• 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!

The King James Bible's Calvinism...

ICHTHUS

Member
Site Supporter
Acts 2:47 is a good example of the Calvinistic bias of the King James version, where it translated the Greek:

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

"such as should be saved.", this is NOT how the Greek text has it. it is rightly corrected in versions after the KJV, to:

"praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved"

As God is, "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9), those who were being saved He added to the Church. Let the Bible speak for Itself.
 

ICHTHUS

Member
Site Supporter
Oh boy, another anti-Calvinist witch hunter. :rolleyes: o_O

How can the stating of facts be a witch hunt? If the original Greek text says one thing, and the KJV translators put their "spin" on the words, surely this is wrong? We must be honest in all our dealings with Scripture
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Acts 2:47 is a good example of the Calvinistic bias of the King James version, where it translated the Greek:

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

"such as should be saved.", this is NOT how the Greek text has it. it is rightly corrected in versions after the KJV, to:

"praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved"

As God is, "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9), those who were being saved He added to the Church. Let the Bible speak for Itself.
You do understand the non-temporal nature of the Greek Present, Passive, Participle, don't you?

And you also understand what the word "should" means, do you not? That it is often used, as here, to express a condition. Those who were saved. In the condition of salvation.

I have never seen a Calvinist of any stripe use this verse to support their doctrine of election. These people were not being saved because they had to be (expressing expediency) due to being elect. It is a mere statement of fact. Those who were now in the condition of salvation were also added to the church.

I am not sure where you got this, but you might try to find a better source. :)
 

ICHTHUS

Member
Site Supporter
You do understand the non-temporal nature of the Greek Present, Passive, Participle, don't you?

And you also understand what the word "should" means, do you not? That it is often used, as here, to express a condition. Those who were saved. In the condition of salvation.

I have never seen a Calvinist of any stripe use this verse to support their doctrine of election. These people were not being saved because they had to be (expressing expediency) due to being elect. It is a mere statement of fact. Those who were now in the condition of salvation were also added to the church.

I am not sure where you got this, but you might try to find a better source. :)

Charles Ellicott:

"The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.—Many of the better MSS. omit the words “to the Church,” and connect “together,” which in the Greek is the first word in Act_3:1, with this verse—The Lord added together . . . The verb “added” is in the tense which, like the adverb “daily,” implies a continually recurring act. “The Lord” is probably used here, as in Act_2:39, in its generic Old Testament sense, rather than as definitely applied to Christ. For “such as should be saved”—a meaning which the present participle passive cannot possibly have—read, those that were in the way of salvation; literally, those that were being saved, as in 1Co_1:18; 2Co_2:15. The verse takes its place among the few passages in which the translators have, perhaps, been influenced by a Calvinistic bias; Heb_10:38, “if any man draw back,” instead of “if he draw back,” being another. It should, however, be stated in fairness that all the versions from Tyndale onward, including the Rhemish, give the same rendering. Wiclif alone gives nearly the true meaning, “them that were made safe.”"

Philip Schaff:

"Such as should be saved. The Greek word here, τοὺς σωζομένους, should be rendered simply the saved—that is, those who were escaping day by day from the evil around them, and taking refuge in the Ark of the Church (Wordsworth). The English Version has been charged here with a strong Calvinistic bias, implying that those who were predestined to be saved were being brought gradually into the pale of salvation. It is, however, clear that no doctrinal prejudice was the source of the error here as all the early English versions except that of Wickliffe have it."

Marvin Vincent:

"Such as should be saved (τοὺς σωζομένους). Lit., as Rev., those that were being saved. The rendering of the A. V. would require the verb to be in the future, whereas it is the present participle. Compare 1 Cor. 1:18. Salvation is a thing of the present, as well as of the past and future. The verb is used in all these senses in the New Testament. Thus, we were saved (not are, as A. V.), Rom. 8:24; shall or shalt be saved, Rom. 10:9, 13; ye are being saved, 1 Cor. 15:2. “Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note this, and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future — on the first call, or on the final change. It is, therefore, important that the idea of salvation as a rescue from sin, through the knowledge of God in Christ, and therefore a progressive condition, a present state, should not be obscured, and we can but regret such a translation as Acts 2:47, ‘The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved, ’ where the Greek implies a different idea” (Lightfoot, “On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament”)."
 

