Sanctification - what is it?

Theology
46

I appreciate you. Thanx
KP

47

So do I.
:+1:
Johann.

48

I’ll bite @KPuff and see if you agree, or add more clarity.

The New Testament uses primarily two related terms:

áŒÎłÎčÎŹÎ¶Ï‰ (hagiazƍ) - a verb meaning “to make holy,” “to consecrate,” or “to set apart.” It is a derivative of áŒ…ÎłÎčÎżÏ‚ (hagios), meaning “holy.”

áŒÎłÎčασΌός (hagiasmos) - a noun meaning “sanctification,” “consecration,” or “holiness.”
This denotes either the state of being holy or the process of becoming holy, depending on context.

The Greek roots are themselves semantically rich but do not inherently define whether sanctification is instantaneous or gradual.

That distinction emerges from tense, aspect, and context.

II. Examining Key Greek Passages (with Verb Forms)
We now examine texts where hagiazƍ and hagiasmos appear, noting the grammatical form of the verbs and their interpretive significance.

A. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Κα᜶ Ï„Î±áżŠÏ„ÎŹ τÎčΜΔς ጊτΔ· ጀλλៜ áŒ€Ï€Î”Î»ÎżÏÏƒÎ±ÏƒÎžÎ”, ጀλλៜ áŒĄÎłÎčÎŹÏƒÎžÎ·Ï„Î”, ጀλλៜ ጐΎÎčÎșαÎčώΞητΔ 
“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified
”

áŒĄÎłÎčÎŹÏƒÎžÎ·Ï„Î” is the aorist passive indicative of hagiazƍ.

The aorist tense in Greek typically signifies a completed past action, not process.

The passive voice denotes that the subject (the Corinthian believers) received sanctification from an external agent (God).

Thus, sanctification here is depicted as definitive and tied to conversion or baptism.

B. Hebrews 10:14
ΜÎč៷ Îłáœ°Ï Ï€ÏÎżÏƒÏ†ÎżÏáŸ· Ï„Î”Ï„Î”Î»Î”ÎŻÏ‰ÎșΔΜ Δጰς τ᜞ ÎŽÎčηΜΔÎșáœČς Ï„Îżáœșς áŒÎłÎčÎ±Î¶ÎżÎŒÎ­ÎœÎżÏ…Ï‚.
“By one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”

áŒÎłÎčÎ±Î¶ÎżÎŒÎ­ÎœÎżÏ…Ï‚ is the present passive participle of hagiazƍ.

The present tense in Greek implies an ongoing action.

This grammar indicates that sanctification is continuing in time and not yet complete.

You agree @KPuff?

The participial form ties sanctification to those who are already in covenant with God (believers), implying progressive sanctification in their lives.

C. 1 Thessalonians 4:3
Î€ÎżáżŠÏ„Îż ÎłÎŹÏ ጐστÎčÎœ ΞέληΌα Ï„ÎżáżŠ ΘΔοῊ, ᜁ áŒÎłÎčασΌ᜞ς áœ‘ÎŒáż¶Îœâ€Š
“This is the will of God: your sanctification.”

áŒÎłÎčασΌός here is a noun, likely in the objective genitive, meaning “the process or state of being sanctified.”

The surrounding verses instruct abstinence from sexual immorality, indicating that hagiasmos here refers to moral and ethical sanctification.

This suggests sanctification not as a one-time event but as a moral vocation to be pursued throughout the Christian life.

III. The Role of Latin and Theological Shifts
The Latin tradition inherited these concepts and adapted them into Latin Christian vocabulary. The Vulgate and later theological Latin use the following terms:

Sanctificare - verb meaning “to make holy.” This is the standard Latin equivalent of hagiazƍ.

Sanctificatio - noun meaning “the act or process of making holy.” Corresponds to hagiasmos.

In Jerome’s Vulgate, these Latin terms were used in passages corresponding to the Greek originals. For example:

1 Thessalonians 4:3: Haec est enim voluntas Dei: sanctificatio vestra


Hebrews 10:14: ...sanctificatƍs (participle form).

The Latin verbs carry a causative sense - emphasizing God as the one who makes holy. However, unlike Greek, Latin does not use verbal aspect in the same way. Latin theological tradition, therefore, inferred the notion of process largely from context and theological reflection.

IV. The Emergence of Process in Sanctification Doctrine
Although Scripture uses both aorist (indicating completeness) and present (indicating process) for sanctification, Western Christian theology, especially from Augustine onward, began to emphasize sanctification as a temporal and moral progression. Key developments include:

Augustine (4th–5th c.): Focused on sanctification as tied to grace and moral growth.

Scholastic Theology (12th–14th c.): Developed the idea of infused grace leading to sanctification.

Council of Trent (16th c.): Codified sanctification as a gradual process involving cooperation with grace.

Protestant Reformers (esp. Calvin and Luther): Differentiated justification (instantaneous) from sanctification (progressive).

