Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John

In 1 John, John makes seemingly contradictory statements by stating that if we say we have no sin we are calling God a liar (1 John 1:8) and that the one who is born of God does not sin (1 John 3:9). There are countless papers written on this topic and a wide variety of opinions. Some have dealt with this passage by claiming that 1 John 1:8 is speaking of the non-Christian and 1 John 3:9 is speaking of the non-Christian. But the context does not support this view because in 1 John 2 John talks about how Christ is the propitiation of the Christian's sins.

Another popular view supported by the ESV focuses upon the present tense of the verb in 1 John 3:9. The ESV translates 1 John 3:9 as, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning..." The idea found both in the ESV and the Concordia Commentary is that the Christian still sins but does not engage in a life of habitual sin and his life is marked by a general trajectory of getting better. It relies heavily upon the use of the present tense in verse 9. This is a convenient way to resolve the paradox but doesn't seem to be what John is actually trying to communicate. The present tense does not denote a habitual action but an action in progress. The same tense is used in 1:8 which says, "If we say we do not have sin" The ESV is a revision of the RSV and the RSV seems more honest when it translates the verse as "No one born of God commits sin..." If the verse contained something other than "sin" I doubt that the ESV would have translated the verse in this way. If the verse had said, "No one born of God eats bacon," I doubt that the ESV would have translated the verse as, "No one born of God makes a practice of eating bacon." John's point in using the present tense is not to give someone an out who dabbles in sin from time to time. To translate it as "practicing sinning" seems to weaken the intentionally harsh statement that John is delivering.

Some commentators such as Rudlof Schnackenburg, see an eschatological tension at work here where the Christian is already and not yet sinless. This would fit nicely within the simul justus et peccator framework that exists in the Pauline letters and I think there is some validity to that method of interpretation.

I also think that the particular sins that are being addressed should be considered. From the rest of the Epistle it appears that there are false teachers who left the church after their ideas were not accepted and set up their own competing church. The false teachers are walking in darkness and claiming to be sinless. They are denying that Christ has a true human body and that He is the Christ and that He is the Son of God. John refers to the denial of Christ having a real human body as being antichrist (4:4).They are denying the true Christ. They are showing hatred towards their brothers in Christ by separating from them (2:19). They are not providing for the needs of their brothers and not united in doctrine. John implies that they are not helping their brothers in their physical bodies because they deny that Christ had a physical body. They are engaging in immoral behavior but claiming that it is not truly sin because it is only done in the body and the body isn't important. Those who are in the light hold fast to Christ's commandment. The commandment is to confess the true Christ and to love the brothers.

Those in darkness appear to be denying the sacraments as well which is pretty common throughout history among those who deny that Christ had a physical body. In typical Johannine fashion because of the persecution that the church was suffering, John speaks in code about the sacraments. He speaks of the "anointing" (2:27) that those in the light had received. In ancient practice anointing occurred just after baptism. This seems to imply that that those in darkness denied baptism. The references to "love" also seem to be a reference to the Lord's Supper. In John 13 the commandment to love one another is closely tied to the Lord's Supper. John is the Apostle whom Jesus loved and at the beginning of chapter 13 this love is extended to all the Apostles. In John 5:6, John speaks of Jesus and says "This is the one coming through water and blood." Most translations say something like, "This is He who came by water and blood." But the verb is in the present tense (practicing coming probably wouldn't be a good translation either). Jesus comes to us in water and blood. Jesus comes to us in baptism and the Lord's Supper. There are three that testify--the Spirit, the water, and the blood. They are all in agreement in their testimony. The Spirit is not contrary to the water and the blood. The Spirit is not contrary to the physical. You do not attain some higher level of religion by freeing yourself from the earthly elements but rather end up denying the testimony of the Spirit. This statement is closely tied to John's Gospel where Jesus' side is pierced and blood and water flow out (John 19:34-35). John makes quite a deal about this fact. It not only shows that Jesus truly died as a real human being with a real human body but also shows the source of the church's life which is drawn outside of the side of Jesus just as Eve was created from the side of Adam.

Another relevant but difficult passage in understanding how the Christian can be both confessing sins and sinless is found in 1 John 5:16-17. John instructs the congregation to pray for those who have sinned but not if the sin is unto death. John speaks of this sin unto death in a roundabout way. I'm not entirely sure as to exactly what is meant here. The "sin unto death" seems like it must correspond in some way to the sins already described, especially the denial of Christ as He comes to us as the Son of God and Messiah in His human body. It seems like it would have to refer to those who were once part of the church in some way and who have left. It doesn't refer to those who were never a part of the church. Is this judgment reserved for leaders of the movement or maybe even to those who have died in their denial of Christ? I'm not sure.

