Twisted Scripture (False Doctrines)

[FreeGrace2]

Oh, well. Your view wasn't even close. I guess we are even.

No, we aren't. I explained WHY your opinion of my view was way off base. You didn't reciprocate. If my opinion of your view isn't close, please enlighten me as to why not.

It was the only thing that jumped out at me to answer. Besides, I figured that if you had any real intention of discussing things, you wouldn't have degraded that part of the discussion to a pithy oned-liner.

I made a lot of points, and you felt the need to pick out just 1 "oned-liner"??

I picked something out of the air, like you did.

There you go again, making false judgments. Maybe you did, but I didn't.

It's only a puppet show if you are being forced to act against your will. When God turns your heart to himself, your will aligns with his.

OK, let's go with this. When God "turns your heart to Himself", was that according to your will, or against your will?

Therefore you are not acting against your will.

I'll withhold judgment until after you answer the question above.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ummm evidently you missed the whole point of going with the flow of your gross misrepresentation (and strawman) puppet trope.

Gee, and I just thought you were being honest.

Uhhhh where did I make that claim? You're the one inserting the puppet show into Scripture, when you said; "Pretty much just a puppet show, then."

Here's the deal. If God chooses to regenerate people who neither want it or asked for it, which then causes them to believe in Christ, when they would never do that if not regenerated, how is that not quite similar to a puppeteer pulling the strings on his puppets?

Calvinism claims that no one seeks God. So how do people come to God? He regenerates certain ones, which by DEFINITION is against their wills.

I surely can explain! In your view, God does nothing but wait, wait for man to respond before He (can and or will) do anything, in this way man is pulling on the string crying "save me", and God responds.

Thanks for trying. But, let's unpack this tangled mess.

First, the Bible indicates that God waits, so your initial salvo is irrelevant.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Second, your snide insinuation that God cannot "do anything" until man responds is simply ridiculous. There is no such limitation on God. But certainly God DOES wait until man responds to His promise. If that is not Biblically true, please prove it from Scripture.

Third, rather than your warped view of man pulling strings for God to save him simply ignores what Scripture says. God promises eternal life, which is based on faith. Please refute that from Scripture if you disagree.

So, rather than man pulling any strings, God already made the promise and when man responds to that promise, God fulfills His promise. So you've got it completely backward.

For your opinion of my view to be intellectually honest, man would have to be the initiator and "demand" that God save him on his own terms.

But that is NOT my view, nor Scripture's. God set up the terms; faith in Christ. All man can to is respond. Hardly pulling any strings.

If man decides how he will be saved, then man would be pulling strings.

So your opinion of my view is way off track. Not even close.

It is the result of synergism at the very beginning of the ordo salutis, a view that does not even take into account what the Scriptures tell us about election, predestination, and the omniscience of God.

See above for reality.

Are auto companies uncaused? No. Is the manufacturing of alchohol uncaused? No. Is the legalization of alchohol consumption uncaused? No. Are irresponsible people uncaused? No. Are drunk drivers uncaused? No. Everything you have mentioned has a cause.

So, who do YOU blame for drunk driver auto wrecks? The driver, the auto company, the beer maker? Who?

Now if you could just explain how the FIRST cause did not make these SECONDARY causes possible (all while knowing them), maybe we might get somewhere.

"Making possible" is a ridiculous argument. Please answer the question about who YOU blame for drunk driver auto wrecks.

Here's another scenario. A person commits cold blood murder. Who is to blame, the murderer, or his parents, who "caused" him?

 

[A New Dawn]

Some (many?) scholars maintain the "that" refers to the whole of the fact of being saved by grace through faith. IOW, "being saved" is the "gift," not faith.

If it refers to the whole fact of being saved by grace through faith, then faith is a necessary part of it. It can't be part of the whole and still be separate.

Many of us see, e.g., John 1:12-13 showing that *first* we believe and receive, THEN we are regenerated, born of God, "saved."

And Acts 13 says differently.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Being ordained to eternal life was the cause of belief.

John 1:11 doesn't speak to when regeneration takes place, and that is important. There is an order to the events of salvation, even though they happen almost instantaneously.

Regeneration is the cause of the belief, but ordination is the forerunner to regeneration. This is how I see the order of salvation.

Ordained from the foundation of the world
Creation and fall
The elect are given to Christ to be saved
We hear the gospel
Our hearts are regenerated
Faith is given (we believe)
We are justified

Since the Bible is clear that our sinful nature's hold on us is too powerful, there are none who can seek Christ without first being regenerated, which helps us to push back on that sinful nature (Romans 3). It also shows that believing cannot come before regeneration because we can't seek for Christ.

