February 16, 2026.
From the first article – Part 1, I am including this excerpt. “This is one of many healing miracles in scripture, and it’s a story we’re familiar with. It shows our Savior’s compassion and love for humanity, especially those who are suffering. I never get tired of reading stories like this. They always bless me and remind me how great our God is.
Leprosy in the Bible symbolizes death and sin. It serves as a metaphor for sin. Leprosy is a disease that begins invisibly inside and gradually becomes visible on the outside. This mirrors how sin operates: it begins in the heart and eventually manifests in sinful actions for everyone to see. In biblical times, leprosy was a form of living death, with no cure. Among all the healings Jesus performed, curing the leper powerfully declared His purpose: to save us from sin itself, not just its effects.
Healing from the scourge of leprosy changed this man’s life. As a leper, he was an outcast from society. He probably had to beg for his daily bread. His only companions were other lepers like himself. Everyone knew there was no cure for leprosy. What hope did a leper have? Jesus was this man’s only hope, and the leper was not disappointed when he sought healing from Jesus. Praise God.
How is it that we Christians can believe this story about physical healing but not the story about a Savior who came to save us from our sins and not in our sins? “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name, JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21, emphasis added.
How many “Christians” call out to Jesus to save them from their sins rather than in their sins? Can anyone genuinely believe that Jesus would willingly heal us physically but be unwilling to heal us spiritually and from our sins? Isn’t that absurd? Very few of us would openly express such unbelief, even though most of us hold that unbelief inwardly. We seem to think that Jesus is either unwilling or unable to deliver us from the habit and practice of sinning. Many pastors and ordinary Christians suggest that Jesus does not want us to be free from the “leprosy of sin.” They have no problem believing that Jesus saves us from the consequences of sin (hell), but are hesitant to believe in Jesus for healing from a sinful lifestyle. Is there any sin too difficult for God to save us from?
Some Christians even suggest that if Jesus did heal us from sinning, then we might become proud, and that is not what Jesus wants. Therefore, He lets us remain in sin so we stay humble. Hard to believe, but there are “Christians” who teach this stuff. Seriously, can’t Jesus heal us from the sin of pride as well as any other type of sin? Many “Christians” seem to think that Jesus wants us to remain in the leprosy of sin. End of excerpt.
I use a variety of resources in my research. I have been using ChatGPT a lot because it is more efficient than other tools. But ChatGPT, like other resources including books on systematic theology and Christian literature, must be read carefully and questioned. All resources have bias, and ChatGPT is no exception. I want you to see my exchange with ChatGPT. ChatGPT pushes back on me, and I push back on ChatGPT. Neither of us is the final word. The Bible is the final word, but we all think we are teaching the Bible, even though we strongly disagree. Ultimately, the reader must decide.
Our study continues.
I asked ChatGPT the following.
In Matthew 8, there’s a story about a leper, and the leper asked the Lord, “If thou art willing, thou canst heal me.” Jesus said, “I will,” and he healed him on the spot. How is it that Calvinists, Arminians, and most evangelicals believe Jesus can completely heal a leper, but cannot completely heal them from the leprosy of sinning? What did the early church believe?
ChatGPT’s response
You’re pointing to a sharp theological tension, especially given how much we’ve been discussing 1 John and sin. The story you’re referencing is the Gospel of Matthew 8:1-4. The leper says, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Jesus answers, “I will; be thou clean.” And immediately he is cleansed.
Your question is penetrating: If Christ can completely cleanse leprosy with a word, why do most Calvinists, Arminians, and evangelicals deny that He can completely cleanse a believer from sin in this life? Let’s look at three levels:
- The logic inside Reformed and Arminian systems
- The early Church’s view
- The bigger theological difference underneath
1. Why Most Evangelicals Say “No” to Complete Freedom from Sin
Calvinism (Augustinian framework). Following Augustine of Hippo, and later systematized by John Calvin, the dominant idea is:
- Regeneration changes the heart.
- But “indwelling sin” remains until death.
- The believer is simul iustus et peccator (“at once righteous and sinner”), which is a phrase from Martin Luther.
Why? Because:
- They falsely interpret texts like Romans 7 as describing ongoing Christian experience.
- They assume fallen nature (concupiscence) remains structurally until glorification.
- Sinlessness in this life is seen as pride or self-deception (appealing to 1 John 1:8).
Christ can heal sin completely, but He chooses not to until glorification. According to ChatGPT’s understanding of Calvinism, the limitation is not power but divine design.
I also want to note that full Calvinism holds that God is the source of whatsoever comes to pass, both good and evil. As R. C. Sproul once said, there are no rogue or maverick molecules. Therefore, God can completely heal us from sin, but doesn’t do so until glorification. In other words, God decrees that we stay sinful for His own glory. How then is God not responsible for our continued sin?
