Someone else asked me that too, but I don't want to answer. I think that no matter what answer I give, it will skew further discussion about these kinds of topics. If I say I'm at 13 or 14, then people will say, "he thinks he's perfect". If I say I'm at 1 or 2, then they say, "Hypocrite!".

The point is we would start talking about me, or perhaps you, rather than the ideas.

Regarding these 14 steps, I didn't realize there would be 14 until I wrote the list. Maybe it could be better written but it gets my thoughts across none the less.

I remember when I was in college, one of the first things we studied was critical thinking. There was a whole course devoted to it and I very much enjoyed it. We are taught in critical thinking, to think about how we are thinking. We should be critical about our own thought process. One thing we had to do was become aware of our own biases and realize how they could affect our thinking. Becoming more and more aware of one's biases and becoming more accustomed to holding them critically, produces a very good habit of thinking.

This all goes very well with philosophy, which immediately challenges all we seem to think we know immediately. In light of this, at one time I wondered what my biases were in Christian thinking. It's very difficult to uncover them because quite often biases seem like the truth, and they may be true at times, but sometimes not.

I wondered one day, what if everything I thought I knew about Christianity was wrong? This sort of helped me jump-start my ability to think critically about my own Christian thinking. Of course, I didn't really believe that pretty much everything I believed about Christian thinking was wrong, but in the interest of cultivating a critical thinking approach to religion, I found this to be very useful.

At no point did I question whether or not Christianity was true, because I've already been there and done that. This was only about checking my biases and applying real critical thinking skills to my own Christian thought.

One day, in all of this, when 1 John 3:9 was brought to my attention, I reflected on it and decided that it would be interesting to take this at face value and use this verse as a fundamental basis for interpreting other verses, based on the fact that 1 John 3:9 is unambiguous while other verses require more context.

When studying philosophy and higher maths, we learn to think axiomatically. In doing so we can discover lots of facts based on only a few axiomatic ideas. Conversely, if we are not sure that our fundamental ideas are true, when we apply axiomatic thinking to them we may realize that they entail absurdities, thus causing us to reconsider our fundamental axiomatic ideas.

I wanted to apply the critical thinking skills I mentioned earlier with axiomatic thinking and explore Christian ideas and doctrine. I took 1 John 3:9 and used it as a basic fundamental truth and interpreted other verses axiomatically through this verse.

I found that there were no problems with contradictions with other verses in doing this, but, I realized something I did not like. This study had exposed contradictions after all, but not with other versus, but rather with my own Christian thinking. It contradicted the things that I had heard in the Christian community, from my parents, grandparents, churches, preachers, other Christians and so on.

Along with a focus on critical thinking and axiomatic thinking, I decided I needed to push further and go to the next step, so, being a student of philosophy, I decided to take the Socratic approach i.e. employ the Socratic Method in my discussions with Christians about these topics. This made me, like Socrates, a very unpopular gadfly! I learned that when you keep asking simple questions, challenging what people think they know, they think you are being mean and nasty and start to respond in kind.

My understanding prior to this time was that all you need to do to be saved, which is the same as being born again, is confess that Christ is your lord and savior, believe that he died on the cross for my sins and ask forgiveness for them. Then, after that, you are saved and Jesus lives in you and you are born again - and you can sin all the time every day with good excuses, like, we all <stumble>, no one is <perfect>, no one is <sinless>, and things like that.

I liked thinking that.

I knew all the reasoning behind it. Paul sinned, peter sinned, everyone sinned etc... Or how about, it's the flesh sinning but not the spirit!

Paul struggled with sin. Are you greater than the apostle Paul? We all stumble but because of Jesus we are saved. If that weren't the case then Jesus died on the cross for nothing. This is how I used to think and I thought this way for almost 40 years.

I thought, "sure I would like to live a sinless life, but it's impossible, which is why God gave us Jesus to die for our sins. Besides, you can't earn your way to heaven by not sinning. It's grace not works".

It is grace and not works, this is true. I still think that. I'm just trying to explain how I used to think in the larger context.

Anyway, I notice that the emphasis seems to be on the individual beginning the process of sanctification, and continuing to sanctify himself!? Isn't that the same as relying on our own efforts to produce good works and thereby 'save' ourselves?

