What do these various Christian groups teach about ongoing sin in the life of a genuine Christian? That is not just academic, it is practical and the most important question of all.
ChatGPT responds to my inquiry. This is exactly where the differences become existentially important rather than merely academic. You’re putting your finger on what may be the practical center of the whole debate:
What should a Christian realistically expect regarding ongoing sin?
And you are also correct that, broadly speaking:
- Much of Western Christianity (especially Augustinian and Protestant traditions) expects continuing, recurring sin as normal, therefore acceptable
- whereas the Greek Fathers and Eastern tradition historically spoke more strongly about real transformation and victory over the passions.
But there are important nuances on all sides. Let me lay this out carefully and historically.
🏛️ 1. The Early Greek Fathers on ongoing sin
The early Greek Fathers absolutely acknowledged that believers still struggle with temptation and sin. They were not naïve perfectionists. But they often sound far more optimistic about transformation than later Western theology.
Their framework was:
- humanity is wounded, not totally depraved,
- grace and truth truly heal and transform,
- and holiness is genuinely attainable in substantial measure.
🔹 A. Sin is expected as a struggle — but not as inevitable domination, and most certainly not a daily practice
John Chrysostom
Chrysostom repeatedly exhorts believers as though real obedience is possible.
He says things like: “God has left it in our power to choose virtue or vice.”
And: “If we are watchful, we can repel every assault.”
Notice:
- temptation is assumed,
- struggle is assumed,
- but not continual defeat as inevitable (As in daily sin to be expected as normal)
(And let me add what ChatGPT neglected to state. All sin can be overcome according to this and other Fathers of the Church. Now compare that to today, when most Christians are taught that the victory over sin, if it occurs at all, will come slowly over time, but never completely in this life. Rather than an actual victory in our lifetime, Christians are told to expect an imputed fictional victory that Christ gives to us despite our continual sinful failures. The light in them is darkness, and oh, how great is that darkness, comes to my mind. It seems like they have never read and believed Romans 6, 8, 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, first and second Peter, and 1 John, to mention a few very clear passages.)
🔹 B. The passions can genuinely be healed
The Greek Fathers often speak not merely of “forgiveness,” but of:
- purification,
- illumination,
- healing,
- participation in divine life.
Athanasius of Alexandria
Famously: “God became man that man might become god.”
Meaning:
- not a deity by nature,
- but real transformation to live a holy life by grace (theosis).
🔹 C. Habitual sin is treated very seriously
In much of early Greek spirituality:
- ongoing enslavement to passions is viewed as evidence of spiritual sickness (and death?),
- not simply “normal Christian life.”
This is why ascetic disciplines were emphasized:
- fasting,
- prayer,
- vigilance (nepsis),
- repentance,
- self-control.
🔹 D. But they did NOT teach sinless perfection lightly
This is important. Even highly ascetic Fathers:
- confess continual need for humility and repentance,
- warn against spiritual pride,
- recognize human weakness.
So: They aimed for profound holiness, not the casual acceptance of sin that much of Christianity today promotes.
(Does that sound anything like what is taught from most evangelical pulpits in the USA? Not even close. If you hear about “profound holiness,” it will be of the imputed fictional kind, not genuine practical holiness in the life of the Christian.)
⚖️ 2. Augustine’s shift in emphasis
This is where a major tonal change happens.
Augustine of Hippo increasingly taught that ongoing inward struggle with sinful desire remains universal in this life.
(But he taught much more than that. He taught not just the struggle but the defeat, and not victory. How sad and tragic for all those deceived by his errors.)
Especially after the Pelagian controversy, Augustine became much more pessimistic about moral ability.
(Let me highlight the change. Early church fathers taught that real Christianity must be evidenced by living a holy life free from ongoing sin. Augustine shifted that to the expectation of ongoing sin in the life of every Christian. That, my friends, is more than a simple shift; it is a salvific sea change. It is an existential departure from the truth taught and believed by the early church and from the truth promoted in the pages of the Word of God.
🔹 A. Concupiscence remains in believers
For Augustine:
- baptism forgives guilt,
- but disordered desire (concupiscence) remains.
This ongoing inward inclination toward sin becomes central and irresistible.
(It is much more than just an inclination to sin; it is the irresistible appetite for sin. Do you understand the difference? w)
🔹 B. The Christian life is continual dependence
Augustine strongly emphasizes:
- no one outgrows the need for grace,
- no one becomes independently righteous,
- even saints continue battling sin.
(Clearly, even saints battle temptation, but that is a far cry from saints remaining sinners as Augustine taught. Also, remember my earlier comments regarding how Augustine redefined justice as grace. When we believe that everyone is born a sinner and guilty of Adam’s sin, then salvation is not grace but justice. Augustine was a master at hiding the truth in rhetoric.)
