Sanctification would be the process of God leading us to repent of our sin.
sinless perfection this side of glorification is a lie cloaked in light. You say āremainā means sin dies completely?
Did I?
John uses Ī¼ĪĪ½Ļ (menÅ) in 1 John 2:6, yes, to āabide,ā to āstay,ā to ācontinueā-but abiding isnāt .
I donāt understand what you mean by: sinless existing, and Spirit led resisting. Sound like you are creating your own arguments
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God right? Or does it say all will continue to sin after they have been born with life from above? If so please share the scripture.
You argue, āJesus came to destroy the works of the devil.ā True. And He did, on the cross (1 John 3:8, Ī»Ļ ĢĢĻįæ, āto unbind, loose, breakā). But newsflash: the same .
Capacity to sin
The capacity to sin is not in question. Didnāt Jesus have the capacity? Point is why would He, itās not his nature.
Now letās get surgical with this line: āIf you sin you have an Advocate, not when you sin.ā Thatās theological gymnastics. 1 John 2:1 says, āIf anyone sins (į¼Ī¼Ī¬ĻĻįæ, aorist subjunctive), we have an Advocate.ā Not had, not used to, not until your next perfect streak breaks, but have (į¼ĻĪæĪ¼ĪµĪ½, present active). You have Christ in the courtroom, not only for past charges, but for any future stumblings. Thatās not license, thatās lifeline.
But who are you making this point to?
Who said we did not need Him for a life time- We must remain in Him. Let me throw up my preschool greek: Telio I thought means complete- that could mean: what was intended met itās goal, or intended purpose.
And what of āremaining cleansedā? You cite 1 John 1:7, āthe blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.ā But again, ĪŗĪ±ĪøĪ±ĻĪÆĪ¶ĪµĪ¹ is present active, ongoing action. The blood keeps cleansing, not a one-time cosmic shower that makes you unsinable. You donāt become fireproof, you cling to Christ in the fire.
True, and when we remain in Him if it keeps cleansing you never get dirty
Finally, āHas God given us the power to remain in Him by faith?ā Absolutely. But that power is not the removal of the struggle, itās the resistance in the struggle (Ephesians 6:13, āhaving done all, standā).
Who said anything about the removal of struggle, and what has that have to do with being made complete in Christ?
Faith doesnāt make you flawless, it makes you faithful. And faithful saints stumble.
Maybe it does so much more! 
How do you know faithful saints who have stumbled will not stumble anymore when they remain in Christ?
Peter did is correct, Paul did is correctā¦but did they continueā¦
But what makes you a conqueror isnāt a spotless track record, itās clinging to Christ, crucified and risen, when you fall.
I did not say that we werenāt conquerors through Christ.
The cross is not your stepping stone to sinless self-glory. It is your daily altar. Your only hope. Your Advocateās blood cries louder than your best deeds ever could.
Who said the cross was my stepping stone to sinless self 
glory? Not I.
There is nothing no one will be able to say they did without God and there is definitely nothing that will be done without Him. And no one is claiming Sinless Perfection means you did something on your own.
Have not blessings and cursings been set before us that we must choose life so that we may live.
Now tell me, are you trusting your spotless behavior, or the slaughtered Lamb?
Thatās out of bounds. Why would I shoot a basket ball out of bounds. That wouldnāt score any pointsā¦
The person to Trust is Jesus. The person to remain in is Jesusā¦have I said any different. Why are you creating things Iāve never said?
The term āsinnedā is SINGULAR and refers to sin in general. The Greek term means āto miss the mark.ā This means that sin is both the commission and the omission of the things revealed in Godās Word. The false teachers claimed salvation was related only to knowledge, not to life. They theologically separated justification and sanctification.
So let me get this strait. You are saying as you are in Christ you are sinning? Explain that one,sense there is no sin in Him.
āwe make Him a liarā The gospel is based on the sinfulness of all mankind (cf. Rom. 3:9-18,23; 5:1; 11:32). Either God (cf. Rom. 3:4) or those who claim sinlessness, is lying.
I dont think itās talking about those who remain in Christ. If that is true how can you remain in Him sinning? Thereās no sin in Him. Right?
āHis word is not in usā
This involves the dual aspect of the term ālogos,ā both as a message and a person (cf. 1 John 1:1,8; John 14:6).
Utley
All have sin..missed the mark and fallen short of His glory
J.
But Romans 8 tells us there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but the Spirit. If the law of the life giving spirit has set us free then why would we want to put ourselves in bondage of what we been freed from.
Are you saying we have no choice but to sin?
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Sinless perfectionism, the belief that a Christian can, in this life, reach a state where they no longer commit sin, is not just doctrinal error, itās often cultic in practice, and deadly in effect. Below is a line-by-line exposĆ© showing how this teaching hijacks Scripture, undermines the cross, redefines grace, deceives the conscience, and feeds spiritual pride-all marks not merely of error, but of sectarian danger.
-
Sinless perfection distorts sanctification into deification
Biblically, sanctification is progressive (2 Cor 3:18; Phil 1:6), a work of the Spirit conforming us to Christ, not transforming us into Christ. To claim sinless perfection is to smuggle in a covert form of spiritual divinization, implicitly claiming what only glorification promises (Rom 8:30). That is a heretical trajectory, not a holy one. -
It denies the ongoing need for the cross
Paul, writing late in his ministry, still identified himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15, į¼Ī³į½¼ Īµį¼°Ī¼Ī¹, present tense), and continued to press toward the goal, not claiming he had āalready attainedā (Phil 3:12). A sinlessly perfect man does not need ongoing mercy, but Jesus said those who daily come and daily forgive are the ones who walk in Godās light (Luke 11:4; 1 John 1:8ā10). This theology crucifies Christ once (Heb 10:10) and then discards Him for self-cleansing-which is a mark of apostasy, not maturity. -
It redefines sin to fit the claim, rather than letting Scripture define it
1 John 3:6 says, āWhoever abides in Him does not sin,ā but this is present continuous (į¼Ī¼Ī±ĻĻĪ¬Ī½ĪµĪ¹), indicating habitual rebellion, not sinlessness. The same letter says just one chapter earlier, āIf we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselvesā (1 John 1:8). The cultic maneuver is to cherry-pick 3:6 while explaining away 1:8ā10, proof-texting while ignoring context. Thatās not exegesis, itās manipulation. -
It exalts manās willpower above Christās mercy
Sinless perfectionists often claim they just āchose not to sin anymore,ā implying those still struggling are simply lazy, carnal, or uncommitted. But this isnāt sanctification, itās Stoicism in a Christian coat. The gospel isnāt try harder until youāre holy; itās die daily and walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:16, Rom 8:13). A theology that deifies willpower will crucify the weak, trample the contrite, and make idols of those who posture victory through denial. -
It mimics cult behavior: isolation, elitism, and denial
Groups that teach sinless perfection tend to separate, claim a secret holiness others lack, and demonize dissent. When people fall, they cover it, redefine it, or blame others. These are classic cultic behaviors: closed accountability, extreme idealism, harsh judgment of outsiders, and suppression of questions. This is not the brokenness of the body of Christ, this is the tyranny of false perfection. -
It nullifies grace and rebrands salvation as performance
If perfection is attainable here, then grace is just a starting point, and after that itās up to us. Paul blasts this in Galatians 3:3, āAre you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?ā (į¼ĻĪ¹ĻĪµĪ»ĪµįæĻĪøĪµ į¼Ī½ ĻĪ±ĻĪŗĪÆ). A return to law-based self-righteousness is not a step forward, itās a fall from grace (Gal 5:4). -
It boasts in the flesh, not in Christ crucified
Paul said, āFar be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christā (Gal 6:14). But sinless perfectionists boast in their āvictoryā over sin. Thatās not Calvary-grounded humility; thatās Pharisaic pride in a holy mask. When the cross is displaced, the self must be enthroned, and Satan is content to sit behind that veil of whitewashed righteousness.