And why is the removal of the spirit of Satan so late in the process? Shouldn't that be at or near the beginning?

And why is repentance in the middle of the process at no.7? Shouldn't that be near the start (cf Mark 1:14-15)?

If someone gets all the way to no.13 and then they commit one single small sin, do they have to go all the way back to no.1 and start again? It's not like a game of 'snakes and ladders' is it?

At the end do you go straight to heaven or do you have to go through Purgatory first?

How can you be sure "that 1 John 3:9 is unambiguous while other verses require more context"? When John says "they cannot go on sinning" how can you be certain that he is not simply emphasising the importance of not sinning rather than stating an impossibility? Couldn't that be somewhat ambiguous?

I think using any one verse, such as 1 John 3:9 as a basic fundamental truth and then attempting to interpret other verses axiomatically through that one verse is a mistake, because it sets one verse of the NT over and against all the rest.

If something you read contradicts things you had previously heard in the Christian community, from your parents, grandparents, churches, preachers, other Christians and so on, then you need to refer that reading back to the community for reflection and discussion, not assume that they're all wrong and you've just discovered the truth. If the people you're discussing this with disregard you as an unpopular gadfly, then you're talking to the wrong people.

Your prior understanding about being born again "and you can sin all the time every day with good excuses" was obviously wrong, since being saved changes a person away from living a sinful life, but does not mean never sinning again.

One thing I do like about your 14 step process is that it reflects the concept of a journey.

Dicey is just inordinatley upset with you and me about the perceived ill-treatment of his chessgames husband.>

You cant go wrong, by responding like Big Pawn:

<Big Pawn:

No this isn't like liberalism where you would have power. Ultimately this is just opinion. I actually enjoyed seeing optimal squirm/avoid.

I'm just surprised at all the contempt,
hate, and bickering.
(not just here)

This kind of stuff:

<Big Pawn:
- most Christians are a mess so whatever it is they are doing <isn't> working for them.>

<Big Pawn:
almost all Christians hate me>

Seems like an odd backdrop for:
"What do I have to do to please God?"

Dicey is treating <OCF> like he's a 'damsel in distress' requiring a knight in shining armour to ride in on his white charger to be resuced from the mean and nasty BP & OP!

LOL!

Dicey obviously considers himself to fit the description of a knight in shining armour since for so long now he has viewed himself as the champion of blacks in the ghetto fighting against those terrible liberal liar coffin-fillers!

Good for you dicey!

You're a true hero battling the forces of evil to defend the underdog!

The next time <OCF> finds himself (metaphorically) tied up on the railroad tracks by a couple of mean and nasty posters at chessgames, he can be sure you'll be along to once again rescue him!

Absolutely not. I stated this in my comment above, <It is grace and not works, this is true. I still think that. I'm just trying to explain how I used to think in the larger context.>.

The way I understand it, God sanctifies us and we can't do it on our own, therefore we can't earn anything by our works. It is His work in us and not our work for ourselves.

<And why is the removal of the spirit of Satan so late in the process? Shouldn't that be at or near the beginning?>

I don't know "why" per se, but the way I understand it given this framework (which I think is true) is that it is difficult for us to give up our pride (satan's spirit) until we have been sanctified. We become more and more aware of what is inside us over time.

Until we can forgive those who have sinned against us we won't ourselves be forgiven, so the sanctification process has to journey this far first, so it seems to me.

It's as though we need to be aware of our prideful spirit (spirit of the devil) and eventually choose to give up that spirit, but not intellectually. We all do that right away. It has to happen within our identity - and then God takes the spirit away, you can forgive others and God will forgive you.

However, for some people the spirit of satan may be taken away all at once. Why not? That's just not what I think I've seen.

<At the end do you go straight to heaven or do you have to go through Purgatory first?>

No ideas or thoughts on this. Sorry.

<How can you be sure "that 1 John 3:9 is unambiguous while other verses require more context"? When John says "they cannot go on sinning" how can you be certain that he is not simply emphasising the importance of not sinning rather than stating an impossibility? Couldn't that be somewhat ambiguous?>

Not at all. In my view, this is as unambiguous as it can get. The only way to read ambiguity into this is to purposely do so. Don't forget, 1 John 3:10 reinforces this very clearly. The clear lack of ambiguity is the reason I decided to make this a bedrock verse by which to reason axiomatically against the others.

