• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

the "all" verse 18 and the "many" in 19

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Scott J:
qb] ...or we can accept an understanding that is consistent with the rest of Romans, Paul's writings, and the Bible as a whole. Has the free gift come upon all men? Or has it come to mankind? As I asked earlier: "Are you arguing for universalism? Or against God's sovereignty?"
That's just it. The idea that Christ died for all IS consistent with Scripture. I'm not arguing for universalism, but I disagree with the Calvinist definition of sovereignty. Calvinists work backwards to explain away all. I prefer to start with the Scriptures and work my way forward. As I've shown, Paul uses all in a very specific way. When he doesn't mean all, he gives a limiting word.

There's also a very parallel idea. If all means all as far as condemnation goes, why would the all change meanings, when he creates a parallel ideas?

Neither the righteousness nor the gospel of Christ has come upon all men. If His righteousness had come upon all men then all would be saved. Also, have all men heard the gospel?
Or, if his righteousness was offered to all men, coming in the form of the Holy Spirit, we have no contradiction. Romans 1:18-20 makes it sound like no one is without excuse. In your point of view, does this mean that children who haven't heard the gospel are saved or not? How about those who haven't heard the gospel? Are they damned or saved?

If you say that someone who died without hearing the gospel might have been saved had they heard it then it follows that God must be responsible for their demise since He did not send them a witness. You would be quilty of what arminians wrongly accuse calvinists of believing."
But we believe in free choice! What if it's man's fault they didn't go? What if it's our fault, instead of God's? (Kinda like the whole sin thing - Arminians say that it's man's fault we screwed up - not some eternal decree.)

The previous verse says absolutely nothing about those who choose to sin. It refers one man's offense which caused death to reign and contrast that with the those who reign in Christ. In spite of your condescending tone, you have stripped this scripture from its context in an effort to make it say more than it does. Nothing in a normal reading and understanding of this passage invalidates Calvinism. You are left to seize upon individual words and verses out of context or to draw meaningless generalizations in order to make your point.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Do we not choose to sin? Who committed the many trespasses? That's just it - in a normal reading, we take what we read as what it is - we don't try to "explain" it away somehow. To do such strips away its meaning. I've shown how Paul uses the world "all." He's very specific in his uses. Almost every book in the NT says something about Christ dying for the world, Him loving the world, or Him coming for all men. There's too much there to explain away because of a Calvinist presupposition.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I've shown how Paul uses the world "all." He's very specific in his uses.
No you haven't. You missed it here becuase Paul is not arguing for universalism which you have to if you believe "all" means "all without exception." You missed the boat.
 

russell55

New Member
As I've shown, Paul uses all in a very specific way. When he doesn't mean all, he gives a limiting word.
No, you've simply shown that sometimes Paul uses limiting words, and then you are assuming that every time he doesn't limit the word, it means everyone in the world. That's a big assumption.

There's also a very parallel idea. If all means all as far as condemnation goes, why would the all change meanings, when he creates a parallel ideas?
Yes, Paul is using the idea that these things are in some way the same, but working in opposite directions. But he is doing the same thing in 1 Cor 15 too, and there the groups are obviously not the same. Why would they be here?

It is interesting to note that the words "the free gift" is not in the original Greek. What does justification mean? It means embued righteousness, correct? I think we can look at the previous verse to explain this. Death reigned for people who chose to sin, so Christ brings life for people who choose to follow him.
You know what? You too have made the two groups be different groups. The first one, Adam's group, is now every single person ever born. The second one, Christ's group, is now all those who choose to follow him. Your groups have become, for all practical purposes, the same ones the Calvinists say they are: those "in Adam" and those "in Christ".

[ June 20, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
 

KayDee

New Member
I haven’t noticed anyone mention vs 17 to explain the alls of verse 18. Someone objected to the use of 1 Cor. 15 (which surprised me since every serious student of the Word knows Scripture interprets Scripture) but surely you can’t object to the preceding verse especially since there is a “therefore” connecting the two verses.

