In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?

In 1 John 4:1–3, we are instructed to "test the spirits" and are told that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." This passage seems to suggest that verbal confession of Jesus' incarnation is a reliable test for determining whether a spirit is from God. However, in the Gospel accounts — for example, Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28 — we see the demonic legion that possessed the man in the region of the Gerasenes recognizing Jesus and crying out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” This shows that demons are capable of identifying and even verbally acknowledging who Jesus is. Given that, how should 1 John 4:1–3 be interpreted? - Can demonic spirits confess Jesus Christ in a way that appears genuine? - Is verbal confession alone a sufficient test of the spirit's origin? - How do we reconcile 1 John’s teaching with the demonic acknowledgment of Jesus in the Gospels? I’m hoping to understand whether this test is meant to be literal, theological, or deeper than just spoken words.

>1 John 2:15 (ESV): "Do not love the world or the things in the world..." Many Christian teachings warn against loving "the world," often interpreted as a system opposed to God. But since the body is part of our earthly existence and shares in physical desires (e.g., lust of the flesh), is the body itself part of what Scripture refers to as "the world"? Or is the body viewed separately from the "world" that believers are warned against befriending? How do different theological traditions (e.g., Augustinian, Reformed, Orthodox, etc.) interpret the role of the body in this context?

*Above: Arian Unity, Tritheist Trinity, & Modalist Trinity* 1 John 5:7-8 ESV > **[]** > For there are three that testify **[]**: the Spirit and the water and the > blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:7-8 NKJV > **[For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, > and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.]** And there are three that > bear witness **[on earth]**: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these > three agree as one. The Johannine Comma or Johannine Gloss, the inserted portion of 1 John 5:7, only appears in published Bibles after the year 1520—thanks to the efforts of the Roman Catholic translator Erasmus. Does the Johannine Comma found in 1 John 5:7 teach the Trinitarian doctrine of Modalism or Tritheism?

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

At Luke 10:21 we see : > At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." Elsewhere, we see John addressing the faithful, so: > My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. (1 John 2:1) My question is: to whom was Jesus referring as infants at Luke 10:21 -- to the infants around, or to his followers of simple faith? What does the Catholic Church teach us about the usage of 'infants' in the above-said context?

> 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [a]it would be evident that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:18-19 NASB) What was St. John describing when he said the words "they went out from us but they were not really of us". It's like the schismatic bishops, they claimed to be inside the Church, but they were not really belong to the Church, because schismatic behavior makes one outside the Church. - Canon 751 Cardinal Sarah stated, **"to oppose the Pope is to be outside the Church"**, and we have seen so many bishops and cardinals opposing Pope Francis, but still insist they remain in the Church and not outside. [Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the church](https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/cardinal-sarah-oppose-pope-be-outside-church) Antichrist or spirit of Antichrist won't submit to authority like the Pope, like Lucifer won't submit to God uttering "Non-Serviam". Was St. John passages in 1 John 2:18-19, be appropriately pointing to schismatic bishops of our times?

The standard reading of John 1:1 > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the > Word was God." is that the beginning - ἀρχῇ (archē) - refers to the old beginning, i.e., the beginning described in Genesis 1. What are the main arguments in favour of the beginning at John 1:1 referring to the new beginning, i.e., the beginning of Jesus' (human) life or ministry? This question is a mirror of this question .

1 John 3:5-6 is > 5 But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him. Is there a name for the idea that Jesus' 'taking away the sin of the world' (John 1:29) is done **in a *causal* way** by decreasing the prevalence of sin and increasing the prevalence of righteousness in one to the degree that one abides in the Christ?

Until reading Dr. Peter Kreeft's [_Socratic Logic_](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1587318083) chapter on definitions, I had no idea that "God is Love" (1 John 4:16) is a metaphor. Quote from Section 4 (The limits of definition) page 129: > As far as God is concerned, we can only say (a) what God is not or (b) what God is like. But this is not to *define* God, for each of these two choices violates a rule of definition. (a) If we use literal, univocal language, we can only say what God is *not*, not what God *is*. (E.g. God is not a man, God is not a body, God is not in time.) But God is not a negative thing, like nonbeing or death or evil. So a negative definition of God would violate one of the rules of definition (rule #5). (b) If we use analogical or metaphorical language, we can speak positively, but only to say what God is *like*, not what God *is*, literally. (E.g. we can say that God is a Father, God is Love, God is a King. But God is not a human biological father or the changeable human passion of love, or an earthly political ruler.) And of course non-literal language violates another rule of definition (rule #3). I don't really know why this blew my mind, but I had always taken those words and thought of them as literal (I still think they can and should be taken literally as well). And I've read a number of answers on this site recently that also take only a literal interpretation. But according to the Catholic Catechism, there are four senses of scripture, so what have saints, popes, councils and other good exegetes, said about what does "God is love" means from a Metaphorical, Literal, Anagogical and Moral sense? I'd prefer answers that hit on all four senses bullet point style unless there's a very good reason for excluding one.