<I think using any one verse, such as 1 John 3:9 as a basic fundamental truth and then attempting to interpret other verses axiomatically through that one verse is a mistake, because it sets one verse of the NT over and against all the rest.>

No it doesn't. It allows them all to harmonize nicely, without any hint of being ad hoc. Think about it. <If> 1 John 3:9 is true, then we should be able to treat it axiomatically and would want to.

<Big Pawn:
- most Christians are a mess so whatever it is they are doing <isn't> working for them.>>

That is hate?

That is contempt?

I ask that question in the spirit of fellowship, not hate.

Don't read hate and contempt into anything on my forum because there is none.

<Big Pawn:
- most Christians are a mess so whatever it is they are doing <isn't> working for them.>

Why can't I state what I see without you trying to shut me down by calling it hate and contempt?

There's no way to have open, honest discussion if people put up <Christian> "politically correct" barriers to questions, and that's what you are doing. You're chastising, judging and condemning me for being politically incorrect in a Christian way (even though Christian and politically correct are opposites in another sense).

Rest assured, there is no contempt or hate coming from me in any conversation here. Don't mistake my boldness and enthusiasm for the topic with contempt and hate.

<I guess what it comes down to is, OCF was just another Christian, on just another day.>

OCF gets no special privileges from me. I didn't like his behavior, which I made clear, didn't condemn or "trash" his views and that's that.

Isn't <ohio> old enough to worry about himself?

<ohio> is always welcome to post here, as I told him, but I don't care for him being terse when I'm being sincere, giving links to the whole bible as a sarcastic response, and then calling me a liar and all that.

That way you get to worship 'god' your way, not according to pompous pastors and other annoying members of the congregation.>

That seems to happen anyway.

That is contempt?>

I see it as how one makes himself, "holier-than-thou."

<OCF gets no special privileges from me.>

Since your attitude seems to be,
"My way or the highway" when it comes to Christianity, I wouldn't expect any.

<Isn't <ohio> old enough to worry about himself?>

You seem to be under the impression OCF lost?
It was Optimal who ran from the discussion.

It is Optimal who is crying on his forum, because he was religiously butt-hurt.

<No apologies from me.>

Can you clarify what you mean by spirit of satan/devil?

<In my view, this is as unambiguous as it can get.>

Do you see what you said there?

You said "In my view"

If something is completely unambiguous it doesn't depend upon one's view.

It's not open to more than one interpretation or viewpoint.

<Don't forget, 1 John 3:10 reinforces this very clearly.>

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister."

- 1 John 3:10

Do you see the distinction John makes here?

Why would John need to make the point about loving their brother and sister when he already emphasised the importance of doing what is right?

Isn't loving our brother and sister doing what is right?

Why does he need to make that further point?

Do you think it could be because 'doing what is right' does not mean being completely sinless?

Why does there have to be a winner or loser in our discussion?

I know that's your mindset whenever you post at this website but I happen to think it's possible to engage in a genuine exchange of ideas for the benefit all participants.

Of course you're not going to be able to do that by mindlessly repeating ad nauseam nonsensical rantings about blacks ... ghettos ... liberal liars ... coffin-fillers ... blah blah blah

<It was Optimal who ran from the discussion.>

<OCF> & myself were having a robust debate when he became inexplicably upset and blurted out <Dec-15-16 OhioChessFan: I am not going to continue this discussion with <opt>.>

Do you see that dicey?

<I am not going to continue this discussion with <opt>.>

So who was it who "ran from the discussion"?

Anyway dicey, I think you owe <Big Pawn> an apology for spraying your petulance all over his forum.

And you also owe <OhioChessFan> an apology for embarrassing him with your patronising drivel.

As for myself, I've already forgiven you, so you don't need to bother with an apology to me for your insolence and discourtesy.

You are either of your Father in heaven or of your father the devil. The devil's spirit makes a home in us and it is recognized as pride, anger, hate, resentment, vanity.

These are the motivating spirits of mind that cause us to act against our own best judgment.

