Why are We Totally Depraved?

[Cypress]

It isn't sin for a baby to cry when hungry. It is sin when he hits his sister. Hitting is the fruit of the sinful tree. It proves what kind of tree he is.

Amy, The progression is the important part. I dont disagree with you about the crying when hungry. What kind of tree would they have been without Adams sin.....or what kind of tree would Adam have been if he had somehow been created an infant. Do you think they would have been different than other children?

 

[HankD]

Thanks for your response winman,

I juist wanted to give what I believe are evidences of our sinful nature passed on to us from Adam.

All your points are debatable (as you know) and a balance should be struck in a debate.

I do not follow the calvinistic line completely but that is another issue which would be lengthy and admitedly with difficulties.

Of course children without accountability do not have the same status as convicted sinners.

Yes, even the unregenerate can do good works, however these good works are not related to our spiritual status but as accountable to our God appointed government as all are required to be law abiding citizens through the common grace gifts of the convicting restraint of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of human filial love.

Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

No, I have never robbed a bank but even yet as a redeemed citizen of heaven it is probably still possible but unlikely. You have focused in upon a sin (bankrobbing). Many unregenerate sinners have never robbed a bank but they are sinners nonetheless.

Those who have been reckoned righteous through the gospel no longer need to have the law hanging over them to keep them in restraint but have the love of God infused into their being through the regeneration and are good citizens because they love God their father and walk in the Spirit.

Once a child commits a sin of accountability having been convicted/reproved of that sin then he/she becomes a sinner in deed, until that point of accountability I believe God does not reckon their position in Adam to their spiritual account.

Again my studiy of Romans 5:12 causes me to disagree with the premise that only death was transmitted down from Adam but sin as well.

Personally I don't don't like the phrase "original sin". I'm not sure what to call it but every human being born of adamic woman (Christ excepted) is infected and sooner or later the symptoms of actual sins appear.


HankD

 

[HankD]

HankD,
I dont remember if you participated in an earlier thread asking the question of what Adams children would have been like had he and Eve not sinned. Do you really think that they would be any different than your children? Yes, imagine them just laying there silently waiting for people to give them food, clothing, comfort, toys, entertainment, etc. Wouldn't happen imo. They would have made the same progression that your and my children made, without any inherited "sin nature". Whatcha think?

Well, this is pure speculation and can never prove a thing, however in a similar vein do you believe the infant Jesus cried as a baby when He was hungry?

BTW, crying is a language substitute for babies. It is not a sin to ask for nourishment, cleansing, etc no what the age.

Thanks for the thought provoking question though.

HankD

 

[webdog]

you missed Hanks point....missed it completely....or...you got it, but will not admit it

Or I got it, and reject Augustinianism The comparison is not accurate. If he had compared a human to a tree instead of a sinner to a tree it would have been accurate. A sinner is biblically defined as one who sins. Do you not get that...or are you just not admitting it?

an apple tree does not produce watermelons...it produces apples

*gasp* You are kidding!

 

[HankD]

Or I got it, and reject Augustinianism The comparison is not accurate. If he had compared a human to a tree instead of a sinner to a tree it would have been accurate. A sinner is biblically defined as one who sins. Do you not get that...or are you just not admitting it?



*gasp* You are kidding!

The point is that kind generates kind.

After we moved into our first house here in WA I saw a tree blossoming on the property that spring. I wasn't sure what it was until it bore cherries, then I knew it was a cherry tree (and not another kind) and had been a cherry tree all along having descended from the first cherry tree though there had been no fruit yet.

Also giving a pejorative doctrinal title that is related to a human being (for good or for bad - i.e Augustinianism, Arminainism, Calvinism) and a supported dogma does not necessarily make all of his theology right or wrong.

Augustine, Arminius and Calvin were Trinitarian.
So am I and I am relatively certain that you are also.

Point: we all have something in common with Augustine. Not all Augustinianism is necessarily wrong.

