If faith is a gift from God...

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Where did I say that the church was not fully established? Just because it was fully established does NOT imply that John's epistle was written to all believers. It was not written to all believers. The internal evidence contradicts the supposition that it was written to all believers.
What is the proof that it wasn't written to all believers? And what "internal evidence" contradicts that it was? He specifically noted that he was writing to "children, young men, and fathers" in 2:12-14.

How many times have you counted the words "Jew/s" or "Gentile/s" in 1 Jn?

John's audience had heard the word "from the beginning" (2:24). The Gentiles clearly did not hear the word "from the beginning."
You have no proof of that claim at all. Though Jesus' ministry began with Jews, He never avoided Gentiles.

I have told you that I have earned degrees from your school of thought and of mine. I totally reject your school of thought.
As I do yours.

But here is the death blow to your theory. A.W. Pink correctly points out John was an apostle to the circumcision:

I rest my case!!
Pink?? ^_^ I reject your source! He's another 5 pointer. Do you have any idea when Galatians was written? Between 49-55 AD, WAY before 1 Jn.

Unless you can find ANY reference to Jews and Gentiles in 1 Jn you have NO case to rest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
What is your supposed proof that it wasn't written to all believers? And what "internal evidence" contradicts that it was? He specifically noted that he was writing to "children, young men, and fathers" in 2:12-14.

How many times have you counted the words "Jew/s" or "Gentile/s" in 1 Jn?

You have no proof of that claim at all. Though Jesus' ministry began with Jews, He never avoided Gentiles.

I know you have no respect for any source but your own view.

As I do yours.

Pink?? ^_^ I reject your source! He's just another 5 pointer. Do you have any idea when Galatians was written? Between 49-55 AD, WAY before 1 Jn. That's a clue for the astute.

Unless you can find ANY reference to Jews and Gentiles in 1 Jn you have NO case to rest. Just your laurels.
:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Pink?? I reject your source! He's just another 5 pointer.
Ad hominen. He gave the scripture.

In Galatians 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel). 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. Books and Pamphlets by A.W. Pink-1 John 2:2


Unless you can find ANY reference to Jews and Gentiles in 1 Jn you have NO case to rest. Just your laurels.
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.

You don't get to tell us how the bible should be written. Furthermore, it is totally false historically to say that the Gentiles had heard the word "from the beginning." 2:24

You have lost the argument. Your ad hominen attack proves it.
 
Upvote 0

TannarDarr

Regular Member
Oct 14, 2013
392
17
TEXAS
✟558.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Dear Oz,

I appreciate your effort here, I really do, but Tannar has said enough that I know where he stands, and do not think any real discussion can take place. It's unfortunate, but the very division he argues against, he creates. I would have preferred to respond more gracefully, but how he responded to me, influenced how I responded in return (even so I exercised restraint). I think it demonstrates the need for religious freedom, and more than one denomination, despite modern evangelicalism's efforts to the contrary.

And yet I went to the post you said it started, used my off time at work, looked, and searched for what you found offensive and came up with none. THEN made the gracious offer to listen to you point it out.... Have you done that? And does that sound the move of an unreasonable person?

I"m not the one afraid to be wrong here. I've asked to be shown I'm wrong. You are the one posturing.

Last call bub. Ball's in your court.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Unless you can find ANY reference to Jews and Gentiles in 1 Jn you have NO case to rest. Just your laurels.
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?
25r30wi.gif


John's statement, "Let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning" refers to Jewish believers. 2:24
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Boxer,

Professor Daniel Wallace in his introduction to 1 John gives this explication of the audience to whom John wrote:

Nice try by you, but the internal evidence of 1 John does not support your speculation of a Jewish Christian audience.

Oz
Uh, Daniel Wallace embraces the Dispensationalist error. John was an apostle to the circumsicion.

and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:9

It looks like Wallace didn't do his homework. The Gentiles did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." 1 John 2:4
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have already given you a response as to how I think you should respond, but you don't want to buy into that one.

However, when you speak of someone as, ''what's his name", you are sending a negative message to Tannar. Why do you do such a provocative thing? I can't see it achieving anything. What profit is there in calling someone, "what's his name"?

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: Do unto others what you would have them do to you? Could that not apply to your interaction with Tannar?

I gave you no reason in my response for this needling response by you, 'Remove the anti-Calvinist blinders and try to view it'. Why did you give such a flaming response? With this kind of response by you to me, you tall me that you can be unnecessarily provocative.

Oz

Take a step back from the puter there Oz, and reflect on your responses to others (especially Skala), and then get back to talking down to me. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Robertson is not a friend of Calvinism.
But he is a friend of the Greek New Testament. And he knows it very well.

I'll stick with A T Robertson's exegetical stills any day of the week rather than this kind of red herring that you presented.

You fail to deal with the exegesis that Robertson provided because of your predisposed view.

No matter how much information in support of Jesus' dying for the sins of the whole world I can muster, you will not receive it. That's your predisposition to reject what is contradictory to your Calvinistic worldview.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

TannarDarr

Regular Member
Oct 14, 2013
392
17
TEXAS
✟558.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Boxer,

Professor Daniel Wallace in his introduction to 1 John gives this explication of the audience to whom John wrote:

Nice try by you, but the internal evidence of 1 John does not support your speculation of a Jewish Christian audience.

Oz

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....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Uh, Daniel Wallace embraces the Dispensationalist error. John was an apostle to the circumsicion.

and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:9

It looks like Wallace didn't do his homework. The Gentiles did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." 1 John 2:4
Here you go with committing the genetic logical fallacy.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Okay, so FG2 gets thumbs up from a man who believes that we can lose our salvation and who believes the Pentecostal errors. Nice FG2. A man is known by his associates. :p
Another genetic logical fallacy that you have committed. We can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Take a step back from the puter there Oz, and reflect on your responses to others (especially Skala), and then get back to talking down to me. :cool:
Would you please speak with clarity so I understand what you are complaining about me? How am I talking down to you?

What you said to me zoomed right past me. What can you do to speak with clarity so that I understand what you are driving at?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There's no picking of poison here. That's a false and defamatory accusation. You don't seem to be able to tolerate those, like myself, who oppose your view of God decreeing all of the sin and evil in the universe, so what do you do? You make a derogatory comment towards me of telling me: 'Pick your poison Oz'. That's horribly insulting!

Please quit your pejorative language towards me!

Oz

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.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Would you please speak with clarity so I understand what you are complaining about me? How am I talking down to you?

What you said to me zoomed right past me. What can you do to speak with clarity so that I understand what you are driving at?

Snobbery at it's finest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,015
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,901.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
MOD HAT ON
Superman_Visor_Blue.jpg

Breaking out the ol' Mod Hat.

Please stick to the actual discussion. The "you we're mean", "but he was mean, first" stuff can now stop. Everyone has had a chance to make their point.

Play nice.
MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
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.
Please direct me to the specific quote #. I've replied a number of times to Skala.

Please make your accusations specific. If I have sinned against Skala by my response to him, I'm seek his forgiveness. But I can't respond when you don't give me the specifics and the post to which you are referring.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
How does such a statement add to discussion? You've not explained exactly how it is what you claim.
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
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Snobbery at it's finest.
That is an ad hominem fallacy.

I asked a sincere question of you to gain clarity when I asked:

Would you please speak with clarity so I understand what you are complaining about me? How am I talking down to you?

What you said to me zoomed right past me. What can you do to speak with clarity so that I understand what you are driving at?

But if you don't want to engage with me at the level of courteous conversation, I'll accept your rejection.

Oz
 
Upvote 0