God's decree and ordination.

[Swordman53]

Lee,

Thanks for the reply. See my thoughts below.

Swordman53

The usual meaning of past tense (especially pluperfect, if I am not mistaken!) is of a past event, though. So I think the most probable meaning is a sense similar to "preordained."

By this logic, every past event would be preordained. To preordain something is to place the correlative event in the future, not the past.

The doctrine of election places God's foreordination before time begins. Without dealing with the sheer illogic of such a statement (God himself is the ARCHE), Acts 13:48 makes a very simple statement - the event took place in the past. While I will yield the point to Barry that in a normal sense the action or effect of the pluperfect is antecedent (before) the belief, you must affirm that the "ordaining" must be in time. Otherwise it cannot be "antecedent."

Luke uses the word for "foreordained" elsewhere. This word is used consistently in Scripture for a temporal setting.

Well, no, every past appointment would be, though, I meant a pluperfect appointment, and not this tense in general.

You have only addressed the first point and you are incorrect in your conclusion. The pluperfect normally places the event in the past, but this does not make in non-temporal or before creation by any means. That is a theological imposition on the text. The pluperfect primarily focuses on the effect of an action (intensive). But even when it increases the focus on the action itself (as with the extensive pluperfect) suggested by Barry, it still is simply a past event. The way Wallace decribes this in his introduction to the pluperfect is that it combines the aspects of the aorist and the imperfect.

Barry's point was not that this was a pre-temporal event, but that the event simply preceded the belief. That is all he can say because to precede something places it in time.

Also, as noted before by both Barry and myself, we are dealing with a different word than that which is used for foreordaining something. You have not even tried to address why Luke would use a different word when PROORIZW would have been the more likely candidate for what you are proposing.

Luke uses TASSW exactly as I have suggested (a temporal appointment) elsewhere.

Finally, since the pluperfect generally focuses on the "effect" and not the action, what do you think Luke is saying here?

Sw53: ... you must affirm that the "ordaining" must be in time.

Let us notice that Paul never says when God made choices of election, though! He says "before creation" for the choice of election, and if matter is required for time (say the physics folks), then this choice was before time started, and this other choice described in Acts 13:48 may well be, too.

Actually, Paul never says "before creation." He says before "the foundation of the world." It is an assumption that this means before creation. Even some reformers who I have discussed this with place the foundation up to the aftermath of the flood.

The question of what is really occurring in Ephesians 1:4 is a different discussion.

No, an appointment to preach does not imply that the listeners are appointed to respond to the message, that is what I mean.

The text does not say they were appointed to respond. It only says they were appointed to eternal life. This is the opening of the covenant to the Gentiles. It is a general statement.

Sw53: Since Luke is very familiar with the other word (PROORIZW - using it to describe the event of the cross), then there is no reason to substitute TASSW unless he means something different.

Unless there are different ways of expressing this concept? Emphasizing different aspects? We need not insist on one word always being used when a given concept is in mind.

As I have noted already, Luke uses TASSW elsewhere. There is nothing deterministic about the word.

Since, as I noted in my response to Barry, Luke uses several words in reference to the "setting" apart of Paul and Barnabbas, then by your own logic, contextually this word should relate to those events "emphasizing a different aspect" - right?

The base definition of TASSW is NOT ordained, but "to set."

Then (all!) the translators are wrong in using "all" or "as many" in Acts 13:48? Surely this doesn't mean "some," as surely as Rom. 13:1 does not mean only some authorities are appointed by God.

As Stewart notes in his book on exegesis, translators are very hesitant to change a translation because they have to sell Bibles. When the RSV committee translated "friends" as "comrades" in the 1950s, there was a furor that did not die down for decades, with the accusation that this was a communist translation.

Once again, we have to ask the hard question - If Luke has wanted to say "all those appointed to eternal life", why did he not use PAS, which he uses over 300 times in his writing to indicate "all" or "every"? Why use the correlative adjective/pronoun?

Luke uses this term five times in his writing, out of the eight times it appears in the New Testament. We need to be consistent in our understanding of his use of the term.

You are confusing causality with knowledge. God can know something without causing it...

But I don't see how God can know a future decision he would make, without having that decision be already made, and thus caused, in a real sense.

First, we are not dealing with a future decision God would make in this text. We are dealing with a past "setting" and we are working towards an understanding of precisely what that setting is.

Second, even Reformers refuse to make God the cause of all that is. Sin is not a product of God's desires. It is an abberation of His desires.

Finally, my point is very simple - God's knowledge does not require him to cause anything. It is a different category. Knowing something is a state. Causing something is an activity.

But not all the Gentiles believed! So "hOSOI" must refer to specific people, and they were appointed, and yet most probably not within time, and at least before they believed, and this does illustrate (good old Calvinistic) election!

I have not suggested that this is a universal statement. In fact, your prior argument, that hOSOI should be translated "all" would make this universal, which is what you are arguing for, not me.

I have simply suggested it is a general statement. Since a correlative adjective/pronoun is being used, perhaps you could suggest what we are correlating to, if not the Gentiles who are now being offered eternal life through Christ.

But not in a time sequence! That is my point here, that there can be logical connections, which we do not make in a sequence, one after another, in time.

Lee, I do not know how else to say this, but you are being illogical. Causality is always time sequenced. Moreover, whenever we speak of antecedence, we are speaking of time sequencing. So even if your illustration was valid (it is not), then it simply would not apply.

I hate to be blunt, but logic must prevail here. For something to be antecedent, it simply comes "before" the thing it is antecedent to.

