Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you have it all wrong concerning what I'm saying. Perhaps it's because of the amount of text that we keep writing, having to respond to everything, that we miss the points we are talking on. So just answer me this one question. Why does 1 John ch. 1 presents itself in a way, as though it's talking to people who don't already believe? John states that he is declaring what he have seen concerning Jesus, to the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I'm going to have to go in a few seconds, but let me point out exactly what I'm talking about, speaking on John talking to this group of believers as though they are not believers...
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."
So why is John speaking in this manner, if these teachings were for those who were believers already?
Here is a question we must ask, is John writing to one or two groups of people? Is he writing to unbelievers or to believers?
John refers to his audience as my little children, little children and children (2:2, 18, 28, 3:7, 18, 4:4, 5:21 ) which are term used of those that have either been brought to the Lord or been taught in the Lord by someone. Paul used such terms for those that he preached to and taught and particularly of Timothy. John calls them as his brethren (3:13, 14, 16), a term normally used to refer to other believers. There is some discussion on the other usage of ‘brother’ in the text of 1 John, whether it refers to other men in general or if it’s a reference to those within the body of Christ, though the use of brother in 5:16 can only be understood as a fellow believer. And while the term endearment ‘beloved’ can refer to anyone, it is almost always a term used of another believer.
There is also the comparisons that John makes of his beloved children that are his brethren with those that our unsaved. He says, ‘you are from God’ and ‘they are from the world.’ (4:4-5) John was not writing to those that were from the world, but from those that are from God. His letter was as much an exhortation to abstain from sin as it was an encouragement to remain in the light, in fellowship with the Father and each other.
So why does John open his letter as though he were writing to unbelievers? I don’t believe that’s an accurate view of what John was doing. I believe that John was writing to believers, and understood that his letter would be read among the churches, and there would be some that did not know him. So he opens his letter with an introduction, one that would affirm their likemindedness in the faith so that ‘you too may have fellowship with us.’
And so he lays out a brief explanation what their fellowship is based on, walking in the light. He is not laying down a rudimentary gospel presentation to an unsaved audience, he’s laying down what their true fellowship with one another is, a fellowship based in the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. But he’s also presenting a case against Gnosticism: you cannot sin according to the flesh and walk in the light according to the spirit. Sin is sin, regardless of whether it’s only according the flesh or not. If we say we have not sinned, when clearly we have, ‘we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.’ Now, I find it interesting that John includes himself in that statement. Of course I can see that argument that John was being inclusive because he too had sin in his life, but I don’t believe that’s what he is saying. Rather, he’s addressing the false teaching of Christian Gnosticism; that we can somehow sin in the flesh and still walk in the light.
So, when John says, ‘No one who abide in Him sins,’ is he saying that it is impossible for a Christian to sin? I don’t believe so, because the key is in the practice of sin, which is the willful, knowledgeable disobedience. No one who is of God practices sin, that’s the idea behind 1 Jn. 3:6, ‘No one who abides in Him sins.’ As a Christian, we cannot practice sin and believe that we are walking in the light because we’ve fallen into the lie of Gnosticism. While we may truly have had a conversion, been given a new heart of flesh and washed with the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, we can be still be deceived by Satan’s lies, and follow false teachings. John’s introduction is an argument against Christian Gnosticism, and thus confession is not for salvation, but for right fellowship with God, His Son and with each other.
We may never see eye to eye on this, but I believe that we both agree that Christians should live a life of victory over sin, and not be practitioners of it.
We may never see eye to eye on this, but I believe that we both agree that Christians should live a life of victory over sin, and not be practitioners of it.
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
We definitely agree, and I want to come together to discuss about these things. I don't necessarily want to leave it as never seeing eye to eye, I want to come to an understanding and I am teachable. Let me ask you this, would you like to continue this conversation in hopes of coming to agreement? Like I said before, the teaching of confession of sins has been taught throughout the church age, I'm well acquainted with it. Yet is it an accurate teaching? If we continue this conversation, let us do a little research on the terms (such as what gnosticism was), and the background of 1 John ch. 1 (I'm going to respond to what you've said on it, if you want to continue the conversation)
I don't want to argue, neither of us get on this forum to argue, but to build up the brethren in Christ. I only want to study these things out and to have discussion. So do you want to continue this conversation with those things in mind?
Here is a question we must ask, is John writing to one or two groups of people? Is he writing to unbelievers or to believers?
John refers to his audience as my little children, little children and children (2:2, 18, 28, 3:7, 18, 4:4, 5:21 ) which are term used of those that have either been brought to the Lord or been taught in the Lord by someone. Paul used such terms for those that he preached to and taught and particularly of Timothy. John calls them as his brethren (3:13, 14, 16), a term normally used to refer to other believers. There is some discussion on the other usage of ‘brother’ in the text of 1 John, whether it refers to other men in general or if it’s a reference to those within the body of Christ, though the use of brother in 5:16 can only be understood as a fellow believer. And while the term endearment ‘beloved’ can refer to anyone, it is almost always a term used of another believer.
