Bob,
In the mid-nineteenth century, N. L. Rice was renowned apologist for Calvinism. He maintained, as usual, that regeneration preceded faith, that no one could seek God prior to regeneration, and the gospel had no convincing power prior to this. He illustrated regeneration with an analogy of a small child who has never heard music. When the child first hears music, he immediately likes it, and likewise the person who is regenerated immediately accepts the gospel when he hears it. It is irresistable to him.
Rice's position is, to my understanding, standard among Calvinists. Does he represent accurately the Calvinist belief?
Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)
Hi Homer,Homer wrote:Bob,
In the mid-nineteenth century, N. L. Rice was renowned apologist for Calvinism. He maintained, as usual, that regeneration preceded faith, that no one could seek God prior to regeneration, and the gospel had no convincing power prior to this. He illustrated regeneration with an analogy of a small child who has never heard music. When the child first hears music, he immediately likes it, and likewise the person who is regenerated immediately accepts the gospel when he hears it. It is irresistable to him.
Rice's position is, to my understanding, standard among Calvinists. Does he represent accurately the Calvinist belief?
I confess to being unfamiliar with this illustration. Can you give me a reference so I can see it in context?
Calvinists definitely maintain that regeneration logically precedes faith. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the illustration as you've given it. Is that an exact quote, or just your recollection?
Are we still on Acts 13:48 and its context, or are we on a different subject now?
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bob Anderson (University of Maryland) gives this explanation of "ordained" in Acts 13:48. He is arguing with a guy named White 
, a leading Calvinist.
White's argument is always against the use of the direct middle voice of the verb TASSŌ in Acts 13:48. When used in this way, the middle voice construction often takes the translation of "disposed" instead of "appointed" or "ordained." At least since his publication of The
Potter's Freedom, White has consistently argued that such a construction is impossible. His arguments follow the pattern below.
1. Periphrastic construction - White always starts his argument for Acts 13:48 with the fact that we are dealing with a periphrastic construction. He never explains how it is significant, but plays on it rhetorically because most do not know what this construction means.
The truth is that the construction has nothing to do with the voice of the verb/participle. It has to do with the tense of participle, making a pluperfect participle from a perfect participle by adding the imperfect verb of "to be" to the perfect participle. Periphrasis is simply a round about way of saying something, using a verb of being (eimi or huparchō) with a participle of another tense. The combination may change the tense of the verb in question or just provide more of an emphasis.
2. Pluperfect participle - White argues that the pluperfect participle places the completed action of that participle before the action of the primary verb. Therefore, this action must occur before the events of the story takes place.
This is only a partial truth, and may even be questionable. Under normal circumstances, a pluperfect participle would precede the main verb ("believed") in this clause. However, that in no way means that the event is not given in the story itself. In the case of Acts 13, we have two key events that occur immediately before the belief. The first is the declaration of Paul that he is now turning to the Gentiles to preach the gospel (13:47). This would make the "appointment" or "setting" to eternal life complementary to that event. (It is the rhetorical flip-side of Paul's calling.) The second event is found in the first clause of 13:48 where there is a clear change of disposition among the Gentiles where they rejoice as the word of God - Paul's words that gospel now is coming to them. This seems to be the most direct tie to the events of the second clause of 13:48, but requires us to translate the participle phrase as "had been
disposed to eternal life."
The Calvinists are also caught on the horns of dilemma here. For this to be an "ordination" to eternal life in the sense that they mean it, we must say that this is a state that always exists for those individuals who are so ordained. That means that the there is no real action involved. We simply have an existing state of being for these people. However, in verbs of state, or stative situations (per Carl Conrad), the pluperfect operates as an imperfect verb, which makes the action continuous and not complete. Some modern translations have recognized this and translated this as an imperfect participle ("were appointed"), instead of as a pluperfect ("had been appointed"). But unfortunately for the Calvinists this places the "state of being elected" in time and makes it incomplete! Therefore, the verb cannot be a state, but an action that is taking place in the narrative itself. They are simply caught in a formal linguistic paradox.
In fact, imperfects are the normal verb used in narratives for the story line itself, as can be seen in the prior clause. Therefore, we may simply have an equivalency clause here - those who were appointed are the same as those who believed. This makes the clause consistent
with the statements everywhere else in the New Testament that eternal life is for those who believe.
