1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction?

A lot of this hinges around the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" (Calvinism TULIP), aka "eternal security". People fail to see the harmony between 1 John 3:8-9 and 1 John 1:8-10 and 1 John 2:1 because of the preconceived notion that "once saved, always saved" is true. Thus, these verses appear to contradict.

The same scenario is affected in Acts 8 with the Samaritans and Simon. In Acts 8:5-24, we read of Philip (one of the seven, Acts 6:5) going to Samaria. In vs. 12, we read the Samaritans believed and were baptized. Likewise, Simon did the same in vs. 13. If the Samaritans were not saved, neither was Simon. If the Samaritans were saved, so was Simon.

But, Simon fell into sin (vs. 18-21). A Christian who sinned. And the apostle Peter told him to repent (vs. 22-24). Yes, Simon obeyed the gospel. He was in a saved condition...but after sinning, Peter told him to repent and pray to God that he might be forgiven.

Calvinism is false doctrine. Those who teach/believe it will say of Simon, "he was never saved in the first place". Why do they say this? Because it contradicts their false doctrine. Read for yourself -- if the Samaritans were saved in vs. 12, then so was Simon in vs. 13. If Simon was not saved in vs. 13, neither were the Samaritans in vs. 12.

God is speaking to us through His divine word showing Christians that it is possible to fall from grace. In fact, Galatians 5:4 affirms this possibility (the context there speaking of Jews clinging to the Mosaic Law). One cannot "fall from" grace unless once in grace. Speaking of Christians (brethren), James shows that one can depart from the truth in James 5:19-20 (notice there, the one who departs is called a "sinner"). How can one depart something they were not once in? When we abide in Christ, walk in the light, and are obedient to God, nobody can snatch one from God's hand (John 10:28) ...but one certainly can depart on his/her own. We have free will. Even Paul said this of himself (1 Cor. 9:27), knowing the possibility of apostasy.

Further, Peter uses the illustration in 2 Peter 2:20-22 showing one can first escape worldliness, then obey the gospel to become a Christian, and fall back into the sin of the world. Vs. 21 says, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them".

The advocates of Calvinistic doctrine "once saved, always saved" (and also "total hereditary depravity", aka "inherited sin") cannot harmonize these scriptures in 1 John because they believe Calvinism to be true. It is complete error. It never fails, that someone who believes Calvinism may point to an indvidual and say, "He is a saved man". But, if that man falls into a publicly known sin (i.e., adultery), then they will say of the same man, "That man was never saved in the first place!"

False teaching always contradicts. Study these examples in your own Bible -- about Simon in Acts 8 and what the apostles' said on the matter -- Paul and Peter, as shown above.

To obey the Lord, one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), have faith (Heb. 11:6), repent of one's sins (Luke 13:3), confess faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9-10) and be immersed into Christ (Mark 16:16; Rom. 6:3-6) = then, and only then, does the Lord add the saved to His church (Acts 2:47) of which He is Savior (Eph. 5:23).

If we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1). We must confess this sin to God (1 John 1:9) and repent of the sin (just as Peter told Simon, Acts 8:22). Remember, the apostles' were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13). These are the inspired words of God.

There is no contradiction in 1 John. The Bible harmonizes. God be with you all!

Hershel Shanks says, in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development, page 172, that continuing friction among early Christians over the nature of Jesus is evident in the Johannine epistles. He points out that 1 John criticises ‘secessionists’ who departed in a dispute over the reality of sin (1 John 1:8-10) and the fleshly (human) character of Jesus (1 John 4:1-3). Burton L. Mack recognises this friction and says, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 215, he believes that a split took place in the Johannine community shortly after the turn of the second century. One faction thought it best to merge with other Christian groups of a more centrist leaning. Another party refused, holding to the enlightenment tradition of the community and developed in the direction of a Christian gnosticism.

First John is to a large extent a polemic which Mack describes as vicious, and the author's arguments against members of the other faction as ridiculous. Mack says he confronted his opponents by labelling them liars (1 John 1:6-10; 2:4; 4:20) or consigning them to demonic, cosmic, or divine destruction (1 John 3:4,10). The author of 1 John charges his opponents with being sinners (1 John 1:8-10) who, by saying they are not sinners, have removed themselves from God's grace. He did not want to offer his opponents the promise of forgiveness, but since his new soteriology was about sin and forgiveness, the topic could backfire. Mack says (page 218), this made it necessary to engage in a bit of logical casuistry with regard to sins for which forgiveness was possible rather than those for which it was not, with 1 John 3:4-10 one example of this. Because those who had chosen a more gnostic path were not "born of God", verse 3:9 does not apply to them and they will continue to sin.

Raymond E. Brown also notes in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 393, some find almost a contradiction in 1 John's insistence on love ("God is love") and the refusal to pray for those who commit a deadly sin (1 John 5:16c), whatever a "deadly sin" should mean.

Another possibility:

In chapter 1, John is making an evangelistic appeal to his fellow unsaved Jews (hence his use of "we" and "us") who would claim on God but, without Christ, would be at enmity with Him. Especially note vv. 1-5...these are things believers would already know. A self-righteous Jew, however, would not believe that but would think exactly what John describes in v. 6.

In chapter 3, John is addressing the saved and states a fact about the identity believers have in Christ, one which is in harmony with what Paul said as well.

In short, two separate audiences in one letter. Test it for yourself and see what you think: read ch. 1 with the idea "he's addressing lost Jews." Then when you get to ch. 2 and John starts with "My little children..." he's clearly speaking to those in Christ.

This might be a case where detail is lost in translation? According to one of my bibles, the English Standard Version, the verse 1 John 3:9 is this:

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

The word practice there seems to give deeper meaning, and as I understand it, indicates that someone who has repented and is born of God does not willfully and intent fully practice sin. Rather they simply sin because of the fallen nature of man, and with a repentant heart ask for forgiveness under the weight of God's presence (under the weight of guilt?) The next verse, 1 John 3:10, states:

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

I think the intent of the passage is to indicate there is a visible difference between those who have repented and have been saved by God, and those who are willfully unrepentant and choose to remain "sinners". A repentant believer who has salvation will not make it a practice to be sinful, which is in contrast with one who lacks salvation, and will by choice and nature indeed make it a practice to be sinful.