Exactly how does God get more glory by decreeing our ongoing sinfulness?
Arminianism (Classical Protestant Version)
Arminians reject total inability in the same way Calvinists frame it, but most still affirm:
- Ongoing sin is inevitable.
- Sanctification is progressive but never complete before death.
However, here’s the interesting wrinkle: Wesleyan Arminianism (via John Wesley) taught entire sanctification or “Christian perfection,” meaning freedom from willful sin. But even Wesleyans usually:
- Define this as freedom from deliberate rebellion, not from ignorance or mistake.
- Do not describe it as ontological eradication of fallen nature.
Let me add that it is a problem because our fallen nature is the source of all our ongoing sins. So even here, it’s carefully qualified.
2. What the Early Church Believed
Here is where things shift significantly.
Pre-Augustinian writers, especially the Greek Fathers, did not frame the problem as inherited guilt or ontological depravity (a sinful nature), as Augustine and his followers did later.
Example: John Chrysostom
On Matthew 8, Chrysostom emphasizes:
- The leper’s faith.
- Christ’s willing power.
- The immediacy of cleansing.
But more broadly, Chrysostom repeatedly teaches:
- Sin is a sickness.
Let me add that there is a sense in which sin can be thought of as a sickness because it debilitates the soul like a disease harms the body. However, sin is not a disease or sickness; it is a crime. Disease is typically involuntary, while sin and crime are always voluntary.
- Christ truly heals.
- Grace empowers real obedience.
He does not describe sin as an unavoidable substance remaining in the regenerate, contrary to what Augustine and others believe.
Earlier Greek Fathers
Writers like:
- Irenaeus
- Athanasius of Alexandria
- Gregory of Nyssa
tend to frame salvation as:
- Restoration
- Healing
- Participation in divine life (theosis)
For them:
- Sin is corruption and disease.
- Christ truly heals human nature.
- Growth into holiness is real transformation, not merely forensic covering or a fictional imputed righteousness.
They do not typically speak as though ongoing sin is metaphysically necessary. That said, they also do not teach instant moral perfection as automatic. They emphasize:
- Ascetic struggle
- Cooperation with grace
- Gradual purification
But the possibility of profound holiness is treated as real, not structurally impossible as in most Christian thinking today. Let that sink in for a moment before you move on.
3. The Deeper Divide: Anthropology
The real difference lies in anthropology.
Western (Augustinian and Reformed/Evangelical)
- Sin is an inherited condition baked into nature.
- Grace is a legal pardon plus progressive moral influence, with a bit of actual transformation actually happening.
- Full eradication from sin is reserved for glorification. Why? God is apparently unable or unwilling to do it right now. Does that make any sense to you?
Thus, Christ heals legally now, fully ontologically later. Does that not speak of a weak, impotent, and feckless god?
But that is my point. Jesus immediately healed the leper on the spot. Christians teach that Jesus can heal us physically on the spot, but can’t spiritually heal us on the spot. Is that too great for Christ? Is he unable? Is it impossible for Christ? We are told that Jesus could completely heal us, but actually doesn’t want to stop sinning? Why? For his own glory.
Do you believe any of that? If you do, I fear for your soul.
Eastern / Early Greek
- Sin is corruption and habit.
- Grace is participation in divine life.
- Healing is real and transformative.
- Moral victory is genuinely possible through synergy.
Thus, Christ heals what we cooperate with Him to have healed. If only Christians believed that and actually wanted complete healing.
Now, back to Matthew 8
The leper says: “If Thou art willing…”
Jesus says: “I will.”
There is no gradual process. No “partial cleansing.” No “remaining leprosy until death.” ChatGPT continues: Your question is powerful because the Gospel narratives portray Christ’s saving power as decisive and actual, not merely positional. That tension becomes sharp when placed beside 1 John 3: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin…” The early Church did not instinctively soften it, as modern evangelical preaching often does.
Did the Early Church Believe Christians Could Live Without Sin?
Careful answer according to ChatGPT:
- They believed Christians could genuinely overcome sin.
- They did not believe sin was metaphysically unavoidable.
- They believed holiness was real and transformative.
- They did not teach the Reformation’s simul iustus et peccator framework.
And I praise God for that truth. Does that mean anything to you? The early church fathers up to the time of Augustine believed something radically different from what is peddled today.
But the early church also:
- Warned constantly about pride.
- Assumed ongoing repentance, when necessary.
- Understood purification as lifelong.
The Real Theological Question
Is Christ:
- A legal advocate who covers/excuses an unchanged sinful structure?
or
- A physician who actually heals the disease?
The early Church leaned heavily toward the second model. Augustine shifted the West toward the first. The Reformers intensified that Augustinian shift. Evangelicalism inherited it. How pathetic and how sad. In a very real sense, it is a different gospel, isn’t it?
