Comments on: The Epistles of John (Part 26): 1 John 3:4–6 http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/ In principio erat Verbum... Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:53:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Bob McCluskey http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/comment-page-1/#comment-33896 Bob McCluskey Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:08:07 +0000 http://www.witheringfig.com/2007/07/25/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/#comment-33896 I would contend that to "keep on sinning" implies "sinning with impunity." In other words, to say, "I know it is wrong but I'm going to keep doing it anyway," or to be able to keep on sinning even with the knowledge of what it does to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or, to be able to keep on sinning without being affected by it. These things are incompatible with the redeemed nature. .-= Bob McCluskey's last blog: "<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheJournalOfRenewal/~3/g8K2lVcJVp8/" rel="nofollow">Confession of Your Sins to One Another: Why Would You Want to do That?</a>" =-. I would contend that to “keep on sinning” implies “sinning with impunity.” In other words, to say, “I know it is wrong but I’m going to keep doing it anyway,” or to be able to keep on sinning even with the knowledge of what it does to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or, to be able to keep on sinning without being affected by it. These things are incompatible with the redeemed nature.
Bob McCluskey’s last blog: "Confession of Your Sins to One Another: Why Would You Want to do That?"

]]> By: scott gray http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/comment-page-1/#comment-714 scott gray Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:06:41 +0000 http://www.witheringfig.com/2007/07/25/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/#comment-714 bob-- great post...much to think about. i like your list, even if a bit 'mechanical.' i like your understanding that sin is 'failure to engage.' my best understanding has always been that sin is the erosion, destruction, dismissal, or anything other than nuturing, of relationships. your definition and mine overlap, but have differences, too. when we engage in relationships, we will make mistakes in them that require patching. if we worry about sinning in relationships, we may choose not to engage so as not to sin, but then your definition says not to engage is sin, too. i love it! it seems we need to do as you say, engage, and do as i say, patch when the relationship is hurt. teshuva is the patching model. (had to put this here, bob, cause i can't get google to start an account for me--an engineering problem....) thanks you all, for such interesting things to think about. scott gray bob–
great post…much to think about.
i like your list, even if a bit ‘mechanical.’ i like your understanding that sin is ‘failure to engage.’ my best understanding has always been that sin is the erosion, destruction, dismissal, or anything other than nuturing, of relationships. your definition and mine overlap, but have differences, too. when we engage in relationships, we will make mistakes in them that require patching. if we worry about sinning in relationships, we may choose not to engage so as not to sin, but then your definition says not to engage is sin, too. i love it!
it seems we need to do as you say, engage, and do as i say, patch when the relationship is hurt. teshuva is the patching model.
(had to put this here, bob, cause i can’t get google to start an account for me–an engineering problem….)
thanks you all, for such interesting things to think about.

scott gray

]]> By: Bob MacDonald http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/comment-page-1/#comment-713 Bob MacDonald Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:24:51 +0000 http://www.witheringfig.com/2007/07/25/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/#comment-713 I extended my response a bit at http://stenagmois.blogspot.com/2007/07/theological-engineering.html I defined what I understand as sin there. I extended my response a bit at http://stenagmois.blogspot.com/2007/07/theological-engineering.html

I defined what I understand as sin there.

]]> By: scott gray http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/comment-page-1/#comment-709 scott gray Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:36:00 +0000 http://www.witheringfig.com/2007/07/25/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/#comment-709 it depends on your understanding of sinning. i don't know the greek here well enough (i'm learning), but i know that one of the hebrew understandings of sinning is 'falling short.' do you feel sin takes place, even if we are unaware of it? or is it only sin if we know it is wrong? i think the passage makes most sense when the sin is "known, ' or 'willfull.' if you sin willfully, you are not 'in him.' do you know about teshuvah? it depends on your understanding of sinning. i don’t know the greek here well enough (i’m learning), but i know that one of the hebrew understandings of sinning is ‘falling short.’ do you feel sin takes place, even if we are unaware of it? or is it only sin if we know it is wrong? i think the passage makes most sense when the sin is “known, ‘ or ‘willfull.’ if you sin willfully, you are not ‘in him.’
do you know about teshuvah?

]]> By: Bob MacDonald http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/comment-page-1/#comment-708 Bob MacDonald Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:09:33 +0000 http://www.witheringfig.com/2007/07/25/the-epistles-of-john-part-26-1-john-34%e2%80%936/#comment-708 I see you've got to the difficult part. keeping on sinning... just how does this get dealt with? First, law: knowledge of the law comes not from knowing in advance what is right and what is wrong, but from knowledge of him. Only by abiding in him is such knowledge granted. If I had to summarize what I have learned about living, it is remembering by whom you are loved and living in that love. There is a danger of legalism and antinomianism but John avoids this by citing the authority of the anointing. The warning is that if you think you know the law without the anointing, you will be acting in the flesh - to use Paul's term or in John's term, you will be not abiding in him and will not be knowing him. This is hard for everyone because it is so easy - the covenant dialogue must be opened and lived in. I am convinced it is the same covenant dialogue as is portrayed in the psalms. Both my blogs work from this premise. We know we open our dialogue through the entrance he has given us. I did not figure this out in advance! It is a reflection on abiding in him and learning from the anointing. It doesn't mean we don't make mistakes - without mistakes even sometimes to the point of shame, we would never learn the power and depth of his love nor would we know our own energy and power even if there is a risk we will learn it from a mistake. (cf Philemon 6 - that he might learn the extent of the gifts he has in Christ - but the learning may be hard for Philemon since Onesimus wronged him in the eyes of the Roman law!) I see you’ve got to the difficult part. keeping on sinning… just how does this get dealt with?

First, law: knowledge of the law comes not from knowing in advance what is right and what is wrong, but from knowledge of him. Only by abiding in him is such knowledge granted. If I had to summarize what I have learned about living, it is remembering by whom you are loved and living in that love. There is a danger of legalism and antinomianism but John avoids this by citing the authority of the anointing.

The warning is that if you think you know the law without the anointing, you will be acting in the flesh – to use Paul’s term or in John’s term, you will be not abiding in him and will not be knowing him.

This is hard for everyone because it is so easy – the covenant dialogue must be opened and lived in. I am convinced it is the same covenant dialogue as is portrayed in the psalms. Both my blogs work from this premise. We know we open our dialogue through the entrance he has given us.

I did not figure this out in advance! It is a reflection on abiding in him and learning from the anointing. It doesn’t mean we don’t make mistakes – without mistakes even sometimes to the point of shame, we would never learn the power and depth of his love nor would we know our own energy and power even if there is a risk we will learn it from a mistake.

(cf Philemon 6 – that he might learn the extent of the gifts he has in Christ – but the learning may be hard for Philemon since Onesimus wronged him in the eyes of the Roman law!)

]]>