Dear John:

Our first Pope, Pope St. Peter, once remarked, (2 Peter 3:1b) "...There are some things in them [letters of St.Paul] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Pope St. Peter also said, (2 Peter 1:20-21) "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

When St. Peter says "prophecy" this is not merely meaning fore-telling as often happened with the Prophets of old when God inspired them. Prophecy also contains the idea of "preaching" or "teaching". In this context all of Scripture is prophecy. Certainly, by principle, St. Peter's words apply to all of Scripture which is one reason God instituted a Magisterium with the authority given directly by God to teach, protect, and to declare the Faith.

There has always been people who wish to "twist (Scripture) to their own destruction." These have been the heterodox, heretics, and schismatics throughout the ages. The greatest "twist" of Scripture effected by private interpretation is, of course, the scandal and sin of the "Revolution" (not Reformation) spear-headed by Martin Luther.

In the myriad of private interpretations, now numbering over 32,000 Christian sects out there with each their own opinions, the misinterpret ion of 1 John 3:9, either directly or indirectly, influenced two Protestant movements: once-saved-always-saved fundamentalism and the Holiness Movement.

The Notion of once-saved-always-saved: This notion, which can only supported philosophically or theologically by Calvin's economy, has nevertheless been adopted in  denominations such as the Southern Baptist and other fundamentalist groups, to which I use to belong. These groups accepted the once-saved-always-saved notion but rejected the rest of Calvin's theology, which required denying free will.

In the notion of once-saved-always-saved, an ancient heresy rears its ugly head called "fundamental option." This heresy holds that our union and friendship with God is not broken by mortal sin as long as we do not withdraw our "fundamental option", which would be to explicitly and formally reject God and have contempt for Him.

Once-saved-always-saved denies that we can lose saving grace under any circumstances, even if committing mortal sin.

The Holiness Movement is sort of the Charismatic version of once-saved-always-saved. It purports that after baptism there is a "second act of grace" in which the believer is cleanse of even the tendency to sin (they are saying that concupiscence is removed from the person). This being the case, the person cannot sin, that our Sanctification is complete in this life. (Now in practice these people admit that sin is still possible. They would have to be delusional to think otherwise).

This passage of 1 John 3:9 when misinterpreted could be a support for these heresies.

We must always remember that we cannot interpret a passage of Scripture in isolation. Basic hermeneutics requires that we not only look at the passage in question, but also the context of that passage in the discussion of the Apostle in the chapter and in the entire letter. Who is he talking to, what are the circumstances of his teaching, what it going on locally at the time to cause the Apostle to write these things?

Then, in addition, the passage must be interpreted in light of the entire New Testament and the Old Testament, the fullness of the Sacred Revelation of God in Scriptures. It must also be interpreted in light of the fullness of the Sacred Tradition, the official teachings of the Church. This is God's Revelation, Sacred Tradition (first) and Sacred Scripture (second).

No interpretation of any verse can be contrary to anything in all of God's Revelation.

So what about 1 John 3:9? What does it mean?

The best explanation, I think, comes from the Navarre Bible Commentary, one of the best commentaries for Catholics on the bookshelf. Here is the commentary for verses 6-9:

This passage act as a preface to v. 10, where the Apostle spells out the criteria for distinguishing the children of God from the children of the devil — the practice of Christian virtues and the keeping of the Commandments of God, especially that of brotherly love.

To understand correctly what St. John is saying here, is useful to remember his controversy with the false teachers (the Gnostics): these were trying to deceive the faithful (v.  7) and claimed to have a special knowledge of God (gnosis), which put them above good and evil, so that what the Church regarded as sin they saw as morally indifferent and as incapable of undermining the union with God they claimed they had.

To identify these heretics, the Apostle has recourse to words of our Lord: "the tree is known by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33). Thus, the genuine Christian is recognized by deeds of righteousness (v. 7), that is, by keeping the commandments of God and leading a holy life. And the qualities essential to the Christian life are incompatible with sin; these qualities are —  divine filiation ("he is born of God": v. 9), intimate union with Christ ("who abides in him": v. 6), and sanctifying grace, together with the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (this seems to be what the expression "God's nature abides in him" means: v. 9). Thus it is understandable that "no one who abides in him (Christ) sin" (v.6).

In fact, as long as "God's nature abides in him . . . he cannot sin" (v. 9). Clearly St. John does not mean that a Christian is incapable of sinning; at the start of the letter he said, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1:8). What he wants to make clear is that no one can justify his own sin by the device of claiming to be a child of God: the righteousness of the children of God reflects itself in their actions, whereas "he who commits sin is of the devil" (v. 8), for sin cuts one off from God and means one has submitted to the slavery of the devil.

The ancient heresy has grown up again, in a way, in our own time: there are those who claim that union with God is not broken by transgression of his commandments, even in grave matter, provided one does not withdraw one's "fundamental option" for God. Against this error, the Magisterium of the Church reminds us that "care must be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of 'fundamental option' — as is commonly said today — against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also in a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the whole creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity" (Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

To say that it is improbable for a baptized person to sin is flirting with these heresies mentioned above. On the contrary, it is certain that those people living out their baptism will gravely sin. We all gravely sin. There were only two people who never sinned — Jesus and our Blessed Mother (who was freed from concupiscence).

As long as we have concupiscence, we will sin. If that were not true, then the Sacrament of Confession would not be needed. Those not caring to live out their baptism will not come to the Sacrament of Confession. So who are the ones that populate the Sacrament to most? Devout Christians trying to live out their baptism.

The saints went to the Sacrament of Confession weekly, if possible. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI went to confession weekly.

St. Paul struggled with sin:

(Romans 7:14-23) We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

The Navarre Bible Commentary on this passage says, "The Church's teaching is that Baptism does not take away a person's inclination to sin (fomes peccati), concupiscence: he or she still experiences a strong desire for earthy or sensual pleasure. "Since it [concupiscence] is left to provide a trial, it has no power to injure those who do not consent and who, by the grace of Christ Jesus, manfully resist" (Council of Trent, De peccato originali, can. 5)."

The concupiscence in us is very strong. Indeed, as we grow in spiritual maturity and intimacy with God, as we watch and pray, the instances of our grave and venial sins will diminish, but we will never be free from sinning in this life. As our Lord said, (Matthew 26:41) "Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

When we are in a state of grace we are sinless, until we are not. Because of free will, because of concupiscence, because our spirits are willing but our flesh is weak, because we are not perfect, it is more than just possible to gravely sin, it is certain.

Bottomline: To suggest that gravely sin is improbable to those living our their baptism is incorrect. In fact, it flies in the face of reason, phenomenology (experience), ontology (our being, nature, concupiscence), the Scriptures, and Church teaching.

(1 John 1:8-10) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary