Ordained to Eternal Life

Ordain

We all know that is God who ordains us to what to believe and to eternal life the easy thing to answer is who He ordaines it is those who put thier trust in Jesus.

This is the key to knowledge my brothers a simple trust.

 

Alright AA and TC,

Do you guys KNOW that you are "appointed to eternal life?" That God appointed you to eternal life OR might it have been something that you did that revealed to you that God had so appointed you?

I would say that you could not possibly know what God appointed for you personally unless you took Him up on one of His promises. At that point, you have the right to say what it was that God promised you -- eternal life in this situation -- if you would receive/trust. And actually, other believing observers could say what you received if you believed what they believed.

The fact is that Luke's expression of what God appointed for those who believed is completely circumstantial. 1) God, the Father, had not appeared to Luke ever. Luke was not there as a firsthand witness when God did ANY of this "appointing," was he.

2) Luke WAS aware of God's promises through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

3) Luke DID know that these Gentiles believed as he himself did regarding Christ (in accordance with the promises they were claiming).

4) Luke DEDUCED that God had "appointed" these to eternal life as God had also appointed Luke himself according to the promises of the gospel of Christ.

5) This establishes in Luke's mind by the Holy Spirit that the appointment had been made beforehand BUT NOT that it was made independent of these believers' forseen belief. Again, you cannot independently establish the last statement from this event unless you were there before the foundation of the world when the appointments were made.

Now you CAN go to another passage and find what you think is your proof by misreading/eisogeting that passage as well :laugh: but all that we can know about appointment is predicated on the veracity and correct understanding of God's word, not by our own witness of the appointments.

skypair

 

The issue is not when we knew of the "appoint[ment] to eternal life." The issue is what the scripture says.But, I'll chase this rabbit for a moment.

None of us claim that we knew of God's appointment by our own experience. Here is an example. Many of us accept God's creation of the world ex nihilo--we weren't there; we could not have known how He did it unless He told us. God revealed, to Moses, the order of creation and that it was from nothing. Moses wasn't there to experience creation but he was intimately acquainted with creation because of God's revelation. In the same way, the "elect" do not claim an a priori knowledge of God's election. Rather our knowledge of how God does things related to salvation of ourselves and other is a posteriori and is based solely on God's revelation through His word, not our experience of salvation.

It does not matter if Luke was there (see above example with Moses and Creation). If you follow this arguement to its logical conclusion, you would not be able to take as scripture the Gospel of Luke. Luke was not present when the angel visited Zechariah and he was not present when Gabriel visited Mary. Yet, I doubt you would dispute the legitimacy or veracity of those accounts.

Your assertion (especially #4) gets to the very heart of the nature of inspiration. Was it Luke that wrote Acts? In a manner of speaking, yes. Ultimately, however, it was God that wrote Acts and I seriously doubt you'd say God put an extraneous circumstantial comment at Acts 13:48.

You are simply wrong. The Greek construction alone suggests that the persons appointed had absolutely no part in their appointment.

No amount of kicking on your part is ever going to change what the text actually says.

Your argument is hopelessly flawed. If we took your argument and applied it to all of scripture we would only be able to accept as true what we had experienced personally.

The arrogance expressed in your last paragraph is astounding, because of your lack of submission to the text that God has given. In fact, it is you who are misreading and/or eisogeting the passage by insisting that the ones appointed had a hand in their own appointment. No amount of mental gymnastics, which you are engaging in, will change the meaning of the Greek. At this point it would be best to argue your position from a different passage of scripture. You will never be able to make this passage say what you want it to say. The Greek Perfect and the Greek Passive definitively and convincingly say you are wrong.

The Archangel

 

Yes, and I notice you finally came to your senses and admitted it --- "At this point it would be best to argue your position from a different passage of scripture" which was what I recommended to you. :thumbs:

But 1) there is no interpretation called for in those events and 2) there were eyewitnesses to those events. Can I get you some more rope? :laugh:

Again, where the context speaks to doctrine, there is ample explanation. If the context speaks to events, we definitely don't get doctrine from events, or parables, etc. These are only confirming of doctrines already explained elsewhere. Now if we could just agree on the doctrine that IS described elsewhere -- like Rom 8:29-30.

Quite obviously --- 'cause none of them was there at their appointment.

Thankfully, all NT doctrines are explained by the apostles or Jesus somewhere. Which reminds me, I ran into it again the other day ---- the OT saints aren't regenerated yet so either a) none of them is saved or b) the Augustinian/Calvinist/Reform model of salvation (in that it requires regeneration before faith) is pretty much false doctrine.

Ditto, bro. This passage can only confirm or deny one of our doctrines wherein the proof lies somewhere else (which is what I said already).

skypair

 

Hi TC;

First of all Luke is not recording what he saw but what he heard. Luke was not a one of the witnesses.
If what you said above is true; Then what's wrong with the majority of scripture that clearly states Belief comes first?. Where does scripture say we are appointed to believe?. It only makes sense that we believe first. No one is saved that doesn't believe. No one is saved so that they will believe. Belief takes time. We have to know what to believe. We can't believe unless we learn of Him first.
MB

 

Hi MB,

I hope we both agree that a person is saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8).

The "reporting" of Luke was a term used by Skypair; I was only responding to him.

According to most NT scholars and commentators, Luke didn't join the Pauline gang until Acts 16:10.

Acts 13:48 says that those appointed to eternal life believed. That's where it is stated.

Also, we find this in 2 Thess 2:13:

"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" (TNIV, emphasis mine).

MB, I go by what I see in Scripture. I have nothing else but Scripture.

 

You bet we do agree on that, though we may disagree as to the process at which Salvation is given to man. Man doesn't earn it or deserve it.

That's what I get for not reading Sky's post as well. Forgive me?

Which is why most don't believe he wrote it.

Do you believe we are the first fruits?

I have no doubts that you are a well educated man. I know you have a Love for God and His word that shows through in your conversations. I know it seems it's always an argument over doctrine between you and I but we do agree on alot as well. We just don't argue over what we agree on.

MB

 

That's why we'll be in glory together--we have neither earned nor deserved our salvation.

I got you.

That's another debate, my brother.

This too is another debate. What is meant be first fruits in this context? Why some versions don't read "first fruits"?

It's good that we agree on the essentials.

 

Skypair,

First off, your hubris and pejorative comments are really not appreciated. If you were actually arguing for your position from any kind of substantive textual considerations (ie. discussing the Greek of the passage), perhaps I would not think your comments as ridiculous as I already do.

You wrote:

There is no need for me to "come to my senses." This comment was directed at you. Anyone who knows Greek can easily see this passage does not, in any way, shape, or form, support your presupposition about it.

Certainly you can argue for libertarian freedom of the will; you simply cannot do it from Acts 13:48.

You originally wrote:

This is what I was refuting. My exegesis of the passage is accurate. The word is a perfect passive participle. And, to reiterate, it means the persons in question could not have appointed themselves (that would require the uses of the "middle" voice, not passive. And while it is remotely possible to read the word as a "middle" you are faced with the crushing truth that the word is also "Perfect" tense. The Greek perfect shows something that has been done in the past with benefits stretching into the present. So, for you to be right, that they appointed themselves, or something like that, you would have to argue these persons, some time ago, appointed themselves to eternal life and that benefit is now realized in the present.). Luke's construction shows something very simple--a choice was made in the past by someone other than the persons in question. What choice? They were appointed (by someone else other than themselves) to eternal life.

I am not interpreting right now. I am reporting what the text actually says. There is no way around it--you are simply wrong and your argument is absolutely indefensible by the rules of the Greek language alone.

You know, there is something else at work here. It is painfully obvious that you do not know Greek. TC and I, while perhaps not experts, are well-versed in the language. After many tries and much hard work, I became an "A" student in Greek. You, however, have never argued your position from the Greek. I'm assuming it is because you don't know Greek (and that assumption is proved by your kicking against the text in this passage).

