John 3:16

[agedman]

There is no translation that reads such that I know of. I can accept particularly as a valid translation of μαλιστα, but "that is" seems a stretch.

I tend to agree,
However, doesn’t “soter” hold to “savior, sustainer, preserver?”

That the sustaining is given to all and especially to believers?

I suggest that “malista” being taken as the level of rather then taken as an alternative too.

 

[TCassidy]

I suggest that “malista” being taken as the level of rather then taken as an alternative too.

I agree. That is why Particular Baptists are called "Particular." Christ died for all, but in a Particular way for believers.

 

[agedman]

I agree. That is why Particular Baptists are called "Particular." Christ died for all, but in a Particular way for believers.

IF such were the context of 1 Timothy 4, then it might be a done deal.

But context isn’t salvation, rather it is the preservation and work of discipline and discernment.

God preserves and sustains all, but particularly the believers.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It is interesting how some would have "σωτὴρ" translated "preserver" for theological purposes, since I do not recall anywhere else where it is used in this way in the New Testament! There is absoultely no resaon to justify its meaning other than "Saviour", and accept that Jesus Christ indeed died for the sins of each and every sinner of the human race, and that they ALL can indeed be saved, if they choose to repent and believe. And that for those who are already believers, They have had their sins forgiven and entered into eternal life. Again, there are those who would distort the real meaning of 2 peter 2:1, where we are told that Jesus Christ had "bought" even those who reject Him as Saviour, and will be lost in hell. It is laughable to read some of the ways that the "reformed" twist this passage, because to take it at face vaule, causes great problems with their "theology", as here we have a passage with clearly shows, that there are sinners in hell, for whom Jesus Christ died!

 

[agedman]

It is interesting how some would have "σωτὴρ" translated "preserver" for theological purposes, since I do not recall anywhere else where it is used in this way in the New Testament! There is absoultely no resaon to justify its meaning as "Saviour", and accept that Jesus Christ indeed died for the sins of each and every sinner of the human race, and that they ALL can indeed be saved, if they choose to repent and believe. And that for those who are already believers, They have had their sins forgiven and entered into eternal life. Again, there are those who would distort the real meaning of 2 peter 2:1, where we are told that Jesus Christ had "bought" even those who reject Him as Saviour, and will be lost in hell. It is laughable to read some of the ways that the "reformed" twist this passage, because to take it at face vaule, causes great problems with their "theology", as here we have a passage with clearly shows, that there are sinners in hell, for whom Jesus Christ died!

Ah, freedom of the will has again raised from the ashes.

Because you seem to desire to understand and would perhaps enjoy some extremely challenging reading that put those who are lesser in comprehension skills to exhaustion before completion, I suggest that you take a week and process the information at this link:

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/edwards1754.pdf

It is only 144 pages long, and be careful not to attempt to skim read.

I am a speed reader, and can vouch that even with all my ability, the material was so thorough that comprehension was challenged.

When you have taken this work in hand, and can present some level of disagreement with it, then we can visit about what freedom is granted to become a believer.

I rarely recommend reading materials on the B.B.

This one is the rare exception, because it is worthy and foundational study in this area.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Ah, freedom of the will has again raised from the ashes.

Because you seem to desire to understand and would perhaps enjoy some extremely challenging reading that put those who are lesser in comprehension skills to exhaustion before completion, I suggest that you take a week and process the information at this link:

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/edwards1754.pdf

It is only 144 pages long, and be careful not to attempt to skim read.

I am a speed reader, and can vouch that even with all my ability, the material was so thorough that comprehension was challenged.

When you have taken this work in hand, and can present some level of disagreement with it, then we can visit about what freedom is granted to become a believer.

I rarely recommend reading materials on the B.B.

This one is the rare exception, because it is worthy and foundational study in this area.

I really don't understand why there is this unbiblical opposition to "free will", in humans, when the Bible very clearly teaches it! Or, are we to take such references as misleading or insincere?

Joshua 24:14-15, "“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

1 Kings 18:21, "And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him"

Matthew 23:37, "“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"

John 5:39-40, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life"

Can you not see here clear examples where people are asked to CHOOSE between options, which is exactly what FREE WILL is about! Are you saying that God does the repenting and believing of those sinners who come to Him? Or, do you suppose that these Bible examples have other meanings? What about 2 Peter 2:1?

