If faith is a gift from God...

[OzSpen]

1 John was written at a time that Gentiles were at least half of the Church. Clement was Bishop of Rome.

John and whomever he wrote with were in fellowship with God and those written to were not yet in fellowship with God. Getting them in fellowship with God would make John and his coterie's joy complete.

Those who were not yet in fellowship, did have the Christ as their mediator though, and only need a little bit more darkness to be complete... 2:6.

It COULD be a jewish audience, it could be an all gentile audience. But it was people who were not yet in fellowship with God but had christ to mediate for them as they made that journey, that apparently they were close to.

I'm hoping Wallace's thoughts are on bible.org I'd be interested in seeing all of that....

I'm not sure I'd agree that these people who received 1 John were not in fellowship with God.

John refers to them in these terms:

• 'My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous' (2:1). So they were little children in the faith who were sinning and he was giving them a solution.
• 'Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment' (2:7). They were the Christian beloved.
• 'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world' (4:1)

He seems to be writing to believers who were being threatened by false doctrine as 2:18-20 indicates.


Oz

 

[Hammster]

Don't you know the meaning of a genetic logical fallacy? Here is a definition of the genetic logical fallacy.

When someone discredits Daniel Wallace's statement about the audience to which 1 John is written because he is a dispensationalist and the person does not accept his views on 1 John because of his dispensationalism, that person is committing a genetic logical fallacy by discrediting the source over an unrelated issue.

We can't have a logical discussion when a person engages in the use of logical fallacies.

Oz

Actually, that's not a genetic fallacy. It would be a genetic fallacy to reject Wallace because he wears size 11 shoes. But his Dispensationalism could affect how he interprets scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, that's not a genetic fallacy. It would be a genetic fallacy to reject Wallace because he wears size 11 shoes. But his Dispensationalism could affect how he interprets scripture.

When someone discounts Daniel Wallace's statements about the audience of 1 John because of his dispensationalism, this IS committing a genetic logical fallacy.

A genetic fallacy is defined:

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

Wallace's reasoning about the audience of 1 John was rejected because of his dispensationalism. That is definitely the committing of a genetic fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Read your comments to Skala in the quote Oz, and tell me that's real charitable speech, leading to great discussion....yeah right. And you think of yourself as a "big brother" here...give me a break. It's called "brow beating" my friend, something you have talent for.

That's a red herring logical fallacy because you did not address the content of my post. You gave your spin on another topic.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

When someone discounts Daniel Wallace's statements about the audience of 1 John because of his dispensationalism, this IS committing a genetic logical fallacy.

A genetic fallacy is defined:

Wallace's reasoning about the audience of 1 John was rejected because of his dispensationalism. That is definitely the committing of a genetic fallacy.

Oz

Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.

Now, I really don't care about his view, his interpretation, or if 1 John was written to Jews or Gentiles because I don't think it matters. But I wanted to point out that calling his argument a genetic fallacy is wrong.

 

[OzSpen]

Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.

Now, I really don't care about his view, his interpretation, or if 1 John was written to Jews or Gentiles because I don't think it matters. But I wanted to point out that calling his argument a genetic fallacy is wrong.

Calling it a genetic logical fallacy is correct because it agrees with the definition of a genetic fallacy:

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

Here's another definition of a genetic logical fallacy:

genetic fallacy:

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

In the example provided to which I'm addressing this fallacy. The person judged Daniel Wallace's explanation of the audience of 1 John as bad on the basis of where it came from. It came from a biblical scholar who believes in dispensationalism.

The person avoided the argument of dealing with the content of what Daniel Wallace wrote about 1 John because of the negative perceptions of Daniel Wallace because he supports dispensationalism.

The person was wanting to make the argument that Wallace gave for 1 John to look bad by associating it with his dispensationalism.