3. The Middle Voice -
White has consistently tried to argue that the middle voice is impossible in this verse.
This is another half truth that is meant to deceive innocent readers. This argument has taken many forms. In his book he tries to say that the middle voice is passing away in Koine Greek. The direct middle voice was passing away, but the use of the indirect middle voice of the verb and deponent middle voice verbs are very present in Koine (Biblical) Greek. A direct middle voice would say "those who were disposing themselves to eternal life believed." But an indirect use of the middle voice would also work. In that case, the text would be understood as "those who were disposed towards eternal life (for themselves) believed."
So the middle voice is clearly possible. But it is not necessary.
The passive voice, which can also be translated as "disposed", also accomplishes the same thing. The difference is that the passive simply leaves the actor of the verbs action open. In that case, the text would read "those who were disposed to eternal life believed." White and others have implied that leaving this open means that the verb's actor is God. But that is not in the text and the only place where God is tied to TASSŌ (Romans 13:1) has a prepositional phrase, HUPO THEOU - to define that the actor is God.
Rhetorically, this can be very strong in an argument. White stated that unless qualified to force a middle, we must assume a passive voice, and then leaps to the conclusion that God is the actor. Yet in the only place where the verb clearly is speaking of God's appointment, it is fully qualified to define that God is the one doing the appointment. And only by qualifying it, do we know it is a passive. So, why is this not the case in Acts 13:48?
4. TASSŌ - There is some debate over the meaning of TASSŌ. Fundamentally, the meaning is derived from the idea of "setting" - a time, a position, etc. From this meaning a range of meanings and inferences are derived, which can be accounted for in various lexicons. These include "ordain," "appoint," and "dispose." As with all words, context will dictate the proper use of the term. Daniel Wallace in his grammar shows how the meaning of some words will change with the nuance of the middle voice. This word certainly would change from "set oneself" to disposed."
5. The Reflexive Pronoun -
Perhaps the most glaring error in White's latest analysis is the fact that when analyzing the chiastic structure of Acts 13:45-48, White highlights the use of the reflexive pronoun with the active voice verb KRINŌ ("to judge") used in verse 46 to show a reflexive action. He then draws the conclusion that in the New Testament all reflexive actions must be made with an active and reflexive pronoun, or that the middle must be qualified to prove it is a middle. But Daniel Wallace's grammar and the BDF grammar identify reflexive middles in both direct middles and redundant middles (direct middles that also have a reflexive pronoun).
White's argument is actually counter to his case. Daniel Wallace notes the following concerning the Reflexive Active form: "The subject acts upon himself or herself. In such cases naturally the reflexive pronoun is employed as the direct object (e.g., e`auto,n),
while the corresponding reflexive middle omits the pronoun. This usage is relatively common".
While the reflexive active does increase in occurrence over the direct middle from classical to Koine Greek, that does not mean the direct middle has disappeared (Luke 12:37; Acts 12:21). The reflexive middle (direct middle) form is translated the same way, but does not require
the pronoun.
It is not the middle that must be qualified, but active which must be qualified to be reflexive.
So why does Luke change from a reflexive active to a middle (if indeed it is a middle)? It may simply be for rhetorical effect. In verse 46, Paul is speaking a rebuke and the reflexive active hardens the rebuke by making is more personal. In verse 48, Luke is writing the narrative events and may want a more subtle way of expressing the contrast.
Luke certainly is not shy about using the middle voice in his writings and scholars are not shy about being able to distinguish between them.
It was interesting to note that in the discussion, one participant actually took White's idea and tried to extend it to an even more extreme grammatical rule of composition. This individual had no formal Greek training and clearly did not know what he was talking about. But in spite of unaccepted challenges to show his case, he just keep repeating it. This is the type of rhetoric that White had taught him.
6. On the publication of Bibles -
White will raise the issue that no committee based translation uses the term "disposed" for Acts 13:48, with the exception of the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
To my knowledge, this is a true statement. It is also a powerful argument, since translators are generally the best scholars in the world. It raises the question of why they would not use "disposed" if "disposed" were a valid translation.
