Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

Douglas,
God doesn't MAKE anybody do anything AGAINST their desire. This is the common misunderstanding of the Biblical view of Free Will.

Yes we are saved by grace through faith. The grace is something done by God in His freedom. He is not contingent to choose anybody upon what they do or say. He is simply free. In His sovereign act of grace (which is a gift) he causes us to be "born again"(1 John 5:1) in which the outcome is a new heart that effects new affections that see God for who He truly is and will now express belief in the God which now looks beautiful to Him, where before he was against Him, this is faith which also was given to him by God,Eph 2:8 "THIS is a gift of God" "This" is neuter and by necessity refers to salvation, grace and faith.

Good question on Acts 13:48. Grammatically "The gentiles" CAN refer to ALL of the Gentiles thus giving you that understanding which promoted your question. But however there are two other views. One is that the "the" doesn't include EVERY Gentile, just the ones that rejoiced, the article isn't by necessity a universal inclusive. I do not rely on this interpretation but it is possible. The other view is that ALL the gentiles did rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord, but many of those (or maybe only a few!) did so without truly being effected or from a changed heart but did so for other reasons (sinful), like those who praised Jesus and hailed Him as messiah and in only a few days crucified Him. Thus the difference between the two groups out of the ALL the gentiles where "the ones appointed".

[Guest]

J. Edwards, you wrote...
"where before he was against Him, this is faith which also was given to him by God,Eph 2:8 "THIS is a gift of God" "This" is neuter and by necessity refers to salvation, grace and faith. "

So faith is something that is given to me by God, and not a choice of mine? I don't choose to have faith in God? I always thought I had the choice to have faith or not to have faith. Why was Jesus upset and made the statement "oh ye of little faith"? It wasn't their fault for having little faith was it?(at least from the Calvinists perspective)

I understand salvation and grace to be a gift of God, but that it was dependent of faith. If even faith is a gift, then what role would I have as a Christian? I would either believe (and have faith) or not believe depending on if God alone chose it, right? Why even bother telling people about Christ if they have no choice in the matter?

I don't know, call me weird or whatever, but from reading the responses to this topic, I just don't understand a God of the Calvinists perspective. Finally, I would say that each of us has a choice of what we want to believe, because if we didn't..... why even discuss it?

Much love brother.
Doug

[Guest]

Doug,
You are letting your bias rule the meaning of the text. If it says that God gives you the faith, then so be it and reconstruct your theology and conceptions around what the Word indicatively conveys and not what your philosophy demands.

You are bringing up good questions but assuming the wrong answers.

But everything aside, there is no other way grammatically around this verse It is plainly by grammatical rules, which (in this rule) is set in stone on this issue, easy to understand The pronoun HAS to include the whole previous clause. Which means it INCLUDES faith.

If this challenges your theology maybe you should read something that might actually build on this understanding to see if there are actually very stable Scriptural understandings to your questions. If you still don't agree upon studying the "other side" at least you have been honest in your quest and have made a balanced decision (Proverbs 18:17). So you won't be like the fool and only giving an opinion (Proverbs 18:2)

Grace to you my brother in Christ

[Guest]

Um, J.Edwards, are you going to answer Doug's question? He asked So faith is something that is given to me by God, and not a choice of mine? I don't choose to have faith in God?

[Guest]

Um, J.Edwards, are you going to answer Doug's question? He asked So faith is something that is given to me by God, and not a choice of mine? I don't choose to have faith in God?

I did answer His questions. My answer was to read someone respected on the reformed side and carefully look at the exegesis of the texts. I will answer directly if you wish but only in simple steps that are only founded on verses that we have already agreed upon otherwise we will just be going on rabbit trails where all you do is ask me questions and all I do is answer them and there is no fruitful dialog but just us being dark clouds that give no rain. Do you agree?

Ephesians 2:8 says that God gave you the faith. Exegetically will you give me that? Or do you see something grammatically in the Greek that causes a problem with that understanding? The clause is actually very simple, it only has an indicative verb which means what is being said is a simple state of fact.

[Guest]

Ephesians 2:8 says that God gave you the faith. Exegetically will you give me that? Or do you see something grammatically in the Greek that causes a problem with that understanding? The clause is actually very simple, it only has an indicative verb which means what is being said is a simple state of fact.

I don't think you'll get unanimous consent on that one here -- here's a brief response from http://www.classicalarminianism.com/id3.html.

The phrase, “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” has been variously interpreted. This “gift” of God is not faith, but salvation. Faith is never mentioned in the New Testament as a “gift.” However, salvation is God’s gift: “Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you knew the gift of God,’” (John 4:10) referring to eternal life. Paul mentions the “free gift” of salvation at Romans 5:15, 16, 17, 18; 6:23 as well as at Ephesians 3:7. Furthermore, this “gift of God” must be salvation and not faith because of Ephesians 2:9, “not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Paul uses strong language to combat anyone who thinks he may “work” to earn favor with God in Romans, Galatians, and here in Ephesians. Faith in Christ Jesus is not a “work” (Rom. 4:2-4), therefore, the statement of “boastful works” at verse nine would not make any sense with regard to faith; the gift of God, then, is salvation

Another....

Paul elaborated, And this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun "this" (touto). Though some think it refers back to grace and others to faith, neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is nueter, whereas "grace" and "faith" are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather, the nueter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ephesians 1:15 and 3:1, touto, "this", refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (2: 4-8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is "not from yourselves"), but rather, its source is God's grace for "it is the gift of God."

Verse 9 reinforces this by showing that the means is not by works since its basis is grace (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:1-5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 2Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5), and its means is faith (Rom 4:5). Therefore, since no person can bring salvation to himself by his own efforts, no one can boast (cf. Rom. 3:27; 1Cor. 1:29). Their boasting can only be in the Lord (1Cor. 1:31).



I wanted to see if this verse truly says that faith is a gift (although I know there are other verses that are used by the Calvinist to say that faith is bestowed on a person who is totally depraved, uninterested in the Lord, and God regenerates him, puts faith in his heart, and then he believes the gospel after having already been regenerated.) ... but I just wanted to see if it was in this verse. This verse causes me to praise God! Salvation is by grace though simple trust in Christ and it is absolutely free! (Free to us, costly to God.) He is so generous!

[Guest]

First and most importantly the word τάσσω is only used in the NT 8 times. The passive is the default and the burden of proof to use a middle must be without a doubt and backed up by substantial evidence.

I know of no one who has tried to prove that the verb is a middle in Acts 13:48. They merely state that the possibility is there, and therefore the Calvinist view re election cannot be proved from this verse.

Where is the evidence in the Lukan usage? Acts 1:2 "appointed"

The evidence for the middle? I don’t know why you mention Acts 1:2. The verb in question does not occur in that verse.

Acts 28:23 is a middle, "When they 'disposed' a day for him?... NO.
Act 22:10 is close, it is a perfect passive yet not a participle "And there you will be told all that 'you have disposed' yourself to do? .... NOT CLOSE
Luke 7:8 "For I too am a man "who has disposed myself under authority"?

I suspect that you are using mild sarcasm here. On the other hand, if you are serious, then you imply that those who have translated the word in Acts 13:48 as “disposed” believe that the word actually has that meaning. I know of no one who makes such a claim. Rather, those who so translate it are trying to make the word make sense in English, just as translators do with the same word in I Corinthians 16:15. The ESV, Darby, KJ21, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and Rotherham all translate the word as “devoted” in that verse. But none of these translators believe the word means “devoted”. They are trying to make the word makes sense in English. It would be foolish indeed, to try to discredit their translation by, for example, showing that the word cannot mean “devoted” by quoting Acts 13:48 as “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were devoted to eternal life believed.” To translate I Corinthians 16:5 as “… they appointed themselves to the service of the saints” is just not the way we say it in English. No one ever says that he appointed himself to something (unless he’s trying to be funny).

Lexicons give the meaning of “τάσσω” means “set” or “appoint”. The New Testament and the passages from the Septuagint apocrypha bear this out as the meaning.

It's sad that Alford conveniently passes over LUKE himself to interpret what Luke said! Alford goes away from Luke (which shows an agenda) and uses a totally different author, namely Paul.

Why is it sad? Paul and Luke were contemporaries who spoke and wrote Hellenistic Greek. Would they be likely to use words substantially differently?

Romans 13:1 Paul uses "direct agency" by stating that God has "instituted" those that exist. If the divine "direct agency" wasn't stated would you have interpreted it as "Those that exist have disposed themselves"? No.

The answer is “no” because the context so indicates that the powers that be are appointed by God. But in Acts 13:48, the context contrasts the disposition of the Jews with that of the Gentiles. This is a powerful plug for translating the word in that context as “disposed”.

Paul then uses the ONLY verse in the New Testament where "devoted themselves" is used in 1 Cor. 16:15. But here even Paul uses the word in conjunction with the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς• Thus being properly understood and devoting themselves, you have to translate the word.

Paul uses a direct object by stating that they appointed themselves to the service of the saints. If the human direct object wasn’t stated would you have interpreted it as “they appointed themselves to the service of the saints”?
No. You would have translated it as “they were appointed to the service of the saints”.

Luke even in the immediate context (which Alford again conveniently dismisses) shows that when he wanted to describe a reflexive he uses a reflexive pronoun just 2 verses before.

Now there’s the first significant point you’ve made in this post (as I see it).

This may surprise you, but I have never believed that the translation of the word should be “disposed” in Acts 13:48, but for a reason different any that you have given. First, I do not believe the word is in the middle voice, because, as you know, the middle would imply that the reading, “They appointed for themselves for aeonion life.” There seem to be one to many “fors” in there. If it meant “They appointed aeonion life for themselves” then the word “eis” (into) would not be present but “aeonion life” would be in the accusative case.
Okay, that leaves the passive voice for the word. But since there is no direct agency, one might guess that the agency was themselves. “They were appointed [by themselves] for aeonion life”. In Greek this isn’t so terribly odd. After all “they appointed themselves to the service of the saints” in I Corinthians 16:15. However, the fact that such a passive voice construction is unknown elsewhere where one is appointing oneself, is a good reason to dismiss this idea. In the Corinthian passage, Paul uses the aorist active indicative with the reflexive pronoun. Why wouldn’t he do the same here if that were his intention?

Thus we are left with the standard, “those having been appointed to aeonion life believed”. And I do believe it was God who appointed them. Of course, I do not understand this in a Calvinist way, that is, that they had been pre-ordained or fated to believe in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. I take it that God had appointed them to believe. No more than that need be read into it.

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.

As for James White, I know of him, but do not follow him. Though I heard he is a scholar, and am looking forward in what he has to say on this issue.

Actually, the thought crossed my mind that you are, in fact, James White under the alias of Jonathan Edwards.

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.

[Guest]

Rather, the nueter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ephesians 1:15 and 3:1, touto, "this", refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (2: 4-8a),

Darin it is to bad you have to rely on other sources to understand what is being said in the Greek, it is frustrating. And what is more frustrating is what I'm about to tell you. This commentary on grammatical rules is deceptive and is praying on people that don't know what is really going on.

Notice that they said that the neuter refers NOT to GRACE alone or faith alone but in a "phrase"? They are correct in this understanding (but notice they didn't talk about "saved"). BUT what do they do right after asserting this? They have the phrase not preceding the pronoun but the phrase that INCLUDES the demonstrative pronoun! Then they have that phrase describing what wasn't mentioned before namely "saved". Notice they said that the pronoun didn't refer to grace or faith, but left out "salvation", and they then went AGAINST what they previously said was correct, that being the pronoun (not the PHRASE of the pronoun) refers back to the immediate PHRASE?

What they did is give a correct rule and then give you an answer which completly reverses the rule!

Here is the rule. If there are multiple genders in a "phrase" with a FOLLOWING neuter PRONOUN (not the phrase in which includes the pronoun), the PRONOUN refers to the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING phrase. I will break this down... (sorry no graphs!)

A) For by GRACE (feminine) you have been SAVED (masculine) through FAITH (feminine)

B) And THIS (neuter) is not your own doing.

You don't need "it is a gift of God" because it is not part of the grammatical rule! Remember the PREVIOUS phrase not the "contained" phrase or following phase. So.... what is the contained in the immediate preceding phrase? Grace, salvation, and faith. You CAN NOT single ANY of these out or it breaks this VERY easy and iron clad rule. So I'm sorry Darrin but they are misleading you. If Paul wanted the pronoun to refer to the concept of salvation he would have just used the masculine and if he wanted to use it to refer to grace and faith he would have used a feminine and if he just wanted to single either of these out he would not have used a demonstrative pronoun. There really isn't a debate, it's quite simple.

I don't doubt your passion and zeal by being very able to find information on the net but I doubt your discernment of the content of it.

That's why I highly encourage everybody to know the language so you do not have to be a slave to English and stay childlike being tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine (teaching), by human cunning, craftiness (which what that graph was) in deceiptful schemes.

[Guest]

That's why I highly encourage everybody to know the language so you do not have to be a slave to English and stay childlike being tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine (teaching), by human cunning, craftiness (which what that graph was) in deceiptful schemes.

I don't question your knowledge of Greek, but a great many Arminian theologians no doubt have at least the same level of Greek understanding as you seem to do, and yet this remains a very common understanding in Arminian theology. It is indeed unfortunate that I can't discern between various greek exegeses, but I have not found it to be a defect in my understanding.

Calvinists don't have the market cornered on Greek -- I also don't have the faith in modern greek scholarship in koine greek (or other "dead" languages) that you and others seem to. Maybe that's me exercising "discernment" to which you refer. Like any science, it is built on presuppositions and in many cases statistical inferences. I understand we simply don't have a great amount of koine greek, and most of these writers didn't even use greek as their first language (and weren't likely scholars in any event), and were writing through emanuenses.

I have said it before -- I would hate to have my spanish (or my English unfortunately) interpreted by a Spanish academic who doesn't have hundreds of my other writings to learn my writing style and usage, etc., especially if I were dictating to my secretary without a word processor. Slavish adherence to grammatical construction at the expense (even if slight) of scope and context and other teachings isn't for me.

[Guest]

You know what is awesome? The fact that my salvation is not based on me having a 100% understanding of all theological issues, including this one. I may be wrong in my current position of this topic (the non-Calvinist view), or you may (that being the Calvinists view), but we are all just trying to come to a better understanding of who God is. Right? And thats what we should be doing here, in brotherly love and compassion for those of a different view, even if you think it is wrong.

To tell you the truth, and most of you have probably already seen this in your Christian walk, logical explanations, even with data and facts that are rock solid in ones opinion, will not often change another persons view. I don't know why, but it seems to take a spirit of love and understanding of the person you disagree with, and letting them come to the conclusion that they will come to, even if you believe it to be wrong. I have been more influenced by a persons character and love for Christ and others than any amount of facts that can be shown to me in opposition to what I believe.

Good luck in this debate that will probably continue until Christ returns. It is great to discuss things like this and come to a better understanding of our Lord and saviour.

Doug.