A new spin on Predestination

[Romanbear]

Geebob;
There are two as near as I can figure, which I didn't know before. You dig around long enough and you never know what you'll find. Here they are. I believe it depends in what sense of gramar dictates which one is to be used. Although I must confess I'm no Greek Schollar. I can be wrong. But neither means to "destine" or "predestinate" according to Strongs

kathistēmi

kath-is'-tay-mee
---------------------------

histēmi

his'-tay-mee

In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[geebob]

okay thanks.

It wasn't what I was thinking of.

I was wondering if this was the same word in acts 13:48

at any rate, that word is tasso

For any free will theist interested in this, there's an arguement showing that the word means "disposed" or "directed" found at the following website:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ashursta/cdonntl/addedinf/disposd1.htm

I recently sent this link to a doctorate candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school (which is a predominantly calvinist school) who's masters is in greek. He says it's a great arguement.



Well, to whom it may concern, This will probably be my last post here even though I just started. I found that I'm going to be too buisy with school to be participating in debate forums. I have a heavy reading list which I should start as soon as my finals are over and I have to study for CLEP tests which I have to pass soon if I'm going to graduate on time. I'm going to eventually limit my time at theologyweb where I typically post in only there non-debate Q&A forum (theology 101) and prayer forum (chaplain's office).

So if anyone wants to know why I don't answer any more questions about my posts, that's why.

 

[nobdysfool]

okay thanks.

It wasn't what I was thinking of.

I was wondering if this was the same word in acts 13:48

at any rate, that word is tasso

For any free will theist interested in this, there's an arguement showing that the word means "disposed" or "directed" found at the following website:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ashursta/cdonntl/addedinf/disposd1.htm

I recently sent this link to a doctorate candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school (which is a predominantly calvinist school) who's masters is in greek. He says it's a great arguement.



Well, to whom it may concern, This will probably be my last post here even though I just started. I found that I'm going to be too buisy with school to be participating in debate forums. I have a heavy reading list which I should start as soon as my finals are over and I have to study for CLEP tests which I have to pass soon if I'm going to graduate on time. I'm going to eventually limit my time at theologyweb where I typically post in only there non-debate Q&A forum (theology 101) and prayer forum (chaplain's office).

So if anyone wants to know why I don't answer any more questions about my posts, that's why.

Sorry to see you go, Geebob. Even if we disagree, it is still good to talk about the word, is it not? Blessings for your studies and education!

I checked out the website you linked, and I think there is one problem with it. The writer is engaging in what is known as "begging the question", in that he starts with the assumption that the way it has been translated by every major bible translation, including the KJV, cannot mean what it says, because of an assumption about a related doctrine. So, the writer is attempting to force the translation of tasso in this verse to agree with his previously-held assumption about God's Will concerning salvation.

This is not good biblical scholarship. The honest and scholarly way to deal with such things would be to let the words speak for themselves, and produce the translation that best fits the context and subject being addressed, and if there appears to be conflict with other scripture, then study should be employed to ascertain whether or not, in fact, the other scriptures have been wrongly interpreted, and that study should continue until one can see a unified agreement between the verse in question and other verses. One does not use one verse as a starting point and force all other verses to agree with the first, one should endeavor to find an understanding which allows all of the verses to stand together.

God's Word is constructed in such a way that you have to dig sometimes to clear up what appear to be contradictory ideas, which is designed to point you back to Him for proper understanding. The Holy spirit is the teacher, not universities, scholars, and theologians who may have a great deal of knowledge, but are still fallible and flawed. The Holy Spirit suffers from none of those failings. Real Truth is liberating and refreshing, and once seen, is so simple and logical.

I do not mean to put down anyone, just pointing out that the author of that website's writings starts from an assumption, and then tries to translate Acts 13:48 in suich a way that it agrees with his previously-held assumption. He's begging the question.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Heya guys, my first post here in this area. I just wanted to kinda share my own spin on how i view predestination. I don't THINK I'm a calvinist, though i guess i share that same thought as them. Well here it goes..

