1 John 2:19—Proof of Eternal Security?

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

They went out from the apostles with antichrist doctrine to the born-again readers, claiming to represent the apostles.

I might agree except for this, if you mean what it appears. You seem to be implying the "false apostles" aren't born again; they are deceiving those who are born again. Again, it can't be established from the text itself that these people aren't born again.

Well, they were antichrists. So, no, they weren't born again.

That's your conclusion. It's not in the text.

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

This verse would hardly be used to support the eternal security of the believer. It is a reference to false teachers, and by definition, false teachers ("antichrists") are not saved. John also notes that antichrists do not have "the doctrine of Christ" (which includes His deity as well as the Holy Trinity). So the cults would qualify for this description. NO ONE WHO DENIES THAT JESUS IS GOD WILL BE SAVED.

I'm sorry for your condition. You do have ADD, have you not? They're doing great things for that these days.

Respectfully, I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe. Only a few, in comparison, believed the hard, mysterious doctrine that Jesus taught in his days on earth, and that was "the remnant of the house of Israel". The rest of the house of Israel turned away from Christ's doctrine because of the lack of knowledge of his doctrine. and are known as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". not lost eternally, but lost to the knowledge. God's instructions to the remnant is to theah the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

All of God's elect are represented in the house of Israel/Jacob, and are from every kindred, and tongue, and person, and nation, as God changed Jacob's name to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel, which is not the whole nation of Israel.

I get the same, alarming remarks that Jesus did from a large portion of his elect in the days that he was preaching this doctrine.

This verse would hardly be used to support the eternal security of the believer. It is a reference to false teachers, and by definition, false teachers ("antichrists") are not saved. John also notes that antichrists do not have "the doctrine of Christ" (which includes His deity as well as the Holy Trinity). So the cults would qualify for this description. NO ONE WHO DENIES THAT JESUS IS GOD WILL BE SAVED.

Blah, blah, blah. When you feel like getting on topic let me know. Maybe you got your threads mixed up.

So why do you assume someone is trying to earn salvation by works simply because the don't subscribe to eternal security? It's quite illogical.

There's nothing at all in the text to suggest these people were never saved or born again. If there is, what is it? Not conclusions, but statements in the text itself.

All you had to do is read the preceding verse to see that John is talking about unsaved people:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even NOW are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

So how do we know what "antichrists" means in this passage? We go to verses 22 and 23:
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

People read too much into that passage. Details arent given so we dont really know what happened. All we see is John writing that some left and he gives reason not to distressed over it. Its possible that the statement was simple rhetoric. "They left because they really never were with us."
There just ismt enougn information there to form or support an eternal security doctrine. The only thing we can really take from that passage is that some folks left the church. We can learn from it that sometimes folks will leave the church and its not in our hands.

We use these same term when our children habe a falling out with their friends, we say they never were your friend to start with. Not because its a fact that they never were friends, but because this is where it ends and there is nothing that can be done about it.

John doesn't say, the left because they never were of us, but they are not of us. The context seems to suggest they left over disagreements about doctrine.

So why do you assume someone is trying to earn salvation by works simply because the don't subscribe to eternal security? It's quite illogical.

"They" are antichrists (vs 18).
Antichrists deny the Father and the Son (vs 22).

They went out from "us". "Us" could be the apostles (chapter 1:1-5), not the apostles plus the readers.

They went out from the apostles with antichrist doctrine to the born-again readers, claiming to represent the apostles. They were never of the apostles. If they had been, they would have continued with the apostles in their doctrine. They manifested to the readers that they were not of the apostles by denying the Father and the Son.