It is almost as if you are debating the phrase "To be or not to be" from Shakespeare's Hamlet. We are not asking about interpretation. The question simply is this: Did Shakespeare write it and do the words actually say (not mean) "To be or not to be?" Certainly you would affirm that Shakespeare wrote it and certainly you would affirm that the actual words are "To be or not to be." In the same way, I am not trying to interpret the passage. It simply says a certain group of people were appointed (by someone else--Passive voice) sometime in the past (Perfect tense) to eternal life.

You talk about yourself as a pilot. From your moniker, I assume you fly for Fed-Ex. Regardless, as a Pilot you are the "expert." I would not presume to tell you how to fly a plane because I am not trained to fly. In the same way, since you don't know Greek, you should not presume to tell me what the text says for I can read it as it actually is.

You, of course, are free to interpret the passage, but any proper interpretation is always based on the text, not in contradiction to it. Your current interpretation lies in direct opposition to the plain meaning of the text. It is as if (to return to the pilot metaphor) you are trusting your own eyes rather than the artificial horizon.

We must trust the text--it is always right. Unfortunately, you are trusting your own presuppositions which are, in this case, quite unreliable. Just as trusting your eyes, in opposition to the artificial horizon, will lead to destruction, trusting yourself in opposition to the text will also lead to destruction.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Skypair,

More tidbits.....

You wrote:

This is truly unfortunate. I think I remember reading that all scripture is profitable....? Yes, that's right, it is in the Bible:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)
​

It does not matter where in the scripture it is, it is all profitible. That is, of course, unless you are saying you think Luke not to be scripture. Or maybe it's just Luke's Acts 13:48 you think is not scripture. But then, you have no right to cut out the verses you don't like from the Bible. True Christianity is not a smorgasbord religion--where we get to pick and choose what what we like from the text and discard what we don't like.

Blessings (and prayers!),

The Archangel

 

Well, AA,

You're right -- I don't know Greek. Congratulations on your mastery of whatever level you "aced." But I was not arguing against your interpretation of "appointed" either. I accept that their "appointment to eternal life" was past on account of their belief being foreknown. This still effectually puts the salvation "choice" where it belongs.

Further, I guess you know that the NT was written to be understood in many languages, not just one. "Spirit" vs. OT "letter." We do have debates about varoius translations but the gospel is clear as is the means of salvation. Calvinists often like to say (for instance, to the question of how God chooses whom He chooses to salvation), "It is in the hidden decrees of God." Well, maybe "election" and "appointment" ought to remain "hidden decrees" and we ought not remark on things we are only guessing at.

Also, ALL navigation is "dead reckoning" -- you reckon where you are by what you see. Therefore, though an "artificial horizon" is helpful, it has it's limits vis-a-vis reality. Sometimes it is wrong or inoperative. Which brings us back to the Bible vs. Calvinism, doesn't it? :laugh: Which one do you propose is the "artificial horizon" to ostensibly help us see what we can't see?

I posited this on another thread elsewhere but think about this --- the Bible says that Christ died "not for our sins only but the sins of the whole world." But you are not trusting in that, are you. To me, that you don't trust 1John 2:2 but do trust Calvinism as regards whose sins Christ died for suggests that you are either not in a trust relationship with God of the Bible OR you are trying to serve 2 masters at once. One Master says "all" and the other says "elect." One Master says "all" and the other says "limited atonement."

If you get anything from corresponding with me, I hope it will be that you resolve this trust issue. Yeah, I can agree with you about "appointment" (your point is well taken and I, myself, shouldn't get "tunnel vision" focusing on one word) take it in context, and still come out favoring my view that foreknowledge of "belief" (also mentioned in the verse) precedes "appointment." So your Greek here, while laudable, does little to resolve the tension between the Biblicism and Calvinism.

skypair

 

Skypair,

You wrote:

You can believe what you'd like. Your belief that "appointed" refers to a "foreknown" belief is mistaken--the text provides no support for that, but you are still free to believe what you'd like. Also, not to nitpick, but, your use of "foreknew" is not accurate. Romans 8, where I assume you are getting this, does not mean to "know beforehand." This word is a Hebraic usage of Greek by Paul and it means to "choose beforehand."

I should have specified: I was meaning when you can't see (ie. where you don't have information--when you can't see because of fog or clouds), the artificial horizon, not your "feeling," is always right.

I will gladly and readily admit that this is a difficult passage for a Calvinist to swallow. I trust that, in some way, Christ's death was for the whole world (after all, creation itself is groaning, waiting for redemption). However, this is not saying that all people's sins have been paid for. If all people's sins were, in fact, paid for, there would be no sheep and no goats--only sheep.

Interestingly enough, the "General Baptists" of England degraded into universalism precisely because they understood what the atonement was (an actual payment) but, they applied it to everyone (thus "General" for general atonement)--positing that ALL were saved through Christ's death on the cross, regardless of what one believed.

I have a professor-friend who is a 4-pointer, rejecting limited atonement. He is very open and honest that his position has one major flaw: For God to send people to hell whose sins have already been paid for by Christ amounts to an (unjust) double-payment.

I respect his position, but I don't agree. So, the "all" passages do reflect a type of universal benefit of Christ's death, but they do not necessarily have to be speaking of effectual salvation.

Furthermore, Calvin did not invent "Limited Atonement." Calvin was essentially Augustinian in his theology and Augustine was Pauline. There are many indisputable passages clearly showing Limited Atonement. So, there are not "two masters." You are coming dangerously close (again) to saying that Calvinists do not believe the Bible and are, therefore, not saved.

Certainly the so-called "all" passages are difficult, especially for Calvinists. However, careful exegesis shows (along with semantic ranges of usage) that all does not have to mean each and every. Since we know Christ's death actually accomplished something (actually paying for actual sins) and we know that not everyone will be saved (there will be sheep; there will be goats), we can know that all (especially in the passage you mentioned) cannot mean each and every.

Unfortunately, from our corresponding, I see you are more beholden to your presuppositions about libertarian free will than you are to good Biblical theology. Often you do not argue from a biblical background. Rather, you argue from your presuppositions--which many people do, even this Calvinist.

One more thing, in the verse, Acts 13:48, belief does not precede appointment. In Greek the clause "As many as were appointed to eternal life" follows "Believed." This is because the clause "As many as were appointed to eternal life" is a clarifying clause modifying believed. The clause, because of the Perfect tense of the participle, shows a pre-existing condition to the belief. Luke writes this to show the appointment preceded the belief and the belief was a result of the appointment. Again, this verse will never say or support what you want it to.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

In defense of skypair, I don't see "libertarian freewill" from his view. In fact, I have yet to see this view from any non cal in the baptist only forum (couple in the other denom's forum).

 

scripture

God is sovreign. He had the Holy Bible translated just the way He wanted it and He doen't need us to retranslate it to fit our own benefit.

God had the Holy Bible translated in the right time, because then the actually feared God. They believed if the mistranslated the Holy Bible. They would be struck down dead like the one who carried the arc wrong.

It is foreknew it adds up to the rest of the scripture thast God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and that He did love the world that He sent His Son

 

This, too, will doubtless be argued until Christ comes (soon, I hope!).

Yes, it's good "backup" when you can't see. My point was do you really need a "backup" to scripture?

No, sir. Can you not understand the concept of BELIEF unto salvation? Even with all one's sins paid for "in full," "tetalesti," that does NOT orient the soul towards God. The way you speak of this latter, it is done by God to the elect. The way the Bible says it happens is one believes toward God and THEN God elects to His purpose.

Let me suggest a "sheep and goats model" for your consideration -- the 2 are represent belief and unbelief, not "sins paid for" and "sins not paid for."

They were right to a point. ALL WILL be resurrected to Christ because their sin IS paid for. But it is to the GWT, Rev 20:11, the judgment of UNBELIEVERS whose name was NOT in the "book of life" or, better, "book of faith."

You are the one that insists on FAITH ALONE," aren't you? Then how come iyour sotierology operates on "ELECTION ALONE?" Under "election alone," you make faith unnecessary to regeneration/rebirth and, hence, salvation.

AA, I would first say that "limited atonement" is just the first and most obvious issue in Calvinism that demonstrates a lack of trust in the Bible and an inordinate trust in that theology. Remember now, you are at best dividing your trust between God and men on this first issue. If you can't even explain what is "universal benefit" about Christ's death, I wouldn't even pretend that you should go any farther into the theology.

Yes, sir. I omitted to mention many names, even Plato's for his logical contributions. However, Paul was NOT in their line. In fact, he warned against other men such as Cephas, Apollos, etal. who were trying to what he himself taught but without understanding (if you recall, even Peter says Paul was hard to understand which some wrested with to their own destruction, 2Pet 3:16!).

Never said that last -- never will. Such misunderstandings of my comments are suggestive of paranoia, AA. Please show me the "limited atonement" passages you think are conclusive.

False premises will always get you a false deduction. As you have already admitted, you don't know what is "universal" about Christ's death -- so why would you use that as a premise to prove anything?

We're really kinda "trippin'" back and forth in time here, aren't we? They WERE appointed before they believed but they were appointed because, before they were appointed it was foreknown that they would believe. So basically, both your remarks and mine are true -- unless you dismiss "foreknowledge." But you can't very well do that without dismissing God's omnicience aside from it being an exercise of His "raw sovereignty."

Blessings to you AA,

skypair

 

Skypair,

I am tiring of beating this dead horse, especially when your take on the passage stands diametrically opposed the grammar and syntax of the Greek language. But, since I'm a glutton for things like this....

You wrote:

There you go again. Of course I, as well as most Calvinists I am aware of, agree that one must believe, even if the sins are, because of the cross, paid in full.

The text of Acts 13:48 says that the ones who believe did the believing but that God did the appointing. The nature of the grammar and syntax shows, without a doubt, however that God's electing purposes come first and man's believing comes second.

In this passage, there is no way around this. From this passage, it simply cannot be argued that belief precedes God's electing purpose. Luke presents man believing precisely because of God's electing them in the past.

This is where your eisegesis comes out. Your are not seeking to understand what the passage actually says. Rather, you are holding to you presupposition (a libertarian free will presupposition) that man's action (belief, in this case) must precede God's electing purpose. So, you are reading your presupposition into the passage rather than taking the passage for what it actually says.

Luke is showing (whether it is an observation or a doctrinal statement is absolutely irrelevant) these people believed because God chose them. They were not chosen because they believed (our would believe).

Also, I in no way dismiss "foreknowledge." Certainly God knows all; He sees time as one unit, not a progression. Again, your use of foreknowledge here is outside of the biblical stream of thought. When Paul uses foreknowledge, again, it is a Hebraic expression meaning to choose before hand. There is no grammatical or syntactical way out of that one either, for you that is.

Isaiah 46:8-10

8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (ESV; emphasis mine)
​

I'll admit, I'm being very nit-picky with this. But, since you admittedly don't know Greek, it would be better for you to refrain from statements such as the one above. I'm reminded of advice I should take too: It is better to have people think you to be a fool, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Unfortunately, "Book of Life" is exactly correct. The Greek word is zo-ah (the root word, not the inflected word) and it means life. Were it to mean "book of faith" the word you'd need would be pistos, the Greek word for faith.

To summarize, probably for the final time, Acts 13:48 clearly shows God's election preceding man's belief. There is simply no way around this in this passage. The ultimate question is this: Will you be submissive to the text of scripture or will you continue to cling to your presuppositions even when they are not in line with the scripture?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That's my Archangel! :laugh:

Shades of Ronald Reagan. That's good!

So why then is "appointment by God" the first prerequisite of salvation?

Ahead of the believing --- but NOT ahead of the foreknowledge of it, right? Whether you call foreknowledge "forelove" or "foresee," that is what comes before "predestined," right?

You are confounding the issues, AA. There IS something that precedes "predestination"/"electing purpose," Rom 8:29.

I appreciate your lengths to show me my mistake. But to put election before predestination contradicts other scripture for sure and this one to the extent that you give preference to your predestination over foreknowledge.

