• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The plausibility of John 3:18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is what I posted:


And that is what I meant. No amount of false accusations will change that "brother". There are only a few options here. If you disagree with the passage then I can see two reasons. Either it is your theology or my using "Christ" in the passage.

Now it is up to you. Are you going to be a man and admit you pushed the boundaries here? Or are you going to go along with the crowd as a lackey defending your "gang"? I think I know, but it's up to you.
I remember reading your thoughts on his"gang". they were posted for awhile, then could not be found.
The gang was being accused of 6 or 7 things as I recall...being Dishonest, untrustworthy, behaving as non-Christians, Martin Marprelate, Biblicist, myself and others were named as I recall..... Do you remember that post, I know Biblicist does.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Jon, I was not responding to your post but to the post of 37818 at #170. How you got it I don't know. I presented evidence that his use of Ezekiel 18 was simply false. Were you quoting his post?

I rechecked my post and in the heading it is 37818 that I responded to.
Sorry. I must have misread your reply. I've been busy with a "DoG pile". I also do not know how I made the mistake, but you have my apology.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Here’s the thing, I would have NEVER asked you that question. I know you believe He is the only begotten of God, as John 1:14 states.

It was rather unseemly for you to even ask me that question. That’s what got my dander up.
I was not asking a question. I was stating what I saw as a list of the only possible alternatives so that you could respond. I can see no other options, but I was open to yours.

But that is why I was careful to use the "if" and such. Not as an "out" but so that you could see those were the few alternatives I could come up with. I do apologize if you thought differently, but I would never question your view on that part because it would be to question your salvation. I never considered you anything but a brother (there are some I doubt, but not you).
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was not asking a question. I was stating what I saw as a list of the only possible alternatives so that you could respond. I can see no other options, but I was open to yours.
But that statement was uncalled for. You’re a mod who is to keep peace, not incite a riot. You had no business asking me that. No one has any business asking another believer that question.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
But that statement was uncalled for. You’re a mod who is to keep peace, not incite a riot. You had no business asking me that. No one has any business asking another believer that question.
It should not have been a riot (certainly not a DoG pile). I was looking at the only possible options to interpret my comment versus the actual passage. There was very little change. And it was not a question.

Again, I am sorry if you thought it a statement you did not believe Christ was God's Son. That is not the case at all. I have always considered you a brother (even through our disagreements). I cannot say that for every one here, but I have no doubt of your faith.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I look at it this way:

Jesus said (as recorded by John):
John 3:10-21
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."


If you fear it is otherwise, you need to take that up with God - not me.

But since you did take it up with me I'll let Him know you'll be inquiring and perhaps demanding otherwise. :D

(I joke, but you do realize that I did not expound on the passage....just stated it....right?)

This passage cites three different causes for their condemnation. In verse 18a we have them "condemned already" prior to Christ's coming into the world as that is the reason he came into the world to save condemnation preceded his coming. In verse 18b we have a second manifest current cause in response to His arrival into the world where he uses present tense participles. In verse 19 we have the words "this is the condemnation" which cites another third more deeper more sinster underlying cause for their condemnation which is responsible for the manifest condemnation for unbelief which is due to their depraved nature. Their fallen nature hates light and loves darkness and will not come to the light - thus the cause for their unbelief.

Hence, Jesus is returning to the need of new birth as first introduced in John 3:3-11. Verse 21 gives credit to the work of God (new birth) for anyone who does love the light and comes to it.

The "condemned already" refers to the root cause for both the superficical cause of condemnation (v. 18b) and the deeper heart cause for condemnation that prevents belief and that is the condemnation due to one man's sin:

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

The new birth (Jn 3:3-6) is necessary for all men because all mankind are born into this world with a fallen nature due to one man's sin, and that is the root condemnation to explain their love for darkness, hatred of light and refusal to beleive.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Yes. Thuggish behavior. What I mean here is that @SovereignGrace pulled the very last comment on a series of "if" and "unless" comments and claimed I was stating the last. From there you and @Iconoclast jumped on board (as predicted before y'all jumped on board). This is what I mean by thuggish behavior. It's a "gang" mentality - a "jump on the one that differs with our opinion" even if the accusation is obviously false.
Are you ever going to answer my question about Adam? How many times have I asked now? 4, 5?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
This passage cites three different causes for their condemnation. In verse 18a we have them "condemned already" prior to Christ's coming into the world as that is the reason he came into the world to save condemnation preceded his coming. In verse 18b we have a second manifest current cause in response to His arrival into the world where he uses present tense participles. In verse 19 we have the words "this is the condemnation" which cites another third more deeper more sinster underlying cause for their condemnation which is responsible for the manifest condemnation for unbelief which is due to their depraved nature. Their fallen nature hates light and loves darkness and will not come to the light - thus the cause for their unbelief.

Hence, Jesus is returning to the need of new birth as first introduced in John 3:3-11. Verse 21 gives credit to the work of God (new birth) for anyone who does love the light and comes to it.

