Ordained to Eternal Life

[skypair]

What does "disposed to" mean anyway? :laugh:

Amy -- "disposed to" means like "availing themselves of."

And I guess the point of it NOT reading what TC claims is that it would be wonderful if we could know whom God had appointed to eternal life, wouldn't it? But we can't and how can even an apostle make such a statement? Even if he knows that is how God works, he still cannot be have any assurance that some of these believers only appear to believe -- are actually saved that day.

But they can say that they tried to avail themselves of eternal life in Christ, God willing. You remember that Simon Magus did likewise and it wasn't until the "Holy Ghost" was being distributed that it was discovered that he WASN'T "appointed" to eternal life and wasn't given the Spirit!

skypair

 

[skypair]

tassw, "to appoint, assign," is used 7 times in the NT and nowhere means "disposed to."

Thank you, TC. And as your citations show, there are even more definitions than the 2 you give. I see "determine," "brought up," and "addicted" as well.

My point would be that Acts 13:48 is not a "theology class." Were the apostles trying to teach predestination or the gospel, TC? Did the apostles even show any awareness of predestination before this event? Why does the context not just tell you that "that as many as desired eternal life partook of it?" Is there anything in the surrounding context that shows that Paul and Barnabas (or Luke who wrote Acts) were trying to promote predestination alongside the gospel?

What is it that tells us that Calvinism or Augustinianism didn't just "sneak" the concept in using this as one of their opportunities "eisogesis-wise." I'm suspicious, TC, on account of 2Tim 2:14 which tells us not to strive over words -- that doing so is usually subversive (leads us somewhere that the Bible context is not headed).

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

Amy -- "disposed to" means like "availing themselves of."

And I guess the point of it NOT reading what TC claims is that it would be wonderful if we could know whom God had appointed to eternal life, wouldn't it? But we can't and how can even an apostle make such a statement? Even if he knows that is how God works, he still cannot be have any assurance that some of these believers only appear to believe -- are actually saved that day.

But they can say that they tried to avail themselves of eternal life in Christ, God willing. You remember that Simon Magus did likewise and it wasn't until the "Holy Ghost" was being distributed that it was discovered that he WASN'T "appointed" to eternal life and wasn't given the Spirit!

skypair

The word "ordained" does not mean what you are trying to say it means.

TCgreek is correct. The word is tasso. It means:

G5021 tassō tä's-sō appoint, ordain, set, determine, addict

The NKJV reads "appoint".

I see nothing that indicates this words means "to avail themselves". This word is referring to what God does, not what man does.

 

[Rippon]

I am not disposed to believe much of what SP reports on the BB .

The word 'disposed' as a rendering for 'ordained' or 'appointed' in Acts 13:48 is just plain wrong . He gets it from that incredible Bible scholar -- Dave Hunt . D.H. in turn gets it from dubious Bible translations -- that stand alone with this unique wording .

 

[russell55]

I am not disposed to believe much of what SP reports on the BB .

The word 'disposed' as a rendering for 'ordained' or 'appointed' in Acts 13:48 is just plain wrong . He gets it from that incredible Bible scholar -- Dave Hunt . D.H. in turn gets it from dubious Bible translations -- that stand alone with this unique wording .

I you think you might mean a dubious Bible translation, because as far as I know, there's only one. I'm willing to be corrected on this, though.

 

[Timtoolman]

agreed

I agree, how does that really affect or change anyones view. I believe God ordains all things, even sin. In ordaining it He allows it and uses it for the good of those that love Him.

 

[skypair]

The word "ordained" does not mean what you are trying to say it means.

I see nothing that indicates this words means "to avail themselves". This word is referring to what God does, not what man does.

OK, I guess we are both speaking from our respective but disparate theologies. I guess it is a matter of whether you make the word "appointed" the context or whether you see that the context "makes" the word.

