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.
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.
Believers in Christ are family of God and are eternally saved. Unbelievers are not and are under condemnation as the Scriptures teach. Get over it.
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.
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
The problem I see with this is John is saying what we (and I suppose he means the rest of the original apostles) have seen and heard concerning Jesus, he is declaring that to them. If I walked up to a Christian, and then tell them, "I declare to you Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, now confess your sins and you will be forgiven, and you will have a relationship with Him and the Father", they would look at me weird because they are already in fellowship with Jesus and know who He is. I think any and all believers, whether they personally met John or not, would have known of him if they heard the Gospels.
I agree John is writing to believers as well and what you said concerning gnosticism, but can you explain why he is proclaiming who Jesus is to them? Of course overall, you could say John was identifying himself as Christian by given the full detail of his beliefs, saying he proclaims these things to the people. Yet it's kind of a stretch because this is John we are talking about. It's not like this was a person who didn't know Jesus while He was on the earth, but this was from a source who had direct contact with Jesus. He doesn't need to explain his affiliation.
Ch. 2 1-2 to me clears up chapter 1. John states he's writing these things, so that they may not sin. Yet "if" anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He's saying that if we should sin, remember Jesus, and that He is the appeasement for our sins.
I definitely don't advocate practice of sins, in fact if you practice sins, you haven't truly repented from sin nature. Meaning we haven't changed our mind about the condition we are born into, and so we are not saved. I'll talk more on this in my next post.
The problem I see with this is John is saying what we (and I suppose he means the rest of the original apostles) have seen and heard concerning Jesus, he is declaring that to them. If I walked up to a Christian, and then tell them, "I declare to you Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, now confess your sins and you will be forgiven, and you will have a relationship with Him and the Father", they would look at me weird because they are already in fellowship with Jesus and know who He is. I think any and all believers, whether they personally met John or not, would have known of him if they heard the Gospels.
I agree John is writing to believers as well and what you said concerning gnosticism, but can you explain why he is proclaiming who Jesus is to them? Of course overall, you could say John was identifying himself as Christian by given the full detail of his beliefs, saying he proclaims these things to the people. Yet it's kind of a stretch because this is John we are talking about. It's not like this was a person who didn't know Jesus while He was on the earth, but this was from a source who had direct contact with Jesus. He doesn't need to explain his affiliation.
Well, of course you would not walk up to a Christian and declare to them the Gospel, but I don’t see that John is doing this. I do see him clarifying what he (and presumably the other apostles and disciples) witnessed and proclaimed, ‘that the life was manifested’ and that they had ‘seen and heard’ by them. The real key is that Christ was ‘manifested’ to them, he wasn’t just a spirit that appeared to be human; he was in all ways human. He deals with this in more depth in 1 John 4:1-4, which is a counter to one of the various gnostic teachings that Jesus did not come in the flesh, which is corrupt and beyond salvation. So, in a sense, John was giving them a ‘gospel presentation’ in his letter, but not so much one for salvation, but one of correction. The believers to whom he was writing (or at least part of his audience) had fallen into believing a Christian Gnosticism, so he opens up his letter with a true teaching of the actual incarnation, or manifestation, of Christ in the flesh. Basically he’s reprising John 1, confirming to those that would read his letter that Christ came in the flesh.
Since Gnosticism taught that the material world was to be shunned and the spiritual world to embrace, one of the teachings was that things that were done in the flesh were of no consequence since the flesh was not only corrupt but mortal. When the body dies, so do all the corruptions done in the flesh. The spirit on the other hand was all that mattered, thus anything that pertained to the spirit and spirituality was of vital importance and was to be embraced. One of the teachings that sprang from that was that spiritual pursuits was all that really mattered in the Christian life, and anything done in the flesh mattered nothing, since any corruption that sprang from fleshly desires was natural and would die with the body. This resulted in Christians committing all kinds of sin ‘in the flesh’ (and thus walking in darkness) while pursuing higher spiritual concerns through ‘knowledge’ and denying that anything they
did in the flesh was sin. John was basically saying, ‘If you believe that you have not committed sin as a gnostic Christian, then you make God a liar.’ Gnostic Christians were claiming fellowship with God while walking in darkness, or sinning in the flesh and calling it ‘not sin’ because they were pursuing spiritual enlightenment (walking in the light) through knowledge of spiritual things. They were practicing sin yet saying they were not sinning. I do not for a second doubt that they were believers, they just got lead astray but false teachers. This contradictory walk caused them to not have true fellowship with the Father and Christ, because darkness has no fellowship with the light. (2 Cor. 6:14)
It is in this context I believe John brings up confession. He does not tell them to confess their sin for salvation, but for right fellowship with God primarily, and with other believers secondarily. The cleansing here is not the original ‘washing of regeneration and renewal,’ this was done at the moment of conversion. Nor do I believe such believers, having been saved, has somehow lost their salvation and must therefore confess the Lord Jesus Christ again for salvation. Having confronted this false teaching of Christian Gnosticism, and urging them to turn from such sinful lifestyle, they can have true fellowship with each other because their true fellowship in the incarnate Christ, what John says here ‘was manifest to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Ch. 2 1-2 to me clears up chapter 1. John states he's writing these things, so that they may not sin. Yet "if" anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He's saying that if we should sin, remember Jesus, and that He is the appeasement for our sins.
