"ordained to eternal life" - retrospective anachronistic nuance

[Brightfame52]

Acts 28:23 NASB
When they had set a day for Paul, people came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

Here a group of people had agreed upon a day for Paul to explain his testimony concerning the kingdom God. Therefore, once again, the intended meaning of tasso is this context is by mutual consent.

And note that not only was the direction established by mutual consent among the group, Paul also agreed to provide the testimony at that time and place.

Van,

Your attempt to use Acts 28:23 to turn tassō into a "mutual consent" contract is another massive lexical failure. You are confusing the scheduling of a calendar date with a collaborative negotiation, completely ignoring how the Greek language actually functions.

1. Fixing a Date is an Authoritative Determination

The word used here is ταξάμενοι (taxamenoi), an aorist middle participle. When tassō is used in relation to a day, a time, or a tax rate in the ancient world, it means "to fix, settle, establish, or lock in place." The Jewish leaders formally designated and fixed a specific day on the calendar for Paul to speak. Paul didn't sit down with them to collaboratively negotiate the etymology of the word; a day was set, and people gathered on that set day.

2. Your Philosophy Destroys Basic Vocabulary

Let's apply your bizarre logic to real life, Van. If a university professor fixes (tassō) a deadline for a final paper, and the students all hand their papers in on that day, does that mean the word fixing actually means "democratic mutual agreement"? Absolutely not. The professor authoritatively designated the day, and the students conformed to it. The fact that multiple people interact with a fixed date does not turn an authoritative designation into an egalitarian negotiation.

3. Total and Absolute Lexical Failure

For the third time in a row, your private definition is completely rejected by every standard Greek lexicon on earth. Let’s look at how the actual experts define tassō in this exact verse (Acts 28:23):

• BDAG Lexicon: "To bring about an order of things by specifying—to fix, settle, or assign." They explicitly translate this phrase as: "having fixed a day for him."
• Thayer’s Lexicon: "To appoint, to set apart a day."

Show us a single recognized, standard Greek lexicon that translates tassō in Acts 28:23 as "an arrangement by mutual consent." You can't, because it doesn't exist. You are inventing an entire language out of thin air to protect your Arminian philosophy.

Whether it is a group of leaders actively fixing a calendar day (Acts 28:23), a church actively assigning a mission (Acts 15:2), a centurion actively stationed under command (Luke 7:8), or God passively ordaining His elect to eternal life before the foundation of the world (Acts 13:48), tassō always denotes a fixed, authoritative setting or appointing. God's eternal phase of election does not wait for a human handshake—He sovereignly appoints, His Spirit effectively quickens, and 100% of those appointed infallibly believe.

---

 

[LaGrange]

While I appreciate you bringing Thomas Aquinas and historical Thomistic framework into the discussion, your attempt to turn "ordained" into a gradual, resistible process of preparation completely fails when tested against the text of Acts 13:48 and the explicit history of Paul’s conversion.

1. The Grammar of Acts 13:48 Allows No Trial Period

You are trying to insert a chronological gap between God's appointment and a person's belief, arguing that "hearing can come before full regeneration." But look at the text. Luke does not say "as many as were under a process of preparation, and didn't resist, eventually believed." The pluperfect passive construction (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι) anchors their ordination firmly in eternity past as a completed reality. The moment they historically heard the Gospel, they believed. Their faith was the immediate, explosive fruit of the Vital Phase (Regeneration). The text allows no room for a sacramental or preparatory buffer zone.

Hi Brightflame,

My Comment: 1 Sam 7:3 says “prepare your hearts unto the Lord.” Of course, this is done with prevenient grace. You said in your subtitle: “The Grammar of Acts 13:48 Allows No Trial Period”. This is proof-texting. You can’t define a doctrine by one verse. In other words, you spoke about context. I think you need to widen your context even more. You nailed it when you said “chronological GAP”. I have notes where I use that exact term in them. “Believing” is the term we use for saving Faith. You are saying that too and that’s the term used in Acts 13:48. The difference between us is in the way you use the term “ordained”. Ordained means it’s going to happen. Agreed. It also means there is an order. Not only is our “full regeneration” ordained by God, but also our Calling is ordained by God. Our initial Calling precedes Justification (full regeneration occurs under what we call Justification) as in Rom 8:30.
God’s Grace works in each step of the golden chain. I think what confuses things is having two different kinds of calls. No such thing. Where in scripture does it say there are two different kinds of calls? God calls during regeneration but there is not one with intrinsic grace and one without intrinsic grace. The same call is in all three places (before full regeneration, at the point of full regeneration and after full regeneration) and grace is present in all three places (Calling or Preparation, at the point of full regeneration and after full regeneration). God is always calling us.
Let me answer this directly because this might really help. You said: “But look at the text. Luke does not say "as many as were under a process of preparation, and didn't resist, eventually believed."
Here’s the key that is the difference between us and the Arminians: There is a GAP between preparation and full regeneration. This means that PREPARATION DOES NOT CAUSE FULL REGENERATION! Baptism does. This is where God elects us to Full regeneration. There is no decision that causes full regeneration or bridges preparation and full regeneration.

This might help understanding the term “ordained”:

Calling period (preparation):
Grace (Prevenient) is instantaneous and determined (God ordained this grace)
Our Will is made free by this grace yet hearing may be resisted (God ordained permission - permits resistance)

Full Regeneration (Baptism):
Grace is instantaneous and determined (God ordained this grace - irrestible or efficacious grace - we say there is sanctifying grace too)
Our Will is made free (preparation is perfected by operative grace - God ordained), then our Will consents and cooperates (God’s Grace and man both work together by cooperative grace) to turn (assent) to God and turn away (conversion/penance) from sin. The assenting or act of Faith is believing.

Let me ask you this:

Is Faith an effect of Regeneration?
Or
Is Faith an effect of Hearing Scripture?

Answering these questions would be helpful too:
Does the Lord continue to Call you after the point of Full Regeneration?
If so
Is the Call during the Sanctification Period the same call as the effectual call?
Is grace present in the Call during the Sanctification Period?

2. Acts 9 Proves Paul Was Regenerated BEFORE His Baptism

Your claim that Paul was not regenerated until his water baptism in Acts 9:18 is flatly contradicted by the narrative. Paul exhibited undeniable evidence of a regenerated heart days before Ananias ever touched him with water:

• Acts 9:6: The moment Christ strikes him down, Paul cries, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" 1 Corinthians 12:3 explicitly states that no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
• Acts 9:11: God tells Ananias to seek out Saul because "behold, he prayeth." Spiritually dead, unregenerate pharisees do not offer true spiritual prayers to Jesus Christ.
• Acts 9:17: Before a single drop of baptismal water touches Paul, Ananias lays hands on him and calls him "Brother Saul." Ananias recognized him as an already-quickened brother in Christ.

Paul’s baptism was not the cause of his regeneration; it was his initial act of Practical Phase obedience, outwardly manifesting the inward, irreversible change Christ unilaterally wrought on the Damascus road.

My Comment: I’m not denying any evidence. Where justification takes place is where full regeneration takes place. That place is at baptism where sins are washed away (justification = remission of sins Rom 3:23-25). Also, I thought, whether you are Arminian or Calvinist, you had to hear the gospel in order to be justified? Theologians have speculated that this may be what happened during the three days Paul was blind (Acts 9:9; Gal 1:12 - see post #21) but it doesn’t say. Paul heard the Lord’s voice but that doesn’t mean it caused full regeneration. Many have heard His voice and resisted [Matt 19:16-22, John 6:67 (John 6:66 - KJV), etc]

You said: “Paul exhibited undeniable evidence of a regenerated heart days before Ananias ever touched him with water:”

Do you have to see an outward change in someone in order for them to be considered regenerated? Sounds like works. Who decides? In my experience, when a person becomes a christian, one second before he becomes one, he looks and acts the same as he does one second after he becomes one. Regeneration is instantaneous. Regeneration is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Looking for evidence of Paul’s full regeneration sounds like a trial AFTER full regeneration. It’s out of place. Paul’s heart was not regenerated before baptism. Nowhere does Acts 9:6 say Paul was regenerated. It’s interesting that in the next verse (Acts 9:7) is the same Greek word for “arise” as in Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16 (ἀνίστημι anistēmi G450). It points to baptism. 1 Cor 12:3 does say “no man can say The Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost”, but this occurs during the calling period too (by Prevenient Grace), not just at the point of full regeneration (irresistible grace). The Lord draws us by Prevenient Grace. Clearly Paul’s sins were washed away at baptism (Acts 9:18, Acts 2:38 - clearly seen in Acts 22:16)


Continued

 

[LaGrange]

3. The Failure of Resistible Synergy

By arguing that God's ordination is a "grace determined to all men" that can be resisted based on human volition, you are turning salvation back into a work of the creature. If God's decree to eternal life can be derailed by human resistance, then God's pleasure is completely subject to the will of man. But Scripture says the exact opposite. Romans 9:16 declares: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."


The Gentiles in Acts 13:48 did not possess an inherent lack of resistance that made them better than the Jews. They believed because they had been sovereignly elected in the Eternal Phase, legally redeemed at the Cross, and effectively quickened by the Spirit in the Vital Phase, making their historical belief an absolute certainty.

My Comment: You said: “…you are turning salvation back into a work of the creature.” Not really. Not when you understand it. Faith is a work when it is in an act - the Act of Faith. This occurs at the point of full regeneration, not before. The timing of the Act of Faith at full regeneration is something we agree on with Calvinism. We don’t only receive Faith at full regeneration but we also use it. Faith is a virtue. This is getting into another big area. By the way, synergism is all over scripture (ex: synergei = helpeth (Rom 8:26) or work together (Rom 8:28) or cooperate G4903).

It really doesn’t matter whether or not they were gentiles. Paul went to the Jews first and, as a whole, they resisted (Stephen said: Acts 7:51 You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do you also). Many converted but apparently most didn’t. They heard him with their heart but still resisted (“resisted the Holy Ghost”). You can’t resist grace (the Holy Ghost) unless you had it. These verses also show that hearing is conditional and can be resisted:
(Apoc 3:20 Behold, I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear my voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him: and he with me.)
Sounds conditional to me. During the Calling or Preparation period, the Lord gives us the grace to willingly come to Him. When we are willing, He will come to us. (James 4:8 Draw nigh to God: and he will draw nigh to you). Aquinas says there are different kinds of drawings. Maybe this will help: The “heart” signifies the Will. It also can signify the intellect. The “Mind” usually signifies the Intellect. The soul is said to be composed of both the intellect and the Will. So when you speak of the “heart”, it includes understanding (hearing) but mainly, I think, it has to do with the Will - a willingness (voluntary). Christ comes to you (Calls you) at full regeneration but you must also voluntarily turn to Christ at full regeneration. You don’t resist at the point of full regeneration like during the calling period (preparation). I can think of one exception that Augustine and Aquinas both talked about. You’re not coerced either. It must still be voluntary.
.

 

[Brightfame52]

Hi Brightflame,

My Comment: 1 Sam 7:3 says “prepare your hearts unto the Lord.” Of course, this is done with prevenient grace. You said in your subtitle: “The Grammar of Acts 13:48 Allows No Trial Period”. This is proof-texting. You can’t define a doctrine by one verse. In other words, you spoke about context. I think you need to widen your context even more. You nailed it when you said “chronological GAP”. I have notes where I use that exact term in them. “Believing” is the term we use for saving Faith. You are saying that too and that’s the term used in Acts 13:48. The difference between us is in the way you use the term “ordained”. Ordained means it’s going to happen. Agreed. It also means there is an order. Not only is our “full regeneration” ordained by God, but also our Calling is ordained by God. Our initial Calling precedes Justification (full regeneration occurs under what we call Justification) as in Rom 8:30.
God’s Grace works in each step of the golden chain. I think what confuses things is having two different kinds of calls. No such thing. Where in scripture does it say there are two different kinds of calls? God calls during regeneration but there is not one with intrinsic grace and one without intrinsic grace. The same call is in all three places (before full regeneration, at the point of full regeneration and after full regeneration) and grace is present in all three places (Calling or Preparation, at the point of full regeneration and after full regeneration). God is always calling us.
Let me answer this directly because this might really help. You said: “But look at the text. Luke does not say "as many as were under a process of preparation, and didn't resist, eventually believed."
Here’s the key that is the difference between us and the Arminians: There is a GAP between preparation and full regeneration. This means that PREPARATION DOES NOT CAUSE FULL REGENERATION! Baptism does. This is where God elects us to Full regeneration. There is no decision that causes full regeneration or bridges preparation and full regeneration.

This might help understanding the term “ordained”:

Calling period (preparation):
Grace (Prevenient) is instantaneous and determined (God ordained this grace)
Our Will is made free by this grace yet hearing may be resisted (God ordained permission - permits resistance)

Full Regeneration (Baptism):
Grace is instantaneous and determined (God ordained this grace - irrestible or efficacious grace - we say there is sanctifying grace too)
Our Will is made free (preparation is perfected by operative grace - God ordained), then our Will consents and cooperates (God’s Grace and man both work together by cooperative grace) to turn (assent) to God and turn away (conversion/penance) from sin. The assenting or act of Faith is believing.

Let me ask you this:

Is Faith an effect of Regeneration?
Or
Is Faith an effect of Hearing Scripture?

Answering these questions would be helpful too:
Does the Lord continue to Call you after the point of Full Regeneration?
If so
Is the Call during the Sanctification Period the same call as the effectual call?
Is grace present in the Call during the Sanctification Period?

LaGrange, your explanation raises six issues that need to be answered from Scripture.

1. Is faith an effect of regeneration or hearing the Word?

Both hearing and regeneration matter, but they are not competing causes. God uses His Word, while the Spirit gives life (Rom. 10:17; John 6:63; Eph. 2:1, 5). Hearing does not establish that the spiritually dead sinner independently produces saving faith.

2. Does Acts 13:48 teach your preparation process?

Luke says, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” The perfect passive participle tetagmenoi describes them as appointed to eternal life. The grammar alone does not prove every detail of regeneration’s timing, but the verse never mentions a resistible preparatory period, baptismal regeneration, or cooperative grace as the explanation for their believing.

3. Are all calls identical?

No. The Gospel is proclaimed outwardly, but Romans 8:30 connects God’s saving call with justification and glorification. Christ says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (John 6:37). You cannot erase the distinction between an invitation that may be rejected and God’s saving work by simply calling both “the same call.”

4. Does God continue calling believers?

Yes. God continues to instruct, correct, and exhort His people. But ongoing calls to obedience do not establish that the initial saving call is merely an opportunity awaiting an independently supplied response. God works in believers “both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13).

5. Is grace present during sanctification?

Absolutely. The question is whether grace merely assists an independently decisive human contribution or produces the believer’s willing response. Scripture says God “granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). The sinner genuinely believes and repents, but those responses do not complete Christ’s unfinished work.

6. Does 1 Samuel 7:3 prove prevenient grace and baptismal regeneration?

No. “Prepare your hearts unto the LORD” is a command, not an explanation of how regeneration occurs. A command establishes what people ought to do; it does not prove that fallen sinners possess independent spiritual ability or that baptism causes regeneration.

The central issue​

My Five Phases remain:

Eternal: The Father elects.
Legal: Christ accomplishes redemption.
Vital: The Spirit gives life.
Practical: The regenerated sinner believes, repents, and obeys.
Final: God brings His people to glory.

LaGrange, you have presented a theological sequence involving preparation, baptism, and cooperative grace. Where does Scripture explicitly establish that sequence?

I affirm the necessity of faith, repentance, baptism, and obedience according to Scripture. I deny that these responses independently cause or complete God’s saving work.

God uses His Word. God gives life. God grants repentance. The sinner believes. Salvation remains of the Lord.

 

[Brightfame52]

My Comment: You said: “…you are turning salvation back into a work of the creature.” Not really. Not when you understand it. Faith is a work when it is in an act - the Act of Faith. This occurs at the point of full regeneration, not before. The timing of the Act of Faith at full regeneration is something we agree on with Calvinism. We don’t only receive Faith at full regeneration but we also use it. Faith is a virtue. This is getting into another big area. By the way, synergism is all over scripture (ex: synergei = helpeth (Rom 8:26) or work together (Rom 8:28) or cooperate G4903).

