If faith is a gift from God...

[OzSpen]

Hedrick,

I found your response to be an insightful and helpful one with your language of

At least conceptually, he has atoned for the whole world. That doesn't mean that every individual is saved. But it means that in principle he has reconciled the whole world. Of course the Kingdom is currently the seed growing secretly, so not everyone is actually participating in the restored Kingdom. But at least in principle, there's a complete, cosmic victory.

Thanks for the edification. I was blessed by your insightful teaching.

In Christ,
Oz

1 John isn't Romans. There's no sign of Jew vs Gentile in the context.

If you want to read limited atonement into this passage, it's better to use Calvin's interpretation. He see "you" as the church he was writing to, and the whole world as a global view of believers throughout the world.

However I find the summary in OzSpen's list, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-12/#post64319067, persuasive. The problem with these arguments on the extent of the atonement is that they take an individualistic view that is foreign to the NT. In the Gospels and Paul we have a cosmic view of Jesus' activity. He has defeated Satan, and begun the establishment of God's rule. At least conceptually, he has atoned for the whole world. That doesn't mean that every individual is saved. But it means that in principle he has reconciled the whole world. Of course the Kingdom is currently the seed growing secretly, so not everyone is actually participating in the restored Kingdom. But at least in principle, there's a complete, cosmic victory.

I would say that in the NT view, the extent of the atonement is cosmic, but with an understanding that individuals participate in it by faith. I think there's a difference between saying that the scope is cosmic and saying that it is universal. Objectively, the Kingdom of God is a cosmic reality. Christ has won the victory. Death is defeated. But at the moment not all individuals are part of the Kingdom. That's where election applies. God calls us. It may well be that he doesn't call us equally. Certainly not everyone hears it. But this call is a call to participate in a Kingdom founded on Christ. In the Synoptics, we "enter" the Kingdom. It's a thing that exists independent of us.

John 1 reminds us of Gen 1. God loves the world, and is restoring or recreating it as it was meant to be. 3:16-17 shows both sides of the picture. God loves the world. Jesus came not to condemn anyone, but to save the whole world. But he who believes in him is saved.

I should note that John is also one of the books that at times implies some kind of election, though I doubt it's double predestination. But for John a cosmic extent of the atonement coexists with election, and in places also with a view that "the world" is hostile territory.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Duplicated for Marlin:

Marlin,

Your accusation that Calvinists have revised John 3:16 is false. The word "kosmos" (world) NEVER means every human being. Paul said that the Gospel had borne fruit in the "whole world" (Colossians 1:6).

If Paul meant every human being, then the logical conclusion is that every human being had both heard AND accepted the gospel in Paul's time. It had borne fruit in the "whole world."

Calvinists have revised nothing. You anti-grace guys (FG2 included) just will not allow the bible to define its own terms. Your reasoning is circular. You start out with your preconceived definitions and then argue from those definitions.

 

[OzSpen]

Marlin,

Please stop posting replies in my public profile. Do it here openly on the board. And your accusation that Calvinists have revised John 3:16 is false. The word "kosmos" (world) NEVER means every human being. Paul said that the Gospel had borne fruit in the "whole world" (Colossians 1:6).

If Paul meant every human being, then the logical conclusion is that every human being had both heard AND accepted the gospel in Paul's time. It had borne fruit in the "whole world."

Calvinists have revised nothing. You anti-grace guys (FG2 included) just will not allow the bible to define its own terms. Your reasoning is circular. You start out with your preconceived definitions and then argue from those definitions.

Are you telling me that in Romans 3:19-20 that 'the whole world' does not refer to all of the people in the world? These verses read:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (ESV).

So for you, does that mean that every human being in the whole world will not 'be held accountable to God'?

One of the greatest Greek exegetes and grammarians of the 20th century, the Southern Baptist scholar, Dr A T Robertson disagrees with your understanding of 'world' in John 3:16. He wrote:

The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. The universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8 (Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol 7. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1932, p. 50).

The facts are that a careful study of 'kosmos' in the NT reveals that there are times when it does refer to every human being in the world. To say otherwise is to distort Scriptures such as Rom 3:19-20; John 3:16, etc.

