Harmonizing Romans 7:19 and 1 John 3:9

[InSlaveryToChrist]

"For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing." (Romans 7:19)

"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)

Romans 7:19 seems to imply that Paul was in habitual sin, while 1 John 3:9 seems to imply that a Christian cannot commit habitual sin.

I just listened to the latest podcast of the WhiteHorseInn on repentance and personal transformation. Michael Horton and the buddies held to the view that a Christian can and does commit habitual sin. Among other things, they defended this by Romans 7:19. Sadly, they never mentioned 1 John 3:9 with which I'm struggling right now.

Please, help me out.

 

[bookslover]

Just off the top of my noggin: Paul, in Romans 7, is describing the constant struggle against sin that the Christian experiences. His "new man" tries to stop sinning, but his "old man" keeps pulling him back down. John, in 1 John 3, is describing the person who deliberately keeps on sinning as someone who is not born again. However, John, in 1 John 1.9, says that, for the believer, confession of sin brings forgiveness, thus implying that Christians do still sin as a matter of course, even though they don't want to. The contradiction is only apparent, not real.

That'll be $37.50.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Just off the top of my noggin: Paul, in Romans 7, is describing the constant struggle against sin that the Christian experiences. His "new man" tries to stop sinning, but his "old man" keeps pulling him back down. John, in 1 John 3, is describing the person who deliberately keeps on sinning as someone who is not born again. However, John, in 1 John 1.9, says that, for the believer, confession of sin brings forgiveness, thus implying that Christians do still sin as a matter of course, even though they don't want to. The contradiction is only apparent, not real.

That'll be $37.50.

Sorry, I only have this much:

 

[moral necessity]

See John Gill on this one. This is where the newer translations go too far, in my opinion, and limit the text to "practicing sin". The reason one who is born of God does not commit sin is because "his seed remaineth in him", the text says.

And so, John Gill says, "He that is born of God is one that is regenerated by the Spirit and grace of God; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, or spiritual; it is a new man, a new creature, which neither does, nor can commit sin; though it is as yet imperfect, there is no impurity in it, no bias, tendency, or inclination to sin, but all the reverse; it is born of an incorruptible seed which remains, it is a principle of grace which is of God, and can never be lost. Hence it follows, that regenerate persons cannot cease to be so"

"These words prove that a regenerate man cannot cease to be one, or in such a sense sin as to be lost and perish; for this reason, because there is a principle of mighty grace in him, which overcomes the world, the flesh, and the devil."

"Again, it is urged by some that these words do not import any impossibility that they should do so, but only that they have at present that frame of spirit, which renders them strongly averse from sin, and indisposed to yield to any temptations to commit it. But, it is easy to observe, that the apostle does not conclude the regenerate man's not sinning, or not being able to sin, from any present precarious frame of spirit; but from his constitution, as being born of God, and from the seed of God, a principle of grace remaining and abiding in him."

"Tertullian comes nearest to it, when he says, 'He that is born of God will not at all commit these things', speaking of some grievous sins; 'should he commit them he would not be a child of God.' His meaning I take to be this; should any one that professes to be born of God, commit such and such things, it would be evident that he was not a child of God: but he adds afterwards, 'We know that every one that is born of God, sinneth not; namely, the sin of death.'"

- The Cause of God and Truth - Volume III, p.140
http://www.amazon.com/Cause-God-Truth-John-Gill/dp/1589603214/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

Blessings!

 

[bookslover]

Wow. That's pretty much an absolutist position Gill takes there. After all, even genuine Christians are capable of committing murder.

 

[moral necessity]

Wow. That's pretty much an absolutist position Gill takes there. After all, even genuine Christians are capable of committing murder.

I think Gill is inferring that the sin spoken of is one of apostacy, and that a regenerate person cannot do that. He is not referring the text to behavioral sins. His commentary, however, is slightly different from the work I quoted, and leaves the other approach to the text as possible, but adds the idea of the new nature or principle of holiness (that which is born of God) as not being capable of sin, yet man himself as being able to sin. I'm not sure at this time which represents his mature view on the subject.

Blessings!

 

[kvanlaan]

It is just besetting sin (Romans 7:15-19) vs. habitual sin (1 John 3:9), no?

One is the old man rearing his head that needs to be knocked down like a whack-a-mole game, the other is willful defiance of God that is not struggled against. Another to sweeten the pot...

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I think we need to define carefully the terms, "besetting" and "habitual," because the consensus of opinion in the WhiteHorseInn podcast was that Christians struggle with habitual sin. On the other hand, if habitual sin indicates absence of struggle, as Kevin suggested, then no Christian can commit such a thing.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I'd still like to continue this thread, because there is some differentiation concerning right terminology (look my previous post).

