Forever Sealed

[Anthony Pritchard]

Forever Sealed: Eternal Security

The believer's security does not rest upon personal performance, religious ceremony, or the ability to persevere through sheer determination. It rests upon God's work from beginning to end. Scripture presents multiple lines of evidence showing that salvation is a permanent possession of every true believer.

Like a structure supported by several pillars, the doctrine of eternal security is reinforced from different directions. Among the strongest are these three: the name written in the Book of Life, the nature of the new birth, and the seal of the Holy Spirit.

1. The Name Cannot Be Blotted Out

Christ declares:

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life." (Revelation 3:5)

This is not a threat but a promise. The Lord does not say that some names will be erased. Rather, He assures the overcomer that his name will never be removed.

Who is the overcomer? Scripture answers:

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." (1 John 5:4)

And again:

"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5)

The overcomer is not a special class of victorious Christians. It is every person who has been born of God through faith in Christ. The promise therefore belongs to all believers. Their names remain written, permanently secured by the One who saved them.

2. The New Man Cannot Sin

The new birth is not merely a change of attitude or behavior. It is the creation of a new man.

John writes:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

The apostle is speaking of that new nature which is born of God. While the believer still contends with the flesh in this life, the new man itself remains incorruptible. That which is born of God possesses the character of its source.

Scripture repeatedly connects death with sin:

"The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)

If the new man cannot sin, then the new man cannot incur the penalty of sin. The very life imparted in the new birth is incapable of becoming spiritually dead.

Paul therefore writes:

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Colossians 3:3)

The believer's new life is not merely protected by God. It is hidden with Christ in God Himself. To lose that life would require Christ's own life to be lost first, an impossibility.

3. The Seal of the Spirit

Paul writes:

"In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession." (Ephesians 1:13-14)

The moment a person believes, God seals him with the Holy Spirit.

A seal signifies ownership, authenticity, and security. God places His mark upon the believer, identifying him as His own possession.

The Spirit is also called "the earnest of our inheritance." An earnest is a pledge, a down payment guaranteeing what is yet to come. God has not merely promised a future inheritance. He has already given part of it in the person of the Holy Spirit.

The sealing continues "until the redemption of the purchased possession." The text does not speak of a seal that may be broken, renewed, lost, and regained. It endures until the final redemption.

The Spirit is not a temporary guest. He is God's guarantee that what He has begun He will certainly complete.

Death Defined: Separation, Not Cessation

A common objection assumes that eternal life can somehow be lost. Yet Scripture's definition of death undermines that claim.

Death is not annihilation. Death is separation.

James writes:

"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26)

Physical death occurs when the spirit is separated from the body.

Spiritual death occurs when a person is separated from fellowship and life in God.

But the believer's new life can never experience such separation because it is united to Christ.

Paul asks:

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" (Romans 8:35)

His answer is unmistakable. Nothing can.

4. Christ's Absolute Promise

Jesus declares:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)

The phrase "in no wise" is one of the strongest expressions of negation found in the New Testament. It is not a tentative assurance or a conditional promise. It is an absolute denial. Christ is saying that the one who comes to Him will never, under any circumstance, be cast out.

The believer's security therefore rests not only upon what has been done in him through the new birth, nor only upon the seal of the Spirit, but upon the personal promise of Christ Himself. The Savior does not merely receive the believer for a season. He receives him permanently.

This same certainty appears throughout Scripture. God promises:

"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Hebrews 13:5)

The language is absolute. It excludes every possibility of abandonment. The believer is not held by a fragile agreement dependent upon human faithfulness. He is held by the unbreakable promise of God.

If Christ says He will "in no wise cast out" the one who comes, then no future circumstance can overturn that declaration. The promise stands as a divine guarantee that the believer's acceptance is final and secure.

Forever Sealed

The believer's security rests upon multiple divine guarantees.

• His name will not be blotted out of the Book of Life.
• The new man born of God cannot sin and therefore cannot become spiritually dead.
• The Holy Spirit seals him until the day of final redemption.

Christ Himself promises, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

These are not possibilities. They are divine certainties. The promise of Christ rests upon the strongest form of negation found in the New Testament, excluding every possibility that the one who comes to Him will ever be cast out.