Oz

 

[FreeGrace2]

Stop talking to me that way son. I am an educated man.

Let me be clear: you're not my father. Which makes me NOT your son.

Stop talking to me that way.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Are you telling me that in Romans 3:19-20 that 'the whole world' does not refer to all of the people in the world? These verses read:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (ESV).

There you go again ignoring the "line upon line" principle. The "whole world" was the Jews. Paul had just said that the Gentiles did not have the law (2:14). He said that their guilt was shown by by the revelation of God in nature and by conscience. But the written law spoke to the "whole world" (the Jews).

Your misapplication of the text shows that you have been conditioned to read into the scriptures without any thought about it.

One of the greatest Greek exegetes and grammarians of the 20th century, the Southern Baptist scholar, Dr A T Robertson disagrees with your understanding of 'world' in John 3:16. He wrote:

The facts are that a careful study of 'kosmos' in the NT reveals that there are times when it does refer to every human being in the world. To say otherwise is to distort Scriptures such as Rom 3:19-20; John 3:16, etc.

Robertson is not a friend of Calvinism. Reformed apologist and author Gordon H. Clark tears Robertson's Arminian grammar apart.

I can easily show from every context that when "kosmos" is used it NEVER means every human being. When observing the "line upon line" principle it ALWAYS refers to a specific GROUP OR CLASS of men according to the context.

Did you see post #155?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Let me be clear: you're not my father. Which makes me NOT your son.

Stop talking to me that way.

Don't like it huh? I have been studying the bible a very loooong time sir. I have degrees in your school of thought and in mine.

 

[OzSpen]

Boxer,

I did expect that kind of response from you. You didn't disappoint.

However, Romans 3:18 states, 'the whole world may be held accountable to God'. This means that it does not just refer to the Jews, but Jews and Gentiles - that's Jews and non-Jews, everyone in the world.

A T Robertson's response was that of a Greek exegete. He does not present Arminian or Calvinistic grammar. He presents Greek grammar and do you know what? Sometimes that refutes your view of 'the world' as it did this time. God so loved every last person in the world - everybody.

It's your Calvinism that has a hick-up here. It is not A T Robertson's Greek grammar.

Romans 3:19 assures us that every human being int he world, 'the whole world may be held accountable to God'. Everyone from Ishmael to Nero to Hitler to Osama bin Laden and the Sept 11 bombers and the Muslims who are raping Christian women trying to flee Syria (Barnabas Fund reports) are loved by God. He loves them so much that he has provided salvation through Christ that is offered to them.

I know that that kind of lingo does not line up with your Calvinistic thinking, but I have to be honest with Scripture.

Oz

There you go again ignoring the "line upon line" principle. The "whole world" was the Jews. Paul had just said that the Gentiles did not have the law (2:14). He said that their guilt was shown by by the revelation of God in nature and by conscience. But the written law spoke to the "whole world" (the Jews).

Your misapplication of the text shows that you have been conditioned to read into the scriptures without any thought about it.

Robertson is not a friend of Calvinism. Reformed apologist and author Gordon H. Clark tears Robertson's Arminian grammar apart.

I can easily show from every context that "kosmos" is used that it NEVER means every human being. When observing the "line upon line" principle it ALWAYS refers to a specific GROUP OR CLASS of men according to the context.

Did you see post #155?

 

[OzSpen]

Boxer,

Hedrick has refuted your view at #136 at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-14/

Oz

First, John said that he writes a NEW commandment to them. This excludes the Gentiles for they were not under a "new" commandment. One cannot be under a "new" commandment if he was not first under a commandment which became old. The old commandment would have been Moses. The Gentiles had nothing to do with Moses.

Jesus told His disciples that He had given them a "new" commandment. This implies that they were under a commandment which became old. This was NOT true of Gentiles then, nor is it true now.

Second, John said that the world "is passing away." The "world" here is NOT a reference to the created order. The created order was not about to pass away. It refers to the Jewish polity which was about to pass away. The Gentiles would have had no idea of what John was speaking about. Only Jewish Christians would have understood that the "world" (the Jewish polity) was passing away.

Third, and this one is compelling. John told them to let that abide in them which they heard from the beginning (2:24). Again, this totally excludes the Gentiles for they were not given the gospel in the beginning. But the Jewish Christians had heard it from the very beginning of Christ's earthly ministry.

Fourth, John told them to be not like Cain who was wicked (3:12). The Gentiles would not have been able to make the application because they would have had no idea who Cain was. But Jewish Christians would have known what John meant.

John assumes that his audience is familiar with the things he is speaking about. Therefore, John's epistles were written to Jewish Christians. Now take a careful look at 2:2 in this light:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins (Jews), and not for ours only but also for the whole world (Gentiles).

You're not paying attention. I said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jews and also for the whole world (Gentiles). So there are gems in the book for you too. But you cannot truthfully say that you are under a "new" commandment. You cannot truthfully say this because you were never under the old commandment (Moses).

Jesus is NOT the propitiation for every individual. The Gospel is universal in the sense that it is for all nations of men. It is NOT for every man alive.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins (Jews), and not for ours only but also for the whole world (Gentiles).

My hermeneutics are solid sir. I employ the Historical-Grammatical method. You should do the same. Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jack Terrence]

Boxer,

I did expect that kind of response from you. You didn't disappoint.

However, Romans 3:18 states, 'the whole world may be held accountable to God'. This means that it does not just refer to the Jews, but Jews and Gentiles - that's Jews and non-Jews, everyone in the world.

Read it again! Paul said that whatever the law says it speaks to those "UNDER THE LAW." That was the Jews my firend." I can't believe that you are denying this.

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are UNDER THE LAW, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no man [Jew] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (ESV). Brackets mine

Were Gentiles "under the law"? Answer: No! Therefore, the "whole world" in this context was the Jews. The Gentiles were under a different standard. Come on!

Give it up! You have been conditioned to read the bible in a certain way.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Boxer,

Hedrick has refuted your view at #136 at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-14/

Oz

No sir! Hedrick answered only my bare assertion that 1 John was written to Jewish Christians. Today is the very first time I have listed the specific arguments based on the internal evidence.

It has been noted that you refused to address the list specifically.

Let's start with #3,

John told them to let that abide in them which they heard from the beginning (2:24). Again, this totally excludes the Gentiles for they were not given the gospel in the beginning. But the Jewish Christians had heard it from the very beginning of Christ's earthly ministry.

Gentile believers did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." This is the historical fact. Please don't sweep this under the rug. If you do you will leave me with no choice but to think that you are dishonest, and that you do not want to learn, and that you want to protect your precious doctrines no matter what.

 

[TannarDarr]

Man, I'm being SOOOOooo good. I don't agree with either of you. But I figure I shouldn't enter and compound the issue. BUt carry on, I'm enjoying the chat.

 

[Jack Terrence]

1 John isn't Romans. There's no sign of Jew vs Gentile in the context.

If you want to read limited atonement into this passage, it's better to use Calvin's interpretation. He see "you" as the church he was writing to, and the whole world as a global view of believers throughout the world.

However I find the summary in OzSpen's list, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-12/#post64319067, persuasive. The problem with these arguments on the extent of the atonement is that they take an individualistic view that is foreign to the NT. In the Gospels and Paul we have a cosmic view of Jesus' activity. He has defeated Satan, and begun the establishment of God's rule. At least conceptually, he has atoned for the whole world. That doesn't mean that every individual is saved. But it means that in principle he has reconciled the whole world. Of course the Kingdom is currently the seed growing secretly, so not everyone is actually participating in the restored Kingdom. But at least in principle, there's a complete, cosmic victory.

I would say that in the NT view, the extent of the atonement is cosmic, but with an understanding that individuals participate in it by faith. I think there's a difference between saying that the scope is cosmic and saying that it is universal. Objectively, the Kingdom of God is a cosmic reality. Christ has won the victory. Death is defeated. But at the moment not all individuals are part of the Kingdom. That's where election applies. God calls us. It may well be that he doesn't call us equally. Certainly not everyone hears it. But this call is a call to participate in a Kingdom founded on Christ. In the Synoptics, we "enter" the Kingdom. It's a thing that exists independent of us.