The problem with just quoting one verse out of the Bible to prove your point is that the Bible has to be used as a complete work. There are too many passages that say that, without the work of the HS on us first, we cannot do it on our own. That is the whole point of needing a savior. IF we could do it on our own, we wouldn't need Christ. The law would be sufficient for us.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And Acts 13 says differently.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Being ordained to eternal life was the cause of belief.

That is an opinion only. It cannot be determined from the context or text.

 

[A New Dawn]

That is an opinion only. It cannot be determined from the context or text.

As many as were ordained to eternal life believed doesn't mean that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed? The text lays out a very obviously plain cause to effect. It can't be any plainer!

Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon church) changed it when he re-wrote the NT to say "And as many as believed were ordained to eternal life." (Putting belief before ordination.)

It's pretty clear that the two are vastly different statements. For you to believe that faith comes first, you'd have to agree with Joseph Smith.

 

[A New Dawn]

OK, let's go with this. When God "turns your heart to Himself", was that according to your will, or against your will?

You know, most of Christianity believes that God has to intervene, somehow, in the process or man would not be able to come to him. The place where Calvinists and Arminians generally differ is to whether man has the will to choose to respond to that intervention. You just don't believe that at all, do you? Because that is where you seem to be hung up. You seem to feel that man can make the first move, even though the scriptures are clear that we can't. If man can do it all on his own, if he can summon up faith where none exists and can beat down the demons inside him, why does he need a savior?

 

[nobdysfool]

What does man's will have to do with it, FG2? Even if God makes the man do something against his will. for his own good, to save his life, to rescue him from certain damnation, are you seriously going to argue that it's a bad thing?

Those of us who have children know that we must intervene when kids are going to do something that will harm them, or kill them. If it's so bad to make someone do something against their will, then should the parent let the kid kill or injure themselves? Going by what it appears your logic is, the answer would have to be "yes".

Since when did complicity in man's will become a necessary factor, and an uncrossable barrier to God in doing as He Wills with His Creation?

 

[Bro in Christ]

If christ loved us first ... How could we be regenerated.... ?

 

[FreeGrace2]

As many as were ordained to eternal life believed doesn't mean that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed? The text lays out a very obviously plain cause to effect. It can't be any plainer!

It's not the English that's important, but what the Greek really says, that is.

The root meaning of the word "tasso" means to arrange in order, or line up, as in a military setting.
tassō

1) to put in order, to station
1a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
1a1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one
1b) to appoint, ordain, order
1b1) to appoint on one’s own responsibility or authority
1b2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

13:44 clearly indicates the interest of the Gentiles in hearing what Paul was preaching. And fulfills the meaning of 'tasso'.

Second, in the tense of 'tasso' is perfect participle. As such, both the middle and passive voice are the same form, so one cannot just look at a lexicon to determine which voice. In these cases, one must look at the context to determine whether middle or passive.

I believe that 13:44 determines that the Gentiles "lined themselves up" the next Sabbath to hear Paul preach, and therefore Luke used 'tasso' in the middle voice.

There is no contextual evidence to conclude that God ordained anyone to eternal life. In fact, Luke quoted Paul to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the believing Gentiles, and used "eternal life" in both.

Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon church) changed it when he re-wrote the NT to say "And as many as believed were ordained to eternal life." (Putting belief before ordination.)

Who really cares what Joe Smith did? Why did you think this was relevant to anything? Please consider the Greek.

It's pretty clear that the two are vastly different statements. For you to believe that faith comes first, you'd have to agree with Joseph Smith.

I'm NOT arguing that faith comes first from Acts 13:48. I am arguing that the Gentiles lined themselves up (middle voice) to hear Paul.

If you are interested in where Scripture teaches that faith comes first, look no further than Eph 2:5 and 8. In v.5, Paul equates "being made alive" with being "saved". In v.8 we see that faith precedes salvation. Bingo!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
OK, let's go with this. When God "turns your heart to Himself", was that according to your will, or against your will?
To which you responded:

You know, most of Christianity believes that God has to intervene, somehow, in the process or man would not be able to come to him. The place where Calvinists and Arminians generally differ is to whether man has the will to choose to respond to that intervention. You just don't believe that at all, do you? Because that is where you seem to be hung up.

Why all the phoney deflection? Can't you answer my question? My view is that God has already "intervened" by revealing Himself to everyone, so that no one has an excuse (Ro 1:19-20), and that God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27).

