• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

If faith is a gift from God...

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by janxharris, Oct 15, 2013.

  1. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    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
     
  2. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  3. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    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
     
  4. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    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
     
  5. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  6. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Calling it a genetic logical fallacy is correct because it agrees with the definition of a genetic fallacy:

    Here's another definition of a genetic logical fallacy:
    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2013
  7. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Sorry, it doesn't fit that definition. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
     
  8. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    It fits the definition perfectly. Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Oz
     
  9. TannarDarr

    TannarDarr Regular Member

    392
    +6
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Others
    This coming from the man who avoids answering objections to their observations and simply saying "you are wrong!"

    How ironic....
     
  10. TannarDarr

    TannarDarr Regular Member

    392
    +6
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Others

    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......
     
  11. TannarDarr

    TannarDarr Regular Member

    392
    +6
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Others
    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.
     
  12. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,189
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Funny funny, I quoted you when I said it. ^_^
     
  13. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No.

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

    janxharris Veteran

    +48
    United Kingdom
    Married
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
  15. janxharris

    janxharris Veteran

    +48
    United Kingdom
    Married
    Why doesn't it matter?
     
  16. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    And your Unconditional Election would not affect how you interpret Scripture???:preach:
     
  17. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Because he was writing to a small audience. So to say "not just us, but people all over the world" is not unusual language.
     
  18. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +17,238
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Thanks. You proved my point with your question.
     
  19. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,336
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    And I haven't done that.

    What proof have you provided to support this claim?

    Well, I attacked no one, so how have I lost the argument. I'd say the source from Oz pretty much refutes your view.
     
  20. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,336
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    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.

    Well, who else would he have written to?

    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.
     
Loading...