 

[agedman]

I really don't understand why there is this unbiblical opposition to "free will", in humans, when the Bible very clearly teaches it! Or, are we to take such references as misleading or insincere?

Joshua 24:14-15, "“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

1 Kings 18:21, "And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him"

Matthew 23:37, "“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"

John 5:39-40, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life"

Can you not see here clear examples where people are asked to CHOOSE between options, which is exactly what FREE WILL is about! Are you saying that God does the repenting and believing of those sinners who come to Him? Or, do you suppose that these Bible examples have other meanings? What about 2 Peter 2:1?

Until you spend time in this extremely in-depth study that I suggested, the thoughts of freedom of the will remain mere opinion.

Spend time with the link, and examine each facet in the Scripture presentation.

The writer uses all views of each facet, so it seems as though the arguements are endless, but the aim was to examine every known proponent of freedom of the will in the first hand statements and compare those to the Scriptures.

The writer was perhaps the greatest theologian to date in the U.S. and gave his life in the service of others. He was not some stuffed shirt but a man who lived as he taught and thought.

 

[MB]

Here is a challenge for you. Study Particular Redemption. Study the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. Check all the scriptures found is that great, historic document. Actually learn what Particular Redemption is all about. Then come back and we will discuss it with you.

I noticed that you suggest the Synod of Dordt. Particular redemption is not in scripture. It comes from Calvinism.
With your expertise you should be aware of this.
MB

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Until you spend time in this extremely in-depth study that I suggested, the thoughts of freedom of the will remain mere opinion.

Spend time with the link, and examine each facet in the Scripture presentation.

The writer uses all views of each facet, so it seems as though the arguements are endless, but the aim was to examine every known proponent of freedom of the will in the first hand statements and compare those to the Scriptures.

The writer was perhaps the greatest theologian to date in the U.S. and gave his life in the service of others. He was not some stuffed shirt but a man who lived as he taught and thought.

Are you not able to deal with Scripture references yourself? I have given Bible references that clearly show that human beings after the fall, have the ability of "free will" decisions, otherwise the preaching of the Gospel to the whole human race is pointless! Why show me what "theologians" say, when you should be able to answer in your own words, from your own study?

 

[agedman]

I noticed that you suggest the Synod of Dordt. Particular redemption is not in scripture. It comes from Calvinism.
With your expertise you should be aware of this.
MB

I agree particular redemption, as related to some limit of blood for a certain few, is not found in Scripture.

However, particular redemption as related to the Father active as both the author and finisher of all pertaining to faith and salvation is clearly Scriptural.

 

[MB]

Google "The Impeccability of Christ."

Why would I want the opinion of some guy I never heard of when I have scripture?
MB

 

[agedman]

Are you not able to deal with Scripture references yourself? I have given Bible references that clearly show that human beings after the fall, have the ability of "free will" decisions, otherwise the preaching of the Gospel to the whole human race is pointless! Why show me what "theologians" say, when you should be able to answer in your own words, from your own study?

Young man, you are welcome to contend with Scriptures with me, however, I thought you were actually seriously desiring to pursue the truth of the matter so you would discern the foundation of each argument.

That said, I will frame the argument in this manner.

The Scriptures do not contend against the free will, BUT place such a freedom with the constraints or bonds of ungodly compared to godly.

The ungodly are free to make choices from that set of which the ungodly are given, that is, only that which is fallen and characterized by ultimate frailty and doom.

For example: John 5 gives repeated testimony of the Christ and Christ states a lack of belief.

Why didn’t those who knew the Scriptures the best not convert?

The answer is found (in part) in John 6:

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”​

Fallen humankind may only choose from the subset assigned as fallen.

This is why the believer is a New Creature (including a new will).

Not that the old has been discarded, but is to be crucified, daily.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Why would I want the opinion of some guy I never heard of when I have scripture?
MB

That is because the Reformed and Calvinistic "system" is based mainly on man's theology, and not on the Word of Almighty God! Like their misuse of verses like John 3:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1. etc. etc, all of which shows a universal Atomement. But like the Jehovah's Witnesses insistence, based on their warped "theology", that Jesus Christ is not Yahweh, these also will keep on banging on about doctrines that are of men, rather than God! Even though there is very clear evidence from John Calvin himself, that he never believed in Limited Atonement, the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" are falsely claiming that he did!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Young man, you are welcome to contend with Scriptures with me, however, I thought you were actually seriously desiring to pursue the truth of the matter so you would discern the foundation of each argument.