Samuels

Member
Site Supporter
Acts 2:47 KJV "such as should be saved."
The ones who should be saved (by God's choice) were the ones who were being saved.
The ones to whom He gives a seed of faith are the only ones who will believe with saving faith.
But, with all of the dire warnings everywhere(!) in the NT,
I have to believe that a saved person can walk away from his/her salvation!
Otherwise, why are they there? (Not the saved ones, the copious warnings!)
But, I admit it is quite a feat indeed to bypass the mighty efforts of a Mighty God to keep one saved.
In cases where an absolute guarantee is assumed ... IMO, those written to were "faithful" believers.
IMO, North American churches today are full of UNfaithful believers.
Simply believing without accountability does not make one a "faithful" believer.
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You do understand the non-temporal nature of the Greek Present, Passive, Participle, don't you?

And you also understand what the word "should" means, do you not? That it is often used, as here, to express a condition. Those who were saved. In the condition of salvation.

I have never seen a Calvinist of any stripe use this verse to support their doctrine of election. These people were not being saved because they had to be (expressing expediency) due to being elect. It is a mere statement of fact. Those who were now in the condition of salvation were also added to the church.

I am not sure where you got this, but you might try to find a better source. :)
The good news is that there are many scriptures that point out the doctrine of Election in the Bible.
Usually heard people speak against the calvinism assumed in Esv/Niv....
 

Baptist Brother

Active Member
The KJV is the traditional and the most popular Bible among Baptists. If it has a Calvinist bias, no come most Baptists are non-Calvinist?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The KJV is the traditional and the most popular Bible among Baptists. If it has a Calvinist bias, no come most Baptists are non-Calvinist?
Niv also said to have a calvinist bent, is most popular translation, why do calvinists shy away fom it?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Charles Ellicott:

"The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.—Many of the better MSS. omit the words “to the Church,” and connect “together,” which in the Greek is the first word in Act_3:1, with this verse—The Lord added together . . . The verb “added” is in the tense which, like the adverb “daily,” implies a continually recurring act. “The Lord” is probably used here, as in Act_2:39, in its generic Old Testament sense, rather than as definitely applied to Christ. For “such as should be saved”—a meaning which the present participle passive cannot possibly have—read, those that were in the way of salvation; literally, those that were being saved, as in 1Co_1:18; 2Co_2:15. The verse takes its place among the few passages in which the translators have, perhaps, been influenced by a Calvinistic bias; Heb_10:38, “if any man draw back,” instead of “if he draw back,” being another. It should, however, be stated in fairness that all the versions from Tyndale onward, including the Rhemish, give the same rendering. Wiclif alone gives nearly the true meaning, “them that were made safe.”"

Philip Schaff:

"Such as should be saved. The Greek word here, τοὺς σωζομένους, should be rendered simply the saved—that is, those who were escaping day by day from the evil around them, and taking refuge in the Ark of the Church (Wordsworth). The English Version has been charged here with a strong Calvinistic bias, implying that those who were predestined to be saved were being brought gradually into the pale of salvation. It is, however, clear that no doctrinal prejudice was the source of the error here as all the early English versions except that of Wickliffe have it."

