The condemned already !

[savedbymercy]

dhk

I understand your points.

Prove it, and we shall discuss them !

 

[DHK]

dhk

Prove it, and we shall discuss them !

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?

 

[PreachTony]

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.

 

[savedbymercy]

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?

As usual, more evasion !

 

[Sapper Woody]

As usual, more evasion !

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.

 

[kyredneck]

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

 

[savedbymercy]

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.

Its not addressing my point, its evading it. Since you said that, address my point by first of all proving that you understood the point overall of the post. Show me that you understand the reasoning I used from the scripture to make my point, then we go from there ! Now this thread is entitled condemned already, show me you understand why I made the points I did, even though you may disagree with them ! I will be waiting

 

[PreachTony]

Its not addressing my point, its evading it. Since you said that, address my point by first of all proving that you understood the point overall of the post. Show me that you understand the reasoning I used from the scripture to make my point, then we go from there ! Now this thread is entitled condemned already, show me you understand why I made the points I did, even though you may disagree with them ! I will be waiting

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

 

[Sapper Woody]

Its not addressing my point, its evading it. Since you said that, address my point by first of all proving that you understood the point overall of the post.

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.

Show me that you understand the reasoning I used

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.

... from the scripture to make my point, then we go from there ! Now this thread is entitled condemned already, show me you understand why I made the points I did,

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.

even though you may disagree with them ! I will be waiting

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.

When we read Jn 3:18

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We read of them being condemned already, and for that to be True, such ones Christ could not have died for, because God in Justice cannot and will not condemned anyone, any sinner for whom Christ died, simply because Christ has already been condemned for them, having had their sins and condemnation charged to Him. Where Rom 5:18 states that condemnation came upon all by one Adam Rom 5:18

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Well, that Judgment unto condemnation came upon Christ instead of them, because He was their Surety !

So now that Justice for them has been served, God would be unjust to have anyone Christ died for under the sentence of condemnation at anytime, that would be equivalent to our double jeopardy laws !

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.

JHe that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

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.

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

It's not up to us to understand your reasoning.

Thats Illogical, then how can you debate my reasoning ? The very word debate means:

To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

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.

No, thats not what I said ! I stated that the condemnation that those who Christ died incurred, that condemnation of theirs was charged to Christ, hence He paid the penalty for it, so for them to be under condemnation at any time is like double Jeopardy ! God is not Unjust to hold condemned the Surety of those Christ died for, and those for whom Christ died for !

 

[JonC]

It seems that you are picking verses out to build a doctrine rather than allow doctrine to flow from Scripture (creating a god of your own design). I say this with the assumption that silence when asked for clarification is confirmation that I understand your comments (and my conclusions in post #9 were reflective of your view – that you believe those saved were at no time under condemnation).

My conclusions are based on the following observations and conclusions (please correct any misunderstanding of your position):

You present those for whom Christ died as being free from condemnation. Scripture links “freed from condemnation” to faith (which would include Christ’s death and resurrection) but you limit it to His death (those for whom Christ died are free from any condemnation). It seems you do so in a strictly legalistic sense (penal substitutionary atonement as a binding context for the Atonement rather than illustrative). I understand that position (if it is indeed what you hold) but find it problematic. What is troublesome is the statement that God would be unjust based on our laws, and I think that this type of thinking can do nothing but produce erroneous conclusions (for example, under our laws God would be unjust for punishing Assyria for what He caused them to do, that which didn't even enter into their minds, in destroying Judah....but that is exactly what He did).

 

[savedbymercy]

sw on Jn 3:18

The first part of the sentence is easily understood. Those that believe are not condemned.

Thats right. And those that believe not are already condemned. Those who are already condemned and believe not are those who Christ could not have died for or they are being condemned again in addition to having been condemned in Christ !

Do you understand that Christ died as a Surety, and that He died for the condemnation that those He was a Surety for incurred upon themselves ?

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

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.

No it doesnt, the word because confirms my reasoning, a condemned person cannot believe because their sins have not been paid for, so thats why they believe not.

The believing not is the result of being condemned already.

Jesus told His disciples that as they preach the Gospel in the world, that those who believe it not shall be condemned ! That is they are showing that they are in a condemned state by their not believing Mk 16:15-16

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That word damned means:

I.to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment

A.to condemn


B.by one's good example to render another's wickedness the more evident and censurable

Now this cannot be the case for anyone Christ has already been punsihed and condemned for !

 

[Sapper Woody]

sw



Thats Illogical, then how can you debate my reasoning ?

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

The very word debate means:

To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

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

 

[Sapper Woody]

sw



No, thats not what I said ! I stated that the condemnation that those who Christ died incurred, that condemnation of theirs was charged to Christ, hence He paid the penalty for it, so for them to be under condemnation at any time is like double Jeopardy ! God is not Unjust to hold condemned the Surety of those Christ died for, and those for whom Christ died for !

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

No, thats not what I said !

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

I stated that the condemnation that those who Christ died incurred, that condemnation of theirs was charged to Christ, hence He paid the penalty for it, so for them to be under condemnation at any time is like double Jeopardy !

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."

God is not Unjust to hold condemned the Surety of those Christ died for, and those for whom Christ died for!

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.

 

[Sapper Woody]

sw



No it doesnt, the word because confirms my reasoning, a condemned person cannot believe because their sins have not been paid for, so thats why they believe not.

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:

The believing not is the result of being condemned already.

So which is it?

Jesus told His disciples that as they preach the Gospel in the world, that those who believe it not shall be condemned ! That is they are showing that they are in a condemned state by their not believing Mk 16:15-16

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.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That word damned means:

I.to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment

A.to condemn


B.by one's good example to render another's wickedness the more evident and censurable

Now this cannot be the case for anyone Christ has already been punsihed and condemned for !

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.

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

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.

No you are saying the opposite of what the verse says. Those Christ died for cannot be condemned again !

Also, those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are yet being enemies and unbelievers , they are reconciled to God by Christ's Death ! Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

That word reconciled denotes having peace with God by the death of Christ for them while they were unbelievers/enemies !

So how can they be condemned by God as unbelieving enemies, and be reconciled to God into favor and peace at the same time as unbelieving enemies ?

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

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.

Those who believe not shall be condemned, as in a condemned state ! Jesus is basically telling the disciples, when people dont believe the Gospel you preach, its because they are condemned, lost !

The Gospel is hid from them that are lost , so that they believe not 2 Cor 4:3-4

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Thats why they dont believe the Gospel, because they are in a damned lost and blind state !

 

[savedbymercy]

sw

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.

Thats right, Christ did not die for them, if He did, they could not be condemned, because Christ was already condemned for them.

Do you understand that when Christ died, He died as a result of being condemned for others as their Surety ? Yes or No ?