I think the best way to understand John's statements about the Christian as sinner and as sinless is similar to that of what we find in Romans 7 but from a different angle. The Christian who confesses that Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah who has paid the price for his sins, and who has a real human body is truly sinless according to his new nature. All of his sins have been covered by the blood of Christ. The person who denies that he is a sinner does nothing but sin and remains in the dark.

Work Out Your Salvation With Fear and Trembling

The half-verse "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is used by some to teach that our good works contribute in some way to our salvation and used by others to teach that sanctification is a synergistic process. But when examined in context neither is true. The Bible is not a collection of random statements like the Qur'an. The half-verse is taken from Philippians 2:12. God did not write verse numbers. Philippians was originally intended to be read as a single sermon. The meaning must be derived from the context or a meaningless phrase that you can use to tell people they must do almost anything. Do your good works outnumber your bad works? If you're really "saved" why aren't you out there winning people for Jesus?

The letter/sermon begins by addressing the "saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philip pi." Paul says that God is the one who started the work in Philippi and that God will bring this work to completion when Christ returns (1:6, this verse also gets taken out of context for various purposes). Paul prays for that the church would grow in love with knowledge and discernment and filled with the fruit of righteousness. In his letter/sermon to the Galatians Paul distinguishes between the fruit of the Spirit and the works of the flesh. Fruit naturally springs up out of the Christian because of the work of the Holy Spirit while our old Adam continues to produce the sinful works of the flesh. There are similarities here as well to Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. The goats bring their good works before God but are cast away. The sheep didn't even realize that they were doing good works.

Paul then goes on to talk about his imprisonment and the preachers who have appeared at the church of Philippi in his absence (1:14 ff.).. These people are trying to gain financially in Paul's absence. In a very pastoral way Paul directs the Philippians away from trying to determine motivations and instead directs them to examine the message that is preached. If they preach Christ all is well and good but as we find later there are some Judaizers among them trying to preach a works based salvation. These Judaizers seem to be saying that Paul's suffering is the result of his false teaching but Paul says that the Christian life is a life of suffering. He calls the Philippians to remain united and not be divided by the Judaizers. By remaining united in the Gospel they will be sign of the destruction of the Judaizers and a clear sign of their own salvation which is from God and not the result of gaining notoriety among men (1:28-29).

In chapter 2 Paul argues that if the Philippians have faith in Christ and communally participate in the Holy Spirit (most likely a reference to the Eucharist), they should be united in doctrine and love and be serving one another in humility. Let the same mind be in them that was also in Christ. They are to share the same way of thinking that Christ had when He emptied Himself and took the form of a servant even though He is God. Christ did not come to be served but to serve. He humiliated Himself by being crucified by a world that hated Him. He has been exalted but his exaltation will not be realized on earth until the second coming. The Christian has also been called to suffer and in act in humility toward his enemies. The Christian is exalted but that exaltation will not be realized until the second coming. After saying all this, Paul says:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.(Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)

Paul is not calling for inward navel gazing to determine if good works outnumber bad works so that we can determine if we are really Christians. The "therefore" signals that what follows is a conclusion drawn from the previous section. He says "my beloved." It is a call to the church as a whole. It is not individualistic. It is call to remain obedient to the Gospel and not to listen to the Judaizers. They are to work out their salvation in fear and trembling because it is God who works in them both to will and to work for His good pleasure. They shouldn't loose fear of God and start thinking that they're good works are something to boast about that make them better than others and earn them salvation. Their truly good works are not their own but are worked in them by God. Even their good desires are the work of God. If they start looking towards their good works they have reason to fear and tremble. If they present their good works before God when Christ returns they will be damned. Salvation is found in Christ alone.

The War on Advent

This is the time of year when Christians in America feel that they are being persecuted because the cashier did not wish them a Merry Christmas. The fact of the matter is that it's not even Christmas. It seems like they should be upset that they are not being wished blessed Advent. The Christian celebration of Christmas begins on December 25th and lasts for 12 days. The secular celebration of Christmas seems to start earlier every year. It used to start right after Thanksgiving but now seems to start some time before Halloween. The secular celebration of Christmas is not about the celebration of the birth of Christ but about the buying of merchandise, Santa Claus, family get-togethers, snow, and sentimental songs about the season. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these things but there's nothing inherently Christian about them either. The retailers make most of their money during this time and so it makes sense that they would want to extend the season prior to the time on Black Friday when Americans follow their "Thanksgiving" by trying to kill one another for a television set or gaming system. When the retail store says, "Merry Christmas" it means the same thing as when it says "Happy Holidays." Both phrases translate to, "Have a great time buying lots of stuff."

