OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Aw Shucks!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Election Salvation ?
- Thread starter savedbymercy
- Start date
- Status
Aw Shucks!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I have stated on this BB numerous times that God will bring all His Elect, those chosen before the Foundation of the World, unto Salvation in Jesus Christ.
However, what you are saying above is not consistent with Scripture unless you can present some of which I am unaware. And we must take the whole counsel of God, not cherry pick!
1 Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard.
3 For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Heb 4
There was an entire generation of His, redeemed from the land of bondage, who rejected His gospel command to go in and possess the land, who became 'children of His wrath', condemned to wander lost in the wilderness for the entirety of their lives.
Yet even after all the wickedness Israel had done in the wilderness after leaving Egypt (unbelief, disobedience, murmuring, idolatry, fornication, rebellion, etc.), and even with Balaam wanting so badly to curse Israel, God made Balaam to declare:
He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob; Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Jehovah his God is with him, And the shout of a king is among them. Nu 23:21
(Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin. Ro 4:8)
AND, throughout all their wandering/chastening in the Wilderness He still yet gave them shade by day and light by night, He fed them manna, gave them water, their clothes never wore out, their feet didn't blister, etc., He was with them always.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I hope you are packing, your clothes that is, cause the Bakers from bloody Breathitt are on your trail!:smilewinkgrin:
Which doesn't change the essence of our discussion one whit, because the point of contention is exactly what you wrote: "is believing." Saying that someone can see heaven without believing because they are elect is what I take issue with.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
So you don't believe God had his providential saving hand on you because he elected you even when you were in your rebellion against him ? Even though a man might say I am saved now are there not times that we still fulfill verses two and three of chapter two of Ephesians. Are there still not times the flesh rules for a period of time and we walk in anger toward our brother that disagrees with us ? if so, we are walking according to the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air. Are there not times we are disobedient and are chastened of the Lord ? If so, then we are the children of disobedience. Do we sometimes converse in fleshly and worldly conversations and we sometimes put God on hold and partake in worldly activities to the point our minds become worldly and we walk in the flesh instead of the Spirit ? If so, are we so much different than we use to be ? When a person truly begins to grow in the Lord that person grows downward first and that means he realizes just how great a sinner he still is. He also realizes the everlasting love and care the Father has shown toward him even from the foundation of the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Please don try to tell me what I believe. I just went through that on another thread. However, to answer your question God chose me before I was ever born, in fact before the foundation of the world but He saved me in time, about 50 years ago!
So often it scares me.
One of the reasons that led me to believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace.
For which I thank Him continually and will eternally!
plain_n_simple
Active Member
“Whosoever” - "pas" - The word "pas" (whosoever) in John 3:16, Acts 2:21, means "whoever" and "whatever person: no matter who," and in the verse it means "whoever believes." The Calvinist twists the word to infer it means "all the believing ones of those who were predestinated to believe by God, in contrast to the ones God will not allow to be saved because He withholds His grace from them." However this is not substantiated by the Greek definitions of the words used, or by teachings of the New Testament. "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) In Acts 2:21, the phrase "shall call on" as "First aorist middle subjunctive of epikaleo, common verb, to call to, middle voice for oneself in need. Indefinite relative clause with ean and so subjunctive, puncticular idea, in any single case, and so aorist."
It can accurately be translated as "whatever person would call on the Lord will be saved." In other words, whatever person would call on the name of the Lord "sozo" (shall be saved), meaning shall be delivered. In John 3:15-16, the word "pas" as a pronoun modifies the word believes. The verse literally says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever (whatever person or whoever) believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) The Greek dictionary by Arndt-Gingrich says this in the context John 3:15-16 it means "everyone who, whoever."
The Greek word(s) "pas, pasa, pan, ras, rasa, ran," are used in the New Testament and translated hundreds of times "all, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner, etc." The word “pas” is used 99 times in the New Testament. The word is all inclusive and how it is modified determines who it is referring to. In John 3:15-16 and Acts 2:21 the word "whosoever" simply means every person who believes will be saved. The word "whosoever" is not restricted to the supposed few who are decreed to receive irresistible grace from God but to all the world.
