-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I do not think of my children simply as a group. I know them individually.
We are His adopted children.
Did He not know us individually 'before the foundations of the world were laid'?
Or did He only know that He was gonna have a group, and chose to have a group....
These passages would be wastes of words if they simply meant that God predestined to have a group. That means little or nothing.
It's also not the personal and relational God that is in the rest of Scripture.
We are His adopted children.
Did He not know us individually 'before the foundations of the world were laid'?
Or did He only know that He was gonna have a group, and chose to have a group....
These passages would be wastes of words if they simply meant that God predestined to have a group. That means little or nothing.
It's also not the personal and relational God that is in the rest of Scripture.
Last edited:
J
If only the "calvies" on here would actually study 'greek' sentence structure "including" prepositional phrases, gender, number, and case, 'for themselves' instead of letting others teach them what it says. If they truly did that, I guarantee you they wouldn't be a calvinist.
I do wonder, however, if you're concern is for the 'right' reason. Are you concerned if the word of God is being betrayed through false teaching? Or is it merely because those who do not agree as you do, point out logical conclusions to what is being taught about God, and you don't like it...
I do wonder, however, if you're concern is for the 'right' reason. Are you concerned if the word of God is being betrayed through false teaching? Or is it merely because those who do not agree as you do, point out logical conclusions to what is being taught about God, and you don't like it...
If you are assuming that I don't diagram the Greek sentences as part of my method when taking the meaning from a verse, you are mistaken.
Also, logic is definitely not my enemy. It is a great tool, one that I wish was taught in more schools.
Example of a logical fallacy.
See logic courses have served me well again.
A is equal to B
and you respond:
So what you're saying is C is equal to D?
Please go back and make the connections for us, as to what Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus being created have to do with crossnote's statement.
Also, logic is definitely not my enemy. It is a great tool, one that I wish was taught in more schools.
Example of a logical fallacy.
See logic courses have served me well again.
A is equal to B
and you respond:
So what you're saying is C is equal to D?
Please go back and make the connections for us, as to what Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus being created have to do with crossnote's statement.
I
I have reposted this here simply because there is no point in trying to be more creative while rehashing points that the calvie hasn't responded to. They don't respond because they don't have a response other than (like Angela) i.e. shall I post more prooftexts?? Sure, go ahead divert the issue, or like "posthuman" try to use Strongs to illustrate just how little you know about Greek, or again like Angela, post the actually t/v/m of the greek words in a passage and then in one breath say "we have to let God change us" and then after saying that we can't change ourselves... try to make the argument about the fact that someone said we change ourselves... which we did not. This is the straw man approach. Is there going to be any assessment of the facts or the language? Is this not what I stated would happen anyway?
Here is what I suggest, which no calvie (or people who think they aren't calvie because they "aren't a member of a reformed church" or "their pastor has a PhD") -as if that is any substitute for Biblical understanding, big deal he wrote a book and supported his thesis to the satisfaction of his peers, last time I checked you don't need a great intellect to understand the Bible, you need an honest one. It is obvious from the content of many of the contributors of this thread that intellectual honesty is not a strong suite. So what I propose is this... which will be distasteful to those who love to hop from passage to passage and verse to verse. Let us (as I have stated before) start in Ephesians 1 and work our way through that passage. Or for that matter let us pick any ONE NT verse used to support any of the "doctrines of grace" and examine the context,exegete and see what is being said. After seeing what is said we can consider possible meanings from audience and context, style etc and see if ANY of the claims made by those supporting Calvinist ideas are warranted.
Here is what I suggest, which no calvie (or people who think they aren't calvie because they "aren't a member of a reformed church" or "their pastor has a PhD") -as if that is any substitute for Biblical understanding, big deal he wrote a book and supported his thesis to the satisfaction of his peers, last time I checked you don't need a great intellect to understand the Bible, you need an honest one. It is obvious from the content of many of the contributors of this thread that intellectual honesty is not a strong suite. So what I propose is this... which will be distasteful to those who love to hop from passage to passage and verse to verse. Let us (as I have stated before) start in Ephesians 1 and work our way through that passage. Or for that matter let us pick any ONE NT verse used to support any of the "doctrines of grace" and examine the context,exegete and see what is being said. After seeing what is said we can consider possible meanings from audience and context, style etc and see if ANY of the claims made by those supporting Calvinist ideas are warranted.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Acts 13:48 really is a poor selection to use when trying to prove God "predestining" or "selecting" people for salvation. Even some well known Calvies stay away from it because it actually doesn't prove predestination of people to salvation AT ALL.