It really doesn’t matter whether or not they were gentiles. Paul went to the Jews first and, as a whole, they resisted (Stephen said: Acts 7:51 You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do you also). Many converted but apparently most didn’t. They heard him with their heart but still resisted (“resisted the Holy Ghost”). You can’t resist grace (the Holy Ghost) unless you had it. These verses also show that hearing is conditional and can be resisted:
(Apoc 3:20 Behold, I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear my voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him: and he with me.)
Sounds conditional to me. During the Calling or Preparation period, the Lord gives us the grace to willingly come to Him. When we are willing, He will come to us. (James 4:8 Draw nigh to God: and he will draw nigh to you). Aquinas says there are different kinds of drawings. Maybe this will help: The “heart” signifies the Will. It also can signify the intellect. The “Mind” usually signifies the Intellect. The soul is said to be composed of both the intellect and the Will. So when you speak of the “heart”, it includes understanding (hearing) but mainly, I think, it has to do with the Will - a willingness (voluntary). Christ comes to you (Calls you) at full regeneration but you must also voluntarily turn to Christ at full regeneration. You don’t resist at the point of full regeneration like during the calling period (preparation). I can think of one exception that Augustine and Aquinas both talked about. You’re not coerced either. It must still be voluntary.

LaGrange,

Your defense has retreated into a series of linguistic category errors and classic text-twisting cliches. By trying to pull the word "synergy" out of contexts where it does not belong, you are attempting to make a dead human corpse a co-author of its own resurrection.

1. Your Exploitation of Synergeō is an Exegetical Failure

You claim that synergism is all over scripture because the root word synergeō appears in Romans 8. Let’s look at the actual text to see who is doing the cooperating:

• In Romans 8:26, the text states that the Holy Spirit helps the infirmities of the saints in prayer. It is not talking about an unregenerate sinner helping God regenerate them.
• In Romans 8:28, the text says that "all things work together (synergei) for good" to the elect.

Look at the grammar, LaGrange. The "synergy" in Romans 8:28 is between the providences and decrees of Almighty God working on behalf of His chosen people. The creature is the passive recipient of this work. To take a text about God’s sovereign orchestration of history and turn it into a human-divine handshake for salvation is a total distortion of the text.

2. Stephen Explicitly Denies Their Regeneration in Acts 7:51

You make the unscriptural claim: "You can’t resist grace (the Holy Ghost) unless you had it." You are completely confusing the internal, vital application of saving grace with the external testimony of the Spirit.

In Acts 7:51, Stephen explicitly denies their regeneration by using the ultimate biblical titles for unregenerate deadness: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

Scripture explicitly defines the "circumcision of the heart" as the sovereign act of regeneration (Deuteronomy 30:6; Colossians 2:11). By declaring that these men were uncircumcised in heart and ears, Stephen is stating that they were completely devoid of saving grace, dead in their Adamic nature, and spiritually deaf. They "always resist" precisely because they lack the internal, quickening work of the Holy Spirit. They were resisting the external testimony of the Spirit speaking through the prophets (v. 52), not an internal grace they possessed. The only reason the elect Gentiles in Acts 13:48 did not resist is because they had already been sovereignly and immediately quickened by the Spirit in the Vital Phase, giving them a circumcised heart that naturally responds to the light.

3. Categorical Misapplication of Revelation 3:20


You appeal to Revelation 3:20 ("I stand at the gate and knock") to claim salvation is conditional upon man opening a door. This is a classic misapplication of scripture. Revelation 3 is not an evangelistic sermon addressed to unregenerate, spiritually dead souls. Christ is addressing a visible, local church (Laodicea) regarding corporate fellowship and covenant restoration. You cannot bypass the explicit mechanics of election and deadness by lifting a pastoral warning to a church out of its narrative context.

4. The Regenerated Will is Changed Unilaterally

You write that man must "voluntarily turn to Christ at full regeneration." We agree that the act of faith is voluntary—the elect child of God is not coerced or dragged to Christ against their will. But why do they voluntarily turn? It is not because they manufactured a "lack of resistance" in a preparatory phase. It is because in the Vital Phase, the Holy Spirit immediately and unilaterally quickened them, transforming their hostile will.
As 2 Timothy 1:10 proves, the preaching of the Gospel does not create life; it brings life and immortality to light. When the light of the Gospel shines upon a soul that the Spirit has already made alive, that soul voluntarily, instantly, and infallibly recognizes the voice of its Shepherd and believes. Salvation is not a collaborative effort; it is an absolute, unshared work of sovereign grace from start to finish.

 

[John of Japan]

I confess that I'm not able to debate this with you in Greek since I don't understand the language, so I'm not sure how much further we can go with this.

From what I understand, @John of Japan teaches Greek and knows it well enough to offer corrections. If he happens to come across this thread, he might be able to point out where one or both of us might be mistaken.

Thank you for your kind words about my abilities, but I make it a practice not to participate in this Cal/Arm forum.

God bless.

 

[Van]

You still have not proved nothing from Scripture, just human conjecture.

Yet another taint so post, just more deflection and denial.

 

[Van]

Van,

Your attempt to use Luke 7:8 to turn tassō into a "mutual agreement" is one of the most desperate and historically inaccurate arguments you have made yet. You are attempting to read a modern corporate board meeting into a first-century Roman military dictatorship.

1. There is No "Mutual Consent" in a Military Command

You claim that because the centurion subsequently issues orders, he must have "agreed with the arrangement." Van, a Roman centurion did not enter into a mutual negotiation with the Roman Senate or the Emperor to decide where he wanted to be stationed. He was unilaterally assigned, deployed, and set under authority by a superior officer. The spelling here is a passive participle (τασσόμενος). The action was done to him by a higher power. If a Roman soldier refused his stationing, he wasn't breaking a "consent agreement"—he was executed.

2. The Stated Examples Explicitly Exclude Consent

Look at the very examples the centurion gives to prove what tassō looks like in operation. He writes: "I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it."
Let’s apply your theology here, Van. When the centurion tells his slave, "Do this," does the slave sit down with the centurion and form a "mutual agreement" before he obeys? Absolutely not. The slave obeys because the command is absolute, binding, and unilateral.