Clearly the word CAN mean such other words as "addicted" in other contexts. Yet you "read" a rigidity of definition here that I don't believe that scriptural sotierology allows. If "election" means that 100% of those who are elect will believe, then it is the "election" that is saving and not the believing.

skypair

 

[skypair]

The word 'disposed' as a rendering for 'ordained' or 'appointed' in Acts 13:48 is just plain wrong . He gets it from that incredible Bible scholar -- Dave Hunt . D.H. in turn gets it from dubious Bible translations -- that stand alone with this unique wording .

Make sense of it for me then. How did these disciples or Luke know that any of them were "elect" or "ordained" to salvation? Are they God? Did God put a mark or sign on them so that the apostles unequivocally could assert that these were all -- without exception or hypocricy -- appointed/elect? Suppose there were a few Simon Magus's mixed in there?

No, the obvious assertion is that they were availing themselves of eternal life by believing, not by election (which again I point out, the disciples and Luke would have no way of determining). The disciples could only report what they were WITNESSES to -- their believing.

skypair

 

[bbas 64]

I am not disposed to believe much of what SP reports on the BB .

The word 'disposed' as a rendering for 'ordained' or 'appointed' in Acts 13:48 is just plain wrong . He gets it from that incredible Bible scholar -- Dave Hunt . D.H. in turn gets it from dubious Bible translations -- that stand alone with this unique wording .

Good Day, Rippon

I had forgotten all about that, that was based on some "hebrew" text of Acts that when pushed David Hunt could not provide any historical basis for his assertion.

Silly man that Dave Hunt is .. Hebrew text of Acts :laugh: I :laugh: , but it is just

In Him,

Bill

 

[Amy.G]

OK, I guess we are both speaking from our respective but disparate theologies. I guess it is a matter of whether you make the word "appointed" the context or whether you see that the context "makes" the word.

Clearly the word CAN mean such other words as "addicted" in other contexts. Yet you "read" a rigidity of definition here that I don't believe that scriptural sotierology allows. If "election" means that 100% of those who are elect will believe, then it is the "election" that is saving and not the believing.

skypair

Can you provide a reference to the words "ordain" and "appoint" meaning "to avail themselves"?

In Acts 13:48, who is doing the ordaining?

 

[russell55]

The disciples could only report what they were WITNESSES to -- their believing.

skypair

Exactly. And that they believed proved something to Luke. It proved that they had been ordained to eternal life.

How could he be so sure? How could he write so certainly? Because only those who are ordained to eternal life believe. No one believes without that ordaination.

It it were any other way, Luke's commentary on the story would be presumptious.

 

[TCGreek]

Thank you, TC. And as your citations show, there are even more definitions than the 2 you give. I see "determine," "brought up," and "addicted" as well.

My point would be that Acts 13:48 is not a "theology class." Were the apostles trying to teach predestination or the gospel, TC? Did the apostles even show any awareness of predestination before this event? Why does the context not just tell you that "that as many as desired eternal life partook of it?" Is there anything in the surrounding context that shows that Paul and Barnabas (or Luke who wrote Acts) were trying to promote predestination alongside the gospel?

What is it that tells us that Calvinism or Augustinianism didn't just "sneak" the concept in using this as one of their opportunities "eisogesis-wise." I'm suspicious, TC, on account of 2Tim 2:14 which tells us not to strive over words -- that doing so is usually subversive (leads us somewhere that the Bible context is not headed).

skypair

With due respect as a fellow debater,

Your post is neither here nor there, in respect to Acts 13:48.

 

[psalms109:31]

Ordained

We must believe all scripture the way God translated it for us. If we do any thing like those who change to limit the word all and the world we become no better than them.

It is God who does the work in us to believe. What we believe does not come from us, but His word. those who He ordained believe. You can believe this and also believe that God want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

When we come to God we don't have to believe any thing, it is His work for us to believe. Just come to Him as a child and let Him lead you to the truth. He told them follow me and I will make you fishers of men

 

[David Lamb]

Make sense of it for me then. How did these disciples or Luke know that any of them were "elect" or "ordained" to salvation? Are they God? Did God put a mark or sign on them so that the apostles unequivocally could assert that these were all -- without exception or hypocricy -- appointed/elect? Suppose there were a few Simon Magus's mixed in there?