However, this is an argument based on a misunderstanding of the difference between translators and commentators. In general, translators tend to be very conservative because their task is to produce translations that will sell. When it comes to the Bible, novelty is not generally accepted and the committees will resist any radical change. It was not until about 150 years ago that the translation of PISTEŌS IĒSOU CHRISTOU as "faith of Jesus Christ" was even footnoted for Romans 3:22. (Most committee-based Bible translate this as "faith in Jesus Christ.") Even now with a growing number of scholars affirming this is the most reasonable translation of the clause, translators still relegate it to a footnote.
Commentators and other biblical scholars, on the other hand, are committed to researching all possibilities of how a text could be translated contextually because their job is not translation, but interpretation. The best commentaries will evaluate multiple possible forms of a text, documenting scholarly analysis. Friberg's lexicon notes "disposed" as a valid option for this verse and I have encountered at least one commentary (cannot recall which) that translated the verb this way.
White does not want to even entertain the possibility of "disposed" as a translation of TASSŌ, because it would jeopardize support for a doctrine that is near and dear to him - particular divine election.
Bob Anderson
, a leading Calvinist.White's argument is always against the use of the direct middle voice of the verb TASSŌ in Acts 13:48. When used in this way, the middle voice construction often takes the translation of "disposed" instead of "appointed" or "ordained." At least since his publication of The
Potter's Freedom, White has consistently argued that such a construction is impossible. His arguments follow the pattern below.
1. Periphrastic construction - White always starts his argument for Acts 13:48 with the fact that we are dealing with a periphrastic construction. He never explains how it is significant, but plays on it rhetorically because most do not know what this construction means.
The truth is that the construction has nothing to do with the voice of the verb/participle. It has to do with the tense of participle, making a pluperfect participle from a perfect participle by adding the imperfect verb of "to be" to the perfect participle. Periphrasis is simply a round about way of saying something, using a verb of being (eimi or huparchō) with a participle of another tense. The combination may change the tense of the verb in question or just provide more of an emphasis.
2. Pluperfect participle - White argues that the pluperfect participle places the completed action of that participle before the action of the primary verb. Therefore, this action must occur before the events of the story takes place.
This is only a partial truth, and may even be questionable. Under normal circumstances, a pluperfect participle would precede the main verb ("believed") in this clause. However, that in no way means that the event is not given in the story itself. In the case of Acts 13, we have two key events that occur immediately before the belief. The first is the declaration of Paul that he is now turning to the Gentiles to preach the gospel (13:47). This would make the "appointment" or "setting" to eternal life complementary to that event. (It is the rhetorical flip-side of Paul's calling.) The second event is found in the first clause of 13:48 where there is a clear change of disposition among the Gentiles where they rejoice as the word of God - Paul's words that gospel now is coming to them. This seems to be the most direct tie to the events of the second clause of 13:48, but requires us to translate the participle phrase as "had been
disposed to eternal life."
The Calvinists are also caught on the horns of dilemma here. For this to be an "ordination" to eternal life in the sense that they mean it, we must say that this is a state that always exists for those individuals who are so ordained. That means that the there is no real action involved. We simply have an existing state of being for these people. However, in verbs of state, or stative situations (per Carl Conrad), the pluperfect operates as an imperfect verb, which makes the action continuous and not complete. Some modern translations have recognized this and translated this as an imperfect participle ("were appointed"), instead of as a pluperfect ("had been appointed"). But unfortunately for the Calvinists this places the "state of being elected" in time and makes it incomplete! Therefore, the verb cannot be a state, but an action that is taking place in the narrative itself. They are simply caught in a formal linguistic paradox.
In fact, imperfects are the normal verb used in narratives for the story line itself, as can be seen in the prior clause. Therefore, we may simply have an equivalency clause here - those who were appointed are the same as those who believed. This makes the clause consistent
with the statements everywhere else in the New Testament that eternal life is for those who believe.
3. The Middle Voice -
White has consistently tried to argue that the middle voice is impossible in this verse.
This is another half truth that is meant to deceive innocent readers. This argument has taken many forms. In his book he tries to say that the middle voice is passing away in Koine Greek. The direct middle voice was passing away, but the use of the indirect middle voice of the verb and deponent middle voice verbs are very present in Koine (Biblical) Greek. A direct middle voice would say "those who were disposing themselves to eternal life believed." But an indirect use of the middle voice would also work. In that case, the text would be understood as "those who were disposed towards eternal life (for themselves) believed."
So the middle voice is clearly possible. But it is not necessary.
