Predestination and Salvation

Apologetic_Warrior · Jan 8, 2018

FreeGrace2 said:
Did God will man to sin?

If God allowed man to do it, and knew before He created man, did He will it?

FreeGrace2 said:
Which of God's "wills" is involved in man's individual actions of sin?

One will, with different features. Neither are directly "involved" in actions of sin. One feature is permissive, ALLOWING secondary causual agents, however, God does restrain sinners, such that sinners are not at every moment as sinful as they possibly can be.

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
So you don't believe in irresistible grace? Nor limited atonement as Calvinist view it?

Yes I do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 8, 2018

I asked:
"Did God will man to sin?"

Apologetic_Warrior said:
If God allowed man to do it, and knew before He created man, did He will it?

This isn't the way this works. When a question is asked, an answer is expected. Not just a repeat of the question.

Do you have an answer, or not?

FreeGrace2 · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said: ↑
So you don't believe in irresistible grace? Nor limited atonement as Calvinist view it?

DeaconDean said:
Yes I do.

How do you explain 2 Cor 5:14,15,19, Col 1:20, Heb 2:9, 1 Pet 3:18, and 1 John 2:2?

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

FreeGrace2 said:
How do you explain 2 Cor 5:14,15,19, Col 1:20, Heb 2:9, 1 Pet 3:18, and 1 John 2:2?

Before I answer this, be it known that you sir, are on my ignore list. So I will not be answering any more of your questions, nor will I be seeing them.

What do each of these verses have in common?

The penalty for sin has been paid, and reconciled the world to Himself.

"he died for all, to reconcile all things unto himself; he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Christ also hath once suffered for sins, but also for the sins of the whole world."

What about the "world" of the OT?

Sure, Jesus paid the penalty for sin, bore them in/on His body. Thus enabling the world to be reconciled to God through Him.

Let me put two ways.

1) You are deep in debt, no way to pay your credit card bills. Some unknown mysterious stranger pays the bill "in full" for you. Do you take advantage of it?

2) I put $1,000,000 in a bank account for you. Your a millionaire. But if you do not know it, or take advantage of it, are you a millionaire?

Have you ever studied "scope and effect"?

Evidently not.

The price for sin was paid for in full by our Lord. The "scope' was to "atone for sin".

However, the effect is that not everybody takes advantage of it.

While the scope of Christ's death was "unlimited", the effect is that it is "limited" to the "elect".

This principle goes back to the Old Testament.

"The Old Testament only knew a limited design to sacrifice and atonement, didn’t it? There was no universal purpose in the Mosaic sacrifices was there? The Egyptians who worshipped their gods, and the Babylonians similarly sacrificing to their idols, and the Assyrians, and the Canaanites, and the Medes, and the Persians prostrating themselves before figures of stone, gold and silver – none of them had their sins purged away by the Jewish sacrifices made at that altar erected outside the tabernacle and later at the temple in Jerusalem. Only Israel’s sins were pardoned on the Day of Atonement when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of the sacrifice. Only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were carried upon his breastplate. You look in vain for the names of Egypt, or Babylon, or Assyria and the rest. Full atonement was limited to the repentant, obedient, sacrificing people of God wasn’t it?"

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

What about Rahab and Ruth and the others who were God fearers. We know they were used in the line of Jesus. Your statrments that speak of all may come then are followed except they are the elect will bot come. I see election as those who receive Him are the elect and they are not called by irresistible grace but by believing the word of God which has produced the faith concerning Jesus and in Him being the only way to have peace with God. Some Calvinist always ask how can a death man believe, I say the same way scripture states, faith comes by hearing the word of God and those who believe it and receive Him become the children of God, those who love the world more, reject Him as those in John 12:42 neverthe less among the chief rulers many believed on Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Therefore, I do not see irresistible grace to be a bibilical doctrine.

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
What about Rahab and Ruth and the others who were God fearers. We know they were used in the line of Jesus.

Lets go back a few generations before Rahab and Ruth and see what God said.

Long before Israel went into slavery, God told/promised Abraham:

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:" -Gen. 12:3 (KJV)

What did Rahab do?