Well, how about a stack of books? We can examine them from the top, in a logical sequence, asking why this book is stationary, and its because of the one below it, on which it rests, and yet the actual sequence of placing the books occurred in the opposite order, in time. And then we can examine the books from the bottom, and ask similar questions, and our logical sequence will then correspond to the time order, but there is no essential dependence here, between the logical sequences, and time.

You are speaking of a spatial ordering. One book does not cause another book. Therefore, the questions we would ask are not similar, but dissimilar. The argument is fallacious.

Swordman53

[AVmetro]

Swordman-

I haven't been following this particular discussion as closely as I should but let me ask a question or two.

In vs. 48, the "as many as" are "those appointed to eternal life", correct?

You interpret "eternal life" here to simply mean, not their individual salvific status, but the opening up of the New Covenant to the Gentiles, correct? I take that to be the case from this statement:

SM:

The text does not say they were appointed to respond. It only says they were appointed to eternal life. This is the opening of the covenant to the Gentiles. It is a general statement.

So I suppose we could say "The Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life", correct?

My question is (as I have not yet found time to read your article and I feel I could be wrong/missing a nuance in what I've read from your replies to Lee, et al), are the "Gentiles" who were "appointed to eternal life":

a.) Individuals (i.e., the specific individuals within the crowd to whom Paul was speaking)

Or does the word "Gentiles" here denote:

b.) The corporate "Gentile" nations? (i.e., "THE Gentiles" (i.e., nations as a whole) as contrasted with "THE Jews" (i.e., the Jewish nation)

In other words, regarding the word "Gentiles", are we dealing with individual persons within this crowd or a class?

Secondly, would you agree that the "as many as" and those who "believed" are one and the same group within this context? I'm not asking if the appointment was causal, but whether those who were "appointed" and those who "believed" are the same.

Lee stated:

Lee:

Then (all!) the translators are wrong in using "all" or "as many" in Acts 13:48? Surely this doesn't mean "some," as surely as Rom. 13:1 does not mean only some authorities are appointed by God.

To which you replied:

SM;

As Stewart notes in his book on exegesis, translators are very hesitant to change a translation because they have to sell Bibles. When the RSV committee translated "friends" as "comrades" in the 1950s, there was a furor that did not die down for decades, with the accusation that this was a communist translation.

I would hardly think you can equate the two examples. If we were discussing why “hell” is used rather than “hades”, “sheol”, etc., then your point would be more easily taken. However, we are simply dealing with the word “all” and that in a passage that the mostly Arminian world would like to see changed if they take notice of this passage to begin with. Either way, I hardly think a change from “all” to _______ will have any significant effect on bible sales! :)

You continued:

SM:

Once again, we have to ask the hard question - If Luke has wanted to say "all those appointed to eternal life", why did he not use PAS, which he uses over 300 times in his writing to indicate "all" or "every"? Why use the correlative adjective/pronoun?

Luke uses this term five times in his writing, out of the eight times it appears in the New Testament. We need to be consistent in our understanding of his use of the term.

If “all” or “as many as” is not an accurate translation, what is your suggested rendering? “Some”, “most”, “many”, “a few”…..?

On to the next set:

You said:

SM:

Luke uses TASSW exactly as I have suggested (a temporal appointment) elsewhere.

Who made this "appointment" (regarding the Gentiles)? I would imagine you would say "God." Now, explain more what you mean by "temporal appointment" as I'm having trouble following at this hour of the night (oops, 12:57am--morning :-)

Did God's "appointment" of the Gentiles to eternal life occur in time? (I that believe you believe it did, right?) What then is your take on Acts 15:17-18? Or would you contest the rendering "eternity?"

When God does "predestinate" (pick your object), does He do so in time as well?

---------

I'm just making sure to get a good grasp on some of your points.

Thanks.

AV

[AVmetro]

A quick addition, relevant to the above…

SM:

The doctrine of election places God's foreordination before time begins. Without dealing with the sheer illogic of such a statement (God himself is the ARCHE)

I would hardly think this “sheer illogic.“ True, God Himself is the ‘arche’, but I would imagine His eternality entails all His thoughts/plans unless we assume those came later in sequence and therefore place God’s thoughts/plans in time. God did not spend eternity, pre-creation, with an empty head! If God makes “plans” in time He therefore learns. This would, of course, fall under the “Open View.” Do you subscribe to this?

AV

[Swordman53]

I would hardly think this “sheer illogic.“ True, God Himself is the ‘arche’, but I would imagine His eternality entails all His thoughts/plans unless we assume those came later in sequence and therefore place God’s thoughts/plans in time. God did not spend eternity, pre-creation, with an empty head! If God makes “plans” in time He therefore learns. This would, of course, fall under the “Open View.” Do you subscribe to this?

AV

AV,

I will respond as I have time. My schedule is pretty tight over the next few months and this is just a sideline for me. I will review you other note later.

We are moving into the realm of philosophy here, but kindly explain how you go back before the beginning.

Your statement above is very telling as to how you perceive this. You speak of God spending eternity thinking. This is an activity which takes place in time since thoughts are sequenced. Therefore, logically you are placing eternity in time. You also assume that planning involves learning and therefore violates God's immutability. This is simply not the case. You are imposing an anthropomorphism on God by denying him the ability to move without learning. If this were the case, then your "decrees" would be necessary for God and God would not be a free being. He becomes simply part of the great machine of existence that is fixed and cannot be changed. Your view effectively becomes either pantheistic or naturalistic with no real God at all.

Actions, whether they be mental or physical, take place in time if you want to postulate any form of antecedence. If God is acting "before" (planning or whatever) then we must state one of the following:

1. God exists in time in some sense and the "beginning" of Genesis is simply the beginning of our world. God acts "prior" to our time, but still in time. Therefore, there is no true arche or beginning. This has striking features of pantheism (from a religious viewpoint) or steady-state naturalism.

2. Time is simply an aspect of God himself, making it eternal. Therefore, all actions exists in some sense in eternity. Again, this is very pantheistic.

3. God is the beginning and all actions move from that point. This places the decrees in time with nothing before God.

I fail to see why this third option is so offensive to Reformers. It addresses all issues in question. We do not speak of what is before creation because it is incommunicable to us. Therefore, to speak of a "before" the beginning is simply nonsense. Once we postulate something before the beginning, we are moving the true beginning back to that point.

J. P. Moreland (Christian apologist) once argued that an actual infinite is impossible because it cannot be traversed. Therefore, we must postulate a beginning before which we cannot speak. Otherwise the language used becomes illogical.

If we are going to accept this (you may not, but that moves you outside of theism), then we cannot speak of what is before the beginning.

It could be argued that we are simply viewing the situation from our temporal perspective and therefore are required to use temporal language. But this does not solve the problem. We are speaking of temporal events if we want to place decrees of God "before" the temporal sequence.

The simplist model (which is what we are doing in theology) is to state that God is the beginning and we cannot go back before that. Anything that is inherent in the ARCHE (God) procedes from that point, including decrees.

The decrees are based on his NATURE, not his activities (thoughts, speech (the decrees themselves), etc.). I would suggest that what is before the beginning can only be defined in terms of states. "God is love" is an example. Decrees are not states.

I fail to see the problem of God making decrees in time. He does so all the "time" in Scripture.

If you want to insist that the decrees are outside of time, then we can simply postulate some form of concurrence between the acts in time and decrees outside of time. Therefore, you would maintain your determinism (which you are seeking apparently), but must exclude the language of time. The implications staggering theologically if you go this route - far more so than open theism (of which I am NOT an advocate).

Swordman53

[Swordman53]

My question is (as I have not yet found time to read your article and I feel I could be wrong/missing a nuance in what I've read from your replies to Lee, et al), are the "Gentiles" who were "appointed to eternal life":

a.) Individuals (i.e., the specific individuals within the crowd to whom Paul was speaking)

Or does the word "Gentiles" here denote:

b.) The corporate "Gentile" nations? (i.e., "THE Gentiles" (i.e., nations as a whole) as contrasted with "THE Jews" (i.e., the Jewish nation)

In other words, regarding the word "Gentiles", are we dealing with individual persons within this crowd or a class?

I am always cautious about using the term "Gentile nations" since the Jews are not a nation. They are a people group whom God had appointed as the "chosen" people - the people of the covenant. Gentiles are those who are outside of that people group. The opening of the covenant to other people is a primary theme of the New Testament. In fact, it is the New Testament - unity with God is available to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Gentiles.

Perhaps you are contesting that the Jews had been "appointed" as as the covenant people...?

Secondly, would you agree that the "as many as" and those who "believed" are one and the same group within this context? I'm not asking if the appointment was causal, but whether those who were "appointed" and those who "believed" are the same.

Since the adjective/pronoun is part of the subject of the verb, then we must say that hOSOI "believed".

The real question here is not the translation of a single word but the intent of the author in the narrative. If you had read the paper I sent you, you would see that there is a clear chiastic structure in the this section, with this section being the climax of the overall narrative of the first missionary journey. The declaration of verse 47 is pivotal to understanding the mission and ministry of the Paul and Barnabbas. In terms of the chiasm, verse 46 stands as the contrast to verse 48.

In arguments for the middle voice translation, this structure is highlighted to show that just as the Jews of the synagogue "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life," so the Gentiles "set themselves to eternal life."

I have not argued for the middle voice translation here, but the literary structure does not change because the voice of a word might be different. Just as Paul is speaking generally in verse 46, so Luke's statement should be taken as a generality. Paul is not saying that every Jew or even every Jew of that synagogue has judged him or herself unworthy of eternal life. He is simply making a generality about those people as a whole.

I would hardly think you can equate the two examples. If we were discussing why “hell” is used rather than “hades”, “sheol”, etc., then your point would be more easily taken. However, we are simply dealing with the word “all” and that in a passage that the mostly Arminian world would like to see changed if they take notice of this passage to begin with. Either way, I hardly think a change from “all” to _______ will have any significant effect on bible sales! :)

I suspect that is not Stewart opinion either. I am just using it as an illustration of why translators will favor one translation over another. They tend to be conservative.

Stewart's point in his book on exegesis is that it is the commentator's job to examine the alternative possibilities. That is what we are doing here.

If “all” or “as many as” is not an accurate translation, what is your suggested rendering? “Some”, “most”, “many”, “a few”…..?

I am not suggesting that "as many as" is a bad translation, but it certainly may not be conveying the intent if Luke is not trying to be universal. We all know that there I think there are ranges of meaning and intent that can impact any translation.

If I get more time, I will try to give you some additional depth in my thinking here, but I am at a loss for time right now.

Who made this "appointment" (regarding the Gentiles)? I would imagine you would say "God." Now, explain more what you mean by "temporal appointment" as I'm having trouble following at this hour of the night (oops, 12:57am--morning :-)

Of course, the middle voice argument would state that God is not present in the text (as he is in Romans 13:1) and therefore we cannot make this assumption. This argument states that those who believe are “setting themselves” to eternal life – possibly at the time of rejoicing and glorifying in God’s Word. That argument sees this as a orientation towards the message.

I am NOT arguing for that view in this thread, since I have discussed the possibility of that view elsewhere. And I do not want to rush as I did last time.

What I am suggesting is that this correlates to the work to which Paul and Barnabbas are set aside for (Acts 13:2). Therefore, since the Spirit commissions them, we would say that God also “appoints” them to eternal life.

Did God's "appointment" of the Gentiles to eternal life occur in time? (I that believe you believe it did, right?) What then is your take on Acts 15:17-18? Or would you contest the rendering "eternity?"

When God does "predestinate" (pick your object), does He do so in time as well?

Given what I said above, I would place this appointment in time.

We really need to think about how TASSW is being used here. The same form is used in Romans 13:1 and is translated “instituted” (NRSV). ANTITASSW in the next verse is translated “resist” (a clear antonym which is being contrasted to TASSW in verse 1). Used in this way, it appears that what Paul is saying is that these powers are authorized by God, and as such should not be resisted. We are not looking at an eternal decree here, but a temporal event of having been given authority (earlier clause in verse 1).

Therefore, a temporal event is certainly not out of place here nor is it out of place in the narrative of Acts 13:48.

Swordman53

[Nang]

if this is the case, then what are we to make of passages where God is said to "ordain," or "decree," or even "elect" something?

We are to understand that sovereign God immutablily and necessarily calls ALL the shots.


Nang

[Chappie]

We are to understand that sovereign God immutablily and necessarily calls ALL the shots.


Nang

If he told you to call the shots, he would still be calling the shots when you called the shots....

[Nang]

If he told you to call the shots, he would still be calling the shots when you called the shots....

I do believe you get it!



Nang

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Sw53: Barry's point was not that this was a pre-temporal event, but that the event simply preceded the belief. That is all he can say because to precede something places it in time.

Not necessarily, though! Surely God had an intent at the moment of creation, and "did not spend eternity with an empty head" (AVmetro's apt phrase). So that intent, whatever it might have been, precedes all other events (pluperfectly!) in the universe.

You have not even tried to address why Luke would use a different word when PROORIZW would have been the more likely candidate for what you are proposing.

Just as the NT uses "agape" and "phileo" to indicate a different nuance?

Luke uses TASSW exactly as I have suggested (a temporal appointment) elsewhere.

Yes, so then a pluperfect TASSW would be preordination, rather clearly.

Finally, since the pluperfect generally focuses on the "effect" and not the action, what do you think Luke is saying here?

The prior decision brought about the (effect of) belief? That is what I subscribe to.

The text does not say they were appointed to respond. It only says they were appointed to eternal life.

Well, if you are appointed to be in Pittsburgh, we may presume that means to get you there are appointed as well!

Since, as I noted in my response to Barry, Luke uses several words in reference to the "setting" apart of Paul and Barnabbas, then by your own logic, contextually this word should relate to those events "emphasizing a different aspect" - right?

Yes, if the alternative was ORIZW (sp?)

The base definition of TASSW is NOT ordained, but "to set."

But then, in reference to people this becomes "ordain." We are not saying God moved people around physically like markers in Monopoly! As here:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.

Or here:

Acts 22:10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'

If Luke has wanted to say "all those appointed to eternal life", why did he not use PAS, which he uses over 300 times in his writing to indicate "all" or "every"? Why use the correlative adjective/pronoun?

Because the other phrase would do as well? We need not insist on a phrase that worked being used every time. Surely the translators are not all mistaken (or fearful!), and "all" really should be "some."

Luke uses this term five times in his writing, out of the eight times it appears in the New Testament. We need to be consistent in our understanding of his use of the term.

Well, it seems to be clearly complete control here:

Luke 7:8 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

And this is bringing about results that are actions of those who are appointed.

Lee: But I don't see how God can know a future decision he would make, without having that decision be already made, and thus caused, in a real sense.

Sw53: God's knowledge does not require him to cause anything.

Unless it's knowledge of a future decision he will make! Then that decision must really have been, in a sense, caused already.

Sw53: In fact, your prior argument, that hOSOI should be translated "all" would make this universal, which is what you are arguing for, not me.

But I think the free-will people would have as much objection to just these people being fore-ordained to eternal life as they would to all the saints being fore-ordained to salvation. We must extend this, too, must we not?

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved...

So these people must be fore-ordained to eternal life, as well.

For something to be antecedent, it simply comes "before" the thing it is antecedent to. ... You are speaking of a spatial ordering. One book does not cause another book.

But one book does cause the other book to not fall! And we may examine the books either in the temporal order in which they were placed, or in the opposite order, and either way, we have a causal sequence.

If they were all manufactured as a unit, and placed together on the table, then there still would be a logical sequence in one book holding up another, yet not a temporal one.

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Not necessarily, though! Surely God had an intent at the moment of creation, and "did not spend eternity with an empty head" (AVmetro's apt phrase). So that intent, whatever it might have been, precedes all other events (pluperfectly!) in the universe.

You are still not getting it, Lee. First, for AVmetro to make that statement necessarily implies that eternity has "time." Therefore, time is an aspect of eternity and God's existence and we cannot separate God from time.

Second, events necessarily occur in time because events have results and duration (however small). To do something is to move in some sense and movement involves time and change.

The options I gave are very straightforward. Put your theology aside and you will see that they are correct.

Just as the NT uses "agape" and "phileo" to indicate a different nuance?

Can you find another instance where TASSW is used of a non-temporal setting? Romans 13:1, as I have explained shows an authorization of temporal powers in the present (a perfect is used to justify their authority, but this is clearly an intensive perfect with the results as the focus.)

That there are synonyms in Scripture with different nuances is true. But PROORIZW is the word that is primarily used elsewhere. In this context we have several words used for setting and NOT ONCE does Luke use PROORIZW.

We simply are not dealing with a synonym here.

Tell me - why is it so important that this verse speak of a non-temporal election?

Why is it important to your theology?

Why would Luke add it?

Even Reformed commentators will refer to this verse as an "imposition" on the story line. It does not fit the intent of the narrative with the imposition of your theology into it. It fits the narrative if my analysis is correct.

Yes, so then a pluperfect TASSW would be preordination, rather clearly.

Theologically, there is a clear difference between what we consider preordained and what we would see as a temporal appointment.

I cannot tell here whether you are arguing for the sake of arguing or whether there is something at stake for you here.

The prior decision brought about the (effect of) belief? That is what I subscribe to.

Then you see this as causal. Thank you, Lee, for stating your position directly. Is this what is at stake for you in the text?

Shall we also say the rejection of the gospel in verse 46 is also causal?

Since we are focusing on the effect (which would makes this intensive and not extensive as Barry suggest - scholars do disagree on various texts), then something has occurred in time to provide the effect.

But the question is - what has occurred? There is a clear antecedent stated in the narrative - the commissioning of Paul and Barnabbas to preach to the Gentiles. In the narrative, what antecedent do you see occurring that would imply that God is preordaining before time something?

I know you want to see your theology here, but this is a simple narrative, a story, about the first missionary journey. It is not an instructional letter or a theological treatise.
[QUOTE=lee_merrill]
Well, if you are appointed to be in Pittsburgh, we may presume that means to get you there are appointed as well!
[/QUOTE}
And am I required to go to Pittsburgh? What happens if I do not?

Since the powers in Romans 13:1 are appointed by God, shall we blame God for the deathcamps of Nazi Germany, the killing fields of Cambodia, the racial and religious hatred in various parts of the world by governments?

This type of appointment is NOT election and is not predestination.

Tell me, what is at stake in this verse? Your theology?

In the narrative, what is at stake is the commission to peach to the Gentiles. That is clear throughout the entire first missionary journey.

Yes, if the alternative was ORIZW (sp?)

I think you completely missed the point. POROORIZW is not in this text. The correlation is to the other words, Lee.

But then, in reference to people this becomes "ordain." We are not saying God moved people around physically like markers in Monopoly! As here:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.

Or here:

Acts 22:10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'

Lee - you are proving my case.

In the first case (an aorist middle) Jesus met with the disciples and they "set" or established a place to meeting. They have simply designated a location. It is a temporal event that authenticates the location.

In Acts 22:10, a perfect passive indicative, Paul is commissioned for a ministry. Here the word is used PRECISELY and in COMPLETE correlation with the call to preach to the Gentiles. The work is commissioned IN TIME and that work is to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. In the primary text of this even (9:6) Christ simply tells Paul that he will be told what he is to do. In retrospect in 22:10, Paul understands this as a commissioning for the ministry to the Gentiles, which directly occurs in Acts 13:2.

Because the other phrase would do as well? We need not insist on a phrase that worked being used every time. Surely the translators are not all mistaken (or fearful!), and "all" really should be "some."

No one has suggested that this should be "some." You (and AVMetro) are reading into my statement. What I have said is that it is a general statement by Luke. Those who are appointed to the eternal life are the Gentiles, who are included in the covenant because of Christ.

Well, it seems to be clearly complete control here:

Luke 7:8 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

And this is bringing about results that are actions of those who are appointed.

Have you ever considered how this verse reads if it is a middle voice? That is just an aside, but in translating this one, I really wrestled with whether a middle voice translation fits the text better (the form is the same). However, in my assessment of this verse I took it as a passive (to be conservative).

Lee - this is a temporal appointment.

You are completely missing the point. Now says that a setting is not an appointment. What I am saying is that it is not the same as election or predestination as we understand them theologically. It is a temporal appointment, just like the soldier was given an military appointment by his government.

Unless it's knowledge of a future decision he will make! Then that decision must really have been, in a sense, caused already.

It is not the knowledge that makes this causal, but the actions of God. You do not understand causality. Events cause things, not knowledge. To know something simply is a state.

But I think the free-will people would have as much objection to just these people being fore-ordained to eternal life as they would to all the saints being fore-ordained to salvation. We must extend this, too, must we not?

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved...

So these people must be fore-ordained to eternal life, as well.

This is not a question about free will. As for Romans 11:26, "all Israel" is composed of Jews and Gentiles - the consistent theme of Paul.

But one book does cause the other book to not fall! And we may examine the books either in the temporal order in which they were placed, or in the opposite order, and either way, we have a causal sequence.

I am afraid I must disagree. This is illogical.

If they were all manufactured as a unit, and placed together on the table, then there still would be a logical sequence in one book holding up another, yet not a temporal one.

If they are manufactured as a unit, then you do not have multiple books but one unit.

You are inventing fantasies to prove your point. Why do this?

Swordman53

[Chappie]

I do believe you get it!



Nang

How does God keep the situation under conrtol when "he" is calling the shots??

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Sw53: First, for AVmetro to make that statement necessarily implies that eternity has "time." Therefore, time is an aspect of eternity and God's existence and we cannot separate God from time.

That may well be:

Psalm 93:2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.

Which seems to be a statement of infinite prior time, applied to God (see also 1 Chr. 16:36; Neh. 9:5; Ps. 90:2, etc.).