V. Summary and Conclusion
The Greek New Testament uses hagiazƍ and hagiasmos to describe both:

A definitive act of consecration at conversion (e.g., 1 Cor 6:11).

An ongoing moral transformation in the believer (e.g., Heb 10:14).

Glad to have your input brother.

Signing off.

Johann.

49

Question:

If we say we have no sin..

Is that talking about in the past?

For didn’t Jesus come to destroy the works of rhe devil?
@TheologyNerd

50

But that doesn’t address the question. What do you do with 1 John 1:8?

51

No, it’s talking about right now. It’s present tense.

It doesn’t say “If we say we had no sin” but “If we say we have no sin”. The verb, in the original Greek, is a present-active tense. It’s like saying, “If we say we don’t, right now, have any sin”. If we claim we are, right in this moment, without sin, then the truth is not in us. That’s what 1 John 1:8 means.

52

Correct, not sinless perfection. @Corlove13 @TheologyNerd

1 John 1:8 is unmistakably present tense-John isn’t talking about past sin, but our current condition. It doesn’t say, “If we say we had no sin,” but “If we say we have no sin.”

The Greek verb áŒ”Ï‡ÎżÎŒÎ”Îœ (echomen)—“we have”—is in the present indicative active, which signifies ongoing reality. This means John is addressing anyone who, at this moment, claims sinlessness.

The accompanying verb Ï€Î»Î±Îœáż¶ÎŒÎ”Îœ (planƍmen)—“we deceive”—also sits in present-active tense, reinforcing the idea that denying sin isn’t just a false claim, but an ongoing act of self-deception.

The contrast with 1 John 1:10 makes this crystal clear. There, John uses áŒĄÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„ÎźÎșαΌΔΜ (hēmartēkamen)—“we have sinned,”—which is perfect tense, referring to completed action in the past.

This shift between present in verse 8 and perfect in verse 10 proves that verse 8 is about right now, not merely past mistakes.

The theological takeaway? Anyone who currently denies their sinfulness is actively rejecting the truth, and John is calling them out on it.

This isn’t about a distant memory of failure-it’s about present spiritual honesty. If someone walks around claiming to be completely sin-free, John isn’t having it.

The truth isn’t in them, not because they used to sin, but because their self-perception is fundamentally flawed. No theological wiggle room-John’s grammar seals the deal.

  1. “If we say that we have no sin”. John includes himself in this hypothetical affirmation. “If we (subjunctive) should say, affirm, or claim” “that (a) sin not we (Greek echomen) have, hold, contain or embrace”; this affirms at least an abiding sin nature or disposition exists in every Child of God. Rom_7:17-18; Rom_7:20-21; Rom_7:23.

  2. “We deceive ourselves” (Greek heautous) “Ourselves, you and I”, (Greek planomen), “we deceive or delude” - we stick our head in the sand, like an ostrich; we pull the wool over our own eyes; we look the other way, like the man with a beam in his eye who tries to detect a speck in the eye of another, Mat_7:3-5.

  3. “And the truth is not in us”. Anyone claiming not to have, hold, contain or embrace sin in him, his old nature, old man, is a self -deceiver. And concerning his claim to have no sin John asserts the claimant doesn’t tell the truth. His relatives know he doesn’t tell the truth; his acquaintances know he doesn’t tell the truth; the devil knows he doesn’t tell the truth and John wanted these “little children”, believers, to recognize that they still had the old nature of sin continually present to incite them to thoughts, words, and deeds of wrong.

J.

53

Corlove asked a wonderful question to which Johann gave an amazing answer but i wanna put my ideas as well
The phrase in 1 John 1:8 is not strictly limited to past sin but addresses the human condition in its entirety, past, ongoing and potential future sin. The Greek verb used here is echomen, is in the present tese suggesting a current state of affairs. Apostle John is addressing believers warning against the claim of being sinless in an absolute sense. This aligns with the broader context of the epistle, which emphasizes fellowship with God, confession of sins and reliance on Christ’s atonement (1 John 1:9 and 2:1-2)
For an Orthodox/Catholic perspective, this passage refutes any notion of perfectionism or the denial of human sinfulness post baptism. Both traditions affirm that while baptism cleanses us from original sin and personal sins comiited perior to it, concupiscence, the inclination to sin, remains (Romans 7:15-25 and refer to Council of Trent, Session V which I reffered for ur ans yesterday..)Thus saying “we have no sin” is not solely about denying past sins but also about rejecting the ongoing reality of human frailty and the need for God’s grace. St. John Chrysostom writes that “To say we have no sin is to call God a liar, for He Himself has declared all men to be sinners” and St.Augustine emphasizes that even righteous must pray daily, “Forgive us our trespasses”, acknowledging ongoing sinfulness. The Orthodox Tradition in its liturgical practice reinforces this through frequent confessions and the Jesus Prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”)
so is this talking about the past?
While past sins are included in the scope of human sinfulness, the context of 1 John 1:8 is broader. The present tense of the verb and the epistle’s audience, Christians already in the Church, suggest that John is addressing the ongoing reality of sin in the believer’s life, not merely sins committed before conversion or baptism.
However, the past is not irrelevant. In Orthodox theology, the Fall introduced original sin, which affects all sins. St.Athanasius explains that humanity’s corruption through Adam’s sin persists untill redeemed by Christ. In Catholic theology, the Council of Trent affirm that original sin leaves a mark, even after baptism, requiring vigilance against personal sin (again referred to Session V, yesterday for this question). Thus denying sin includes rejecting bout the historical reality of the Fall (past) and the present inclination to sin. The claim of having “no sin” leads to gnostic or Pelagian heresy. St Irenaeus and St. Augustine argue against those who deny human sinfulness, asserting that such a view undermines the necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. If one claims to be sinless they negate the need for ongoing repentance and divine mercy, which is a present and future reality for Christians.
To all my brothers, if you wish to connect with the ancient heart of the Church, let this Byzantine chant carry you into the timeless beauty of Christian worship—a melody that has inspired saints and faithful for centuries:

54

Samuel_23, that was a dense theological tapestry you just unrolled—rich with citations, tradition, and incense-scented reverence. But let’s grab a lantern and do a little exegetical spelunking, because some of that orthodoxy needs a sharper edge from the sword of the Spirit.

You’re right that 1 John 1:8 uses the present tense—“we have (áŒ”Ï‡ÎżÎŒÎ”Îœ) sin”—but the assumption that this means Christians must be walking around with sin like it’s a spiritual birthmark we can’t lose? That’s not exegesis. That’s resignation dressed in robes. John isn’t laying down a theology of perpetual defeat—he’s warning against the delusion of sin denial.

This passage isn’t saying, “you will always sin,” it’s saying, “don’t pretend you haven’t.” Read it in line with verse 9: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive
 and cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.” Not some. Not past only. All.

So let’s ask a spicy question: If a believer is cleansed from all unrighteousness, what’s left to still be walking in?

Paul didn’t write Romans 6 just to decorate a catechism. He drops the hammer: “How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer?” (Rom. 6:2). Not “try your best.” Not “sin less.” DEAD. As in: if sin’s still kicking, somebody’s lying—either you or Scripture.

Now don’t get it twisted. This isn’t sinless nature, it’s sinless walk. There’s a difference between having a sinful nature and yielding to it. Sanctification isn’t about denying that we can sin—it’s about declaring in Christ, we don’t have to (1 Cor. 10:13). Grace doesn’t just forgive—it frees.

So no, John isn’t cozying up with concupiscence. He’s calling it out. And while the Orthodox and Catholic traditions may teach that post-baptismal sin is inevitable (Council of Trent, Session V—yes, I’ve read it too), Scripture teaches that it’s not unconquerable. We’re not slaves anymore. Romans 6:6 says the old man was crucified. Maybe the Church should stop trying to resuscitate him.

John’s epistle isn’t there to coddle your frailty—it’s to call you into fellowship, a word soaked in light and holiness (1 John 1:7). That’s not a “sinning saint” slog—it’s a call to walk like Jesus walked (1 John 2:6). If that sounds impossible, maybe it’s because we’ve spent more time quoting Chrysostom than Christ.

Here’s the real heresy John was targeting: Gnostics who denied sin outright. So when he says, “If we say we have no sin,” he’s rebuking people rewriting reality—not believers striving for obedience. Don’t read that verse as a hall pass for perpetual failure. Read it as a warning against proud self-deception.

Yes, we have a flesh. But Romans 8:13 says, “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Not manage. Not cope. Put. It. To. Death.

Confession isn’t a cycle of spiritual co-dependence—it’s a door into victory. And sanctification? That’s not some slow drip of moral progress. It’s the blood-bought power to walk clean.

So if someone still thinks 1 John 1:8 is their sin security blanket, I’d gently suggest they back up and read 1 John 3:6: “No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning.” Either John’s contradicting himself
 or we’re reading him with tradition-colored glasses.

I know which one I’m betting on.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

55

This by far is the Best post you ever written.

I don’t even need to respond
I’ll make this ( your writing) my response answer :smiley: @TheologyNerd @Johann

My father who passed away around 83 was a Baptist, non denomination teacher, Paster..+ more and I asked Him this:

If you believe you will never stop sinning then what’s going to make you strive for that.

(Pt. #1) It sounds self defeating in my opinion.
Because people kept saying, as long as you are in this body you will sin.

But if even the Holy Spirit teaches us to remain in Him
then it seems possible to remain in Him.

The tension may be the cross we must choose to bear daily, right?

Until you don’t have to think twice.

I’ve been inbetween the fence on this subject.
But just think if we set our mind on Being sinless instead of “as long as I am in this body I will sin”

Yes we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
but if we are pressing toward the Mark and think we won’t get there with God’s help that seems self defeating.

