1 John1:9 is so misunderstood by many churches
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
1Jo:1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.This is sins of many plural sins and again what happen if you forget a sin or two, even sins of things we should have done and didn't??I think this more... I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 12/05/2011 09:52:01
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
In 1John 1:9 was written for gnostics, or unbelievers which are people still called sinner until they repent and confess their sins!
But in Chapter 2 it is for believers and specially chapter 3, it shows they this is about our born again spirit been saved and knows all things, and can't sin period!
The confession really lies in taking 1 John 1 out of contexts by not knowing who this chapter is speaking too and for not knowing in ignorant for what reasons John is writting this too!
one love
No. The issue was gnosticsm but the readers were born again believers. John confirmed this in the next chapter.
They were not gnostics and were not described as such.
You already claimed that if anyone rejected Christ there were no second chances and now you expect me to believe that you believe that gnostics got special treatment?
I'm the first chapter is only for u.believers. but the second chapter is for believers!
o.e Love
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
No. John did not change who he was writing to part way through the letter. Remember there were no chapter divisions for the first thousand years of the Bible. The first chapter continued straight into the second chapter with no distinction made as to who he was writing to.
The letter was written to a single group. The first verse in Chapter 2 is a continuation of the same theme in Chapter 1, so there is no distinction made. You have invented this nonsense to appease your carnal mind, but it isn't true and there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
In fact, your assertion does not even make sense.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
If that letter had been addressed to unbelievers, the believers would never have seen it and we would not have it in our New Testament. It would have been tossed or kept private.
Unbelieving Gnostics would not have been associating with believing Christians and since there is no change of addressee, they would not have been able to guess that they needed to hand it over to the church down the street.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
No. John did not change who he was writing to part way through the letter. Remember there were no chapter divisions for the first thousand years of the Bible. The first chapter continued straight into the second chapter with no distinction made as to who he was writing to.
The letter was written to a single group. The first verse in Chapter 2 is a continuation of the same theme in Chapter 1, so there is no distinction made. You have invented this nonsense to appease your carnal mind, but it isn't true and there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
In fact, your assertion does not even make sense.
1Jo:1:3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo:1:4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
Try to get the (we), the (you) and (us) in contexts of the text and who are these people, in Chapter 1 which you think are the same people in Chapter 2, and research make these people fit together in harmony with each other!
1Jo:2:1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
try to put 8My little Children in marmaony with the people in chapter 1 ok?  
Also with :1Jo:2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Why is little children not spoken or used in Chapter one when written by the same author and for the same people FAITH??
1Jo:2:20: But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo:2:21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who are the people emention here who knws the truth compared to those in Chapter 1 who need to repent, and didn't know all things??
1Jo:2:28: And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Also study in Chapter 2 how little children which we are was used in the beginning and at end!
In chapter 3 continue with saying we are sons and daughter and at the end of chapter three we are in Christ and Christ in us!
the identification in chapter 2 And 3 is completely different to chapter 1, and that is to obvious and clear to not see.
The author did a perfect job on the division of these chapter biblically correct!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
No. John did not change who he was writing to part way through the letter. Remember there were no chapter divisions for the first thousand years of the Bible. The first chapter continued straight into the second chapter with no distinction made as to who he was writing to.
The letter was written to a single group. The first verse in Chapter 2 is a continuation of the same theme in Chapter 1, so there is no distinction made. You have invented this nonsense to appease your carnal mind, but it isn't true and there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
In fact, your assertion does not even make sense.
1Jo:1:3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo:1:4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
Try to get the (we), the (you) and (us) in contexts of the text and who are these people, in Chapter 1 which you think are the same people in Chapter 2, and research make these people fit together in harmony with each other!
I did. There was a matter that needed to be resolved or the letter would not have been written. But he did not change addressees mid-way through the letter.
Fellowship requires unity of belief, and there was some disunity going on and not just with this group. Paul had to write three times to the Corinthians to straighten out their errors, and other epistles dealt with various problems or encouragements.