In America, the problem as far as Christmas goes is not with the retail outlets. The problem is with the church following the lead of the retail outlets. The church may say, "Merry Christmas" but it often means little more than family get-togethers, snow, and thinking about how cute baby Jesus is. Much of American Christianity is anti-liturgical and does not follow the liturgical calendar. There is no command in Scripture to follow the liturgical calendar. But things seem to go terribly wrong when churches decide to not follow the liturgical calendar except for Christmas and Easter without celebrating Advent or Lent. The penitential seasons are done away with. People may agree that Jesus was crucified but they worship the resurrected Christ never mind what Paul said about preaching nothing but Christ crucified. The significance of Christmas and Easter are both diminished without Advent and Lent. People sing empty and meaningless carols and think about how thankful they are to be with family. Those who have lost family members who are suffering from tragedy feel left out Some churches will have special programs to try to lure people into the church through a play that makes them feel good.

Rather than complaining that the retail outlets are taking Christ out of Christmas, why not call upon the church to stop taking Christ out of Christmas while it wishes you a Merry Christmas? The one year lectionary starts Advent by telling about Jesus' entry into Jerusalem where He went to be crucified for you. Jesus was born to die for you. He wasn't born so that you could stand around and talk about how cute He is and tell people that we give gifts just like God gave Jesus to the world. He wasn't born so that your church could put on Christmas plays to lure people in. If your church celebrates Christmas, ask them why they don't celebrate Advent. Advent not only anticipates the birth of Christ but the second coming of Christ. It doesn't look in the headlines trying to find some hidden code to show we are living in the end times. It is a realization that we are already in the end times and a call to prepare for the second coming of Jesus. It doesn't look for the coming of a Jesus who is absent but a Jesus who has promised to be with us until the end--a Jesus who gives us His very body and blood in the Lord's Supper. Demand that your church put the Mass back into Christmas and give you Christ's body and blood on Christmas and every Sunday. Demand that your church give you a real Christ who did not come to set an example but came to do what you cannot do and died for you. If they will not give you these things, find some church that will and stop caring about the greeting the guy gives you at the retail store.

Infant Baptism and Wild Living

I was discussing baptism with a Baptist and one of the objections against infant baptism that he brought up was the fact that he had friends who were baptized as infants and were now engaged in "wild living." What he meant exactly by "wild living" wasn't clear from the rest of the conversation but I'm guessing that he means they are engaged in some kind of sinful lifestyle. However, it's not too difficult to find people who have been baptized as adults and are also engaging in "wild living." The typical Baptist approach to such people is to conclude that they were never really "saved" to begin with and to try to convert such people to Christianity and perhaps even have them baptized again. In 1 Corinthians 6 and elsewhere, Paul instead calls people back to their baptisms. He doesn't say, "You had some water poured on you but you must not really be Christians because of how you're acting." Instead he appeals to their baptism. Instead he says, "You're all living like unbelievers but you were washed in the waters of baptism, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Jesus Christ. So stop acting like unbelievers, Jesus paid for all your sins."

What stands behind the "wild living" accusation is very dangerous. It's an attempt at self-justification. It involves the person making the accusation placing their good works before God in an attempt to justify themselves. They convince themselves that although they may make mistakes from time to time, they aren't like those people over there who are engaging in these sinful lifestyles--regardless of whether the lifestyle is something actually condemned by God or only condemned by the person making the accusation. We are all sinners. Every day we commit acts that are worthy of God's temporal and eternal punishment. But God has washed us in the waters of holy baptism and united us to Christ. Our sins are washed away in baptism. We are forgiven in baptism. We are regenerated in baptism. Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, even those we commit after baptism.

The Statistical Argument Against Infant Baptism

In discussions with Baptists, statistics are sometimes brought forth that supposedly refute infant baptism. They point out all the people who been baptized but do not live as Christians when they grow up. I have never been able to find a credible source for any of these statistics and have no idea of knowing what percentage of baptized babies grow up to lead Christian lives and I doubt anyone else is able to either. There are too many variables and too many terms that need defining. Whatever the percentage is, we can all point to people we know that were baptized who do not seem to have any faith in Christ. But this doesn't really prove that infant baptism is wrong. Truth is not determined by numbers. The fact that a mega church has more members doesn't mean that a mega church is being more faithful than a smaller church. Biblical fidelity is measured by the Scriptures and not by counting numbers.

