2 John 1:9-11-Meaning

[Cliff2]

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 1:9-11.

I am wondering what you think of this verse. It has been pointed out to me of recent times.

The person takes it to exactly what it says and would never have an unbeliever come into his house.

Do you think he is right in this or not?

 

[JonMiller]

It means that we shouldn't encourage and support evil deedsl.

In Israel inviting someone into your house really meant something. Here, not so much, I think.

JM

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Cliff2,

To answer your question; No this text is not reffering to all unbelivers. What it is reffering to is those who claim to have knowledge of the Scriptures yet don't accept the doctrin of the trinity, or the role of Jesus Christ in our salvation. I'm sure that you can think of some that think this way.

If you know that their beliefes are unscriptual, and you wish them God's speed, you are asking for God to help them spread false doctrin.

If you have futher questions feel free to ask or PM me.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[tall73]

In the early church they had traveling evangelists and teachers, etc. similar to Paul. They would receive support from the people, just as the disciples did (going to a house and then either staying or leaving while they were in that city). He is saying not to support and house a teacher who does not conform to the gospel.

So again, no it is not saying that a non-believer should not enter the house but that false teachers should not be helped.

 

[woobadooba]

In the early church they had traveling evangelists and teachers, etc. similar to Paul. They would receive support from the people, just as the disciples did (going to a house and then either staying or leaving while they were in that city). He is saying not to support and house a teacher who does not conform to the gospel.

So again, no it is not saying that a non-believer should not enter the house but that false teachers should not be helped.

This sounds right to me. However, I think we can take the 'God speed' thing a little further.

I am reminded of how people so casually say 'God bless America', while this country is replete with all kinds of idolatrous activities, and views which trample all over the gospel.

I would have to say that our government (for the most part) is anti-Christian. So to say God bless America while it basks in sin is to suggest that God doesn't really mind that this place is utterly wicked, but blesses America for its many sins.

I can't even bring myself to say God bless America while knowing what's happening here, and what America now stands for (pluralism).

 

[JonMiller]

I think that pluralism is better then the loss of religious liberty that some push for.

JM

 

[woobadooba]

I think that pluralism is better then the loss of religious liberty that some push for.

JM

Tell that to Jesus right before he destroys it!

Moral relativism and pluralism are God's worst enemies.

By the way, there is no such thing as religious liberty. Pluralists just want you to think they favor all views in the same light; but as soon as you speak of their view in an unfavorable manner religious liberty goes out the door.

 

[JonMiller]

There is such thing as religious liberty, and the fact that we have had it more in the US then in europe is why Christianity has done so much better here than in europe.

The worst thing for a religion to do, is to become involved in the state. This isntantly allows the state to corrupt religion and use it as a tool of oppression.


Also, God desires us to have religious liberty. If not, He would force us all to beleive in Him. The fact that He doesn't force us to beleive in Him, and in fact makes sure that our beleif in Him is a matter of faith, shows that freedom of consience (which is at the heart of religious liberty) is precious to Him.

Like even the sunday law, which many fear, can only come to pass if religious liberty is weakened.

And moral relativism != pluralism (see later note). Pluralism means that you allow others to have different beleifs and views than your own. Moral relativism means that not only can they have different beleifs and views, but that those are the right beleifs and views for them.

A true moral relativist should never be a missionary (well, many are of moral relativism, but that is a bit hypocritical). A pluralist can be a missionary.

Well, looking at dictionary.com I see that I am using one definition of pluralist. Other definitions are the same as moral relativist. The definition I am using is:

"condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society"

Basically, there is a difference between tolerance and support.

JM

 

[woobadooba]

There is such thing as religious liberty, and the fact that we have had it more in the US then in europe is why Christianity has done so much better here than in europe.

The worst thing for a religion to do, is to become involved in the state. This isntantly allows the state to corrupt religion and use it as a tool of oppression.


Also, God desires us to have religious liberty. If not, He would force us all to beleive in Him. The fact that He doesn't force us to beleive in Him, and in fact makes sure that our beleif in Him is a matter of faith, shows that freedom of consience (which is at the heart of religious liberty) is precious to Him.

Like even the sunday law, which many fear, can only come to pass if religious liberty is weakened.

And moral relativism != pluralism (see later note). Pluralism means that you allow others to have different beleifs and views than your own. Moral relativism means that not only can they have different beleifs and views, but that those are the right beleifs and views for them.

A true moral relativist should never be a missionary (well, many are of moral relativism, but that is a bit hypocritical). A pluralist can be a missionary.

Well, looking at dictionary.com I see that I am using one definition of pluralist. Other definitions are the same as moral relativist. The definition I am using is:

"condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society"

Basically, there is a difference between tolerance and support.

JM

I've spent a great deal of time studying philosophy, and can tell you with assurance that the dictionary does not address the issues of moral relativism and pluralism properly in defining what they really mean.

Furthermore, for the simple fact that you are trying to change my opinion on religious liberty you are in essence denying my so-called right to religious liberty. Hence there is no such thing as religious liberty, and you just proved that.

It's like the Pluralist that says, there is no absolute truth, or the Moral Relativist who says, there is no absolute right or wrong, while speaking in absolutes. Thus they demonstrate that their belief is inconsistent with itself, and is therefore false.

