Soterilosity - A person can lose salvation

[renniks]

If God’s wrath is satisfied, why hell?

Because the sin of disbelief remains for many. And because the atonement is not only about his wrath. It's assures Christ's final future victory over evil. I don't see anything hard to understand about conditional atonement. But unconditional atonement makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hammster]

Because the sin of disbelief remains for many. And because the atonement is not only about his wrath. It's assures Christ's final future victory over evil. I don't see anything hard to understand about conditional atonement. But unconditional atonement makes no sense whatsoever.

The sin of disbelief. Is that the one sin not atoned for?

 

[renniks]

The sin of disbelief. Is that the one sin not atoned for?

Still reading from the standard Calvinist playbook I see. The atonement is for all sins, but is not applied to those who do not accept Christ. That's why it's called conditional. I don't see anything complicated about it. Some use the analogy of being given a check that does you no good unless you choose to cash it.

 

[Hammster]

Still reading from the standard Calvinist playbook I see. The atonement is for all sins, but is not applied to those who do not accept Christ. That's why it's called conditional. I don't see anything complicated about it. Some use the analogy of being given a check that does you no good unless you choose to cash it.

So Christ really didn’t take the punishment for all sins, in your theology. He couldn’t have. Because even the sin of unbelief would have been paid for, and there would be no need for hell. Either that, or God would be unjust for sending someone to hell for sins He crushed His Som over.

 

[renniks]

So Christ really didn’t take the punishment for all sins, in your theology. He couldn’t have. Because even the sin of unbelief would have been paid for, and there would be no need for hell. Either that, or God would be unjust for sending someone to hell for sins He crushed His Som over.

I don't see why you think God cannot make a condition for salvation, since he obviously does, even in your theology, namely, faith. The whole "Christ didn't die for all sins," then, argument is silly. Systematic theology always gets goofy when you take it to extemes.

 

[Hammster]

I don't see why you think God cannot make a condition for salvation, since he obviously does, even in your theology, namely, faith. The whole "Christ didn't die for all sins," then, argument is silly. Systematic theology always gets goofy when you take it to extemes.

You are avoiding my argument. Why?

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

1Sa_10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

1Sa_10:9 And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.

Eze_11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

Eze_18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Eze_36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Col_3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Heb_13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

[renniks]

You are avoiding my argument. Why?

I'm not avoiding anything... I just think your premise is silly. And of course penal substitution is only one of many theories of atonement. Christus Victor has a lot of merit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There's actually a textual issue here. Current editions use ὅτι. I tried to see what the issue is, but it's not in the UBS5 apparatus, nor in Metzger's textual commentary. That means it's so certain they don't even show the evidence. In this section of the text there's very early evidence, including P66, from around 200 AD. I think your understanding was unlikely anyway, but it's a lot less likely with the critical text.

Louw and Nida give two possible meanings for gar. One is a simple marker, with no significance. Here's the other:

a marker of cause or reason between events, though in some contexts the relation is often remote or tenuous—‘for, because.’ αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ‘for he knew what was in people’ Jn 2:25; ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις ‘they ran from the tomb, for they were trembling and amazed’ Mk 16:8.

Both gar and oti take a range of meaning, but "because" is the most likely for both, and the one that translators use. Bible Gateway lists a bunch, and that's how they all understand it.

In my opinion a non-predestinarian reading is still possible, but not by a weird translation. Jesus says they don't believe what he is saying because they aren't his sheep. But it's not so clear that he means believe in the general sense of having faith. They don't believe he is the Messiah. You could try to say that they aren't his sheep because they don't trust him (Reformers' meaning of faith), and therefore they don't believe his claim that he's the Messiah.

I'm not sure how plausible that is, but at least it doesn't depend upon an unlikely translation.