Yes indeed. And there is no coherent argument that can be made against that.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
That is the most I've ever read from you in one post. Your fingers must be out of breath. :type:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
This is not accurate.
Here is the passage in Greek:
16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1 The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliteration: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,
Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. 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 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 one believing" 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 believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftnref1
Now, as it relates to the word pas... Pas, which is properly translates as "all," is not unqualified in this passage. It is not a pronoun (as stated above); it is an adjective, modifying the participle "the ones believing." Since "the ones believing" is singular, pas, essentially, pluralizes the expression--showing that "all the ones believing" will be saved.
In spite of some the inaccuracies in what you've posted above, some of the things you've mentioned are very true. You said:
-The Calvinist twists the word to infer it means "all the believing ones of those who were predestinated to believe by God, in contrast to the ones God will not allow to be saved because He withholds His grace from them.
-The word "whosoever" is not restricted to the supposed few who are decreed to receive irresistible grace from God but to all the world.
Of course, as I've shown, "Whosoever" cannot be an accurate translation. But, you're suggestion that it can't be reduced refer to the elect is right. However, neither is it correct to suggest that this verse supports the Arminian position.-The word "whosoever" is not restricted to the supposed few who are decreed to receive irresistible grace from God but to all the world.
The grammar supports neither the Calvinist nor non-Calvinist position. It simply states "all the ones believing will be saved." The text makes no statement as to how or why the believing ones believed.
The Archangel
I don't believe your assessment is correct. It is not the first time I have found your Greek explanations flawed. Let's look at your explanation in the light of other factors.
[FONT="]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]
and,
[FONT="]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]
There is nothing in these passages to suggest that Christ ever offers anything less than salvation to all or to "whosoever."
It is a biased premise, the doctrine of Unconditional Election which declares that the offer of salvation is effective for only a select group requires your biased interpretation. This bias has not basis in Scripture.
If you look in the context:
[FONT="]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!
Consider:
[FONT="]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.
These passages are hard to avoid aren't they? Christ repeatedly offered salvation to all (John 5:24; 7:37; 10:7-9, etc.)
John 3:16ff is difficult for the Calvinist if he tries to deal with it within the entire context.
[FONT="]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!
Christ died that the world might be saved.
Christ died that whosoever believes in Him might be saved.
More about "whosoever."
The word "whosoever" is found 183 times in 163 verses in the Bible. It clearly means "everyone without exception." It 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." To believe such one must enter the study of the Bible with an already preconceived bias.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Of course, you offer no exegesis of your own... Do you have facility in Greek or are you just looking at "Strongs?"
The translation of John 3:16 cannot be "whosoever."
Also, as I'll quote below, the translation of the Revelation passage cannot be "whosoever," either.
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."
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.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."
I'm simply stating that Greek grammar will not allow for the "whosoever" understanding of those two passages in particular.
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
Last edited by a moderator:
A little off topic (maybe), but I'm having a hard time reconciling the above assertion with your elsewhere stated position that one must pray a prayer to be saved.
Did the Israelites in the wilderness have to ask Jesus to come into their snake bite, like people today supposedly have to ask Jesus to come into their heart?
What do you mean by "pray a prayer"?
They must exercise faith as is commanded in Acts 16:31.
Normally that is expressed in a prayer as the publican prayed: "Lord be merciful to me a sinner," or the the thief: "Remember me when you enter into they kingdom."
Those are short expressions of faith which the Lord accepted.
Faith comes from the heart. In 1Samuel 1, Hannah prayed from heart. Her lips moved but her voice was not heard. Still it was faith, confidence in the Lord Almighty that He would answer her prayers.
If not prayer; if not calling upon the Lord, how else is faith communicated to God. Prayer is our way of communication to God. That is all that prayer is.
No, they look to Jesus in faith, asking in faith for Christ to save them.
If they are asking for salvation, inherent in that request is the admission that they are sinners in need of a Savior which I believe is also necessary. The exact phrase "into my heart" is not necessary. I don't believe that.
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 ?
- Status