We all have the freewill to do anything we want. Take posting a reply to this topic as an example. God gave you the freewill to reply or not to reply. But God also somehow brought you here. God knew that when you saw this topic, you would use that freewill and come on in and read this. He knew it before you did it. Heck, He even planned for me to post this here so you COULD click on it. You could have used that freewill and NOT have come in here, and people will probably dot that, but that TOO is in God's plan because he knew that they wouldn't read this. BUT, God in no way affects your decision in this process. He doesn't FORCE you to come in, he just knew you would. And in the same way, He doesn't FORCE anyone from not reading this, he just knew that some people wouldn't.

Does that make sense? Is it any different than the 'normal' view? If anyone sees any MAJOR theological flaws in this, please tell me. Constructive criticism is more than welcomed.

You are proceeding from the assumption that because everyone has a free will, therefore everyone can hear the message. Maybe not. The fallen spirit of man does not have the ability to perceive spiritual things. It is dead.

I.E. you have free will to go to the far side of the moon. But free will is meaningless if you have no means to get there.

There is also the concept that: the only people who can hear the message are the ones that the messenger determines will hear it. If he does not talk to you, then free will is of little use to you. You will not receive it regardless of how free your will is.

I recall having read the Bible and heard salvation preached many times prior my being saved. I was even confirmed in the church with catechism. But until He opened my eyes, I did not see it.

 

[Patristic]

Actually, the Greek verb tasso's more normal meaning is arranged. In Classical Greek the verb was used to describe the placement and ordering of military troops and infantry. Unfortunately, virtually every translation goes by the Latin translation where Jerome chose the Latin word praeordinati, which means to ordain beforehand. I personally like translating the verb directly from the Greek according to it's most natural meaning, saying, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were arranged into eternal life believed." I know it's a little awkward, but the in the Greek it reads and sounds nice and it is the most natural and literal meaning of the text.

 

[preston08]

God is all knowing. PERIOD

To God, there is no time. He already knows what is happening on earth in a thousand years, because he is there. God is timeless... which also means whenever we sin TODAY... he is feeling the pain of our sins on the cross.

I think what I am saying is right...can anyone prove me wrong? (I am really asking)

 

[geebob]

back for a bit, but will still be gone for an indefinite period of time.

nbdy's fool,

begging the question is when your conclusion is explicitley in the premises of your arguement. (in dedective reasoning, the conclusion is always implicitely in the premises)

The conclusion of that website is that the passage in acts is not about predestination. that was not a premise.



preston

God is all knowing. PERIOD

This is true, God is all knowing, and if the future is open such that more than one outcome is truly possible and it is not true that some of what may happen tomorrow is settled, then God is not ignorant of that fact but knows it just as any perfectly omniscient knower would know it, as unsettled and open.

To God, there is no time.

Of course there is time to God. Scriipture clearly shows God acting in temporal sequence. God plans, remembers, redeems, incarnates himself and so on. All of these actions involve the active agent in a sequence from before to after thus they are things only temporal entities can perform.

He already knows what is happening on earth in a thousand years, because he is there.

But tomorrow isn't there. How can God be somewhere that doesn't exist? Or how can he be somewhere that doesn't exist to be inhabited. To be certain, tomorrow will exist and God will be there, but what you've suggested doesn't mean anything.

which also means whenever we sin TODAY... he is feeling the pain of our sins on the cross.

Certainly sin grieves the Lord, but of the Cross, our Lord said "it is finished".

 

[preston08]

I have read somewhere that God is timeless..

oh well, these types of things do not really apply to us, I was just making theories. One cannot understand God.

 

[geebob]

I have read somewhere that God is timeless..

That's because this has been the predominant view amongst the greatest minds in church history. But the view does not originate in scripture. It can be traced back to greek philosophy which the church fathers saught to use to articulate the christian faith. That is not something that I would fault them with and as a matter of fact, they should be commended for applying the best thinking available to them to try to understand the Christian faith, but in this project, it is not the case that they always made the best decisions.

