 So to help illustrate this, I've given you kind of a scale, if you like, to see how we can interpret, well, perceive how these verses have been interpreted. So you save through faith with works. This is that the sinless perfection end of the spectrum. Based on the latter passages in Chapter 3, you have to be absolutely sinless to be saved, right? And so they will say then that 1 John 1, 8 to 2, 2 is about sinners repenting of their sins and turning from it until they have fully surrendered, or however they will phrase it. On the other hand, on the other extreme of the spectrum, you've got saved through faith without works, and that's what the Bible calls grace, okay? And people will say, people often say this, that God has forgiven all sins past, present and future, and for as long as you still live in this body of the flesh, you're always going to sin. And therefore, according to 1 John 8 and 2 to 2, we acknowledge this, so we believe on Jesus. That's how they will often interpret it on the faithful-owned side. In the middle, with the Lordship salvation, it's kind of like saved through a true faithful-owned that will produce works, you know? It's like one foot in there, one foot in there. Based on the later passages in chapter 3, there needs to be some evidence of changed life to be saved, but it doesn't mean perfection. So 1 John is kind of like acknowledging when we sin God is faithful to forgive, as long as there isn't a lifestyle of sin, so that's how they will interpret it, okay? So where do they get their interpretations from? Well, verse 8 is really problematic to a sinless perfectionist, so they have to assume that it essentially means the same thing as it does in verse 10, that you are denying that you have past sins that you need saving from. So it doesn't mean that you have present sins, because that would contradict other verses in John, supposedly. So they really just say that verse 8 is just the same thing as verse 10, just said in a different way. And that they will use verse 6 preceding it to set the context for it, because if we are not in the truth, we walk in darkness, quote-unquote. So verse 8 cannot mean that a saved Christian continues in sin in the present tense, because that would contradict walking in darkness in verse 6, right? Now, using a non-KJV translation, they will insist that verses such as 1 John 3 8 are outright proof that a saved believer should not be continuing in sin. So the idea that a Christian is always going to sin based on 1-8 is quoting it out of context and in ignorance too. Sorry, I forgot to complete that sentence for some reason, but in this one, there is a bit of a thing about how this says practice, obviously. The King James doesn't say that, but that'll have to wait until chapter 3. So I looked around at how sinless perfectionists answered this. And so these are a few of the things that I found. So this guy is, you know, hardcore term for me sins to be saved. So he says, essentially, verse 6, if we continue in darkness, this proves that verse 8 does not mean continued present sin, because we can't be walking in darkness, okay? In 2 John 2, 18-19, we have these antichrists that went out from us. Well, this shows that the epistle was written about the Gnostics, and they had all kinds of heretical teachings. And further qualified in 1 John 4, 1-3, where it says test the spirits, you can clearly see that he is addressing the Gnostics, right? And supposedly, the Gnostics claim that they didn't have any sin. He also says, and this is obviously true, that if you eat a letter, so if you take out the chapters and numbers, read it in the flow of a letter, obviously the chapters and numbers weren't there when John wrote it. So that's some of the points that he's made about it. Now, this guy, Dan Moeller, you wouldn't normally think that they belong in the same camp, because you might not actually realise that he's a sinless perfectionist, because he's really more about identity, kind of a gospel, which is something that he would refute. But I think he does really kind of believe it. He says it in a very nice way and a much more gentle way than most people, and he kind of says it without saying it really. So it's maybe not obvious that he's a sinless perfectionist, but he believes that essentially you're walking in a new identity and your new identity is that you don't sin. So verse 7, if we walk in the light and he'll embellish that to say, if we come clean, come free from ourselves, getting true fellowship with him, it cleanses us from all sin, righteousness is done. So we're not dual-natured, we're not driven by sin, not desperately in need of the blood every single day. Not, oh, thank you, God, I'm always going to sin, but he forgives me. So he's refuting that kind of a mentality, yeah? And so being cleansed from all sin, that means all our sin, which he would, although he doesn't say this, it seems like he's saying that it includes your propensity to even sin, that's completely removed. So even your desire to sin essentially is removed. He's kind of saying it without saying it really. So in the context of verse 7, verse 8, if we say we have no sin, he interprets that as meaning, if you say you have no need for the blood. So it doesn't mean if you sinned today, it just means do you recognize that you need Jesus? So the person who says, I have no sin, he's basically saying, I don't need to be born again, I don't need Jesus, I'm a pretty good person. That's how he's defining that. So in verse 9, when it says if we confess our sins, it doesn't interpret this to mean that we're always going to have sin. But if we stumble, then the light of my life reveals, then recognises that it wasn't God and my mindset was selfish and I get convicted, et cetera, so I say