Expert: Scott Talbot - 4/3/2007

Question
QUESTION: Hi Scott- Firstly, I appreciate the time you and your fellow experts spend on answering questions concerning these topics -- its truly a blessing.
I preface my question(s) with a little information on the reasoning leading to these questions. I've recently converted from the Catholic church to the Methodist church (ironically as a graduate student at Boston College, although in a non-theological field). For a person of my limited understanding, I have relied on the Spirit to guide my understanding Scripture, have gone back and forth to different translations to help me, and have come up with a sort-of personal system in which I take some Scripture which I feel must be able to "stand-alone" for lack of a better term(such as Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 3:23,John 6:47, John 3:16,John 4:15-17, to name a few) and with this knowledge, have tried to proceed to Scripture that has presented Bible-readers' difficulties (enough so that it's nearly impossible to keep track of all the Christian denominations, nevermind the disagreements within them). Which leads me to two questions concerning two scriptures which, to me, can almost be in the above category, but I feel I don't have sufficient insight quite yet. Could you help? They are:
1) Luke 23 40:43. Do you think this verse is absolute Scriptural evidence that 1) the requirement of "repentance" as it is generally used, is incorrect, as this man is confessing his faith and crying out for his need for the Lord -- but this seems to be it. Again, this scenario is seen in John Chapter 4, which it isn't as so clear to me as the thief in Luke. I think pretty strong supportive evidence is John 6:47, Luke 12:8 to name a couple. But I'm primarily concerned with your opinion on the Luke scripture, although I welcome any other feedback.
2)Matthew 5:19. I know this is a pretty difficult verse (and the proceeding one and the following one), and I have read and probably heard quite a few different interpretations. Particularly, and I understand that this was almost certainly not Jesus point here, but what I don't really hear people talk about is how Jesus is seemingly saying those who not only live in sin but teach others too (e.g. refuse to obey and teach others not to obey the least of my commandments...) sill are saved. Whats your interpretation?
The last thing I will say is I'm not "searching" scripture for an excuse that we and others can live how we choose (i.e. of the flesh). It is clear that we are not to. However, I'm concerned with the treatment of people who are perceived to "live in sin" (i.e. drug users, homosexuals, divorcees, etc.) and how the Church universally excludes them from the Grace and promises of God through faith in our Lord. Thanks for you consideration of these questions and I apology for their length.
ANSWER: Hi, Anthony,

No need to apologize for the length of your e-mail. I enjoy talking with people like yourself who enjoy searching the Scriptures for truth. What a great investment of time and effort!

Also, I'm amazed that you've found your way out of the Roman Catholic Church. Many have, but it isn't an easy process, particularly if you were brought up Catholic. I would love to hear how that came about, especially in a college environment. Did you hook up with other evangelical Christians?

May I ask you a personal question along with that? Have you had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in which you have been born again? (See John 1:12, 3:1-21, 5:24, 14:6, Romans 10:9-13.) This is what really matters, much more so than the labels we wear.

Let's address your questions. First, you asked about the passage in Luke 23:40-43. Are you asking if repentance is a requirement for salvation? (I am not sure what you mean when you say "repentance" as it is generally used.) My answer would be YES. See Acts 2:38, 3:19, 8:22, 17:30, 26:20.

But what is repentance? Repentance is simply acknowledging your sin and your culpability before God, and expressing shame and sorrow for it, with the attitude that you no longer wish to pursue it.

You cannot separate the idea of repentance with the very essence of salvation. If you read Romans 3:23, 6:23, 10:9-13, for example, you will find that salvation is understanding that 1) We are sinners; 2) We deserve God's judgment; 3) We cannot save ourselves; and 4) We must rely on the grace of God alone by trusting Jesus to do for us what we could not do--live a perfect life and please God completely. We then acknowledge that He served our death sentence for us, and we reach out in faith, accepting this free gift by calling on God and asking for it.

All of this centers around the issue of our sin. It's our sin that has violated the perfect righteousness of a holy God. It's our sin that sent Jesus Christ to the cross. Receiving God's free gift of salvation is about dealing with the sin issue. This cannot be done genuinely if one does not take sin seriously.

Now that said, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and many other passages teach us that salvation is by grace and not by works. No amount of good works can save us, and no amount of good works can keep us saved. It's all God's grace. And ask any Christian--even the best of us continues to struggle with sin after salvation. Paul himself, one of the best examples of godliness, admitted that he constantly struggled with sin (Romans 7:14-25). So repentance is not a guarantee that we will become instantly perfect. That will not happen in this lifetime. Repentance is simply a genuine sorrow and shame over your sin--adopting the same attitude towards your sin as that which God takes. This idea is compatible with the idea that salvation is entirely by grace and does not require works for us to earn it.

Matthew 5:17-20. This is an interesting passage talking about the Law. A particularly sticky verse is verse 20, which says that one cannot possibly enter the kingdom of heaven unless his righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law. What is He saying? He is saying that, to get to heaven, you must be absolutely perfect!

