Sovereign Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the stand point of the original language of 2 Cor. 5:17, your rendering is grammatically highly doubtful. The word is actually, KTISIS, a masculine adjective "creature." The only antecedent of a masculine gender anywhere nearby is "any man in Christ." There is no verb "has come" in the sentence which would be necessary for your translation. As a matter of fact, there is no verb in the first phrase at all which often indicates "to be." Interestingly, this phrase echoes a common slogan used by Jewish rabbis when someone was undergoing the initiation rite of the Jewish faith. "He who brings a foreigner and makes him a proselyte is as if he created him." Paul would have been very familiar with phrase from his former life.



Actually Jack, ktisis is a feminine noun from the root word ktizō. a verb. The connotation is of creating some THING, NOT someone. This should be clear for anyone who says they have a degree in NT Greek.
Paul is addressing Corinthian Gentiles and would not be using Jewish vernacular or sayings to communicate about their salvation. His audience would NOT see your imposed inference.
 
You didn't see where Rusty had struck out the actual word WHOEVER and substituted for your assertion that it means ONLY THE ELECT?

You really want us to believe your are THAT obtuse?

I did see that perversion. "Whosoever" is the correct translation and, as I said before, forms one of the hallmarks of the doctrines of grace. What in the world do you expect me to say to that? Not knowing who the elect are, I believe that we are to go into all the world and preach the gospel as Christ commanded and whosoever will will come. That is Calvinistic thought; is there something wrong with that? It is one of the areas where Calvinists and Arminians agree.

You seem to have a terribly distorted picture of Calvinism for some reason. I understand you don't agree with it and no one says you have to. But you don't seem to understand it. All the first generation Reformers were Calvinists as was William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, who spent his life in India winning souls to Christ. Adoriam Judson was a Calvinist who ministered among the Karin Tribe of Burma. (I've been privileged to have several members of that group as students.) Jonthan Edwards was a Calvinist who was responsible, at least in part, for bringing about the Great Awakening in North America. Spurgeon was a Calvinist and he was argubly the greatest preacher of the nineteenth century. Among the greatest soul winners in Christianity were Calvinists. My father heard Billy Sunday in the 1920s who was a Calvinist and the Rochester Democrat-Chronicle newspaper reported on his evangelistic campaign and gave a list of all the bars that had shut down following his month long preaching tour. I have the privilege of working with Calvinists and non-Calvinists and enjoy the fellowship of both. Do you suppose all these people stood around with their hands in their pockets waiting for the elect to come to them? Or, not knowing who they were, did they go out as Jesus commanded and preached the gospel to every creature as we are suppose to do? On this particular issue, I've been on both sides at different times in my life.

I may start a new board because we're getting way off the track here. May I can at least correct the ridiculous ideas several of you have about it.
 
Actually Jack, ktisis is a feminine noun from the root word ktizō. a verb. The connotation is of creating some THING, NOT someone. This should be clear for anyone who says they have a degree in NT Greek.
Paul is addressing Corinthian Gentiles and would not be using Jewish vernacular or sayings to communicate about their salvation. His audience would NOT see your imposed inference.

My error, it is a femine noun in the nomative case. All the more reason it couldn't refer to "covenant." I'll change my statement from "highly doubful," to "grammatically impossible." I never said I had a degree in Greek, I said I have taught KOINE for many years, which I have. My degree is in Theology.
 
I can well understand why you may not agree with my position, that's fine. I don't understand why you would think my posts are ambivalent. What do you as being ambivalent. Perhaps a more precise question would be, where do you me saying anything different than any other five point Calvinist?
 
I doubt if my show my concerns will matter, as Stan's explanations on your ideas has gained nothing and you have yet apologized to him about your crack about him not being God.

If you want to think you are a paragon of whatever 5 point Calvinism is, groovy....This thread is not about proving your orthodoxy, but about discussing in what sovereign election is or is not....

I have a great of difficulty following Stan's thinking. He seems to me to be very contradictory. He says eternal life is not a present possession, but then he says I Jn. 5:13 and Jn. 5:24 are "effective." I have no idea what that means, and I would like to know. He says the 2 Cor. 5:17 pertains to the covenant. Okay, based upon what? Whether I agree or disagree I would really like to know how he derives that. There has to be some reason he would think that.

As for my remark that Stan isn't God--he isn't! He hasn't complained about, you did.

I'm really not concerned what you think of my Calvinism. As I've stated before, I've been on both sides of this issue in my lifetime. You wouldn't have found a more staunch Arminian 45 years ago than me. I know where I stand and why I stand there and I also have developed--the hard way--a fond respect for the views of others.
 
My error, it is a femine noun in the nomative case. All the more reason it couldn't refer to "covenant." I'll change my statement from "highly doubful," to "grammatically impossible." I never said I had a degree in Greek, I said I have taught KOINE for many years, which I have. My degree is in Theology.