HankD

 

[webdog]

The point is that kind generates kind.

After we moved into our first house here in WA I saw a tree blossoming on the property that spring. I wasn't sure what it was until it bore cherries, then I knew it was a cherry tree (and not another kind) and had been a cherry tree all along having descended from the first cherry tree though there had been no fruit yet.

HankD

I get that point, but if it were decreed that any tree that grew apples would be cut down and burned up the tree would not be cut down and burned up until it produced the apples. Same principle applies to sin. When one sins in like manner Adam did (by consciously violating God's law), they become a sinner

14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Sinners are spiritually dead. Spiritually dead people perish, yet the majority of people holding to augustinianism believe all infants do not perish, which contradicts Scripture.

 

[Amy.G]

I get that point, but if it were decreed that any tree that grew apples would be cut down and burned up the tree would not be cut down and burned up until it produced the apples. Same principle applies to sin. When one sins in like manner Adam did (by consciously violating God's law), they become a sinner

"for ALL have sinned". We're all sinners simply by the fact that we're ALL born in sinful flesh and unfit to stand in the presence of a holy God.

14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

James is speaking to believers, so he isn't talking about spiritual death in this verse.

Sinners are spiritually dead. Spiritually dead people perish, yet the majority of people holding to augustinianism believe all infants do not perish, which contradicts Scripture.

No, it doesn't. God covers anyone He chooses in Christ's blood. We are not born again by our own will, but God's will.

 

[Allan]

I get that point, but if it were decreed that any tree that grew apples would be cut down and burned up the tree would not be cut down and burned up until it produced the apples. Same principle applies to sin. When one sins in like manner Adam did (by consciously violating God's law), they become a sinner

14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Sinners are spiritually dead. Spiritually dead people perish, yet the majority of people holding to augustinianism believe all infants do not perish, which contradicts Scripture.

Hey Web.. LONG time no see

I know what you are saying above, but you are speaking of one who is actively in sin or sinning.. but the question that stirs the proverbial pot is why DID they?

It is interesting that Paul calls all men (prior to salvation) as children of wrath, and yet he KNOWS that some of them are 'to be' children of God.

Why call them children of wrath now, if they will be children of God?

Because it regards their state of being or nature.

If I'm not mistaken you also hold that children have a sin nature. And it is that nature that has them bent toward sin. It is that nature that is bent against God and thus makes us act contrary to godliness from the day we act out consciously.

Therefore even if they haven't yet acted upon that nature to 'do' a sin, their very nature is already contrary to God because of what it is, not what it has done. Those actions reveal who we already are, not what we might become.

One last thing:
Just because we are by nature 'dead' or separated from God, does not mean they must perish because they have not yet believed.
God judges those who have acted 'willingly' or better, by their own choice 'knowing' the truth, acted contrary to it. These are judged according to scripture because they are culpable for their sins.

But for those who do not know or understand, they are not culpable. Even Jesus makes this plain:

Jhn 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. - NASB

or this one:

Jhn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. - NASB

Being bent toward sin does not negate the fact that judicially, one must understand that what they have done -is sin- in order for them to be culpable. We have many illustrations of this in scripture even going back to Moses, when the people of Israel did not wish to obey God and go into the promised land. All of them were banished to wander in the desert for 40 years except... their children who were under a certain age. The point was simple.. all those who voted (so-to-speak) or voiced their intention to disobey God and not proceed KNOWING His command.. these were those who were able to make the choice to go or not, for the people of Israel. (this was age related, but it went all the way down to all children, even those who were babies) The only two that voiced their accent to go, were the ONLY TWO of that group allowed to go into the promised land (Caleb and Joshua). Thus those who could not make a judgment to obey or disobey were removed from the punishment for disobedience to God and allowed entrance into the promised land.

 

[Winman]

Thanks for your response winman,

You are welcome, I never mind debating with you, you are always a gentleman.

