The plausibility of John 3:18

[JonC]

That does not show that sin is never a moral transgression which is what I asked you to prove. That being said, if I see someone being beaten, and I do nothing to try and stop it, whether it is intervene or call the police, do you think that is not a moral transgression?

The reason you see others as "beaten" is because you have put up a strawman argument.

No one has denied that a moral transaction is sin. That is what you asked me to prove as well. Have you read the story of Don Quixote? He also had many victories.

 

[JonC]

So let me get this straight, we are condemned because of a power that we have nothing to do with and somehow controls us? Then why in the world are we at fault?

Yes. We are slaves to sin. At the same time we willingly sin. No one does what is right because our hearts are evil. We have a sin nature.

I did not realize you lean towards free-will theology. But your error is that our wills (our natural will) is captive to sin. We have a nature and heart inclined to sin. That is why God must draw man.

This comes through if you read the ECF's. Their narratives may not be "theologically correct" but the truth that they convey is biblical. There is NONE who are righteous. NONE that do God's will.

 

[Reformed1689]

The reason you see others as "beaten" is because you have put up a strawman argument.

What in the world are you talking about???

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes. We are slaves to sin. At the same time we willingly sin. No one does what is right because our hearts are evil. We have a sin nature.

I did not realize you lean towards free-will theology. But your error is that our wills (our natural will) is captive to sin. We have a nature and heart inclined to sin. That is why God must draw man.

You do realize you are all over the place with your theology right? Are you SURE you understand your own beliefs?

 

[JonC]

You do realize you are all over the place with your theology right? Are you SURE you understand your own beliefs?

No, you just have not grasped what I am saying. You just rejected total depravity and yet I suppose you will come back and pretend you affirm Calvinism.

You realize this, correct? You have just transcended several opposing theologies to try and make a point, yet still failed. You are all over the place.

I do not mean to be snarky, but how old are you and when did you attend seminary? You seem like someone who has been exposed to ideas he has not fully grasped or at least has not fully worked through. That is the problem with "caged" folks. They discover an idea and are so trapped by the new discovery they cannot comprehend anything else. It is what Spurgeon spoke of when he refered to Nelson and the telescope.

Do you know that illustration?

 

[Reformed1689]

You just rejected total depravity and yet I suppose you will come back and pretend you affirm Calvinism.

How in the world did I just reject total depravity by asking you clarifying questions? If you are referring to me asking you about sin being some controlling power that we have nothing to do with that is not a rejection of total depravity.

We are born in our sin. We inherit sin. We sin. Period. We don't see the light because we don't want to and cannot without regeneration.

And I don't think anyone here grasps what you are saying. Trust me, there are plenty of people scratching their heads over you because you make no sense and contradict yourself repeatedly.

 

[Reformed1689]

I do not mean to be snarky, but how old are you and when did you attend seminary? You seem like someone who has been exposed to ideas he has not fully grasped.

How is that not snarky? How is it even relative to this conversation?

 

[loDebar]

So let me get this straight, we are condemned because of a power that we have nothing to do with and somehow controls us? Then why in the world are we at fault?

Precisely the trick of the devil to blame God

 

[JonC]

How is that not snarky? How is it even relative to this conversation?

How is it snarky? I am wondering because your replies are all over the place. It seems that you do not know what you actually believe but have adopted a system from someone else. I say this because of your rejection of sin as a power in favor of free-will when it suits you but at the same time you seem to want to hold a Calvinistic view in theory. In my experience this is typical of the younger or at least newer graduates of seminary or bible college. Their theology is all over the place because they have selected a few ideas that resonate with them.

I don't mean it snarky, but your inference it is pretty much answers my question. Let me guess....mid to late 30's....maybe early 40's but I doubt it.... graduated within the past five years...probably online courses? There is a difference when we look at how people like @The Biblicist and @Reformed hold and defend their position. This is a difference that comes with maturity. Again, not an insult - I'd love to be young again and exploring these things. But when you mature there is a different attitude towards Christians who disagree with your position and with the way you hold your own view. You will see, and when that time comes you can tell me I was right (about maturity, not necessarily about our views)...except I'll probably be dead (physical death).

My suggestion is that you take the time to "work out your own salvation". Listen to other people and to what they say. Weigh their words against Scripture. It is telling that you have never before encountered my view and that you see it as "all over the place". It is not a new view (it is much older than the one you hold insofar as its articulation).

Since the position does not make sense to you how can you even evaluate it? Don't rely on me (I'm not a teacher....I work for the government...if you need a top secret clearance, then listen to me). But learn from those who have gone before. When you understand the view then evaluate it. If you find it is correct, adopt it. If you find it is not correct, abandon it. That's YOUR responsibility. This is just a discussion board.

 

[37818]

You are confusing the relationship between fallen men with the unfallen condition and position of Adam with regard to his posterity. No human being acts as a represenative for others after the fall because we are all equally fallen. However, that is not the case with Adam prior to the fall. He acted as the representive of the whole human race and this is clearly spelled out in Romans 5:12-19 and is undeniable because Paul repeats over and over again "by one man's disobedience many.....be dead, be condemned...made sinners." You cannot apply that repetitive phrase to Ezekiel 18 can you? Now be honest! Can you apply that phrase to Ezekiel 18????

God condemns men for their own sin, not the sin of others. Revelation 20:11-15.

Misquoting a verse does not a defense make.

Giving a reference is never a missquote. Now if you think that reference does not apply that is another matter. For which I would ask you why?

 

[Reformed1689]

How is it snarky? I am wondering because your replies are all over the place. It seems that you do not know what you actually believe but have adopted a system from someone else. I say this because of your rejection of sin as a power in favor of free-will when it suits you but at the same time you seem to want to hold a Calvinistic view in theory. In my experience this is typical of the younger or at least newer graduates of seminary or bible college. Their theology is all over the place because they have selected a few ideas that resonate with them.

I don't mean it snarky, but your inference it is pretty much answers my question. Let me guess....mid to late 30's....maybe early 40's but I doubt it.... graduated within the past five years...probably online courses? There is a difference when we look at how people like @The Biblicist and @Reformed hold and defend their position. This is a difference that comes with maturity. Again, not an insult - I'd love to be young again and exploring these things. But when you mature there is a different attitude towards Christians who disagree with your position and with the way you hold your own view. You will see, and when that time comes you can tell me I was right (about maturity, not necessarily about our views)...except I'll probably be dead (physical death).

My suggestion is that you take the time to "work out your own salvation". Listen to other people and to what they say. Weigh their words against Scripture. It is telling that you have never before encountered my view and that you see it as "all over the place". It is not a new view (it is much older than the one you hold insofar as its articulation).

Since the position does not make sense to you how can you even evaluate it? Don't rely on me (I'm not a teacher....I work for the government...if you need a top secret clearance, then listen to me). But learn from those who have gone before. When you understand the view then evaluate it. If you find it is correct, adopt it. If you find it is not correct, abandon it. That's YOUR responsibility. This is just a discussion board.

Oh brother. I never argued for free-will in the way you are trying to make it out to be. You need to learn to read. I am firm in my beliefs, I believe yours to be in error. Plain and simple. There is zero scriptural support for your atonement position. And, quite frankly, your positions on sin are hyper. There are MULTIPLE people here who think you are the one that is all over the place. It isn't just me. You contradict yourself all the time or at least aren't clear in what you say.

 

[JonC]

Oh brother. I never argued for free-will in the way you are trying to make it out to be. You need to learn to read. I am firm in my beliefs, I believe yours to be in error. Plain and simple. There is zero scriptural support for your atonement position. And, quite frankly, your positions on sin are hyper. There are MULTIPLE people here who think you are the one that is all over the place. It isn't just me. You contradict yourself all the time or at least aren't clear in what you say.

I think you may need to revisit your reply. You argued against my view that mankind (natural man) is enslaved to sin because it removed guilt (they had not choice).

Your argument is that it is not fair if the lost are slaves to sin because it was somehow not their choice.

Are you willing to answer my question? How old are you and when did you complete seminary? Was it online?

 

[Reformed1689]

I think you may need to revisit your reply. You argued against my view that mankind (natural man) is enslaved to sin because it removed guilt (they had not choice).

Are you willing to answer my question? How old are you and when did you complete seminary? Was it online?

No, I know what I said. I asked you a question. I didn't argue anything.

 

[JonC]

No, I know what I said. I asked you a question. I didn't argue anything.

I did. I am 50 years old. I graduated college with a BA in religion however when I graduated I well over 250 SH's because I was, for a time, a career student. I studied data processing (when mainframe computers were the only business option), history, literature, and finally changed to religion. This was done on campus and through distance learning. After I graduated with a BA in religion I attended Liberty Theological Seminary online and earned a Master's degree in theological studies. That is the extent of my formal education. I am retired Army and I work as an investigator with OPM.

Can you share, or is that too much to ask?

You may wonder what is the relevance. I'll tell you.

I was a Calvinist for most of my ministry (I preached and taught before taking a job with the government). But towards the end of my formal ministry I was convicted that I had made a serious error and exceeded Scripture. So I know Calvinism and Penal Substitution Theory. That is my background.

As we communicate it is helpful to know yours. I am, probably to a fault, more forgiving to newer graduates and newer ministers than I am to those who "should know better".

