OSASers must believe that God created human robots!

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

Is it just me or is there a constant here. One of many of course.
There are those who argue they were formerly Calvinists or of the Reformed path, be they any denomination whatever, and yet having come from that prior background they now argue in a manner wherein they don't know what those Calvinist, Reformed doctrinal teachings, said.
They act as if they've no comprehension of the very scriptures that supported and sustained that tradition they claim they were once believers in and part of.
It isn't like foreknowledge is impossible to comprehend. Nor does its meaning alter because someone alters their belief system.

And my favorite, it isn't like all knowing ceases to be omniscient simply because someone says God doesn't know everything and no where in the Bible is it found he does.

My take is, we're not arguing with former Calvinists or those in any denomination born in the Reformation.
If we are then no wonder they left. They didn't feel at home there because they didn't comprehend a thing that was taught.

But isn't that also understandable according to scripture?

 

[Albion]

This question is an insult to the omniscience of God. How can omniscience be "surprised" by anything?

How can it be insulted?

 

[FreeGrace2]

"AS MANY AS HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED" . The bolded words cannot be taken to mean that these people were just chosen for a special task (with no reflection upon their prospects for salvation). You stake your rejection of this on the meaning of "Appointed" as though "Eternal Life" doesn't count for anything.

Actually, it doesn't even mean they were chosen at all.

I guess you skipped over my post #659, which is a thorough explanation of what Acts 13:48 really means.

And your snippy comment about my view of eternal life is just funny. lol

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is it just me or is there a constant here. One of many of course.
There are those who argue they were formerly Calvinists or of the Reformed path, be they any denomination whatever, and yet having come from that prior background they now argue in a manner wherein they don't know what those Calvinist, Reformed doctrinal teachings, said.
They act as if they've no comprehension of the very scriptures that supported and sustained that tradition they claim they were once believers in and part of.
It isn't like foreknowledge is impossible to comprehend. Nor does its meaning alter because someone alters their belief system.

And my favorite, it isn't like all knowing ceases to be omniscient simply because someone says God doesn't know everything and no where in the Bible is it found he does.

My take is, we're not arguing with former Calvinists or those in any denomination born in the Reformation.
If we are then no wonder they left. They didn't feel at home there because they didn't comprehend a thing that was taught.

But isn't that also understandable according to scripture?

Was this addressed to anyone in particular, or is this just another finger exercise?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"This question is an insult to the omniscience of God. How can omniscience be "surprised" by anything?"

How can it be insulted?

If omniscience can be "surprised" by anything, that is an insult to omniscience. Not that difficult.

 

[Albion]

And your snippy comment about my view of eternal life is just funny. lol

Mock laughter is much "snippier" than my pointing out that you had not taken account of the most critically important words in the verse you were assessing.

What I said was that you had passed over it, ignored it, paid it no mind, when giving me your theory on the meaning of that verse. Of course, you had to do that if you hoped to keep your line of argument afloat.

 

[Albion]

If omniscience can be "surprised" by anything, that is an insult to omniscience. Not that difficult.

Omniscience cannot be insulted. Sorry you didn't get that.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Divine foreknowledge is not to appoint some to Heaven and others to Hell. It is TO ANTICIPATE who will be saved and who will not (Jn 3:36)

Anticipate: "to regard as probable; to expect or predict."

This question is an insult to the omniscience of God. How can omniscience be "surprised" by anything?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Mock laughter is much "snippier" than my pointing out that you had not taken account of the most critically important words in the verse you were assessing.

What I said was that you had passed over it, ignored it, paid it no mind, when giving me your theory on the meaning of that verse. Of course, you had to do that if you hoped to keep your line of argument afloat.

OK, let's do a bit of re-set, ok? What you bolded was "ordained to eternal life". I exegeted the word for "ordain", which is tasso, and is NEVER translated as ordain or appoint in any of the other 7 uses in the NT.

I wasn't ignoring eternal life. We all know what that is. But since you bring up eternal life, let's look at how Luke used it to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the Gentiles who were believing. Of the unbelieving Jews, he quoted Paul as telling them that they didn't consider themselves "worthy of eternal life". iow, they weren't interested in hearing what Paul was preaching. In fact, they were rejecting it.

otoh, the Gentiles were "tasso-ing" to eternal life. And I explained what tasso means. They were lining up for it. By eagerly listening to what Paul was preaching. As noted in the context.

If there is disagreement, please be so kind as to explain exactly why and where so. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Omniscience cannot be insulted. Sorry you didn't get that.

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should be. The question was an insult to God's omniscience. Not that it stuck.

Why do people ask phony questions when trying to defend their own view or challenge another's view? It's just a red herring.

 

[Jack Terrence]

OK, let's do a bit of re-set, ok? What you bolded was "ordained to eternal life". I exegeted the word for "ordain", which is tasso, and is NEVER translated as ordain or appoint in any of the other 7 uses in the NT.

