Understanding God’s election

[PaulThomson]

John believed Jesus was the Savior because Jesus had told and demonstrated to His Apostles and disciples that He was. John may not yet have fully understood scripture and the final fulfillment of the prophecy regarding Christ, but nevertheless, that didn't mean he didn't realize that Jesus was the Savior sent by the Father. I dunno, sorry, guess I'm still missing your point.

Jhn 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
Jhn 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Why does john say "For"? For (gar) introduces a reason, How does John and Peter not knowing the scriptures tha Jesus must rise from the dead logically act as a reason why John believed Jesus was the Saviour? Do you not conceed that the context more logically implies John believed Mary, beause they dis not understand the scriotures,

So applying this principle to Acts, 13:48, that saying someone believed does not automatically mean that they believed the death and resurrection of Jesus, but could be referring to something else in the context that they were believing, what were the Gentiles told, that could have made those who had already been appointed to aeonous life by believing the gospel, rejoice and glorify the word, the pronouncement of God?

I would say, they, those who had already believed the gospel and by doing so had been appointed to aeonous life, rejoiced over hearing, that Paul had now been officially commissioned by God to take the gospel to the Gentiles, their families and friends and people groups.

[Act 13:47-49 KJV]
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as had been ordained [by faith] to eternal life believed [this].
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (The word of the Lord being here either the gospel itself, or the word of the Lord just rejoiced over: that the God of Moses was now yhtrough Paul calling Gentiles to become His people too.

 

[rogerg]

Jhn 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
Jhn 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Why does john say "For"? For (gar) introduces a reason, How does John and Peter not knowing the scriptures tha Jesus must rise from the dead logically act as a reason why John believed Jesus was the Saviour? Do you not conceed that the context more logically implies John believed Mary, beause they dis not understand the scriotures,

So applying this principle to Acts, 13:48, that saying someone believed does not automatically mean that they believed the death and resurrection of Jesus, but could be referring to something else in the context that they were believing, what were the Gentiles told, that could have made those who had already been appointed to aeonous life by believing the gospel, rejoice and glorify the word, the pronouncement of God?

I would say, they, those who had already believed the gospel and by doing so had been appointed to aeonous life, rejoiced over hearing, that Paul had now been officially commissioned by God to take the gospel to the Gentiles, their families and friends and people groups.

[Act 13:47-49 KJV]
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as had been ordained [by faith] to eternal life believed [this].
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (The word of the Lord being here either the gospel itself, or the word of the Lord just rejoiced over: that the God of Moses was now yhtrough Paul calling Gentiles to become His people too.

Disagree. John and Peter knew and believed that Jesus was the Savior because Jesus, as God as the Holy Spirit, taught them that He was the Savior, just as He teaches all who become saved. True belief does not/cannot originate from the mind of natural man, just as @Magenta
repeatedly and correctly tells us. Basically, it comes down to a "ya just can't get there from here", situation.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Rufus]

*** corrected.

Typical Humanism. You're so humanistic, you place your faith in the spiritually dead believing with every fiber of your body that they'll perform spiritual feats of wonders that the physically dead can't perform physically. But the good news for you is that this kind of reasoning would likely resonate in insane asylums, so you would have the makings of a fan club.

 

[rogerg]

I said it before but it bears repeating, because all these people talk about the power of the gospel being the power of Salvation to them who believe as if it applies to unbelievers when it obviously does NOT... 1 Corinthians 1:18 clarifies Romans 1:16 further by saying the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God... these people put the cart before the horse all the time with these verses. You are absolutely right Roger they are completely blind to the meaning of these verses when they speak of them and to their own folly in how they interpret them... Proving once again that they ascribe to the natural man qualities and abilities possessed only by the spiritual man.

Yeah, Magenta, it seems that some blow right by 1 Co 2:14 (and surrounding verses) without giving them due consideration.

