Does man's faith merit or earn his salvation?

[Skandelon]

What did Christ mean by the phrase "the world" (greek: kosmos)?

I agree with Calvin who wrote in his commentery of John 17:21:

"That the world may believe." Some explain the word world to mean the elect, who, at that time, were still dispersed; but since the word world, throughout the whole of this chapter, denotes the reprobate, I am more inclined to adopt a different opinion."

And in his commentary on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."​

Can you make a case for why Jesus would refer to the world of reprobates all through the text but then suddenly and without qualification switch to speak of the elect world? Even Calvin himself rejects such an interpretation.

 

[Foghorn]

What did Christ mean by the phrase "the world" (greek: kosmos)?

Which definition of kosmos did Christ have in mind? Can you please provide an (possibly exegetical) argument for whichever one you think it is?

Yes, please do. I am interested as well.

 

[cygnusx1]

I pray not for the world but for those etc

That the world may believe


There is only harmony with these two verses if it the world of the saved in the final quote and the world of the lost in the first quote , this should not be open to dispute when looking carefully at the wording of the texts at hand , Christ intercedes for those and only those who will be saved , why are they saved ? Because Christ intercedes and atones for them , faith is not the cause of salvation merely the God granted means .

Why am I saved ? Some may say because I obeyed The Lord , but this is clearly not the case else when I disobey I would be lost again , and faith is sometimes absent from those saved , hence it is that Christ must do the saving , ALL the saving , and that He does by His blood and by His intercession.

 

[Skandelon]

There is also harmony in those two verses when he is praying for the divinely appointed authoritative messengers (apostles) in the first verse and those who may believe in their message in the second. You all over complicate these matters IMO.

 

[Skandelon]

Why am I saved ? Some may say because I obeyed The Lord , but this is clearly not the case else when I disobey I would be lost again , and faith is sometimes absent from those saved , hence it is that Christ must do the saving , ALL the saving , and that He does by His blood and by His intercession.

Why was the Prodigal restored to sonship and thrown a party? Was it because he returned home or because his father was incredibly loving, forgiving and gracious? The brat deserved to be slapped and sent on his way, but the father graciously chose to credit his humble return with full restoration. That is a perfect parallel to our salvation. It is not about our return. Our return merits nothing. It is about a gracious and loving father.

 

[Skala]

"so that the world may believe"

Is it possible that kosmos here is referring to any of the following?

1) A very large number of people
2) All nations
3) Gentiles being included (as opposed to just Jews only)

It is no secret that John is fond of using these definitions when he writes the word "kosmos" in his letter.

 

[Skandelon]

"so that the world may believe"

Is it possible that kosmos here is referring to any of the following?

1) A very large number of people
2) All nations
3) Gentiles being included (as opposed to just Jews only)

It is no secret that John is fond of using these definitions when he writes the word "kosmos" in his letter.

Why doesn't it just make more sense to understand it to mean 'every creature' as clearly He sends the gospel to be preached by his apostles to 'every creature' so that they may believe? Calvin believes it means 'mankind,' so why don't you?

 

[Eddie L]

Calvin believes it means 'mankind,' so why don't you?

I think you're misunderstanding Calvin's use of the word. "Mankind" is saved if even one person is saved. Jesus is the Redeemer of all mankind because we, as a race, survive.

 

[Skandelon]

I know you Calvinists read exclusivity into every passage, but its just not there. This is GOOD NEWS. And I don't see much good about God electing to leave most of humanity without hope of salvation.

Jesus (in John 12) said, "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."

Now, the very same world he didn't come to judge, including those who do not keep his words, is the very same world he came to save. The gospel is inclusive, not exclusive. The appeal is sent TO ALL MEN, not a select few. The divine desire is for ALL to repent and be saved, not a select few. The Good new of the Gospel is that God has provided hope to this world...to EVERY enemy of God so that they too may be reconciled...so that they too may enter covenant with God. Don't remove the 'good' from the gospel by trying to suggest that most of mankind has no hope of salvation.

 

[Skala]

I know you Calvinists read exclusivity into every passage, but its just not there. This is GOOD NEWS. And I don't see much good about God electing to leave most of humanity without hope of salvation.

Jesus (in John 12) said, "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."

Now, the very same world he didn't come to judge, including those who do not keep his words, is the very same world he came to save. The gospel is inclusive, not exclusive. The appeal is sent TO ALL MEN, not a select few. The divine desire is for ALL to repent and be saved, not a select few. The Good new of the Gospel is that God has provided hope to this world...to EVERY enemy of God so that they too may be reconciled...so that they too may enter covenant with God. Don't remove the 'good' from the gospel by trying to suggest that most of mankind has no hope of salvation.

No we don't. We read it where it is. and we don't read "every individual" into phrases that don't necessarily mean that.

It would be just as easy for us to to say that you read inclusivism into every passage.

We've asked you to show why you think "kosmos" means "Every individual" and all you've done is make assertions, but not actually give an exegetical reason why.

 

[Eddie L]

I know you Calvinists read exclusivity into every passage, but its just not there. This is GOOD NEWS. And I don't see much good about God electing to leave most of humanity without hope of salvation.

