|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 11:21:40 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 626
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.
ARBITRARY, a. [L. arbitrarious.]
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.
2. Despotic; absolute in power; having no external control; as, an arbitrary prince or government.
George Washington once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect without partiality and with out choosing arbitrarily?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 12:22:29 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.
ARBITRARY, a. [L. arbitrarious.]
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.
2. Despotic; absolute in power; having no external control; as, an arbitrary prince or government.
George Washington once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect without partiality and with out choosing arbitrarily?
According to Ephesians 1:4-5, it seems like He doesn't, and that this is the whole point. "4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
The criteria is "the purpose of his will."
God "mercies whom He wills and hardens whom He wills" (Romans 9:18).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 1:11:22 AM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. – Acts 13:47-48
quote:
Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16. Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48. Also note that Luke compared the unbelieving Jews, whom Paul charged them as judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, with the Gentiles who in the context had begged Paul to return to speak again (v.43,44). Tasso is passive voice, meaning the action is done to the subject, but there are many scholars who note that many times the ancients used passive voices in place of middle voices. Mark 1:6 is a perfect example. It speaks of John the baptizer "was dressed in camel hair" and is in the passive voice. Would you interpret that as his mommy came out in the desert each morning and dressed her little boy? Of course not. Do you think he had a butler like Prince Charles who dressed him? Of course not. So, it is clear from Mark 1:6 that Mark used a passive voice as a middle voice, which indicates the subject performs the action on himself. So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life. I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but is it really feasible that just because you found an example in Mark of a passive voice used as a middle that Luke was doing the same thing in this passage? I am the first to admit that I am not a Greek Scholar and perhaps shouldn't even comment, but something about this explanation seems really forced. (It seems from your smiley that even you sighed with the heaviness of having to explain it) I again used the tools I have available here at crosswalk and looked at all 8 instances where "tasso" is used in Scripture.
Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Lu 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Ac 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
Ac 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Ac 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Ac 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Ro 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
1Co 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
From what I can gather in looking at these verses the only other case in which the subject "tassoes??" themselves, it is clearly shown that they themselves are doing it. (By the simple use of the pronoun - themselves) To get that from Acts 13:48 you have to do a lot a "stretching" as I see it. Again, I am not trying to create an angry response or set myself up as an authority. I'm just saying that your explanation doesn't even seem like something you could ever arrive at by just reading the text. Even if you were reading it in the original Greek your first impulse would be to think that they were "appointed" by someone else. That does seem to be, after all, the way the word is most commonly used and in the case where it is not used that way it is clearly shown that they "tassoed" themselves.
In fact in your example, you state that it is clear that John dressed himself. Anyone can get that from the general reading of the text, so the author did not need to add the pronoun "himself" to dressed because the reader can easily gather that.
You also mention Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Again it is very clear who is judging them unworthy of everlasting life because of the simple use of the word "yourselves". There is no reflexive pronoun in Acts 13:48 to guide us to see that they appointed themselves to eternal life. Obviously the inspired writers of Scripture were capable of adding a reflexive pronoun when necessary. I don't think it's safe to add it where they did not.
In love,
Destiny
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 1:37:16 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
quote:
Where do you read that only those whom God has "appointed to hear"? That is not taught in the Bible.
48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. – Acts 13:47-48
 Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16. Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48. Also note that Luke compared the unbelieving Jews, whom Paul charged them as judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, with the Gentiles who in the context had begged Paul to return to speak again (v.43,44). Tasso is passive voice, meaning the action is done to the subject, but there are many scholars who note that many times the ancients used passive voices in place of middle voices. Mark 1:6 is a perfect example. It speaks of John the baptizer "was dressed in camel hair" and is in the passive voice. Would you interpret that as his mommy came out in the desert each morning and dressed her little boy? Of course not. Do you think he had a butler like Prince Charles who dressed him? Of course not. So, it is clear from Mark 1:6 that Mark used a passive voice as a middle voice, which indicates the subject performs the action on himself.
So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life.
The text does not support or prove your theory.
Actually, ean tetagmeno is a periphrastic construction--you can't just look at the form that tasso comes in--you have to consider also the form of being word that's attached. The only meaning that makes sense of the two words put together is that someone else did the appointing, not themselves. I.e., it can't be taken as a middle voice. Who did the appointing? God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 4:03:22 AM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 238
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Adam hid from the Lord. That was a freely made decision. He also answered the Lord's questions, another decision. The evidence is all around you. But you must open your eyes and look for it.
