A Stubborn Old Man’s Blunder
There was a stubborn old man who had frequent headaches that were extremely painful. He discovered that taking painkillers, for the most part, would numb the pain. He took the painkillers, and continued on with his life normally. Turns out, he had a brain tumor and it killed him. If he had gone to the doctor and learned about his real illness, the doctor would have applied a different remedy than simply painkillers. Instead, since he did not have an accurate diagnosis, he’s dead.
Tell Me Straight, Doc
When we answer the question, “What do I need to be saved from?” we put ourselves in the same place as the man with the tumor. If we look for salvation from the wrong problem, we will never be saved from our real problem! Let’s go to the physician, Jesus, to find out.
John 3:17-18
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
We know that Jesus is talking about salvation, because he declares it outright: the Son did not come to condemn, but rather to save. The very next verse, Jesus explains that whoever believes in the Son of God is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in the Son is condemned already. These verses are connected to each other. Therefore we can see what Jesus is saving the world from: condemnation. Not only that, but we can see how he is doing it: through faith in Jesus.
If then, the world is under condemnation, two questions come up:
1) Who is condemning us?
2) Why are we under condemnation?
Who am I Condemned With?
We could take guesses and try to figure out who is condemning us on our own, or instead we could listen to the doctor and get an accurate diagnosis. It turns out that John the Baptist, speaking about Jesus elaborates later on in the chapter:
John 3:35-36
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The wrath of God remains on him. Remember verse 18? Jesus spoke that whoever did not believe in the Son was condemned already. It wasn’t something new, it was already there. Now we have verse 36. The wrath of God remains on him. Again, it wasn’t something new, but something old that remained; specifically, the wrath of God.
That answers the “who” question. It is God that condemns us.
Wait. I Thought God Loves Us…
He does. He loves us so much that he sent his Son to die on a cross so that whoever believes in him will not be condemned.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
This is true love. Normal people can have affectionate feelings for others, but only God’s love can pay the ultimate price for people who deserve God’s wrath. God’s love does not motivate him to ignore wrath, but rather to satisfy it.
Why is the World Condemned?
If someone were to fire a gun at me, it would be painful and it would kill me, but it would not be condemnation. If I were guilty of a crime and put before a firing squad, it would be condemnation. What is the difference if the consequences are the same? The first case is merely an event, while the second case is a judgment.
To be condemned means that a judgment has been made. In order for the world to be condemned by God, it must have been judged by God. We’d be on a roll if John 3 addressed this question too. Good news, it does:
John 3:19-21
19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Ok. What is the judgment now? Jesus, the light, is rejected by the world because the world loves evil works and therefore hates Jesus when he causes their sins to be exposed. We not only have an evil works problem, but we have a love problem. The rejection of Jesus is a symptom of loving evil. All of this is worthy of condemnation.
Get Me Saved!
We have the diagnosis: the world needs to be saved from the condemnation of God that was earned by our own wicked works and rejection of Jesus. What is the solution?
John 3
13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
God sent fiery snakes as condemnation against the Israelites when they sinned. Upon repenting, God had them look to a bronze snake that he had Moses lift up and he removed his wrath from all who looked upon it. Likewise, Jesus was lifted up on a cross and died such that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Confess your sin and believe in the Son of God: Jesus, and your sins will be forgiven and the condemnation of God will not remain on you, but you will have everlasting life!
“No man can control his belief. You hear evidence for and against and the integrity of the soul stands at the scales and tells which side rises and which side falls. You can not believe as you wish. You must believe as you must. And he might as well have said. ‘Go into the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever has red hair shall be saved, and whosoever hath not shall be damned.’” – Robert G. Ingersoll
What seems odd to me about Christianity is why one must believe 2000 year old stories to be true before God can accept you into heaven. Personally, I’m not accepting or rejecting Christ, I’m simply not believing he exists. The Bible, whether its true or false, contains stories that are really quite hard to believe, yet our eternal salvation seems dependent on it! A man’s level of skepticism seems to me a strange criteria for eternal life with God.
Furthermore it’s funny how Christ’s forgiveness and the power of the cross completely expire at the moment of death. So when I die I could stand before God with remorse, repentance, humility and love and humbly seek God’s forgiveness yet I will be sent away – God’s love and grace, Christ’s death and rez, all ineffective, all expired.
True grace should be like this:
At the end of the age a godless sinner is standing before Jesus ready to be judged. Jesus says, “out of my grace I forgive you. You are welcome in my kingdom. Do you accept me?”