But I meant God's intent at the moment of creation, surely he knew at that time, all of what he intended, and he must know how he would choose in any completely described situation, so "appointed to eternal life" must occur at least at this point, and not afterwards, in all such verses.

Can you find another instance where TASSW is used of a non-temporal setting?

I don't actually mind if it's temporal, I think it's important if this indicates God making a decision, though (from the moment of creation!), about who will believe, in a given instance.

Lee: Yes, so then a pluperfect TASSW would be preordination, rather clearly.

Sw53: Theologically, there is a clear difference between what we consider preordained and what we would see as a temporal appointment.

I don't insist on this being critical though, so I am willing to call the ordination temporal (though I actually believe otherwise), and I would then call temporal ordination (good old Calvinistically) preordained.

Sw53: Shall we also say the rejection of the gospel in verse 46 is also causal?

Yes, I believe that as well, God decides in matters of salvation, always (Isa. 6:10, 63:17; John 12:40; 1 Pt. 2:8).

Sw53: There is a clear antecedent stated in the narrative - the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles. In the narrative, what antecedent do you see occurring that would imply that God is preordaining before time something?

Well, again, I don't insist on timelessness, but (also again!) ordaining a message does not necessarily ordain a response. The one need not imply the other, as in the case of Ezekiel.

Lee: Well, if you are appointed to be in Pittsburgh, we may presume that means to get you there are appointed as well!

Sw53: And am I required to go to Pittsburgh? What happens if I do not?

I meant an appointment that was certain, to be there, though.

Sw53: Since the powers in Romans 13:1 are appointed by God, shall we blame God for the deathcamps of Nazi Germany, the killing fields of Cambodia, the racial and religious hatred in various parts of the world by governments?

Certainly not, for their appointment to rule is not a commission to do evil. And even Romans 13:4 does not say "appointed to bring punishment on the wrongdoer," the use of this word is only to "appointment to authority," not appointment to an action on their part. We have to read carefully sometimes, and it seems this is one of those instances!

I think you completely missed the point. POROORIZW is not in this text. The correlation is to the other words, Lee.

But this is missing the point only if PROORIZW is not carrying the same sense of ordination as ORIZW, and aren't these close cognate words, in that sense?

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.

Sw53: Jesus met with the disciples and they "set" or established a place to meeting. They have simply designated a location.

Jesus did this, though! This was not a committee decision, and the appointment by Jesus of the place resulted in the action of them being there subsequently. ORIZW => result, TASSW => result, that is my argument here.

Acts 22:10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'

Sw53:Here the word is used PRECISELY and in COMPLETE correlation with the call to preach to the Gentiles.

And he preached! The "setting" of Paul to do the deeds brought about the result.

1 Corinthians 9:16 Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach.

Those who are appointed to the eternal life are the Gentiles, who are included in the covenant because of Christ.

But then we are back to questioning the use of "all" in Acts 13:48, for your interpretation here would require that all Gentiles believed, if the translators (if we may hope they were not succumbing to fear of the consequences of their choice) are correct. All the translators I checked! Not just one instance.

What I am saying is that it is not the same as election or predestination as we understand them theologically.

Well, if the result is "they believed," then it's election, I would say (God decided, and as a result, they believed), and also pertinent to theology.

Lee: Unless it's knowledge of a future decision he will make! Then that decision must really have been, in a sense, caused already.

Sw53: It is not the knowledge that makes this causal, but the actions of God. You do not understand causality. Events cause things, not knowledge. To know something simply is a state.

Then decisions have no cause? Within the mind of God? Knowing a decision is different than knowing a fact about arithmetic, what I am after here is that decisions have causes, and thus a known decision must have already been caused, in some real sense.

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved...

Lee: So these people must be fore-ordained to eternal life, as well.

Sw53: As for Romans 11:26, "all Israel" is composed of Jews and Gentiles - the consistent theme of Paul.

But Paul uses "Israel" in many senses, he says "not all who are from Israel are Israel," which cannot mean "not all Jews and Gentiles are Jews and Gentiles."

And similarly, "all Israel will be saved," cannot mean "all who will be saved, will be saved," there would not be much use to making that point, so this must refer to ethnic Israel, which is indeed the clear focus, when Israel is mentioned in this chapter:

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did.

Lee: But one book does cause the other book to not fall! And we may examine the books either in the temporal order in which they were placed, or in the opposite order, and either way, we have a causal sequence.

Sw53: I am afraid I must disagree. This is illogical.

Well, how so, though? We have a logical sequence in both cases, yet in once case, the order is the opposite of the temporal order.

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Now says that a setting is not an appointment. What I am saying is that it is not the same as election or predestination as we understand them theologically. It is a temporal appointment, just like the soldier was given an military appointment by his government.

Sorry, but I was rushing to get out the door for a tour of the White House this morning. The above should say -

No one says that a setting is not an appointment...

[Swordman53]

That may well be:

Psalm 93:2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.

Which seems to be a statement of infinite prior time, applied to God (see also 1 Chr. 16:36; Neh. 9:5; Ps. 90:2, etc.).

Actually, since heaven is part of the temporal creation and it is God's throne, it is established in time.

But I meant God's intent at the moment of creation, surely he knew at that time, all of what he intended, and he must know how he would choose in any completely described situation, so "appointed to eternal life" must occur at least at this point, and not afterwards, in all such verses.

Creation is played out in time - at a minimum in six days. The decree to make man takes place on day six. Don't you think the decrees about individuals would take place after the decree to make man?

