The plausibility of John 3:18

[Iconoclast]

Hey Icon! Glad you made it back.

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;

I can't even find the thread much less some missing posts. Have you tried just finding the thread. Maybe I am missing something, but when I type in the name of the thread nothing comes up.

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 ....

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

But it is not something that I'd pull out the big guns over.

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.

 

[percho]

John 3:18 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.

How is not plausible? You are asking how a positive statement in scripture cannot mean what it means. Obviously, it means that those who have not believed [in Christ] are already condemned. The word for "judged" is written as a completed action. Looking at this in the eschaton, it is referring to those who will never believe, not those who are unbelieving at the present time. Why? Because they are referred to as "judged already".

And what is with the Hyper-Calvinist accusation? Nice way to start off a thread.

Did, that judgement, take place, in Adam?

 

[JonC]

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.

Where I disagree is that my view retains oenal and substitution without making other aspects of the atonement secondary in nature but just as essential.

You and I see the same in the other. At the heart of the gospel you see redemption through punishment (Christ paying the price for our sins in our stead). I see redemption through Christ's obedience and sacrifice (Christ paying the price for us so that we are recreated in Him a new creation). So we both see the other as missing the heart of the gospel.

 

[JonC]

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.



I will have to study it further, but you would have the same burden of proof to say it was the Son.

It is onteresting. I think the "burden of proof" is easier on my part because of Scripture. There is not enough pre-fall passages to defend it was the Father. Ultimately it would vome down to whether or not the teaching no man has seen the Father applies pre-Fall. I am not sure I would share the same burden since I would not be limiting Scripture to post-fall.

It would be an interesting exploration.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ultimately it would vome down to whether or not the teaching no man has seen the Father applies pre-Fall.

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?

 

[JonC]

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?

The reason I say this is because Scripture contains many passages stating that no one has seen the Father. If this applies pre-Fall then it is highly questionable that Adam saw the Father face to face (and lived).

 

[Reformed1689]

The reason I say this is because Scripture contains many passages stating that no one has seen the Father. If this applies pre-Fall then it is highly questionable that Adam saw the Father face to face (and lived).

Who claimed he saw the Father face to face?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those who are condemned are condemed because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We just have to "agree to disagree".

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).

 

[JonC]

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).

This is actually interesting - why are they condemned? The verse says "because they have not believed in the name of the Only Begotten Son". This is the "why" they remain in their sins. And this is why God's wrath abides on them. And this is why the condemnation will be exercised at Judgment. And this is the "penal" aspect of the atonement that we, who do believe, are spared because we are "in Christ".

 

[37818]

Obviously you have no interest in truth . . .

You know nothing of the sort.

. . . as you could not take the challenge I gave you . . . .

I am not understanding what your chanllenge is.

. . . nor could you give any reasonable response to the evidences placed before but just repeated the same error again.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is actually interesting

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

- why are they condemned? The verse says "because they have not believed in the name of the Only Begotten Son". This is the "why" they remain in their sins.

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?

And this is why God's wrath abides on them.

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

And this is why the condemnation will be exercised at Judgment. And this is the "penal" aspect of the atonement that we, who do believe, are spared because we are "in 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.

 

[JonC]

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.

The issue is that I am not denying anything that you have put forward here. I've made a few statements that you almost affirm but then deny.

The first was that "sin" is a power (i.e., we are not able to truly do good because we are slaves to sin).

The second (that you try to address here) is that I believe the root of sin is ultimately a rejection of God - not a moral transgression. Those who do not believe are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son. The rest follows from that. That is our disagreement.

This is why Jesus can say that He judges no one, and at the same time say that the Father judges no one but all judgment is given to Him.

Were Jesus here I am sure some would point out that his comments contradict each other - BUT THEY DON'T. We cannot cherry pick passages in order to make doctrine.

Adam sinned, but it was not just a mindless act. It was an expression of faith (in himself rather than God). This is the root of sin. Does it mean transgressions will not be punished? Of course not. Peter tells us that even Christians will be judged according to our deeds. But it does mean that you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is that I am not denying anything that you have put forward here. I've made a few statements that you almost affirm but then deny.

The first was that "sin" is a power (i.e., we are not able to truly do good because we are slaves to sin).

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.

The second (that you try to address here) is that I believe the root of sin is ultimately a rejection of God - not a moral transgression. Those who do not believe are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son. The rest follows from that. That is our disagreement.

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.

Adam sinned, but it was not just a mindless act. It was an expression of faith (in himself rather than God).

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?

This is the root of sin. Does it mean transgressions will not be punished? Of course not. Peter tells us that even Christians will be judged according to our deeds. But it does mean that you are barking up the wrong tree.

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.

 

[JonC]

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."

You cannot simply present "sin" as this "toss of a coin" type mentality. Adam did not just fall face first into the fruit and "poof" sin entered the world. That is just silly.

There is a reason that sin occurs. It is not happenstance. You, not Paul, are barking up the wrong tree.

Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived it gives birth to sin. And when sin is accomplished it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, @The Biblicist. Sin is not just something that people do. It comes out of our own desires (our own will).

Adam could have chosen to place his faith in God and obey. He chose instead to place his faith in his own desire. You can deny this all you want, but please skip on the exaggeration this is some view that floated here from nowhere land.

The problem goes beyond sin as a moral transgression. It is not the sin but the sinner that must be changed. Hence the necessity to be "reborn".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The issue is that I am not denying anything that you have put forward here. I've made a few statements that you almost affirm but then deny.

The first was that "sin" is a power (i.e., we are not able to truly do good because we are slaves to sin).

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 second (that you try to address here) is that I believe the root of sin is ultimately a rejection of God - not a moral transgression.

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.

Those who do not believe are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son. The rest follows from that. That is our disagreement.

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.

This is why Jesus can say that He judges no one, and at the same time say that the Father judges no one but all judgment is given to Him.

Were Jesus here I am sure some would point out that his comments contradict each other - BUT THEY DON'T.

Who here as said that our Lord's comments contradict themselves? Name the guilty men!

We cannot cherry pick passages in order to make doctrine.

Which is, of course, exactly what you do. You have banged on John 3:18 like a bass drum and forgotten the rest of the orchestra.

 

[The Biblicist]

You cannot simply present "sin" as this "toss of a coin" type mentality. Adam did not just fall face first into the fruit and "poof" sin entered the world. That is just silly.

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.

.

He chose instead to place his faith in his own desire.

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

The problem goes beyond sin as a moral transgression. It is not the sin but the sinner that must be changed. Hence the necessity to be "reborn".

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."