<Do you think it could be because 'doing what is right' does not mean being completely sinless?>

If you sin you are not doing what's right.

This is not ambiguous:

<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>

If you change the words <doth not> to <does sin> then it becomes confusing and in essence that's what many people try to do. They become apologists for sin and the rationalization behind it.

Like the serpent in Genesis, who asked the first question in the bible by the way, he also asks us, "Does God really mean that we *cannot sin* if we are born of God?"

The devil would say, "Surely God doesn't mean that we <cannot sin>!"

And then the rationalization kicks in and people become apologists for sin, looking to twist <cannot> into <can> by any means possible, no matter how ad hoc.

You are either of your Father in heaven or of your father the devil.>

Is that dichotomy absolute?

When someone prays the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." is that confirmation they are of the Father in heaven, and therefore 'born of God' which makes them unable to sin?

What if someone is still a 'sinner' but sincerely prays the Lord's Prayer?

If they're not a 'sinner' why would they pray "forgive us our trespasses"?

How can they pray to their Father in heaven if their father is the devil?

<The devil's spirit makes a home in us and it is recognized as pride, anger, hate, resentment, vanity.

These are the motivating spirits of mind that cause us to act against our own best judgment.>

Can you provide some further clarification regarding 'the devil's spirit' and 'the motivating spirits'?

Are you speaking metaphorically or do you literally mean real demons from hell possessing people's minds and causing them to act against their own best judgment through pride, anger, hate, resentment & vanity?

<<Do you think it could be because 'doing what is right' does not mean being completely sinless?>

If you sin you are not doing what's right.

This is not ambiguous:>

Okay, whenever we do something which is not right, that is a sin. But do you discriminate between an occasional venial sin by a good person, and incorrigible sinning by somebody who is fundamentally evil?

Do you consider both to be children of the devil?

<<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>

If you change the words <doth not> to <does sin> then it becomes confusing and in essence that's what many people try to do. They become apologists for sin and the rationalization behind it.>

Who's changing the words?

It's not a matter of rationalisation but interpretation.

<Like the serpent in Genesis, who asked the first question in the bible by the way, he also asks us, "Does God really mean that we *cannot sin* if we are born of God?"

The devil would say, "Surely God doesn't mean that we <cannot sin>!"

And then the rationalization kicks in and people become apologists for sin, looking to twist <cannot> into <can> by any means possible, no matter how ad hoc.>

Of course God says we *cannot sin* but does that mean it is impossible for us to sin or that we must not sin?

<1 John 3:9 is worthy of reflection.>

<optimal play>, I see you have a good, meaty reply. I will do my best to respond to each point.

<Is that dichotomy absolute?>

Yes.

<When someone prays the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." is that confirmation they are of the Father in heaven, and therefore 'born of God' which makes them unable to sin?>

No, anybody can say those words. 1 John 3:9 talks about being "born of God" at which point you <cannot sin>.

<What if someone is still a 'sinner' but sincerely prays the Lord's Prayer?>

I'm not seeing the connection between that and 1 John 3:9.

<If they're not a 'sinner' why would they pray "forgive us our trespasses"?>

I don't know why Jesus prayed like this, but I do not believe he was a sinner, do you?

<Can you provide some further clarification regarding 'the devil's spirit' and 'the motivating spirits'?>

I actually explain a bit of this in one of my longer comments above from a week ago. I gave my thoughts on it but perhaps you skipped over it because it was quite long actually.

<Are you speaking metaphorically or do you literally mean real demons from hell possessing people's minds and causing them to act against their own best judgment through pride, anger, hate, resentment & vanity?>

I don't know if demons are from hell or exactly what a demon is, other than an evil spirit. But I am not speaking metaphorically.

Ephesians 6:12 says, <For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.>

I believe that all is spiritual. I think that all of reality is physical manifestation of the spiritual.

About pride, anger and spirits, I gave my thoughts on that best I could in my previous comments from last week.

<Okay, whenever we do something which is not right, that is a sin. But do you discriminate between an occasional venial sin by a good person, and incorrigible sinning by somebody who is fundamentally evil?>

I'm not attaching the sin to anybody. I'm just talking about sin. When we sin we are of our father the devil.