This is most definitely an example of a genetic logical fallacy.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Calling it a genetic logical fallacy is correct because it agrees with the definition of a genetic fallacy:


Oz

Sorry, it doesn't fit that definition. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, it doesn't fit that definition. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It fits the definition perfectly. Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Oz

 

[TannarDarr]

Read your comments to Skala in the quote Oz, and tell me that's real charitable speech, leading to great discussion....yeah right. And you think of yourself as a "big brother" here...give me a break. It's called "brow beating" my friend, something you have talent for.

This coming from the man who avoids answering objections to their observations and simply saying "you are wrong!"

How ironic....

 

[TannarDarr]

Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.

Now, I really don't care about his view, his interpretation, or if 1 John was written to Jews or Gentiles because I don't think it matters. But I wanted to point out that calling his argument a genetic fallacy is wrong.

Ok, so your standard is, "He is wrong because he MAY think something wrong, because of his theological beliefs?"

Might as well say, I won't talk to baptists, they are wrong. I won't talk to calvinists, they are wrong.

If someone you don't agree with makes an argument, it's judged right, or wrong, based on the argument, not what they had for lunch. Not calling you one, but that logic is the same bigots use. They are wrong because they are gay, or black, or red headed step child, or use big words I don't understand in type and not crayon......

 

[TannarDarr]

I'm not sure I'd agree that these people who received 1 John were not in fellowship with God.

John refers to them in these terms:

• 'My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous' (2:1). So they were little children in the faith who were sinning and he was giving them a solution.
• 'Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment' (2:7). They were the Christian beloved.
• 'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world' (4:1)

He seems to be writing to believers who were being threatened by false doctrine as 2:18-20 indicates.


Oz

Check out 1 john 1 3-7.

I"m doing this from my noggin so give me a little slack.

John and his coterie are in fellowship with God and His Son.

The people John writes to are NOT in fellowship with John and His Coterie.
(if not with God can go one of two ways based on this part of the discussion. Since they aren't in the kitchen with John and God, they aren't in the kitchen with God. Or God is in the kitchen with John and in the living room with those written too.)

To be in fellowship you must walk in the light AS HE DOES. and there is no darkness in him.
But those he wrote to, still had a little darkness to go. 2:5 or 6... where he encourages them with the new command, (I'm thinking it's easy to prove that to be love God/neighbor) And 1 john 4:16-18 explains if you don't have the love right HE is not in you and YOU are not in Him. (another example of fellowship)

Now back to fellowship... people tend to assume if you are "saved" you are automatically in fellowship with God. I challenge that. It's not a conclusive claim in scripture. I can make a stronger claim that you start with "salvation" then progress through maturation, and at the end of maturation, is where the fellowship starts. That would have him working ON YOU, but not yet being IN YOU. I know it's heterodoxical, but I'd stand before Mr. Wallace and defend it with confidence. I don't think he can produce more than his opinions that I would be wrong. (I happen to be a fan of his, somewhat.) It's my opinion, I've defended it hundreds of times and have confidence, but I still won't claim it's right.

I can hit the not in fellowship from about five directions in 1 john. If you ever get bored, we can kick it back and forth sometimes.

"Little Children" would discuss people new to Christ, and thus not fully mature yet. Young men would be those who were not the elders but were mature. Old men here are the elders/leaders.

I think the fellowship "proofs" would define the last 1/3 of 1 john 2, not the other way around. BUT, as I said... opinions, and heterodoxical.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This coming from the man who avoids answering objections to their observations and simply saying "you are wrong!"

How ironic....

Funny funny, I quoted you when I said it.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, so your standard is, "He is wrong because he MAY think something wrong, because of his theological beliefs?"

Might as well say, I won't talk to baptists, they are wrong. I won't talk to calvinists, they are wrong.

If someone you don't agree with makes an argument, it's judged right, or wrong, based on the argument, not what they had for lunch. Not calling you one, but that logic is the same bigots use. They are wrong because they are gay, or black, or red headed step child, or use big words I don't understand in type and not crayon......

No.