That said, I will frame the argument in this manner.

The Scriptures do not contend against the free will, BUT place such a freedom with the constraints or bonds of ungodly compared to godly.

The ungodly are free to make choices from that set of which the ungodly are given, that is, only that which is fallen and characterized by ultimate frailty and doom.

For example: John 5 gives repeated testimony of the Christ and Christ states a lack of belief.

Why didn’t those who knew the Scriptures the best not convert?

The answer is found (in part) in John 6:

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”​

Fallen humankind may only choose from the subset assigned as fallen.

This is why the believer is a New Creature (including a new will).

Not that the old has been discarded, but is to be crucified, daily.

I think the main problem with the "reformed" teaching, is the fact that the conviction of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner is missed! Jesus very clearly says in John 16, that the Holy Spirit, "will convict the world about sin...because they do not believe in Me" (8-9). It is that simple! the unbelief in the lost world is "convicted" by the Holy Spirit, Who points the sinner to Jesus Christ for their salvation. That is why Jesus Himself says, "for God so loved the WHOLE WORLD", in the context of their salvation! WHY do those who claim to follow the teachings of John Calvin, reject his teachings on this?

 

[MB]

Adam was created good, but not incorruptible. Adam could do no evil, unless he was first corrupted. Then he could do no good.

Christ is incorruptible, as is that which is born in us that believe in Him.

Granted Christ is incorruptible. Yet that does not explain how He could have been tempted as we are.
MB

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Granted Christ is incorruptible. Yet that does not explain how He could have been tempted as we are.
MB

this is another "Mystery" like the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union of the Person of Jesus Christ!

 

[agedman]

That is because the Reformed and Calvinistic "system" is based mainly on man's theology, and not on the Word of Almighty God! Like their misuse of verses like John 3:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1. etc. etc, all of which shows a universal Atomement. But like the Jehovah's Witnesses insistence, based on their warped "theology", that Jesus Christ is not Yahweh, these also will keep on banging on about doctrines that are of men, rather than God! Even though there is very clear evidence from John Calvin himself, that he never believed in Limited Atonement, the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" are falsely claiming that he did!

Well actually, those who assign names did.

Which more often happens.

Who would you ascribe this statement?

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons.”
​

Sure, it is a trick question! Here is the rest of the quote:

“This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." - The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 248, italics in original.

​

Arminian thinking comes from James Arminus, but frankly, he probably would dispute those that puff out the present thinking that bears his name.

The point being that unless one spends time, they may jump on just anything that “sounds right” but may not be accurate.

Others more often take foundational work and damage it in attempts to conform it to political/social prejudices and pressures.

What I have encouraged you to do is be less reactionary and actually attend to a more edification approach.

Learn discernment, and practice discernment so that you build the resources to help others.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Well actually, those who assign names did.

Which more often happens.

Who would you ascribe this statement?

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons.”
​

Sure, it is a trick question! Here is the rest of the quote:

“This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." - The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 248, italics in original.

​

Arminian thinking comes from James Arminus, but frankly, he probably would dispute those that puff out the present thinking that bears his name.

The point being that unless one spends time, they may jump on just anything that “sounds right” but may not be accurate.

Others more often take foundational work and damage it in attempts to conform it to political/social prejudices and pressures.

What I have encouraged you to do is be less reactionary and actually attend to a more edification approach.

Learn discernment, and practice discernment so that you build the resources to help others.

James Arminus was himself a "reformed" theologian, whose eyes the Good Lord opened to Bible Truth!

 

[TCassidy]

Why would I want the opinion of some guy I never heard of when I have scripture?
MB

Fine. Remain ignorant. I really don't care.

 

[TCassidy]

Particular redemption is not in scripture.

That's just your ignorance talking.

It comes from Calvinism.

More ignorance. Particular Redemption was articulated by several of the ECFs, as early as the 2nd century AD. Augustine of Hippo systematized it in around 400 AD.

With your expertise you should be aware of this.

Unlike you, I am aware of the facts.