1 John 3:10 <This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.>

We see the dichotomy there. We see that if we sin we are children of the devil, not of God.

So if John were kibitzing here on this page, well, I was going to say that he would be saying what I am saying, but that would be redundant, because it's actually the other way around. I am saying what he already said.

<Who's changing the words?

It's not a matter of rationalisation but interpretation.>

I didn't say you changed the words because you haven't changed them. I'm speaking in reference to all the conversations I've had with Christians over the last two and a half years. They take the part of 1 John 3:9 where it says <cannot sin> and change it to <can sin> and then hand it back to me.

This is how they choose to "interpret" the verse.

<Of course God says we *cannot sin* but does that mean it is impossible for us to sin or that we must not sin?>

I like questions like these. I will think on something like this, off and on, for a year.

<I agree, but if you're going to be dogmatic about one single verse out of the whole NT you're likely to find yourself in a doctrinal pickle!>

I don't think you should use the word dogmatic to describe what I'm doing here. I was dogmatic before, not now.

When we find axioms in math and apply them are we being dogmatic? No.

The unambiguous essence of 1 John 3:9 and 3:10 provide something stable to hold on to when we try to understand verses that may lend themselves to ambiguity in interpretation. All the truths harmonize; only incorrect, dogmatic, popular interpretations will find disharmony. The problem is that for much of the church, I think, these interpretations appear as truth. In fact, the word interpretation is a euphemism for distortion.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches the disciples how to pray (Matt 6:5-14). He teaches them to address God as Father, asking Him to forgive their sins, and further states that if you want God to forgive your sins, you must forgive those who sin against you.

Now who is Jesus teaching this prayer to?

If it is only those who are "born again of God" and can therefore truly address God as their Father, why do they need to ask forgiveness for their sins since they cannot sin?

If it is addressed to those who are not "born again of God" and therefore still have the devil as their father, why are they addressing God as their father?

Is both God and the devil their father at the same time?

Are they alternating between God and the devil as their father?

Perhaps the reason you're not seeing the connection between Matthew 6:9-13 and 1 John 3:9-10 is because you're in a doctrinal pickle?

Certainly Jesus was not a sinner and never sinned in His entire life. He was truly the sinless one.

Jesus taught the disciples to pray the 'Our Father' but His own prayer would not have included asking forgiveness for sin.

As suggested, I reviewed your posts from a week ago and see where you said...

<Dec-28-16 Big Pawn: ... we are either of our father God in heaven or our father the devil and do *nothing* of our own ... We are not in control and act either on the spirit of God or Satan. Either way, we have one spirit of the other and not both ... It's only with <God's> nature in your renewed mind that you can overcome <the Devil>, because until you renew your mind, you will do the devil's work no matter how much it bothers you.>

These comments, and the those further along, seem to convey the idea that the world is a battle-ground between God and Satan and we're all just concripts in some cosmic war!?

And also...

<Dec-28-16 Big Pawn: ... the real sin, is having anger, pride, resentment and making ourselves, our desires, our passions more important than God ... I think our real sin is the <choice> to identify with pride rather than with God.>

Anger and pride are human emotions and are not sinful in themselves, but if uncontrolled, may lead to sin. However you seem to be saying it's the other way around, whereby the results of uncontrolled anger and pride are not the sin but rather the human emotions which precipitated the actions!?

In talking about sin, do you differentiate between venial sin and mortal sin?

If all sinners are children of the devil, then why are some of his children worse sinners than others?

Jesus was able to sin but never did!

The devil's temptations in the desert were very real and Jesus' victory over sin and death absolutely true!

Because that is one of the examples of how to pray that Jesus gave us, and you can seek God without being again "born of God".

<Now who is Jesus teaching this prayer to? >

Largely, first century Jews and presumably some gentiles. They had asked Jesus how to pray and he answered them.

<If it is only those who are "born again of God" and can therefore truly address God as their Father, why do they need to ask forgiveness for their sins since they cannot sin?>

Okay, two points.

1. There is no reason to think that any of them were born again of God.

2. This does not change the content, the essence of 1 John 3:9.

So supposed I didn't just list the two points above and left your question hanging in the air. That wouldn't matter because your question does not change the very clear language of 1 John 3:9. None of your questions are changing the essence, the content of that verse.