Adam hid from the Lord and answered the Lord. Why? Well, we read he was afraid after he sinned. So is there freedom in fear? If you are terrified at a charging bear do you really make a free decision to run from it? When your hand is burning on the stove are you really making a free decision to pull it away?
quote:
Since I am convinced that God created mankind with the ability to choose freely, there are no fractions to speak of. The choice is fully ours.
Then you believe that your choice is necessary to effect salvation. In your view then the gift of salvation then becomes subservient to some "gift of choice." The gift cannot come unless you choose first.
This is still a by-works salvation you are proposing.
quote:
But your point seems to be that because the choice is ours to receive the free gift of eternal life, that in itself somehow "couples" with the cross to effect our salvation, when that is totally false.
It is false, which is why you should repent of it. You can't avoid making choice the catalyst for salvation.
quote:
God saves on the basis of who believes, but that doesn't mean that one's faith causes their salvation. I hope you can understand that.
I do. Just as one's choice is not the cause of faith.
quote:
They begged Paul to return the next Sabbath, and "nearly the whole town turned out". If that isn't interest or inclination, I don't know what is.
No one is denying interest or inclination, but where it's roots lie. Is the interest or inclination to do a good thing your inclination or God's?
quote:
If you would pay attention, you would realize that he is saying that anyone in the human race can be justified through faith. He is NOT saying that all will be.
No he isn't. Because the text says that all ARE JUSTIFIED ("for all have sinned and fall short... and are justified.."), not CAN BE JUSTIFIED or MAY BE JUSTIFIED. Universalism is the mere logical fall line of your argument.
quote:
He was unsaved until he heard and responded BY FAITH the message Peter preached.
So Cornelius had no faith when he was praying to God, fearing him and giving to the needy out of his fear? It was all of unbelief, all of the devil, even when God gave him the vision? And so he didn't exercise faith when he believed the vision and sent the men to Peter?
Speaking of ignoring verses...how about the next one.
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning" - Acts 11:15
Doesn't look like any decision was made here after the Gospel was heard. When exactly was it when the hearers had time to resist the Spirit of God?
Maybe Peter paused and yelled "Now choose!" though that's not exactly in the text is it? 
And Cornelius, as all of God's chosen, are saved long before any so-called "choice" is made...
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - Eph 1:4-5
_____________________________
A blog meditating on the wonders of Jesus Christ and the magnificence of his cross:
www.sevenmeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 4:06:07 AM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 238
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Peter in his vision was told to not call that unclean which God had cleaned (referring to Cornelius). Cornelius didn't cleanse himself and Cornelius didn't line himself up for salvation. God did it from first to last.
It was wrong for Peter to refer to that which God had cleansed as common but I believe it is just is wrong to say that Cornelius did the cleansing when God said that He did.
Amen.
_____________________________
A blog meditating on the wonders of Jesus Christ and the magnificence of his cross:
www.sevenmeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:28:27 AM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 352
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
RWE
quote:
Analogy to selective redemption, please?
I was simply trying to say that just because Jesus already knew that he was going to raise Lazarus and had already determined to do so didn’t make him cold or indifferent.
Perhaps I don’t really understand your question. We agree that God is omniscient. You believe in freewill and that God is hoping that everyone will repent but surely you don’t think He is surprised when they don’t or when one does repent. He knows all things.
quote:
Doesn't matter what I believe. Does the Bible say they rejoiced?
Alright, I agree I need to be more careful with what I post but you haven’t proven from scripture that selective redemption makes God cold and indifferent. You simply assume it.
If you believe selective redemption to be false then prove it from scripture.
_____________________________
After conversion we need bruising so that reeds may know themselves to be reeds, and not oaks.- Richard Sibbes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:33:49 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2609
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Yes, and like you said,
"God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies" (emphasis added by SH).
Yes, God knows everyone, and knows who will believe and who will not, but He does not justify everyone. Only those who He foreknew, predestined and called.
Amen Sure...God's mercy is NOT for everyone...
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:40:40 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2609
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
FreeGracequote:
Are you saying that "the called" are those whose eyes and ears God has opened?
Not in any "absolute" sense, but generally. Since it cannot be argued that God always knew who would believe, why wouldn't He "call" or "invite" those to believe. And why would He "call" or "invite" those who wouldn't believe? I have read and re-read your answer, but I don't feel I'm getting the understanding you may have intended. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks
I will help...God is waiting on man to act. This disgraceful theology clings to the fallacy that man determines his own destiny. Why does God NOT know ? How could God not know ? To imply or insinuate God doesn't know something is TOTALLY incomprehensible and reprehensible.
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:43:17 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2609
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Does that answer really make any sense? One would think that God's plan has been revealed to angels, at least to some level. Oh, and btw, since the Bible is available for angels to read (you know, over our shoulders  ), maybe they aren't quite as smart as some of our reformed brethren on this thread who have said that they came to their understanding of reformed theology all on their own just by reading their Bibles, even before they ever heard of John C Calvin. So, maybe angels aren't all that smart, eh?
No, that is nonsense. The angels are much more intelligent than any human. If the reformed notion of election were true, the angels would certainly have known, if only by reading over our shoulders. That still doesn't explain why they rejoice when a sinner repents.
Do they rejoice that they are elect angels ?
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:52:17 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2609
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
There is potential, something the reformed keep rejecting.
Nope, not so...There is nothing whatsoever in The Bible that is close to your subjective romanticism and your self-fashioning of God into who you want Him to be. If the conclusion is NOT ALL MEN, then there is not one iota of potential possibility. Ergo---NO potential.
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:57:49 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2053
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
"4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined
us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of
his will," If one's presupposition is that God desires
all men to be saved, the interpretation is not selective redemption.
quote:
God "mercies whom He wills and hardens whom He wills" (Romans 9:18).
And for what reason? To prove his sovereignty?
Just because he can? Because it glorifies him somehow?
For his own purposes?
Tell me, what does the hardening of Pharaoh have to do
with selective redemption or who wins the salvation lottery?
Did Pharaoh play any part in his own hardening?
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:02:46 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2609
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
Paul never says that not many are called period : he says not many wise or mighty or noble . That leaves multitudes to be called , which agree's perfectly with Jesus when he says Many are called but few are chosen .
NOT MANY DOES NOT EQUAL ALL and CALL DOES NOT EQUAL ANSWER OR BELIEVE. You can slice and dice it any way you want but that is a fact and you know it.
Amen, unless you are an Open Theist. They believe God REALLY doesn't know. They believe in multiple contingencies, and more than 1 outcome. Anything could happen, it all depends how man in his "sovereignty" acts.
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:33:09 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. - Acts 10:1-2
Cornelius already possessed faith, just as the OT saints who never saw the object of their faith. But in his case, he was blessed to receive the Spirit after the Lord Jesus' ressurection.
And Cornelius' baptism into the Holy Spirit is a horrible example for you, for where does the text say that he was invited? When did Peter say this in his preaching? Cornelius heard the message and "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." There was no consideration of any invitation, no careful deliberation. There was only the hearing of the Gospel and an instant response according to the faith he already posessed.
I agree with you Conquered. Could I add one thing?
Peter in his vision was told to not call that unclean which God had cleaned (referring to Cornelius). Cornelius didn't cleanse himself and Cornelius didn't line himself up for salvation. God did it from first to last.
It was wrong for Peter to refer to that which God had cleansed as common but I believe it is just is wrong to say that Cornelius did the cleansing when God said that He did.
The point remains that Cornelius himself was unsaved until Peter came and preached the gospel. Acts 11:14 says so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:39:32 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
We all know that God doesn't justifiy everyone. Paul was clear in Rom 3 about how anyone is justified, which is through faith in His blood. My point is that he included the entire human race in who would be justified through faith. The key remains to be faith. But Paul clearly indicated that all could be justified through faith. There is potential, something the reformed keep rejecting.
You have inadvertently agreed with the reformed playbook (did you get yours at CBD also?). Romans 3 and 8 do not show that all have the potential of justification.
You make this "claim" but you haven't done one thing to back it up. Please show me how you come to this conclusion, from the text, and not from that reformed playbook.
quote:
If anything, your argument concerning Rom 8:29-30 proves just the opposite.
Hardly. If you would just quit reading from your playbook, you might be able to understand what Paul did say. He included the human race in who would be justified through faith. What that means is that there is no one excluded from being justified as long as they have faith in His blood. The key is "through faith in His blood", the means of justification. And since Paul included the human race in the "all" of v.23, that passage contradicts the erroneous reformed doctrine of election quite clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:42:56 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
But this does not address Romans 8:29-30. In that passage it is only those who are foreknown and predestined who are called. All that are called, according to Rom 8:30, are justified.