The scripture, If I recall correctly says- If we sin we have an advocate with the father
Not -when we sin.

When I read Romans 7..a lot sounded like Paul was talking about when He was under the Law. But when you get to Romans 8, He says there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

So what happens when you stop walking? Mmm

Yes we are to repent and get back up..but between that monent, what is your state?

Like I said earlier, and this is just my thought, was:

God is our beginning and end and it’s what we do in the middle of this story that determines our quality of life now.

Years ago when I read this scripture, (and don’t quote me, I’m on my phone and going by memory)

This is the will of God that those who look to the son and believes will have life and be raised on the last day. So my thoughts were that we should have life now

Yet this could be talking about the Spirit that man receives and not the life that comes by the spirit.

But believes is continual action, yet there are other ways to also look at this
But I need to get my day started
peace and blessings.

It takes some research 
peace and blessings everyone.

But I’ll leave us with this thought: God is in the light

1 Like
56

Still on the fence

For I See God as the beginning and end

And it seems to me that it’s what we do with God in the middle that gives us eternal life.

So Salvation is not only life with God in His book of life, His Story, but in His next books to come. :smiley:

So meaning of Salvation- life with God
God then is our Justification, our Sanctification, and our glorification.

And upon thinking upon that, the Baptism in the Red Sea comes to me.

God is all in all ( that came to me too) hopefully someone can tell me why- <<<<<< is there an interpreter here..lol

What would the Baptism in the red sea have to do with our Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification?

Maybe AL knows?

1 Like
57

What is sanctification? Good question.

Many of the Calvinist (or hyper calvinist) viewpoint state that it is merely salvation. But the scriptures paint a very different picture.

Basically, it is the product of discipleship.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Paul wrote:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Sanctification is the process of growing and being trained in righteousness. As the writer of Hebrews noted:

Hebrews 12:11
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

That is what sanctification is in a nutshell: being trained and yielding the fruit of righteousness.

58

In my opinion..regarding baptism in the Red sea

The Baptism into Moses, means something.
Like listening to Moses as Leader of whom you will follow..but when were they baptized.

And this leads me to those words I heard as a Baptist: An outword expression of an inward conviction.

So were they baptised when they believed Moses, or
When they obeyed Moses. Or was the fact that they believed Moses a type of inputted righteousness?

standing with God is seen outwardly when you obey

And if your conscience convicts you God is greater than our conscience and knows all things (i take it-all things in the heart)

So then there just may not be the process of Sanctification without righteousness, and no righteous without Sanctification


So basically what coming to me is that all three the body, soul, and spirit

dieties are represented to fix each part

So the whole process is the Baptism of the..body, soul, and Spirit.

So our baptism is daily as we submitt ourselves under the mighty rule, hand of God

Funny they never got touched by the water, lol but were surrounded by God behind them and in front of them which in some way Represents God as our Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. Sorry if I wrote this fast..I put it down as it came to me..seeing I have lack of short term memory.

Going now..lol

1 Like
59

@SincereSeeker ur post is quite amazing..makes me immersed in it..lets begin with scriptures:
Psalms 51:5
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
This verse shows humanity’s sinful condition from birth.
Romans 3:23
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
This verse shows the universal sinfulness, past and present
James 3:2
“For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body”
This verse shows the ongoing human frailty.
but reading it, i have two thoughts
The question references 1 John 3:8
“The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” (NIV)
This is central to understanding the scope of Christ’s mission and its relation to sin. The “works of the devil” include sin, death and the power of Satan over humanity. Christ’s Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection accomplish this destruction but the application of this victory unfolds in time
St.Gregory Palamas teaches that Christ’s victory over the devil is definitive but requires human cooperation through theosis. Sin’s power is broken, but believers must actively participate in Christ’s grace through sacraments and ascetic struggle. The Paschal Troparion
“Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death”
proclaims Christ’s triumpt yet the Church’s practices show that sin remains a challenge in this life.
The CCC states that while Christ has conquered sin and death, the effects of original sin persist, and the devil retains limited influence until the Second Coming. THe Council of Trent emphasizes that Christ’s grace enables believers to resist sin, but perfection is not fully realized in this life. The sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation, apply Christ’s victory to the believer’s ongoing struggle.
St. Thomas Aquinas had an amazing argument. Philosophically, Christ’s destruction of the devil can be understood as restoring the purpose of human nature. St Thomas Aquinas argues that sin disordered human anture, directing it away from God. Christ’s redemptive work reorients humanity toward its divine end, but this restoration is progressive, culminating in glorification. Thus, while Christ has objectively destroyed devil’s dominion, the subjective experience of sin persists, necessitating humility and reliance on grace.
TO say “we have no sin”, is not limited to denying past sins, but encompasses a denial of ongoing reality of human sinfulness, both Original sin’s effects and personal sins commited after baptism. 1 John 1:8 addresses Christians warning against self-deception and pride, which obstruct fellowship with God. The Catholic and Orthodox tradition (and so I too) affirm that while Christ has definitively destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), the full realization of this victory awaits the eschaton. In this life, believers remain prone to sin due to concupiscence, requiring continual repentance, confession and participation in the sacraments
To deny sin is to reject the contingency of human nature, which depends on God’s grace for its fulfilment. St.Anselm’s ontological perspective shows that Christ’s atonement restores humanity’s relationship with God, but this restoration is a process, not an instantaneous eradication of sin’s effects.
I would like to end with what St.Issac the Syrian writes, and it has always been in my mind:
“The one who sees his own sin is greater than one who raises the dead.”

60

Samuel_23, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and reverence in your post. You’ve woven together Scripture, saints, councils, and tradition like a liturgical symphony—but let’s pause the incense and bring in the flame of Scripture with precision. Because while what you’re presenting feels humble, it’s got just enough sugar to make spiritual resignation taste like piety.

Let’s begin with your anchor verse, 1 John 3:8—“The one who does what is sinful is of the devil.” Not used to be. Is. That’s not describing someone occasionally tripping over their tongue like James 3:2. That’s identifying someone whose practice of sin proves their spiritual parentage.

You’re right to say Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. But Scripture doesn’t say He kind of started it and is still sort of working on it through our cooperation and some candles. No. He appeared to destroy them. Past tense. Definitive. Finished. Colossians 2:15 says Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame.” That’s not eschatological mop-up. That’s a public execution of demonic dominion.

Now let’s hit this “we still have sin” narrative you’re defending. Yes, Psalm 51:5 says David was conceived in iniquity—not that every believer must carry on in iniquity after being born again. Romans 3:23 says all have sinned—not must continue sinning. Let’s not confuse universal guilt before salvation with inescapable defeat after regeneration.

If sin still reigns, then what in heaven’s name happened to the “new creation” in 2 Corinthians 5:17? Did Jesus give us a spiritual makeover or a full-blown resurrection of the inner man?

You mention Aquinas, Palamas, Anselm—they all spoke with clarity about grace. But here’s where it gets sticky: If the power of sin is truly broken, why do so many theologians talk like it’s still holding the leash? The truth? Many traditions have lowered their expectations to match experience, rather than elevate experience to match Scripture.

Let’s not dress up unbelief as theological nuance.

1 John 1:8, the verse you keep circling like a doctrinal drain, is not your license for limp sanctification. It warns against self-deception, not Spirit-empowered obedience. John isn’t saying “you will always sin.” He’s saying “don’t lie and pretend you never have.” And just two verses later? “These things I write to you so that you may not sin” (1 John 2:1). Not manage sin. Not apologize for sin. Not sacramentally sidestep sin. Not sin.

Look, I’m not saying we achieve sinless perfection through effort. That’s Pelagian foolishness. But I am saying we can walk in real, daily, Spirit-empowered victory because Christ actually defeated sin, not symbolically postponed it.

Theosis? Great. Just don’t let it become theological procrastination.

The sacraments? Beautiful means of grace. But they’re not crutches for a crippled church limping toward righteousness—they’re conduits of resurrection power (Romans 6:4).

And as for that lovely quote from St. Isaac the Syrian—yes, seeing your sin is great. But you know what’s even greater? Walking in holiness by the power of the risen Christ. Hebrews 12:14 doesn’t say “admire your frailty.” It says, “Without holiness, no one will see the Lord.”

So, brother
 are we still stumbling? Or are we walking in the Spirit?

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

61

In My Utmost for His Highest, Chambers doesn’t dance around sin like it’s a pet we’ll always have to keep on a leash. He sees it for what it is: a rebellion that Christ came to completely conquer, not just occasionally forgive. One of his most thunderous insights hits like this:

“It is a blasphemous thing to say that Jesus Christ came to make us free from sin, and yet leaves us in bondage to it. He did not come to save us from the penalty of sin only, but from the power of sin.”

Let that burn through the fog. Jesus didn’t endure Gethsemane, Golgotha, and the grave so you could manage sin—He came to annihilate it in you. Chambers calls this out with precision: if the Son sets you free, and you’re still living as if shackled, the issue isn’t the chains—it’s your unbelief.

He continues:

“If we are in the light, and yet say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But if we sin, it is because we have refused to let His light shine into our hearts. Sin is a choice—not a necessity.”

Boom. Mic dropped by a man with a Bible and a backbone.

What Chambers understood—what so many in this thread are teetering on the edge of—is this: ongoing sin in the life of a believer is not the normal Christian life. It’s the abnormal one that we’ve normalized with tradition and excuses. And he has no patience for that kind of theological soft-serve.

He knew that grace doesn’t coddle the flesh—it crucifies it. That’s why Chambers could say:

“Holiness, not happiness, is the chief end of man.”

Translation? The goal of the gospel isn’t to make you feel free—it’s to make you actually free. And if you’re still sinning as a lifestyle while wearing a Christian name tag, you’re not living in gospel freedom—you’re living in self-justified captivity.

So let’s wrap it like Chambers would:

If you claim Christ but cling to sin, you’ve either misunderstood what He conquered or you’re resisting what He’s offering. And if Jesus’ blood can split the grave wide open, it can split sin’s grip on your life too.

Stop settling for a theology that leaves Jesus halfway victorious. He didn’t just die to save you from hell later—He died to save you from sin now.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

62

U are amazing @SincereSeeker, i hope to become like u one day
we are walking in the Spirit.
When i read ur post, ur core objection is that reading 1 John 1:8, as implying ongoing sinfulness risks turning Christians into “sinning saints” resigned to defeat, but this i think (im sorry) is misreading John’s intent to rebuke sin denial (Gnostic heresy) as a theology of inevitable failure. U said about 1 John 1:9’s promise of cleansing “from all unrighteousness”, Romans 6:2’s declaration of being “dead to sin” and 1 John 3:6’s insistence that “no one who abides in Him keeps on sinning” to argue for a sinless walk empowered by grace. Then u also reject the catholic/orthodox tradition. I would like to respond to it.
1.The Scope of 1 John 1:8
Yes, its right that 1 John 1:8’s present tense targets self-deception, particularly the proto-Gnostic claims of sinlessness. But u argue that John isnt mandating perpetual sinfulness, only warning against denying past or potential sin. The Catholic/Orthodox view agrees that John rebukes prideful denial but sees the verse as broader, encmpassing the ongoing human condition. The greek áŒ”Ï‡ÎżÎŒÎ”Îœ implies a present, continous state and the context, adressing believers in fellowship with God, suggest John isnt limiting this to pre-conversion sins or hypothetical denials. The epistle’s structure reinforces this, 1 John 1:9 offers forgiveness and cleansing through confession, implying sin’s ongoing possibility while 1 John 2:1 urges “Ig anyone does sin, we have an advocate” anticipating post-baptismal falls.
You claim 1 John 1:9’s “all unrighteousness” leaves no room for residual sin is compelling but the Church reads this as cleansing actual sins confessed, not eradicating the inclination to sin (concupiscence). St.Cyril of Alexandria explains “Christ’s blood cleanses us wholly, yet we remain in a body prone to temptation until resurrection”. This isnt resignation but realism aligning with Psalm 51:5 (“In sin did my mother conceive me”) and James 3:2 (“We all stumble in many ways”)
2.Concupiscence
U claim that Orthodox/Catholic emphasis on cuposcence as resuscitating the “old man”, in Romans 6:6 caught me off guard as it also undermines Romans 6:2, after a day of pondering and praying to God, and learning Scriptures, i feel i have the ans.
The Church doenst teach that sin is inevitable but that the inclination to sin persits post-baptism, and Council of Trent (Session V ) defines concupiscence as “not sin itself, but an inclination from sin and to sin” which grace empowers us to resist. St John Cassian says “THe passions reamin, but by grace, we can subdue them”. The aligns with Romans 7:22-23 where Paul describes the “law of sin” warring within, even as he delights in God’s law. Also St.John Chrysostom on Romans 6, “Being dead to sin means sin has now power to enslave us, though we must stll fight its temptation”. The “old man” is crucified in baptism (Romans 6:6) but its vestiges require ongoing mortification (Romans 8:13). St. Athanasius teaches “Christ’s victory is ours, yet we must struggle to claim it”
3. 1 John 3:6
You say that 1 John 3:6 argues that abiding in Christ precludes habitual sin, challenging any “sinning saint” paradigm. This is a good point, and the Church agrees that persistent, unrepentant sin contradicts union with Christ. However the greek áŒÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„ÎŹÎœÎ”Îč is a present active indicative form suggesting continuous willful sinning, not occasional lapses. St Bede the Venerable interprets “John speaks of those who live in sin without repentance, not those who fall and rise through grace”. Orthodox/Catholic theology distinguishes between mortal sin (which severs fellowship with God, 1 John 5:16-17) and venial sin (which weakens but doesnt destory it). A believer abiding in Christ doesnt persist in mortal but venial sins, requires ongoing repentance.
4. Santification
You reject sanctification and advocate from its “blood-brough power to walk clean”. The orthodox/catholic tradition fully affirms this. St Cyril of Jerusalem Proclaims that “Baptism arms us with Christ’s victory, making us more than conquierors”. The Sacraments infuse divine life enabling holiness. Yet sanctification is both instantaneous (in justification/baptism) and progressive (in daily cooperation with grace). Philippians 2:12-13 captures this as “Work out your salvation with fear and trembing, for it is God who works in you”. This isnt a slow drip but a dynamic syngergy.
James 3:2 acknowledges universal human frailty, even among the righteous, while 1 John 3:6 condemns habitual, unrepentant sin. St. John Chrysostom harmonizes this “To stumble is human, to abide in sin is demonic”. The Church teaches that believers empowered by grace, can avoid mortal sin but not all venial sins which James 3:2 reflects. This upholds holiness and humility.

63

@Samuel_23

The Scope of 1 John 1:8

The recipient of 1 John’s letter was a community grappling with proto-Gnostic tendencies—some claimed sinlessness as a badge of spiritual superiority, denying the reality of human sin after conversion (1 John 1:8 condemns this denial). The verb áŒ”Ï‡ÎżÎŒÎ”Îœ (echomen, “we have”) is indeed present tense, signaling a continuing reality. John’s pastoral aim is to rebuke self-deception, not to set up Christians as perpetual sinners without hope.

The Catholic and Orthodox tradition rightly emphasizes that 1 John 1:8 applies to the ongoing human condition-believers still struggle with sin in this life, yet are called to confession and repentance (1 John 1:9). The promise there isn’t a one-time wipe, but ongoing cleansing “ጐÎș Ï€ÎŹÏƒÎ·Ï‚ ጀΎÎčÎșÎŻÎ±Ï‚â€ (ek pasēs adikias, “from all unrighteousness”).

Historically, the early Church understood this as the tension between already justified by Christ’s blood, and not yet fully sanctified until resurrection (cf. St. Cyril of Alexandria). This aligns with Psalm 51:5, where David acknowledges original sin’s pervasive effect, and James 3:2, which humbly admits even the righteous stumble.

@Samuel_23
The context is community correction, not doctrine of defeatism.

  1. Concupiscence and Romans 6

The original audience of Romans was Gentile converts wrestling with their old pagan habits and the power of sin. Paul’s declaration, “We have died to sin” (ΜΔÎșρώΞηΌΔΜ Ï„áż‡ áŒÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„ÎŻáŸł, nekrothēmen tē hamartia, Rom 6:2), signals a decisive break, but the old man (ho palaios anthrƍpos) does not vanish instantly-its vestiges linger.

Concupiscence, from Latin concupiscentia, describes inclination or tendency to sin, not sin itself. The Council of Trent (Session V) clarifies this, echoing Paul’s tension in Romans 7:22-23 where the ÎœÎżáżŠÏ‚ Ï„ÎżáżŠ ÎœÏŒÎŒÎżÏ… (nous tou nomou, “law of sin”) wages war even in a believer’s heart.

Church Fathers like St. John Cassian and St. John Chrysostom emphasize the ongoing battle-victory is ours, but it requires vigilance and grace-filled resistance (cf. Romans 8:13).

The crucifixion of the old self is positional, while the mortification is experiential and progressive.

  1. 1 John 3:6 and Sin

Here John writes to believers living amid false teachers, stressing that “no one who abides in Him keeps on sinning” (ᜁ ΌέΜωΜ ጐΜ Î±áœÏ„áż· ÎżáœÏ‡ áŒÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„ÎŹÎœÎ”Îč, ho menƍn en autƍ ouch hamartanei).

The verb áŒÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„ÎŹÎœÎ”Îč (hamartanei) is present active indicative, emphasizing continuous, habitual sin.

John contrasts habitual rebellion with occasional failings.

This fits with St. Bede the Venerable’s interpretation that John targets those who persistently reject repentance, not those who stumble.

The Church distinguishes between mortal sin, which severs fellowship (1 John 5:16-17), and venial sin, which weakens it but allows for restoration through confession and repentance. This is pastoral realism, not license.

  1. Sanctification and Grace

Sanctification is a journey, not a moment. Baptism imparts justification and initiates positional holiness (cf. St. Cyril of Jerusalem). The early Christians understood sanctification as both instantaneous and progressive, a synergy between divine work and human cooperation.

Paul’s words to the Philippians (2:12–13) beautifully capture this dynamic: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” This tension is not a slow drip but a divine dance of grace.

James 3:2 recognizes human frailty, even among saints, while 1 John 3:6 insists on the seriousness of habitual sin. St. John Chrysostom summarizes this well: “To stumble is human, to abide in sin is demonic.” The Church teaches that grace empowers believers to avoid mortal sin, but venial sins call for humility and ongoing repentance.

The early Church and Scripture consistently affirm the already-but-not-yet reality of Christian holiness:
Justified by Christ’s blood, empowered by the Spirit, called to fight sin daily, yet secure in God’s ongoing forgiveness and sanctification.

It’s neither a defeatist license to sin, nor a call to legalistic perfection, but a grace-powered race to reflect the holiness of God Himself.

J.

