Those that hold to sin-you-must are quick to accuse God’s children of legalism. Sin-you-must people seem to want to be lawless, with out law. The New Testament is very clear that we are under the perfect law of liberty or the law of Christ.

While the Bible makes room for repentance from sinning, sinning willfully or knowingly is far below the New Testament standard of even a babe in Christ.

God has helped me understand this by thinking of wickedness versus weakness. We must repent of all wickedness, that is what turning to God means. But we still have a fleshly body and on occasion may stumble like Peter did. When we confess that, we are cleansed, purified anew, our garments are pure white. God knows our hearts and where the line of dileneation is that separates unrepentant wickedness from a weakness, only He knows. If we take pleasure in our sins (not instantly convicted of it and seek forgiveness), it is more than not wickedness that requires true repentance. Keep of the good work for the kingdom. God Bless.

I understand your view and this is not a new thought to me. Personally I think you will have a problem when teaching others that Christians will commit unwillful sins but they should never commit willful sins. I have quoted John Wesley’s view on this point in my article Biblical Definition of Sin which I am sure you have read before.

“The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their short-comings, (as some not improperly speak,) their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul, “He that loveth, hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom. 13:10.) Now, mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are noway contrary to love; nor therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin.”

>>>For example, the Bible says, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” It does not say, “mistakes are not imputed when there is no law.”

If someone is in adultery through remarriage and is ignorant that according to the Bible it is adultery that is not a mistake that is sin but it is not imputed. Sin that is not imputed and not known is not sin to the person.

>>>On the other hand, the danger of not calling sins of ignorance to be sin, is that people can get a bit high-minded thinking they are sin-free, when the reality is that they have things in their life that are sin, but they have not yet grown enough spiritually to recognize it.

The grace of God that can keep us free from willful sin can keep us from being high-minded about the unmerited favor God has done for us unprofitable servants.

>>>I think of what happened with a COGR preacher who told someone once that he had not sinned one time since he had been saved 14 years ago. This causes folks to scorn the “sinlessness” doctrine, since they realize that none of us are born again with a perfect understanding of God’s will.

Well I am not going to stand up for any of the COGR preachers but if the “free from sin” (Rom 6:18) teaching is taught right people will clearly understand that they are not free from errors, faults, mistakes in opinion and actions, and unknown transgressions of God’s perfect law.

Given the deplorable state of Christianity when we share the “free from sin” (Rom 6:18) teaching we need to clarity what Paul meant by sin, that what we are is only by God’s grace, and add that we have many needs.

I have cringed at some of the testimonies I have heard in the COGR meetings that talk about things like how many days they have free from sin and say little about Christ or their deep need from him. While I am not going to judge the motives of these dear souls I think they need some instruction on how to lift of Christ and point people to him instead of self, their ministers, and their sect. But hey, that is part of the bad fruit of the Sect OTVC (one true visible church) teaching.

ἐστίν (meaning-”is”) is the verb, not ποιῶν. While ποιῶν is based on the verb ποιῶ (to do), it is made a participle by the addition of the ν at the end.

The zhubert site seems to be a better quality site for Greek. I like the Biblos site for what it is doing overall, but the Greek section is not quite up to par.

>>> πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
Would you accept that ποιεῖ is the verb in the above phrase?

Here ποιεῖ is used as a verb, not a participle. Literally this would be: All the ones who have been generated from God do not do (practice) sin. I do not know if you can read Greek or not, but notice the spelling difference between ποιῶν Participle, and ποιεῖ Verb.

On the distinction between “mistakes” and “willful sins”, “imputed sins” vs “unimputed sins”, etc, I will not detail that, as it is a rather long discussion. Basically, I call all sin, “sin”. Those sins that we do ignorantly are still “sins”, even though they are not imputed to our account. For example, the Bible says, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” It does not say, “mistakes are not imputed when there is no law.” However, what too many people do who explain these verses similar to me, is take a light approach to willful sin, and say like one man told me, “Since we all sin (meaning even sins of ignorance) every day, what is the big deal if every now and then I sin willfully?” Well, the “big deal” is that sins of ignorance are not imputed until they are revealed to us, but willful sin is imputed immediately. Sins of ignorance are “not unto death” (do not cause spiritual death), but premeditated sins are unto death (separation from God).

On the other hand, the danger of not calling sins of ignorance to be sin, is that people can get a bit high-minded thinking they are sin-free, when the reality is that they have things in their life that are sin, but they have not yet grown enough spiritually to recognize it. This often happens in areas of pride, where we have pride about something in our life, maybe our education, our gifts, or etc, and do not realize it as pride for a while. One day, God reveals it to us, and “Bang!”, that sin of ignorance is now a willful sin if we continue in it.

