"Ordained" to eternal life (Acts 13:48)
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Will someone here attempt the task of taking apart the exegesis provided by Dr James White on this passage in acts?
Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Steve?
Also, I did not honestly know that this place is so "open" to Open Theism theology. What a concern of no small significance.
Although, I did get the idea that Steve was at the very least, heading in that direction.
I am convinced, that apart from the grace of God, he will eventually nest under that tree.
Personally, it is at least worth saying that Open Theists are consistent and logical, over there Arminian counterparts. But the price paid is sheer heresy, which of course makes them Heretics.
I am well aware such a term heats up a room somewhat, but it is what it is. Proclaiming a god that is no better than us in so many ways, is the worst kind of heresy.
It is no secret that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism. It ain't rocket science on that score, but there are Arminians who will not tolerate Open Theism, and to them, I encourage to stand against it, but also to give a fresh ear to what we as Calvinists are saying.
Not what others are saying were saying, or muddying the waters with misrepresentations, or attacking the man or any other number of facts.
To the Christians here, who love Christ and His gospel, who have put their faith in Him (just like Calvinists!) and His accomplished salvation upon the cross of Calvary, I urge you brothers to resist Open Theism, consider your own Arminian ways like never before, comparing scripture with scripture, and forsaking any belief that is contrary to the Word of God.
That is my prayer for this place.
My role is not to convert any here to Calvinism, for I cannot do it, nor would any of you want me to!
Rather, together with you, open up the Word, and together examine the issues, forsaking any and all traditions or sincere but bad teaching that has influenced us.
Mark
Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Steve?
Also, I did not honestly know that this place is so "open" to Open Theism theology. What a concern of no small significance.
Although, I did get the idea that Steve was at the very least, heading in that direction.
I am convinced, that apart from the grace of God, he will eventually nest under that tree.
Personally, it is at least worth saying that Open Theists are consistent and logical, over there Arminian counterparts. But the price paid is sheer heresy, which of course makes them Heretics.
I am well aware such a term heats up a room somewhat, but it is what it is. Proclaiming a god that is no better than us in so many ways, is the worst kind of heresy.
It is no secret that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism. It ain't rocket science on that score, but there are Arminians who will not tolerate Open Theism, and to them, I encourage to stand against it, but also to give a fresh ear to what we as Calvinists are saying.
Not what others are saying were saying, or muddying the waters with misrepresentations, or attacking the man or any other number of facts.
To the Christians here, who love Christ and His gospel, who have put their faith in Him (just like Calvinists!) and His accomplished salvation upon the cross of Calvary, I urge you brothers to resist Open Theism, consider your own Arminian ways like never before, comparing scripture with scripture, and forsaking any belief that is contrary to the Word of God.
That is my prayer for this place.
My role is not to convert any here to Calvinism, for I cannot do it, nor would any of you want me to!
Rather, together with you, open up the Word, and together examine the issues, forsaking any and all traditions or sincere but bad teaching that has influenced us.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
Yes Mark, pretend you have the high ground, and pretend you are as pious and loving as you sound, but I have read the debacle between James White and Ergun Caner, and how White slandered the President of Liberty University, and then lied about backing out of the debate, just like he lied about Dan Corner supposedely backing out of a debate, but Dan has audio and printed proof to the contrary.
White sends his cronies to try and goad others to debate him, as I have seen. He tried to goad Ergun Caner to let this small-fry speak before a school of thousands. The things he said about Caner were typical for White.
You see, White has a history, and that is why my posts are not attacks out of nowhere, but confrontation and an exposing of what is really going on here. The Lord made sure I popped into this site in time to see this. It is the Spirit of God that led me to check on this foruim after not being on for months. And this is the way of the Kingdom--God requires accountability, and since White has been running around saying all kinds of things about other Christian leaders without accountability, this time, the Lord is making sure everyone here knows how he is, what he does, and what to expect. Steve is a good man, and you're not going to do it again.
Like I said, you're not fooling everyone. You are not interested in "learning" anything. You want to "prove" before others that your man-made doctrine is correct. You know White can debate well because he does not abide by honor in debate, but does whatever he has to to appear to have "won". That puts the other person at a serious disadvantage when there are two sets of rules. Not this time.
White sends his cronies to try and goad others to debate him, as I have seen. He tried to goad Ergun Caner to let this small-fry speak before a school of thousands. The things he said about Caner were typical for White.
You see, White has a history, and that is why my posts are not attacks out of nowhere, but confrontation and an exposing of what is really going on here. The Lord made sure I popped into this site in time to see this. It is the Spirit of God that led me to check on this foruim after not being on for months. And this is the way of the Kingdom--God requires accountability, and since White has been running around saying all kinds of things about other Christian leaders without accountability, this time, the Lord is making sure everyone here knows how he is, what he does, and what to expect. Steve is a good man, and you're not going to do it again.
