Is Election Salvation ?

[DHK]

You didn't answer my question. I was not asking about the publican, or anyone besides those Israelites who were with Moses.

What I asked...since Christ said "As Moses lifted the serpent" So it works the same way.

Whatever was required then to be healed from the snake bite would also be required now to be healed of sin - and visa versa

Since you believe someone must request salvation (insert your brand of sinner's prayer here)

Then it would have worked the same with Moses and the serpent.


So did the Israelites have to say a prayer to be healed, or did it happen when they LOOKED ?

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.

 

[JamesL]

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[JamesL]

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?

 

[PreachTony]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

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

Without adding your own philosophical elements?

[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.

 

[JamesL]

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."

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?

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.

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.

 

[JamesL]

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

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

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[JamesL]

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?

 

[JamesL]

The believing is action. It needs a vehicle of expression.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

AA. posted this;

Read this:

To see things more plainly, here is the passage in Greek:

Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἔρχου. καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἔρχου. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

There are some striking things here (and for those who don't do Greek, I'll offer a wooden translation)

Καὶ (and) τὸ πνεῦμα (the Spirit) καὶ ἡ νύμφη (and the bride) λέγουσιν (they say), Ἔρχου.(you [singular] come) καὶ ὁ ἀκούων (and the hearing one) εἰπάτω (let him say), Ἔρχου (you [singular] come). καὶ ὁ διψῶν (and the thirsting one) ἐρχέσθω (let him come), ὁ θέλων (the desiring one) λαβέτω (let him take) ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν (the water of life without price).

The first thing to notice is that this passage is full of participles. In fact, "the hearing one," "the thirsting one," and "the desiring one" are all participles. None of these participles suggests a "whosoever wills" idea.

The verbs here are all imperatives. So, the "let him (do)" translation is good and rightly carries the commanding nature of the imperative verb.

So, why do some translations translate "the desiring one" as "whosoever wills?" How do some translations drop the proverbial ball in this translation??? It all deals with the definite article.

If you look closely at the Greek of "the desiring one" you can see this expression includes the definite article ὁ. One of the complications of Greek is that the definite article looks like the relative pronoun. In our current text editions, we have accent marks and the like to help keep us straight.

Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John, the author of Revelation, wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the desiring one" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender.

Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever wills." The proper translation is "the desiring one" or "the one who desires."

Now, why do the KJV translators take the definite article properly in the other instances of the participles? I don't know. I do know their translation is not consistent. If they translated the first two participles with articles as "the one who....," they should have followed suit with the last participle--all instances are the same. Was there an anti-reformed agenda? Who knows?

The Greek in this verse makes no statement as to "how" anyone became "desiring" and it makes no statement suggesting that any or all are able to "desire."

To which this response was given;

DHK said......

I don't believe your assessment is correct

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

is not the first time I have found your Greek explanations flawed.

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...

Let's look at your explanation in the light of other factors.

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:

 

[DHK]

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

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?

 

[DHK]

Of course, you offer no exegesis of your own... Do you have facility in Greek or are you just looking at "Strongs?"

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.

The translation of John 3:16 cannot be "whosoever."

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.

Again... I'm not making the argument that John 3:16 or Revelation 22:17 is for the elect only. You seem to hear me saying that, but I'm not making that argument.

I'm simply stating that Greek grammar will not allow for the "whosoever" understanding of those two passages in particular.

And yet so many differ with you.

Revelation 22:17 or John 3:16 cannot and will not support either the non-Calvinist nor the Calvinist position on election.

If you want to criticize my Greek skills, go right ahead. But, use something more than "liar, liar pants on fire."

The Archangel

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.

 

[DHK]

Put up, or keep silent....as plain and simple posted a series of errenat 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:

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

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I don't believe your assessment is correct. It is not the first time I have found your Greek explanations flawed.

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:

Let's look at your explanation in the light of other factors.

You asked me to respond...so I will

[FONT=&quot]John 3:16 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.[/FONT]

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.

[FONT=&quot]Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.[/FONT]

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.

There is nothing in these passages to suggest that Christ ever offers anything less than salvation to all or to "whosoever."

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:

the doctrine of Unconditional Election which declares that the offer of salvation is effective for only a select group requires your biased interpretation.

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.

This bias has not basis in Scripture.

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.

If you look in the context:
[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.[/FONT]

Christ likens His being lifted up on the cross for our sins to the incident in the wilderness when the serpents bit the Israelites because of their rebellion. ALL who looked in faith to the uplifted brass serpent were healed--ALL!

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:

[FONT=&quot]Numbers 21:8,9.... it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live... if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.[/FONT]

The healing from the poisonous snakebite was not for a select group. It was for everyone who looked in faith. That was the only limitation--to look in faith at the raised serpent.

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?

These passages are hard to avoid aren't they? Christ repeatedly offered salvation to all (John 5:24; 7:37; 10:7-9, etc.)

Election and predestination do not limit the FREE offer.

John 3:16ff is difficult for the Calvinist if he tries to deal with it within the entire context.

Not at all..We like it!

[FONT=&quot]John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.[/FONT]
--That is a tough one! Not the elect, but the world might be saved!

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 ...

Christ died that the world might be saved.

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

Christ died that whosoever believes in Him might be saved.

everyone believing,,yes

More about "whosoever."
The word "whosoever" is found 183 times in 163 verses in the Bible. It clearly means "everyone without exception."

That would be universalism which of course is heresy.

is found in warnings ("whosoever eats leavened bread..."), and in promises of reward. Not once in 183 times does "whosoever" mean anything less or anything other than "whosoever." There is not one place in the Bible where "whosoever" (whether in Greek or Hebrew) ever refers to the "elect."

this has been shown wrong in this post very clearly

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.

 

[The Archangel]

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[DHK]

A commentary on John 3:16

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

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.

 

[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.

"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