Taken together, these truths form a powerful testimony to the permanence of salvation. The believer is not preserved by his grip on Christ, but by Christ's grip on him. He is secured by a name that cannot be blotted out, a new life that cannot die, a seal that endures until redemption, and a promise that cannot be broken.

He is, in the fullest biblical sense, forever sealed.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 - Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[JD731]

Personallly I cannot imagine any Christian disagreeing with these points but just for clarity do all these points apply to every man who has ever lived Genesis thru Revelation who has been justified by faith? Thanks.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

do all these points apply to every man who has ever lived Genesis thru Revelation who has been justified by faith? Thanks.

Yes, I believe these principles apply to every person who has ever been justified by faith, from Genesis to Revelation.

There has never been more than one way of salvation. Abraham was justified by faith. David spoke of the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. The New Testament believer is likewise justified by faith. The object of faith became clearer as redemptive history unfolded, but the means of salvation remained the same: God's grace received through faith.

The same is true of preservation. Scripture never presents the saints as ultimately kept by their own power, but by God's.

"For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

The emphasis is not upon Paul's ability to hold on to Christ, but upon Christ's ability to keep what Paul has entrusted to Him.

If salvation ultimately depends upon the believer's ability to preserve himself, then no one is secure. But if salvation depends upon Christ's ability to preserve those who belong to Him, then every justified saint stands upon the same foundation.

Whether Abraham, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, or you or I, the principle is the same. There is one Savior, one salvation, and one Preserver.

The redeemed are not kept by their own faithfulness, but by His. Their security rests not in themselves, but in Christ.

 

[JD731]

Yes, I believe these principles apply to every person who has ever been justified by faith, from Genesis to Revelation.

There has never been more than one way of salvation. Abraham was justified by faith. David spoke of the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. The New Testament believer is likewise justified by faith. The object of faith became clearer as redemptive history unfolded, but the means of salvation remained the same: God's grace received through faith.

The same is true of preservation. Scripture never presents the saints as ultimately kept by their own power, but by God's.

"For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

The emphasis is not upon Paul's ability to hold on to Christ, but upon Christ's ability to keep what Paul has entrusted to Him.

If salvation ultimately depends upon the believer's ability to preserve himself, then no one is secure. But if salvation depends upon Christ's ability to preserve those who belong to Him, then every justified saint stands upon the same foundation.

Whether Abraham, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, or you or I, the principle is the same. There is one Savior, one salvation, and one Preserver.

The redeemed are not kept by their own faithfulness, but by His. Their security rests not in themselves, but in Christ.

Thanks Anthony. The terms saved and salvation is used more than one way in scripture but would you say when it is used in the context of being saved from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire, separated from God eternally, and being saved from the power of sin, and ultimately saved from the presence of sin, or the possibility of sinning, would you agree that salvation is a NT doctrine though it includes and is even required of pre NT church and post NT church saints?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thanks Anthony. The terms saved and salvation is used more than one way in scripture but would you say when it is used in the context of being saved from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire, separated from God eternally, and being saved from the power of sin, and ultimately saved from the presence of sin, or the possibility of sinning, would you agree that salvation is a NT doctrine though it includes and is even required of pre NT church and post NT church saints?

No, I would not agree that salvation is exclusively a New Testament doctrine. In that sense, the Bible is one book, unfolding one redemptive purpose from beginning to end.

The promise of salvation appears immediately after the Fall in Genesis 3:15. Abraham was justified by faith. David spoke of righteousness imputed apart from works. The prophets looked forward to the coming Redeemer. The New Testament does not introduce salvation as a new doctrine. It reveals more fully what God had already promised and foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament.

Where I would make a distinction is with the churches. The churches, the building made without hands, were a mystery not fully revealed in previous ages. The Tabernacle and later the Temple typified God's dwelling among His people, but the reality revealed in the New Testament is greater: God in us, and we in Christ.

So while there is progression in revelation, there is continuity in both salvation and preservation. The same God who justified Abraham preserves the believer today. The same Savior anticipated in promise is the Savior revealed in fulfillment.

From Tabernacle to Temple to churches, Scripture presents one unfolding account of redemption. There is one Savior, one salvation, and one Preserver.