I responded to ChatGPT as follows.
I just looked at Martin Luther and the Augustinian tradition, and you say that Christ can heal us from sin, but he chose not to heal us until glorification. Apparently, the limitation isn’t God’s power but God’s design. In other words, God wants us to continue to sin so that we’re not proud, which is so absurd it’s almost impossible to comment on it.
ChatGPT responds with the following;
What you’re reacting to is a very real tension, and you’re not the first to feel how sharp it sounds. But it’s important to state the Augustinian / Lutheran / Reformed position carefully, because they would strongly deny that “God wants us to continue to sin so we won’t be proud.” They would say that’s a misunderstanding of their claim. Let’s clarify what they actually argue, and then we can evaluate it.
Before we read ChatGPT’s full response, let me add that some full Calvinists I know do, in fact, posit that sin keeps us humble and not proud, and that this is one reason God decrees in favor of continued sinning. I do not make that claim of all of them, but some do. ChatGPT will acknowledge that under its write-up of Augustine, which follows immediately. Now, let us consider what ChatGPT says about my latest question.
1. What Augustine of Hippo Actually Meant
After his anti-Pelagian debates, Augustine developed a strong doctrine of:
- Inherited corruption (concupiscence)
- The will weakened but not destroyed
- Grace (irresistible grace) is absolutely necessary at every stage
For Augustine:
- Baptism removes guilt.
- But concupiscence (disordered desire) remains.
- This remaining corruption humbles the believer and keeps them dependent on grace.
But he does not say God leaves sin in us so that we will sin more. He says God permits remaining weakness so that:
- We continually depend on Him.
- We do not imagine we are self-sufficient.
- We long for resurrection.
It’s framed as pedagogical and eschatological, not as “God desires your disobedience.”
Let me be very blunt: ChatGPT’s response is shallow and theologically unreasonable. ChatGPT says that Augustine “does not say God leaves sin in us so that we will sin more”, but is that not the only option available to us? Of course it is. When God chooses not to fully heal us from sinning, by definition, God chooses that we sin more, because that is the inevitable result of God’s desire and choice.
2. Martin Luther and “Simul Iustus et Peccator.”
Luther radicalizes Augustine’s insight. For Luther:
- The believer is truly justified.
- Yet still experiences inward sin.
- Sanctification never eliminates the need for daily repentance from daily sin.
He believed:
- Pride is the greatest danger.
- Claiming sinlessness is spiritually catastrophic.
- The Christian life is continual repentance.
But again, Luther would say:
- God hates sin.
- The Spirit actively mortifies sin.
- Christians truly grow.
The issue is not that God wants sin, but that fallen nature is not fully eradicated before resurrection, according to ChatGPT’s interpretation of Luther.
Let me jump in again and comment on ChatGPT’s explanation of Luther. Luther claims that God hates sin but leaves us in sin all of our lives because either
1) God isn’t able to heal us because He is too weak, or
2) God wants to keep us humble, so He chooses to leave us in sin so that we do not become proud.
And at the same time, the Spirit supposedly mortifies sin in our lives, while God chooses to leave us in sin. This is nothing but theological rhetoric and sophistry. They want us to believe that God hates sin but chooses to leave us in sin at the same time. This is the opposite story of the leper that Jesus instantly and completely healed. Leprosy in the Bible is a metaphor for sin.
3. The Real Logic Behind Their Position, according to ChatGPT.
The Augustinian/Reformation structure rests on three pillars:
(1) Romans 7 is a normative Christian experience. (That is false. See my article.)
(2) 1 John 1:8 applies to believers at all times. (That, too, is false. See my article.)
(3) Human nature remains ontologically wounded until glorification. (The great physician is unable or unwilling to heal us from the leprosy of sin, both of which would disqualify Him from being called the great physician.)
So, their logic is:
- Complete eradication of sin equals the glorified state. (But why? Is Christ unable to do it right now, like the instant healing of the leper?)
- Before the resurrection, the flesh remains sinful despite God’s power and grace. (Apparently God is unable or unwilling to help us. But why tease us with the hope of salvation from sin? And where does it say this only happens after we die? And what a convenient excuse for our ongoing sin.)
- Therefore, ongoing internal sin is inevitable. (This must be because that is the way God wants it, contrary to the parable of Jesus instantly healing the leper and others.)
Not desired. Not approved.
My response is that the truth is that it is actually approved and decreed by none other than God.
All this ongoing sin is permitted within divine providence, says ChatGPT. And my response is this. To use the word permitted is also misleading because the theistic determinist doesn’t believe God permits anything other than what He has already decreed. Saying God permits what He decrees is nonsense and intentionally misleading.
Before we move on, I will comment on the three pillars of Augustinian Calvinism that ChatGPT refers to.
