John 1:9 "enlightens every man"

[Benefactor]

Benefactor, et al.

Benefactor wrote:



Here we go. Unfortunately, you didn't deal with the things I said or answer the questions I asked. Instead you turned to misrepresenting something I said. I never said nor implied that the meaning of the participle was "different." So it appears to me that you are turning to the ad hominem argument and accusing me of something I never said, but it is possible you misunderstood. So, I'll explain again.

The participle is actually an "Adjectival Participle" because it is arthrous, meaning it has the article. The adjectival participle is probably the most common participial form in the New Testament.

This participle is part of a dependent clause modifying "but to all who did receive Him." The Adjectival Participle and the clause modifies and explains what John is referring to.

There is not, nor can there be, any idea of progression. The participle and the clause are, by definition, meant for clarification, not progression.

Furthermore, your basic understanding of participles is just that, basic. There really is no alternative to working through a text and translating it yourself. Certainly Robertson is a good start but what you seem not to understand is that a participle, while noun-like; verb-like; adjective-like; adverb-like; etc., is neither a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb. A participle is its own animal. So while it shares characteristics of a verb it is most decidedly not a verb.

In fact, in Greek, the verbs become the main points--that's how the Authors make their points (ie. the "Make Disciples" of the Great Commission; Go, Baptizing, Teaching, are all participles) and the participles add the dimension of "how." So, John includes this particular participle to clarify who the "all who did receive Him" are--they are the ones who believed on His name.

As I have said before, I absolutely believe and affirm that man must believe in Christ in order to be saved.

Now, back to the OP. Again, your presupposition about the light (Christ) enlightening every man who comes into the world cannot be supported by the common practice of John himself. John uses this idiom (come into the world) several times and it never refers to anyone other than Christ. So, again you can argue your idea of salvation, but you can't use this passage. John himself, in the rest of his own gospel, stands against you and I don't think you'd suggest you know more than he did about what he meant.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Arch, my friend when you quote someone you should have the quote listed. Notice what happens to this post. People are going to think I wrote your words and that would grieve me severely. You are dead wrong in your analysis of these verses and I would hope that you would kindly include in your commentary what I actually said.
Benefactor.

 

[Rippon]

God has appointed all men to eternal life...

You will not find that anywhere in all of Holy Writ.

The appointment is to eternal life to any whom would believe.

If you are referencing Acts 13:48 with the above assertion -- you must have a hyper-Arminian edition.

On the contrary -- all of those who are appointed (ordained, chosen) for eternal life became believers. They were appointed before the creation of the world. Their appointment caused them to believe.

 

[Rippon]

So, apparently, did your English teacher. It's bores, not boars.

Substituting for the English Cop.

You and Mexdeaf are doing a good job when EdSutton's LC isn't on duty.

 

[Tom Butler]

You and Mexdeaf are doing a good job when EdSutton's LC isn't on duty.

Oops, I meant Language Cop, not English Cop. You are too kind.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The Benefactor is consistent with his peers, the modern Arminians, in that he takes this verse and makes it say something he wants it to say.
He should start reading about life, light, Christ, God, whole world in darkness, the world comprehendeth it not, from verse 1 all the way through 10 so he can better understand this chapter and this writer, John, is NOT saying what HE wants it to say.

 

[Darrenss1]

If you are referencing Acts 13:48 with the above assertion -- you must have a hyper-Arminian edition.

On the contrary -- all of those who are appointed (ordained, chosen) for eternal life became believers. They were appointed before the creation of the world. Their appointment caused them to believe.

What I find is 1 verse Acts 13:48 that says something and no where else in the bible is that phrase repeated. So it seems logical to me, that the rest of the scriptures still stands. God has foreordained the boundaries, that any whom would come to faith in Christ and are saved will be elected and appointed to eternal life. Makes perfect sense. Salvation offered to all men, only some believe, bottom line.

Actually I'm behind the 8 ball when it come to hyper, Arminianism and editions. I don't read much and didn't copy an answer from some commentator, that's the way it makes sense to me. IF I did get some ideas I do have my favorite teachers to explain it, maybe they are hyper's and have such and such editions, I have no idea which.

Darren

 

[Benefactor]

How I see It - Benefactor

The issue, here with A13:48, is that of "foreknowledge" and God's plan. The major players in this debate are summed up in simple terms as follows:

(2) God elects arbitrarily Or (2) God elects on the basis of foreseen faith, foreknowledge

ACRT see it as number 1 and the opposite of course as number 2. I am on the number 2 side of this debate.