It's also popular for evangelicals to affirm that God is timeless though they don't really believe that doctrine as they don't have a clue as to what it means. Alot of evangelicals have their view of timelessness more informed by doc brown than by the great minds of the church.

oh well, these types of things do not really apply to us, I was just making theories. One cannot understand God.

on the contrary, scripture revelation has been given to us because God is capable of giving understanding to his creatures whom he was capable of creating with the ability to understand much about him (and in fact did so).

Of course much about God is mysterious, and much about God that we know leads to more questions, but that doesn't imply at all that we don't know or understand anything about him. If that was the case, we might as well close down all the discussion forums.

 

[frumanchu]

This is true, God is all knowing, and if the future is open such that more than one outcome is truly possible and it is not true that some of what may happen tomorrow is settled, then God is not ignorant of that fact but knows it just as any perfectly omniscient knower would know it, as unsettled and open.

If all future is unsettled and open, then please explain God's absolute accuracy in prophesy. If only some of the future is unsettled and open, please explain the distinguishing factor.

God knows with absolute certainty what you will do 5 minutes, 5 days, and 5 years from now. There is no guessing.

Of course there is time to God. Scriipture clearly shows God acting in temporal sequence. God plans, remembers, redeems, incarnates himself and so on. All of these actions involve the active agent in a sequence from before to after thus they are things only temporal entities can perform.

There is a difference between logical order and temporal order. Time is defined in measurable increments. Time is relative based on an established and agreed upon increment. Logical order is concerned only with before and after, or cause and effect. The distance between the two makes no difference.

But tomorrow isn't there. How can God be somewhere that doesn't exist? Or how can he be somewhere that doesn't exist to be inhabited. To be certain, tomorrow will exist and God will be there, but what you've suggested doesn't mean anything.

You are defining existence by your own perception. Since you have not preceived of tomorrow except in the abstract, to you it has not happened yet and therefore does not exist. Prophesy is one obvious, Scriptural indication that that which has "not yet happened" is in fact knowable with absolute certainty by God.

 

[geebob]

If all future is unsettled and open, then please explain God's absolute accuracy in prophesy. If only some of the future is unsettled and open, please explain the distinguishing factor.

It isn't the case that all of the future is open. No open theist (who knows what he's talking about) would say such a thing.

Some of the future is closed because it has been determined by God or some part of God's creation. The distinguishing factor is determination. Determinism says it all happens at the beginning or always from the infinite past. INdeterminism says things become determined as time goes on, (thus not all things have yet been determined.

God knows with absolute certainty what you will do 5 minutes, 5 days, and 5 years from now. There is no guessing.

He doesn't have to geuss. He can let the universe decide or he can decide it himself. But he can geuss because a geuss is a logically possible options and since God is omnipotent... (jer 3:7)

There is a difference between logical order and temporal order.

And scripture doesn't present God working in just logical order.

Time is defined in measurable increments. Time is relative based on an established and agreed upon increment.

and that's not what I'm interested in. Perhaps physicists are, but it is irrelevent for my purposes. What matters is a temporal sequnce from before to after and tensed truths. Tensed Truths accurately describe reality and God accurately knows the tenses of truths and since these truths change and change in tense, God's knowledge of them places him solidly in a framework of presentism since he expereinces the temporal progression from before to after.

Logical order is concerned only with before and after

and not always in a temporal way thus not always capturing the scriptural picture.

You are defining existence by your own perception.

I'm not a skeptic about reality and my perceptions of it. Perceptions often depict reality accurately. But if we should be so skeptical, perhaps your just a brain in a vat with electrodes attached feeding you information, such as taste, sight, pressure, the "movement of the Holy Spirit," evidence of the love of God, the scriptures you visually read, and so on. And yes perceptions can mislead, but if they were never accurate, we'd never be able to tell that they were deceaved. The experience of the present as special is more fundamental to our experience than many of those other perceptions.

I also trust in the goodness of God to create us with a sufficient degree of accuracy in percieving our world as it is.

I also trust this perspective as it is the one which so powerfully plays a role in the scriptural portarayal of God.

Prophesy is one obvious, Scriptural indication that that which has "not yet happened" is in fact knowable with absolute certainty by God.

This has little to do with whether or not the future exists. Theological determinism coheres perfectly with presentism (the view that the presentis ontologically special)