No I wasn't because John was addressing believers in 1 John 1:9, not unbelievers. New.modern.hyper grace teaches that he was addressing unbelievers.
The neo-Gnostic spirit of New.Modern.Hyper Grace
- Thread starter HeRoseFromTheDead
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No I wasn't because John was addressing believers in 1 John 1:9, not unbelievers. New.modern.hyper grace teaches that he was addressing unbelievers.
Really?
Here's one:
Recipients
1Jn 2:12–14,19; 3:1; 5:13 make it clear that this letter was addressed to believers. But the letter itself does not indicate who they were or where they lived. The fact that it mentions no one by name suggests it was a circular letter sent to Christians in a number of places. Evidence from early Christian writers places the apostle John in Ephesus during most of his later years (c. a.d. 70–100). The earliest confirmed use of 1 John was in the Roman province of Asia (in modern Turkey), where Ephesus was located. Clement of Alexandria indicates that John ministered in the various churches scattered throughout that province. It may be assumed, therefore, that 1 John was sent to the churches of the province of Asia (see map No. 13 at the end of this study Bible).
Gnosticism
One of the most dangerous heresies of the first two centuries of the church was Gnosticism. Its central teaching was that spirit is entirely good and matter is entirely evil. From this unbiblical dualism flowed five important errors:
- The human body, which is matter, is therefore evil. It is to be contrasted with God, who is wholly spirit and therefore good.
- Salvation is the escape from the body, achieved not by faith in Christ but by special knowledge (the Greek word for “knowledge” is gnosis, hence Gnosticism).
- Christ’s true humanity was denied in two ways: (1) Some said that Christ only seemed to have a body, a view called Docetism, from the Greek dokeo (“to seem”), and (2) others said that the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left him before he died, a view called Cerinthianism, after its most prominent spokesman, Cerinthus. This view is the background of much of 1 John (see 1:1; 2:22; 4:2–3 and notes).
- Since the body was considered evil, it was to be treated harshly. This ascetic form of Gnosticism is the background of part of the letter to the Colossians (see Col 2:21,23 and notes).
- Paradoxically, this dualism also led to licentiousness. The reasoning was that, since matter—and not the breaking of God’s law (1Jn 3:4)—was considered evil, breaking his law was of no moral consequence.
The Gnosticism addressed in the NT was an early form of the heresy, not the intricately developed system of the second and third centuries. In addition to that seen in Colossians and in John’s letters, acquaintance with early Gnosticism is reflected in 1,2 Timothy,Titus, and 2 Peter and perhaps 1 Corinthians.
Occasion and Purpose
John’s readers were confronted with an early form of Gnostic teaching of the Cerinthian variety (see Gnosticism above). This heresy was also libertine, throwing off all moral restraints.
Consequently, John wrote this letter with two basic purposes in mind: (1) to expose false teachers (see 2:26 and note) and (2) to give believers assurance of salvation (see 5:13 and note). In keeping with his intention to combat Gnostic teachers, John specifically struck at their total lack of morality (3:8–10); and by giving eyewitness testimony to the incarnation, he sought to confirm his readers’ belief in the incarnate Christ (1:3). Success in this would give the writer joy (1:4).
Here's another:
4. 1 John:
In the First Epistle of John there is a distinct polemical purpose. There is no book of the New Testament which is more purposeful in its attack of error. There is "the spirit of error" (1John 4:6), opposing the Spirit of truth. "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1John 4:1), and this from the church itself, "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1John 2:19); and these false prophets are distinctly named "the antichrist" (1John 2:22) and "the liar" (same place), and "the deceiver and the antichrist" (2John 1:7). This peril, against which the apostle writes, and from which he seeks to defend the church, was Gnosticism, as is proved by what is said again and again in the epistle of the characteristics of this insidious and deadly teaching.
And another:
There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted.
And another:
The purpose of the letter is to combat certain false ideas, especially about Jesus, and to deepen the spiritual and social awareness of the Christian community (1 Jn 3:17). Some former members (1 Jn 2:19) of the community refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) and denied that he was a true man (1 Jn 4:2). The specific heresy described in this letter cannot be identified exactly, but it is a form of docetism or gnosticism; the former doctrine denied the humanity of Christ to insure that his divinity was untainted, and the latter viewed the appearance of Christ as a mere stepping-stone to higher knowledge of God. These theological errors are rejected by an appeal to the reality and continuity of the apostolic witness to Jesus. The author affirms that authentic Christian love, ethics, and faith take place only within the historical revelation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The fullness of Christian life as fellowship with the Father must be based on true belief and result in charitable living; knowledge of God and love for one another are inseparable, and error in one area inevitably affects the other. Although the author recognizes that Christian doctrine presents intangible mysteries of faith about Christ, he insists that the concrete Christian life brings to light the deeper realities of the gospel.
And another:
Historical setting
EARLIEST GNOSTIC TENDENCIES.
Many writers have concluded that incipient Gnosticism (not identifiable historically until the 2nd cent. a.d.) was in the background of several NT books, such as Colossians, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, the Petrine epistles and Jude, but esp. 1 John. The most advanced stage of Gnosticism that appeared in the background of the NT was reflected in the writing of 1 John. Gnosticism, a popular form of Graeco-Roman philosophy, had no doubt pervaded the thought world of the Rom. empire by a.d. 150 and, confronting Christianity in the latter decades of the 1st cent., had produced serious conflict and confusion within the churches.