We can't deny the wording any more than they can’t deny our proof text, even though they will.

We on the number 2 side have overwhelming amounts of Scripture that support our view and they are limited to this passage and their misunderstanding of Romans 9 and they too will disagree with this statement. This is normal because they must defend their model or deny it.

Because the number two position is Scriptural, thus the stronger by far we must place these isolated text in perspective to what we believe and know is scripturally factual. When you place a text like this along side another text that would look to be an apparent contradiction then there is a decision to be made. When you analyze both sides of the issue against the opposing apparent contradiction the ACRT side violates the Holiness of God. In stating it this way I want to make myself perfect clear. All you who are ACRT are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I do not doubt your love for God and His word but I do seriously disagree with you and I firmly believe you hold to false doctrine.

I know this post will generate some very lively discussion in addition to what has transpired to this point. But, I do want to let my erring Brothers and Sisters on the ACRT side know that I love you as joint heirs in Christ, we simple disagree on these matters.

A busy day will be back later. God Bless to everyone

Benefactor

Always remember that election is according to foreknowledge and statements like A13:48 are then understood in the true Biblical context. This is God’s plan.

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You wrote:

And so we continue to clash and disagree. You are expected to defend your view as I. If you don't reason, in your view, away its clear meaning then that means you must forsake your model of theology, we all know that.

In this passage, there is no "View" to defend. You proposed an interpretation of this passage which, although put forward in a very popular Bible translation, is simply not correct. There is no "interpretation" necessary; what we are disagreeing about is not a theological system built around Calvinism or Arminianism. No, what we are disagreeing about is the text itself.

You seem to want to make the text say something it clearly doesn't. Your interpretation of John 1:9 is, frankly, non sequitur to the rest of John's Gospel. That is not an issue of interpretation; it is an issue of reading.

Continuing to have this discussion would be akin debating Shakespeare's Hamlet. Proverbially, we are not debating the meaning of "To be or not to be." Instead, we would be debating if these words actually appeared on the page. That is what we are doing with John 1:9.

It is clear that you deeply desire this text, in your incorrect interpretation, to support a universal atonement. As I have said before, you are free to argue for that interpretation (as some of my well-respected 4-point Calvinist friends do); you just cannot twist this passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Also, let me say that it is bizarre that in a subsequent post you accuse me of mis-quoting you. Generally speaking, I quote text of the person of whom I am answering. If I don't quote the exact word, I certainly allude to the idea presented. If you look at the post I wrote instead of posts other people quoted, you would have seen that I did, in fact, quote you. You can look here at post #52. Perhaps, then, you should direct your request to those who quoted my entire post.

I would have hoped that this discussion could have continued to explore the wonderful nuance of the Greek. Instead you have repeatedly turned to the ad hominem argument rather than answer queries about the text. For that reason, I no longer have the time nor the intention to discuss these matters with you.

I certainly have no desire to convert the world to Calvinism. Every good Calvinist I know loves to consider the minutiae of biblical doctrine every day--this helps us to refine ourselves according to the Scriptures, rather than refining the Scriptures according to ourselves.

My final word of encouragement for the time being is to continue your Greek studies in a formal way.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

I don't know why I bother....I have many other things to do which are much more important. But, since I can't seem to quell my curiosity...

You wrote:

God elects on the basis of foreseen faith, foreknowledge

And from what text do you get this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

EDIT: P.S. What is "ACRT???"

 

[Allan]

Benefactor,

I don't know why I bother....I have many other things to do which are much more important. But, since I can't seem to quell my curiosity...

You wrote:
And from what text do you get this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

EDIT: P.S. What is "ACRT???"

ACRT = Augustinian, Calvinistic, Reform Theology

I figured that is what it meant, but googled it and saw another christian board (christanforums) where this was in the topic. Then I noticed who started the thread - guess who

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

I don't know why I bother....I have many other things to do which are much more important. But, since I can't seem to quell my curiosity...

You wrote:
And from what text do you get this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

EDIT: P.S. What is "ACRT???"

I will but you have to go first.

Show me a verse that states clearly that regeneration is first then faith. One clear verse that is as clear as the opposite of this claim such as
Luke 7: 50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

What verse with out any twist, different words, interpretation clearly states where Jesus, Paul, Peter etc. states that salvation comes before faith? This is what ACRT claims and so I am curious exactly where this is without a doubt stated in that order compared to Luke 7:50. No commentary, on listing of verses that you think this or that just but a verse that clearly states it.

Now you do agree that God is the author of Scripture, don’t you? Yes or No

Augustinian, Calvinism, Reform Theology <> it is easier to ACRT that spell it out each time.

 

[Amy.G]

When Jesus said:

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Why didn't He say "ye could not because you were not regenerated"?

 

[The Archangel]

ACRT = Augustinian, Calvinistic, Reform Theology

I figured that is what it meant, but googled it and saw another christian board (christanforums) where this was in the topic. Then I noticed who started the thread - guess who

ALLAN!!!!

Thank you very much, my friend. I hope all is well with you.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I will but you have to go first.

Show me a verse that states clearly that regeneration is first then faith. One clear verse that is as clear as the opposite of this claim such as
Luke 7: 50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

What verse with out any twist, different words, interpretation clearly states where Jesus, Paul, Peter etc. states that salvation comes before faith? This is what ACRT claims and so I am curious exactly where this is without a doubt stated in that order compared to Luke 7:50. No commentary, on listing of verses that you think this or that just but a verse that clearly states it.

Now you do agree that God is the author of Scripture, don’t you? Yes or No

Augustinian, Calvinism, Reform Theology <> it is easier to ACRT that spell it out each time.

Benefactor,

This is a quick, drive-by post before I run out for a Church thing, so I'm only going to address one thing and (a bit of truth in advertising here) it isn't dealing with the text.

You wrote: "What verse with out any twist, different words, interpretation clearly states where Jesus, Paul, Peter etc. states that salvation comes before faith? This is what ACRT claims..."

You are absolutely incorrect in your assumption. Calvinists do not believe that salvation comes before faith. Calvinists believe regeneration comes before saving faith. We would say that saving faith (or just faith, if you prefer) is the result of regeneration.

But, never would we say that salvation precedes faith and it is a mis-representation (intentional or otherwise) to suggest we believe this.

Gotta run.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

You wrote:
In this passage, there is no "View" to defend. You proposed an interpretation of this passage which, although put forward in a very popular Bible translation, is simply not correct. There is no "interpretation" necessary; what we are disagreeing about is not a theological system built around Calvinism or Arminianism. No, what we are disagreeing about is the text itself.

You seem to want to make the text say something it clearly doesn't. Your interpretation of John 1:9 is, frankly, non sequitur to the rest of John's Gospel. That is not an issue of interpretation; it is an issue of reading.

Continuing to have this discussion would be akin debating Shakespeare's Hamlet. Proverbially, we are not debating the meaning of "To be or not to be." Instead, we would be debating if these words actually appeared on the page. That is what we are doing with John 1:9.

It is clear that you deeply desire this text, in your incorrect interpretation, to support a universal atonement. As I have said before, you are free to argue for that interpretation (as some of my well-respected 4-point Calvinist friends do); you just cannot twist this passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Also, let me say that it is bizarre that in a subsequent post you accuse me of mis-quoting you. Generally speaking, I quote text of the person of whom I am answering. If I don't quote the exact word, I certainly allude to the idea presented. If you look at the post I wrote instead of posts other people quoted, you would have seen that I did, in fact, quote you. You can look here at post #52. Perhaps, then, you should direct your request to those who quoted my entire post.

I would have hoped that this discussion could have continued to explore the wonderful nuance of the Greek. Instead you have repeatedly turned to the ad hominem argument rather than answer queries about the text. For that reason, I no longer have the time nor the intention to discuss these matters with you.

I certainly have no desire to convert the world to Calvinism. Every good Calvinist I know loves to consider the minutiae of biblical doctrine every day--this helps us to refine ourselves according to the Scriptures, rather than refining the Scriptures according to ourselves.

My final word of encouragement for the time being is to continue your Greek studies in a formal way.

Blessings,

The Archangel

You are a Calvinist and you are wrong. Your view is the non sequitur. My view is the sequitur.:smilewinkgrin:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.The Witness John 6. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

8. He was not the Light, but {he came} to testify about the Light.

9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,

13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Some of the all do believe, vs. 12. When they believe God regenerates them, gives them salvation / "He gave the right to become children of God" which follows received and believed.

Yep! Yours is the illogical system. Your conclusions are not logical and do not fit the text as I have clearly demonstrated. No need to twist and redefine words, just accept what it says.

 

[Tom Butler]

When Jesus said:

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Why didn't He say "ye could not because you were not regenerated"?

Jasus actually did say that in John 12:39-40:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah had said again, lie hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart,
and be converted, and I should heal them.​

 

[Jerome]

Wow you all need to get your story straight:

Calvinists do not believe that salvation comes before faith. . . .never would we say that salvation precedes faith and it is a mis-representation (intentional or otherwise) to suggest we believe this.

From another thread, in answer to the question, "Now do you teach or believe that a person is first saved and after he is saved he is given the gift of faith so that he will believe?:

YES, OH YES !!!! That is exactly what I believe, preach and teach.

 

[Allan]

Jasus actually did say that in John 12:39-40:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah had said again, lie hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart,
and be converted, and I should heal them.​

So you are contending that God is actively involved in mans condemnation/reprobation?
I mean if God blinds them and keeps them from understanding - so they could not be saved (the implications of what this means seem also to be on table, anyway..) - then you have God 'keeping people from being saved and staying in unrepentance, by God's own doing. You do realize this right. You are contending for God's active involvement in their reprobation.

And since I KNOW you don't, just what case you trying to make?

I like what Clarke places at the end of his commentary on this point referencing Augustines own opinion on the matter of this text:

However, that I may put myself under cover from all suspicion of perverting the meaning of a text which seems to some to be spoken in favor of that awful doctrine of unconditional reprobation, the very father of it shall interpret the text for me. Thus then saith St. Augustin:

Quare autem non Poterant, si a me quaeratur, cito respondeo; Quia Nolebant: Malam quippe eorum Voluntatem praevidit Deus, et per prophetam praenunciavit

. “If I be asked why they Could not believe? I immediately answer, Because They Would Not. And God, having foreseen their Bad Will, foretold it by the prophet.” Aug. Tract. 53, in Joan.

The quote from Isaiah references the fact that Israel had rejected God (yet again) and that in God's commanding of Isaiah to go preach the same messages they had already rejected the Moses and the earlier prophets, was to have the natural effect upon them that had already rejected it - hardening and blinding them.

I might also add John Gills notation as well:

The Syriac and Persic versions read, "they have blinded their eyes", &c.

and his comments on Mat 13:15 concerning the same thing and compares the two as being of the same intent:

And their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; which is expressive of the blindness and hardness, which were partly brought upon themselves by their own wilfulness and obstinacy, against such clear evidence as arose from the doctrine and miracles of Christ; and partly from the righteous judgment of God, giving them up, for their perverseness, to judicial blindness and obduracy; Joh_12:40 and are in the prophet ascribed to the ministry of the word; that being despised, was in righteous judgment, the savour of death unto death, unto them; and they under it, as clay, under the influence of the sun, grew harder and harder by it, stopping their ears, and shutting their eyes against it:

We must remember and go back to the OT to revisit the story in which the people of God rejected him. He reached out, and the persisted in their rebellion. Therefore He allowed the proclaimation of those same truths they knew, which He had revealed to them, to have it's natural effect upon those who had already rejected it and was hearing it yet again - hardening and blinding. They are blinded because they have rejected the truth already.

 

[Allan]

Wow you all need to get your story straight:



From another thread, in answer to the question, "Now do you teach or believe that a person is first saved and after he is saved he is given the gift of faith so that he will believe?:

Actually, no. Pinoy believes in the Sovereign grace doctrines though somewhat differently than mainstream or historical Calvinists.

His view holds in the estimation of mainstream Calvinism a decidedly Hyper-view where some can be saved, rejecting Christ, and believing in other gods because those who are saved are such before they are ever born but have been such from eternity past. This is called eternal salvation, and for them, not to be confused with temporal salvation, in which a person can come to know the truth, reject all other false gods and teachings, and walk in this present world in a relationship with Christ.

If I missed or incorrectly gave your view Pinoy, please correct it.

 

[EdSutton]

Would you like to borrow my book on "Diagrammatical Analysis"?

Strong boars [sic] me

Do McGuffey and Webster "boar" you, as well?

Wouldn't hurt to check on the definition of words you use, at times!

Ed