To understand the purpose of the Law, see Galatians 3:24. It tells us that the Law was our school master to bring us to Christ. In other words, the Law was never intended to save us. It was intended to demonstrate that none of us can perfectly keep God's commandments. It shows us that we're all sinners.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law. In other words, He is the only one who was able to live a perfect life, even keeping every one of God's commands perfectly. Because of this, He was able to be the perfect sacrifice. He alone is able to fully satisfy God and so act as the perfect substitute for the world in paying for our sins.

So what is the Matthew passage saying? Jesus is explaining to them that His message coincides with the intent of the Mosaic Law. That is, God requires perfection. Since you cannot fulfill this requirement, rely on me instead.

Your last question has to do with how some Christians treat people who live in sin. Anthony, you're very perceptive, and you've touched on a serious, serious problem among many Christians and professed Christians.

Isn't it interesting that we can rely on God's grace to forgive us and welcome us into His family, and continue to rely on God's grace as we stumble through life and fall into sin from time to time. And yet we're quick to turn around and condemn others, as if they are not deserving of the same grace.

Many Christians of today (or professed Christians) are just like the Pharisees of Christ's day. They try to appear righteous before men, and they are eager to condemn others. This is sheer hypocrisy, because none of us is perfect. And, in God's eyes, there is no such thing as big sins and little sins. They're all equally disgusting to God.

Look at the way in which Jesus related to sinners. He was in a position to judge and condemn, because He alone is perfect. And yet He was gracious to even the "worst" of sinners, and spent much of his time with the down-and-outers, like the tax collectors, the lepers, the poor, the prostitutes, the sick and hungry. We should take a lesson from Him.

John 13:35 says, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." We need to do a better job of showing God's love to the world.

I hope this helps. Feel free to write back for clarification, further discussion, or any other questions or comments you may have.

Scott

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I appreciate the thorough response. Much of it was consistent with my thoughts, and some of your Scripture references are sure to add clarity for me -- good stuff.
Real quick, since you asked, for me it was when I really sat down and studied Scripture that I could no longer attend Mass, as I just felt the Catholic leaders have brought people too far away from the Truth. I felt betrayed to be honest, because I had spent so much time believing what I believed -- though I must confess, that I feel very strongly that any Christian, who is genuine in their belief that Christ was sent by God to die for their sins, and is thus their personal Savior, and was ressurected in fufillment of the Scriptures, will be saved.
But for me, the Scriptures spoke loudly, particularly as recorded by John and Paul. The doctrine of Justification, of Salvation (faith and no works), of direct prayer to God through Jesus, of Heaven and Hell (no purgatory), of the two lone Biblical sacraments and of what they is incorrectly called "mortal sin", I felt the Protestants had correct-- and I needed to convert. For me, the saddest two things about the Roman Catholic faith are that most parishoners don't realize in this lifetime that they are already saved, and what happens there is the Roman church can manipulate and take advantage of these parishoners. And the second thing is they are so worried and busy working out their own salvation, it takes away from sharing Salvation with others. Its really saddening. And to answer your other question, yes, I have. Even though i am convinced that I was saved by the Grace of God during my infant baptism, I have asked Jesus and the Holy Spirit (more than once, I guess the additional times some might refer to as a re-committment)to come into the heart of a sinner (mine), and be my personal savior and wash away all my sins, which I am deeply sorry for and don't want to persist in. What i have been most struggling with is Trusting in his Love. I remember reading somewhere that after we recieve Christ as our Savior, the devil's play then becomes to makes us feel like we can lose his Love and our Salvation. Walking assuredly in my salvation, despite the guilt of sin, I think is the next step in my Christian journet. Anyway, back to your answers.
Can i ask a follow-up question and a second, new question, stemming from your comments?
My follow-up question is about the same Scripture in Luke. Yes, I agree with your points and your Scripture references. Thank you. I, however, am still struggling to reconcile this Scripture (as well as the lady at the well in John 4) who seemingly do NOTHING but believe on Christ, and put their faith and trust in him. For instance, there is nothing at all that indicates the Thief is saved outside anything but Faith (i.e. no repentance, or "proof" that He actually believed e.g. Love of another that you described and is described in Johns first letter.
My second question had to do with your use of "time to time". I think this is a very intersting point. (Meanwhile, your point on Paul was perfect). But back to John. "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning". This verse would appear to be in sharp contrast to an earlier verse(s) in the same letter, 1 John 1 8:10, where he, like Paul,says we keep on sinning. I've heard different interpretations, such as that we sin less often (time to time), but I have a real difficult time with this interpretation. Let me try to explain this and i am gonna have to use me as an example b/c i can only be fairly sure of what i have been doing and thinking! Lets pretend I didnt feel like I was saved since my baptism, but I was saved since the first time I was able to sincerely believe onto our Lord, understanding I need the free gift of Grace for my sinful self. Okay, even so,this was many years ago. SInce that time, I sinned greatly. I didnt steal or rape or murder or do anything that people would say hes a "bad" person, but like you rightfully point out, a sin is a sin. I would say I lived in sin. Now, as i read the Scripture more and more and understood more and more what God says is sin, I have no doubt sinned less often -- (because I try to avoid sin and not sin with the guidance of the Holy Spirit), and when I knew more about what sin exactly was, I was able to avoid these things more often. But still, if you ask me today,even though now I believe I know what God says is sin, I still would say I live in sin. I wouldnt say I sin from time to time. And i would also extend that to say, I think everyone lives in sin. B/c i think despite our best efforts we sin very often, and even though I would agree that many believing Christians sin less often than those that do not know God, we still sin so often. And beyond this, I know Christians that do believe on Christ, and despite this, they battle some things that Ive been blessed enough not to (broken marriages, addictions,etc) but i cannot think, after reading John 6:47, Romans 10:11, Acts 13 38:40, etc, etc, that they are not saved.