> If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. **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. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. **These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life**, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. - 1 John 5:9-13 The emboldened word "that you may know" is a word that properly deals with seeing. As used throughout the New Testament in this form it means a past-tense seeing which results in a present-tense knowing ("I saw" means "I know"). The tense here is active so it is the "you" that John has written to who may see unto knowledge. The emboldened word "have" is present, active, indicative which means that it actually, actively is in the now by the subject and it means: > The verb εχω (echo) means to have or hold and occurs in its various forms 708 times in the New Testament; see full concordance. Its usage slightly transcends that of the English equivalent. Where our English verb "to have" mostly emphasizes possession and control of external things, our Greek verb mostly describes the set of features that collectively define identity. When someone "has" something (say: an object or property, a quality or condition, a word to say, a feeling, a skill, an obligation or conviction), that something helps to determine who that person is, what his past might have looked like, and what his future might be all about. - abarim publications Can a Roman Catholic say that they **know** in this sense that, having seen something, they now actually and actively possess knowledge that they **have** eternal life in a manner that helps define who they are?

1 John 1:1's 'beginning' is often linked to John 1:1's 'beginning'. What is the earliest known argument that 1 John 1:1's use of 'beginning' refers not to a Genesis beginning but a new beginning, related to the Christ's human life, ministry, and establishment of the Kingdom? Similar question re John 1:1 here . Inspired by discussion on this answer .

John 1:1 is > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. Many Christians believe that the Word here = a person (Jesus, or the second person of the Trinity), and the reason generally has to do with the grammatical and semantic progression of John's prologue to 1:15. Yet, 1 John 1:1 is > That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have > seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our > own hands—this is the Word of life. Here, the Word apparently isn't a 'who' but a 'that'. How do those who hold the Word in John 1:1 is a 'who' explain 1 John 1:1's Word being a 'that'?

The [Comma Johanneum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum) , found in some versions of 1 John 5:7–8, such as the [KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A7%E2%80%938&version=KJV) , is a disputed text that has been used since at least the Middle Ages to defend trinitarian doctrine. Scholars now widely consider it to be a later addition to the text, but this was a subject of significant debate in previous centuries. The Catholic church took notice in 1897, and apparently applied some sort of restriction on allowable positions within the church: > The Catholic theologian [...] cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the *Comma Johanninum* may not with safety (*tuto*) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not *in forma specifica* [...] all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. ([*Catholic Encyclopedia*, Epistles of St. John](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm#III)) According to Wikipedia, this state seems to have ended in 1927, when Pope Pius XI decreed that the *Comma* was open to dispute. I'm trying to better understand the practical implications of the 1897 decree during the 1897–1927 period. In that vein I'll pose the following (hopefully indicative) questions: - Around the time of 1897, what did the phrase "with safety" mean? For example, did it imply the possibility of excommunication or loss of salvation? Or perhaps simply that rejection of the Comma was a sin? - Did the 1897 decree provide specific guidance regarding what kind of "calling into doubt" was not permitted? - Presumably direct statements would be included, like saying "The Comma is not authentic," but what about publishing research that could be interpreted as suggesting inauthenticity? - Are any Catholic theologians known to have been punished for violating the 1897 decree during this period? Wikipedia includes a note that the 1927 decree clarified that the original decree was not meant to stop "moderate and temperate" investigation by scholars who promise to accept the Church's authority. Be that as it may, I'm not convinced that that's how the 1897 decree would have been understood *prior to* the 1927 decree, so I'm focusing on how it was originally (perhaps mistakenly) interpreted and applied.

In "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture", Isaac Newton argued that 1 John 5:7 was a corruption of the early church and did not appear in the original Greek scriptures. He makes a similar claim regarding 1 Timothy 3:16. 1 John 5:7 is the strongest biblical reference to the trinity. Is there an objection to Newton's historical analysis of these verses? > 1 John 5:7 -- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. > > 1 Timothy 3:16 -- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

My friend is a very strong Atheist and has been now for nearly three and a half years and one of the contradictions he gives are between 1 John 4:12 where it says that no man has seen God but in Genesis 32:20 Jacob says has seen God face to face and even wrestled with God, how can we explain this apparent contradiction and would this be considered a contradiction? > No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in > the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. **John 1:18** > No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth > in us, and his love is perfected in us. **1 John 4:12** > And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God > face to face, and my life is preserved. **Genesis 32:20**

