“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8. Confession of sin is the opposite of the claim that we are not guilty of sin. This verse is a counter-claim to verse eight that Christians are not guilty of sin. The Christian who denies guilt deceives himself.
Verse 7 is cleansing from the principle of sin, whereas verse 9 is cleansing from the practice of sin.
If
The “if” here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess, and maybe we will not confess. It is conditional on our will or volition.
we confess
The word “confess” means to speak the same thing, to assent, accord, agree with, concede, acknowledge. The idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. Confession is saying what God says about our sins – that they are violations of God’s character. Sins are not blunders or mistakes but the desecration of the character of God. There is a danger in losing fellowship with God if we conceal our sins.
PRINCIPLE:
Confession based on the blood of Christ is our authority for fellowship with God because it acknowledges any violations of His character.
APPLICATION:
Walking in the light involves increased consciousness of our sinful unrighteousness and taking active steps to rid ourselves of that sin by claiming God’s forgiveness and cleansing through open confession of sin before God.
Believers who desire to walk with God confess their sin openly and frankly to God. We make the judgment that our sins are awful before God. We agree with God in condemning sin.
Confession does not mean to plead with God for forgiveness, feel sorry for sin, to pray for forgiveness, to feel sorry for sins, or to make restitution for our sins. No, the idea is to accept the idea that our sins violate an absolutely holy God and that our only solution for sin is the death of Christ on the cross.
Some claim that there is no need to confess sin because we already have forgiveness (Ep 1:7). This idea confuses positional forgiveness with experiential forgiveness. God finally and fully forgives us in our positional forgiveness. In this sense, we never need forgiveness again. God forensically forgives us forever in positional forgiveness. However, when it comes to fellowship with God, we need to confess specific violations to God’s character.
The forgiveness of 1:9 is experiential forgiveness. God always bases our experiential forgiveness on our positional forgiveness. A son may fall out of favor with his family, but he is still a member of the family. The issue in experiential forgiveness is not acceptance by God but fellowship with Him. Continual forgiveness allows us to fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
We always view sin for what it really is – a violation of God’s character. That is why God will forgive our sin based only on the cross of Christ. God forgave sin when Christ paid the penalty for that sin. Jesus meets all of the Father’s holy demands by His payment for sins on the cross. Jesus died in the sinner’s stead; He died in our place. It cost Jesus Christ a great deal to qualify us for forgiveness.
For a detailed study of 1 John 1:9, go to this link: http://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/running-exploration-of-1-john-1/
With respect, I disagree for a host of reasons.
I John 1:9 says that if you do not confess, you are unclean, unforgiven and unrighteous. It does NOT say anything about fellowship. You redefined these greek words into “fellowship” – but it is NOT in the text. I John 1:9 says – that if you do not confess, you are unrighteous, unclean and unforgiven. Your tradition has inserted “fellowship” into this verse. That is not correct exegesis. Respectfully, you need to deal with the text. How can we be unrighteous if we do not confess, and yet righteous by faith as taught throughout the New Testament?
Some questions:
1. Why is the death of the Son sufficient to pay all sins (past, present and future) to make me righteous and get me to heaven – but insufficient without the work of confession for daily post-salvation sins? Doesn’t the greater include the lesser? You are saying we are pardoned by the Governor from life in prison – but we must stay in prison until we pay our “library fines” (i.e. daily sins) in order to exit the prison. It just does not make sense. This teaching minimizes the power of the blood of Christ.
2. Aren’t you preaching circumcision (i.e. the Galatians Heresy – the requirement to do a work of the flesh to maintain a right relationship with God)? You are saying that faith PLUS confession is required to maintain fellowship with God. Having begun by the Spirit, you are teaching that we are perfected by the flesh. How is your confession requirement different? Do you agree that confession is a “work of the flesh” and not “faith.” And do you agree that “fellowship” as you define it is already included in “justification” or “reconciliation” – which occurred once and for all?
3. Do you confess every sin? Make sure you do – because under your doctrine, you never really know if you are in fellowship – anything not of faith is sin.
4. Do you think the writer of Hebrews was misleading to us? If you read Hebrews 9 and 10 – the author makes it very clear that all sins are forgiven once and for all. What a major blunder to forget to tell us that sins – practically speaking – are not REALLY forgiven for “practical fellowship with God purposes” unless we confess. The entire book of Hebrews is a bit misleading if your teaching is accurate. Imagine all of the first century saints that never read I John – but did read Hebrews, Romans, Galatians and the rest of the New Testament. THEY WOULD NEVER KNOW THAT THEIR SINS WERE NOT “practically/experientially” FORGIVEN. Doesn’t that bother you a bit?
5. Have you ever wondered why Paul, Peter, James, Jude and the writer to the Hebrews failed to explain this “out of fellowship doctrine” and the absolute requirement for the believer to confess his or her sins moment by moment IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN FELLOWSHIP???? Your reference to grieving the Spirit is not clear at all. The text does NOT say anything about sin grieving the Spirit. If just says – do not grieve the Spirit. In Numbers, for instance, – it was unbelief – lack of faith in the promise of God to take the land – that grieved God. One could argue that failing to believe in the power of the cross to forgive all sins (positionally and experientially) without confession constitutes “grieving the Spirit.” What authority do you have to say that I am incorrect in that understanding? In any event, the Eph. text does not clearly teach what you are saying it does. Do you have any other post-resurrection text that teaches this doctrine of “experiential forgiveness”?
6. Do you suggest that forgiveness of sins found in I John 1:7 means positional forgiveness and I John 1:9 experiential forgiveness? What exegetical method are you using to redefine the same greek words in the same paragraphs? Could it be possible that I John 1:9 is related to those who do not have the truth in them (i.e. they need to be born again – see I John 1:8).
7. Why do you assume that “fellowship with the Father and the Son” means something other than being born again? I assume that you are well aware that Paul never said we are “born again” – he used other terms for the same event. Peter never says Christ died – he said “Christ suffered.” In other words, New Testament writers use different words for the same event. You assume that fellowship means a higher quality of life for the believer. If your assumption is wrong – then, your understanding of I John 1 is incorrect.
I provide these comments and questions with respect and I invite your response.
Robert Barron
4152 SW 107 Way
Davie, Florida 33328
Robert, Thank you for your very well thought out presentation. It is encouraging to hear from people who are serious about the Bible.
1. You mentioned that “fellowship is not in the text,” however, fellowship is the main argument of the book of 1 Jn. (1:3, etc).
2. Whenever you have the third class condition “if” clause, as you have in the entire passage running from 1:6, it suggests human volition. The popular way to express the third class condition is “maybe he will or maybe he won’t.” In other words, the choice is up to the readers of 1 Jn (Christians). The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).
3. The word “confess” is in the present tense (in the Greek, this is linear aktionsart–ongoing confession is necessary.
4. I agree with you that the death of Christ sufficiently paid for our sins for eternity in a positional, forensic, complete sense. We also received imputed (God’s righteousness) at the point of salvation. This is legal forgiveness that took place at one point, the point of our salvation. The “greater” does indeed include the “lesser” in the sense that we have the right to claim forgiveness based on our legal forgiveness. As 1:7 says, “the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from sin.” Cleansing does not come from the process of confession but from believing that the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from all sin. Both forensic and progressive forgiveness are by faith. By the way, we are not “made righteous” as you indicate but we are “declared” or “caused to be righteous” because the Greek word for “declared righteous” is causative.
5. On the charge that I am teaching the Galatian heresy, refer to my studies on Galatians. As well, note point four in that we claim salvation by faith and fellowship by faith. That is, it is not faith that saves or delivers but the object of faith–the cross of Christ.
6. On the question of confessing “every sin,” note the study later in 1 Jn 1:9 where I make the point that if we confess our known sin, God is faithful to “cleanse us from all sin.”
7. The argument of Hebrews deals with initial, complete forgiveness because he argues against Christians with a Jewish background who had a tendency to revert to Judaism, its sacrifices, temple worship, etc. His argument is that once we accept the prototype, there is no forgiveness in the type. The blood of bulls and goats (the type) cannot and could not take away sins; they only pointed to the One who would.
8. Other passages indicate forgiveness for Christians, Ja 5:15.
9. The Greek word for “walk” in 1:7 means to walk around as a course of life indicating that this refers to our daily walk with the Lord. That entire passage deals with rationalization of sin and the tendency not to confess/acknowledge sins.
Sir,
It is really a treat to speak with you on this subject. Please know that I hold you and Campus Crusade in high regard. I agree that we are declared righteous and not “made righteous” – thanks for the correction. Please receive my questions and disagreements in the spirit of honest discussion and without malice.
A few things to discuss with you:
1. Regarding the text, you seem to not address the text of I John 1:9 – the words used by John are forgive, cleanse and unrighteousness. Fellowship does not appear in this verse. It does appear in the passage, but not in the text under consideration. If you are correct, then, the believer who has not confessed all known sin is “unrighteous.” Again, fellowship is not mentioned in I John 1:9. John does not suggest that the unconfessing believer is “out of fellowship” – or has “broken fellowship” – phrases which are not contained in the entire letter of I John. Instead, he states that the unconfessing person is unclean and unrighteous and in need of forgiveness. That is what I mean when I said – “fellowship” is not in the text of I John 1:9. You seem to be comfortable in interpreting these words to mean “broken fellowship” – and I am saying that this reading of the text of I John 1:9 does not address the actual words used in I John 1:9.
2. Your point 2 is interesting, no disagreement that confession must be voluntary. In addition, in Point 3, no disagreement that confession is present tense for the unbeliever that must confess his or her sins for forgiveness. Those points do not disagree with my understanding of the text.
3. Regarding your point 4 – we clearly are in agreement regarding the power of the cross and the Lord’s death to take away our sins. Our disagreement is that I believe we claim legal and experiential (and familiar and parental) forgiveness once and for all time at the point of the new birth. I understand that you believe we receive legal forgiveness at the new birth, but we need to continue to confess our known sins to maintain experiential forgiveness. I respectfully disagree on this point. I assume that upon death – you assume that unconfessed sin is somehow automatically forgiven – so that when the believer is “present with the Lord” – the unconfessed sins in need of experiential forgiveness are “forgiven.”
4. Regarding point 5 – I surely do not want to suggest any heresy on your point at all in any way whatsoever. I agree that the finished work of Christ saves us – not our faith. But God does extend His grace through faith (Eph 2:8). No disagreement there. Here is my point, my understanding of the Galatians error was that a group was teaching the believers that in order to maintain their righteousness with Christ, they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The meeting in Acts 15 addressed this issue directly. However, this I John 1:9 teaching is teaching something similiar (not exactly similar- but similar). This teaching says – you are justified by faith – but in order to maintain “fellowship with God” – which in my understanding is a COMPONENT OR A NATURAL RESULT OF JUSTIFICATION – you must confess all known sin when it occurs. So, in my way of thinking, you are teaching that we must maintain an aspect- or a component – of our justification by faith by the work of confession.
Apparently, you disagree. Do you believe that a justified man or woman can be “out of fellowship” with God the Father? If you could explain how you get to that understanding, it would help me to understand how you are parsing justification from fellowship. Because, I understand justification to include forgiveness of sins and a declaration of righteousness. So, how can God break fellowship with a forgiven man who has been declared by God Himself to be as Righteous as God Himself? Stated another way, who will bring a charge against God’s elect?
Can you see my point of view – that you are teaching a “work” – i.e. – continual confession of known sin – as the means by which we maintain “fellowship” – which is a component or aspect or result of being “justified.”
In Galatia, they were teaching that one needed to be circumcised, and keep days and holidays – to maintain righteousness.
It looks similar to me. I understand you do not agree, but that is my point of view.
5. Regarding Point 6, I have found that the work of confession is a heavy burden that keeps me in a “sin management” mode rather than a Christ centered mode. Since anything not of faith is sin – I question whether any human can be sure he or she is confessing all known sin at all times.
6. Regarding Point 7, I agree that Hebrews teaches what you say and we both know it is a rich book. However, one of the things it reminds us about is that under the New Covenant, God has promised to remember our sins no more. Under your understanding of I John 1:9 – you are saying that God still remembers them for “experiential purposes.” I respectfully disagree.
7. Regarding James 5:15 – I agree that the verse seems to indicate that sins are forgiven in connection with healing prayer. I understand that verse in connection with the other New Testament writings that states that our sins are forgiven once and for all when we were made alive in Christ – and that James wanted to stress our forgiveness in connection with receiving healing prayer from the elders. But I acknowledge that the text presents the challenge in explanation – as do other statements in James.
8. Regarding point 9, I agree that there is a tendency to not confess sins as noted in I John 1:8 – by those who claim that they have no sin – in other words – those who are not born again. However, no believer claims to have no sin – if they did – the “truth would not be in them.”
Thank you again for your thoughts. I respectfully disagree regarding your understanding that the believer must continually confess known sins in order to maintain fellowship with the Father and the Son.
That teaching seems to me to directly contradict with Paul’s many statements in Ephesians, Colossians, Romans and Acts regarding the forgiveness of our sins and Hebrews 9 and 10 which states that our sins have been put away “once and for all.” It seems to me that it is teaching a type of “works fellowship” – that fellowship with God is maintained by the “work of confession” – instead of by faith alone.
But we both clearly agree on the essentials of the Faith and the wonders of the finished work of Christ on the Cross.
Blessings to you.
R. Barron
Robert, I accept your comments as without malice and with objective argument. I respect your position for I have considered it as a possibility many times.
1. Re your First point. As I mentioned in my first response, the argument of the entire epistle of first John is “fellowship.” Since it is the liet motif of the epistle, we must take all passages in 1 Jn as referring to this argument. This is the semantical argument. As well, “fellowship” is in the immediate context (1:3, 6). As John expressly asserts, he writes the epistle so that his readers will have fellowship with the apostles and with the Lord. Verse 6 begins the series of hypothetical “if” clauses with “if we say that we have fellowship with him (the Lord). Thus, the immediate argument has to do with fellowship with the Lord. Note the thee previous “if” clauses leading to verse 9. It is wrong to use 1 Jn 1:9 without the immediate context for that is a form of pretexting, therefore, the word “fellowship” does not need to occur in the verse itself. Since 1:9 is dealing with 1:6, there is no need for the words “out of fellowship” to be explicitly stated for the context itself implies it. In addition to that, the conditional “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice all assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives.
Re the words “forgive, cleanse, unrighteousness.” In the Greek, the word “confess” is part of the third class condition of potentiality, i.e., forgiveness rests on “confession. The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing. The present tense does not deal with time as does the English, the Greek present tense indicates kind of action (aktionsart), not time of action, therefore, the believer must confess sins as they come up on an ongoing basis. If your argument is true, then an unbeliever would have to confess sins over again to obtain forgiveness. Forgiveness in the absolute sense does not rest on confession but on faith in the finished work of Christ, although “confess” is a faith word as well. I argue for the principle of confession as found in 1:9 is based on our positional forgiveness, i.e., we have the right to be experientially forgiven because the “blood of Jesus His Son keeps on cleansing us.” The believer constantly has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleansing of the blood of Christ. Both “forgive” and “cleanse” are in the subjunctive mood indicating that forgiveness and cleansing are only potential based on the potential of confessing (subjunctive mood). Both forgiveness of sins and unrighteousness are used both in the absolute and relative sense in Scripture.
Your argument that the words “broken fellowship” does not occur in 1 Jn is not valid because John uses other nomenclature and ideas for that.
2. Point 2 answered in point 1. For the unbeliever to confess his sin over and over is a violation of the finished work of Christ by faith.
3. Re point 3: The believer in eternity is free from the sin capacity and acts of sin so there is no need for forgiveness in the eternal state.
4. Re Point 4: If confession is a work so is believing or faith a work (which I do not believe). Faith is a non-meritorious course of action because the results depend not on the person exercising faith but on the work of another. If this is so, confession is a non-meritorious course of action because it rests, believes, trusts, or exercises faith in the on-going cleansing of the blood of Christ (1:7). Jesus not only forgives absolutely but he forgives relatively. We enter into eternal fellowship with the Lord by faith and we enter into temporal fellowship with the Lord by faith (confess). I agree with you that Galatians does indeed argue against Christians who revert into legalism/works as a mode of operation and acceptance before God. I agree that at the point of salvation, the believer receives justification, imputation, forgiveness, reconciliation, propitiation, etc. No one can bring a charge against God’s elect in that sense. Throughout Scripture, believers must deal with their sin as believers. For a believer in adultery not to deal with adultery is unconscionable. The person who commits adultery has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleaning by the blood of Christ. That is why John in 1 Jn writes to Christians (“to you,” 1:2,3,5; not the “we” and “our” clauses). John obviously writes to believers, not unbelievers. The argument that I am “parsing” the text is a pejorative argument that does not deal with the exegesis that I gave you. I could argue that you parse the text by not dealing with the context and argument of the book.
5. Re Point 5: My point is that a believer cannot remember all sin. Confession of known sin by trusting the finished work of Christ cleanses us from “all unrighteousness.” It is faith in the glory of Christ’s death for our sin that cleanses, not the confession. I don’t think we “manage sin” but keep short accounts with God. It is a burden that you should not carry because it is a faith exercise of fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
6. Re Point 6: There is a difference between God remembering our sin no more in the absolute sense and in the experiential sense.
7. Re Point 7: I hope you do not agree with Luther who said that James was a very “strawy epistle” because he thought it taught justification by works. James argument is a difference in cause and effect. He argues that genuine faith produces works. See my studies on this point in the James study.
8. Re Point 8: All of the “we” statements obviously refers to believers as seen from the beginning of the chapter. The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion. I assert that the extant, explicit statements in chapter one deal with believers, not unbelievers, as seen in previous arguments. Almost all commentaries agree that 1 Jn was written to Christians, John explicitly states in the introduction that it is for Christians, and the content of the book indicates that John warns against incipient Gnosticism. Christians cannot fellowship with God if they imbibe incipient Gnosticism. That is at the heart of your misunderstanding of this passage. You have a tendency to jump to other passages other than 1 Jn, make inferential statements not extant in 1 Jn, and not deal with the grammar of the passage or the argument of the book. There is nothing in chapter one that indicates that John is talking to a non-believer.
I deeply appreciate your close arguments.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (New King James Version), " For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Through faith in Christ, we have BECOME the righteousness of God in Him.
Gentlemen,
In Romans 6:22, 23 Paul writes..
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
It does not say the wages of sin is "being out of fellowship"
.
Sharon, I am in Africa and will respond upon return.
Sharon, I recommend that you go to my study in Romans 6:23 and the context leading up to it http://versebyversecommentary.com/romans/romans-623/
1 John 1:9 has become the Christian's bar of soap but very few have actually studied the verses before and after (as we should always do) to put the verse into context as well as who was the writer writing to and what was the background.
If you apply the antithesis rule to the verse, you will see it is obviously not for Christian's. If we DO NOT confess our sins, He is NOT faithful and just to FORGIVE our sins and to CLEANSE us from all UNRIGHTEOUSNESS”. All our sins HAVE been forgiven past, present and future. As Christians we cannot ask Jesus Christ to do something He has ALREADY done. Read Hebrews.
John was writing a letter to the elders/pastors who had mixed congregations of saved and lost. There were Gnostic's who believed that Jesus hadn't come in the flesh and that they were without sin – John was correcting them – 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; then he explained in 1 John 1:8 about their wrong belief of having no sin… If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth (Jesus) is not in us. He then explained in 1 John 1:9 how to get saved. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
We often hear about the parental forgiveness and judicial forgiveness as relating to breaking of fellowship with God when we sin. This is a man made teaching and is nowhere to be found in Scripture. 1 Cor. 1:9 (fancy that) says we have been brought into fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. We are brought into fellowship when we get saved – never to be broken.
Of course a Christian must acknowledge when he has sinned and agree with God that his actions are wrong but nowhere in Scripture is the believer told to confess his sins to God for forgiveness of sins or to restore fellowship. How can we, by our actions make ourselves more acceptable to God? That's works. We didn't WORK to get our salvation and we can't WORK to keep it.
The teaching that 1 John 1:9 is for Christians, keeps Christians in a state of confusion and does not allow them to enter into the rest.
What do they do about the sins they have forgotten about and don't confess? If they go to bed and die, how can they go to heaven as God will not allow sin in heaven? They live in a constant state of worry – I used to do that. I would start my prayer time with Lord, please forgive me of the sins I've committed knowingly and unknowingly..”. That's just not Scriptural. The Lord HAS forgiven our sins. Thinking like this is not believing in the finished work of the cross.
What I have found when sharing this with Christians is that they put forward all sorts of arguments/points, none of which are based on Scripture and reduce God to a human level with statements like……."It's like when a son sins against his father – the relationship hasn't been affected but the fellowship has". 1 Cor 1:9 takes care of this thinking.
I hope this will help some Christians out there like it helped me.