So please don't accuse me of not believing that God "has to intervene". I'm WAY ahead of you on that one.

Now, are you going to answer my question, please?

You seem to feel that man can make the first move, even though the scriptures are clear that we can't.

Again, read what I just posted above, and acknowledge that you erred and mischaracterized my view.

If man can do it all on his own, if he can summon up faith where none exists and can beat down the demons inside him, why does he need a savior?

Irrelevant and smokescreen, as I've just refuted your mischaracterization of my view.

Now, please, answer my question. iow, quit dodging.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What does man's will have to do with it, FG2? Even if God makes the man do something against his will. for his own good, to save his life, to rescue him from certain damnation, are you seriously going to argue that it's a bad thing?

YES, I am, because the Bible does NOT teach that. No one from the reformed camp has ever provided any evidence from Scripture to support what you are claiming here.

And it isn't man's will that's the issue. That's a phony red herring. As if by man's will, he saves himself. Nonsense.

God created mankind to seek Him, and God didn't fail at His creation. So that means that man is able to seek Him. Especially since God has also revealed Himself to everyone. No one has an excuse for not seeking Him.

So, when the gospel is presented to a person, they are free to either respond to God's promise of eternal life through faith in Christ, or they are free to reject it. But that seems to bother Calvinists, for no discernable reason. And the Bible does teach that man is responsible for believing and accountable for not believing.

If you think otherwise, can you refute this from Scripture?

Those of us who have children know that we must intervene when kids are going to do something that will harm them, or kill them. If it's so bad to make someone do something against their will, then should the parent let the kid kill or injure themselves? Going by what it appears your logic is, the answer would have to be "yes".

Oh, please, yer just pullin' on my heart strings over the little tykes!! The glaring problem is that the RT view has God saving only a small segment of humanity, allowing all the other ones to actually harm themselves and die eternally. So please spare me the theatrics of your ditty.

Since when did complicity in man's will become a necessary factor, and an uncrossable barrier to God in doing as He Wills with His Creation?

Huh? Since I never said anything about "complicity in man's will becoming a necessary factor", I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Please rephrase. Seems to be just another red herring.

 

[A New Dawn]

It's not the English that's important, but what the Greek really says, that is.

The root meaning of the word "tasso" means to arrange in order, or line up, as in a military setting.
tassō

1) to put in order, to station
1a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
1a1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one
1b) to appoint, ordain, order
1b1) to appoint on one’s own responsibility or authority
1b2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

13:44 clearly indicates the interest of the Gentiles in hearing what Paul was preaching. And fulfills the meaning of 'tasso'.

Second, in the tense of 'tasso' is perfect participle. As such, both the middle and passive voice are the same form, so one cannot just look at a lexicon to determine which voice. In these cases, one must look at the context to determine whether middle or passive.

I believe that 13:44 determines that the Gentiles "lined themselves up" the next Sabbath to hear Paul preach, and therefore Luke used 'tasso' in the middle voice.

There is no contextual evidence to conclude that God ordained anyone to eternal life. In fact, Luke quoted Paul to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the believing Gentiles, and used "eternal life" in both.


Who really cares what Joe Smith did? Why did you think this was relevant to anything? Please consider the Greek.


I'm NOT arguing that faith comes first from Acts 13:48. I am arguing that the Gentiles lined themselves up (middle voice) to hear Paul.

If you are interested in where Scripture teaches that faith comes first, look no further than Eph 2:5 and 8. In v.5, Paul equates "being made alive" with being "saved". In v.8 we see that faith precedes salvation. Bingo!

Firstly, I am not studied in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin. I know some basic German, maybe enough to get by on vacation in Germany, but certainly not enough to call it fluent. I, personally, don't feel I need to be fluent in any of the Biblical languages to understand the written word. That is the job of the translators. I read the various translations and the commentaries to understand the context and background of the passage and form my beliefs that I feel God has given me from them. So, sorry, I am not going to get into "this word means this and that word means that" type of arguments. If we can't read it and understand it with some basic help, then God is doing a really bad job of getting His word across. AND it seems, at times, that those who do that do so to find alternate explanations for what it really says, so it fits in with what they want to believe.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

Secondly, I am not sure I am understanding what verse 44 has to do with anything. What does the gentiles lining up to hear Paul's voice have to do with those who were ordained for salvation, believing?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Firstly, I am not studied in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin. I know some basic German, maybe enough to get by on vacation in Germany, but certainly not enough to call it fluent.