3. You are Missing the Entire Point of the Text

The centurion uses this analogy because he recognized that Jesus possessed absolute, unilateral authority over disease and creation. He was telling Jesus: "I know how dictated authority works. I command my slaves, and they must obey. You don't even need to come under my roof—just sovereignly command the sickness to leave, and it must obey You."


By trying to twist tassō into a "mutual agreement," you are stripping the centurion's words of their absolute power. Tassō means to be appointed, stationed, or fixed by an authoritative command. In Luke 7:8, the centurion was unilaterally stationed under Roman authority. In Acts 13:48, the elect Gentiles had been unilaterally and passively stationed by God unto eternal life, and because God's decree is an absolute command, 100% of those stationed believed. The text stands unshakeable against your synergy.

---

1) Scripture says the man mutually agreed to accept the position of authority within the structure. And yes, people accept assignments in the military.

2) You seem not to even understand what the action is of the verb tasso in Luke 7:8! It only applies to the man agreeing to assume the position of authority, and not to his use of that authority.

3) No one missed the point that those having the authority can wield that authority effectively.

 

[Brightfame52]

Yet another taint so post, just more deflection and denial.

You still have not proved nothing from Scripture, just human conjecture still !

 

[Van]

Van,

You are committing a massive logical and grammatical category error in Acts 15:2. You are confusing the fact that a plural group of people made a decision with the actual definition of the word tassō. A collective directive is not a "mutual agreement contract."

1. Active Voice Designation, Not a Shared Negotiation

The verb in Acts 15:2 is ἔταξαν (etaxan), which is the aorist active indicative. The subject is "the brothers" (the church at Antioch) and the object is "Paul and Barnabas." The church body actively appointed, assigned, and directed Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem. The church did not sit down with them to negotiate a "mutual consent agreement." The church corporate wielded the authority to commission these men, and they issued a top-down directive.

2. Your Analogy Fails Basic Logic

Your argument is that because a group of brothers made the choice, tassō must mean "mutual agreement." Let's test that logic, Van. If a board of five judges votes to appoint a lawyer to a case, the decision was made by a plurality of people, but the lawyer is still receiving a unilateral, authoritative assignment. The plurality of the subject does not change an authoritative appointment into an egalitarian negotiation.

3. Total Lexical Rejection

Once again, your private definition has zero support in Greek lexicography. Standard Greek lexicons explicitly define tassō in this exact verse (Acts 15:2) as a unilateral directive, not a mutual consensus:

• BDAG Lexicon: "To assign to a task or role—direct, assign, appoint."
• Thayer’s Lexicon: "To appoint, ordain, enjoin."

Show us a single standard Greek lexicon that translates tassō in Acts 15:2 as "an arrangement by mutual consent." You can't, because it doesn't exist. You are completely altering the Greek language to rescue your Arminian framework. Whether it is a collective church actively appointing messengers (Acts 15:2), a superior officer actively stationing a soldier (Luke 7:8), or God passively ordaining His elect to eternal life before time began (Acts 13:48), tassō always denotes an authoritative setting, fixing, or appointing. The text stands unshakeable against your synergy.

---

1) More denial of the clear usage of the verb "tasso."

2) Note that the direction was that Paul should go. Thus the mutual agreement of Paul and others with the direction.

3) You can deny the usage of tasso as "an agreement by mutual consent" till the cows come home, that is how it is used every time in the NT.

4) And I already copy and pasted a published recognition that "tasso" is used to mean "an arrangement by mutual consent."

 

[Brightfame52]

1) Scripture says the man mutually agreed to accept the position of authority within the structure. And yes, people accept assignments in the military.

2) You seem not to even understand what the action is of the verb tasso in Luke 7:8! It only applies to the man agreeing to assume the position of authority, and not to his use of that authority.

3) No one missed the point that those having the authority can wield that authority effectively.

Van,

Your response has officially crossed from text-twisting into direct fabrication. You are now inventing text that does not exist in the Bible to rescue your shattered "mutual consent" theory.

1. Show Us the Verse: Where Does Scripture Say He "Mutually Agreed"?

You write: "Scripture says the man mutually agreed to accept the position of authority within the structure."

Van, produce the chapter and verse. Where does Luke 7 say this centurion sat down with a Roman tribune, negotiated his contract, and "mutually agreed" to accept his position? It does not exist. You are literally making up content and attributing it to the Holy Spirit because the actual text completely destroys your Arminian philosophy.

2. A Present Passive Participle Obliterates Your "Initial Agreement" Evasion

You claim that I don’t understand the action of the verb, arguing that tassō "only applies to the man agreeing to assume the position... and not to his use of that authority."

Van, you are completely blind to the Greek grammar. The word in Luke 7:8 is τασσόμενος (tassomenos), which is a present passive participle.

• The passive voice means the action of ordering and positioning is done to him by a superior agent.
• The present tense denotes continuous, ongoing action.

The centurion is not talking about a past, one-time voluntary handshake where he joined the military. He is describing his current, continuous state of existence: "I am a man continuously existing under a state of being authoritatively stationed under command." It describes a rigid, top-down chain of command that operates right now.

3. The Unbending Application to Acts 13:48

The centurion uses this analogy of absolute command to show Jesus that he understands how unilateral power works. He says: "I command my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." The slave doesn't mutually consent; the slave moves because the authority is absolute. He tells Jesus: "Just command the sickness unilaterally, and it must move."

When we take this exact military word for an authoritative, unilateral stationing and look at Acts 13:48, your synergy is completely crushed. The text uses the pluperfect passive (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι), meaning the elect Gentiles had already been authoritatively positioned and stationed by God unto eternal life. Because the grammar is passive, they didn't "consent" to be positioned; God unilaterally set them there in His eternal phase of election. And because God's sovereign positioning is an absolute command, 100% of those stationed believed. Stop inventing text, Van, and submit to the plain grammar of Scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

1) More denial of the clear usage of the verb "tasso."