Like I said, you're not fooling everyone. You are not interested in "learning" anything. You want to "prove" before others that your man-made doctrine is correct. You know White can debate well because he does not abide by honor in debate, but does whatever he has to to appear to have "won". That puts the other person at a serious disadvantage when there are two sets of rules. Not this time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
Muddying the waters. Thats like when Bill and Hillary Clinton complained about the "politics of personal destruction" as if it was Republicans engaging in that towards them, when in fact it was the Clintons who were the masters at it and did it to all opposition. White is an Ad Hominem master, who can subtily insinuate things about his opponent, his opponent's intellegence, "exegetical capacites" and the like, and build from there. We already saw how he mocked Steve for five straight minutes on his little radio show becasue he thought Steve DARED to laugh at a point of Calvinism. Nice.
No thanks. The answer to one error is not to embrace blasphemy. Calvinism is a slander upon the loving, gracious character of God.It is no secret that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism. It ain't rocket science on that score, but there are Arminians who will not tolerate Open Theism, and to them, I encourage to stand against it, but also to give a fresh ear to what we as Calvinists are saying
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
You are so wrong it is scary.
The whole Caner thing can easily be examined by any reasonable enquirer!
The whole history of what transpired there is on the public record, and the fact you are misrepresenting it so badly, gives me warrant to believe that you are either
1/ Thoroughly dishonest and lying about the facts, yes facts
or
2/ You have become unable to reason in any meaningful way
or
3/ Someone has locked you in a room for 14 weeks, tied you up, and played in Dolby digital stereo, James White reading Shakespeare in a bad English accent!
Either way, something smells rotten.
Give it a rest with the vitriolic hatred you so easily espouse.
Man, if 1% of what you claimed was true about James White, I would personally oppose him at every turn!
What is wrong with you?
Mark
The whole Caner thing can easily be examined by any reasonable enquirer!
The whole history of what transpired there is on the public record, and the fact you are misrepresenting it so badly, gives me warrant to believe that you are either
1/ Thoroughly dishonest and lying about the facts, yes facts
or
2/ You have become unable to reason in any meaningful way
or
3/ Someone has locked you in a room for 14 weeks, tied you up, and played in Dolby digital stereo, James White reading Shakespeare in a bad English accent!
Either way, something smells rotten.
Give it a rest with the vitriolic hatred you so easily espouse.
Man, if 1% of what you claimed was true about James White, I would personally oppose him at every turn!
What is wrong with you?
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
That is what I like. A clear line drawn in the sand.Calvinism is a slander upon the loving, gracious character of God.
I think I like you, well I admire your stance! It is so rare these days!
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
I am wary that your intention might well be to rile me up so much that I may lash out at you, and then others, including Steve Gregg will back away from a debate, because we Calvinists are just so mean and nasty, you would not lower yourselves to discuss these issues..
Not so fast. This debate needs to happen.
Scripture needs to win this battle.
As I may get riled up, I think it wise to back down at this particular time, as I do not want the "excuses" to come, that would hinder a meaningful debate.
Mark
Not so fast. This debate needs to happen.
Scripture needs to win this battle.
As I may get riled up, I think it wise to back down at this particular time, as I do not want the "excuses" to come, that would hinder a meaningful debate.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
The debate probably WILL happen, but our side will be better informed and ready.
If 1% of what I said about White is true, you'd oppose him at every turn? It IS true, that is why I oppose him. Dan Corner said its true. Hunt said so. Geisler was very gracious--too gracious, but he did say that White's attack of his book was as if White was respoinding to something else and not Geisler's writing. What does THAT mean??? Misrepresentation, and its deliberate. Theodore Letis said White was a partisan hack. EDavid Cloud has said White has tried to goad him into a debate, but becasue of what he observed in White, his ways, and his treatment of others, he said no thanks. Ergun Caner has said White is a liar. I have READ the correspondence, long and tedious as it is, and White's story doesn't add up, and he did try to goad Caner into this, you can believe whatever you want. You are in denial. White even had the gall to blame the moderator who was picked, who has a stellar reputation for moderating debates. What does THAT tell you??? It tells me all the clowns are not in the circus.
In my own dealings with him, he does all the things I mentioned, whether on his chatroom, private email, or the forum he came and tried to debate with me on, and soon tucked tail and ran when things didn't go too well. He wanted me to call his show, so he could be the moderator and control everything, but I declined and told him to just debate me on the forum where he had no control. Well he didn't last too long, but he had his usual two or three cronies constantly ad homineming me before and after our brief debate, it was very unChristlike. They just couldn't take it that their hero got beat. That's why Dr. Theodore Letis called him a hack and said his debates are a travelling circus. Sad but true.
If 1% of what I said about White is true, you'd oppose him at every turn? It IS true, that is why I oppose him. Dan Corner said its true. Hunt said so. Geisler was very gracious--too gracious, but he did say that White's attack of his book was as if White was respoinding to something else and not Geisler's writing. What does THAT mean??? Misrepresentation, and its deliberate. Theodore Letis said White was a partisan hack. EDavid Cloud has said White has tried to goad him into a debate, but becasue of what he observed in White, his ways, and his treatment of others, he said no thanks. Ergun Caner has said White is a liar. I have READ the correspondence, long and tedious as it is, and White's story doesn't add up, and he did try to goad Caner into this, you can believe whatever you want. You are in denial. White even had the gall to blame the moderator who was picked, who has a stellar reputation for moderating debates. What does THAT tell you??? It tells me all the clowns are not in the circus.
In my own dealings with him, he does all the things I mentioned, whether on his chatroom, private email, or the forum he came and tried to debate with me on, and soon tucked tail and ran when things didn't go too well. He wanted me to call his show, so he could be the moderator and control everything, but I declined and told him to just debate me on the forum where he had no control. Well he didn't last too long, but he had his usual two or three cronies constantly ad homineming me before and after our brief debate, it was very unChristlike. They just couldn't take it that their hero got beat. That's why Dr. Theodore Letis called him a hack and said his debates are a travelling circus. Sad but true.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Tartanarmy wrote:
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Acts 16:14, &c. It is observable, the original word is notonce used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers. "
Recource:John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible
The Book of Acts
Chapter 13
I think John Wesley did a good job.Will someone here attempt the task of taking apart the exegesis provided by Dr James White on this passage in acts?
Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Acts 16:14, &c. It is observable, the original word is notonce used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers. "
Recource:John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible
The Book of Acts
Chapter 13
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
OK, so Mark asked someone to attempt to "take apart the exegesis" offered by James White on Acts 13:48. He was referring to the broadcast AOMin linked to in this post, in which he discussed Steve's comments on that verse. My first question is, have you listened yet to that broadcast, or read something by Dr White on that verse? In other words, do you know what exegesis Mark was talking about?roblaine wrote:Tartanarmy wrote:I think John Wesley did a good job.Will someone here attempt the task of taking apart the exegesis provided by Dr James White on this passage in acts?
Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Acts 16:14, &c. It is observable, the original word is notonce used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers. "
Recource:John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible
The Book of Acts
Chapter 13
Related to that question, when you say you think Wesley did a good job, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that he did a good job arguing that Acts 13:48 doesn't imply Calvinistic election? Or do you mean that Wesley does a good job of addressing the arguments James White presented? (Obviously, if you haven't listened to that broadcast, you probably meant the former--because then you wouldn't even know what White's arguments were.)
I ask because James specifically argued against the idea that Wesley presents in this quote. He specifically argued (based on the grammar of the passage) that the "ordaining" or "disposing" toward eternal life was a completed action that happened before the events in Acts 13. (I don't remember the timestamp, but I think it was near the middle. It's when he starts talking about pluperfects.) The quote you posted says that it happened at the time of the events, but Wesley wasn't defending his assertion against the issues Dr White presented. Perhaps Wesley addressed the grammar elsewhere and completely ripped Dr White's argument to shreds, but it's hard for me to see how you can say that this quote does a good job of taking apart White's exegesis.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jugulum,
Yes, I did listen to the broadcast that AOMin posted earlier. The reason I posted the remarks from John Wesley's explanatory notes, is because he attacks Mr. White's whole argument when he wrote:
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;"
John Wesley points out that the word used is not foreordained or pre-destines, but rather "ordained to eternal life".
The Greek word for ordained (as Mr. White points out) is "tasso".
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot)
the word for pre-destined is "proorizo".
From pro and horizo; to limit in advance, i.e. (figuratively) predetermine
determine before, ordain, predestinate.
Mr. White offers nothing new under the sun. It’s the typical argument that Calvinists use to defend their position.
I think Mr. White does himself no favors by debating Steve without Steve being present. This is exactly what Mr. white is doing on his show. It seems rather cowardly to me. I personal want to see this debate happen, but in the mean time Mr. White is getting in every cheap shot he can.
Thank you,
Robin
Yes, I did listen to the broadcast that AOMin posted earlier. The reason I posted the remarks from John Wesley's explanatory notes, is because he attacks Mr. White's whole argument when he wrote:
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;"
John Wesley points out that the word used is not foreordained or pre-destines, but rather "ordained to eternal life".
The Greek word for ordained (as Mr. White points out) is "tasso".
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot)
the word for pre-destined is "proorizo".
From pro and horizo; to limit in advance, i.e. (figuratively) predetermine
determine before, ordain, predestinate.
Mr. White offers nothing new under the sun. It’s the typical argument that Calvinists use to defend their position.
I think Mr. White does himself no favors by debating Steve without Steve being present. This is exactly what Mr. white is doing on his show. It seems rather cowardly to me. I personal want to see this debate happen, but in the mean time Mr. White is getting in every cheap shot he can.
Thank you,
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless