Acts 2:47 – The Bible vs Human Theology

[The Archangel]

Really?

in #53 you wrote

I'm still trying to figure out how you can say "there is no past tense in Greek."

The Archangel

This is a MISUNDERSTANDING by YOU, as you did not read what I wrote!

Can you ever admit that you can be wrong?

So... Now you're saying I need to admit some kind of error because your writing wasn't clear?! So... I should apologize that I couldn't read your mind?

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

So... Now you're saying I need to admit some kind of error because your writing wasn't clear?! So... I should apologize that I couldn't read your mind?

The Archangel

you MISQUOTED me!

 

[The Archangel]

you MISQUOTED me!

Because you were unclear in what you wrote.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

Because you were unclear in what you wrote.

The Archangel

from #53

SavedByGrace said: ↑
There is NO PAST tense in the Greek “τοὺς σῳζομένους”! it is PRESENT
I'm still trying to figure out how you can say "there is no past tense in Greek."

The Archangel

Now notice carefully what I wrote, "There is NO PAST tense in the Greek “τοὺς σῳζομένους”"

Which a referring to the Greek “τοὺς σῳζομένους”, ONLY, as I said IN THE GREEK and then continued.

You wrongly assumed that I said, "there is no past tense in Greek.", as in the Greek langauge, which would be incorrect.

It is your mistake!

 

[The Archangel]

As I said before:

Language matters, as does care in your language. Now, none of us is perfect; typos do exist. Even the best writer can be unclear at times. But you did say:

The issue over whether it is active or passive (it's passive) was discussed. And, perhaps this was an overstatement on your part. But saying a word "cannot" have a past tense and saying that it "is not in" the past tense are two entirely different things.

So, your animosity is still misplaced and is still uncalled-for.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

As I said before:



So, your animosity is still misplaced and is still uncalled-for.

The Archangel

your problem is very simple. you cannot admit when you are wrong, apologize, and move on.

you are wrong on the meaning if πᾶς in John 3:16, and that the KJV translated it by WHOSOEVER, but you refuse to admit this

You are wrong when you said that "I'm still trying to figure out how you can say "there is no past tense in Greek", because you failed to read what I wrote.

This is not the first time that I have seen this with you.

In future I will not even bother to reply to anything you post, as it is not worth it

 

[The Archangel]

your problem is very simple. you cannot admit when you are wrong, apologize, and move on.

Not at all. If I were wrong, I'd be happy to admit it. Me thinks you project too much.

you are wrong on the meaning if πᾶς in John 3:16, and that the KJV translated it by WHOSOEVER, but you refuse to admit this

So... you're still not going to engage with the Greek?

You are wrong when you said that "I'm still trying to figure out how you can say "there is no past tense in Greek", because you failed to read what I wrote.

As explained, it was your writing that was unclear and confusing. You could have clarified, admitted your mistake, and moved forward with discussion. However, your animus towards me (as well as others, especially "Calvinists") did not allow you to do so.

This is not the first time that I have seen this with you.

Whatever that means.

In future I will not even bother to reply to anything you post, as it is not worth it

Really?! You promise?

The Archangel

 

[Dave G]

Here we have a classic example, where the “theology” of the translators, outweigh what the actual Greek text, as Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, says.

Tyndale was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Latin and Spanish, in addition to English.
His theology, or understanding of the Scriptures, had nothing to do with his ability to translate the Bible into his native tongue.

Also, the translators who followed him, especially the 40+ scholars who were entrusted by the king of England to translate the Authorized, would have carefully checked Tyndale's work before agreeing with him on this passage.

“The Lord added day by day those who were continually saved”

I agree.
This passage clearly says that the Lord did the adding, not us.

The Greek, “τοὺς σῳζομένους”, is the present, active participle, which is literally translated into English, “those who were being saved”, denoting a progressive condition, which was continuance, as from the ongoing Revival in the early Church.

Acts 2:47 Greek Text Analysis
Verse Analysis: Acts 2:47 - Textus Receptus Bibles

My friend,
Regardless of how " τοὺς σῳζομένους" it would be translated by today's scholars... whether "such as should be saved" or "those being saved", the truth remains that this passage clearly shows the Lord as being the one continually adding to the church, daily, those that He was saving.

How you miss the significance of this, I do not know.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Tyndale was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Latin and Spanish, in addition to English.
His theology, or understanding of the Scriptures, had nothing to do with his ability to translate the Bible into his native tongue.

Also, the translators who followed him, especially the 40+ scholars who were entrusted by the king of England to translate the Authorized, would have carefully checked Tyndale's work before agreeing with him on this passage.


I agree.
This passage clearly says that the Lord did the adding, not us.

Acts 2:47 Greek Text Analysis

My friend,
Regardless of how " τοὺς σῳζομένους" it would be translated by today's scholars... whether "such as should be saved" or "those being saved",
The truth remains that this passage clearly shows the Lord as being the one adding to the church daily, those that He was saving.

How you miss the significance of this, I do not know.

You miss the point because of your love of the KJV

The Greek does not allow the reading

Should be saved

Were being saved is correct

 

[Dave G]

You miss the point because of your love of the KJV

I believe that you're missing the point because of your unbelief of the words, sir.
The Lord did and does the adding, not us.

Good afternoon to you.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I believe that you're missing the point because of your unbelief of the words, sir.
The Lord did and does the adding, not us.

Good afternoon to you.

Can you not read?

No one is disputing that the Lord saves sinners

The OP is about the false Calvinist reading of Acts 2.47, "SHOULD be saved"

Which is NOT what the Greek says

 

[kyredneck]

This passage clearly says that the Lord did the adding, not us.

Agree!

Regardless of how " τοὺς σῳζομένους" it would be translated by today's scholars... whether "such as should be saved" or "those being saved", the truth remains that this passage clearly shows the Lord as being the one continually adding to the church, daily, those that He was saving.

Winner!

How you miss the significance of this, I do not know.

Lol, @SavedByGrace is one of a handful on this board that's consumed with the 'syndrome'.

 

[Silverhair]

I believe that you're missing the point because of your unbelief of the words, sir.
The Lord did and does the adding, not us.

Good afternoon to you.

And those that believe are added by God. Note the order, one has to believe before God adds them.

 

[The Archangel]

And those that believe are added by God. Note the order, one has to believe before God adds them.

Not quite... First, the clause (ὁ δὲ κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σῳζομένους καθʼ ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό) says nothing about the people believing. It says God added. Whom did He add? Those who were being saved. That's all. Do people need to believe in order to be saved? Absolutely. Romans 10 is quite clearly against the so-called "Hyper-Calvinist" position. However, in this passage "belief" is not being discussed.

Also... "God added" is an "imperfect," which means it is discussing past time. Is it past from the author's writing? Probably. Luke is reporting what happened, and that's probably all. However, even if you press the grammar of this clause too far, you can't get "one has to believe before God adds them." You really can't have God's adding happening in the past with the being saved being a present participle and claim belief (being saved) happens before God's adding. In other words, you really can't have a present action (being saved) causing what happened in the past (God adding).

The Archangel

 

[Dave G]

No one is disputing that the Lord saves sinners

Respectfully,

Yes, you are, and it's been shown to you many times, SBG;
You are disputing that the Lord saves some according to His unfathomable purposes, and damns the rest for their willfully committed sins that they are fully responsible for.

In fact, you keep calling what the Bible teaches about how and why God saves anyone, "Calvinism", instead of simply believing the words on the page by faith.

 

[Dave G]

And those that believe are added by God. Note the order, one has to believe before God adds them.

" 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." ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ). <---- Note the word order...they believed because they were ordained to eternal life.

" Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." ( John 10:25-27 ). <---- Note the word order...first someone is given to Christ by His Father, then they come to Him.

" And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ( John 6:35-37 ). <---- Note the word order: All that given to Christ, will then come to Him. It's also defining who comes to Him...those that are given, and no more.

Further on we read:

" But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." ( John 6:64-65 ) <----- Note the word order: Jesus identifies that there are some who do not believe, and then tells them why they do not; Because it must be given to them by His Father, to come to Him.

" Blessed [is the man whom] thou choosest, and causest to approach [unto thee, that] he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, [even] of thy holy temple." ( Psalms 65:4 ) <------ Note the word order...God chooses, and that person then approaches Him. He is the cause, and their "approaching" Him is the result.

Ephesians 1:3-14. <---- Again, note the word order...
Those that were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world ( v4 ) and were predestinated to their adoption of children (v5), then believed and were sealed by the Spirit ( v13-14 ).

On a side note, I see that this passage in Ephesians 1 develops, quite well, the how and why anyone believes the Gospel and then becomes indwelt by His Spirit...
Because of God's choice to place them in Christ before He even made the world.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yes, you are, and it's been shown to you many times, SBG;
You are disputing that the Lord saves some according to His unfathomable purposes, and damns the rest for their willfully committed sins that they are fully responsible for.

You keep calling what the Bible teaches, "Calvinism".

Again you are well WRONG

 

[Dave G]

@Silverhair
So, my friend... note the word order:

They were ordained to eternal life, given to Christ by the Father to save ( John 17:2-3 ), and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world;
Chosen and caused to approach... which was and is the actual "why" that they were added.

He adds them to the local church ( body of "called out ones" ) after they have believed.

There's nothing contradictory there that I can see.
God "adds them" based on what He's revealed in the rest of His word, Silverhair, not based on one passage that shows His elect believing and then the Lord adding them to the local church.

His decision to make them vessels of His mercy ( Romans 9:6-24 ) far pre-dated their real-time belief of the Gospel and addition to the assembly.


As I've already expressed to SBG,
Good afternoon to you as well, sir.

 

[Silverhair]

Not quite... First, the clause (ὁ δὲ κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σῳζομένους καθʼ ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό) says nothing about the people believing. It says God added. Whom did He add? Those who were being saved. That's all. Do people need to believe in order to be saved? Absolutely. Romans 10 is quite clearly against the so-called "Hyper-Calvinist" position. However, in this passage "belief" is not being discussed.

Also... "God added" is an "imperfect," which means it is discussing past time. Is it past from the author's writing? Probably. Luke is reporting what happened, and that's probably all. However, even if you press the grammar of this clause too far, you can't get "one has to believe before God adds them." You really can't have God's adding happening in the past with the being saved being a present participle and claim belief (being saved) happens before God's adding. In other words, you really can't have a present action (being saved) causing what happened in the past (God adding).

The Archangel

But as we see in
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The order of salvation is shown, confess, because you believe, then God saves.

 

[Silverhair]

Respectfully,

Yes, you are, and it's been shown to you many times, SBG;
You are disputing that the Lord saves some according to His unfathomable purposes, and damns the rest for their willfully committed sins that they are fully responsible for.

In fact, you keep calling what the Bible teaches about how and why God saves anyone, "Calvinism", instead of simply believing the words on the page by faith.

Actually, if memory serves, SBG and a number of others on here have said that God saves those that believe in His son, which is what the bible says. Calvinism says that one is saved so they can believe which is not what the bible teaches.

As to Gods' purpose He is quite clear, He will save those that believe.