I juist wanted to give what I believe are evidences of our sinful nature passed on to us from Adam.

All your points are debatable (as you know) and a balance should be struck in a debate.

I do not follow the calvinistic line completely but that is another issue which would be lengthy and admitedly with difficulties.

I understand completely. I believed in original sin for many years because that is what I was taught. I am no stranger to the concept. I rejected it because I saw (and still see) MANY scriptures that I believe refutes it.

Of course children without accountability do not have the same status as convicted sinners.

That is not what Paul said in Rom 9:11. He did not say they had done evil but were not accountable, he said they had done no evil. He also said they had done no good. So a child that dies has no righteousness which can earn salvation and is still dependent upon the grace of God.

Yes, even the unregenerate can do good works, however these good works are not related to our spiritual status but as accountable to our God appointed government as all are required to be law abiding citizens through the common grace gifts of the convicting restraint of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of human filial love.

Good is good, and evil is evil. Calvinism has confused folks. It is not a sin when an unregenerate person tells the truth. If it is a sin to tell the truth because you are unregenerate, then all of God's commands are meaningless and completely unnecessary as well. Why command "Thou shalt not bear false witness" ? What difference does it make if you are unregenerate, it is a sin no matter what you do. This is utterly illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

If we are enslaved by a sin nature as Calvinism teaches, we could never choose to do good when we could choose to do evil. You can't say someone is enslaved to evil and in the next breath say they can choose to do good. That is a direct contradiction and cannot possibly be true.

What astounds me is that intelligent people can so easily be fooled by obvious contradictions.

Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Correct, Jesus said sinners can do good. Jesus knows what is good and what is evil, and he said sinners can do good. Men are not enslaved to sin.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

As I said before, there would be no such thing as "good works" if everything man does is evil. How can anyone not see this?​

No, I have never robbed a bank but even yet as a redeemed citizen of heaven it is probably still possible but unlikely. You have focused in upon a sin (bankrobbing). Many unregenerate sinners have never robbed a bank but they are sinners nonetheless.

I am simply saying that having the potential and ability to commit a sin does not make you guilty of that sin. If so, the police could go around and arrest anyone they wished at any time for any charge, as all men are capable of committing any crime.

If the police arrested you for robbing a bank simply because you have the ability to rob a bank, would that be just? No man in the world would say that is just, but completely unjust. Likewise, God does not condemn a person for potential or ability, but for actual crimes and sins committed.

How can folks believe such nonsense?

Those who have been reckoned righteous through the gospel no longer need to have the law hanging over them to keep them in restraint but have the love of God infused into their being through the regeneration and are good citizens because they love God their father and walk in the Spirit.

I agree with this, but that does not make it a sin to tell the truth. It is not a sin to tell the truth whether you are saved or unsaved, and it is a sin to lie whether you are saved or unsaved.

Once a child commits a sin of accountability having been convicted/reproved of that sin then he/she becomes a sinner in deed, until that point of accountability I believe God does not reckon their position in Adam to their spiritual account.

I agree here, God does not hold a child accountable until they understand the difference between good and evil and their accountability before God.

Again my studiy of Romans 5:12 causes me to disagree with the premise that only death was transmitted down from Adam but sin as well.

What can I say? It says death passed upon all men, it does not say sin passed upon all men.

Calvinism contradicts scripture. The scriptures say sin brings forth death, but Calvinism teaches we are born dead and this brings forth sin. Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture says.

Personally I don't don't like the phrase "original sin". I'm not sure what to call it but every human being born of adamic woman (Christ excepted) is infected and sooner or later the symptoms of actual sins appear.


HankD

You shouldn't like it, because it is false doctrine. The Greek Orthodox Church who used only Greek texts completely disagreed with Augustine's interpretation of Rom 5:12 from a Latin text. They said that Rom 5:12 properly taught that death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. They have NEVER agreed with Augustine.

