Posted on 06/12/2013 11:25:22 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
OK, this is very much a theological vanity. But I don't think it is in vain.
John 3:16-17. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Very familiar passage of Christian scripture, though John 3:17 is somewhat less often quoted.
Notice something here, however. "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world."
Turns out this has some very important spiritual/psychological consequences, for anyone willing to believe.
There's a joke about fundamentalists (and indeed I am a fundamentalist) that accuses them of being "no fun, all damn, and very little mental."
I won't address the fun and mental parts, but I'd like to point out that a very large problem with the whole unsaved world is that it in fact IS "all damn." (Not knowing God it can't bless; all it knows is sin, and sin is the damning of God's desirous will.) And many Christians are "mostly damn" because their faith is not deeply radical; they don't appreciate the fact that John 3:17 brings a hiatus to damnation.
Well, damning, while it can help contain sin, has a steep spiritual cost. Damning means wishing a spiritual death. Psychologically it freezes thoughts, forbidding one to even visit certain areas of thought.
So if we could stop damning, we could unfreeze many thoughts... worth thinking about so to speak?
Now wait, you say, if we stop damning then we have no means to motivate anyone, even Christians, to avoid what's sin... turns out that is not so. There is another means: God's love, and the fear of violating it.
Let me ask you, how often have you reflexively said "God damn" this or that?
If John 3:17 is on the level, could that be wrong? (This is not the time to damn?)
If damning now is wrong, and I am convinced that it is wrong, then many helpful consequences follow.
I don't have time to elaborate on this. But I think it is worth considering for Christians. It could help open their minds to more possibilities of effective usage of the gospel if they make some kind of conscious effort to stop damning, even if with imperfect success. It does not mean that they refrain from calling wrong things wrong, or refrain from being angry at wrongs, but it means that they do so with grace and perspective. That the enemy is not (now) humans; it is Satan, and we want as many humans saved as possible.
Should have read:
Doing the will of the Father is not just believing on the Promise through Christ, but also on doing the work of the Father, as Jesus himself did.
How am I failing to behave as such?
Please elaborate.
However please be careful that you have not folded ungodliness into your own response.
There shouldn’t be a brouhaha over this. People who aren’t dead or asleep or in a coma DO things. It’s only a matter of what those things are.
True enough, they do. But these are works that come from catching the Spirit. Faith that catches the Spirit also empowers one’s works so that they begin to be what God wants, however imperfect at first. I’m trying to clear up some confusion from the viewpoint of actually LIVING this.
You’re off on a different hobby horse that does not intersect with what I am saying.
Sometimes passages of scripture DO apply more than one principle to more than one thing. In this case, the Son is not in the business of damning in this world. Is that clear enough?
Incidentally as very suggestive corroboration of this... we are told that as regards the evil angels, which we KNOW will be damned, and into whose fiery hell the damned humans who followed them will be cast, Jesus will not “torture them before the appointed time” and even the good angels will not rail at them. (BUT, the evil angels are rebuked.)
There is a scripturally clear hiatus on Jesus damning as I read it. The Father may have “already damned” but the execution of the damning is Jesus’ bailiwick and this is not the time for it.
To believe is to “receive” the Holy Spirit. I am using the modern synonym “catch” to try to make it clearer.
It’s tangential to the point of a temporal hiatus on Jesus carrying out damning.
Also notice that the object of “to condemn” is “the world” — not “part of the world.” You’re trying to say that the context alters “the world” into “part of the world” — which seems a giant stretch at best. I say 3:17 remains true both alone and when viewed in light of 3:18. 3:18 is not speaking of any present role of Jesus except to sound a generalized warning.
Jesus is holding off on damning. Damnation is such a high voltage, emotionally and spiritually charged subject, that it is difficult to handle well. But unless it is handled well, it will likely get Christians in a perpetual mess of argument and, well... damning of one another.
You disagree exactly what? Please state the gravamen of what you assert and how it differs from the gravamen of what I assert.
And 3:17’s meaning is not altered by 3:18. 3:18 only supplements it.
I am asserting that the referenced clause in Jesus’ statement in fact is a valid stand alone statement. Your claiming I am using versification as an argument is to raise a straw man.
You’re free to quote both verses till you’re blue in the face; however you have yet to show how 3:18 actually alters 3:17 in any way such as making “the world” mean “part of the world.” The damnation that Jesus warns of is taking place INDEPENDENT of Jesus. Please get that point. Now you have a blessed day too, and I do not mean it sarcastically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.