Sinless perfection is not just bad doctrine, it is spiritually toxic. It silences repentance, mocks the blood of Christ, weaponizes Scripture, breeds self-deception, and crucifies the brokenhearted who know their need for mercy. It is not the gospel, it is another gospel (Gal 1:6ā9), and it should be exposed as such. Any system that turns Christ into a starter and the flesh into a finisher is not Christian, it is cultic.
If you truly understand the crossāthat Jesus bore your sin, once for all, and yet still intercedes for you as Advocate (1 John 2:1)āthen youāll never parade your holiness, but fall on your face in wonder, and walk in Spirit-wrought repentance every step until glory.
Shalom.
J.
1 Like
Sinless perfectionists seize 1 John 3:9 as their banner verse, claiming it proves that a truly born-again Christian cannot and does not sin, ever. But this is not just a misreading, itās an exegetical hijacking. The verse says, āWhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.ā But context is king, and Greek grammar is the sledgehammer that smashes this shallow gloss. The Greek verb for ācommit sinā is į¼Ī¼Ī±ĻĻĪ¬Ī½ĪµĪ¹ (hamartanei), present active indicative, denoting continuous or habitual action, not a single act or sin in general. John is not saying born-again believers never sin; heās saying they do not live in sin, make peace with it, or walk in unbroken rebellion. This harmonizes perfectly with 1 John 1:8ā10, where the same apostle says, āIf we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,ā and again, āIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us.ā Thatās present tense, ongoing, communal confessionāa lifestyle of Spirit-led repentance, not a state of sinless existence.
Even more, John is writing to a church under siege from Gnostic dualists, false teachers claiming mystical union with God while denying the ethical weight of sin in the flesh. These heretics boasted spiritual enlightenment but lived lawlessly. John dismantles them by teaching that true new birth results in a life transformed, not lawless. So when he says ācannot sin,ā he means the new nature opposes sin, is incompatible with it, and is repulsed by it. āCannot sinā is moral repulsion, not metaphysical impossibility. Like Joseph saying āHow can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?ā (Genesis 39:9)āthe heart born of God is under holy constraint.
To say 1 John 3:9 teaches sinless perfection is to call John double-minded. Why would he write earlier, āMy little children, these things I write to you so that you may not sin, but if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Fatherā (1 John 2:1), if sin is no longer possible? Why would we need an Advocate if sinless perfection is the norm? Jesus is not an ornament for the righteous, He is the ongoing Intercessor for the weak. If perfection was attained at new birth, the intercessory office of Christ collapses. Thatās not theology, thatās spiritual sabotage.
Moreover, Romans 7 demolishes sinless perfectionism with surgical precision. Paul, speaking in the present tense, says, āI do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doingā (Romans 7:19). This is not an unregenerate man, this is the regenerate apostle wrestling with indwelling sin. He does not walk in it, but he feels its war. He cries out not, āI am perfect,ā but āWho will deliver me from this body of death?ā and answers with the cross: āThanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!ā (Romans 7:25). Sinless perfection dismisses this war, nullifies this cry, and renders the cross irrelevant in daily sanctification.
Let us be clear. 1 John 3:9 does not declare the born-again believer sinless, it declares him incompatible with habitual, unrepentant sin. It is not a statement of perfection, but a declaration of regeneration. It exposes the counterfeit, not exalts the flawless. True Christians stumble, but they cannot settle in the pigsty. The Spirit convicts, disciplines, and restores. To be born of God is not to be flawless, but to be fathered by the Holy One whose Sonās blood continually cleanses us (1 John 1:7). That is gospel. That is freedom. And that is what sinless perfection cannot stomach, ongoing mercy from a crucified Savior who still intercedes for saints who still need grace.
