If....then....

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Nelson:
4. In no other verse in the NT where the word tasso is used does it mean an eternal preordination (or predestination) of any kind.

This is manifestly untrue.

Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. JEsus had previously picked the mountain where they were to meet.

Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Here again, the ordination took place before the action fo going.

Acts 22:10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' Here again, the appointed task for Paul preceded the going up to Damascus.

Acts 28:23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers;Again, the day was set prior to the coming.

Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Here God set or established the government. If, as you are fond of saying, "God is outside of time" then this must refer to an eternal decree.

The point is that the ordaining or appointing in every case precedes the action. So no matter what you say it means, the lexical evidence points to an appointment prior to belief. And we must keep in mind that it is individuals who were appointed, not belief and not results.

Furthermore, Acts 13:48 does not purport to set forth a theological principle but rather describes the salvation of a number of people. It is most interesting that Luke describes this salvation as a matter of appointment prior to belief. You say that Luke could have used a stronger word for fore or preordination. Why would he? He chose a word that very adequately communicated his point. It would seem much more likely that Luke would have used a weaker word had he wanted to communicate what you think he did.

It becomes increasingly fascinating to watch the lengths to which some will go to say that the passage doesn't say what it says. I challenge you to find one use of tasso that is anything other the preordination or appointing. I will bet you can't do it.

[ May 09, 2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Nelson]

Originally posted by Nelson: In no other verse in the NT where the word tasso is used does it mean an eternal preordination (or predestination) of any kind.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: This is manifestly untrue...Matthew...Acts 15:2...22:10...28:23...Romans 13:1..The point is that the ordaining or appointing in every case precedes the action. So no matter what you say it means, the lexical evidence points to an appointment prior to belief.

Unfortunately, the verses Larry cites are totally off the subject regarding the present discussion with reference to Acts 13:48.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: ...Acts 13:48 does not purport to set forth a theological principle...

Then, it cannot be used to support "a theological principle" and renders an argument in support of predestination, particularly in the Reformed mindset, moot.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: It becomes increasingly fascinating to watch the lengths to which some will go to say that the passage doesn't say what it says.

I know what Larry means. Reading his response here has increased my fascination.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: I challenge you to find one use of tasso that is anything other the preordination or appointing. I will bet you can't do it.

Luke 7:8

 

[russell55]

The exact definition of the word "tasso" is a red herring. It doesn't matter, because the grammar of the verse tells you what it means in this case.

The verse doesn't say, "As many as believed were appointed to eternal life." It says, "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

It is the "appointment" that is the cause of the belief, not the belief that is the cause of the "appointment". According to the way the text is structured, the appointment to etermal life is the logical precursor to faith.

 

[Nelson]

Originally posted by russell55: The exact definition of the word "tasso"...doesn't matter, because the grammar of the verse tells you what it means in this case.

It seems Shank would agree where he states that, "tasso possesses latitude, and the determination of it's meaning in any instance becomes a matter of interpretation," which should be in accordance with the context (See Robert Shank's handling of Acts 13:48 in his book Elect in the Son, pp. 183-187; cf. Life in the Son, pp. 362-365).

As such, the text in question cannot be used to support any teaching for preordination (predestination), especially as that espoused by the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition; and as Larry stated, "Acts 13:48 does not purport to set forth a theological principle."

Maybe one would do better to use another verse to support the Reformed/Calvinistic view of predestination. With all due respect to Kiffin, as seen in this discussion thus far, Acts 13:48 does not seem to be "a problem for verse for the Non Calvinist;" but, on the contrary, it seems problematic for the Calvinist (especially if he agrees with Larry that it "does not purport to set forth a theological principle").

[ May 10, 2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Nelson:
Unfortunately, the verses Larry cites are totally off the subject regarding the present discussion with reference to Acts 13:48.

Not really. YOu made a point about what tasso means; I refuted your point by showing verses that refute your understanding.

