If faith is a gift from God...

[Hammster]

So providing definitions to reinforce the definition of a genetic logical fallacy is 'a typical distraction' in which I 'engage in frequently'. That's a red herring fallacy by which you are diverting attention from my providing additional definitions of the genetic logical fallacy.

Bye, Oz

Proved my point once again.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It wasn't misleading. It would only be misleading if people had some silly notion that there were people in hell for something other than sin. But since that view wouldn't have been held, then John's hyperbolic usage would have been understood.

John was very clear that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, not just believer's sins. He wasn't being hyperbolic at all.

That would be the claim for those who "had some silly notion" that Christ didn't die for everyone.

 

[Hammster]

John was very clear that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, not just believer's sins. He wasn't being hyperbolic at all.

That would be the claim for those who "had some silly notion" that Christ didn't die for everyone.

He only died for His people. That's clear, especially if you have an understanding of the OT. It foreshadows what Christ did. Leviticus 16 gives us the type and shadow of what Christ would do. And the Day of Atonement was only for God's people.

Now, I know you believe that there will be nobody in hell because of sin. But that's a notion that is unorthodox. But I doubt any non--Calvinists will challenge you on it.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

Not really following all of this discussion, but I'll have to agree with Oz on this point. We've seen people before try to reject any and all of Calvin's writings on the basis of some supposed defect in his character, or his controversial (to some) actions regarding Servetus (not trying to play the Servetus card here), and then extend that to all Calvinists. it's nothing more than a convenient excuse to bypass actually discussing the point. We see it employed a lot here, from all sides. It needs to stop from all sides, too.


We are all passionate about what we believe, as I think we should be. Disagreements will arise, but there is no reason why we can't discuss them in a calm, rational manner, as though we were sitting face to face in the same room across the same table. There are things said here that would never be said in that kind of setting.

 

[Jack Terrence]

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

You speak falsely about me. I dealt with Robertson's assertion that the term "the whole world" in Romans 3:18 means every human being. I easily disproved that with half my brain tied behind my back. The context CANNOT support Robertson's definition. See posts #174 & 180 again.

Furthermore, Reformed apologist and author Gordon H. Clark tears Robertson's grammar apart when he denies Calvinism. It is evident that you trust in men over the word of God. You erroneously assume that Robertson does not manipulate the Greek to fit his Semi-Pelagian presuppositions.

What good is a grammarian's grammar when he ignores the "line upon line" principle of interpretation?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Here you go with committing the genetic logical fallacy.

Oz

John called those believers "MY little children." John fathered them in the faith. So he was writing specifically to believers he had fathered in the faith.

MY little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins [Jews], and not for ours only but also for the whole world [Gentiles]. Brackets mine

John was an apostle to the circumcision (Gal. 2:9). Therefore, his "little children" were Jewish believers.

 

[Jack Terrence]

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.

 

[Jack Terrence]

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

Wallace's reasoning about the audience was NOT rejected because of his dispensationalism. I was showing that he is to be regarded with suspicion because Dispensationalists are prone to err.

Wallace denies the historical reliability of the Gospels. Just google it.

 

[Jack Terrence]

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?

John called his audience "MY little children."

Note what I said to Oz,

John called those believers "MY little children." John fathered them in the faith. So he was writing specifically to believers he had fathered in the faith.

MY little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins [Jews], and not for ours only but also for the whole world [Gentiles]. Brackets mine

John was an apostle to the circumcision (Gal. 2:9). Therefore, his "little children" were Jewish believers.

 

[Jack Terrence]

No, I attacked no one. But you dismissed my source, my "study Bible".

And you dismissed my study Bible note which says that the Spirit's convicting in John 16:8 is not to repentance.

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.

It does NOT matter when 1 John was written. He wrote specifically to his "little children." See posts 257 & 260. Honestly, I cannot see how the date of the writing of the book implies that his audience audience was not specific.

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.

So what!! How does this prove that John's audience was not specific?

