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;
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 ....:Cautious
The plausibility of John 3:18
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 24, 2019.
Page 13 of 17
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
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. -
It would be an interesting exploration. -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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). -
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
Who is reading into scripture what scripture does not say? YOU ARE! Why? Because your THEORY demands it but the Bible denies it. -
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJonC said: ↑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.Click to expand...
.JonC said: ↑He chose instead to place his faith in his own desire.Click to expand...
JonC said: ↑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".Click to expand...
Page 13 of 17