The "condemned already" refers to the root cause for both the superficical cause of condemnation (v. 18b) and the deeper heart cause for condemnation that prevents belief and that is the condemnation due to one man's sin:

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

The new birth (Jn 3:3-6) is necessary for all men because all mankind are born into this world with a fallen nature due to one man's sin, and that is the root condemnation to explain their love for darkness, hatred of light and refusal to beleive.
There is another option - that those who do not believe are judged already because of their unbelief (they remain in their condemnation which is due to moral transgression). That is probably what I think is your best position.

Now, you mention man's depraved nature. Here we have some common ground (at least a very little). I do not see man's nature as changing from Adam to Able. BUT I do see sin as a power over mankind as being introduced into the world. I am not certain that these thoughts are so foreign as to be major barriers. The difference (IMHO) is that while you view it as ontological to fallen man I view it as external with an ontological effect.

Do we disagree? Absolutely. But it is not something that I'd pull out the big guns over.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Are you ever going to answer my question about Adam? How many times have I asked now? 4, 5?
Sorry, I got distracted :D .

Yes. Adam had to believe in Christ (the One through Whom Adam was created) in order to have eternal life. This is, IMHO, the root of the Fall. Adam put his faith in himself rather than in God. Otherwise he would not have sinned.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I got distracted :D .

Yes. Adam had to believe in Christ (the One through Whom Adam was created) in order to have eternal life. This is, IMHO, the root of the Fall. Adam put his faith in himself rather than in God. Otherwise he would not have sinned.

And where do you get this from Scripture? Although I will say this explains a lot about your position. So Adam was going to die before the fall because he did not believe in Christ? Remember, there is no indication that the second or even third persons of the Trinity were known to Adam.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
And where do you get this from Scripture? Although I will say this explains a lot about your position. So Adam was going to die before the fall because he did not believe in Christ? Remember, there is no indication that the second or even third persons of the Trinity were known to Adam.
No. We cannot base doctrine on a hypothetical.

For me, I believe that the Fall was within God's plan all along. I do not think that God was surprised or taken off guard. So I do not believe there was ever a provision for Adam to live forever. (I hold the "five points" plus "double predestination"....so I'm a bit pro-divine sovereignty in these things).

Also, Paul states that God's nature was made known to man through Creation (the "invisible attributes" to include "the Godhead"). If I had to choose between the Father and Son interacting with Adam, I'd lean to it being the Christ pre-incarnate.

I am a bit of a "literalist" when it comes to Scripture, so I accept that there is room for disagreement here. But I believe that the nature of God is known through Creation and that all things were created through Christ. (I also believe in a literal 6 day creation, which is another topic, but explains my "simple" take on what is written).

Basically, when we talk of man and we talk of life, I believe it is only in Christ. Period. Even Adam.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
No. We cannot base doctrine on a hypothetical.

For me, I believe that the Fall was within God's plan all along. I do not think that God was surprised or taken off guard. So I do not believe there was ever a provision for Adam to live forever. (I hold the "five points" plus "double predestination"....so I'm a bit pro-divine sovereignty in these things).

Also, Paul states that God's nature was made known to man through Creation (the "invisible attributes" to include "the Godhead"). If I had to choose between the Father and Son interacting with Adam, I'd lean to it being the Christ pre-incarnate.

I am a bit of a "literalist" when it comes to Scripture, so I accept that there is room for disagreement here. But I believe that the nature of God is known through Creation and that all things were created through Christ. (I also believe in a literal 6 day creation, which is another topic, but explains my "simple" take on what is written).

Basically, when we talk of man and we talk of life, I believe it is only in Christ. Period. Even Adam.

None of that gave biblical reason for your belief.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I remember reading your thoughts on his"gang". they were posted for awhile, then could not be found.
The gang was being accused of 6 or 7 things as I recall...being Dishonest, untrustworthy, behaving as non-Christians, Martin Marprelate, Biblicist, myself and others were named as I recall..... Do you remember that post, I know Biblicist does.
Hey Icon! Glad you made it back.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
None of that gave biblical reason for your belief.
I believe that these passages apply to Adam as well:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. John 1:18
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
I believe that these passages apply to Adam as well:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. John 1:18

Yes, post-fall. That is only true post-fall. Pre-Fall, Adam already had access to the Father.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes, post-fall. That is only true post-fall. Pre-Fall, Adam already had access to the Father.
That's another difference. I believe that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. I believe that the "plan" included the Fall - Creation itself was purposed for redemption.

You suppose that Adam had access to the Father (the ANE language of the Old Testament suggests otherwise, but that's extra-biblical).

Can you provide a verse that states it was the Father who walked through the Garden and interacted with Adam, or is that speculation?
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
I believe that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.
Plan yes, but again, that was for post-fall. What if Adam had never sinned? Was he condemned before he sinned? No. Genesis makes that clear.

You suppose that Adam had access to the Father (the ANE language of the Old Testament suggests otherwise, but that's extra-biblical).

Can you provide a verse that states it was the Father who walked through the Garden and interacted with Adam, or is that speculation?

I will have to study it further, but you would have the same burden of proof to say it was the Son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top