Actually it is in the accusative case and I didn't say covenant, I said creation. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Not sure how you teach something you don't have a degree in Jack?
 
I did see that perversion. "Whosoever" is the correct translation and, as I said before, forms one of the hallmarks of the doctrines of grace. What in the world do you expect me to say to that? Not knowing who the elect are, I believe that we are to go into all the world and preach the gospel as Christ commanded and whosoever will will come. That is Calvinistic thought; is there something wrong with that? It is one of the areas where Calvinists and Arminians agree.

Perversion? Again you are really obtuse or just plain disingenuous Jack. I pray it isn't senility, because then I would have to stop discussing these things with you.

You seem to have a terribly distorted picture of Calvinism for some reason. I understand you don't agree with it and no one says you have to. But you don't seem to understand it. All the first generation Reformers were Calvinists as was William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, who spent his life in India winning souls to Christ. Adoriam Judson was a Calvinist who ministered among the Karin Tribe of Burma. (I've been privileged to have several members of that group as students.) Jonthan Edwards was a Calvinist who was responsible, at least in part, for bringing about the Great Awakening in North America. Spurgeon was a Calvinist and he was argubly the greatest preacher of the nineteenth century. Among the greatest soul winners in Christianity were Calvinists. My father heard Billy Sunday in the 1920s who was a Calvinist and the Rochester Democrat-Chronicle newspaper reported on his evangelistic campaign and gave a list of all the bars that had shut down following his month long preaching tour. I have the privilege of working with Calvinists and non-Calvinists and enjoy the fellowship of both. Do you suppose all these people stood around with their hands in their pockets waiting for the elect to come to them? Or, not knowing who they were, did they go out as Jesus commanded and preached the gospel to every creature as we are suppose to do? On this particular issue, I've been on both sides at different times in my life.
I may start a new board because we're getting way off the track here. May I can at least correct the ridiculous ideas several of you have about it.

We're NOT discussing Calvinism Jack, even though you keep trying to assert it into the thread. We are dealing with Sovereign Election as it pertains to scripture, and I don't really care that it is a petal of your favorite flower.
I'm NOT really interested in what an ex RC humanist lawyer had to say in reaction to his departure from the RCC. I'm interested in what the BIBLE says about the OP.
 
I have a great of difficulty following Stan's thinking. He seems to me to be very contradictory. He says eternal life is not a present possession, but then he says I Jn. 5:13 and Jn. 5:24 are "effective." I have no idea what that means, and I would like to know. He says the 2 Cor. 5:17 pertains to the covenant. Okay, based upon what? Whether I agree or disagree I would really like to know how he derives that. There has to be some reason he would think that.

As for my remark that Stan isn't God--he isn't! He hasn't complained about, you did.

I'm really not concerned what you think of my Calvinism. As I've stated before, I've been on both sides of this issue in my lifetime. You wouldn't have found a more staunch Arminian 45 years ago than me. I know where I stand and why I stand there and I also have developed--the hard way--a fond respect for the views of others.


First of all I have said QUITE consistently throughout this thread that Eternal Life is effective or effectual, just as death is.
You are either actually dead or effectively/effectually dead. You either actually have Eternal Life, which the Bible tells us ONLY Jesus does, or you effectively/effectually have it. I am sorry if your don't understand the vocabulary I use, but it is very basic.
If the wages of sin is death, then it has to be effective because no one DIES when they sin, do they Jack. If Jesus says we will receive eternal life IF we endure to the end and Paul says we will be changed in the twinkling of and eye to receive eternal life when Jesus returns, then we don't ACTUALLY have eternal life do we Jack. We EFFECTIVELY/EFFECTUALLY have it.

How long did you believe in free will salvation Jack? If it was 45 years ago it couldn't have been very long now could it?

As far as telling me I'm NOT God, it is quite evident I'm not. You said it as an ad hominem, when you added "contrary to what I might think", implying I think I'm God. That was a deliberate insult and I do try to NOT respond to those type of insults.
 
IN FACT, what it is properly translated as, is; Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

This would be the NEW Covenant....


All the more reason it couldn't refer to "covenant."
Translation can lead to difference in opinion, or opinion lead to different interpretation? : )

If “new creation” pertains to a "new being" = then it will be all doing by a creator?

If “new creation” pertains to a "new covenant" = then it will be mutual then?

in any case, as long as the interpretation gives glory to God... i do not see a problem : )

both can be correct to me : )
 
Actually Stan: I have found that small denominational colleges will often hire a person with a degree in theology to teach Bible languages. It has two functions: to get a prof to wear two or more hats for the salary of one, and it's a guarantee that the Greek will be colored the denominational "tint" to be passed on to the kids.

What bugs me is that I feel like we were lead down a garden path (unintentionally, I hope) as to Jack's credentials up to now. Granted....he's come clean now that he is not Greek scholar or carries a doctorate , but a theologian (of whatever sheepskin) that taught Greek. Big diff.

