Question On Salvation

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

God must not have been appeased, since "the world" won't be saved. Of course, you'd have to take that in a limited understanding.

Appeased? Jesus dieing on the cross was merely for the cleansing of all man's sin's, believer or non believer. It doesn't mean those who's sins are cleansed will go to heaven. So of course not all of man will be "saved".

John Calvin

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." That's not difficult to understand. "No one can come to the Father except through me." Since when did "through" mean, "grant"? You may pull up any lexicon of your choice on the word "through."

I don't know the ultimate point of your argument here. Just because 2 sentences aren't word for word doesn't mean they don't have the same meaning. But, whatever floats your boat because I refuse to argue on something as simple as grammatical sentencing.

John Calvin

I don't know, considering Philo's work concerning the Decalogue, On the Ten Words, Which Are the Heads of the Law. For example, the saying, "Honor your father and mother" isn't simply for your father and mother alone, but that you should also respect those who are greater in authority than you, such as magistrates and judges.

I concur. Many like to argue on the "Thou Shall not Murder" commandment as well because of some mistranslated or mis transliterated bibles. Some say Thou Shall Not Kill which is incorrect. Murder is the same as killing yes, but murder is with a malicious intent. Using this as an example of course.

John Calvin

Well, you don't need a commentary on this. Just reading John 12, you'll understand that the Greeks wanted to see the Lord. Therefore, "all [men]" was pointing to "those from every tribe, language, people, and nation." This is what Calvinists agree on, by the way.

lol we'll your the one posted the verse. I was just merely explaining the depth of it.

John Calvin

So, you admit that the will is at least limited. Well, actually, the will is free, but from what? The sinner who is without God is free from righteousness, but a slave to sin. We do have free will, and God has preordained all things. These are Biblical truths that cannot be separated.

Admit? lol I BELIEVE. Of course we have "A" will...I just call it a "limited" will. But free? it ha, yeah...its FAR from being free. We are only free through Christ, but that won't happen until we are with him in heaven. However I disagree with the "everything is preordained" concept. He knows of every action every thought ever feeling we will have and will ever have in our life time, dead physically or alive with him spiritually, but that doesn't mean he "forces" us to make all decisions. For instance, he knows whether I will choose a root beer or a Pepsi, but he doesn't FORCE me to make the choice just because he knows which one I'll choose. I still HAVE the choice of choosing either one. However in the regards of salvation, only God can save man. Man can never save himself or has the power to, spiritually. thus the decision is up to God in this regard.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

Appeased? Jesus dieing on the cross was merely for the cleansing of all man's sin's, believer or non believer. It doesn't mean those who's sins are cleansed will go to heaven. So of course not all of man will be "saved".

Yes, "appeased." Or, to use a more Biblical term, propitiation. Not only did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, but He also pleased the Father by turning away His wrath. This act from God is both just and merciful. Just, because Jesus fulfilled the Law, and merciful, because He took our place. Now, if unbelievers are also cleansed from their sins, then they must be redeemed, since it is by the shedding of blood that the remissions of sin is made possible (Heb. 9:22). So, I must ask, are the sins of all men cleansed away by the blood of Christ? If so, by what means? After all, those who do not trust in the Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

SaintChaos

I don't know the ultimate point of your argument here. Just because 2 sentences aren't word for word doesn't mean they don't have the same meaning. But, whatever floats your boat because I refuse to argue on something as simple as grammatical sentencing.

You may refuse to continue if you wish. However, this makes our discussion less illuminating. In fact, I am uncertain as to why you would discontinue. I am not saying that those two verses have to be word for word. However, what I am asking from you is that you provide evidence that John 14:6 is saying or sharing the exact concept as that of 6:44. You say that you "refuse to argue on something as simple as grammatical sentencing," yet if it is so simple, then why am I having difficulty seeing what you see?

SaintChaos

Admit? lol I BELIEVE. Of course we have "A" will...I just call it a "limited" will. But free? it ha, yeah...its FAR from being free. We are only free through Christ, but that won't happen until we are with him in heaven. However I disagree with the "everything is preordained" concept. He knows of every action every thought ever feeling we will have and will ever have in our life time, dead physically or alive with him spiritually, but that doesn't mean he "forces" us to make all decisions. For instance, he knows whether I will choose a root beer or a Pepsi, but he doesn't FORCE me to make the choice just because he knows which one I'll choose. I still HAVE the choice of choosing either one. However in the regards of salvation, only God can save man. Man can never save himself or has the power to, spiritually. thus the decision is up to God in this regard.