This was a letter sent to a person to be read aloud to the local congregation where all were attending. Not a speach given on a street corner where a variety of groups were mingling.
1Jo:2:1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
try to put 8My little Children in marmaony with the people in chapter 1 ok?
Yes. Done. Matches perfectly, especially in consideration of 1 John 1:9.
Lets look at the fuller passage as they would have seen it in the first century from 1 John 1:5 through to 1 John 2:4:
"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
It is a continueous message, there is no break in the theme, there is no incongruity at all. Why on earth would you separate them based on an abitrary division that did not exist for the first thousand years of this letter's existance?
If you look again at chapter 1 and chapter 2, the second chapter is a perfect continuation of the first without and separation of thought whatsoever.
Also with :1Jo:2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Amen, the theme from chapter one is the division that John seeks to break down. It would have been terribly negligent to discuss this division in chapter 1 and then ignore the cause in chapter 2.
Why is little children not spoken or used in Chapter one when written by the same author and for the same people FAITH??
Why would he? Are you suggesting now that there is a different author too? Were they saving paper by writing two letters by two different authors to two different recipients on the same scroll?
In 1 John 3:3, he calls them beloved, did he change again?
In 2 John 2:13, he changes from "little children" to "fathers" then to "young men", is John changing his audience to a four different churches in one letter?
The theme does not change throughout the letter. The purpose is the same, so why separate it just because he uses affectionate Christian terms in the following chapters. He is trying to reconnect in Fellowship with them, are you suggesting that he should have called them heretics instead?
1Jo:2:20: But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo:2:21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who are the people emention here who knws the truth compared to those in Chapter 1 who need to repent, and didn't know all things??
The exact same group. Heretics come from within. Every heretic (from a Christian standpoint) started out as a born again Christian. John is appealing to what they already know so that they can see that false teachings are around.
And you have a selective memory, John never said that they needed to repent of anything. He said the same thing in chapter 1 that he said in chapter 2 where sin is concerned, and gave the same message of hope. See my passage above that shows the continuous theme flowing perfectly from the first chapter into the next.
1Jo:2:28: And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
A perfect message to complement what was written in Chapter 1. If you think that the people in chapter 2 are perfect and all knowledgable compared to those in chapter 1, then what need is there to tell them to abide in Christ, should they not already be there permanently? Under your theology, that would be a non-issue that does not need to be said, and yet John said it.
Also study in Chapter 2 how little children which we are was used in the beginning and at end!
I did. That "beginning" is entirely man-made. It could have just as easily been at verse 13 in chapter 2, or somewhere else. See above for the passage as originally written with out the chapter breaks. Technically, the paragraph breaks are also man-made by me, but just for ease of reading.
In chapter 3 continue with saying we are sons and daughter and at the end of chapter three we are in Christ and Christ in us!
the identification in chapter 2 And 3 is completely different to chapter 1, and that is to obvious and clear to not see.
No it isn't. It is absolutely insane that you would have John write to a group that he didn't know and expect them to just guess when they needed to pass the letter to a group of fellow believers.
The author did a perfect job on the division of these chapter biblically correct!
one love
The author did not divide the chapters. A Catholic bishop in the second millenium made those divisions for ease of reading.
You are playing the Bible like a deck of cards again. Every word in there is for YOU and me. None of it is for unbelievers. Not a jot or a tittle.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
No. John did not change who he was writing to part way through the letter. Remember there were no chapter divisions for the first thousand years of the Bible. The first chapter continued straight into the second chapter with no distinction made as to who he was writing to.
The letter was written to a single group. The first verse in Chapter 2 is a continuation of the same theme in Chapter 1, so there is no distinction made. You have invented this nonsense to appease your carnal mind, but it isn't true and there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
In fact, your assertion does not even make sense.
1Jo:1:3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo:1:4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
Try to get the (we), the (you) and (us) in contexts of the text and who are these people, in Chapter 1 which you think are the same people in Chapter 2, and research make these people fit together in harmony with each other!
I did. There was a matter that needed to be resolved or the letter would not have been written. But he did not change addressees mid-way through the letter.