2) Note that the direction was that Paul should go. Thus the mutual agreement of Paul and others with the direction.

3) You can deny the usage of tasso as "an agreement by mutual consent" till the cows come home, that is how it is used every time in the NT.

4) And I already copy and pasted a published recognition that "tasso" is used to mean "an arrangement by mutual consent."

Van,

Your defense has officially dissolved into empty assertions and direct deflections. You are completely ignoring the basic mechanics of active-voice verbs, and you are making sweeping claims about the New Testament that collapse under the simplest scriptural test.

1. Complying with a Directive is Not a "Mutual Agreement Contract"

You write: "Note that the direction was that Paul should go. Thus the mutual agreement of Paul and others with the direction."

Van, you are completely failing basic grammar. The verb in Acts 15:2 is ἔταξαν (etaxan), which is the aorist active indicative. The subject performing the action is "the brothers" (the church corporate), and the object receiving the action is "Paul and Barnabas." The word describes only what the church did: they appointed, assigned, and directed them to go.

If a general commands a captain to march, and the captain complies, the captain's subsequent obedience does not magically change the definition of the word command into "mutual negotiation." The church wielded the authority to commission messengers, they issued a unilateral assignment, and Paul conformed to it.

2. Testing Your "Every Time" Claim Against Romans 13:1

You claim: "You can deny the usage of tasso as 'an agreement by mutual consent' till the cows come home, that is how it is used every time in the NT."

Let’s test your private dictionary against the actual text of Scripture, Van. In Romans 13:1, Paul writes: "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained [τάσσω / tassō] of God."

Apply your definition here, Van. Does Romans 13:1 mean that the wicked, pagan tyrant Emperor Nero sat down with Almighty God in a committee meeting and formed an "arrangement by mutual consent" before being placed in power? Absolutely not. God unilaterally establishes and bounds human authorities according to His sovereign decree. Your "every time" claim is a demonstrable falsehood that collapses the moment it is cross-referenced with a single text.

3. Name Your Source: Exposing the Lexical Bluff

You close by claiming you "already copy and pasted a published recognition" that matches your definition.

Van, name the source. What standard, peer-reviewed, internationally recognized Greek lexicon did you pull that from? It isn't from BDAG. It isn't from Thayer’s. It isn't from Liddell-Scott. It isn't from Louw-Nida. Every single authoritative Greek dictionary on earth defines tassō as to appoint, station, design, or fix. You are hiding behind an anonymous, unscholarly internet quote because the entirety of Greek lexicography completely rejects your Arminian philosophy.

Whether it is a church actively assigning a mission (Acts 15:2), a superior officer actively stationing a soldier (Luke 7:8), or God passively ordaining His elect to eternal life in the Eternal Phase before time began (Acts 13:48), tassō always denotes an authoritative setting, fixing, or positioning. God’s eternal decree does not wait for a human handshake. In the Vital Phase, the Spirit immediately quickens the elect, and consequently, in the Practical Phase, they look to the light of the Gospel and believe. The text stands unshakeable against your synergy.

 

[Van]

Van,

Your response has officially crossed from text-twisting into direct fabrication. You are now inventing text that does not exist in the Bible to rescue your shattered "mutual consent" theory.

1. Show Us the Verse: Where Does Scripture Say He "Mutually Agreed"?

You write: "Scripture says the man mutually agreed to accept the position of authority within the structure."

Van, produce the chapter and verse. Where does Luke 7 say this centurion sat down with a Roman tribune, negotiated his contract, and "mutually agreed" to accept his position? It does not exist. You are literally making up content and attributing it to the Holy Spirit because the actual text completely destroys your Arminian philosophy.

2. A Present Passive Participle Obliterates Your "Initial Agreement" Evasion

You claim that I don’t understand the action of the verb, arguing that tassō "only applies to the man agreeing to assume the position... and not to his use of that authority."

Van, you are completely blind to the Greek grammar. The word in Luke 7:8 is τασσόμενος (tassomenos), which is a present passive participle.

• The passive voice means the action of ordering and positioning is done to him by a superior agent.
• The present tense denotes continuous, ongoing action.

The centurion is not talking about a past, one-time voluntary handshake where he joined the military. He is describing his current, continuous state of existence: "I am a man continuously existing under a state of being authoritatively stationed under command." It describes a rigid, top-down chain of command that operates right now.

3. The Unbending Application to Acts 13:48

The centurion uses this analogy of absolute command to show Jesus that he understands how unilateral power works. He says: "I command my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." The slave doesn't mutually consent; the slave moves because the authority is absolute. He tells Jesus: "Just command the sickness unilaterally, and it must move."

When we take this exact military word for an authoritative, unilateral stationing and look at Acts 13:48, your synergy is completely crushed. The text uses the pluperfect passive (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι), meaning the elect Gentiles had already been authoritatively positioned and stationed by God unto eternal life. Because the grammar is passive, they didn't "consent" to be positioned; God unilaterally set them there in His eternal phase of election. And because God's sovereign positioning is an absolute command, 100% of those stationed believed. Stop inventing text, Van, and submit to the plain grammar of Scripture.

1) Each and every time in the New Testament where you see "tasso" such as Acts 13:48.

2) As I have explained several times, it does matter whether tasso is in the passive or middle voice. The direction given is received passively, and the acceptance of that direction is taken upon oneself, i.e. middle.

3) Once again you present misrepresentation of the verse. Tasso, applies to the man receiving the direction to assume a position of authority.