I wasn't ignoring eternal life. We all know what that is. But since you bring up eternal life, let's look at how Luke used it to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the Gentiles who were believing. Of the unbelieving Jews, he quoted Paul as telling them that they didn't consider themselves "worthy of eternal life". iow, they weren't interested in hearing what Paul was preaching. In fact, they were rejecting it.

otoh, the Gentiles were "tasso-ing" to eternal life. And I explained what tasso means. They were lining up for it. By eagerly listening to what Paul was preaching. As noted in the context.

You missed that the verb is PASSIVE. This means that the Gentiles were acted upon by an outside agent (God). Example: A shepherd lined up his sheep. The sheep were acted upon by the shepherd.

"Many sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring (line up)."

God his lined up people for eternal life.

"And as many as were lined up (by God) for eternal life believed."

 

[FreeGrace2]

You missed that the verb is PASSIVE. This means that the Gentiles were acted upon by an outside agent (God). Example: A shepherd lined up his sheep. The sheep were acted upon by the shepherd.

Actually, I did not miss it. I addressed it, and you apparently missed the explanation.

"Many sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring (line up)."

God his lined up people for eternal life.

"And as many as were lined up (by God) for eternal life believed."

Except John 10 is not inked contextually to Acts 13:48 in any way. But nice try.

From "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics", by Dan Wallace, on page 410: "Only in the future and aorist tense are there distinct forms for the passive and middle voice. In the present, imperfect, perfect and pluperfect tenses, the middle and passive forms are identical. Although for purposes of arsing, many teachers of Greek allow students to list these as simply middle/passive," for syntactical purposes a choioce needs to be made. This is not always easy and needs to be done on a case-by-case basis."

So, what is the verb TENSE for tasso in Acts 13:48? A perfect participle. Therefore, we must look to the context to determine whether the author meant the middle or passive form of voice. And I demonstrated from the context that Luke meant the middle voice. iow, the Gentiles lined themselves up for eternal life.

Further, God isn't even mentioned in the context. I contrasted 2 Greek words, both translated "ordain/appoint", and cited their occurrences. Only horizo mentions God as the One ordaining/appointing. In fact, none of the other 7 occurrences of tasso are translated as either ordain or appoint. And there is no reason to do so here. In 1 Cor 16:15, tasso is translated as "devoted".

 

[FreeGrace2]

You missed that the verb is PASSIVE. This means that the Gentiles were acted upon by an outside agent (God). Example: A shepherd lined up his sheep. The sheep were acted upon by the shepherd.

btw, A shepherd doesn't "line up" his sheep. He herds them, which is kind of like herding cats.

 

[FreeGrace2]

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So are we to believe that those Gentiles were just lining up for a crack at eternal life through hearing the gospel?

And everyone who got in line believed?

Wow! Billy Graham eat your heart out.

Do you seriously believe that's what that passage is saying?

 

[Hank77]

You missed that the verb is PASSIVE. This means that the Gentiles were acted upon by an outside agent (God). Example: A shepherd lined up his sheep. The sheep were acted upon by the shepherd.

"Many sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring (line up)."

God his lined up people for eternal life.

"And as many as were lined up (by God) for eternal life believed."

Don't we all have to be draw by God in order to receive the Gospel of eternal life through Christ?

Joh 12:32 and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

It was their day to be draw by God and they believed.

 

[nobdysfool]

Is it just me or is there a constant here. One of many of course.
There are those who argue they were formerly Calvinists or of the Reformed path, be they any denomination whatever, and yet having come from that prior background they now argue in a manner wherein they don't know what those Calvinist, Reformed doctrinal teachings, said.
They act as if they've no comprehension of the very scriptures that supported and sustained that tradition they claim they were once believers in and part of.
It isn't like foreknowledge is impossible to comprehend. Nor does its meaning alter because someone alters their belief system.

And my favorite, it isn't like all knowing ceases to be omniscient simply because someone says God doesn't know everything and no where in the Bible is it found he does.

My take is, we're not arguing with former Calvinists or those in any denomination born in the Reformation.
If we are then no wonder they left. They didn't feel at home there because they didn't comprehend a thing that was taught.

But isn't that also understandable according to scripture?

I think you're spot-on in your assessment. I've seen several who claim to be "ex-Calvinists", who then make fools of themselves by making statements and assertions about Calvinism that no Calvinist, current or former, would make, betraying their lack of correct knowledge, and/or their false claims of being former Calvinists. There are some here who are posers, cautious trolls, bent on stirring things up, and preventing resolution. They don't truly know a thing about Calvinism other than they either have been told wrong things about it, or Just hate Calvinism because it's the "smart" thing to do. Jesus called His people "sheep" for a reason....

 

[FreeGrace2]

So are we to believe that those Gentiles were just lining up for a crack at eternal life through hearing the gospel?