āpractices sinā This is a PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE in contradistinction to 1 John 2:1, where the AORIST ACTIVE SUBJUNCTIVE is used twice. There are two theories about the significance of this statement.
it relates to the Gnostic false teachers, especially that faction that reduced salvation to intellectual concepts, thereby removing the necessity of a moral lifestyle (i.e., Antinomianism)
the PRESENT TENSE VERB emphasizes continual, habitual, sinful activity (cf. Rom. 6:1), not isolated acts of sins (cf. Rom. 6:15)
This theological distinction is illustrated in Romans 6 (potential sinlessness in Christ) and Romans 7 (the ongoing struggle of the believer sinning less).
The historical approach #1 seems best, but one is still left with the need to apply this truth to today, which #2 addresses. There is a good discussion of this difficult verse in Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred Brauch, pp. 736-739.
Utley.
J.
1 Like
I gave my definition of sinless perfectionā¦
Would have loved for you to answer the question.
-
Are you saying we have no choice but to sin?
-
Are you saying that as long as you live you will always fall?
I feel you did not read a word I wrote in my posts.
It sounds like you are parroting, but not looking into the subject.
Im not scared to search out why I believe what Iāve been taught. Thatās why God gave us a 
brain.
No one can claim they reached a place where they donāt sin without remaining in Christ. Isnāt He the mark?
Why not answer the questions:
3.Are you saying that a person who remains in the teachings of Christ, continues to walk by the Spirit is sinning?
Please be so kind to answer all questions numbered with a scripture proving you are correct.
For me itās like this you either walking north or walking south regardles of the resistance coming from the flesh. Another words you are either walking by the Spirit or walking by the flesh.
- Are you saying that you can walk by both at the same time?
- Explain if there is no sin in Him, how you can be in Christ and still sin.
- You explain how we are saved from three tenses
the penalty, power, and presence of sin. Justification, Sanctification, and glorification
Sense we are living right now in this world you are telling me the goal is to strive but we can never take hold of Christās character now? That we can never be perfect in Love?
- Why were 2 taken up who walked with God, why did they never see death. We know that flesh and blood canot enter the kingdom. But what about flesh, blood and Spirit?
- We have nothing to boast about without boasting in what God has done through us. Etc
Sorry, but I have to argue this opposing side for there are a couple of ways that I can think.
I can either think, He saved us so that we can sometimes live soberly and righteously in this present world. Or He saved us so that we would live soberly and righteously in this present world looking for His glorious appearing.
-
Who will be able to stand at his coming? Will our whole body, soul, and Spirit be kept blameless because we continually obey the Spirit ?.. Because Jesus died on the cross for our sins, resurrected, and his Spirit was given for us to obey that sin is destroyed in our lives, now. So we will be ready to meet our maker. If not why?
-
Was Paul a castaway after He was discipled by God or did He bring His body under submission to God?
-
Was Abraham told to walk blamesless before God because Abraham was the reward or because God was his great reward.
-
If God told Abraham to walk blameless before Him then did that mean He couldnāt when God was behind Him?
I guess for me Johann itās about the effects of what we hold true.
So if I hold true, āthat we will always sinā, how will that affect my journey?
You say it doesnāt give a license to sin and I say to many it has. One will say God will forgive me. I heard that often.
If we say we will sin as long as we are in this world, are we really trusting God? That God can do more than we can ever asked or think?
My last question: Are we complete when we remain in Christāt teaching, in Him
Peace and blessings
Youāre echoing exactly what Iāve been saying, without actually reading me. You skim, then misrepresent, claiming I said, āWe have no choice but to sin?ā
That is not what I said.
Slow down. Read carefully. Engage with whatās actually written, not what you assume.
Your questions HAVE been answered.
Thanks.
J.
1 Like
Is He is not saying they will never get there in this life?
Who said the possibilty wasnāt there, it was there for Jesus but He chose it not.
But here he seems to be speaking when He was under the law. But then you get to Romans 8 it says Now, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Off my head donāt quote. It goes further to explain the law of the life given Spirit has set you Freee from the law of sin and death.
