know, and are afraid of, their sinfulness that they seek refuge from it in flat denial.

For others, it's self-righteous piety and legalistic self-effort that create an attraction to the false doctrine of sinless-perfection. What more pleasing an idea to the self-righteous than instantaneous moral perfection? What higher plane from which to look down on others than that of utter sinlessness? What more rarified a state can the pious and legalistic enjoy than that of unadulterated holiness? From such a place, they can declare, "You're in. You're out," making themselves and their understanding of what "perfection" is the Final Arbiter of who is truly God's and who isn't.

Of course, in my experience, when you press these self-righteous legalists to explain what perfection is, not actually knowing what it is, they deflect, and squirm, and dodge, offering platitudes and prooftexts, as though in these things it's just utterly obvious what perfection is. If you can't see what they see in their slogans and misuse of Scripture, well, you need to be saved so that you can. This is to argue in a circle, however: If I see that I'm perfect, I'm truly saved, and I'm truly saved if I see that I'm perfect.

In any case, I hope and pray that the above has helped equip you to address the blasphemous doctrine of sinless perfection.

1 John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Awesome

I’ve noticed that some churches ️ skip over human frailty and basically emphasize positive psychology and carefully selected bible verses. Not good for anyone’s spiritual development…

 

[electedbyHim]

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not a particular act of sin.

This conforms very well with other things the apostle John wrote that prevent a sinless-perfection construction being placed on his words in the passage above.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It's always baffling - and horrifying - to me that in the face of this explicit, clear declaration from John, sinless-perfection proponents still assert their view. John could not be more plain in his statement here that to claim sinlessness is to make God a liar and to be self-deceived.

It is in the nature of false teaching, however, to do as Satan did in Eden and say, "Has God said?" Well, in the matter of sinning saints, yes, God has - very directly and unmistakably - stated in His word that saints DO sin and to say otherwise is to blaspheme against the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

In demonstration of this fact, the New Testament is filled with instances where the writers of the letters constituting the New Testament address issues of sinful conduct and doctrinal ignorance (two things that often go together) among born-again believers. Why does Paul explain to the believers at Rome that they ought not to go on sinning that grace may abound (Romans 6)? Obviously, because this was what they were doing. Why did John write to his fellow believers about loving one another if they were already doing so perfectly? Again, obviously, because they weren't doing so. What of Peter's words concerning holiness to fellow Christians? Why did he enjoin them to holy living (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 3:11) if they were, simply by virtue of being born-again, already living in sinless perfection? Well, obviously, because no such thing was true of them.

What is the underlying motive for holding to a sinless perfection view? What could possibly attract anyone to so patently-false a doctrine?

For some, it's fear - fear of themselves, of their weakness against the power of sin, that makes them take up this thinking. They're like the fearful boy who is accused of being afraid, who cries out in denial, "No I'm not! I'm not afraid at all!" It's precisely because the boy is very afraid that he is compelled to say he's not. So, too, some of those who hold to the sinless-perfection view. It's precisely because they know, and are afraid of, their sinfulness that they seek refuge from it in flat denial.

For others, it's self-righteous piety and legalistic self-effort that create an attraction to the false doctrine of sinless-perfection. What more pleasing an idea to the self-righteous than instantaneous moral perfection? What higher plane from which to look down on others than that of utter sinlessness? What more rarified a state can the pious and legalistic enjoy than that of unadulterated holiness? From such a place, they can declare, "You're in. You're out," making themselves and their understanding of what "perfection" is the Final Arbiter of who is truly God's and who isn't.

Of course, in my experience, when you press these self-righteous legalists to explain what perfection is, not actually knowing what it is, they deflect, and squirm, and dodge, offering platitudes and prooftexts, as though in these things it's just utterly obvious what perfection is. If you can't see what they see in their slogans and misuse of Scripture, well, you need to be saved so that you can. This is to argue in a circle, however: If I see that I'm perfect, I'm truly saved, and I'm truly saved if I see that I'm perfect.

In any case, I hope and pray that the above has helped equip you to address the blasphemous doctrine of sinless perfection.

1 John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Extremely well written.

Thank you.

 

[Tenchi]

Bump.

 

[Tenchi]

Bump.

 

[Hopeful 2]

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people,
but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were
not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and
strife among you, are you not of the
flesh and behaving only in a human way?

​

Do genuinely born-again Christians sin?

Some professing believers claim that such a thing is impossible for a truly born-again believer. The person in whom the "seed" of God, the Holy Spirit, dwells is liberated from the power of, and bondage to, sin (Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-4; Romans 8:9-16), only the "fruit" of the "seed" of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their life (Galatians 5:22-23). Any sin in the life of the person claiming to be a child of God, a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), then, is a token of their not being saved; their sin reveals the true nature of their inner-state, you see: A divine "seed" can only bear divine "fruit."

But, then, the New Testament offers to us example after example of born-again believers living in sin. The Christian brethren at Corinth are a prime example. In chapter three of his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul described them as "brethren," "God's field and building," those who belonged to Christ and were in him, and "God's temples" (verses 1, 9, 16, and 23). But, then, in the same chapter, Paul also criticized the believers at Corinth as "carnal," "jealous," living in strife with one another, partisan, and puffed up in their worldly wisdom (verses 1, 3, 4, 18-19). There is no hint in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3 that there was an impossible incongruity in the believers at Corinth being both "carnal" and "in Christ." Nothing in Paul's words in the chapter suggest that he was of the view that their being carnal meant that the "brethren" at Corinth were not actually brethren.

In fact, just to hammer home this point, the apostle Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 3:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—
13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

But this isn't what Paul indicated. Instead, his remarks to the Christians at Corinth defy the sinless perfection view that comes from overstretching the "seed - fruit" analogy. And overstretched the analogy is when the conclusion drawn from it is that a Christian cannot sin. This overstretching is easily exposed by simply pointing out two things:

1.) A human being isn't a plant.
2.) The "seed-fruit" analogy is conveniently restricted to conduct.

A tree, or bush, or grass has no sentience, no self-awareness or consciousness, no soul. As such, it is incapable of choosing what it does, or doesn't do, it doesn't decide whether or not it will produce roses, or apples, or wheat seed; it just does. Like a .45 revolver that can only shoot bullets, not blueberries, or acorns, or bubbles, an apple tree can only produce apples, a rose bush, roses, and wheat grass, wheat seed.

And God's seed, godly fruit.
God's seed will never bring forth liars, thieves, or muderers.

But this isn't the case, obviously, for human beings. They are willful creatures, not puppets (or plants), deciding what they will or won't do, what "fruit" they'll bear in their daily living. There cannot be, then, a strict, mechanical seed-fruit effect that occurs in the born-again person as happens in the mindless, soulless apple tree, or rose bush, or wheat stalk. No, the born-again person must choose every day how they will live, either submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, or wresting from him the "steering wheel" of their life and driving in their own direction. Depending upon what one chooses, one's life will manifest corresponding behavior.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of his other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects? The seeds an apple tree produces contain all that is necessary to make an entirely new apple tree that is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined to say that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce the "fruit" of sinless perfection, why isn't one obliged to say this about all that is true of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit? Why over-extend in this one regard but restrict in others?

If a son of Adam is reborn of God's seed, he won't be bringing forth any of Adam's fruit.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

The word "practice" is unscriptural.
You betray your writings with an unbiblical citing.
If the seed you are born of brings forth sin, that seed is not of God.

5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not a particular act of sin.

When has a seed eve brought forth the fruit of another sort of seed ?
God's seed cannot bring forth liars, thieves, or murderers...no matter how much you want them to.

This conforms very well with other things the apostle John wrote that prevent a sinless-perfection construction being placed on his words in the passage above.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Verse 6, 8, and 10, address those walking in darkness.
Of course they cannot say, or, be free from sin.
Those walking in the light...which is God in whom is no darkness, can say they have no sin.

It's always baffling - and horrifying - to me that in the face of this explicit, clear declaration from John, sinless-perfection proponents still assert their view. John could not be more plain in his statement here that to claim sinlessness is to make God a liar and to be self-deceived.

It pains me to think you despise obedience to God so much that you would write such an article upholding a sinful life.

It is in the nature of false teaching, however, to do as Satan did in Eden and say, "Has God said?" Well, in the matter of sinning saints, yes, God has - very directly and unmistakably - stated in His word that saints DO sin and to say otherwise is to blaspheme against the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

The false prophet will always be betrayed by his fruit.
Your fruit is accommodation for sin.

