Wednesday, October 24, 2007

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.

9 comments:

  1. Mr. Bridges, I am wondering how you understand John 3:21:

    21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (NKJV)

    What does "he who does the truth comes to the light" mean? Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "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."

    Amen.

    Excellent study and lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why is he judged already? "because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Why doesn't he beleive? "Because he was judged already" says the Calvinist. But he was judged already "because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." His unbelief precedes his judgment.

    What does "he who does the truth comes to the light" mean? Thanks in advance.

    He means that election is based on God having foreseen who would love the truth. Reprobation, therefore, is based on not loving the truth, not on an all-encompassing decree.

    "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."

    But this unbelief cannot precede sin, since the people being referred to here, having lived under Judaism, clearly sinned before hearing the name of the Son of God, which is what they did not beleive in according to the passage. Their sin then came not from unbelief in Christ, but from the same cause as their unbelief in Christ, namely that they did not love the truth. Did God decree them to not love the truth? Or did they refuse to love it? Note how he enters into no discussion alleging that none can love the truth without being forced to it by God, but sees loving the truth by itself as the condition necessary to produce faith.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Their sin then came not from unbelief in Christ, but from the same cause as their unbelief in Christ, namely that they did not love the truth

    I'm sorry, but this is a massive inconsistency for you, since you affirm "free will." According to your stated view, the freedom to do otherwise always obtains, or else you have to admit that ability does NOT limit responsibility.

    Therefore, the choices of men have no cause. Perhaps you need to bone up on "free will" from the libertarian perspective, since it is admitted by those on your side of the aisle that libertarianism results in causeless choice. However, if you want to deny your view of free will in favor of mine, be my guest.

    But this unbelief cannot precede sin, since the people being referred to here, having lived under Judaism, clearly sinned before hearing the name of the Son of God, which is what they did not beleive in according to the passage.

    Of course, one of the main themes in John, and, indeed throughout a four gospels is that they not only rejected Christ, but God Himself. What you're doing, in typical Campbellite fashion, is defining "belief" as assent to a set of facts - Sandemanianism. They gave lip service to Christ, and Christ was testified to throughout the Scriptures they possessed. So, this isn't a matter of simply rejecting Christ when He came, but Christ in the Scriptures, God Himself, the whole of Old Covenant. Persistent unbelief in John's writings is equivalent to apostasy. The Jews were in a state of corporate apostasy, and the coming of Christ is the coming of the "Day of the Lord" upon them.

    Did God decree them to not love the truth? Or did they refuse to love it?

    Both are true. You are, once again, confusing the ends and the means. A decree affects certainty. Means affect causality. The decree does nothing apart from providence, and this is worked out by their refusal. Once again, you don't have a firm grasp of what Reformed theology teaches.

    You also, like so many opponents of our views, have a unidirectional view of agent causation. It's two ways: God (external) and man (internal). So, it isn't enough to contradict what we say about God's decrees which are external; you must also contradict what we say about the internal causation of man's choices.

    Scripture attributes our choices to antecedent causes, including the motives of our hearts. That's not a problem for my theology. It's only a problem for yours.

    Note how he enters into no discussion alleging that none can love the truth without being forced to it by God,

    Of course, we teach that men are not "forced" to love the truth, so there is no need, in order for our views to be true, for Jesus to enter into such a discussion. Rather, we teach that they are given a new birth and willingly and joyfully embrace and love the truth as a result. He does enter into that discussion.

    Is there something in your disposition that leads you to make such ignorant remarks, or are you just a chronic liar?

    but sees loving the truth by itself as the condition necessary to produce faith.

    Which would make saving faith the evidence of loving the truth, which is exactly what I've stated.

    Why does one man love the truth and not another if regeneration does not precede faith?

    21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (NKJV)

    I touched on this in the previous article.

    He who is in the habit of what is true (cf. 1 John 1:6) comes to the light. He is not afraid for his deeds to be exposed, for it will be shown that they were wrought with God's approval (and retain that abiding approval).

    Thus coming to the light, like habitually doing the truth, and having God's approval are all signs of the new birth. That's what the text is about - signs, so "in God" can also be construed as being part of John's overall theology of the sufficiency of grace.