In any case, there is no "moment of creation." Creation takes place over a period of time. The initiation of creation - the first act - is the declaration "Let there be light." This speaks directly to God's nature.

I don't actually mind if it's temporal, I think it's important if this indicates God making a decision, though (from the moment of creation!), about who will believe, in a given instance.

Why is this important and why does the text of Acts 13 demand that it state this?

I don't insist on this being critical though, so I am willing to call the ordination temporal (though I actually believe otherwise), and I would then call temporal ordination (good old Calvinistically) preordained.

Again, we are dealing with two different terms and concepts in the Greek.

Yes, I believe that as well, God decides in matters of salvation, always (Isa. 6:10, 63:17; John 12:40; 1 Pt. 2:8).

We will deal with these verses another time, when my time allows. Since I believe that salvation is open to all in Christ, then I will simply disagree here.

Well, again, I don't insist on timelessness, but (also again!) ordaining a message does not necessarily ordain a response. The one need not imply the other, as in the case of Ezekiel.

Then you need to explain Acts 14:27 in the context of the first missionary journey. Luke is very explicit here that what occurred in the first missionary journey was that God opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

I meant an appointment that was certain, to be there, though.

Again, such appointments are not causal. I had a dental appointment once that I missed, does that count?

To appoint a place of meeting as in Matthew 28:16 is in no way causal.

Certainly not, for their appointment to rule is not a commission to do evil. And even Romans 13:4 does not say "appointed to bring punishment on the wrongdoer," the use of this word is only to "appointment to authority," not appointment to an action on their part. We have to read carefully sometimes, and it seems this is one of those instances!

Why are we to obey them?

Do you not see that such an appointment has nothing to do with causality?

But this is missing the point only if PROORIZW is not carrying the same sense of ordination as ORIZW, and aren't these close cognate words, in that sense?

Only PROORIZW speaks of an ordination before something else.

Jesus did this, though! This was not a committee decision, and the appointment by Jesus of the place resulted in the action of them being there subsequently. ORIZW => result, TASSW => result, that is my argument here.

But we are not dealing with ORIZW so you cannot use that term. You are trying to equate TASSW with PROORIZW, which is improper.

The appointment did not determine that the apostles showed up. It just authenticated the location where they had agreed to meet. It is directive, but not determinative.

The Law of God is also directive. It tells us what we must do in obedience. Yet it is possible to violate the Law of God. Therefore, it is not determinative.

And he preached! The "setting" of Paul to do the deeds brought about the result.

Again, what is directive is not determinative. Note my comment about the law.

I think you need to deal directly with Acts 14:27 first, which is in the direct context of the story. This speaks directly to what God is doing for these people.

1 Corinthians 9:16 Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach.

Paul does see the preaching of the gospel as a mandate, just as the Law was a mandate. And woe to him if he does not preach. A woe is a declaration of judgment - just like with the law.

But then we are back to questioning the use of "all" in Acts 13:48, for your interpretation here would require that all Gentiles believed, if the translators (if we may hope they were not succumbing to fear of the consequences of their choice) are correct. All the translators I checked! Not just one instance.

Well, if the result is "they believed," then it's election, I would say (God decided, and as a result, they believed), and also pertinent to theology.

Well, I think we shall have to disagree here and agree to disagree.

Then decisions have no cause? Within the mind of God? Knowing a decision is different than knowing a fact about arithmetic, what I am after here is that decisions have causes, and thus a known decision must have already been caused, in some real sense.

You keep trying to equate knowledge with decisions. That is improper.

But Paul uses "Israel" in many senses, he says "not all who are from Israel are Israel," which cannot mean "not all Jews and Gentiles are Jews and Gentiles."

And similarly, "all Israel will be saved," cannot mean "all who will be saved, will be saved," there would not be much use to making that point, so this must refer to ethnic Israel, which is indeed the clear focus, when Israel is mentioned in this chapter:

"Israel" is a designation for the covenant people. The nation of Israel was laid to rest long before Paul wrote this.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did.

Well, how so, though? We have a logical sequence in both cases, yet in once case, the order is the opposite of the temporal order.

There can be no logical sequencing in a unitary event, since there is only one event.

There can be no opposite order in a unitary event.

Would you like to suggest that God's foreordination is a unitary event outside of time? Then since it is timeless and transcendent to time, it becomes a state.

Lee, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

You are trying to protect a theology. I am trying to interpret the story in context.

Since we are approaching this from two different perspectives, there will be no resolution.

I will suggest one more thing that is outside of the text in question for you to reflect on, and then we shall terminate this discussion -

If these decrees that you are postulating are eternal, then they are part of God himself - not something he does. Only God is eternal. Therefore, God has no choice but to create and to do so in such a way that fullfills the decrees. If this is the case, then God is determined just as we are and is not free. Your theology is reduced to a theological equivalent of natural law, which supercedes the sovereignty of God.

In this form of Calvinism, God ceases to be sovereign. The decrees become sovereign and God must move based on the decrees. God's actions are pre-ordained, just as your actions are pre-ordained.

That is for you to mull over. My time is over and I need to get ready for next semester. This topic has run its course.

Swordman53

[AVmetro]

The following is in reply to your post on "time."

Swordman,

Perhaps you’re misunderstanding what I was getting at.

You seemed to be arguing that the “appointment” was not an appointment made from eternity, correct? This I gather to argue against it being used in any “predestinarian” sense?