If you're going to ask a question, you should wait for a response instead of assuming an answer.

 

[janxharris]

You do not have a reference to Jews and Gentiles either. So how can you prove your side of it? How can you show that the epistle was written to Jews and Gentiles if Jews and Gentiles are not mmentioned?

John's statement, "Let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning" refers to Jewish believers. 2:24

Since John did not specify with regards to his addressees, then it would be natural to infer that such was not critical to an understanding of his letter. If limited atonement was an established fact in John's mind, why would he then proceed to write such a misleading statement as 1 John 2:2?

 

[janxharris]

Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.

Now, I really don't care about his view, his interpretation, or if 1 John was written to Jews or Gentiles because I don't think it matters. But I wanted to point out that calling his argument a genetic fallacy is wrong.

Why doesn't it matter?

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, that's not a genetic fallacy. It would be a genetic fallacy to reject Wallace because he wears size 11 shoes. But his Dispensationalism could affect how he interprets scripture.

And your Unconditional Election would not affect how you interpret Scripture???

 

[Hammster]

Why doesn't it matter?

Because he was writing to a small audience. So to say "not just us, but people all over the world" is not unusual language.

 

[Hammster]

And your Unconditional Election would not affect how you interpret Scripture???

Thanks. You proved my point with your question.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ad hominen. He gave the scripture.

No, I attacked no one. But you dismissed my source, my "study Bible". I didn't see any reason to take note of your source, who is a 5 point Calvinist. Of course you'd agree with him. But I don't agree with TULIP, so there is no reason to note what he says.

In Galatians 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel).

Galatians was written about 20+ years before John wrote 1 John. Things change, and you were given solid evidence from Oz about who the scholars think John was writing to: Gentile churches in Asia. I don't there is any argument here at all. You may disagree.

In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet. 1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.

I don't see any relevance. Yes, James was one of the earliest letters written, some have suggested as early as the late 30's, so most of the church at that early date would have been Jews. Plus, James was addressing the dispersion of Jews. But James' audience has no bearing whatsoever on John's audience in 1 Jn, written way after; possibly 50+ years later.

I don't need to spell it out your way. John was an apostle to the circumcision. Therefore, when he said, "He is the propitiation for our sins," he meant, "us the circumcision, and not only ours, but also for the sins of the whole world" (Gentiles). I could as easily require you to show where John said that he was speaking to Gentile believers.

That was written in the 60's. I will defer to the source provided by Oz regarding John's audience.

You don't get to tell us how the bible should be written.

And I haven't done that.

Furthermore, it is totally false historically to say that the Gentiles had heard the word "from the beginning." 2:24

What proof have you provided to support this claim?

You have lost the argument. Your ad hominen attack proves it.

Well, I attacked no one, so how have I lost the argument. I'd say the source from Oz pretty much refutes your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You do not have a reference to Jews and Gentiles either. So how can you prove your side of it?

Well, that is exactly my point. He didn't mention either Jews or Gentiles, and given the late date of his writing, it only makes sense that the churches would have been quite mixed by then. Since John didn't mention either, we can know that he wasn't thinking of a mix in 2:2, as in "for our (Jewish believers) sins, and the sins of the whole world (Gentile believers)". I thnk that's splitting hairs. There is no reason from the context to think he meant that.

The churches were fully integrated by 85 AD. So when John wrote "for our sins", he was referring to all believers, not Jewish believers. And when he wrote "sins of the whole world", he was referring to everyone else (unbelievers). I know you won't agree, but there is no evidence for another view.

How can you show that the epistle was written to Jews and Gentiles if Jews and Gentiles are not mmentioned?

Well, who else would he have written to?

John's statement, "Let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning" refers to Jewish believers. 2:24

Why can't that statement simply refer to when his audience first heard the gospel? Why think that he referred to Jesus' first incarnation, or the first few years after His resurrection? Many of his audience by 85+ AD maybe hadn't even been born yet "from the beginning" you are thinking of.