The plausibility of John 3:18

[JonC]

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.

You did almost affirm it with your idea that man has a "sin nature". Scripture does not actually use that term, but it does use "sin" as a "power" and as a "master" and as an enslaving force (my view).

That said, I never said that the rejection of God was not a moral sin (it is not, by definition, a "transgression"....if we are taking our definition of "transgression" from Romans).

You say that sin is a moral transgression.

I say that sin is a moral transgression, and an enslaving principle. Why should I have to deny passages that speak of sin as such a power in order to affirm it's moral implications???? Why should I have to deny that those who are condemned are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son in order to affirm that the lost are "left in their sins"????

You do not have to deny one passage in order to affirm another. They all work together. This is my point. You do not have to limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects because Scripture does not limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects (Christ can mediate because He knows our suffering; Christ is the Head and we are the body; God was in Christ reconciling the World to Himself, etc).

Take a lesson from Spurgeon - let your answer not be "yes, nay" to Scripture but "yes, yes". Don't be Spurgeon's "Nelson".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 have quite correctly quoted james 1:14-15, but then completely missed the point. Adam did not fall through lack of faith -- God had spoken to him and given him verbal instructions (Genesis 2:16-17). No, his sin was rebellion in that he put hos own desires before the will of God, and the result was that he broke most of the Ten Commandments.

If your only tool is a hammer, it is not surprising if every problem looks like a nail. If you have come to the prior belief that the only sin is lack of faith it is not to be wondered at if you decide that men are condemned for unbelief. And it is only to be expected that you will find one text that seems to support you and then bounce up and down on it like a trampoline.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You did almost affirm it with your idea that man has a "sin nature".

Where exactly did I say that man has a 'sin nature'? It is not a term that I tend to use, so I'll be interested to know where it was.

 

[JonC]

Where exactly did I say that man has a 'sin nature'? It is not a term that I tend to use, so I'll be interested to know where it was.

Sorry. Maybe it was someone else. I take it you deny we have a "sin nature" ("fallen nature", or as I say, that we are "sinners" ) .

 

[JonC]

You have quite correctly quoted james 1:14-15, but then completely missed the point. Adam did not fall through lack of faith -- God had spoken to him and given him verbal instructions (Genesis 2:16-17). No, his sin was rebellion in that he put hos own desires before the will of God, and the result was that he broke most of the Ten Commandments.

If your only tool is a hammer, it is not surprising if every problem looks like a nail. If you have come to the prior belief that the only sin is lack of faith it is not to be wondered at if you decide that men are condemned for unbelief. And it is only to be expected that you will find one text that seems to support you and then bounce up and down on it like a trampoline.

Scripture uses faith as more than a cognitive belief. That is why all one must do to be saved is to repent and believe.

Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin - "faith".

It is the cause of Adam's rebellion - he surrendered to his will or his desires. He did not just flip a coin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry. Maybe it was someone else. I take it you deny we have a "sin nature" ("fallen nature", or as I say, that we are "sinners" ) .

No, you take it wrongly. I just don't tend to use the term 'sin nature.'

 

[JonC]

No, you take it wrongly. I just don't tend to use the term 'sin nature.'

You don't believe we have a "sin nature"? Or you just use a different term?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You don't believe we have a "sin nature"?

I believe we are sinners. I don't find the term 'sin nature' in Scripture so I tend not to use it. I don't get bent out of shape if others do; but I don't.

 

[JonC]

I believe we are sinners. I don't find the term 'sin nature' in Scripture so I tend not to use it. I don't get bent out of shape if others do; but I don't.

I take it, then, that you affirm the idea we have a sin nature although you don't use the term.

My initial comment is that the idea is not so different from my use of the idea that we were "mastered" or "enslaved" by sin. What I do not entirely understand is why my wording seemed so offensive to some as they are the words Scripture uses.

 

[loDebar]

The more you make sinful choices the more you are apt to make those sinful choices, Degenerating to worse and worse.

Same with good choices except we call that Christian maturity or growth

 

[SovereignGrace]

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".

But it also say they are condemned already. They were already condemned BEFORE they reject the Christ.

If someone dies never hearing about the Christ, he died lost because he died in his sins.

 

[JonC]

But it also say they are condemned already. They were already condemned BEFORE they reject the Christ.

If someone dies never hearing about the Christ, he died lost because he died in his sins.

That is not what the verse says. It says they are condemned already BECAUSE they do not believe.

The difference depends on whether or not one believes that God is revealed to all men (even the Godhead) through Creation (Scripture says the "invisible" things God has made known.

The Gospel is NOT that Jesus exists but that the Messiah has come. God's redemptive nature is manifested - the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world has ushered in a new covenant.

Those who do not believe, who have never heard the Gospel, are nontheless guilty of not believing in the name of the only begotten Son.

This was Adam's failure. He chose disobedience, relying on his own will instead of God. I belueve this is why Scripture informs us of the nature of the "fruit" (to make one wise, to be like God). It was then an issue of misplaced faith (a faith in ourselves) just as much as it is now.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That is not what the verse says. It says they are condemned already BECAUSE they do not believe.

The difference depends on whether or not one believes that God is revealed to all men (even the Godhead) through Creation (Scripture says the "invisible" things God has made known.

The Gospel is NOT that Jesus exists but that the Messiah has come. God's redemptive nature is manifested - the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world has ushered in a new covenant.

Those who do not believe, who have never heard the Gospel, are nontheless guilty of not believing in the name of the only begotten Son.

This was Adam's failure. He chose disobedience, relying on his own will instead of God. I belueve this is why Scripture informs us of the nature of the "fruit" (to make one wise, to be like God). It was then an issue of misplaced faith (a faith in ourselves) just as much as it is now.

Again, you are emptying the gospel of the cross. They see all that God has created, but they do NOT know that the Christ hung, bled, & died upon the cross. They can not call upon Him in whom they have NOT heard. And they go to hell for dying in their sins.

I am bowing out now, and giving you the last say.

 

[JonC]

Again, you are emptying the gospel of the cross. They see all that God has created, but they do NOT know that the Christ hung, bled, & died upon the cross. They can not call upon Him in whom they have NOT heard. And they go to hell for dying in their sins.

I am bowing out now, and giving you the last say.

Thank you.

It is impossible to "empty the gospel of the cross" (that is just an insult some toss around).

The gospel is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near (if you doubt this, read your Bible).

The Cross is central as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But it is wrong to concentrate on one aspect of Scripture at the expense of another. ALL of Scripture us "God-breathed". It ALL matters.

The reason we are (or should be) able to speak of the Gospel as "the Gospel of Christ" is because Scripture does.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you.

It is impossible to "empty the gospel of the cross" (that is just an insult some toss around).

The gospel is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near (if you doubt this, read your Bible).

The Cross is central as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But it is wrong to concentrate on one aspect of Scripture at the expense of another. ALL of Scripture us "God-breathed". It ALL matters.

The reason we are (or should be) able to speak of the Gospel as "the Gospel of Christ" is because Scripture does.

Another uncalled for remark. Abusing your power does you zero favors, pal.

 

[JonC]

Another uncalled for remark. Abusing your power does you zero favors, pal.

Listen up, pal

My comment means that this is what the Bible says - if you doubt that the gospel of Christ is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near then read your Bible. Do not imply what is not written. My comment is that it is IN THE BIBLE. Stop being childish.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Listen up, pal

My comment means that this is what the Bible says - if you doubt that the gospel of Christ is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near then read your Bible. Do not imply what is not written. My comment is that it is IN THE BIBLE. Stop being childish.

Stop throwing insults. I am not being childish, another insult hurled at me. Please check yourself, pal.

 

[JonC]

Stop throwing insults. I am not being childish, another insult hurled at me. Please check yourself, pal.

I consider "pal" an insult. I also consider it an insult to imply that I was somehow "insulting" you by telling you my conclusion was stated in the Bible. That is child-like behavior - like a child putting his finger in his ears and humming so he can't hear what the grown ups are telling him - hence the term "childish".

My comment was that the gospel being the "gospel of Christ" that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is at hand IS in the Bible. If you do not believe it then read your Bible. You will find it in the "Gospels" (usually the first four books of the New Testament). Somehow you went off the reservation by thinking I was suggesting you did not read your Bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I take it, then, that you affirm the idea we have a sin nature although you don't use the term.

My initial comment is that the idea is not so different from my use of the idea that we were "mastered" or "enslaved" by sin. What I do not entirely understand is why my wording seemed so offensive to some as they are the words Scripture uses.

Ah! You are trying to implicate me in your errors.
I believe we are sinners. You will do well to contemplate the text you quoted above: James 1:14-15.
What people have rejected is that sin is a 'power.' It may be that you can define that more clearly to clear away the objections.

Sin, a I said before, is a missing of the mark, a falling short, a lack of conformity to the righteous commandments of God.
'.........Sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in HIm there is no sin' (1 John 3:4-5). Christ did not come, first and foremost, so that we would be saved by believing in Him. He came to rake away our sin, which He did at the cross.

 

[JonC]

Ah! You are trying to implicate me in your errors.
I believe we are sinners. You will do well to contemplate the text you quoted above: James 1:14-15.
What people have rejected is that sin is a 'power.' It may be that you can define that more clearly to clear away the objections.

Sin, a I said before, is a missing of the mark, a falling short, a lack of conformity to the righteous commandments of God.
'.........Sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in HIm there is no sin' (1 John 3:4-5). Christ did not come, first and foremost, so that we would be saved by believing in Him. He came to rake away our sin, which He did at the cross.

No, not at all. There are miles between us.

I am saying that you have argued strongly against my view (not just what I deny of yours, but of what I believe to be true).

My argument is that sin is lawlessness. But my argument is that sin is also a power that has enslaved mankind. My comment is that there does not seem to be very much difference between your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) and the biblical term that sin is a power under which mankind has been enslaved.