Fellowship requires unity of belief, and there was some disunity going on and not just with this group. Paul had to write three times to the Corinthians to straighten out their errors, and other epistles dealt with various problems or encouragements.
This was a letter sent to a person to be read aloud to the local congregation where all were attending. Not a speach given on a street corner where a variety of groups were mingling.
1Jo:2:1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
try to put 8My little Children in marmaony with the people in chapter 1 ok?
Yes. Done. Matches perfectly, especially in consideration of 1 John 1:9.
Lets look at the fuller passage as they would have seen it in the first century from 1 John 1:5 through to 1 John 2:4:
"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
It is a continueous message, there is no break in the theme, there is no incongruity at all. Why on earth would you separate them based on an abitrary division that did not exist for the first thousand years of this letter's existance?
If you look again at chapter 1 and chapter 2, the second chapter is a perfect continuation of the first without and separation of thought whatsoever.
Also with :1Jo:2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Amen, the theme from chapter one is the division that John seeks to break down. It would have been terribly negligent to discuss this division in chapter 1 and then ignore the cause in chapter 2.
Why is little children not spoken or used in Chapter one when written by the same author and for the same people FAITH??
Why would he? Are you suggesting now that there is a different author too? Were they saving paper by writing two letters by two different authors to two different recipients on the same scroll?
In 1 John 3:3, he calls them beloved, did he change again?
In 2 John 2:13, he changes from "little children" to "fathers" then to "young men", is John changing his audience to a four different churches in one letter?
The theme does not change throughout the letter. The purpose is the same, so why separate it just because he uses affectionate Christian terms in the following chapters. He is trying to reconnect in Fellowship with them, are you suggesting that he should have called them heretics instead?
1Jo:2:20: But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo:2:21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who are the people emention here who knws the truth compared to those in Chapter 1 who need to repent, and didn't know all things??
The exact same group. Heretics come from within. Every heretic (from a Christian standpoint) started out as a born again Christian. John is appealing to what they already know so that they can see that false teachings are around.
And you have a selective memory, John never said that they needed to repent of anything. He said the same thing in chapter 1 that he said in chapter 2 where sin is concerned, and gave the same message of hope. See my passage above that shows the continuous theme flowing perfectly from the first chapter into the next.
1Jo:2:28: And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
A perfect message to complement what was written in Chapter 1. If you think that the people in chapter 2 are perfect and all knowledgable compared to those in chapter 1, then what need is there to tell them to abide in Christ, should they not already be there permanently? Under your theology, that would be a non-issue that does not need to be said, and yet John said it.
Also study in Chapter 2 how little children which we are was used in the beginning and at end!
I did. That "beginning" is entirely man-made. It could have just as easily been at verse 13 in chapter 2, or somewhere else. See above for the passage as originally written with out the chapter breaks. Technically, the paragraph breaks are also man-made by me, but just for ease of reading.
In chapter 3 continue with saying we are sons and daughter and at the end of chapter three we are in Christ and Christ in us!
the identification in chapter 2 And 3 is completely different to chapter 1, and that is to obvious and clear to not see.
No it isn't. It is absolutely insane that you would have John write to a group that he didn't know and expect them to just guess when they needed to pass the letter to a group of fellow believers.
The author did a perfect job on the division of these chapter biblically correct!
one love
The author did not divide the chapters. A Catholic bishop in the second millenium made those divisions for ease of reading.
You are playing the Bible like a deck of cards again. Every word in there is for YOU and me. None of it is for unbelievers. Not a jot or a tittle.
Ifd you think just the part I have proven to you to be us as the children and the chapter 1 is the same but a man just made it harder to read and understand in the first chapter of 1 John and had a good day and made it easier in the 2 chapter for us is non sense FAITH!
You just don't want to accept the truth John was talking to two different groups of people so you try to twist the truth with a man made theory of your own like you quote and I high lighted in red!
Nice try Faith , but you will never win to be more powerful than the Holy Spirit to decieve His truth!