I definitely don't advocate practice of sins, in fact if you practice sins, you haven't truly repented from sin nature. Meaning we haven't changed our mind about the condition we are born into, and so we are not saved. I'll talk more on this in my next post.
There is a teaching that says that Christians cannot sin no matter what they do. The extreme of this teaching is that even if you fall to temptation and commit adultery, lie, steal and otherwise let loose on others with our tongue, we still cannot sin because we are perfectly sanctified in the Spirit. They believe that as soon as we are in Christ, we are perfect, there is no such thing as sanctification - it’s a done deal. And they are right, if we truly commit no sin after we are ‘raised to walk in newness of life.’ (Rom. 6.4) I believe that scripture ever says that we no longer sin after our conversion, only that we have the victory over and the power through Christ to no longer sin. I have yet to meet such a Christian. But a true Christian, a true follower of Christ, does not live a life of practicing sin.
Before I go on, I have a question for you. What happens when believer finds that he has committed some kind of sin and yet denies that it was sin?
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.
MysticPhD,
I do believe that Christian's 'are some special class of people in God's eyes.' But that was not at all what I was saying in my post you tackled with violence of force. But I do not believe that God only desire's Christian's to be saved, only that those that are saved are Christians. Promises are made to Israel, who are also 'some special class of people,' as well as to the church that are not made to the world in general. This, by definition, makes those groups of people special to God.
I apologized for my rough words, but I did say that it was going to offend.
I do believe that Christian's 'are some special class of people in God's eyes.' But that was not at all what I was saying in my post you tackled with violence of force. But I do not believe that God only desire's Christian's to be saved, only that those that are saved are Christians. Promises are made to Israel, who are also 'some special class of people,' as well as to the church that are not made to the world in general. This, by definition, makes those groups of people special to God.
I apologized for my rough words, but I did say that it was going to offend.
Blessing in Christ,
Matthew
Obviously I disagree . . . but it is inevitable that people who are sincere in their faith usually have deep convictions and tend to be more defensive (and even aggressive) in their witness. Peace, brother.
Before I go on, I have a question for you. What happens when believer finds that he has committed some kind of sin and yet denies that it was sin?
Blessing in Christ,
Matthew
Then he is not a believer and saved. In order for someone to be a believer, he must change his mind about his nature, that it is utterly sinful. Then once they see that, they receive the Gospel, that Jesus came to take our sins and give His righteousness to us. Yet if you haven't changed your mind about sin completely, then you retain that sin, and we know God and sin can't dwell in the same place.
This brings me back to my point about Christians and the practice of sin. If you sin without seeing it as sin (Ex: hating someone and not seeing it as sin, if you can lie and not see it as sin), then you haven't repented from sin, you haven't changed your mind. Now, because we still live in these bodies, there will be opportunity to sin. There are things Christians struggle with everyday, and stumble with the same thing more than once. (It's not that they practice sin, but left room for the flesh to fulfill it's lust) That's where growth comes into the picture, which comes about through continued changing of mind about God's grace in Christ. That not only did He give us salvation from hell, but also gave us the ability to live righteously. Yet when it comes to sin, we change our mind once, and then put on Christ. For those who sin and don't see it as sin, they've yet to change their mind about sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wretched.elect
Well, of course you would not walk up to a Christian and declare to them the Gospel, but I don’t see that John is doing this. I do see him clarifying what he (and presumably the other apostles and disciples) witnessed and proclaimed, ‘that the life was manifested’ and that they had ‘seen and heard’ by them. The real key is that Christ was ‘manifested’ to them, he wasn’t just a spirit that appeared to be human; he was in all ways human. He deals with this in more depth in 1 John 4:1-4, which is a counter to one of the various gnostic teachings that Jesus did not come in the flesh, which is corrupt and beyond salvation. So, in a sense, John was giving them a ‘gospel presentation’ in his letter, but not so much one for salvation, but one of correction. The believers to whom he was writing (or at least part of his audience) had fallen into believing a Christian Gnosticism, so he opens up his letter with a true teaching of the actual incarnation, or manifestation, of Christ in the flesh. Basically he’s reprising John 1, confirming to those that would read his letter that Christ came in the flesh.