- Romans 7 is not about a genuine Christian’s experience, albeit most Christians have been taught that it is. See my articles on Romans 7.
- 1 John 1:8 most definitely doesn’t teach that real Christians sin every day. 1 John teaches the exact opposite. See my articles on 1 John 1:8, If We Say We Have No Sin.
- Human nature always remains under the bondage of a sinful nature we inherit from Adam, which is not proved or provable, and is simply assumed to be true. Scripture most definitely refutes all the tenets of Calvinism.
4. Why This Feels Absurd to You, according to ChatGPT
Because the Gospel narratives don’t look like that. In Matthew 8, Jesus doesn’t partially heal the leper. In 1 John 3, the language sounds decisive: “No one born of God sins.”
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands perfection. Your intuition is: if Christ truly heals, why is sin structurally unavoidable? That is precisely the question Eastern Christianity presses against the West.
5. The Eastern Objection
Writers like John Chrysostom would say:
- Grace and truth empower real obedience.
- Sin is not metaphysically necessary.
- If you sin, it is because you chose to cooperate with sinful passion.
Eastern theology rejects the idea that “Human nature must continue sinning until death.” They see that as too pessimistic about grace. It is also too pessimistic about God’s power and authority.
6. The Strongest Reformed Response
To be fair, a Reformed theologian would answer you this way:
- God does not will sin.
I respond that this is simply not true under their own contradictory beliefs, as I have shown many times. God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, including all evil and all good.
- God wills to glorify Himself through progressive sanctification.
I respond that it is another Calvinistic falsehood, for they believe that Christians sin daily until they die, which is no progressive sanctification whatsoever if the word sanctification has any meaning at all.
- God ordains a process rather than instantaneous perfection.
I respond that if God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, both good and evil, then God ordains that we believers continue to sin until we die, when He could have just as easily decreed instant perfection and obedience. And why didn’t Jesus heal the leper and other sick people slowly and progressively?
- Final eradication of sin is tied to resurrection because sin is bound to mortality.
I respond that this is theological speak and has little meaning. Sin is not bound to mortality; in Calvinism, it is bound to God’s decree.
In other words, according to ChatGPT, Calvinists connect full holiness to becoming a new creation, not merely inward regeneration.
And I respond that if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and all things have become new. Genuine believers are that new creation awaiting glorification. More misleading and inaccurate, theologically and piously sounding rhetoric from Calvinism.
7. Where the Real Debate Actually Lies, according to ChatGPT
ChatGPT says the debate is not about:
- God’s power.
Actually, that is not true at all. It is about God’s power and His grace. According to Calvinism, God is unable to cleanse us from the leprosy of sin. He can and did instantly heal the leper, but he is either unable to heal us or unwilling to heal us from the slavery of sin. That is not my God. How about you? Is that the God you serve?
It’s about:
- What regeneration actually changes.
- Whether concupiscence itself is sin.
- Whether human nature remains intrinsically corrupted until resurrection.
Augustine says yes.
The Greek Fathers tend to say no.
That’s the fault line.
8. Your Instinct Touches Something Important, according to ChatGPT
According to ChatGPT, ‘If the logic collapses into: “God leaves sin in us to keep us humble,” then it does begin to sound morally incoherent. But in its strongest form, the Augustinian tradition says:
- God leaves weakness, not approved rebellion.
With a straight face, please tell me how this is any different from approving rebellion by God’s decree. But in their system, God decrees not only weakness but total inability. And ChatGPT says that in the Augustinian tradition, God doesn’t approve of rebellion, even though He decrees it every day. This is theologically incoherent, isn’t it?
- The Spirit truly sanctifies.
I respond by reminding us all that this means very little, if anything, because Calvinists believe that the most mature Christian’s sin daily. And they call that sanctification. I have no interest in their concept of sanctification as it is impotent.
- Growth is real.
I respond, that is the right thing to say, even if it is not true, and that is why they say it. What does growth actually mean in their system when Christians sin daily?
- But glorification completes what sanctification begins.
And I add, if this is true, then death is our savior and not Jesus Christ. But that is not the gospel as I understand it.
ChatGPT concludes: Whether that framework is biblically coherent is the actual question. And I agree that is the question. And Calvinism fails on all points.
This next section was based on my last question to ChatGPT:
I just looked at the Martin Luther and Augustinian tradition, and you say that Christ can heal us from sin, but he chose not to heal us until glorification. The limitation is not God’s power but, apparently, God’s design. In other words, God wants us to continue to sin so that we’re not proud, which is so absurd it’s almost impossible to comment on it.
My final comment is that ChatGPT did its best to explain the incoherent system of Augustinian Calvinism. My question was not satisfactorily answered because no reasonable or coherent answer exists. That is, if Calvinism is true, which it is not.