Marvin Vincent:

"Such as should be saved (τοὺς σωζομένους). Lit., as Rev., those that were being saved. The rendering of the A. V. would require the verb to be in the future, whereas it is the present participle. Compare 1 Cor. 1:18. Salvation is a thing of the present, as well as of the past and future. The verb is used in all these senses in the New Testament. Thus, we were saved (not are, as A. V.), Rom. 8:24; shall or shalt be saved, Rom. 10:9, 13; ye are being saved, 1 Cor. 15:2. “Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note this, and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future — on the first call, or on the final change. It is, therefore, important that the idea of salvation as a rescue from sin, through the knowledge of God in Christ, and therefore a progressive condition, a present state, should not be obscured, and we can but regret such a translation as Acts 2:47, ‘The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved, ’ where the Greek implies a different idea” (Lightfoot, “On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament”)."
Exactly. Thank you for proving my point.
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The ones who should be saved (by God's choice) were the ones who were being saved.
The ones to whom He gives a seed of faith are the only ones who will believe with saving faith.
But, with all of the dire warnings everywhere(!) in the NT,
I have to believe that a saved person can walk away from his/her salvation!
Otherwise, why are they there? (Not the saved ones, the copious warnings!)
But, I admit it is quite a feat indeed to bypass the mighty efforts of a Mighty God to keep one saved.
In cases where an absolute guarantee is assumed ... IMO, those written to were "faithful" believers.
IMO, North American churches today are full of UNfaithful believers.
Simply believing without accountability does not make one a "faithful" believer.
Sam, they are there so God's sheep can identify the goats and wolves among the flock. Recall that Satan is an imitator, not a creator. His flock are also imitators. The children of God should understand that their faith will persevere because it is a gift from God. Those who imitate faith will fall away. They can't keep up the charade.
 

Samuels

Member
Site Supporter
Sam, they are there so God's sheep can identify the goats and wolves among the flock.
Recall that Satan is an imitator, not a creator. His flock are also imitators.
The children of God should understand that ...
their faith will persevere because it is a gift from God.
Those who imitate faith will fall away. They can't keep up the charade.
I have to believe that a saved person can walk away from his/her salvation!
Otherwise, why all of those dozens of warnings in the NT?
IMO, the bold is nonsense ... relegating people to the class of robots with no free-will.
The Scriptures are full of ... CHOOSE blessings or curses, etc.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have to believe that a saved person can walk away from his/her salvation!
Otherwise, why all of those dozens of warnings in the NT?
IMO, the bold is nonsense ... relegating people to the class of robots with no free-will.
The Scriptures are full of ... CHOOSE blessings or curses, etc.
We are born of imperishable seed, and so cannot just totally reject Jesus... Maybe have times of some doubts/concerns, even times in wilderness, but will always come back to Him in the end!
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have to believe that a saved person can walk away from his/her salvation!
Otherwise, why all of those dozens of warnings in the NT?
IMO, the bold is nonsense ... relegating people to the class of robots with no free-will.
The Scriptures are full of ... CHOOSE blessings or curses, etc.
Read the first two paragraphs, from my post, Sam.
Sam, they are there so God's sheep can identify the goats and wolves among the flock.
Recall that Satan is an imitator, not a creator. His flock are also imitators.
That explains the warnings.

You don't have to believe God's adopted children can walk away from their heritage. You choose to believe that because you can't accept that God is in control of keeping his flock.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please demonstrate that that version is the "most popular" among Baptists.
Its either the Kjv or the Niv, would think!
Read the first two paragraphs, from my post, Sam.

That explains the warnings.

You don't have to believe God's adopted children can walk away from their heritage. You choose to believe that because you can't accept that God is in control of keeping his flock.
The new nature is born of God and wnats to please God, as does the Holy Spirit in us, so why would one do a total rejection of Jesus? Maybe this theology more of not in the Bible, but fits free will better?
 

Samuels

Member
Site Supporter
We are born of imperishable seed, and so cannot just totally reject Jesus...
Maybe have times of some doubts/concerns, even times in wilderness,
but will always come back to Him in the end!
Yes, okay, maybe this is what all of the dire warnings are all about.
They are there for God's true and chosen elect to heed unto eternal life.

They also condemn the non-elect, so on Judgment Day ...
they cannot complain to Jesus: "But, no one told me, no one warned me!"
 
Top