Featured The Case for Penal Substitution

Absolutely false! I have correctly exegeted the passage and you have had no exegetical based response to counter anything I have said! NADA,ZILCH NONE. Do I need to remind you that in many of your past threads you have clearly and explicitly and repeatedly stated that "unbelief" is the singular criteria with regard to Christ as judge??? Everyone following your posts knows this is true. Now you are doing a 180. Shall I go back and repost your posts that deal with your reasons for even quoting John 3:18???

 

I had stated that I believe this condemnation is the Judgment (the final judgment). - Jon #13

That does not, however, allow for an interpretation that those who do not believe are condemned for anything other than their refusal to believe. - Jon - #23

Does "for anything other" mean many other things?

 

No, you flatly make mistakes and then try to recover by using such statements as this

Absolutely and completely and utterly false!

In every single one of these contexts sin is a moral issue! In interpersonal relations it is a moral issue. As a principle and power it is set in a context that is undeniably a MORAL issue just read Romans 7:14-15, 18-21 as Paul repeated contrast "good" and "evil" when describing this "law of sin".

NOWHERE does the bible teach that sin has inherent power in and of itself - NOWHERE! The Bible teaches that its power is in its relationship to MORAL LAW - 1 Cor. 15:56. It's power is in relationship with the "power" of Satan (Eph. 2:2-3) as expressed in MORAL ISSUES.

What you are teaching is the epitomy of "half-truths"

 

That does not, however, allow for an interpretation that those who do not believe are condemned for anything other than their refusal to believe. - Jon - #23

There is no ambiguity in the above statement. The words "for anything other" is completely restrictive in meaning. If you don't mean what you clearly say until what you say is proven wrong and then you deny that is what you meant - give me a break! However, I am glad you now have changed your view and you have changed your view of John 3:18 whether you admit it or not as the record is the record.

Your example is completly flawed! Why did Todd fall into the ocean? Why is man condemned in the first place? Not because of unbelief but the Bible repeated and explicitly states in the most unambiguous clearest language possible -

for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

This is the primary cause for condemnation. This is why Todd fell into the ocean. What Todd did AFTER he fell into the ocean are consequential condemnations not the primary condemnation. The fallen nature, the state of unbelief are not the primary causes for condemnation but are consequences. NOTHING experiential in your life is the primary cause for your condemnation but "by the offence of ONE...came UPON ALL MEN to condemnation."

 

Do I understand you to say that Systematic Theology has no value?

 

I have questions for all.

Was not Adam the very first man in need of PSA?

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. John 3:18

Now, I believe that applied to Adam, yet I ask; How could that apply to Adam? What could Adam have known, about the only begotten Son of God? ----- What, Name?

Should Adam have named, one, born to Eve, Jesus?

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:20,23

Was Eve the first virgin?

BTW, I am not trying to stir things up. I am truly asking questions from my mind. Consider what the Word of God says concerning what Eve says concerning Cain in Gen 4:1 Check all translations. LORD, first time we know of she used this name. Jehovah

 

This is the entire essence of your error!

It does not matter to you because it utterly repudiates your whole theory but it is essential to God's view of atonement. To say the initial cause which defines the primary problem does not matter demonstrates the absolute bankruptcy of your theory as your theory necessarily is built on half-truths, partial truths at the expense of the whole truth. Your theory depends upon not merely ignoring the primary cause of condemnation but repudiating it and then replacing it with "unbeleif."

It does matter why Todd fell into the ocean, it does matter why man fell into condemnation because everything that follows is mere consequential rather than causual condemnations. Your theory attempts to make the whole taco out of the partial and consequential while repudiating the precise cause of condemnation and thus the necessary remedy or solution for the PRIMARY problem.

 

You are still repeating your eisgetical based error! John 3:18 in context repudiates that reasoning as "unbelief" is a symptom condemnation while the depraved heart is the underlying experiential causual condemnation (v. 19). Both of these are symptomatic and consequential to the real cause of condemnation (Rom. 5:16,18). So, you are doubling down on pure error.

 

False! He did not exercise faith in anything but the Bible says it was a WILLFUL act of pure defiance - he knew better but intentionally, purposefully, and willfullly sinned. NO faith was involved as willful sin does not require or include faith of any kind but is rather pure rebellion with full knowledge of the facts.

 

The only thing that is "absurd" is your eisgetical veiw of this passage which has been thoroughly exposed and you have absolutely no comeback except to repeat your totally unfounded assertion! I placed hard exegetical facts before you and your response???? NADA, ZILCH, NONE! You simply reassert your proven error.

Amazing! Utterly amazing! You flatly contradict the clear express unambiguous word of God which says the very opposite!!!

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) {by one man’s … : or, by one offence }
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

Jon says "the condemnation is not this sin" but Paul says "by the offence of one...came upon all men to condemnation"! A direct contradiction between Jon and Paul with regard to this SINGULAR sin by this SINGULAR man!! Who shall we believe? I think I will go with Paul because he is inspired and Jon is not!

Jon not only reverses the cause and effect with regard to condemnation of all men but repudiates the stated cause of condemnation upon all men!

Not only so, but John attempts to make the experiential causes for condemnation found in the life of man (which are consequential to the real cause) to be the primary cause of condemnation for all man. Why? Because it is by this one sin that death entered the world in the full sense of the term "death" = spiritual and physical and Jon's theory stands or falls upon denying spiritual death entered the world when in fact that is precisely what Jesus is definng as the underlying cause for unbelief in John 3:18-20. Why "unbelief"? Because the human spiritual condition LOVES darkness and HATES light and that is why unbelief occurs due to another underlying cause which itself has been "passed" down from Adam due to his ONE SIN.

This is another reason why your view is such a dangerous error!

 

Who are you suggesting believes this on this forum?

 

The underlined above is what makes this Non scriptural nonsense. Jesus died for the world no matter how hard Calvinist twist this scripture to make it agree with there man made doctrine of unconditional election. It is false to claim that Jesus died only for the elect when scripture says He died for the world. Do you really have to discard Jn 3:16 to make it fit your pitiful doctrine?
MB

 

There are plenty of verses regarding unconditional election. Look at Romans 8 and 9.

This argument would be sound if world only meant one thing all the time. But we know, and I am sure you know too, that it doesn't.

 

May I ask you from what primary source is the fallen nature described by Christ in John 3:19-20 derived? What is its origin? Is it "passed" down from Adam and thus inherent in all conceived in the womb or is it derived from post birth decisions?