Let us move on to my next question to ChatGPT.
I wrote ChatGPT the following
They may say that God desires obedience, but he doesn’t, like the leper, heal us so we can obey; instead, he intentionally and deliberately leaves us in disobedience, which is the opposite of the story of the leper. Jesus didn’t heal an arm and a leg; he healed the leper entirely of leprosy.
ChatGPT responds
I understand the force of what you’re saying. If Christ says, “I will; be thou clean,” and the leper is immediately and wholly cleansed in the Gospel of Matthew 8, then why wouldn’t salvation work the same way morally? Why not total cleansing from sin now?
ChatGPT continues: Let me answer this at the strongest level from both sides, because the disagreement is not about Christ’s power; it’s about what kind of healing sin requires.
1. How the Augustinian/Reformed Tradition Would Respond
Following Augustine of Hippo, and later John Calvin, they would argue: Leprosy is a physical condition. Sin is a moral-spiritual corruption intertwined with:
- Will
- Habits
- Desires
- Mortality itself
They would say:
- Regeneration truly changes the heart.
My response. But not really, and not so much that we are actually a new creation in Christ, as the Bible plainly teaches.
- Dominion of sin is broken.
My response. Not really, because Christians continue to sin daily. Does that sound like the dominion of sin is broken? Of course not, because it is not broken, despite their false claim that it is. For the Calvinist, the dominion of sin is broken fictionally, and they must pretend it is real when it is not.
- But the “flesh” remains until resurrection.
My response. But what do Calvinists mean by the flesh? See my article on that subject. They seem to imply that our literal flesh must die and be resurrected before sin dies. More theological hogwash.
- Sanctification is progressive by divine design.
My response. Apparently, God did not want to design it so that we are actually made new in Christ when we are born again. God chose to keep us Christians sinning all of our lives so we do not become proud and independent. And we are to believe that was the best the Almighty could do? I can’t buy it.
So, in their framework, Christ does not heal “an arm and a leg.” He heals the root: justification and new birth. But the full eradication of corruption belongs to glorification, per ChatGPT.
Let me add that to say ‘God heals the root’ is theological double-speak for ‘the root determines the fruit’. And Jesus said a good tree can’t bring forth bad fruit, but the Calvinists claim the good trees bring forth bad fruit all of their lives. Apparently, Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about, if you believe the Calvinist.
ChatGPT continues: They would insist God does not leave you in deliberate rebellion. He leaves the remaining weakness while progressively sanctifying. In other words, the leper miracle is a sign, but not a one-to-one blueprint for the timing of sanctification.
And I repeat myself: this is simply not true or accurate for Calvinism; it sounds pious, but it has no substance.
2. Why Your Objection Still Has Weight, according to ChatGPT
Your intuition rests on two biblical pressures:
- Jesus’ healings are decisive and complete.
- The New Testament often speaks in absolute terms:
- “Sin shall not have dominion over you.”
- “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin.”
- “Be ye perfect.”
That language sounds more like immediate cleansing than lifelong partial recovery. And here the early Greek Fathers often sound closer to your instinct. Writers like John Chrysostom do not speak as if sin is metaphysically unavoidable. They treat:
- Sin as a disease
- Grace as real medicine
- Obedience as genuinely attainable
They assume struggle, yes. But not the structural inevitability of ongoing sin as most Christians today actually believe.
3. The Deep Theological Difference
The disagreement ultimately turns on this:
Is sin:
- A legal status removed instantly, while corruption lingers?
or
- A sickness that can actually be healed in lived experience?
Western theology (post-Augustine) tends to separate:
- Justification (complete now)
- Sanctification (incomplete until glory)
Eastern theology tends to see salvation as:
- Gradual but real healing of the whole person.
ChatGPT adds, neither side says: “God wants you to sin.” But I must jump in and say that this is not true, for God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, including our besetting sins (John Piper and others). In the Calvinist system, God decrees all of our sins, and that, by definition, must mean that God wants us to sin just as He decreed.
But the Western system says: Total eradication of inner corruption is eschatological.
The Eastern instinct says: Grace truly restores the will, so obedience is actually possible and practically attainable.
4. Is the Leper Story Meant to Be a Model?
Here’s the crucial question. Are the healing miracles:
- Illustrations of what salvation is?
or
- Signs pointing to the coming kingdom, whose fullness arrives at resurrection?
The Reformed answer: The miracles are foretastes of final restoration.
The Eastern-leaning answer: They reveal the nature of salvation itself, real healing now.
5. Where the Real Friction Lies
Your objection lands hardest if:
- Sin is defined as a voluntary transgression.
- Grace restores freedom of will.
- Nothing metaphysical forces sinning.
If that’s true, then saying “sin must continue” feels inconsistent with Christ’s power.