John 1 reminds us of Gen 1. God loves the world, and is restoring or recreating it as it was meant to be. 3:16-17 shows both sides of the picture. God loves the world. Jesus came not to condemn anyone, but to save the whole world. But he who believes in him is saved.

I should note that John is also one of the books that at times implies some kind of election, though I doubt it's double predestination. But for John a cosmic extent of the atonement coexists with election, and in places also with a view that "the world" is hostile territory.

Hedrick,

See post #155.

First, John said that he writes a NEW commandment to them. This excludes the Gentiles for they were not under a "new" commandment. One cannot be under a "new" commandment if he was not first under a commandment which became old. The old commandment would have been Moses. The Gentiles had nothing to do with Moses.

Jesus told His disciples that He had given them a "new" commandment. This implies that they were under a commandment which became old. This was NOT true of Gentiles then, nor is it true now.

Second, John said that the world "is passing away." The "world" here is NOT a reference to the created order. The created order was not about to pass away. It refers to the Jewish polity which was about to pass away. The Gentiles would have had no idea of what John was speaking about. Only Jewish Christians would have understood that the "world" (the Jewish polity) was passing away.

Third, and this one is compelling. John told them to let that abide in them which they heard from the beginning (2:24). Again, this totally excludes the Gentiles for they were not given the gospel in the beginning. But the Jewish Christians had heard it from the very beginning of Christ's earthly ministry.

Fourth, John told them to be not like Cain who was wicked (3:12). The Gentiles would not have been able to make the application because they would have had no idea who Cain was. But Jewish Christians would have known what John meant.

John assumes that his audience is familiar with the things he is speaking about. Therefore, John's epistles were written to Jewish Christians. Now take a careful look at 2:2 in this light:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins (Jews), and not for ours only but also for the whole world (Gentiles).

You're not paying attention. I said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jews and also for the whole world (Gentiles). So there are gems in the book for you too. But you cannot truthfully say that you are under a "new" commandment. You cannot truthfully say this because you were never under the old commandment (Moses).

Jesus is NOT the propitiation for every individual. The Gospel is universal in the sense that it is for all nations of men. It is NOT for every man alive.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins (Jews), and not for ours only but also for the whole world (Gentiles).

My hermeneutics are solid sir. I employ the Historical-Grammatical method. You should do the same. Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FreeGrace2]

Don't like it huh? I have been studying the bible a very loooong time sir. I have degrees in your school of thought and in mine.

As I said, you're not my father, so I'm NOT your son. So stop talking to me that way. Even if you don't like it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No sir! Hedrick answered only my bare assertion that 1 John was written to Jewish Christians.

Not! According to my study Bible, the epistles and Revelation were among the last books written, and by then the church was well established.

Further, my study Bible notes that John's first epistle was written to "all Christians".

If you want to know what epistle was written to Jews, you could look at Hebrews or James, for example.

Do you have data that refutes what my study Bible says?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your statement contradicts Scripture:

• 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2 ESV). It does not say t hat Jesus is a propitiation for the sins of some of the world, but for 'the whole world'. To make 'the whole world' equal only for the elect, makes language meaningless.

• 'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time' (1 Tim 2:5-6)

• 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:16-18). This is crystal clear: God loved the whole world; those who believe are saved and those who do not believe are condemned. 'Whoever believes' is God's invitation. It is not, 'Whoever who believes and is in God's unconditional elect'.

• 'But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Heb 2:9).

Dr. Paul Reiter has summarised the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED...

1. For all (1st Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).

Oz

Great list, Oz. Here's some more categories that Christ came to save:
For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

 

[OzSpen]

Your reasoning is circular. Paul said that the gospel had borne fruit in the WHOLE WORLD (Colossians 1:6). Using your logic we must conclude that the whole world had both heard AND accepted the gospel in Paul's time.

Be consistent! Be logical!

I'm being 100% consistent. It is you who is not being logical when you give me this red herring logical fallacy. I was writing about 1 John 2:2, so what did you do? You went to Col 1:6. Please stick with the verse I gave and what it affirms about Christ's propitiation being for the whole world.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Great list, Oz. Here's some more categories that Christ came to save:
For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Not! According to my study Bible, the epistles and Revelation were among the last books written, and by then the church was well established.