And of course, Ruth.

You have two (2) Gentile women. Oprah and Ruth. Wives of Chilion and Malhon. After their husbands died, Naomi told Oprah and Ruth to return to their land and remarry. One (1) did, one (1) didn't. (Another example of "election" from the OT.)

iwbswiaihl said:
Your statrments that speak of all may come then are followed except they are the elect will bot come.

Exactly as shown in Acts 13:48.

iwbswiaihl said:
I see election as those who receive Him are the elect and they are not called by irresistible grace but by believing the word of God which has produced the faith concerning Jesus and in Him being the only way to have peace with God.

I see a misquote of scripture. Does it not say: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (cf. Jn. 1:44)

I notice that it does not say: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the elect.

A typical response is always of Arminian theology is that one only becomes "elect" after the point of salvation.

The biggest problem with that, in each and every instance where the "elect" is mentioned, it has nothing to do or is related to anything that "will or have done".

iwbswiaihl said:
Some Calvinist always ask how can a death man believe, I say the same way scripture states, faith comes by hearing the word of God and those who believe it and receive Him become the children of God, those who love the world more, reject Him as those in John 12:42 neverthe less among the chief rulers many believed on Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Therefore, I do not see irresistible grace to be a bibilical doctrine.

There are two verses you have forgotten.

Yes, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (cf. Rom. 10:17) but who circumcises the ears so that man may hear what is being preached?

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised," -Jer. 6:10 (KJV)

This is repeated again in the New Testament:

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," -Acts 7:51 (KJV)

An old woman was asked once about her salvation. The preacher asked what caused her to finally believe and be saved. She replied, "The way you preached, the way you spoke of the grace of God, made it "irresistible."

While you may not like it, may not see it.

I do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 8, 2018

I asked this of the deacon:
"How do you explain 2 Cor 5:14,15,19, Col 1:20, Heb 2:9, 1 Pet 3:18, and 1 John 2:2?"

DeaconDean said:
Before I answer this, be it known that you sir, are on my ignore list. So I will not be answering any more of your questions, nor will I be seeing them.

So my responses to this post will be for others. No problem. Also, imho, those who can't answer questions or refute the posts of others tend to ignore them.

What do each of these verses have in common?

That Christ died for everyone.

The penalty for sin has been paid, and reconciled the world to Himself.

I wish DD could provide an answer to why all sin from everyone was paid for, yet, God passed over (single predestination) or actively ignored (doube predestination) so many human beings.

It seems rather odd that Christ would reconcile the world, yet then God would pass over or ignore so many.

"he died for all, to reconcile all things unto himself; he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Christ also hath once suffered for sins, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Yes. Quite clear. Jesus Christ died for everyone, in spite of the reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

What about the "world" of the OT?

How is this even relevant to the issue of who Christ died for? Even if DD meant the "NT", just research the word "world", and it becomes quite clear that the word is used of unbelievers.

Sure, Jesus paid the penalty for sin, bore them in/on His body. Thus enabling the world to be reconciled to God through Him.

Yet, 2 Cor 5:19 doesn't include the word "enabling". In fact, by Christ's death, the world WAS reconciled. Not just "enabled" to be.

Let me put two ways.

1) You are deep in debt, no way to pay your credit card bills. Some unknown mysterious stranger pays the bill "in full" for you. Do you take advantage of it?

Some would. Some wouldnt' believe the offer and not take advantage of it. Gee. Just like real life and God's promise of eternal life for those who believe in His Son.

2) I put $1,000,000 in a bank account for you. Your a millionaire. But if you do not know it, or take advantage of it, are you a millionaire?

Same answer as above. By paying the sin debt in full for everyone, Jesus Christ purchased (agorazo) the gift of eternal life for everyone.

Since DD likes examples, think of a huge (as in cosmic) Christmas tree. And under this gigantic tree are Christmas presents. One for each human being in the whole history of the world. Yet, unless one receives this Christmas present, they do not possess it.

So, how does one possess the free gift of eternal life, the ultimate Christmas present? By faith.

John 3:15,16,36, 5:24, 6:40,47, 11:25-27, 20:31.

Have you ever studied "scope and effect"?

Evidently not.

Anyone can read my responses to DD's post and easily see that I am quite familiar with scope and effect.

The price for sin was paid for in full by our Lord. The "scope' was to "atone for sin".

Which included everyone. Unlike what Calvinism claims, which they call "limited atonement. That Christ died ONLY for the elect.

However, the effect is that not everybody takes advantage of it.

Absolutely true.

While the scope of Christ's death was "unlimited", the effect is that it is "limited" to the "elect".

That's not what Calvinism claims. That Christ only died for the elect.

Maybe DD isn't a full Calvinist.

This principle goes back to the Old Testament.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 8, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Exactly as shown in Acts 13:48.

For those who aren't avoiding and ignoring my posts, let's consider some facts about this oft quoted (and quite abused) verse from the Calvinists:

First, the verse:
"When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

Sure sounds like it takes an "appointment" in order to have eternal life.

Yet, the Bible never teaches this anywhere, much less here.

Consider John 3:15,16,36, 5:24, 6:40,47, 11:25-27, 20:31 and 1 John 5:13.

These verses plainly state that eternal life is on the basis of believing the gospel.

Now, to exegete the verse in question.

The Greek word for "appointed" (sometimes translated ordained) is tasso. These are the 7 other uses in the NT:
Matt 28:16 “appointed” ASV, KJV “told to go” NIV “designated” NASB
Jesus told the disciples where to go

Luke 7:8 “under authority” NIV “placed under authority” NASV, NKJV “set under” ASV, KJV
Centurion explaining to Jesus he was a man under authority

Acts 13:48 “appointed” NASB, NIV, NKJV “ordained” KJV, ASV
Believing Gentiles being compared to unbelieving Jews: Jews unworthy, Gentiles devoted

Acts 15:2 “appointed” NIV, ASV “determined” NKJV, NASB, KJV
Paul and Barnabas appointed to go to Jerusalem

Acts 22:10 “assigned” NIV “appointed” NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV
Paul relating Jesus telling him on Damascus road to go to Damascus and be told his assignment

Acts 28:23 “arranged” NIV “appointed” ASV, KJV, NKJV “set” NASB
People arranged to meet with Paul on a certain day to hear him explain the gospel

Rom 13:1 “established” NIV, NASB “appointed” NKJV “ordained” KJV, ASV
God has established all authorities

1 Cor 16:15 “devoted” NASB, NKJV, NIV “addicted” KJV “set” ASV

As can be seen, only Acts 13:48 is translated "ordained/appointed". None of the other 7 are even close to that.

There is another Greek word, "horizo" that is used of God or others appointing or ordaining. It also occurs 8 times in the NT, just as "tasso".

Acts 10:42 - He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed [horizo] as judge of the living and the dead. NIV, NASB “ordained” NKJV, ASV, KJV

Luke 22:22 - The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." NIV “determined” NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV

Acts 2:23 - This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose [horizo] and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. NIV “determined purpose” NKJV “predeterminate plan” NASB, “determinate counsel” KJV, ASV

Acts 11:29 - The disciples, each according to his ability, decided [horizo] to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. NIV “determined” NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV

Acts 17:26 - From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined [horizo] the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV

Acts 17:31 - For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. [horizo] He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." NIV, NASB “ordained” NKJV, KJV, ASV

Rom 1:4 - and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared [horizo] with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. NIV, NKJV, NASB, KJV, ASV

Heb 4:7 - Therefore God again set [horizo] a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." NIV “designates” NKJV “fixes” NASB “defines” ASV “limits” KJV

In 7 of these verses, the word is associated with what God has done. In the other verse, Acts 11:29, it is used of people who "decided" or "determined".

Luke used both "tasso" and "horizo" 6 times each. It should seem obvious that if Luke really meant that God appoints for eternal life, he would have used "horizo" rather than "tasso".

However, that's not all. The tense of the verb "tasso" has the same form for both the middle and passive voices, even though some lexicons indicate that "tasso" in Acts 13:48 is passive, which would indicate that someone else appointed them.

But, the only way to determine whether the author meant middle or passive voice is to examine context, which will clarify which was meant.

