"Ordained" to eternal life (Acts 13:48)

__id_1512
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1512 » Thu May 03, 2007 6:47 pm

Homer wrote:You can find Alford's comments here:

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/translations.pdf

As pointed out, Augustine erroneously followed the Vulgate whereas the Greek fathers followed the original Greek and did not fall into the errors of Calvinism.
I had actually found that PDF. I assumed that it wasn't what SSS was referring to, because it was so brief.

Homer, this is what I said to SSS:

"If he argues the verb should be read as a middle (as many as disposed themselves), it will be interesting to see if he addresses the lack of a reflexive pronoun. Or he may say something like Robin & Wesley's comments. Either way, it will be interesting to see if he addresses the time aspects of the grammar--when it happened."

I have very carefully pointed out that White argued based on the time aspects of the grammar. (I also briefly referred to White's argument based on the reflexive pronoun, but I didn't draw that out clearly.) I just posted three times pointing that out. Your link doesn't say anything about it. So why point me to a document that doesn't address the issue I've been talking about?

It's like I said to Robin. It argues against the conclusion, but it doesn't argue against the argument.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sun May 06, 2007 1:05 pm

I'm working my way through these links in preparation for the great debate with Mr. White. This is, I think, his argument as to middle voice-- I confess I don't understand much of this and my gifts are not directed so much to the language arts, but if we could have some dialogue on this site as to these arguments, it might illuminate these issues for me (and others) and better equip me (and us) to receive the debate. If anyone has a gift for these sort of things, dig in...

http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/study/acts-13-48/pt-1.htm
http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/study/acts-13-48/pt-2.htm

I'm looking forward to this debate -- it's a new consideration for me, and iron does sharpen iron!
Last edited by _mikenatt on Sun May 06, 2007 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sun May 06, 2007 2:57 pm

Maybe I missed it, but his argument on the radio seemed to be centrally around the active/passive/middle tense issue -- Wesley's argument seems to even assume White's argument as to "who" did the ordination (or disposing or whatever) and then address the "when." Did White address that part of the tense as well? If so, I must have missed it in all the grammatical and syntactical discussion -- it's all a bit too academic to me and is the real weakness in my opinion.

I am a patent attorney, and don't have any grounding in these rules of grammer, but I do live in a world with its own strict and archaic rules of construing patent language. The problem we face is that when you rely too heavily on those rules, you almost inevitably lead yourself to a construction of a patent that is eventually divorced from what is the originally conceived and understood invention and can become absurd if you're not careful. This is true even when the surrounding context and syntactical arguments are considered. The only way to achieve a meaningful construction is when you step back and continually look at the overall and general context of the invention and that you are internally consistent with all of the statements made and what the inventor's full and complete understanding and appreciation of his invention was.

I know this is very different, but listening to Mr. White leaves me with a visceral feeling similar to when I argue patent construction with someone who is arguing what I believe to be a wrong meaning for a patent.
Last edited by _mikenatt on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sun May 06, 2007 11:24 pm

Darin,

Read the articles you posted the links to. Very interesting but unconvincing. He makes much of the English meaning of the word "appointed", which he says is the best translation of the Greek tetagmenoi. This does not help his cause ; he does not prove the the appointment can not be refused.

Certainly God takes the initiative in salvation. God's will and power are directly involved, primarily, I believe, through His word and Spirit. "the gospel is the power unto salvation". This does not eliminate man's free choice in response.

If the sole reason the Gentiles of v. 48 believed was because God had long ago foreordained that they would, then all others who were there to hear the gospel (almost the whole city was there, v. 44) were not foreordained, not elect, and it would be futile to ever mention the Gospel to any of them again. And of the Jews that rejected the preaching of Paul, why did Paul and Barnabas say "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first...". Why, if they were foreordained to reject it? Seems senseless to me, like some pageant. Is God not sincere?

Interestingly, the NIV theological dictionary says tasso used in the middle voice in Acts 28:23 means to make a mutual appointment. In Lange's monumental commentary, it is noted that the word translated "ordained" is used in Acts 20:13 "to signify a man, not outwardly ordained, but inwardly disposed, or one determined, not by God, but by his own inclinations...to travel on foot."

The Calvinist can not prove that the "appointment" could not be resisted, or when or by what means it occured.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

__id_1512
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1512 » Thu May 10, 2007 12:46 pm

darin-houston wrote:I know this is very different, but listening to Mr. White leaves me with a visceral feeling similar to when I argue patent construction with someone who is arguing what I believe to be a wrong meaning for a patent.
A visceral feeling, eh? Interesting that you should word it that way... Are you familiar with the word "truthiness"? :)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Thu May 10, 2007 8:07 pm

Actually my truthiness quotient is quite low - I don't suggest that my visceral feeling is evidence or proof of a thing -- it's just a feeling, nothing more.

What would you call it if someone had a gut feeling against truthiness ?
Last edited by _mikenatt on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1512
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1512 » Thu May 10, 2007 8:14 pm

darin-houston wrote:Actually my truthiness quotient is quite low - I don't suggest that my visceral feeling is evidence or proof of a thing -- it's just a feeling, nothing more.

What would you call it if someone had a gut feeling against truthiness ?
A headache?

Edited to add: Or should that be bellyache?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Fri May 11, 2007 7:02 am

darin wrote:
Actually my truthiness quotient is quite low - I don't suggest that my visceral feeling is evidence or proof of a thing -- it's just a feeling, nothing more.
or, perhaps, a God-given discernment. if a person is walking in the Spirit, I believe that paying attention to your "gut" feeling is vital. How else would the HS guide us?

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

__id_1512
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1512 » Fri May 11, 2007 7:18 am

TK wrote:or, perhaps, a God-given discernment. if a person is walking in the Spirit, I believe that paying attention to your "gut" feeling is vital. How else would the HS guide us?

TK
I wish you well in your search for truthiness. :)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1512
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1512 » Fri May 11, 2007 9:27 am

Jugulum wrote:
TK wrote:or, perhaps, a God-given discernment. if a person is walking in the Spirit, I believe that paying attention to your "gut" feeling is vital. How else would the HS guide us?

TK
I wish you well in your search for truthiness. :)
Hmm...In retrospect, that was an unnecessarily off-handed, joking response to what was a serious question. Sorry about that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”