 

[PaulThomson]

Disagree. John and Peter knew and believed that Jesus was the Savior because Jesus, as God as the Holy Spirit, taught them that He was the Savior, just as He teaches all who become saved. True belief does not/cannot originate from the mind of natural man, just as @Magenta
repeatedly and correctly tells us. Basically, it comes down to a "ya just can't get there from here", situation.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But according to you, then, John20:18-19 says John believed Jesus was the Saviour because he and Peter did not understand that the scriptures said that Jesus must rise from the dead. Does that make any sense?

 

[Magenta]

Yeah, Magenta, it seems that some blow right by 1 Co 2:14 (and surrounding verses) without giving them due consideration.

Yes, they have the corrupt heart of the natural man bringing forth the good fruit of faith.

Jesus made pretty plain that just does not happen.

Maybe some day they will come to believe Jesus.

Even Job knew better.

Pelagian heretics insist man is inherently good. From within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. Mark 7:21-22 Every inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Genesis 8:21b Who can bring out clean from unclean? No one! Job 14:4 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Matthew 7:18

 

[Rufus]

tharkun said:


To the OP - election does not equal salvation. All Israel was 'elect', but not all of them were devoted Yahwists. Election is corporate not individual.

Oh but it does! Israel, being a type of Church, was most definitely physically redeemed, delivered and saved from Pharoah; The Church being the antitype is spiritually saved.

 

[Mem]

As I understand you, you're speaking of "the word of truth". Am I correct? The "prepositional phrase" throws me off a bit.

There are a few interesting things about this grammar:

• "of" is an insertion by the translators and a very basic one. It's really just a general, catch-all translation. The reality is that there are 30+ ways to translate this grammar instead of using "of". These 30+ can be narrowed down pretty quickly, but the fact remains that there is typically more detail and precision that can be gleaned than the translators typically put much effort into revealing.
• Look up the word "of" in a dictionary and we can see it's not as simple as we may casually consider it to be.
• Your observation is interesting because at times it can be helpful to understand "truth" as "reality". e.g. "spiritual truth" could be thought of as "spiritual reality" which would help us to see that the spiritual is the reality - the underlying reality of our existence.
• Without my going through all 30+ ways to understand this phrase - in Greek it's the "word/message ___ the truth" we can look at that list and this wording and e.g. legitimately translate this as "the true word/message" or "the word/message which contains the truth" or "the word/message - the truth" (meaning the word/message which is the truth) or "the word/message about the truth".

NKJ John 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

• Sanctify them by your truth - Sanctify them by your word/message
  • Teaching/interpreting accurately the word/message - teaching/interpreting accurately the truth

This is why teachers should be cautious and receive more strict discipline. The word/message - the truth - sanctifies, God uses it to save.

*It was probably lazy scholarship that I used the first word I could think of that I thought might be the correct nomenclature for the phrase "of truth." (This communication business is not easy )

I noticed different translations varied the order wherein they placed the phrase so that, considering it all, I wonder if another possibility might've been overlooked. Namely, if a comma were (should be) inserted to separate it from any particular word it might otherwise seem to be modifying, such as "the word" (I mean, I wouldn't think it's an overreach to I assume that the subject of "the word" is understood as "the truth" by default, when addressed to a faithful audience, without need of additional clarification) so that "of truth," then might be modifying the thought in its entirety.. That is, rightly divide the word, in reality, as opposed to continuing to insist you are when you really are not... Of course, some might say that if that were what was meant then it would've been written "in truth"...

 

[PaulThomson]

No problem. But then as Savior, you agree salvation is entirely within/by His hands, to either give or to withhold, and cannot in any way be manifested by, or dependent upon, man's actions, nor by anything related to man's actions, correct? Otherwise, it would be by man not by Christ.

No. As long as the method of salvation entirely originated from God and must be accessed by the method He ordained, whether a man is saved may still be dependent on the man fulfilling the criteria ordained by God. A man fulfilling God's conditions for salvation does not make that man the origin of the means or the method. He does not save himself by observing God's requirements without God saving Him by furnishing those requirements, so that the man could know how to be saved.