Then, it cannot be used to support "a theological principle" and renders an argument in support of predestination, particularly in the Reformed mindset, moot.

Unfortunately, you missed the point due to my miscommunication. My point was that Acts 13:48 is not in a didactic section but in a narrative section. In other words, it assumes a position of common knowledge among the readers, namely that people were appointed to eternal life prior to the belief that brought that eternal life to them. It is not explaining a modus operandi as much as it is assuming one. In this sense it is different from a passage such as Rom 8:29-30 where it is explaining a modus operandi.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: I challenge you to find one use of tasso that is anything other the preordination or appointing. I will bet you can't do it.

Luke 7:8

NAU Luke 7:8 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and 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."

The word here is translated authority. Where did that authority come from? From an appointment by someone higher up. Thus, your verse proves my point. The superior ordained the authority under which he was operating.

[ May 10, 2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[russell55]

As such, the text in question cannot be used to support any teaching for preordination (predestination), especially as that espoused by the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition;

Actually, I believe it can be used to support to Calvinistic view of election. The belief is quite clearly a result of the appointment, rather than the appointment being the result of the belief. This argues strongly against a prescient view of election. It means that God's choice of people to receive eternal life is not a result of their faith (foreseen or otherwise), but the their faith is the result of God's choice of them for eternal life.

 

[Chris Temple]

Arminian foreknowledge is not the easy out of election that they wish it to be. For if foreknowledge only meant that God assuredley knew what would happen in the future, all those future events are still locked in solid concrete. For if God knows that in fifty years from today Jim will repent and believe in Christ, nothing between now and then can change the fact that Jim will repent and believe in Christ, for it is foreknown today by God.

 

[Christopher]

Amen, brother Chris.

[Romans 8:29, 30] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If those God foreknew are the ones He saw believing in eternity past, what would be the purpose of Him calling them? If they were already believing, there would be no purpose in that. The Arminian theology is so full of errors one cannot defend such a misinterpretation of Scripture and be true with themself.

 

[Nelson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Not really. You made a point about what tasso means; I refuted your point by showing verses that refute your understanding.

It may have been "refuted," but not convincingly; and it still remains that the verses cited are off the subject.

Unfortunately, you missed the point due to my miscommunication. My point was that Acts 13:48 is not in a didactic section but in a narrative section. In other words, it assumes a position of common knowledge among the readers, namely that people were appointed to eternal life prior to the belief that brought that eternal life to them. It is not explaining a modus operandi as much as it is assuming one. In this sense it is different from a passage such as Rom 8:29-30 where it is explaining a modus operandi.

Unfortunately, Larry assumes that Luke's readers assume what he speculates they assume.

Luke 7:8...The word here is translated authority. Where did that authority come from? From an appointment by someone higher up. Thus, your verse proves my point. The superior ordained the authority under which he was operating.

Larry may need to reconsider the correctness and legitimacy of his argument.

A quick look at StudyLight.org shows that the Greek word for "authority," according to NAS Strong's Concordance, is exousia, and not tasso.

The word tasso is translated as "placed" (NAS) or "set" (KJV) within the verse in question; it has nothing to do with predestination.

Even if Larry were correct, which has been shown he is not, the argument he presents is strained. With all due respect, it seems Larry is going "two blocks down and around the corner" to prove he is right. The challange was "to find one use of tasso that is anything other than preordination or appointing," and, I believe, a verse has been found that meets the challange head-on.

 

[Eric B]

It is true that foreknowledge tends to be a weak argument, and we should just at that point acknowledge that the relation between election and man's free will is where the mystery is.
Since some of these "predestination" passages can be referring to groups, I want to continue a thus related discussion on 1 Pet. 2:8 (describing the opposite of "ordained to eternal life" being discussed here):

(From "The Hopelessness of Calvinism", now closed):

As Helen is mired in John 3:16 theology, so are you and your presupposition of "corporation" theology. The verse clearly speaks to individuals, even if they are of a group (all of us are.) The fact remains that if people are destined by God to a mentioned future, that destiny cannot be changed by any action of the receiver of the proclamation. This is not an "if, then" admonishment. It says they were destined . No action then on their part could change it.
Why does everyone want the pottery to be free, but not the Potter?