 

[Silverhair]

You still have not proved nothing from Scripture, just human conjecture.

You are using human conjecture to support your view BF.

All we see in vs 48 is that God saves those that believe just as we see in vs 45 that those that do not believe are not saved.

It really is not the complicated when you actually study verses in there context. But that is something that you do not do so you continue to make the errors you do.

 

[Van]

Van,

Your defense has officially dissolved into empty assertions and direct deflections. You are completely ignoring the basic mechanics of active-voice verbs, and you are making sweeping claims about the New Testament that collapse under the simplest scriptural test.

1. Complying with a Directive is Not a "Mutual Agreement Contract"

You write: "Note that the direction was that Paul should go. Thus the mutual agreement of Paul and others with the direction."

Van, you are completely failing basic grammar. The verb in Acts 15:2 is ἔταξαν (etaxan), which is the aorist active indicative. The subject performing the action is "the brothers" (the church corporate), and the object receiving the action is "Paul and Barnabas." The word describes only what the church did: they appointed, assigned, and directed them to go.

If a general commands a captain to march, and the captain complies, the captain's subsequent obedience does not magically change the definition of the word command into "mutual negotiation." The church wielded the authority to commission messengers, they issued a unilateral assignment, and Paul conformed to it.

2. Testing Your "Every Time" Claim Against Romans 13:1

You claim: "You can deny the usage of tasso as 'an agreement by mutual consent' till the cows come home, that is how it is used every time in the NT."

Let’s test your private dictionary against the actual text of Scripture, Van. In Romans 13:1, Paul writes: "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained [τάσσω / tassō] of God."

Apply your definition here, Van. Does Romans 13:1 mean that the wicked, pagan tyrant Emperor Nero sat down with Almighty God in a committee meeting and formed an "arrangement by mutual consent" before being placed in power? Absolutely not. God unilaterally establishes and bounds human authorities according to His sovereign decree. Your "every time" claim is a demonstrable falsehood that collapses the moment it is cross-referenced with a single text.

3. Name Your Source: Exposing the Lexical Bluff

You close by claiming you "already copy and pasted a published recognition" that matches your definition.

Van, name the source. What standard, peer-reviewed, internationally recognized Greek lexicon did you pull that from? It isn't from BDAG. It isn't from Thayer’s. It isn't from Liddell-Scott. It isn't from Louw-Nida. Every single authoritative Greek dictionary on earth defines tassō as to appoint, station, design, or fix. You are hiding behind an anonymous, unscholarly internet quote because the entirety of Greek lexicography completely rejects your Arminian philosophy.

Whether it is a church actively assigning a mission (Acts 15:2), a superior officer actively stationing a soldier (Luke 7:8), or God passively ordaining His elect to eternal life in the Eternal Phase before time began (Acts 13:48), tassō always denotes an authoritative setting, fixing, or positioning. God’s eternal decree does not wait for a human handshake. In the Vital Phase, the Spirit immediately quickens the elect, and consequently, in the Practical Phase, they look to the light of the Gospel and believe. The text stands unshakeable against your synergy.

1) Agreeing with the direction given is mutual consent.

2) All your claims about me rather than the subject are simply the white flag of surrender.

3) Tasso appears in the phrase, governments "established" by God. This establishes an important distinction for "governments." The idea is not any government that may be following some of the criteria God established for governments, but "tasso" requires that the government, by mutual agreement, is following those criteria.

4) The snippet I copy and pasted is from the Blue Letter website.

5) Your statement "Every single "authoritative" Greek dictionary on earth defines tasso as to appoint, station, design, or fix" is false. It misses the bestow favor, as in showing mercy to a condemned unbeliever by allowing or permitting or granting to them the opportunity to believe and suffer as a consequence of entering the ministry of Christ.

6) When someone is allowed entry into a restricted venue, they are granted or permitted entry into the venue, they are NOT shoved, pushed, compelled, or otherwise forced into the venue.

 

[Kai]

When it comes to my Greek knowledge, I can pick out different tenses and verbal forms without too much trouble, but I haven't studied deeply enough to spot the finer syntactical nuances.

I took another look at this, and here's what I found: since there's no agent present—no ὑπο + genitive or dative noun, which you'd normally see with a passive construction like "by God" (ὑπο του θεου or τῳ θεῳ)—I don't believe that it can be grammatically proven one way or the other whether the verbal form should be either middle or passive. Without those telltale markers, you could actually make the case that the middle voice fits better here.

What I'm concluding from this is that "tetagmenoi" is too ambiguous in this context, and thus Acts 13:48, when considered alone, cannot definitively establish unconditional election.

 

[Brightfame52]

4) The snippet I copy and pasted is from the Blue Letter website.

Van,

I see exactly where you are getting your terms. You are looking at the very bottom of the Thayer's outline on Blue Letter Bible where it lists: "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon."

But Van, by copy-pasting that line, you have completely exposed your lack of understanding of how a Greek lexicon works. A dictionary doesn't mean you get to just scroll down, find the one definition that fits your Arminian philosophy, and paste it onto any verse you want. You have to match the definition to the grammatical voice of the verse you are translating.

If you actually read Thayer's full text for that specific entry on the page, he explicitly states that the meaning "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon" applies strictly and exclusively to the MIDDLE VOICE. He even provides the exact verse illustration for it: Acts 28:23, where the Jews appointed (τάξαντες - middle/active context) a day for themselves to meet Paul.
Let's look at how the dictionary actually divides tassō:

1. The Active/Passive Voice Meaning: "To put in order, to station... to assign a place, to appoint... to ordain." This is where Thayer places Acts 13:48 (ēsan tetagmenoi / passive) and Romans 13:1 (tetagmenoi / passive).
2. The Middle Voice Meaning: "To appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon."