Romans 5:17
If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

How much more clear can Paul get? The second all refers tothose who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness. As has been stated many times, to believe otherwise is universalism. You can’t get around that no matter how hard you try. It seems to me that sometimes we tend to overlook the obvious in trying to prove our presuppositions.

In His Grace
KayDee
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
Pastor Larry,

I am going to use one of your word gymnastics and mental stretches.

Romans 3:23 says, ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' All doesn't mean each of His created beings, because I am French by way of nationality. He obviously is speaking of all of certain blocks of people in His world, but in my case it does not apply.

In your weighty, opinion, does ALL in Romans 3:23 really mean every person who has lived or ever will live?
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
Some people have been taught wrongfully that Christ if He did die for the sins of all people, must save everyone, a kind of universalistic salvation. Nothing is lost if Christ died for everyone, but not all receive Christ and are saved. Their ultimate damnation cannot be laid at His feet or to His charge. He made available salvation for everyone, but He does not ramrod or strong-arm people into the Kingdom of God. This was decreed by God who made us in His Image, so we can have freedom to either receive or to reject His marvelous grace.

Christ died for the sins of the ‘rich young ruler,' but the ruler thought the cost of obeying Christ's demands were off his scope of human reasoning. He did not want to give up his riches. In this passage Jesus did not hint of your clandestine hidden election, but tells His disciples that because people are human/sinful there is a tendency of the rich to miss the Kingdom. [Matthew 19:20].

Mark 10:20 is even more expressive of God's love for this man. ‘Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .' If he was destined to Hell according to your erring system, then why do we have Christ loving this rich man. After all, all of the non-elect were despised from the foundation of the world and or bypassed as the moderate Calvinists like to affirm.

According to my understanding Christ would have saved this man but this rich man was like one of those souls where ‘the seed fell on the wrong ground.' [Matt. 13:3-9] By this I mean that His good word/the seed was rejected because of the hardness of the rich man's heart. Here is where Resistible Grace becomes a clear doctrinal teaching for the Christian church and all who love and discern His truth.

I was told that the United Church in Canada has deleted from their Bible all references to the Creation fact. They believe the Creation event of the Bible to be fiction and accept a more evolutionary position as to beginning events. I notice also, that Calvinists have nothing to say about the different soils, [Matt. 13:3-8] depicting the readiness or lack thereof of human response to His most glorious Gospel and grace. You can still believe in grace, as we do, and also believe this portion of holy Scripture.
 

KayDee

New Member
Some people have been taught wrongfully that Christ if He did die for the sins of all people, must save everyone, a kind of universalistic salvation. Nothing is lost if Christ died for everyone, but not all receive Christ and are saved.

But if Christ died for everyone then some of His plan failed because of man. I used to believe and still hear over and over that Christ died for everyone’s sin except the sin of unbelief. But, then I realized, all sins must be covered by the blood – if He didn’t die for the sin of unbelief, when would it be covered by the blood? It wouldn’t be. Even our future sin was covered and we have an Advocate with the father – but I’ve seen no place in Scripture that covers the sin of unbelief. So, when a person of his own “free will” chooses to believe in Christ, how does that sin of unbelief get covered.

Their ultimate damnation cannot be laid at His feet or to His charge. He made available salvation for everyone, but He does not ramrod or strong-arm people into the Kingdom of God.

God gives us a heart of flesh so we are able to willingly believe the Gospel and accept Him as our Savior and make Him Lord of our lives. No strong-armming or ramroding there!! Just being drawn to Him because we are His sheep.

This was decreed by God who made us in His Image, so we can have freedom to either receive or to reject His marvelous grace.

Where was this decreed ?

Christ died for the sins of the ‘rich young ruler,' but the ruler thought the cost of obeying Christ's demands were off his scope of human reasoning. He did not want to give up his riches. In this passage Jesus did not hint of your clandestine hidden election,

There was nothing clandestine or hidden regarding His response – see below.

but tells His disciples that because people are human/sinful there is a tendency of the rich to miss the Kingdom. [Matthew 19:20].

But you failed to quote verse 26 which answers the disciples question regarding who can be saved – “ With men this is impossible , but with God all things are possible."

Mark 10:20 is even more expressive of God's love for this man. ‘Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .' If he was destined to Hell according to your erring system, then why do we have Christ loving this rich man. After all, all of the non-elect were despised from the foundation of the world and or bypassed as the moderate Calvinists like to affirm.

Of course, Jesus loved him. Mat. 5:43 tells us to love our enemies – wouldn’t He do the same? He just didn’t love him in the same way as He loves His own.

According to my understanding Christ would have saved this man but this rich man was like one of those souls where ‘the seed fell on the wrong ground.' [Matt. 13:3-9] By this I mean that His good word/the seed was rejected because of the hardness of the rich man's heart. Here is where Resistible Grace becomes a clear doctrinal teaching for the Christian church and all who love and discern His truth.

I was told that the United Church in Canada has deleted from their Bible all references to the Creation fact. They believe the Creation event of the Bible to be fiction and accept a more evolutionary position as to beginning events. I notice also, that Calvinists have nothing to say about the different soils, [Matt. 13:3-8] depicting the readiness or lack thereof of human response to His most glorious Gospel and grace. You can still believe in grace, as we do, and also believe this portion of holy Scripture.

This comparison between the United Church in Canada and Calvinists seems bit much. Especially since Calvinists probably haven’t addressed the Parable of the Sower because Scripture does. In verses 11-12 we see that Jesus spoke in parables so that not all would understand since it was not given to them to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Word does not always fall on fertile ground because God has not made it fertile.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
i am going to use one of your word gymnastics and mental stretches
They are not mine. I am simply reading the verse as it stands.

Romans 3:23 says, ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' All doesn't mean each of His created beings, because I am French by way of nationality. He obviously is speaking of all of certain blocks of people in His world, but in my case it does not apply.

In your weighty, opinion, does ALL in Romans 3:23 really mean every person who has lived or ever will live?
My opinion is certainly not weighty but you are right that not 'all' of God's created beings without exception are sinners. A great many angels have never sinned. However, the context is not talking about angels so not even you believe that all means all. It is clearly in teh context of all human beings in teh likeness of Adam.

You are still ignoring my point though (for obvious reasons). It all are made righteous as Rom 5 says, then no one goes to hell. How do you answer this? In what sense are "all made righteous" and if all are made righteous as you say, on what basis does God send anyone to hell??
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
Where was it decreed? (free will) In eternity past-- and to bring it into our time framework all we have to do is read John 3:16 . . . .
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
Romans 5:18 cannot mean a universalism as though all will finally be saved. He provided salvation for all, but immediately afterword says that only--- ' . . . many will be made righteous.' (vs. 19).

What makes a person among the elect is they either are 'justified' or never become 'justified' by God in Christ. (Romans 5:9).

The only thing in question is does God autocratically select or does man after the prompting of the Holy Spirit--chose Christ as personal Savior. (free will)
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The only thing in question is does God autocratically select or does man after the prompting of the Holy Spirit--chose Christ as personal Savior. (free will)
We know man's "free will" is limited because of the effect of the Fall on his nature.

(John 6:44 NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(Acts 13:48 NKJV) Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The limitations on man's ability and the freedom of God to appoint are upheld by these verses. Anyone can buck against these verses from now 'til Doomsday and they cannot be refuted(another human limitation
)

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
We know man's "free will" is limited because of the effect of the Fall on his nature.

(John 6:44 NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
And God draws all.

(Acts 13:48 NKJV) Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
The word used for as had been appointed is a periphrastic phrase and can just as easily be translated as 'appointed themselves' as 'appointed to' according to the grammar rules.

Anyone can buck against these verses from now 'til Doomsday and they cannot be refuted(another human limitation
)
They can and they have been. You just "choose" not to accept it.

Ken
Were it not for grace...[/QB][/QUOTE]
 

KayDee

New Member
Ray

The verses & responses you gave have been discussed over and over and we obviously disagree...and that is fine. I tried to bring up something I haven't seen discussed before but you chose to ignore it...possibly unintentionally...would you care to respond?

But if Christ died for everyone then some of His plan failed because of man's decision . I used to believe and still hear over and over that Christ died for everyone’s sin except the sin of unbelief. But, then I realized, all sins must be covered by the blood – if He didn’t die for the sin of unbelief, when would it be covered by the blood? It wouldn’t be.
In His Grace
KayDee
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
And God draws all.
No, He does not. If He did, then everyone who ever lives will be saved.

The word used for as had been appointed is a periphrastic phrase and can just as easily be translated as 'appointed themselves' as 'appointed to' according to the grammar rules.[
Only if you use the Jehovah Witnesses' translation.

They can and they have been. You just "choose" not to accept it.
Then present your evidence. I choose, due to regeneration, to believe God rather than men.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
No, He does not. If He did, then everyone who ever lives will be saved.
There is an overwhelming block of evidence that shows that Christ died for all men. In the same logic that even though not all who Christ died for gets saved, not all who is drawn to him become saved.

How about this question? In Hebrews 6, it says that it is impossible for those "enlightened by the Holy Spirit" to be saved again - since you don't believe this is talking about those who can lose their salvation, how is it possible people are enlightened by the Holy Spirit yet not saved?

]Only if you use the Jehovah Witnesses' translation.
Or if you read the Greek for what it's worth.

Then present your evidence. I choose, due to regeneration, to believe God rather than men.

i did. You said it was impossible to debunk those verses. I and many Arminians have been able to debunk them. You just choose not to believe them.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
There is an overwhelming block of evidence that shows that Christ died for all men. In the same logic that even though not all who Christ died for gets saved, not all who is drawn to him become saved.
If that is the case, then why has no one, no one, ever been able to refute the evidence for particular redemption in John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ? :D

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
There is an overwhelming block of evidence that shows that Christ died for all men. In the same logic that even though not all who Christ died for gets saved, not all who is drawn to him become saved.
If that is the case, then why has no one, no one, ever been able to refute the evidence for particular redemption in John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ? :D

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
</font>[/QUOTE]Have you read the book "Grace of God, Will of Man?" I would strongly suggest that you just haven't been reading the right materials! How about "The Day Christ Died" by Lightener?

Or this (although it doesn't mention Owen by name as the other two do): from http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/atone.htm

The provision of the Atonement for sin is for all men everywhere. The doctrine of Election has been misunderstood by some to mean that Christ died for a few elect people who had been given to Him by the Father and who were therefore chosen in eternity past to be His people. It is quite true that the Atonement, having been planned and worked out by God Himself, is His own personal property, and that He is absolutely sovereign in the use He chooses to make of it. Furthermore, we recognize that through the Atonement the way is now open for God to forgive and redeem as many as He chooses to call to Himself. It is His divine prerogative to save few, many, or all of the human race as He deems best. God alone is the Savior of men, and we acknowledge also from the Scripture, and from what we have seen in the world, that He does not save all. But, as relates to the extent of the Atonement, it is incorrect to say that Christ died only for those whom God saw fit to save.

I will go on record as one who affirms belief in the absolute sovereignty of God, and that nothing does or can occur except by His will. But belief in the sovereignty of God does not suggest that God acts arbitrarily without good reasons, reasons so good and so weighty, that He could in no case act otherwise than He does. Any view of divine sovereignty that implies arbitrariness on the part of the divine will, is not only contrary to Scripture but is revolting to reason. In His sovereignty God claims the right to dispose of His creatures as He will, but it is unthinkable and unscriptural, to say the least, that divine sovereignty arbitrarily condemns some men and in hard despotism sends them into the lake of fire.

I believe also in God’s foreknowledge, that is, that future events are foreknown to God, and that history will follow that foreknown course of future events. Since God’s foreknowledge is perfect, He knows the destiny of every person from eternity. But this does not in any wise rule out the biblical truth of free agency in man. Foreknowledge is not merely an arbitrary God saying: “I know what I will do.” To be sure He does know what He will do, but in the matter of an individual’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, it is only fair to add that God knows what that individual will do.

Calvin used the truth of God’s perfect foreknowledge to set forth the mistaken idea of limited Atonement. He said that “God would have been inconsistent in sending Christ to die for those He positively foreknow would be lost.” After Calvin’s death, other men wrote on his ideas. One writer, in attempting to illustrate the above quotation from Calvin says, “Even a man does not expect what he knows will not be accomplished. If he knows, for instance, that out of a group of thirty persons who might be invited to a banquet a certain twenty will accept and ten will not, then, even though he may still make his invitation broad enough to include the thirty, he expects only the twenty, and his work of preparation is done only on their behalf. They do not deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all men, for what is that but to attribute folly to Him whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly.”

But did the writer use a sound illustration ? I don’t think so! When God invites all men to be saved, the preparation is the same whether few, many, or all accept. The Atonement was just as necessary for one sinner as it was for one million sinners. If only ten percent of the human race accepts Jesus Christ as Saviour, He did not die in vain. There could be no waste. The number who receive or reject Christ has nothing to do with the preparation of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Belief in God’s foreknowledge in no wise demands belief in His arbitrary condemnation of certain of His creatures. Such is an extreme view on limited atonement.

Another view that sets forth a way of salvation through Christ is Universalism. An extreme view on unlimited atonement is offered by Universalism, which holds that Christ died for all men and that eventually all men will be saved, if not in this life, then through a future probation. This view has made a strong and successful appeal to the feelings of many, and it is a belief almost as old as Christianity. Universalism says, “We believe that there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.” In other words, Universalism teaches the universal fatherhood of God, and the final harmony of all souls with God.

One variety of Universalism holds that this has been made possible through the Death of Christ, and their followers quote I Corinthians 15:22 for their proof text “. . . For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” But they misinterpret the text. The entire fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians has to do with the resurrection of the body, and it is by the power of the living Christ that the bodies of all men will be raised, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. And if the Universalist insists upon using the statement, “in Christ shall all be made alive,” to mean spiritual life, then he has no right to insist that all will receive spiritual life apart from being “in Christ.” If a man is not “in Christ,” he must be “in Adam,” and only those who are “in Christ” are in the place of life. This leaves all outside who are anti-Christ and who, because of pride, selfishness, lust and indifference have refused to accept Christ.

Or, let us look at the verse from another viewpoint. The whole context is addressed to believers, and all believers who fall asleep in Christ are in Adam from the standpoint of the physical, or else they would not have died. After one becomes a Christian he does not escape physical death which God pronounced upon Adam when he sinned and fell. In the body we are in the man Adam by whom comes death, but by being in Christ by grace, we are assured of the resurrection from that death. In the first case it is by necessity of nature--it is heredity, in the other it is by our own free choice--it is personal.

That there is a sound biblical view on the extent of the Atonement between these two extreme views seems very clear. The teaching of Scripture regarding the satisfaction and propitiation made through the Death of the Son of God means that He died for all. The provision of the Atonement is for all.

He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2: 2).

The message of the Gospel is that Christ died for all.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all . . . (I Timothy 2:5-6).

The Atonement is unlimited in scope, available for all. The love of God displayed in Christ on the Cross at Calvary reached out to the whole world, and when God gave His only begotten Son, it was “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s desire is to save all men.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (I Timothy 2:3-4).

Since God’s will and wish is that all men be saved, He has made ample provision for the salvation of all.

The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (II Peter 3:9).

A well-known passage in Ezekiel 18:32 says,

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Here the Lord pleads with men to turn to Him for life. We know that many did not turn, His pleading having gone unheeded. What mockery this language of God would be if they could not turn!

That the Atonement is universal in its offer and provision is clear from the following Scriptures,

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men (Titus 2:11).

Again we must accept this statement on its face value and concede that the grace of God has brought salvation within the reach of all men. The Apostle John sounds the same note when he says,

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world (I John 4:14).

The writer to the Hebrews says,

We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man (Hebrews 2:9).

Scriptures could be multiplied that show the universality of the provision of the Atonement, but these will suffice to make it clear “that He (Christ) died for all” (II Corinthians 5:15).

The opportunity of being born again, of beginning again in this life, is given to all men, for when Christ died as our substitute, universal Atonement was provided. The risen Christ said to His disciples,

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

The Gospel call to the entire world is a sincere one. Our Lord had a wider outlook than Judaism. It is true that He was sent especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, nevertheless He most certainly taught His disciples that they were to be witnesses unto Him “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8), and He was not sending them on a fool’s errand.

The Atonement is sufficient for all men, but it is efficient only for those who believe! The effectiveness of the Atonement in any one’s life is conditioned by faith. When one refuses to believe, his unbelief does not suggest a non-existence of the provision of salvation. God provided for the salvation of all men entirely apart from, and independent of, faith. Christ died for all men whether all men believe it or not. There is universal provision in the universal offer, and the fault is man’s if it be not universal in point of effect.

[ June 25, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It is His divine prerogative to save few, many, or all of the human race as He deems best. God alone is the Savior of men, and we acknowledge also from the Scripture, and from what we have seen in the world, that He does not save all. But, as relates to the extent of the Atonement, it is incorrect to say that Christ died only for those whom God saw fit to save.
Thanks for the post, Scott.

It would appear that the author does not believe in the atonement of Christ as being substitutionary in nature. If Christ died as the substitute for a person, then that person cannot be lost. I believe that Christ was the substitute for the punishment of His people, and because of this, I must also believe in a limited extent of the atonement, as I read in the Bible.

Also, Calvinism does not state that God arbitrarily condemns anyone to hell. Man is condemned to hell by his own sin, as I read in the Bible.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
My suggestion is to quit hiding behind versions and translations and get busy reading what the Greek scholars say about verses in the New Testament. These are all laymen's answers and poor excuses for really studying what God is really saying.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
My suggestion is to quit hiding behind versions and translations and get busy reading what the Greek scholars say about verses in the New Testament. These are all laymen's answers and poor excuses for really studying what God is really saying.
Very well, Ray. You asked for this. I am now bringing out the heavy artillery.
I just hope this is okay as it is rather lengthy but in order to be thorough in meeting your challenge I feel this is necessary. :D

"Acts 13:48

Well, this letter is more of a small book now, so I must hurry to the last topic I wished to address at this point. I will leave it to others to expand upon the many, many problems/errors/self-contradictions in your work, Dave. For now, I wish to close with the first passage I looked up in the solo copy of your work that lay upon your table at the PFO Conference in April: Acts 13:48, which is found on pp. 210-211. The text, as it is found in the NASB, reads,

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rather than quoting the entirety of the section, let me summarize your argument in the following points:

1) “ordained” is questionable reading

2) Many Greek scholars call it a wrong translation.

3) In none of the other uses in the NT does it refer to a decree from God

4) The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon does not give “ordain” or “foreordain” as a meaning of the term.

5) I Corinthians 16:15 in the KJV renders tassw as “addicted.”

6) “Many Greek experts” suggest the translation “disposed themselves to believe.”

7) Several authorities identify the KJV’s “wrong” rendering to the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate.

8) Dean Alford rendered it “disposed to eternal life believed.”

9) The Expositor’s Greek Testament says this is not about a divine decree.

10) A.T. Robertson said this passage does not decide the debate.

11) “Context” supports the rendering “disposed” rather than “ordained.”

The person wishing to see if this is a fair summary may consult the referenced pages. First, I note that you did not deal with the exegesis I offered in The Potter’s Freedom outside of simply mentioning the fact that I gave a list of the modern translations that render the passage “ordain” rather than any other translation. But you did not touch on the periphrastic construction that I explained on pages 188-189, nor did you mention the resultant tense meaning. But I shall bring this out as I respond to each point:

1) You say “ordained” is a questionable reading. In fact, you eventually say it is “wrong,” not just questionable. I think this should be well understood: the same man who said in a public address in my own hearing “I do not read Greek. It might as well be Chinese” has been able to determine that the vast majority of English translations have been duped, seemingly by the Latin Vulgate (point #7). When I say vast majority, I truly mean it. Let’s look at a list:

KJV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
NASB: and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed
NIV: and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
ASV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
ESV: and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
ISV: Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed.
NET: and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
NAB: All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.
NKJV: And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
NLT: and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.
NRSV: and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.
GNB: and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers
Jerus.: all who were destined for eternal life became believers.

Now, that’s a pretty impressive list. From the KJV to the ESV, the published translations of the English Bible done by teams of translators render the phrase with remarkable consistency. Are we to believe that they are all just slavishly following the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate? Or did Jerome know something, too?
I looked high and low for a published translation done by a team of scholars that renders the passage “disposed to eternal life.” I found “disposed” in a footnote in the Living Bible. You cited Alford’s commentary. But that was it. Then, one day, I found a published English Bible that reads exactly as you suggest, Dave. It was translated by a team alright, but they were not a team of scholars. You see, the only published English translation I have found that agrees with the “many” Greek scholars you claim are on your side is the following:

NWT: and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers

Yes, Dave, you have adopted the reading of the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The NWT! You reject the entirety of the published translations noted above, including the King James Version, and adopt the NWT’s reading! Amazing, utterly amazing, don’t you think? It would be humorous if it were not so serious: Dave Hunt identifying the work of all of Evangelicalism’s leading Bible translators as an error, and adopting instead the reading of the NWT.

2) You do not list these “scholars.” You did list some commentators who do not believe the verse speaks to eternal predestination (that is hardly surprising), but you do not provide us with the names of these scholars. Nor can you
do so. Greek scholars happen to know that this periphrastic construction has a pluperfect tense meaning. And that means the action of the construction preceded the act of believing. When you combine this with the actual meaning of the word (which you misrepresent, see below), there is a broad consensus as to the meaning: God appointed men to eternal life, and as a result, they believed. The action of appointing preceded the action of believing. That’s why your list of scholars is conspicuous by its absence, and why, I note, even those you do quote do not address the actual text or its meaning.

3) This is a classic error of hermeneutics and logic. The issue is not, “in the less than ten other uses of this verb in the New Testament does it refer to God’s eternal decree?” but “in this passage is it properly translated “ordained” or “appointed” so that the meaning of the passage makes reference to such a decree? The answer is clear.

4) There are two elements to your error at this point. First, Liddell and Scott is not a koine Greek lexicon. It is not a New Testament lexicon. I note you do not cite from the actual lexicons that deal with the New Testament, and that for good reason: they all contradict you! But choosing a lexicon that is not even specifically about koine Greek speaks volumes. But even louder than this error is the simple fact that you happen to have blown the assertion. Liddell and Scott do give “ordain” as the meaning of tassw in section III, number 2, “appoint, ordain, order, prescribe.” Even more devastating is the fact that the verbal form cited as being translated this way is almost identical to that in Acts 13:48 (tetagmena). Hence, you have not only chosen the wrong lexicon, you didn’t even get what it says correctly. It is yet another testimony against you.

5) Yes, the KJV does, but modern translations are much more accurate at this point, “and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.” In any case, the passage is only relevant for establishing a general semantic range for the term tassw. The passage, however, does not contain a periphrastic construction that parallels its use at Acts 13:48. There tassw is a simple aorist active. To make the passage relevant to the argument you are attempting to put forward, you would have to explain how an aorist verbal form in another author in a completely different context is relevant to the use in Acts 13:48. But there is more. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 the verb is active and has a direct object. Hence it was something the household of Stephanos did: they dedicated themselves to a particular task. But the perfect participle in Acts 13:48 is passive. This is something that was done to those who believed. You have to attempt to argue a middle voice for the participle, which is not only rare, but in this context, next to impossible to defend. In any case, you have not begun to provide a meaningful ground for your reference of this passage, and hence it must be rejected.

