I've been Googling for hours now. It's the verse from 1 John 2:19. I've always thought that it was about those who fell away from the faith. But upon reading it again, it looks like it's about antichrists... isn't there a verse about general people?? I feel like I've got the wrong interpretation all this time!
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
"They were not of us" verse
Collapse
X
-
They're definitely antichrists who had been counted as among John's immediate group, and possibly the Jerusalem Church. Except for passages which refer to falling away as a possibility, I can't think of anything that refers to a specific person or group apostasising.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
-
The theology of 1 John seems to have a theme of "you're either in Christ or you're not", and polemically, those who are not are antichrists.
Arminians (of which I consider myself one) understandably find this to be an inconvenient verse as at face value, it seems to indicate that apostasy is inherently impossible, and the general Arminian explanation that this only refers to a specific group of defectors strikes me as special pleading. I think the tack of considering it polemically is more promising, but there is still exegetical work to do here, and I haven't made my mind up."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe theology of 1 John seems to have a theme of "you're either in Christ or you're not", and polemically, those who are not are antichrists.
Arminians (of which I consider myself one) understandably find this to be an inconvenient verse as at face value, it seems to indicate that apostasy is inherently impossible, and the general Arminian explanation that this only refers to a specific group of defectors strikes me as special pleading. I think the tack of considering it polemically is more promising, but there is still exegetical work to do here, and I haven't made my mind up.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
is fairly solidly contra the "you either are or are not" idea. The Koine Greek makes it clear that neither sinning nor not sinning is a foregone conclusion. To over translate a tad:
that ye sin not = to make it possible that you do not sin
if any man sin = in the event that any-one might sin1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Possibly connected with the Docetae, or groups which later became the agnostics, who believe, among other things, that the flesh is sinful, therefore Jesus could not have come in the flesh. This heresy tried to associate itself with the early church, as is seen in Paul's letter to Colossians. Even John's Gospel, chapter 1, stresses, "The Word was made flesh...."When I Survey....
Comment
-
I don’t think verse 19 is really dealing with the idea of preservation or predestination. It’s using a play on words to emphasize that false teachers and false doctrines may have originated from within the church and gone out from the church, but that does not make them any part of the church. It’s more about these false teachers as representative of their false doctrine, a doctrine which was never a part of the true church.
Antichrists (anti can mean “opposed to Christ,” but it more normally would have meant “in place of Christ,” those who substituted another gospel that was really no gospel at all and another Christ, by denying that he was the Son, so that they ended up not only with a substitute Christ but a substitute Father) went out into the world, claiming to come from and represent the church.
The wordplay involves the “ex”. It can mean “from” or “out of,” but when no direction is implied it means “a part of.” They may have gone out from our churches as their origin, but that doesn’t imply that they or their teaching are or ever were a part of or representative of the true church.
To paraphrase: They went out from our midst, but even when they were in our midst they were not a part of us (not saying that they had never had faith in the first place, but saying that even while they were physically within the church, they were outside the church; by their teachings they had no real part there). If they had been truly part of the church, then no matter where they went when they left, they would have remained with us, both in spirit and in teaching; they could have remained a part of us anywhere they went, but they didn’t.
The key is the last, incomplete phrase: “But ... in order that they might be made manifest, that (or because) not all (who went out from us) are (present tense) a part of us.” John skips something, but what? It could be, “But it was God’s intention to bring to light the fact that these antichrists never had any part with us,” or it could be “But the reason I’m telling you this is to expose these antichrists.” I take it as the latter: My purpose here is to expose these false teachers and make clear the fact that not everyone (who goes out from us) is a part of us.
Verses 24-27 imply that a fall from faith is possible; it’s the reason he’s warning them about the antichrists. John is writing to believers. They have the truth. They have the anointing of the Spirit. But they could be led astray. “If (what you have heard from the beginning) remains in you, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.” Implies that if you do not remain, neither the Father nor the Son nor the eternal life he promised us will remain in you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View Post1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Possibly connected with the Docetae, or groups which later became the agnostics, who believe, among other things, that the flesh is sinful, therefore Jesus could not have come in the flesh. This heresy tried to associate itself with the early church, as is seen in Paul's letter to Colossians. Even John's Gospel, chapter 1, stresses, "The Word was made flesh...."
Last edited by Adrift; 06-22-2019, 01:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSmall typo there, but they would later go on to develop into Gnostics, not Agnostics .
Long time ago I was doing research on ionized meteor trails in the upper limits of the mesosphere. I wrote to some college professors, and they replied that they got a kick out of the way I misspelled mesopause.When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View Post1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. "
This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.Last edited by KingsGambit; 06-22-2019, 10:18 PM."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWouldn't this by definition include all non-Christians (other than members of certain cults considered so aberrant that they are grouped as such but who do nonetheless not deny the incarnation)? This seems like further evidence for my theory that all outside the faith are in mind.
This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostPerhaps ... I'm inclined to think, though, that the perimeter for "every" is established at "prophets."
I forgot that I have I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John on my bookshelf. I was curious how he would deal with 2:19, since although he wrote an influential book arguing for the possibility of apostasy (Kept by the Power of God), he was known for his dislike of systematic theology. It turns out he sees it as somewhat ambiguous:
John, however, believes that if they had truly been members of the church they would have remained within it. If they ever had made a confession of faith, it had been an empty one. But a person who makes a genuine confession can be expected to persevere in his faith, although elsewhere John warns his readers against the danger of failure to persevere. It is when a person departs from the church that the falsity of his faith becomes apparent. The last clause is ambiguous in expression, and it is not clear whether John is thinking of the antichrists in particular (NIV) or making the more general point that not all who appear to belong to the church truly belong to it; perhaps he is combining both thoughts."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWouldn't this by definition include all non-Christians (other than members of certain cults considered so aberrant that they are grouped as such but who do nonetheless not deny the incarnation)? This seems like further evidence for my theory that all outside the faith are in mind.
This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.
Blomberg, I think clarifies his view in his work, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation
Last edited by Adrift; 06-23-2019, 12:08 AM.
Comment
-
"Us" refers to the apostles, not Christians as a whole. (See 1 John 1:1-3). It isn't saying necessarily that these heretics never had faith. It is just saying that they hung out with the apostles, but they left in order to teach something different.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View Post"Us" refers to the apostles, not Christians as a whole. (See 1 John 1:1-3). ...Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
|
4 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 04:26 PM | ||
Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
|
10 responses
119 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by mikewhitney
03-13-2024, 06:38 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
|
14 responses
71 views
3 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 09:15 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
|
13 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 07:26 AM
|
Comment