In this post I wish to respond concerning the question over the second half of 1 John 2:23.
And within the second to last paragraph of that which you posted on my personal profile:
By the fact that you have repeated this case to me three different times, it seems that it is important to you. So then --
Your presentation of this case is somewhat false (and thus somewhat manipulative and deceptive). You provide us with THREE options to choose (which all turn out to be false options), but you neglect to provide the FOURTH option wherein the truth is actually found. The three options that you provide to us for the case concerning the second half of 1 John 2:23 are as follows:
1. The King James translators just made up this portion of 1 John 2:23, and thus took liberties with the Holy Scriptures by adding these ten words. (I answer -- This option is false.)
2. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 from the devil. (I answer -- This option is false.)
3. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 as an "advance revelation" from God the Holy Spirit. (This is the option that you desire for us to choose; however, I again answer -- This option is false).
Now, these were the only three options that you offered us. Yet there is a fourth option that you neglected to offer us, as follows:
4. The King James translators included this portion of 1 John 2:23 because it already existed in previous sources of Holy Scripture, sources which they did indeed have available to them for their consideration.
Brother West, you yourself attempted to cancel this option as even being possible with the following statements:
The problem here is that you are wrong about what the King James translators had available to them. In truth, they did NOT develop these "10 words" completely new for the King James translation. In truth, the second half of 1 John 2:23 ALREADY EXISTED in previous English translations. Although it was not included in the 1526 Tyndale, the 1537 Matthews, or the 1560 Geneva translations, it WAS included in the 1395 Wycliffe translation and in the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which certainly were available to the King James translators for their consideration. Furthermore, this second half of 1 John 2:23 was also found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic translations/versions, in Luther's German translation of 1545, in the Spanish Sagrada Escrituras of 1569, and in the Italian Diodati of 1649, which were also available to the King James translators for their consideration. Finally, although this second half of 1 John 2:23 was not included in Stephanus' Greek text of 1550, it WAS indeed found in Beza' Greek text of 1598. Indeed, this portion of 1 John 2:23 WAS found in various Greek texts that the King James translators certainly had available to them for their consideration.
Therefore, in the particular case of 1 John 2:23, the use of italicized words does NOT indicate that the King James translators were unaware of any source support for the second half of the verse. So, why then did they put the second half of the verse in italics? Since (as far as I am aware) none of the King James translators communicated their reasoning in print, and since none of them remain alive today to ask, we can only speculate. One possible answer is that some of the King James translators were not as confident as others about the authenticity for that portion of 1 John 2:23. Thus in order to demonstrate THEIR HUMILITY (as per your own declaration of their character, Brother West -- "To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement"), those who were less confident humbly allowed it to be included; and those who were more confident humbly allowed it to be placed in italics. Another possibility is that the King James translators believed that the second half of 1 John 2:23 should be included, but they placed it italics in order to humbly acknowledge that it was not included in previously accepted English translations of the Holy Scriptures.
(Note: As for myself, I find that there is more than enough source evidence for its authenticity. Even so, I have NO doubts against it.)
I believe that the answer to the questions of the opening post (as well as some following posts) is somewhat dependent on how we are defining "hate" and "love" in this context.
If we are defining "love" for God as "living a life of obedience to God" (as per John 14:21, 23), then we might define "hate" (the opposite of love) for God as "living a life of disobedience against God" (as per John 14:24). If we use these definitions, then all unbelievers (the children of disobedience) do indeed "hate" God. (Note: According to such a definition, even believers sometimes "hate" God.)
However, it might be asked if there is a portion of Scripture which actually states that unbelievers "hate" God. Furthermore, (considering some of the following questions above) it might be asked if there is a portion of Scripture which indicates that a person must "love" God before he or she can believe for salvation, or if "love" for God is a necessary characteristic for salvation.
So, are you asking what I would consider myself? If so, I would answer --
1. I am a ZERO point Calvinist (in relation to the doctrine of salvation).
2. I am a THREE point Arminian (in relation to the doctrine of salvation) (because three of the points are mutually exclusive, being an either/or proposition, having no third option).
3. I am TWO points neither, and thus am not actually either Calvinist or Arminian in my doctrinal system (in relation to the doctrine of salvation).
4. In fact, I would simply say that I seek to be Biblical in my system of belief, and thus will hold to any point from any system that I find to be Biblical, but will stand contrary to any point from any system that I find to be unbiblical. (Note: This includes whether I find a point to be unbiblical in the Calvinist system, Arminian system, or even Fundamental Baptist system. I am not bound under the authority of any system or movement. Rather, I am bound under the authority of GOD'S HOLY WORD!!!)
Pastor Scott Markle's post in Fatalism was marked as the answer
No! The dictionary definition for "fatalism" is "the belief that all events are determined by fate and, therefore, inevitable; acceptance of every event as inevitable." The first difference between a believer in the Biblical God and a fatalist is the the "source" of "determination" for events -- For the fatalist that "source" is a completely impersonal, uncaring "fate;" whereas for the believer that "source" is a very personal, great and good God. From this first difference flows various others -- "Fate" is impersonal, and therefore neither wise nor unwise in its arrangement of events; whereas God is all-knowing and all-wise in His arrangement of events. "Fate" is impersonal, and therefore neither righteous nor unrighteous in its arrangement of events; whereas God is all-holy and all-righteous in His arrangement of events (including the administration of rewards and judgments). "Fate" is impersonal, and therefore neither gracious nor malicious in its arrangement of events; whereas God is all-good and abundantly gracious in His arrangement of events (especially in establishing His plan of eternal salvation for lost sinners).
Even concerning the matter of our appointed time for death, God is different than "fate." "Fate" just "is." On the other hand, God sets the appointed time of our death in accord with His perfect, righteous, and gracious wisdom. Furthermore, some Scripture appears to reveal that the extent/time of lives can be (in accord with God's all-knowing foreknowledge) extended or shortened, depending on our behavior.
I pray that this answer is helpful and good to the use of edifying.
To whom it may concern,
I myself hold that 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 applies to the mid-point of the seven year tribulation, not to the beginning-point, and that it applies unto ALL unbelievers at that time without any exceptions.