The fact that numbers are brought up at all is very telling. It points to pragmatism rather than a trust in Christ's promises despite all the objections to the contrary. Tertullian was the first to question the practice of infant baptism. He did not question the validity of infant baptism but he thought it was better to wait because he did not believe that infants were sinful and thought it put a heavy burden on baptismal sponsors. Zwingli makes a similar objection. Zwingli doesn't deny the validity of infant baptism but he does think it's better to wait until someone has shown that they are truly committed to being a Christian. The Scriptures don't say to wait. The Scriptures don't specifically say to baptize babies but they don't specifically say to baptize ninety year olds either. Jesus told the Apostles to disciple the nations by baptizing them.

If a Baptist knows that you believe in baptismal regeneration he may also bring up people like Hitler and many others who were baptized as infants but left the Christian faith. This is because he believes that if a person is given faith they will never fall away from the faith. However, the Scriptures tell us differently. We often read of those who have faith but fall away and Paul gives warnings that would be completely unnecessary if people never fell away. The Baptist promises greater assurance by saying that those who fall away never "really" had faith to begin with but this provides no assurance at all. Those who fell away thought that they had faith, so you can never really know if you are just fooling yourself into thinking you have faith.

Aside from the theological problems already mentioned with the statistical argument, the statistical argument also fails by its own standards. Depending on whose numbers you use, only somewhere between 3-9% of people who "make a decision for Christ" at an evangelistic crusade are living Christian lives a year later. Keep in mind that the vast majority of those who attend evangelism crusades regarded themselves as Christians prior to going to the crusade. What the crusade does is seek to emotionally manipulate people into thinking they were not Christians before and to associate being a Christian with an emotional response. When these people stop having emotional responses then they conclude they might as well not bother going to church anymore. Just before the first so-called Great Awakening church attendance was at an all-time high in the regions it took place in. After the Great Awakening attendance was at an all-time low in the same regions. The Second Great Awakening did the same thing. There was short burst of excitement followed by an emptying of the churches. People have developed all kinds of methodology with loose ties to Scripture in attempts to weed out the "false" converts and establish a pure church but none of this keeps people from falling away. In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus says that when the Gospel is preached some will believe for a time but eventually reject it. It's a sad reality that we can't do anything about. We are not wiser than Jesus. Introducing other things to emotionally manipulate people will only make things worse. Jesus told the Apostles to disciple the nations by baptizing them, He didn't say to disciple the nations by emotionally manipulating them. Introducing random rules to determine the "real" Christians from the "false" ones does not keep people from falling away. All that it does is lead people to either self-righteousness or despair.

The fact of the matter is that people fall away if they "make a decision" after becoming an adult just as they fall away after being baptized as an infant. The vast majority of Christians today (around 90%) were baptized as infants. Even if you take the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox out of the equation the majority of Christians were baptized as infants. Even among Baptists, a large percentage were baptized as infants in some other tradition. There are very, very few people today in America who are joining Christian churches as adults who grew up outside of the church. When a church is growing it usually means people are coming in from a different church.

Rather than doubt Christ's Word we should cling to it. Rather than putting our trust in some methodology or a tradition that disguises itself as Scripture, cling to Christ's promises. The Bible says that baptism now saves you and is for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus said that we are born again through water and the Spirit. Baptism does what it says because it is not just plain water but water joined with God's Word. Baptism is not our work but God's work. Sure, He uses sinful human instruments to bring it about but He does this with preaching as well. It's still God's Word. The fact that it is God's work and not man's work that saves us is seen most clearly in the baby who doesn't have any crazy ideas about being able to save himself. Denial of infant baptism always ends up denying what the Scriptures say about baptism and turns it into something we do for God.

Lutherans Against Hitler: The Untold Story by Lowell C. Green

A friend loaned me a copy of Lutherans Against Hitler: The Untold Story by Lowell C. Green. The title made me a little suspicious that this was some kind of sensationalist revisionist history but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it's actually very well-researched and honest. Green honestly discusses the strengths and weaknesses of confessional Lutherans who took a stand against Hitler and provides lots of support from both primary sources and personal interviews. Green does not make sweeping generalizations but instead provides an incredibly detailed account that manages to stay interesting throughout. Green's work doesn't concentrate on well-known Lutherans like Bonhoeffer. Instead his work provides information on the less well known confessional Lutherans. He does a good job of explaining how Hitler managed to gain the support of so many churches and the theological issues that kept Lutherans and the Reformed from taking a united stand against Hitler. He shows the similarities between the bad eschatology of Karl Barth and Hitler. He also shows how Karl Barth's theology which denied the distinction between Law and Gospel and also denied general revelation removed the necessary tools to oppose Hitler. The book is mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive but much can be learned that has current application. It shows us what can happen when doctrine is set aside and we unite based on national identity and generic god-talk.