Ezekiel 18 says all men die for their own sin. It says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.
Augustine must have failed to read this very simple and straightforward scripture, Calvin too.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are welcome, I never mind debating with you, you are always a gentleman.



I understand completely. I believed in original sin for many years because that is what I was taught. I am no stranger to the concept. I rejected it because I saw (and still see) MANY scriptures that I believe refutes it.



That is not what Paul said in Rom 9:11. He did not say they had done evil but were not accountable, he said they had done no evil. He also said they had done no good. So a child that dies has no righteousness which can earn salvation and is still dependent upon the grace of God.



Good is good, and evil is evil. Calvinism has confused folks. It is not a sin when an unregenerate person tells the truth. If it is a sin to tell the truth because you are unregenerate, then all of God's commands are meaningless and completely unnecessary as well. Why command "Thou shalt not bear false witness" ? What difference does it make if you are unregenerate, it is a sin no matter what you do. This is utterly illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

If we are enslaved by a sin nature as Calvinism teaches, we could never choose to do good when we could choose to do evil. You can't say someone is enslaved to evil and in the next breath say they can choose to do good. That is a direct contradiction and cannot possibly be true.

What astounds me is that intelligent people can so easily be fooled by obvious contradictions.




Correct, Jesus said sinners can do good. Jesus knows what is good and what is evil, and he said sinners can do good. Men are not enslaved to sin.

​

As I said before, there would be no such thing as "good works" if everything man does is evil. How can anyone not see this?​

I am simply saying that having the potential and ability to commit a sin does not make you guilty of that sin. If so, the police could go around and arrest anyone they wished at any time for any charge, as all men are capable of committing any crime.

If the police arrested you for robbing a bank simply because you have the ability to rob a bank, would that be just? No man in the world would say that is just, but completely unjust. Likewise, God does not condemn a person for potential or ability, but for actual crimes and sins committed.

How can folks believe such nonsense?




I agree with this, but that does not make it a sin to tell the truth. It is not a sin to tell the truth whether you are saved or unsaved, and it is a sin to lie whether you are saved or unsaved.



I agree here, God does not hold a child accountable until they understand the difference between good and evil and their accountability before God.



What can I say? It says death passed upon all men, it does not say sin passed upon all men.

Calvinism contradicts scripture. The scriptures say sin brings forth death, but Calvinism teaches we are born dead and this brings forth sin. Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture says.


You shouldn't like it, because it is false doctrine. The Greek Orthodox Church who used only Greek texts completely disagreed with Augustine's interpretation of Rom 5:12 from a Latin text. They said that Rom 5:12 properly taught that death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. They have NEVER agreed with Augustine.

Ezekiel 18 says all men die for their own sin. It says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.
Augustine must have failed to read this very simple and straightforward scripture, Calvin too.

You are correct. The Latin West got it completely wrong -- that goes for the RCC and the Magisterial Reformation.

 

[webdog]

"for ALL have sinned". We're all sinners simply by the fact that we're ALL born in sinful flesh and unfit to stand in the presence of a holy God.

Thats not what Scripture says, it says all have sinned...committed the very act of sin. Merely being conceived does not meet that qualification. Christ was 100% human, yet He doesn't fall under this "all".

James is speaking to believers, so he isn't talking about spiritual death in this verse.

I have never heard this interpretation before. Can you share a theologian that shares this view?

No, it doesn't. God covers anyone He chooses in Christ's blood. We are not born again by our own will, but God's will.

Based on the above, there might be unbelievers...atheists, muslims, mormons, etc. In Heaven? Faith is no longer a prerequisite?

 

[webdog]

Hey Web.. LONG time no see

Welcome back, I thought the turkeys did you in

I know what you are saying above, but you are speaking of one who is actively in sin or sinning.. but the question that stirs the proverbial pot is why DID they?

I think that is answered in James 1 which stems from the curse.