And we have context to determine whether middle (they performed the action on themselves) vs passive (someone else performed the action on them).

13:44 gives us clear insight as to what Luke meant.
"On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord."

The root meaning of "tasso" is:
NT:5021
tasso (tas'-so); a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):

"To arrange in an orderly manner" actually fits the context of 13:44. For "almost the whole city" to gather to hear Paul preach, they would have had to arrange themselves in an orderly manner.

There is nothing in Acts 13 to even suggest that God ordained anyone for anything.

What is clear is that those who "lined themselves up" to hear Paul did so for eternal life. iow, they were quite interested in what Paul was preaching, and Paul contrasted the Gentiles who lined up to hear Paul preach about eternal life with the Jews who blasphemed and, according to Paul, didn't consider themselves worthy of eternal life.

v.45 - When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.

v.46 - Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Lets go back a few generations before Rahab and Ruth and see what God said.

Long before Israel went into slavery, God told/promised Abraham:

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:" -Gen. 12:3 (KJV)
I did not missqote that verse because I did not put the verse that I quoted, had I it would have been John 1:12. Never the less,

What did Rahab do?

And of course, Ruth.

You have two (2) Gentile women. Oprah and Ruth. Wives of Chilion and Malhon. After their husbands died, Naomi told Oprah and Ruth to return to their land and remarry. One (1) did, one (1) didn't. (Another example of "election" from the OT.)

Exactly as shown in Acts 13:48.

I see a misquote of scripture. Does it not say: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (cf. Jn. 1:44)

I notice that it does not say: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the elect.

A typical response is always of Arminian theology is that one only becomes "elect" after the point of salvation.

The biggest problem with that, in each and every instance where the "elect" is mentioned, it has nothing to do or is related to anything that "will or have done".

There are two verses you have forgotten.

Yes, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (cf. Rom. 10:17) but who circumcises the ears so that man may hear what is being preached?

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised," -Jer. 6:10 (KJV)

This is repeated again in the New Testament:

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," -Acts 7:51 (KJV)

An old woman was asked once about her salvation. The preacher asked what caused her to finally believe and be saved. She replied, "The way you preached, the way you spoke of the grace of God, made it "irresistible."

While you may not like it, may not see it.

I do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

To the Deacon; You said; Lets go back a few generations before Rahab and Ruth and see what God said.
Long before Israel went into slavery, God told/promised Abraham: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:" -Gen. 12:3 (KJV) What did Rahab do? And of course, Ruth. You have two (2) Gentile women. Oprah and Ruth. Wives of Chilion and Malhon. After their husbands died, Naomi told Oprah and Ruth to return to their land and remarry. One (1) did, one (1) didn't. (Another example of "election" from the OT.)

To which I would want both of us to keep in mind, were they of the elect which made them believed, or were they the elect because to as many as receive them, to them they He the power to become the children of God(John 1:12) As I stated, I see election as the decision of God and He elected that all that receive Jesus were those who became His children and receive eternal life in Christ Jesus. that is the purpose of the gospel, to tell the good news and people to believe and be saved. It happened like that as you stated of the two in Ruth, not because of irresistible grace, that would be one being a robot and doing only what it was programed to do, but because one believed and the other did not, the proof of election was Ruth believed and entered into the class called "the elect" because she believed in the God of Naomi. It is still God's word that produced the faith, but one's responsibility to respond.

You say; Exactly as shown in Acts 13:48 "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed".

And of course again, who had been appointed to eternal life? Those who received Him by faith just as John 1:12 says. The problem I see with irresistible faith is that God says in several places He took no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but if one believes they could repent because their name was chosen to be of the elect why would God say such a thing. Or why would He tell the whole world something like this in Isa 45:22 Look to Me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is no other. You might say and many Calvinist have said this, that is a general call, but if one cannot come because they were not one you call elect, they are condemned because they were born of the non-elect. That also would have to mean that hell was not only made for the fallen angels, but for the non-elect who were condemned before the foundation of the world was formed. Many Calvinist of course cannot or just do not want to acknowledge how foolish it is to think that God would condemn the non elect when they never had the capability to repent.

