???NET Bible wrote:Acts 4:23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 4:24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 4:25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather, ‘Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot foolish things? 4:26 The kings of the earth stood together, and the rulers assembled together,against the Lord and against his Christ.’4:27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 4:28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen.
Acts 4:27-28
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Acts 4:27-28
Anything on here (or elsewhere) exegeting the non-Calvinist perspective on these verses? The Acts lectures don't really seem to cover it. My basic read would be that it was not the individual evil acts that were preordained, but the plan in regards Jesus, though I'm not sure I'd have a problem conceding that even those men were ordained to do those acts in some measure because it is such a pivotal point in history that it doesn't necessarily prove anything about what God does generally with regard to human will, etc.
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Calvinism teaches many of the same things that Arminianism teaches (e.g., the trinity, God as Creator, the holiness of God, justification by faith, etc.). However, Calvinism also makes certain special claims that other Christians do not accept. One of these is that even sin is ordained by God. If this means only that God permits people to sin, without interfering with their choices, then we would all agree that this seems to be His general policy. This is not Calvinism. This is merely observation of reality.
What Calvinists seem to be adding (though some would deny it) is that God actually causes people to sin. This was at least Calvin's and Luther's position (both of Augustinian background).*
However, this idea is found objectionable by non-Calvinists, since it makes God the active cause of behaviors in men, for which He thereafter punishes them. To overcome these objections, Calvinists point to three historic cases where God says that He had a purpose in certain outcomes that involve the agency of sinners sinning. These three cases are: (a) that of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery (Genesis 45:5; 50:20); (b) that of Assyria bringing judgment on Israel (Isaiah 10:5-15); and (c) that of those who engineered the arrest and death of Jesus.
In support of the latter instance, they commonly quote your passage (Acts 4:28) alongside Acts 2:23—
"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death..."
Thus, between the two verses we can derive two points on the crucifixion of Jesus:
1. It was God's will that it (the crucifixion) should occur (Acts 4:28); and
2. To that end, God "delivered" Jesus into the hands of those who intended to kill Him (Acts 2:23).
These verses tell us that there were people quite willing to destroy Jesus, but that they could not accomplish this without His being "delivered" to them, since He was otherwise under God's protection. These people had, on many previous occasions, attempted to kill Him, but on those occasions, He was not delivered to them, but rather was delivered from them (John 5:16; 7:30; 8:20, 59; 10:31, 39).
The fact that the crucifixion was predetermined by God is a view held by Christians of all theological camps, which means that the information in Acts 4:28 does not really favor one theological system over any other. It is similarly agreed by all that Jesus was under God's protection until "His hour" should come. When His hour did come (John 13:1), He was no longer protected, but was delivered over to His enemies—which is what Acts 2:23 tells us, and no one disputes.
I don't see how any special non-Calvinist exegesis should be called for on these verses, since regular exegesis does nothing to support the special claims of Calvinism. For example, there is no hint in these passages of the Calvinist assumption that God inspired or ordained the evil plots in the hearts of those who conspired to kill Jesus. In fact, the scriptures clearly identify Satan as the one who inspired the sinful intentions of those who killed Him (John 8:44/ Luke 22:3-4).
Men can be bad all by themselves. In the cases of Joseph's brothers, Assyria's invasion of Israel and the conspiracy against Jesus, God did not have to create evil desires in men. He has never been at a loss to locate men who have willingly turned to evil paths, and then exploited their existing greed, hatred, pride, jealousy, etc. to fulfill some purpose of HIs own. Though James White mocked this suggestion when I made it in my debate with him, I have to assume that mockery was the only response available to him, since no rational argument could be sustained against it.
He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13)
---------------------------------
*
Luther wrote: “This is the highest degree of faith—to believe that He is merciful, the very One who saves so few and damns so many. To believe that He is just, the One who, according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable.” (The Bondage of the Will, p.70)
Calvin wrote: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death...We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” (Institutes, 3:21:5, 7)
What Calvinists seem to be adding (though some would deny it) is that God actually causes people to sin. This was at least Calvin's and Luther's position (both of Augustinian background).*
However, this idea is found objectionable by non-Calvinists, since it makes God the active cause of behaviors in men, for which He thereafter punishes them. To overcome these objections, Calvinists point to three historic cases where God says that He had a purpose in certain outcomes that involve the agency of sinners sinning. These three cases are: (a) that of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery (Genesis 45:5; 50:20); (b) that of Assyria bringing judgment on Israel (Isaiah 10:5-15); and (c) that of those who engineered the arrest and death of Jesus.
In support of the latter instance, they commonly quote your passage (Acts 4:28) alongside Acts 2:23—
"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death..."