I can't force you to see the truth, I can only show you, and God will have to do the rest in your heart when it is open to the truth!
A stoney heart can't grow any fruits!
I think maybe also we need to get the meaning or know who John was talking to in 1 John!
To deal with that I found this:
Christianity and Gnosticism
The ascetic notion of immediate revelation through divine knowledge sought to find an absolute transcendence in a Supreme Deity. This concept is important in identifying what evidence there is pertaining to Gnosticism[79] in the NT, which would influence orthodox teaching.[80] Main Gnostic beliefs that differ from Biblical teachings include: the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;[81] and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed”[82] to be human, leading to a belief in the incarnation (Docetism).[83] The traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation…is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man…which is a prima facie [‘at first sight’ a] contradiction in theological terms…the [NT] nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person…the deity of Jesus was not…clearly stated in words and [the book of] Acts gives no hint that it was”.[84] This philosophy[85] was known by the so-called “Church Fathers” such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[86]
At its core, Gnosticism formed a speculative interest in the relationship of the oneness of God to the ‘triplicity’ of his manifestations. It seems to have taken Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance and hypostases [“being”][87] as a departure point for interpreting the relationship of the “Father” to the “Son”[88] in its attempt to define a new theology.[89] This would point to the infamous theological controversies by Arius[90] against followers of the Greek Alexandrian school,[91] headed by Athanasius.[92]
The ancient Nag Hammadi Library, discovered in Egypt in the 1940s, revealed how varied this movement was. The writers of these manuscripts considered themselves ‘Christians’, but owing to their syncretistic beliefs, borrowed heavily from the Greek philosopher Plato. The find included the hotly debated Gospel of Thomas, which parallels some of Jesus’ sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. This may point to the existence of a postulated lost textual source for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, known as the Q document.[93] Thus, modern debate is split between those who see Gnosticism as a pre-Christian form of ‘theosophy’[94] and those who see it as a post-Christian counter-movement.
New Testament scripture was largely unwritten, at least in the form of canon, existing in the practices, customs and teachings of the early Christian community. What largely was communicated generation to generation was an oral tradition passed from the apostles to the Bishops and from Bishops and priests to the faithful through their preaching and way of life.[95] Constantine’s call for unity in the building of the new Roman Church led to his request for Eusebius to produce some 50 copies of manuscripts. These were approved and accepted by the emperor, which later influenced the final stages of canonization.[96]
The best-known origin story in the New Testament comes in the person of Simon Magus [Acts 8:9-24]. Although little is known historically about him, his first disciple is said to have been Basilides.[97] Paul’s epistles to Timothy contain refutations of “false doctrine [and] myths” [1 Tim 1:3-5]. The importance placed here, as in most NT scripture, is to uphold the truth since through such knowledge God hopes for “all men” to be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians have much to say regarding false teachers (2 Co 11:4), “spiritualists” [ pneumatikos —1 Co 2:14-15; 15:44-46] and their gnosis. They warn against the “wisdom of the wise” and their “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (1 Co 1:19; 2:5—NIV; cp. Col 2:1-10; 2:8). The book of Jude also contains scripture exhorting believers to seek the true faith (Jude 3).
The writings attributed to the Apostle John contain the most significant amount of content directed at combating the progenitors of heresies.[98] Most Bible scholars agree that these were some of the last parts of the NT written and as such, can offer the most insights into a 1st century perspective.[99] The writer’s repeated adherence to true knowledge (“hereby we know”—inherent in Jesus’ ministry) and nature[100] seem to challenge other speculative and opposing beliefs.
It is hard to sift through what actual evidence there is regarding Gnosticism in the NT due to their historical synchronicity. The Hammadi library find contains Pagan, Jewish, Greek and early Gnostic influences,[101] further reinforcing the need to tread lightly. The antiquity of the find being of utmost importance since it shows primary evidence of texts that may also have influenced the process of NT canonization.[102][103]
my source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
So what is your understanding of a gnostic, and can they be mistaken as a christian??
onbe love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 06/19/2012 06:16:31
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Evangelist, the only one confused about 1 John is you.