He called his audience "MY little children." So he had fathered them. He was an apostle to the circumcision. Therefore, his "little children" were Jewish believers. See posts # 257 & 260.

MY little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins [Jews], and not for ours only but also for the whole world [Gentiles]. Brackets mine

Furthermore, he told them to let that abide in them wich they heard "from the beginning" (2:24). This excludes the Gentiles. They did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." The gospel was brought to them at a LATER time.

 

[TannarDarr]

It does NOT matter when 1 John was written. He wrote specifically to his "little children." See posts 257 & 260. Honestly, I cannot see how the date of the writing of the book implies that his audience audience was not specific.

I'll take your degree of logic, and say it was ONLY SENT TO HIS SCIONS AND THEIR SCIONS. NO ONE ELSE AT ALL!

There was no Jew or Gentile in Christ's Church.

Why would you limit it to the jewish people?

Dude, you just got no case there.

It's ok to suspect it, but stop presenting it as if it's a fact. It's inconclusive EITHER way, so it's a matter of liklihood at best.

 

[FreeGrace2]

He only died for His people. That's clear, especially if you have an understanding of the OT.

Can you give me a verse that is clear and unambiguous about that?

It foreshadows what Christ did.

So did what Moses did with a bronze serpent on a pole, and Jesus equated with what He was going to do on the cross. JUST AS...the serpent was for everyone who had been bitten, by looking, SO ALSO Christ's death is for everyone with sin, through faith in Him.

The point that you have ignored is that the serpent was for everyone who had been bitten, not just a small portion of the bitten ones. Any of them could look and be healed. So it is with Christ's death. It is for everyone with sin, not just a portion of the human race with sin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It does NOT matter when 1 John was written. He wrote specifically to his "little children." See posts 257 & 260. Honestly, I cannot see how the date of the writing of the book implies that his audience audience was not specific.

So what!! How does this prove that John's audience was not specific?

I've never argued that John's audience wasn't 'specific'. Not sure what you even mean by that. His audience was clearly believers, but you have claimed it was only Jews, or mostly Jews. But you haven't proven it. And the quote from Galatians isn't relevant to his audience in 85-96 AD time frame.

He called his audience "MY little children." So he had fathered them. He was an apostle to the circumcision. Therefore, his "little children" were Jewish believers. See posts # 257 & 260.

Well, that is a huge leap in my opinion. Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye on this. By the time John wrote his epistles, the churches were mixed. There is no basis for claiming that He wrote only to Jewish believers.

MY little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins [Jews], and not for ours only but also for the whole world [Gentiles]. Brackets mine

I understand your view on this verse, but I see no basis for it. He wrote to believers in Asia, no doubt most of them Gentiles. So the "our sins" refers to believers, and the "whole world" refers to everyone else.

If John had made some point in ch 1 in reference to Jews and Gentiles, then you would have a point to make. But he didn't.

Furthermore, he told them to let that abide in them wich they heard "from the beginning" (2:24). This excludes the Gentiles.

I believe he was referring to the time frame of when his audience heard the gospel. You haven't proven your claim. Can you refute my understanding?

They did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." The gospel was brought to them at a LATER time.

His point was when his audience first heard the gospel.

But, to your point, why wouldn't John be referring back to Gen 1:1 then? I find that exact phrase there.

 

[Hammster]

Can you give me a verse that is clear and unambiguous about that?


So did what Moses did with a bronze serpent on a pole, and Jesus equated with what He was going to do on the cross. JUST AS...the serpent was for everyone who had been bitten, by looking, SO ALSO Christ's death is for everyone with sin, through faith in Him.

The point that you have ignored is that the serpent was for everyone who had been bitten, not just a small portion of the bitten ones. Any of them could look and be healed. So it is with Christ's death. It is for everyone with sin, not just a portion of the human race with sin.

The point you have ignored is that there were already people who had died before the serpent. And you have, once again, ignored the fact of the connection between Leviticus 16 and the cross.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The point you have ignored is that there were already people who had died before the serpent.

No, I didn't ignore that. It's how you would say "irrelevant to the discussion". Why? Because before the serpent went up, all who were bitten died. They weren't part of what Jesus was equating. Jesus began WITH the serpent on the pole, not before that. So what occured before that is not relevant.

I believe you are ignoring that point.

And you have, once again, ignored the fact of the connection between Leviticus 16 and the cross.

When did that come up in discussion? There are lots of Christologies in the OT. And, yes, Lev 16 is one of them.

How have I ignored Lev 16?

 

[Hammster]

No, I didn't ignore that. It's how you would say "irrelevant to the discussion". Why? Because before the serpent went up, all who were bitten died. They weren't part of what Jesus was equating. Jesus began WITH the serpent on the pole, not before that. So what occured before that is not relevant.

I believe you are ignoring that point.


When did that come up in discussion? There are lots of Christologies in the OT. And, yes, Lev 16 is one of them.

How have I ignored Lev 16?

www.christianforums.com/t7780352-26/#post64328309

 

[OzSpen]

Are you finished?

Why did you even need to reply? This is another example of your resistance when shown that you are wrong.

 

[FreeGrace2]

www.christianforums.com/t7780352-26/#post64328309

My read of Lev 16 was about ALL the people of Israel, and I seriously doubt that all of them were believers in the Messiah. v.15 says "for the people", not "for the elect" or "for the saved", etc. I take that as everyone.
v.21 refers to "all the wickedness of the Israelites". Again, everyone.

v.29 includes the foreign born aliens (Gentiles) in the atonement.

v.33 says "all the people". Again, everyone.

v.34 says "for all the sins of the Israelites". Again, everyone.

I hope this satisfies your desire that I not ignore Lev 16. I'm still convinced that Christ's atonement is exactly what John said; for the sins of the whole world. Not just believers.

 

[OzSpen]

Now, I know you believe that there will be nobody in hell because of sin. But that's a notion that is unorthodox. But I doubt any non--Calvinists will challenge you on it.

That's because it is a false accusation, based on the information that FreeGrace2 has provided in this thread.

 

[OzSpen]

My read of Lev 16 was about ALL the people of Israel, and I seriously doubt that all of them were believers in the Messiah. v.15 says "for the people", not "for the elect" or "for the saved", etc. I take that as everyone.
v.21 refers to "all the wickedness of the Israelites". Again, everyone.

v.29 includes the foreign born aliens (Gentiles) in the atonement.

v.33 says "all the people". Again, everyone.

v.34 says "for all the sins of the Israelites". Again, everyone.

I hope this satisfies your desire that I not ignore Lev 16. I'm still convinced that Christ's atonement is exactly what John said; for the sins of the whole world. Not just believers.

I think that you have to be careful here with your use of v. 33 as the verse states, 'and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly' (ESV). It is limited to 'the people of the assembly' - all of them.

That does not negate the fact that 1 John 2:2 states that Jesus is 'the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (ESV).

This is clear that two groups of people are contrasted:
(1) 'Our sins' and thus referring to the Christians who is 2:1 are described as 'my little children' who when they sin 'have an advocate with the Father'. This is language that cannot apply to unbelievers 'an advocate'; and
(2) 'the sins of the whole world'.

If John meant this to be limited atonement to the elect only, point #2 would not be necessary as 'our sins' (of believers) would be totally adequate to confirm this.

However, the addition of 'the sins of the whole world' is clear indication that John did not want to teach limited atonement for the elect only. He went out of his way to refute such a view by his inclusion of two groups of people 'our sins' (the elect) and 'the sins of the whole world' (Jews and Gentiles of the non-elect - the rest of the world).

For these latter people, propitiation was only potential as their response was needed for actualising of their salvation through Christ's propitiation (appeasing the wrath of God).

Unlimited atonement is also taught in Hebrews 2:9, '.... so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone' (ESV). It does not state, 'everyone of the elect'.

Oz