That is why I believe the principle of Forever Sealed applies to every person ever justified by faith. Their security rested neither in themselves nor in their era of redemptive history, but in the faithfulness of God who saves and keeps His people.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@JD731

Let me ask a related question.

We agree that God is the Creator of both the material and immaterial realms. Time itself is part of creation. God created it.

Is God restrained by His creation?

If God created time, is He limited by time? Must His knowledge, purpose, and saving work be confined by temporal distinctions that belong to the creature rather than the Creator?

When Christ is called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Scripture presents God's redemptive purpose as transcending the temporal order in which it is revealed.

From our perspective, Abraham lived before the Cross and Paul lived after it. From God's perspective, is the efficacy of Christ's atonement limited by chronology, or does God apply the benefits of the same redemption to all whom He saves?

That is one reason I view salvation and preservation as one continuous work throughout Scripture. The revelation unfolds progressively in history, but the Savior, the basis of salvation, and the preserving power of God do not change.

If God is not limited by time, then I see no reason to conclude that Old Testament saints were saved and preserved by one principle and New Testament saints by another.

 

[Van]

Let me address just one of the points of the opening post.

2. The New Man Cannot Sin

The new birth is not merely a change of attitude or behavior. It is the creation of a new man.
John writes:

"Whosoever is born of
God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

The apostle is speaking of that new nature which is born of God. While the believer still contends with the flesh in this life, the new man itself remains incorruptible. That which is born of God possesses the character of its source.

Scripture repeatedly connects death with sin:

"The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)

If the new man cannot sin, then the new man cannot incur the penalty of sin. The very life imparted in the new birth is incapable of becoming spiritually dead.

Paul therefore writes:

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Colossians 3:3)

The believer's new life is not merely protected by God. It is hidden with Christ in God Himself. To lose that life would require Christ's own life to be lost first, an impossibility.

Sin has two necessary but distinct components, (1) our thought or act that conflicts with the will of God, and (2) the consequence of that transgression imposed by God. If we do a sinful act, but no consequence occurs because we are totally forgiven, our act is not sin, for we cannot sin as our sinful acts, past, present and future are forgiven.

This view is required not only by 1 John 3:9, but also 1 John 1:8 where if we say we have no "sin" we are a liar. Here, 1 John 1:8, "sin" is to have done something needing forgiveness, equivalent to to have committed what would be sinful if not for the blood of the Lamb.

We are to be keenly aware of our missteps, and not think we do not commit what would be sinful acts, so we can, under the tutelage of our indwelt Helper, progressively become more like Christ and more effective witnesses for Christ.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Let me address just one of the points of the opening post.

Van, I think the distinction is between the two natures Scripture describes.

The seed of Adam remains present in our flesh. That is why believers still struggle with sin, still fail, and still need confession and correction.

But the new man is not born of Adam. The new man is born of God.

John does not say the new birth is merely forgiven. He says:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

The reason given is not forgiveness, but origin. The new man cannot sin because he is born of God.

There is no sin nature in God. Therefore that which is born of God does not possess a sin nature. The corruption of Adam belongs to the flesh, not to the new man.

That is why I do not see 1 John 3:9 as describing the flesh. It is describing that new life imparted in regeneration. The flesh still sins. The new man does not.

My point in the article follows from that distinction. If the new man cannot sin, then the new man cannot incur the penalty of sin. The life born of God cannot become spiritually dead because it possesses the very character of its source.

The question is not whether Christians sin in the flesh. We all know they do. The question is why John says that what is born of God "cannot sin." I believe the answer is that John is speaking of the new man, not the Adamic nature that remains in the flesh.

The conflict exists because the redeemed man presently inhabits unredeemed flesh. Yet even that condition is temporary. Paul writes:

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

One day the flesh itself will be redeemed. The Adamic nature that now wars against the Spirit will be gone forever. What is true of the new man now will then be true of the whole person. There will be no remaining principle of sin, no conflict between flesh and spirit, and no possibility of falling into sin.

The new man is already incapable of sin because he is born of God. The future redemption of the body will remove the last remnant of Adam's corruption, and the believer will stand complete in Christ. That is not merely preservation. It is the completion of the work God began in the new birth.

 

[JD731]

No, I would not agree that salvation is exclusively a New Testament doctrine. In that sense, the Bible is one book, unfolding one redemptive purpose from beginning to end.

