Featured Is Election Salvation ?

They had to exercise faith. How was their faith exercised. Looking was not enough. Having faith or believing is an active verb. It is not simply looking at an object.

 

You'd better go read Numbers 21:8-9, then adjust your theology.

It clearly says they LOOKED, and there is nothing more than that mentioned. Neither is there any mention that anything more than looking was required.

Yes, looking to Jesus. Bringing no attempt at self righteousness. Not a human attempt to reach God. Believe upon Christ. Look to Him and be healed.

 

You just stated "Believe" which is a command.
Believing does not come without a means to believe.
How does a person believe? How did the publican believe? the thief on the cross? Hannah? etc.
Their belief was exercised through communication or prayer. How else would belief be exercised? You tell me.

 

Is it too difficult to simply deal with what Jesus said, and the account He referenced?

Without adding your own philosophical elements?

 

The Bible in many instances reveals that man had and still has an active part in his own salvation. This does not mean man is capable of saving himself or anyone else. It means that man must be receptive of God. We have verse after verse of Jesus or the apostles saying things like "come unto me" or "whosoever will." If man had an active part in salvation, then at what point did it change to this passive role that so many insist on?

We know where JamesL stands on the prayer issue. I've been involved in a discussion in another thread where the OP argued that faith is a work. Things got heated.

James - I won't often say this, but DHK asks some good questions. I don't think it fair to ignore them.

 

[FONT=&quot]John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In reference to both the incident in Numbers and to salvation in Christ, the command is to believe.
One must believe in Christ.
Whosoever, whoever, all who believe in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life.
One's expression of belief must be communicated to God. We call that "communication" prayer. That is what prayer is--communication with God.
"Christ, I put my faith in you." "Lord save me."
Faith has an object. It always has an object. If a person wants to be saved, the object of his faith must be Christ. He is the only one that can save (John 14:6).

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.[/FONT]
--This is probably the best definition of faith in the Bible--being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will do.

[FONT=&quot]Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.[/FONT]
--Faith is not a work, but is rather contrasted with works. Paul clearly teaches this here. His faith was counted for righteousness, not his works.

The object of his faith was the Lord.
Those with that faith have a personal living relationship with God, and are thus able to walk a life of faith, trusting God day by day--living by faith.

 

This is your evil contrivance, or you have been persuaded by a demon into this anti-gospel addition.

Where's there even one scripture verse which says this?

This is scriptural, and says nothing about Abraham praying a sinner's prayer. PERSUADED.

Convinced.

Because t again, I'm trying to get you to discuss what Jesus said in John 3, and how it relates to what He referenced.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm trying to get him to stop ignoring my question.

I asked specifically if this notion of asking can be found in the account of the Israelites and the snake bites, and come to some finality there instead of jumping around randomly

 

You are the one that is jumping around.
Clearly Jesus linked the looking with believing.
The believing is action. It needs a vehicle of expression. How does one believe? What is the way that believing is expressed?
Now, when I tried to explain that to you, you called me evil.

You try to explain it to me. And when you do, shall I call you evil.
I won't. But try to give an explanation nevertheless.

 

No sir, I have not jumped around. Not once. I chimed in on page 8, simply asking about those who were bitten by snakes.

Your first reply to my question was a reference to Acts 16:31 and 1Samuel 1

You then referenced the publican in the temple, Romans 4, and philosophy about expressing faith.

You're all over the place, except in the 2 passages I asked about. And I asked about the one because it is used in comparative fashion by Jesus.


And HOW someone comes to believe is somewhat of a moot point (at least for now).

The issue is whether a prayer was required in addition to looking at the serpent.

And I didn't call you evil, I called your contrivance evil.


Is a prayer the only legitimate "expression" of faith? Can't someone express their faith by taking the Eucharist? Can't someone express their faith by being baptized?

Then instead of telling someone to recite a prayer, we could just throw them in a pool or trick them into drinking some grape juice. Then....voila - saved

Right?

 

Where does scripture say that faith needs a vehicle of expression?

 

AA. posted this;

To which this response was given;

DHK said......

.
I do not think anyone cares what you believe unless you can address AA's post directly...

really...well show from the text and grammar offered where you find fault with it??? unless you do that...no one is interested in your errant philosophy...

You can do that another time....I have heard two greek professors offer the exact same teaching as AA......do you have the ability to address it or not...I would offer you the sermons, but you will not listen anyway:laugh:


Put up, or keep silent....as plain and simple posted a series of errant posts and now disappeared as I said happens, and you said to me...prove it!
This is the proof....respond to AA on the greek language the holy Spirit had John write for the church.....go ahead...explain it away:laugh:

You will not respond, because you cannot. We know that.It is just a matter of which excuse you will dial up:laugh:

 

1. What does it mean to believe?
2. Did you personally believe in Christ?
3. If so, what did you do when you believed in Christ?
4. Was there any action taken in believing in Christ? How so?

 

I have some Greek under my belt, but probably not as much as you do.
No, I wasn't looking at Strong's. But I certainly am familiar with "pas" which was already pointed out, and then I went and looked straight at the Greek.

And this is where I call you out.
I don't trust your Greek in opposition to the KJV, ASV, and almost every translation on the market. You say that it cannot be whosoever, but all the translations out there translate it whosoever or in a similar way.
It is like you saying "I am right and the whole world is wrong." Thus I question your statement.

And yet so many differ with you.