 

[Reformed1689]

As we communicate it is helpful to know yours. I am, probably to a fault, more forgiving to newer graduates and newer ministers than I am to those who "should know better".

You already know we went to the same school and have the same degree.

 

[JonC]

You already know we went to the same school and have the same degree.

I know that. But what matters more is when and your age.

I have found conversations vary depending on the maturity of the person. Some things that ate important to me, for example, are less so with those more mature. I do not view things the same as I once did, and I was once VERY much like you seem here. That is why I ask. Also, was it strictly online? The reason I ask here is that it seems your interaction with Christians of different opinion seems lacking. You do not seem able to make sense of other people's views if they differ from yours.

There is a maturity that comes with being in the ministry and working through many of these things that you seem to lack. It is not a negative (unless you graduated decades ago) but merely an observation. You seem to fit Spurgeon's mold of "Nelson".

 

[Reformed1689]

I know that. But what matters more is when and your age.

I have found conversations vary depending on the maturity of the person. Some things that ate important to me, for example, are less so with those more mature. I do not view things the same as I once did, and I was once VERY much like you seem here. That is why I ask. Also, was it strictly online? The reason I ask here is that it seems your interaction with Christians of different opinion seems lacking. You do not seem able to make sense of other people's views if they differ from yours.

There is a maturity that comes with being in the ministry and working through many of these things that you seem to lack. It is not a negative (unless you graduated decades ago) but merely an observation. You seem to fit Spurgeon's mold of "Nelson".

And why are we talking about me and not theology? A little off topic don't you think? Red Herring.

 

[JonC]

And why are we talking about me and not theology? A little off topic don't you think? Red Herring.

No, it is not a "red herring" at all. You have made almost a "career" here of talking about me rather than my theology.

You have expressed a concern twice that my view seems to you as being "all over the place'. While it is not the majority view for Baptists it is a common view within Christianity itself. It is also a view within Baptists (granted, a minority view).

So I wonder how you are in your maturity. Not in your Christian maturity (which is a personal issue between you and God) but in your maturity as a minister. Since these ideas seem beyond your apprehension (without depending on me to explain ever minute detail, which I can't as I am not a patient teacher and would just as soon shoot you as to teach you) I think that you are new to the ministry or at least a newer graduate of seminary.

I told you who you are dealing with and I had hoped you were willing to do the same. I never considered it may be something you wanted to hide, so if it is by all means keep it to yourself. There has been enough debate over the "caged-staged" Calvinists that I would understand your apprehension if the label fits.

 

[Reformed1689]

Since these ideas seem beyond your apprehension (without depending on me to explain ever minute detail, which I can't as I am not a patient teacher and would just as soon shoot you as to teach you) I think that you are new to the ministry or at least a newer graduate of seminary.

Who said that they are? I am saying your posts seem to flow between theories. It's not readily understandable what fence yard you are in.

You say one thing in one post, then the exact opposite in another and when called on it you use grammar gymnastics to say you really said the other thing. So yeah, it is really easy to get lost.

Trust me, I am well aware of the major atonement theories and PST is the only one that works biblically.

The theories are:

• The Ransom Theory which is payment by God to Satan. Unbiblical
• Satisfaction Theory this is strictly the debt has been paid to God's satisfaction.
• Christus Victor Christ was the victor over the power of sin. This is most close to what it sounds like you argue for, correct me if I am wrong.
• Penal Subsitution which is my view and, in my opinion, the only biblical view.
• Scapegoat Theory which uses the imagery of Lev. 16
• Governmental Theory in which God shows his displeasure with sin through the cross.
• And a few other theories.

If I am wrong on which view you are arguing for, and I will be the first to admit I do not read every one of your posts closely because there are too many to fast, please let me know. But I'm not going to turn this into a conversation of credentials and age.

 

[JonC]

Who said that they are? I am saying your posts seem to flow between theories.

Perhaps that is because I do not ascribe to a single theory. IMHO the atonement is too important a doctrine to leave it up to picking which theory we believe best fits. The reason I believe this is because so much is built on our view of the atonement.

If you know your history then your comments that my view seems to be "all over the place" was merely insult and not a genuine comment. If you don't, then I can accept your confusion.

Yes, my view flows "between theories". I believe that the ECF's had something to say even though we do not always accept the way they said it. We use illustrations to explain our views, as did they. And, as you probably know, the most common way of viewing the atonement in the early church was with the Father as some sort of referee between the Son and Satan. We both would agree that this is not correct - BUT what they were trying to communicate may not be so off target.

Are you a fairly recent seminary graduate (within 5 years)? Was it online? Are you under the age of 40...ish? I want to know how close I am regarding my estimation based on your comments.