Further, my study Bible notes that John's first epistle was written to "all Christians".

If you want to know what epistle was written to Jews, you could look at Hebrews or James, for example.

Do you have data that refutes what my study Bible says?

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.

John's audience had heard the word "from the beginning" (2:24). The Gentiles clearly did not hear the word "from the beginning."

So I don't care what your study "bible" says. I have told you that I have earned degrees from your school of thought and of mine. I totally reject your school of thought.

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

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.

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

I rest my case!!

 

[hedrick]

No sir! Hedrick answered only my bare assertion that 1 John was written to Jewish Christians. Today is the very first time I have listed the specific arguments based on the internal evidence.

It has been noted that you refused to address the list specifically.

Let's start with #3,

John told them to let that abide in them which they heard from the beginning (2:24). Again, this totally excludes the Gentiles for they were not given the gospel in the beginning. But the Jewish Christians had heard it from the very beginning of Christ's earthly ministry.

Gentile believers did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." This is the historical fact. Please don't sweep this under the rug. If you do you will leave me with no choice but to think that you are dishonest, and that you do not want to learn, and that you want to protect your precious doctrines no matter what.

There's no suggestion in the letter of a contrast of that kind. He's speaking to people who are already Christian, so they have already heard Jesus' commandment to love one another, from the beginning of their lives as Christians. Both the Gospel and the letters emphasize that. John 2:7 calls it an "old commandment that you have had from the beginning," the "word that you have heard." That is, it's old in the sense that the people he is writing to already had heard it. According to 2:8 that commandment is becoming new, not because there's any change but because the true light is now coming and is already shining.

I have no idea what doctrines I'm supposed to be preserving. I suspect you're confusing me with someone else. But I will point out that ad hominem is generally considered inadmissible, and is often regarded as a sign that you have lost the argument on its merits.

 

[OzSpen]

The Boxer,

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

C. Addressees/Place of Writing

The issue of audience, place of writing, and form of the epistle are bound up together. Since this letter sounds very much like a homily, lacking the typical features of a letter, there is the distinct possibility that it was intended to function in this manner to some degree. It may well have been a circular letter to a fairly restricted circle. Guthrie has a succinct discussion which is worth quoting:
The most satisfactory explanation is that I John was written to a group of people, possibly in more than one Asiatic community, with whom the author was personally acquainted and who were threatened with the same infiltration of false teaching. The following reasons have led to the widely-held view that Asia was the destination of this epistle and of 2 and 3 John: the external tradition associates the Gospel with John at Ephesus; the association of the Johannine literature with the Apocalypse would also suggest Asia Minor; the gnosticizing teaching reflected in these epistles is strongly connected with this area. Moreover, the earlier known use of I John comes from the same area (i.e., in Polycarp’s epistle).43
Two points need to be added to this summary: (1) If John was in Ephesus at the time of composition, it is probable that Ephesus was not the destination of this letter. Rather, it was sent to several of the churches in the surrounding areas.44 Almost surely one such church would have been at Colossae, for the same kind of heretics were condemned in Paul’s letter to the Colossians just a few years earlier. (2) The audience was almost certainly made up mainly of Gentiles. Not only is this seen in the kind of heresy which is fought (antinomian, docetic—neither of which was found among Jewish Christian sects), but the epistle ends with the warning, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (5.21), an admonition which has great relevance for Gentile Christians, almost none for Jewish Christians.45
​

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

Oz

No sir! Hedrick answered only my bare assertion that 1 John was written to Jewish Christians. Today is the very first time I have listed the specific arguments based on the internal evidence.

It has been noted that you refused to address the list specifically.

Let's start with #3,

John told them to let that abide in them which they heard from the beginning (2:24). Again, this totally excludes the Gentiles for they were not given the gospel in the beginning. But the Jewish Christians had heard it from the very beginning of Christ's earthly ministry.

Gentile believers did NOT hear the word "from the beginning." This is the historical fact. Please don't sweep this under the rug. If you do you will leave me with no choice but to think that you are dishonest, and that you do not want to learn, and that you want to protect your precious doctrines no matter what.