I remember reading your thoughts on his"gang". they were posted for awhile, then could not be found.
The gang was being accused of 6 or 7 things as I recall...being Dishonest, untrustworthy, behaving as non-Christians, Martin Marprelate, Biblicist, myself and others were named as I recall..... Do you remember that post, I know Biblicist does.
The plausibility of John 3:18
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 24, 2019.
Page 12 of 17
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Sorry. I must have misread your reply. I've been busy with a "DoG pile". I also do not know how I made the mistake, but you have my apology.
-
I was not asking a question. I was stating what I saw as a list of the only possible alternatives so that you could respond. I can see no other options, but I was open to yours.
But that is why I was careful to use the "if" and such. Not as an "out" but so that you could see those were the few alternatives I could come up with. I do apologize if you thought differently, but I would never question your view on that part because it would be to question your salvation. I never considered you anything but a brother (there are some I doubt, but not you). -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterBut that statement was uncalled for. You’re a mod who is to keep peace, not incite a riot. You had no business asking me that. No one has any business asking another believer that question.
-
It should not have been a riot (certainly not a DoG pile). I was looking at the only possible options to interpret my comment versus the actual passage. There was very little change. And it was not a question.
Again, I am sorry if you thought it a statement you did not believe Christ was God's Son. That is not the case at all. I have always considered you a brother (even through our disagreements). I cannot say that for every one here, but I have no doubt of your faith. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThis passage cites three different causes for their condemnation. In verse 18a we have them "condemned already" prior to Christ's coming into the world as that is the reason he came into the world to save condemnation preceded his coming. In verse 18b we have a second manifest current cause in response to His arrival into the world where he uses present tense participles. In verse 19 we have the words "this is the condemnation" which cites another third more deeper more sinster underlying cause for their condemnation which is responsible for the manifest condemnation for unbelief which is due to their depraved nature. Their fallen nature hates light and loves darkness and will not come to the light - thus the cause for their unbelief.
Hence, Jesus is returning to the need of new birth as first introduced in John 3:3-11. Verse 21 gives credit to the work of God (new birth) for anyone who does love the light and comes to it.
The "condemned already" refers to the root cause for both the superficical cause of condemnation (v. 18b) and the deeper heart cause for condemnation that prevents belief and that is the condemnation due to one man's sin:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, .....Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
The new birth (Jn 3:3-6) is necessary for all men because all mankind are born into this world with a fallen nature due to one man's sin, and that is the root condemnation to explain their love for darkness, hatred of light and refusal to beleive. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterNo problem, glad we got it resolved quickly.
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberAre you ever going to answer my question about Adam? How many times have I asked now? 4, 5?
-
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. -
Sorry, I got distracted :D .
Yes. Adam had to believe in Christ (the One through Whom Adam was created) in order to have eternal life. This is, IMHO, the root of the Fall. Adam put his faith in himself rather than in God. Otherwise he would not have sinned. -
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberAnd where do you get this from Scripture? Although I will say this explains a lot about your position. So Adam was going to die before the fall because he did not believe in Christ? Remember, there is no indication that the second or even third persons of the Trinity were known to Adam.
-
No. We cannot base doctrine on a hypothetical.
For me, I believe that the Fall was within God's plan all along. I do not think that God was surprised or taken off guard. So I do not believe there was ever a provision for Adam to live forever. (I hold the "five points" plus "double predestination"....so I'm a bit pro-divine sovereignty in these things).
Also, Paul states that God's nature was made known to man through Creation (the "invisible attributes" to include "the Godhead"). If I had to choose between the Father and Son interacting with Adam, I'd lean to it being the Christ pre-incarnate.
I am a bit of a "literalist" when it comes to Scripture, so I accept that there is room for disagreement here. But I believe that the nature of God is known through Creation and that all things were created through Christ. (I also believe in a literal 6 day creation, which is another topic, but explains my "simple" take on what is written).
Basically, when we talk of man and we talk of life, I believe it is only in Christ. Period. Even Adam. -
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberNone of that gave biblical reason for your belief.
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberWhew, I'm glad I didn't do that then.
-
Hey Icon! Glad you made it back.
-
I believe that these passages apply to Adam as well:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. John 1:18 -
Saved by the bell....huh....:Laugh
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberYes, post-fall. That is only true post-fall. Pre-Fall, Adam already had access to the Father.
-
That's another difference. I believe that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. I believe that the "plan" included the Fall - Creation itself was purposed for redemption.
You suppose that Adam had access to the Father (the ANE language of the Old Testament suggests otherwise, but that's extra-biblical).
Can you provide a verse that states it was the Father who walked through the Garden and interacted with Adam, or is that speculation? -
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberPlan 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.
Page 12 of 17