Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

Thanks bshow1 and Paidion,

I just didn't understand how someone could be held responsible for something they had no choice in. Thats all. Pretty simple question I guess, but I get confused when reading some of the Calvinists as to how they view fairness.

I look at it like this, if I told my kid to do something that she could not do without me providing something to accomplish it (that is I withheld a vital item) and she failed to do what I asked, even though she could not do it, then I punish her for not doing it....... I think that would be unfair. Don't you? That is how I was understanding the Calvinist. Am I wrong?

If God is the one to give people faith and He doesn't do it, and then punishes those who didn't have faith, how is that fair?

[_Paidion]

You are right, Douglas. But the Calvinist has no real answer for this one. So he just quotes Paul in Romans 9:20 and applies to it us who see the illogic of Calvinism:

But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?"

[Guest]

Thanks bshow1 and Paidion,

I just didn't understand how someone could be held responsible for something they had no choice in. Thats all. Pretty simple question I guess, but I get confused when reading some of the Calvinists as to how they view fairness.

Hi Douglas,

Question: does the scripture anywhere ground man's responsibility before God based on the priniciple of alternate possibility (which is what you are arguing above)? I don't find it anywhere.

I look at it like this, if I told my kid to do something that she could not do without me providing something to accomplish it (that is I withheld a vital item) and she failed to do what I asked, even though she could not do it, then I punish her for not doing it....... I think that would be unfair. Don't you? That is how I was understanding the Calvinist. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong, because you assume that grace can be demanded. If you want strict "fairness", so that we all get what we deserve, then we all deserve hell for our sin. So do you really want fairness.

If God is the one to give people faith and He doesn't do it, and then punishes those who didn't have faith, how is that fair?

Paidion's sarcastic response notwithstanding, your objection is precisely that dealt with by Paul in Romans 9.

Cheers,
Bob

[_Paidion]

Yes, you are wrong, because you assume that grace can be demanded. If you want strict "fairness", so that we all get what we deserve, then we all deserve hell for our sin. So do you really want fairness.

Yeh, Douglas. Don't you see it? Even though, in your example, your daughter wouldn't have the means to carry out your orders, she would deserve it if you beat her and locked her in her room for the rest of her life. After all, she disobeyed you. What makes her think she has the right to demand from you the tools she needs to do the job you asked her to do? Who does she think she is?

But God will do much more than you would do if you gave her what she deserves. He will lock most people (probably over 99%) in hell where they will be tormented, not merely for a lifetime, but for eternity. But remember ... they deserve it for their disobedience to him, even though they cannot obey him since he didn't give them the grace to do so. But it's still not God's fault. It's their fault for not doing what they could not do. So it's obvious that God is giving them only what they deserve.

[Guest]

Back to Acts 13.

Strong's Number: 5021 ta/ssw
Original Word Word Origin
ta/ssw a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Tasso tas'-so
Parts of Speech TDNT
Verb 8:27,1156
Definition
to put in order, to station
to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
to assign (appoint) a thing to one
to appoint, ordain, order
to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority
to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

Tasso is said to have been a military term that means to draw up in rank and file, and is then used generally for placing in an orderly arrangement and then to appoint and even to agree. In Acts 13:48, tasso translated "ordained", may be either passive or middle, meaning either they were ordained or they ordained themselves. Let us assume the passive is correct, so they were somehow "ordained" by someone. The text does not tell us who, but according to prevenient grace, let's assume God ordained them.

The context of Acts 13 helps us here. We have an antithesis, or at least, a contrast: the Jews thrust away the Word; the gentiles glorify the word. The Jews refused the call to draw up in rank and file. By their own fault the Jews are out of the life offered to them. By God's grace the Gentiles have that life. And who put them in line? God did so by sending Paul and Barnabas, though the grace of God and the preaching of His word, "the power unto salvation". And in this time and place, He did the very same for the Jews. And His desire was to have them in the same relationship as the believing Gentiles. How He longed to take them under His wing, but they would not, "judging themselves unworthy of eternal life". By their own wickedness, they refused the call to "get in line", or to be ordained.

There is nothing in the narrative of Luke that tells us any more than this. The Calvinist, based on his peculiar presuppostions, sees pedestination in the passage. The view apparently began with Jerome, who revised the old Latin rendering of destinati or ordinati to praeordinati in order to make the coming to faith and salvation the product of a predestinatory eternal decree.

[Guest]

Here is a comment about Augustine, who was influenced in becoming a Christian by Jerome:

Of course, Augustine did not believe that Christ, by his death, had opened the door to heaven for every soul. Most of humanity remained condemned to eternal punishment -- only a handful of souls had the gift of faith and the promise of heaven. People could not overcome their sins -- moral and spiritual regeneration came only from God's grace, and it was God who determined who would be saved, and who would be damned (the notion of predestination would appear again, with greater force, during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century). Although Augustine's influence was impressive, the Church rejected his idea of predestination, that only a small number of people would find salvation. Instead, the Church emphasized that Christ had made possible the salvation of all.