The passive voice, which can also be translated as "disposed", also accomplishes the same thing. The difference is that the passive simply leaves the actor of the verbs action open. In that case, the text would read "those who were disposed to eternal life believed." White and others have implied that leaving this open means that the verb's actor is God. But that is not in the text and the only place where God is tied to TASSŌ (Romans 13:1) has a prepositional phrase, HUPO THEOU - to define that the actor is God.
Rhetorically, this can be very strong in an argument. White stated that unless qualified to force a middle, we must assume a passive voice, and then leaps to the conclusion that God is the actor. Yet in the only place where the verb clearly is speaking of God's appointment, it is fully qualified to define that God is the one doing the appointment. And only by qualifying it, do we know it is a passive. So, why is this not the case in Acts 13:48?
4. TASSŌ - There is some debate over the meaning of TASSŌ. Fundamentally, the meaning is derived from the idea of "setting" - a time, a position, etc. From this meaning a range of meanings and inferences are derived, which can be accounted for in various lexicons. These include "ordain," "appoint," and "dispose." As with all words, context will dictate the proper use of the term. Daniel Wallace in his grammar shows how the meaning of some words will change with the nuance of the middle voice. This word certainly would change from "set oneself" to disposed."
5. The Reflexive Pronoun -
Perhaps the most glaring error in White's latest analysis is the fact that when analyzing the chiastic structure of Acts 13:45-48, White highlights the use of the reflexive pronoun with the active voice verb KRINŌ ("to judge") used in verse 46 to show a reflexive action. He then draws the conclusion that in the New Testament all reflexive actions must be made with an active and reflexive pronoun, or that the middle must be qualified to prove it is a middle. But Daniel Wallace's grammar and the BDF grammar identify reflexive middles in both direct middles and redundant middles (direct middles that also have a reflexive pronoun).
White's argument is actually counter to his case. Daniel Wallace notes the following concerning the Reflexive Active form: "The subject acts upon himself or herself. In such cases naturally the reflexive pronoun is employed as the direct object (e.g., e`auto,n),
while the corresponding reflexive middle omits the pronoun. This usage is relatively common".
While the reflexive active does increase in occurrence over the direct middle from classical to Koine Greek, that does not mean the direct middle has disappeared (Luke 12:37; Acts 12:21). The reflexive middle (direct middle) form is translated the same way, but does not require
the pronoun.
It is not the middle that must be qualified, but active which must be qualified to be reflexive.
So why does Luke change from a reflexive active to a middle (if indeed it is a middle)? It may simply be for rhetorical effect. In verse 46, Paul is speaking a rebuke and the reflexive active hardens the rebuke by making is more personal. In verse 48, Luke is writing the narrative events and may want a more subtle way of expressing the contrast.
Luke certainly is not shy about using the middle voice in his writings and scholars are not shy about being able to distinguish between them.
It was interesting to note that in the discussion, one participant actually took White's idea and tried to extend it to an even more extreme grammatical rule of composition. This individual had no formal Greek training and clearly did not know what he was talking about. But in spite of unaccepted challenges to show his case, he just keep repeating it. This is the type of rhetoric that White had taught him.
6. On the publication of Bibles -
White will raise the issue that no committee based translation uses the term "disposed" for Acts 13:48, with the exception of the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
To my knowledge, this is a true statement. It is also a powerful argument, since translators are generally the best scholars in the world. It raises the question of why they would not use "disposed" if "disposed" were a valid translation.
However, this is an argument based on a misunderstanding of the difference between translators and commentators. In general, translators tend to be very conservative because their task is to produce translations that will sell. When it comes to the Bible, novelty is not generally accepted and the committees will resist any radical change. It was not until about 150 years ago that the translation of PISTEŌS IĒSOU CHRISTOU as "faith of Jesus Christ" was even footnoted for Romans 3:22. (Most committee-based Bible translate this as "faith in Jesus Christ.") Even now with a growing number of scholars affirming this is the most reasonable translation of the clause, translators still relegate it to a footnote.
Commentators and other biblical scholars, on the other hand, are committed to researching all possibilities of how a text could be translated contextually because their job is not translation, but interpretation. The best commentaries will evaluate multiple possible forms of a text, documenting scholarly analysis. Friberg's lexicon notes "disposed" as a valid option for this verse and I have encountered at least one commentary (cannot recall which) that translated the verb this way.