far. So this is what I mean about the identity thing, where it's just like proclaiming truth over yourself essentially. And that's how you get around the sin issue, apparently. This guy, one reality, again, hardcore work salvation, comes right out and says it. Christians read this with a mentality that they're always going to sin until the day they die. Sorry, I've spelled that wrong. And this is why pastors, apparently, molest children or cheating on their wives and Christians think that they have to deliberately sin to be in the truth. I've never heard anybody say that, that's what he's saying. John is writing to Gnostics, there is again, who think that they have not sinned since birth and wouldn't need Jesus who are converting over to Christianity. Not sure why, but that's what he says. John does not address beliefs until chapter 2, supposedly. So in verse nine, we confess that we have sinned and we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, so we cannot have sinned present tense, according to verse eight. So in essence, then, this passage is about an unsaved person getting saved that they will confess their sin and, in his words, repent of their sin and get saved. So that's how he's interpreting it, okay? Jesse Morel, so I've put the video titles in there if you want to check that he's out, but he'll say that a lot of Christians use this to attack holiness preaching. I don't know who, but that's what he said. John was writing against the Gnostics who believed that the flesh was a sinful substance and that you could never be free from sin until you died and you're released from the body. Walking in darkness, verse six, is walking in sin, walking in unrighteousness, not walking in the truth. So it's also important to note that he interprets cleansing from all sin as referring to in this life, and it means that you no longer have the propensity to go out and sin, that the saviour cleanses from all sin is not death as the Gnostics taught. Now, this is noteworthy, what he said, that if somebody commits a sin such as fornication, but then they claim they're not being sinful, this is the kind of person that the passage is talking about. He also says as well that a lot of people interpret the Bible based on today's debates, like Calvinism versus Arminianism, rather than the issues of the time and the audience of its day. Okay, so we're maybe misunderstanding the argument because we're looking at it from modern argument point. So he says that the whole point of telling you to confess your sin is that you'll get forgiven and cleansed and don't continue in sin by which Jesse Morrell means repent of it, stop doing it altogether. Noteworthy as well is that according to one John, to one it says if any man sin, that means it's possible to sin but it's also possible to stop sinning because he wrote the epistle that you would not sin. He does also point out another false extreme that some sinless perfectionist say it is impossible for a saved person to sin. And this is exactly what Mike Rikowski believes, the next guy that he does believe that he's at a point where he can't even choose to sin. It's impossible for him to sin essentially. So basically what he says, everyone on this earth except Jesus was born in sin, that does not mean we will always continue in sin. There are no scriptures that say, well he always says relate, he had some weird obsession with using that word that we will always continue in sin or that we can never stop sinning. The Bible never says this supposedly. People who do not possess the Holy Spirit want to justify why they continue in sin. So when it says if we say we have no sin, it does not apply to his own claim that he does not sin anymore because he confesses that he was born in sin and for 50 years of his life he lived in sin, he then confessed his sins and so he stopped living in sin. So again, it's about unbelievers getting saved in long story short. He then quotes later verses from John that whosoever has been born of God does not sin and he cannot sin because his seed remains in him and the wicked one cannot touch you. So if you are allowing the Holy Spirit of God to guide you, you will not sin. Now additionally, if you've not heard of this guy before, Rikowsky's doctrine of overcoming sin also involves overcoming sickness. So if you get sick, it's because you sinned and sin and sickness come from the devil. And it's later clarified in one John three that whosoever sins has not seen him and does not know him. So if you say you still sin, it's because you don't know God and you don't have the Holy Spirit, have no idea who God is, you're the one that's living a lie, you are deceived, you are blaspheming the Word of God. And so essentially saying that if you still sin, you are denying the power of God. Essentially is what he's saying there. So that was Sinless Perfectionism. What about the opposite end of the spectrum? Free grace, easy believers, and where do they get their interpretations from? So verse eight obviously is fine as a self-contained verse. If we say that we have no sin in the present tense, so free grace advocates would say that believe a sin even to the day they die. So because this verse is in the present tense there's no problem for easy believers about what verse eight means. Now verse nine is surprisingly controversial among free grace advocates because different people have interpreted it in very different ways. And some people have even reconsidered their interpretation. You might argue with perhaps that how the word confess is interpreted could be an issue there. Verse 10 again, not controversial, there's no issue with verse 10. So I'll give you an example of things I've heard from other easy believers to say about this passage. So initially, Greg Jackson, once in a video, he stated it was directed at the Gnostics and the Gnostics claimed they didn't have any sin and so they needed to acknowledge that they were sinners who needed to trust in Christ. Some people have refuted him about this view stating that it refers to believers but he's declined this view because it would involve ongoing confession such as in Catholicism. And so obviously that would be maintaining forgiveness as opposed to one time forgiveness. Now I think he did change his view that his view has changed to that more in agreement with the second guy although they disagree on many other things which I'm not gonna get into but destroying the works of the devil he said that he disagrees that this verse is about believers as well for much the same reasons as Greg. Although rather than saying it's about the Gnostics he's saying that it refers to unbelievers generally who need to confess their sins in the John the Baptist sense like the one time confession conversion because they've not yet believed the gospel. And when people have confronted him about the use of the pronoun we because it says if we confess our sin and obviously the context is believers he likens it to, I think it was a waitress in a restaurant saying, oh, what are we having today? But the waitress herself is not eating, right? And then Toronto Bible study he's said that this passage I think I apologize to him if I'm wrong about his interpretation but it refers to ongoing confession of sins to God not for salvation. So it's not something that you have to do to be saved but something that maintains your earthly fellowship or relationship with God unless you can get chastised or perhaps disfellowship from the brethren or something like that. And so then there's Lordship salvation among Lordship is I didn't really find anything surprisingly different from what we've already seen. It's mainly a repetition of some of the same points. And so it's kind of a mishmash of the aforementioned points that you know, the epistle was written to the nostics or because they rejects and this perfectionism they were like knowledge the ongoing sins of believers but at the same time they'll still insist that walking the light must warrant a change in lifestyle not making a practice of sin. So I didn't really find anything new in that category to handpick for you. So there's a lot of different arguments going on here and quite a lot to unpack. So I'm going to have to break down and refute some of the arguments. I can't go into every micro thing that they've said for the sake of time. But just as a spoiler alert I don't really agree with any of the aforementioned interpretations including those by other easy believers and I'm not having to go at them or anything. I just professionally disagree with them but I have previously considered Toronto Bible studies interpretation and for a time I thought it was correct but then when I've studied it again I've kind of repented of that view and I'm using that word correctly by the way because I've realised something very obvious that I missed the whole time and when I saw it I couldn't believe how obvious it was. All of these conflicting interpretations explain why John's epistle is such a complicated book because the things that John is saying in these verses is not really complicated in itself. He's using quite simple language and so it's amazing how so few words can cause so much conflict about what he means. The answer to this passage is actually quite simple and when I noticed it I felt rather silly that I missed it the whole time because it was always there and all we have to do is just think carefully about the way that John phrases it and the reason why he says certain things. That's all you have to do but just think carefully about why he's saying it the way that he's saying it, right? So I'll try and pick some of the main arguments see I can't go through every micro argument but easy believists and sinless perfectionists alike have interpreted this epistle to be all about Gnosticism but they've taken their own spin on what Gnostic doctrine John was actually refuting. So if we ask the sinless perfectionists who say that John was writing about the Gnostics well they say that the Gnostics lived in sin and wouldn't turn from sin and so that was the issue that John needed to address. On the contrary, easy believists who also say that this book was directed towards the Gnostics denied that they had sin or that Jesus was the Christ and so that was what John addressed. So either one or both of these sides are picking and choosing the aspects of Gnostics to associate with this epistle so as to defend their own positions and in some of their assertions about Gnostics and not really necessarily accurate or evident evident from the writings that we have about Gnostics they're either cherry-picked or they're conjectural or just simply not true or relevant really. Further building on this you see my biggest problem with this assertion is the lack of evidence within the Bible itself. John makes no mention of Gnostics or Gnosticism and we have to rely on extra Biblical sources and conjectural assumptions to come to this conclusion essentially. Now there's a lot of hearsay about this epistle that John wrote it quite late in his life even after the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed but doesn't bother to mention it but scholars can only deduce that based on his writing style they don't really have any absolute proof. Many scholars would deny that John even wrote the book so John didn't really find it necessary to document anything particularly relevant to his timeframe. So in summary I reject the idea that it's targeted at Gnostics specifically because I don't think that that sets the premise