Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

Tomorrow, I have been appointed to get a checkup with my doctor. But I am not predestined or fated to do so. I may choose not to keep my appointment. Similarily, those whom God has appointed may choose not to comply. It just so happened that all of the Gentiles who were listening to Paul and Barnabus, and who were appointed to aeonion life, believed. They didn’t have to do so. But they did. In other cases, I am sure that some of those whom God had appointed chose not to believe.

Paidion, are you letting philosophy get in the way of the text? Maybe? And maybe some definitional differences are causing some confusion?

Your analogy I think is flawed I believe because it is confusing time and attributes of the one making the appointment.

What is a destination? A place were you want to BE. You can plan to go somewhere which is what you are doing in your analogy but you are not "pre destining" in the true sense of the word. That is why scripture tells you NOT to say we will go here or there but to say "If the Lord wills". So you are correct that it is not predestining but you can MAKE an appointment and you are totally free to change that appointment. And in the analogy you are "appointing yourself". In the passage it is GOD who was doing the appointing not the gentiles themselves.

But the classical meaning for fate is that you are being FORCED to go AGAINST your will. Fate comes from the myth of the gremlin like little "fates" that went around causing people and things to happen AGAINST their will. This is not pre destination or what Calvinism teaches.

And I do have an issue with what you said concerning the Gentiles. On what I said above, GOD is the one who appointed them to eternal life. With that in mind, when God purposes to do something He does it and does not fail to accomplish what He purposes.

So here's my beef. You said "I am sure that some of those whom God had appointed chose not to believe. "

The scripture said "AS MANY AS were appointed believed.

Luke didn't say Most who were appointed, or some, but it is saying the ones who where appointed believed. You statement fails also because of the one doing the appointing is God. If He appointed one to eternal life and they don't believe, He failed in His purpose and that goes against scripture "I will accomplish all my purpose".

Therefore, those whom God purposed to appoint DID believe. Who can stay his hand?

[Guest]

Paidion,

"By the way, Jonathan, how do you print those Greek characters in your posts? I have several Greek fonts and can do so using one of them, but most people on the forum wouldn’t have those fonts on their computers, and it would appear as gobbeldy-gook. But I see that yours is not a font per se. I am eager to learn how you do it."

I have the "BibleWorks" and "Logos" Bible programs. These programs allow me to "cut and paste" the Greek (I believe, I'm not a programmer so...) because of "unical" ? All I know is that it works....

P.S. to everybody, NO I am not James White. From the last couple of days that I have been looking at his Academic knowledge and accomplishments, I wish that I knew as much as him though he does seem to be a little bit harsh or to0 sarcastic. Seeing that he has been an apologist for such a long time, (which I have been also) I can understand the difficulty of constantly arguing for years (which as we all know gives rise to temper, impoliteness and even sometimes despair) and not give in to sinful habits of such actions.

[Guest]

Darin,
By in large the Greek exegetes are Heavily on the Calvinist side. But you are correct in that there are some who have a great knowledge of Greek that are not Calvinistic.

Though I would by experience say that they are Arminian/Pelagian NOT because of what they know in the Greek but in spite of it based on their theology.

Your graph was a perfect example. They let the theology determine what the Greeks says and not the other way around. I know you can say the same about Calvinism, but actually you CAN'T because you have nothing to base your knowledge from since you don't know the language to make the comparisons between the two commentaries. Llearn the Greek and make the decision for yourself! Believe me, it will take you into depths that are wonderful and you can truly make your theology your own based on YOUR interpretation.

It isn't that hard, it just takes time.

[Guest]

J.Edwards,

You wrote:

So here's my beef. You said "I am sure that some of those whom God had appointed chose not to believe. "

The scripture said "AS MANY AS were appointed believed.

Luke didn't say Most who were appointed, or some, but it is saying the ones who where appointed believed. You statement fails also because of the one doing the appointing is God. If He appointed one to eternal life and they don't believe, He failed in His purpose and that goes against scripture "I will accomplish all my purpose".

Therefore, those whom God purposed to appoint DID believe. Who can stay his hand?

According to Calvinist dogma, the decree of God, predestining some to eternal life and the rest to damnation, occured before the gentiles were even born. Luke informs us that "as many as were ordained" believed. Not one person more, nor one less, out of a large city. Is the Greek not precise and clear on this? All who heard and did not believe were reprobates, doomed to eternal punishment. All future preaching to them would be in vain.

How can we believe that such a precise separation of these two classes of people, throughout such a large assembly, took place in a single day? Luke was an historian. How was this information revealed to him so that he could record it? This is surprising since, according to Calvinism, not even the elect can know for sure that they are in fact elect. They only know by perservering to the end.

However, in my view, if they were appointed (in the sense of disposed) by the preaching of Paul and their prior association with the Jews, then Luke's observation and remarks regarding the response of the gentiles is of easy comprehension.

[Guest]

According to Calvinist dogma, the decree of God, predestining some to eternal life and the rest to damnation, occured before the gentiles were even born. Luke informs us that "as many as were ordained" believed. Not one person more, nor one less, out of a large city.

This is a narrative, it is talking about only those who where there (no matter how large), and the appointment was for those at that point in time. The language does not restrict that those were the only ones EVER that were going to be saved. Only those at that time. Even some that were there that were not appointed at that time could have an appointment at some other time which is all according to the plan of God.

Is the Greek not precise and clear on this? All who heard and did not believe were reprobates, doomed to eternal punishment. All future preaching to them would be in vain.

Again you are adding incorrect theory to an indicative. There could have been many that were there (an I'm sure there was) that believed at some other place at some other time. The narrative is only talking about that point in time to those who were there at that time.

How can we believe that such a precise separation of these two classes of people, throughout such a large assembly, took place in a single day? Luke was an historian. How was this information revealed to him so that he could record it?

Well um... I believe that Luke was inspired to write precisely what he did.
It was written in the active/aorist syntax in the indicative. Which actually means it was talking specifically about that precise point in time, in other words it happened in one moment of time on that day.

This is surprising since, according to Calvinism, not even the elect can know for sure that they are in fact elect. They only know by perservering to the end.

Your argument doesn't follow. Perseverance has nothing to do with this context, so what in the context surprises you on the grounds of perseverance?

However, in my view, if they were appointed (in the sense of disposed) by the preaching of Paul and their prior association with the Jews, then Luke's observation and remarks regarding the response of the gentiles is of easy comprehension.

Exegetical study of the word does not allow you to use disposed, Luke plainly uses it as he did every other time he used the word which is appointed/ordained there is nothing to base your argument on.

The preaching doesn't ordain, a being ordains. You again are adding to the text, you can not say "by the preaching" You are adding to the text which isn't there. If you want to say "by the preaching" the word "by" implies an instrumental anyways and not the cause so you lose the argument on that basis also. The instrument needs a power to make it work according to it's purpose and that is God, thus it is still God that ordained.

[_Paidion]

And in the analogy you are "appointing yourself". In the passage it is GOD who was doing the appointing not the gentiles themselves.

In this particular case, yes. But I have an appointment in Winnipeg this fall, a case in which I did not appoint myself. The doctor himself made that appointment for me. Let's see, shall I keep it or not? It seems that the choice is mine.

But the classical meaning for fate is that you are being FORCED to go AGAINST your will. Fate comes from the myth of the gremlin like little "fates" that went around causing people and things to happen AGAINST their will. This is not pre destination or what Calvinism teaches.

It may not be what Calvinism teaches, but practically there is no difference. If you have been "appointed to eternal life", you cannot choose to rebel against Christ and end up in hell. You will as surely go to heaven as you would if you were fated to do so, and it was against your will.

And I do have an issue with what you said concerning the Gentiles. On what I said above, GOD is the one who appointed them to eternal life. With that in mind, when God purposes to do something He does it and does not fail to accomplish what He purposes....
Luke didn't say Most who were appointed, or some, but it is saying the ones who where appointed believed. You statement fails also because of the one doing the appointing is God. If He appointed one to eternal life and they don't believe, He failed in His purpose and that goes against scripture "I will accomplish all my purpose".

Sometimes God does not accomplish his purposes. It's not a matter of "failure". It's a matter of responding to his people. God doesn't simply do what he wants and ignore the wishes of people. We read about this relationship between God and his people in Jeremiah 18:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. Jeremiah 18: 7-10 NRSV

So God may declare that he will destroy a nation and then not do it. You may say that he declared it, but did not purpose it. If that were the case, then in declaring it, he was lying. But God cannot lie. So he must have meant it. He actually meant to destroy that nation. But if the people repent, he will change his mind. God will change his intentions in response to the repentance of the nation's people.

Similarily, God may declare that he will build a nation and not do it. For he will respond to that nation if it chooses to do evil. He will change his mind and not carry out his initial intention.

But of course, if you deny free will, this argument may have not impact whatever. You could say that the first nation repented because it was all in the plan of God. However, if that were the case, then God didn't really plan on destroying it, and you would have to admit that God lied in declaring that he would.

So here's my beef. You said "I am sure that some of those whom God had appointed chose not to believe. "

The scripture said "AS MANY AS were appointed believed.