John's Gospel is written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and may have life in that name" > Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which > are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may > believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by > believing you may have life in his name. - John 20:30-31 The purpose statement of John's 1st epistle is that the believer (that Jesus is the Son of God) may know that they have eternal life: > Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:10-13 I have read some material indicating that JW may be certain that they have been "anointed" but that this anointing amounts to the equivalent of an invitation. In order to make use of the invitation faithful living must be undertaken: > Does the Christian who receives this token have a guaranteed future in heaven? No. That person is sure of his invitation. But whether he finally receives his reward in heaven or not depends on his proving faithful to his calling. - Watchtower Study Edition Jan. 2016 (section 7) The article goes on to explain that the "anointing" is, in fact, the gift of the holy spirit and that it is a deposit: > This special operation of holy spirit becomes like a down payment, a guarantee (or, a pledge) of what is to come. An anointed Christian gains an inner conviction because of this token that he or she has received.​ - Ephesians 1:13-14 It appears though that this inner conviction, gained by the reception of this down payment, is still not enough to be assured of a place in heaven. In other words, a Jehovah's Witness can know that they have been anointed by the holy spirit and still not know that they have secured a spot in heaven. Does this mean that an "anointed" can at least **know** that they have secured a place of eternal life on earth? How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the complimentary purpose statements of John's Gospel and his first letter regarding belief in the name of God's Son and knowing eternal life is possessed? Can a Jehovah's Witness ever know that they have eternal life as John intended?

The Word of God says, >Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1) Many televangelist claim miracles happen and profess the name of Jesus. Some have claimed they witnessed terminally ill people get healed and such. There have been some high profile preachers from around the world who have been accused of staging miracles and preaching the "gospel of prosperity" for their own gain. What is the way to test whether they are false prophets taking care not to touch the Lord's anointed? I went through [a similar post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8074/how-do-we-identify-false-teachers) , but am concerned with teachers who say they are doing it in the name of Jesus.

When reading the letters of John the other day I was struck by [1 John 5:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205%3A16-17&version=ESV) : > ¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. To me this is a very straightforward and a plain indicator of the two types of sin distinguished by no lesser authority than the apostle John himself. The Catholic tradition calls the two types of sin *venial* (don't lead to death) and *mortal* (lead to death), with an accompanying detailed teaching on how to distinguish them and how to deal with them. See [this article](https://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-difference-between-mortal-and-venial-sin/) for a good introductory explanation and see [Matt Gutting's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/34320/10672) for other scriptural support. For preliminary research: - I found a good exposition of Patristic view of venial vs. mortal sin including many citations from St. Augustine, which Protestants hold in high esteem: [Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin](https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/why-john-calvin-did-not-recognize-the-distinction-between-mortal-and-venial-sin/) . The same article proposes an explanation of why John Calvin broke with the 1,000+ year long tradition. - Please note, that in the Catholic tradition, 1 John 5's "sin that leads to death" (forgivable through the sacrament of penance) is *different* than "unforgivable sin". Therefore, I would be very interested in how the reformers (Calvin, Luther, John Wesley) changed the interpretation of the relevant verses. - Based on Lesley's preliminary answer and other answers on this site (such as [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41863/how-do-protestants-understand-the-unforgivable-sin?rq=1)) it seems that Protestant traditions either conflates 1 John's "sin leading to death" with Matt 22:31's "unforgivable sin" or avoids the issue altogether. If so, a good Protestant answer should provide good exegetical grounds for equating "sin that leads to death" with "unforgivable sin", or else the answer should explain what John meant in the letter (like what Catholics do). **My question is**: In contrast with the Catholic tradition, how do various Protestant traditions (Reformed, Lutheran, and Methodist) take this distinction and apply it to the life of believers?

I am struggling to reconcile a very strong statement from the Council of Trent pronouncing anathema with a very strong statement from the Apostle John pronouncing deception and lie. Both statements seem very clear and diametrically opposed. Many of the other Epistles also allude to a continued presence of sin but John is so clear that I need not muddy the waters. > To remove all further doubt on the subject, the Council of Trent, after other Councils had defined this, declared it anew, **pronouncing anathema against those who** should presume to think otherwise, or **should dare to assert that although sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such a manner as to leave its roots still fixed in the soul.** To use the words of the same holy Council, God hates nothing in those who are regenerated; for there remains nothing deserving of condemnation in those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, "who walk not according to the flesh" but putting off the old man, and putting on the new, who is created according to God, become innocent, spotless, pure, upright, and beloved of God. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent (First Effect of Baptism) > 1 John 1:8: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted and removed that anyone who affirms sin's payment to have been made but sin's presence to remain is pronounced anathema! The Apostle John so strongly affirms the continued presence of sin in himself and his audience that he declares, "If WE say WE have no sin, WE deceive OURSELVES and the truth is not in US." Are there any options other than the Apostle John is anathema or the Council of Trent has deceived itself?