In Him,
Norman Silva.
Norman, thanks for your blog. I respect those who hold your viewpoint, not from your ultimate interpretation, but from a correction in those who seek to receive forgiveness for their sin when their sins are already forgiven judicially or positionally. That kind of seeking forgiveness is unbiblical.
You argue context but it is context that argues for the opposite of your position, especially in the argument of the book, the immediate chapter and the following chapter. The Greek grammar also argues against your position.
It appears to me that you are commenting only on this particular blog because your comments reveal distortion of what I have said throughout the chapter and even in 1:9e, for example. Please read the entire context of what I have written to understand my commentary. I wonder whether you have even read the previous blogs. If you did, then you misrepresent what I have said.
It is clear that all our sins have been forgiven at the point of our salvation. We never have to ask forgiveness for sin. The very opposite is true, in confession we claim the fact that we are already forgiven. The hapx (once) argument of Hebrews is indeed true. “Confession” is not the attempt to obtain forgiveness but simply the acknowledgement or claim that it took Christ to die for the forgiveness we already possess.
There is no evidence whatsoever that First John was written for non-Christians. The argument against incipient Gnosticism (not Gnosticism because there was no Gnosticism in the first century) was to warn Christians about falling into doctrinal error. The purpose of the epistle is to show Christians how to have daily fellowship with the Lord (1:4).
The first person “we” in the first chapter is clear that it refers to John and believers to whom he is writing. This, combined with the Greek present tense (linear aktionsart—dealing with kind, not time, of action). The subjunctive mood also refers to the contingency of whether Christians will enter ongoing fellowship with the Lord. Ongoing or linear denial of sin (1:8) requires ongoing acknowledgement that Jesus already paid for that sin (1:9).
Anyone with the least knowledge of Greek knows that the same Greek word in different contexts have different meanings such as the word “fellowship” in 1 Jn and 1 Co. Again, I do not argue that a believer is to seek forgiveness because he eternally has forgiveness in Christ. Again, the believer is to acknowledge or confess that he has positional forgiveness of the sin he committed. It is indeed true that we did not work to obtain salvation and we do not work to keep it.
If you would have continued reading in 1:9e, you would have seen the answer to your question about sins forgotten, etc.
Norman, I thank God for your clear understanding of positional forgiveness. May God bless you and your ministry.
Thank you for these valuable thoughts and the study behind them 🙂 I'm really trying to understand this passage and its application. Please allow me to humbly ask questions. I want to work out any kinks I may have so that I can be faithful to His Word and disciple others into the Truth.
1. Confession – couldn't this word also be translated as "acknowledge"? So instead of it meaning "I must verbalize" sins, whether in general or in particular, I simply agree that when I become aware of sin, I agree that it is wrong and turn to Christ for cleansing and new Life? And for unbelievers, they just acknowledge they are sinners.
The way I live in fellowship with God is by living in continual faith which to me includes repentance. To me, as soon as you get your eyes off of Christ for Life and all things, sin is close at hand, and repentance is getting your eyes back on Him. When I become aware that my eyes are off of Christ, I simply turn back to Him, trusting He cleanses all guilt. I experience a renewed sense of His presence and power to rule over the flesh–here the desires of the Spirit are freely mine and wash away any evil passions. I don't say anything but my heart attitude is such that I acknowledge it was wrong and I turn to Christ from it. I experience much power over sin and wonderful manifestations of His presence and delight and yet I rarely if ever use my inner or outer voice to articulate sins as wrong and that I intend to turn from them–but that *is* the attitude of my heart. Make sense? I do pray the Lord's Prayer for general forgiveness most days, but I often ask the Lord why I need to do it. Yet I do not ask forgiveness for individual sins when they crop up, I simply put my eyes back on the Lord as described above.
2. Ambiguity about confession – the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:9 don't make it clear how to do this. Are we to make long lists? Jesus didn't say, "When you stand praying, try to think of every sin you can and confess each one to your loving Father and He will forgive you." He simply says ask for forgiveness for your debts. On the flip side, it doesn't say that confessing known sin is "good enough". I could hear someone say, "Letting yourself off the hook for confessing only known sin is encouraging antinomianism. If you truly want to please God, you should be in introspection looking for unknown sin, too." Do you see where I'm going? There's enough ambiguity to never really be certain that you are doing it "right" and so you are never sure that you are entering the presence of a pleased Father, even if you believe He has legally cleared your guilt. Which leads to my next point…
3. Interpretation method – teaching ongoing confession as a practical means to stay in close fellowship with God will so impact your life in God that shouldn't there be more clear texts on the subject to have confidence to take up such a pervasive practice? Where in the careful presentations of the gospel do we even hear a requirement to confess sins? Where in the conversion accounts in the NT do we hear people confessing individual sins or being required to confess sins by the preacher? Yes acknowledge you are a sinner. The Law imparts this knowledge. I'm often surprised what leads Christ to say "Your sins are forgiven." It's always repent and believe. And it's while our eyes are on Christ that we are transformed into His likeness. So I would say anything that delays our focus being on Him is very dangerous.
4. Audience of 1:9 – So Gnosticism was likely forming in their midst and false brethren were coming forth. The surrounding verses seem to be clear that people who say they have no sin are not born again, not just confused believers. So wouldn't this be aimed at the lost? I saw your note about the Greek meaning of the word confess. Must it always be understood this way? If yes, could it mean a simple acknowledgment of continual need as opposed to forming words about each sin and stating good intentions by grace–"Lord, save me, a sinner!"?
5. Summary – the scriptural evidence just doesn't seem clear so that application leaves much room for preference and personal interpretation, which probably confuses people. So I am liable to take the evidence that it doesn't mean confessing individual sins as they crop up, or that this is addressed to unbelievers, so that this passage can fit with so much clear teaching on the cleansing of sin through simple turning from self to Christ in faith, experiencing freedom from guilt and new Life. Faith and repentance as a lifestyle.
Thank you so much for your help! I am a full-time minister so I want to grow in precision and understanding of these things. I respect your years of study and experience. So please, if you see any good or bad here, please let me know 🙂
Dustin,
Since I have answered some of your points either in my blogs or in response to other blogs, I will not be thorough on those points.
1. Confession — Definitely “confession” can be translated “acknowledge.” It is a fundament meaning of confession. The context of the entire book of First John deals with Christians, not non-Christians. All that this passage requires is acknowledgement that our particular sins post-salvation be acknowledged and that Jesus paid the price for our sins as believer. Getting back into fellowship is an act of faith. There is no need to “verbalize” sin per se. In terms of forgiveness, there are two kinds: 1) positional forgiveness—God completely and totally forgave our sins when we put our trust in Christ. 2) experiential forgiveness—this forgiveness is based on the fact that we have positional forgiveness at the point of our salvation (1:7—keeps on cleansing). It is a matter of claiming it by faith in our experience.
2. Ambiguity about confession – Once we claim forgiveness by faith of a particular sin in our lives there is no need to confess that sin again. That would mean we did not accept forgiveness by faith but operate on subjective guilt. Objective guilt of recognizing our sin is the basis for our getting right with God (note 1:6,8,10). Rationalization of sin is a big problem in the Christian life. However, unhealthy introspection violates the principle of confession because our forgiveness is not based on what we do but on what Christ did.
3. Interpretation method – The gospels are a different issue with confession. The gospels deal primarily with the nation Israel, not with the church. The church began in Acts 2. Under the church economy God deals with individuals, not a nation, therefore, the way of confession for the church is different from Israel. Even under Israel they had a system of daily cleansing in the temple/tabernacle. Other texts such as confession before the Lord’s Supper is necessary (1 Co 11:27ff). Having said that, your point is well taken.
4. Audience of 1:9 – the problem with Cerinthian Gnosticism was that they denied the reality of the physical body of Jesus. That has great implications on the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. The epistle of First John was not written to them but to true believers who might be seduced by them. Also, the main theme of First John is how to have “fellowship” with the Lord (1:3-4).
5. Summary – please read my commentary on the entire chapter one through 2:2.
Dear Dr. Grant,
Thank you very much for this wonderful commentaries and I really appreciate it and I hope that you can give an answer to my questions about this topic (1John 1:9)
1.)To whom John addressing this passage?
2.) What can you say to those using it as a formula for SALVATION ?
3.) What conclusion might be drawn here regarding our SALVATION if we ignore the context of 1 John 1:9
Thanks and hope to hear your response ,
Armand, thanks for your comment. If you go to the top of any page you will see the Introduction to books of the Bible. You will see in the Introduction to First John that the book was written to Christians on how to have fellowship with the Lord. Secondly, as a formula for salvation it introduces a works concept whereby we must do something about our sins when Jesus did it all, all to Him we owe. Third, the context indicates that when a believer sins the blood of Jesus "keeps on cleansing" him from his sin (1:7). However, I am not quite sure about your third point.
I thought I might comment if I may. Below I quote your comments; mine follow in bold in brackets. The bold is not “shouting” but is merely to distinguish your comments from mine. Also, I have tried to keep my comments brief but they are not meant to be curt or offensive. Having said this, I have attempted to examine rigorously your comments. This is no reflection on anyone’s Christianity or spirituality; my focus is on the facts and the message, not the messenger. With that spirit, the reality the subject is a controversial one, and the understanding we are all growing in knowledge, please see my comments below. I look forward to your reply.
A. Your 2-27-01 comments.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8. [It is unclear what you mean by “reverse.” Verse 8 says “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Verse 8 is a conditional sentence. If you “reverse” the order of the clauses, the result would be “If we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, we say that we have no sin.” That “reverse” would be the converse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “converse.” If you “reverse” verse 8 by negating verse 8, the result would be “If we do not say that we have no sin, we do not deceive ourselves, and the truth is in us.” That “reverse” would be the inverse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “inverse.” Verse 9 contains the phrase, “If we confess our sins,” while verse 8 contains the phrase, “If we say that we have no sin.” In other words, in verse 9, we confess our sins, while in verse 8, we deny we have sin. Verse 9 might be said to be the “reverse” of verse 8 because in verse 9 we confess while in verse 8 we deny, but from that point your analysis breaks down. Verse 9 is discussing multiple sins, while verse 8 is discussing the condition or principle of indwelling sin. You later correctly distinguish the principle from the practice. Moreover, verse 9 uses the words, “faithful,” “just,” “forgive,” and “unrighteousness.” Verse 8 contains none of these words. Similarly, verse 8 uses the words, “sin,” “deceive” and “truth.” Verse 9 contains none of these words. The two verses are discussing different things, but it is not clear verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8.] Confession of sin [1 Jn. 1:9: “sins”] is the opposite to the claim that we are not guilty of sin. [Wrong. Your apparent premise is that, at verse 8, someone is claiming that “we are not guilty of sin.” First, verse 8 never uses the word “guilty,” therefore, no one is expressly claiming in verse 8 that we are not “guilty” of sin. Second, if by the phrase “guilty of sin,” you are referring to “guilty of sins,” the word “sins” is nowhere found in verse 8, therefore, no one is claiming in verse 8 that “we are not guilty of sins.” Third, if by “guilty of sin,” you are referring to guilty of the sin principle, John, at verse 8, is referring to people who apparently are saying they have “no” sin. If they are saying they have “no” sin (i.e., they have no indwelling sin principle or condition) then they, in their minds at least, have no sin principle in the first place to be guilty of, therefore, nothing in verse 8 indicates John had any occasion to discuss whether people were claiming “we are not guilty of sin.” The heresy of those in verse 8 is that they deny sin in the first place, therefore, their heresy makes it unnecessary for them to talk about whether they are guilty of sin, and John does not say in verse 8 that someone is claiming “we are not guilty of sin.”] This verse is a counter-claim to verse eight that Christians are not guilty of sin. [Unproven. Here you suggest that in verse 8 it is Christians who are claiming they are not guilty of sin. A premise of your argument appears to be that the words “we” and “us” in verse 8 refer to Christians. The problem with that argument is that verse 8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” However, the truth is in Christians. For example, at John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth,” at Jn. 14:16, Jesus said He would “pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,” and at John 14:17, Jesus referred to this Comforter as “the Spirit of truth” who “will be in you.” (Emphasis added.) This suggests the truth is in Christians. If the truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians. Similarly, at John 17:17, John records that Jesus said to the Father, “thy word is truth” (italics added) and at 1 Jn. 2:14, John, speaking to Christians, said, “the word of God abideth in you.” (Emphasis added.) If the word is truth and the word is in Christians, this suggests truth is in Christians. If truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this again suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians. This in turn suggests that those saying that they have no sin are unbelievers, not Christians. 1 Jn. 1:8 may therefore be a warning to Christians that people saying that they have no sin are deceiving themselves and the truth is not in them, i.e., such people are not Christians. However, whether or not 1 Jn. 1:8 suggests that warning, my point is you have not proven (especially in light of the above verses) your premise that verse 8 refers to Christians.] The Christian who denies guilt deceives himself. [Unproven. According to apostle Paul (an apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, Gal. 2:8)), the law of Moses causes unbelievers to be “guilty before God.” (Rom. 3:19.) However, once people become Christians (Rom. 3:21-24 (NASB)), it is true, according to Rom. 8:1, that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (NASB, italics added.) Indeed, who can even lay anything to the charge of God’s elect (see Rom. 8:33), much less pronounce guilt? “Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom. 8:34.) You have not proven (especially in light of the above Scriptures, that Christians, as opposed to unbelievers, can be “guilty” before God.]
Verse 7 is cleansing from the principle of sin whereas verse 9 is cleansing from the practice of sin. [Wrong. The word “cleansing” suggests ongoing cleansing. The word “cleansing” is nowhere found in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, you have failed to mention that the Greek word translated “cleanse” (not “cleansing”) at verse 9 is in the Greek aorist tense, not the Greek present tense. As you suggest later, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action. However, the Greek aorist tense, the tense used here, refers to existence or action, but in summary, as a whole, without regard to the kind of action, whether ongoing or otherwise. Your argument would be stronger if the Greek word at issue was a Greek present tense word, but it is not.]
If
The “if” here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess. It is conditional on our will or volition.
we confess
The word “confess” means to speak the same thing, to assent, accord, agree with, concede, acknowledge. The idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. [Unproven (especially in light of the previously cited Scriptures on the issue of Christians and guilt). 1 Jn. 1:9 never uses the term “guilt.” It uses the term “sins.” Moreover, the verse does not say “by means of.” You have not proven that the idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. The idea appears to be confessing our “sins.”] Confession is saying what God says about our sins – that they are violations of God’s character. Sins are not blunders or mistakes but desecration of the character of God. [Unclear. Are you saying one cannot sin by mistake? Are you saying that sins are not merely mistakes?] There is a danger in losing fellowship with God [Unproven. 1 Jn. nowhere expressly says Christians are “in danger of losing fellowship with God” or that Christians can lose fellowship with God. Since the verse does not expressly say that, your argument that Christians are in danger of losing fellowship with God is an interpretation, and the remaining issue is whether your interpretation is correct. In support of your interpretation, you later assert a distinction between positional forgiveness and experiential forgiveness but you do not in this article support this distinction with Scripture. Instead, you support this significant alleged doctrinal distinction with a questionable analogy to a son who may “fall out of disfavor (sic)” (I assume you mean “fall out of favor”) with his family. In your analogy, apparently the son is the Christian and the family is God. However, you are arguably confusing (1) permanent position or membership in a family (a status that need not have anything to do with favor) with (2) experiential favor that can temporarily cease from a family. As to the first point, mere position or membership as a son in a family need not have anything to do with family favor. Regrettably, it is possible to be born into a family, and therefore be a member of it, and yet never meet the family. Alternatively, one could interact with one’s family but suffer continuing abuse from it. As to the second point, some sons fall out of experiential favor with a family and that favor is never restored no matter what the son does. And of course family members die, which presents a problem since you analogize the family to God. Your analogy may be questioned from a second perspective. Christians are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5 & 8) and grace is unmerited favor, therefore your view that a Christian can “fall out of favor” with God suggests a Christian can “fall out of grace.” Do we resolve this problem by creating a new distinction: “positional unmerited favor” versus “experiential unmerited favor”? If so, where do we draw the line? Even though Scriptures teach God loves Christians with an agape love that is unconditional, couldn’t one create a new distinction between “positional love” from God and “experiential love” from God, and argue the first is permanent but the second is not? At Acts 17:11, Luke called Berean unbelievers “noble” for searching the Scriptures to see whether things said by an apostle from God were true. If so, Christians are no less noble for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things you have said are true. Paul told Christians to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) I am not arguing one way or the other the propositions that Christians can lose fellowship in any sense of that word, or that there is a distinction between positional and experiential forgiveness. I am saying that if you assert these propositions in an article, you should provide Scriptural support in the article for those assertions. Later in your thread you say, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.”] if we conceal our sins.
PRINCIPLE: Confession is the basis for fellowship with God because it acknowledges any violations of His character. [Unproven. 1 John uses the word “fellowship” three times (1 Jn. 1:3, 6, & 7). In none of these verses does John use the term “confess” or “confession,” much less state what you have stated. The position that confession is the basis for fellowship, etc., is your interpretation. It may or may not be correct, but none of the above three verses nor anything else you have cited from 1 John proves your interpretation is correct.]
APPLICATION: Walking in the light involves increased consciousness of our sinful unrighteousness and taking active steps to rid ourselves of that sin by claiming God’s forgiveness and cleansing through open confession of sin before God. [Unproven, in a number of respects, but I will simply note that you suggest here, and imply later, that Christians confess their sins to God. 1 Jn. 1:9 does not expressly state the sins are to be confessed to God; that is your interpretation, an issue I discuss below.]
Believers who desire to walk with God confess their sin [1 Jn. 1:9—sins] openly and frankly to God. [Unproven. Nowhere does 1 Jn. 1:9, or anything else in 1 Jn., say believers confess to God. You are simply assuming without Scriptural proof that the confessing here is confessing to God, and not, for example, Christians confessing to other persons and/or to other Christians. I’m not saying 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying this, I’m just saying you have not Scripturally proven the confessing referred to at 1 Jn. 1:9 is a confessing to God as opposed to, e.g., confessing to others. (Compare Jas. 5:16 (NASB): “Confess your sins to one another[.]” (Italics added.)] We make the judgment that our sins are awful before God. We agree with God in condemning sin.
Confession does not mean to plead with God for forgiveness, feel sorry for sin, to pray for forgiveness, to feel sorry for sins or to make restitution for our sins. No, the idea is to accept the idea that our sins violate an absolutely holy God and that our only solution for sin is the death of Christ on the cross.
Some claim that there is no need to confess sin because we already have forgiveness (Ep 1:7). This idea confuses positional forgiveness with experiential forgiveness [I’ve already addressed this]. God finally and fully forgives us in our positional forgiveness. In this sense, we never need forgiveness again. God forensically forgives us forever in positional forgiveness. However, when it comes to fellowship with God, we need to confess specific violations to God’s character. [Unproven. You are assuming (perhaps, but not necessarily, influenced by Catholic traditions concerning confession) that when John refers to confessing sins, he is referring to confessing specific violations. In particular, you appear to be assuming that when John refers to “confess our sins,” he is referring to (1) identifying the particular nature (e.g., theft, lying) of a specific violation and then (2) acknowledging that specific violation with its particular nature. However, why can’t “confess our sins” simply mean acknowledging that we have sins generally, without our having to identify the particular nature of each particular violation? The immediate context of 1 Jn. 1:9 is 1 Jn. 1:8 and 10. Verse 8 implies people are denying that they have any sin, i.e., any indwelling sin. Verse 10 implies people are denying that they have ever sinned at any time. (I note the Greek word for the action of sin here is a Greek perfect tense word, which as used in this context suggests the person is claiming the person never sinned in the past and that that is the presently existing state of things). Arguably, the antidote to the heresies of denying we have any sin and denying we have ever sinned at any time is simply to acknowledge we in fact have sins, which is exactly what “confess our sins” can mean. And the fact that the word translated “confess” is a Greek present tense word could simply convey (for John, who indicates that if one is truly a Christian, one will continue as a Christian to the end (e.g., 1 Jn. 2:19)) that if we are truly Christians, we will always acknowledge that we have sins. To suggest as you do that “confess our sins” goes beyond acknowledging that we have sins generally, and requires identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that individual violation with its specific nature, appears to be more than the context of 1 Jn. 1:9 requires. I’m not arguing “confess our sins” means simply “acknowledge we have sins.” I’m saying that you have not proven that “confess our sins” does not mean “acknowledge we have sins” and you have not proven “confess our sins” requires more, i.e., that we must identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature.)]
The forgiveness of 1:9 is experiential forgiveness. God always bases our experiential forgiveness on our positional forgiveness. [This article would be clearer if you plainly stated what you appear to believe, namely, that if Christians do not confess their sins, God does not experientially forgive Christians of those sins.] A son may fall out of disfavor with his family but he is still a member of the family. The issue in experiential forgiveness is not acceptance by God but fellowship with Him. Continual forgiveness allows us to fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
We always view sin for what it really is – a violation of God’s character. That is why God will forgive our sin based only on the cross of Christ. God forgave sin when Christ paid the penalty for that sin. Jesus meets all of the Father’s holy demands by His payment for sins on the cross. Jesus died in the sinner’s stead; He died in our place. It cost Jesus Christ a great deal to qualify us for forgiveness.
B. Your 8-5-08 Comments.
Robert, Thank you for your very well thought out presentation. It is encouraging to hear from people who are serious about the Bible.
1. You mentioned that “fellowship is not in the text,” however, fellowship is the main argument of the book of 1 Jn. (1:3, etc).
2. Whenever you have the third class condition “if” clause, as you have in the entire passage running from 1:6, it suggests human volition. The popular way to express the third class condition is “maybe he will or maybe he won’t.” In other words, the choice is up to the readers of 1 Jn (Christians). The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).
3. The word “confess” is in the present tense (in the Greek, this is linear aktionsart–ongoing confession is necessary.
4. I agree with you that the death of Christ sufficiently paid for our sins for eternity in a positional, forensic, complete sense. We also received imputed (God’s righteousness) at the point of salvation. This is legal forgiveness [Unproven. It is arguable that imputed righteousness in Paul’s epistles is a legal or forensic action on God’s part, while God’s forgiveness is an action on God’s part in which he not merely legally but subjectively forgives us. Your phrase “legal forgiveness” arguably confuses these issues. You have not proven that there is such a thing as “legal forgiveness” that is distinguishable from God inwardly forgiving us] that took place at one point, the point of our salvation. [Wrong, if you are implying God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved. Rom. 3:23-24 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus[.]” (KJV, italics added.) The phrase “come short” is a translation of a Greek word in the Greek present tense and, as you suggest, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action, therefore, the Greek word here could be translated “coming short” as in continually coming short. “Being justified” conveys ongoing justification, not merely justification at the time of conversion. The Greek word translated “being justified” is in the Greek present tense. Similarly, Rom. 3:26 teaches that God is the “justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” The Greek word translated “justifier” is in the Greek present tense, conveying ongoing justification. At Rom. 3:28, Paul says “a man is justified by faith[.]” The Greek word translated “is justified” is in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:5, Paul says “faith is counted for righteousness.” The phrase “is counted” is a translation of a word in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:6, when Paul refers to the man “unto whom God imputeth righteousness,” the word “imputeth” is in the Greek present tense. It is true one is justified, faith is counted for righteousness, and God imputes righteousness, when one first becomes a Christian. However, these things are also true continually for the Christian. It is thus not true that God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved.] The “greater” does indeed include the “lesser” in the sense that we have the right to claim forgiveness based on our legal forgiveness. As 1:7 says, “the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from sin.” Cleansing does not come from the process of confession but from believing that the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from all sin. Both forensic and progressive forgiveness are by faith. By the way, we are not “made righteous” as you indicate [Wrong. Rom. 5:19 expressly says “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether we are “made righteous” (we are), but what Paul means by that phrase. He does not mean we are made righteous intrinsically but, as you later correctly suggest, he is referring to forensic justification.] but we are “declared” or “caused to be righteous” because the Greek word for “declared righteous” is causative.
5. On the charge that I am teaching the Galatian heresy, refer to my studies on Galatians. As well, note point four in that we claim salvation by faith and fellowship by faith. That is, it is not faith that saves or delivers but the object of faith–the cross of Christ.
6. On the question of confessing “every sin,” note the study later in 1 Jn 1:9 where I make the point that if we confess our known sin, God is faithful to “cleanse us from all sin.” [Wrong, if you are suggesting that that is what 1 Jn. 1:9 says. 1 Jn. 1:9 teaches He is faithful to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” You are confusing 1 Jn. 1:7 with 1 Jn. 1:9.]
7. The argument of Hebrews deals with initial, complete forgiveness because he argues against Christians with a Jewish background who had a tendency to revert to Judaism, its sacrifices, temple worship, etc. His argument is that once we accept the prototype, there is no forgiveness in the type. The blood of bulls and goats (the type) cannot and could not take away sins; they only pointed to the One who would.
8. Other passages indicate forgiveness for Christians, Ja 5:15.
9. The Greek word for “walk” in 1:7 means to walk around as a course of life indicating that this refers to our daily walk with the Lord. That entire passage deals with rationalization of sin and the tendency not to confess/acknowledge sins.
C. Your 8-14-08 Comments.
Robert, I accept your comments as without malice and with objective argument. I respect your position for I have considered it as a possibility many times.
1. Re your First point. As I mentioned in my first response, the argument of the entire epistle of first John is “fellowship.” Since it is the liet motif of the epistle, we must take all passages in 1 Jn as referring to this argument. This is the semantical argument. As well, “fellowship” is in the immediate context (1:3, 6). As John expressly asserts, he writes the epistle so that his readers will have fellowship with the apostles and with the Lord. Verse 6 begins the series of hypothetical “if” clauses with “if we say that we have fellowship with him (the Lord). Thus, the immediate argument has to do with fellowship with the Lord. Note the thee previous “if” clauses leading to verse 9. It is wrong to use 1 Jn 1:9 without the immediate context for that is a form of pretexting, therefore, the word “fellowship” does not need to occur in the verse itself. Since 1:9 is dealing with 1:6, there is no need for the words “out of fellowship” to be explicitly stated for the context itself implies it. [Unproven. You have moved from the premises that the argument of 1 Jn. is fellowship, and certain nearby verses refer to fellowship, to the inference that 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, and on to the conclusion that the phrase “out of fellowship” is implied in 1 Jn 1:9. It is one thing to consider the issue, and even the importance, of fellowship when attempting to understand what 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying. It is another to employ the chain of reasoning you have employed essentially to rewrite 1 Jn. 1:9 to insert words that are not there. Phrased differently, your suggestion 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, “experiential fellowship,” and/or being “out of fellowship” is simply an interpretation. References to “liet [sic] motif” and “semantical argument” have their place, but the careful reader evaluates reasoning.] In addition to that, the conditional “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice all assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives. [Wrong. As for the “if clause,” as you said previously, “The ‘if’ here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess.” As for the third class condition, as you said previously, “The popular way to express the third class condition is ‘maybe he will or maybe he won’t.’” As for the subjunctive mood, as you said previously, “The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).” As for the active voice, as you say later, “The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing.” (Italics added.) Therefore, based upon what you yourself have written, the “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice convey no more than a hypothetical condition, the potentiality of confessing our sins, the potentiality of forgiveness and sins cleansed, and a subject acting by confessing. But these components of Greek grammar do not go further as you claim and “assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives.” That is a jump from components of Greek grammar to your interpretation of 1 Jn. 1:9 that does not follow from them or anything else in the verse.]
Re the words “forgive, cleanse, unrighteousness.” In the Greek, the word “confess” is part of the third class condition of potentiality, i.e., forgiveness rests on “confession. The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing. The present tense does not deal with time as does the English, the Greek present tense indicates kind of action (aktionsart), not time of action [Right, if you are referring to the Greek present tense word translated “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9, since that Greek word is in the subjunctive mood. Wrong, if you are referring to the Greek present tense generally, since the Greek present tense indicates both kind and time of action in the indicative mood] therefore, the believer must confess sins as they come up [Here you return to your premise that “confess our sins” means identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature, a premise you have not proven] on an ongoing basis. If your argument is true, then an unbeliever would have to confess sins over again to obtain forgiveness. Forgiveness in the absolute sense does not rest on confession but on faith in the finished work of Christ, although “confess” is a faith word as well. I argue for the principle of confession as found in 1:9 is based on our positional forgiveness, i.e., we have the right to be experientially forgiven because the “blood of Jesus His Son keeps on cleansing us.” The believer constantly has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleansing of the blood of Christ. Both “forgive” and “cleanse” are in the subjunctive mood indicating that forgiveness and cleansing are only potential based on the potential of confessing (subjunctive mood). Both forgiveness of sins and unrighteousness are used both in the absolute and relative sense in Scripture [Unproven, as to forgiveness, whether or not it is true as to righteousness.].
Your argument that the words “broken fellowship” does not occur in 1 Jn is not valid because John uses other nomenclature and ideas for that.
2. Point 2 answered in point 1. For the unbeliever to confess his sin over and over is a violation of the finished work of Christ by faith.
3. Re point 3: The believer in eternity is free from the sin capacity and acts of sin so there is no need for forgiveness in the eternal state.
4. Re Point 4: If confession is a work so is believing or faith a work (which I do not believe). [Wrong. If work involves intentional outward conduct, confession is a work even though believing or faith is not. Confession involves intentional outward conduct, i.e., moving the mouth. Faith is on the inside; it is not outward conduct. Faith can motivate and accompany outward conduct but faith is not outward conduct. At 2 Tim. 1:4-5, Paul told Timothy that Paul was “filled with joy when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother, Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also.” (KJV, italics added.) James distinguished faith and works (Jas. 2:14, 18, 22.) You have not proven that “if confession is a work so is believing or faith a work.”] Faith is a non-meritorious course of action [Wrong, if by “course of action” you mean “course of outward conduct”] because the results depend not on the person exercising faith but on the work of another. If this is so, confession is a non-meritorious course of action because it rests, believes, trusts, or exercises faith in the on-going cleansing of the blood of Christ (1:7). Jesus not only forgives absolutely but he forgives relatively. We enter into eternal fellowship with the Lord by faith and we enter into temporal fellowship with the Lord by faith (confess). I agree with you that Galatians does indeed argue against Christians who revert into legalism/works as a mode of operation and acceptance before God. I agree that at the point of salvation [I have already addressed this], the believer receives justification, imputation, forgiveness, reconciliation, propitiation, etc. No one can bring a charge against God’s elect in that sense. Throughout Scripture, believers must deal with their sin as believers. For a believer in adultery not to deal with adultery is unconscionable. The person who commits adultery has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleaning by the blood of Christ. That is why John in 1 Jn writes to Christians (“to you,” 1:2,3,5; not the “we” and “our” clauses). John obviously writes to believers, not unbelievers. The argument that I am “parsing” the text is a pejorative argument that does not deal with the exegesis that I gave you. I could argue that you parse the text by not dealing with the context and argument of the book.
5. Re Point 5: My point is that a believer cannot remember all sin. Confession of known sin by trusting the finished work of Christ cleanses us from “all unrighteousness.” [Unproven. The word “known” nowhere appears in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, your unproven premise is that John is calling for identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that violation with its nature. Incidentally, what if we knew about a particular sin but forgot to confess it? What if we knew about a sin but through accident became mentally incapacitated to the point we could not confess it? What if we don’t know we’ve sinned by doing a particular act, but we strongly suspect we have sinned? What if we merely suspect we have sinned? Do we have to confess these individual sins? Do we remain “experientially” unforgiven in these circumstances if we do not confess? More importantly, on what Biblically principled basis do you answer these questions based on 1 Jn. 1:9 and your interpretation that that verse refers to confession of known sins?] It is faith in the glory of Christ’s death for our sin that cleanses, not the confession. I don’t think we “manage sin” but keep short accounts with God. It is a burden that you should not carry because it is a faith exercise of fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
6. Re Point 6: There is a difference between God remembering our sin no more in the absolute sense and in the experiential sense.
7. Re Point 7: I hope you do not agree with Luther who said that James was a very “strawy epistle” because he thought it taught justification by works. [Wrong, to the extent you are suggesting James did not teach justification by works. This is a side issue, but since you raise it, I would note that James clearly implies he was teaching justification by works when he says at Jas. 2:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether James taught a Christian was “justified by works”—James clearly did. The issue is whether James meant the same thing by that phrase that Paul did. For Paul clearly implied Abraham was not “justified by works” when Paul wrote at Rom. 4:2-3, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (KJV, italics added.)] James argument is a difference in cause and effect. He argues that genuine faith produces works. [The Paul/James issue is a side issue; suffice it for now to say James never says “faith produces works,” although James, referring to Abraham, does say “faith was working with his works” (NASB)]. See my studies on this point in the James study.
8. Re Point 8: All of the “we” statements obviously refers to believers as seen from the beginning of the chapter. [Wrong. At 1 John 1:1, John refers to “we,” and although it might appear he is referring to believers there, he later says at 1 Jn. 1:2 that, “we . . . shew unto you” (KJV, italics added), thereby distinguishing “we” from “you” and suggesting “we” at verses 1 and 2 is a reference to himself, not to believers.] The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion. I assert that the extant, explicit statements in chapter one deal with believers, not unbelievers, as seen in previous arguments. Almost all commentaries agree that 1 Jn was written to Christians, John explicitly states in the introduction that it is for Christians, and the content of the book indicates that John warns against incipient Gnosticism. Christians cannot fellowship with God if they imbibe incipient Gnosticism. That is at the heart of your misunderstanding of this passage. You have a tendency to jump to other passages other than 1 Jn, make inferential statements not extant in 1 Jn, and not deal with the grammar of the passage or the argument of the book. There is nothing in chapter one that indicates that John is talking to a non-believer.
I deeply appreciate your close arguments.
D. As for your September 17, 2012 comments, I quote only the below:
Anyone with the least knowledge of Greek knows that the same Greek word in different contexts have different meanings such as the word “fellowship” in 1 Jn and 1 Co. [Unproven. Although the same Greek word can have different meanings in different contexts, you have not proven that that is the case with “fellowship” in 1 Jn. and 1 Cor.] Again, I do not argue that a believer is to seek forgiveness because he eternally has forgiveness in Christ. Again, the believer is to acknowledge or confess that he has positional forgiveness of the sin he committed. It is indeed true that we did not work to obtain salvation and we do not work to keep it.
Kenneth, thank you for your major critique of my interpretation of this passage. Your arguments are thoughtful, objective and careful. Since I just returned from India my body-clock is on a 11 1/2 hour different time zone and many things have piled on my desk, I will not be able to respond to you right away. Your arguments are extensive so I will need time to reply.
Kenneth
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8. [It is unclear what you mean by “reverse.” Verse 8 says “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Verse 8 is a conditional sentence. If you “reverse” the order of the clauses, the result would be “If we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, we say that we have no sin.” That “reverse” would be the converse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “converse.” If you “reverse” verse 8 by negating verse 8, the result would be “If we do not say that we have no sin, we do not deceive ourselves, and the truth is in us.” That “reverse” would be the inverse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “inverse.” Verse 9 contains the phrase, “If we confess our sins,” while verse 8 contains the phrase, “If we say that we have no sin.” In other words, in verse 9, we confess our sins, while in verse 8, we deny we have sin. Verse 9 might be said to be the “reverse” of verse 8 because in verse 9 we confess while in verse 8 we deny, but from that point your analysis breaks down.
My meaning was the latter—verse 8 we deny while verse 9 we confess. The issue, however, is what we deny. That is a matter of debate. Verses 6,8,10 are syntactical parallelisms of 5,7,9, and 2:1,2. All this springs out of 1:3,4. The contextual argument is very powerful in this regard.
Verse 9 is discussing multiple sins, while verse 8 is discussing the condition or principle of indwelling sin.
Verse 8 is probably more generic than your assertion. I take it more to mean a state of sin rather than the sin capacity within. Obviously, that can be debated because generally “sin” in the singular means the principle of indwelling sin (sin capacity, not sin nature).
You later correctly distinguish the principle from the practice. Moreover, verse 9 uses the words, “faithful,” “just,” “forgive,” and “unrighteousness.” Verse 8 contains none of these words. Similarly, verse 8 uses the words, “sin,” “deceive” and “truth.” Verse 9 contains none of these words. The two verses are discussing different things, but it is not clear verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8.] Confession of sin [1 Jn. 1:9: “sins”] is the opposite to the claim that we are not guilty of sin. [Wrong. Your apparent premise is that, at verse 8, someone is claiming that “we are not guilty of sin.” First, verse 8 never uses the word “guilty,” therefore, no one is expressly claiming in verse 8 that we are not “guilty” of sin.
The individual in verse 8 claims that they are not culpable of sin. It is an argument from context that my use of the word “guilty” in verse 8 has do with “fellowship” with the saints and with God beginning in verse 3. In other words, my interpretation is an inference from the argument of the chapter.
To argue that specific words are not in a given verse is not an adequate argument. Often the Bible argues principles rather than specific terms.
Second, if by the phrase “guilty of sin,” you are referring to “guilty of sins,” the word “sins” is nowhere found in verse 8, therefore, no one is claiming in verse 8 that “we are not guilty of sins.”
As I stated above, “sin” can be used of the sin capacity but I believe the context argues against that usage in this case. Those in verse 8 claim that they have no culpability with God. This is clear if we look at 1:9 as a syntactical parallelism with 1:8. Verse 9 is a response to vv. 6,8,10. Also, 2:1ff continues the argument of “little children” out of phase with the Father. Christians should “walk” in the same way He walked (v.6).
Third, if by “guilty of sin,” you are referring to guilty of the sin principle, John, at verse 8, is referring to people who apparently are saying they have “no” sin. If they are saying they have “no” sin (i.e., they have no indwelling sin principle or condition) then they, in their minds at least, have no sin principle in the first place to be guilty of, therefore, nothing in verse 8 indicates John had any occasion to discuss whether people were claiming “we are not guilty of sin.” The heresy of those in verse 8 is that they deny sin in the first place, therefore, their heresy makes it unnecessary for them to talk about whether they are guilty of sin, and John does not say in verse 8 that someone is claiming “we are not guilty of sin.”]
Note my point above.
This verse is a counter-claim to verse eight that Christians are not guilty of sin. [Unproven. Here you suggest that in verse 8 it is Christians who are claiming they are not guilty of sin. A premise of your argument appears to be that the words “we” and “us” in verse 8 refer to Christians. The problem with that argument is that verse 8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” However, the truth is in Christians. For example, at John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth,” at Jn. 14:16, Jesus said He would “pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,” and at John 14:17, Jesus referred to this Comforter as “the Spirit of truth” who “will be in you.” (Emphasis added.) This suggests the truth is in Christians. If the truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians. Similarly, at John 17:17, John records that Jesus said to the Father, “thy word is truth” (italics added) and at 1 Jn. 2:14, John, speaking to Christians, said, “the word of God abideth in you.” (Emphasis added.) If the word is truth and the word is in Christians, this suggests truth is in Christians. If truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this again suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians.
Your argument appears to make the word “truth” stand on more than its original intention in this passage. It is possible for Christians to be out of phase with the truth of the Word. Also, the word “truth” has a broader usage than what you claim.
This in turn suggests that those saying that they have no sin are unbelievers, not Christians. 1 Jn. 1:8 may therefore be a warning to Christians that people saying that they have no sin are deceiving themselves and the truth is not in them, i.e., such people are not Christians. However, whether or not 1 Jn. 1:8 suggests that warning, my point is you have not proven (especially in light of the above verses) your premise that verse 8 refers to Christians.]
My interpretation of verse 8 is from the contextual argument of chapter one.
The Christian who denies guilt deceives himself. [Unproven. According to apostle Paul (an apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, Gal. 2:8)), the law of Moses causes unbelievers to be “guilty before God.” (Rom. 3:19.) However, once people become Christians (Rom. 3:21-24 (NASB)), it is true, according to Rom. 8:1, that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (NASB, italics added.) Indeed, who can even lay anything to the charge of God’s elect (see Rom. 8:33), much less pronounce guilt? “Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom. 8:34.) You have not proven (especially in light of the above Scriptures, that Christians, as opposed to unbelievers, can be “guilty” before God.]
The issue here is the usage of “guilt.” Are you implying that Christians cannot possess experiential guilt? The Scriptures are full of passages where believers fail both in the Old and New Testaments. Of course, Christians can never be charged with positional/forensic/judicial guilt before God.
You appear to make an argument with my statements in individual verses and take those statements out of the context of the whole argument. I do not try to repeat the argument in each successive verse as that would be tedious in a devotional.
Verse 7 is cleansing from the principle of sin whereas verse 9 is cleansing from the practice of sin. [Wrong. The word “cleansing” suggests ongoing cleansing. The word “cleansing” is nowhere found in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, you have failed to mention that the Greek word translated “cleanse” (not “cleansing”) at verse 9 is in the Greek aorist tense, not the Greek present tense. As you suggest later, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action. However, the Greek aorist tense, the tense used here, refers to existence or action, but in summary, as a whole, without regard to the kind of action, whether ongoing or otherwise. Your argument would be stronger if the Greek word at issue was a Greek present tense word, but it is not.]
Present linear aktionsart of “cleanses” in verse 7 has to do with the on-going cleansing by the blood of Christians who “walk in the light.” Jesus has to intercede on the basis of his blood for the sins of believers (He 7:25). “Walk” means to walk as a course of life, a way of life, a pattern of living. This is the same Greek word as verse 9. The aorist punctiliar action of verse 9 has to do with the point that God forgives the believer when he confesses his sin. This is God’s action in response to “confess.” The reason John uses the punctiliar tense relates to God’s faithfulness and justice in forgiving sins when a person claims the finished work of Christ for forgiveness experientially. In addition, the subjunctive mood indicates that the apodosis is not a reality until the protasis is fulfilled.
If
The “if” here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess. It is conditional on our will or volition.
we confess
The word “confess” means to speak the same thing, to assent, accord, agree with, concede, acknowledge. The idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. [Unproven (especially in light of the previously cited Scriptures on the issue of Christians and guilt). 1 Jn. 1:9 never uses the term “guilt.” It uses the term “sins.”
Admitting sin is by implication admitting guilt. Is there no guilt in sinning? The idea of “sins” implies guilt.
Moreover, the verse does not say “by means of.” You have not proven that the idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. The idea appears to be confessing our “sins.”]
The idea is confessing or acknowledging sins plural would imply individual violations of a holy God. This is another occasion where you want to use particular words where those words are not necessary since the context gives the meaning.
Confession is saying what God says about our sins – that they are violations of God’s character. Sins are not blunders or mistakes but desecration of the character of God. [Unclear. Are you saying one cannot sin by mistake? Are you saying that sins are not merely mistakes?]
I am saying that sins are not merely mistakes.
There is a danger in losing fellowship with God [Unproven. 1 Jn. nowhere expressly says Christians are “in danger of losing fellowship with God” or that Christians can lose fellowship with God.
Note passages and argument of book. John says that the purpose of the book is that he and his colleagues will have the joy of knowing (v.3) that believers to whom he is writing will have “fellowship” with the apostles and “fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (v.4)”
Since the verse does not expressly say that, your argument that Christians are in danger of losing fellowship with God is an interpretation, and the remaining issue is whether your interpretation is correct.
It is one thing to use explicit words and it is another thing to draw the meaning out of the argument of the entire chapter. Many of your arguments are arguments of silence—“this verse does not expressly say…” There is no need for a particular verse to say what you think needs to be said if from the context the argument is clear.
In support of your interpretation, you later assert a distinction between positional forgiveness and experiential forgiveness but you do not in this article support this distinction with Scripture.
You must remember that Verse-by-Verse Commentary is a devotional, not a doctoral dissertation or an academic article. I do not attempt to support every statement I make by some form of documentation in a devotional. I have argued the distinction between positional experiential forgiveness in other places on the site.
Instead, you support this significant alleged doctrinal distinction with a questionable analogy to a son who may “fall out of disfavor (sic)” (I assume you mean “fall out of favor”) with his family. In your analogy, apparently the son is the Christian and the family is God. However, you are arguably confusing (1) permanent position or membership in a family (a status that need not have anything to do with favor) with (2) experiential favor that can temporarily cease from a family. As to the first point, mere position or membership as a son in a family need not have anything to do with family favor. Regrettably, it is possible to be born into a family, and therefore be a member of it, and yet never meet the family. Alternatively, one could interact with one’s family but suffer continuing abuse from it. As to the second point, some sons fall out of experiential favor with a family and that favor is never restored no matter what the son does. And of course family members die, which presents a problem since you analogize the family to God. Your analogy may be questioned from a second perspective. Christians are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5 & 8) and grace is unmerited favor, therefore your view that a Christian can “fall out of favor” with God suggests a Christian can “fall out of grace.” Do we resolve this problem by creating a new distinction: “positional unmerited favor” versus “experiential unmerited favor”? If so, where do we draw the line? Even though Scriptures teach God loves Christians with an agape love that is unconditional, couldn’t one create a new distinction between “positional love” from God and “experiential love” from God, and argue the first is permanent but the second is not? At Acts 17:11, Luke called Berean unbelievers “noble” for searching the Scriptures to see whether things said by an apostle from God were true. If so, Christians are no less noble for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things you have said are true. Paul told Christians to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) I am not arguing one way or the other the propositions that Christians can lose fellowship in any sense of that word, or that there is a distinction between positional and experiential forgiveness. I am saying that if you assert these propositions in an article, you should provide Scriptural support in the article for those assertions. Later in your thread you say, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.”] if we conceal our sins.
As you probably know all analogies break down at some point. The reason for the illustration was clarification, not proof.
Thanks for catching my error “disfavor” rather than “favor.”
PRINCIPLE: Confession is the basis for fellowship with God because it acknowledges any violations of His character. [Unproven. 1 John uses the word “fellowship” three times (1 Jn. 1:3, 6, & 7). In none of these verses does John use the term “confess” or “confession,” much less state what you have stated. The position that confession is the basis for fellowship, etc., is your interpretation. It may or may not be correct, but none of the above three verses nor anything else you have cited from 1 John proves your interpretation is correct.]
The context argues fellowship both with God and Christians (1:3,4). These verses state that this as John’s purpose for writing First John.
Fellowship with God begins with His absoluteness (1:5)—“in him is no darkness at all.” We cannot claim to walk in fellowship with God if we have sin in our lives. That is why in verse 6 he says that we cannot claim fellowship with God “while we walk (as a course of life) in darkness.” Walking with God is a Christian concept, not a non-Christian. To walk means to walk as a course of life (peripatew). He is referring to the antecedent idea “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (v3). This is what brings “joy” (v.4). Beginning at verse 6 there is a string of third class condition clauses:
“If we say that we have fellowship with him…” v6
“But if we walk in the light…” v7
“If we say we have no sin…” v8
“If we confess..” v9
“If we say we have not sinned” v10
This contextual argument preempts your argument that this verse does not say this or that.
APPLICATION: Walking in the light involves increased consciousness of our sinful unrighteousness and taking active steps to rid ourselves of that sin by claiming God’s forgiveness and cleansing through open confession of sin before God. [Unproven, in a number of respects, but I will simply note that you suggest here, and imply later, that Christians confess their sins to God. 1 Jn. 1:9 does not expressly state the sins are to be confessed to God; that is your interpretation, an issue I discuss below.]
Contextual interpretation. No, the issue is walking with the God of light (v.5).
Believers who desire to walk with God confess their sin [1 Jn. 1:9—sins] openly and frankly to God. [Unproven. Nowhere does 1 Jn. 1:9, or anything else in 1 Jn., say believers confess to God. You are simply assuming without Scriptural proof that the confessing here is confessing to God, and not, for example, Christians confessing to other persons and/or to other Christians. I’m not saying 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying this, I’m just saying you have not Scripturally proven the confessing referred to at 1 Jn. 1:9 is a confessing to God as opposed to, e.g., confessing to others. (Compare Jas. 5:16 (NASB): “Confess your sins to one another[.]” (Italics added.)] We make the judgment that our sins are awful before God. We agree with God in condemning sin.
I do not attempt to “prove” everything by one verse. The argument is first from the argument of the book itself and secondly from the argument of the chapter. A devotional does not attempt to prove every statement but to get the idea across so that people can apply it to their lives.
Confession does not mean to plead with God for forgiveness, feel sorry for sin, to pray for forgiveness, to feel sorry for sins or to make restitution for our sins. No, the idea is to accept the idea that our sins violate an absolutely holy God and that our only solution for sin is the death of Christ on the cross.
Some claim that there is no need to confess sin because we already have forgiveness (Ep 1:7). This idea confuses positional forgiveness with experiential forgiveness [I’ve already addressed this]. God finally and fully forgives us in our positional forgiveness. In this sense, we never need forgiveness again. God forensically forgives us forever in positional forgiveness. However, when it comes to fellowship with God, we need to confess specific violations to God’s character. [Unproven. You are assuming (perhaps, but not necessarily, influenced by Catholic traditions concerning confession) that when John refers to confessing sins, he is referring to confessing specific violations. In particular, you appear to be assuming that when John refers to “confess our sins,” he is referring to (1) identifying the particular nature (e.g., theft, lying) of a specific violation and then (2) acknowledging that specific violation with its particular nature. However, why can’t “confess our sins” simply mean acknowledging that we have sins generally, without our having to identify the particular nature of each particular violation?
The distinction is between sin in the singular and sins in the plural. Both the words “sins” in the plural and “confess” imply naming individual sins.
The immediate context of 1 Jn. 1:9 is 1 Jn. 1:8 and 10. Verse 8 implies people are denying that they have any sin, i.e., any indwelling sin.
Previously addressed.
Verse 10 implies people are denying that they have ever sinned at any time. (I note the Greek word for the action of sin here is a Greek perfect tense word, which as used in this context suggests the person is claiming the person never sinned in the past and that that is the presently existing state of things). Arguably, the antidote to the heresies of denying we have any sin and denying we have ever sinned at any time is simply to acknowledge we in fact have sins, which is exactly what “confess our sins” can mean. And the fact that the word translated “confess” is a Greek present tense word could simply convey (for John, who indicates that if one is truly a Christian, one will continue as a Christian to the end (e.g., 1 Jn. 2:19)) that if we are truly Christians, we will always acknowledge that we have sins.
Note my interpretation of verse ten: “Note that each false claim in 6, 8 and 10 denies the truth that immediately precedes it in verses 5, 7 and 9 respectively. The corrective to follows in the verse immediately following the false claim.
Now we come to the third false plea. This claim is a denial of having committed any sin at all.”
To suggest as you do that “confess our sins” goes beyond acknowledging that we have sins generally, and requires identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that individual violation with its specific nature, appears to be more than the context of 1 Jn. 1:9 requires.
Note my point above about both the meaning of “confession” and “sins” in the plural.
I’m not arguing “confess our sins” means simply “acknowledge we have sins.” I’m saying that you have not proven that “confess our sins” does not mean “acknowledge we have sins” and you have not proven “confess our sins” requires more, i.e., that we must identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature.)]
Again, the context argues fellowship with God and what breaks that fellowship—violating an absolutely holy God. That is why confession itself has no mediation with God but that claiming the ongoing (present tense) cleansing by the blood of Christ does (v.7). It is patently clear that we all are sinners in the generic sense. There would be no need to confess that especially when we consider the momentum of the argument of the chapter.
The forgiveness of 1:9 is experiential forgiveness. God always bases our experiential forgiveness on our positional forgiveness. [This article would be clearer if you plainly stated what you appear to believe, namely, that if Christians do not confess their sins, God does not experientially forgive Christians of those sins.] A son may fall out of disfavor with his family but he is still a member of the family. The issue in experiential forgiveness is not acceptance by God but fellowship with Him. Continual forgiveness allows us to fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
We always view sin for what it really is – a violation of God’s character. That is why God will forgive our sin based only on the cross of Christ. God forgave sin when Christ paid the penalty for that sin. Jesus meets all of the Father’s holy demands by His payment for sins on the cross. Jesus died in the sinner’s stead; He died in our place. It cost Jesus Christ a great deal to qualify us for forgiveness.
B. Your 8-5-08 Comments.
Robert, Thank you for your very well thought out presentation. It is encouraging to hear from people who are serious about the Bible.
1. You mentioned that “fellowship is not in the text,” however, fellowship is the main argument of the book of 1 Jn. (1:3, etc).
2. Whenever you have the third class condition “if” clause, as you have in the entire passage running from 1:6, it suggests human volition. The popular way to express the third class condition is “maybe he will or maybe he won’t.” In other words, the choice is up to the readers of 1 Jn (Christians). The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).
3. The word “confess” is in the present tense (in the Greek, this is linear aktionsart–ongoing confession is necessary.
4. I agree with you that the death of Christ sufficiently paid for our sins for eternity in a positional, forensic, complete sense. We also received imputed (God’s righteousness) at the point of salvation. This is legal forgiveness [Unproven. It is arguable that imputed righteousness in Paul’s epistles is a legal or forensic action on God’s part, while God’s forgiveness is an action on God’s part in which he not merely legally but subjectively forgives us. Your phrase “legal forgiveness” arguably confuses these issues. You have not proven that there is such a thing as “legal forgiveness” that is distinguishable from God inwardly forgiving us]
See my interpretation of the book of Romans on these points. We need to make the distinction as to whether a passage is speaking to individuals or to the church.
Also, where is the distinction in the Word of God between legal/forensic forgiveness and subjective forgiveness?
that took place at one point, the point of our salvation. [Wrong, if you are implying God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved. Rom. 3:23-24 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus[.]” (KJV, italics added.) The phrase “come short” is a translation of a Greek word in the Greek present tense and, as you suggest, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action, therefore, the Greek word here could be translated “coming short” as in continually coming short.
Who is the subject in these verses the Roman church or individuals? In Romans it is the church. Go to my studies on Romans in this regard.
“Being justified” conveys ongoing justification, not merely justification at the time of conversion. The Greek word translated “being justified” is in the Greek present tense. Similarly, Rom. 3:26 teaches that God is the “justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” The Greek word translated “justifier” is in the Greek present tense, conveying ongoing justification. At Rom. 3:28, Paul says “a man is justified by faith[.]” The Greek word translated “is justified” is in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:5, Paul says “faith is counted for righteousness.” The phrase “is counted” is a translation of a word in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:6, when Paul refers to the man “unto whom God imputeth righteousness,” the word “imputeth” is in the Greek present tense. It is true one is justified, faith is counted for righteousness, and God imputes righteousness, when one first becomes a Christian. However, these things are also true continually for the Christian. It is thus not true that God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved.]
Again, your argument confuses these terms when used of the church and of individuals. Again, see my interpretation of Romans.
The “greater” does indeed include the “lesser” in the sense that we have the right to claim forgiveness based on our legal forgiveness. As 1:7 says, “the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from sin.” Cleansing does not come from the process of confession but from believing that the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from all sin. Both forensic and progressive forgiveness are by faith. By the way, we are not “made righteous” as you indicate [Wrong. Rom. 5:19 expressly says “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether we are “made righteous” (we are), but what Paul means by that phrase. He does not mean we are made righteous intrinsically but, as you later correctly suggest, he is referring to forensic justification.] but we are “declared” or “caused to be righteous” because the Greek word for “declared righteous” is causative.
Omicron-omega suffixes are always causative. The Greek word for “made” in Romans 5:19 is katastathjsontai—to set, set down, place, constitute. The idea is that by the obedience of Christ we were put in a position of a certain kind. See my study on that passage in Romans.
5. On the charge that I am teaching the Galatian heresy, refer to my studies on Galatians. As well, note point four in that we claim salvation by faith and fellowship by faith. That is, it is not faith that saves or delivers but the object of faith–the cross of Christ.
6. On the question of confessing “every sin,” note the study later in 1 Jn 1:9 where I make the point that if we confess our known sin, God is faithful to “cleanse us from all sin.” [Wrong, if you are suggesting that that is what 1 Jn. 1:9 says. 1 Jn. 1:9 teaches He is faithful to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” You are confusing 1 Jn. 1:7 with 1 Jn. 1:9.]
Your point is unclear. My point is that if (conditionally) we confess our “sins” God is faithful (he will do it every time) and just (he is true to himself) to cleanse us from “all” unrighteousness at the point of confession (aorist).
7. The argument of Hebrews deals with initial, complete forgiveness because he argues against Christians with a Jewish background who had a tendency to revert to Judaism, its sacrifices, temple worship, etc. His argument is that once we accept the prototype, there is no forgiveness in the type. The blood of bulls and goats (the type) cannot and could not take away sins; they only pointed to the One who would.
8. Other passages indicate forgiveness for Christians, Ja 5:15.
9. The Greek word for “walk” in 1:7 means to walk around as a course of life indicating that this refers to our daily walk with the Lord. That entire passage deals with rationalization of sin and the tendency not to confess/acknowledge sins.
C. Your 8-14-08 Comments.
Robert, I accept your comments as without malice and with objective argument. I respect your position for I have considered it as a possibility many times.
1. Re your First point. As I mentioned in my first response, the argument of the entire epistle of first John is “fellowship.” Since it is the liet motif of the epistle, we must take all passages in 1 Jn as referring to this argument. This is the semantical argument. As well, “fellowship” is in the immediate context (1:3, 6). As John expressly asserts, he writes the epistle so that his readers will have fellowship with the apostles and with the Lord. Verse 6 begins the series of hypothetical “if” clauses with “if we say that we have fellowship with him (the Lord). Thus, the immediate argument has to do with fellowship with the Lord. Note the thee previous “if” clauses leading to verse 9. It is wrong to use 1 Jn 1:9 without the immediate context for that is a form of pretexting, therefore, the word “fellowship” does not need to occur in the verse itself. Since 1:9 is dealing with 1:6, there is no need for the words “out of fellowship” to be explicitly stated for the context itself implies it. [Unproven. You have moved from the premises that the argument of 1 Jn. is fellowship, and certain nearby verses refer to fellowship, to the inference that 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, and on to the conclusion that the phrase “out of fellowship” is implied in 1 Jn 1:9. It is one thing to consider the issue, and even the importance, of fellowship when attempting to understand what 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying. It is another to employ the chain of reasoning you have employed essentially to rewrite 1 Jn. 1:9 to insert words that are not there. Phrased differently, your suggestion 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, “experiential fellowship,” and/or being “out of fellowship” is simply an interpretation. References to “liet [sic] motif” and “semantical argument” have their place, but the careful reader evaluates reasoning.]
You do not attempt to answer my contextual argument here but merely assert your viewpoint. There is a tight argument throughout this chapter and the beginning of the next which includes such words as “walk,” “abide” (ch 2ff), etc.
In addition to that, the conditional “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice all assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives. [Wrong. As for the “if clause,” as you said previously, “The ‘if’ here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess.” As for the third class condition, as you said previously, “The popular way to express the third class condition is ‘maybe he will or maybe he won’t.’” As for the subjunctive mood, as you said previously, “The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).” As for the active voice, as you say later, “The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing.” (Italics added.) Therefore, based upon what you yourself have written, the “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice convey no more than a hypothetical condition, the potentiality of confessing our sins, the potentiality of forgiveness and sins cleansed, and a subject acting by confessing. But these components of Greek grammar do not go further as you claim and “assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives.” That is a jump from components of Greek grammar to your interpretation of 1 Jn. 1:9 that does not follow from them or anything else in the verse.]
It appears you have missed the argument based on grammar and context.
Re the words “forgive, cleanse, unrighteousness.” In the Greek, the word “confess” is part of the third class condition of potentiality, i.e., forgiveness rests on “confession. The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing. The present tense does not deal with time as does the English, the Greek present tense indicates kind of action (aktionsart), not time of action [Right, if you are referring to the Greek present tense word translated “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9, since that Greek word is in the subjunctive mood. Wrong, if you are referring to the Greek present tense generally, since the Greek present tense indicates both kind and time of action in the indicative mood] therefore, the believer must confess sins as they come up [Here you return to your premise that “confess our sins” means identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature, a premise you have not proven]
The fact is the grammar here is present active subjunctive, not indicative mood.
Note the previous “sins” in the plural argument and points previously made.
Also, “cleanse” is in the subjunctive mood indicating that “forgive” is in syntactical parallelism with “confess”
on an ongoing basis. If your argument is true, then an unbeliever would have to confess sins over again to obtain forgiveness. Forgiveness in the absolute sense does not rest on confession but on faith in the finished work of Christ, although “confess” is a faith word as well. I argue for the principle of confession as found in 1:9 is based on our positional forgiveness, i.e., we have the right to be experientially forgiven because the “blood of Jesus His Son keeps on cleansing us.” The believer constantly has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleansing of the blood of Christ. Both “forgive” and “cleanse” are in the subjunctive mood indicating that forgiveness and cleansing are only potential based on the potential of confessing (subjunctive mood). Both forgiveness of sins and unrighteousness are used both in the absolute and relative sense in Scripture [Unproven, as to forgiveness, whether or not it is true as to righteousness.].
This verse explicitly makes the point.
Your argument that the words “broken fellowship” does not occur in 1 Jn is not valid because John uses other nomenclature and ideas for that.
2. Point 2 answered in point 1. For the unbeliever to confess his sin over and over is a violation of the finished work of Christ by faith.
3. Re point 3: The believer in eternity is free from the sin capacity and acts of sin so there is no need for forgiveness in the eternal state.
4. Re Point 4: If confession is a work so is believing or faith a work (which I do not believe). [Wrong. If work involves intentional outward conduct, confession is a work even though believing or faith is not. Confession involves intentional outward conduct, i.e., moving the mouth. Faith is on the inside; it is not outward conduct. Faith can motivate and accompany outward conduct but faith is not outward conduct. At 2 Tim. 1:4-5, Paul told Timothy that Paul was “filled with joy when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother, Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also.” (KJV, italics added.) James distinguished faith and works (Jas. 2:14, 18, 22.) You have not proven that “if confession is a work so is believing or faith a work.”]
Confession is an act of the heart, not of the mouth. This is a metaphorical usage.
Faith is a non-meritorious course of action [Wrong, if by “course of action” you mean “course of outward conduct”]
No, I mean belief rather than outward conduct.
because the results depend not on the person exercising faith but on the work of another. If this is so, confession is a non-meritorious course of action because it rests, believes, trusts, or exercises faith in the on-going cleansing of the blood of Christ (1:7). Jesus not only forgives absolutely but he forgives relatively. We enter into eternal fellowship with the Lord by faith and we enter into temporal fellowship with the Lord by faith (confess). I agree with you that Galatians does indeed argue against Christians who revert into legalism/works as a mode of operation and acceptance before God. I agree that at the point of salvation [I have already addressed this], the believer receives justification, imputation, forgiveness, reconciliation, propitiation, etc. No one can bring a charge against God’s elect in that sense. Throughout Scripture, believers must deal with their sin as believers. For a believer in adultery not to deal with adultery is unconscionable. The person who commits adultery has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleaning by the blood of Christ. That is why John in 1 Jn writes to Christians (“to you,” 1:2,3,5; not the “we” and “our” clauses). John obviously writes to believers, not unbelievers. The argument that I am “parsing” the text is a pejorative argument that does not deal with the exegesis that I gave you. I could argue that you parse the text by not dealing with the context and argument of the book.
5. Re Point 5: My point is that a believer cannot remember all sin. Confession of known sin by trusting the finished work of Christ cleanses us from “all unrighteousness.” [Unproven. The word “known” nowhere appears in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, your unproven premise is that John is calling for identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that violation with its nature. Incidentally, what if we knew about a particular sin but forgot to confess it? What if we knew about a sin but through accident became mentally incapacitated to the point we could not confess it? What if we don’t know we’ve sinned by doing a particular act, but we strongly suspect we have sinned? What if we merely suspect we have sinned? Do we have to confess these individual sins? Do we remain “experientially” unforgiven in these circumstances if we do not confess? More importantly, on what Biblically principled basis do you answer these questions based on 1 Jn. 1:9 and your interpretation that that verse refers to confession of known sins?]
Again, in a devotional I am not trying to prove every statement otherwise it would be tedious for a devotional. Of course the word “known” does not occur in the passage as many ideas in a given verse does not include the meaning it contains.
God experientially forgives on the basis of the act of faith called “confession.” He forgives us entirely on the basis of that forgiveness whether we remember to explicitly confess every sin that broke fellowship.
It is faith in the glory of Christ’s death for our sin that cleanses, not the confession. I don’t think we “manage sin” but keep short accounts with God. It is a burden that you should not carry because it is a faith exercise of fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
6. Re Point 6: There is a difference between God remembering our sin no more in the absolute sense and in the experiential sense.
7. Re Point 7: I hope you do not agree with Luther who said that James was a very “strawy epistle” because he thought it taught justification by works. [Wrong, to the extent you are suggesting James did not teach justification by works. This is a side issue, but since you raise it, I would note that James clearly implies he was teaching justification by works when he says at Jas. 2:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether James taught a Christian was “justified by works”—James clearly did. The issue is whether James meant the same thing by that phrase that Paul did. For Paul clearly implied Abraham was not “justified by works” when Paul wrote at Rom. 4:2-3, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (KJV, italics added.)] James argument is a difference in cause and effect. He argues that genuine faith produces works. [The Paul/James issue is a side issue; suffice it for now to say James never says “faith produces works,” although James, referring to Abraham, does say “faith was working with his works” (NASB)]. See my studies on this point in the James study.
James nowhere teaches justification by works from God’s viewpoint. James’ argument is that people justify (vindicate) Christians by their works. See my study on James on this point.
8. Re Point 8: All of the “we” statements obviously refers to believers as seen from the beginning of the chapter. [Wrong. At 1 John 1:1, John refers to “we,” and although it might appear he is referring to believers there, he later says at 1 Jn. 1:2 that, “we . . . shew unto you” (KJV, italics added), thereby distinguishing “we” from “you” and suggesting “we” at verses 1 and 2 is a reference to himself, not to believers.]
I agree that “we” in 1:2 refers to the apostles but they include themselves in the argument. However, they are Christians too!
The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion. I assert that the extant, explicit statements in chapter one deal with believers, not unbelievers, as seen in previous arguments. Almost all commentaries agree that 1 Jn was written to Christians, John explicitly states in the introduction that it is for Christians, and the content of the book indicates that John warns against incipient Gnosticism. Christians cannot fellowship with God if they imbibe incipient Gnosticism. That is at the heart of your misunderstanding of this passage. You have a tendency to jump to other passages other than 1 Jn, make inferential statements not extant in 1 Jn, and not deal with the grammar of the passage or the argument of the book. There is nothing in chapter one that indicates that John is talking to a non-believer.
I deeply appreciate your close arguments.
D. As for your September 17, 2012 comments, I quote only the below:
Anyone with the least knowledge of Greek knows that the same Greek word in different contexts have different meanings such as the word “fellowship” in 1 Jn and 1 Co. [Unproven. Although the same Greek word can have different meanings in different contexts, you have not proven that that is the case with “fellowship” in 1 Jn. and 1 Cor.]
I think the argument is clear enough if you follow closely the argument from the entire context of my argument.
Again, I do not argue that a believer is to seek forgiveness because he eternally has forgiveness in Christ. Again, the believer is to acknowledge or confess that he has positional forgiveness of the sin he committed. It is indeed true that we did not work to obtain salvation and we do not work to keep it.
Dr. Richison,
Thank you for taking time to respond to my comment!
I feel like part of my wrestle has been trying to understand confession in relation to justification.
I read something from John MacArthur that helped me. He spoke about John 13, that the feet washing for those who are already bathed is a picture of the once-for-all justifying work of the Blood versus the ongoing sanctifying work of it. That clicked for me. Would you agree with that intepretation?
Also, would you agree that a person does not seek to confess each and every sin in order to be justified upon hearing the gospel? I think some people do this, but I'm not sure it is taught anywhere. It seems the only condition to be justified is a repentant-faith. Confession seems to follow being justified. Thoughts?
Many blessings to you!
Dustin
Dustin, since I do not know the context of what MacArthur said, I can't comment on what he said.
I do not agree that a person should confess each and every sin in order to be justified. The reason people go to hell is not they sin but because they reject the One who paid for their sin. Jesus satisfied God by paying for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:1,2). I do not believe that confession of sins per se has anything to do with forgiveness. 1 Jn 1:9 is a passage that pertains to Christians. It is true that we must acknowledge that we are sinners in order to receive eternal forgiveness.
Grant—
Thank you for your comments. Mine are below. I have put them in double brackets [[ ]] to distinguish them from my previous comments, which were in single brackets [ ].
A. Your 2-27-01 comments.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8. [It is unclear what you mean by “reverse.” Verse 8 says “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Verse 8 is a conditional sentence. If you “reverse” the order of the clauses, the result would be “If we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, we say that we have no sin.” That “reverse” would be the converse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “converse.” If you “reverse” verse 8 by negating verse 8, the result would be “If we do not say that we have no sin, we do not deceive ourselves, and the truth is in us.” That “reverse” would be the inverse of verse 8. Verse 9 is not the reverse of verse 8, if by “reverse” you mean “inverse.” Verse 9 contains the phrase, “If we confess our sins,” while verse 8 contains the phrase, “If we say that we have no sin.” In other words, in verse 9, we confess our sins, while in verse 8, we deny we have sin. Verse 9 might be said to be the “reverse” of verse 8 because in verse 9 we confess while in verse 8 we deny, but from that point your analysis breaks down.
My meaning was the latter—verse 8 we deny while verse 9 we confess. The issue, however, is what we deny. That is a matter of debate. Verses 6,8,10 are syntactical parallelisms of 5,7,9, and 2:1,2. All this springs out of 1:3,4. The contextual argument is very powerful in this regard. [[I wrote the above in an effort to make a point: you have a tendency to make conclusory statements, i.e., you state conclusions without presenting careful reasoning from facts as a basis for your conclusions. You get from “here” to “there,” but the problem is how you do it. Here you made the conclusory statement “Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8.” I suggested three different ways in which one could claim verse 9 is the “reverse” of verse 8. Now we learn what your “meaning” was. You “meant” “verse 8 we deny while verse 9 we confess.” Why not simply say that? An acknowledgement that in “verse 8 we deny while verse 9 we confess” may impact the exegesis of 1 Jn. 1:6-10 differently than the conclusory statement “Verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8,” which erroneously suggests each verse is, in its entirety, the reverse of the other. You frequently appeal to “context” and/or “contextual argument” in an effort to support your interpretations. An understanding of context is crucial to careful Scriptural exegesis. However, repeated references to “context” cannot substitute for careful reasoning from the context. The above is an example of this.
Moreover, your reply above is unclear and confusing. You state the “issue, however, is what we deny.” You then discuss syntactical parallelisms, then say “All this springs out of 1:3,4,” then conclude “the contextual argument is very powerful in this regard.” The contextual argument for what? And how does this impact what you say is the “issue,” i.e., “what we deny?”]]
Verse 9 is discussing multiple sins, while verse 8 is discussing the condition or principle of indwelling sin.
Verse 8 is probably more generic than your assertion. [[Unproven and conclusory. I could equally say, “Verse 8 is probably less generic than your assertion. Is that convincing?]] I take it more to mean a state of sin rather than the sin capacity within. [[Unproven, conclusory, and unclear.]] Obviously, that can be debated because generally “sin” in the singular means the principle of indwelling sin (sin capacity, not sin nature).
You later correctly distinguish the principle from the practice. Moreover, verse 9 uses the words, “faithful,” “just,” “forgive,” and “unrighteousness.” Verse 8 contains none of these words. Similarly, verse 8 uses the words, “sin,” “deceive” and “truth.” Verse 9 contains none of these words. The two verses are discussing different things, but it is not clear verse 9 is the reverse of verse 8.] Confession of sin [1 Jn. 1:9: “sins”] is the opposite to the claim that we are not guilty of sin. [Wrong. Your apparent premise is that, at verse 8, someone is claiming that “we are not guilty of sin.” First, verse 8 never uses the word “guilty,” therefore, no one is expressly claiming in verse 8 that we are not “guilty” of sin.
The individual in verse 8 claims that they are not culpable of sin. [[Wrong and conclusory. When dealing with controversial verses that people interpret differently, it is often useful to ask first, “Does that verse expressly say what the person is claiming it says?” All I have to do to answer that question is ask, “Do the claimed words appear on the piece of paper?” The question is a useful starting point, not the endpoint, in careful reasoning. If a verse does not expressly say what a person is claiming it says, then we are clearly in the realm of inference from what the verse expressly says, i.e., we are in the realm of interpretation. The remaining issue is whether the inferences and interpretations are correct. Just because a verse does not expressly say something does not mean an interpretation from them is wrong. The word “Trinity” is nowhere expressly stated in the Bible but that does not mean the interpretation from the Scriptures of the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. Instead, once one admits that a verse does not expressly say what one is claiming it says, the issue of whether an interpretation is correct is controlled by the convincing force of the inferences leading to the interpretation. This is the problem with much of what you have written. You get from “here to there” but with a lack of convincing force in the inferential chain from “here to there,” i.e., with a lack of convincing force in your chain of inferences from (1) a verse or verses you cite to (2) your interpretation of them. The result is statements that are conclusory and, more importantly, conclusions that are unreliable.
With the above as background, first, verse 8 never uses the word “culpable,” therefore, in verse 8 no one is expressly claiming that “they are not culpable of sin.” What verse 8 says is, “If we say that we have no sin, . . .” You are confusing sin with culpability and guilt. Culpability and guilt are not sin. Culpability and guilt can be moral and/or legal consequences of sins, but culpability and guilt are neither sin nor sins. You have started with a statement about sin but unconvincingly inferred a statement about consequence. The inference may support your ultimate view that Christians must confess individually identified sins to eliminate experiential guilt, but the inference lacks the convincing force of careful reasoning. Second, it is one thing to argue that “sins” lead to the consequences of guilt or culpability. It is another thing to argue, as you do, that “sin” leads to the consequence of guilt or culpability. You have not presented a convincing argument on this.]] It is an argument from context that my use of the word “guilty” in verse 8 has do with “fellowship” with the saints and with God beginning in verse 3. In other words, my interpretation is an inference from the argument of the chapter.
To argue that specific words are not in a given verse is not an adequate argument. [[First, you interrupted my analysis at this point, divorcing it from my third point below. The third point below was that the heresy of those in verse 8 makes it unnecessary for them to talk about whether they are guilty of sin, and John does not say in verse 8 that someone is claiming “we are not guilty of sin.” Second, to argue that a given verse says something when (1) the specific words are not in a given verse and (2) inferences about the verse do not convincingly support the argument, is not merely inadequate argument but invalid argument.]] Often the Bible argues principles rather than specific terms. [[This begs the question. The issue is not what “the Bible argues.” The issue is what you argue. In particular, the issue is whether what you argue is supported by the Bible, whether by specific terms or convincing inferences.]]
Second, if by the phrase “guilty of sin,” you are referring to “guilty of sins,” the word “sins” is nowhere found in verse 8, therefore, no one is claiming in verse 8 that “we are not guilty of sins.”
As I stated above, “sin” can be used of the sin capacity but I believe the context argues against that usage in this case. Those in verse 8 claim that they have no culpability with God. This is clear if we look at 1:9 as a syntactical parallelism with 1:8. [[ Wrong and conclusory. Any mere parallel in the syntax and/or grammar of verses 8 and 9 does not convincingly show the people at verse 8 are claiming they are not culpable of sin. It should be no surprise that people denying they have sin would deny they are culpable of sin. I’m just saying you have not proven that that is what is going on at verse 8.]] Verse 9 is a response to vv. 6,8,10. [[Unproven and conclusory. In what sense can verse 9, that comes before verse 10, be a response to verse 10?]] Also, 2:1ff continues the argument of “little children” out of phase with the Father. [[Unproven. Your premise appears to be that 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, and 10 are talking about Christians “out of phase” with the Father, and that 1 Jn. 2:1ff “continue” that argument. You have not proven 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, and 10 are talking about Christians “out of phase” with the Father in the first place. I have provided you evidence that verses 6, 8, and 10 refer to unbelievers, while verses 7 and 9 refer to Christians. You have not proven the contrary. I’m not saying verses 6, 8, and 10 refer to unbelievers, while verses 7 and 9 refer to Christians. I’m saying I have presented you evidence suggesting that. Since you assert 1 Jn. 1:6-10 all refer to believers, then, as you have said elsewhere, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.” The onus of proof rests upon you to show why your interpretation is correct despite the evidence I have presented suggesting 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, and 10 refer to unbelievers. Until you do so, your interpretation remains unconvincing.
In fact, this is a problem with your interpretation generally. Under your view, it appears that not only can Christians move in and out of fellowship with God, but, apparently under your view, Christians move in and out of being cleansed (verse 7), Christians sometimes have truth in them and other times do not (verse 8), and Christians sometimes have the word in them and other times do not (verse 10). You have yet to prove this with Scripture.]] Christians should “walk” in the same way He walked (v.6).
Third, if by “guilty of sin,” you are referring to guilty of the sin principle, John, at verse 8, is referring to people who apparently are saying they have “no” sin. If they are saying they have “no” sin (i.e., they have no indwelling sin principle or condition) then they, in their minds at least, have no sin principle in the first place to be guilty of, therefore, nothing in verse 8 indicates John had any occasion to discuss whether people were claiming “we are not guilty of sin.” The heresy of those in verse 8 is that they deny sin in the first place, therefore, their heresy makes it unnecessary for them to talk about whether they are guilty of sin, and John does not say in verse 8 that someone is claiming “we are not guilty of sin.”]
Note my point above [[already addressed]].
This verse is a counter-claim to verse eight that Christians are not guilty of sin. [Unproven. Here you suggest that in verse 8 it is Christians who are claiming they are not guilty of sin. A premise of your argument appears to be that the words “we” and “us” in verse 8 refer to Christians. The problem with that argument is that verse 8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” However, the truth is in Christians. For example, at John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth,” at Jn. 14:16, Jesus said He would “pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,” and at John 14:17, Jesus referred to this Comforter as “the Spirit of truth” who “will be in you.” (Emphasis added.) This suggests the truth is in Christians. If the truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians. Similarly, at John 17:17, John records that Jesus said to the Father, “thy word is truth” (italics added) and at 1 Jn. 2:14, John, speaking to Christians, said, “the word of God abideth in you.” (Emphasis added.) If the word is truth and the word is in Christians, this suggests truth is in Christians. If truth is in Christians, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this again suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians.
Your argument appears to make the word “truth” stand on more than its original intention in this passage. It is possible for Christians to be out of phase with the truth of the Word. Also, the word “truth” has a broader usage than what you claim. [[Wrong and conclusory. First, I could similarly say, “Your argument appears to make the word ‘truth’ stand on less than its original intention in this passage. It is possible the concept that Christians can be out of phase with the truth of the Word is irrelevant. Also, the word ‘truth’ has a narrower usage than what you claim.” Is that convincing?
Second, I have made no argument. I simply presented to you Scriptures suggesting the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians, contrary to your position.
Third, I was responding to your earlier assertion, “This verse [i.e., verse 9] is a counter-claim to verse eight that Christians are not guilty of sin.” As you have said, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.” You have failed to prove your assertion that the persons who at verse 8 are saying that they have no sin are Christians. In particular, you have failed to prove that the various verses I quoted do not show that the word “us” in verse 8 does not refer to Christians. Nonetheless, since the onus of proof rests upon you as the person who made the assertion, you must make that proof before your interpretation is convincing, and you cannot circumvent that onus by mischaracterizing me as making an argument.
Fourth, 1 Jn. 2:27 says, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” Here John teaches the anointing abides in you and the anointing is truth. This suggests truth abides in us. If truth abides in us, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this again suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians.
The anointing is the Holy Spirit. Does He abide in us for awhile, then leave, then come back and abide in us for awhile? In your comments on your website concerning this verse, you write, “The Holy Spirit’s presence ever abides in the believer. He lives, remains and stays in every Christian. No sin will drive Him away. His abiding presence remains with each Christian.” If that is true, then neither does truth abide in us for awhile, then leave, then come back and abide in us for awhile.
Fifth, 2 Jn. 1:2 (NASB) refers to “the truth which abides in us . . . .” If the truth abides in us, but “the truth is not in us” at verse 8, this again suggests the people referred to as “us” in verse 8 are not Christians. In order to satisfy the onus of proof resting upon you, you must prove 1 Jn. 2:27 and 2 Jn. 1:2 above do not show that the word “us” in verse 8 does not refer to Christians.
Sixth, the issue is not whether “it is possible for Christians to be out of phase with the truth of the Word.” Instead, the issues are two. The first is whether your idea that Christians can be out of phase is, as you suggest, the “original intention in this passage.” The second is whether verse 8 is in fact referring to Christians who are “out of phase.” I have provided you verses suggesting that the truth is in Christians, and that if the truth is not in persons, they are not Christians. I have provided to you verses suggesting the word is in Christians, and if the word is not in persons, they are not Christians. In sum, I have provided you evidence that if persons are Christians, they will always have the truth in them and the word in them. You, on the other hand, apparently maintain the position that Christians can be “in phase” and “out of phase” with the truth, with the result sometimes Christians are “out of phase” with the truth and verse 8 applies to them.
The onus of proof is on you to prove—from Scripture—that John has in mind some notion here of being “out of phase” with the truth, and that instead of the truth always being in Christians, Christians can alternate between being “in phase” and “out of phase” with the truth.]]
This in turn suggests that those saying that they have no sin are unbelievers, not Christians. 1 Jn. 1:8 may therefore be a warning to Christians that people saying that they have no sin are deceiving themselves and the truth is not in them, i.e., such people are not Christians. However, whether or not 1 Jn. 1:8 suggests that warning, my point is you have not proven (especially in light of the above verses) your premise that verse 8 refers to Christians.]
My interpretation of verse 8 is from the contextual argument of chapter one. [[Unproven.]]
The Christian who denies guilt deceives himself. [Unproven. According to apostle Paul (an apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, Gal. 2:8)), the law of Moses causes unbelievers to be “guilty before God.” (Rom. 3:19.) However, once people become Christians (Rom. 3:21-24 (NASB)), it is true, according to Rom. 8:1, that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (NASB, italics added.) Indeed, who can even lay anything to the charge of God’s elect (see Rom. 8:33), much less pronounce guilt? “Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom. 8:34.) You have not proven (especially in light of the above Scriptures, that Christians, as opposed to unbelievers, can be “guilty” before God.]