I will stop there, it is to difficult to make many statements and keep the post short, I would rather deal with one or two points at a time. Thanks

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

Irresistable Grace:

A definition:

"GRACE WHICH IS IRRESISTIBLE
The grace of God is irresistible. You understand what the term "irresistible'' emphasizes. Do not think that irresistible grace is some sort of blind force which simply drags the struggling, rebellious sinner into heaven against his will -- as a policeman might drag a rebellious prisoner to jail. The grace of God is not such a power that compels to enter into heaven those who would not.

That God's grace is irresistible emphasizes the idea that not only does grace bring His people to glory, but it prepares them for this glory and works within them the desire to enter into glory. Grace is irresistible in the sense that by it the knee is bent which otherwise would not bend; the heart is softened that otherwise is hard as stone. Nor is there anything which can prevent the accomplishment of that purpose of God to save His people by His grace."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
the proof of election was Ruth believed and entered into the class called "the elect" because she believed in the God of Naomi.

As I shown previously.

Man's choice makes him elect. Not God's. (Typical Arminianism.)

DeaconDean said:
A typical response is always of Arminian theology is that one only becomes "elect" after the point of salvation.

iwbswiaihl said:
And of course again, who had been appointed to eternal life? Those who received Him by faith just as John 1:12 says. The problem I see with irresistible faith is that God says in several places He took no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but if one believes they could repent because their name was chosen to be of the elect why would God say such a thing. Or why would He tell the whole world something like this in Isa 45:22 Look to Me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is no other. You might say and many Calvinist have said this, that is a general call, but if one cannot come because they were not one you call elect, they are condemned because they were born of the non-elect. Many Calvinist of course cannot or just do not want to acknowledge how foolish to think that God would condemn the non elect when they never had the capability to repent.

I will stop there, it is to difficult to make many statements and keep the post short, I would rather deal with one or two points at a time. Thanks

Again, you make my point valid:

DeaconDean said:
A typical response is always of Arminian theology is that one only becomes "elect" after the point of salvation.

Problem, nothing of what you mention, specifically Jn. 1:12, is mentioned here.

"as many as were "ordained" to eternal life believed."

They were "ordained/appointed" to eternal life, and thusly believed.

You put the cart before the horse.

It does not say: "as many believed were "ordained/appointed" to eternal life".

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
You say; Exactly as shown in Acts 13:48 "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed".

And of course again, who had been appointed to eternal life? Those who received Him by faith just as John 1:12 says.

Lets examine to see if I'm wrong.

From another thread, I responded:

"Somebody took issue with my post because I supported the "ordain" rendering.

Even A.T. Robertson would disagree:

"As many as were ordained to eternal life (οσο ησαν τεταγμενο εις ζωην αιωνιον). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of τασσω, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better."

Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Roberson, Acts 13:48, p. 935

However, when we start pursuing this avenue, we come against the same arguments most use when advocating against the KJV. It's old, its antiquated, its outdated, no one uses that language anymore.

And all that is true. However, as long as "ordained" is a faithful rendering, it should still be used.

I cite:

"in the operations of war; whence the law ordains that the general shall give orders to the seer, and not the seer to the general. May we say this, Laches?"

Plato, Laches, Section 199a

Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1955.

I was also accused of not recognizing that the Greek has a "middle voice".

Again, that never came up aon any of my posts.

However, lets address that.

In Herbert Weir Smyth's book: "A Greek Grammar of Colleges, Part VI, Syntax, Active Voice, Middle Voice" he addresses the "middle voice";

He says:

"The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject: λοῦμαι I wash myself."

Ibid

He also cite about seven different cases:

"The Direct Reflexive Middle, The Indirect Reflexive Middle, Active and Reflexive, Middle and Reflexive, The Causative Middle, Reciprocal Middle, Middle Deponents."

In looking at all the definitions given for the middle voice, the only one that even come close to the context of the verse is:

"The Causative Middle: denotes that the subject has something done by another for himself: ““ἐγὼ γάρ σε ταῦτα ἐδιδαξάμην” for I had you taught this” X. C. 1.6.2, παρατίθεσθαι σῖτον to have food served up 8. 6. 12, ὅσοι ὅπλα ἀφῄρηνται, ταχὺ ἄλλα ποιήσονται all who have had their arms taken from them will soon get others made 6. 1. 12, ἑαυτῷ σκηνὴν κατεσκευάσατο he had a tent prepared for himself 2. 1. 30."

Ibid

Here is where we start to run into a problem.

I also have The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, by: Wesley J. Perschbacher.

In it he cites our word as:

"nom, pl., perf., pass., part."

Ibid, p. 405

Which also means that deciding on which "voice", is purely objective.

Here I cite:

"The primary argument revolves around the word τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi) which is a form of the Greek verb tassw (tasso). The verb tasso means to draw up in order, to arrange, assign, fix, determine, appoint, or position. It is a word that is derived from the positioning of units in military order. The verb form in this verse, Tetagmenoi, is in the perfect tense meaning that it implies past action that has ongoing consequences (at least to the time of the writing). It is also part of a phrase that can be taken to be a past perfect (pluperfect) construction. This simply means that it establishes some point in the past (the time of the events in the narrative) and then describe some action prior to that time (tetagmenoi).

This brings us to the crucial part of the argument. If the verb is taken to be in the passive voice, meaning that the subject is receiving rather than doing the action of the verb, then the common translation is preferred. If, however, we understand the verb to be in the middle or reflexive voice, meaning that the subject acts upon themselves and both gives and receives the action of the verb, then Dr. Cottrell’s translation would be preferable. The problem is that τεταγμένοι, could be either middle or passive since the form of the verb would be the same in both cases. Since both the middle and passive renderings of the word are grammatically indistinguishable the decision on which is being used has to be made based upon its usage and context."

Source

In this instance, the Causative Middle fits the description for both the "middle" and "passive".

Looking at the grammatical construction, placing it purely in the middle or reflective does not agree with the scripture. Did the Gentile look back and say "If I believe I can be appointed/ordained?"

The only avenue in this case is to accept both the "Causative Middle" and "passive" as the right rendering.

From the context alone, the Gentiles absolutely played no part in the "arranging, appointing, ordaining".

The Middle voice clearly indicates that that was something that done for them, by something/somebody outside themselves on their behalf.

Furthermore, if you take the Causative middle, then you are also forced to admit that it changes "τεταγμένοι" into what is sometimes seen as a "Causative Verb". In other words, The Gentiles were passive and played not part in their "arrangement, assignment, appointment, position, or ordaining, but the causative verb causes them "to believe". Believing comes as a result of their "arrangement, assignment, appointment, position, or ordaining".

And we also have to be careful here in that while scripture leads us to this conclusion, we cannot say that each and every Gentile that heard the preaching believed.

What we can say from the verse is that of the Gentile audience that attended, those who were "appointed/ordained" to eternal life, believed."

Post #45

Sorry friend.

God Bless

Till all are one.

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

DeaconDean said:
As I shown previously.

Man's choice makes him elect. Not God's. (Typical Arminianism.)
Again, you make my point valid: Problem, nothing of what you mention, specifically Jn. 1:12, is mentioned here. "as many as were "ordained" to eternal life believed." They were "ordained/appointed" to eternal life, and thusly believed. You put the cart before the horse. It does not say: "as many believed were "ordained/appointed" to eternal life".
Sorry. God Bless Till all are one.

Not necessarily, God's choice of election, to as many as receive Him, to them gave He the power to become the children of God. You already have them as His children, and then He would have said, to them He had chose to believe, believed and showed they were already His chosen ones. You still do not see the problem with irresistible grace according to Calvinist, the non elect would have doomed because they were born, we both know that all are born with a sin nature because of papa Adam and wife Eve, so the non elect go to hell because they were born which would make as some would say, a blessing. We could go on with this yo-yo effect, thanks for your replies. :oldthumbsup:

DeaconDean · Jan 8, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
Not necessarily, God's choice of election, to as many as receive Him, to them gave He the power to become the children of God. You already have them as His children, and then He would have said, to them He had chose to believe, believed and showed they were already His chosen ones. You still do not see the problem with irresistible grace according to Calvinist, the non elect would have doomed because they were born, we both know that all are born with a sin nature because of papa Adam and wife Eve, so the non elect go to hell because they were born which would make as some would say, a blessing. We could go on with this yo-yo effect, thanks for your replies.