Since Gnosticism taught that the material world was to be shunned and the spiritual world to embrace, one of the teachings was that things that were done in the flesh were of no consequence since the flesh was not only corrupt but mortal. When the body dies, so do all the corruptions done in the flesh. The spirit on the other hand was all that mattered, thus anything that pertained to the spirit and spirituality was of vital importance and was to be embraced. One of the teachings that sprang from that was that spiritual pursuits was all that really mattered in the Christian life, and anything done in the flesh mattered nothing, since any corruption that sprang from fleshly desires was natural and would die with the body. This resulted in Christians committing all kinds of sin ‘in the flesh’ (and thus walking in darkness) while pursuing higher spiritual concerns through ‘knowledge’ and denying that anything they
did in the flesh was sin. John was basically saying, ‘If you believe that you have not committed sin as a gnostic Christian, then you make God a liar.’ Gnostic Christians were claiming fellowship with God while walking in darkness, or sinning in the flesh and calling it ‘not sin’ because they were pursuing spiritual enlightenment (walking in the light) through knowledge of spiritual things. They were practicing sin yet saying they were not sinning. I do not for a second doubt that they were believers, they just got lead astray but false teachers. This contradictory walk caused them to not have true fellowship with the Father and Christ, because darkness has no fellowship with the light. (2 Cor. 6:14)
It is in this context I believe John brings up confession. He does not tell them to confess their sin for salvation, but for right fellowship with God primarily, and with other believers secondarily. The cleansing here is not the original ‘washing of regeneration and renewal,’ this was done at the moment of conversion. Nor do I believe such believers, having been saved, has somehow lost their salvation and must therefore confess the Lord Jesus Christ again for salvation. Having confronted this false teaching of Christian Gnosticism, and urging them to turn from such sinful lifestyle, they can have true fellowship with each other because their true fellowship in the incarnate Christ, what John says here ‘was manifest to us.
Of course I think if any of the people John were writing to believed any of the doctrine of gnosticism, then they weren't believers because their view of Jesus would be different. Yet John could have been writing to protect the people from the doctrine of gnosticism in saying this is what we heard and saw. We agree about this part, what I'm still hung up on is the part about John saying "If we say we have no sin", which he is referring to gnostic doctrine. We know the gnostics weren't saved, so if John is referring to their teaching, to me he is coming from a viewpoint of not being a believer, that Christ died for our sins. If we say we have no sin, then Jesus haven't saved us from sin, and John says that would make God a liar based on what he saw and heard and touched when Jesus was on the earth.
John then says if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. To me, confession and repentance would be the same thing, because when you repent of your sins, you in essence confess you are a sinner and in need of God's forgiveness and cleansing. By the way Christians today see repentance and confession as the same thing, yet they misunderstand what repentance means. So ultimately if John is approaching the idea of confession of sins from a gnostic viewpoint of what sin means, then there's credence to say confession of sins here is from a salvation standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wretched.elect
There is a teaching that says that Christians cannot sin no matter what they do. The extreme of this teaching is that even if you fall to temptation and commit adultery, lie, steal and otherwise let loose on others with our tongue, we still cannot sin because we are perfectly sanctified in the Spirit. They believe that as soon as we are in Christ, we are perfect, there is no such thing as sanctification - it’s a done deal. And they are right, if we truly commit no sin after we are ‘raised to walk in newness of life.’ (Rom. 6.4) I believe that scripture ever says that we no longer sin after our conversion, only that we have the victory over and the power through Christ to no longer sin. I have yet to meet such a Christian. But a true Christian, a true follower of Christ, does not live a life of practicing sin.
