While this is true for our courts today They do not call that judgement they call it sentencing a completely different procedure..Judgement is suppose to be a weighing of the evidence.
MB
The plausibility of John 3:18
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 24, 2019.
Page 6 of 17
-
-
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThe non-elect were judged guilty after the fall. Sentencing comes at the Christ’s second advent.
-
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThat is why it says they were condemned(judged) already.
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberThen please, give me ONE verse that shows sin is never a moral transgression. Just one.
-
True we are guilty of our own sin as we were there sinning when Adam sinned.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
Not "because all will sin" but "because all sinned".
The remedy of coming into the world dead in sin.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. -
I never said that sin was never a moral transgression.
I said that sin is a systemic corruption which extends beyond moral transgressions.
For example, Paul makes the case that man has sinned apart from that sin being a transgression (here, of a specific command). Jesus uses "sin" to describe a power that has enslaved mankind. Paul often uses "sin" in that manner as well (actually, he uses it as a power or principle more that he does a moral transgression).
So the question is not for me to provide a verse showing sin is never a moral transgression - as I have repeatedly said it is OFTEN a moral transgression. The question is if you will denounce Scripture enough to claim it is NEVER anything but a moral transgression. -
Paul says that they are guilty because they rejected God (and the Godhead) as evidenced through Creation. Do you believe this is true?
The difference is you are supposing the same criteria for belief in Christ as you do for rejecting Christ. This is an error and a rejection of Scripture. Men reject what is made known of God's nature AND the Godhead so that they are not innocent, regardless of what you may suspect. They do not have to hear the gospel message in order to reject Christ.
Your error here is, ultimately, that you are supposing the gospel is that Christ exists. This is false - Creation testifies to Christ's existence for all things were created through and for Him. The gospel is that the Messiah has come. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterAll men are fallen in Adam. The only remedy is the Christ. If they never knew He existed, they can’t be saved. Acts of the Apostles 4:12.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWould you please provide the scripture you are basing the above conclusions upon?
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known MemberReally? Then what in the world do you mean by the following quote?
If you aren't saying sin isn't a moral transgression you certainly implied it. -
You are confusing two very different thing (from my perspective).
I do not believe that a person has to be presented the gospel message in order to be guilty of rejecting God. So I believe that men are guilty regardless of whether or not they hear the gospel. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJohn 14:6. If they have never heard of Him, they can’t get to the Father, seeing He is the only Way to Him.
-
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterCan anyone be saved without knowing the Christ existed?
-
What about before Christ they never heard about Christ until He was prophesied. How were they saved then? or were they?
MB -
Yes, really. I have never said that sin is not a moral transgression as evidenced by my insistence that moral transgressions are sins. I've said that I believe sin is more than just a moral transgression (I affirm the words of Christ when he speaks of sin as an enslaving power as well as a moral transgression).
I also do not believe that one has to be presented the gospel message in order to reject Christ (this is my argument with @SovereignGrace ). Men are guilty even if they have not heard - this was Paul's point. They are even guilty of rejecting the "Godhead". But salvation is an entirely different matter. All men are guilty of rejecting Christ, and out of these men many are given by the Father to the Son. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThe Jews knew He was coming. They looked towards the cross.
-
No. That is where I think that you have made a serious error. You seem to be suggesting that people who have not heard of Christ in terms of the gospel message are innocent of rejecting Him. But Scripture tells us that they have heard enough to be found guilty because even the Godhead is evidenced to them.
Can you accept this verse: "For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Rom 1:20" or do you believe it without merit? -
Paul states that everyone knows that Christ existed....at least on some level. They are guilty. Do you deny the passage? That is what I want to know. Because if you can only accept passages that suit your theories then I do not see how a fruitful discussion can be had.
That said, as I said there is a difference between what must be known of Christ to be guilty of rejecting Him and what must be known to be saved. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWe are somewhat straying from the OP. I believe that John 3:18 in its context does not teach that the original cause for condemnation is unbelief. He is certainly teaching those in present unbelief are condemned already and that unbelief manifests that condemnation. But in context we must remember he is talking to Nicodemus and the original subject is the new birth (Jn. 3:3-11). The issue of belief is first introduced in verse 12 because Nicodemus did not believe in new birth (vv. 8-11). Faith in Christ is first introduced in verse 15.
However, we must remember that new birth is the primary subject and everything else is consequential and secondary and introduced due to unbelief in new birth.
The problem is not unbelief but the natural state of man which calls for new birth. Unbelief in Christ merely makes the condemned natural state of man manifest.
The underlying cause for condemnation is not unbelief, but the fallen condition of man's heart which can only be remedied by new birth (v. 21). The underlying cause of condemnation is the inaiblity of the human heart to come to faith in Christ (vv. 19-20) which is due to the heart hating light and thus refusal to come to the light and loving darkness and that is the underlying cause for condemnation. However, the original cause for condemnation is neither unbelief or the depraved human condition but:
16 ... for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;\
This alone is the original cause for condemnation, not unbelief, not the fallen condition of the human heart which is the cause for unbelief, but the offence of one judgement came upon all men TO CONDEMNATION.
Page 6 of 17