1 Like
64

I would like to ask you, U talk abt 1 John 3:6 and Romans 6:2 to assert believers can walk sinlessly, dismissing concupiscence. Yet Philippians 3:12-13 has Paul confessing “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me” and 1 Timothy 1:15 sees him delcare “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” using the present tense (eimi). If as St.Augustine and St. John Chrysostom affirm, Paul, post conversion and Spirit-filled, acknowledges his ongoing imperfection and sinfulness while striving for holinessm how can u claim believers achieve a sinless walk in this life without contradicting Paul’s self-description as a sinner still pressing toward perfection? Does ur view imply Paul was not abiding in Christ, or are u prepared to argue that his Spirit-flesh struggle (Galatians 5:17) and imperfect state vanish entirely for the redeemed despite 1 John 3:2’s promise that we will only be fully “like Him” at His return, thus requiring continual reliance on sacramental grace to battle the passions until the second coming?? It would be good, if u could clarify this @SincereSeeker

1 Like
65

Ah, Samuel_23, I see you came armed today—not with fluff, but with footnotes. You brought your saints, your councils, your Greek tenses, and even a few theological haymakers. Well done. But let’s not just spar with citations—let’s step into the ring of the Word and let Scripture interpret Scripture, not tradition interpret Scripture and Scripture interpret nothing.

So let’s start swinging.

1. “We Have Sin” ≠ “We Must Keep Sinning”

Yes, the Greek verb áŒ”Ï‡ÎżÎŒÎ”Îœ in 1 John 1:8 is present active—that’s true. But grammatical tense does not dictate theological permanence. When Paul says in Galatians 5:17 that the Spirit wars against the flesh, he’s describing a conflict, not a stalemate. John’s use of the present tense doesn’t canonize ongoing sinfulness—it confronts ongoing denial of sin, especially by the proto-Gnostics who were denying ever having sinned.

The verse isn’t a license for a lifestyle of low expectations. It’s a landmine warning: Don’t lie about sin—deal with it.

2. Concupiscence Isn’t King

You say the “inclination to sin” remains post-baptism, and that’s fair language from Trent, but here’s the issue: you treat concupiscence like a wounded animal that can only be managed, never killed. But Romans 8:13 doesn’t say negotiate with the deeds of the body—it says put them to death.

Now, if the body is still in control, then the Spirit apparently isn’t. And that’s not just unbiblical—it’s insulting to the indwelling Christ. Jesus didn’t just save us from sin’s penalty; He broke sin’s power. Romans 6:6 says the old man was crucified, not muzzled. If you’re still dragging him around, maybe you’re the one doing CPR on the corpse.

3. 1 John 3:6 Still Stands Unshaken

You point out that the verb hamartanei is present continuous—yes, that’s correct. So let’s apply it precisely. The verse doesn’t say “the one who occasionally sins is of the devil.” It says “No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning.” Present continuous, habitual, unrepentant. That includes the respectable sins we call “venial,” by the way.

The text doesn’t carve out a loophole for lesser sins. It draws a line: Abiding = not continuing in sin. And that’s a Spirit-worked reality, not a self-earned perfectionism.

4. Paul Called Himself a Sinner—But Look Closer

Ah yes, the classic citations—Philippians 3:12 and 1 Timothy 1:15. Let’s hit those with the sword of context.

Philippians 3:12—Paul says he hasn’t been “made perfect,” but look at what he’s pressing toward: the resurrection, the final glorification. He’s not saying, “I still sin daily.” He’s saying, “I haven’t been glorified yet.” That’s not a confession of moral failure—it’s a longing for full redemption.

1 Timothy 1:15—Paul calls himself the “chief of sinners,” yes. But note the context: he’s highlighting God’s mercy in light of who he was. The Greek doesn’t require an ongoing state. The focus is on Christ’s patience with a once-persecutor. You want present tense? Sure—but don’t mistake rhetorical humility for moral theology. Even Paul said in 1 Thess. 2:10, “You are witnesses
 how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct.”

5. Sanctification Isn’t a Slow Slog

Yes, Philippians 2:12-13 says “work out your salvation”—but notice: it is God who works in you. You call it synergism; I call it Spirit-powered obedience. Sanctification is not you and Jesus pulling a cart uphill—it’s you dying, and Christ living through you (Gal. 2:20). That’s not synergy. That’s surrender.

You quote Chrysostom saying “to abide in sin is demonic.” I agree. So let’s stop building doctrines that expect Christians to abide in “venial” sins like pride, gossip, and laziness. Are they less toxic to your soul than adultery or idolatry? Scripture doesn’t say so. God doesn’t grade sin on a sacramental curve.

So let’s bring it home:

No, I’m not saying Christians will never sin again. I’m saying Christians are not slaves to sin (Romans 6:14). And if they are? Something’s off.

I’m saying the expectation of habitual, low-grade sin is not humility—it’s unbelief.

I’m saying Christ didn’t die and rise again so we could crawl through life whispering “well, we’re only human.”

And no—I don’t believe Paul was a man outside of Christ when he struggled. I believe he described the struggle so that we’d recognize the victory isn’t in ourselves, but in the Spirit. But don’t miss this: the Spirit doesn’t lose. Ever.

So are we walking by the Spirit? Or just walking in circles?

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

2 Likes