God's Desire to Save Everyone and Predestination

[RBerman]

John never makes the statement that they were never of us.

So you think he's saying, "They used to be with us, because they used to be of us. But when they stopped being of us, they left us." Is that right?

The basis of his statement is that they taught false doctrine. They departed from what the apostles originally taught.

They did teach false doctrine, but he doesn't say, "They were not of us because they taught false doctrine." It would be just as easy (really, easier) to invert the causation: "They taught false doctrine because they were not of us." Or make it evidentiary: "We know they were not of us, because they taught false doctrine." That last statement would be very much in keeping with the sorts of "proof of salvation" offered throughout the rest of 1 John, e.g. "by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3). Keeping the commandments isn't what causes us to belong to God; that would be Pelagianism. But it does provide evidence, to ourselves and others, that we belong to God.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

So you think he's saying, "They used to be with us, because they used to be of us. But when they stopped being of us, they left us." Is that right?


They did teach false doctrine, but he doesn't say, "They were not of us because they taught false doctrine." It would be just as easy (really, easier) to invert the causation: "They taught false doctrine because they were not of us." Or make it evidentiary: "We know they were not of us, because they taught false doctrine." That last statement would be very much in keeping with the sorts of "proof of salvation" offered throughout the rest of 1 John, e.g. "by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3). Keeping the commandments isn't what causes us to belong to God; that would be Pelagianism. But it does provide evidence, to ourselves and others, that we belong to God.

Welcome to the antinomial thinking I have been telling you about in the Fathers, of whom John is one...

ex hmwn exhlyon all ouk hsan ex hmwn

Notice how the sentence begins and ends with "ex hmwn"

Now watch it transliterate from the Greek:

FROM US
they came
BUT
NOT were THEY
FROM US

And it goes on to explain in terms of FROM and WITH:

ei gar hsan EX hmwn memenhkeisan an MEQ hmwn

For IF they were FROM us
They would have remained WITH us

[Which, of course, they did not do]

all ina fanerwywsin

But in order that they should be made very apparent

oti ouk eisin pantev ex hmwn

BECAUSE

NOT ARE ALL FROM US

So let me give you a little exegetical, rather than hyper-literal, translation:

"Even though they came forth out of us, they were not out of us, because not all in us are from us.
For if they were in truth out of us, they would have remained with us,
But they came forth from us in order that they should be plainly manifested as not being with us."

Film at 11... :-)

So that their going out from them in dis-communion with them is to plainly show to all that they were not OF them [the Communion of the Apostles]... One does not depart, unless sent forth from, and they departed on their own, and separated themselves from the Church by going out on their own, and by not remaining with Her... You see, even in separation one is WITH, and on the contrary, even when WITH, one can be in separation from, the Church [eg with US, the Communion that IS the Church, the Body of Christ]...

Arsenios

[siliconwafer]

I think you are missing my point. My point is that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that God chooses men to believe. The scripture you gave does not say what you claim it says.

In context, we also see people judging themselves unworthy. If God chooses who will believe, then if follows that it is God who unconditionally chooses who will be worthy, and who will not; man has not part in that decision.

When the Jews rejected Jesus, they were pronouncing their own sentence. The fact that God passes by some people does not mean that people do not make any kind of decision. God's choosing of some people and the passing by of some people does not negate man's responsibility or the fact that man makes certain decisions. If God passes someone by, that person will reject God. He isn't forced to reject God; he rejects God because he acts according to his desire.

The Gentiles believed in Jesus because God chose them to believe in Jesus. Just because God chose them to believe in Christ does not mean that they did not make any kind of decision. The Gentiles decided to believe in Jesus because God chose them to believe in Jesus. God caused them to make a certain decision.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The Gentiles believed in Jesus because God chose them to believe in Jesus.
The Gentiles decided to believe in Jesus because God chose them to believe in Jesus.
God caused them to make a certain decision.

God gives ALL of us
MORE THAN enough reason
to make your "Certain Decision"...

God gives us reason for good...
Satan the reverse...

