How are believers "Drawn" to Christ?

[The Archangel]

Again, the Greek word poorly translated "appointed" refers to a mutual agreement. Any witness of the gospel who provides direction to eternal life, i.e. everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life, can be said to provide the opportunity for eternal life.

Nope. τασσω is passive so it cannot be what you want it to be. Grammar matters.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

The OP looked in a Greek lexicon and found where the word “appointed” was used in Mathew 28:16 to refer to the disciples, after the resurrection, going to a mountain that that had been “appointed” by Jesus. In that context, the Greek Word used for “appointed” can mean (and likely does mean) by mutual consent.

This issue with the Matthew 28:16 passage is this: In Matthew 28:16, τασσω is a verb and it is in the "middle" voice. In the middle voice, τασσω is actually "active." "Jesus" is the subject of the verb. Jesus does not direct the apostles by mutual consent.

In Acts, τασσω is not a verb; it is a participle, and it is passive. So... the people appointed were not appointing themselves.

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

This issue with the Matthew 28:16 passage is this: In Matthew 28:16, τασσω is a verb and it is in the "middle" voice. In the middle voice, τασσω is actually "active." "Jesus" is the subject of the verb. Jesus does not direct the apostles by mutual consent.

In Acts, τασσω is not a verb; it is a participle, and it is passive. So... the people appointed were not appointing themselves.

The Archangel

Thank you for explaining the rules for Biblical Greek on these passages. It is appreciated.

it’s been a while since I have seen you post. Good to see you again.

peace to you

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But some people are self-appointed.... oh never mind.

 

[Piper]

Obfuscation! LOL!

Your claim that Paul appointed people to external life is utter, non biblical man centered nonsense

…. and those that actually understand biblical Greek know it.

peace to you

Obfuscation!!!! LOL

 

[Van]

Nope. τασσω is passive so it cannot be what you want it to be. Grammar matters.

The Archangel

LOL, what nonsense. They received the direction from Paul, thus the word is passive. Your objection is obfuscation.

 

[Van]

If you change appoint to appointed, you can say they are different words, but you are making a distinction without a difference.

 

[Van]

If a person is predisposed to reject the gospel because it differs from prior beliefs, can we attribute those views as being the result of passive actions upon the individuals in the past? Yes, of course. OTOH, if a person is open to God's established directions to eternal life, can we attribute those views as being the result of passive actions upon the individual? Yes, of course.

Thus as many as were disposed or open to the established directions to eternal life, believed.

This view actually reflects the context and grammar of Acts 13:48.

 

[The Archangel]

LOL, what nonsense. They received the direction from Paul, thus the word is passive. Your objection is obfuscation.

Ummm... that's not what passive means... Passive means the subject is not doing the action, but is acted upon.

Secondarily, Acts 13:48 is not a speech of Paul, nor is it a quote of Paul. It is Luke's narration of the events.

So, you are incorrect on two counts.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

If a person is predisposed to reject the gospel because it differs from prior beliefs, can we attribute those views as being the result of passive actions upon the individuals in the past? Yes, of course.

No, not at all.

OTOH, if a person is open to God's established directions to eternal life, can we attribute those views as being the result of passive actions upon the individual? Yes, of course.

Thus as many as were disposed or open to the established directions to eternal life, believed.

No, not at all.

This view actually reflects the context and grammar of Acts 13:48.

In no way that that view actually match the tone, timbre, or grammar of the passage.

The passage is: ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον This bold section is the clause in question.

The wooden translation is: Hearing this, the Gentiles were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and believed. Then, he answers an implied question by clarifying who is was who believed: As many as had been appointed to eternal life.

So, Luke goes the extra mile here to explain who it was who believed (as many as were appointed) and why they believed (they were appointed). That the clause in question "As many as had been appointed to eternal life" is saved for the end of the sentence in order to give emphasis (that's how Greek works).

You are simply not correct.

The Archangel

 

[Piper]

No, not at all.



No, not at all.



In no way that that view actually match the tone, timbre, or grammar of the passage.

The passage is: ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον This bold section is the clause in question.

The wooden translation is: Hearing this, the Gentiles were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and believed. Then, he answers an implied question by clarifying who is was who believed: As many as had been appointed to eternal life.

So, Luke goes the extra mile here to explain who it was who believed (as many as were appointed) and why they believed (they were appointed). That the clause in question "As many as had been appointed to eternal life" is saved for the end of the sentence in order to give emphasis (that's how Greek works).

You are simply not correct.

