Featured The condemned already !

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
--It is odd that you focus on verse 18 but leave out verse 17.
He didn't come to condemn the world, but rather that the world through him might be saved.
God's will is that the world might be saved.
Which world SBM?
The entire world of all ages?
The entire world of the first century?
The elect of the first century?

Which world? How do you know? More importantly, how can you know for sure that you are part and parcel of that world?

 

Good grief, DHK...get with the program. :wavey:
SBM does not want to discuss or debate with you. He wants you to blindly accept his theology, and then congratulate him on how brilliant he is for determining such a theological system.

 

How is it evasion when he's addressing your point and offering a counter point? That's not evasion. It's called debate. You don't want a debate, or even a discussion. You want a monologue.

 

Lol, I think SBM wants to teach us; he/she intends only to be heard.

 

In other words, "I won't help you to understand my points until you prove you understand my points."

 

Even though you're not interested in any serious discussion, I'll play your game for one post. But if your response to me includes the words "yes or no?" or any variation of "show me you understand my points", the discussion is over.

Before I get into the OP, let me point out some flaws already.

It's not up to us to understand your reasoning. Only to discuss what you said. The reasoning is all in your head. I am not a mind reader. I can only address what you say, not what you think.

Again, illogical. I don't know, and can't tell you why you made those points. I can only explain why I disagree with them.

So, let's go through your OP, your way. I'll tell you what you said, and then I'll tell you why I disagree.

Now, for the part where I explain what you said.

You are saying that since the non-Elect are already condemned, then Christ could not have died for them, since His death brought condemnation upon Himself, and if He brought condemnation upon Himself it would be charging two people for the same crime to have Christ condemned and the lost condemned. So, your reasoning is that since the Elect are saved from eternity past, and the non-Elect are condemned from eternity past, then Christ didn't die for the non-Elect.

So, now that I've satisfied your requirements of parroting back to you what you said, I will use the same two verses you used to explain why I disagree with what you are saying.

The first part of the sentence is easily understood. Those that believe are not condemned. The second part is where you miss the mark, however. He that doesn't believe is condemned already because he hasn't believed. That word because right there throws a wrench into what you're saying. There is the use of the present tense "believeth", and the continuing present tense of "is condemned". In the current state of unbelief that he is in, he is condemned. That verse in no way states or implies that he is stuck in that state. All men are born condemned. Those that believe then have their condemnation taken from them, and placed on Christ.

Now, let's go to your second verse. You freely admit that condemnation came upon all by Adam, but you ignore the part of the verse that says that Christ paid the price for all men. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. If condemnation came upon "all", then Christ had to die for "all".

Simply put, what you've done is used circular reasoning at it's finest. Your beginning premise of "People are saved/lost from eternity past" is used to explain that Christ didn't die for the lost, which is then evidence that they were lost from eternity past.

But, in all reality, the only word I needed to point out to refute your entire post is the word because in John 3:18. That one word destroys your whole premise. They are condemned because they did not believe.

Notice, at this point, I'm not even arguing against Calvinism. I'm just arguing against your notion that men are saved/lost from eternity past.

 

Because you can't debate someone's reasoning. You can only debate their position.

Right. By discussing opposing points, not discussing reasoning. I can only discuss what you say, not what you think.

 

Ok, let's see if I can understand what you are saying. I'll take it sentence by sentence.

Ok, good so far. You're saying that I didn't say what you said. I understand that so far.

Here's where it gets hairy, as that's not even a sentence. "Those who Christ died incurred". You mean "The condemnation of those whose Christ's death incurred"? Or possibly "The condemnation of those who Christ died for incurred"? See, I can't discuss anything with you if what you say doesn't even make grammatical sense, much less logical sense.

"Condemnation of theirs was charged to Christ, hence He paid the penalty for it". What!? He paid the penalty for what? Their condemnation? Your use of pronouns without antecedents is confusing, to say the least. Plus, I'm not sure you meant "hence". Maybe you mean "because", as in, "their condemnation was charged to Christ because He paid the price of their condemnation."

Ok, so now you're saying Christ wasn't the Surety. Which, I know you aren't saying on purpose, because you've stated emphatically before that He was. But that sentence right there. You said God wouldn't hold the Surety condemned, but you said before that Christ was condemned for us.

Basically, after sifting through both of your non-sentences, you said that I didn't say what you said, then proceeded to say the same thing I said that you said I didn't.

 

Interesting, that you would say the opposite of what the verse says. The verse says "but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed", and you're saying that he doesn't believe because he is condemned. Interesting. Those two are polar opposites. The verse states that the cause of his condemnation is his unbelief, while you are saying that the cause of his unbelief is his condemnation.

Then you say the opposite of the verse again:

So which is it?

And those two sentences directly contradict each other. So, let me get this straight, those who don't believe shall be condemned because there are condemned and can't believe, so they're going to be condemned because they're condemned. Believe it or not, that is exactly what you just said.

And now we're back at the beginning, where you are stating what I already said you stated, but you said you didn't. Christ didn't die for them, because they are condemned. But then there goes the circular reasoning again.

Maybe you should work on stating your ideas more clearly. Because, whether you meant to or not, you stated that:

Christ didn't die for them because they were already condemned. They couldn't believe because they were already condemned. Since they didn't believe, they are condemned. Since they are condemned, Christ didn't die for them.

And I could copy and paste that paragraph ad infinitum.