You seemed, to me, to be arguing that this “appointment” was a relatively recent action. I, in turn, was arguing that God foreknows all things from eternity being that God is eternal and God does not learn new things (whether you want to argue that particular foreknowledge as determinate or passive, it doesn’t matter in regards to my point). Therefore, any “appointment” of individuals/classes to something would have been “decided upon”, so to speak, before the foundation of the world. Now, we can argue that “before the foundation of the world” does not mean “before time” or “in eternity” but it does occur well before the “appointment” TO something and therefore has the full implication of predestination with the *word* “predestination.”

Now onto what you said:

SM:

We are moving into the realm of philosophy here, but kindly explain how you go back before the beginning.

Beginning of…?

You don’t if you speak of God. As I said, God is the ‘arche’, but I didn’t say that His plans preceded (“go back before”) His own being. I stated that His knowledge was concurrent with Him being He doesn’t learn or “take in” knowledge.

However, in Genesis we have “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” which I’m certain simply signifies the beginning of creation which you can certainly go before (Eph 1:4 “before the foundation of the world“--case in point, you have God’s choice prior to the creation of the world which took place “in the beginning.” If before the creation of the world and therefore not in the “beginning”, then necessarily before the beginning).

Giving this little thought and thereby taking the risk of drawing a bad parallel (not that I‘m relying on this to support my point(s) anyway), we might think of it like the alledged “eternal generation” of the Son from the Father. The Son is eternal, has no beginning (He is the “beginning“), yet is “begotten” of the Father.

SM:

Your statement above is very telling as to how you perceive this. You speak of God spending eternity thinking. This is an activity which takes place in time since thoughts are sequenced. Therefore, logically you are placing eternity in time.

Perhaps I used the wrong language to convey my idea--I did not mean to imply that God spent eternity past “thinkING” (by the use of the word “thoughts”), but that He had “thoughts” (more accurately “knowledge”).

Do you believe God “makes decisions” or that they are already made eternity past? Do you believe God has to actively “check” the future by exercising His foreknowledge and them, subsequently make a decision? What is exactly your view of divine foreknowledge and perhaps that’ll help me understand you better.

SM:

You also assume that planning involves learning and therefore violates God's immutability.

“Planning” involves “thinking” in order to result in a finished “plan.” “Pondering resulting in knowledge of something” = “learning.” Why perform the action of “planning” if you already know the “plan” is my question.

I believe God has plans (noun) but does not “make plans” (action) that were not known to Him from all eternity.

In any case, I really don’t see how all this is important--even if I were to concede that God’s appointment of these Gentiles occurred in time, it isn’t settled as to when the appointment occurred. I believe you say it probably occurred when the Gentiles rejoiced. But I think there is a problem with that assumption.

SM:

This is simply not the case. You are imposing an anthropomorphism on God by denying him the ability to move without learning. If this were the case, then your "decrees" would be necessary for God and God would not be a free being. He becomes simply part of the great machine of existence that is fixed and cannot be changed. Your view effectively becomes either pantheistic or naturalistic with no real God at all.

His “decrees” are in perfect accordance with His perfect will--therefore He is free.

SM:

Actions, whether they be mental or physical, take place in time if you want to postulate any form of antecedence. If God is acting "before" (planning or whatever) then we must state one of the following:

1. God exists in time in some sense and the "beginning" of Genesis is simply the beginning of our world. God acts "prior" to our time, but still in time. Therefore, there is no true arche or beginning. This has striking features of pantheism (from a religious viewpoint) or steady-state naturalism.

2. Time is simply an aspect of God himself, making it eternal. Therefore, all actions exists in some sense in eternity. Again, this is very pantheistic.

3. God is the beginning and all actions move from that point. This places the decrees in time with nothing before God.

Or perhaps “time”, like the metric system, is simply a standard by which humans measure their perception of the passing of ________ (whatever we like to call it). Most people treat “time” as a “thing” that must have been created--why? As I see it, “eternity” is simply one measurement within the concept of “time”--not something distinct from “time” itself.

SM:

I fail to see why this third option is so offensive to Reformers. It addresses all issues in question. We do not speak of what is before creation because it is incommunicable to us. Therefore, to speak of a "before" the beginning is simply nonsense. Once we postulate something before the beginning, we are moving the true beginning back to that point.

Okay, let’s assume this is not offensive to Reformers (it may be, it may not--I’m not too overly concerned with the nuances of a philosophic time argument). What is the relvance of this part of the discussion to Acts 13:48? My last post to you was more in trying to understand exactly what your argument was than to make much of an argument of my own (though depending on your response(s), that is what it will lead to).

[…]

SM:

I fail to see the problem of God making decrees in time. He does so all the "time" in Scripture.

Let me ask this and see if it clarifies what I’m getting at; does God know of all the decrees He will make before He exercises them/makes a single one of them known?

I believe all of God’s decrees are known to Him from eternity. But I also believe that God carries out these decrees “in time” if you will. I make a distinction between God always knowing what He is going to do and actually doing it.

SM:

If you want to insist that the decrees are outside of time, then we can simply postulate some form of concurrence between the acts in time and decrees outside of time. Therefore, you would maintain your determinism (which you are seeking apparently), but must exclude the language of time. The implications staggering theologically if you go this route

Could you give me some scriptural examples where negative implications would arise? I’m speaking of examples which entail the “language of time.” I’m sure I see what you’re getting at but I want to see it in action before I respond further.

SM:

far more so than open theism (of which I am NOT an advocate).

Glad to hear that.

Now, what is your ultimate point in arguing for God's plans being made in time? What is this supposed to accomplish? I'm sure I could figure it out but my only time to post is midnight or later and you know how that goes..:-)

AV