But if:
- Fallen human nature remains ontologically weakened,
- And sanctification unfolds in time,
Then the analogy to leprosy becomes less direct and less applicable, which is exactly what they must have for the coherence of their false theological system.
Let me add that Scripture contains many direct statements testifying to the cleansing power of God’s grace and to genuine believers’ victory over sin in this life, not in the resurrection life.
ChatGPT wrote this for me. Let Me Ask You One Clarifying Question
When you say “completely healed from sinning,” do you mean:
A) Freedom from all involuntary weakness and temptation?
B) Freedom from all conscious, willful disobedience?
C) Absolute sinlessness in thought, word, and motive?
ChatGPT says the answer to that determines how sharp the disagreement really is. Many Western theologians would affirm B while denying C until glorification. Where do you land?
I wrote ChatGPT and said the following
I understand all that, and I appreciate the feedback, but the bottom line is that the promises of God in 1 Peter, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature, and other promises of God that say we can do all things through Christ, who gives us strength, that is not just limited to suffering persecution, but why would anyone think that we can’t do all things, including being healed from regular, ongoing willful sin? It seems to me like blatant unbelief, notwithstanding all the theological gymnastics they offer.
ChatGPT responds
I can feel the weight of what you’re saying. You’re not arguing for human self-perfection; you’re arguing that God’s promises should be taken seriously. You’re thinking especially of:
- 2 Peter 1:4. “partakers of the divine nature.”
- Epistle to the Philippians 4:13. “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”
And your instinct is that if those promises are real, why would ongoing, predictable sin be treated as unavoidable? That’s not an irrational question. It’s a theological fault line. Let’s slow it down carefully.
1. What 2 Peter 1:4 Actually Claims
Peter says we: “escape the corruption that is in the world through lust.” And we become “partakers of the divine nature.”
In the Greek patristic tradition, thinkers like Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa read this very robustly:
- Grace is not merely legal.
- It is participation.
- It truly transforms a person’s life.
- It empowers obedience and holiness.
That tradition does not assume sin is structurally inevitable. So, your instinct fits very comfortably in that stream.
2. Why Reformed / Augustinian Theology Hesitates and flatly denies this
Following Augustine of Hippo, and later John Calvin, the Western argument is not: “God can’t free you.” It’s “Freedom from sin in its fullest sense belongs to resurrection life.” And I ask, why limit this to the distant future?
They (Calvinists) make three moves (which we have already gone over):
- They interpret Romans 7 as an ongoing Christian struggle.
- They treat 1 John 1:8 as universally descriptive.
- They define concupiscence itself as sin.
So, in that framework, even involuntary disordered desire counts as sin. Therefore, total sinlessness before glorification becomes impossible by definition. That’s not necessarily unbelief; it’s a definitional structure.
Let me add that involuntary sin is no sin at all, even though Calvinism would like to treat it as sin. Secondly, Calvinism and Evangelicalism do not consistently differentiate between involuntary and voluntary sin. Many of them, directly opposing Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, and Galatians 5, would say that real Christians can commit any or all of these willful, voluntary sins and still inherit the kingdom of God. That is unbelief, not simply structural, in my humble opinion.
ChatGPT continues, but you’re questioning whether that structure is biblical.
3. Philippians 4:13. “All Things.”
ChatGPT writes, ‘You’re right: Paul’s immediate context in the Epistle to the Philippians 4 is contentment under suffering. Reformed interpreters argue that “All things” are limited by context and endure hardship. But your broader theological question is: If Christ strengthens us for persecution, why not for holiness? That’s a fair pressure point.
No serious tradition claims Christ withholds strength for obedience. The disagreement is whether:
- The strength removes the presence of sinful inclination,
or
- The strength enables resistance to ongoing weakness.
That’s the dividing line.
Let me make it clear: we are talking about the second bullet point. God’s grace helps us resist temptation in our lives and environments. I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength. Also, we have the promise that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist ongoing temptation and all sinful inclinations. The more we walk with God, the stronger we become.
4. Is It “Blatant Unbelief”?
Here’s where we need precision. The Augustinian tradition fears something deeply:
Spiritual pride and self-deception. They worry that claiming sinlessness:
- Minimizes subtle sin.
- Ignores inward corruption.
- Leads to spiritual delusion.
ChatGPT continues, So, their caution is pastoral and anthropological, not dismissive of divine power. My comment is that it is actually unbelief in God’s word and is dismissive.
ChatGPT writes, ‘But here is the real tension: If theology becomes so protective of pride that it assumes ongoing sin as inevitable, it can start to sound like a lowered expectation of grace, permission to sin, and an excuse for it. That’s what you’re reacting to.
My comment. That is what is actually happening in Christianity today, in my opinion.