However, I'm pretty convinced that the regenerate Christian can commit habitual, on-going sin, yet what distinguishes him from the unregenerate is the fact that he's continually struggling with his sin. This, of course, does not mean that the struggling must take place during sinning, but rather after the sin is committed.

 

[earl40]

I think we need to define carefully the terms, "besetting" and "habitual," because the consensus of opinion in the WhiteHorseInn podcast was that Christians struggle with habitual sin. On the other hand, if habitual sin indicates absence of struggle, as Kevin suggested, then no Christian can commit such a thing.

That is a great Podcast BTW.

What I have found in my life as a Christian is that sin "appears" to pop up out of nowhere. Of course this is The Lord opening my eyes ever so slowly to what our natures are...both saint and sinner. This includes besetting and habitual sin for even if we grant habitual sin as sin commited willfully without repentance then I m afraid we can fall into the trap of thinking we have killed a part of the flesh that will not really happen till we are glorified.

 

[moral necessity]

I'd still like to continue this thread, because there is some differentiation concerning right terminology (look my previous post).

However, I'm pretty convinced that the regenerate Christian can commit habitual, on-going sin, yet what distinguishes him from the unregenerate is the fact that he's continually struggling with his sin. This, of course, does not mean that the struggling must take place during sinning, but rather after the sin is committed.

And remember, David did not quite struggle with his sin until a year after he lived and indulged in it. Did he not know that adultery and murder were wrong? Of course he knew. Was his will not involved in his behavior? Of course it was. But, his sinful nature overcame him very powerfully for a long season of time and he was hardened towards the ways of righteousness. The influence of the Spirit of holiness upon him was lessened very considerably during that time. It was increased upon him again during Nathan's visit. A believer has this waxing and waning of the Spirit's influence that ever accompanies the continual influence of the sin within him. Sanctification may not always appear progressive in a believer (as in David's case), but it will be continual or never cease. And we must be careful that we are not giving licence to sin in discussing this, and a way to excuse it, but we do wish to comfort the conscience against despair when he sees that his case does not go according to the way he thinks his sanctification ought to play out. Our sanctification is in the Lord's hands, and he will give season's of greater influence or lesser influence as he sees fit, in order to develop our faith in him. We must attend to prayer for his working upon us, with humility, and acknowledge our continual dependence upon him to do the work of sanctification within us.

But still, this does not reconcile the two passages entirely, in my opinion. What is the context of I John 2 is where I would start, and, for that matter, what is the purpose John said that he is writing the letter to them (Ch.5).

Blessings and prayer in your studies...

 

[J. Dean]

I think we need to define carefully the terms, "besetting" and "habitual," because the consensus of opinion in the WhiteHorseInn podcast was that Christians struggle with habitual sin. On the other hand, if habitual sin indicates absence of struggle, as Kevin suggested, then no Christian can commit such a thing.

For further reference, I recommend Hebrews 10:26. The idea in that passage is one of a person continually, willfully, and impenitently persisting in sin despite being rebuked about it. I believe that John is essentially making the same case as the writer of Hebrews.

Christians sin. Christians do NOT sin with regular, impenitent hubris.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thers is a huge difference between person A who struggles against sin because he is not yet completely free from indwelling sin and one who practices sin without concern. The modern evangelical notion of the "carnal Christian" is a good example of bad theology where they conclude that a person can continue to live in such a way that his soul is not yet yielded to Christ but he has notionally accepted Christ as his Lord. He practices sin without concern because he assumes that he has a status within the Christian religion that gives him a pass to do so.

James indicates a similar type of attitude in his epistle where he speaks about a man who claims to have faith but possesses none of the fruit which would attend this. The man is a shell of profession. All talk.

What matters is possession of Christ and His saving benefits and not profession of it. The notion of "practicing sin" is not whether a man struggles with sin but whether or not this sin defines him. If a man is in Christ then he is a new creation and sin no longer enslaves him but he is united to Christ in His death to sin and resurrection to life. A man who is not in Christ is still enslaved to sin and can do no other than it. A man who is in Christ is enslaved to Christ and struggles against sin which no longer defines or enslaves him. John, himself, recognizes this distinction because he says earlier in the same epistle that the man who claims he does not sin does not have Christ.

The difference, in the end, is whether or not one is in Christ. A man in Christ is not defined by sin but by his union with Christ and all the saving benefits including how Christ will purify and sanctify him. A man who has not Christ is enslaved to sin.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Thank you everyone, especially Charles and Rich for the long responses! You make good points, and I'm convinced now that struggling is not what ultimately separates the regenerate from the unregenerate Christian -- rather, it is sanctification, the fruits of the Spirit, that determines whether one is in Christ or not. This seems to be the consistent teaching of Scripture.