It is interesting that Paul calls all men (prior to salvation) as children of wrath, and yet he KNOWS that some of them are 'to be' children of God.

The immediate context is dealing with the jews who thought they were safe due to their nationality, but it can be also viewed in a broader sense of the flesh being cursed contaminating even the newly conceived, hence all dying.

Because it regards their state of being or nature.

Agreed.

If I'm not mistaken you also hold that children have a sin nature. And it is that nature that has them bent toward sin. It is that nature that is bent against God and thus makes us act contrary to godliness from the day we act out consciously.

Agreed.

Therefore even if they haven't yet acted upon that nature to 'do' a sin, their very nature is already contrary to God because of what it is, not what it has done. Those actions reveal who we already are, not what we might become.

The nature ensures what they will become, spiritually dead (sinners)

One last thing:
Just because we are by nature 'dead' or separated from God, does not mean they must perish because they have not yet believed.

This is our main point of disagreement. Scripture is clear that redemption to those spiritually dead must be accomplished by grace through faith which appears to contradict what you have said here.

God judges those who have acted 'willingly' or better, by their own choice 'knowing' the truth, acted contrary to it. These are judged according to scripture because they are culpable for their sins.

But for those who do not know or understand, they are not culpable. Even Jesus makes this plain:

Agreed...which makes your previous statement confusing.

Being bent toward sin does not negate the fact that judicially, one must understand that what they have done -is sin- in order for them to be culpable. We have many illustrations of this in scripture even going back to Moses, when the people of Israel did not wish to obey God and go into the promised land. All of them were banished to wander in the desert for 40 years except... their children who were under a certain age. The point was simple.. all those who voted (so-to-speak) or voiced their intention to disobey God and not proceed KNOWING His command.. these were those who were able to make the choice to go or not, for the people of Israel. (this was age related, but it went all the way down to all children, even those who were babies) The only two that voiced their accent to go, were the ONLY TWO of that group allowed to go into the promised land (Caleb and Joshua). Thus those who could not make a judgment to obey or disobey were removed from the punishment for disobedience to God and allowed entrance into the promised land.

Agreed.

Based on what we agree on I think the inconsistency lies in the fact you are defining someone with a sin nature as a spiritually dead sinner. Fact is we still have this nature (along with a new)...yet we are not spiritually dead. The very fact of being created dead is an oxymoron as death is the ending of life. Paul is quite clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses that WE used to walk in. This alone refutes being dead in Adams sins

 

[Allan]

The nature ensures what they will become, spiritually dead (sinners)

Ok.. but the very term 'nature' speaks to our state of being or spiritual disposition. Thus our 'sin nature' speaks directly not to what is a possibility but a present reality - a corrupted nature or literally a nature that misses the mark. That 'mark' is union with God.

This is our main point of disagreement. Scripture is clear that redemption to those spiritually dead must be accomplished by grace through faith which appears to contradict what you have said here.Agreed...which makes your previous statement confusing.

Not if you continue reading my post. Faith is a cognitive action, just as sin is a cognitive action.. Though one is born or conceived separated from God by nature, that is not what we are judged for. Even John McArthur (an avid Calvinist who holds to the "T") states in a sermon of his regarding infants and hell, that no one in scripture is ever judged according to nor for their sin nature... because the judgment regards those who are culpable for their actions.

If you will note the passages I quoted from Scripture regarding Jesus statement. If they did not know they would have no sin, but since they do - their sin remains. What is interesting about the passage is that Jesus doesn't say they never sinned, but if they don't know it they are not help culpable for it, but since they do.. their sin 'remains' - illustrating the action done has a consequence they are now culpable for. It is the aspect of being 'culpable' where we find judgment against sin, for their works - not their birth.

Based on what we agree on I think the inconsistency lies in the fact you are defining someone with a sin nature as a spiritually dead sinner. Fact is we still have this nature (along with a new)...yet we are not spiritually dead.

