Subject: How did sin originate |
Bible Note: Hi New Creature, you wrote: Are you saying God is not all loving? That God shows partiality? John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Who does that exclude?) Everyone who is not included in the word ‘world’ in this particular passage. That the word ‘world’ does not mean ‘all humans’ is evidenced immediately in the following verses, the verses ever forgotten by today’s preachers. In verse 17 John says that the Son was sent not to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. Clearly then if ‘world’ means ‘every human being’ then the passage teaches universal salvation since the Son was sent to save the ‘world’ or ‘every human being’. If you deny universal salvation, then you have to admit the Son has failed in his mission to save the ‘world’ or ‘every human being’ since according to the Son Himself not all human being are going to be saved. Which of the two do you prefer, New Creature? The universal salvation or the failed mission of the Son? Further, verse 18 states that some humans are already condemned for not believing in the Son. If then ‘world’ in this passage means ‘every human being’ in addition to two difficulties arising in v17 alone we have here in v18 the Son who was sent to save ‘every human being’ even though some of them, if not most, have been already condemned. Therefore, in light of these observations one cannot conclude the word ‘world’ here in John 3:16-18 means ‘every human being’ and more scriptures should be consulted, namely, on what mission was the Son sent and what was he sent to accomplish? And of course ‘For God so loved the world’ does not teach God loved Judas or Esau, in fact Paul together with Malachi claimed that God hated Esau (Rom 9:13). You also wrote: The recipients of God's favor are those who by grace through faith receive the gift of salvation which is freely offered. Please explain how grace and faith fit in with your belief in free will and belief that God’s will can be resisted? In Reformed Christianity we speak of grace in relation to man’s inability to respond to the gospel of Christ. Man is totally and absolutely sinful and does evil continually but God mercifully intervenes, regenerates the sinner, gives him faith to believe that Christ by dying on the cross has fully and irrevocably propitiated for all the sins the sinner has ever committed or will commit and earned salvation for the sinner based on Christ’s righteousness alone, the salvation of the sinner has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinner himself, his salvation happened and been secured outside of himself. This is grace and this the gospel. If however, man has free will and able to resist the will of God then I don’t see how a depraved God-hater can come to repentance and saving belief of the gospel without God intervening. If God intervenes but can be resisted then, since all men are God-haters, it follows that all men should be able to resist God’s will. What makes a difference between those who submit to God and resist God? If it is man, then all men should resist God, if God then your freewillism is false. |