Who else ever thought that John was writing to two separate groups?
And if he were to write to two separate groups, why did he not differentiate better - changing the addressee would be a good start. Calling them children does not change the addressee. Saying Greetings to the Presbyter at the church at x location, and he would have had to put and adddressee on the first part too, to demonstrate that the information was for two different churches. And, since a heretical group would not have accepted a letter from him, he would have had to send the letter first to the main church in the region to bring to them. The addressees would have to be reversed.
And it does not matter what Gnosticism is, there were as many different types of Gnosticism as there were leaders within it. John was not teaching Gnosticism. He was sending a pastoral letter to those who were troubled by the existance of Gnosticism.
Gnostics did not need to confess their sins because they beleived that only their spirit mattered and the flesh was bad. They let their flesh do whatever it wanted to with little restraint because their spirit was perfect already and they needed to do nothing.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Evangelist, the only one confused about 1 John is you.
Who else ever thought that John was writing to two separate groups?
And if he were to write to two separate groups, why did he not differentiate better - changing the addressee would be a good start. Calling them children does not change the addressee. Saying Greetings to the Presbyter at the church at x location, and he would have had to put and adddressee on the first part too, to demonstrate that the information was for two different churches. And, since a heretical group would not have accepted a letter from him, he would have had to send the letter first to the main church in the region to bring to them. The addressees would have to be reversed.
And it does not matter what Gnosticism is, there were as many different types of Gnosticism as there were leaders within it. John was not teaching Gnosticism. He was sending a pastoral letter to those who were troubled by the existance of Gnosticism.
Gnostics did not need to confess their sins because they beleived that only their spirit mattered and the flesh was bad. They let their flesh do whatever it wanted to with little restraint because their spirit was perfect already and they needed to do nothing.
No you have the oppersite difinition of a a gnostic!
maybe try to give your understanding of what is a gnostic, then you can see what John is saying in right perpective and in right interpretaion biblically!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fourth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Evan,
Having abandoned your first set of premises, you are on to a completely different theory that there are secret messages to be deciphered by Christians and Docetists alike. This is a complete non starter. Who taught you this? This would be fringe speculation at best as I know of no compentent bible teacher or even a casual reader who would promote such a theory.
John makes a clear distinction at to who his audience is by the use of us/they:
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us"
Furthermore, you are included in the "they" because you have like them professed your superior 'hidden spiritual knowledge' just as the Gnostics/Docetists did. They denied that Jesus could come in the flesh because the flesh was evil and had to be separate from the spirit which was good. Again, this is eerily similar to your view of the perfect born again spirit disconnected from the person.
There were two extremes of Gnosticism. Both forms agreed that the material/flesh was evil. One extreme was to avoid fleshly desires because of it's inherent evil. They wouldn't eat meat and wouldn't marry or engage in sexual relations. You can see references to this form in 1Timothy where St. Paul speaks of these things and summarizes to Timothy:
1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge".
The other extreme of Gnosticism was to not be sin conscious and not to be concerned with immorality, following the commandments, loving your brother or practicing righteousness. The flesh is evil, so why try to avoid it. Now go back and re-read 1John. This is exactly the form of Gnosticism that John is writing against and he reinforces the true form of Christianity.
What is sad is that you take the side of the Docetists and pluck out verses like "He who is born of God cannot sin" when St. John shows us over and over that the one who avoids sin, keeps the commandments, loves his brother and practices righteousness is the one who really is born of God.
When you take your "sin not an issue" to its logical conclusion, you are nearly identical to a Docetist. So when I look at the title of this thread, it is clear why you think a straight forward reading of 1John is misunderstood by so many.
So far, you are the one presenting a confused version of this epistle. Now you are trying a new theory about who the audience was since your first attempt at isolating a couple of verses out of context didn't prove your theory. Truly, to come to your understanding of this epistle requires "special knowledge" that doesn't flow from the text.