No.. I never said they are a spiritually dead "sinner", I said they are spiritually dead. The term 'dead' in scripture when relating to spiritual things always means separated, not without existence. Jesus is Life.. and thus to be 'dead' is to be separated or not in Union with Him or what is most often called being a 'child or son of God'. Paul's usage of 'adoption' solidifies this as in order to be adopted, you were never one with or a part of the new family in question. And since adoption was not even a Jewish a aspect done in their culture but the Romans, we get our understanding from their renderings on it. Interestingly enough under Roman Law if one was adopted they could not separate themselves from the family. You were family no matter what and could not be legally removed once adoption had been made.

The very fact of being created dead is an oxymoron as death is the ending of life.

No, death is not the ending of life except in the physical plane of existence. The death scripture speaks to regarding spiritual things is always and only separation from or not in union or one with God. (relationship)

Paul is quite clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses that WE used to walk in. This alone refutes being dead in Adams sins

I agree, we have established this fact, not created it. It doesn't state we have become dead, but that we 'are' (state of being) dead/separated in our sins. We have acted out what our nature ensured would happen - sin. That act is simply the manifestation of our spiritual condition.

As believers we do not have a sin nature any more for we are freed from sin, all things are passed away (no longer exist) all things have become new (having no stain or taint). Our flesh still is corrupt but our spirit/soul is clean before God. While we can still sin, it does not dominate us nor control us as it is no longer our nature. This is what scripture means when it speaks of us being a new man/creation.. not another but a new one.

Anyhoo.. Good to see you again

 

[Forest]

Thats not what Scripture says, it says all have sinned...committed the very act of sin. Merely being conceived does not meet that qualification. Christ was 100% human, yet He doesn't fall under this "all".


I have never heard this interpretation before. Can you share a theologian that shares this view?



Based on the above, there might be unbelievers...atheists, muslims, mormons, etc. In Heaven? Faith is no longer a prerequisite?

But our faith is not a prerequisite to eternal life. 2 Tim 2:13, If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. Amy is exactly right in her statements. Death is a seperation and does not every time is is used mean seperation from eternal life. There are a lot of scriptures using death as a seperation from God's fellowship and when we are seperated from God's fellowship we still have our promise of everlasting life.

 

[Amy.G]

Thats not what Scripture says, it says all have sinned...committed the very act of sin. Merely being conceived does not meet that qualification. Christ was 100% human, yet He doesn't fall under this "all".

No Christ never sinned, but He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

I have never heard this interpretation before. Can you share a theologian that shares this view?

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

James 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

The verse in question falls between these two. It's seems clear to me that James is speaking to his "brethren".

Based on the above, there might be unbelievers...atheists, muslims, mormons, etc. In Heaven? Faith is no longer a prerequisite?

Infants cannot have faith. So how do you supposed they are saved? I say God sovereignly saves them by His own will and the blood of Christ.

 

[jbh28]

Faith is a prerequisite to eternal life

But our faith is not a prerequisite to eternal life. 2 Tim 2:13, If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. Amy is exactly right in her statements. Death is a seperation and does not every time is is used mean seperation from eternal life. There are a lot of scriptures using death as a seperation from God's fellowship and when we are seperated from God's fellowship we still have our promise of everlasting life.

Faith is a prerequisite to eternal life
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

John 3:14-18
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It sure sounds like Jesus thought that faith was required for eternal life

 

[Forest]

Faith is a prerequisite to eternal life
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

John 3:14-18
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It sure sounds like Jesus thought that faith was required for eternal life

John 3:18, condemned to what? It does not say condemned to eternal punishment. You are just assuming, because of your belief, that it means condemned to eternal punishment. It could mean condemned from a fellowship with God, not eternal punishment.

 

[jbh28]

John 3:18, condemned to what? It does not say condemned to eternal punishment. You are just assuming, because of your belief, that it means condemned to eternal punishment. It could mean condemned from a fellowship with God, not eternal punishment.