Man chooses...
Throughout the day...
Every day of his life...
What he will do...

AND...

We are judged by our DEEDS...

I expect to be very surprised after death,
by who it is that I will see,
not in torments like me,
but across the great chasm,
and living in Paradise...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

So you think he's saying, "They used to be with us, because they used to be of us. But when they stopped being of us, they left us." Is that right?

No. I am saying that the text does not say either way. It merely shows us their status at the time they left. It doesn't support either theology...and that shouldn't be shocking, because its not the author's intent to give a treatise on assurance. The intent is to show that the false teachers are not adhering to the original teachings of the gospel.

They did teach false doctrine, but he doesn't say, "They were not of us because they taught false doctrine." It would be just as easy (really, easier) to invert the causation: "They taught false doctrine because they were not of us." Or make it evidentiary: "We know they were not of us, because they taught false doctrine."

John doesn't say a bunch of things. But, again, I think we should be careful not to base doctrine based on what John didn't say. We could do that all day long...but it could..and most likely would get us into a bunch of trouble. The lack of evidence for one doctrine in a passage does not prove that another doctrine is taught. Rather we must deal with what the passage actually does say.

In this case, the passage says nothing about their former status of true belief or not. Rather we know that they aren't true teachers...if they were they would have continued with the apostles....but since they didn't it is evident that they do not have apostolic authority....they are not true teachers of the faith...rather they are false teachers. This is why Paul tell's the reader:

20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.[d] 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us[e]— eternal life.

He is telling his readers to beware of these teachers...they are not true teachers...and this is evident because they have departed from the apostles....the readers are in no need of "new knowledge" from these false teachers....rather they have the Holy Spirit...so they need to continue to abide in the truth that they have heard from the beginning...

[Phat8594]

When the Jews rejected Jesus, they were pronouncing their own sentence. The fact that God passes by some people does not mean that people do not make any kind of decision

So man's choice does play a determining sort of role in his salvation?

[Phat8594]

The Gentiles believed in Jesus because God chose them to believe in Jesus.

I know your theology says this....but where does the Bible say this???

[RBerman]

No. I am saying that the text does not say either way. It merely shows us their status at the time they left. It doesn't support either theology...and that shouldn't be shocking, because its not the author's intent to give a treatise on assurance. The intent is to show that the false teachers are not adhering to the original teachings of the gospel.

Well, you seem to be affirming what I was asking whether you affirmed: that in your view, "They were not of us" is something which only necessarily applies to the way they were at the instant they left. That seems weak and even tautological to me.

John doesn't say a bunch of things. But, again, I think we should be careful not to base doctrine based on what John didn't say. We could do that all day long...but it could..and most likely would get us into a bunch of trouble. The lack of evidence for one doctrine in a passage does not prove that another doctrine is taught. Rather we must deal with what the passage actually does say. In this case, the passage says nothing about their former status of true belief or not. Rather we know that they aren't true teachers...if they were they would have continued with the apostles....but since they didn't it is evident that they do not have apostolic authority....they are not true teachers of the faith...rather they are false teachers. This is why Paul tells the reader:

1 John 2:20-25

But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us— eternal life.

He is telling his readers to beware of these teachers...they are not true teachers...and this is evident because they have departed from the apostles....the readers are in no need of "new knowledge" from these false teachers....rather they have the Holy Spirit...so they need to continue to abide in the truth that they have heard from the beginning...

Surely he discusses false teachers. But why the comment about "you have been anointed by the Holy One"? Is that anointing something that comes and goes as a function of whether one is believing and teaching properly at the moment?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

But why the comment about "you have been anointed by the Holy One"?
Is that anointing something that comes and goes as a function
of whether one is believing and teaching properly at the moment?

That question is answered by John just a little further on with a big ol' fat IF:

1Jn 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning.

IF

that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you,
ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

So that is is NOT a matter, as you suppose,
of being variable on the spur of the moment status
of one's current words and beliefs of half a second ago,
but of one's ABIDING in the teachings
one has received from the beginning...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

Well, you seem to be affirming what I was asking whether you affirmed: that in your view, "They were not of us" is something which only necessarily applies to the way they were at the instant they left

I am affirming that the text only speaks about their departure. He does not give insight to whether or not they ever had true faith, or if this is generic principle (unlikely).