Thus, between the two verses we can derive two points on the crucifixion of Jesus:
1. It was God's will that it (the crucifixion) should occur (Acts 4:28); and
2. To that end, God "delivered" Jesus into the hands of those who intended to kill Him (Acts 2:23).
These verses tell us that there were people quite willing to destroy Jesus, but that they could not accomplish this without His being "delivered" to them, since He was otherwise under God's protection. These people had, on many previous occasions, attempted to kill Him, but on those occasions, He was not delivered to them, but rather was delivered from them (John 5:16; 7:30; 8:20, 59; 10:31, 39).
The fact that the crucifixion was predetermined by God is a view held by Christians of all theological camps, which means that the information in Acts 4:28 does not really favor one theological system over any other. It is similarly agreed by all that Jesus was under God's protection until "His hour" should come. When His hour did come (John 13:1), He was no longer protected, but was delivered over to His enemies—which is what Acts 2:23 tells us, and no one disputes.
I don't see how any special non-Calvinist exegesis should be called for on these verses, since regular exegesis does nothing to support the special claims of Calvinism. For example, there is no hint in these passages of the Calvinist assumption that God inspired or ordained the evil plots in the hearts of those who conspired to kill Jesus. In fact, the scriptures clearly identify Satan as the one who inspired the sinful intentions of those who killed Him (John 8:44/ Luke 22:3-4).
Men can be bad all by themselves. In the cases of Joseph's brothers, Assyria's invasion of Israel and the conspiracy against Jesus, God did not have to create evil desires in men. He has never been at a loss to locate men who have willingly turned to evil paths, and then exploited their existing greed, hatred, pride, jealousy, etc. to fulfill some purpose of HIs own. Though James White mocked this suggestion when I made it in my debate with him, I have to assume that mockery was the only response available to him, since no rational argument could be sustained against it.
He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13)
---------------------------------
*
Luther wrote: “This is the highest degree of faith—to believe that He is merciful, the very One who saves so few and damns so many. To believe that He is just, the One who, according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable.” (The Bondage of the Will, p.70)
Calvin wrote: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death...We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” (Institutes, 3:21:5, 7)
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Nice and thorough (as usual) -- thanks -- fyi, with regard to the above snippet, I went on James White's IRC chat (against my better judgment) and posted the question as honestly as I could just seeking help on understanding it and without a hint that I was not a "fellow Calvinist." No one responded other than someone posting the NASB version (which seemingly tends to favor the Calvinist understanding a bit).steve wrote:Though James White mocked this suggestion when I made it in my debate with him, I have to assume that mockery was the only response available to him, since no rational argument could be sustained against it.
What was interesting was White (aka Dr. Oakley) was on himself and actively communicating with folks but he also ignored the question -- I honestly wanted to know how they would exegete and explain it (especially in light of the satanic influence verses). No takers...
If any are lurking here, I'd love to hear the exegetical or grammatical explanation from the Calvinist perspective. All I can find are declarative statements, etc.
Re: Acts 4:27-28
(Something of An Aside)
Why?
I compared several versions, using 1 Cor 2:10-16 as a "go-by" - (honing in on v. 14).
NKJV was most objective (literal, unbiased).
The NASB is blatantly Calvinistic, changing word meanings!
(a tad off-topic & Take Care, Darin)!
This January, after a year or four of trying to decide which "default" version I wanted to use for study/reading, I chose NKJV.Darin wrote:....No one responded other than someone posting the NASB version (which seemingly tends to favor the Calvinist understanding a bit)....
Why?
I compared several versions, using 1 Cor 2:10-16 as a "go-by" - (honing in on v. 14).
NKJV was most objective (literal, unbiased).
The NASB is blatantly Calvinistic, changing word meanings!
(a tad off-topic & Take Care, Darin)!
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Did you check out the NET? The thing I like about it the most is the extensive translation notes (and the free and inexpensive versions), so I can use some discretion in taking or leaving their translation choice (which is usually pretty good).RickC wrote:(Something of An Aside)
This January, after a year or four of trying to decide which "default" version I wanted to use for study/reading, I chose NKJV.Darin wrote:....No one responded other than someone posting the NASB version (which seemingly tends to favor the Calvinist understanding a bit)....
Why?
I compared several versions, using 1 Cor 2:10-16 as a "go-by" - (honing in on v. 14).
NKJV was most objective (literal, unbiased).
The NASB is blatantly Calvinistic, changing word meanings!
(a tad off-topic & Take Care, Darin)!