In demonstration of this fact, the New Testament is filled with instances where the writers of the letters constituting the New Testament address issues of sinful conduct and doctrinal ignorance (two things that often go together) among born-again believers. Why does Paul explain to the believers at Rome that they ought not to go on sinning that grace may abound (Romans 6)? Obviously, because this was what they were doing. Why did John write to his fellow believers about loving one another if they were already doing so perfectly? Again, obviously, because they weren't doing so. What of Peter's words concerning holiness to fellow Christians? Why did he enjoin them to holy living (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 3:11) if they were, simply by virtue of being born-again, already living in sinless perfection? Well, obviously, because no such thing was true of them.

What is the underlying motive for holding to a sinless perfection view? What could possibly attract anyone to so patently-false a doctrine?

For some, it's fear - fear of themselves, of their weakness against the power of sin, that makes them take up this thinking. They're like the fearful boy who is accused of being afraid, who cries out in denial, "No I'm not! I'm not afraid at all!" It's precisely because the boy is very afraid that he is compelled to say he's not. So, too, some of those who hold to the sinless-perfection view. It's precisely because they know, and are afraid of, their sinfulness that they seek refuge from it in flat denial.

For others, it's self-righteous piety and legalistic self-effort that create an attraction to the false doctrine of sinless-perfection. What more pleasing an idea to the self-righteous than instantaneous moral perfection? What higher plane from which to look down on others than that of utter sinlessness? What more rarified a state can the pious and legalistic enjoy than that of unadulterated holiness? From such a place, they can declare, "You're in. You're out," making themselves and their understanding of what "perfection" is the Final Arbiter of who is truly God's and who isn't.

Of course, in my experience, when you press these self-righteous legalists to explain what perfection is, not actually knowing what it is, they deflect, and squirm, and dodge, offering platitudes and prooftexts, as though in these things it's just utterly obvious what perfection is. If you can't see what they see in their slogans and misuse of Scripture, well, you need to be saved so that you can. This is to argue in a circle, however: If I see that I'm perfect, I'm truly saved, and I'm truly saved if I see that I'm perfect.

In any case, I hope and pray that the above has helped equip you to address the blasphemous doctrine of sinless perfection.

1 John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Lets add the next three verses too..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3-6)
Sinners don't know God, have no fellowship with Him, and cannot say they have no sin.
Those who walk in the light do know God, have fellowship with Him, and are free from sin !

 

[Tenchi]

And God's seed, godly fruit.
God's seed will never bring forth liars, thieves, or muderers.

Uh huh. See the OP.

If a son of Adam is reborn of God's seed, he won't be bringing forth any of Adam's fruit.

See the OP.

The word "practice" is unscriptural.
You betray your writings with an unbiblical citing.
If the seed you are born of brings forth sin, that seed is not of God.

See the OP.

When has a seed eve brought forth the fruit of another sort of seed ?
God's seed cannot bring forth liars, thieves, or murderers...no matter how much you want them to.

And, again, see the OP.

Verse 6, 8, and 10, address those walking in darkness.
Of course they cannot say, or, be free from sin.
Those walking in the light...which is God in whom is no darkness, can say they have no sin.

And, one more time - say it with me, now - see the OP!

It pains me to think you despise obedience to God so much that you would write such an article upholding a sinful life.

See the OP.

See it.

See it now.

The false prophet will always be betrayed by his fruit.
Your fruit is accommodation for sin.

(In a deep baritone, sung opera-style) SEEEE the OPEEEEE!

Sinners don't know God, have no fellowship with Him, and cannot say they have no sin.
Those who walk in the light do know God, have fellowship with Him, and are free from sin !

And now for something completely different.

Contradiction is not an argument for your view or against mine. It's just contradiction.

(See the OP.)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Uh huh. See the OP.



See the OP.



See the OP.



And, again, see the OP.



And, one more time - say it with me, now - see the OP!




See the OP.

See it.

See it now.



(In a deep baritone, sung opera-style) SEEEE the OPEEEEE!



And now for something completely different.

Contradiction is not an argument for your view or against mine. It's just contradiction.

(See the OP.)

Your contradictions to righteousness, and basic agriculture, are noted.