White does not want to even entertain the possibility of "disposed" as a translation of TASSŌ, because it would jeopardize support for a doctrine that is near and dear to him - particular divine election.
Bob Anderson
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
bshow said:
It's the opponents of Calvinism that beat their heads on 13:48
Not always. As I wrote in another thread on the verse, one could have no problem in placing the time of origin in being destined to eternal life before the Gentiles believed and still avoid a unilateral determinism as proposed by Calvinism. Instead, one could view this in the same way they do Lydia, Cornelius, and others in Scripture. The very fact that Luke did not specify when God destined the Gentiles for eternal life is very telling. If Luke wanted to let his reader know that this destiny of the Gentiles goes back before the ages began, he was perfectly capable of doing so, without a doubt. But did he? No! That means we cannot use this text to support that concept.
If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel.
Greg Boyd has pretty much said the same thing, though he developes it a bit further. He says:
“When the Gentiles heard this [preaching], they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.”
Luke does not specify when the Gentiles who believed were “destined for eternal life.” Compatiblists rightfully point out that the Gentiles’ faith followed their being “destined for eternal life” but mistakenly assume that this “destiny” was decided by God from before creation. The text only requires us to believe that the Spirit of God had been at work preparing the hearts of all who did not resist him to accept the Gospel when they heard it.
God knows our heart before we express it through our words or through our decisions (Ps. 139:2–4). On this basis the Lord could assure Paul before his missionary endeavor at Corinth that “there are many in this city who are my people” (viz. whose hearts have been opened and who will therefore believe your message) (Acts 18:10).
So too, Lydia listened intently to Paul’s Gospel because the Lord had already “opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). Those Gentiles who did not resist the Spirit’s work in their life were “ripe” for the message of Paul and Barnabas. They were already “destined for eternal life” and thus accepted the Good News when it was preached to them.
We only create impossible problems for ourselves—such as how God can love all and want all to be saved while predestining many to hell—when we go beyond what Scripture teaches.
It's the opponents of Calvinism that beat their heads on 13:48
Not always. As I wrote in another thread on the verse, one could have no problem in placing the time of origin in being destined to eternal life before the Gentiles believed and still avoid a unilateral determinism as proposed by Calvinism. Instead, one could view this in the same way they do Lydia, Cornelius, and others in Scripture. The very fact that Luke did not specify when God destined the Gentiles for eternal life is very telling. If Luke wanted to let his reader know that this destiny of the Gentiles goes back before the ages began, he was perfectly capable of doing so, without a doubt. But did he? No! That means we cannot use this text to support that concept.
If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel.
Greg Boyd has pretty much said the same thing, though he developes it a bit further. He says:
“When the Gentiles heard this [preaching], they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.”
Luke does not specify when the Gentiles who believed were “destined for eternal life.” Compatiblists rightfully point out that the Gentiles’ faith followed their being “destined for eternal life” but mistakenly assume that this “destiny” was decided by God from before creation. The text only requires us to believe that the Spirit of God had been at work preparing the hearts of all who did not resist him to accept the Gospel when they heard it.
God knows our heart before we express it through our words or through our decisions (Ps. 139:2–4). On this basis the Lord could assure Paul before his missionary endeavor at Corinth that “there are many in this city who are my people” (viz. whose hearts have been opened and who will therefore believe your message) (Acts 18:10).
So too, Lydia listened intently to Paul’s Gospel because the Lord had already “opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). Those Gentiles who did not resist the Spirit’s work in their life were “ripe” for the message of Paul and Barnabas. They were already “destined for eternal life” and thus accepted the Good News when it was preached to them.
We only create impossible problems for ourselves—such as how God can love all and want all to be saved while predestining many to hell—when we go beyond what Scripture teaches.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Homer, thanks so much for sharing with us Bob Anderson's scholarly explanation of the Greek of Acts 13:48. With Anderson's explanations of the Greek grammar and construction, I think White has met more than his match.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
I'm surprised you're back to beating on the translation, since you just got through saying:Homer wrote:Bob Anderson (University of Maryland) gives this explanation of "ordained" in Acts 13:48. He is arguing with a guy named White
But now we're back to showing how White is supposedly all wrong about the Greek. Keeping all your options open I guess, in the desperate hope that somehow something will stick...Homer wrote: I fail to see the difficulty here for the arminian, even if White is correct about the Greek.