The key is in your statement "in that passage". Bee's point that all who hear the gospel are invited or called to believe is valid and supported throughout Scripture. In the context of Rom 8, the "called" are only those who believed the gospel. So your point is not taken nor supported.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:47:05 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
Since God knows already who will believe and not, does it make any sense for Him to "call" or "invite" those who won't believe? It does make sense that He would "call" or "invite" those who will believe. OK so you're saying that in Romans 8 the only ones who are "called" are the ones who are ultimately justified and glorified? This certainly seems to agree with what the text is saying. But the reason I asked for clarification was that earlier in the conversation you made this statement quote:
The Greek word for "called" is kletos, and is translated "called/invited". I see those who are "called" as simply those who have been invited to believe the gospel.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the "calling" has anything to do with making the gospel believable. Titus 2:11 says "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men". That's real clear. I think the invitation to believe the gospel is made to all men. Some respond to the "call", many don't. I thought that this was the only way you saw "the call". Are you saying that there are at least 2 "calls"
1. The general call to come to Christ
2. The call God gives to ONLY those He foreknows will respond in belief.
In Matt 22:14, which says "many are called, but few are chosen", it should be clear that the "many called" include all who hear the gospel, but doesn't mean that all of them will believe, but they are invited to believe.
In Rom 8, since the key is "for whom He foreknew", referring to those who believed the gospel, they are also referred to as the "called", but in this particular verse, refers only to believers. It is always the context that is king. In Matt 22, it is clear that not all called are chosen, so we know that more than just those who will believe are invited to believe. But in Rom 8, the topic is believers only, who are also part of the called.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:51:06 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.
ARBITRARY, a. [L. arbitrarious.]
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.
2. Despotic; absolute in power; having no external control; as, an arbitrary prince or government.
George Washington once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect without partiality and with out choosing arbitrarily?
According to Ephesians 1:4-5, it seems like He doesn't, and that this is the whole point.
Actually, it seems you've missed the "whole point" of Eph 1:4, which is that we (believers) are chosen IN HIM. That is the key. iow, only those who are IN CHRIST are chosen. How do we get to be IN HIM? Through faith in Him. That is the "selection criteria" for election Biblically.
quote:
"4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
The criteria is "the purpose of his will."
I've highlighted part of the text to help you see the criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 9:22:10 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. – Acts 13:47-48
quote:
Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16. Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48. Also note that Luke compared the unbelieving Jews, whom Paul charged them as judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, with the Gentiles who in the context had begged Paul to return to speak again (v.43,44). Tasso is passive voice, meaning the action is done to the subject, but there are many scholars who note that many times the ancients used passive voices in place of middle voices. Mark 1:6 is a perfect example. It speaks of John the baptizer "was dressed in camel hair" and is in the passive voice. Would you interpret that as his mommy came out in the desert each morning and dressed her little boy? Of course not. Do you think he had a butler like Prince Charles who dressed him? Of course not. So, it is clear from Mark 1:6 that Mark used a passive voice as a middle voice, which indicates the subject performs the action on himself. So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life.
I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but is it really feasible that just because you found an example in Mark of a passive voice used as a middle that Luke was doing the same thing in this passage?
No disrespect taken. However, I want to make 2 points about Acts 13:48, which is frequently used by the reformed to "prove" their point. First is that Greek scholars note that it was common in the early first century for writers to use the passive voice when middle voice was meant. Second, I used the example in Mark 1:6 as an example of just that usage. So, the reformed have no solid proof of their position from Acts 13:48. If God was actually mentioned in the verse, then of course they would have proof. But since God is not mentioned, there is no proof that God is the One appointing.
Even the text itself demonstrates clear distinctions between the unbelieving Jews and believing Gentiles. Paul indicted the Jews by saying "you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life. Then Luke, who before that verse already noted that the Gentiles were very interested in what Paul was teaching, and had begged him to return the next Sabbath. In fact, he wrote that "nearly the whole town" assembled the next Sabbath. That clearly speaks of great interest, in contrast to the unbelieving Jews.
So, otoh, we have Jews "unworthy of eternal life" in Paul's words
and otoh, we have Gentiles "lining up" for eternal life, which is among the meaning of tasso.
There just any support for the reformed view of Acts 13:48.
quote:
I am the first to admit that I am not a Greek Scholar and perhaps shouldn't even comment, but something about this explanation seems really forced.
I've never pretended to be nor claimed to be, but I have read a lot of scholars on Greek usage. It was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. the example in Mark 1:6 proves that quite well. I don't see why you seem to think this explanation seems "forced". I think what is "forced" is the reformed insistence that God ordains/appoints some to believe, which this verse most definitely isn't saying.
quote:
(It seems from your smiley that even you sighed with the heaviness of having to explain it)
You are very perceptive. I've explained it many times before, but some are new to this thread, and some just don't pay attention.
quote:
I again used the tools I have available here at crosswalk and looked at all 8 instances where "tasso" is used in Scripture.
Yep, and I've done the same.
quote:
Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Clearly, Jesus was doing the appointing here. No argument!
quote:
Lu 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
OK, who is doing the "setting" or tasso here? The Roman government, not God.
quote:
Ac 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
The text does not specifiy who did the ordaining.
quote:
Ac 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Who did the "determining" here? The group that sent Paul and Barnabas, not God.
quote:
Ac 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Very clear here, the Lord did the appointing.
quote:
Ac 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Who did the appointing here? Jews, from v.19 and 21.
quote:
Ro 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Very clear here; God did the ordaining.
quote:
1Co 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
The better translation for tasso here instead of "addicted" is "devoted" which is found in Greek lexicons. From what I've noted about the context in Acts 13, there are a number of scholars who believe that tasso should be rendered "devoted" in Acts 13:48, which certainly fits the context.
quote:
From what I can gather in looking at these verses the only other case in which the subject "tassoes??" themselves, it is clearly shown that they themselves are doing it. (By the simple use of the pronoun - themselves) To get that from Acts 13:48 you have to do a lot a "stretching" as I see it.
Only because you forgot that it was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. I gave you an example to demonstrate that fact. If you ignore that fact, ok, stay with your understanding. But note that in all the other usages, the text was clear as to who was doing the tassoing. Why do you think God is the subject in Acts 13:48? What support do you have when the context supports a middle rendering of "devoted"?
quote:
, I am not trying to create an angry response or set myself up as an authority. I'm just saying that your explanation doesn't even seem like something you could ever arrive at by just reading the text. Even if you were reading it in the original Greek your first impulse would be to think that they were "appointed" by someone else.
Again, if you were expert in Greek, how would you understand Mark 1:6? That someone else dressed him every morning out in the desert? But that is strictly how to understand it. So it is clear that Mark meant middle voice even though he used passive voice. That is a demonstration of how writers wrote. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that Luke did the same in Acts 13:48? Only a theological bias would reject that possibility, for it is a "proof-text" for them, but only without any proof. Only if Luke included God in the text would the reformed have any support or proof.
quote:
That does seem to be, after all, the way the word is most commonly used and in the case where it is not used that way it is clearly shown that they "tassoed" themselves.
I've noted that in all the other texts, the one doing the appointing was clear. Since passive and middle voices can be interchanged, as I've noted and supported, why do you default to God as appointer rather than themselves, since the context supports very clearly the FACT that they were devoted to hearing what Paul was teaching. Doesn't the FACT that "nearly the whole town" assembled to here him demonstrate devotion? Yes, it does. There is more support for "devoted" than divine appointing.
quote:
In fact in your example, you state that it is clear that John dressed himself. Anyone can get that from the general reading of the text, so the author did not need to add the pronoun "himself" to dressed because the reader can easily gather that.
But, he used the passive voice, which strictly means the action is done by someone else to the subject. How do you explain that?
quote:
You also mention Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Again it is very clear who is judging them unworthy of everlasting life because of the simple use of the word "yourselves". There is no reflexive pronoun in Acts 13:48 to guide us to see that they appointed themselves to eternal life.
You may ignore the FACT that passive voice is used when middle is meant, as Mark 1:6 clearly demonstrates. But please demonstrate some support for the idea that God was doing the appointing in Acts 13:48, please.
quote:
Obviously the inspired writers of Scripture were capable of adding a reflexive pronoun when necessary. I don't think it's safe to add it where they did not.
Since Luke used a passive voice, he didn't need to. The point remains that passive voice has been used when middle voice is meant, as Mark demonstrated quite well.
The bottom line is that there is no support for thinking that God is the One doing the appointing in Acts 13:48. Luke was clear to contrast the unbelieving Jews with the believing Gentiles.
Let me ask you this: do you agree or disagree that the context supports the idea that the believing Gentiles were devoted to what Paul had to say? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 9:24:35 AM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