The Apocolypse and Bob Dylan's Psalms

Ever since I was a small child, I've been a Bob Dylan fan. His new album is coming out on September 11th and I thought I would take the time to listen to all of his albums in chronological order--some of which I had never heard before. What I noticed is that all of Dylan's best songs all tend to be ambiguous. Hurricane may have been an interesting song when it was released and may even have helped to get someone out of jail but it's not moving in the same way that A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall is. Masters of War was written in reaction to the weapons companies that were profiting from the Cold War but the song remains relevant because it's not lyrically bound to the Cold War. With God on Our Side remains relevant because many still ignore atrocities committed by their country with the excuse that God is on their side. Along with being ambiguous when it comes to the event, they also approach the subject from an unusual angle that results in deeper thought. "She Loves You" by the Beatles is ambiguous enough to be applied to many relationships but doesn't result in the same type of deep thought that Dylan's Just Like a Woman does. Dylan has always been reluctant to reveal who or what the song is actually about and I think it's better that he doesn't. When Just Like a Woman is revealed to be about one particular woman it ceases to be relevant for anyone but Bob Dylan.

There's a similar problem I've seen in both the interpretation of the Book of Revelation and the Psalms. Some interpret the book of Revelation as being almost entirely about the future and others interpret it as being entirely about the past. Both groups miss out the richness of the language and present comfort that it provides. The book is so amazing because it is able to communicate to the church in every age. Every generation sees the monstrous figures all around them that we find in the Book of Revelation and every generation is given the comfort that the Lamb is still winning. Strangely enough, when Dylan went through his "born again" phase he seemed to miss this as well. Some of his concert footage during that period you can here him warning people about Armageddon and presenting them with a dispensationalist view of eschatology. After Dylan's "born again" phase he started supporting Judaism and his current religious beliefs are unclear. Strangely enough, Thunder on the Mountain which is one of his relatively recent songs contains apocalyptic imagery in a way that is actually more in keeping with the way that Revelation presents it than his songs were during his "born again" period. You get the sense that he's probably making some references to the 9/11 attacks but not in such a way that it's tied completely to the 9/11 attacks. The song will remain relevant when people don't think so much about 9/11 anymore.

When I'm discussion theology the subject of infant faith will come up on occasion. I'll point people to Psalm 22 and am almost always told that this is a Messianic Psalm and so it only applies to Jesus. In the first place, there are no non-Messianic Psalms. Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of all the Psalms. But none of the Psalms are only about Jesus. The Psalms are also true expression of the life of the person who penned them. However, the Psalms were also written by David and the other authors to be sung by all Israel and later by every Christian. You miss the meaning and purpose of the Psalms if you insist on making only about the person who wrote them or only about Jesus. Jesus exhibits faith in God as a young infant in most perfect sort of way but that doesn't mean He's the only one who hoped in God while on His mother's breasts. The Psalms used to be the hymnbook of the church. The fact that they no longer serve that purpose in many churches is part of the problem. So you find people reading Psalm 51 as if it's just David telling us about how he repented after sinning with Bathsheba and then we can sit around and discuss whether or not it's possible for a "real" New Testament Christian to fall into these kinds of sins since we have been given the Holy Spirit. But it's not included in the Book of Psalms for that purpose. It's included so that you can sing it as your own experience. If it's sung as your own experience the answer to the question is pretty obvious. I was watching the great documentary about Bob Dylan called No Direction Home. In one section, Joan Baez talks about how Bob Dylan wrote When the Ship Comes In after being refused a room at a hotel. It's a wonderful imprecatory song. Later on in the documentary Bob Dylan is performing "When the Ship Comes In" at the historic March on Washington where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I have a Dream" speech. The song perfectly fits that context as well but would have seemed silly if people knew that Dylan had originally wrote it after being refused a hotel room. They may have even been insulted to think that Dylan was comparing his petty annoyances to the sufferings that people experienced due to racism. But because the original context was unknown, the song was very powerful.

I'm not suggesting that we should close our eyes to the original historical context of Revelation or the Psalms. However, we will likely miss the point of both if that's all we see. The Book of Psalms and Revelation are given to us by Christ for our comfort.