So back to the Scripture of 1 John 3, I would side with this interpretation,and Im cutting and pasting from an excerpt from the Evangelist Bob Wilken (below) I havent had the chance of having a conversation about this with anyone, particularly someone with your understanding of the Scripture, so please let me know what you think about this interpretation:
(begin Bob Wilkin commentary)
| Publications | For More Information |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do Born Again People Sin?
1 John 3:9
by Bob Wilkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
This verse is often cited as teaching that "genuine" believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.

Notice how various versions and paraphrases translate the first part of the verse. Some suggest that habitual sin is in view. The New American Standard Version reads: "No one who is born of God practices sin." The Living Bible reads: "The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning." The Amplified Bible has: "No one born [begotten] of God [deliberately and knowingly] habitually practices sin."

On the other hand, other translations suggest an absolute understanding--that the born of God person doesn't sin at all. The New King James Version, the one cited above, reads: "Whoever has been born of God does not sin." The New International Version has: "No one who is born of God continues to sin."

The translations and paraphrases show that there are two broad understandings of this verse: habitual and absolute.

The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.

The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.

Which is right?

The habitual sin view cites for evidence the use of the present tense (poiei).

There are grave problems with this argument. For one thing, the present tense, unaided by qualifying words, does not mean what the habitual sin view suggests. In Greek when the present tense occurs it can be understood in a number of ways, one of which is the habitual present. However, the habitual present refers to events which occur over and over again repeatedly. If John was saying this about believers sinning he would be saying that believers do not sin repeatedly. If believers sin daily--as all believers do (cf. 1 John 1:8,10)--then they sin habitually in the grammatical sense. I. Howard Marshall commented concerning the tense argument:


[It] involves translators in stressing the present continuous form of the verb in a way which they do not do elsewhere in the New Testament.
(The Epistles of John, NICNT, p.180)
Similarly, C. H. Dodd writes:


All this [the idea that a believer does not sin habitually] is true. Yet it is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance.
(The Johannine Epistles, p. 79)
Another difficulty with this understanding is that one wonders why God would preserve believers from being dominated by sin and yet not from sinning altogether. I. Howard Marshall writes:


If believers do not sin habitually because God's seed remains in Him (3:9b), it is hard to understand why God would preserve believers from some sins, but not from all sins. We must, therefore, wonder whether an important point of interpretation can be made to rest on what has been called a grammatical subtlety.
(The Epistles of John, p.180)
The habitual sin view is also ruled out by the context. In verse 5 John said that there is no sin in Christ. He clearly meant that there is absolutely no sin in Him. Then in the very next sentence he said that those who abide in Christ do not sin. He could hardly have meant that Christ sins not at all and those who abide in Him sin but not a lot. John's point is clearly that sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ. When we abide we do not sin at all.

Verse 9 is a further development of this point. No believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. Insofar as the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains in him(1 John 3:9b).

Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against [his] nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:


The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character.
(The Johannine Epistles, p.89)
First John 3:9 does not teach the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Indeed, no passage does. God perseveres. Saints at best fail daily. First John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace. (end of paste)
Anyway, again, I have to apologize for the length, I really appreciate your insights and your time you take here, and I very much look forward to your reply. Thanks -Tony  

Answer
Anthony,

Thank you for sharing your personal experience with me. I love hearing how God draws people to Himself from many different backgrounds and experiences. Your testimony confirms a very important fact--that the pure truth of God's Word is able to cut through the darkness of deceit and open blinded eyes to the good news of the gospel.

The whole subject of salvation and works can be rather sticky. Thankfully, the Bible is crystal clear on the fact that salvation is by grace alone, completely devoid of works. We can do nothing to merit our salvation. We cannot even take credit for having the "good sense" to accept Christ. God tells us that even our righteous acts are like filthy rags.

The sticky part is this--how do works play a role AFTER we are saved? Certainly they are not required to keep us saved. The Scriptures are also crystal clear on that issue. But works are important.

James talks about this. He says in James 2:14-26 that "faith without works is dead." What he is saying is that genuine faith will evidence itself by one's outward acts. It will not be evidenced by perfection. But someone who is a child of God--who has the Holy Spirit living inside him to guide him--who has a new nature--will be more likely to live a life that reflects those realities. It will be less natural for him to sin, and more natural for him to want to please God. James is encouraging the believer to live in a way that is consistent with that reality.

I think this is John's point in I John 3:9. And I think that the Bob Wilkin commentary you quoted does a great job of explaining this verse. "First John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace."

Scott