This change in tactic shows the inherent weakness in your position. You simply cannot go through this epistle and come to your conclusions.
Again, your views are right in line with those that John is warning us about. Sorry to say.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Evangelist, like I said, there were as many forms of Gnosticism as there were teachers - your own source showed this as well, so please don't go pretending that I didn't understand. It looke to me like you didn't even bother to read that cut and paste note that you posted.
I especially like this part:
"...scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;..."
That is what you keep trying to preach. That is your excuse for why I can't take the plain text of the scriptures. Evangelist. You ARE a Gnostic. You may not be the kind that abstains from marriage or meat, but you are a Gnostic.
The very name Gnostic pertains to hidden knowledge that cannot be obtained through normal means. This was condemned in the Bible, and condemed by the early Church. It has arisen today, just as Arianism has arisen and many other heresies as well.
jdubya has a very good point. You keep changing the rules for interpretation and apply those rules very inconsistently. You claim "Sola Scriptura", yet your very elusive understanding of the scriptures requires that you teach what you know to your followers because it would be impossible to acquire your religious philosophy exclusively from the scriptures.
It is not sensible that 1 John should have been written to two different groups. And changing how he addresses them is not a change in addressee. As I already pointed out, in verse 13 of chapter two, he changed it again. Did he intend to have a third group read this letter?
Each of the general epistles were sent to a church to be read aloud to the people who attended. This was how things were done. And 1 John was no exception. It was sent to be read aloud to the congregation. The information was for all the attendees.
And no matter how you view it - the people in the first chapter were baptized Christians. No letter was ever written to unbaptized pagans. John would have sent someone to teach in person if this was some outside group. No one sent letters to strangers back then, writing implements were at a premium.
And, since they were baptized Christians and he was telling them that they could confess their sins and have them forgiven and all unrighteousness washed away. Well? They would have previously been baptized and had all their sins forgiven, so why is John telling them this? Do Heretics lose the forgiveness of their sins, but other sinners don't? And were these even heretics?
They certainly weren't unbelievers. Note the message that he sends them - God is light. There is mention of the blood of Christ, but no mention of the Gospel itself, that Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.
And what of the Demiurge doctrine popular among Gnostics? No hint of that here. In fact, the separation of the Father and the Son in verse 3 without further explanation would suggest that the audience is not Gnostic at all.
The closest he gets to anything that might be relevant to a Gnostic, but still matters to all Christians, is verse 2, where he mentions the Word of life did manifest and that they witnessed this. But even that is not enough to make a conclusive assertion - Gnostics
believe that Jesus manifested, just that he was not truly human.
John feels no need to correct any of the false assertions of the Gnostics, and treats the Trinity as if he were speaking to Christians who are struggling with the issue of sin.
He reassures them that of course we sometimes stumble, but that is not a cause for panic. He assures the readers in Chapter 1 that we are called to walk in the light and have fellowship with God and each other, but if we sin we can confess our sins and be cleansed of all unrighteousness. Pretty good news. Is this radically different from his continuation into Chapter 2?
He continues on the same theme, talking about light and darkness and how we are called to keep the commandments.
Now where it does get very close to a response against Gnosticism is not in Chapter 1, but in 1 John 2:15-16. This was an issue that the Gnostics took to extremes. So if John did intend to split his letter, it is the second chapter that comes closest to pertaining to the Gnostics.
I have no trouble with the idea that Gnosticism was a problem in the region when and where John was writting the letter. I do not doubt that this influenced his subject matter and choice of words. But I see no evidence that he was writing to Gnostics in particular or that any part of this epistle would only apply to Gnostics.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Evan,
Having abandoned your first set of premises, you are on to a completely different theory that there are secret messages to be deciphered by Christians and Docetists alike. This is a complete non starter. Who taught you this? This would be fringe speculation at best as I know of no compentent bible teacher or even a casual reader who would promote such a theory.
John makes a clear distinction at to who his audience is by the use of us/they:
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us"
Furthermore, you are included in the "they" because you have like them professed your superior 'hidden spiritual knowledge' just as the Gnostics/Docetists did. They denied that Jesus could come in the flesh because the flesh was evil and had to be separate from the spirit which was good. Again, this is eerily similar to your view of the perfect born again spirit disconnected from the person.
There were two extremes of Gnosticism. Both forms agreed that the material/flesh was evil. One extreme was to avoid fleshly desires because of it's inherent evil. They wouldn't eat meat and wouldn't marry or engage in sexual relations. You can see references to this form in 1Timothy where St. Paul speaks of these things and summarizes to Timothy:
1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge".
The other extreme of Gnosticism was to not be sin conscious and not to be concerned with immorality, following the commandments, loving your brother or practicing righteousness. The flesh is evil, so why try to avoid it. Now go back and re-read 1John. This is exactly the form of Gnosticism that John is writing against and he reinforces the true form of Christianity.
What is sad is that you take the side of the Docetists and pluck out verses like "He who is born of God cannot sin" when St. John shows us over and over that the one who avoids sin, keeps the commandments, loves his brother and practices righteousness is the one who really is born of God.
When you take your "sin not an issue" to its logical conclusion, you are nearly identical to a Docetist. So when I look at the title of this thread, it is clear why you think a straight forward reading of 1John is misunderstood by so many.
So far, you are the one presenting a confused version of this epistle. Now you are trying a new theory about who the audience was since your first attempt at isolating a couple of verses out of context didn't prove your theory. Truly, to come to your understanding of this epistle requires "special knowledge" that doesn't flow from the text.
This change in tactic shows the inherent weakness in your position. You simply cannot go through this epistle and come to your conclusions.
Again, your views are right in line with those that John is warning us about. Sorry to say.
Who are the little Children in Chapter 2 jdubya?
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Evangelist, like I said, there were as many forms of Gnosticism as there were teachers - your own source showed this as well, so please don't go pretending that I didn't understand. It looke to me like you didn't even bother to read that cut and paste note that you posted.
I especially like this part:
"...scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;..."
That is what you keep trying to preach. That is your excuse for why I can't take the plain text of the scriptures. Evangelist. You ARE a Gnostic. You may not be the kind that abstains from marriage or meat, but you are a Gnostic.
The very name Gnostic pertains to hidden knowledge that cannot be obtained through normal means. This was condemned in the Bible, and condemed by the early Church. It has arisen today, just as Arianism has arisen and many other heresies as well.
jdubya has a very good point. You keep changing the rules for interpretation and apply those rules very inconsistently. You claim "Sola Scriptura", yet your very elusive understanding of the scriptures requires that you teach what you know to your followers because it would be impossible to acquire your religious philosophy exclusively from the scriptures.
It is not sensible that 1 John should have been written to two different groups. And changing how he addresses them is not a change in addressee. As I already pointed out, in verse 13 of chapter two, he changed it again. Did he intend to have a third group read this letter?
Each of the general epistles were sent to a church to be read aloud to the people who attended. This was how things were done. And 1 John was no exception. It was sent to be read aloud to the congregation. The information was for all the attendees.
And no matter how you view it - the people in the first chapter were baptized Christians. No letter was ever written to unbaptized pagans. John would have sent someone to teach in person if this was some outside group. No one sent letters to strangers back then, writing implements were at a premium.
And, since they were baptized Christians and he was telling them that they could confess their sins and have them forgiven and all unrighteousness washed away. Well? They would have previously been baptized and had all their sins forgiven, so why is John telling them this? Do Heretics lose the forgiveness of their sins, but other sinners don't? And were these even heretics?
They certainly weren't unbelievers. Note the message that he sends them - God is light. There is mention of the blood of Christ, but no mention of the Gospel itself, that Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.
And what of the Demiurge doctrine popular among Gnostics? No hint of that here. In fact, the separation of the Father and the Son in verse 3 without further explanation would suggest that the audience is not Gnostic at all.
The closest he gets to anything that might be relevant to a Gnostic, but still matters to all Christians, is verse 2, where he mentions the Word of life did manifest and that they witnessed this. But even that is not enough to make a conclusive assertion - Gnostics
believe that Jesus manifested, just that he was not truly human.