The promise of salvation appears immediately after the Fall in Genesis 3:15. Abraham was justified by faith. David spoke of righteousness imputed apart from works. The prophets looked forward to the coming Redeemer. The New Testament does not introduce salvation as a new doctrine. It reveals more fully what God had already promised and foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament.

Where I would make a distinction is with the churches. The churches, the building made without hands, were a mystery not fully revealed in previous ages. The Tabernacle and later the Temple typified God's dwelling among His people, but the reality revealed in the New Testament is greater: God in us, and we in Christ.

So while there is progression in revelation, there is continuity in both salvation and preservation. The same God who justified Abraham preserves the believer today. The same Savior anticipated in promise is the Savior revealed in fulfillment.

From Tabernacle to Temple to churches, Scripture presents one unfolding account of redemption. There is one Savior, one salvation, and one Preserver.

That is why I believe the principle of Forever Sealed applies to every person ever justified by faith. Their security rested neither in themselves nor in their era of redemptive history, but in the faithfulness of God who saves and keeps His people.

If salvation from sin and its effects is a promise beginning in Ge 3:15 and still a promise to Abraham and David and has not been realized when Jesus was born into the world 4000 years after creation, are we properly defining salvation? The serpent was the instigator of separation of God from Adam and his act of disobeying God was called dying and caused all his offspring from then on to be dead, meaning they are born with a body like Adam's body and the human spirit but without the eternal Spirit of God. Adam's family is in his fallen image.
It is implied that the seed of the woman would renew that union while delivering a death blow to the serpent sometimes in the future. Reading the events of the coming of the seed of the woman, Jesus Christ, in the 4 gospel accounts, I am aware that he is the last Adam, the second man and at the end of his life on earth that had been completely open for view no one, not even God the Father, could find one fault in him and the last three hours on that cross where sin had put him the world turned dark and God left him and he suffered there as a man in hell and died both spiritually and physically. The Spirit separated from his body and God the Father turned away, and his own human spirit departed from his body and he died the way the first Adam died. They took his body down from the cross and buried it in a tomb and God was propitiated by what he did on behalf of Adam's race and I know that because God raised him from the dead and glorified his body. Since that time he has been building a house (family) that will have the same relationship with him as Eve had with Adam. She was taken from his body and formed as a woman and presented to him by the Father as his wife. Adam's family from whence she was taken still lives among this family until Jesus comes from the Father's house to receive his bride and to take her back to the Father's house just as Isaac met Rebekah in person for the first time in Gen 24 after the father of Isaac had sent his faithful servant to find a woman of his kinsmen who would be willing to marry a man she had only heard about but had never seen.
Salvation is not in that manger when he came, though it was necessary, but it is at the tomb at his resurrection when he would leave the world. So salvation is receiving a person. A person none of us has ever seen. A person who died and rose again. He made the way for Adam's family to get back to God. He died both spiritually and physically in our place so we can live.

The OT people could not receive Jesus with the light and understanding we have today since the cross. Even those closest to him, the apostles, did not believe nor understand his death and resurrection even after they had been told about it and some quit the ministry to go back to their careers. How then did God deal with those in the OT days from the creation? There was not even a Bible for the first 2500 years of human history. How did God reveal himself to them?

We are told about how God dealt with them who had a contrite heart and millions if not billions of them will be with us in the eternal state because of what Jesus our blessed Lord did on that cross just two thousand years ago. Their salvation is not separate from the cross but it is not accomplished before the cross.

Ex 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

The souls of all OT saints went to paradise when they died. It was said to be in the heart of the earth and it was where Jesus went with the repentant thief. They could not enter into the presence of God in heaven until the shed blood of Christ washed their sins away and cleared them of sin. I suppose when Peter said that he went to preach to the spirits in prison he meant that he went to these saints and preached his own sacrifice and then led captives out to the Father's house and in his presence.

I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is a NT doctrine. Salvation is the renewal of the trinitarian image that Adam lost when he disobeyed God and it is possible because the blood of Christ washes away our sin. Praise the triune God!

 

[Van]

Van, I think the distinction is between the two natures Scripture describes.

The seed of Adam remains present in our flesh. That is why believers still struggle with sin, still fail, and still need confession and correction.