What does the context better support? We cannot simply say "well it could mean" and then dismiss the passage. We are to read Scripture as it has been intended to be read. What did John mean (and more specifically Jesus) when he said...

"whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

So we are speaking of eternal life.

"whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

will not perish but have eternal life. "but" comparison of opposites. eternal life vs eternal_______ (death)

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"

Still in the context of eternal life. Still in the context of not perishing. so obviously "saved" here is being saved from perishing. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world to perish.

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

There's nothing about fellowship with God here in the context. The best and only contextually supported understanding of condemnation is condemned to eternal punishment.

 

[Amy.G]

John 3:18, condemned to what? It does not say condemned to eternal punishment. You are just assuming, because of your belief, that it means condemned to eternal punishment. It could mean condemned from a fellowship with God, not eternal punishment.

Condemn (John 3:18)
krinw krino kree'-no
properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

Condemnation is a judgment of God, a punishment. There is no way this word is referring to a condemnation of fellowship with God ( I don't even know what that means.), especially considering the context.

 

[Iconoclast]

A.W.Pink says this:

We object to this belief. First, far from the Scriptures representing man as being partially disabled by the fall, they declare him to be completely ruined—not merely weakened, but "without strength" (Rom. 5:6). Second, to affirm that the natural man has any aspiration toward God is to deny that he is totally depraved, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart . . .[is] only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5; cf. 8:21), that "there is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). Third, if it were true that God could not justly condemn sinners for their inability to comply with the terms of the gospel, and that in order to give every man a "fair chance" to be saved He extends to all the common help of His Spirit, that would not be "grace" but a debt which He owed to His creatures. Fourth, if such a God-insulting principle were granted, the conclusion would inevitably follow that those who improved this "common grace" could lawfully boast that they made themselves to differ from those who did not improve it.
But enough of these shifts and subterfuges of the carnal mind. Let us now turn to God’s own Word and see what it teaches us concerning the nature of man’s spiritual impotence. First, it represents it as being a penal one, a judicial sentence from the righteous Judge of all the earth. Unless this is clearly grasped at the outset we are left without any adequate explanation of this dark mystery. God did not create man as he now is. God made man holy and upright, and by man’s own apostasy he became corrupt and wicked. The Creator originally endowed man with certain powers, placed him on probation, and prescribed a rule of conduct for him. Had our first parents preserved their integrity, had they remained in loving and loyal subjection to their Maker and Ruler, all would have been well, not only for themselves but also for their posterity. But they were not willing to remain in the place of subjection. They took the reins into their own hands, rebelling against their Governor. And the outcome was dreadful.

The sin of man was extreme and aggravated. It was committed contrary to knowledge and, through the beneficence of the One against whom it was directed, in the face of great advantages. It was committed against divine warning, and against an explicit declaration of the consequence of man’s transgression. In Adam’s fearful offense there were unbelief, presumption, ingratitude, rebellion against his righteous and gracious Maker. Let the dreadfulness of this first human sin be carefully weighed before we are tempted to murmur against the dire consequences which accompanied it. Those dire consequences may all be summed up in the fearful word "death," for "the wages of sin is death." The full import of that statement can best be ascertained by considering all the evil effects which have since come to man. A just, holy, sin-hating God caused the punishment to fit the crime.

Probation of Human Race in Adam

When God placed Adam on probation it pleased Him to place the whole human race on probation, for Adam’s posterity were not only in him seminally as their natural head, but they were also in him legally and morally as their legal and moral head. In other words, by divine constitution and covenant Adam stood and acted as the federal representative of the whole human race. Consequently, when he sinned, we sinned; when he fell, we fell. God justly imputed Adam’s transgression to all his descendants, whose agent he was: "By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (Rom. 5:18). By his sin Adam became not only guilty but corrupt, and that defilement of nature is transmitted to all his children. Thomas Boston said, "Adam’s sin corrupted man’s nature and leavened the whole lump of mankind. We putrefied in Adam as our root. The root was poisoned, and so the branches were envenomed."
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). We repeat that Adam was not only the father but the federal representative of his posterity. Consequently justice required that they should be dealt with as sharing in his guilt, that therefore the same punishment should be inflicted on them, which is exactly what the vitally important passage in Romans 5:12-21 affirms. "By one man [acting on behalf of the many], sin entered [as a foreign element, as a hostile factor] into the world [the whole system over which Adam had been placed as the vicegerent of God: blasting the fair face of nature, bringing a curse upon the earth, ruining all humanity], and death by sin [as its appointed wages]; and so death [as the sentence of the righteous Judge] passed upon all men [because all men were seminally and federally in Adam]."

It needs to be carefully borne in mind that in connection with the penal infliction which came upon man at the fall, he lost no moral or spiritual faculty, but rather the power to use them right. In Scripture "death" (as the wages of sin) does not signify annihilation but separation. As physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, so spiritual death is the separation of the soul from its Maker. Ephesians 4:18 expresses it as "being alienated from the life of God." Thus, when the father said of the prodigal, "This my son was dead" (Luke 15), he meant that his son had been absent from him—away in the "far country." Hence when, as the Substitute of His people, Christ was receiving in their stead the wages due them, He cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is why the lake of fire is called "the second death"—because those cast there are "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess. 1:9).

We have said that all of Adam’s posterity shared in the guilt of the great transgression committed by their federal head, and that therefore the same punishment is inflicted on them as on him. That punishment consisted (so far as its present character is concerned) in his coming under the curse and wrath of God, the corrupting of his nature, and the mortalizing of his body. Clear proof of this is found in that inspired statement "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Gen. 5:3), which is in direct antithesis to his being created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). That Adam’s first son was morally depraved was clearly evidenced by his conduct; and that his second son was also depraved was fully acknowledged by the sacrifice which he brought to God.

As a result of the fall man is born into this world so totally depraved in his moral nature as to be entirely unable to do anything spiritually good; furthermore, he is not in the slightest degree disposed to do good. Even under the exciting and persuasive influences of divine grace, the will of man is completely unfit to act right in cooperation with grace until the will itself is by the power of God radically and permanently renewed. The tree itself must be made good before there is the least prospect of any good fruit being borne by it. Even after a man is regenerated, the renewed will always continues dependent on divine grace to energize, direct and enable it for the performance of anything acceptable to God, as the language of Christ clearly shows: "Without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5).

But let it be clearly understood that though man has by the fall lost all power to do anything pleasing to God, yet his Maker has not lost His authority over him nor forfeited His right to require that which is due Him. As creatures we were bound to serve God and do whatever He commanded; and the fact that we have, by our own folly and sin, thrown away the strength given to us cannot and does not cancel our obligations. Has the creditor no right to demand payment for what is owed him because the debtor has squandered his substance and is unable to pay him? If God can require of us no more than we are now able to give Him, then the more we enslave ourselves by evil habits and still further incapacitate ourselves the less our liabilities; then the deeper we plunge into sin the less wicked we would become. This is a manifest absurdity.

Even though by Adam’s fall we have become depraved and spiritually helpless creatures, yet the terrible fact that we are enemies to the infinitely glorious God, our Maker, makes us infinitely to blame and without the vestige of a legitimate excuse. Surely it is perfectly obvious that nothing can make it right for a creature to voluntarily rise up at enmity against One who is the sum of all excellence, infinitely worthy of our love, homage and obedience. Thus, for man—whatever the origin of his depravity—to be a rebel against the Governor of this world is infinitely evil and culpable. It is utterly vain for us to seek shelter behind Adam’s offense while every sin we commit is voluntary and not compulsory—the free, spontaneous inclination of our hearts. This being the case, every mouth will be stopped, and all the world stand guilty before God (Rom. 3:19).