You are indeed funny too.

Why do people go to the Lake of Fire?

Rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Election says nothing, NOTHING, of them "already have them as His children".

You need to read up and study "Unconditional Election".

I have provided you with sound exegesis of scripture, and you refuse it for your own Arminian doctrines.

God Bless you in your life.

God Bless

Till all are one.

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Lets examine to see if I'm wrong.

From another thread, I responded:

"Somebody took issue with my post because I supported the "ordain" rendering.

Even A.T. Robertson would disagree:

"As many as were ordained to eternal life (οσο ησαν τεταγμενο εις ζωην αιωνιον). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of τασσω, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better."

Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Roberson, Acts 13:48, p. 935

However, when we start pursuing this avenue, we come against the same arguments most use when advocating against the KJV. It's old, its antiquated, its outdated, no one uses that language anymore.

And all that is true. However, as long as "ordained" is a faithful rendering, it should still be used.

I cite:

"in the operations of war; whence the law ordains that the general shall give orders to the seer, and not the seer to the general. May we say this, Laches?"

Plato, Laches, Section 199a

Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1955.

I was also accused of not recognizing that the Greek has a "middle voice".

Again, that never came up aon any of my posts.

However, lets address that.

In Herbert Weir Smyth's book: "A Greek Grammar of Colleges, Part VI, Syntax, Active Voice, Middle Voice" he addresses the "middle voice";

He says:

"The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject: λοῦμαι I wash myself."

Ibid

He also cite about seven different cases:

"The Direct Reflexive Middle, The Indirect Reflexive Middle, Active and Reflexive, Middle and Reflexive, The Causative Middle, Reciprocal Middle, Middle Deponents."

In looking at all the definitions given for the middle voice, the only one that even come close to the context of the verse is:

"The Causative Middle: denotes that the subject has something done by another for himself: ““ἐγὼ γάρ σε ταῦτα ἐδιδαξάμην” for I had you taught this” X. C. 1.6.2, παρατίθεσθαι σῖτον to have food served up 8. 6. 12, ὅσοι ὅπλα ἀφῄρηνται, ταχὺ ἄλλα ποιήσονται all who have had their arms taken from them will soon get others made 6. 1. 12, ἑαυτῷ σκηνὴν κατεσκευάσατο he had a tent prepared for himself 2. 1. 30."

Ibid

Here is where we start to run into a problem.

I also have The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, by: Wesley J. Perschbacher.

In it he cites our word as:

"nom, pl., perf., pass., part."

Ibid, p. 405

Which also means that deciding on which "voice", is purely objective.

Here I cite:

"The primary argument revolves around the word τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi) which is a form of the Greek verb tassw (tasso). The verb tasso means to draw up in order, to arrange, assign, fix, determine, appoint, or position. It is a word that is derived from the positioning of units in military order. The verb form in this verse, Tetagmenoi, is in the perfect tense meaning that it implies past action that has ongoing consequences (at least to the time of the writing). It is also part of a phrase that can be taken to be a past perfect (pluperfect) construction. This simply means that it establishes some point in the past (the time of the events in the narrative) and then describe some action prior to that time (tetagmenoi).

This brings us to the crucial part of the argument. If the verb is taken to be in the passive voice, meaning that the subject is receiving rather than doing the action of the verb, then the common translation is preferred. If, however, we understand the verb to be in the middle or reflexive voice, meaning that the subject acts upon themselves and both gives and receives the action of the verb, then Dr. Cottrell’s translation would be preferable. The problem is that τεταγμένοι, could be either middle or passive since the form of the verb would be the same in both cases. Since both the middle and passive renderings of the word are grammatically indistinguishable the decision on which is being used has to be made based upon its usage and context."

Source

In this instance, the Causative Middle fits the description for both the "middle" and "passive".

Looking at the grammatical construction, placing it purely in the middle or reflective does not agree with the scripture. Did the Gentile look back and say "If I believe I can be appointed/ordained?"

The only avenue in this case is to accept both the "Causative Middle" and "passive" as the right rendering.

From the context alone, the Gentiles absolutely played no part in the "arranging, appointing, ordaining".

The Middle voice clearly indicates that that was something that done for them, by something/somebody outside themselves on their behalf.

Furthermore, if you take the Causative middle, then you are also forced to admit that it changes "τεταγμένοι" into what is sometimes seen as a "Causative Verb". In other words, The Gentiles were passive and played not part in their "arrangement, assignment, appointment, position, or ordaining, but the causative verb causes them "to believe". Believing comes as a result of their "arrangement, assignment, appointment, position, or ordaining".

And we also have to be careful here in that while scripture leads us to this conclusion, we cannot say that each and every Gentile that heard the preaching believed.

What we can say from the verse is that of the Gentile audience that attended, those who were "appointed/ordained" to eternal life, believed."

Post #45

Sorry friend.

God Bless

Till all are one.

A lot of reasoning to come to the same point, one believes that they were saved in this life because had God not elect them by name and made them believe(willing to ease the pain of realty) instead of their believing His words in the scripture and confessing Him as Lord. Or else one believes that God elected all who would receive Him because they believed His word like it says of Abraham, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness. As I said, by string is wearing thin on my yo-yo, I am going to save it for later post on other scripture points that will surely come up later on new posts. Have a great day. :wave:

iwbswiaihl2 · Jan 8, 2018

DeaconDean said:
You are indeed funny too.

Why do people go to the Lake of Fire?

Rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Election says nothing, NOTHING, of them "already have them as His children".

You need to read up and study "Unconditional Election".

I have provided you with sound exegesis of scripture, and you refuse it for your own Arminian doctrines.

God Bless you in your life.

God Bless

Till all are one.

So you say :scratch:

Were they not predestined for hell before they were born not being one of the your elected ones? How could they having been born of escaped hell by not being one of the elect before they were born? Your view does not stand when applied to only those elected by irresistible grace before they were ever born, it must be true to both groups, or is reality to hard to acknowledge?

DeaconDean · Jan 9, 2018

iwbswiaihl said:
So you say Were they not predestined for hell before they were born not being one of the your elected ones? How could they having been born of escaped hell by not being one of the elect before they were born? Your view does not stand when applied to only those elected by irresistible grace before they were ever born, it must be true to both groups, or is reality to hard to acknowledge?

In the first place, do you even know what it means to be "predestinated"?

Nowhere in scripture will you find a reference to people being "predestinated" to hell.

In fact, if you would take the time to read what scriptures say about "predestination", you would see exactly what people are "predestinated" to.

Scripture says we are "predestinated" to:

Adoption (Eph. 1:5)
Obtained an inheritance through predestination (Eph. 1:11)
To be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29)

And that is all it says.

And again, I suggest you read, and/or study to see what the doctrine of election actually says.

And I suggest you read what scripture says about "predestination".

God Bless

Till all are one.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 9, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Nowhere in scripture will you find a reference to people being "predestinated" to hell.

The same for the opposite: no reference to people being predestinated to heaven.

In fact, if you would take the time to read what scriptures say about "predestination", you would see exactly what people are "predestinated" to.

Scripture says we are "predestinated" to:

Adoption (Eph. 1:5)

Obtained an inheritance through predestination (Eph. 1:11)

To be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29)

And that is all it says.

And, for clarity, all 3 are only for believers. iow, predestination begins with the class of humans that are believers.

No one was predestinated before faith for heaven.

And again, I suggest you read, and/or study to see what the doctrine of election actually says.

No kidding. Calvinism has ruined the biblical doctrine of election, which isn't about being chosen for salvation at all.

Here are 2 threads that clarifies what the Bible teaches about election:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-purpose-of-election.8026205/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/election-is-an-appointment-to-service.8043584/

Predestination and Salvation

Pilgrim

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Newbie

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Newbie

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Newbie

Newbie

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Senior Veteran

Similar threads