Featured Understanding Acts 13:48

Read that translation and tell me how God is glorified and lifted up as Supreme. You won't find it in that translation. Instead, you find man being lifted up and glorified while God is being lessened.
Do you really think that Luke would purposely lift up man?
Come now, just read how bad that translation is, which you just posted.

Look at what it says about itself:
"Modern Literal Version of the New Testament (MLV)
The World's Most Accurate English Bible Translation.
The ONLY bible translation OPEN for any to recommend simple fixes or corrections.

Do you see how crazy that version is? And you had the idea that quoting it would legitimize your argument? It's an open source document that anyone can make changes to. That's crazy.

Modern Literal Version World's Most Accurate Bible(MLV)

 

"You are simply rewriting scripture to adhere to your biased theology.
Speculation is the mother of false doctrine."

Your words are they not? You claimed that Van had a biased position and I pointed out that it would seem to be you that held the biased position and offered scripture that would support Van's view which would thus disagree with your view.

How is what I posted misstating your view? I just posted scripture and asked a question. "It appears that you are rejecting the context of the verse. So which one is adhering to a biased position?"

The Jews specifically judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. This is exactly the opposite of the Gentiles’ reaction, especially when Paul and Barnabas applied Isa_49:6 to themselves: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Act_13:47). Act_13:48 then describes the reaction of the Gentiles to this preaching. It was in fact just the opposite of the Jews’ reaction: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord.” Then follow the crucial words: and as many as set themselves toward eternal life believed. How did they set themselves toward eternal life? By hearing and heeding the word of God (cf Romans 10:17; Ephesians 1:13).

We cannot ignore the symmetrical contrast between the reaction of the Jews in Act_13:46 and the reaction of the Gentiles in Act_13:48. Whereas the Jews rejected the gospel and judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life (Act_13:46), the Gentiles received it gladly and embraced the message of eternal life (Act_13:48). In both cases the decision was a matter of free choice. There is no support for Calvinism in Act_13:48. Dr. J. Cottrell

 

Adapted from John Gill Commentary.

and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

faith is not the cause or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follow upon it, as in these persons; some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed", which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, the Syriac, thus "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained." Moreover the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one: men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear those Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for thought they are said to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles", and in some versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow, as in the rich young ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful, as many before are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions , and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not; it follow then, that their faith did not arise from dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it,; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind (Acts 15:2) The phrase is the same with that used by the Jews, "who are ordained to eternal life", and "everyone that is written in to eternal life" i.e. in the book of life; and designs no other than predestination or election, which is God's act, and is an eternal one...

 

Every time you begin a sentence with, “what you are saying is……” it certain that what follows will be a gross misrepresentation of what I have said.

Please do not respond to my posts.

peace to you

 

I quote you and you say I misrepresent what you said. That is rich. You just do not like it when someone points out your errors and brings to light the biases that you hold.

I understand that you do not want me to respond to your posts but I do reserve the right to comment on what you post if I see obvious errors in the post. You on the other hand are not obliged to respond to what I have posted.

As you may or may not have noticed I do not respond to every post that is made on this form or board.

 

Baloney. It's not off-topic at all. You just refuse to face the topic.
You have clung to an "open source" translation of Acts 13:48 as the translation you hold to, while rejecting all others. You make your opinion illegitimate. Moreso, you lift up man and openly reject God as Supreme in salvation. Everyone reading this thread can read for themselves and decide if they will accept the "cult-like" translation you support, or whether they accept all the other translations that legitimately translate Acts 13:48.

 

You do not quote me when you say, “what you are saying is…..”. You are giving a gross misrepresentation of what I have stated.

Please do not respond to my posts.

peace to you

 

John Gill is Calvinist.
When the form of some verbs, not all, when the form can either be passive voice or middle voice, the middle voice is preferred, unless it is explicitly in the passive voice, such as in Romans 13:1, ". . . Let every soul be subject to the authorities which are superior to him; for* there is no authority if not by God, and the authorities which are, have been appointed by God. . . ." MLV.
τεταγμεναι
The same word except for gender in usage as used in Acts 13:48, ". . . And while the Gentiles are hearing this, they were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and they believed as many as were appointing themselves toward everlasting life. . . ." MLV followed that rule. τεταγμενοι

@Van cited TBL, ". . . When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and rejoiced in Paul’s message; and as many as wanted>[a] eternal life, believed. . . ."
a Acts 13:48 wanted, or “were disposed to,” or “were ordained to.”

 

Well since I have not started my sentences with “what you are saying is…..”. then it would seem that I am actually just showing that your view is in error as it does not comport with scripture. But you have a good day and I will just continue to point out your errors.

 

To offer a different perspective, think for a moment about the Romans 13:1 type usage of this participle: God puts government authorities in place to make decisions, He does not determine those decisions. In the same way, Gentiles who were known by God to be responsive were "set in place," positioned by divinely ordained circumstances of birth, travel, family, business, etc., to be physically present to hear the apostolic message of salvation and then to freely respond. Public apostolic gospel presentations in any given place were rare in that day, especially for Gentiles. The participle is passive, the agent is God; but it is the opportunity, not the decision, that is appointed "with a view toward eternal life." I'm sure many of us can think of similar instances of circumstantial grace in our own lives.

Just my personal understanding - not interested in arguing.

 

In your position God is half sovereign, doing part of the work, while man grabs the other half and accomplishes the believing that God moved them to hear.

You diminish the full authority and supremacy of God in your interpretation.

 

It's amazing how humans butcher scripture in order to fit their philosophies into the Bible and call them legitimate. Here we have an argument for a different grammatical voice, which makes the verse silly, yet it fits a few people's philosophy of humanism. In passages regarding sexuality I see those who promote such deviance doing similar things to the greek in order to remove themselves as being actively in sin.

In the case of Acts 13:48 I now see people desperately clinging to an open source translation that any internet hacker can go into and adjust as s/he wishes. That version is then promoted as "scholarly." One cannot underscore how silly that type of argument is.
I provide a Greek expert who has been teaching Greek in a well renowned seminary for decades and that gets dismissed out of hand. I provide a video exegesis of the passage from an internationally respected pastor and that gets dismissed out of hand. But, an open source Bible translation gets promoted as great scholarship. I cannot emphasize enough how silly that is.

 

The idea that Acts 13:48 confirms the false doctrine of the Reformed as to their appointment before the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved only proves that they have no idea how to define biblical salvation or how to rightly process the information relative to the people in the story or the timing of this event in the history of the unfolding drama of redemption in Christ. It is really sad to read these comments as the blindness of these false doctrines are manifest in them.

Nothing can be solved for them by discussing Acts 13:48. The real problem is foundational. This is what needs to be addressed. Reformed have been deceived about the doctrine of God. The things they have been told about him, and have been accepted by them, did not come from the writers of the scriptures. It came from Augustine and Calvin and those who followed them.

So, yes, if they have been taught that God makes a difference in sinners long before Jesus came and they are in that group he has previously chosen as his, though they have no proof for their claim that is not subjective, nothing will change their minds and hearts short of a total reset and a relearning process. I think there will be too much pride for that for most in that group.

Following is an example from a Reformed believer of what I mean;

Just my personal opinion - not interested in arguing.

 

So in your view does God predetermine every decision of the tetagmenai authorities in Romans 13:1, or is He only "half sovereign" in that regard as well?

 

It is sobering to observe a lack of teachability in any area, and I think we are often vulnerable to it when faced with this sort of seeming contradiction (e.g., 2 Cor 3:4); in light of this I regularly suspect myself of it and ask for illumination and correction (3:5; Psa 139:23-24).

I wonder about this - true for some, obviously. I am no fan of Bart Ehrman but I ran across an interesting post by him in this regard:
Do Public Debates Do Anyone Any Good? What Do You Think? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

 

Thank you for your reply.

I am unable to understand what you mean by your statement that Gill was a calvinist. Just because he held to the doctrines of grace does not automatically nullify his commentary and to do so would be unwise.

The use of the phrases "were disposed to" or "were ordained to" both indicate involvement of an outside agency. What made the Gentiles "disposed to" believing? The word disposed indicates a willingness or likely to do something. It would seem that their gladness or willingness to believe would come from centuries of being unable to be in the priesthood or the courts of Israel, but now, seeing that the multitude of prophetic verses in the OT were coming to pass, they were glad. The prophetic verses of predestination to a previously unattainable position predisposed them to believe what was occurring was according to the scriptures. We then have to ask, who prophesied and predestined, thereby disposing or ordaining the gathering in of the Gentiles? Who had told them, that according to the scriptures, they would be brought into the kingdom? It had already been determined by the Father before the foundation of the earth that his prophesies might stand.

Ordaining, in scriptural context, seems to be especially to be related to outside agency and not of one's self. Ordain, by definition, means to order or decree by virtue of superior authority. Did the Gentiles ordain themselves to such a glorious position, or had it already been determined and predestined by the Father? The Old Testament is full of the latter.

 

God ordains everything. There is not one rogue molecule that God does not ordain its function.
Regarding Romans 13, I point you to Habakkuk 1 where God tells us that He is the one who has raised up the most wicked Babylonians and He is also the one who will quickly dispose of them when He is done with them.

What happens when God ordains evil to happen? Well, that is the debate of Job, isn't it?! What do we do when it seems God is unjust? Well, read Habakkuk's second question and his waiting at the watchtower in chapter 2.
As finite humans it is extremely easy for us to accuse God of injustice when evil happens. Or, to try "let God off the hook" we create a theology where God is less than sovereign. If God isn't in control of everything and things happen outside of his view, we rationalize that God cannot be blamed. What we seem to not grasp is that God can fully ordain the wicked works of man and yet not be guilty of the wicked action himself. I know it's hard for us finite humans, but Paul tells us this in Romans 9.
I suggest we accept that God is fully Supreme over all things and yet He cannot be blamed for our sin. Read Romans 9.