You can read the lecture here:
Jerome and Augustine

[Guest]

Yes, you are wrong, because you assume that grace can be demanded. If you want strict "fairness", so that we all get what we deserve, then we all deserve hell for our sin. So do you really want fairness.

Yeh, Douglas. Don't you see it? Even though, in your example, your daughter wouldn't have the means to carry out your orders, she would deserve it if you beat her and locked her in her room for the rest of her life. After all, she disobeyed you. What makes her think she has the right to demand from you the tools she needs to do the job you asked her to do? Who does she think she is?

But God will do much more than you would do if you gave her what she deserves. He will lock most people (probably over 99%) in hell where they will be tormented, not merely for a lifetime, but for eternity. But remember ... they deserve it for their disobedience to him, even though they cannot obey him since he didn't give them the grace to do so. But it's still not God's fault. It's their fault for not doing what they could not do. So it's obvious that God is giving them only what they deserve.

The sarcasm continues. But underneath the sarcasm is the plain denial that we all deserve hell for our sins, and that God is obligated to provide the means for us to escape the due punishment for them. Grace evidently can be demanded.

God should just overlook our sins; after all, we would certainly do the same. Such a view makes a mockery of God's holiness and of the Atonement.

Cheers,
Bob

[_Paidion]

The sarcasm continues.

Yes, sometimes when a person holding a self-contradictory position cannot be reached with Scripture and logic, then sarcasm can somehow reach him and help him see that his position is indeed inconsistent.

But underneath the sarcasm is the plain denial that we all deserve hell for our sins...

True. A matter of desert is not in question here. God is not interested in punishing our past dead sins, but in dealing with our present live sins. He wants to deliver us from them and render us righteous. God is not interested in wreaking eternal vengeance on 99% or more of humanity. He is interested in bringing glory to Himself by bringing ALL of humanity under His dominion, that is, into His Kingdom. Most people will go to hell, true. But God has a loving purpose in sending them there --- their ultimate reconciliation to Him.

...and that God is obligated to provide the means for us to escape the due punishment for them.

No, there is no underlying suggestion that God is obligated to do this. He freely provided the sacrifice of His Son out of His LOVE for all humanity. He provided the corrective fires of Gehenna which together with that divine sacrifice can lead to the repentance and reconciliation of all who will be raised in the resurrection of judgment and sent there. God hasn't provided "a means of escape" for anyone (unless we mean "a means of escape from sin"). He has provided a means of attaining righteousness. "Escape from hell", if one wants to think of it that way, is a side-benefit.

Grace evidently can be demanded.

No evidence of this was implied.

God should just overlook our sins; after all, we would certainly do the same.

No. That would be horrible if sin were merely overlooked and man were allowed to continue in it indefinitely. However, the very reason Christ died (according to the apostle Paul) was to deliver people from their sins (not a mere covering up of them):

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Every scripture which specifies the reason for Christ's death give essentially the same reason, that we be delivered from sin in our lives, and that we live righteously. This is a far cry from just being delivered from the consequences of our sin, while still having the old sinful nature, and thus continuing in sin.

Such a view makes a mockery of God's holiness and of the Atonement.

Far from making a mockery, the view I have expressed helps us to recognize God's total love and holiness, and to give Him glory for the wonderful MEANS which He provided through the sacrifice of His Son, to deliver us from sin, and to bring us into practical righteousness. This is His plan for every human being:

For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. Ephesians 1:9,10

[Guest]

The sarcasm continues. But underneath the sarcasm is the plain denial that we all deserve hell for our sins, and that God is obligated to provide the means for us to escape the due punishment for them. Grace evidently can be demanded.

Friend, such reasoning only has it's strength by focusing on the wickedness of man in direct contrast to God's absolute holiness. It is true that God is light, but this is only part of the picture of what God is. Let us not forget that while God is light, He is also love. One this is realized, it becomes problematic to reason along the lines of a partial picture of God to come to a final conclusion regarding man. This is why Calvinism is not biblical, for it highlights and elevates God's holiness at the expense of His love, goodness and grace. The question is about God's heart and what He wants to do, not what man deserves and what God is obligated to do for man.

[Guest]

This is why Calvinism is not biblical, for it highlights and elevates God's holiness at the expense of His love, goodness and grace. The question is about God's heart and what He wants to do, not what man deserves and what God is obligated to do for man.

Troy,

Watch the context. Douglas raised a challenge based on the fairness of holding people responsible for something. His question put things in terms of what man deserves and what God is obligated to do for man in order for things to be fair; that is the basis on which Bob responded.

You're absolutely right that these matters are based on more than what man deserves; they are also based on God's revelation about his heart and what he wants to do, what he set out to do.