No one is saying born again means flawless, at least not now. But why canāt being born again eventually bring you in a place of remaining in His teaching Christ.
Jesus said He always did what was pleasing to His father and His father never left Him alone. Is He not the goal?
I would love for you to quote them and answer under them..But if you choose not so be itā¦peace and blessings.
Did I say otherwise?!
I already did, but youāre misrepresenting me here. And if you recall, I even shared a link to Bob Utleyās guide on proper hermeneutics, did I not?
J.
Really @Corlove13?
Claim: Romans 7 is Paul under the Law, before Christ, so it doesnāt apply to believers now.
I answer- Thatās false, strained, and ignores Paulās verbs, tone, and theology.
- Paul is speaking in the present tense, and he doubles down on it.
Romans 7:14ā25 is drenched in the first-person singular, present tense: āI do not understand my own actionsā¦ I do the very thing I hateā¦ I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at handā¦ā
In Greek, verbs like ĪŗĪ±ĻĪæĪ¹ĪŗĪæįæ¦ĻĪ± (dwelling) and ĻĪæĪ¹įæ¶ (I do) are present active indicatives. Paul is not telling a nostalgic story of pre-Christian failure. He is bearing witness to the ongoing inner war of a regenerate man who delights in the law of God in his inner being (Romans 7:22). An unregenerate man doesnāt do that.
- This passage matches Christian experience, not pre-Christian life.
Paul says, āI delight in the law of God in my inner beingā (7:22) and āI myself serve the law of God with my mindā (7:25).
Thatās not a Pharisee talking, thatās a Spirit-filled man groaning under the fleshās resistance. Romans 7 doesnāt describe slavery to sin without a fight, it describes the Spirit-empowered resistance against sinās lingering presence.
If this were pre-Christian Paul, it would contradict Philippians 3:6, where he says āas to righteousness under the law, [I was] blameless.ā He had no such inner torment then.
- Romans 8 does not cancel Romans 7, it completes it.
The transition from Romans 7 to 8 is not from ālostā to āsavedā, but from agonized struggle to Spirit-empowered endurance. The flesh still exists, but the Spirit now leads and liberates.
Romans 8:13 says, āIf by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.ā
Why put them to death if theyāre gone? Why fight if sinless perfection already arrived?
The point is this: the believer is no longer condemned, but he is not yet glorified, so the war continues.*** The Spirit is not a switch that eliminates all sin, it is the power to kill it. Not the absence of battle, but the presence of victory through crucifixion.***
4. The cross is central, not perfectionism.
Christ didnāt die to help you bypass sanctification. He died to crucify the old man (Romans 6:6), and yet the flesh still seeks to wage war (Galatians 5:17).
Perfectionism denies this duality. It preaches arrival before resurrection. But Scripture says the full adoption-the redemption of our bodies, is yet future (Romans 8:23). We are still groaning, still waiting, still hoping.
If Romans 7 is gone and sin is impossible now, why does Paul tell believers to āput off the old selfā, āflee youthful passionsā, āresist the devilā, ābe killing sinā, āwatch and pray that you may not enter into temptationā?
Because until the trumpet sounds, we war.
No, Romans 7 is not Paul under law, itās Paul under Christ, crushed in spirit but alive to the war. The verbs are present, the anguish is real, and the struggle is holy. Romans 8 doesnāt erase the battle, it arms the soldier.
Sinless perfectionism isnāt spiritual maturity, itās spiritual denial, dressed in a borrowed robe it hasnāt earned. The gospel doesnāt say you canāt sin anymore, it says Christ died for the sins you still grieve over, and gave you the Spirit to kill them daily.
So beware any theology that neuters your cross, silences your groaning, and pretends the war is over before the resurrection. The blood bought your freedom, but the battlefield remains.