If God elects to save because of faith, or if God elects to save unto faith, the number of believers is the same. Either way most people perish, so why is your good news better?

 

[Skandelon]

We've asked you to show why you think "kosmos" means "Every individual" and all you've done is make assertions, but not actually give an exegetical reason why.

I not only provide you an exegetical reason, I even quote Calvin's exegetical reason for why he doesn't believe 'world' refers to the 'world of the elect.' Maybe you missed that post?

I also quoted John 12:42 where clearly Christ tells us all that he came to save the world. And I asked you make a case for why Jesus would refer to the world of reprobates all through Chapter 17, but then suddenly and without qualification switch to speak of the elect world? Did you miss that?

 

[Skandelon]

If God elects to save because of faith, or if God elects to save unto faith, the number of believers is the same. Either way most people perish, so why is your good news better?

My view = ALL have genuine hope and opportunity for eternal life and intimate relationship with their creator God.

Your view = A relative few are guaranteed eternal life and intimate relationship with God, but the rest are born without hope or opportunity for such.

You don't see the difference?

 

[Eddie L]

My view = ALL have genuine hope and opportunity for eternal life and intimate relationship with their creator God.

Your view = A relative few are guaranteed eternal life and intimate relationship with God, but the rest are born without hope or opportunity for such.

You don't see the difference?

Not at all. The same number are saved either way (which means God elected that number either by choosing people or choosing the system). I see much more hope for any single person when the hope they have is in God's saving grace than when it rests in their willingness to turn around. There isn't anyone you know that is beyond the power of grace, and since you don't know who the elect are, that means you have no reason to give up on anyone.

 

[dcyates]

Not at all. The same number are saved either way (which means God elected that number either by choosing people or choosing the system). I see much more hope for any single person when the hope they have is in God's saving grace than when it rests in their willingness to turn around. There isn't anyone you know that is beyond the power of grace, and since you don't know who the elect are, that means you have no reason to give up on anyone.

This ends up being a distinction without a difference, Eddie, because, according to the doctrine of predestination, while it's true that out of our ignorance we shouldn't "give up on anyone," technically, God already has, since he hasn't predestined certain people for salvation (which just happens to be the vast majority of all humanity).

 

[Eddie L]

This ends up being a distinction without a difference, Eddie, because, according to the doctrine of predestination, while it's true that out of our ignorance we shouldn't "give up on anyone," technically, God already has, since he hasn't predestined certain people for salvation (which just happens to be the vast majority of all humanity).

You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, in that you think a system A that results in x people perishing has more hope than system B that does. Either way, the exact same people perish.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This ends up being a distinction without a difference, Eddie, because, according to the doctrine of predestination, while it's true that out of our ignorance we shouldn't "give up on anyone," technically, God already has, since he hasn't predestined certain people for salvation (which just happens to be the vast majority of all humanity).

The distinction makes a HUGE difference, because it is the Creator - creature distinction, an Infinite - finite distinction.

God sovereignly ordains everything that comes to pass, including reprobation of the non-elect. As finite creatures, dependent upon our Creator, our access to His infinite wisdom and knowledge is limited by creatureliness and since our knowledge is dependent upon His, limited by whatsoever He would have us to know or not know. Our knowledge of other people's salvation is limited to what we see, hear, experience of a person, unlike Christ, we do not and cannot know other people's hearts and minds, nor know if or the day of a person's salvation. God in his wisdom has chosen the foolishness of preaching to play an instrumental role in the conversion of souls for His kingdom.

 

[Skandelon]

Not at all. The same number are saved either way (which means God elected that number either by choosing people or choosing the system).

You seem to be presuming the system that God chooses 'sets' the number, rather than the will of the people, which is to negate the very 'system' we believe He chose.

 

[dcyates]

You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, in that you think a system A that results in x people perishing has more hope than system B that does. Either way, the exact same people perish.

Assuming for now that the exact same people perish in either "system," do you not see a difference between people perishing because they freely and of their own will rejected the message of the gospel, and those same people perishing because God had essentially chosen them for damnation?
I gotta tell you, the atheists I speak to sure see a huge difference. I'm constantly having to apologize to them for the, frankly, horrible image of God they're given by so many Christians. Presenting them with the genuinely biblical God at very least takes away their otherwise ready excuse that the god with which they had previously been presented was a moral monster who had deliberately and purposefully doomed vast swaths of humanity to eternal hellfire through no fault of their own, and who was therefore not worthy of their faith and devotion.

 

[Hammster]

Assuming for now that the exact same people perish in either "system," do you not see a difference between people perishing because they freely and of their own will rejected the message of the gospel, and those same people perishing because God had essentially chosen them for damnation?
I gotta tell you, the atheists I speak to sure see a huge difference. I'm constantly having to apologize to them for the, frankly, horrible image of God they're given by so many Christians. Presenting them with the genuinely biblical God at very least takes away their otherwise ready excuse that the god with which they had previously been presented was a moral monster who had deliberately and purposefully doomed vast swaths of humanity to eternal hellfire through no fault of their own, and who was therefore not worthy of their faith and devotion.

So Calvinism is keeping atheists from becoming Christians?