-
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.
J
As is the case with most Calvinists, they just look right past the evidence that's already been presented, and say, "where's your evidence?" If you can't handle what I've shown already about Acts 13:48, what good will it do to show you more? In fact, if you're REALLY interested in the truth (which I doubt, not to be unkind), why not take up Inquisitor's offer to exegetically examine Ephesians 1?
Re: Bible (Luke, etc.) says FORORDAINED/ELECT -- What to Think?
Originally Posted by Atwood
Where does Acts 14:1-2 use the word "choice"? Would you care to retract, if you don't find the word "choice" there?
Do you have a verse that says "of their own active choice." I haven't found a NT verse that speaks of anyone doing any choosing in the matter of salvation besides the Lord. So if I missed one, kindly quote it.
[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
Are you retracting your error on Acts 14, since neither choice nor choose occurs there? You are inserting "chose" where it does not occur in the verse. If you want to prove that believing always implies choice, have at it. Where does the Bible say that believe implies choice? If to you it is given to believe, does that imply choice? If so, how do you know? What is your proof?
If you have verses where people actually choose things in the Bible, kindly post them, and note where it is the Lord that the man chooses or salvation.
Acts 14:1,2 both the verbs 'believed' and 'unbelieving' the subject chooses to do either action therefore God does not passively force belief or unbelief upon anyone.
Where does Acts 14:1-2 use the word "choice"? Would you care to retract, if you don't find the word "choice" there?
Do you have a verse that says "of their own active choice." I haven't found a NT verse that speaks of anyone doing any choosing in the matter of salvation besides the Lord. So if I missed one, kindly quote it.
[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
Are you retracting your error on Acts 14, since neither choice nor choose occurs there? You are inserting "chose" where it does not occur in the verse. If you want to prove that believing always implies choice, have at it. Where does the Bible say that believe implies choice? If to you it is given to believe, does that imply choice? If so, how do you know? What is your proof?
If you have verses where people actually choose things in the Bible, kindly post them, and note where it is the Lord that the man chooses or salvation.
J
Crossnote, there's no 'agent' expressed in the passage, so there is no case for it being a 'passive.' The perfect tense construction, tetagmenoi, differs not a single mark from the middle voice of that same perfect participle. Therefore, context is the determiner. In verse 46, the construction is "judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life", employing a middle idea to capture the response of the Jews to the gospel. Without an additional expressed agent, and the fact that this is a paraphrastic construction, which means it was employed to shorten the number of words that were used to describe this concept previously, we have no stylistic or contextual reason to firmly conclude that this is a 'passive' verb.
And so, what is happening, is that the Calvinist is coming to the 'greek' with a predisposition that this word can ONLY be translated as 'appointed or ordained.' And THEN seeking to override all the dynamics of context, style, semantic category, lexime. He seeks to "correct" an idea that is obvious in the text, without evidence to do so. This begs the question: the Calvinist is saying that the word MUST be passive, in order for the word appointed or ordained to make sense; but this uncovers another layer of presupposition on their part that this passage is already discussing "God as the agent." Their idea cannot work without MAKING this presupposition. So what we've come down to is that the Calvinists wish to superimpose God as an agent in this passage to justify the passive voice, albeit without an agent, and thus because of the passive voice, the translation of "appointed or ordained."
The correct view is one that takes into account that there is no agent other than those who are hearing the gospel. Because there is no mention of GOD as an agent. So, without a direct agent, the translation of tetagmenoi as a change of disposition by those who heard the gospel, makes perfect sense. However, it doesn't "fit" into Calvinist "soteriology" (as if there were such a thing), and thus they seek to strike it from the record, displaying their ignorance of both the Bible and the language in which it was written.
Secondly, I find it duplicitous that a calvinist would say in one breath, "EVERYTHING IS PREDESTINED BY GOD", and in another, "God didn't predestine who will go to hell, I don't believe that." Eh? If God didn't 'choose' Fred, but he chose Mary for salvation, did he or did he NOT choose Fred for salvation? The double talk of Calvinists is unbelievable. I understand your need to try and make it look like Calvinism's distortion of 'predestination' is actually 'biblical' and 'glorifying' to God, that he is merciful and would 'never' choose someone for hell, but you fail to see that every time you make the claim that God predestined only SOME for heaven (is that number 144,000? lol, couldn't resist), you are BY DEFAULT claiming that God did NOT predestine the others for heaven, but rather for hell. After all, God is omniscient right? He KNOWS and 'determines' that if they are not "predestined for heaven" then they are "predestined for hell."
And so, what is happening, is that the Calvinist is coming to the 'greek' with a predisposition that this word can ONLY be translated as 'appointed or ordained.' And THEN seeking to override all the dynamics of context, style, semantic category, lexime. He seeks to "correct" an idea that is obvious in the text, without evidence to do so. This begs the question: the Calvinist is saying that the word MUST be passive, in order for the word appointed or ordained to make sense; but this uncovers another layer of presupposition on their part that this passage is already discussing "God as the agent." Their idea cannot work without MAKING this presupposition. So what we've come down to is that the Calvinists wish to superimpose God as an agent in this passage to justify the passive voice, albeit without an agent, and thus because of the passive voice, the translation of "appointed or ordained."
The correct view is one that takes into account that there is no agent other than those who are hearing the gospel. Because there is no mention of GOD as an agent. So, without a direct agent, the translation of tetagmenoi as a change of disposition by those who heard the gospel, makes perfect sense. However, it doesn't "fit" into Calvinist "soteriology" (as if there were such a thing), and thus they seek to strike it from the record, displaying their ignorance of both the Bible and the language in which it was written.
Secondly, I find it duplicitous that a calvinist would say in one breath, "EVERYTHING IS PREDESTINED BY GOD", and in another, "God didn't predestine who will go to hell, I don't believe that." Eh? If God didn't 'choose' Fred, but he chose Mary for salvation, did he or did he NOT choose Fred for salvation? The double talk of Calvinists is unbelievable. I understand your need to try and make it look like Calvinism's distortion of 'predestination' is actually 'biblical' and 'glorifying' to God, that he is merciful and would 'never' choose someone for hell, but you fail to see that every time you make the claim that God predestined only SOME for heaven (is that number 144,000? lol, couldn't resist), you are BY DEFAULT claiming that God did NOT predestine the others for heaven, but rather for hell. After all, God is omniscient right? He KNOWS and 'determines' that if they are not "predestined for heaven" then they are "predestined for hell."
I
There is so much inaccurate information in this post it is hard to know where to start. One, a concordance is not a dictionary, so the wrong tool was being used in the first place as was stated in a previous post. A Lexicon is a dictionary and it was from a lexicon that it was stated that "disposition" was used. As you are someone coming from the position that stated originally that "disposition" was not within the meaning of the word, all that had to be done to falsify that claim was show you a mainline resource work (this was done multiple times) that does include that as part of the lexime. You now seek to discredit the source. You see, it's ok if a book doesn't include something, but saying that because it isn't in your book is an argument from silence. You need to look at more tools.
Second...not all verbs have three voices, far from it (this flexibility comes from the kind of verbal idea). in fact there are a number of verbs whose construction shares the passive/middle. There are grammarians who actually call the "passive" semantic category middle/passive or passive/middle simply due to the behavior and history of the words. In fact if you had studied the word tetagmenoi at all you would realize that the construction of the middle is exactly the same as the construction of the passive, leaving a context that expresses an agent to be the determiner of the voice of the verb. This is Greek 101.
Your shameless claim that "it makes sense that God is the agent" begs the question. You cannot say God is the agent because you have already assumed him to be so. This is Logic 101. C'mon where is the intellectual honesty here, or the intellect at all for that matter. Your statement is pure rhetoric. After all the information that has been presented, the hard-boiled calvinist flies in the face of it as if it doesn't matter. What is actually happening is that you have NO counterpoints. You have talking points without evidence. From my post alone your position looks preposterous simply because you haven't even done the study to have an educated discussion about the Greek. Is it not clear to others what is happening here? We are looking at this passage to determine whether or not God CAN be considered as the agent, and here comes Hoffco with the statement "They were disposed by God Himself from all eternity"... Where in the world does the passage say THAT!? Oh that's right it doesn't.
Thirdly, the choice of parallel scriptures in an inter-linear varies, you can get almost any version in the margins if you look hard enough. This does not reflect Alfred Marshall's personal choice of what was "the best". HE was the one who did the work for the inter-linear and HE did not have complete administrative control of the publishing of the NASB. What he DID have control over is his unqualified usage of "having been disposed" in his own inter-linear work. How you can sit there and try to divert the issue into something else is further evidence of an unwillingness or an incapability to properly comprehend the tools you are looking at and how to use them or even what they are used for and how they are built.
Lastly, and most disgustingly, you repeat your rhetoric about God always being the one who appoints...again without evidence, however, in this last gasp we see even a little bit more of boilerplate talking points as if they themselves are evidence for themselves. Crossnote, I seem to remember that it was so offensive to you, how did you put it "what is truly offensive is when a person uses man's reason and emotions to persuade a doctrinal position and not scripture" However that is exactly what Hoffco has done, yet you like his post. hmmmm This is to be differentiated from what john did earlier as well as the issue that Hoffco is providing inept commentary on is one upon which the authority of scripture has direct bearing. He does not have the right to make universal statements and assume that everyone will agree simply because he is a Calvinist.
This is typical Calvinism at its best/worst. It is at the point of failed argumentation that the Calvinists become their most pontifical.(after all their theology originated from the church that claims a pontiff) but normal people don't accept the pope speaking ex-cathedra, so why should they accept the word of a Calvinist. As I have said before, if Calvinists would simply study the Bible as they should... i.e. context,language etc, there wouldn't be these issues.
Second...not all verbs have three voices, far from it (this flexibility comes from the kind of verbal idea). in fact there are a number of verbs whose construction shares the passive/middle. There are grammarians who actually call the "passive" semantic category middle/passive or passive/middle simply due to the behavior and history of the words. In fact if you had studied the word tetagmenoi at all you would realize that the construction of the middle is exactly the same as the construction of the passive, leaving a context that expresses an agent to be the determiner of the voice of the verb. This is Greek 101.
Your shameless claim that "it makes sense that God is the agent" begs the question. You cannot say God is the agent because you have already assumed him to be so. This is Logic 101. C'mon where is the intellectual honesty here, or the intellect at all for that matter. Your statement is pure rhetoric. After all the information that has been presented, the hard-boiled calvinist flies in the face of it as if it doesn't matter. What is actually happening is that you have NO counterpoints. You have talking points without evidence. From my post alone your position looks preposterous simply because you haven't even done the study to have an educated discussion about the Greek. Is it not clear to others what is happening here? We are looking at this passage to determine whether or not God CAN be considered as the agent, and here comes Hoffco with the statement "They were disposed by God Himself from all eternity"... Where in the world does the passage say THAT!? Oh that's right it doesn't.
Thirdly, the choice of parallel scriptures in an inter-linear varies, you can get almost any version in the margins if you look hard enough. This does not reflect Alfred Marshall's personal choice of what was "the best". HE was the one who did the work for the inter-linear and HE did not have complete administrative control of the publishing of the NASB. What he DID have control over is his unqualified usage of "having been disposed" in his own inter-linear work. How you can sit there and try to divert the issue into something else is further evidence of an unwillingness or an incapability to properly comprehend the tools you are looking at and how to use them or even what they are used for and how they are built.
Lastly, and most disgustingly, you repeat your rhetoric about God always being the one who appoints...again without evidence, however, in this last gasp we see even a little bit more of boilerplate talking points as if they themselves are evidence for themselves. Crossnote, I seem to remember that it was so offensive to you, how did you put it "what is truly offensive is when a person uses man's reason and emotions to persuade a doctrinal position and not scripture" However that is exactly what Hoffco has done, yet you like his post. hmmmm This is to be differentiated from what john did earlier as well as the issue that Hoffco is providing inept commentary on is one upon which the authority of scripture has direct bearing. He does not have the right to make universal statements and assume that everyone will agree simply because he is a Calvinist.
This is typical Calvinism at its best/worst. It is at the point of failed argumentation that the Calvinists become their most pontifical.(after all their theology originated from the church that claims a pontiff) but normal people don't accept the pope speaking ex-cathedra, so why should they accept the word of a Calvinist. As I have said before, if Calvinists would simply study the Bible as they should... i.e. context,language etc, there wouldn't be these issues.
How do you know that active voice implies choice?
John broke his toe (active voice) -- how does that imply choice?
Where does the text say anything about God forcing or not?
And whether or not God forces, how does that prove anything about a person's choice?
Now either show where 2 Thes 1:8 mentions men choosing or retract. Why do you claim that a verse says something it does not say?
Why waste your time just pontificating with no Bible proof?
John broke his toe (active voice) -- how does that imply choice?
Where does the text say anything about God forcing or not?
And whether or not God forces, how does that prove anything about a person's choice?
Now either show where 2 Thes 1:8 mentions men choosing or retract. Why do you claim that a verse says something it does not say?
Why waste your time just pontificating with no Bible proof?
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 τεταγμέναι εἰσιν (A. V. ordained), Rom 13:1; (καιρούς, Acts 17:26 Lachmann); ἑαυτόν, εἰς διακονίαν τίνι, to consecrate (R. V. set) oneself to minister unto one, 1Co 16:15 (ἐπί τήν διακονίαν, Plato, de rep. 2, p. 371 c.; εἰς τήν δουλείαν, Xenophon, mem. 2, 1, 11); ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωήν αἰώνιον, as many as were appointed (A. V. ordained) (by God) to obtain eternal life, or to whom God had decreed eternal life, Acts 13:48; τινα ὑπό τινα, to put one under another's control (A. V. set under), passive, Matt 8:9 L WH in brackets, the Sinaiticus manuscript; Thayers
Newberry interlinear ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=#Logos 5 Resource]τεταγμενοι[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]appointed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=#Logos 5 Resource]τάσσω[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]5021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]VRPP-(Verb,perfect,passive,participle Newberry, T., & Berry,[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
τάσσω (pf. inf. τεταχέναι ; pf. pass. τέταγμαι, 3 sg. τέτακται ) appoint, designate, set aside; command, order, direct ( ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος under the authority of superior officers Lk 7:8); institute (of governmental authority); devote (to service); midd. equivalent to act. fix, set (Ac 28:23); tell, direct (Mt 28:16)
Newman, B. M., Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies.
Newberry interlinear ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=#Logos 5 Resource]τεταγμενοι[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]appointed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=#Logos 5 Resource]τάσσω[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]5021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]VRPP-(Verb,perfect,passive,participle Newberry, T., & Berry,[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
τάσσω (pf. inf. τεταχέναι ; pf. pass. τέταγμαι, 3 sg. τέτακται ) appoint, designate, set aside; command, order, direct ( ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος under the authority of superior officers Lk 7:8); institute (of governmental authority); devote (to service); midd. equivalent to act. fix, set (Ac 28:23); tell, direct (Mt 28:16)
Newman, B. M., Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies.
read the title of this topic.
i've spent a long time in political chatrooms.
you know when you can tell a political discussion these days is a waste of time?
when one person accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a "liberal" and then proceeds to ignore any topical discussion and rant endlessly about how "liberals" are what's wrong with everything in the world and are solely responsible for every ill thing.
that's the point that you know it's no use talking to someone anymore. they aren't there to discuss anything; they're only there to condemn "liberals" and anyone who isn't upvoting their comments is de-facto a "liberal" whether they know it or not.
a person like that, there is no use talking to.
if you're not here to answer the question this thread is about, or to explore the truth of it,
but to "slam calvies"
who is the one engaging in 'diversion' ?
why don't you answer my question, lord inquisitor?
you said God didn't create all of us --
who created you?
do i have to give you some ducats before you answer?
i've spent a long time in political chatrooms.
you know when you can tell a political discussion these days is a waste of time?
when one person accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a "liberal" and then proceeds to ignore any topical discussion and rant endlessly about how "liberals" are what's wrong with everything in the world and are solely responsible for every ill thing.
that's the point that you know it's no use talking to someone anymore. they aren't there to discuss anything; they're only there to condemn "liberals" and anyone who isn't upvoting their comments is de-facto a "liberal" whether they know it or not.
a person like that, there is no use talking to.
if you're not here to answer the question this thread is about, or to explore the truth of it,
but to "slam calvies"
who is the one engaging in 'diversion' ?
why don't you answer my question, lord inquisitor?
you said God didn't create all of us --
who created you?
do i have to give you some ducats before you answer?
Let Us Choose to Focus on Choose/Choice
While we beez digressing on this & that, why not look at what scripture actually says; I search the rather literal ASV. I note that in the NT, so far as I know, no one chooses God, but God does some choosing.
Now the OT has some choosing by men, but not a lot of choosing God, unless there is some synonym that I missed, aside from Joshua ordering them to choose whom they would serve (it not being recorded that they obeyed the order). Similar to Joshua's admonition, there is one in Deuternomy about choosing life:
Thus far looking I only found one passage where it could be argued that Israel chose YHWH.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
Here is one in Joshua of men choosing YHWH:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you Jehovah, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
-- But what does that one mean, "witnesses vs yourselves"? Does that mean that they only verbally expressed a choice, but not from the heart?
We can balance that one vs what Judges says:
They chose new gods;
Then was war in the gates:
Was there a shield or spear seen
Among forty thousand in Israel?
Judges also has this one:
Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.
and he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, In the morning Jehovah will show who are his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he shall choose will he cause to come near unto him.
and put fire in them, and put incense upon them before Jehovah to-morrow: and it shall be that the man whom Jehovah doth choose, he shall be holy: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.
And it shall come to pass, that the rod of the man whom I shall choose shall bud: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you.
And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with his presence, with his great power, out of Egypt;
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples:
Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day.
but in the place which Jehovah shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. [I will skip the other times God chooses a place.]
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, and Jehovah hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.
thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.
For Jehovah thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah, him and his sons for ever.
And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah;
And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him along all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, Long live the king.
(The people also chose to have a king)
Here is a situation in which God gave David a choice:
Go and speak unto David, Thus saith Jehovah, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
Solomon said:
And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude
O ye seed of Israel his servant,
Ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah,
The people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.
While we beez digressing on this & that, why not look at what scripture actually says; I search the rather literal ASV. I note that in the NT, so far as I know, no one chooses God, but God does some choosing.
Now the OT has some choosing by men, but not a lot of choosing God, unless there is some synonym that I missed, aside from Joshua ordering them to choose whom they would serve (it not being recorded that they obeyed the order). Similar to Joshua's admonition, there is one in Deuternomy about choosing life:
Thus far looking I only found one passage where it could be argued that Israel chose YHWH.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
Here is one in Joshua of men choosing YHWH:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you Jehovah, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
-- But what does that one mean, "witnesses vs yourselves"? Does that mean that they only verbally expressed a choice, but not from the heart?
We can balance that one vs what Judges says:
They chose new gods;
Then was war in the gates:
Was there a shield or spear seen
Among forty thousand in Israel?
Judges also has this one:
Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.
and he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, In the morning Jehovah will show who are his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he shall choose will he cause to come near unto him.
and put fire in them, and put incense upon them before Jehovah to-morrow: and it shall be that the man whom Jehovah doth choose, he shall be holy: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.
And it shall come to pass, that the rod of the man whom I shall choose shall bud: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you.
And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with his presence, with his great power, out of Egypt;
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples:
Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day.
but in the place which Jehovah shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. [I will skip the other times God chooses a place.]
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, and Jehovah hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.
thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.
For Jehovah thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah, him and his sons for ever.
And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah;
And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him along all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, Long live the king.
(The people also chose to have a king)
Here is a situation in which God gave David a choice:
Go and speak unto David, Thus saith Jehovah, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
Solomon said:
And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude
O ye seed of Israel his servant,
Ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah,
The people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.
I Have Now Scanned for Chose/Choose in the Bible
I only found one instance of men choosing YHWH, & it is suspect. I haven't yet searched the word "choice." And there may be some synonym to check. Perhaps some of you can confirm my conclusions or correct them.
This is the only candidate I found for men choosing God in the Bible:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you Jehovah, to serve him.
And they said, We are witnesses.
-- But what does that one mean, "witnesses vs yourselves"? Does that mean that they only verbally expressed a choice, but not from the heart? This choice doesn't seem to be destined to having a happy outcome, but to result in self-condemnation.
On the other hand, there are many statements about God choosing men, sometimes it is for a job like King or priest. And God chooses a place, like Jerusalem.
I only found one instance of men choosing YHWH, & it is suspect. I haven't yet searched the word "choice." And there may be some synonym to check. Perhaps some of you can confirm my conclusions or correct them.
This is the only candidate I found for men choosing God in the Bible:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you Jehovah, to serve him.
And they said, We are witnesses.
-- But what does that one mean, "witnesses vs yourselves"? Does that mean that they only verbally expressed a choice, but not from the heart? This choice doesn't seem to be destined to having a happy outcome, but to result in self-condemnation.
On the other hand, there are many statements about God choosing men, sometimes it is for a job like King or priest. And God chooses a place, like Jerusalem.