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Hello Darin -darinhouston wrote:Did you check out the NET? The thing I like about it the most is the extensive translation notes (and the free and inexpensive versions), so I can use some discretion in taking or leaving their translation choice (which is usually pretty good).RickC wrote:(Something of An Aside)
This January, after a year or four of trying to decide which "default" version I wanted to use for study/reading, I chose NKJV.Darin wrote:....No one responded other than someone posting the NASB version (which seemingly tends to favor the Calvinist understanding a bit)....
Why?
I compared several versions, using 1 Cor 2:10-16 as a "go-by" - (honing in on v. 14).
NKJV was most objective (literal, unbiased).
The NASB is blatantly Calvinistic, changing word meanings!
(a tad off-topic & Take Care, Darin)!
I've been using NET for several years. It's more toward a "paraphrase" (than literal) in many, if not most cases. NET is generally (almost always) Calvinistic. From what I recall, what are used as Calvinistic prooftexts, in NET, are ALL Calvinistic. However, in some cases they address the issues in notes (and also often don't)!
E.g. 1 Cor 2:14 (NET)
The unbeliever (Gk, "natural man") does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand (Gk, "nor can he know") them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Thus, here in NET, a clear Calvinistic and/or 'Original Sin' bias. The NET meaning being: A non-Christian does not have the ability to understand God or the things of God, going right along with their doctrine of election and predestination, etc.
1 Cor 2:14 (NKJV)
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know (Gk, "gnOnia", fr. "ginOskO") them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NJKV gets it right. The reason a (non-Christian) "natural man" is not currently receiving the things of God is due to the fact that, in order to see them, they must be seen with "spiritual eyes", so to speak. Nothing in this verse and the passage of 2:10-14 suggests, as Calvinistic doctrine would have us believe, that a non-Christian cannot "discern spiritual things". 1 Cor 2:14 simply says that those who are not currently doing so are, therefore, not reaping the benefits of "orientating themselves toward God" (exercising spiritual discernment).
It's one thing to say a person can't understand things before God regenerates them.
Quite another to say they can't know about God because they choose not to.
I had a longer study done on this in Word last month...
but my computer "fried"...
...and I lost it!Take care!
P.S. Sorry if I hi-jacked your thread!
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Acts 4:27-28
No prob, Rick, but that sort of makes my point -- I see there might be some ambiguity in a proper translation -- here's the notes from NET
That's why the notes are so important to me -- as long as they're "honest," which they appear most of the time to be with NET, I can glean my own understanding on such a verse without a massive word study.
The Acts passage we're considering here is a case where they actually do seem to do a much better job than NASB in avoiding the English sentence structure that would lend to the Calvinist interpretation.
As for word for word vs. paraphrase, I've found it to be pretty reliably word for word in the same way NKJV is -- a truly word for word would be largely unreadable: consider a direct word for word translation of the greek for the Acts passage...
I can see this as easily talking about the difference between the man with the spirit (believer) and the man without the spirit (unbeliever) as between the spiritually inclined man (believer or not) and the man who isn't so inclined (whether or not a believer).1 tn Grk “natural person.” Cf. BDAG 1100 s.v. ψυχικός a, “an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God.”
That's why the notes are so important to me -- as long as they're "honest," which they appear most of the time to be with NET, I can glean my own understanding on such a verse without a massive word study.
The Acts passage we're considering here is a case where they actually do seem to do a much better job than NASB in avoiding the English sentence structure that would lend to the Calvinist interpretation.
As for word for word vs. paraphrase, I've found it to be pretty reliably word for word in the same way NKJV is -- a truly word for word would be largely unreadable: consider a direct word for word translation of the greek for the Acts passage...
were gathered together for truly truth about city this truly the holy servant of you Jesus whom you anointed Herod both and Pontius Pilate along Gentiles and peoples of Israel to do as many as the hand of you and the purpose predestined to happen
Re: Acts 4:27-28
I'm sort of taking your thread pretty far from the OP.darinhouston wrote:No prob, Rick, but that sort of makes my point -- I see there might be some ambiguity in a proper translation -- here's the notes from NET
I can see this as easily talking about the difference between the man with the spirit (believer) and the man without the spirit (unbeliever) as between the spiritually inclined man (believer or not) and the man who isn't so inclined (whether or not a believer).1 tn Grk “natural person.” Cf. BDAG 1100 s.v. ψυχικός a, “an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God.”
That's why the notes are so important to me -- as long as they're "honest," which they appear most of the time to be with NET, I can glean my own understanding on such a verse without a massive word study.
The Acts passage we're considering here is a case where they actually do seem to do a much better job than NASB in avoiding the English sentence structure that would lend to the Calvinist interpretation.
As for word for word vs. paraphrase, I've found it to be pretty reliably word for word in the same way NKJV is -- a truly word for word would be largely unreadable: consider a direct word for word translation of the greek for the Acts passage...
were gathered together for truly truth about city this truly the holy servant of you Jesus whom you anointed Herod both and Pontius Pilate along Gentiles and peoples of Israel to do as many as the hand of you and the purpose predestined to happen
And Steve gave a great reply!
Re: NET's -
1 tn Grk “natural person.” Cf. BDAG 1100 s.v. ψυχικός a, “an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God.”
Did you catch that? They did it again (in bold)!
BDAG and NET are importing Calvinism.
1 Cor 15 (NKJV)
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural (ψυχικόν) body, it is raised a spiritual (πνευματικόν) body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
N.T. Wright commented on what the (resurrected) spiritual (πνευματικόν) body is or will be. A body animated by the Spirit. A real body, mind you, but one which is no longer natural and/or perishable.
Rick's tn
1 tn Grk “natural person”, ψυχικός, “one who exists in a perishable body, who habitually or normally does not consider spiritual things”
But anyways.
(I can't get-to-going on Calvinism, as I tend to never shut-up)!
Actually, I seldom think of it these days.
But did when I decided on a Bible version (HAD to, can't miss it)!
One of these times I may try an exegesis of Acts 4:27-28....
Take care, Darin!
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Hey, Rick - I guess I don't see the problem with these two -- natural does mean to me that aspect of our being that is untouched or animated or what have you by the spirit. in my mind, the spirit that lies within us IS that same spirit of Christ, so to me the only question is whether there is a bright line between natural man and spiritual man or whether it is quantitative (e.g., "to the extent" we are guided by the spirit, that represents our spiritual man and "to the extent" we are not, that is our natural man). I think Paul suggested most of us do have both warring within us, so I tend to the latter. It's really subtle, and I don't get that NET was really trying to make a Reformed point in their translation or they would have rearranged the sentence structure along the way NASB does.
Re: Acts 4:27-28
Darin -
To get back to the OP (to keep from totally hi-jacking your thread!), I'll post the verses. I don't see what the difference is between the translations in terms of the ordering of the Greek and the resultant meaning. (It appears to me it depends whether one is importing Calvinism or not - which could be done with either translation).
Acts 4 (NET)
4:27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed,
4:28 to do as much as your power and your plan decided beforehand would happen.
Acts 4 (NASB)
27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
NET's "your plan decided beforehand would happen" sounds more Calvinistic to me than -
NASB's "Your purpose predestined to occur."
A "plan decided beforehand" involves a planner and the formed plan (mechanically set in place).
A "purpose predestined" points to purposes coming into fruition (regardless of human action or inaction).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.T. Wright uses the phrase "marked out ahead of time" in place of the loaded word "predestined". I don't know how he exegetes/translates Acts 4:28. He might have it read as, 28to do whatever Your hand marked out ahead of time to take place.
At any rate, could you please clarify how the word ordering in translation seems, to you, to make a difference in meaning? (We've come this far...I just want to follow your train of thought here).
Thanks!
First. We're getting far from the OP and into anthroplogy (the views of trichotomy, dichotomy, and holistic; and the meaning of Romans 7, etc.).Hey, Rick - I guess I don't see the problem with these two -- natural does mean to me that aspect of our being that is untouched or animated or what have you by the spirit. in my mind, the spirit that lies within us IS that same spirit of Christ, so to me the only question is whether there is a bright line between natural man and spiritual man or whether it is quantitative (e.g., "to the extent" we are guided by the spirit, that represents our spiritual man and "to the extent" we are not, that is our natural man). I think Paul suggested most of us do have both warring within us, so I tend to the latter. It's really subtle, and I don't get that NET was really trying to make a Reformed point in their translation or they would have rearranged the sentence structure along the way NASB does.
To get back to the OP (to keep from totally hi-jacking your thread!), I'll post the verses. I don't see what the difference is between the translations in terms of the ordering of the Greek and the resultant meaning. (It appears to me it depends whether one is importing Calvinism or not - which could be done with either translation).
Acts 4 (NET)
4:27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed,
4:28 to do as much as your power and your plan decided beforehand would happen.
Acts 4 (NASB)
27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
NET's "your plan decided beforehand would happen" sounds more Calvinistic to me than -
NASB's "Your purpose predestined to occur."
A "plan decided beforehand" involves a planner and the formed plan (mechanically set in place).
A "purpose predestined" points to purposes coming into fruition (regardless of human action or inaction).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.T. Wright uses the phrase "marked out ahead of time" in place of the loaded word "predestined". I don't know how he exegetes/translates Acts 4:28. He might have it read as, 28to do whatever Your hand marked out ahead of time to take place.
At any rate, could you please clarify how the word ordering in translation seems, to you, to make a difference in meaning? (We've come this far...I just want to follow your train of thought here).
Thanks!