I John 2:2

[Wes Outwest]

Ray,
Good to see we have the same book.

 

[Southern]

Bob,

I showed a clear parralel between I John 2:2 and John 11:50-51. I also noted many similarities between these two documents as a whole(John and I John) and provided ample evidence to support my conclusion. E-mail's have let me know that these post's have helped some understand this passage, your objections not withstanding. So I think I have proved my point on this forum, although I have not persuaded you. I pray that you will give my posts a little more thought and that we will both pray for each other as we strive for a common understanding of what the scriptures teach.

May the Lord bless us both in our understanding.

In Christ

 

[BobRyan]

I have shown the clear teaching of 1John 2 and have shown conclusively that simply plugging in "elect Jews" into the book of 1John (as you seem to "need" to do in 1John 2:2) does not work.

You do not actually respond to the points raised - or solve the problems this has created for your view so I don't see how your position can progress in this dialoge.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by dattgog:
Thanks Bob ...

So 'Hilasmos' should be translated "atoning sacrifice."

One more. What is "atonement?"

Yes - as the NIV does.

As for Atonement - it is the entire process God outlines in Lev 16 - (His chapter on the subject).

It begins with the Atoning Sacrifice as Lev 16 points out - but it comes in the context of the entire year of sacrifices where individuals have confessed and repented of sin and have been forgiven.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[dattgog]

Thanks Bob ...

Now that leads to my question. Was the atoning sacrifice in the OT limited or unlimited? Was it for Israel AND the Philistines AND the Canaanites AND the Assyrians AND the Egyptians AND the Moabites, etc. Or was the atoning sacrifice for Israel? If I recall correctly, when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he wore an ephod. And on that ephod were 12 jewels, representing the tribes of ISRAEL. Noticeably missing from that ephod were jewels representing the rest of the nations.

Incidentally, I think you're incorrect when you say that hilasmos means "atoning sacrifice." It is clear both biblically and in secular Greek that the term meant "a price paid to mollify the wrath of another."

Now it took an atoning sacrifice to propitiate the Father. But to propitiate the Father is not the same thing as to atone for men.

One more thing. 1 John 2:2 says nothing about Jesus being a potential propitiation. It doesn't say that He is the potential propitiation for the sins of the world. It says He has propitiated the Father for the sins of the world. Now according to your understanding of the word "world," that would have to mean that the wrath of the Father upon every single individual who ever has lived or will live has already been poured out in its entirity in Jesus Christ.

Now here is the problem. You have God pouring out wrath that He does not have. You claim that His infinite wrath against all sin was poured out in Jesus Christ in the cross. Then you turn around and affirm that even though the fullness of His wrath was poured out in Christ, He then turns around and finds some more wrath somewhere in reserve to pour out again in the reprobate. So you have added an idea in the text that is not there. You've added the idea of a potential propitiation. That is not what this text says. It says the Father has been propitiated.

That leaves 3 options ...

1) We can't believe what John wrote ... He might be wrong ... I reject that view.

2) Jesus has propitiated the Father for every single human, and therefore, every single human will be exempt from wrath in hell, and brought safely into the presence of the Father in heaven ... I reject that view.

3) You've misunderstood John's use of the word "world."

There are no other options ... if you'll be honest with the text.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Southern:
Bob,

I showed a clear parralel between I John 2:2 and John 11:50-51. I also noted many similarities between these two documents as a whole(John and I John) and provided ample evidence to support my conclusion. E-mail's have let me know that these post's have helped some understand this passage, your objections not withstanding. So I think I have proved my point on this forum, although I have not persuaded you. I pray that you will give my posts a little more thought and that we will both pray for each other as we strive for a common understanding of what the scriptures teach.

May the Lord bless us both in our understanding.

In Christ

NO my friend, there is no PARALLEL between the two scriptures.

First condition to living the Christian life is to break with sin
1 John 1:8 through 1 John 2:2. If we say, "We have no sin," we are deceiving ourselves, and truth has no place in us;
9. if we acknowledge our sins, he is trustworthy and upright, so that he will forgive our sins and will cleanse us from all evil. 10. If we say, "We have never sinned," we make him a liar, and his word has no place in us. My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright.2. He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world.

This is John teaching Christians who have been threatened by "FALSE TEACHING", How to live the Christian life, and what to hold fast to. It is in a section of his teachings that I would label "walk in the light"

John 11:45-54. Many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46. but some of them went to the Pharisees to tell them what Jesus had done. 47. Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting. "Here is this man working all these signs," they said, "and what action are we taking? 48. If we let him go on in this way everybody will believe in him, and the Romans will come and suppress the Holy Place and our nation." 49. One of them, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said, "You do not seem to have grasped the situation at all; 50. you fail to see that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish." 51. He did not speak in his own person, but as high priest of that year he was prophesying that Jesus was to die for the nation, 52. [/b]and not for the nation only, but also to gather together into one the scattered children of God.[/b] 53. From that day onwards they were determined to kill him. 54. So Jesus no longer went about openly among the Jews, but left the district for a town called Ephraim, in the country bordering on the desert, and stayed there with his disciples.

The first John example is a Friend of God speaking from God's Perspective while the John 11 example is the "enemies" of God speaking from their limited perspective. The word "World" used in both examples is the same word. but the speakers of the word a universe apart in perspective. "John, God's friend, vs those enemies of God the Son, the Pharisees". So my friend, you have not drawn an accurate parallel between the two passages as you claim. Context is everything!

 

[Southern]

Bob,
If that is the only point that you have left then I will gladly address it. I understand you to be saying the following:

When you understand the "us only" to mean Jew's (John 11:50; Rom. 9:24) and the generic term "whole world" to mean either Jew/Gentile or Gentile as opposed to Jews (an extension outside of Israel (Rom. 11:12). I would then have to say that all the "us/we/ye, etc." are the same group.

I have no problem with this, as long as you keep in mind that John was an apostle to the Jews. John is addressing Jewish "Christian's". The problem between us comes in your examples where you inserted the phrase "Jewish Christians 'Only'", this I do not agree with. All the examples you listed are true of Jewish Christians, but not Jewish Christians "only" (the word you used). Let me point out that it is applicable by extension to all Christians as I have already stated.

The Bible tells us in Galatians 2:9 that "John" along with James and Cephas were apostles "unto the circumcision" (Israel) and as A.W. Pink points out:

"In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1). So, the epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet. 1:1). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles." - Quote

So when John writes to a Jewish audience that John is the propitiation for their sins, but not their (Jews) sins "only" (I John 2:2; John 10:50ff; Rom. 9:24) but also the sins of the whole world (Gentiles as opposed to the Jews-Rom. 11:12;John 10:16). All the other items that you listed are true of "Jewish Christians". I have shown in a previous post and have reposted again below the similiarities between the gospel of John and the book of I John. The following is from a website to sum up what I am saying:

1 JOHN JOHN
1:1 1:1
1:2 1: 14
1:6 3:19-21
2:7, 8 13:33, 34
2:9 3:19-21
15:16-27
2:11 12:35,
36, 46
3:13 15:18-25
ETC.


Thus it seems obvious that John 11:51, 52 is parallel to 1 John 2:2, as the wording and content are the same. Note these parallels: 1 John, "He is the propitiation for our (Jewish) sins"; John, that Jesus "should die for the nation" (Jews). First John, "and not for ours only"; John, "and not for the nation only." First John, "but also for the whole world" (Gentiles); John, "but that He might gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Gentiles). "Those who are scattered abroad" would seem to be the "other sheep" of John 10:16, who are Gentiles! Thus the "our" is Jewish Christians by all that lends evidence. - From website

Conclusion: Your argument about the insertion of "Jews Only" holds no water as shown above. You have to dismiss the Historical and Grammatical interpretation of the scripture in order to come up with any other interpretation that does not do justice to the language nor intended audience of the text. This verse does not teach Arminianism.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by dattgog:
Thanks Bob ...

Now that leads to my question. Was the atoning sacrifice in the OT limited or unlimited? Was it for Israel AND the Philistines AND the Canaanites AND the Assyrians AND the Egyptians AND the Moabites, etc. Or was the atoning sacrifice for Israel?

The Passover was for everyone and the atoning sacrifice is for everyone it is the day on which God "judges the world" according to Hebrew tradition.

However - I will grant you that the atonement PROCESS was completed only for the saints WITHIN. This means that not only the daily sacrifice - but the Passover as well - had been completed first AND THEN the Atonment is made at the end of the year.

But in Christ's case all of that happens in one sacrifice at the cross.

But then we see the Heb 8-10 work of Christ in heaven as High Priest happen AFTER the cross.

The PROCESS must be complete for atonement to be complete. But the atoning SACRIFICE is completed at the cross. That part is done.

In the OT - each person brought their lamb and then sacrificed it. "OBviously" Christ does not "wait to be sacrificed" as each persom comes to Him.

In the end we all agree that the saints go to heaven - and atonement is completed for them.

Where we differ is that you claim that the atoning SACRIFICE was ALSO only for the FEW and not for THE WORLD.

And in that - you are wrong.

If I recall correctly, when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he wore an ephod. And on that ephod were 12 jewels, representing the tribes of ISRAEL. Noticeably missing from that ephod were jewels representing the rest of the nations.

Incidentally, I think you're incorrect when you say that hilasmos means "atoning sacrifice." It is clear both biblically and in secular Greek that the term meant "a price paid to mollify the wrath of another."

It is not clear that "biblically" John would be using a pagan concept to explain atonement.

Rather - the CONTEXT would be that John would USE the scriptures of his readers as the basis for Gospel doctrine as we see in Eph 6:1-2 and in Heb 3 and 4.

So Atoning Sacrifice IS the right translation as the NIV has it.

Now it took an atoning sacrifice to propitiate the Father. But to propitiate the Father is not the same thing as to atone for men.

Wrong. JEsus said "The FAther HIMSELF loves you"

Never in all of scripture do we find the pagan concept of God who wished to kill you being "appeased" by Christ who loves you and wishes to save you.

That entire notion is pagan - not Biblical.

In the Bible GOD SO LOVED that HE GAVE...

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Those who argue that the Passover and the Atoning Sacrifice of Leviticus are not for the lost - miss the point that Israel included BOTH the saved AND the lost and that judgement upon the lost was part of the message of Lev 16.

One more thing. 1 John 2:2 says nothing about Jesus being a potential propitiation.

On this we agree.

It does not say "potential propitiation"

It says "HE IS The Atoning Sacrifice FOR OUR sins and NOT for our sins ONLY but for the SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD".

It is also "very clear" that finding this language in Leviticus about the Passover OR about the atoning sacrifice of Lev 11 would have prevented you from arguing in Lev that the Atonement did not include a sacrifice "For the WHOLE WOLRD".

The fact that you find a way to ignore this scope in 1John 2 - might mean you would be ignoring it in Lev 16 as well - but I think it would be "harder to do".

It says He has propitiated the Father for the sins of the world.

No John never says that. John is the one who STARTS the process by saying "The Father SO LOVED that HE GAVE" -- John 3:16.

This concept is totally opposed to the more pagan concept of "God wanted to kill BUT CHRIST Propitiated".

Howevr - this contrast will serve to point out the difference between Calvinism and the text.

Now according to your understanding of the word "world," that would have to mean that the wrath of the Father upon every single individual who ever has lived or will live has already been poured out in its entirity in Jesus Christ.

Wrath against SIN - not against people. The measure of the debt of ALL the sins of all the people who have ever lived - is the measure of the sacrifice given at Calvary!!

That is the meaning of "NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

Now here is the problem. You have God pouring out wrath that He does not have. You claim that His infinite wrath against all sin was poured out in Jesus Christ in the cross. Then you turn around and affirm that even though the fullness of His wrath was poured out in Christ, He then turns around and finds some more wrath somewhere in reserve to pour out again in the reprobate.

That is merely so much word-games for Calvinism. The point remains that God's Law demands a debt for EACH sin for EACH person in the "WHOLE WORLD".

That certificate of debt is paid having nailed it to the cross "paid in full". Each sinner may claim that full payment or may reject it. Those who reject the payment are subject to paying their OWN debt IN FULL. God having provided the full payment has the right to set the conditions upon which it is given "TO as MANY as RECEVIED Him to THEM He gave the right to be called the children of God". That "whosoever BELIEVES on HIM should not perish but have ever lasting life".

These are the conditions of RECEIVING that payment in full that John defined. So YES John argues the payment is for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (1John 2) and even claims that God sent His Son "To be the savior of the WORLD" 1John 4. and Christ said that the life He gives is "For the World" John 6.

So you have added an idea in the text that is not there.

No - you have subtracted from the term "WHOLE WORLD" the "Many" of Matt 7 that do not go to heaven and left in only the "FEW" of Matt 7.

The mistake is yours.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:
Bob,
If that is the only point that you have left then I will gladly address it. I understand you to be saying the following:

When you understand the "us only" to mean Jew's (John 11:50; Rom. 9:24) and the generic term "whole world" to mean either Jew/Gentile or Gentile as opposed to Jews (an extension outside of Israel (Rom. 11:12). I would then have to say that all the "us/we/ye, etc." are the same group.

True enough. I argue that going through 1John 1 and 2 and replacing "OUR" and "US" with "Saved Jews" or "elect Jews" (as Calvinism so desperately 'needs' to do in 1John 2:2) and then replacing "WORLD" with "Elect Jews and Elect Gentiles only" as Calvinism needs - shows just how "valid" that substitution really is IN CONTEXT of the chapter.

Southern said --

I have no problem with this, as long as you keep in mind that John was an apostle to the Jews. John is addressing Jewish "Christian's".

Do you have any evidence at all that in his latter days John only wrote to "elect Jews"???

I doubt it.

John is the one that records Christ as saying "OTHER sheep I have who are NOT of this fold".

The book of Hebrews is the only one in the entire NT where the case could "arguably" be made that the author specifically addressed the Jews WITHIN Christianity - and not the entire Christian church.

The problem between us comes in your examples where you inserted the phrase "Jewish Christians 'Only'", this I do not agree with.

Then we do agree - that is not workable.

See? We agree on something!!

All the examples you listed are true of Jewish Christians, but not Jewish Christians "only" (the word you used). Let me point out that it is applicable by extension to all Christians as I have already stated.

And so -- we agree "again".

He is the atoning sacrifice for "OUR SINS" (all Christians) and NOT four OUR SINS only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD.

There is the true menaing.

The Bible tells us in Galatians 2:9 that "John" along with James and Cephas were apostles "unto the circumcision" (Israel)

True enough. But as we see in Acts 15 the judgment of James was in NO way "limited" to just Jewish Christians. His directive went out to the ENTIRE Christian church.

However it can not be argued that Paul made the same statement about John being the "apostles to the Gentils" or that Thomas was "the apostle to the Gentiles" -- in fact we know that a number of the Apostles ministered to BOTH Jew and Gentile - without question!

and as A.W. Pink points out:
"In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1).

Even Paul considered Gentiles to be part of "ALL ISRAEL" as we see in Romans 11. Paul argues "They are NOT ALL Israel who are descended from Abraham".

This truth was established early in the NT and the Apostles did not rebel against it.

And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles." - Quote

Indeed - without any evidence at all of that being the case - the statement is made "none-the-less"

Conclusion: Your argument about the insertion of "Jews Only" holds no water as shown above.

You never did go through 1John (or even chapters 1 and 2 of 1John) and show that "US" and "OUR" are constrained to just "the elect Jews" as you "needed" it be constrained in 1John 2:2.

You simply show that you needed it - but not that it works.

Go through the first two chapters and show that it works.

Your claim above that it only works as "the whole Christian Church" is my point exactly.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,

Your whole argument is based on a false premise. Maybe I did not make myself clear on my last post.

I have no problem with you inserting "Jewish Christians" in place of "us". However this is not what you are doing. You are inserting "Jewish Christians Only" in place of "us".

The only time I place "only" in my interpretation of the "us" as Jewish Christians is when the text itself does. I John 2:2 adds the words "only" after "us". But to do this arbitrarily throughout all the uses of "us" is not representing what I said accurately.

Also, this does not do away with it being applicable to all christians just because it is addressed to Jewish Christians as I already noted:

"John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles." -Quote Cited from Source

"It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other." - Quote Cited from Source

In Conclusion: The parallel between the two verses of I John 2:2 and John 11:50ff are too strikingly similiar to dismiss. The same idea is expressed in both passages:

Thus it seems obvious that John 11:51, 52 is parallel to 1 John 2:2, as the wording and content are the same. Note these parallels: 1 John, "He is the propitiation for our (Jewish) sins"; John, that Jesus "should die for the nation" (Jews). First John, "and not for ours only"; John, "and not for the nation only." First John, "but also for the whole world" (Gentiles); John, "but that He might gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Gentiles). "Those who are scattered abroad" would seem to be the "other sheep" of John 10:16, who are Gentiles! Thus the "our" is Jewish Christians by all that lends evidence. - From website

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

1 John 2

-- King James
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

-- American Standard
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

-- Living Bible
1 John 2:2 He is the one who took God's wrath against our sins upon himself, and brought us into fellowship with God; and he is the forgiveness for our sins, and not only ours but all the world's.

-- Revised Standard
1 John 2:2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

-- Simple English
1 John 2:2 Jesus is the way our sins are taken away--the way all people may have their sins taken away.

-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
1 John 2:2 kai' auto's hilasmo'sestin peri' too'n hamartioo'n heemoo'n, ou peri' too'nheemete'roon de' mo'non alla' kai' peri' ho'lou tou' ko'smou.

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
1 John 2:2 kai autos hilasmosestin peri ton hamartion hemon, ou peri tonhemeteron de monon alla kai peri holou tou kosmou.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
1 John 2:2 He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins,
and not only ours,
but also those of the whole world.

-- Young's Bible
1 John 2:2 and he - he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

-- Darby's Bible
1 John 2:2 and *he* is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
1 John 2:2 and He is an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

-- Webster's Bible
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

What is it you think 1 john 2:2 is saying?

Seems to me it clearly states that Jesus is the Expiation, Sacrifice, Propitiation for Sin, not for sinners! But not just the sins of the locals, but the sins throughout the whole world.

 

[Southern]

Wes,
Then why does anyone go to hell if Jesus has payed for everyones sins?

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Southern:
Wes,
Then why does anyone go to hell if Jesus has payed for everyones sins?

In Christ

Because Southern, it is not sins that send a person to hell! Jesus paid that penalty for us! He died to atone for sins thus removing the penalty of sins from us!

It is instead LACK OF FAITH IN GOD the FATHER, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit that causes a person to be cast into the lake of fire, the second, or spirit death! John 3:17 makes it clear what Jesus did for us.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved

God first established that the penalty for sinning is death! But somewhere along the human timeline, God repented and instead gave us His son as a Once for ALL atonement by which the penalty for ALL the sins of the world are PAID IN FULL!

That which is paid in full cannot be charged against us, leaving us in the position of being able to have everlasting life through believing in Jesus, just as Jesus told us in John 3:16.

NO MAN GOES TO HELL FOR SINNING! ONLY FOR NOT BELIEVING IN JESUS.

 

[Southern]

Wes,
If you are saying that "unbelief" is not a sin, then you have God sending people to hell who have absolutely no sins on their account and presents you with many problems:


1.)The Bible calls "unbelief" sin:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Psalms 78:32 For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

The act itself is the heart of all sinful activity, notice:

2.)The Bible says: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."(Romans 14:23)

Question: Is "unbelief" of faith?

3.)The Bible says in Hebrews 3 " "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

Question: Is not something that is "evil" sin?

4.)We are commanded to believe: , I John 3:23. "This his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

Question: When you disobey God's command, is this not a sin

5.)Unbelief makes God a liar: 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Question: Is making God a liar a sin in your book?

6.)John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Comment: You might no think unbelief is sin, but for God be "wrathful" at something that is not sin is beyond me.

7.)Unbelief is just "one" of many of the "sins" that people will be in hell for:
Rev. 21:8- But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Comment- You might want to rewrite your own version of the Bible that takes out all these characteristics and just leave "unbelief" since these other sins have nothing to do with them being cast into the lake of fire. Actually God is not sending them there for any sin at all. Also interesting is all of these other sins listed with "unbelief". Someone must have forgot to tell John that "unbelief" shouldn't be listed here.

In Conclusion: I am astonished, and I am sure you will be, when I tell you that there are some strange people in the world who do not believe that unbelief is a sin. - C.H. Spurgeon

 

[Wes Outwest]

Wes,
If you are saying that "unbelief" is not a sin, then you have God sending people to hell who have absolutely no sins on their account and presents you with many problems:

But they are not my problems, they are yours!

1.)The Bible calls "unbelief" sin:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Psalms 78:32 For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

The act itself is the heart of all sinful activity, notice:

2.)The Bible says: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."(Romans 14:23)

All sins save that of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit are forgivable for the one who confesses them to God. BUT! the question remains do sins send you to hell? The answer is NO, because Jesus paid the penalty for sin ONCE, for ALL sins. Therefore, the Judgment of God is one based in its entirety upon the faith condition of the individual person! That is one reason why Jesus told us we are not to judge any man!

Question: Is "unbelief" of faith?

3.)The Bible says in Hebrews 3 " "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

UNBELIEF is the OPPOSITE of BELIEF. Belief is the first and continuing stage of FAITH. If belief grows into faith, what does unbelief grow into?

Question: Is not something that is "evil" sin?

4.)We are commanded to believe: , I John 3:23. "This his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

NO! If something or someone is Evil that does not mean it is sin. Satan is evil, that does not mean that Satan is sin. Every sin is a deed, a work of unrighteousness! All deeds will be tested (Revelation 20:14) Those that are evil deeds (sin) will be consumed by fire as if they are wood, hay and stubble leaving only worthless ashes. The one who did those deeds is spared for the final judgment which is based entirely on whether or not one's name is written in the Book of Life.

Question: When you disobey God's command, is this not a sin

5.)Unbelief makes God a liar: 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Yes! it is sin to disobey God. That is what Adam and Eve did that caused the whole of the problem that Jesus came to rectify.

Question: Is making God a liar a sin in your book?

6.)John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

For one thing, neither you nor I can make God a liar! So how can it be a sin if it cannot be done?

Comment: You might no think unbelief is sin, but for God be "wrathful" at something that is not sin is beyond me.

Then you do not understand the ATONEMENT!

7.)Unbelief is just "one" of many of the "sins" that people will be in hell for:
Rev. 21:8- But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Unbelief is the ONLY SIN for which man is cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14,15. These "identifications of type" are examples of those who lack belief in God, therefore they get cast into the lake of fire because their names are not found in the Book of Life.

Comment- You might want to rewrite your own version of the Bible that takes out all these characteristics and just leave "unbelief" since these other sins have nothing to do with them being cast into the lake of fire. Actually God is not sending them there for any sin at all. Also interesting is all of these other sins listed with "unbelief". Someone must have forgot to tell John that "unbelief" shouldn't be listed here.

All those "things" are Identified so that we mere mortals will know how to recognize what we do that is sin so that we can confess our sins, and receive forgiveness for our sins and get cleansed from ALL unrighteousness.

In Conclusion: I am astonished, and I am sure you will be, when I tell you that there are some strange people in the world who do not believe that unbelief is a sin. - C.H. Spurgeon

Spurgeon failed to recognize the truth of the what belief and unbelief truly are, and where they reside in man. You would be wise to put less faith in Spurgeon, and trust the scriptures.

 

[Southern]

Wes,

Trying to respond to all the errors in your last post would be like trying to repair all the cracks that were left in the cement from the San Fransico Earthquake.

I will cite one example and trust that anyone else can judge for themselves the level of your response.I asked:

4.)We are commanded to believe: , I John 3:23. "This his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

Question: When you disobey God's command, is this not a sin


Your response was:

Yes! it is sin to disobey God.

Conclusion: If it "is" a sin to disobey God, then when He commands us to "believe", how do we disobey this command?... By not believing! which "is" unbelief!That makes unbelief a sin because unbelief is disobedience to the command to believe.

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Southern:
Wes,

Trying to respond to all the errors in your last post would be like trying to repair all the cracks that were left in the cement from the San Fransico Earthquake.

I will cite one example and trust that anyone else can judge for themselves the level of your response.I asked:

4.)We are commanded to believe: , I John 3:23. "This his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

Question: When you disobey God's command, is this not a sin


Your response was:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes! it is sin to disobey God.

Conclusion: If it "is" a sin to disobey God, then when He commands us to "believe", how do we disobey this command?... By not believing! which "is" unbelief!That makes unbelief a sin because unbelief is disobedience to the command to believe.

In Christ </font>[/QUOTE]No sir, THE SIN IS DISOBEDIENCE, NOT UNBELIEF.

God also commands us to Love one another. If we fail to love one another, the sin is disobedience not failure to love.