But the new man is not born of Adam. The new man is born of God.

John does not say the new birth is merely forgiven. He says:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

The reason given is not forgiveness, but origin. The new man cannot sin because he is born of God.

There is no sin nature in God. Therefore that which is born of God does not possess a sin nature. The corruption of Adam belongs to the flesh, not to the new man.

That is why I do not see 1 John 3:9 as describing the flesh. It is describing that new life imparted in regeneration. The flesh still sins. The new man does not.

My point in the article follows from that distinction. If the new man cannot sin, then the new man cannot incur the penalty of sin. The life born of God cannot become spiritually dead because it possesses the very character of its source.

The question is not whether Christians sin in the flesh. We all know they do. The question is why John says that what is born of God "cannot sin." I believe the answer is that John is speaking of the new man, not the Adamic nature that remains in the flesh.

The conflict exists because the redeemed man presently inhabits unredeemed flesh. Yet even that condition is temporary. Paul writes:

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

One day the flesh itself will be redeemed. The Adamic nature that now wars against the Spirit will be gone forever. What is true of the new man now will then be true of the whole person. There will be no remaining principle of sin, no conflict between flesh and spirit, and no possibility of falling into sin.

The new man is already incapable of sin because he is born of God. The future redemption of the body will remove the last remnant of Adam's corruption, and the believer will stand complete in Christ. That is not merely preservation. It is the completion of the work God began in the new birth.

I did not see where you addressed the reason sinful thoughts and deeds are not said to be sin. You said born anew believers still struggle with sin, as if their sinful thoughts and actions were indeed "sin" ignoring that they cannot sin. Instead, you claim the flesh sins but the born anew spirit does not sin. If we say we have no sin, referring to our born anew spirit, but our human flesh does sin, we are rewriting the verse.

 

[JD731]

@Van

If God, the Judge of all men, justified a sinner, anticipating that some able substitute is coming to pay his debt in full, Would he then be an unrighteous judge to condemn him after he had justified him even though his offences were still outstanding? What does justification mean to you?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I did not see where you addressed the reason sinful thoughts and deeds are not said to be sin. You said born anew believers still struggle with sin, as if their sinful thoughts and actions were indeed "sin" ignoring that they cannot sin. Instead, you claim the flesh sins but the born anew spirit does not sin. If we say we have no sin, referring to our born anew spirit, but our human flesh does sin, we are rewriting the verse.

Van, I am not rewriting the verse. I am trying to fit all of John's statements together rather than focusing on only one of them.

In the same epistle John says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8), yet he also says, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). We have two statements from John. The task is to understand how they fit together. Whatever interpretation we adopt, it must account for both statements.

My point is that John gives the reason in 1 John 3:9: "because he is born of God." The emphasis is on the source and nature of that new birth. That which is born of God receives its life from God, and God has no sin nature, so therefore the new man, born of God, does not share in Adam's fallen condition.

I am not denying that believers commit sins in thought, word, and deed. Scripture plainly teaches otherwise. The question is whether 1 John 3:9 is describing the believer according to the flesh or according to that new life born of God. It is describing the latter because John says the reason is that he is "born of God."

So then, I see no contradiction. The flesh still sins and is still awaiting redemption "...even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23). Also revealed in Paul's agony in Romans 7:19-25 where he exclaimed in verse 24 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The entire passage describes the struggle between the flesh and spirit. Galatians 5:17 also describes this war "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other...".

However, according to 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin..." because the new man, born of God, receives his life from God rather than from Adam.

It seems to me that your objection assumes John is speaking about the whole believer when he says "cannot sin." My position is that John himself tells us why. He says it is because one is "born of God." That is the key to understanding the verse.

John does not simply say that the person is forgiven. He points to the new birth itself.

When a person is born again, something new has come into existence. There is still the flesh, which came from Adam and is still waiting for redemption. But there is also the new man, which is born of God.

These are not the same. The flesh and the Spirit are at war with one another. The old man pulls one way, while the new man pulls another.

Therefore, when John says that the one who is "born of God" cannot sin, I believe he is speaking about that new life that comes from God in the new birth.

The question is not whether believers commit acts of sin. The question is why John says that what is born of God "cannot sin." That may be difficult to wrap our minds around, but that is the wording of the text.