I never called you a liar. I disagreed with you. Now you know why I disagreed with you. I don't trust your scholarship when your conclusion is contrary to every other translation that I am familiar with. I am certain that all the translations cannot be wrong.

 

Any fool can mock. Even the illiterate and most uneducated are good at that. It doesn't take brains.
Now if you want something more profitable. Answer my post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2173751&postcount=75

 

DHK

I will respond to the rest of your post now, since basically you have no reason to suggest that AA. was wrong at all. You do not want him to be correct...but he is:thumbsup:

You asked me to respond...so I will

Obviously a great text of scripture....as kyred pointed out-

15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,

16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

I have heard greek teachers open the passage...it has the idea of everyone believing, and continuing to believe...it does not read so well in English , but the greek language puts the word order where the emphasis should be.

AA...was certainly correct.

That being said.....if it indeed said.....who soever....it would not change the truth very much anyhow. Whosoever does not limit the gospel call it is open to all who hear....Everyone believing does not limit the gospel call either but it does speak to the results of the gospel.

No man limits the gospel call. We are responsible to preach truth. The results belong to God.

Again AA correctly commented on this. Pay attention to the qualifiers.
like in MT.11

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
This presupposes a work of the Spirit.

Correct...all men everywhere are responsible to repent and believe the gospel. No one preaches or teaches any different despite plain and simples sad caricature.:laugh:

Wrong
It does not speak of the offer at all to limit it....it speaks of the effectiveness of the offer...who is it effectual for. No one would believe if not for the truth and reality of unconditional election....That is why God elected a multitude...otherwise all would be lost...all without exception.
Natural men are unwilling and unable to come to God.

You suggest a bias...we say it is the actual teaching of scripture from cover to cover. Your denial of this truth is in fact a denial of the truth of scripture on this teaching. You might come to understand that at another point in time...or not.

Sure...not a problem.. a great verse. We believe that.
Everyone believing...all of them will be saved...exactly. Of course it winds up that everyone of them..are the elect of God who at a point in time having been given to jesus before the world was...are drawn to saving faith and repentance that are given to them in the great gift of salvation.

Why you or anyone else would deny and teach against it is mystifying.:wavey:
Consider:

It was offered to all...yes..however...in the end..it was for a select group THOSE WHO LOOKED...it was not for those who looked and those who did not look...can you see this?

Election and predestination do not limit the FREE offer.

Not at all..We like it!

The text does not mention election ...you do. salvation at this point was ...of the jews...Jesus says God's plan is world wide....not every person in the world...but not jews only.

to seize on the word world as if everyone in the world is going to be saved is foolish....the next verse says the world is condemned already ...

The elect children of God are scattered all over the world in every nation jn11

everyone believing,,yes

That would be universalism which of course is heresy.

To believe such one must enter the study of the Bible with an already preconceived bias.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. It just means someone has to compare scripture with scripture and let the bible speak.

There you go DHK.

 

So... your assessment is not based on Greek or grammar. Rather than make a textual argument against what I've posted, you're essentially saying "I like my translations more than you." That's certainly understandable...., but realize there are several things--especially in John 3:16--that the KJV gets wrong. We've had over 400 years of additional textual study since the KJV. And, it's also possible that the translators of the KJV were pushing an agenda. Because the KJV was the standard translation of most of the English speaking world for so long, many modern translations--including the ESV--kowtow to it.

The "whosoever" portion of the argument isn't based in "Pas;" it's based in whether the part of the text between pas and the participle is a relative pronoun or an article. It has to be an article because of the gender of the participle. Therefore, it cannot be "whosoever."

All you've done is evaluate my argument based on your comfort, not on the grammar of Greek.

The Archangel

 

Were there 54 men that translated the KJV?
And how many worked on the NASB? and then the ASV, and many of the others.
I looked at, at least a dozen translations. They all said "whosoever" or the equivalent thereof. 12 to one. That is the score. If I look at more they will say the same. I have never come across any commentary or translation that is saying what you are saying. I believe you are forcing the Greek to say something it doesn't say because of your bias. How can so many people have it wrong for such a long period of time, and still be getting it wrong? How can you be the only one that has it right?
Nope!
I don't buy it.

 

A commentary on John 3:16

This seems to be a position I would agree with.

It also seems to be a position that most on the board (Calvinists) would disagree with (Icon, KYred., perhaps Archangel, etc.)
Christ died for all; not just for the elect, but for all says the author. It was universal.

However his death was efficacious only to those who believe.

Cals don't believe that; am I correct.



The author of the above commentary is John Calvin himself.

 

"Bias?" Funny! Quite plainly: The Greek text is the Greek text. Your "bias" dictates that you have to take that word as "whosoever"--even in contradiction to the text itself. Now, losing the "whosoever" would require a major reevaluation of the text and your own presuppositions. So, the question is this: Will you conform the Bible to your understanding or allow your understanding to be conformed to Scripture?

I'm still noticing, however, that you're only checking translations--you're not going to the Greek text itself. That speaks volumes.

Truthfully, you have no facility to properly adjudicate who's right. It may be that the translators were incorrect. Even if they were or weren't, you'd have no way confirm or deny their arguments. All you can do is "second hand" (with apologies to Ayn Rand); you can't evaluate these things for yourself.

So, that speaks volumes about a lack of facility with the Greek. Now, having no facility with the Greek isn't necessarily a problem. Declaring me to be wrong--when you have no way to determine for yourself whether I am or not--is.

The Archangel