Total Inability

[Ray Berrian]

I think finding the truth of God only from the Greek is fine.

Not all theologians have a Calvinistic or Arminian agenda to push. You can compare what they believe the Greek to be saying; God will give you guidance if you honestly desire to know the truth.

You have admitted that Acts 13:46 indicates that Almighty God respected the free will and choice of the Israelites, in general, to reject the saving Gospel. Why then in verse 48 could you even begin to think that salvation is determined by God choosing some for Heaven and the rest for Hell. It totally incongruous. This means that the KJV or RSV is not surfacing what the Lord is really saying in these translations.

The passive participle {tetagmenoi} simply means 'as many as were disposed toward eternal life, believed. The passive tense means that God influenced the sinner to believe and also that He did not take a dominant part and forceful influence on said sinners. Thus, the passive voice; He did not take a 'hands on forceful move on these people.' God the Spirit influenced them toward believing and knowing the truth, but He never forced the issue. God then had an 'open hand' toward whether or not they would believe the message of the Cross.
Alford says, 'The meaning of this word must be determined by the total context of Acts 13:46 & 48. The Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. The Gentiles, 'as many as were disposed toward eternal life, believed. To find in this text preordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain.'

While God has always known that only the elect will believe [Acts 13:48], He nevertheless, desires all to be saved [II Peter 3:9; I Timothy 2:4]. Thus, God made the atonement for the sins of the whole world. [I John 2:2] His command is that all repent. [Acts 17:30] It would be both deceptive and absurd for God to command all to repent, if He had not provided salvation for all human beings. Having provided His precious atonement for everyone, He at the judgment can hold all sinners responsible to His sovereign and holy Being.

The other view comes from extreme Calvinists who neglect Greek word studies of the passage.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Scott Emmerson,

The reason why they teach Greek in Bible Schools and seminaries, is because it is vital in interpreting the Word. Even laypersons can go to Greek scholars and see what they say the Greek means, especially on difficult passages.

Not everyone should be expounding on God's holy Word; only those who have dedicated themselves and prepared themselves before the Lord. Note I Timothy 5:17. 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine.'

Would you agree with me?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Scott Emmerson,
Would you agree with me?

Absolutely. I was blessed to have taken all the way up to Advanced Greek, although I never got past Intermediate Hebrew. I'd like to pick that up once I'm done with my current Ph.D. studies.

(It's it's one m - as in Ralph Waldo!)

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
I didn't know Augustine didn't know Greek.

So only people who know Greek have an validity when it comes to teaching the Bible? And this is being said on a Baptist board?

Ken
A Spurgeonite </font>[/QUOTE]Don't be silly. I just didn't know that Augustine didn't know Greek. That's all I said and that's all I meant. Because he was a theolgian of that time, I just presumed he had known Greek. I was simply filling in a blank in my ignorance. You sure do jump to conclusions!

 

[Farley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Scott Emmerson,

The reason why they teach Greek in Bible Schools and seminaries, is because it is vital in interpreting the Word. Even laypersons can go to Greek scholars and see what they say the Greek means, especially on difficult passages.

Not everyone should be expounding on God's holy Word; only those who have dedicated themselves and prepared themselves before the Lord. Note I Timothy 5:17. 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine.'

Would you agree with me?

That is why the Lord called "ignorant and unlearned men". Your educational status has nothing to do with it. It is what the Holy Ghost has taught you through the study of his Word. One must be careful not to set up a protestant pope. I studied some greek and hebrew while at Liberty U. and believe most people just go to the greek to try and prove something they can't get from the english. Like, man ordained himself. I didn't get saved hearing a message from greek and hebrew but from the old King's english. If you have to know greek and hebrew than the average christian's final authority for his faith is in some fellow in an air conditioned office with a coke machine to tell him what the Word of God means and not on the Spirit of GOD.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If you want to be a theologian move from the KJV and/or RSV into what the Greek says. Dr. Alford or Robertson will clear the matter up for you.

That's not what Christ said. I also see no such statement in the divinely inspired qualifications of a bishop or deacon. Christ said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Clearly, obedience and character are the true marks of a theologian, learned or not.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Most of the translations never took time to research what the Greek said.

I find this statement incredible. Where most English translations agree, I think you'll find the consensus of real Greek scholars.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You have admitted that Acts 13:46 indicates that Almighty God respected the free will and choice of the Israelites, in general, to reject the saving Gospel.

I intended to do nothing of the sort. I agreed that the text says the Jews (in general, not all) rejected the Gospel and that Paul and Barnabas took the Gospel to the gentiles. Why did they reject the Gospel? Was it a free will choice? Not according to Romans.

Romans 11
7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

...

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Why then in verse 48 could you even begin to think that salvation is determined by God choosing some for Heaven and the rest for Hell.