Yes, you admit that man has a will. You denied the concept of free will, rejecting it as nothing more than a "fantasy." So, there is a change here, or you were holding back what you could have told me in the first place. You're correct by saying that free will is not free, that is, within the context given. I have stated that the will of the sinner is free from righteousness. He has free will, but his will is bent on the desires of sin. He does what he desires, and for this reason, the will is the mind choosing.  

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

Yes, "appeased." Or, to use a more Biblical term, propitiation. Not only did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, but He also pleased the Father by turning away His wrath. This act from God is both just and merciful. Just, because Jesus fulfilled the Law, and merciful, because He took our place. Now, if unbelievers are also cleansed from their sins, then they must be redeemed, since it is by the shedding of blood that the remissions of sin is made possible (Heb. 9:22). So, I must ask, are the sins of all men cleansed away by the blood of Christ? If so, by what means? After all, those who do not trust in the Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Just because you don't "trust" god, doesn't mean you won't enter the kingdom of heaven. How we "feel" about god is of our own choice, that is something we also have the ability to choose because he doesn't "force" us to trust or love him. All sins are cleansed through Christ, but salvation into heaven is given seperately.

John Calvin

You may refuse to continue if you wish. However, this makes our discussion less illuminating. In fact, I am uncertain as to why you would discontinue. I am not saying that those two verses have to be word for word. However, what I am asking from you is that you provide evidence that John 14:6 is saying or sharing the exact concept as that of 6:44. You say that you "refuse to argue on something as simple as grammatical sentencing," yet if it is so simple, then why am I having difficulty seeing what you see?

Because your over complicating it. You're digging and digging into something that doesn't need to be dug into. I gave you commentary for both verses, both of which were studied with the same meaning. Reading the entire chapter of both also backs up the statements of the verses. There are other verses in the bible which also back up the "concept" of what the verses are truly saying. I refuse to argue because there is nothing to argue. I find it pointless. Why you see differently from me? Maybe because of personality, maybe because of age difference or maturity difference. Your question is extremely vague.

John Calvin

Yes, you admit that man has a will. You denied the concept of free will, rejecting it as nothing more than a "fantasy." So, there is a change here, or you were holding back what you could have told me in the first place. You're correct by saying that free will is not free, that is, within the context given. I have stated that the will of the sinner is free from righteousness. He has free will, but his will is bent on the desires of sin. He does what he desires, and for this reason, the will is the mind choosing.

I thought you were seeing my words as saying "I reject the concept of will altogether". I guess I misunderstood you? But yes, I deny the concept of "free" will. But I don't deny the concept of "will" itself. But from the last part of your statement I'm going to assume we're in agreement on the concept?  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

Just because you don't "trust" god, doesn't mean you won't enter the kingdom of heaven. How we "feel" about god is of our own choice, that is something we also have the ability to choose because he doesn't "force" us to trust or love him. All sins are cleansed through Christ, but salvation into heaven is given seperately.

Trusting in God is important in salvation. Would you care to provide a verse or two about all sins being cleansed through Christ for unbelievers?

SaintChaos

Because your over complicating it. You're digging and digging into something that doesn't need to be dug into. I gave you commentary for both verses, both of which were studied with the same meaning. Reading the entire chapter of both also backs up the statements of the verses. There are other verses in the bible which also back up the "concept" of what the verses are truly saying. I refuse to argue because there is nothing to argue. I find it pointless. Why you see differently from me? Maybe because of personality, maybe because of age difference or maturity difference. Your question is extremely vague.

There are other verses to support John 6:44. I'm not arguing about that. It's John 14:6, which you haven't proven to be in accordance with John 6:44.

SaintChaos

I thought you were seeing my words as saying "I reject the concept of will altogether". I guess I misunderstood you? But yes, I deny the concept of "free" will. But I don't deny the concept of "will" itself. But from the last part of your statement I'm going to assume we're in agreement on the concept?

Actually, that's how I understood you. You didn't make yourself clear. We are in agreement.  

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

Trusting in God is important in salvation. Would you care to provide a verse or two about all sins being cleansed through Christ for unbelievers?

1 John 2:2 ...and He himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

I was looking up in the commentary out of curiosity to what it had to say about this verse and it was quite interesting. I can post its view on it if you so wish. It mainly dealt with the word "propitiation" and the depth of its meaning in the verse and how its used and why.

John Calvin

There are other verses to support John 6:44. I'm not arguing about that. It's John 14:6, which you haven't proven to be in accordance with John 6:44.

I already gave the proof and what you need to see. Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. There is nothing further to discuss.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

1 John 2:2 ...and He himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

I was looking up in the commentary out of curiosity to what it had to say about this verse and it was quite interesting. I can post its view on it if you so wish. It mainly dealt with the word "propitiation" and the depth of its meaning in the verse and how its used and why.

