Here's an example of the atrocious exegesis that new.modern.hyper grace teachers use to try to prove that 1 John 1:9 applies only to unbelievers. This is by Ryan Rufus, son of Bob Rufus. > 1 John 1:9 explained clearly.
[Christ's] sacrifice was superior to the Old Covenant sacrifice in that it doesn't need to keep being offered in order to keep covering sins. It was offered once to completely remove sins!
That is why 1 John 1:7 and 9 are clear references to someone who is not born again, that if they would acknowledge their sin and their need for a savior then God is faithful to forgiven them and cleanse them of, not just their past sins, but all of their past and future sins once and for all time!
That is why chapter 2:1 says that if you do sin you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
He says that since Christ's sacrifice was once-for-all, 1 John 1:9 only applies to those who are not born again. Essentially, a non-sequitur.
Then he refers to verse 2:1 to say that if a non-born-again person sins he has an advocate with the father. But who is John speaking to in that verse?
John's use of the term my little children can only mean that he was referring to believers, but Rufus inadvertently claims the verse refers to unbelievers.
He also contradicts himself by saying that an unbeliever can't become a Christian until he confesses his sin, but then uses verse 2:1 to say that if an unbeliever does sin, he has an advocate with the father for forgiveness. Unbelievers are already in sin, so his exegesis is contradictory and nonsensical.
[Christ's] sacrifice was superior to the Old Covenant sacrifice in that it doesn't need to keep being offered in order to keep covering sins. It was offered once to completely remove sins!
That is why 1 John 1:7 and 9 are clear references to someone who is not born again, that if they would acknowledge their sin and their need for a savior then God is faithful to forgiven them and cleanse them of, not just their past sins, but all of their past and future sins once and for all time!
That is why chapter 2:1 says that if you do sin you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
He says that since Christ's sacrifice was once-for-all, 1 John 1:9 only applies to those who are not born again. Essentially, a non-sequitur.
Then he refers to verse 2:1 to say that if a non-born-again person sins he has an advocate with the father. But who is John speaking to in that verse?
My little children, I am writing these [things] to you in order that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous [one], 1 John 2:1
John's use of the term my little children can only mean that he was referring to believers, but Rufus inadvertently claims the verse refers to unbelievers.
He also contradicts himself by saying that an unbeliever can't become a Christian until he confesses his sin, but then uses verse 2:1 to say that if an unbeliever does sin, he has an advocate with the father for forgiveness. Unbelievers are already in sin, so his exegesis is contradictory and nonsensical.