5. The Early Church Tone
When you read John Chrysostom, you don’t hear: “You must continue sinning.” You hear: “Why do you sin when grace has made you strong?” That moral seriousness is often softened or avoided in modern evangelical language, writes ChatGPT.
My comment is that modern evangelicalism contradicts both the early church and the bible.
The early Church:
- Assumed struggle.
- Assumed repentance.
- But did not normalize sin as an unavoidable part of Christian life.
My comment. And this is what Calvinism and much of evangelicalism have done, and that is to normalize ongoing sin in the life of the believer. That false belief has doomed countless people to eternal death.
That tonal difference matters, because the truth matters.
6. The Real Question Beneath All This
It comes down to how we define:
- “Sin”
- “Nature”
- “Freedom”
- “Perfection”
If sin includes involuntary impulse, then total freedom seems impossible before glorification.
If sin is voluntary transgression, then grace-enabled obedience becomes far more conceivable.
That definitional move changes everything, according to ChatGPT.
My comment. And I agree, and that is why Calvinists and many evangelicals define sin so broadly (involuntary impulse) that not sinning becomes ridiculous. That is what they want us to think. Jesus said, ‘Woe to those who cause any of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble. This is the great sin of Calvinism and much of evangelicalism because they teach precisely this.
7. A Careful Synthesis, according to ChatGPT
Here’s something worth considering. The New Testament simultaneously teaches:
- Radical transformation.
- Ongoing vigilance.
- Serious warnings to believers.
- Hope of final perfection at Christ’s appearing.
It does not seem to say: “Sin is unavoidable, so relax.” Nor does it say: “You have already reached the final state.” The tension is eschatological. We are genuinely renewed, but not yet resurrected. How much that “not yet” limits present obedience is the live debate.
Let me respond as clearly as I can. Calvinism and carnal evangelicalism both say that sin is inevitable even for the true Christian. What is inevitable is hardly guarded against. No one will be as careful as they should be about committing sin if they think that God knows and expects them to continue to sin all their life, yet they still go to heaven. It is impossible that the warning passages actually warn anyone who really believes the warning is not critical to their final salvation. They may say they are not excusing or encouraging sinful behavior, but they are, and they are either deceived or not telling the truth. Is there any other reasonable explanation?
Furthermore, to my knowledge, no one actually believes that we are perfected and cannot leave the faith. We know, deep down, we must persevere and not fall back into damnation. We have not yet finished the course. Yet, we do not fear because we are fully devoted to Christ. Many Christians seem to have the idea that when they die, they will finally be free of sin. Death is their savior, not Jesus. They seem to think that they become robots (no free will) upon death, and only then will their sinning cease and their repentance be true and complete. I believe that is unbelief and the broad way that leads to destruction and eternal death.
ChatGPT writes the following. Let me ask you something important: When you speak of being healed from “regular ongoing sin,” are you thinking primarily about:
- Habitual moral compromise?
- Occasional falls?
- Inward desire?
- Or absolute flawlessness?
Because, depending on which you mean, the conversation shifts significantly, according to ChatGPT.
I responded with the following;
I am questioning their theological structure, and it does seem like unbelief for these reasons. They take 1 John 1:8, which refutes the idea of absolute perfection in Gnosticism, where some Jews claimed they had never sinned, and verse 10 of the same chapter verifies that. And then the false interpretation of Romans 7, which claims that believers struggle and fall into sin all the time, is completely at odds with Romans 6, 8, 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, and Galatians 5. I think this is awful- how they discount all the promises and the power of God. And since when does it say that we are going to be healed from sin and the sin nature at the resurrection? God’s promises are for the here and now, not thereafter.
ChatGPT responds.
Bob, what you’re doing now is not nitpicking verses; you’re questioning the architecture of an entire theological system. That’s a serious move. Let me engage you carefully and without caricature.
1. 1 John 1:8. What Is It Refuting?
You’re right that First Epistle of John 1:8-10 reads like a polemic:
- v.8 — “If we say that we have no sin…” at all
- v.10 — “If we say that we have not sinned…” ever in our life
Many scholars agree that John is opposing an early proto-Gnostic claim of moral innocence or spiritual elitism. And importantly, Chapter 3 of the same epistle says: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin…”
Within the same letter, you have:
- A denial of claiming a sinless past
- A strong affirmation of real moral transformation
The question is whether 1:8 is:
- A permanent anthropology (“all believers always sin”),
or
- A rejection of denialism about ever having sinned.
That’s a legitimate exegetical debate, and the early Greek Fathers did not read 1:8 as proof of an inevitable lifelong state of sinfulness, so writes ChatGPT.
Let me punctuate the issue: multiple times in 1 John, he tells us that the one who does right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous; that those who sin are born of the devil; and that no one born of God sins. And in 1 John chapter 1, we are told that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin, yet many Christians deny this and claim all Christians sin constantly.