You seem to be presenting the salvation process as a false dichotomy: either God does it all and a man does nothing to save himself , or a man does something and therefore saves himself without God's help being necessary. Scripture offers the third option described in my first paragraph.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, Jesus is God. If Jesus is the Savior as we agreed, then all aspects of salvation logically must have been satisfied by Him alone, by which, it comes specifically and individually unto us as a free gift (or not depending), with all else pertaining to salvation, as byproducts of that.

You seem to be exceeding the bounds o=f reason to claim that being a saviour MUST mean that one does EVERYTHING to save those delivered.

Many of the judges were saviours of Israel, but they did not single-handedly deliver the nation. They initiated, catalysed and led revolt that required the other Israelites to fight as well.

 

[Cameron143]

No. As long as the method of salvation entirely originated from God and must be accessed by the method He ordained, whether a man is saved may still be dependent on the man fulfilling the criteria ordained by God. A man fulfilling God's conditions for salvation does not make that man the origin of the means or the method. He does not save himself by observing God's requirements without God saving Him by furnishing those requirements, so that the man could know how to be saved.

You seem to be presenting the salvation process as a false dichotomy: either God does it all and a man does nothing to save himself , or a man does something and therefore saves himself without God's help being necessary. Scripture offers the third option described in my first paragraph.

He's basically saying what you call requirements for salvation are actions caused by salvation. In other words, one doesn't repent to be saved, but because they have been saved. One doesn't confess with the mouth and believe in their heart to acquire salvation, but because they already possess it.

 

[rogerg]

You seem to be exceeding the bounds o=f reason to claim that being a saviour MUST mean that one does EVERYTHING to save those delivered.

Many of the judges were saviours of Israel, but they did not single-handedly deliver the nation. They initiated, catalysed and led revolt that required the other Israelites to fight as well.

Their actions may have resulted in the nation of Israel being saved, but nevertheless, their title was judge, not Savior, nor did they claim to be such. Not so with Christ. No one else in the Bible was given that specific title by God nor could anyone else claim it. In this case, the earthly should not be used as a standard to measure or assess things spiritual. Therefore, the comparison you make is inappropriate. Notice in verse 9 below that it is Jesus alone who "hath saved us" and that we contributed nothing to it - that it is a gift given fully by Him, according only to His purpose and grace.
In the spiritual sense, the Savior cannot claim to be the Savior if He is not the one who saves fully and completely. It is not within
the power of earthly man to contribute to that.


[2Ti 1:9-10 KJV]
9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

 

[rogerg]

No. As long as the method of salvation entirely originated from God and must be accessed by the method He ordained, whether a man is saved may still be dependent on the man fulfilling the criteria ordained by God. A man fulfilling God's conditions for salvation does not make that man the origin of the means or the method. He does not save himself by observing God's requirements without God saving Him by furnishing those requirements, so that the man could know how to be saved.

You seem to be presenting the salvation process as a false dichotomy: either God does it all and a man does nothing to save himself , or a man does something and therefore saves himself without God's help being necessary. Scripture offers the third option described in my first paragraph.

Yes, that is exactly what I am presenting - that man does/can do nothing for it - and that is what makes it precisely by grace. The method He ordained was to give it freely as a gift, through Christ, to those He chose for it. For those so chosen, there is no requirement imposed upon them to retain it - again, it is solely a gift - and this is so because all requirements of salvation had been fully satisfied by Christ as Savior, and they justified by Him.
I am in complete agreement with what @Cameron143 posted above.

[Tit 3:5 KJV]
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Eph 2:8 KJV]
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

 

[studier]

This communication business is not easy

Very true. Even after years of writing emails and now writing on forums.