I didn't say that some of those

gathered on that occasion

chose not to believe. I clearly stated that it so happened that on that occasion all who were appointed to life did believe. I also said, "In other cases, I am sure that some of those whom God had appointed chose not to believe." Just because everyone who had been appointed to life on that occasion happened to choose to believe does not justify universalizing by assuming that all people everywhere without exception will believe if they have been appointed to aeonion life.
Remember the statement "Many are called but few are chosen"? Although that may not refer to the same thing, it illustrates the fact that God may call people, and still not chooses them. Why would God call them in the first place? Would the fact that he did not choose them have anything to do with the fact that they may not have chosen HIM?

[Guest]

Sorry to add this question if it has already been asked, but what is our purpose here on earth right now if there is no choices made by us regarding faith and belief in the Calvinist perspective? I mean, no matter what I do or don't do (or believe or don't believe), my fate has been determined according to the Calvinist, right? I guess I am just asking, if the Calvinist is right, then whats the point of this whole life? If it has been pre-determined that I am not "elect" then no matter how much I may desire to be saved and love God, it just aint in the cards.

I guess you are right, and I have presuppositions. I believe God to be a loving and fair God that desires all to be saved, and only those who choose to reject Christ will not obtain eternal life. And when I read all the verses that are used by Calvinists to defend that view, I must be reading through the lense of a Loving God that cares about our belief and faith and it appears to me the He desires that we strive for that. As though it is something that we as sinful humans must make an effort to obtain, and not something that is just given to us. I believe salvation is a free gift, but only to those who believe and have faith in Christ.

Yes, I have presuppositions! (God loves us and desires all to be saved, and will save those who choose Him) I may not be technically correct according to the Calvinist, but until the Spirit of Christ teaches me otherwise in His Word, I must hold to what I believe to be the truth.

Sorry I cannot get all technical on the greek, I don't even do my own language (English, just in case you wondered. lol) very well. I am better at math and sience.

[_Paidion]

my fate has been determined according to the Calvinist, right? I guess I am just asking, if the Calvinist is right, then whats the point of this whole life? If it has been pre-determined that I am not "elect" then no matter how much I may desire to be saved and love God, it just aint in the cards.

Douglas, have you been reading J Edward's statements? He clearly explained that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is not tantamount to fatalism. He also indicated that if you are non-elect, you will not desire to be saved and love God. He has affirmed that you can still do what you want to do. However, according to Calvinism, you will not want to seek God or desire him.

As I see it, even if all of this is true, you're ending up in hell if you were not elected (in the Calvinistic sense of "election") would be just as certain as it would be if you had been fated to be there against your will.
Somehow Calvinists think that if God had fated you against your will, that would be unjust, but if he denies you of having a free will, but gives you a compatibilist will (you can do what you want, but won't want to do what you have not been chosen to do), then God is perfectly just. You are thought to be held accountable for your actions because of your evil choices (even though you could not have chosen otherwise considering your totally fallen nature).

As I see it, if you could not have chosen otherwise, you should not be held responsible for your evil choices. Even in our courts of law, a person who is judged by psychiatrists to be mentally incapable of choosing other than his criminal choices is not held accountable, or at least fully accountable for his actions. Surely God is at least as just or fair as a human court.

[Guest]

Sorry to add this question if it has already been asked, but what is our purpose here on earth right now if there is no choices made by us regarding faith and belief in the Calvinist perspective? I mean, no matter what I do or don't do (or believe or don't believe), my fate has been determined according to the Calvinist, right? I guess I am just asking, if the Calvinist is right, then whats the point of this whole life? If it has been pre-determined that I am not "elect" then no matter how much I may desire to be saved and love God, it just aint in the cards.

Hi Douglas,

Our purpose is to glorify God.

Of course there are choices to be made by you. We most certainly do not hold that you will be saved or lost "no matter what". You are only saved when you put your faith in Christ, repent, and turn to Him for mercy.

We simply hold that apart from the regenerating power of grace, no one will put their faith in Christ. Our choice is a response to His prior choice.

If you believe, you are elect. There is no such thing as someone who is not elect who desires to be saved. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Acts 2:21). The desire to be saved and the ability to believe comes by God's grace bestowed on the elect.

That is Calvinist teaching.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

As I see it, if you could not have chosen otherwise, you should not be held responsible for your evil choices. Even in our courts of law, a person who is judged by psychiatrists to be mentally incapable of choosing other than his criminal choices should not be held accountable, or at least fully accountable for his actions. Surely God is at least as just or fair as a human court.

Or, to put it another way:

• "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Cheers,
Bob