Christ came to "call sinners" NOT believers . . . He came for the "lost" . . . NOT the found. His Gospel is to be spread in accord with His mission, period. This "elitist, exclusivist, special people" nonsense is corruption from the vanity and hubris of men.
Christ came to "call sinners" NOT believers . . . He came for the "lost" . . . NOT the found. His Gospel is to be spread in accord with His mission, period. This "elitist, exclusivist, special people" nonsense is corruption from the vanity and hubris of men.
I'm not sure I understand your response to that statement.
I'm not sure I understand your response to that statement.
The idea that ANY of the Gospel is addressed only to believers is in contradiction to Christ's mission. You cannot create believers if your message is only for believers.
The idea that ANY of the Gospel is addressed only to believers is in contradiction to Christ's mission. You cannot create believers if your message is only for believers.
I don't think he was saying that, but was answering a question I proposed to him, about the context of the first chapter of 1 John. We are trying to figure out who is John speaking to with this letter. We agree it was to believers, but that first chapter is weird if you were addressing believers. Of course wetched.elect gave me his answer, I've yet to respond to it. I want to see if he wants to continue this conversation. It is a hassle, and sometimes it can feel like we are agruing amongst ourselves, but I want to come to agreement about this thing. We can, but it's going to take a lot of examining, and this can be time consumming. So if anyone wants to talk on this situation, I'm willing.
Christ came to "call sinners" NOT believers . . . He came for the "lost" . . . NOT the found. His Gospel is to be spread in accord with His mission, period. This "elitist, exclusivist, special people" nonsense is corruption from the vanity and hubris of men.
I'm going to say something that may offend, and I partly want it to so that this kind of post doesn't happen again, though I should have expected it from MysticPhD.
That was an extremely ignorant response. You obviously did not read it in the context of my response. If you
had done any kind of reading of my conversation with Heavenese, you would have seen that I wasn't sayin anything near what you have accused me of saying. You must think me a complete fool if you truly think I said anything near the idea that John was only presenting the Gospel to believers. It's absolutely absurd. Instead of such half-cocked statements you could have actually provided rational feedback to my post.
If you want to present your scholarly learning as to whom John was writing and why he started off his letter the way he did, then do so. But don't post ignorant things like this again, I know you're more intelligent that.
I know we don't agree on many things, and that's fine, but don't accuse me of saying things that I haven't said.
We definitely agree, and I want to come together to discuss about these things. I don't necessarily want to leave it as never seeing eye to eye, I want to come to an understanding and I am teachable. Let me ask you this, would you like to continue this conversation in hopes of coming to agreement? Like I said before, the teaching of confession of sins has been taught throughout the church age, I'm well acquainted with it. Yet is it an accurate teaching? If we continue this conversation, let us do a little research on the terms (such as what gnosticism was), and the background of 1 John ch. 1 (I'm going to respond to what you've said on it, if you want to continue the conversation)
I don't want to argue, neither of us get on this forum to argue, but to build up the brethren in Christ. I only want to study these things out and to have discussion. So do you want to continue this conversation with those things in mind?
I would enjoy furthering this discussion, provided absurd accusations from others are held at bay.
I'm going to say something that may offend, and I partly want it to so that this kind of post doesn't happen again, though I should have expected it from MysticPhD.
That was an extremely ignorant response. You obviously did not read it in the context of my response. If you
had done any kind of reading of my conversation with Heavenese, you would have seen that I wasn't sayin anything near what you have accused me of saying. You must think me a complete fool if you truly think I said anything near the idea that John was only presenting the Gospel to believers. It's absolutely absurd. Instead of such half-cocked statements you could have actually provided rational feedback to my post.
If you want to present your scholarly learning as to whom John was writing and why he started off his letter the way he did, then do so. But don't post ignorant things like this again, I know you're more intelligent that.
I know we don't agree on many things, and that's fine, but don't accuse me of saying things that I haven't said.
Matthew
Whoa, Matthew . . . calm down. I meant no offense by my directness. The intransigence of those who believe Christian believers are some special class of people in God's eyes is a very sore point with me. It is an obnoxious doctrine and dogma that flies in the face of everything we know about Christ. I shouldn't have let my frustration over it cause you distress. I apologize, brother.
Whoa, Matthew . . . calm down. I meant no offense by my directness. The intransigence of those who believe Christian believers are some special class of people in God's eyes is a very sore point with me. It is an obnoxious doctrine and dogma that flies in the face of everything we know about Christ. I shouldn't have let my frustration over it cause you distress. I apologize, brother.
Are Christians God's people or not? Is he their God or not? If so, why does that not make them a special class to him. If not, what is the difference between a harlot and a virgin?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