There have been four major theories about how to interpret Romans 7 (see Contextual Insights for Rom. 7:7-25)
Paul is speaking of himself (autobiographical)
Paul is speaking as a representative of all mankind (representative)
Paul is speaking of Adamās experience (Theodore of Mopsuetia)
Paul is speaking of Israelās experience
In many ways Romans 7:1-6 functions like Genesis 3. It shows the downward pull of rebellion even to those who are acquainted with God. Knowledge cannot free fallen humanity; only Godās grace, only a new heart, a new mind, and a new spirit can do that (the New Covenant, cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26-27).
And even then, there is an ongoing spiritual struggle (cf. Rom. 6:12,19; 1 Cor. 6:10-19; Eph. 6:10-18)!
Utley.
ROMANS 7)!
J.
YEZZZZZZZZ! 100% REALLY @Johannā¦He is speaking about when He was under the law as a pharasee->> In Romans 7ā¦and then in Romans 8 is the cureā¦
..Iāll get to the rest later..I saw that and thought I should respond.
Anything else you are implying im saying..I have to look at..but not right nowā¦peace and blessings
Grace and shalom to you and family @Corlove13.
J.
Ok this is one of the best explanations Iāve heard on Romans 7.
Let me know what you think. I was very pleased listening to the first part. Where He mentions
Rhetoricical
Impersonation
Adam- sense we were all in Adam
It make sense of the present tense and reminds me to reread the book before I respondā¦
Shalom.
Johann.
Back to Sanctification Thread
The question: is total Sanctification possible, sinless perfection.
My definition is not legalitic.
To me sinless Perfection (SP) is to continually remain in the teachings of Christ, by trusting him.
To say that in Christ God canāt do more than we can ever asked or think is to put Him in a doctrinal box.
Romans 8 definitely moved on from Romans 7. NOW there is no Condemnation for those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but the Spirit.
As we read further the law of the life giving Spirit has set us free from The LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.
SIN AT THIS PLACE HAS NO POWER OVER US.
However you want to interpret, āNo powerā is up to youā¦
For where is death when one is living with life. They are oppositesā¦So I will never say what God canāt do in Christ. For again He can do more than we ever can asked or think. The goal is to destroy sin.
Will we live in Chapter 7 or move on to 8?
But then if one sets oneās mind that one will always sin..Then they may just live out what they set there mind to.
You say sinless perfection is āto continually remain in the teachings of Christ, by trusting Him.ā But Scripture doesnāt define sanctification by ceasing to sin entirely, but by being conformed (ĻĻ Ī¼Ī¼ĪæĻĻĪÆĪ¶ĪæĪ¼Ī±Ī¹, symmorphizomai, Rom. 8:29) to the image of the Son through ongoing transformation (Ī¼ĪµĻĪ±Ī¼ĪæĻĻĪæįæ¦ĻĪøĪµ, metamorphousthe, Rom. 12:2)-not instantaneous eradication.
Letās start with your foundation: Romans 8:1-2
āThere is therefore now no condemnation (ĪŗĪ±ĻĪ¬ĪŗĻĪ¹Ī¼Ī±, katakrima) to those in Christ Jesus, who walk (ĻĪµĻĪ¹ĻĪ±ĻĪæįæ¦ĻĪ¹Ī½) not after the flesh but after the Spirit.ā
ā ĻĪµĻĪ¹ĻĪ±ĻĪæįæ¦ĻĪ¹Ī½ (peripatousin)- present active participle , meaning a continuous lifestyle, not a completed moral state. Walking by the Spirit doesnāt imply never sinning, but that the orientation of the life is now governed by the Spirit, not by the flesh. The verb indicates ongoing conduct, not sinless condition.
ā į¼Ī»ĪµĻ ĪøĪĻĻĻĪµĪ½ (eleutherÅsen, Rom. 8:2) - aorist active indicative, āset free from the law of sin and death.ā Yes, Christ liberated believers, but Paul nowhere says sin was annihilated. The aorist denotes a decisive act, but not an exhaustive removal of the presence of sin, only its dominion.
Now letās bring in Romans 6:12:
āLet not sin therefore reign (Ī²Ī±ĻĪ¹Ī»ĪµĻ
ĪĻĻ, basileuetÅ) in your mortal bodiesā¦ā
ā Ī²Ī±ĻĪ¹Ī»ĪµĻ
ĪĻĻ, present active imperative, Paul is commanding the believer not to let sin reign. But if sinless perfection were possible, why command them not to let sin rule? That verb presupposes the possibility of sinās influence, even for those who have been set free from its legal penalty.
And 1 John 1:8 dismantles your claim altogether:
āIf we say we have no sin (į¼Ī¼Ī±ĻĻĪÆĪ±Ī½ Īæį½Īŗ į¼ĻĪæĪ¼ĪµĪ½, hamartian ouk echomen), we deceive ourselves (ĻĪ»Ī±Ī½įæ¶Ī¼ĪµĪ½ į¼Ī±Ļ
ĻĪæį½ŗĻ), and the truth is not in us.ā
ā į¼ĻĪæĪ¼ĪµĪ½ ā present active indicative, āwe haveā sin: ongoing reality
ā ĻĪ»Ī±Ī½įæ¶Ī¼ĪµĪ½ ā present active indicative ā āwe deceiveā ourselves: to deny present sinfulness is to actively walk in delusion
John is writing to believers (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1 ā āMy little children, I write these things so you do not sinā¦ā) and still uses the present tense for both having and denying sin. If sinless perfection were a valid doctrine, this verse would be false or redundant.
Even Paul, after describing the liberty of life in the Spirit in Romans 8, still says in Philippians 3:12:
āNot that I have already attained (į¼Ī»Ī±Ī²ĪæĪ½, elabon), or am already perfected (ĻĪµĻĪµĪ»ĪµĪÆĻĪ¼Ī±Ī¹, teteleiÅmai), but I press on (Ī“Ī¹ĻĪŗĻ, diÅkÅ)ā¦ā
ā į¼Ī»Ī±Ī²ĪæĪ½ ā aorist active ā Paul denies he has already received the fullness
ā ĻĪµĻĪµĪ»ĪµĪÆĻĪ¼Ī±Ī¹ ā perfect passive ā he has not been perfected, even as an apostle
ā Ī“Ī¹ĻĪŗĻ ā present active ā he is pursuing Christlikeness, not resting in sinless status
You also implied, āWell, if you believe youāll always sin, then you will.ā Thatās not faith, thatās psychological projection masquerading as theology. Scripture doesnāt teach, āYou sin because you expect to.ā It teaches you sin because āthe flesh sets its desire against the Spiritā (Gal. 5:17 ā į¼ĻĪ¹ĪøĻ Ī¼Īµįæ, epithumei, desires/lusts). The verb is present active indicative, itās continually active even in the regenerate.
Sanctification is progressive, not absolute in this life. Hebrews 10:14 says:
āBy one offering He has perfected (ĻĪµĻĪµĪ»ĪµĪÆĻĪŗĪµĪ½, teteleiÅken) forever those who are being sanctified (į¼Ī³Ī¹Ī±Ī¶ĪæĪ¼ĪĪ½ĪæĻ
Ļ, hagiazomenous).ā
ā ĻĪµĻĪµĪ»ĪµĪÆĻĪŗĪµĪ½ ā perfect active ā Christās work is finished
ā į¼Ī³Ī¹Ī±Ī¶ĪæĪ¼ĪĪ½ĪæĻ
Ļ ā present passive participle ā believers are being sanctified, not already sinless
J.
Do you believe a person can be sanctified by the truth ( the word) if they do not remain in His teachings, His love for us.
May your whole body, soul, and Spirit be preserved blameless the day of the Lord.
If no one is going to be blameless then why the prayer?
Sanctify them by the truth thy word is truth.
Outside of living out the word it sounds like you are saying one can still be sanctified, is that what you are saying?
Nope, thatās not what Iām saying @Corlove13
J.