Blessing in Christ,
Matthew
I agree. If any Christian is practicing sin, not seeing it as sin, isn't a believer in Christ. There are Christians who sin, who fall for the same stuff over and over again. Yet that is because they don't renew their mind on a daily basis and so forth. They don't always submit their bodies as a living sacrifice (I certainly fit that category, but I've come a long way since even this time last year), and mostly because they don't have a great understanding that Jesus gives us the power to walk righteously on this earth. They don't see themselves in Christ, but just look at themselves and their strengths in the body. The more you lean on the body's ability, the more you will stumble. Yet the more you let Jesus' nature shine from within you, the more you will walk like He walked. It's like walking a tightrope, and Jesus is our focus point. If we begin looking around and our focus is all over the place, we lose our balance. Yet as long as our eyes are on Jesus, an unchanging focus point, we become like Him, we become like that steady point. All of this is about changing our minds concerning God's grace, going deeper in it. Christians who fall there doesn't make them unsaved, but they were just weak in faith.
However, anyone who calls himself a Christian, yet lives like the world who doesn't believe sin exist and don't believe in Jesus, then he/she is not a believer. Like the guy Paul talked about in the Corinthian church, the man who was having sexual relations with his father's wife. (Assuming his step mother, if not, his own mother, which is even worse but both are sin) This guy didn't see a problem with this at all, and he presumably identified himself as Christian. Paul said to let this guy go, pretty much give him over to Satan for the destruction of his body, in hopes he may be saved later on. So this is how I understand the practice of sin.
Last edited by Heavenese; 02-27-2013 at 07:34 AM..
You and I actually see the practice of sin very similarly. Every believer should offer his body daily as a living sacrifice as part of our service of worship to God (Romans 12:1). Yet even in doing so, we still stumble in 'sin which so easily entangles us. (Hebrews 12:1) So we see that that John is not saying that believers do not sin, rather they do not live a life practicing sin. Not everyone sees the practice of sin the same way though, definitely not those who have been pulled into the false teaching of Christian Gnosticism.
The false teaching of Christian Gnosticism separates the carnal from the spiritual and allows all sorts of sin in the flesh yet embraces spiritual pursuits of knowledge and that which truly matters. I believe that those to whom John was writing believed in this false teaching, at least some of them anyway. I can't see that anyone today can truly say they haven fallen for this lie of Satan, since the scriptures teach differently. But John hadn't written his letter yet, there weren't scriptural teachings against Christian Gnosticism at the time. This is why John had to write against that kind of 'Christian' living. The behavior of those that practiced Christian Gnosticism was not only sinful in the flesh, but it was also a deplorable state of spiritual condition that hindered their fellowship with God and thus with other believers. Once they had been confronted with the false teaching, the only thing to do was to confess their sin, that they were truly committing sin. In confessing (from the Greek homologeo with means to say the same) that their practice of sinning in the flesh, they were agreeing with that they were in fact sinning. To say otherwise 'would make Him a liar and the word is not in us.' (1 Jn. 1:10)
I seriously doubt that the man in the Corinthian church that was committing adultery with his father's wife was a believer. If he was, he didn't not understand grace, that is was not a license to sin. He understood that more he sinned, the more grace abounded to him for forgiveness. Yes, this man was a sinner, but I don't think he fell into the Gnostic belief that he wasn't sinning, rather that his sin allowed grace to abound more in his life. What a horrible understanding of grace, and most likely meant that he had no real repentance for his sin. He truly was a man who was practicing sin, admitting that it was sin, and care little to stop sinning. I believe that John was definitely talking about people like him. When he confessed his sin, I do not believe he was saying the same thing about his sin that God was, ever. The bad part of the Corinthian church was that they weren't doing anything about this man who supposedly identified himself as a believer, and they boasted about it. Basically they were saying, 'Look how tolerant we are with believers who sin; we don't judge them.' Paul rebuked them for their lack of spiritual understanding and lack of judgment on behalf of the boastful adulterer.
I am of the firm belief that when I sin, and am convicted of that sin my the Holy Spirit, I have to say the same thing that God says about my sin, not that I am currently under the same condemnation that unbelievers are, but that I have a damaged relationship with the Father and His Son. That is how I understand believer's confession, not the act of repentance again for salvation, but the agreement with God that sin damages my relationship with Him. This is what the 'Christian Gnostics' had to do when John confronted them with the incarnation of Jesus, that he was made manifest, clearly contradicting the teaching of the Gnostics. When James tells us to 'confess your sins one to another,' (James 5:16) he is advocating a public declaration of their agreement with God about the sin in their life and they will be made whole (healed).
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
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.