The problem with using the word “because” in that statement is that no one can be His sheep before hearing the gospel and then choosing whether or not to believe. I maintain that the correct translation should be the word therefore indicating that as a result of them hearing and not believing they are counted as not being one of His sheep. Believing, in the context of this message, is the determining factor of becoming His sheep. Unless you believe that Jesus is speaking of predestination and being His sheep is the result of being elected by God.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not avoiding anything... I just think your premise is silly. And of course penal substitution is only one of many theories of atonement. Christus Victor has a lot of merit.

It may be more than penal substitution, but it’s not less.

 

[Hammster]

The problem with using the word “because” in that statement is that no one can be His sheep before hearing the gospel and then choosing whether or not to believe.

Why not?

 

[renniks]

It may be more than penal substitution, but it’s not less.

There has been no consensus on that throughout church history.

 

[Hammster]

There has been no consensus on that throughout church history.

Well, that’s because people must not like the clear teaching of scripture, and want a little part of salvation for themselves.

 

[renniks]

C

Well, that’s because people must not like the clear teaching of scripture, and want a little part of salvation for themselves.

Christus Victor is clearly taught in scripture. I don't know what you mean by a little part of salvation? If you think Arminians believe we do anything to save ourselves you are incorrect.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why not?

Because we are judged according to whether or not we believe. If we are rendered incapable of believing because God has not chosen us then it is God who is responsible for our unbelief. Those whom He has chosen are no more deserving of grace than anyone else so it doesn’t make sense that He decides to declare some righteous who are no more righteous than the anyone else. We are all guilty of sin. But if the individual chooses of his own free will whether or not he will believe then he is responsible for his own condemnation if he chooses to reject God and God is not responsible for His unbelief. Then it is just that we be judged according to whether or not we believe because we were given the opportunity to believe.

 

[Hammster]

C

Christus Victor is clearly taught in scripture. I don't know what you mean by a little part of salvation? If you think Arminians believe we do anything to save ourselves you are incorrect.

You don’t put it that way, no. But the teaching is clear.

 

[Hammster]

Because we are judged according to whether or not we believe. If we are rendered incapable of believing because God has not chosen us then it is God who is responsible for our unbelief. Those whom He has chosen are no more deserving of grace than anyone else so it doesn’t make sense that He decides to declare some righteous who are no more righteous than the anyone else. We are all guilty of sin. But if the individual chooses of his own free will whether or not he will believe then he is responsible for his own condemnation if he chooses to reject God and God is not responsible for His unbelief. Then it is just that we be judged according to whether or not we believe because we were given the opportunity to believe.

Well, that didn’t answer the question. But okay.

So it’s obvious that you think that the act of hearing and following makes one His sheep, correct?

 

[hedrick]

The problem with using the word “because” in that statement is that no one can be His sheep before hearing the gospel and then choosing whether or not to believe. I maintain that the correct translation should be the word therefore indicating that as a result of them hearing and not believing they are counted as not being one of His sheep. Believing, in the context of this message, is the determining factor of becoming His sheep. Unless you believe that Jesus is speaking of predestination and being His sheep is the result of being elected by God.

Ugh. The problem with people reading the Bible is that they want to get direct answers to 21st Cent (or in the case 16th Cent) questions. I don't think John was a full Calvinist. He does talk about people falling away. But he definitely has a strong predestinarian side. In many ways more so even than Paul (since I believe Calvin didn't understand the context of some pasages). The straightforward reading of this passage is that people believed because they were Jesus' sheep. Yes, this is predestinarian.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ugh. The problem with people reading the Bible is that they want to get direct answers to 21st Cent (or in the case 16th Cent) questions. I don't think John was a full Calvinist. He does talk about people falling away. But he definitely has a strong predestinarian side. In many ways more so even than Paul (since I believe Calvin didn't understand the context of some pasages). The straightforward reading of this passage is that people believed because they were Jesus' sheep. Yes, this is predestinarian.

I politely disagree friend.

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

2 Peter 2:19 KJB - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

2 Peter 2:20 KJB - For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2 Peter 2:21 KJB - For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.