Normally I'm not going to respond to a "cut and paste" job that rehashes the ground we've already tread without any analysis (why put any effort in when you won't), but one part deserves to be highlighted.
This is not an argument. This is simply wishful thinking. I love the admission that the proffered "translation" is at least "novel" and "radical."Homer wrote:
...
However, this is an argument based on a misunderstanding of the difference between translators and commentators. In general, translators tend to be very conservative because their task is to produce translations that will sell. When it comes to the Bible, novelty is not generally accepted and the committees will resist any radical change.
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
More wishful thinking. Please support this by an exegesis of the actual passage. Assume it's the only text we have (use 13:38-48 ), and show how we must conclude this.Troy C wrote: If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel.
It would be *real* nice if you guys could agree on your position. The translation is wrong, the translation is fine, it's irrelevant whether White is correct on the Greek, White is all wrong on the Greek, the Gentiles disposed themselves, God prepared their hearts, etc., etc. This is evidence of a lack of argument.
The *only* thing you're agreed on is that the verse *cannot* be allowed to mean what the major translations render it as, because of your prior philosophical commitments. But then, I already knew that...
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel.
More wishful thinking. Please support this by an exegesis of the actual passage. Assume it's the only text we have (use 13:38-48 ), and show how we must conclude this.
My fault bshow. I should have been clearer in explaining what I meant.
Assuming this is all we had on the subject of God unconditionally predestining some unbelievers to eternal life, this text could not be used to say that the time of the origin when the group here were pre-destined/foreordained before the ages began. Why do I say this? Because it says Luke uses the word "ordained" not foreordained, "destined" not predestined, depending on which translation a more accurate reflection of Luke's greek word he chose to use. Do you see what I am saying [not do you agree with it]? So when I say "If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel," I am not saying that we get this from this text, but we come to this text with an a priori agreement that it is by grace one believes. So, in response to these gentiles responding positively to the light and grace already at work in their hearts by the Spirit, God ordained them to eternal life and thus, they believed.
It would be *real* nice if you guys could agree on your position. The translation is wrong, the translation is fine, it's irrelevant whether White is correct on the Greek, White is all wrong on the Greek, the Gentiles disposed themselves, God prepared their hearts, etc., etc. This is evidence of a lack of argument.
The *only* thing you're agreed on is that the verse *cannot* be allowed to mean what the major translations render it as, because of your prior philosophical commitments. But then, I already knew that...
It would be nice if all Calvinists agreed with each other. Instead, you have some infralapsarian and some supralapsarian, some 5 pointers and some 4 pointers (Amyraldianists). The sad thing about this is they've got so many creeds that have been developed throught the ages, you'd think they'd have these issues nailed down by now. Too bad they haven't, huh?
Again, I said that non-calvinists could allow the verse to mean what the major translations render it as [ordained/appointed/destined], assume for the sake of argument that it is correct, still place the time of origin in being destined/appointed/ordained to eternal life before the Gentiles believed and still avoid a unilateral determinism as proposed by Calvinism. Sorry, but this verse just doesn't have the end all discussion case closed momentum/thrust behind it that the calvinist wants it too.
More wishful thinking. Please support this by an exegesis of the actual passage. Assume it's the only text we have (use 13:38-48 ), and show how we must conclude this.
My fault bshow. I should have been clearer in explaining what I meant.
Assuming this is all we had on the subject of God unconditionally predestining some unbelievers to eternal life, this text could not be used to say that the time of the origin when the group here were pre-destined/foreordained before the ages began. Why do I say this? Because it says Luke uses the word "ordained" not foreordained, "destined" not predestined, depending on which translation a more accurate reflection of Luke's greek word he chose to use. Do you see what I am saying [not do you agree with it]? So when I say "If all we had was this text, the most we can (and must) conclude is that God had been at work by the Spirit to prepare the hearts of these Gentiles who yeilded to His drawing to recieve the Gospel," I am not saying that we get this from this text, but we come to this text with an a priori agreement that it is by grace one believes. So, in response to these gentiles responding positively to the light and grace already at work in their hearts by the Spirit, God ordained them to eternal life and thus, they believed.
