Romans 4 vs James 2: Newborn babes vs converted Christians

[Arial]

Baptism is the occasion, the point in the time of the life of the repentant believer when he is regenerated. So no, baptism does not occur prior to regeneration. It is the instant when regeneration occurs.

So---those who have been truly in Christ but never gone through the baptismal ceremony have not been regenerated? A person who is truly united with Christ through faith in his person and work, but has not yet had the opportunity of baptism, remains unregenerate? Babies that are baptized are regenerated, but are subject to becoming unregenerated?

A big problem with false teachings is that the people who hold to them tooth and nail, do so blindly, never bothering to follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.

 

[JIM]

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Those who are called are those who love God. Verses 29-30 then follow on to describe how those are called. Clearly in verse 29 those who love God are known to God and has been known to God since before all creation. Those who love God are foreknown. He foreknew them It is they who are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. And those are the ones He called.

Gal 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles----

Paul was first (Acts 9) called to be a service to God. That was his calling on the road to Damascus. Jesus said to him, "But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." Jesus later told Ananias "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Nothing about that says anything about being called for salvation. Also for Acts 22, there really isn't any mention of being called for salvation. Again, in Acts 26, there is nothing about his being called for salvation.

So now we come to your verse, Galatians 1:15. Here again, the reference to calling Paul is a call to service. There is really nothing there even suggesting Paul being called to salvation. We know that Pau was saved. He was baptized to "wash away his sins., I take that to mean to receive forgiveness of his sins. You can take it any way you want. but none of that speaks of Paul being "called" to salvation. I truly believe he was, but the Bible does not say that, at least not that I have found.

2 Thess 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ

Romans 1:6 Including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

1 Thess 5:24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

Yes, those verses do indicate God's calling. But none speak against what I said regarding Romans 8:28-30. namely, God calls the who love God.

John 3: 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Well of course you have your own interpretation of what that means. I have mine. I agree with what Barnes and more than a few other commentarians say, i.e., "To “see,” here, is put evidently for enjoying - or he cannot be fitted for it and partake of it."

I think that verse 5 is simply a repeat for emphasis that "to see" is "to enter" is to be fitted for and partake of to become a member of the kingdom.

John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe, The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

There is a good bit of discussion out there about the specific question of Jesus' flock, His sheep.

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

What you highlighted is a really bad translation/interpretation of the Greek word τεταγμενοι. First it is translated/interpreted to be verb in the passive voice. But it is exactly the as the middle voice of the verb τάσσω. In the middle voice it would indicate that they determined for themselves to be appointed to eternal life and believed. That is in complete harmony with verse 46 in which it says that the Jews there at the time rejected the message from Paul and Barnabas and decide for themselves to reject eternal life. Since they chose not to accept the teaching, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles who then chose to accept the teaching.

I would point out that form of the verb τάσσω is found in Acts 20:13, where it is translated/interpreted in the middle voice indicating that Paul had decided for himself to "go by land".

Eph 2 By grace you have been saved through faith, and that is a gift of God---

Yes of course, salvation, not faith, is indeed a gift of God. Greek grammar will not permit the word gift to be referenced back to faith. Instead, it is referenced back to the entire phrase "saved by grace through faith"

 

[JIM]

So---those who have been truly in Christ but never gone through the baptismal ceremony have not been regenerated?

I did not say that. All I have ever said is that we have the promise of God, as presented by Peter in Acts 2:38 that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of the baptized penitent believer results in forgiveness of his sins and he receives the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. And that constitutes justification, regeneration and (initial) sanctification. Whether or not God chooses that for the penitent believer who rejects baptism is not ever taken up in the scriptures.

A person who is truly united with Christ through faith in his person and work, but has not yet had the opportunity of baptism, remains unregenerate? Babies that are baptized are regenerated, but are subject to becoming unregenerated?

Baptizing babies is pure foolishness so far as regeneration is concerned.

A big problem with false teachings is that the people who hold to them tooth and nail, do so blindly, never bothering to follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.

Boy, could I roll that one around in the hog's wallow for a couple of months or more. We could start with reprobation and see where the follow through to its logical conclusion might lead. And then go from there.

 

[Arial]

I did not say that. All I have ever said is that we have the promise of God, as presented by Peter in Acts 2:38 that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of the baptized penitent believer results in forgiveness of his sins and he receives the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. And that constitutes justification, regeneration and (initial) sanctification. Whether or not God chooses that for the penitent believer who rejects baptism is not ever taken up in the scriptures.

Of course you didn't say that and I never said you did. I simply ask you questions (which you avoided answering) that would be the automatic conclusion of what you did say. And then I pointed out that is how those who present unsound doctrine and incorrectly handling the word of God do that. THey state their belief as you did when you said:

Baptism is the occasion, the point in the time of the life of the repentant believer when he is regenerated. So no, baptism does not occur prior to regeneration. It is the instant when regeneration occurs.

and don't even understand what the automatic conclusion of follow through would be when it is pointed out to them. They just change the subject. If baptism is the instant when regeneration occurs, then no one who has not been baptized has been regenerated.

Baptizing babies is pure foolishness so far as regeneration is concerned.

Well you miss the point and change the subject.

Boy, could I roll that one around in the hog's wallow for a couple of months or more. We could start with reprobation and see where the follow through to its logical conclusion might lead. And then go from there.

I'll be waiting for you to do so. Talk is cheap

 

[Josheb]

Baptism is the occasion, the point in the time of the life of the repentant believer when he is regenerated. So no, baptism does not occur prior to regeneration. It is the instant when regeneration occurs.

Great. Thank you for that answer. Would you now please answer the other questions?

1. Does God cause the hearing?
2. Is the listening caused by God?
3. Is the understanding of what the unregenerate sinner has heard caused by God?
4. Does God cause the believing?
5. Does God cause the repenting?
6. Does God cause the receiving?

Thx

 

[Arial]

Those who are called are those who love God. Verses 29-30 then follow on to describe how those are called. Clearly in verse 29 those who love God are known to God and has been known to God since before all creation. Those who love God are foreknown. He foreknew them It is they who are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. And those are the ones He called.

Rather than repeat unknown number but many, previous posts by various people, I will just say you are wrong, have been proven wrong many times over by the word of God, proven wrong by the very being and character of God. You simply are dividing the word and coming up with unsound doctrine, doctrines that are often not even consistent with themselves. You distort with improper grammar rules, do not use correct Bible interpretive tools, do not let scripture interpret scripture. That sentence does not say that it is the ones who love God who are called (who exactly do you think we are, and who do you think God is) it is those who are called who love God. Get out the old fifth grade English grammar book. If it were not so, then the automatic and necessary conclusion would be that we love God first and then he will love us.

So now we come to your verse, Galatians 1:15. Here again, the reference to calling Paul is a call to service. There is really nothing there even suggesting Paul being called to salvation. We know that Pau was saved. He was baptized to "wash away his sins., I take that to mean to receive forgiveness of his sins. You can take it any way you want. but none of that speaks of Paul being "called" to salvation. I truly believe he was, but the Bible does not say that, at least not that I have found.

He pretty much did a 180 right there on that road. And he had to be saved in order to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Your dances around the obvious are remarkable.

Yes, those verses do indicate God's calling. But none speak against what I said regarding Romans 8:28-30. namely, God calls the who love God.

Romans 8:28-30 does not say what you claim it says. You are letting your presuppositions determine interpretation instead of letting scripture interpret scripture. What you have just done is a perfect example. A "yes but" as though you interpretation of Romans 8 overrides the other clear verses. They might as well not be in the Bible' in that case.

Well of course you have your own interpretation of what that means. I have mine. I agree with what Barnes and more than a few other commentarians say, i.e., "To “see,” here, is put evidently for enjoying - or he cannot be fitted for it and partake of it."

In either case, he still has to be born again first. But to use your argument. You may agree with so and so but I agree with Calvin. Sproul, Voddie, Fergeson, White, Jesus etc.

There is a good bit of discussion out there about the specific question of Jesus' flock, His sheep.

Is that your exegetical answer?

What you highlighted is a really bad translation/interpretation of the Greek word τεταγμενοι.

That same old same old. When all else fails, right?

the Greek word τεταγμενοι. First it is translated/interpreted to be verb in the passive voice. But it is exactly the as the middle voice of the verb τάσσω. In the middle voice it would indicate that they determined for themselves to be appointed to eternal life and believed.

Does that even sound consistent with who God is that people could appoint themselves to eternal life. Wouldn't everyone do that? But to continue:







New International Version
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

New Living Translation
When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.

English Standard Version
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Berean Standard Bible
When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Berean Literal Bible
And the Gentiles hearing it were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.



King James Bible
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

New King James Version
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

I guess they all got it wrong but somehow you got it right?

5021 [e]

τεταγμένοι tetagmenoi

appointed

Definition: To arrange, to appoint, to order, to ordain
Meaning: (a) I assign, arrange,

ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·

That is in complete harmony with verse 46 in which it says that the Jews there at the time rejected the message from Paul and Barnabas and decide for themselves to reject eternal life. Since they chose not to accept the teaching, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles who then chose to accept the teaching.

No, it isn't. It does not say that they CHOSE not to accept the teaching that they appointed themselves to not be worthy of eternal life. Who would do that knowingly. It is the fact that they did not believe it and thrust it aside that in and of itself judged them not worthy of eternal life, so Paul and Barnabas, having preached first to the Jews as was necessary, moved on the the Gentiles.

I would point out that form of the verb τάσσω is found in Acts 20:13, where it is translated/interpreted in the middle voice indicating that Paul had decided for himself to "go by land".

The KJV is the only translation I find using the word "appointed" in that passage and I can't find the Greek analysis. But the point is moot because most translations do not translated as some form of intending. So show me where you have the KJV Greek text analysis.

Yes of course, salvation, not faith, is indeed a gift of God. Greek grammar will not permit the word gift to be referenced back to faith. Instead, it is referenced back to the entire phrase "saved by grace through faith"

So you say but if salvation is through faith and by grace and is a gift, the faith must also be by grace---which means it must be given. If you are an expert in Greek grammar, then it should be no problem for you to explain and show the grammar that won't allow faith to be a gift. Otherwise it is just something you say. Faith of the type we are talking about, has the nuance of being something that comes from outside us, not from inside us. The word is pistis.
From Strong's

Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it.

 

[JIM]

Great. Thank you for that answer. Would you now please answer the other questions?

1. Does God cause the hearing?
2. Is the listening caused by God?
3. Is the understanding of what the unregenerate sinner has heard caused by God?
4. Does God cause the believing?
5. Does God cause the repenting?
6. Does God cause the receiving?

Thx

First, so that I might maybe understand your use of the word "cause", did God cause you to pose those questions?

 

[JIM]

So you say but if salvation is through faith and by grace and is a gift, the faith must also be by grace---which means it must be given. If you are an expert in Greek grammar, then it should be no problem for you to explain and show the grammar that won't allow faith to be a gift. Otherwise it is just something you say. Faith of the type we are talking about, has the nuance of being something that comes from outside us, not from inside us. The word is pistis.
From Strong's

From Adam Clark's commentary,

Ephesians 2:8

For by grace are ye saved, through faith - As ye are now brought into a state of salvation, your sins being all blotted out, and you made partakers of the Holy Spirit; and, having a hope full of immortality, you must not attribute this to any works or merit of yours; for when this Gospel reached you, you were all found dead in trespasses and dead in sins; therefore it was God’s free mercy to you, manifested through Christ, in whom ye were commanded to believe; and, having believed by the power of the Holy Spirit, ye received, and were sealed by, the Holy Spirit of promise; so that this salvation is in no sense of yourselves, but is the free gift of God; and not of any kind of works; so that no man can boast as having wrought out his own salvation, or even contributed any thing towards it. By grace arc ye saved, through faith in Christ. This is a true doctrine, and continues to be essential to the salvation of man to the end of the world.

But whether are we to understand, faith or salvation as being the gift of God? This question is answered by the Greek text: τῃ γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως· και τουτο ουκ εξ ὑμων· Θεου το δωρον, ουκ εξ εργων· ἱνα μη τις καυχησηται· “By this grace ye are saved through faith; and This (τουτο, this salvation) not of you; it is the gift of God, not of works: so that no one can boast.” “The relative τουτο, this, which is in the neuter gender, cannot stand for πιστις, faith, which is the feminine; but it has the whole sentence that goes before for its antecedent.” But it may be asked: Is not faith the gift of God? Yes, as to the grace by which it is produced; but the grace or power to believe, and the act of believing, are two different things. Without the grace or power to believe no man ever did or can believe; but with that power the act of faith is a man’s own. God never believes for any man, no more than he repents for him: the penitent, through this grace enabling him, believes for himself: nor does he believe necessarily, or impulsively when he has that power; the power to believe may be present long before it is exercised, else, why the solemn warnings with which we meet every where in the word of God, and threatenings against those who do not believe? Is not this a proof that such persons have the power but do not use it? They believe not, and therefore are not established. This, therefore, is the true state of the case: God gives the power, man uses the power thus given, and brings glory to God: without the power no man can believe; with it, any man may.

You can find a similar analysis from any number of commentaries that have a good understanding of the Koine Greek of the NT. And for what it is worth, the power spoken of there by Clark is the power given mankind in creation. It is the inherent nature of the human being.

 

[Arial]

Wait for whatever you like.

You should know.

That was strike two.

 

[JIM]

Deleted

 

[JIM]

Rather than repeat unknown number but many, previous posts by various people, I will just say you are wrong, have been proven wrong many times over by the word of God, proven wrong by the very being and character of God. You simply are dividing the word and coming up with unsound doctrine, doctrines that are often not even consistent with themselves. You distort with improper grammar rules, do not use correct Bible interpretive tools, do not let scripture interpret scripture. That sentence does not say that it is the ones who love God who are called (who exactly do you think we are, and who do you think God is) it is those who are called who love God. Get out the old fifth grade English grammar book. If it were not so, then the automatic and necessary conclusion would be that we love God first and then he will love us.

He pretty much did a 180 right there on that road. And he had to be saved in order to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Your dances around the obvious are remarkable.

Romans 8:28-30 does not say what you claim it says. You are letting your presuppositions determine interpretation instead of letting scripture interpret scripture. What you have just done is a perfect example. A "yes but" as though you interpretation of Romans 8 overrides the other clear verses. They might as well not be in the Bible' in that case.

In either case, he still has to be born again first. But to use your argument. You may agree with so and so but I agree with Calvin. Sproul, Voddie, Fergeson, White, Jesus etc.

Is that your exegetical answer?

That same old same old. When all else fails, right?

Does that even sound consistent with who God is that people could appoint themselves to eternal life. Wouldn't everyone do that? But to continue:







New International Version
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

New Living Translation
When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.

English Standard Version
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Berean Standard Bible
When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Berean Literal Bible
And the Gentiles hearing it were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.



King James Bible
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

New King James Version
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

I guess they all got it wrong but somehow you got it right?

5021 [e]

τεταγμένοι tetagmenoi

appointed

Definition: To arrange, to appoint, to order, to ordain
Meaning: (a) I assign, arrange,

ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·

Are you familiar with the middle voice of a verb? Given that τεταγμένοι is the middle voice of the verb τάσσω, what is the meaning of "καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·"?

 

[Mr GLee]

Once again, I have no idea what is the point that you are trying to make.

Satan who has no spiritual understanding, not subject to the gospel, takes away the spiritual understanding hid in parables .

He would have dying mankind believe God is a Jewish man .

 

[Mr GLee]

Are you familiar with the middle voice of a verb? Given that τεταγμένοι is the middle voice of the verb τάσσω, what is the meaning of "καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·"?

Middle voice mediator ?

The Holy Spirit is the mediator that works in born agin children of God both to will and do.

 

[JIM]

Middle voice mediator ?

The Holy Spirit is the mediator that works in born agin children of God both to will and do.

??????

 

[Red Baker]

Baptism is the occasion, the point in the time of the life of the repentant believer when he is regenerated. So no, baptism does not occur prior to regeneration. It is the instant when regeneration occurs.

I'll let Josheb answer first, then I have a few things that I would like to say. I'll wait a day or so.

 

[Mr GLee]

??????

Hi thanks

Middle voice????? define?

 

[JIM]

Hi thanks

Middle voice????? define?

In English we have the active voice and the passive voice for verbs. In the active voice the subject performs the action expressed by the verb, e.g., The boy hit the ball. In the the passive voice the subject receives the action from an "outside" source, e.g. The ball was hit. Sometimes the outside source is identified and sometimes it is not. In the sentence the ball was hit, the outside source is not identified. In the sentence, The ball was hit by the boy, the outside source was identified as the boy. In the middle voice, the subject performs action expressed by the verb on the subject, e.g., The boy hit himself. In the English there generally is no difference in the form of the verb to indicate active, passive or middle voices. It is all a function of sentence construction. In the Greek and in many other languages, there are different verb forms to express the active, passage and middle voices. In some, usually rare instances, some of the verb forms may not be different, so that the actual meaning must be determined by context.

That is the case in Acts 13:48. The Greek sentence is

ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·

The highlighted word τεταγμένοι, if you consult a Greek dictionary such as Strong's, is identified as

G5021
τάσσω
tassō
tas'-so
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

In most translations, τεταγμένοι which is the passive voice form of the verb τάσσω [tassō] is translated as "were ordained" or "were appointed". However, τεταγμένοι is one of those, not so common cases, where it is both the passive and middle form of the verb. Thus, the decision of whether the verb is to be translated in the passive or middle voice is strictly a function of context.

Thus whether or not the Gentiles are said to have been appointed, ordained, arranged (by and outside source) or had appointed, ordained, arranged themselves to eternal life is decided by the context.

The problem here is the Calvinist will, without question, decide on the passive voice. But since they decided that not by context, but rather by preconceived theological doctrine, they cannot legitimately and logically use it as proof of their doctrine. But that is precisely what they do. It is one of their favorite verses to support their TULIP member doctrine.

 

[Arial]

Are you familiar with the middle voice of a verb? Given that τεταγμένοι is the middle voice of the verb τάσσω, what is the meaning of "καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·"?

Do you? It is not all that simple. A person cannot just work from a simple definition of "middle voice" and jump to a conclusion unless one does not really care but it works for their belief or their argument.

What would you say about this from Bible.org?

Acts 13:48 is indeed a strong verse on God's sovereign choice of those who would be saved. The verb TETAGMENOI does not occur in Acts 20:13, but the aorist form of it does occur in Acts 29:23. There, the middle voice is indeed used and is translated like an active verb. However, the aorist has a distinct middle form that is different from the passive form. The perfect tense, found in Acts 13:48, does not. Context, lexeme, and usage are key. In 1 Cor 16:15, an active voice verb is used. So, neither of these texts offers a real parallel to Acts 13:48. The problem with taking the verb in Acts 13:48 as a middle is that it would have to be a direct middle (the idea would be 'they appointed themselves'), which is nonsense in this context and is extremely rare of a usage overall. I know of no linguistic ground for overturning the traditional translation here.

 

[Mr GLee]

In English we have the active voice and the passive voice for verbs. In the active voice the subject performs the action expressed by the verb, e.g., The boy hit the ball. In the the passive voice the subject receives the action from an "outside" source, e.g. The ball was hit. Sometimes the outside source is identified and sometimes it is not. In the sentence the ball was hit, the outside source is not identified. In the sentence, The ball was hit by the boy, the outside source was identified as the boy. In the middle voice, the subject performs action expressed by the verb on the subject, e.g., The boy hit himself. In the English there generally is no difference in the form of the verb to indicate active, passive or middle voices. It is all a function of sentence construction. In the Greek and in many other languages, there are different verb forms to express the active, passage and middle voices. In some, usually rare instances, some of the verb forms may not be different, so that the actual meaning must be determined by context.

That is the case in Acts 13:48. The Greek sentence is

ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·

The highlighted word τεταγμένοι, if you consult a Greek dictionary such as Strong's, is identified as

G5021
τάσσω
tassō
tas'-so
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

In most translations, τεταγμένοι which is the passive voice form of the verb τάσσω [tassō] is translated as "were ordained" or "were appointed". However, τεταγμένοι is one of those, not so common cases, where it is both the passive and middle form of the verb. Thus, the decision of whether the verb is to be translated in the passive or middle voice is strictly a function of context.

Thus whether or not the Gentiles are said to have been appointed, ordained, arranged (by and outside source) or had appointed, ordained, arranged themselves to eternal life is decided by the context.

The problem here is the Calvinist will, without question, decide on the passive voice. But since they decided that not by context, but rather by preconceived theological doctrine, they cannot legitimately and logically use it as proof of their doctrine. But that is precisely what they do. It is one of their favorite verses to support their TULIP member doctrine.

Thanks had to read a few time something new and good .My writing ability suffers

I would think the same kind of appointment the water of the word softening our hard hearts..

Or the two books one with some names erased .Both match ,Chosen from the foundation the six day he did work.

Job 23:12-16 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

 

[Arial]

From Adam Clark's commentary,

Ephesians 2:8

For by grace are ye saved, through faith - As ye are now brought into a state of salvation, your sins being all blotted out, and you made partakers of the Holy Spirit; and, having a hope full of immortality, you must not attribute this to any works or merit of yours; for when this Gospel reached you, you were all found dead in trespasses and dead in sins; therefore it was God’s free mercy to you, manifested through Christ, in whom ye were commanded to believe; and, having believed by the power of the Holy Spirit, ye received, and were sealed by, the Holy Spirit of promise; so that this salvation is in no sense of yourselves, but is the free gift of God; and not of any kind of works; so that no man can boast as having wrought out his own salvation, or even contributed any thing towards it. By grace arc ye saved, through faith in Christ. This is a true doctrine, and continues to be essential to the salvation of man to the end of the world.

First of all, we must make clear ,what both Clark and you fail to make clear. That is, the presuppositional perspective it is coming from. We will see in a moment why that is necessary. He is Wesleyan/ Arminianist. The above statements are true and Reformed theology is in agreement with them. However as we go farther, and not until the very end, do we see that he, while acquiescing to their truthfulness, is reinterpreting their clear meaning. It is extremely subtle. That is why when he gets to his conclusion, people often take off their critical thinking hats and just agree.

But whether are we to understand, faith or salvation as being the gift of God? This question is answered by the Greek text: τῃ γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως· και τουτο ουκ εξ ὑμων· Θεου το δωρον, ουκ εξ εργων· ἱνα μη τις καυχησηται· “By this grace ye are saved through faith; and This (τουτο, this salvation) not of you; it is the gift of God, not of works: so that no one can boast.” “The relative this, which is in the neuter gender, cannot stand for faith, which is the feminine; but it has the whole sentence that goes before for its antecedent.”

Here he throws mud into the waters by appealing to something few people can follow or bother to check, but accept as truth because someone who can present Greek as though he really knows what he is saying, must know what he is saying. (It is also a subtle appeal to his own authority.) But is it true that because τουτο, (this salvation) is neuter gender the relative "this" being in neuter gender, cannot stand for πιστις, (faith) because it is in the feminine gender? Therefore the entire sentence prior to "faith" is the antecedent. (Which, even if that is the case both grace and faith are gifts. But he is going to find a way around that.) See if it makes any more sense than the above.

As to the question I posted "But is it true----" I don't really know. I find it irrelevant in any case, just a tool that is used to arrive at that which one wants it to arrive. I am not even a novice in the Greek language and I have no idea where Clark lands on that. What I do know from searches on the ancient Greek language is that it is not as simple as is stated by Clark, or as you have used it.

But it may be asked: Is not faith the gift of God? Yes, as to the grace by which it is produced; but the grace or power to believe, and the act of believing, are two different things. Without the grace or power to believe no man ever did or can believe; but with that power the act of faith is a man’s own.

Here Clark inserts his presuppositions without identifying them. He makes the statement that grace enables us to believe and gives us the power to believe and by implication, reject what we believe, by disassociating it from "faith", yet using the word "faith." Is there any logic to that statement? We cannot both believe and not believe the same thing at the same time, and scripture, most often in Christ's own voice, tells us that it is believing that gives eternal life. Neither does the scripture ever say that grace is the power to believe. It quite simply says that it is by grace that any are saved and they are saved through faith. It is a gift. I have shown you before, have always had it ignored, that pisteos (faith) in the NT primarily denotes a conviction or belief in the truth of something, often with the implication of trust and reliance. Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. (From Strong's Greek Concordance) So where did Clark's knowledge of Greek go in this regard? The faith necessary for salvation is given to us by God and at that point it becomes ours. We actually have it sealed within us.

God never believes for any man, no more than he repents for him: the penitent, through this grace enabling him, believes for himself:

Here Clark makes an appeal to his own opinion of what Reformed theology teaches. And a straw man one at that. The conclusion of faith being a gift given to us by God is not that God is believing for us. It is really us who are believing, but we did not get there on our own or simply because God's saving is grace. Clark begins by declaring the truthfulness of Eph 2: 8, announcing that we must never say our faith is a work. And that is very accurate and free willies follow it as though it was itself scripture. They never say it, they deny it to a person's face. And yet, by the end of his writing, Clark has made it nothing but a work. If the faith to believe originates in us, it is us who contribute to our salvation.

nor does he believe necessarily, or impulsively when he has that power; the power to believe may be present long before it is exercised, else, why the solemn warnings with which we meet every where in the word of God, and threatenings against those who do not believe? Is not this a proof that such persons have the power but do not use it? They believe not, and therefore are not established.

Clark then goes off on an unrelated but highly distracting tangent that is given no biblical support and truthfully, because it has none.

This, therefore, is the true state of the case: God gives the power, man uses the power thus given, and brings glory to God: without the power no man can believe; with it, any man may.

Appeal again to his own authority. Where does the word of God say that though?