Ah! How do you know this?? That assertion is speculative, is it not?

No. There are systems of thought that say this. They have even managed to get their thoughts placed in theological dictionaries, as you well know. It's INTERPRETATION, AA. Nobody is saying that God doesn't know the end from the beginning. that is a weak citation, AA.

And let me respond that, like Paul, I only vouch for what I know. 1Cor 4:2-6 -- especially "I judge not my own self. For I know nothing of myself..." If I am a fool, it is for Christ, AA. There is nothing in scripture that says my hope is in my election -- in something that has nothing to do with my own choices and decisions. I'm sorry if that is offensive but I believe that God has given me both control and responsibility for my eternal destiny and I don't think you can assert anything to the contrary with any kind of biblical persuasiveness.

OR -- will you be submissive to the Spirit or to the "letter?"

skypair

 

Skypair,

It is late, so I must be brief.

You wrote in reference to "foreknew."

First off, you don't understand. The use of "foreknew" simply means to choose beforehand. The Old Testament usage of yada (the verb to know) is used in God's discussion of Abraham. God says He "knew" Abraham. Interestingly, this is the same word used in the euphemism for sexual relationships. The Hebrew yada has a range of meanings and one of those meanings is to choose and that is based on God's initiation of a covenant relationship (thus the same word is used for the covenant relationship of marriage when referring to the sex act).

Paul is using it this way and that is not an interpretation. It is simple Greek. Also, the same expression is used of Christ in 1 Peter 1:20. Certainly you wouldn't suggest God simply "knew beforehand" in this case. Christ was chosen--the lamb slain--before the foundation of the world. Peter makes that case (again, the Hebraic expression translated, so to speak, into Greek).

This is not something I got from a Theological Dictionary. I simply know my biblical languages. But, if you insist, there are several commentaries which clearly trace the semantic range of the word "foreknew" in Greek and none of those ranges goes anywhere close to what you are saying.

Further, you must not be able to read well. The citation of Isaiah clearly says that God declaresthe end from the beginning. You assume, wrongly, that this is a reference to knowing the end from the beginning. This is simply not so. The passage clearly indicates it is God who declares the end from the beginning.

Not at all, it is the same issue. And yes, God's choosing comes before predestination, just as Romans 8:29 says.

These are not at odds since the Spirit will never contradict the letter.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I always though it means to know beforehand. It takes a real jump to come to "choose beforehand"...

fore·knowplay_w("F0252500") (fôr-n, fr-) tr.v. fore·knew, fore·known, fore·know·ing, fore·knows To have foreknowledge of, especially by supernatural means or through revelation.

hm();Sources=Sources | 2;

 

First off, we're talking about a Greek word "prognostica" that you are comparing to a Hebrew expression. No. That's patently manufactured out of scraps of "old cloth."

Yes, that is the same interpretation I have heard before. The fact that there is a "range of meanings" and you Calvinists happen to pick the one you did is suspicious to say the least. Why not go with "pro" = "fore" and "gnostica" = "know?" O, I know -- that would be exegeting rather than eisogeting! :laugh:

Futher, that interpretation makes "foreknow" more like the rape of Dinah than the choosing and initiating of an eternal relationship with someone like Abraham whom you would think God would know, doesn't it.

Same word, right? Did God "choose" Jesus? Did He have to? No. But He certainly knew from the foundation of the world what He, God, would do as Jesus. See, now you're getting to the real meaning of the word -- not choose but know!

See, I'm having a real problem seeing how a Hebrew expression gets into your Greek translation. It's INTERPRETATION you're doing and it is predicated on knowledge collected somewhere else.

Except, I'll bet, the "simple Greek" translation. How does a compound word with one simple meaning for each part of the compound get bivaricated into "a range of meanings" and "a Hebrew expression" like "yada???

Do you figure maybe He KNEW what He was tallking about before He "declared" it? Makes sense to me. Are you saying He "declares" it without knowing -- like "shooting from the hip?"

OK, so you have "whom He did forechoose, He did forechoose?"

skypair