If any man....

Amen, Brother Martin! Preach it, man, preach it! :jesus:

 

Martin Luther had a real concern with what was going on with the church of his day. Instead of finding the Biblical answer however, he went off the straight and narrow, but to the other extreme and missed what he was searching for.

 

I'd say Martin hit the it right on the biblical principle head with his statement.

 

Really??? He went off the straight and narrow??

Here was a man steeped in the church's doctrine of the day & he discovered grace. What happened next was nothing less than incredible, and the world has never been the same.

While I'm not Lutheran personally, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for him & for what he did.

 

He didn't discover grace. People have known about God's grace for a long time before Martin Luther was ever even though of.

I didn't say I didn't respect him or that he didn't have some good things that he is responsible for. But in the OP statement Luther was absolutely incorrect.

He missed the mark on that issue and went way off center to an extremely incorrect position just as much as what he found wrong with the church was on extremely incorrect position. He didn't discover Biblical truth, he made up truth to combat what he saw as a problem.

The problem he saw was a problem and still is a problem today, but the answer is not creating your own doctrine to solve the problem, but rather discovering what Scripture has to say about a matter.

Our brother Chemnitz has posted a proof text for those that follow the Lutheran and Calvin doctrine of election or predestination use. And it doesn't have anything to do with eternal (spiritual) salvation. That's not the context.

I know Lutherans and Calvinists will be up in arms, but it is what it is.

I'm sure he was a great guy, but when it comes to salvation, which the OP deals with he missed the mark.

 

Jump, that's pretty lame. Becoming the Children of God has nothing to do with salvation? Give me a break. The rest of the book of John expounds upon the opening chapter making it very clear that those who are called Children of God are the saved.

 

I thinketh Mr. Luther hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright. If Scripture doth ascribe salvation to whosoever believeth, I wilt, therefore, agreeth with Scripture.

 

If any man.
It is ironic how many scriptures have "if any man", below is just a few.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

Jhn 7:37 ¶ In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

1Cr 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

If you want to have a conversation about this matters why such childish talk? Why do most people that disagree with others have to use such elementary tatics when discussing Scripture. I really don't understand what it is about folks these days . . . oh well.

Becoming the children of God has everything to do with salvation. However, these people were already children of God. I normally don't use the King James translation, although that is the version I grew up with. I personally use the NASB more often now. However I believe the KJV has it correct in John 1 when it comes to verse 12.

The NASB renders the verse . . . the right to become children of God, but the KJV renders it . . . the right to become sons of God.

Doctrinally speaking the correct phrase is sons of God, again becuase these folks were already children of God. There is a HUGE difference between being a son and being a child.

Okay . . . you are hereby ordered to take a five minute break. How's that?

That is true to an extent, but the main thrust of the Gospel of John is speaking of the offer of the kingdom to Israel and that is not the same message as salvation by grace through faith.

 

Actually the KJV doesn't even translate it right. Tekna literally means child (Friberg). While we are at it genestia as an aorist infinitive should be "to be" rather than become because the aorist reflects a completed action. The immediate passage is describing people who have recieved them by explaining how they are children of God, notice that the person is totally excluded from the process.

 

Well the King James translates the word not tekna (NASB rendering) as you suggest, but teknon which means male child or son. Again it makes not sense for children of God to receive Christ to become children of God.

How does a child of God become more of a child of God?

EDIT: And actually the verse if full of active verbs which shows the person is very involved in the process.

 

Martin did not write in English?

 

Good post!

:thumbs:

 

edoken autois exousian tekna theo gevestai the word in the text is tekna which is the plural of the neuter noun teknon.

The KJV has it wrong. The context of the passage does not allow for a gender specific translation.

Lets look at those verbs
received - a passive verb something was done to them
believe - again a verb which describes an action which is caused by an outside source not by the subject. Belief is created by a person or thing which creates the trust not the one believing. We don't just decide to believe.
gave - God is the one doing
to be - states a condition not an action
were born - a passive action done to the subject - once again people aren't the ones driving the action

They were born as children of God by God, not by any decision or action or relationship. This verse plainly discounts any action of a person warranting salvation.

 

de hosos lambano autos autos didomi exousia ginomai teknon theos pisteuo eis autos onoma

How so?

Let's do look at the verbs:

lambano (received) is not passive, but in the active voice. It is a second aorist, active, indicitive.
didomi (He gave) aorist, active, indicitive (God doing - we agree).
ginomai (to become) - second aorist, middle dependant, infinitive - I don't see how you can say this is a condition and not an action - there is no condition of to become. To become is an action. You either become or you don't. Now you are right that whether or not you become or not is conditional. Maybe that was what you were trying to say?
pisteuo (believe) - present, active, participle. Active means the subject is the doer. Their believing was not forced upon them. They were the ones believing.

The were born you are correct in that it is passive. Because the birthing process is by God, but it is based not on a forced faith as you would have us to believe.

Again how can a child of God (that's that these folks were) become something they already are? That's the context that you would have us to believe. That someone can some how turn into something they already are. Contextually the KJV was right on in this one. It just doesn't make a lick of sense the other way.

 

This is my mistake for not working solely from the greek, but I missed the participle. A participle is not a normal verb, in this case it is a descriptive word which refers back to the Children of God. It is not a word indicating an action on the part of the subject rather a state.

I never said they were forced. We are not forced to trust, otherwise it wouldn't be trust it would be fear. I really don't know where you are getting this forced idea. Trust is created through loving actions not by force. God creates this trust, this belief through his following through of loving actions.

I don't know what Greek text you are working from but both my NA27 and my copy of the TR have tekna as the underlying word. In fact your word order doesn't match with either. You have also ignored the Lexical evidence which contridicts your personal opinions concerning the rendering.

recieved is passive not so much in its grammatical sense but in the action sense. One does not actively receive they get or grab. When one receives it is given to them.

ginestai not ginomai again the TR and the NA27 agree on this is an aoritst infinitive being aorist it would indicate a completed action. To become would be incorrect as it does not indicate a completed action rather a future action.

The fact of the matter is that they were not the Children of God in the sense of being saved which is what this passage is about. You seem to be confusing children of God in the sense of they are his creation with Children of God in the sense of being adopted into his family as heirs to the kingdom.


Maybe it doesn't make any sense because you are unwilling to give up the notion that you have a part to play. It makes perfect sense if you acknowledge that God does it all.

 

Right they are in a state of believing. Meaning they are continually believing. Again that's another indicator that this doesn't have to do with eternal (spiritual) salvation, becuase it is not a matter of linear process, but a one-time event. After it is done the matter is closed as far as God sees it. Unfortunately for man some try to keep the process open to add in their own "whatever" they want to add to the event.

Of course you never come right out and say it, but that's what you get with everything else that you say. You say a person doesn't have a role to play meaning I can't chose whether I believe or whether I don't. If I have no choice in the matter then the matter is forced, whether you want to say it or not.

If it is not forced then it is a choice. If it is a choice I can choose to do or not to do just like everyone else. Because if someone else can't choose then the lack of faith if forced as well. It goes both ways.

Please show me in Scripture where it says that our faith is created in us.

Well we are not looking at the underlying word, but the actual word that is used. The actual word in the King James is teknon. You are correct in that the NA does not have teknon.

Here you say it's infinitive, but you leave out the meaning of that. The infinitive is what gives it the "to" action.

Again please show me in Scripture where it says that God stopped saving the children of Israel. I don't find that anywhere. He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Sheep are saved not damned to eternal hell.

I know that throws a lot of modern day Christendom's theology in the tank, but we have to let Scripture say what Scripture says, not try to re-write It or re-word It to our own liking. If we do we do it to our own destruction.

Not at all and you have further proven my point for me. This passage is dealing with adoption as sons and as heirs to the kingdom. That is not eternal (spiritual) salvation. The gospel of the kingdom is something that happens and can happen after eternal (spiritual) salvation has taken place.

The only thing that is required of me and the only thing that I can do is believe in the finished works of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. That's it. The work that allows salvation to come and the work that is wrought in me at the moment of salvation is all of God and I have never said anything to the contrary.

But what folks like you do is try to make folks believe that their faith is somehow them working for their salvation, which isn't true at all.

Acts 16:30-31 says believe and you will be (not maybe) saved. If I believe I am saved. I have a choice. A choice does not mean I have worked for my salvation it just means if I believe then I am receiving the gift. If I don't believe then I am rejecting the gift.

You all complicate the simple message of believe and you will be saved something fierce and it is terribly sad

 

Good texts all! But the fact that man is enabled to freely choose salvation does not make man the AUTHOR of salvation - which was Luther's point.

Calvinists love to twist that around AS IF to admit to the texts above as they speak to the free gift and the free choice -- is to claim that MAN is the author of salvation.

It is their way of gaming the texts instead of reading them.

In Christ,

Bob