Judged already, because he has not believed

I'd like to take another opportunity here to comment briefly on John 3. Previously, I discussed the overall thrust of John 3 in relation to "signs." Noting some specifics, I neglected to address John 3:18.

Another common objection to definite atonement seems to be John 3:18. The General Redemptionist reads this a number of ways:

Justification is suspended on the condition of unbelief, therefore condemnation is suspended on unbelief. Ergo, General Redemption.

Justification is suspended on the condition of unbelief; condemnation on unbelief, ergo Jesus did not die for the sin of unbelief.

There may be other permutations, but you get the idea.

By way of reply.

Here is the text itself:

18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Here's the basic problem.: The General Redemptionist is reading Pauline usage of "condemned, not condemned, judged - not judged, and 'justification' (declared righteous) " back into Johanine usage.

As discussed in an earlier article, John's emphasis here is on "signs." The rustling of leaves, for example, is the sign that the wind is blowing, so is the new birth a sign that Spirit is working. Belief is the sign of the new birth. The works Jesus does are signs he is from God, and so on. Here, the emphasis is not on the answer to a question like "What must I do to not be condemned?" But, "How does one tell the difference between who is condemned and who is not?"

The giveaway is the statement that the one who does not believe is condemned already. "Believe" is in present tense, as is "does not believe." John's emphasis is on continous action. In short, the one whose faith is not abiding faith is not demonstrating he is not condemned; in other words, the one who persists in unbelief is already under judgment. What is this judgment?

3:19 is epexegetical -

that men loved darkness rather than light, even when confronted with the One True Light Incarnate, and their deeds were evil.

Yes, the text says that they are judged, because they have not believed in Christ. However, it does not therefore follow that this is a sin for which Jesus did not die or that this is proof of General Redemption. Rather, this rejection is explained - this rejection of Christ is equivalent to love of darkness. Not having believed is the natural, unregenerate state of all sinners. This is the reason for their rejection of the gospel and of God/Christ in general, indeed it is the essence of that rejection, and consequently "their deeds were evil." So, they are judged not for "unbelief" as in rejecting the offer of the gospel when confronted with it at a point in time or anytime thereafter, but for persistent unbelief - by rejecting the gospel, they abide in their natural state, loving evil, and their evil deeds. This is the sign of being condemned already - for one's sins as a whole, for this sort of "unbelief" is the fountain from which every evil deed flows. It is the essence of what Adam and Eve did in the Garden. Everybody, elect and nonelect abides under this judgment. The remedy is to exercise faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is, of course, a result of the Spirit's working - a thing we cannot see. Remember, this passage is one long discourse about the signs that accompany the new birth.

The General Redemptionist/Arminian reading mistakes an indicative statement of fact about evidence of a thing for a conditional statement apart from the context. Yes, it Pauline language, one believes and then one is justified by of the instrument of faith. Faith is a "placeholder" for the imputed righteousness of Christ such that it is that which connects us to His righteousness. Here, just as earlier in the text, the Arminian turns faith into a condition of the new birth (such that one must believe in order to be born again) and thus misses that it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and it is thus the evidence of the new birth, so in this case he turns belief and unbelief into the condition of judgment/non-judgment, not evidence of it. That reading completely misses the point and commits the fallacy we call semantic incest, whereby one author's usage is used to interpret another. It also confuses a word (condemnation) with a whole concept (judgment as a whole) and thereby commits semantic inflation - in which the occurrence of a word is associated with a whole doctrine.

In addition, the hyper-Calvinist who reads this correctly but infers a doctrine of eternal justification is wrong. In this view, he takes the correct reading on the one hand and then reads justification as a concept into the text, emphasizing the present, abiding, "already" nature of the judgment such that when one exercises saving faith one is discovering that one has always been justified in the mind of God. When the Arminian accuses the Calvinist of doing this, he is still committing the same exegetical fallacies as the hyper-Calvinist.