Paul does not deny responsibility for sin, but he does show a difference between the inward man and the sin that dwells in his flesh. He repeatedly points to the flesh as the place where the struggle comes from, not the inward man.

So the question becomes:

If the new man is born of God and cannot sin, and yet sinful thoughts and actions still occur, where do they come from?

They come from the flesh, the remnant of Adam's corruption that remains until the redemption of the body according to scripture.

So I would ask you, Van, who is the "he" in 1 John 3:9 that "cannot sin because he is born of God"?
If that refers to the whole believer without any distinction, how do you reconcile that with 1 John 1:8?
If it does not refer to the whole believer without distinction, then what distinction is John making?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

If God, the Judge of all men, justified a sinner, anticipating that some able substitute is coming to pay his debt in full, Would he then be an unrighteous judge to condemn him after he had justified him even though his offences were still outstanding? What does justification mean to you?

JD, I agree that God will not condemn the saved man. Once justified, the believer's standing before God is secure in Christ.

At the same time, Scripture also teaches that God does deal with sin in the believer's life. He chastens His children, and John even speaks of a "sin unto death." God will remove a child who has strayed too far.

There are consequences for sin, even though there is no condemnation of the new man in Christ. In fact, that is part of our assurance. God will not condemn the new man. Instead, He deals with His children as a Father. He chastens them, and if necessary, He may even bring their earthly life to an end and call them home. The believer may lose his life, but he does not lose the eternal life that God gave him.

That is why it is important to distinguish between the new man and the flesh. God will not condemn the saved man, but He certainly will deal with the flesh. The flesh remains under judgment and is still awaiting redemption. Our sinful, unredeemed flesh is still under judgment. That is why the flesh becomes sick and dies.

That brings us back to the question raised by 1 John 3:9. John says the one who is "born of God" cannot sin because he is born of God. The question is not whether believers commit sins. We know they do. The question is who John is referring to when he speaks of that which is "born of God."

That is the issue I am trying to explain.

 

[percho]

Van, I am not rewriting the verse. I am trying to fit all of John's statements together rather than focusing on only one of them.

In the same epistle John says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8), yet he also says, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). We have two statements from John. The task is to understand how they fit together. Whatever interpretation we adopt, it must account for both statements.

My point is that John gives the reason in 1 John 3:9: "because he is born of God." The emphasis is on the source and nature of that new birth. That which is born of God receives its life from God, and God has no sin nature, so therefore the new man, born of God, does not share in Adam's fallen condition.

I am not denying that believers commit sins in thought, word, and deed. Scripture plainly teaches otherwise. The question is whether 1 John 3:9 is describing the believer according to the flesh or according to that new life born of God. It is describing the latter because John says the reason is that he is "born of God."

So then, I see no contradiction. The flesh still sins and is still awaiting redemption "...even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23). Also revealed in Paul's agony in Romans 7:19-25 where he exclaimed in verse 24 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The entire passage describes the struggle between the flesh and spirit. Galatians 5:17 also describes this war "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other...".

However, according to 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin..." because the new man, born of God, receives his life from God rather than from Adam.

It seems to me that your objection assumes John is speaking about the whole believer when he says "cannot sin." My position is that John himself tells us why. He says it is because one is "born of God." That is the key to understanding the verse.

John does not simply say that the person is forgiven. He points to the new birth itself.

When a person is born again, something new has come into existence. There is still the flesh, which came from Adam and is still waiting for redemption. But there is also the new man, which is born of God.

These are not the same. The flesh and the Spirit are at war with one another. The old man pulls one way, while the new man pulls another.

Therefore, when John says that the one who is "born of God" cannot sin, I believe he is speaking about that new life that comes from God in the new birth.

The question is not whether believers commit acts of sin. The question is why John says that what is born of God "cannot sin." That may be difficult to wrap our minds around, but that is the wording of the text.

Paul does not deny responsibility for sin, but he does show a difference between the inward man and the sin that dwells in his flesh. He repeatedly points to the flesh as the place where the struggle comes from, not the inward man.

So the question becomes:

If the new man is born of God and cannot sin, and yet sinful thoughts and actions still occur, where do they come from?