_______________________________________EARLIEST GNOSTIC TENDENCIES.
Many writers have concluded that incipient Gnosticism (not identifiable historically until the 2nd cent. a.d.) was in the background of several NT books, such as Colossians, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, the Petrine epistles and Jude, but esp. 1 John. The most advanced stage of Gnosticism that appeared in the background of the NT was reflected in the writing of 1 John. Gnosticism, a popular form of Graeco-Roman philosophy, had no doubt pervaded the thought world of the Rom. empire by a.d. 150 and, confronting Christianity in the latter decades of the 1st cent., had produced serious conflict and confusion within the churches.
I could go on, as the sources are plentiful from many different streams of faith.
Your assertion,
"There is absolutely no evidence that John addressed unbelieving gnostics in 1 John 1:5-10. Nothing grammatical, contextual, historical, scriptural, or otherwise. That is an idea invented by Joseph Prince."
. . . along with your OP, is completely false and not based in reality.
-JGIG
F
FreeNChrist
Guest
What "we" have been saying right along is that John was writing to believers, about the Gnostics and their teachings. Yes, “they" had gone out from among them, but they had, had influence on those that remained, and were continuing to try and influence them. Which is why John is writing what he was. To expose the false teachers (2:26) and to give the believers assurance of salvation (5:13).
*chuckling*
Read posts 1143-1143 and then click this search for tons of evidence.
Did you really not research this yourself before setting out to demonize those who preach the Gospel?
-JGIG
Big deal. We know that. John was warning believers against the teachings of 'gnostics' who had left the church.
There's no evidence for this. It's completely made up to undergird the falsehoods of new.modern.hyper grace.
John was teaching believers of spiritual truths they had learned from Jesus so that they wouldn't sin. That is the context of 1 John 1.
...that's all well and good about the teaching against gnostics in 1 John but do you have any real proof?...
..
Thank you so much for showing us all what is really going on here...bless you!
..Thank you so much for showing us all what is really going on here...bless you!
I gave up banging my head against the wall.
I came up with this BRILLIANT idea instead.
I asked the Lord Jesus Christ to help me.
I asked over and over and over. And He gave me rest. He showed me what my work accomplished. Then He showed me what His Work Accomplished.
That was when I started trusting Him in all things and stopped trusting in me. Well, mostly. I still fall into self-effort from time to time.
This is what its like. You are in a war. But you, alone, are against a whole kingdom of darkness. This kingdom is sneaky and powerful at the same time.
There is only One who can overcome this kingdom of darkness. And its not you. Its not legalists telling you to try harder. Its not Judaizers telling you how to be sinless.
You have to ask for the Help of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are saved by Grace through faith. Your whole walk is by Grace through faith. Whenever you depart from this simple formula you start to lose, again. Whenever you lose faith in the One who saved you and start to fight for yourself, you lose. Simple.
Hebrews 4:10-11
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Are you still trying so hard to perfect your own self?
Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
People read some other book about the bible and put way too much faith in what some other guy has said and believed.
People need to read the bible and put it into action. Then read all other books about the bible through the lens of the bible. They shouldn't read the bible through the lens of whatever book(s) they read about the bible.
This is the only explanation I can really see for someone reading the same bible as me and coming up with an idea that is 180 degrees opposed to Grace.
I don't know why the Holy Spirit would lead someone to read the Bible then not lead them to their Saviour, Jesus Christ. Makes no sense to me.
I don't call it hyper-grace.
I call it Grace.
I have yet to see the delineation between "hyper" grace and Grace. It just seems like a word to condemn Grace. Or parts of it.
That's exactly why people use it. It is just one more label they can try to demean people with. Otherwise..... they wouldn't do it.
Just wow.
I just presented 5 posts from outside theological sources - a MERE FRACTION of what's available out there that refutes you - and you say there is no evidence that anyone taught this before Joseph Prince did.
Well, I guess you think Joseph Prince has universal influence, and retroactive at that!
I trust that those observers reading here are comprehending what's going on here.
And that's a good thing
.-JGIG
Last edited:
Are you interested in studying the delineations? They are very distinct. I don't think that you would agree that twisting of scripture to define grace has anything to do with GOD's grace.
I find it interesting Joseph Prince WOF, prosperity and hyper grace preacher maybe like others suggesting 1 John was written about gnostics or a certain type of belief system. I am sure you will find others who have thought this, like hyper grace is another version of gnosticism is an arguable position.
The thing with theology is it does not care about what you believe it defines the basic structures of belief.
Ofcourse the believers think it is the only way to believe and will change all other belief systems so that theirs appears the ultimate solution. It does not change the basic tenants of faith of a position, no matter how much the believers want it otherwise.
Jesus was called a blasphemer, a sinner, someone who broke the law because he eat with sinners and tax collectors. Now from the pharisees point of view they were correct, except they claimed they spoke from Moses and the law.
Now I am happy if people want to argue their position, as long as they are open about what it actually is, and are prepared to answer the problems with it. It may sound picky, but ones whole salvation can depend upon the conclusions. It is why people have descended into war with each other in the past, which is definately not a good way to resolve differences.
The thing with theology is it does not care about what you believe it defines the basic structures of belief.
Ofcourse the believers think it is the only way to believe and will change all other belief systems so that theirs appears the ultimate solution. It does not change the basic tenants of faith of a position, no matter how much the believers want it otherwise.
Jesus was called a blasphemer, a sinner, someone who broke the law because he eat with sinners and tax collectors. Now from the pharisees point of view they were correct, except they claimed they spoke from Moses and the law.
Now I am happy if people want to argue their position, as long as they are open about what it actually is, and are prepared to answer the problems with it. It may sound picky, but ones whole salvation can depend upon the conclusions. It is why people have descended into war with each other in the past, which is definately not a good way to resolve differences.