Now you're not only adding to what the text says, you're adding to the spirit of the text. It says, "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Truth is truth. You can't stop it from being true by re-translating it or adding your opinions to what it means.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The passive participle {tetagmenoi} simply means 'as many as were disposed toward eternal life, believed.

Again, there is no indication whatsoever that this should be translated "disposed" or even "predisposed".

 

[Eric B]

New Testament Greek for ' ordained '

5021 tasso {tas'-so}
a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); TDNT - 8:27,1156; v
AV - appoint 3, ordain 2, set 1, determine 1, addict 1; 8
1) to put in order, to station
(strong's number 5021)

The closest you could get to something that didn't imply election would be, "as many as were ordaining to eternal life believed".

Well what then if you substitute "determining" or maybe even "appointing"? Then "themselves" might not be necessary.
Just asking. I don't know enough of the Greek use of the word to know if that could be possible grammatically. (e.g "determining to eternal life" may not make sense in English, but in other languages constructs like this may be found)

 

[Rev. G]

Most of the translations never took time to research what the Greek said.

You can't be serious!?!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Well what then if you substitute "determining" or maybe even "appointing"? Then "themselves" might not be necessary.
Just asking. I don't know enough of the Greek use of the word to know if that could be possible grammatically. (e.g "determining to eternal life" may not make sense in English, but in other languages constructs like this may be found)

As I said, nothing comparable to "self-determined" or "(pre)disposed" appears in the New Testament, and as far as I know, there's nothing comparable in the LXX, either. (I can speak for the NT, but I'm taking the word of others who have done a study on the LXX. I have a copy of the LXX in Greek, but I haven't looked into this particular matter.)

 

[Ray Berrian]

For Example:

I John 3:9 in the KJV says, 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.' Personally, I like the KJV and have memorized Scripture from this text.

If you take the KJV at face value you will not correctly understand the Word of God. In the Greek there is the word {practice} and as I recall I believe it is in the present active tense.The true meaning of the verse indicates that a Christian does not make a practice of sinning because the seed {the Holy Spirit} remains in us and guards us from practicing sinning. Thank God!

If you say the KJV is good enough for me you will never come to correct theology. Acts 13:48 will take on a meaning other than the Calvinistic slant, if you let the Holy Spirit and the Greek words explain the text to you.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Point of clearity . . .

I didn't mean translations like the Living Bible; I know they have great scholars determining the interpretation of Scripture.

The KJV version has its problems but I always use it to study and read devotionally.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The KJV version has its problems but I always use it to study and read devotionally.

I like the KJV, too, but I've come to prefer the NKJV. It corrects errors that got transmitted into the KJV from the Vulgate, and it replaces many english words that don't mean the same thing to us today as they did to the KJV translators.

A classic example is Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So did God create evil? These days we think of "evil" with the big "E". But in modern english, the word "evil" was commonly understood to mean things like "unpleasant" or "calamity" as well.

Sorry to ramble... I don't mean to hijack this thread.

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by Farley:
Total Depravity (Total Inability)
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. What part of this statement is false my arminian friend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am never sure what total depravity means either. Clearly, we cannot save ourselves, and are sinful. I dont think anybody questions that. Its when people say nusaved people cant recognise or do anything good I get concerned. Jesus says we should let our works be seen so men can praise our heavenly Father. He notes that evil people can give good gifts to their children. In Acts, God tells Cornelius, a gentile who does not know Him, "I have heard your prayers and seen your good works." SO nonbelievers can do good stuff. We all know non believers who are decent, moral people. Like Cornelius, they are going to Hell and need to be told the message of salvation. But that does not mean that they are all dead, immoral scum. Paul bears witness that non believing Jews have a zeal for God.
We are completely unable to save ourselves, but we are not totally depraved?
How does this sound?
Still learning, Colin

 

[Ray Berrian]

npetrely,

Good post. To the point also.

Some of the brethren needed to hear what you said. Many of the versions handed down to us still have the taint of the Catholic, Vulgate. That is why I am suggesting that people use the Greek scholars on difficult passages. Men who become Greek scholars usually do not start with a presupposition either toward Calvinism or Arminianism. After studying the language for many years their only concern is to try to understand what God is saying through His Word. Give them some credit; I give them a lot of honor. Nepetrely, I am not trying to say that you agree with this paragraph, but I agreed with your post. Very good.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Farley:
Total Depravity (Total Inability)
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. What part of this statement is false my arminian friend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am never sure what total depravity means either. Clearly, we cannot save ourselves, and are sinful. I dont think anybody questions that. Its when people say nusaved people cant recognise or do anything good I get concerned. Jesus says we should let our works be seen so men can praise our heavenly Father. He notes that evil people can give good gifts to their children. In Acts, God tells Cornelius, a gentile who does not know Him, "I have heard your prayers and seen your good works." SO nonbelievers can do good stuff. We all know non believers who are decent, moral people. Like Cornelius, they are going to Hell and need to be told the message of salvation. But that does not mean that they are all dead, immoral scum. Paul bears witness that non believing Jews have a zeal for God.
We are completely unable to save ourselves, but we are not totally depraved?
How does this sound?
Still learning, Colin</font>[/QUOTE]It is an excellant post that is mindful of scripture, but still is able to recognize the realities that surround us...