They come from the flesh, the remnant of Adam's corruption that remains until the redemption of the body according to scripture.

So I would ask you, Van, who is the "he" in 1 John 3:9 that "cannot sin because he is born of God"?
If that refers to the whole believer without any distinction, how do you reconcile that with 1 John 1:8?
If it does not refer to the whole believer without distinction, then what distinction is John making?

A thought.

A.
See ye what love the Father hath given to us, that children of God we may be called; because of this the world doth not know us, because it did not know Him; beloved, now, children of God are we, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be,
for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, 'Abba -- Father.' The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God;

B.
and we have known that if he may be manifested, like him we shall be, because we shall see him as he is;
And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

V 9 every one who hath been begotten [born equaling redemption of the body of us] of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.

Is verse 9 speaking of primarily of those of A or B? Or should it be asked is V 9 speaking of those of verse 1,2 before and or after the manifestation?

As I said, just a thought.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

As I said, just a thought.

An interesting question.

I would say John is speaking of a present reality because he says,

"Whosoever is born of God..."

not,

"Whosoever shall be born of God."

The new birth is a present possession, and John grounds the statement in that present reality.

At the same time, I agree that there is a future aspect to redemption. Romans 8:23 tells us that we are still waiting for the redemption of the body.

My view is that 1 John 3:9 describes what is true of the new man now because he is born of God. The future redemption of the body will remove the remaining Adamic corruption so that what is presently true of the new man will then be true of the whole person.

 

[Van]

Van, I am not rewriting the verse. I am trying to fit all of John's statements together rather than focusing on only one of them.

In the same epistle John says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8), yet he also says, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... and he cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). We have two statements from John. The task is to understand how they fit together. Whatever interpretation we adopt, it must account for both statements.

My point is that John gives the reason in 1 John 3:9: "because he is born of God." The emphasis is on the source and nature of that new birth. That which is born of God receives its life from God, and God has no sin nature, so therefore the new man, born of God, does not share in Adam's fallen condition.

I am not denying that believers commit sins in thought, word, and deed. Scripture plainly teaches otherwise. The question is whether 1 John 3:9 is describing the believer according to the flesh or according to that new life born of God. It is describing the latter because John says the reason is that he is "born of God."

So then, I see no contradiction. The flesh still sins and is still awaiting redemption "...even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23). Also revealed in Paul's agony in Romans 7:19-25 where he exclaimed in verse 24 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The entire passage describes the struggle between the flesh and spirit. Galatians 5:17 also describes this war "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other...".

However, according to 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin..." because the new man, born of God, receives his life from God rather than from Adam.

It seems to me that your objection assumes John is speaking about the whole believer when he says "cannot sin." My position is that John himself tells us why. He says it is because one is "born of God." That is the key to understanding the verse.

John does not simply say that the person is forgiven. He points to the new birth itself.

When a person is born again, something new has come into existence. There is still the flesh, which came from Adam and is still waiting for redemption. But there is also the new man, which is born of God.

These are not the same. The flesh and the Spirit are at war with one another. The old man pulls one way, while the new man pulls another.

Therefore, when John says that the one who is "born of God" cannot sin, I believe he is speaking about that new life that comes from God in the new birth.

The question is not whether believers commit acts of sin. The question is why John says that what is born of God "cannot sin." That may be difficult to wrap our minds around, but that is the wording of the text.

Paul does not deny responsibility for sin, but he does show a difference between the inward man and the sin that dwells in his flesh. He repeatedly points to the flesh as the place where the struggle comes from, not the inward man.

So the question becomes:

If the new man is born of God and cannot sin, and yet sinful thoughts and actions still occur, where do they come from?

They come from the flesh, the remnant of Adam's corruption that remains until the redemption of the body according to scripture.

So I would ask you, Van, who is the "he" in 1 John 3:9 that "cannot sin because he is born of God"?
If that refers to the whole believer without any distinction, how do you reconcile that with 1 John 1:8?
If it does not refer to the whole believer without distinction, then what distinction is John making?

Who is the "he" is the person, and personhood is made up of "intellect, will and emotion." Sinful thoughts and deeds coming from or in accommodation of fleshly desires, are still the sinful thoughts and deeds of the person, not flesh animated by our human spirit/soul.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Who is the "he" is the person, and personhood is made up of "intellect, will and emotion." Sinful thoughts and deeds coming from or in accommodation of fleshly desires, are still the sinful thoughts and deeds of the person, not flesh animated by our human spirit/soul.

Van,

That does not answer the question.

“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.” (1 John 3:9)

Does this verse mean anything?

If it does, we must see how it fits with the rest of Scripture.

Scripture also says:

“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not...” (1 John 5:18)

Does this verse mean anything?

If it does, we must see how it fits with the rest of Scripture.

Peter says:

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23)

Again, the new man is born of God, not of Adam's corrupt seed. God has no sin nature to pass on to the new man.

So the question is not whether Christians commit sins.

We all know they do.

The question is this:

If we are born of God, if we are dead to sin, if we are to walk in newness of life, then how?

Romans 6:2 says:

“God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

If we are dead to sin, separated from sin, how do we not sin?

Romans 6:4 says:

“...even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

How?

Paul faced that same question.

He wrote:

“...but how to perform that which is good I find not.” (Romans 7:18)

Notice that Paul is asking the very thing we are asking.

How?

Paul gives part of the answer in Romans 7:25:

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

Notice that Paul does not say the law of God and the law of sin are the same thing.

Neither does he describe them as working in harmony.

He says that with the mind he serves the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

There is a conflict.

There is a war.

That is exactly what he says elsewhere:

"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other..." (Galatians 5:17)

Again, we are brought back to the same question:

How do we not sin?

Paul answers in Romans 6.

• The answer is not that the conflict disappears.
• The answer is not that the flesh becomes righteous.
• The answer is not that the old man suddenly stops opposing God.

The answer is found in what we yield ourselves to.

Romans 6:16-22 says:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Paul's point is simple.

We become servants of that which we yield ourselves to.

If we yield ourselves to the desires of the flesh, we will walk after the flesh.

If we yield ourselves to God, we will walk in righteousness.

It is who we surrender to.

The old man, the flesh, that which came from Adam?

Or God, through that new life which is born of Him?

This brings us back to Ephesians.

"And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians 4:24)

Notice what Paul says about the new man.

• He does not say the new man is sinful.
• He does not say the new man is corrupt.
• He says the new man is created after God in righteousness and true holiness.

Now look at the verse just above it:

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts." (Ephesians 4:22)

The contrast could hardly be clearer.

The old man is corrupt.

The new man is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Scripture itself makes this distinction.

It is not my distinction.

It is Paul's.

• The old man is one thing.
• The new man is another.
• One is corrupt.
• The other is righteous and holy.
• One belongs to Adam.
• The other is born of God.

That is why Scripture speaks of a conflict.

"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other..." (Galatians 5:17)

These two are at war with one another.

That is Paul's language, not mine.

So when I speak of the flesh as the source of sinful thoughts and actions, I am not denying personal responsibility.

Paul never denies personal responsibility.

Rather, I am making the same distinction Paul makes.

Paul says:

"It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

And again:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing."

Notice that Paul does not simply say, "in me dwelleth no good thing."

He specifically says:

"That is, in my flesh."

Why make that distinction at all if no difference exists?

Why qualify the statement?

Why not simply say that everything about him is equally corrupt?

Instead, Paul points specifically to the flesh.

He even cries out:

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24)

Why would Paul long to be delivered from the body of this death if there is no distinction to be made?

Why would he speak of the inward man delighting in God's law while another law wars in his members?

Why would he speak of the old man and the new man?

Why would he speak of the flesh and the Spirit?

Why would John speak of that which is born of God and cannot sin?

These distinctions are not my invention. They come directly from Scripture.

The real question is not whether believers sin. The real question is how all of these passages fit together.

If the new man is created in righteousness and true holiness, what does that mean?

If what is born of God cannot sin, what does that mean?

If the flesh lusts against the Spirit, what does that mean?

If Paul delights in God's law after the inward man while another law wars in his members, what distinction is he making?

Those are the passages that need to be explained, not ignored.

“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.” (1 John 3:9)

“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not...” (1 John 5:18)

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23)

Do these passages even belong in the bible? Do these passages mean anything?

The fact is they are in the bible.

So my question to you is: What then do these passages teach?