Paul's Passing Thoughts

This article was prompted by a reader’s comment on a recently published article here at PPT.  The comment follows:

“I was always taught that per 1 John 1:9 all Christians are to confess their sins to God on a regular basis. How does that fit in with your studies? If we are no longer able to sin because we aren’t under the Law then how does that passage make sense? You have alluded to the fact that we believers still don’t love perfectly and still do things that are forbidden under the Law. Do we still need to confess our sins regularly to maintain a right relationship with God?”

This is an excellent question and one that bears addressing.  The reader brings up a valid point.  I have often addressed this question in the past with other people in various forms of social media with varying degrees of success; success being determined by how much that person clung to church orthodoxy being the authority that determined his version of truth for reality.  But I don’t think I have ever addressed the question in an actual blog post.

First, I think we have to acknowledge that if we take 1 John 1:9 alone without any supporting context we have an immediate problem because we have a glaring contradiction with 1 John 3:9:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” ~ 1 John 1:9
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” ~ 1 John 3:9

Contradictions (paradox,”mystery”) occur whenever we have incompatible assumptions.  The way church orthodoxy handles this contradiction is to re-interpret 1:John 3:9 and insert the word “practice” which is not the word used in the manuscript.

“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.” ~ 1 John 3:9 (ESV)

Notice that because of the church’s orthodox assumption of righteousness by perfect law-keeping, the ESV interpretation holds out the possibility for believers to keep sinning and thus the need for continual forgiveness of present sin as referenced in 1 John 1:9. I have written a comprehensive article on this subject here.

But the proper way to handle contradictions such as this one is to evaluate our assumptions and determine which one is false.  Whenever we are evaluating passages of scripture there are a few things we need to take into consideration:

1. The immediate context of the passage
2. The overall historical context during which time the passage was written
3. To whom it was written
4. Grammatical structure.

While John is writing to believers, he is addressing a larger issue, specifically, a sect of gnosticism that had made its way into the assemblies by some false teachers. This particular brand of gnosticism divided man into spirit and flesh and that any time man “sinned” he only did so in his flesh, but his spirit was unaffected. 1 John 1:9 is only part of a larger argument John is making to refute this idea. Paul addressed this historical context in this series of articles beginning here.

Click to view larger image

The apostle John is actually presenting a series of rhetorical arguments against this brand of gnosticsm. A close inspection of the grammatical structure of verses 6 through 10 reveal the hypothetical nature of his arguments. At right, here is a screen shot from my interlinear Bible software.

Notice that in the Greek, verse 6 begins with the conditional word “εαν” and the accompanying verb in the “subjunctive mood.”  You don’t need to know the technical details of all this, but what is important to know is that this structure is called a 3rd Class Condition.  In Greek, 3rd class conditions are used to present rhetorical or hypothetical arguments.

Click to view larger

If you look at the grammatical structure of verses 6 through 10 you will see they all begin with this same structure for a 3rd class condition.

So in this case, verses 6 through 10 deal with true biblical JUSTIFICATION set against the gnostic idea of justification.  John is not saying that this is something that believers need to do all the time.  He is not stating that this is the present state of believers.  In other words, “we” is not a reference to believers but rather “we” in a general, non-specific sense.  He is showing why the gnostic idea of justification is false, and he is doing so in a very methodical, logical argument using these five rhetorical statements.

Understood in this context, this passage no longer contradicts 1 John 3:9. Having presented the need for justification and how it compares to gnostic doctrine, John goes on to make the case that believers are justified because they have been born again. John understood that because the new creature is God’s offspring, righteousness is not a matter of sinning or not (ie. Law). Righteousness is a state of being by virtue of the fact that they are born of God!  Sin has to do with condemnation.  Believers don’t “sin” because they are no longer under the law’s condemnation. Where there is no law there is no sin.

~ Andy

STOP GOING TO CHURCH…IT’S A FALSE GOSPEL

Scheduled to broadcast 1/25/19 10:30am – 1/25/19 12:00pm

Related

Related

Related

Related

For crying out loud, when is enough…enough? TANC’s new policy for dealing with church issues.

Scheduled to broadcast 1/24/19 12:30pm – 1/24/19 1:00pm

Related

What is the real big picture of the Bible?

Scheduled to broadcast 1/24/19 1:30pm – 1/24/19 2:30pm

One of the most fantastic stories of American history is the newsboy strike of 1899. It is glaring testimony to the real reality of government or business; when it gets right down to it; the people rule if they want to. America was merely designed after this reality; the people always outnumber the governing authorities and there is no government without people. You can kill everyone, or too many, which would leave the governing authorities to do their own work and cook their own meals. Trust me, they don’t want to. The founding fathers of America recognized this and that’s why we are a “representative republic.”

Look at what we plainly have going on in our day: the Democrats and Republicans alike are not representing what the people want; obviously, as the elitist experts, they know what’s best for the people who pay their salaries. Congressman and Senators are attorneys who represent people, not rulers over the people or experts that know better than people what people need or want. Observe the obvious: those who work for us are the judges as to whether we got it right or not. More frightening yet, law enforcement is in on it and setting out to jail those who truly represent the people.

The world and reality are designed around the individual, and institutions are for the express purpose of facilitating that reality and that’s just plain reality. Governments are always the result of the people’s will whether that will is the result of being deceived or lazy thinking. During WWII, civilians were held responsible for the actions of their government, and rightfully so. The world would be a better place if that continued.

Houston, we have a problem; someone who truly represents the will of the people, Donald Trump, is in office and all hell is breaking loose. This goes to show we have been fooling ourselves for a lot of years. America hasn’t been functioning like a representative republic for a long time. And by the way, America is not a democracy. Of course, the elitist ruling class who now dominate our government would love a democracy complete with elections being determined by the popular vote. This would not be equal representation, it would mean the West coast and East coast elitist politicians would obtain complete control of America. Middle America would be told what to eat, what to drive, where to work, how to talk, and whatever else you would like to add to the list. Don’t forget anything; it would be comprehensive control.

The newsboy strike of 1899 demonstrates all of the above points and mirrors what is going on in the present-day government shutdown. Once upon a time, newspapers depended on children to distribute their newspapers. These children were little more than street urchins. Mostly from poor immigrant families, and oftentimes homeless or orphaned, they lived and survived by the cruel laws of the streets.

Yet, overall, they represented one of two humanity camps; the individualist with self-respect and the courage to be free versus the collectivist who believes humanity must be mothered and taken care of by an elitist class. The newsboys lived by their own reality; the reality that worked for them. Their demand for fairness and justice was directly linked to their self dignity. They would swallow no food if it meant swallowing injustice along with it. Don’t be too quick to judge all the homeless, they are often homeless because they won’t play the game.

The deal went something like this. The newsboys (and girls) bought newspapers from the companies of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst for 50 cents per hundred. The amount of papers they sold on the streets of New York for a 50% profit margin determined what they would make. So, these children needed to have a significant degree of business acumen. They would have to plan in order to have money to buy more papers to resell. And, whatever they didn’t sell, they owned, so many would have to work late into the night in order to not lose money and then get up for school the next morning if they went to school. They would also have to possess ability to project sales in order to stay in business. They were child business owners.

Then came the Spanish-American War which promised to greatly increase sales. And, what then, was the thinking of Hearst and Pulitzer? Something like this: “Hey, since you guys are going to be selling more papers, we are going to increase what you pay for the papers.” The price was raised to 60 cents per hundred while the price of the paper was not raised. This meant the newsboys were going to be working harder for the same amount of money while being the engine that would greatly increase sales for Hearst and Pulitzer during the war. As always the case with elitists, Hearst and Pulitzer were surprised that the little street urchins saw it for the bad deal that it was. The newsboys went on strike.

This is another thing that the newsboys realized; shutting down newspaper circulation during that time was a huge deal. In our day, it would be literally like shutting down the internet and cellphone towers. During the strike, circulation for the New York World dropped from about 360,000 papers to 125,000. Eventually, mere children brought two elitist icons to their knees.

Adult businessmen and politicians had managed to organize a union for the newsboys, but had a limited grip on what the newsboys did. Their primary leader was a thirteen-year-old named “Kid Blink” who only had one eye and wore an eyepatch. His speech before a rally during the strike attended by 6000 newsboys is instructive for Donald Trump and Republicans in general during our present government shutdown:

Friens and feller workers: Dis is a time which tries de hearts of men–dis is de time when we’re got to stick togedder like glue! But der’s one ting I want ter say before I goes any furder. I don’t believe in gettin’ no feller’s papers from him and tearin’ ’em up. I know I done it. (Cries of “You bet you did!”) But I’m sorry fer it.

No! der ain’t nuttin in dat. We know wot we wants and we’ll git it, even if we is blind. Dem 10 cents is as good ter us as to de millionaires–maybe better. I shouldn’t be surprised but that it’s as good as a quarter is to dem. Anyway, we wants it. And we’ll strike and restrike until we get it. Won’t we boys? (Cries of “Yes! Yes!”)

But don’t lets stop no more poor driver and dump over der wagons, like we done in Madison st. de odder day. I know I was one. (“You bet you was!”) Let’s not do it no more. Say, will we, boys? (“No! No!”) Say, you remember dat day in Wall-st., when the gents trun money to us and tole us to buy decent papers? You remember, say, don’t you boys? (“Yes! Yes!”) Dat’s all right, but, say, don’t lets hurt no more poor drivers. We won de fight in 1893. We ought to win in 1899. Oughtn’t we, boys? (“Yes! Yes!”)

Youse all know me, boys, don’t you? We’ll stick togedder like plaster, won’t we, boys?

The newsboys held fast, and forced Hearst and Pulitzer to the bargaining table that resulted in a compromise, but not before they attempted to destroy the leader of the strike, Kid Blink, by spreading false rumors about him. Sound familiar? Hearst and Pulitzer agreed to buy back all unsold papers while the 60 cent charge per hundred remained until the end of the war. The newsboys held out in the face of literal starvation, but got a “good deal.” A just deal.

That’s the way it will always work because reality is about the individual, not the collective. Strong individuals make a strong collective, not the other way around. Listening to the propaganda of the elitist ruling class filled with control lust results in every third-world hellhole we see in our day.

Collectivism will not work. Americans can keep kicking the can of individualism down the road, but as always, it will eventually end in a revolution of some sort. We can pay freedom now, or later.

Donald Trump needs to learn from Kid Blink, don’t blink, freedom will demand payment now or later.

paul