No, the obvious assertion is that they were availing themselves of eternal life by believing, not by election (which again I point out, the disciples and Luke would have no way of determining). The disciples could only report what they were WITNESSES to -- their believing.

skypair

Yes, that is the point. The fact that they believed showed to Luke etc. that they were ordained to salvation. There is nothing to suggest that Luke knew before someone believed whether or not they were of the elect.

But even if that were not so, don't we believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God? Many of the human authors wrote things that they could not possibly have known by human reasoning. Think of all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Saviour, for instance. Do you say, "Isaiah cannot have been writing about Jesus in Isaiah 53.9, because he would have had no way of knowing that Jesus would be placed in a rich man's tomb"?

Once again, you seem to be saying that Calvinists "don't believe in believing". And once again, I must say that neither I, nor anyone on this Board (as far as I am aware) holds that a person can somehow be saved by election, without the need for belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance.



Albert Barnes in commenting on Acts 13.48, says concerning the word translated there as "ordained" or "appointed":

1. The word is never used to denote an internal disposition or inclination arising from one’s own self. It does not mean that they disposed themselves to embrace eternal life.

​

2. It has uniformly the notion of an ordering, disposing, or arrangement from without, i.e., from some other source than the individual himself; as of a soldier, who is arranged or classified according to the will of the proper officer. In relation to these persons it means, therefore, that they were disposed or inclined to this from some other source than themselves. ​

That is something, coming as it does from the pen of a man who was accused of heresy, and suspended from the ministry, because of his free will position.

 

[skypair]

Can you provide a reference to the words "ordain" and "appoint" meaning "to avail themselves"?

In Acts 13:48, who is doing the ordaining?

Let me go look it up in Dave Hunt's book :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OK, here's what he says: "The Greek word is tasso and has a variety of meanings and usages. It is found eight times in the New Testament and none of them carries the meaning of a decree from God nor of something that is unchangeable and eternal,... Many Greek experts suggest the same idea here: that the Gentiles [vice the Jews earlier in the chapter] had disposed themselves (i.e. determined) to believe." (p210 What Love is This?)

Others that agree are Cook's Commentary, Syriac, Josephus, Dean Alford, The Expositor's Greek Testament, A.T. Robertson and are mentioned by name.

The point is then made that CONTEXT and HARMONIZING SCRIPTURES deliver the true, intended meaning.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Exactly. And that they believed proved something to Luke. It proved that they had been ordained to eternal life.

I would ask you simply then, where was Luke shown to have this knowledge before Acts 13:48?

And don't get me wrong -- everyone who believes is foreordained but the disciples can't know which ones make false professions and nor can they know which ones are foreordained but rejected this opportunity to believe! So unless the disciples were ordaining them themselves by some set of standards they chose (ostensibly "belief") and something they can OBSERVE, they cannot make this "blanket assertion, can they?

And all who are foreordained are to ministry, not to salvation. So actually, your interpretation contains 2 errors: 1) that they are ordained to salvation and 2) that they are ordained to believe. But it is correct that this comes before creation and if they are ordained to a ministry, they will obviously believe also.

If it were any other way, Luke's commentary on the story would be presumptious.

Actually, it appears to be presumptuous the way you interpret it.

skypair

 

[russell55]

I would ask you simply then, where was Luke shown to have this knowledge before Acts 13:48?

He isn't. That's the point. Believing is proof of prior ordaination to eternal life. It is only because they believe that he can make the statement he does.

And don't get me wrong -- everyone who believes is foreordained but the disciples can't know which ones make false professions and nor can they know which ones are foreordained but rejected this opportunity to believe!

The text says "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Are you telling me that "as many as" doesn't have to mean "all who"? That it can mean "some of those who"?

So unless the disciples were ordaining them themselves by some set of standards they chose (ostensibly "belief") and something they can OBSERVE, they cannot make this "blanket assertion, can they?

Of course Luke makes this statement because of something observable. He makes it because they believed. But he can also only make the statement he does if he understands that belief results from appointment to eternal life so that belief is proof of appointment to eternal life.

And all who are foreordained are to ministry, not to salvation.

That's strange, because in this text it says "ordained to eternal life" not "ordained to ministry." So am I correct in understanding you to be saying that by "ordained to eternal life" Luke really means "ordained to ministry" and that in this text, the phrase eternal life is used as a synonym for ministry?

So actually, your interpretation contains 2 errors: 1) that they are ordained to salvation

I interpret the verse as meaning they were appointed to eternal life. Eternal life, however, always includes salvation, so that an appointment to eternal life necessarily includes salvation within that appointment. Do you not agree? Can you have eternal life without being saved?

and 2) that they are ordained to believe.

I didn't say that the text says they were ordained to believe. I said the text says they were appointed to eternal life, and it is everyone who was (as many as were) appointed to eternal life who believed. Appointment to eternal life brings about belief.

But it is correct that this comes before creation and if they are ordained to a ministry, they will obviously believe also.

If Luke meant "ordained to ministry" when he wrote "ordained to eternal life", why didn't he use the word ministry?

Here's what I've seen you do with this wee little verse here on this thread:

• You've interpreted "as many as" to mean "some of those who".
• You've interpreted "were appointed " to mean "availed themselves of".
• You've interpreted "eternal life" to mean "ministry."

Why can't you just take what Luke says at face value?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

He isn't. That's the point. Believing is proof of prior ordaination to eternal life. It is only because they believe that he can make the statement he does.

The text says "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Are you telling me that "as many as" doesn't have to mean "all who"? That it can mean "some of those who"?


Of course Luke makes this statement because of something observable. He makes it because they believed. But he can also only make the statement he does if he understands that belief results from appointment to eternal life so that belief is proof of appointment to eternal life.


That's strange, because in this text it says "ordained to eternal life" not "ordained to ministry." So am I correct in understanding you to be saying that by "ordained to eternal life" Luke really means "ordained to ministry" and that in this text, the phrase eternal life is used as a synonym for ministry?


I interpret the verse as meaning they were appointed to eternal life. Eternal life, however, always includes salvation, so that an appointment to eternal life necessarily includes salvation within that appointment. Do you not agree? Can you have eternal life without being saved?


I didn't say that the text says they were ordained to believe. I said the text says they were appointed to eternal life, and it is everyone who was (as many as were) appointed to eternal life who believed. Appointment to eternal life brings about belief.


If Luke meant "ordained to ministry" when he wrote "ordained to eternal life", why didn't he use the word ministry?

Here's what I've seen you do with this wee little verse here on this thread:

• You've interpreted "as many as" to mean "some of those who".
• You've interpreted "were appointed " to mean "availed themselves of".
• You've interpreted "eternal life" to mean "ministry."

Why can't you just take what Luke says at face value?

Where'd you go, skypair?

 

[skypair]

Here's what I've seen you do with this wee little verse here on this thread:

• You've interpreted "as many as" to mean "some of those who".

• Because there is no way of knowing whether ALL who are "foreordained to eternal life" received eternal life that day yet the verse says "all." In fact, there is no way to know who might have believed and not made an external profession.
  
  

  [*]You've interpreted "were appointed " to mean "availed themselves of".

  "Now see, if I was a psychologist, that would make sense, caveman!" :laugh: I am saying that you assume that they know about predestination in the way you do which 1) I doubt and 2) which is not an observable fact to be entered into evidence here.
  
  

  [*]You've interpreted "eternal life" to mean "ministry."

Why can't you just take what Luke says at face value?

No, "eternal life" is eternal life all right and it is obtained by BELIEF, not by "election." Now "election" plays a part in the saved life but just like in this life, when we are "elected" it is to an "office" or purpose, not to eternal life itself.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Where'd you go, skypair?

Dinner and a bonfire at my B-I-L's. :1_grouphug:

skypair