The questions are good though because they help us begin to understand these other verses in light of 1 John 3:9. It's just that in no way do they begin to change the essence of the verse at all.

<Is both God and the devil their father at the same time?>

Spiritually, we are either of our father the devil or of our Father God. I already answered this when you asked about this being a dichotomy. I get the feeling you're not reading my responses in full if you are repeating your questions like this.

<Perhaps the reason you're not seeing the connection between Matthew 6:9-13 and 1 John 3:9-10 is because you're in a doctrinal pickle?>

I am in no pickle at all. I used to be but now I don't find myself in that situation. The pickle is when one wants to make 1 John 3:9 mean something other than it means. The pickle happens when we change <cannot sin> to <can sin>.

I haven't done that so there is no problem.

<These comments, and the those further along, seem to convey the idea that the world is a battle-ground between God and Satan and we're all just concripts in some cosmic war!?>

That's an interesting way to put it, and not that far from the truth I think. I'm surprised you didn't use a chess analogy though!

<Anger and pride are human emotions and are not sinful in themselves, but if uncontrolled, may lead to sin. >

Anger is a spirit in us, a spirit that makes a home in us. It is part of pride. In the same way that we have the idea of the trinity, I think there is also something like an evil trinity. Perhaps not a trinity but a multiple entity spiritual evil in a sense. Pride, anger, hate - these are of the same spirit and it is the spirit of the devil. God is love. There is no love in anger, no love in pride and no love in hate.

I am saying that we choose to identify with these things and they seem like our thoughts and emotions. When we do, they become our God. We seek to satisfy our pride (vanity), anger and hate and in every instance that we can against our own best judgment, it is because we are serving these gods rather than God.

Everything I said last week about having more than one mind, acting against our own best judgment, the sense of self deception, the role of pride in our inner narrative, the sense of self being deceived vs the inability to identify with the deceiving part of our mind - all of those things explain how the devil uses our own voice, our own inner narrative and our sense of identity to deceive us.

I wrote an awful lot about it last week so if you have further questions about it, I will probably just go back to those posts and see if I already explained myself best I could in that regard.

<In talking about sin, do you differentiate between venial sin and mortal sin?>

I'm just talking about sin as it's mentioned in 1 John 3:9.

<If all sinners are children of the devil, then why are some of his children worse sinners than others?>

I don't think we are in a position to judge who is worse. It requires God's perspective. Just look at Judas, who sold Jesus for $30 and the thief on the cross. You can imagine that all along the way someone could have reasonably said that the career criminal thief was a worse sinner than Judas, who was a disciple of Jesus.

<'Dogmatic' means laying down principles as undeniably true. That seems to be what you're doing with your exegesis of 1 John 3:9>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #1396)

You might find it interesting because I touched on a few things you were asking about, like pride, anger and the nature of sin. Things like that.

<The real sin happens silently, with us being almost unaware of it. It seems as though we are just contemplating some thoughts when in reality, we are choosing to identify with the deceiver. His thoughts seem like our own and use our own voice. His thoughts are in the emotions and feelings, which cause us to want to satisfy our passion, flesh, desires and his narrative, which seem like our thoughts, inflame our emotions and passions, causing us to feed them, think on them, want to satisfy them.

The sin happens silently, insidiously. The sin happens when you open the door and let Satan talk to you in your thoughts. You invite him into your house and then, it's like inviting the hot neighbor next door over for tea when the wife is away, you sin.

What I think is that to avoid sin, we need to be aware of what it really is, and how the world is a battle between good and evil, and it's spiritual, and we are included in it. We need to have a truer idea of what sin is and have insight. We need to examine ourselves and consider our ways, and think long and hard on it. We need to realize how we are being deceived in our thoughts and, once you are aware of that, we can resist by just watching the thoughts without fighting them or judging them, and knowing that those thoughts are not our own, even though they seem like they are.

If I ask a follow-up question or seek an explanation it's only because I haven't fully understood your answer and am seeking clarification.

In that regard, your above posts again raised more questions than answers, but rather than just keep going on and on in a seemingly never-ending Q&A let's just cut to the chase here.