Van, you are committing a textbook linguistic error called the Illegitimate Totality Transfer. You are taking a definition that the lexicon explicitly isolates for the Middle Voice and trying to force it onto a verse in Acts 13:48 that is explicitly Passive Voice.

A passive verb means the action is done to the subject by an outside agent. The Gentiles did not "mutually appoint" themselves to eternal life anymore than Nero "mutually appointed" himself with God in Romans 13:1.

Your own source just drew a massive line between your theory and the actual text. In Acts 13:48, the grammar is passive, meaning the definition is "to assign a place, to appoint, to ordain." God did the appointing in eternity past, and the Gentiles did the believing in time. You lose this point by the testimony of your own copy-paste.

This is called wresting scripture Van !

---

 

[Silverhair]

Van,

I see exactly where you are getting your terms. You are looking at the very bottom of the Thayer's outline on Blue Letter Bible where it lists: "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon."

But Van, by copy-pasting that line, you have completely exposed your lack of understanding of how a Greek lexicon works. A dictionary doesn't mean you get to just scroll down, find the one definition that fits your Arminian philosophy, and paste it onto any verse you want. You have to match the definition to the grammatical voice of the verse you are translating.

If you actually read Thayer's full text for that specific entry on the page, he explicitly states that the meaning "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon" applies strictly and exclusively to the MIDDLE VOICE. He even provides the exact verse illustration for it: Acts 28:23, where the Jews appointed (τάξαντες - middle/active context) a day for themselves to meet Paul.
Let's look at how the dictionary actually divides tassō:

1. The Active/Passive Voice Meaning: "To put in order, to station... to assign a place, to appoint... to ordain." This is where Thayer places Acts 13:48 (ēsan tetagmenoi / passive) and Romans 13:1 (tetagmenoi / passive).
2. The Middle Voice Meaning: "To appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon."

Van, you are committing a textbook linguistic error called the Illegitimate Totality Transfer. You are taking a definition that the lexicon explicitly isolates for the Middle Voice and trying to force it onto a verse in Acts 13:48 that is explicitly Passive Voice.

A passive verb means the action is done to the subject by an outside agent. The Gentiles did not "mutually appoint" themselves to eternal life anymore than Nero "mutually appointed" himself with God in Romans 13:1.

Your own source just drew a massive line between your theory and the actual text. In Acts 13:48, the grammar is passive, meaning the definition is "to assign a place, to appoint, to ordain." God did the appointing in eternity past, and the Gentiles did the believing in time. You lose this point by the testimony of your own copy-paste.

This is called wresting scripture Van !

---

And yours @Brightfame52 is called ignoring context.

 

[Mike B]

Thank you for your kind words about my abilities, but I make it a practice not to participate in this Cal/Arm forum.

God bless.

As an old man by the name of Bear Claw once said to Jeremiah Johnson: "Sound Wisdom".

 

[Brightfame52]

I took another look at this, and here's what I found: since there's no agent present—no ὑπο + genitive or dative noun, which you'd normally see with a passive construction like "by God" (ὑπο του θεου or τῳ θεῳ)—I don't believe that it can be grammatically proven one way or the other whether the verbal form should be either middle or passive. Without those telltale markers, you could actually make the case that the middle voice fits better here.

What I'm concluding from this is that "tetagmenoi" is too ambiguous in this context, and thus Acts 13:48, when considered alone, cannot definitively establish unconditional election.

Kai,

Let’s look strictly at what the grammar and syntax of Acts 13:48 itself demands. Even without an explicit hypo + genitive ("by God") in the immediate clause, the text of Acts 13:48 completely eliminates your middle-voice "self-disposition" theory. Here is why:

1. The Unbending Timeline of the Pluperfect Periphrastic
2. 
   The construction ēsan tetagmenoi (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι) is a pluperfect structure. In Greek, the pluperfect describes an action that was already completed and established prior to another past action.

What is the subsequent past action in the verse? Episteusan (they believed).

• Step 1 (Completed Past Action): Having been appointed/stationed (ēsan tetagmenoi).
• Step 2 (Subsequent Past Action): They believed (episteusan).

The grammar forces a strict, irreversible sequence of events. The appointment is the foundation that precedes the believing; the believing is the result of the appointment. Your theory tries to argue that they disposed themselves or that their faith happened as a condition to get appointed. The pluperfect completely shatters that timeline. They were already in a state of having been appointed before they executed faith.

1. The Total Absence of Human Agency in the Appointment
   Even if you try to force a middle-voice interpretation ("they disposed themselves"), it fails the contextual test of Luke’s writing.

Throughout this chapter, Luke is contrasting two distinct groups of people:

• The Unbelieving Jews (Acts 13:46): Luke uses an explicit active verb and a reflexive pronoun—krinete heautous ("you judge yourselves"). They are the active agents of their own rejection.
• The Believing Gentiles (Acts 13:48): Luke completely drops the reflexive pronoun. He does not say etaxan heautous ("they appointed themselves"). He shifts entirely to a passive-form periphrastic.

If the Gentiles' own free-will consent or self-disposition was the driving force behind their appointment, Luke had the exact grammatical tools to say so—he had just used them two verses earlier! He chose not to.

The Conclusion

We don't need to argue over whether Acts 13:48 fits a narrow, academic label of a "Divine Passive." The central, unassailable fact of the text is that Luke describes those who believed as people who had already been appointed to eternal life; he flatly denies that they appointed themselves.

The appointment belongs to God’s Eternal Phase of salvation. The subsequent belief belongs to the Practical Phase. You cannot reverse the Holy Spirit's grammar to make the fruit (faith) the cause of the root (election).