I would like to see the commentary. I also specifically asked that you prove that the sins of the world have been cleansed. What does this verse say of that? Nothing. What is more, we'll need to define "world." What does 1 John 1:9 say? "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

SaintChaos

I already gave the proof and what you need to see. Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. There is nothing further to discuss.

And I have shown why your proof is not proof at all, as it didn't deal with John 6:44. Jesus is not talking about irresistible grace here. You only take it that way. What this verse is only useful for is to demonstrate that salvation is not made possible through anyone else.  

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

I would like to see the commentary. I also specifically asked that you prove that the sins of the world have been cleansed. What does this verse say of that? Nothing. What is more, we'll need to define "world." What does 1 John 1:9 say? "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

Yeah I figured you would. lol get ready cuz this is gonna be a whopper to type. oh and btw, 1 John 1:9 doesn't apply to non believers....that only applies to believers since, to non believers, the bible is nothing but a book to them. even the commentary says that....and that's before I even looked at it.

Quote:

The teaching that a Christian should not ask God for daily forgiveness is an aberration. Moreover, confessions of sin is never connected by John with the acquisition of eternal life, which is always conditioned on faith. First John 1:9 is not spoken to the unsaved, and the effort to turn it into a soteriological affirmation is misguided.

Quote:

If God extends mercies to a sinning believer and the believer does not reap the full consequences of his failure in his personal experience that fact is not due to the merits of that believer himself. On the contrary, the grace obtained through the advocacy of Christ is to be traced, like all of God's grace, to His all sufficient sacrifice on the cross. Should any sinning believer wonder on what grounds he might secure God's mercy after he has failed, the answer is found in this verse. So adequate is Jesus Christ as God's atoning Sacrifice that the efficacy of His work extends not merely to the sins of the Christians themselves, but also to the sins of the whole world. In the saying this, John was clearly affirming the view that Christ genuinely died for everyone. (side references)

2 Cor. 5:14-15 For the lvoe of christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
19: ...namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to tus the world of reconciliation.

Heb. 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by that grave of God He might taste death for everyone.

This does not mean, of course, that everyone will be saved. It means rather that anyone who hears the gospel can be saved if he so desires. (Rev. 22:17). In context, however, John's point is to scope of Christ's "atoning sacrifice" in order to assure them that His advocacy as the Righteous One on their behalf is fully consistent with God's holiness. In recent times there has been much scholarly discussion of the Greek word "hilasmos", which, the NIV renders as "atoning sacrifice." (The word occurse in the NT only here and in 1 John 4:10.) Some say the term is not the placating of God's wrath against sin, but rather is an "expiation" or "cleaning" of sin itself. But the linguistic evidence for this interpretation is not persuasive. The view has been capably discussed and refuted by Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Cos., 1965, pp. 125-85). God's wrath against sin may not be a concept congenial to the modern mind, but it is thoroughly biblical. Hilasmos could be fittingly rendered "propitiation", (cf. the noun hilasterion, "propitiation," in Rom. 3:25 and the verb hilaskomai, "to propitiate," in Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17). The Cross has indeed propitiated (satisfied_ God and has met His righteous demands so thoroughly that His grace and mercy are abundantly available to both saved and unsaved alike.

lol....that was a lot to type, but when the words are stretched out on a web screen page it doesn't look like much. But towards the end, reading that it might not even be considered a "cleansing" is completely ironic to me. Christians fret so dearly on the idea that Jesus died on the cross for salvation only to never realize that his death on the cross was NOT for salvation, but for the burden of the saved and unsaved. But now the commentary even suggests that might not have been for cleansing, but for mere "satisfactory" that his death did what it needed to do and nothing more......interesting....

But whether it was of a "cleansing" or a "satisfaction", it was indeed for the WORLD....the save and unsaved.

John Calvin

And I have shown why your proof is not proof at all, as it didn't deal with John 6:44. Jesus is not talking about irresistible grace here. You only take it that way. What this verse is only useful for is to demonstrate that salvation is not made possible through anyone else.

No, what you've shown is opinion of why you think it isn't proof. But you know what? Believe what you want to.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

First John 1:9 is not spoken to the unsaved [...]

But of course!

The terms "all" and "world" are limited in their respects. Even your commentator agrees. What is meant by "whole world"? Surely salvation isn't limited to the Jews alone. Now Gentiles can participate. Thus, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.  

[Tarrou]

I'm afraid I've little ability to keep myself out of this particular argument. I have tried, though.

Argument from Arbitrary Selection:

1. All humans are born into a state of Total Depravity. (premise)
2. Because of Original Sin, humans cannot be born into any state other than that of total depravity. (premise—or true by definition of 'total depravity')
3. Because of total depravity, humans are incapable of doing anything of his own free will that is wholly free of sin or of choosing to follow God. (premise—or true by definition of 'Total Depravity')
4. The cause of original sin (i.e. the act that created the condition of original sin) is Adam and/or Eve. (premise)
5. Any human being born after the fall, though inheriting the guilt of original sin, is not the cause of original sin. (from 4)
6. No human being born after the fall chose to be born into a state of total depravity. (from 2 and 5)
7. All human beings are condemned to a state of total depravity by forces wholly outside of their control. (from 6)
8. All humans are equally sinful and/or unworthy of God. (from 1 and 3)
9. All humans are equally inculpable for their sinful state. (from 7)
10. All humans are morally equal. (from 8 and 9)
11. Justice is not arbitrary. (premise)
12. Some humans will be elected to salvation. (premise)
13. All humans not elected to salvation will be damned. (premise)
14. Not all humans will be elected. (premise)
15. God's election is based on his will alone and not foreknowledge (i.e. Arminianism is false). (premise)
16. Some humans will be damned. (from 13 and 14)
17. Some humans will be saved. (from 12)
18. God's has divided humans between the elect and the reprobate. (from 16 and 17)
19. The elect are no more or less sinful than the reprobate. (from 10)
20. Election/reprobation is arbitrary as regards the individuals selected. (from 15, 18 and 19)
21. Election/reprobation is not just. (from 11 and 20)
22. God is just. (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
23. God is responsible for election/reprobation. (premise)
24. God engages in unjust activities. (from 21 and 23)
25. Items 22 and 24 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God is not just and the reprobation/election scheme arbitrary, or God is just and the scheme is false.

You could, of course, argue that God is all working this out to some ultimately and unknowably just end; but then he is achieving an end that is just on balance via a means that is unjust in and of itself, which makes God a utilitarian rather than a being of inviolable justice, and utilitarianism is unacceptable in an omnipotent being for whom such moral compromises should be unnecessary:

Argument from Moral Compromise

1. God is just. (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
2. God is omnipotent (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
3. The doctrine of unconditional election is true. (premise)
4. Unconditional election is unjust. (premise; see 'Argument from Arbitrary Selection')
5. God can use unjust means to achieve a just end. (premise)
6. God is using the the unjust election/reprobation scheme for just ends. (from 3, 4 and 5)
7. God is making a moral compromise. (from 6)
8. Omnipotent beings do not need to compromise. (premise—or true by the definition of 'omnipotence')
9. God is perpetrating unjust acts unnecessarily. (from 7 and 8')
10. Items 1, 2 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God is not just, or God is not omnipotent, or the doctrine of unconditional election is false.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

I like your argument already, Blue. I'm going to review it, and have others look it over as well. Then I'm going to grab myself a nice Green Tea SoBe and think this over...a lot! If I were to find any favourable quality in you, Blue, I'd have to say that you offer a wonderful, well-thoughtout presentation. 3nodding  

[Tarrou]

John Calvin

I like your argument already, Blue. I'm going to review it, and have others look it over as well. Then I'm going to grab myself a nice Green Tea SoBe and think this over...a lot! If I were to find any favourable quality in you, Blue, I'd have to say that you offer a wonderful, well-thoughtout presentation. 3nodding

Thank you. I admit that points one through nine may be extraneous; I probably could have just stated the moral equality of man as a premise, but I suppose it's better to be thorough. I'll be looking forward hearing what you have to say about it. It's always nice to have an intelligent conversation with someone of equivalent intellect.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

I ask that you have patience with me, Tarrou. I don't know when my reply will be completed. Sorry to say, I've only begun yesterday, but I promise to offer my reasons for this in due time. (It's two pages long so far.) Do not worry. I have not forgotten this, and I intend on keeping my word. However, the other people I have asked do not seem to have helped me much, if at all. So, I think I'm alone on this one. Until then.  

[Tarrou]

John Calvin

I ask that you have patience with me, Tarrou. I don't know when my reply will be completed. Sorry to say, I've only begun yesterday, but I promise to offer my reasons for this in due time. (It's two pages long so far.) Do not worry. I have not forgotten this, and I intend on keeping my word. However, the other people I have asked do not seem to have helped me much, if at all. So, I think I'm alone on this one. Until then.

Take your time. The internet's not going anywhere, you know?  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Tarrou

Take your time. The internet's not going anywhere, you know?

I'm just telling you, because I don't want you to think that I have forgotten, or that I have decided not to reply. I'll have to tell you though, that it's going to be a long, long while before I resply, because I am in the process of learning more about my faith. Sure, I know what I need to know, but I still don't feel like I know enough. Until then.

*sigh*