Featured The plausibility of John 3:18

I am sure that is a heartfelt response. Yes...I disappeared faster than that thread...you know , the one you suggested I fabricated,lol... Biblicist saw it disappear also however...observe.....
Biblicist;

Guess he made it up??? what do you think? Do you recall it? this was posted Feb2 are you sure you do not recall the post. You spoke of...The "gang". You started off speaking of Martin M. Who along with Biblicist offered you some solid correction, then Biblicist walked through several posts offering solid teaching which you did not seem to welcome at that time.
I believed that because you indicated in your posts how the Calvinists were dishonest and untrustworthy, and 4 0r 5 more charges. If you could repost it, it will speak for itself in case my memory is off ....

 

It is not possible for it to be the best option. Romans 5:16,18 are extremely clear about the true origin of the condemnation of all men and it has nothing to do with unbelief but with "one man's sin". You must remember that the subject Jesus introduces in John 3:3-21 is the new birth and its necessity. Unbelief comes as a developmental conseqence later on (vv. 14-18). The new birth has nothing to do with condemnation for unbelief but with underlying causes of unbelief (vv. 19-21). Unbelief is not the stated cause for condemnation in Romans 5:12-19 but repeatedly Paul says the stated cause for condemnation is "by one man's disobedience." Unbelief is merely a consequence not the cause. Unbelief is merely the manifest reason for condemnation but not the root reason nor the underlying reason.

 

Jon, you are ignoring that a completely different cause for condemnation is given in verse 19 and so this passage is not merely dealing with a singural cause for condemnation.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

You are also completely ignoring additional exegetical evidence that your conclusion of a singular cause for condemnation cannot possibly be correct. You are ignoring passages that expressly deal with the true cause, explicitly stated, as the true source of condemnation (Rom.5:16,18). In order to embrace your interpretation one must literally close their eyes to exegetical based evidence that completely repudiates the idea that "unbelief" is the SINGULAR cause for condemnation and cannot possibly be the root cause.

 

Friend, I am afraid I have to disagree! Your view ultimately emptys the gospel of any saving value. Your view repudiates the very heart of the gospel and denies "substitution" in any true saving sense. Sorry, but I can't see it any other way.

 

Did, that judgement, take place, in Adam?

 

That's not what it comes down to at all. In fact, it has no bearing on it. What makes you think it comes down to that?

 

Who claimed he saw the Father face to face?

 

No, we agree absolutely. Those who are condemned are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So far so straightforward.

But why are they condemned? Answer: Because they are still in their sins (John 8:24). Why are they still in their sins? Because they are not united to Christ by faith and therefore the propitiation for sins for which the Father set Him forth (Romans 3:25) does not apply to them, and God's wrath abides on them (John 3:36). God's wrath is 'against all the godlessness and wickedness of men' (Romans 1:18).

 

You know nothing of the sort.

I am not understanding what your chanllenge is.

I am not understand what you mean or evidently what what you think you are asking.

 

Well, guess what? You are the type that is taylor made for the "ignore" button! Goodbye!

 

I'm not sure I'd go that far.

OK. Why are they 'in their sins' in the first place, and why does believing in Christ remove their condemnation? And why did Christ have to die if all one needs to do is to believe on Him?

No. God's wrath abides upon sinners (e.g. Colossians 3:6). It abides upon them because they are sinners who have rejected Christ.

Being 'in Christ' would do us no good at all were it not for the fact that God 'Set [Him] forth as a propitiation by His blood......... to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

This reminds me of one of those conversations one might have with Jehovah's Witnesses:
J.W. Look at this text, 'The Father is greater than I.' That proves that Christ is not equal with the Father.
Me: Yes but He also says..........
J.W. Look! He says, 'The Father is greater than I.'
Me: Yes but you have to look at Philippians 2.........
JW: 'The Father is greater than I.'
Me: Yes but in Titus 2:13.........
JW: 'The Father is greater than I.'
Me: Yes but how do you get around John 1:1........?
JW: 'The Father is greater than I.'
Me: Yes but........
JW: 'The Father is greater than I.'

Actually, it's worse than that because the JWs do at least have a couple more texts than John 14:28.

 

You have not established this by any exegetical evidences. I have established by exegesis that the power of sin does not reside in sin but in the "law" (1 Cor. 15:56) as it is the law that empowers sin due to the reaction of the depraved nature when confronted with law. This is precisely the reaction described in Romans 7:7-10 and 14-25. I have also established that the power of sin is not inherent in sin, but in Satan and his kingdom (Eph. 2:3). In contrast you have NOTHING to base your assertion upon except your atonement theory.

Again, you have nothing to base this assertion upon but jerking John 3:18 out of context and ignoring all exegetical based contextual factors that all repudiate your assertion. You won't even enter into an exegetical based defense of your unwarranted assertion of John 3:18 because you can't.

To say rejection of God is not a moral transgression is pure lunacy and the absolute proof it is pure lunacy is that you have not one text of scripture to support such an assertion. In contrast God Himself describes Himself in MORAL terms (holiness, just, righteousness, good, etc.) just as the Law of God is described in MORAL terms (holy, just, good- rom. 7:12) and sin by Biblical definition is "transgression of the law" whereas your definition is NOWHERE STATED IN THE BIBLE.

One text of scripture please to support this assertion that his sin was an expression of faith instead of willful rejection of all basis for faith? Just one text please?

What? Faith is the root of sin?????? Find me a text that supports that please? You are accusing Paul of "barking up the wrong tree" as Paul repeatedly and clearly and explicitly states over and over again that "condemnation came upon all men" by one man's disobedience and NEVER says anything about your view as the "root of sin."

Who is reading into scripture what scripture does not say? YOU ARE! Why? Because your THEORY demands it but the Bible denies it.

 

I have never affirmed this. It is the sort of result that you get when you start your theology with man instead of with God.. Sin is a falling short of the righteousness an holiness of God as I pointed out earlier.

The rejection of God is a moral transgression.
However, the idea of 'root' sins and 'fruit' sins is an interesting one. According to Richard Owen Roberts, there are, not one, but at least three root sins, of which unbelief is one. In Jude 5-7, we are confronted with three sets of sinners: The Israelites who 'could not enter in because of unbelief' (Hebrews 3:19); the fallen angels who rebelled against God, and the Sodomites whose root sin was pride (Ezekiel 16:45). I have heard others speak of selfishness as a root sin.

Indeed it is; the rest does not follow from that. It is like your faulty analogy of the man drowning. The reason he drowns is that his lungs become filled with water. The reason men are condemned is because they sin and come under judgement.

 

If you want to know what is silly - sinning because of faith is silly. He sinned willfully, knowingly, intentionally rejecting his basis for faith. His "lust" was for his wife as he chose to side with her rather than live without her.

.

Now this is not only silly, but please present just one text of scripture that says this - just one?

What you are saying is a self-contradiction! first there is no such thing as a sinner without sin and there is no such thing as sin apart from transgression of the law and there is no transgression of the law without moral accountability. Changing the sinner changes the sinful desire to sin - hence the necessity to be "reborn."