The issue here is the usage of “guilt.” Are you implying that Christians cannot possess experiential guilt? [[First, I am implying nothing. I am expressly stating, as I did immediately above, “You have not proven (especially in light of the above Scriptures, that Christians, as opposed to unbelievers, can be “guilty” before God.” (Italics added.) Second, what you mean by the phrase “experiential guilt” is unclear. Are you asking whether Christians can, in their experience, feel guilty, whether or not they are, in fact, guilty? Are you asking whether Christians can experience a guilt that adversely impacts their relationship with God, whether or not they are free from “positional” guilt? Both? Something else? What do you mean by “experiential guilt” and, most importantly, what verses prove there even is such a thing for Christians?]] The Scriptures are full of passages where believers fail both in the Old and New Testaments. [[True but irrelevant. The issue is not whether believers fail in both testaments, but whether Scriptural teaching applicable to Christians (1) demonstrates Christians possess “experiential guilt” or (2) support your assertion that “The Christian who denies guilt deceives himself.” (Italics added.)]] Of course, Christians can never be charged with positional/forensic/judicial guilt before God.
You appear to make an argument with my statements in individual verses and take those statements out of the context of the whole argument. [[Wrong. I am demonstrating that on many occasions your statements in individual verses and your whole argument are taken out of the context of Scripture.]] I do not try to repeat the argument in each successive verse as that would be tedious in a devotional. [[I have not asked you to repeat arguments but to satisfy your onus of proof as to each.]]
Verse 7 is cleansing from the principle of sin whereas verse 9 is cleansing from the practice of sin. [Wrong. The word “cleansing” suggests ongoing cleansing. The word “cleansing” is nowhere found in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, you have failed to mention that the Greek word translated “cleanse” (not “cleansing”) at verse 9 is in the Greek aorist tense, not the Greek present tense. As you suggest later, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action. However, the Greek aorist tense, the tense used here, refers to existence or action, but in summary, as a whole, without regard to the kind of action, whether ongoing or otherwise. Your argument would be stronger if the Greek word at issue was a Greek present tense word, but it is not.]
Present linear aktionsart of “cleanses” in verse 7 has to do with the on-going cleansing by the blood of Christians who “walk in the light.” Jesus has to intercede on the basis of his blood for the sins of believers (He 7:25). “Walk” means to walk as a course of life, a way of life, a pattern of living. [[True, but irrelevant. I made a simple point. “Cleansing” suggests on-going cleansing. I made the point because I wanted to clarify that the Greek verb translated “cleanse” (not “cleansing,” as you said) at 1 Jn. 1:9 is in the Greek aorist tense, therefore that verse would not support a Christian need for ongoing cleansing. You have written numerous things now about verse 7, but in all that you have written you have not denied (1) that you earlier said “verse 9 is cleansing” (italics added) from the practice of sin, (2) “cleansing” suggests ongoing cleansing, and (3) the Greek verb at issue in verse 9 does not support the idea of ongoing cleansing.]] This is the same Greek word as verse 9. [[Wrong: at verse 7, as you correctly note, the Greek word translated “cleanses” is in the Greek present tense, while, at verse 9, the word translated “cleanse” is in the Greek aorist tense. The root of each word is the same, not each word, hence the different tenses.]] The aorist punctiliar action of verse 9 has to do with the point that God forgives the believer when he confesses his sin. [[Unclear and, in any event, wrong. First, if you are suggesting that “punctiliar,” a word related to “point,” is referring to the “point” you are arguing (that God forgives, etc.), I don’t know what to say other than that “punctiliar” in the context of the Greek aorist tense refers (as you correctly suggest) to the punctiliar action of the verb in the aorist tense, not to the “point” you are making in your argument.
Second, as my comment made clear, I was referring to the Greek aorist tense word translated “cleanse” at verse 9. You seem to have shifted the focus of your reply to the word “forgive” in verse 9. The fact remains—nothing in the aorist tense of the Greek word translated “cleanse” in verse 9 indicates that “ongoing” cleansing is occurring.
Third, since it appears you have shifted the focus from the word “cleanse” in verse 9 to the word “forgive” in verse 9, the word “forgive” too is in the Greek aorist tense. Aorist means undefined, and the reason the tense is referred to as aorist is it tells you nothing about the kind of action (i.e., ongoing, momentary, perfective, or otherwise) that occurs when the action occurs, but simply tells you the fact that the action occurred, in summary, as a whole. Moreover, as a word in the subjunctive mood, the aorist word translated “forgive” here tells you nothing about the time of the action (i.e., past, present, or future), that is, it tells you nothing about when the action occurred. Your position, then, that “The aorist punctiliar action of verse 9 has to do with the point that God forgives the believer when he confesses his sin” (italics added) is not supported by the Greek aorist tense of the word translated “forgive.” The word tells us nothing as to when the forgiving action occurred. All the verse tells us is that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, without the verse telling us when that forgiveness occurs. (Other verses indicate the time of the occurrence of forgiveness, i.e., that we already have been forgiven. (1 Jn. 2:12 [“your sins have been forgiven you” (NASB; note the Greek perfect tense suggesting the person was forgiven in the past and that that is the presently existing state of things)]; see also Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13.) The same is true with regard to “cleanse” in verse 9; the word tell us nothing as to the time of the occurrence of that action.]] This is God’s action in response to “confess.” [[Unproven. You may have argued too much. For verse 9 says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If what you say is correct, it suggests His being faithful and righteous is arguably a response to confess, not just His forgiving. Faithfulness and righteousness are some of God’s eternal attributes. It is arguable therefore that it is not in response to my “confession” that He is faithful and righteousness.
The problem with your analysis is that verse 9 is a conditional sentence and you are treating the relationship between the “if clause” (protasis) and the “then clause” (apodosis) in verse 9 as if there is a cause/effect relationship between them, when in fact there simply may be an evidence/inference relationship between them. “If the man drives too fast, he will crash” is cause/effect. But “if she has a ring on her left hand, she is married” is not cause/effect. The ring on her hand does not cause her to be married; in fact, it is the other way around. The fact she has a ring on her left hand is evidence that permits the inference she is married. (The commentary of Daniel Wallace is helpful on this.) It is arguable that all the verses at 1 Jn. 1:6-10, including verse 9, are evidence/inference conditional sentences. If 1 Jn. 1:9 is an evidence/inference conditional sentence, you have not proven that God’s action of forgiveness is “in response” to confess.]] The reason John uses the punctiliar tense relates to God’s faithfulness and justice in forgiving sins when a person claims the finished work of Christ for forgiveness experientially. In addition, the subjunctive mood indicates that the apodosis is not a reality until the protasis is fulfilled.
If
The “if” here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess. It is conditional on our will or volition.
we confess
The word “confess” means to speak the same thing, to assent, accord, agree with, concede, acknowledge. The idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. [Unproven (especially in light of the previously cited Scriptures on the issue of Christians and guilt). 1 Jn. 1:9 never uses the term “guilt.” It uses the term “sins.”
Admitting sin is by implication admitting guilt. Is there no guilt in sinning? The idea of “sins” implies guilt. [[Wrong and conclusory to the extent you refer to Christians, for the reasons discussed immediately above. And questions are not exegesis.]]
Moreover, the verse does not say “by means of.” You have not proven that the idea is to confess by means of admitting guilt. The idea appears to be confessing our “sins.”]
The idea is confessing or acknowledging sins plural would imply individual violations of a holy God. [[Conclusory and unclear. If you are suggesting confessing or acknowledging sins necessarily implies identifying the nature of individual violations, the suggestion is not convincing. You correctly imply that confess can mean “acknowledge.” If so, we could “acknowledge our sins,” i.e., acknowledge the fact that we have committed sins, without identifying the nature (theft, lying, etc.) of each individual sin. For example, at Lk. 11, one of the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray. At Lk. 11:2, Jesus said, “When ye pray, say . . . .” Jesus was telling the disciples exactly what words to utter. According to Lk. 11:2, those words included, “forgive us our sins[.]” He did not tell the disciples to say, “forgive us our sins, individually identified by nature as follows.” This would have been a great time for Him to tell the disciples, “Ask forgiveness for your sins, but be sure to identify them by nature.” He didn’t. The phrase “our sins” is general, unspecific, and collective. The phrase “our sins” at Lk. 11:2 is a translation of the exact same Greek words that are translated “our sins” at 1 Jn. 1:9. That suggests that 1 Jn. 1:9 is teaching “if we acknowledge our sins (without having to identify them individually by nature), He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (Of course, Lk. 11:2 is pre-Calvary; after Calvary, God’s act of forgiveness is always phrased in the past tense.) I’m not arguing that that is what 1 Jn. 1:9 means. I am exploring the possibility of an alternative interpretation. On the other hand, you have said, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.” You have asserted “The idea is confessing or acknowledging sins plural would imply individual violations of a holy God.” (Sic; italics added.) If you are implying confessing or acknowledging sins necessarily implies identifying the nature of individual violations, the onus of proof is on you to prove the alternative interpretation I have suggested is wrong since, if it is correct, your interpretation is wrong.]] This is another occasion where you want to use particular words where those words are not necessary since the context gives the meaning. [[Conclusory and wrong. This is another occasion where you insert words–here, “guilt” and “by means of”–and make reference to “context” without careful reasoning from the context.]]
Confession is saying what God says about our sins – that they are violations of God’s character. Sins are not blunders or mistakes but desecration of the character of God. [Unclear. Are you saying one cannot sin by mistake? Are you saying that sins are not merely mistakes?]
I am saying that sins are not merely mistakes.
There is a danger in losing fellowship with God [Unproven. 1 Jn. nowhere expressly says Christians are “in danger of losing fellowship with God” or that Christians can lose fellowship with God.
Note passages and argument of book. John says that the purpose of the book is that he and his colleagues will have the joy of knowing (v.3) that believers to whom he is writing will have “fellowship” with the apostles and “fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (v.4)”
[[The issue is not what John said at verses 3 and 4 but the lack of convincing force in the inference you draw from those verses that Christians can lose fellowship.
At verse 3, John says “that ye also may have fellowship with us[.]” He nowhere says that that fellowship can be lost or end in any sense. In fact, your interpretation in this thread contradicts your own commentary on your website. In your website commentary on the above quoted phrase from verse 3, you say, “John now introduces the purpose of the epistle of 1 John – fellowship with 1) believers and 2) with God. [¶] ‘Fellowship’ here is fellow participants of eternal life.” (Italics added.) If your website commentary is correct, then your interpretation in this thread that Christians are in danger of losing fellowship is teaching that Christians can be in danger of losing eternal life. In fact, since it appears that, in this thread, you maintain Christians can move in and out of fellowship based on whether they have confessed known sins, your interpretation in this thread (construed in light of your commentary) is teaching Christians can move in and out of eternal life based on whether they have confessed known sins. (Incidentally, nowhere in your commentary on verse 3 do you even hint at the notion of “experiential fellowship,” that there is some fellowship other than eternal life, or that confession of sins is relevant to fellowship.) I’m not saying fellowship means eternal life. I’m saying that you have asserted there is a danger of losing fellowship, and your assertion is not only unproven from the Scriptures but contradictory to your own website commentary.]]
Since the verse does not expressly say that, your argument that Christians are in danger of losing fellowship with God is an interpretation, and the remaining issue is whether your interpretation is correct.
It is one thing to use explicit words and it is another thing to draw the meaning out of the argument of the entire chapter. Many of your arguments are arguments of silence—“this verse does not expressly say…” There is no need for a particular verse to say what you think needs to be said if from the context the argument is clear. [[Conclusory and unproven. You have not identified any argument I have supposedly made. I have, however, repeatedly invited you to bear your “onus of proof” concerning various assertions you have made. And the problem is that although you repeat the phrase “the context,” it is your arguments from it that are the problem—they lack convincing force and/or are unclear.]]
In support of your interpretation, you later assert a distinction between positional forgiveness and experiential forgiveness but you do not in this article support this distinction with Scripture.
You must remember that Verse-by-Verse Commentary is a devotional, not a doctoral dissertation or an academic article. I do not attempt to support every statement I make by some form of documentation in a devotional. I have argued the distinction between positional experiential forgiveness in other places on the site. [[The home page of your website commentary nowhere says it is a “devotional.” It does say it is a commentary that “exposes the mind of God” to the mind of man by “expounding individual books of God’s Word verse-by-verse.” More importantly, the issue is not what you wrote in your commentary. The issue is what you have written in this thread in response to people’s replies–which you invited–to what you wrote in your commentary. I sent you my initial reply on March 16, you replied on March 28, and, of course, you could have taken longer to respond if you had wished. Although, in this thread, you have referred not only to 1 Jn. but to Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and James, you have not, in this thread, cited a single verse from any book of the Bible that supports your alleged distinction between positional and experiential forgiveness, although you had almost two weeks to do so. Similarly, you have not, in this thread, cited a single location in your website commentary that supports your alleged distinction, even though you had almost two weeks to do so. Your failure to cite any Scripture or any specific location on your website suggests you are unable and/or unwilling to do so.]]
Instead, you support this significant alleged doctrinal distinction with a questionable analogy to a son who may “fall out of disfavor (sic)” (I assume you mean “fall out of favor”) with his family. In your analogy, apparently the son is the Christian and the family is God. However, you are arguably confusing (1) permanent position or membership in a family (a status that need not have anything to do with favor) with (2) experiential favor that can temporarily cease from a family. As to the first point, mere position or membership as a son in a family need not have anything to do with family favor. Regrettably, it is possible to be born into a family, and therefore be a member of it, and yet never meet the family. Alternatively, one could interact with one’s family but suffer continuing abuse from it. As to the second point, some sons fall out of experiential favor with a family and that favor is never restored no matter what the son does. And of course family members die, which presents a problem since you analogize the family to God. Your analogy may be questioned from a second perspective. Christians are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5 & 8) and grace is unmerited favor, therefore your view that a Christian can “fall out of favor” with God suggests a Christian can “fall out of grace.” Do we resolve this problem by creating a new distinction: “positional unmerited favor” versus “experiential unmerited favor”? If so, where do we draw the line? Even though Scriptures teach God loves Christians with an agape love that is unconditional, couldn’t one create a new distinction between “positional love” from God and “experiential love” from God, and argue the first is permanent but the second is not? At Acts 17:11, Luke called Berean unbelievers “noble” for searching the Scriptures to see whether things said by an apostle from God were true. If so, Christians are no less noble for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things you have said are true. Paul told Christians to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) I am not arguing one way or the other the propositions that Christians can lose fellowship in any sense of that word, or that there is a distinction between positional and experiential forgiveness. I am saying that if you assert these propositions in an article, you should provide Scriptural support in the article for those assertions. Later in your thread you say, “The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion.”] if we conceal our sins.
As you probably know all analogies break down at some point. The reason for the illustration was clarification, not proof.
Thanks for catching my error “disfavor” rather than “favor.”
PRINCIPLE: Confession is the basis for fellowship with God because it acknowledges any violations of His character. [Unproven. 1 John uses the word “fellowship” three times (1 Jn. 1:3, 6, & 7). In none of these verses does John use the term “confess” or “confession,” much less state what you have stated. The position that confession is the basis for fellowship, etc., is your interpretation. It may or may not be correct, but none of the above three verses nor anything else you have cited from 1 John proves your interpretation is correct.]
[[Also, your interpretation in this thread that “Confession is the basis for fellowship with God” (italics added) conflicts with your website commentary concerning verse 5 that says, “Jesus Christ and His work is [sic] the basis for fellowship with an absolute God.” (Italics added.) Both can’t be “the” basis for fellowship with God. Which is it, confession, or “Jesus Christ and His work”?]]
The context argues fellowship both with God and Christians (1:3,4). These verses state that this as John’s purpose for writing First John.
Fellowship with God begins with His absoluteness (1:5)—“in him is no darkness at all.” We cannot claim to walk in fellowship with God if we have sin in our lives. [[Unproven and conclusory. You later say “to walk” means “to walk as a course of life.” (Italics added.) You apparently have failed to consider the possibility that Christians could walk in fellowship with God as a matter of the general course of their lives, even though, during that course, they occasionally sinned. I’m not saying this possibility is true; I’m saying the onus of proof is on you to show it is not true, since you have asserted, “We cannot claim to walk in fellowship with God if we have sin in our lives.”]] That is why in verse 6 he says that we cannot claim fellowship with God “while we walk (as a course of life) in darkness.” [[Unproven and conclusory. You apparently have failed to consider the possibility that those who “walk in darkness” at verse 6 are unbelievers. (You also apparently have failed to consider that those who “walk in the light” at 1 Jn. 1:7 are Christians, and vice versa.) From that perspective, verse 6 would be referring to unbelievers walking in darkness but saying they have fellowship with God. I’m not saying that that is what John is teaching; I’m saying the onus of proof is upon you to demonstrate that that is not what he is teaching since you assert “we cannot claim fellowship with God ‘while we walk (as a course of life) in darkness.’”]] Walking with God is a Christian concept, not a non-Christian. To walk means to walk as a course of life (peripatew). He is referring to the antecedent idea “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (v3). This is what brings “joy” (v.4). Beginning at verse 6 there is a string of third class condition clauses:
“If we say that we have fellowship with him…” v6
“But if we walk in the light…” v7
“If we say we have no sin…” v8
“If we confess..” v9
“If we say we have not sinned” v10
This contextual argument preempts your argument that this verse does not say this or that. [[Conclusory and unproven. First, I made no argument. I invited you to prove your assertion. Second, repeated references to the context do not substitute for careful reasoning from the context. Third, your argument that you have correctly identified the contextual argument lacks convincing force.]]
APPLICATION: Walking in the light involves increased consciousness of our sinful unrighteousness and taking active steps to rid ourselves of that sin by claiming God’s forgiveness and cleansing through open confession of sin before God. [Unproven, in a number of respects, but I will simply note that you suggest here, and imply later, that Christians confess their sins to God. 1 Jn. 1:9 does not expressly state the sins are to be confessed to God; that is your interpretation, an issue I discuss below.]
Contextual interpretation. [[Same problem.]] No, the issue is walking with the God of light (v.5). [[Unproven and conclusory. Just as you have jumped from verse 9 to verse 5, one could jump from verse 9 to verse 3 and say the issue is “fellowship with us,” therefore, the confessing is confessing to “us,” i.e., to one another (not to God). I’m not saying that that is what John is teaching; I’m just showing what you have written is unproven and conclusory, and no appeal to context substitutes for convincing reasoning from it.]]
Believers who desire to walk with God confess their sin [1 Jn. 1:9—sins] openly and frankly to God. [Unproven. Nowhere does 1 Jn. 1:9, or anything else in 1 Jn., say believers confess to God. You are simply assuming without Scriptural proof that the confessing here is confessing to God, and not, for example, Christians confessing to other persons and/or to other Christians. I’m not saying 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying this, I’m just saying you have not Scripturally proven the confessing referred to at 1 Jn. 1:9 is a confessing to God as opposed to, e.g., confessing to others. (Compare Jas. 5:16 (NASB): “Confess your sins to one another[.]” (Italics added.)] We make the judgment that our sins are awful before God. We agree with God in condemning sin.
I do not attempt to “prove” everything by one verse. [[The problem is not that you do not attempt to prove everything by one verse; the problem is you frequently do not prove anything by any verse. In this case, you have not satisfied your onus of proof that the confessing is to God.]] The argument is first from the argument of the book itself and secondly from the argument of the chapter. A devotional does not attempt to prove every statement but to get the idea across so that people can apply it to their lives. [[I earlier addressed these kinds of arguments.]]
Confession does not mean to plead with God for forgiveness, feel sorry for sin, to pray for forgiveness, to feel sorry for sins or to make restitution for our sins. No, the idea is to accept the idea that our sins violate an absolutely holy God and that our only solution for sin is the death of Christ on the cross.
Some claim that there is no need to confess sin because we already have forgiveness (Ep 1:7). This idea confuses positional forgiveness with experiential forgiveness [I’ve already addressed this]. God finally and fully forgives us in our positional forgiveness. In this sense, we never need forgiveness again. God forensically forgives us forever in positional forgiveness. However, when it comes to fellowship with God, we need to confess specific violations to God’s character. [Unproven. You are assuming (perhaps, but not necessarily, influenced by Catholic traditions concerning confession) that when John refers to confessing sins, he is referring to confessing specific violations. In particular, you appear to be assuming that when John refers to “confess our sins,” he is referring to (1) identifying the particular nature (e.g., theft, lying) of a specific violation and then (2) acknowledging that specific violation with its particular nature. However, why can’t “confess our sins” simply mean acknowledging that we have sins generally, without our having to identify the particular nature of each particular violation?
The distinction is between sin in the singular and sins in the plural. Both the words “sins” in the plural and “confess” imply naming individual sins. [[The problem, simply put, is that the English word “confess” has baggage from traditions (including but not limited to Catholic traditions), baggage that is not present in the Greek word translated “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9. You have earlier said that “confess” means to “acknowledge.” Why can’t “confess our sins” mean simply “acknowledge our sins” without identifying them individually by nature, just as “forgive us our sins” does not require identifying them individually by nature? The well-known Greek lexicon by Louw and Nida says the meaning of “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9 is “to acknowledge a fact publicly, often in reference to previous bad behavior – ‘to admit, to confess.’” If “confess” here simply means “acknowledge a fact publicly,” here, in reference to the previous bad behavior of sins, where does that require acknowledgement to God? And where does an acknowledgement of the fact of our sins (i.e., the fact that we have committed sins) require acknowledgement of the nature of the individual sins committed? And if you are going to add without Scriptural proof a requirement that you acknowledge the nature of the individual sins committed, why stop there? Why not require without Scriptural proof that you also acknowledge the victims of your sins, and when, where, why, and how many times you committed them? Why can’t this verse simply mean we acknowledge our sins publicly, i.e., we acknowledge we have committed sins, without our identifying the nature of each individual sin, which is similar to acknowledging we are sinners? Jesus said His burden is light. I’m not arguing “confess our sins” means “acknowledge our sins” without identifying them individually by nature. I’m saying you have not met your onus of proof by demonstrating that that is not what John is teaching, since you assert “sins” and “confess” imply naming individual sins.]]
The immediate context of 1 Jn. 1:9 is 1 Jn. 1:8 and 10. Verse 8 implies people are denying that they have any sin, i.e., any indwelling sin.
Previously addressed.
Verse 10 implies people are denying that they have ever sinned at any time. (I note the Greek word for the action of sin here is a Greek perfect tense word, which as used in this context suggests the person is claiming the person never sinned in the past and that that is the presently existing state of things). Arguably, the antidote to the heresies of denying we have any sin and denying we have ever sinned at any time is simply to acknowledge we in fact have sins, which is exactly what “confess our sins” can mean. And the fact that the word translated “confess” is a Greek present tense word could simply convey (for John, who indicates that if one is truly a Christian, one will continue as a Christian to the end (e.g., 1 Jn. 2:19)) that if we are truly Christians, we will always acknowledge that we have sins.
Note my interpretation of verse ten: “Note that each false claim in 6, 8 and 10 denies the truth that immediately precedes it in verses 5, 7 and 9 respectively. [[Wrong. Five deals with God and the fact darkness is not in Him. If six denied the truth of five, six would deny God is light and deny darkness was not in Him. If eight denied the truth of seven, eight would deny that if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another. If ten denied the truth of nine, ten would deny that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, etc. This exemplifies what I earlier mentioned, i.e., you have a tendency to make conclusory statements without careful reasoning.]] The corrective to follows in the verse immediately following the false claim.
Now we come to the third false plea. This claim is a denial of having committed any sin at all.”
To suggest as you do that “confess our sins” goes beyond acknowledging that we have sins generally, and requires identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that individual violation with its specific nature, appears to be more than the context of 1 Jn. 1:9 requires.
Note my point above about both the meaning of “confession” and “sins” in the plural. [[See my comments about acknowledging our sins.]]
I’m not arguing “confess our sins” means simply “acknowledge we have sins.” I’m saying that you have not proven that “confess our sins” does not mean “acknowledge we have sins” and you have not proven “confess our sins” requires more, i.e., that we must identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature.)]
Again, the context argues fellowship with God and what breaks that fellowship—violating an absolutely holy God. That is why confession itself has no mediation with God but that claiming the ongoing (present tense) cleansing by the blood of Christ does (v.7). [[Wrong on the issue of “claiming.” Verse 7 nowhere refers to “claiming” or to “claiming the ongoing . . . cleansing.” It simply presents a fact. If we walk in the light, etc., the blood cleanses.]] It is patently clear that we all are sinners in the generic sense. There would be no need to confess that especially when we consider the momentum of the argument of the chapter. [[Conclusory. There would be a need for Christians to confess that they are sinners if John were concerned about a heresy spreading among Christians that they were not sinners, i.e., that they have no sin, and had never sinned. I’m not saying that that is what John is teaching, I’m saying that, given your assertion, you have not met your onus of proof that he is not teaching that. I have already addressed such comments as “the momentum of the argument.”]]
The forgiveness of 1:9 is experiential forgiveness. God always bases our experiential forgiveness on our positional forgiveness. [This article would be clearer if you plainly stated what you appear to believe, namely, that if Christians do not confess their sins, God does not experientially forgive Christians of those sins.] A son may fall out of disfavor with his family but he is still a member of the family. The issue in experiential forgiveness is not acceptance by God but fellowship with Him. Continual forgiveness allows us to fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
We always view sin for what it really is – a violation of God’s character. That is why God will forgive our sin based only on the cross of Christ. God forgave sin when Christ paid the penalty for that sin. Jesus meets all of the Father’s holy demands by His payment for sins on the cross. Jesus died in the sinner’s stead; He died in our place. It cost Jesus Christ a great deal to qualify us for forgiveness.
B. Your 8-5-08 Comments.
Robert, Thank you for your very well thought out presentation. It is encouraging to hear from people who are serious about the Bible.
1. You mentioned that “fellowship is not in the text,” however, fellowship is the main argument of the book of 1 Jn. (1:3, etc).
2. Whenever you have the third class condition “if” clause, as you have in the entire passage running from 1:6, it suggests human volition. The popular way to express the third class condition is “maybe he will or maybe he won’t.” In other words, the choice is up to the readers of 1 Jn (Christians). The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).
3. The word “confess” is in the present tense (in the Greek, this is linear aktionsart–ongoing confession is necessary.
4. I agree with you that the death of Christ sufficiently paid for our sins for eternity in a positional, forensic, complete sense. We also received imputed (God’s righteousness) at the point of salvation. This is legal forgiveness [Unproven. It is arguable that imputed righteousness in Paul’s epistles is a legal or forensic action on God’s part, while God’s forgiveness is an action on God’s part in which he not merely legally but subjectively forgives us. Your phrase “legal forgiveness” arguably confuses these issues. You have not proven that there is such a thing as “legal forgiveness” that is distinguishable from God inwardly forgiving us]
See my interpretation of the book of Romans on these points. [[Conclusory. I could similarly say, “see the book of Romans on your interpretation on these points.” You have had almost two weeks to respond to what I wrote. You know what your commentary says and where it says it. The reader should not have to canvass the entirety of your commentary on the sixteen chapters of Romans to determine where your commentary supports your interpretation here, i.e., that the forgiveness we received at the point of salvation is only “legal.” Your failure to cite directly to what you feel are the relevant portions of your commentary that support your interpretation suggests you are unable and/or unwilling to do so.]] We need to make the distinction as to whether a passage is speaking to individuals or to the church. [[Conclusory and unproven. You need to prove that any such distinction is relevant here.]]&nb
Also, where is the distinction in the Word of God between legal/forensic forgiveness and subjective forgiveness? [[I was hoping you could show me, because it is you who is drawing that distinction. For in this paragraph and the immediately preceding one you clearly teach there is a legal/forensic forgiveness we receive at the point of salvation. Yet you also teach 1 Jn. 1:9 refers to experiential forgiveness that occurs when we confess our sins during our lives as Christians, a forgiveness I assume you believe is God’s subjective forgiveness. You therefore appear to draw a distinction between legal/forensic forgiveness that occurs at the point of salvation versus subjective forgiveness that can occur experientially after the point of salvation, i.e., when we confess sins during our lives as Christians. Where is that distinction in the Word of God?]] that took place at one point, the point of our salvation. [Wrong, if you are implying God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved. Rom. 3:23-24 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus[.]” (KJV, italics added.) The phrase “come short” is a translation of a Greek word in the Greek present tense and, as you suggest, the Greek present tense conveys ongoing existence or action, therefore, the Greek word here could be translated “coming short” as in continually coming short.
Who is the subject in these verses the Roman church or individuals? [[Conclusory. Questions are not exegesis. I could similarly ask, “why does it matter?” You are insinuating a relevant distinction without proof it is relevant. You are also assuming without proof that a choice must be made between the Roman church or individuals.]] In Romans it is the church. [[Conclusory and unproven. You have not proven this. And you have not proven what you are trying to imply, namely, that it is the church and not individuals.] Go to my studies on Romans in this regard. [[You have had almost two weeks to cite a single statement in your commentary that you feel is relevant. I could similarly say, “Go the book of Romans in regards your studies.” Is that convincing?]]
“Being justified” conveys ongoing justification, not merely justification at the time of conversion. The Greek word translated “being justified” is in the Greek present tense. Similarly, Rom. 3:26 teaches that God is the “justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” The Greek word translated “justifier” is in the Greek present tense, conveying ongoing justification. At Rom. 3:28, Paul says “a man is justified by faith[.]” The Greek word translated “is justified” is in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:5, Paul says “faith is counted for righteousness.” The phrase “is counted” is a translation of a word in the Greek present tense. At Rom. 4:6, when Paul refers to the man “unto whom God imputeth righteousness,” the word “imputeth” is in the Greek present tense. It is true one is justified, faith is counted for righteousness, and God imputes righteousness, when one first becomes a Christian. However, these things are also true continually for the Christian. It is thus not true that God imputed righteousness at one point only, i.e., when we first became saved.]
Again, your argument confuses these terms when used of the church and of individuals. Again, see my interpretation of Romans. [[Again, your conclusory argument confusingly assumes a relevant distinction between the church and individuals. Moreover, I could also say, “see the book of Romans concerning your interpretation.” Is that convincing? Further, in the paragraph immediately above, the references to “him” in Rom. 3:26 and “a man” in 3:28 are in the singular, i.e., they are references to individuals, not simply to the corporate church. When Rom. 4:5 says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” the italicized references to “him” and “his” are in the singular, i.e., they refer to individuals, not simply to the corporate church. The same thing for Rom. 4:6, that refers to “the man.” The onus of proof remains with you.]]
The “greater” does indeed include the “lesser” in the sense that we have the right to claim forgiveness based on our legal forgiveness. As 1:7 says, “the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from sin.” Cleansing does not come from the process of confession but from believing that the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing us from all sin. Both forensic and progressive forgiveness are by faith. By the way, we are not “made righteous” as you indicate [Wrong. Rom. 5:19 expressly says “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether we are “made righteous” (we are), but what Paul means by that phrase. He does not mean we are made righteous intrinsically but, as you later correctly suggest, he is referring to forensic justification.] but we are “declared” or “caused to be righteous” because the Greek word for “declared righteous” is causative.
Omicron-omega suffixes are always causative. The Greek word for “made” in Romans 5:19 is katastathjsontai—to set, set down, place, constitute. The idea is that by the obedience of Christ we were put in a position of a certain kind. [[True but irrelevant. Robert said in his August 5, 2008 message, “Why is the death of the Son sufficient to pay all sins (past, present and future) to make me righteous and get me to heaven – but insufficient without the work of confession for daily post-salvation sins?” (Italics added.) To this you replied, “By the way, we are not “made righteous” as you indicate but we are “declared” or “caused to be righteous” because the Greek word for “declared righteous” is causative.” (Italics added.) Robert never suggested he was made righteous in any sense other than causative. In my comment to you, I quoted Rom. 5:19 to show that you were incorrect in saying “we are not made righteous as you indicate” (italics added), since Rom. 5:19 expressly says, “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Italics added.) Your comments about omicron-omega suffixes explain why “made” is causative. It is irrelevant to the point I was making—you incorrectly said we are not “made righteous.” The fact is we are “made righteous” and this is true only in the sense that we are declared or caused to be righteous.]] See my study on that passage in Romans. [[Incidentally, here you cite your study on the passage of Rom. 5:19. This shows you know how to cite specific locations in your commentary when you want to do so.]]
5. On the charge that I am teaching the Galatian heresy, refer to my studies on Galatians. As well, note point four in that we claim salvation by faith and fellowship by faith. That is, it is not faith that saves or delivers but the object of faith–the cross of Christ.
6. On the question of confessing “every sin,” note the study later in 1 Jn 1:9 where I make the point that if we confess our known sin, God is faithful to “cleanse us from all sin.” [Wrong, if you are suggesting that that is what 1 Jn. 1:9 says. 1 Jn. 1:9 teaches He is faithful to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” You are confusing 1 Jn. 1:7 with 1 Jn. 1:9.]
Your point is unclear. [[My point is clear. 1 Jn. 1:9 does not say “cleanse us from all sin.” It says “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” You are confusing 1 Jn. 1:7 with 1 Jn. 1:9.]] My point is that if (conditionally) we confess our “sins” God is faithful (he will do it every time) and just (he is true to himself) to cleanse us from “all” unrighteousness at the point of confession (aorist). [[Wrong as to your “at the point of confession” comment. The aorist does not support your interpretation of when He cleanses. We can only know from 1 Jn. 1:9 that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteousness to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The aorists “forgive” and “cleanse” leave undefined when these actions occur in time. We must look to other verses to determine when those actions occur.
1 Jn. 1:9 may be read to indicate that, unlike the heretics, Christians are people who always acknowledge their sins, i.e., always acknowledge as a general doctrinal truth that they have committed sins (without having to identify them individually by nature) and, if that is true, the same God Who is working in their lives to enable them to be Christians and acknowledge their sins in this sense is the God who forgives those sins and cleanses, without John in this verse saying when God forgives and cleanses. I’m not saying that that is what John is teaching, I’m saying the onus of proof is on you to show that that is not what he is teaching, since you assert He cleanses us at the point of confession.”]]
7. The argument of Hebrews deals with initial, complete forgiveness because he argues against Christians with a Jewish background who had a tendency to revert to Judaism, its sacrifices, temple worship, etc. His argument is that once we accept the prototype, there is no forgiveness in the type. The blood of bulls and goats (the type) cannot and could not take away sins; they only pointed to the One who would.
8. Other passages indicate forgiveness for Christians, Ja 5:15.
9. The Greek word for “walk” in 1:7 means to walk around as a course of life indicating that this refers to our daily walk with the Lord. That entire passage deals with rationalization of sin and the tendency not to confess/acknowledge sins.
C. Your 8-14-08 Comments.
Robert, I accept your comments as without malice and with objective argument. I respect your position for I have considered it as a possibility many times.
1. Re your First point. As I mentioned in my first response, the argument of the entire epistle of first John is “fellowship.” Since it is the liet motif of the epistle, we must take all passages in 1 Jn as referring to this argument. This is the semantical argument. As well, “fellowship” is in the immediate context (1:3, 6). As John expressly asserts, he writes the epistle so that his readers will have fellowship with the apostles and with the Lord. Verse 6 begins the series of hypothetical “if” clauses with “if we say that we have fellowship with him (the Lord). Thus, the immediate argument has to do with fellowship with the Lord. Note the thee previous “if” clauses leading to verse 9. It is wrong to use 1 Jn 1:9 without the immediate context for that is a form of pretexting, therefore, the word “fellowship” does not need to occur in the verse itself. Since 1:9 is dealing with 1:6, there is no need for the words “out of fellowship” to be explicitly stated for the context itself implies it. [Unproven. You have moved from the premises that the argument of 1 Jn. is fellowship, and certain nearby verses refer to fellowship, to the inference that 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, and on to the conclusion that the phrase “out of fellowship” is implied in 1 Jn 1:9. It is one thing to consider the issue, and even the importance, of fellowship when attempting to understand what 1 Jn. 1:9 is saying. It is another to employ the chain of reasoning you have employed essentially to rewrite 1 Jn. 1:9 to insert words that are not there. Phrased differently, your suggestion 1 Jn. 1:9 is discussing fellowship, “experiential fellowship,” and/or being “out of fellowship” is simply an interpretation. References to “liet [sic] motif” and “semantical argument” have their place, but the careful reader evaluates reasoning.]
You do not attempt to answer my contextual argument here but merely assert your viewpoint. There is a tight argument throughout this chapter and the beginning of the next which includes such words as “walk,” “abide” (ch 2ff), etc. [[I have answered your alleged contextual argument. It is an argument that lacks the convincing force of careful reasoning from the context to the extent you conclude the phrase “out of fellowship” is implied in 1 Jn. 1:9. Indeed, as discussed earlier, your conclusion is inconsistent with your own commentary on verse 3 that said, after discussing fellowship with believers and God, ‘Fellowship’ here is fellow participants of eternal life.” Your conclusion, read with your commentary on verse 3, suggests you believe Christians can move in and out of eternal life. (Italics added.) Moreover, part of your overall “contextual argument” is “Confession is the basis for fellowship with God” (italics added) an argument conflicting with your other argument that “Jesus Christ and His work is [sic] the basis for fellowship with an absolute God.” (Italics added.)]]
In addition to that, the conditional “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice all assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives. [Wrong. As for the “if clause,” as you said previously, “The ‘if’ here is hypothetical. Maybe we will confess and maybe we will not confess.” As for the third class condition, as you said previously, “The popular way to express the third class condition is ‘maybe he will or maybe he won’t.’” As for the subjunctive mood, as you said previously, “The subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential, not an actuality (indicative mood).” As for the active voice, as you say later, “The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing.” (Italics added.) Therefore, based upon what you yourself have written, the “if” clause, the third class condition, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice convey no more than a hypothetical condition, the potentiality of confessing our sins, the potentiality of forgiveness and sins cleansed, and a subject acting by confessing. But these components of Greek grammar do not go further as you claim and “assert the idea that fellowship with God rests on acknowledging of sin in our lives.” That is a jump from components of Greek grammar to your interpretation of 1 Jn. 1:9 that does not follow from them or anything else in the verse.]
It appears you have missed the argument based on grammar and context. [[No, it appears you have missed the argument based on (1) grammar, (2) context, (3) what you yourself said as quoted in the paragraph immediately above, (4) the conflict between your writing in this thread that Christians can move “out of fellowship” versus your writing in your commentary that fellowship is fellow participants in eternal life, and (5) the conflict between your writing and your commentary concerning whether “confession” or “Jesus and His work” is “the” basis for fellowship.]]
Re the words “forgive, cleanse, unrighteousness.” In the Greek, the word “confess” is part of the third class condition of potentiality, i.e., forgiveness rests on “confession. The active voice shows that the believer must do the confessing. The present tense does not deal with time as does the English, the Greek present tense indicates kind of action (aktionsart), not time of action [Right, if you are referring to the Greek present tense word translated “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9, since that Greek word is in the subjunctive mood. Wrong, if you are referring to the Greek present tense generally, since the Greek present tense indicates both kind and time of action in the indicative mood] therefore, the believer must confess sins as they come up [Here you return to your premise that “confess our sins” means identify the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledge that violation with its nature, a premise you have not proven]
The fact is the grammar here is present active subjunctive, not indicative mood.
Note the previous “sins” in the plural argument and points previously made.
Also, “cleanse” is in the subjunctive mood indicating that “forgive” is in syntactical parallelism with “confess”
on an ongoing basis. If your argument is true, then an unbeliever would have to confess sins over again to obtain forgiveness. Forgiveness in the absolute sense does not rest on confession but on faith in the finished work of Christ, although “confess” is a faith word as well. I argue for the principle of confession as found in 1:9 is based on our positional forgiveness, i.e., we have the right to be experientially forgiven because the “blood of Jesus His Son keeps on cleansing us.” The believer constantly has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleansing of the blood of Christ. Both “forgive” and “cleanse” are in the subjunctive mood indicating that forgiveness and cleansing are only potential based on the potential of confessing (subjunctive mood). Both forgiveness of sins and unrighteousness are used both in the absolute and relative sense in Scripture [Unproven, as to forgiveness, whether or not it is true as to righteousness.].
This verse explicitly makes the point. [[Wrong. If it were explicitly made it would be expressly made and there would be no room for inference. All one would have to do is ask, ““Do the claimed words appear on the piece of paper?” The words “Both forgiveness of sins and unrighteousness are used both in the absolute and relative sense in Scripture” do not appear in 1 Jn. 1:9. That is your interpretation and the issue then becomes whether your interpretation is correct. For the reasons previously discussed, I would respectfully submit you have not satisfied the onus of proof that your assertion is correct.]]
Your argument that the words “broken fellowship” does not occur in 1 Jn is not valid because John uses other nomenclature and ideas for that.
2. Point 2 answered in point 1. For the unbeliever to confess his sin over and over is a violation of the finished work of Christ by faith.
3. Re point 3: The believer in eternity is free from the sin capacity and acts of sin so there is no need for forgiveness in the eternal state.
4. Re Point 4: If confession is a work so is believing or faith a work (which I do not believe). [Wrong. If work involves intentional outward conduct, confession is a work even though believing or faith is not. Confession involves intentional outward conduct, i.e., moving the mouth. Faith is on the inside; it is not outward conduct. Faith can motivate and accompany outward conduct but faith is not outward conduct. At 2 Tim. 1:4-5, Paul told Timothy that Paul was “filled with joy when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother, Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also.” (KJV, italics added.) James distinguished faith and works (Jas. 2:14, 18, 22.) You have not proven that “if confession is a work so is believing or faith a work.”]