🔹 C. “Forgive us our trespasses” applies to all believers
Augustine uses this constantly.
His argument: If Christians still pray daily for forgiveness, ongoing sin must remain universal.
(But who said Christians must pray daily for forgiveness? This is another false interpretation of scripture. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He expected her to stop sinning. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus did not mean what he said? If the woman obeys him, then there is no need to pray continually for forgiveness. The bible teaches the exact opposite of this. See 1 John, Romans 6 and 8, and many other articles for more detail on this perversion of the truth.)
✝️ 3. Calvinism and the Reformation tradition
The Reformers intensify Augustine’s emphasis even further.
Especially in classic Calvinism:
- the believer is justified fully,
- yet still deeply sinful internally.
This produces the famous: simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously righteous and sinner”), especially associated with Martin Luther.
(And Jesus said, ” Make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. He also said a good tree can’t bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t bring forth good fruit. I think Jesus had it right and Luther et al had it all wrong. What about you?)
🔹 A. Indwelling sin remains powerful
Classic Reformed theology teaches:
- regeneration is real (And not real at the very same time)
- but the sinful nature remains active until glorification.
(Our sinful nature is more than just active; it is dominant until death. That is very different in every respect. Effectively, our great God is unable to cleanse us from sinning. That is not a picture of an all-powerful God, is it?)
🔹 B. Christians should expect ongoing failure
Not total collapse necessarily, but:
- recurring sin,
- continual repentance,
- lifelong struggle and failure.
(But Jesus came to set the captives free, but not in Augustinian Calvinism. We are not set free ever, according to their theology. Miserable future prospects are predicted, but no worries, for God will take elect sinners to heaven despite their ongoing sin.)
🔹 C. Assurance comes from Christ, not moral attainment
(What a grand deception that lie is. Today, new Christians are told to simply trust that Christ did it all for us and don’t worry about moral attainment, for Christians are eternally secure in their ongoing sinful lives.)
This is crucial psychologically. In Calvinism, assurance rests primarily on God’s promise, not on achieving a high level of holiness. That protects against despair, but critics say it can also normalize defeat and ongoing sinful living.
(This teaching leads souls to eternal damnation, thinking they are eternally secure in their ongoing sin, when the Bible tells them the exact opposite. No one born of God sins, says 1 John. God’s promises do not tell us that we will be saved even if we continue to sin and rebel against Him. That is simply not true, no matter how many times you are told that lie.)
📘 4. Modern Evangelicalism
This varies enormously, but you are broadly correct that many evangelical environments normalize ongoing sin to a remarkable degree. Sometimes the practical message becomes: “Nobody’s perfect; we all sin constantly.”
This can produce:
- honesty and realism,
- but also lowered expectations of transformation.
(Bottom line is that this error tells Christians that they are safe and secure in their ongoing rebellion against God and that God doesn’t expect them to stop their rebellion and sin against Him. That, my friends, is the gospel of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He told Eve that she would surely not die the day she sins against God, directly contradicting what God told Adam and Eve. Who are you going to believe?)
🔹 Two evangelical tendencies
A. Reformed-influenced evangelicalism
Strong emphasis on:
- depravity,
- continual struggle,
- grace covering failure or ongoing sin.
(If that is not a license to sin with impunity, then what is? It is antinomian to the core. And it makes Christ a minister of sin. See my article on that title.)
B. Revivalist/holiness streams
Some groups (Methodist, holiness, Pentecostal) retained stronger expectations of victory over sin.
For example:
- John Wesley taught the possibility of very deep sanctification, though not absolute flawlessness.
🏛️ 5. Eastern Orthodox Christianity today
You are right that Orthodoxy often sounds “stronger” here. But it’s important to understand why.
Orthodoxy tends not to frame salvation primarily as:
- legal acquittal,
But as:
- healing and transformation.
So, the expectation is:
- gradual real change,
- increasing freedom from passions,
- participation in holiness.
🔹 But Orthodoxy still expects lifelong repentance
Orthodox saints:
- confess sin constantly,
- practice continual repentance,
- speak deeply about humility.
So, it is NOT:
“True Christians stop sinning entirely.”
Rather:
Sin is abnormal to our restored nature and should progressively lose dominion.
(If this is true, then it is a small bit stronger than others, but still, unfortunately, weak in my opinion. It smacks of progressive sanctification, where sin is stopped slowly and gradually over the span of our lives. But it is never fully put away until we die, like the rest, not including the early Church fathers. I believe the Bible teaches that sin in the life of the believer is the rare exception, not the general rule. And I understand that very few Christians believe that.