First of all, I thought we didn't believe any were "elected to hell", which "appointed to unbelief" was just another way of saying!

This all connects with the "vessels" argument. The corporate concept of "vessels" is recognized in Jer. 18:4-6ff & 25:34, which Paul obviously draws his "potter and clay" analogy from. If these passages were referring to a group as the sum of all of its individuals, it would preclude any righteous people in Israel. So even if some are "elected" out of this, it must be the group in general that is hardened. Where individuals are already sinners and wouldn't need to be "hardened" in order to be condemned, still, groups can hold a lot of truth and righteousness (even if every member doesn't obey it), or God can allow them to be completely darkened. Of course, God's "purpose" in hardening Israel is to show that having a nation under His Law did not make people righteous. This was for preparing the way for the Gospel of Christ, not reprobating (or "preteritioning") individuals to Hell (which is not even the point).

It's so funny who actually [out of the other side of their mouths] insist that the pottery is really "free", while the Potter is enslaved by some "higher will" (that forces Him to preterition the "free" pottery)!

[ May 11, 2002, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Nelson:
It may have been "refuted," but not convincingly; and it still remains that the verses cited are off the subject.

Perhaps I misunderstood the subject then. As I understood it, the subject was essentially, does tasso ever mean ordain or appoint beforehand. The verses I gave show that this is the generally accepted meaning of the word, contrary to your contentions as I understand them.

Unfortunately, Larry assumes that Luke's readers assume what he speculates they assume.

And you assume they don't. What decides it is what the apostles taught. It seems clear, that no matter how you read the verse, the appointing to eternal life preceding the believing. This is the uniform testimony of Scripture. Election or appointing is never said to be the result of belief.

A quick look at StudyLight.org shows that the Greek word for "authority," according to NAS Strong's Concordance, is exousia, and not tasso.

The word tasso is translated as "placed" (NAS) or "set" (KJV) within the verse in question; it has nothing to do with predestination.

My apologies, I misspoke. Tasso is the setting or deciding of authority. The point still stands, that the centurion did not appoint himself under authority but rather was appointed. He was passive in the action and the action preceded the relationship to authority. It was the 'tasso-ing' that brought him under the authority. The verse shows that tasso refers to the appointing of a person to a condition apart from the person's own contribution.

 

[Christopher]

It is unbiblical to say that people are "elected" to hell. It would be like saying that Al Gore was elected to not be the president of the United States. It's not correct to say that. God chose His people and left the others to die in their sins and receive the just condemnation for their works.

Most Arminians would agree that all people deserve hell anyway, but will argue till their blue in the face when a Calvinist says that God is actually going to do that to somebody. All things were made for His pleasure, yea, even the wicked (Prov. 16:4; Rev. 4:11). Anyone who would argue with that doesn't believe the Bible because it couldn't be clearer.

 

[Eric B]

It is unbiblical to say that people are "elected" to hell. It would be like saying that Al Gore was elected to not be the president of the United States. It's not correct to say that. God chose His people and left the others to die in their sins and receive the just condemnation for their works.

But that's precisely what these passages you all are using suggests the way you use them. Think about it-- "unbelief...unto which they were appointed"; "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", and the quote and statement you make in the very same breath above: "All things were made for His pleasure, yea, even the wicked (Prov. 16:4; Rev. 4:11) Anyone who would argue with that doesn't believe the Bible because it couldn't be clearer."
It's not about arguing with the Bible, and it's not so clear; it's all about interpretation, and your interpretation of these scriptures leads to the very premise you claim to deny.