I agree with you partially, RK and disagree with you partially.
I agree that you are not governor of your unbelief. Ironically (since you call yourself born again atheist) it requires you to be born again.
This is where we would disagree:
you are claiming that your unbelief is a matter of intellectual skepticism, lack of evidence etc, whereas the Bible attributes unbelief to conflicting desires and objects of love of the heart.
This is the original meaning of being born again, where God overcomes this moral skepticism caused by our desires.
Here is a quote by John Piper, who can probably explain it better than I can:
John Piper, Finally Alive
I guess a problem I see with that line of reasoning is that we don’t apply it to anything else we believe. If our brain finds something foolish (whether it’s Mormonism or 9th century medicine), then our heart is always going to follow suit.
Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if I said that your heart is so resistant to receiving The Book of Mormon that your mind justifies the rebellion of the heart by seeing them as foolish. Yet this is exactly what your giving me. It’s not anything to do with the heart or morality that make Mormonism so unbelievable to you; its the fact that your brain finds the whole story of the Angel Moroni and the golden plates quite preposterous.
Well, that depends.
Take a court case for example. In theory, all involved parties could be entirely neutral and base their thoughts exclusively on evidence, but in actuality, you will fight that your own position is true because of your desires and subjective experiences.
You’re right that we should not just accept things uncritically, based on feelings. What I have been trying to say (though perhaps unsuccessfully) is that the heart will prevent the head from believing what it doesn’t want to believe (ie making excuses).
There are some really good arguments for Jesus resurrection, but they tend to be rejected by people who want them to be false and explained away in the most ludicrous ways, like Jesus almost died on the cross, and the cold air in the tomb revived him (therefore he got up, pushed away a several ton stone blocking the way, and fought off two roman centurions).
Suppose a Mormon would say the exact same thing to you: your heart is preventing your head from believing what it doesn’t want to believe (ie making excuses). How would you respond? How would you prove him wrong?
As for the resurrection – it is a visible fact that people have believed the Joseph Smith story which indisputably proves that humans are capable of believing some pretty preposterous things. So which is more likely: the resurrection story (complete with singing angels and the dead walking the streets) or, just like the the early followers of Mormonism, people believed a lie?
I might not have been exactly clear in my previous comments, for which I apologize. I am not asserting that the Christian faith must be received by believing in things for which there is no evidence, and using a discussion on being born again to cause you to suspend your critical analysis of the facts so that you will believe in something unsupported.
Rather, what I mean to state is that there is a spiritual “deadness” (thus requiring the New Birth) within us that affects our desires. These desires (not intellectual evidences) cause us to resist the gospel of Jesus. Therefore we actively seek out ways to discredit the evidence that actually does exist.
The archeologist’s shovel has long been good friends with the Bible, but not so with the book of Mormon. Many long-lost civilizations have been discovered by following the tribes and nations of the Old Testament. The book of Mormon, of course, describes things like war elephants and horses in pre-colonized South America. Also the supposed “Book of Abraham” was said to be translated from an Egyptian scroll prophetically by Joseph Smith before the Rosetta stone was found and the Egyptian hieroglyphics were broken. When re-translated by the newly broken Egyptian language it was found to be the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” which mummies were buried with.
Likewise with Jesus’ life we have multitudes of witnesses that died for their beliefs, as well as the prophetic words of the Old Testament that accurately predict later events.
You might bring up the martyrs of other faiths, which I agree exist. Their martyrdom proved one thing: they sincerely believed in what they had been taught. The early Christian martyrs are vastly different because they sincerely believed in what they saw. Anyone can be both sincere and sincerely wrong. However, when it comes to what people see, no one goes to execution to maintain a lie about seeing something they never saw (namely the resurrection and miracles of Jesus). Now multiply this by the hundreds of Christian martyrs and the likelihood of a fluke further plummets.
There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, but anyone who is interested in resisting the gospel can easily google explanations for why the evidence is not acceptable. Usually, these explanations involve holding the evidence to an unfair standard, misrepresenting the Christian faith in general, or letting one’s own opinions undo the claims of the Bible (therefore the claim becomes, “The Bible isn’t true because I think the Bible isn’t true!”).
Before you think of a response I want for you to really evaluate yourself to see if you are being unfair and actively seeking to discredit evidence. This is not meant to be an accusation, but I am afraid that this is the only way I know of phrasing it, and would like to affirm that I am trying my hardest to avoid being offensive without straying from what I am convinced of!