Tenchi
Member
1 Corinthians 3:1-3
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?
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 he thought it was impossible that the believers at Corinth could be 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 severely 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), who choose 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. Unlike a plant, one's life will always manifest behavior that corresponds to one’s choice either to submit to God, or not.
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 a born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of God’s 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, in kind, is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined, then, 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?
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 any particular, single act of sin.
Continued below.
Last edited: