1 John 1 was the apostle addressing as yet the unconverted where he shares with them what he knew to be true. Why has this not been taught more wide-spread? Confusion stems from twisted truths and I believe if the twisted truth of 1 John 1:9 being written for the converted was put right then many would be set free from sin consciousness as the gospel was intended to do.
Hi Michael. It is my belief that 1 John was written to believers. Maybe as a general epistle sent to the churches in Asia Minor, sent to teach, encourage & warn them. References such as 1 John 2:1,12,13,18,28; 1 John 3:17,18; etc, show that John is addressing those who are in the faith (his little children), some of those may be immature in faith. Certainly, there were unbelievers amongst them, since a part of this epistle was to warn the believers of false teaching ( 1 John 2:18,19,26; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 4:1-3) making inroads into the Church.
In reference to 1 John 1:8-10: one aspect of gnostic teaching was that God was not entirely perfect (pure); that both good & evil existed within Him. Not only is this belief reprehensible, it also led to diminishing any sin (even the principle of sin) as of no consequence, since God remains unconcerned about it. But John stated that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" ( 1 John 1:5): God is altogether holy/pure - no darkness or evil can be found in Him. Therefore, if it be said that "we have no sin (i.e. the principle of the existing sin nature in us), we are simply deceiving ourselves". We ought not to believe those false teachers who deny this & by extension, "that we have not sinned (i.e. experientially)" (v10). But John is reminding them that we are sinners by nature & performance, but if we recognize sin for what it is & come to God in confession of it, 'he is faithful and just to forgive us & cleanse us entirely' (v9).
Even another striking false teaching is found in 1 John 4:2,3: the denial of the deity of Christ as the gnostic (docetic) teaching was that deity could never unite with anything material. Their claim that this Jesus was just a man endowed with a special anointing; or another teaching: He didn't have a body & was just a spirit, hence He could not die on the Cross; and probably many others beliefs that would take away from the demonstration of God's Love in the sacrifice of His Son.
In reference to 1 John 1:8-10: one aspect of gnostic teaching was that God was not entirely perfect (pure); that both good & evil existed within Him. Not only is this belief reprehensible, it also led to diminishing any sin (even the principle of sin) as of no consequence, since God remains unconcerned about it. But John stated that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" ( 1 John 1:5): God is altogether holy/pure - no darkness or evil can be found in Him. Therefore, if it be said that "we have no sin (i.e. the principle of the existing sin nature in us), we are simply deceiving ourselves". We ought not to believe those false teachers who deny this & by extension, "that we have not sinned (i.e. experientially)" (v10). But John is reminding them that we are sinners by nature & performance, but if we recognize sin for what it is & come to God in confession of it, 'he is faithful and just to forgive us & cleanse us entirely' (v9).
Even another striking false teaching is found in 1 John 4:2,3: the denial of the deity of Christ as the gnostic (docetic) teaching was that deity could never unite with anything material. Their claim that this Jesus was just a man endowed with a special anointing; or another teaching: He didn't have a body & was just a spirit, hence He could not die on the Cross; and probably many others beliefs that would take away from the demonstration of God's Love in the sacrifice of His Son.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?