6) One Anglican divine does not equal “many Greek experts,” Dave, and given that Alford did not even attempt to deal with 1) Lukan usage (which, obviously, is the first sphere of interest to us: Acts 22:10 and 28:13 should be the first passages we examine, and both support the understanding of “appointed/ordained” not “disposed”; 2) the periphrastic construction and its resultant tense meaning, we have little basis for putting much stock in his comment. Yet, you said “many” and we only have one. You did cite a few others later on, but only their commentary and interpretation, not their discussion of the actual translation of the text. I can find “Greek scholars” who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel or who deny the resurrection of Christ. That is not the issue. The relevant question, obviously, is, “Do these ‘many’ Greek scholars deal with the actual textual issues at hand, such as Lukan usage, the periphrastic, the prevalence of the passive participle over a middle form, etc.? You do not cite any for us.

7) There is no question that both Erasmus, in his work on what would eventually become the Textus Receptus, and the King James translators themselves, were deeply influenced by the Latin Vulgate. I do have to wonder, Dave, if you would repeat this defense verbatim when speaking, for example, at Joseph Chambers’ church, a church that defends and supports Gail Riplinger and King James Onlyism? I know you are not fully KJV Only (though that comment you made at dinner about Sinaiticus seems to indicate you have strong leanings that direction: I hope you will refrain, in the future, from repeating the false idea that Sinaiticus was found in a trash can, which is manifestly untrue), but you seem to have inclinations toward the KJV, which makes this whole argument on Acts 13:48 rather problematic for you. Be that as it may, the meaning of the Greek periphrastic construction has not been determined by reference to the Latin Vulgate: instead, Jerome knew what you seemingly do not: that the underlying Greek plainly speaks of a divine action resulting in the belief of those so ordained.

8) See #6.

9) It surely does (I wonder if you likewise accept the viewpoints expressed in this source on such things as the “rapture” or millennial views?). However, it does so primarily as commentary, not as, noted above, exegesis. Indeed, this seems to be your primary source, hence, you seem to be following Rendall at this point. However, the criticism noted above is relevant here as well, for the only passage cited is non-Lukan and in a very dissimilar context.

10) Yes, Robertson did not interpret the passage as deciding the issue, but, you will note, he did not mistranslate it nor would he support your assertion that ordained is a “wrong” rendering: he says it is not best, but adopts “appointed” instead (not “disposed”). Again, however, you have muddied the waters by confusing a Greek grammarian’s theological interpretations with a Greek grammarians comments on the grammar and syntax of a passage. Robertson says Luke does not tell us why these Gentiles “ranged” themselves on God’s side. I think it is clear that it does, and when we realize that no one, outside of God’s grace, chooses God over evil, the answer is ever clearer. But again, you misuse Robertson’s commentary as if it is a matter of Greek translation: it is not. The only relevance would be toward your use of the context argument, not in support of your assertion that there is some great conflict over the actual translation of tassw here. There isn’t.

11) The only point in which your argument has any kind of even minority support is in your assertion that the context in some way ameliorates the strong statement of divine sovereignty by reference to the disposition of the Jews. Specifically, that since the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (13:46), this provides the “mirror” so to speak in which to view the meaning of tassw. But there are at least two compelling reasons why the attempted explanation fails: 1) no reason exists to see such a parallel in the language. Luke does not use tassw in 13:46, which would have provided a perfect parallel, the Jews not being “disposed” and the Gentiles being “disposed,” but instead Luke uses completely different words, indicating no parallel in his thinking, and 2) there is no such thing as a person who is “disposed” to eternal life in the first place. As I have already noted, Dave, the very idea that you believe that there are people who are “disposed” to eternal life, aside from being utterly unbiblical, likewise lands you in the middle of having to answer the question, “So why was Dave Hunt disposed to eternal life and someone else was not?” You are still left teaching that some people are better than others, and the reason why one believes and another does not is found in the person and not in God.

Acts 13:48 teaches the divine sovereignty of God over men in the matter of faith and salvation, Dave. Your attempts to get around this have failed. But, hopefully, many will be blessed by the demonstration of your error, at the very least. I do hope you will cease to fight against this truth, and will come to accept it."


This is from Dr. James White's letter to Dave Hunt in response to his new book attacking the Biblical doctrines of grace. The letter in its entirety can be found at www.aomin.org.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...
 
Top