That seems weak and even tautological to me.

As to why it should be seen as weak and tautological...I am a little lost.....it surely doesn't seem weak to me, and it definitely does not seem any more repititive than typical Hebrew writing.

John is making an important point: these teachers are not legitimate...despite the fact that they went out from the apostles....why? because if they were legitimate they would have continued to adhere to the apostles teaching (that which they had heard from the befinning). So although they may have gone out from the apostles...they were not actually of the apostles...

Surely he discusses false teachers. But why the comment about "you have been anointed by the Holy One"? Is that anointing something that comes and goes as a function of whether one is believing and teaching properly at the moment?

The comment is to show that they already have all that they need...they have the Holy Spirit (and therefore all knowledge)....they do not need any NEW knowledge from these gnostic teachers....

And George is right, the text speaks for itself:

20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.[d] 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us[e]— eternal life.

PS, another fun thing to do with 1 John is to look at how the word "abide" is used.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

So although they may have gone out from the apostles...they were not actually of the apostles...

I love how John says this:

From us they came
BUT
They were not from us

This is clearly, at least to me, a teaching on TARES among the WHEAT...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

I love how John says this:

From us they came
BUT
They were not from us

This is clearly, at least to me, a teaching on TARES among the WHEAT...

Well this is absolutely a sober warning about defending against false teachers...but its also interesting to note what John says:

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

One more reason I think it should be clear that this is not a generic principle is that there still exists false teachers in the church today! So unless you think that there are never false teachers who persist within the church...then how we can take the first part of the phrase as generic?

It seems to me that this it is clearly an inconsistent hermeneutic to apply only half of the phrase as a generic principle...and not the whole phrase (after all...the second half is integral to the meaning)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

[QUOTE=Phat8594;3397522]Well this is absolutely a sober warning about defending against false teachers...but its also interesting to note what John says:

2:19
From us they went out, but they were not from us;
for if they were from us, they would have abided with us:
but they went out,
that they should appear,
because [that] not all are from us.

This is a dance on error...
From us but not from us...

Their departure, you see, was to SHOW that not all who are with us are from us...

So you see, it is tares sown in with the wheat, and the Apostle showed them forth in their departure...
Because they came FROM the Faithful, but were NOT FROM the Faithful, even though they came FRIM the Faithful...
For not all are FROM the Faithful who are FROM the Faithful...

And these are ANTICHRISTS all, these tares...
For we remember the tares...
How they were sewn by the enemy among the Faithful...
And John writes:

1Jn 2:18
...Ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:19
They went out from us,
but they were not of us;

This is perhaps the strongest argument against a generic interpretation...
These whom he is describing are ALL ANTICHRISTS...

One more reason I think it should be clear that this is not a generic principle
is that there still exists false teachers in the church today!
So unless you think that there are never false teachers who persist within the church...
then how we can take the first part of the phrase as generic?

Yup...

It seems to me that this it is clearly an inconsistent hermeneutic
to apply only half of the phrase as a generic principle...
and not the whole phrase (after all...
the second half is integral to the meaning)

Calvinists are pretty famous for exculpting from context to support their doctrines...

All you need to do is take the Scripture as it reads...
These are PASTORAL Epistles...
They are NOT theological treatises...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

I am affirming that the text only speaks about their departure. He does not give insight to whether or not they ever had true faith, or if this is generic principle (unlikely).

I disagree, for the thematic reasons I pointed out throughout the rest of 1 John. But if you didn't agree when I laid them out, then we're unlikely to reach accord at this point. The rest of your comments flowed from this central issue.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I disagree, for the thematic reasons I pointed out throughout the rest of 1 John. But if you didn't agree when I laid them out, then we're unlikely to reach accord at this point. The rest of your comments flowed from this central issue.

Do you agree that it is only the ANTI-CHRISTS who departed?

Arsenios