These matters are much more deeper than most people understand.

I reccomend that you read the following books: 'Unshakable Foundations' by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, and 'Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-air' by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl

 

[JonMiller]

You are completely missing my point, and arguing against something else entirely. I am not responding to your post because you haven't responded to mine yet.

JM

 

[woobadooba]

You are completely missing my point, and arguing against something else entirely. I am not responding to your post because you haven't responded to mine yet.

JM

I'm not missing your point; rather, I am showing you where it ends.

Please read the books that I recommended.

 

[JonMiller]

Well, your statements don't make any sense based upon my discussion (definition) of tolerance.

As I said, missionaries are fine, be they for tolerance or against it. So your religious liberty comment makes no sense at all. You are assuming my position based upon books and others (admittedly commonly held positions) but these are not my position.

So no, I won't read your books, since you are attributing to me a position I do not hold, nor am arguing in favor of. Address my position, if you still can suggest I am wrong, I will read your books.

As it is, I am not interested in reading books arguing against a position I do not hold.

JM

 

[maco]

Hi Cliff2,

To answer your question; No this text is not reffering to all unbelivers. What it is reffering to is those who claim to have knowledge of the Scriptures yet don't accept the doctrin of the trinity, or the role of Jesus Christ in our salvation. I'm sure that you can think of some that think this way.

If you know that their beliefes are unscriptual, and you wish them God's speed, you are asking for God to help them spread false doctrin.

If you have futher questions feel free to ask or PM me.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

I don't see a trinity in 2 John 1:9-11. I see the Father and His Son. It seems to me that if anyone denys the Father and the Son we should not accept him into our house. To see a trinity in this verse is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Hey Maco, I just wanted to say something real quick and then I have to hit the books.

When Adventists talk about the trinity, we usually (I say USUALLY) believe in three completely separate Entities that serve ONE purpose.

My husband and I are one, but we are of course separate people that can be apart. We do share the same purpose and are "one" but we are not the same person.

It is perfectly within CF rules that Adventists post here, because although our view of the trinity is a little different than other Christians, we still do believe in the triune force of three separate entities.

Even Christ had to obey the Father. Christ is not the Father.

Did that make sense?

 

[JonMiller]

Actually, the SDA church officially accepted the standard view point in the 60s or so.

JM

 

[TrustAndObey]

Actually, the SDA church officially accepted the standard view point in the 60s or so.

JM

That's not true.

Before I was baptized, our pastor came to our home to discuss Adventist beliefs and to make sure that we agreed with the fundamentals.

I specifically asked him about the trinity and told him how I felt about it, and he agreed with me. In fact, what I stated above is exactly what it says on my certificate of baptism (it uses less words than I did of course).

There are THREE Supreme Rulers in Heaven. They are "one" in PURPOSE and wisdom. There is a trinity, but it's not the one I hear other denominations talk about.

For instance, Adventists are one of the only denominations I know of that teach/believe that Christ was DEAD for three days (most say He wasn't actually "dead", that He went to hell to preach). Who resurrected Him?

Scripture tells us that the Father resurrected Him. Therefore, it is obvious that the Father did not die.

They are One in purpose, but they are separate entities (for lack of a better word).

And it is very dishonest of you to say that we "accepted" the mainstream belief when my baptismal certificate does not say that at all, and when I specifically made sure I wasn't agreeing to something I do not agree with.

 

[TrustAndObey]

#1 on my baptismal certificate:

I believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three CO-eternal Persons.

It means what it says. There is a Father, a Son, AND a Holy Spirit. They are united as one in purpose as God (like a husband and wife are one).

That is not at all what the mainstream churches teach.

They teach that Jesus IS the Father, the Father IS Jesus, etc. The Father God did not die for three days, and I will not accept that belief, and DID NOT accept this when I was baptized into the Adventist church.

This thread is getting off-topic though and I gotta go study.

 

[JonMiller]

Oh, I most certainly agree with Christ being dead for 3 days (and we definitely have an anhiliationist view of hell, which I think is very good and correct and makes a lot more sense than other views). If He wasn't, His death would make a lot less sense. Remember, the biggest source of pain on the cross was that He felt as if God was no longer with Him.

However, the SDA church as group (not saying your pastor) is trinitarian. That means: the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. (from Wikipedia).

In the 1800s the SDA church was mostly Arian, which is that it is three seperate persons, possibly with God the Father being the creator of Christ even.

I personally think that, while interesting, the doctrine of the trinity doesn't really play a role in my salvation. So as long as it isn't leading me to error... and I hope that I will be forgiven if it does.

I read a lot of imaginative works (Sci Fi), so the idea of mutual indwelling (as well as seperation) is perhaps a bit less strange, but still hard to understand. And I don't pretend that I do understand it.

JM

 

[TrustAndObey]

There is a trinity.

Our view just isn't exactly mainstream.

Oh...and just so you know, annihilationism can't be discussed on this forum. Not yet anyway. Tall opened up a discussion and the mods are having a look at it (I think). Hopefully that goes well.

You should add to the discussion brother JM! Tall has a thread in our forum here about it, but I can't remember the name of it.

Tall, can you direct JM to that thread? It's awesome.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And amen, Christ died (literally) for our sins! The ultimate sacrifice from our loving Savior.