Guten morgen, A New Dawn!

I'm not either, but I do study Greek grammar texts and lexicons, for the meaning of words. Greek and English are not equal, and the Greek is quite inflective, which provides additional meaning and nuance to the words. We do need to be aware of that.

I, personally, don't feel I need to be fluent in any of the Biblical languages to understand the written word. That is the job of the translators. I read the various translations and the commentaries to understand the context and background of the passage and form my beliefs that I feel God has given me from them. So, sorry, I am not going to get into "this word means this and that word means that" type of arguments. If we can't read it and understand it with some basic help, then God is doing a really bad job of getting His word across.

Or, maybe some of the translators haven't done the best job. God only wrote the originals, which were perfect. The good news is that given all the various translations, along with grammar texts and lexicons, we can get a very good understanding of the texts.

AND it seems, at times, that those who do that do so to find alternate explanations for what it really says, so it fits in with what they want to believe.

Yes, happens all the time, on all sides of every argument.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

That would be the ideal.

Secondly, I am not sure I am understanding what verse 44 has to do with anything. What does the gentiles lining up to hear Paul's voice have to do with those who were ordained for salvation, believing?

Again, the root meaning of "tasso", translated "ordained" means to line up, arrange in order. I gave the meaning, but it seems you aren't keen on lexicons, and would rather stick with the English. Unfortunately.

v.44 tells us that on the next Sabbath, "nearly the whole town" showed up to hear Paul. Does that indicate interest, or not? That verse clearly supports the real meaning of 'tasso' as "line up, arrange in order", and I pointed out from Greek grammar that the tense for 'tasso' is the same voice form for both middle and passive. That means we have to look at the context to determine whether the writer meant middle voice (subject completed the action on themselves) or passive voice (someone else completed the action on the subject). I pointed out that the context (esp v.44) indicated that the writer meant middle voice.

iow, the Gentiles lined up to hear Paul and as a result of hearing him, they believed.

Nothing here about God choosing (ordaining) anyone for eternal life.

My view is based on what the word means and grammar rules.

There are translations that render 'tasso' as "disposed".

 

[A New Dawn]

Again, the root meaning of "tasso", translated "ordained" means to line up, arrange in order. I gave the meaning, but it seems you aren't keen on lexicons, and would rather stick with the English. Unfortunately.

v.44 tells us that on the next Sabbath, "nearly the whole town" showed up to hear Paul. Does that indicate interest, or not? That verse clearly supports the real meaning of 'tasso' as "line up, arrange in order", and I pointed out from Greek grammar that the tense for 'tasso' is the same voice form for both middle and passive. That means we have to look at the context to determine whether the writer meant middle voice (subject completed the action on themselves) or passive voice (someone else completed the action on the subject). I pointed out that the context (esp v.44) indicated that the writer meant middle voice.

iow, the Gentiles lined up to hear Paul and as a result of hearing him, they believed.

Nothing here about God choosing (ordaining) anyone for eternal life.

My view is based on what the word means and grammar rules.

There are translations that render 'tasso' as "disposed".

I think that is a pretty far fetched "translation". It is quite clear that you differ from the professional translators on the subject, and I have to wonder why. Not one of the ancient or modern translations suggest that "lined up" to hear Paul was what was indeed indicated where the word was translated as "ordained" in every instance. So, perhaps my comment about the motive behind choosing a specific translation, especially when it differs from all the historic and modern translations, provided by people who have studied this most of their lives, comes into play.

Besides, people line up to hear preachers all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with interest sparked by the HS. Many do it because they have to, it's expected of them, they want to go to see if they can find errors with it, etc., etc.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think that is a pretty far fetched "translation".

There is no reason to have that thought. I've given you the actual meaning of the word and supported the grammar by the context. Maybe your thought is driven by external factors, unrelated to the text.

It is quite clear that you differ from the professional translators on the subject, and I have to wonder why.

When was the KJV translated? When Calvinism had sway. It's not at all uncommon for translators to just "go with the flow" at times. However, there are translations that don't use either "ordain" or "appoint".

My interlinear Greek translates the verse this way:
"And hearing the nations rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed as many as were having been disposed to life eternal".

From "The Interlinear NIV; parallel NT in Greek and English", by Alfred Marshall.

