Life in the Holy Lane

I think this validates the freedom perspective because it meshes. If you are at all under the law then this stuff from John cannot make any sense. I have never heard anyone discuss this or attempt to deal with it. I had heard the Nygren wrote commentary's on a lot of the New Testament but we only had Romans. I looked for more but never found any. Perhaps they were never translated from his native tongue. I was primarily looking for John's letters because I thought Nygren could deal with it.

I've never claimed to be without sin. I have sinned and lived in it until I met Jesus.
Have I sinned since then . . . mmm . . . good question.
Most Christians would have an instant answer for this, of course, yes...of course.
The rub is what's the Christian's life in relation to the nature of sin.
Surely it cannot be our new nature. Our new nature cannot have anything to do with sin.
Nothing of our sinful nature will be passing through the gates into heaven.
Paul says we are dead to wrath, sin, law and death.

Neither do I think there's a dichotomy or split personality going on. I think that's where those under the law reinterpret the New Testament to fit that view...their life. Nygren's Commentary takes that view apart quite nicely and their interpretation is shown to be inconsistent with all of Paul's testimony and therefore false.

It's especially telling at the end of Romans 7 because I think it to be a description of the life of a Christian who is living under the law. Since all commentators I have read are in that zone, then it's impossible for them to properly illuminate Paul's words, because Paul is criticizing that life which they are all living in. They soooooooo identify with Paul's description but he's absolutely not saying that's how we are to live.

They totally identify with "For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Ahhh, that's home baby. But Paul is not stating a zone where he lives, he thanks God profusely in verse 25. And he's not thankin him for letting him live in turmoil.

He declares totally victory with the start of Chapter 8 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Yep, noooooo condemnation. Doh, where did that come from? They much prefer "we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions . . . " They gravitate to the Christian under the law because that's what they know. But that is not what Paul is saying. He discusses it because the law is for real but he never ends there, it's always part of a conversation where in the end we are really free from sin and free from the law. Which makes total sense with being born again and having the mind of Christ.

The RSV is my preferred version because I think it's a little less watered down from comparisons I've made. That translation goes "No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him . . . . No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God" and on the other side of the coin (or the same side) "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

For starters they aren't written side by side. For seconders everything is about context. My view of John's statements or better said, mindset, is that as born again Christians we are truly God's children who live in the Spirit of the Holy Ghost and do not sin. That's what makes us unique and identifiable from the unsaved who live in Satan's lies. Loving your enemies cannot exist in a non-Christian and can only be driven by the Spirit of God in his people who have aligned themselves with his mindset. When he states that no one who sins has either seen him or known him I think he's talking about those who live in sin not those who are dead to sin. In the translation you use it says "continue in sin" which may be added or be a better interpretation of the original Greek, but I do consider it to be non-Christians who simply live in sin. And when John says Christian's don't sin it's the same tone and meaning as Paul who says we are dead to sin . . . "How can we still live in it". We don't sin. We're dead to it. Thanks be to Jesus for becoming it on the cross. John isn't wrapped up in the theological technicalities, he's painting a reality picture.

Paul says "now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me." This is the same sentiment. Sin is the enemy and we are seen as apart from it. Christ work has separated us from it although it's still looming because we still have decaying bodies housing our souls. But that doesn't mean it's us, it means we have to drag this shit around until physical death releases us from it but at no time does it dictate who we really are. It's passed away and all has become new.

I'm not sure whether this addresses your issues. John also states in Chapter 2 "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" So he doesn't preclude the potential that Christians sin. So that is the context, Christian's sin, but they are not sin. They've died with Christ and live in the Spirit. It's simply the way it is. God is reality and I think Paul and John simply testify what they see and know; that is the Spirit of a prophet.

Even at the essence of physics you see exactly the same thing. Scientists have to describe light as both wave and particle, which even though is contradictory, is the only way to render the truth accurately. And as I've mentioned before, the behaviour of particles at the quantum level had Einstein balking with the statement 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. He couldn't handle the seemingly unconnected but better described 'personal' behaviour of particles. I loved it because it matched how I'd come to know the strange essence of our creator. He is that he is which is hands down my favourite outcry.