"Ordained" is better translated "predisposed" or "were disposed" or "inclined" according to the Nestle/Marshall Interlinear Greek New Testament. "Ordained" is a passive middle voice because the verse says they were disposed to eternal life - but it does NOT say how (no agent). It "assumes" the people are the agent because there is none mentioned.
In Greek, passive voice requires an agent in the passage. Middle voice assumes the people are the agent because they are receiving the 'effects' of their 'own action.' In other words, in Acts 13:48, THEY disposed THEMSELVES to the knowledge and 'received it' with gladness.
May as well scratch this one off the list of 'viable options' for God selecting an elite group of people for salvation and damning everyone else just because...
"Ordained" is better translated "predisposed" or "were disposed" or "inclined" according to the Nestle/Marshall Interlinear Greek New Testament. "Ordained" is a passive middle voice because the verse says they were disposed to eternal life - but it does NOT say how (no agent). It "assumes" the people are the agent because there is none mentioned.
In Greek, passive voice requires an agent in the passage. Middle voice assumes the people are the agent because they are receiving the 'effects' of their 'own action.' In other words, in Acts 13:48, THEY disposed THEMSELVES to the knowledge and 'received it' with gladness.
May as well scratch this one off the list of 'viable options' for God selecting an elite group of people for salvation and damning everyone else just because...
K
But if you go back to the Aramaic and the to cuneiform writing and to the actual language that Adam spoke this is what it means and don't tell nobody or they will be saying it. Place your faith in the work of the cross. People pay me me big bucks to hear that so keep it encrypted so they have to study linguistics to really understand what God is saying. Otay buk wheat.
I
Well, if you have followed the thread, the connection would be obvious. john stated that the calvinist position was offensive (and it is) because of the inevitable portrayal of God's nature and person that their pet theology creates. Crossnote responded with a statement brushing that off and subtlety condemning john's post as if it were nothing but a rant that made no scriptural references (as if analyzing the means by which someone comes to a position needs a verse to give it weight). John in return plays to the endgame by giving an example of people who use scriptural references to prove a point to re-enforce the fact that just because scripture is involved doesn't make it right, alluding to the point that simply because scripture is NOT involved doesn't invalidate a passionate dialogue about what happens to immature believers due to Calvinist deception. If you DID know logic you would have followed this. Nothing is true simply because it cannot be dis-proven, Nothing is false simply because it cannot be proven. Everything is what it is (rule #1 the law of identity etc the law of non-identity) So in areas without authority that deal with experience (i.e. things upon which the weight of scripture does not directly apply) we are on equal ground to present obvious human reaction and struggle to the problems of Calvinistic recruitment methods. Somehow asking a rhetorical question about that becomes a logical fallacy? Sounds more to me like there is an attempt to divert the issue (which is another kind of fallacy invalidating procedure) so that the objections raised by john's post will go unanswered or get lost in the muddied waters.
J
Claiming "position through negation" are we? "Nope, not true, MY BOOKS don't say it" (nevermind that you don't tell us your sources). lol. I gave you my source, if you don't like it, I can't help that, although it's understandable that you don't like it being you're a Calvinist and all....
Here's another, quoted word for word, from Adam Clarke's own commentary: "This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God’s decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever τεταγμενοι may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither προτεταγμενοι nor προορισμενοι which the apostle uses, but simply τεταγμενοι, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word τεταγμενος mean? The verb ταττω or τασσω signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Act_13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Act_13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others;"
But seriously. Maybe YOU need to be honest with the greek language itself...instead of just flat out rejecting something because it doesn't 'agree' with your house of cards.
Here's another, quoted word for word, from Adam Clarke's own commentary: "This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God’s decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever τεταγμενοι may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither προτεταγμενοι nor προορισμενοι which the apostle uses, but simply τεταγμενοι, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word τεταγμενος mean? The verb ταττω or τασσω signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Act_13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Act_13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others;"
But seriously. Maybe YOU need to be honest with the greek language itself...instead of just flat out rejecting something because it doesn't 'agree' with your house of cards.
I
While an apology is a positive thing in many circumstances, I didn't see any objection from john arising from your manner, and strangely enough (or perhaps not strangely at all) found no response from you to either of the posts that provided definitive answers to questions raised. Has the issue been diverted again due to (as I have referenced in previous posts) a watertight examination of the passage with linguistics, context, style and after having seen what the passage says... then seeing what it can mean, and having discovered what it CANNOT mean i.e. people being chosen for salvation, clearly condemning the ones who still intend to come to this passage and twist it to their own ends.
Strong's Concordance
tassó: to draw up in order, arrange
tassó: to draw up in order, arrange
Original Word: τάσσωPart of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: tassó
Phonetic Spelling: (tas'-so)
Short Definition: I assign, arrange
Definition: (a) I assign, arrange, (b) I determine; mid: I appoint.
HELPS Word-studies
5021 tássō – properly, arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order, appoint; (figuratively) ordain, set in place; "station" (J. Thayer).
5021 /tássō ("place in position, post") was commonly used in ancient military language for "designating" ("appointing, commissioning") a specific status, i.e. arranging (placing) in a deliberate, fixed order.
[5021 (tássō) was "primarily a military term meaning 'to draw up in order, arrange in place, assign, appoint, order' " (A-S).]
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from a prim. root tag-
Definition
to draw up in order, arrange
NASB Translation
appointed (2), designated (1), determined (1), devoted (1), established (1), set (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
τάσσω: 1 aorist ἔταξα; perfect infinitiveτεταχέναι (Acts 18:2 T Tr marginal reading); passive, present participle τασσόμενος; perfect 3 person singular τέτακταί, participle τεταγμένος; 1 aorist middle ἐταξαμην; from (Pindar, Aeschylus),Herodotus down; the Sept. for שׂוּם, and occasionally for נָתַן, צִוָּה, שׁוּת, etc.; to put in place; to station;
a. "to place in a certain order (Xenophon, mem. 3, 1, 7 (9)), to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint": τινα, passive, αἱ ἐξουσία ὑπό Θεοῦ τεταγμέναιεἰσιν (A. V. ordained), Romans 13:1; (καιρούς,Acts 17:26 Lachmann); ἑαυτόν, εἰς διακονίαντίνι, to consecrate (R. V. set) oneself to minister unto one, 1 Corinthians 16:15 (ἐπί τήν διακονίαν,Plato, de rep. 2, p. 371 c.; εἰς τήν δουλείαν,Xenophon, mem. 2, 1, 11); ὅσοι ἦσαντεταγμένοι εἰς ζωήν αἰώνιον, as many as were appointed (A. V. ordained) (by God) to obtain eternal life, or to whom God bad decreed eternal life,Acts 13:48; τινα ὑπό τινα, to put one under another's control (A. V. set under), passive, Matthew 8:9 L WH in brackets, the Sinaiticus manuscript; Luke 7:8 (ὑπό τινα, Polybius 3, 16, 3; 5, 65, 7; Diodorus2, 26, 8; 4, 9, 5); τίνι τί, to assign (appoint) a thing to one, passive, Acts 22:10 (Xenophon, de rep. Lac. 11, 6).
b. to appoint, ordain, order: followed by the accusative with an infinitive, Acts 15:2; ( T Tr marginal reading); (followed by an infinitive, Xenophon, Hier. 10, 4; Cyril 4, 5, 11). Middle (as often in Greek writings) properly, to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority: οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς namely,πορεύεσθαι, Matthew 28:16; to appoint mutually, i. e. agree upon: ἡμέραν (Polybius 18, 19, 1, etc.),Acts 28:23. (Compare: ἀνατάσσω(ἀνατάσσομαι), ἀντιτάσσω, ἀποτάσσω,διατάσσω, ἐπιδιατάσσω (ἐπιδιατάσσομαι),ἐπιτάσσω, προτάσσω, προστάσσω,συντάσσω, ὑποτάσσω. Synonym: see κελεύω, at the end.)
None of these use the word "disposition" as I have yet seen, nor have any of those implications.