for the whole book because you cannot establish that from the Bible itself. Somebody has to plant that idea into your head essentially. Now most of what we know about Gnostics as far as I'm aware comes from against heresies by Irenaeus. So I actually produced a video going through the book to debunk a claim that Osas was a Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics really believed in all kinds of kooky weird things. Assuming that what Irenaeus said is actually true and not biased by the way but they believed in all kinds of weird things and so really John writes in his epistle barely scratches the surface of what Gnostics actually believed and the Antichrist characteristics that John exposed were quite specific. So really I would argue that his epistle is very inadequate if it was intended to address Gnostic teachings. To top this off really the Antichrist characteristics could easily be applied to the Jews of John's time who also denied that Jesus is the Christ and also denied that they had sin and Paul warned us about Judaizers in his epistles. Now strictly speaking John doesn't mention Jews in his epistle, right? But at least internally the Bible would make a much better case for that claim and a more self-sufficient case than the Gnostics. Just from the self-sufficient internal evidence. And furthermore as well as I mentioned earlier in the study sometimes the Bible does name certain people that were the cause of certain false doctrines like the Nicolaotans, right? But John doesn't give us that epistle so we don't know that he was targeting a very specific group of heretics. So John just said another argument then this is quite a big one. A lot of the sinless perfectionists were saying this that John just said prior to verse eight, nine and 10 walk in the light before saying if we say we have no sin. So he is not talking about present tense ongoing sins. Now I perceive that there are two problems with this argument. The first biggest problem is that it's really begging the question that is to say asserting the conclusion because the sinless perfectionists have read that word, that phrase walk in the light and they've free decided that that's what walking the light means. Well it says walk in the light so it means you don't say it. Well you've decided that that's what those four words mean. Okay you've made that assumption. So really what they're doing is they're using a cryptic figure of speech like walk in the light to define a clear statement if we say we have no sin rather than taking the more obvious statement and applying it to the more cryptic one, right? Which would make more sense. Well earlier in the study we already looked at what walking the light means that if we use other passages in the Bible particularly mainly in John's gospel that use the same phrase walk in the light it's really used more to do with believing who Christ is and believing in him not in living a new kind of a life. Okay that's how John's gospel defines it far more clearly. So if John's borrowing terminology from his gospel in his epistle which we can see that he does it's really far more to do with what you believe not your works. And so the closest to works like passages that we have that are similar are like walking in the spirit not walking in the light though or walking as children of the light. So you know John's gospel presents a better case for our interpretation that walking in the light is really the truth that you believe it's walking in the truth acknowledging what is true believing in what is true. The second problem with this argument okay if we're to assert that the sinless perfectionist view is true that walking the light means not sinning then really the way that the Holy Spirit moved John to speak makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because John wrote a sentence that contradicts his own salvation doctrine. Logically speaking if a sinless perfectionist's view were true that Jesus has to remove sins not just the sins that they've done all the penalty for sins but also the propensity to sin or the fact that they sin and this is how we're going to define free from sin that you're a person who doesn't sin anymore well then John cannot say in the present tense if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves because it's not true in fact the opposite is true it's if we say we have sin we deceive ourselves. So we really accuse John of writing a nonsensical statement that doesn't even match what he's proclaiming about salvation if you just follow the logic right we've been set free from our sins that's how the interpret Jesus cleansed from our sins we don't sin anymore we're not living in sin you know we've been cleansed from our sins we don't have sin anymore oh by the way if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves like that what that doesn't make sense with the satireology that you're supposedly claiming then it's like you're making John contradict himself now verse 10 still makes perfect sense if we say we have not sinned that's fine we don't have a problem with verse 10 but they're making verse 8 say the same thing when John worded it in the present tense not as something that happened in the past okay the third argument then that verse 9 and Dan Moeller said it this way but also easy believists have said this as well that confess means to acknowledge our need for the blood so like Dan Moeller said it's about unbelievers getting saved you know if we say we have no need for the blood that's what John really means by saying that but my answer to that really is very similar to argument 2 like my question would be if this is what John really meant why couldn't the Holy Spirit move John to say it in the way that he meant because really the verse ought