When you said that you used to be in a pickle but now don't find yourself in that situation anymore, I realised that 1 John 3:9 has resonated deeply with you in a very personal way.

Many people who read the Bible are often struck by a particular verse which just happens to jump out at them in a way which it doesn't do with other people.

Obviously this is what has happened to you with 1 John 3:9

Your fourteen step process seems to indicate the spiritual journey that you're on with 1 John 3:9 as your guiding light.

It is interesting reading your slant on this verse, which I must admit, I hadn't taken that much note of before.

In fact, I hadn't really taken much note of this epistle previously except for 1 John 4:18a "There is no fear in love, perfect love drives out all fear".

It is this verse which, in my opinion, underlines the message of John's letter and most resonates with me.

But for you, it is something else because of where you're at now and the issues you need to deal with.

That's okay, and this highlights how God speaks to each individual who reads Scripture.

Just because your interpretation of 1 John 3:9 is out of its proper context doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong for you, or perhaps even for certain other people, depending upon their own individual situation.

Your understanding of "being born again of God" applies to your own particular set of circumstances and the significance of 1 John 3:9 for you is central to your spirituality and life journey.

So now I think I get where you're coming from.

Okay, it's just that I know my posts can be very long and sometimes rambling.

<Many people who read the Bible are often struck by a particular verse which just happens to jump out at them in a way which it doesn't do with other people.

Obviously this is what has happened to you with 1 John 3:9>

Yes. I think it stood out to me because I was in a rare mood where I was looking to confront my biases. That must have made it stick out.

<Just because your interpretation of 1 John 3:9 is out of its proper context doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong for you, or perhaps even for certain other people, depending upon their own individual situation.>

A couple things.

1. Every verse doesn't require a larger context to understand it. 1 John 3:9 and 3:10 are complete thoughts that reinforce one another and stand alone, creating their own context.

2. There is <no> context that changes <cannot sin> to <can sin> and that is the whole essence of the verse. It is dichotomous and as such pairs perfectly with 3:10, exposing one as <either> a child of God (born of God) or a child of Satan.

As far as treating this axiomatically is concerned, it all comes down to this question. Do you believe that 1 John 3:9 and 3:10 are true? That is, precisely, that John means <cannot sin> and not <can sin>?

If you believe that this is true, then one should store this bit of truth in one's mind and use it as a lens to look at other versus. After all, these bits of truths should fit together in 100% perfect harmony.

<Your understanding of "being born again of God" applies to your own particular set of circumstances and the significance of 1 John 3:9 for you is central to your spirituality and life journey.>

It's not my understanding per se, it's just my willingness to read it for what it is. 1 John 3:9 says <cannot sin> and not <can sin>. John wrote that long before I was alive so it doesn't pertain to my spirituality and life journey.

<It is interesting reading your slant on this verse, which I must admit, I hadn't taken that much note of before.

In fact, I hadn't really taken much note of this epistle previously except for 1 John 4:18a "There is no fear in love, perfect love drives out all fear".>

I'm glad that because of our discussion, you've had reason to reflect on it. That's great. 1 John 4:18 is another verse I've given thought to actually.

Regarding fear:

<For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.> 2 Timothy 1:7

The spirit of fear.

God is love and God is spirit. Love is spirit. Fear is spirit. This highlights Ephesians 6:12.

Okay then, let's try one more shall we?

<it all comes down to this question. Do you believe that 1 John 3:9 and 3:10 are true? That is, precisely, that John means <cannot sin> and not <can sin>? If you believe that this is true, then one should store this bit of truth in one's mind and use it as a lens to look at other versus. After all, these bits of truths should fit together in 100% perfect harmony.>

Please show the 100% harmony with 1 John 3:9 and Matthew 4:1-11

I read this over, but I am having trouble pinpointing exactly where you think that Matthew 4:1-11 is not in harmony with 1 John 3:9.

Same with Hebrews. I don't see where the apparent disharmony lies at all. Not even a little bit. Help me out.

Same with the last verse too.

None of these verses say that once you are <born again of God> and that once you are a <child of God> rather than a child of Satan, that you <can sin>.

The essence of 1 John 3:9 is that once you are:

1. Born again of God
2. A child of God
3. <Cannot sin>