And it makes no difference whether I live this way or not. This is what the Word of God teaches. And if I fall short, that is my issue, and God is not to blame.)
⚖️ 6. The biggest practical difference
Here is the heart of it.
🔹 Greek / Orthodox instinct
“By grace, you really can become holy.” Not instantly,
(And I disagree with that position. Let me explain. It is a denial of repentance, the promises of God, and the power of the gospel. Repentance is to stop sinning. Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery to ‘Go and sin no more’. He expected that she would immediately stop sinning, and not gradually cease from it as the phrase, ‘not instantly,’ falsely implies. Can you honestly imagine that God would tell any of us to gradually stop our murder, raping, fornication, drunkenness, and adultery? How naïve are we? Would any judge in America tell criminals to do anything other than to instantly stop breaking the law?
If we continually need to repent, that, by definition, means we have not stopped sinning and therefore remain unrepentant. Do you understand that? Repentance is a condition of salvation.
It seems that Christians are taught they should repent almost daily. But if they must truly repent every day, they have not yet repented from sin at all. They are still in their sins and lost.
I personally know of a man who repented deeply before God and instantly stopped committing adultery, fornication, drunkenness, and theft. He has not committed any of these sins in decades. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t sinned, but he hasn’t committed these sins in decades. If we can immediately stop committing some sins, why not all sins? His commandments are not burdensome.
The reason we don’t want to acknowledge this truth is that it will interfere with our lives and not give us a pass on cleaning up our lives right now. God has the power to help us come clean, but many of us who profess Christ actually do not want to come clean and stay clean. We want to live with divided hearts, and we find most of the evangelical church telling us that it is expected and permitted in Christian doctrine. They want us to believe that we can love God supremely and disobey Him at will. That is exactly what the serpent wants us to believe.)
not perfectly,
(I agree with this claim. Real Christians do sin, but not habitually or frequently either. Sin is a rare thing in the life of a real saint of God, contrary to most of evangelical Christianity, where sin is common.)
but truly transformed.
(Your typical Christian today might agree, but is assuming that simply means we are imputed to be transformed when we are not, in reality, transformed. See the next segment below.)
🔹 Augustinian/Calvinist instinct
“Even the holiest believer remains profoundly sinful in this life.”
Holiness is real, but never complete enough to remove deep corruption.
(The serpent couldn’t have said it better. They actually believe that saints of God sin every day in thought, word, and deed. By the way, Satan couldn’t sin in more ways than thought, word, and deed, nor could Satan sin more often than every day. The holiness they refer to is an imputed fictional holiness for no one who sins like the devil is actually holy at all.
That is their understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which I find to be abhorrent and a direct assault against the truth of God.)
🧠 My assessment of the historical pattern
If I may synthesize the historical evidence carefully:
The earlier Greek tradition generally:
- speaks more optimistically about moral transformation,
- treats victory over passions as genuinely attainable,
- and does not normalize ongoing bondage to sin in the same way later Western theology often does.
(Congratulations to ChatGPT, even though I think its rebuttal should be much stronger, it is at least a step in the right direction. When Christians are falsely taught that Romans 7 is the Christian experience, then it is no wonder that the typical evangelical believer is a believer in name only-CINO.)
Whereas:
Augustine and especially later Calvinism:
- place far greater emphasis on continuing inward corruption,
- and often expect lifelong recurring sin as universal.
That does appear to be a real historical shift in emphasis, according to ChatGPT.
(And it is a serpent-inspired shift that continues to damn most of those who embrace its poisonous lies. Praise God for all those who live well above what these false teachings actually permit.)
🧭 Final takeaway
The disagreement is not merely: “Can Christians sin?”
Everyone agrees they can. The deeper issue is: “What should we expect grace and truth to accomplish in this life?”
- Greek Fathers / Orthodoxy:
→ Substantial healing and transformation are expected. - Augustine:
→ real growth, but persistent inward corruption and sin remain universal. - Calvinism:
→ Ongoing struggle with indwelling sin is unavoidable until glorification. - Modern evangelicalism:
→ often inherits this expectation, sometimes in a diluted popular form.
That’s the real fault line.
Conclusion
(The bottom-line issue is the sin question. It is said in the Gospel of Matthew (1:21) that Jesus came to save his people from their sins, not in their sins. Much credit goes to Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and other Reformers for convincing the church of Christ that the angel of God did not know what he was talking about. Christ, as a minister of sin, came to save us in the ongoing practice of sin. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ according to these men.
It is a marvel that so few professing Christians actually believe anything the Word of God teaches. I am constantly amazed at the unbelief and carnality of Christian leadership back then and today. How about you?)