Excellant response
May God bless

[ November 05, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
We are completely unable to save ourselves, but we are not totally depraved?
How does this sound?
Still learning, Colin

I found this description with a Google search. Those who have studied Calvinism can confirm or refute whether or not this is an accurate description of total depravity according to Calvin, but IMO this is a very good description of how I see it -- especially the part about how sin has affected everything, including our understanding (and IMO our ability to reason).

http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f168.htm

Calvinists believe the natural human condition is total depravity, but that doesn't mean totally evil and devoid of all good.

Imagine a child tips some salt into the bowl of sugar. If we take the bowl away quickly, we might be able to lift out a part of the sugar, and in doing so remove all of the salt with it. But if the little monkey has stirred the sugar, then we may find no part unspoiled by the salt. Now all the sugar is salted and worthless.

It is in that sense that defilement is said to be "total". Good there may be, as there was sugar, but it is all marred and made useless. Sin has affected the person's will, understanding, affections, and every other faculty, rendering the person...

"utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil..."

But Jesus spoke of a man "in whom there is no deceit" (Jhn 1:47). He was Nathanael, a perfectly honest man, proving that human beings can have unspoiled faculties.

 

[BobRyan]

Npetreley
It still sounds to me like you're saying that lost people have no free will. At some point God gives people free will ("enabling choice for the LOST"), which enables them to choose salvation. Isn't this what you're saying?

Yep - that's it.

Npetreley

If so, when did/does God restore this free will to the lost, who have none? Does God grant it to individuals when they reach a certain age? Did it happen to the entire human race when Christ was crucified? If so, how do we manage to exercise this free will to choose salvation in spite of the fact that we are still slaves to sin?

God says He "Draws ALL mankind unto Him" John 12:32.

Even Calvinism admits that the supernatural drawing of God is "sufficient" to resolve the "innability problem" - no news there.

WHEN does God draw EACH individual? EXACTLY when?

"The wind blows - and no one sees - SO is every one who is born of the spirit" for the spirit "Convicts THE WORLD of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment" - He is the Spirit of Truth.

Certainly "WHILE we were yet sinners" - and certainly "WHILE" Christ is OUTSIDE standing at the door and knocking - and we are in the INSIDE - without him - HEARING his voice and CHOOSING to open the door.

EXACTLY how we exercise free will - CHOICE in response to God's enabling?

And EXACTLY WHEN in each person's life?

You want to "be" God or just have the spec?

But that is a common problem in the Calvinist model - they keep getting stuck in exactly how God is God on foreknowledge vs drawing etc. It is hard for Calvinism to believe that "the WHOLE World" is really "The Whole World" and that "ALL mankind" is really to be left as "ALL mankind".

And yet...

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[npetreley]

BobRyan: So according to you, we start each of our lives slaves to sin. At some point, God gives us the gift of free will and offers us the choice of salvation. We then use our free will to either accept or decline on the offer of salvation.

Pardon me if I get the next part wrong, since I've never encountered this idea in the Bible and the whole concept is brand new to me.

It would seem to me that a split second after we make this "free-will choice" we would lose our free will again. Why? Paul says in Romans that we were once slaves to sin, but now we are slaves to righteousness. So depending on the choice we made, we would either become permanent slaves to righteousness or permanently re-condemned.

Another reason I'd have to assume we lost our free will again after making the decision is that, if we still had free will, we'd be able to apply that permanently acquired free will to do things like follow the law, or (if we chose salvation) to get "saved" or "unsaved" again anytime we like.

Would you call this Half- or Hyper-Arminianism?

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Chappie,
Thanks for your comments. Can I run another idea past you?
Election is a contentious topic, does God only want some saved? Does He want others in hell?

When I look at Scripture, I see God clearly calling special people. Abraham is called, David is chosen rather than his brothers, Paul is lightning bolted, etc.
My question however is, why are they called?
They are all called (elected?) to reach out to others! Abraham, "through you all the nations of the earth will be blessed", David is chosen, not to commune with God on a hilltop, but to be a shepherd to all Israel, Paul is chosen to be an apostle to the Gentiles.
Election is not God's way of abandoning the rest ("I choose you, you and you"), but God's way of reaching the rest.
We are called, yes, we are called to be witnesses.

What do you think?
God bless, Colin