John feels no need to correct any of the false assertions of the Gnostics, and treats the Trinity as if he were speaking to Christians who are struggling with the issue of sin.
He reassures them that of course we sometimes stumble, but that is not a cause for panic. He assures the readers in Chapter 1 that we are called to walk in the light and have fellowship with God and each other, but if we sin we can confess our sins and be cleansed of all unrighteousness. Pretty good news. Is this radically different from his continuation into Chapter 2?
He continues on the same theme, talking about light and darkness and how we are called to keep the commandments.
Now where it does get very close to a response against Gnosticism is not in Chapter 1, but in 1 John 2:15-16. This was an issue that the Gnostics took to extremes. So if John did intend to split his letter, it is the second chapter that comes closest to pertaining to the Gnostics.
I have no trouble with the idea that Gnosticism was a problem in the region when and where John was writting the letter. I do not doubt that this influenced his subject matter and choice of words. But I see no evidence that he was writing to Gnostics in particular or that any part of this epistle would only apply to Gnostics.
Then you would never understand 1 John 1 :9
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
I do understand it perfectly.
Even if he were talking to Gnostics, what would change?
The Gnostics were born again believers who came up with a different interpretation of what they had heard. If they can confess their sin of heresy and be forgiven, why can't a regular Christian?
And if a regular Christian does not need to confess their sins to be forgiven, then why would a Gnostic?
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Who are the little Children in Chapter 2 jdubya?
The same people as the fathers and young men in verse 13 and the same people that he is writing to in Chapter 1.
Galations 4:13 changes addressees to "little children" half way through the letter. Should I assume that Paul also split up his letter to the Galations to different groups?
In Chapter 3, Paul calls them "foolish Galations". By your standards, Paul must be preaching to more than one group too. Who was Paul addressing in his letter? Surely the "little children" can't be the "foolish Galations", and yet who else could they be?
John 13:33 has Jesus talking to "little children", yet this is the first time He ever called His disciples that term. Did Jesus change who HE was talking to?
Evangelist. Paul wrote to the churches in Galatia, yet only you would suspect that he broke down his letter so that different bits would be delivered to different churches.
And if you don't think that, then why would you assume that John suddenly changed who he was addressing his letter to just because he called them little children on the second chapter - Paul didn't do this until the fourth chapter of Galations.
When Paul said "foolish Galations" he was not singling out a particular church, he was addressing all the Christians in Galatia. And when he switched and called them little children, all he was doing was affirming that he still cared for them and wanted what was right for them. Paul considered himself a father to these Christians, and so did John to those he wrote to.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Fourth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
Who are the little Children in Chapter 2 jdubya?
one love
Members of the church that St. John is writing to. Specifically, it could be those new to the faith including actual young children, but I haven't studied it enough to be certain. One thing for sure is that they were members of church in good standing.
Again, John is warning against those who went out from us because they were not of us. This is made clear by how he uses us/they.
He cannot be addressing the they (the ones who went out from us).
In 1Cor. 5, Paul says it is the church's solemn duty to get rid of the old leaven because it affects everyone in the church. It wasn't a suggestion, but a no questions asked command. This directly applied to those "so-called" brothers (ie. those who had been born again). Heretics and those living in open sin had to be removed from the assembly of faithful believers. They were not to associate with such men at all until they repented.
1Cor 5:7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
Therefore, naturally as a matter of practice, those who taught false doctrine who were "so-called brothers" (against what St. John taught in 1John) were not to be associated with. They could either repent of their heresy and come back into communion with the church or they could go it on their own. In Corinth, the fornicator chose to repent. In 1John, they apparently went out from the church with their false doctrines rather than repent and return. They were not to associate with them.
There are epistles written to mixed crowds of Jewish/Gentile Christians, but I see no evidence of any being written to a mixed group of both believers and unbelievers.
|
|
Topic Locked
Subscribe by Email
RSS