I'm a scuba diver, and hence know more about that than landlubbers, but I would never palm myself off as underwater archaeologist because I have taken folks wreck diving!


Yes, sadly I have seen that as well and have debated people like this on many forums, who purport to KNOW Greek but have no expertise or credentials at all. Of course I have no problem exegeting the English, but some like to obfuscate by using the Greek to make it say what they want to make it say and many people unknowingly and wrongly acquiesce to their opinion.
These type of so-called schools of learning do a great dis-service to their students who in many instances have blind faith in the integrity of that institution, especially if it is a denominational one. My daughter went to one of these years ago and I had to intercede a few times in their teaching until I finally told her to leave the college.

Somewhere along the way on CFS, I thought I dealt with this credential issue with Jack, but I can't remember EVERY post or point I make to people.
 
Translation can lead to difference in opinion, or opinion lead to different interpretation? : )

If “new creation” pertains to a "new being" = then it will be all doing by a creator?

If “new creation” pertains to a "new covenant" = then it will be mutual then?

in any case, as long as the interpretation gives glory to God... i do not see a problem : )

both can be correct to me : )

The fact is we are instructed to STUDY, to show ourselves APPROVED, RIGHTLY dividing the Word of Truth. This mean BOTH can't be right, ONLY one can be.
 
Right Stan...No one is born with eternal life: The Word makes it quite clear (to me) that that is given at the return of Christ.
What anyone has now is a conditional promise, and here is one of the conditions:


Yes, there are many such scriptures that show we ONLY actually receive it when Christ returns. We may have purchased a ticket to ride the train of Eternal Life, but we only possess it when we arrive at the station WITH that ticket in hand!
 
No, that is not so. Jesus said He gives us eternal life (Jn. 10:28). It is described in the present tense in John 5:24 and I John 5:13. In the last reference, we can even "know" that we have (present tense) eternal life. If eternal life is something only received when Christ returns, than present knowledge of that possession would be impossible.
 
The fact is we are instructed to STUDY, to show ourselves APPROVED, RIGHTLY dividing the Word of Truth. This mean BOTH can't be right, ONLY one can be.
I realize this isn't the proper place or thread, but some day if you ever are inclined to do so, I'd like to hear your view of modern day prophets. Are there people today who are prophets? Do they give forth God's message that may not be found written in the Scripture?
 
No, that is not so. Jesus said He gives us eternal life (Jn. 10:28). It is described in the present tense in John 5:24 and I John 5:13. In the last reference, we can even "know" that we have (present tense) eternal life. If eternal life is something only received when Christ returns, than present knowledge of that possession would be impossible.


Again Jack you refuse to see. Heb 9:27 says we all die once and THEN the judgment, so obviously you CAN'T have Eternal Life NOW, or Jesus is lying. Regardless if the tense for 'give' is present or not, it is a verb. The possession of Eternal Life can ONLY happen once Jesus returns, which ALL scripture clearly shows. Faith is how we know Jack and when John says we know, it is based on faith, just like we KNOW everything else taught in scripture. NOT because we have attained it, as Paul shows in Phil 3:12, nor have we taken hold of it as he also states in Phil 3:13.
It is obvious you are NOT getting the difference between things we actually possess and things we effectually/effectively posses.
 
I realize this isn't the proper place or thread, but some day if you ever are inclined to do so, I'd like to hear your view of modern day prophets. Are there people today who are prophets? Do they give forth God's message that may not be found written in the Scripture?



Yes there are, and in some assemblies, every time they gather. Paul talks about this at length is 1 Cor 14.
 
Again Jack you refuse to see. Heb 9:27 says we all die once and THEN the judgment, so obviously you CAN'T have Eternal Life NOW, or Jesus is lying. Regardless if the tense for 'give' is present or not, it is a verb. The possession of Eternal Life can ONLY happen once Jesus returns, which ALL scripture clearly shows. Faith is how we know Jack and when John says we know, it is based on faith, just like we KNOW everything else taught in scripture. NOT because we have attained it, as Paul shows in Phil 3:12, nor have we taken hold of it as he also states in Phil 3:13.
It is obvious you are NOT getting the difference between things we actually possess and things we effectually/effectively posses.
We obviously disagree on that point. I see Hb. 9 as talking about physical death. John 11:25 Jesus says even if you die you live and we do. I John 5:13 says we not only have eternal life but we can know that we have it. I don't see anyway around that, and I'm sure I don't fully understand your position. But let us agree to disagree.
 
Yes there are, and in some assemblies, every time they gather. Paul talks about this at length is 1 Cor 14.

Thank you, I appreciate knowing that. As I said, this isn't the appropriate board but if you ever wanted to elaborate on that topic, I would be interested in reading what you had to say about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top