to say if we say we have no passing then we deceive ourselves but that's not what he said he said if we say we have no sin present tense we deceive ourselves and then verse 9 ought to say if any man acknowledges need for the blood of Jesus he is faithful for it but again that's not how the Holy Spirit moved John to speak the Holy Spirit moved John to say if we confess that's an action present tense our sins he's faithful and just to forgive okay I am satisfied in my own mind you can disagree that's up to you but I think John is being deliberate in the language being used and that the Holy Spirit did not write him to move something that is deliberately confusing okay so you know how just looking at that right there that table there of what John could have said versus what he did say would help you understand why I'm disagreeing with everybody here okay argument number 4 is that John is talking about unbelievers verse 8 to 10 are not referring to saved people they're about people who need to get saved now as we saw with Gnosticism both easy-believers and sinless perfectionists are like making this claim but they've got their own spin on how it actually applies you know the sinless perfectionist will say that it means unbelievers need to repent of their sins the easy-believers say that unbelievers need to recognize that they are sinners once again with argument 2 and 3 we're accusing John and the Holy Spirit of using nonsensical language that doesn't make doctrinal sense okay verse 3 and 4 quite clearly clarify who we are now in poetry books like Psalms or Job or Psalms obviously this is not as straightforward because the pronouns flip around all the time and it's poetry right but this ought to really be and this is an instruction letter it ought to be more straightforward than that okay no verse so far has redefined who we are okay we are the brethren the people of God so now some will say it's a figure of speech so I mentioned earlier that the waitress example like a waitress comes up to you say oh what are we having today but the waitress is not eating now I can't accept that for the main reason I find that view very conjectural I find it unverifiable like I can't verify that what you're saying is true I've got no way of knowing that I can only base it on your assumption right and really I don't think you can compare informal speech in a restaurant with men speaking as they are moved by the Holy Ghost and wrote and carbon copied this letter okay so you know I'm not having a go at the people that proclaim that you know I'm not ripping on them all but you know that I'm just professionally disagreeing with the other easy believers about this argument 5 is that it means to stop living in sin and this is essentially how Jesse Murrell and Mike Rakowski interpret well I suppose all the sinless perfectionists did really but as with all the previous arguments we're doing the same thing again accusing John of writing nonsensical language that contradicts his own theology he should not be saying if we say we have no sin present tense if we have been cleansed from our sins and we don't sin anymore and we don't sin good word children of God and you all sin but we don't you know you would see that yourselves we don't John should not be saying that it makes no sense with what he's actually talking about and again it's inserting the conclusion because what they're doing is they're reading the bit saying cleanses us from all sin and they think well that means you don't sin anymore well the thing is that that's not what cleansing means right cleansing like another word for cleaning or you know scrubbing now anybody who knows the first thing about cleaning knows that when you clean something it eventually gets dirty okay those of you that clean freaks and like to clean your house or maybe your housewife and you're looking after the family you know that as soon as the kids and the husband come home that house ain't as clean as you made it no matter how much effort you put into it it gets dirty very quickly okay the fact that it says cleanses us from all sin is not proof text that you don't sin anymore okay and they will they will borrow from later passages about he who commits in he cannot sin so you know they'll say well he who is born of God cannot sin right but then they believe in conditional security so their own definition violates those later verses just just think about it if a saved believer who has been cleansed of sin including their propensity to sin can then choose to sin and lose their salvation then by definition your definition of it they weren't cleansed they weren't set free someone who was born of God can sin and become unborn a person born of God can sin so they contradict their own interpretation because they just talk out of both sides of the mouth I can't unpack that now I know that's the bit that people get stuck on and I know that's the verses that people find super hard to understand and I will get to it I intend on getting to it but chapters three and five I just got to have to wait to their own study okay we've got to get through this we've got to do this in order okay so argument number six then this is saying that verse nine refers to fellowship or you might say relationship I guess so a saved believer should confess their sins in prayer presumably not for salvation so you know it's got nothing to do with says what must I do to be saved you know you're still saved if you don't do it but it's to stay in fellowship with God or with their brethren to stay in fellowship with them such as to retain or recover church membership and often they'll say that fellowship is perhaps using it in the same way as discipleship I guess I have previously considered this view but really I have repented of holding this view because what I've realized is that the problem here is really trying to define the word fellowship okay because the word fellowship it's used a handful of times in the Bible and perhaps similar words like relationship or brotherhood and other passages use fellowship in like a gospel like context like Philemon 1.5 and so sometimes fellowship does seem like it's salvation relevant where Paul uses the word fellowship he sometimes uses it as not associating with or participating in the needs of non-brethren and participating in things pertaining to the faith now I've not done like hours and hours and hours and hours of in-depth study about what fellowship means but at a glance you know if you look at all the different verses where it means it more commonly seems to mean association with or participation so if we are in fellowship with brethren it's because we associate with another you know usually other doctrines we believe right and we associate with God and so we are commanded not to be in fellowship or not to participate in or associate with the works of darkness right so if we say that somebody is cut off from fellowship with God like my problem with that view is well what does that actually mean do you mean that God won't answer your prayer or do you mean that God will punish you and chastise you in a non-hellfire kind of way and then if that's how you're interpreting it then the next question I have to ask is what verses in the Bible define fellowship in this way okay and so there's really too much openness to what fellowship actually means if you're gonna say that so to me this interpretation just leaves too many holes about what fellowship means and perhaps again we're asserting conclusions oh that's what fellowship means without really providing satisfactory proof to clearly define it and then apply it to what Johnny's even talking about and furthermore if we just look at what we've been looking at that you know in this chapter that chastisement of a disobedient believer or the consequences of disfellowshipping is not something that this epistle is talking about okay so we're just arbitrarily adding this definition when John himself didn't necessarily define it this way now if we were doing a study on perhaps one Corinthians that might be a stronger argument but I think it's too weak in John's epistle because really what you believe about what it means is outside of the subject of John's epistle you're talking about something that John's not talking about essentially so with all of that I see problems with all of the aforementioned interpretations there's more I could have said on that but I think you get the idea obviously then I need to provide justification as to what I believe it means now as I've said repeatedly John is using simple language he's not using fancy word salad it ought to be fairly simple to understand what John really means and I believe it is and when I recognized it I was surprised actually how simple it is and how obvious it has just been to me the whole time I just completely missed it really I'm summarizing here but John is tackling a mindset okay and it's about the mindset that we as believers have towards our sins and how that relates to our belief in Jesus the Christ and our fellowship or you might say association with one another so over the next few last slides let's have a look at the simple language that John uses and see if he defines his own sentences so see if we can grasp this okay so we already saw earlier in the study that there's two sides here right this ought to give us an indication of what John intended in saying in verse nine either we say we have no sin and we say that we have not sinned or we confess our sins they're the two extremes they're the opposite okay they're the choices right so verses four and five established that we you and you plural pronouns are referring to believers including John himself and the people that he represents and the group of people he was walking to whom he predominantly calls little children throughout his epistles so they were likely probably converts or people that John administered to and John felt you know a burdening responsibility to watch over them right we have seen and heard we declare on to you we write on to you that's who we are in chapter one right believers simple as that in verses eight to ten we start each verse with if we say that or if we confess right okay so what we do is not strictly being tackled here because again since lectures you've got to turn from us it's not saying what we do it's saying what we say okay what we confess what we say so it's what we collectively as believers say or confess regarding our sins right now if if John was writing about any one individual or somebody who needs to be saved he could have just said if any man or he that or who so ever but he didn't say this okay he said we that's what he said we're all together in these verses okay so John in the in the second chapter then gives us a reason why he's writing right just so as to make sure that you don't misunderstand what he just said he writes on to you that reading his writing you do not say okay that I write on to you that you say not that's why he's writing okay now we dealt with that if we say that okay we have all the verses that say if we say that what happens if we do that okay what happens if we do sin well we have a condition here now this is where it gets interesting because it doesn't actually say we now now it actually says if any man sin right now that's quite interesting we're going to have to look into that so it doesn't say we there but if we if any man sin okay then that condition is met well we have a solution we have an advocate okay there's a solution there if any man happened to sin right