    This can also be construed, if you take the view that this is not John's editorializing for the audience and is directed @ Nicodemus as being a statement like this, "If Nicodemus, you love the truth, you will come into the light and find your deeds are wrought in God. If you want to understand the mystery of the new birth, then, all illustrations to the side, just do this." In short, the first part of the passage is a set of descriptors of what the new birth does and its signs (the order of being, eg. what the new birth "is") and this is an epistemological (order of knowing) answer to Nicodemus' quandry. It is as if I described the new birth to you, and you, still confused, said, "Huh?" and I reply, "Come into the light, those who do so, will then find out the truth of what I am saying."

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Therefore, the choices of men have no cause."

    Choice must always be based on something. The choice to persist in sin springs from a lack of love for the truth. That is what the passage says, after all. It is also consistent with 2 Th 2:10 where Paul proclaims that God will send a strong delusion to those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" in order that "they all might be damned who believed not the truth," according to verse 12. Some translations paraphrase it "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" which is not inappropriate, for the passage doesn't say "they were not given the love of the truth" but "they received not the love of the truth" meaning that God would have given it them but they refused to grab hold of it.

    "Perhaps you need to bone up on 'free will' from the libertarian perspective, since it is admitted by those on your side of the aisle that libertarianism results in causeless choice."

    As I said, I don't meddle in vague philosophical sophistry like the use of such terms. And certainly there is no such thing as a choice without a reason behind it, no matter how weak the reason may be. My view on "free will" is very simple. Firstly, I don't even feel the need to use the word "free" since if something is not free, it is not will. Will by very definition is free. Voluntud (will0 is where we get the word voluntary. When we say that someone goes willingly what do we mean? Everyone knows that we mean they determined to go and not that nature of anything else compelled them to go. According to the regular non-specialized use of human language, we always understand that will is of necessity free or it is not will at all. But when Calvnism is brought into the picture, all rules of logic and language disappear, and suddenly it is possible for someone to do something willingly but yet at the same time be forced to it by nature. This way of thinking is called insanity in the real world, but in Calvinism is termed orthodoxy. So, rather than presume that I believe in libertarian free will, whatever that is, you ought to put off your philosophy and think with what God gave you rather than what man burdened you down with.

    "A decree affects certainty. Means affect causality."

    If you confuse reality with vague philosophy. But since a decree precedes all else, it would be the cause if it truly existed. Everything else would then be effects of the decree. But this is not how the passage reads.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "As I said, I don't meddle in vague philosophical sophistry like the use of such terms."

    Translation: "I am far too lazy and too much of an anti-intellectual to engage in meaningful discussions over theological and philosophical concepts which lead to a proper understanding of the Word of God, so please look away as I make my cowardly retreat and hide behind a veneer of humble devotion to Scripture."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I gave the translation above, actually Mr. Smarty Pants. My view on "free will" is very simple. Firstly, I don't even feel the need to use the word "free" since if something is not free, it is not will. Will by very definition is free. Voluntud (will) is where we get the word voluntary. When we say that someone goes willingly what do we mean? Everyone knows that we mean they determined to go and not that nature of anything else compelled them to go. According to the regular non-specialized use of human language, we always understand that will is of necessity free or it is not will at all. But when Calvnism is brought into the picture, all rules of logic and language disappear, and suddenly it is possible for someone to do something willingly but yet at the same time be forced to it by nature. This way of thinking is called insanity in the real world, but in Calvinism is termed orthodoxy. So, rather than presume that I believe in libertarian free will, whatever that is, you ought to put off your philosophy and think with what God gave you rather than what man burdened you down with.

    There is no need to delve into philosophy on the subject of will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My apologies in posting something off-topic but I come in peace! I am a friend of John Bugay and an old regular at NTRMIN. I hope it is OK to post a website for your perusal, to pray for the Califorina fires. You can acces it at:

    http://whenthechurchprays.blogspot.com/

    I'll be back to read more of your blog.

    Thanx!

    Ali

    ReplyDelete
  9. Choices with reasons behind them disqualifies you from framing "Free will" in the terms you have. Your refusal to try to understand the terms is indicative of your incoherent thinking.

    "Free will" is a philosophical concept. If you want to be understood, you should put forth a coherent action theory from Scripture.

    If you confuse reality with vague philosophy.

    You're the one who brought up decrees and causality. I'm only responding to you on your own level.

    But since a decree precedes all else, it would be the cause if it truly existed. Everything else would then be effects of the decree. But this is not how the passage reads.

    No, a decree is a blueprint. Blueprints don't produce anything. Decrees only render an outcome certain. Causes would be the means, not the ends. So, you've committed a category error.

    ReplyDelete