I noticed different translations varied the order wherein they placed the phrase so that, considering it all, I wonder if another possibility might've been overlooked. Namely, if a comma were (should be) inserted to separate it from any particular word it might otherwise seem to be modifying, such as "the word" (I mean, I wouldn't think it's an overreach to I assume that the subject of "the word" is understood as "the truth" by default, when addressed to a faithful audience, without need of additional clarification) so that "of truth," then might be modifying the thought in its entirety.. That is, rightly divide the word, in reality, as opposed to continuing to insist you are when you really are not... Of course, some might say that if that were what was meant then it would've been written "in truth"...

Some of us get charged with paying too much attention to such things but I've been shown over the decades how a comma here and there changes the flow of an argument and the understanding of a section of Scripture. The more details the better IMO.

I'm happy to try to post the list of all ways (the genitive case) can be interpreted and translated. I posted briefly and in my own words a few of those ways. I think according to the verse in John that I posted that "the word of the truth" is most simply "the word / the truth" which is a legitimate translation of the phrase. We just like to make things flow more smoothly and in doing so IMO frequently cause ourselves problems. He is the Truth & He is the Word. I like to remain as literal as possible to be as close to His mind as I can.

 

[Mem]

Very true. Even after years of writing emails and now writing on forums.



Some of us get charged with paying too much attention to such things but I've been shown over the decades how a comma here and there changes the flow of an argument and the understanding of a section of Scripture. The more details the better IMO.

I'm happy to try to post the list of all ways (the genitive case) can be interpreted and translated. I posted briefly and in my own words a few of those ways. I think according to the verse in John that I posted that "the word of the truth" is most simply "the word / the truth" which is a legitimate translation of the phrase. We just like to make things flow more smoothly and in doing so IMO frequently cause ourselves problems. He is the Truth & He is the Word. I like to remain as literal as possible to be as close to His mind as I can.

I don't begrudge your favoring simplicity, the simplest turn out the best, in my experience. I suppose the perspective I was looking at can be just as obviously implied in the assertion of it as a directive in the first place.

Oh, and thank you for the gracious offer to list all the ways the genitive can be interpreted and translated. There's no need to as I can look up the subject when I find a chance to. I wish I had to the opportunity to search them out myself, but my work doesn't seem to be much concerned about the life side of my balance.

 

[PaulThomson]

Their actions may have resulted in the nation of Israel being saved, but nevertheless, their title was judge, not Savior, nor did they claim to be such. Not so with Christ. No one else in the Bible was given that specific title by God nor could anyone else claim it. In this case, the earthly should not be used as a standard to measure or assess things spiritual. Therefore, the comparison you make is inappropriate. Notice in verse 9 below that it is Jesus alone who "hath saved us" and that we contributed nothing to it - that it is a gift given fully by Him, according only to His purpose and grace.
In the spiritual sense, the Savior cannot claim to be the Savior if He is not the one who saves fully and completely. It is not within
the power of earthly man to contribute to that.


[2Ti 1:9-10 KJV]
9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

2Ki 13:5
(And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.

Isa 19:20
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

 

[PaulThomson]

He's basically saying what you call requirements for salvation are actions caused by salvation. In other words, one doesn't repent to be saved, but because they have been saved. One doesn't confess with the mouth and believe in their heart to acquire salvation, but because they already possess it.

I know what Rogerg is saying. The problem he has is that the Bible doesn't say what he is saying.

 

[rogerg]

2Ki 13:5
(And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.

Isa 19:20
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

A spiritual Savior, not an earthly savior - we are discussing eternal salvation, correct? Remember, I said that you shouldn't assess things spiritual by the earthly:

" In this case, the earthly should not be used as a standard to measure or assess things spiritual. Therefore, the comparison you make is inappropriate"

 

[rogerg]

I know what Rogerg is saying. The problem he has is that the Bible doesn't say what he is saying.

It does say exactly that. Apparently, you either did not read or understand the verses I provided.

 

[rogerg]

I know what Rogerg is saying. The problem he has is that the Bible doesn't say what he is saying.

I'll repost for clarity:

[2Ti 1:9-10 KJV]
9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

[Tit 3:5 KJV]
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Eph 2:8 KJV]
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: