How about considering perspective?

[Guest]

Lets look at 1 Peter as you mentioned.

To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours


Chosen ( meaning God did the choosing) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..( meaning He already knew who He would chose)...its really quite simple ...in Ephesians it says we were chosen before the world was ever created...yet God knew it...thats foreknowledge.

Steve

[Guest]

Lets look at 1 Peter as you mentioned.

To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours


Chosen ( meaning God did the choosing) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..( meaning He already knew who He would chose)...its really quite simple ...in Ephesians it says we were chosen before the world was ever created...yet God knew it...thats foreknowledge.

Steve

I see it like this:
Chosen (meaning God did the choosing) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ..(meaning He already knew who would believe)

Why do I see it like that?

Let's look at your example:

Chosen ( meaning God did the choosing) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..( meaning He already knew who He would chose)

I don't see how to make sense of that reasoning. Here is how I'm reading what you are saying:

Chosen according to the fact that the Father already knowing who He would choose.

The fact that God has chosen already presupposes a choice. You don't say "I chose a hamburger according to the fact that I already knew I wanted a hamburger."

The word "chose" already tells that a decision has been made, you don't follow that up by saying "because I already knew what I would chose". Is it possible to make a choice without knowing what you would choose?

The way I see it, "according to the foreknowledge" explains the basis of determination for the "choice". And since it's clear that faith is the means of accepting the grace of God given to us, then that's a logical thing to foreknow about us before the foundation of the world (meaning, before we even existed)

Now to say that what God foreknew was His choice of who He would save, etc. makes it sound as if God, before the foundation of the world, decided who He would choose. The problem with this is that it would be saying there was a time when God didn't know who He would choose, and then, "one day" He decided. That can't be correct. That would be Open Theism. In my etimation God always knew who the the elect were, but we do not. So to convey this information to us finite humans, we are told that God chose us before we were born, before the foundation of the world even. And He chose us according to His foreknowledge of us. Not foreknowledge of His own knowledge, but foreknowledge of something about us, our reception of His message.

[Guest]

Hi Sean

God did not elect us because he fore knew, but the truth is he fore knew because he elected us. The whole issue still hinges on that word choose. Its in Ephesians as well as here and it says God chose. If his choice was only us choosing Him because He knew who would chose Him it really wouldnt be a choice it would only be an acknowledgement of an already foregone conclusion. To think that an Omnipotent Omniscient God who created everything,put the plan of salvation in motion, became a man to die on a cross for our sin and raise from the dead, would stand back without any say in the matter and let everything be based on us is to wild. Plus I find no Scripture to support the notion that God didnt exercise His will but quite the contrary..especially the whole chapter of Romans 9.That chapter alone has enough direct statements regarding election as to warrant it as an inescapable doctrine.
Ephesians 1:4-5
 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

Ephesians 1:11
               In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

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

This is an awesome Scripture where it clearly says as many as were ordained to eternal life did what.....they believed.
 
Romans9:14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,   and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I have always found these last Scriptures such a compelling arguement in favor of the choice of a Soviergn God where we are privileged enough to have written a prayer to the Father from the Son,where Jesus actually acknowledes that believers were given to Him by the Father. Clearly these words say all that the Father gives to me...will what....they will come to me.Given first, coming second. Its crystal clear.
John 6:37
37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away

John 17Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world


Steve

[Guest]

Hi Sean

God did not elect us because he fore knew, but the truth is he fore knew because he elected us.

I tried to address this in my last post. All I know is scripture says "Elect according to the foreknowledge". And "those He foreknew He also predestined" This is in a consitent logical order in the bible. The only thing God could foreknow is something about His people, not something about Himself.

The whole issue still hinges on that word choose.

That's right. It's always been God's choice. Man has never twisted God's arm. But we also don't want to fail to realize that God made man volitional, unlike the animals. It was God's choice to redeem man the way He did, by coming down to sinful man and presenting the gospel to us. God has presented man with a choice, the Gospel. It's a choice we have to make. See Luke 14:25-33

Its in Ephesians as well as here and it says God chose. If his choice was only us choosing Him because He knew who would chose Him it really wouldnt be a choice it would only be an acknowledgement of an already foregone conclusion. To think that an Omnipotent Omniscient God who created everything,put the plan of salvation in motion, became a man to die on a cross for our sin and raise from the dead, would stand back without any say in the matter and let everything be based on us is to wild.

Now who's talking extreme theology? You are putting me in the box you made for me, the box labeled "extreme" or "wild". What I mean is, the definition you made above is not what I believe, yet to make your point stick, you write up your own definition and stick it on me to fit into your paradigm. I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

Plus I find no Scripture to support the notion that God didnt exercise His will but quite the contrary..especially the whole chapter of Romans 9.That chapter alone has enough direct statements regarding election as to warrant it as an inescapable doctrine.
Ephesians 1:4-5
 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.

Who said God didn't exercise His will? Did man tell God He's got to send His Son to die for us, did man tell God He must save us by faith and not by works? Did man by his own strength bring Jesus into the world? You seem to be missing my point. It's were calvinist always get stuck. As soon as we read the Gospel that says "repent and believe", the calvinist cringes because he doesn't believe this statement is even possible. It's true you haven't said this, but you jump from 'if God doesn't choose, then man is soverign over God' mentality. What happened to "both are true"? If the soverign Lord wants to offer salvation, then by golly isn't He powerful enough to do that? Does that possibility extend beyond the box?

Ephesians 1:11
               In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

And if His will is to offer salvation to everyone who believes, just as the Gospel says, isn't this a possible part of everything that He's working out?

Also note this passage:
Luke 7:29-30
And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

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

This is an awesome Scripture where it clearly says as many as were ordained to eternal life did what.....they believed.

 
The word "ordained" can also be "devoted" as the same greek word is used in 1 Cor 16:15 I urge you, brethren--you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints--

We see that these people devoted themselves, just as "as many as were devoted to eternal life believed". It makes sense if you look at the whole context:

Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us:
"I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth."

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans9:14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,   and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I have always found these last Scriptures such a compelling arguement in favor of the choice of a Soviergn God where we are privileged enough to have written a prayer to the Father from the Son,where Jesus actually acknowledes that believers were given to Him by the Father.

I commented on Romans 9 in length several posts back, maybe you didn't read them, as you didn't even comment on what I said about it. So here we are full circle, back re-stating the same scriptures.

Clearly these words say all that the Father gives to me...will what....they will come to me.Given first, coming second. Its crystal clear.
John 6:37
37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away

John 17Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world

Steve

I agree, God does the first action, always God first. But we must react to the offer, just as it so clearly says in John 3:16-21.

[Guest]

Well actually the word ordained " tasso " which was used in Acts 13:48 according to W.E.Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words means to appoint...you may want to check your references...

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


Steve

<5,,5021,tasso>
"to place in order, arrange," signifies "to appoint," e.g., of the place where Christ had "appointed" a meeting with His disciples after His resurrection, Matt. 28:16; of positions of military and civil authority over others, whether "appointed" by men, Luke 7:8, or by God, Rom. 13:1, "ordained." It is said of those who, having believed the Gospel, "were ordained to eternal life," Acts 13:48. The house of Stephanas at Corinth had "set themselves" to the ministry of the saints (AV, "addicted"), 1 Cor. 16:15. Other instances of the arranging of special details occur in Acts 15:2; 22:10; 28:23. See DETERMINE, ORDAIN, SET.

[_Steve]

Steve,

Quoting Vine's definition of a word is not a complete or responsible way in which to ascertain the meaning of a word in a passage. W.E. Vine was himself a dispensational semi-Calvinist (I know this because Thomas Nelson Publishers sent me copies of his complete writings (five volumes) and invited me to write a topical synopsis of his views for publication as a sixth volume to the set. I declined, having better uses for my time).

Vine's Dictionary is a decent lexical resource, but he often inserts his own theological spin in his defining of certain words. It is better to consider more objective sources (along with Vine's, perhaps), like the major lexicons. Also, one can gain perspective upon a word's range of meaning by considering other passages that use it (as Sean pointed out in 1 Cor.16:15, where "ordained" or "appointed" can hardly be the best English equivalents).

Even if the primary meaning of tasso is "appointed" (which is the case), you can not immediately assume, unless the passage tells you, that you know who did the appointing. In 1 Cor.16:15, the household of Stephanus "appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints" (if we accept "appointed" as the best translation, though "disposed," "inclined," or "devoted" would seem to be better English words for the idea).

In Acts 13:48, we are not told whether it was God who "appointed" or "disposed" these people toward eternal life, or if this disposition already existed within them because of prior decisions and commitments made earlier in their lives. As Sean pointed out, from the immediate context, the other group in the synagogue "judged themselves" unworthy of eternal life, so it would be most natural to assume (in the absence of information to the contrary) that the group under consideration "inclined themselves" to eternal life. What reason is there to assume otherwise?

Now, for the sake of argument, let us agree with the Calvinists and assume that the passage is saying that "as many [meaning all] as [God had earlier] appointed to eternal life believed [on this particular occasion--a time designation which the context clearly implies]." What are the implications of this reading?

First, since God's "appointment" was presumably before the foundation of the world, and no names could be added or subtracted to His list at any later date, we must assume that everyone in Antioch who was on God's "list"--and therefore, who could ever be saved, got saved on that occasion (this is the unavoidable meaning of the statement, if it is God's choice that is being referred to). We would then be forced to conclude that no one in that town ever was saved on any later occasions, and that that church never gained a single new member thereafter.

While this is, I suppose, possible, I don't know how Luke would have known this to report it--and if he knew it "by inspiration" then the Christians of Antioch, once being informed of this, would be under no obligation ever to do any evangelism in that town, since all of their neighbors who had any possibility of being saved (having been appointed thereto before the foundation of the world) had already been converted through Paul's first few sermons. This seems rather ridiculous, but is the unavoidable conclusion forced upon us by the (unnecessary) interpretation of this favorite verse of the Calvinists.

Second, even if this is telling us that those who believed on this occasion had in fact previously been appointed to salvation by God, there is still nothing in this statement to help us decide whether that earlier "appointment" to salvation was or was not based upon the fact that God foreknew that they would, on this occasion, believe. That is, the verse, if it is acknowledging some concept of divine election, would support an Arminian view of election as admirably as a Calvinistic view of it, since it says nothing about the basis of the "appointment."

Arminians also believe that believers have been predestined to inherit eternal life, but they believe (as Paul says) that this predestination was the result of God's foreknowledge. It is in this final point (not that of predestination itself) that Arminians and Calvinists differ.

In any case, grammar and biblical usage is often more helpful in deciding the meaning of a verse than is a simple dictionary citation from W.E. Vine. The verse in question either tells us nothing about God's choosing (though other verses, of course, address this issue) or else it tells us something about God's choosing that neither favors an Arminian nor a Calvinist view, and implies something (that no one there ever got saved later) which seems extremely unlikely.

Your repetition of the verses from Romans 9 without acknowledging the explanations that both Sean and I have given of those verses, demonstrates the kind of protagonist you are for your views. Here is what I pick-up from my reading of this discussion (and others at this forum):

1. You are very loyal to the "balance" that you think you find in the teaching of Chuck Smith and in the Calvary Chapel movement generally;

2. When you read verses about divine election, you pretty much see them automatically through the Calvinist "lens," and assume a certain (Calvinistic) meaning of the verses;

3. Yet, you cannot ignore passages about free will and human responsibility (even though they can not logically co-exist with the Calvinist's unnecessary interpretations of the verses about election);

4. Rather than reconsider whether the Calvinist interpretation of these verses is valid, and seek a more sensible (non-Calvinistic) meaning of them which harmonizes with all of scripture, you insist that the Bible's doctrine must be "mysterious," and that those who find a simple and reasonable way to harmonize the whole of scripture on the subject, are "extreme"--even though they make no extreme claims or assertions--they simply find no biblical reason to agree with Calvinism;

5. Like most Calvinists, you have somehow convinced yourself that God's making unconditional choices of which individuals will and which will not be saved, before the foundation of the earth (an assertion not made in scripture), somehow still allows man enough freedom of choice to be responsible for his failure to be saved (!)-- making man (not God) the one responsible for who ends up in hell. Thus, if a Calvinist wishes to do so, he may eat his cake and still have it, and claim there is no nonsense in any of this...only a divine mystery (which God, thankfully, never suggests to be the case);

6. There is no necessity of demonstrating why opponents of the Calvary view are to labeled as "extreme." It is not necessary to point out any evidence in their statements of imbalance. Since Calvary Chapel is the epitome of "balance," those who don't agree with Calvary's "mystery" position must be imbalanced and. therefore, extreme;

7. Calvary is a good movement--better than many other denominations--so it gives one a sense of security to simply stand wherever Calvary stands, and to defend its doctrines against all refutation;

8. This defense of Calvary's doctrine need not take the form of answering exegetical challenges raised by people who disagree. All that is necessary is to assume that Calvary is balanced, and to charge all those who bring rational, exegetical challenges with the label "extremists;"

9. Therefore, you have apparently put yourself under no obligation to understand or interact with any arguments contrary to what Calvary has taught you about this subject. Instead of paying attention to what others have said to refute your position, you can keep the argument going in endless circles by pretending that the scriptures you quote have not been addressed by the other side, and by simply re-quoting the same scriptures every once in a while, in place of providing any reasons why your understanding of those passages is more accurate than is the interpretation given by those who disagree.

I have no doubt that there will be many in heaven who take this approach to theological controversy, but, in this life, they have insulated themselves from biblical correction, and give no evidence of being honest seekers of truth--only champions of a severely injured and limping status quo.

Your treatment of Romans 9 gives me reason to expect no interaction from you on the arguments raised here about Acts 13:48. Instead, I expect to see another citation of that verse three or four posts further along in this thread, as if it self-evidently proves a Calvinist premise, and as if no one ever corrected you on it. I hope to be disappointed in this expectation.

[Guest]

Steve
"Even if the primary meaning of tasso is "appointed" (which is the case), you can not immediately assume, unless the passage tells you, that you know who did the appointing. In 1 Cor.16:15, the household of Stephanus "appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints" (if we accept "appointed" as the best translation, though "disposed," "inclined," or "devoted" would seem to be better English words for the idea). "

Well first off you are contradicting yourself here. You say it means appointed then you say disposed,inclined or devoted would seem a better English word. Well it may seem a better word, in light of its impact upon your position but seeming to be a better English word and meaning appointed are two differnet things. I find it odd that with all these translations listed that somehow they missed the proper rendering. Clearly the word tasso means appointed and tasso is what is in the text.


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 (King James Version; 1611/ 1769).

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 Webster Bible; 1833).

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 (Revised Webster Bible; 1995).

And {those of} the nations, hearing it, rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as WERE ORDAINED to eternal life (The Darby Bible; 1890).

And the Gentiles hearing it were glad and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as WERE ORDAINED to life everlasting believed (Douay-Rheims; American edition; 1899).

And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as WERE ORDAINED to eternal life believed (American Standard Version; 1901).

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as WERE ORDAINED to eternal life believed (Revised Standard Version; 1952).

And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as WERE ORDAINED to eternal life believed (Modern King James Version; 1976-1998).

And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as WERE APPOINTED to life age-during (Young's Literal Translation; 1898).

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who WERE APPOINTED for eternal life believed (New International Version; 1984).

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who WERE APPOINTED for eternal life believed (New International Version; British edition; 1984).

When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who WERE APPOINTED to eternal life became believers (New Living Translation; 1996).

As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. As many as WERE APPOINTED to eternal life believed (World English Bible; 1999).

Now the Gentiles hearing this were rejoicing and glorifying the Word of the Lord. And as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to life eternal believed (Kenneth Wuest. The New Testament: An Expanded Translation; 1961).

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed (New American Standard Bible; 1977).

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed (New American Standard Bible; 1995).

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed (New King James Version; 1982).

And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed (Literal Translation of the Bible; 1976-1998).

When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who HAD BEEN APPOINTED for eternal life believed (New English Translation; 1998).

The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who WERE DESTINED for eternal life came to believe (New American Bible; 1970-1991).

It made the gentiles very happy to hear this and they gave thanks to the Lord for his message; all who WERE DESTINED for eternal life became believers (New Jerusalem Bible; 1985).

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as HAD BEEN DESTINED for eternal life became believers (Revised Standard Version; 1989).

The Gentiles listened with delight and extolled the Lord's Message; and all who WERE PRE-DESTINED to the Life of the Ages believed (Weymouth's Translation; n.a.).

And the Gentiles, hearing this, were glad and gave glory to the word of God: and those MARKED OUT BY GOD for eternal life had faith (Bible in Basic English; 1949/ 1964).1

I could list the other lexicons also but they all render it likes Vines. I dont think your criticism of him being a Calvanist has any bearing on this since he renders it the same as everyone else and I really dont know why it was thrown in other than to somehow cast aspersions upon the the intent of Acts 13:48. As to who appointed them I think like you said in reading the whole text it is rather obvious that it was God,especially in light of glorifying the word of the Lord and believing unto eternal life. As far as your criticism of the proper way to exegete Scripture I believe all the ways are good and healthy,but the exact meanings of the words themselves not taken out of context carry a lot of weight if not the preponderance of the weight.


"Now, for the sake of argument, let us agree with the Calvinists and assume that the passage is saying that "as many [meaning all] as [God had earlier] appointed to eternal life believed [on this particular occasion--a time designation which the context clearly implies]." What are the implications of this reading?

First, since God's "appointment" was presumably before the foundation of the world, and no names could be added or subtracted to His list at any later date, we must assume that everyone in Antioch who was on God's "list"--and therefore, who could ever be saved, got saved on that occasion (this is the unavoidable meaning of the statement, if it is God's choice that is being referred to). We would then be forced to conclude that no one in that town ever was saved on any later occasions, and that that church never gained a single new member thereafter. "

I dont know where you came up with this and if you could please point it out in the Scriptures of Acts 13:44-51 I would sure be appreciative. All we have here is Paul preaching on a Sabbath and the Jews rejecting it and gentiles getting saved..and those that were appointed to eternal life believed. Here you are not properly exegeting this scripture..you are reading into it...but I cant find it there!

"Second, even if this is telling us that those who believed on this occasion had in fact previously been appointed to salvation by God, there is still nothing in this statement to help us decide whether that earlier "appointment" to salvation was or was not based upon the fact that God foreknew that they would, on this occasion, believe. That is, the verse, if it is acknowledging some concept of divine election, would support an Arminian view of election as admirably as a Calvinistic view of it, since it says nothing about the basis of the "appointment."

Arminians also believe that believers have been predestined to inherit eternal life, but they believe (as Paul says) that this predestination was the result of God's foreknowledge. It is in this final point (not that of predestination itself) that Arminians and Calvinists differ. "

Well unless we are reading different Bibles which I doubt...and plaese correct me if Im wrong it says pretty emphatically that... As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Taking your own recommendation we can let the structure of the scentence coupled with the meaning of the words speak for themselves. When we do this we are led to the enescapable conclusion that As many that were APPOINTED to eternal life believed...in that order. If it were written like you suggest it would have said As many as believed were appointed unto eternal life,which of course it isnt. I hope this time I have adressed some of your questions.

Lord Bless You Bro

Steve

[Guest]

I dont know where you came up with this and if you could please point it out in the Scriptures of Acts 13:44-51 I would sure be appreciative. All we have here is Paul preaching on a Sabbath and the Jews rejecting it and gentiles getting saved..and those that were appointed to eternal life believed. Here you are not properly exegeting this scripture..you are reading into it...but I cant find it there!

I don't understand. I quoted this in context yet you fail to comment on it in context, so I will post it again.

Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us:
"I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth."

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Now, who is doing the judging of themselves? The Jews. I thought God did the choosing? But Luke says they made the choice! Now, reading in context, what is said about those who accepted the message? Did the ability to make a choice end after verse 47? "

As many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Here is what strongs says:

G5021
τάσσω
tassō
tas'-so
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

Now, using tassō in 1 Cor 16:15 you can't escape the fact that they tassō themselves. So can someone tassō themselves? The evidence seems to say yes, unless 1 Cor 16:15 is in error.

Well unless we are reading different Bibles which I doubt...and plaese correct me if Im wrong it says pretty emphatically that... As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

I don't have a problem with that at all for many reasons. One is that the same greek word tassō can be used in the manner of 1 Cor 16:15. Second is the fact that the means are not described in the passage, in other words, the means of tassō. Ordained on what grounds? The passage doesn't say, the context does give us a clue thought. So at best, you are gessing at what grounds determine the ordaining and so am I. The passage itself is not alone in scripture which is why I have many times quoted 1 Peter and Romans 8, they can't contradict one another. And my final point (see below).

Taking your own recommendation we can let the structure of the scentence coupled with the meaning of the words speak for themselves. When we do this we are led to the enescapable conclusion that As many that were APPOINTED to eternal life believed...in that order. If it were written like you suggest it would have said As many as believed were appointed unto eternal life,which of course it isnt. I hope this time I have adressed some of your questions.

Lord Bless You Bro

Steve

My final point applies to your quote here as well as above. In scripture, it is common to see things in a different order than we would expect.

An example:

Gen 22:12 And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, nor do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me...16 because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only one...

Does this mean that God went through all this time not knowing what was going to happen? That's how it reads! This is fodder for Open Theists. We know that God knows all things, so we consider this when we read this passage. The same applies to the logic you are using in Acts 13:48.

Again, What was the order of events in Gen 22? Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, then God said He knew that he feared God. Following your example of "in that order" then God didn't know if Abraham feared Him until after this event. I'm sure you disagree with open-theism, but to be fair, your reasoning of "in that order" is exactly why there are open-theists.

Just something to think about.
Sean

[_Steve]

Steve,

I find your reasoning perplexing. You suggest that I contradict myself in my saying, on one hand, that "appointed" is the primary meaning of tasso, while, on the other hand, I also acknowledge that there are additional English words (like "disposed" or "devoted") that can adequately translate the same word in various contexts. Where is the contradiction? Both statements are simply true and confirmed by the lexicons, so I am not sure why you consider this to be self-contradictory.

Are you not aware of the common problem faced by all translators due to the fact that there is seldom a single English word that exhausts the nuances of a given Greek word? If you are this unfamiliar with translational issues, it would probably be wise for you to steer your discussions away from arguments based upon the meanings of foreign words.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of such things, and I don't intend to shame you for it. It is simply that arguing a point on the basis of the particular translations of words should be reserved for those who have some rudimentary understanding of the nature of translating words from one language to another. No fault is here being assigned, but your statements show that you are out of your depth in discussing such things.

Now in a different matter, however, I can not help but fault you. While you think it inconsistent for me to cite multiple meanings of the word tasso, you yourself favorably cite 24 different translations, eight of which translate tasso as "ordained," eleven translate it "appointed", four translate it "destined" or "predestined" (the prefix "pre-" is nowhere implied in the word tasso) and one translates it "marked-out by God"(the words "by God" have no corresponding words in the Greek text)!

Immediately prior to quoting these differing translations of the same word, you insist, "Clearly the word tasso means appointed and tasso is what is in the text." But how can you suggest that "appointed" is the "clear" and "only" meaning of tasso, when even the authorities you cite give such disparate renderings of the same Greek word? The word "ordained" does not carry the same meaning as the words "destined" or "pre-destined," which do not have the same meaning as the word "appointed."

The only thing all these translations have in common is their shared Calvinistic bent, but even they can't decide upon a single meaning of the word tasso. This is because the word does not have only one meaning, but a variety of nuances. You significantly did not quote any of the translators' rendering of the word tasso in 1 Corinthians 16:15 to make your point, since not one of them would translate the word as "appointed," "ordained," or "predestined" in that place.

Another thing also perplexes me. When I make a simple and inescapeable observation that your way of understanding Acts 13:48 means that every person who was foreordained to salvation in that place was converted at that time, you say, "I dont know where you came up with this and if you could please point it out in the Scriptures of Acts 13:44-51 I would sure be appreciative."

I am not sure how to point it out any more clearly than I did the first time. However, if you need to see it from someone other than me, look again at all 24 of the translations you cited. They all tell us that "All" or "as many as" were "ordained," or "appointed," or "predestined," or "marked out by God" for eternal life believed Paul's words and were converted. If "all" of the predestined ones were converted at that time, then who was left to be converted later? I can see no escaping this point, if tasso is talking about divine election--which the passage does not claim or give any hint that it is.

You also make invalid inferences from word order. Again, you cannot be faulted if you don't understand grammar. The problem arises when you think you do understand it and then confidently take others to task based upon your inadequate grasp of the flexibility of certain grammarical constructions. My point, which you are seeking to refute this way, was that even if Acts 13:48 were about divine election, neither the verse nor the context tell us anything about the basis of that election--unless that basis is found in the believing mentioned in the same verse.

As I pointed out, an Arminian would feel as comfortable as would a Calvinist with a statement that affirms that believers were appointed by God to obtain eternal life, which is precisely what your interpretation of Acts 13:48 would be saying. The verse does not tell us that people believed because they were ordained to eternal life. It only affirms that the number of those who believed and of those appointed to receive eternal life was the same.

An appeal to word order doesn't change or add anything to the meaning of the words themselves, such as introducing the concept that the appointing in question was an unconditional predestination for some to believe, which they did on this occasion as a result of this predestination. If there is anything here said about God's election, the most that can be observed is that there are two facts affirmed about the same people: 1) they were appointed to eternal life, and 2) they believed. The same two things would be as happily affirmed either by Calvinists or by Arminians, though their respective beliefs about election are quite different on the finer points not raised in this verse. The simple truth is that Acts 13:48 mentions no cause-and-effect relationship between the two things affirmed.

Suppose a man would be heard to say, "All the children that I have chosen to support were born in my own home." This has a word order identical to that in Acts 13:48. Following the same logic that you apply to that verse, you would perhaps conclude that the man was affirming that children were born in his home after, and as a result of, his choosing to support them (since his choosing is mentioned before the birth in the sentence). Now this could indeed be his meaning, but it is by no means the only possible (nor the most likely) meaning of his statement.

Many would assume that the speaker is saying that, because certain children were born into his home, he is committed to supporting them--and only them. By the same reasoning, Acts 13:48 would be saying that, because certain people believed on this occasion, God ordained that they should have eternal life. There is nothing more or less likely, in itself, in this being the correct meaning of the words, rather than the Calvinist's interpretation. Nothing can be proved here by the word order.

In any case, I find no reason to read divine election into this verse at all, since the context is describing the self-chosen attitudes toward eternal life that different groups of people had. The fact that Paul's preaching found some who were indisposed to eternal life (v.46), and others who were disposed toward it (v.48), does not necessarily bring the subject of divine election into consideration at all.

If my explanations are too vague, and you still do not understand these points, I'm afraid I must leave further discussion of them to participants more patient than myself.

[Guest]

[quoting Steve Gregg:]

"Are you not aware of the common problem faced by all translators due to the fact that there is seldom a single English word that exhausts the nuances of a given Greek word? If you are this unfamiliar with translational issues, it would probably be wise for you to steer your discussions away from arguments based upon the meanings of foreign words...

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of such things, and I don't intend to shame you for it. It is simply that arguing a point on the basis of the particular translations of words should be reserved for those who have some rudimentary understanding of the nature of translating words from one language to another. No fault is here being assigned, but your statements show that you are out of your depth in discussing such things."

1) to put in order, to station 1a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint 1a1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one 1b) to appoint, ordain, order 1b1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority 1b2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon (Joseph H. Thayer. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament).4



I. 1. To arrange, put in order, ... especially to draw up in order of battle, to form, array, marshal, both of troops and ships, ... Passive. to be drawn up, ... in four lines, .... in single column, ....in rank and file, ... to fall in, form in order of battle,
2. to post, station, ... to serve among the infantry,...

II. 1. to appoint to any service, military or civil, ... one over a thing, to a service or task, ... Pass.... to be appointed to a service,...
2. ... to appoint one to do a thing, ... Passive to be appointed to do ...
3. ... also, to order one to do a thing, ...
4. to assign to a class, ... to act as one of a set, ... Passive.... to join it, ...

III. 1. .... to place in a certain order,
2. to appoint, ordain, order, prescribe, ...
3. of taxes or payments, to appoint or fix a certain payment, ... to fix the price, Passive, ... to take a payment on oneself, i.e. agree to pay it,
4. also, generally, to agree upon, settle ...
5. to impose punishments, ...
6. ... fixed, prescribed, ... (Liddell-Scott Greek English Lexicon).5

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed (New American Standard Bible; 1995).



Here I have listed two other lexicons for you to look at. I also have listed the New American translation interpretation of Acts 13:48.I find it perplexing that you suggest that the Lockman Foundation messed up their translation. For you to suggest that we dont study greek words I find simply appauling,especially in light of your position as a teacher.I was unware you were a Greek Scholar? Your ability to apparenty read Greek far surpasses mine I guess,since I dont read Greek.I have adressed your other points and will again if you so desire. But for now since the arguement hinges largely upon the word " tasso" lets resolve that, since if it doesnt mean what scholars say it means the whole discussion seems rather pointless. If you are so persuaded in your mind that tasso means many different things other than what the lexicons say Im sure you wouldnt mind producing them for us all here to examine so we could see it for ourselves.


Steve