And then there is the clear testimony of Romans 6 and 8 refuting the idea that Christians remain slaves of sin. And anyone who sins daily is, by definition, a slave of sin.
2. Romans 7. The Flashpoint
In Romans 7, Paul says: “The good that I would do I do not…” Augustine (in his later writings) read this as the normal Christian life. But earlier interpreters like John Chrysostom read Romans 7 as:
- Either pre-conversion experience,
- Or a rhetorical dramatization of life under Law.
That changes everything. Because if Romans 7 is not normative Christian life, then:
- Romans 6: “freed from sin.”
- Romans 8: “law of the Spirit of life hath made me free.”
- Galatians 5: “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”
Sounds much more decisive. Your frustration is that one chapter (Romans 7) is allowed to control all the others. That’s not an irrational complaint, according to ChatGPT.
Please allow me a further comment. Romans 7 has never been my characteristic experience after I got right with God years ago, and I am sure it has never been the experience of many real Christians. That doesn’t mean I have never struggled with my own passions and desires. It doesn’t mean that I have never sinned as a Christian.
It means my life is characterized by righteousness (not absolute perfection, whatever that actually means), not sin. Sin is the exception in my life, not the norm. Righteousness is the rule. I am still tempted, sometimes greatly. I must stay awake and guard what God has given me. Many Christians often use Romans 7 as an excuse for not ceasing their sins. If the great apostle Paul couldn’t stop sinning, then none of us can. That is not the gospel.
3. “Where Does It Say We’re Only Fully Healed at the Resurrection?”
ChatGPT writes, Good question. The usual appeal is to:
- “We shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)
- The redemption of the body (Romans 8:23)
- The putting off of corruption at resurrection (1 Corinthians 15)
But here’s the key: Those passages speak clearly of bodily transformation. They don’t explicitly say, “You must continue committing sin until then.” That conclusion is a theological inference, not a direct statement.
You’re right about that, so says ChatGPT.
4. The Real Structural Issue
The Augustinian/Reformed system assumes:
- Concupiscence itself is sin.
- Concupiscence remains until death.
- Therefore, sin remains until death.
If you reject premise #1, the whole structure shifts. The Eastern tradition generally rejects #1.
They distinguish between:
- Temptation/passion (not yet sin),
- And consent of the will (sin).
That distinction lets them affirm that real freedom from sin is possible, even though temptation continues. That framework fits more naturally with: “Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill…”
5. Is It Unbelief?
ChatGPT writes, I would phrase it more carefully. Reformed thinkers don’t doubt God’s power. It’s that they prioritize:
- Humility,
- Dependence,
- The danger of self-deception.
They fear triumphalism. But you are sensing something important: If theology begins with a pessimistic anthropology (all humans are born sinners), it can, in practice, mute the force of the promises and all the warnings at the same time.
ChatGPT affirms that tension is real.
6. What the New Testament Actually Holds Together
The New Testament:
- Commands real holiness.
- Warns believers seriously.
- Speaks of freedom from sin.
- Assumes vigilance and repentance.
- Points to final glorification.
It does not say: “Sin is inevitable, so lower your expectations.” Nor does it say: “You have already reached resurrection perfection.” The tension is “already” and “not yet.”
Let me add that Scripture warns us to stop sinning (go and sin no more), to abide in Christ, to walk the narrow path, to take up our cross, if ye continue, and so on. All those expressions tell us clearly that we have not yet reached resurrection perfection, so using those words is unnecessary and not a real issue.
The question is how much moral victory belongs to the “already”? That is the debate, according to ChatGPT.
For me, the issue is about how much sin Christians can refuse to repent of before they are condemned. The issue is whether a person, including Christians, can inherit the kingdom of God while they are unrepentant adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, and so on, as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6. I firmly believe what Paul said: do not be deceived; the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Most of evangelicalism and Calvinism think the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God because the Father imputed Christ’s righteousness and obedience to us. That is all fictional and anti-biblical.
7. A Crucial Clarification by ChatGPT
Let me ask you something very precise, because this is where the discussion either stabilizes or explodes. Do you believe a regenerated believer:
- Can live without ever committing a willful act of disobedience again?
- Or can reach a state where they never sin,
I respond to ChatGPT as follows. I prefer this first bullet point. But just because we can live without sin doesn’t mean we don’t sin. It means we can do what God requires. And even Christians sometimes sin, but they also quickly repent. Sin is the exception, not the rule, in their lives.
ChatGPT responds that that is helpful.
If by “complete healing” you mean that a regenerated believer can, by grace, live without committing willful acts of disobedience, then you are not arguing for metaphysical flawlessness. You’re arguing that Spirit-empowered obedience can be real and consistent.
That position has serious historical precedent, according to ChatGPT.
In part 3, we will pick up where we left off. Much more to come.