 

[Kiffin]

The rest of Kiffin’s comments above also reinforce the idea that “faith” is excluded for salvation. One cannot be saved by “grace alone” and by “grace and faith” at the same time; and Kiffin’s comments seem to contend for the former and reject the latter.

Nelson, O buddy you simply build a strawman. God gives us faith to believe because we have none on our own. It is our faith because he gives it to us. Even classical Arminians such as Menno Simmons and John Wesley believed this,

John Wesley on Eph 2:8-9
By grace ye are saved through faith - Grace, without any respect to human worthiness, confers the glorious gift. Faith, with an empty hand, and without any pretence to personal desert, receives the heavenly blessing This refers to the whole preceding clause, That ye are saved through faith, is the gift of God. Not by works - Neither this faith nor this salvation is owing to any works you ever did, will, or can do.

Menno Simons, also believe the faith one had was from God and not on's own. Certaintly their view is differant from Calvinists but Classical Arminianism to it's credit was more orthodox than the Finneyite Pelagian theology that believes one can conjur up their own faith to believe which is so prevalent in Baptist work today.

 

[Kiffin]

I have no problems confessing my belief in double Predestination. By electing some and passing over the rest, that determines that they will stay in their depravity and go on to eternal wrath in hell, Some Reformed Confessions add clarity to this view

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Christopher:
It is unbiblical to say that people are "elected" to hell. It would be like saying that Al Gore was elected to not be the president of the United States. It's not correct to say that.

Isn't it? If a person makes a discriminating choice between two choices does he not positively choose one and negatively choose the other? I think Scripture is quite clear on the doctrine of Reprobation. A non-choice is still a choice, and God is holy and righteous for doing so.

 

[Chris Temple]

Agreed, Kiffin.

 

[Ray Berrian]

"It is unbiblical to say that people are 'elected' to Hell," someone has said.

If you have 10 people and 2 are elected to Heaven, whose will was it that the 8 ended up in Hell. Calvinistic misguided, austere, sovereignty demands that God also willed the 8 lost souls to end up in everlasting destruction. It doesn't sound plausible or like a God of justice/fairness, but this is what the system produces in the minds and hearts of some people. Especially since humankind have been stripped of 'free will' rather never had a free will to determine their own eternal destiny. . .

The numbers have been changed to protect the teaming, billions of living souls who have received their first breath from the living God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If you have 10 people and 2 are elected to Heaven, whose will was it that the 8 ended up in Hell. Calvinistic misguided, austere, sovereignty demands that God also willed the 8 lost souls to end up in everlasting destruction. It doesn't sound plausible or like a God of justice/fairness, but this is what the system produces in the minds and hearts of some people. Especially since humankind have been stripped of 'free will' rather never had a free will to determine their own eternal destiny. . .

The numbers have been changed to protect the teaming, billions of living souls who have received their first breath from the living God.

Ray,

You still fail to understand the most basic distinctions in theology. Those 8 people went to hell of their own free will. They went to hell because of their free will, not because of some 'free will' they never had. Until you understand these issues you will continue to make the kind of misrepresentative posts that you have here.

Let's turn the table. I assume you believe that God knew all things including those who would choose him for salvation from before the creation. Assuming that God knew the vast majority of people would, of their own free will as you have defined it, reject him, why did God create them? Why did he not simply leave them uncreated. It is a very unloving God according to you who would create people knowing that they would go to hell.

Your God is just as "unloving" as ours is; he just isn't in control.

The Open Theist, as unbiblical as he is, is at least honest with reference to the conclusions he draws. He avoids the obvious problem that you have because he asserts that God is learning right along with the rest of us.

 

[Kiffin]

It doesn't sound plausible or like a God of justice/fairness,

Uh, Salvation is not about fairness...else God would send us all to Hell Salvation is about Grace. I believe (Don't quote me) it was Augustine who said "That if God would have only elected only one person to Heaven, and left the rest to damnation then God would be just" (Bad paraphrase of Augustine by me by the way) since justice would be all of us in a Lake of Fire.