It would be *real* nice if you guys could agree on your position. The translation is wrong, the translation is fine, it's irrelevant whether White is correct on the Greek, White is all wrong on the Greek, the Gentiles disposed themselves, God prepared their hearts, etc., etc. This is evidence of a lack of argument.
The *only* thing you're agreed on is that the verse *cannot* be allowed to mean what the major translations render it as, because of your prior philosophical commitments. But then, I already knew that...
It would be nice if all Calvinists agreed with each other. Instead, you have some infralapsarian and some supralapsarian, some 5 pointers and some 4 pointers (Amyraldianists). The sad thing about this is they've got so many creeds that have been developed throught the ages, you'd think they'd have these issues nailed down by now. Too bad they haven't, huh?
Again, I said that non-calvinists could allow the verse to mean what the major translations render it as [ordained/appointed/destined], assume for the sake of argument that it is correct, still place the time of origin in being destined/appointed/ordained to eternal life before the Gentiles believed and still avoid a unilateral determinism as proposed by Calvinism. Sorry, but this verse just doesn't have the end all discussion case closed momentum/thrust behind it that the calvinist wants it too.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bob,
You wrote:
And you asked:
1. No person can be converted by the Gospel unless he is first regenerated.
2. The Gospel message is irresistable to the regenerated person. He will belive it when he hears it.
3. No unregenerate person seeks God.
Thanks, Homer
You wrote:
You should realize the obvious, as stated by Anderson:This is not an argument. This is simply wishful thinking. I love the admission that the proffered "translation" is at least "novel" and "radical."
A clear example of slavishly following past translations to avoid controversy is the failure to translate baptizo into English. King James forbade the translation of the Greek into its plain meaning of "immerse". How many translations have correctly translated it since then? Can you name one?In general, translators tend to be very conservative because their task is to produce translations that will sell. When it comes to the Bible, novelty is not generally accepted and the committees will resist any radical change.
And you asked:
Perhaps I can ask the question regarding Rice's analogy another way. Do you believe the following:I confess to being unfamiliar with this illustration. Can you give me a reference so I can see it in context?
Calvinists definitely maintain that regeneration logically precedes faith. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the illustration as you've given it. Is that an exact quote, or just your recollection?
1. No person can be converted by the Gospel unless he is first regenerated.
2. The Gospel message is irresistable to the regenerated person. He will belive it when he hears it.
3. No unregenerate person seeks God.
Thanks, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Again, this is not an argument. What does any of this have to do with Acts 13:48? Answer: nothing. Despite all the vigorous hand-waving, you (and Anderson, whoever he is) have failed to demonstrate that the majority translation *of this verse* is caused by "slavishly following past translations", or incorrect or inferior to the various proffered "translations" that fit your theology better...Homer wrote:Bob,
You wrote:You should realize the obvious, as stated by Anderson:This is not an argument. This is simply wishful thinking. I love the admission that the proffered "translation" is at least "novel" and "radical."
A clear example of slavishly following past translations to avoid controversy is the failure to translate baptizo into English. King James forbade the translation of the Greek into its plain meaning of "immerse". How many translations have correctly translated it since then? Can you name one?In general, translators tend to be very conservative because their task is to produce translations that will sell. When it comes to the Bible, novelty is not generally accepted and the committees will resist any radical change.
Do you not have a reference for Rice's quote?Homer wrote: And you asked:Perhaps I can ask the question regarding Rice's analogy another way. Do you believe the following:I confess to being unfamiliar with this illustration. Can you give me a reference so I can see it in context?
Calvinists definitely maintain that regeneration logically precedes faith. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the illustration as you've given it. Is that an exact quote, or just your recollection?
1. No person can be converted by the Gospel unless he is first regenerated.
2. The Gospel message is irresistable to the regenerated person. He will belive it when he hears it.
3. No unregenerate person seeks God.
Anyway, in answer to your question, yes, I believe the Scripture teaches those three things. I don't generally like the term "irresistable" (although it's been widely used, as part of the TULIP acronym), because it tends to carry an idea of one force overcoming another countering force, and that's not the way it works. The irresistable nature of the Grace of redemption is not due to its overpowering force, but due to its operation on the heart of man, from which the will to resist would arise. Some folks, including myself, would prefer the term "effectual calling" or "effectual grace" as being closer to the mark. In other words, the Grace of redemption perfectly accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent. But we can discuss that further if you wish.
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: