Ordained to Eternal Life

[russell55]

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.

So, because you figure there is no way for them to know, you feel justified in rewriting "as many as" as "some of those who"? If that is the case, then you are making scripture subservient to your own thinking, rather than making your own thinking subservient to scripture.

Is scripture breathed out by God or not? Was the Holy Spirit not superintending Luke well enough and the wrong words accidently got into the text? Why can't you just take the scripture at face value?

"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.

Where did I say anything about predestination? The word is appointed or ordained. You said it means "availed themselved of"? That's a complete redefinition of the word on what seems to be your own personal whim. Why do you feel the need to do that? Why can't you just take the scripture 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.

Luke says "appointed to eternal life." You say we are appointed only "to an office or a purpose, not eternal life itself." How unfortunate that you weren't around in Luke's day to edit his writings, because obviously the Holy Spirit mucked things up a bit here.

This statement (in English) has nine words. Out of those nine words the only words you aren't quibbling with are "to" and "believed."

Please, skypair, when you can't take a simple statement of scripture at face value because it blows your preconcieved notions out of the water, reexamine your own ideas instead of redefining or rewriting the text of scripture.

 

[skypair]

So, because you figure there is no way for them to know, you feel justified in rewriting "as many as" as "some of those who"? If that is the case, then you are making scripture subservient to your own thinking, rather than making your own thinking subservient to scripture.

Yet it is OK for you to do the same, right? :laugh:

Why can't you just take the scripture at face value?

"Face value" to me is 1) context and 2) confirmation with other scripture. There's danger with laying the whole interpretation on one word, 2Tim 2:14.

Why do you feel the need to do that? Why can't you just take the scripture at face value?

The words can obviously be interpretted various ways. I am choosing the one that is a) compatible with the definition, b) agrees with the context, c) does not suggest something that can't be known this side of heaven, and d) that agrees with other texts. If that is still too weak of a case for you, it may be that you are using some other criteria and we should know about what yours is.

Luke says "appointed to eternal life." You say we are appointed only "to an office or a purpose, not eternal life itself."

Therefore, since "office" is not in view here, the word would better be expressed as say "availed themselves of eternal life."

Please, skypair, when you can't take a simple statement of scripture at face value because it blows your preconcieved notions out of the water, reexamine your own ideas instead of redefining or rewriting the text of scripture.

It is pertinent WHERE I got those "preconceived notions." I, for instance, am not going to let one scripture dictate my doctrine as this one would if taken in your way. Yes, I have 'preconceived notions' -- other scripture. And you have preconceived notions -- Calvinism, so far as I can tell.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To the OP, I love that verse. There is no wrangling for me concerning its meaning. To me the idea of people availing themselves to believe, believed, is rather stupid and man centered. It sure is what folks like to believe who wish to boast in themselves.

God is the one who ordained. The entire passage is a wonderful view of God's Word going to the gentiles, of God's absolute sovereignty, and of man's responsibility.

RB

 

[skypair]

It sure is what folks like to believe who wish to boast in themselves.

Are you SURE you are not mistaking "confessing with your mouth" (Rom 10:9-10) with "boasting?" Cause one could as easily "boast" of doing nothing and have actually received nothing from God as well!

God is the one who ordained. The entire passage is a wonderful view of God's Word going to the gentiles, of God's absolute sovereignty, and of man's responsibility.

So you are seeing "man's responsibility" in "believed?" If you call believing "your responsibility" and you did it, that might be taken for "boasting" as well! :laugh:

But let's get it plain and simple --- if God ordained you to receive eternal life at this moment in time and you did, then you obeyed an irresistible command. That is, you had no responsibility.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thanks for your comment skypair, but I am not going to try to explain it to you. I love the absolute sovereignty of God. I love the doctrine of election and predestination. The idea that God is completely sovereign over the salvation is souls provides no moral dilemma for me. Although it seems to do so in a great many people.

 

[Rex77]

This note from Answers book by Keith Piper may shed a little light.


[FONT=Arial,Bold]3. Ordained to Salvation. [/FONT]All Calvinists use Acts 13:48 to support the claim that every
saved person was ‘ordained to eternal life’ before the foundation of the world by a
sovereign, eternal decree.

[FONT=Arial,Bold]Answer: [/FONT]The word ‘ordain’ never refers in the Bible to an unconditional, sovereign,
eternal decree:
i) Judas was ‘ordained’ with the other 11 disciples (Mark 3:14),yet he turned out to be a
devil (John6:70
ii) God did not accept the sacrifices of priests who were ordained after Calvary (Hebrews
5:1; 10:10-14
iii) God has ordained that all pastors who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel (I
Corinthians 9:14), but not all do so;
iv) Do all Christians practise good works, even though ‘God has before ordained that we
should walk in them?’ (Ephesians 2:10).

Note: Acts 13:48 says ‘ordained’ not ‘fore-ordained.’

 

[J.D.]

The word ‘ordain’ never refers in the Bible to an unconditional, sovereign,
eternal decree:

I don't think anybody said that "ordain" means that. It means "appointed" and Thayer's lexicon says "appointed BY GOD".

Judas was ‘ordained’ with the other 11 disciples (Mark 3:14),yet he turned out to be a
devil (John6:70

Judas did not "turn out" to be a devil - he always was one.

God did not accept the sacrifices of priests who were ordained after Calvary (Hebrews
5:1; 10:10-14

I don't see how this applies.

God has ordained that all pastors who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel (I
Corinthians 9:14), but not all do so;

True, but we do not have a qualifying clause as we do in Act 13. It does not say "and as many as were ordained to preach the Gospel received a salary". If it said that, we might have cause to question the calling of men that aren't paid for preaching.

Do all Christians practise good works, even though ‘God has before ordained that we
should walk in them?’ (Ephesians 2:10).

The works were appointed here, not the people. In Acts 13 the people were appointed. Big difference.

Note: Acts 13:48 says ‘ordained’ not ‘fore-ordained.’

The text says "were" (past tense) ordained, so that had to be before something.

 

[skypair]

I don't think anybody said that "ordain" means that. It means "appointed" and Thayer's lexicon says "appointed BY GOD".
Judas did not "turn out" to be a devil - he always was one.

Please try to deal with the issue and not with the correctness of other terms ("turned out" vs. "was one") when you know full well what rex is saying.

I don't see how this applies.

He appears to be asserting that anything "ordained" should happen but doesn't necessarily. That seems to be the theme.

]True, but we do not have a qualifying clause as we do in Act 13. It does not say "and as many as were ordained to preach the Gospel received a salary". If it said that, we might have cause to question the calling of men that aren't paid for preaching.

Calvinism WOULD make such cause because that is what is being said --- but again it is false.

The works were appointed here, not the people. In Acts 13 the people were appointed. Big difference.

"Should" is actually the qualifier of "ordain" here.

]The text says "were" (past tense) ordained, so that had to be before something.

First you assert that the word means "appointed." Now you don't care to press that assertion?

Second, if they "were appointed," show me where scripture tells us that men "were appointed" to "believe."

skypair

 

[The Archangel]

This verse is quite plain, especially in Greek.

A "wooden" translation of the verse would be "... and they believed, as many as they were the ones having been appointed into eternal life."

To put this a bit more smoothly would be "...and they believed, as many as had been appointed into eternal life."

As for the word tassw [which is the lexical form, the word tetagmenoi is the word appearing in the passage proper], it has its roots in military language. I have seen quite a few mental gymnastics related to this word, but none of them pan-out. The world simply means choose and because it appears in the passive voice it is clear the people did not choose, they were chosen.

Certainly the word tassw and its derivatives appears in other parts of scripture and many have argued that tassw is not the issue. That argument is quite mistaken. Here, the word tassw matters greatly.

From Luke's structure, it is plain to see his comment is a clarifying comment. He wanted to point out who it was who had believed. Was it everyone? No. Was it no one? No. Who was it who believed? Those who had been appointed to do so--those who had been chosen to believe. Luke did not have to mention this and he took precious space to do so, therefore it is important.

Also, notice who it is who is chosen--it is the Gentiles. This is hugely significant. Here Luke is making a point that the chosen people, the Jews, had been rejected and the people rejected by the Jews, the Gentiles, had been chosen. This verse is very deep, theologically speaking.

Because of his writing, we can see Luke is making an important point. It is as if he is saying the sheep had been separated from the goats or the wheat had been separated from the tares--and Gentiles are included in the sheep and or the wheat.

Now, it should be said that it is dangerous to build an entire theology of predestination from one verse. I certainly agree and we Calvinists have been accused of doing so with this verse. That is not the case, however. There are many other passages that attest to predestination (like Romans 8) with language, at least in Greek, which is unmistakable. And, by the way, I don't base my entire theology of predestination on this verse, there are way too many other verses supporting predestination.

So, most of this discussion has been focused on a hopelessly flawed interpretaion of the word tassw and its subsequent usage in this passage. There is no getting around this: This passage shows, without a doubt, that people are chosen by someone other than themselves (and, presumably, the One choosing is God) and no amount of obfuscation or mental gymnastics is going to change the meaning of Greek words or Greek grammar.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[skypair]

AA,

I appreciate your commentary and your assiduous study of the Greek as well. :wavey: I realize I have been polite with you in the past and this here is a really good explanation without "barbs." Thanx.

I also appreciate that predestination is in the Bible and that all "ordinations" and "decrees" came prior to creation. What we more simply have is much doubt as to whether God's ordination was informed or uninformed by His omniscience, including His foreknowledge -- or does He only foreknow because He ordains.

skypair

 

[psalms109:31]

Who He ordained

We know that He ordained those to believe.

We all know He ordained those who do not trust in thier own understanding, but trust in the name of the Lord. God said He is going to keep those who are meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord.

He also said that He is going to hide the truth from the wise and learned and reveal it to little children.

I have no problem with God ordaining, but mens misunderstanding of who God is going to ordained.

There is no one meek or humble that will boast in themselves, but they will boast in the one who gave them the right to be children of God.

 

[skypair]

We know that He ordained those to believe.

EXACTLY! And let's look at who ANY denomination, faith, religion... will ordain. Have you ever seen an "ordination service" for someone who DOESN'T believe in that denomination, faith, religion?

No. So if that is how we understand "ordain," why is it that we even debate that God does the same -- ordains BELIEVERS??

Or maybe we are doing it wrong! Maybe we should go out and find UNBELIEVERS to fill our pulpits in hopes they will convert.

skypair

 

[psalms109:31]

Limit salvation

Men have been trying to limit salvation from the beginning starting with the serpent.

God really didn't mean that? Surely die yeah right

God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. We are not saved because of us we are saved because of His word. Your trust will not save you, but His word will

It all begins with one thing being born again. Become a child again trust in the Lord and He will do the work in our life.

God said that those who put thier trust in the Lord will not be disappointed and you are just going to have to trust in the Lord over your own understanding.

Salvation is only limited by His word

 

[psalms109:31]

lining it up

Those who He ordained to eternal life believed. In order to believe you going to have to first trust. We are saved by grace through faith.

 

[Rippon]

Those who He ordained to eternal life believed. In order to believe you going to have to first trust. We are saved by grace through faith.

Those who He has ordained to eternal life believe . The Lord causes them to believe .

Belief =trust = faith . There is no substantial difference .

By His grace He brings some unto Himself .

 

[webdog]

Those who He has ordained to eternal life believe . The Lord causes them to believe .

...but you ridicule DHK's "robotic determinism" :laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

Those who He has ordained to eternal life believe . The Lord causes them to believe .

Belief =trust = faith . There is no substantial difference .

By His grace He brings some unto Himself .

I see what you are saying and I agree. But, considering webdog's comment, I felt I would add my $.02.

I think the idea here is not that we are automatons having absolute and unfettered free will. Similarly, the idea is also not that we are marionettes being wielded by God with no responsibility of our own.

Rather, and this is based mostly on the Romans 8:28-30 passage, that God guarantees the salvation of the ones He has chosen.

How He does that has been met with considerable debate, some good and some bad. And, I'll admit there is some room for debate, although not in the realm of the word "for-knew" being "known who would believe." The Greek is quite clear and it means chosen before hand with God doing the choosing.

Having said all of that, the "Golden Chain" seen in Romans 8:28-30 shows God guaranteeing glorification in the face of persecution, suffering, etc. Since the glorification is guaranteed, all the other aspects of salvation named in the passage leading up to glorification, must be guaranteed as well. Therefore, Salvation is initiated, completed, and guaranteed by God.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[psalms109:31]

Rippon

You are going to have to trust in the Lord in order to believe. It is trust belief and then faith. We follow Jesus and He does the work in us.

It is so bad that the goat is leading the poor sheep in the pit but the truth of the matter they are leading there own self there. When Christ looked out into the world He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a Shephard. God does love the world that He sent His Son, praise be to God that the world has a hope and His name is Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

 

[psalms109:31]

Differce between goat and sheep

Before people say I'm calling someone a goat. I'll tell you the difference between a sheep and a goat.

A goat leads sheep into a pit to be slaughtered, and knows what he is doing, and continues doing it.

A sheep blindly follows. He trust in the one leading him, not knowing where he is going.

 

[Rippon]

No sheep will perish according to Scripture . Christ has laid His life down specifically for them . The elect who are same group as the sheep and the Church may be misled for a short time by a false teacher , but will ultimately be brought back from the brink . Do you believe in Romans 8:28-39 or not ?