The Archangel

Archangel, you are saying all the right things. I'm sure this forum is low on your totem pole of priorities, seeing your grasp of Greek. Thanks for your input, brother.

 

[canadyjd]

LOL, what nonsense. They received the direction from Paul, thus the word is passive. Your objection is obfuscation.

So folks, let’s review..

1. When someone who actually knows and understands Biblical Greek gives an in-depth explanation why the OP is wrong concerning Biblical Greek… it is still characterized as “nonsense” and “obfuscation”.

2. The OP clearly does not understand Biblical Greek, but is so focused on disproving “Calvinism” intellectual integrity is sacrificed to cling to misguided interpretations.

There is no way to discuss these issues with folks like that. No amount of biblical truth will sway them. No amount of expert analysis will convince them.

The OP has been Biblically and thoroughly corrected.

The only response will be “taint so”.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

Ummm... that's not what passive means... Passive means the subject is not doing the action, but is acted upon.

Secondarily, Acts 13:48 is not a speech of Paul, nor is it a quote of Paul. It is Luke's narration of the events.

So, you are incorrect on two counts.

The Archangel

They were acted upon, as Paul direction to eternal life had been established by God. Duh

 

[Van]

No, not at all.
No, not at all.
SNIP
You are simply not correct.

The Archangel

LOL, yet another taint so post. If anyone thinks the mutual consent meaning cannot be conveyed using the passive form of the verb, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

 

[Van]

So folks, let’s review..

1. When someone who actually knows and understands Biblical Greek gives an in-depth explanation why the OP is wrong concerning Biblical Greek… it is still characterized as “nonsense” and “obfuscation”.

2. The OP clearly does not understand Biblical Greek, but is so focused on disproving “Calvinism” intellectual integrity is sacrificed to cling to misguided interpretations.

There is no way to discuss these issues with folks like that. No amount of biblical truth will sway them. No amount of expert analysis will convince them.

The OP has been Biblically and thoroughly corrected.

The only response will be “taint so”.

Peace to you

1) Do you not know many scholars with doctorates, advocate the mutual consent view?

2) You like to claim others lack expertise, rather than address the topic.

" In addition not a single usage of tasso in Acts identifies God as being the agent performing the action. In fact of all the instances where tasso is seen throughout the entire N.T. only one explicitly identifies God as being the actor of tasso (e.g. Rom. 13:1), and even in that case the verse is completely unrelated to salvation and simply deals with God setting or establishing authorities in place."​

 

[canadyjd]

LOL This is what I posted:

So folks, let’s review…..

The OP has been Biblically and thoroughly corrected.

The only response will be “taint so”.

Peace to you

The OP posted:

LOL, yet another taint so post.

You do not need to be a prophet nor the son of a prophet to predict how the OP will respond. DUH!! LOL

peace to you

 

[Piper]

LOL This is what I posted:


The OP posted:


You do not need to be a prophet nor the son of a prophet to predict how the OP will respond. DUH!! LOL

peace to you

Canadyjd, you are obviously a t'aint-soer. Nothing will convince you that his views are right, not even twisting someone's own words to misrepresent what they said. Fyi, I am almost about to give up on him.

 

[The Archangel]

LOL, yet another taint so post. If anyone thinks the mutual consent meaning cannot be conveyed using the passive form of the verb, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

My response wasn't one of your so-called "taint so" posts. I gave this explanation.... to which you said "taint so..."

In no way that that view actually match the tone, timbre, or grammar of the passage.

The passage is: ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον This bold section is the clause in question.

The wooden translation is: Hearing this, the Gentiles were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and believed. Then, he answers an implied question by clarifying who is was who believed: As many as had been appointed to eternal life.

So, Luke goes the extra mile here to explain who it was who believed (as many as were appointed) and why they believed (they were appointed). That the clause in question "As many as had been appointed to eternal life" is saved for the end of the sentence in order to give emphasis (that's how Greek works).

You are simply not correct.

In no way did you interact with what I wrote, other than to say "no." You gave no reason or cause that I might be incorrect, other than to suggest that your opinion about a particular word or passage trumps all scholarship to the contrary. So, not only are you being hypocritical in this, you are also demonstrating elements of narcissism.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

They were acted upon, as Paul direction to eternal life had been established by God. Duh

What does that even mean????

The Archangel

 

[Van]

LOL This is what I posted:
You do not need to be a prophet nor the son of a prophet to predict how the OP will respond. DUH!! LOL
peace to you

Yet another post addressing the poster and running from the topic. DUH