I think of what happened with a COGR preacher who told someone once that he had not sinned one time since he had been saved 14 years ago. This causes folks to scorn the “sinlessness” doctrine, since they realize that none of us are born again with a perfect understanding of God’s will. So in reaction, these folks tend to reject any talk of living above sin, because they see those professing “sinlessness” as having the same faults as everyone else, only not calling them sins of ignorance.
Well, I do not intend to get into a detailed discussion of the matter, so I will stop. :-)

>>>I don’t think you can smell spiritual things. You can discern or think you discern but spiritual thinks are not uncovered by the 5 senses but on a spiritual level.

This is called “figures of speech”, bro. :-)

So in that phase ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν are you saying that ἐστίν is the verb? If not where is the verb.

>>>The site you linked to does not do a good job of parsing verbs. For example, it gives the following: “ποιων verb – present active passive – nominative singular masculine”
A participle cannot be both active and passive at the same time!

Perhaps this site is better:
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=1john+3:8

What about 1Joh 3:9.
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=1john+3:9

πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ

Would you accept that ποιεῖ is the verb in the above phrase?

>>>The idea of “keepeth not” being continuous is not correctly rendered “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments continuously, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
It is better understood as “He that saith, I know him, and he continually keepeth not his commandments , is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Ok I will make a change on that one. Thanks!

>>>For example, when Peter sinned and Paul had to rebuke him before all, Peter’s overall testimony was that he consistently lived a godly life. But he did slip and fall on that occasion, and possible at other times. He would not have had to. But he did.

I wouldn’t hold that Peter sinned there unless he did what he did willfully knowing what he did was wrong. I know that some hold that he did know what he was doing was wrong but I don’t feel like the text bears that out.

>>>And even after that one slip, Peter’s testimony was still that he did not “on a continuous basis sin”.
He did not keep the command of God on that particular occasion, but he was not counted as a “liar”, because his testimony was not that of “on a continuous basis not keeping the commandment”.

Peter sinned when he denied the Lord at at that time I would hold that you cann’t sin and still be saved.

>>>A Christian does not have the testimony of “holiness, holiness, sin, holiness, sin, holiness, holiness, holiness, sin, sin, holiness.”

That is my point and what I am coming against.

>>>He might, if he is not careful, have the testimony of, “holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, sin, heartfelt repentance, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness.”

I agree that that is a possibility but not the Bible standard.

>>>This whole topic could be a long discussion, but I do not intend that. I think I may smell a bit of “reaction” against the “the sin you must” heresy. :-)

I don’t think you can smell spiritual things. You can discern or think you discern but spiritual thinks are not uncovered by the 5 senses but on a spiritual level.

ποιῶν (poiōn) is not used as a verb here. It is a participle (ποιων verb – present active – nominative singular masculine–means a present active verb used as a singular, masculine noun), that is, a verb used as a noun. Its root meaning is “do” in the sense of “practicing”. A literal translation of this verse would be “the one doing sin of the devil is”. “one doing” is a noun phrase, based on the verb do.
The site you linked to does not do a good job of parsing verbs. For example, it gives the following: “ποιων verb – present active passive – nominative singular masculine”

A participle cannot be both active and passive at the same time!

It gives a literal translation as “the practices the sin”. ποιῶν in 1 john 3:8 is not a verb meaning practices. It is a nominative [subject noun], made from the verb which means “to do”.

As far as the continuous:
The idea of “keepeth not” being continuous is not correctly rendered “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments continuously, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
It is better understood as “He that saith, I know him, and he continually keepeth not his commandments , is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

For example, when Peter sinned and Paul had to rebuke him before all, Peter’s overall testimony was that he consistently lived a godly life. But he did slip and fall on that occasion, and possible at other times. He would not have had to. But he did.

And even after that one slip, Peter’s testimony was still that he did not “on a continuous basis sin”.
He did not keep the command of God on that particular occasion, but he was not counted as a “liar”, because his testimony was not that of “on a continuous basis not keeping the commandment”.
I know that what I am trying to say may sound like I am making an excuse for sin. It is not an excuse for sin, unless one wants it to be.

A Christian does not have the testimony of “holiness, holiness, sin, holiness, sin, holiness, holiness, holiness, sin, sin, holiness.”
He has the opportunity to have the testimony of “holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness.”
He might, if he is not careful, have the testimony of, “holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, sin, heartfelt repentance, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness, holiness.”
And that sin in there will be a regret in his heart for the rest of his days, even though it is forgiven. He desires above all else to glorify God by his life, and sin does not glorify God.

This whole topic could be a long discussion, but I do not intend that. I think I may smell a bit of “reaction” against the “the sin you must” heresy. :-)

Peace!
Mike