Confession is an act of the heart, not of the mouth. [[Wrong. What you say would come as a surprise to Paul who, at Rom. 10:10, said (using the same root Greek word translated “confess” at 1 Jn. 1:9), “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Here confession is intentional outward conduct, moving of the mouth, accompanied by belief with the heart. That is also another fundamental problem with your interpretation. It requires faith plus work, where the work is the intentional outward conduct of confessing (not a work to be saved or justified, but a work nonetheless) in order to receive “experiential forgiveness.” This is something other than faith alone.]] This is a metaphorical usage. [[Conclusory and wrong.]]
Faith is a non-meritorious course of action [Wrong, if by “course of action” you mean “course of outward conduct”]
No, I mean belief rather than outward conduct.
because the results depend not on the person exercising faith but on the work of another. If this is so, confession is a non-meritorious course of action because it rests, believes, trusts, or exercises faith in the on-going cleansing of the blood of Christ (1:7). Jesus not only forgives absolutely but he forgives relatively. We enter into eternal fellowship with the Lord by faith and we enter into temporal fellowship with the Lord by faith (confess). I agree with you that Galatians does indeed argue against Christians who revert into legalism/works as a mode of operation and acceptance before God. I agree that at the point of salvation [I have already addressed this], the believer receives justification, imputation, forgiveness, reconciliation, propitiation, etc. No one can bring a charge against God’s elect in that sense. Throughout Scripture, believers must deal with their sin as believers. For a believer in adultery not to deal with adultery is unconscionable. The person who commits adultery has the right of forgiveness because of the ongoing cleaning by the blood of Christ. That is why John in 1 Jn writes to Christians (“to you,” 1:2,3,5; not the “we” and “our” clauses). John obviously writes to believers, not unbelievers. The argument that I am “parsing” the text is a pejorative argument that does not deal with the exegesis that I gave you. I could argue that you parse the text by not dealing with the context and argument of the book.
5. Re Point 5: My point is that a believer cannot remember all sin. Confession of known sin by trusting the finished work of Christ cleanses us from “all unrighteousness.” [Unproven. The word “known” nowhere appears in 1 Jn. 1:9. Moreover, your unproven premise is that John is calling for identifying the particular nature of a specific violation and acknowledging that violation with its nature. Incidentally, what if we knew about a particular sin but forgot to confess it? What if we knew about a sin but through accident became mentally incapacitated to the point we could not confess it? What if we don’t know we’ve sinned by doing a particular act, but we strongly suspect we have sinned? What if we merely suspect we have sinned? Do we have to confess these individual sins? Do we remain “experientially” unforgiven in these circumstances if we do not confess? More importantly, on what Biblically principled basis do you answer these questions based on 1 Jn. 1:9 and your interpretation that that verse refers to confession of known sins?]
Again, in a devotional I am not trying to prove every statement otherwise it would be tedious for a devotional. Of course the word “known” does not occur in the passage as many ideas in a given verse does not include the meaning it contains.
God experientially forgives on the basis of the act of faith called “confession.” He forgives us entirely on the basis of that forgiveness whether we remember to explicitly confess every sin that broke fellowship. [[This is an eye-opener given what you previously have argued. If what you said here were true, it would mean we do not have to confess known sins to be forgiven of them since, based on what you just said, we could know them, forget them (i.e., not “remember” them), and still be “experientially” forgiven later by confession of other sins.]]
It is faith in the glory of Christ’s death for our sin that cleanses, not the confession. I don’t think we “manage sin” but keep short accounts with God. It is a burden that you should not carry because it is a faith exercise of fellowship with God on an ongoing basis.
6. Re Point 6: There is a difference between God remembering our sin no more in the absolute sense and in the experiential sense.
7. Re Point 7: I hope you do not agree with Luther who said that James was a very “strawy epistle” because he thought it taught justification by works. [Wrong, to the extent you are suggesting James did not teach justification by works. This is a side issue, but since you raise it, I would note that James clearly implies he was teaching justification by works when he says at Jas. 2:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (KJV, italics added.) The issue is not whether James taught a Christian was “justified by works”—James clearly did. The issue is whether James meant the same thing by that phrase that Paul did. For Paul clearly implied Abraham was not “justified by works” when Paul wrote at Rom. 4:2-3, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (KJV, italics added.)] James argument is a difference in cause and effect. He argues that genuine faith produces works. [The Paul/James issue is a side issue; suffice it for now to say James never says “faith produces works,” although James, referring to Abraham, does say “faith was working with his works” (NASB)]. See my studies on this point in the James study.
James nowhere teaches justification by works from God’s viewpoint. [[First, James clearly taught justification by works because he clearly said at Jas. 2:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (KJV, italics added.) This is a side issue, but the issue is whether what he meant by the phrase “justified by works” is what Paul meant when Paul used that phrase. Second, when James taught that Abraham was “justified by works,” it was definitely God’s viewpoint. 2 Tim. 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, . . .” James is part of the Scripture, therefore, what he wrote was God’s viewpoint or it was not inspired. I agree Christians are not justified by works as James has taught, but for reasons beyond the scope of our discussion.] James’ argument is that people justify (vindicate) Christians by their works. [[Wrong. This is a common understanding of what James is saying but it is not supported by the text or the historical event. Historically, the Scripture records “people” were with Abraham and Isaac en route to the sacrificial site (Gen. 22:5), but there is no Scripture indicating there were any “people” with Abraham and Isaac to “justify” or “vindicate” Abraham at the time Abraham took the knife to kill Isaac (Gen. 22:6-10). As a matter of the text, the words “justified” (Jas. 2:21, 24) and “righteousness” (Jas. 2:23) are different in appearance in English but the underlying Greek words share the same “dikaio-” root, pointing to a connected thought, and it is God, not “people,” Who is counting James righteous at Jas. 2:23. I believe Paul and James can be reconciled but not by the common “people justify” interpretation of James and, in any event, this is beyond the scope.]] See my study on James on this point.
8. Re Point 8: All of the “we” statements obviously refers to believers as seen from the beginning of the chapter. [Wrong. At 1 John 1:1, John refers to “we,” and although it might appear he is referring to believers there, he later says at 1 Jn. 1:2 that, “we . . . shew unto you” (KJV, italics added), thereby distinguishing “we” from “you” and suggesting “we” at verses 1 and 2 is a reference to himself, not to believers.]
I agree that “we” in 1:2 refers to the apostles but they include themselves in the argument. [[Unproven. 1 Jn. 1: 4 says “we write” but 1 Jn. 2:1 says “I am writing.” This suggests it is simply John, not with other apostles, writing at 1 Jn. 1:4, and if that is true it suggests the “we” verses at 1 Jn. 1:1 and 1:2 are referring only to himself. I am not saying that this is the case, I’m saying you have not proven that it is not the case.]] However, they are Christians too! [[The problem is the ambiguity of your use of the word “believers.” For example, you earlier wrote about the “believers to whom” John is writing. You also wrote “John obviously writes to believers, . . .” These phrases treat believers as persons to whom John was writing. When you then say “All of the ‘we’ statements obviously refers [sic] to believers as seen from the beginning of the chapter” (italics added), it suggests you are saying 1 Jn. 1:1, referring to “we,” is referring to believers to whom John is writing.]]
The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the assertion. I assert that the extant, explicit statements in chapter one deal with believers, not unbelievers, as seen in previous arguments. Almost all commentaries agree that 1 Jn was written to Christians, John explicitly states in the introduction that it is for Christians, and the content of the book indicates that John warns against incipient Gnosticism. Christians cannot fellowship with God if they imbibe incipient Gnosticism. That is at the heart of your misunderstanding of this passage. You have a tendency to jump to other passages other than 1 Jn, make inferential statements not extant in 1 Jn, and not deal with the grammar of the passage or the argument of the book. There is nothing in chapter one that indicates that John is talking to a non-believer.
I deeply appreciate your close arguments.
D. As for your September 17, 2012 comments, I quote only the below:
Anyone with the least knowledge of Greek knows that the same Greek word in different contexts have different meanings such as the word “fellowship” in 1 Jn and 1 Co. [Unproven. Although the same Greek word can have different meanings in different contexts, you have not proven that that is the case with “fellowship” in 1 Jn. and 1 Cor.]
I think the argument is clear enough if you follow closely the argument from the entire context of my argument.
Again, I do not argue that a believer is to seek forgiveness because he eternally has forgiveness in Christ. Again, the believer is to acknowledge or confess that he has positional forgiveness of the sin he committed. It is indeed true that we did not work to obtain salvation and we do not work to keep it.
[[Grant, I believe we have adequately explored the issues. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your comments.]]
Kenneth, It appears to me that you are very conclusory about being conclusory throughout your arguments. You in an apodictic or dogmatic manner assert your conclusion with “wrong.” Asserting your interpretation as conclusive is no way to argue a point. In a number of places you assert “unproven” when my point referred to a previous argument. This is the problem of dealing with so many fronts at once.
Many of your points are well taken but we should not pretext and decontextualize what each other is saying. Up to this point I have tried (because this is a blog) to answer in a pithy and brief manner. However, with your approach, I will have to get more specific by going into passages with more specificity in a more exegetical manner. I will do this in a future blog.
It is the nature of a devotional to be conclusory and not go into the 15 reasons why this is so or the 16 arguments what it is not. Obviously, a devotional is conclusory. Just because the word “commentary” is in the title of the web site does not mean that it is not a devotional! It is a devotional based on commentary (interpretation). It is almost a “straw-man” approach to critique a devotional the way you do. You seem to want to argue that Verse-by-Verse Commentary is formal exegesis. However, it is patently clear with the APPLICATION at the end of each study that it is a devotional.
You also have a tendency to go astray from First John by going into such arguments that the Christian is free from condemnation (Ro 8:1), of which I totally agree. Let’s stick with the passage at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer your extended arguments next time but please, let us keep the context of what each is claiming clear.
In many places you appear to argue from silence—“This verse does not include these words.” In other places you say that my argument is an interpretation. Is that not what you do as well—give your interpretation? Maybe you mean adequate interpretation or sufficient exegesis and that exposition was not made. If that is the case, you accuse me of doing the very thing that you do.
Throughout you do not distinguish what I say in the devotional from what I am saying in the blog. The devotional does not try to prove every statement by extensive exegesis or exposition. It is written in a pithy, easy to read, deduced manner because it is read by people who do not know English very well all over the world (120 countries). In my response in the blog, however, I began with quick answers because that is the nature of a blog. In no way have I tried to argue as a professor in seminary or by writing a doctoral dissertation. Your arguments are very good and deal with serious issues and deserve careful answers but normally blogs do not deal with protracted issues in that extended manner.
At one place you say “Questions are not exegesis,” I agree, but the question had to do with your inferential logic. At another point you complain about my referring you to my commentary in general on Romans on a point. However, I did not refer to Romans in general but I asked you to go to the passage to which you referred (3:23ff), i.e., the present tense of justification in that section of Romans. Also, the same thing about your reference to Romans 5:26—look at my explanation of that passage. There is no basis for being “made righteous” in Romans or anywhere else for that matter. You seem to try to find the most negative slant on my statements. The issue of referencing Romans is a case in point.
Grant-
Thank you very much for your reply. I wrote you to share with you another possible perspective on 1 Jn. 1:9. But I also wrote for another reason.
The way I wrote to you is not an effective way to communicate. It was not gentle or meek. It was brusque.
The people reading what I wrote are either Christians or non-Christians. If they are Christians, they are those whom God loves, as His beloved “little children,” as John put it. If they are non-Christians, they are those whom God loves, as those for whom He gave His only-begotten Son, as John put it. So if I write “wrong,” “conclusory,” “unproven,” is that the most effective way to communicate to you or your readers?
Your website is impressive, as is your courageous willingness to share the gospel freely and engage in a public dialogue with your readers. Moreover, you bring to the table extraordinary expertise and an admirable body of work in books and articles.
However, when I initially read this 1 Jn. 1:9 thread, I was concerned about the tenor of some of your replies. You said to Robert, “You have a tendency to jump to other passages other than 1 Jn, make inferential statements not extant in 1 Jn, and not deal with the grammar of the passage or the argument of the book.” You said to Norman, “I wonder whether you have even read the previous blogs. If you did, then you misrepresent what I have said.” You also said to Norman, “Anyone with the least knowledge of Greek knows that the same Greek word in different contexts have different meanings such as the word ‘fellowship’ in 1 Jn and 1 Co.”
I should be unyielding when it comes to the content of the gospel, but yielding, deferential, meek, and gentle when it comes to the way I present it. Paul yielded “no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:5) when it came to the truth of the gospel. But he was yielding, when it came to the way he presented it. As a matter of the way, he presented the gospel “privately to them which were of reputation” (Gal. 2:2), concerned that their sensibilities about their earthly reputations might cause them to reject the gospel of God if he presented it to them publicly. When Festus insulted Paul, telling Paul that Paul was crazy (Acts 26:24), Paul’s response was seasoned with grace: “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.”
The way I communicated with you was ineffective. It was not endearing or ingratiating. It was not gentle. It does not encourage a dialogue. On the other hand, when you say things like, as you did with Robert, “Thank you for your very well thought out presentation. It is encouraging to hear from people who are serious about the Bible,” and again, “I deeply appreciate your close arguments,” and with Norman, “May God bless you and your ministry”–who cannot want to come back for more? 🙂
I could be content with a tenth of the rewards you will one day receive for your faithful ministry.
Your brother in Christ,
Ken
Ken, thank you very much for your reply; I deeply appreciate it. You demonstrate outstanding grace by your response. My concern was not so much your objective and very outstanding analytical approach. You have unusual skill to think logically and objectively. My issue was I was how to reply to your very good exegetical ability with my overly simplistic blogs (both in the articles and in the blogs themselves) written a few years ago. There are over 10,000 subscribers to the daily devotionals who are spread all over the world. Many are pastors who do not have resources in their countries so I try to write in a way that they can handle with English as a second language. Thus, admittedly, there is exegetical danger in oversimplification in the blogs. As I re-read in response to your critique 1 Jn 1:9 and 1:8 I see that I could have written those verses better.
As I said above, the issue as to whether 1 Jn 1:9 was written to Christians is something that I have re-examined a number of times. I will do it again having had this exchange with you. I will also, if you would allow me time, to give a more academic rational for my exposition. It may serve as a more developed article that can be placed under "articles" in the tab above (which ever conclusion I come to).
Again, thank you for resetting the tone between us. I truly appreciate your serious commitment to Bible exposition. I spoke to 900 pastors in Canada a few years ago and was shocked at the lack of confidence many of those pastors had in Bible exposition. Some of them had left using the Bible at all in their ministries. That is one of the reasons why I wrote the book Certainty, a Place to Stand. The purpose of the book was primarily a critique of post-evangelical, post-conservative evangelicalism who had committed to postmodernism as truth, not method. As a side-benefit, I had to argue the need for propositional truth and the need to give truth to congregations expositionally.
May God richly bless you.
Grant—
Thank you very much for your quick and generous reply.
As an aside, I completely agree with you that John wrote 1 Jn. to Christians. As I know you know, sometimes the apostles, while writing letters intended for Christians, nonetheless said things in those letters that described only unbelievers (e.g., Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Pet. 4:4-5; 1 Jn. 2:19). Perhaps you might consider addressing in the future article that you add to your impressive collection whether John, while writing 1 Jn. to Christians, may have used the word “we” and the conditional sentences at 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, and 10 as rhetorical devices (“we” as opposed to “you,” perhaps to soften the impact; “we” only hypothetically as to John) to describe unbelievers’ deceptions that John is exposing to the Christians to whom he is writing.
In the meantime, please permit me to salivate in anticipation of reading your books and articles that you have selflessly made available on your website. (Heb. 6:10.)
Your brother in Christ,
Ken
Ken, this is taking much longer than I anticipated. Please be patient with me.
To anyone: find a running hypothesis of 1 John 1 at this location: http://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/running-exploration-of-1-john-1/
I will be changing this document on a regular basis and my change my mind completely from the original document. Evidently it is not possible to place a blog on that page. If you have any comments, put them here @ 1 John 1:9.
Grant-
Thank you for the above and the wealth of information you included! However, I am a little unclear as to some aspects of what you have provided and I had a few comments and questions.
1. You refer to articles of Boyer (“Third (And Fourth) Class Conditions”) and Washburn (“Third Class Conditions In First John”) and provide very helpful links to both. You then say “After this study of Greek 3rd, 4th, and 5th class condtions [sic] then I will try to summarize Washburn's conclusions in an exegesis of 1 John 1:1-2:2[.]” I am familiar with the two articles and I reviewed them again. The articles do not refer to “5th class conditions” as such, i.e., the articles do not use that phrase. Daniel Wallace, to whom you later refer, does discuss “fifth class conditions” (see, e.g., http://hopefaithprayer.com/books/Basics-New-Testament-Syntax-Daniel-B-Wallace.pdf, p. 205).
By referring to a study of “fifth class conditions,” are you referring to a study by Wallace of fifth class conditions, are you referring to a study or writing other than the Boyer and Washburn articles you have linked, are you using the phrase “fifth class conditions” as a kind of shorthand reference to third class conditions with a present indicative in the apodosis, or are you referring to something else?
2. As mentioned, you said, “I will try to summarize Washburn's conclusions in an exegesis of 1 John 1:1-2:2[.]” (Italics added.) You later say, “Here is a summary of David L. Washburn exegesis[.]” (Italics added.) A lengthy and informative discussion follows, with categories entitled “Forgiveness,” “Cleansing,” “‘Sin’ in Chapter One,” and “Relationship of 2:1-2 to Chapter One.” However, much of this discussion is nowhere to be found in the Washburn article you have linked, i.e., much of the lengthy and informative discussion does not appear to be a summary of anything Washburn has written.
Are you saying that this lengthy and informative discussion is a summary of Washburn’s exegesis in the article of his that you have linked?
Is there another writing by Washburn which you are summarizing?
Could you explain what you mean by “Here is a summary of David L. Washburn exegesis”?
Did you mean to indicate that the lengthy and informative discussion is your exegesis?
3. You discuss cause and effect, evidence to inference, and equivalence relationships between the protasis and apodosis. However, Washburn does not, in the article you linked, discuss any of these relationships. On the other hand, Wallace does discuss these three relationships (see, e.g., http://hopefaithprayer.com/books/Basics-New-Testament-Syntax-Daniel-B-Wallace.pdf, pp. 305-306.)
When you refer to these relationships between the protasis and apodosis, are you referring to a discussion by Wallace of these relationships, to an article other than the Boyer and Washburn articles you have linked, or to something else?
4. The last portion of your discussion appears to include 18 footnotes from the Washburn article you have linked, but your discussion does not include the text of the Washburn article itself, i.e., the article of which the footnotes are a part.
Did you intend to include the text of the Washburn article?
I had some additional thoughts but I thought I would first make sure I understood what you have written thus far.
Thank you for your impressive and encouraging devotion to His word.
Your brother in Christ,
Ken
Ken, it was not my intention to post that page as any form of finality to my thinking but I was hoping to show my progress by looking at variable information to show how I come to certain conclusions. It was my first kick at the cat to understand the over-arching issues. I was not expecting anyone to respond to what is there at this point.
First, I tried to put categories that I need to address on the page. Some of those categories are my personal tentative thoughts and other contain what others are thinking. Under the category of class conditions there are simply random, loosely connected thoughts to begin to think about all the problems of conditional clauses in 1 Jn 1.
I presumed that the article by David L. Washburn called "Exegesis and Exposition of 1 John" was documented by footnotes but evidently it was not. I did another search on the Internet but could not find it. It may have been a document that I had saved. I can send it as an attachment if you wish. However, the article is 119 pp. and I did not want to post an article of that length on my exploration page so I summarized the core of his argument; it is not my thinking at all at this point.
Please to not respond to my running hypothesis page at this time because I will add and delete information until I begin to approach my conclusion/s. Nothing on the page represents my ultimate conclusion. I am simply trying to show my process openly. When I am nearing a conclusion I will post an indication on this page.
Sure appreciate your diligence and analytical powers, Grant
Thank you Grant! I suspected this might have been a preliminary collection of your thoughts, but I wasn’t sure because earlier in this thread you mentioned, “If you have any comments, put them here @ 1 John 1:9,” while, on the other hand, your “running exploration” page invited comments when you came to your conclusions in the future. Thanks for the clarification.
At http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/exposition/1john/1john_1_9.pdf , there is a 119-page article entitled "Exegesis and Exposition of 1 John" but it is copyrighted by William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries. If this is the 119-page article you are referring to, I have it. If there is another such article with this title but written by Washburn, may I respectfully ask that you provide a link here or email it to me?
Thank you for all your labors and in advance for those to come.
Your brother in Christ,
Ken