Let's consult Scripture, the only expert witness:
Acts 13:44 - The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

Please provide your explanation of what that means, if not the concept of people "lining up" or "arranging themselves" to hear the Word of the Lord.

And everyone who got in line believed?

What does the text say?

Do you seriously believe that's what that passage is saying?

Why would anyone seriously believe that the passage SAYS that God ordained anyone? He wasn't even named in the text.

What do you do with the contrast between the unbelieving Jews and the believing Gentiles with the use of "eternal life". Does that mean nothing?

Rather than a sarcastic response to my explanation, if it can be seriously refuted, please, be my guest. But such sarcasm only reveals one's lack of a real and substantive refutation.

The words tasso occurs 8 times in the NT, which I provided. How many of the other uses are ever translated "ordain/appoint"? None.

Horizo also occurs 8 times in the NT. When God is the One doing the ordaining, He is specifically mentioned.

Luke used horizon 6 times and tasso 5 times, more than any other writer. It would see rather obvious that if he really meant that God ordains people for eternal life he would have used horizo, as he did elsewhere.

Further, I showed that because of the perfect tense of tasso, we know that both the middle and passive voice forms are the SAME in that tense. So, the ONLY way to determine which voice was meant is from the context, for which I proved from v.44 that Luke used tasso in the sense of lining up, or arranging themselves, as v.44 clearly shows.

So, if my view is wrong, instead of sarcasm, how about some actual substance to show that it is wrong. I am well aware of the fact that nearly no one understands or accepts my view. Tough. I've given solid Greek exegesis.

Can you do the same? Everyone who disagrees with me just sticks with the English, with no consideration for the Greek.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Let's consult Scripture, the only expert witness:
Acts 13:44 - The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord....................................

Please provide your explanation of what that means, if not the concept of people "lining up" or "arranging themselves" to hear the Word of the Lord.

The Acts 13:44 verse says exactly what you say it does. They were "assembled" to hear the Word of God.

That's a different Greek word entirely than the one used in vs. 48. Why wouldn't He use the same word if the two concepts discussed were exactly the same thing?

One vs. clearly says they were assemble as we both agree.

The other vs. uses a different word that can be translated "ordained/ lined up". (By the way that's just how I mean the word ordain when I use it. God's ordering of things.)

Further - people were "lining up", if you will, in vs. 44 to hear the Word preached.

Vs. 48 says that they were line up (or ordained) for eternal life- not just to hear the Word of God. That’s a big difference and it’s rather arbitrary of you to try to make them say the same thing.

People don't line up for eternal life. God lines people up for eternal life.

Which is likely why the translators used the word ordained rather than saying lined up when referring to this instance where it was talking about eternal life (which is God's prerogative and a gift from Him).

Besides that, according to your theology, shouldn't it say that all those who "believed" lined up for eternal life rather than those who lined up for eternal life believed?

I thought belief always came before eternal life for you.

Your view seems to be formulated strictly by your prior theology IMO.

It may well be that people with the other viewpoint would be doing the same thing - I suppose.

But, IMO, the stating of the fact that they were ordained to “eternal life” rather than to “hear a sermon” makes all the difference in the world.

Salvation is of the Lord.

I don't think my post was particularly sarcastic really. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

It just seemed so obvious to me, as it does to everyone else, that you were trying so hard to make it fit that it wasn't really necessary to break it down for you.

When it comes to the use of the various Greek tools on your shelf I'll bow to you. Especially since there is nothing in them that proves your point.

The obvious facts stated in the scripture passages do show, however, that you are stretching things more than a little bit to avoid the obvious.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

I think you're spot-on in your assessment. I've seen several who claim to be "ex-Calvinists", who then make fools of themselves by making statements and assertions about Calvinism that no Calvinist, current or former, would make, betraying their lack of correct knowledge, and/or their false claims of being former Calvinists.

It is hard to miss. So too is the fact that were they to pull off their acting the part one would think they'd bother to study a Calvinist website in order to learn something. Before pretending to have left what they claim they knew behind.
I'd add too that it isn't just the false former Calvinists that are obvious. Those who are not Bible literate nor Christian are just as obvious. No Christian argues that God is not God. Bearing the characteristics the Bible tells us God has, God is God. A Christian doesn't argue that not only is God not God but proof God is God isn't in God's word.

There are some here who are posers, cautious trolls, bent on stirring things up, and preventing resolution. They don't truly know a thing about Calvinism other than they either have been told wrong things about it, or Just hate Calvinism because it's the "smart" thing to do. Jesus called His people "sheep" for a reason....

And he recognized wolves for their nature too.
No shepherd invites wolves through the gate into the sheepfold.Not unless they want to let the sheep be threatened for the presence of their natural predatory enemies. There is no profit in it. Unless one wants to raise fat wolves at the expense of their feeding off the sheep.