Here are the meanings of 'tasso' from my "Analytical Greek Lexicon":
to arrange, to set, appint, in a certain station (Luk 7:8, Rom 13:1,), to set, devote, to a pursuit (1 Cor 16:15), to dispose, frame, for an object (Acts 13:48), to arrange or appoint place or time (Acts 22:10), to allot, assign, to settle, decide (Acts 15:2).

The word occurs 8 times in the NT; Luke used it 6 of those time. None of the other usages used either appoint or ordain. So those words aren't the "gold standard" for 'tasso', by any means.

But without the help of lexicons, interlinears, and the like, one simply would not know. And some simply like the translation that seems to fit their theology.

I've given solid reason for what 'tasso' means in Acts 13:48, and my "Analytical Greek Lexicon" supports the word "dispose". God certainly doesn't dispose people. They dispose themselves, and the middle voice is supported by v.44.

Not one of the ancient or modern translations suggest that "lined up" to hear Paul was what was indeed indicated where the word was translated as "ordained" in every instance.

How about arranged themselves. That perfectly fits the context. And it is incorrect that ordain was used in 'every instance'.

Out of 46 English translations, 19 used other words.

For example, the word "chosen for eternal life", which cannot be defended from any lexicon, was used 8 times.

"had been prepared" used 1 time.
"were destined" used 5 times.
"who were designated" used 1 time.
"as many as wanted eternal life" used 1 time. (not bad, but not what 'tasso' means.
"marked out" used 1 time.
"had been prepared" used 1 time.

So you see, in over 40% of translations, they used words that do NOT mean 'tasso' in any way. That's why we must consult lexicons, to see what the semantic meaning range is for a specific word.

In 1 Cor 16:15, 'tasso' is translated as "devoted". How is that related to ordain?

And if the basic meaning of 'tasso' means ordained, how come NONE of the other 7 uses translates it that way?

[QUOTE3] So, perhaps my comment about the motive behind choosing a specific translation, especially when it differs from all the historic and modern translations, provided by people who have studied this most of their lives, comes into play.

As I've shown, I haven't used any specific translation. I used a lexicon, which gives the RANGE of meanings, and my lexicon ascribes "disposed" to 'tasso'.

iow, the Gentiles were disposed to eternal life.

Besides, people line up to hear preachers all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with interest sparked by the HS.

While true, totally irrelevant to the context.

Many do it because they have to, it's expected of them, they want to go to see if they can find errors with it, etc., etc.

Again, totally irrelevant.

I've given you solid reasoning from a Greek lexicon and grammar texts. And since none of the other 7 verses containing 'tasso' have either 'ordain' or 'appoint', there is no reason to force either of those words onto Acts 13:48.

 

[extraordinary]

The jailer asked what he MUST DO to be saved,
and Paul's answer was to believe.
That is a condition. Faith.

Try to look at it this way ...

If God gives His free gift of grace-faith to a person,
he is now able to believe ... and does so unto salvation.

But, to be saved still depends on the condition that he believes
... no matter how his believing (his faith) was accomplished.
.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Try to look at it this way ...

If God gives His free gift of grace-faith to a person,
he is now able to believe ... and does so unto salvation.

But, to be saved still depends on the condition that he believes
... no matter how his believing (his faith) was accomplished.
.

But there are no verses to support the idea that man is unable to believe what God promises. In fact, just the opposite. Many verses that tells man how to be saved. Just as the jailer asked.

If this "grace-faith" is a gift, by which man CAN and will believe, why didn't Paul include that in his answer? Because it's not part of the answer.

God has given mankind everything he needs to respond to His promise. Some will and many won't.

 

[Bro in Christ]

Not according to 2 cor 4:3-6 ... disagrees with you

 

[sdowney717]

Not according to 2 cor 4:3-6 ... disagrees with you

Excellent passage!

God has shone in our hearts. God has commanded the light to shine in 'our' hearts, those who are saved. His command is eternal life to the sheep.

6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Contrast that with those who are perishing

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For those who are perishing, the gospel is veiled, who Satan has blinded, lest the light of the gospel shine on them.

This is very much in agreement with Jesus and the parable of the sower, Satan snatching the word.
And Jesus rejoicing here in Luke 10

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

23 Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see; 24 for I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”

Blessed indeed are those to whom God reveals Himself.

"To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
And "Who has believed our report?"

The ones who believe are the ones Jesus has chosen for them to know Him.

 

[shturt678s]

The only part of the equation missing so far is for those that have not an agape for the Truth will have a forever problem to think about why they didn't have an agape for the Truth when it was put right before them in light of IIThess.2:10b sort of thing.

Old Jack,

btw I don't have that Truth.