τεταγμένοι, Self-disposed, Reflexive Pronouns, and Dave Hunt, Oh My!

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning, welcome to the dividing line back on regular schedule this morning after a wonderful time up in Anchorage, Alaska and In Coos Bay, Oregon last week, of course

Anchorage Alaska I will never ever forget flying out of Seattle It was dark and we climbed altitude and we're heading north and the

Sun Came back up. I Never experienced that before, you know, you sort of see the yeah, you see the sunset and stuff and then that's just way wrong yeah, it's and then all of a sudden there's like I can see the engine right out of my window and You know, there's no sunlight on it and then it gets brighter and brighter and now you've got direct sunlight on the engine the

Sun came back up and It's like whoa, that's weird. And then of course when

I was there It got up to I think 56 degrees one day. So all these pasty white

Alaskans are everywhere Worshiping the Sun I mean and and the funny thing is if they know it's gonna be warmer later in the day

It doesn't matter what temperature is the beginning It was 32 degrees and I looked out my apartment one morning where I was staying and here goes this guy riding by on a mountain bike

It's 32 degrees outside and he's wearing shorts and a t -shirt man And he's just as happy as can be because it's gonna be 56 later in the day

So it's sort of a we know it's gonna be warm later and that makes us warm now type thing And it's uh, oh it was it was great a beautiful beautiful beautiful area up there, man

I'll tell you but the problem is, you know during the winter They only have like six hours worth of sort of light and so you really can't see much fit in the dark

For a number of months, so yeah, well anyway, it was a wonderful time up there

So we're back on our regular schedule this week. However, not quite Because not due to me not my fault, but somebody else

Associated with the program needs us to do it The Thursday program at the normal Tuesday time, so it's gonna be a morning

Dividing line on Thursday instead of the afternoon one. And if you have any complaints

Don't aim them at me Cuz I'm not the one making us do it

So, you know, I'll be sure to put a checkbox on the on the website that says fill in complaint form here

Yes, yes in the checkbox. Okay. Yeah. Thank you so anyway Had a good time up there great folks and Lord willing

I really hope to be back in August of 08 for numerous reasons but much to do today on the program

I would like to start off with a Discussion of acts 1348 now.

I know everybody's going you said you're gonna be Roman captain. I well Steve Gregg has said yeah, let's do some programs.

Let's do a You know, we haven't worked out all the details. I sent something up yesterday haven't heard back yet Regarding how to do this my desire would this would be to do what basically

I've not gotten any other non -calvinist to do and that is to do an exegetical debate where Instead of just having one session and you just throw everything you you want to say out and they throw everything they say out and you

Hopefully ask some good questions, and that's it I would rather have an exegetical debate where we have a specific text each one of us will

List a certain number of texts that we feel need to be addressed on an exegetical level and Remember, I played the section where mr

Gregg said that our minions can can exegete every text the Calvinist raised but the Calvinist can exegete text their minions raised so Obviously, I believe exactly 180 degrees opposite of that.

That's not my experience at all. It's exact opposite of my experience and so I think the best way to handle this would be to have a

Specific Interaction on Romans 8 a specific in action Romans 9

Ephesians 1 John 6 and have each side give their presentations then have a rebuttal period and have cross -examination and Have it all based upon the text itself.

I think that's the best way to to do something like this, so That's that's certainly what

I'm going for we will see what what mr. Gregg is willing to do he has an hour -long program each day

I think it's in the same Pacific time zone that we are in I think it's two to three o 'clock. So You know, maybe we'll just do it during that time and we can webcast at the same time

Or we can we can do two or three hours at a shot and then play those back over some programs, you know,

I don't know we haven't figured any of that stuff out, but that's That's what we are trying to do, but I wanted to address

The acts 1348 discussion because this really does allow us to Get into The text itself.

I think I heard maybe rich can correct me here Didn't did you say it's somebody on the fun? Steve Gregg's forum was actually saying some long lines of I wasn't interacting with the with the text or When am

I going to get to actually dealing with the text or something like that? I? I don't remember your specific words

But I don't know how I could be more specific in dealing with the text and I was last time when we were looking at First Peter 2 8 and Jude 4 and stuff like that.

But what can I say there? Here's another good opportunity because I think Mr. Gregg's presentation

X 1348 is probably one of the longest he gives other than Romans 9 and It is certainly one of the better ones.

It's it's very standard I mean, it's not that I there was anything here that I had not heard before But it it other than that one thing.

I played last time which he actually presented later. It wasn't even the same session About well if the

Calvinist right about X X 1348 That means everyone who is ever appointed in this city believed at that particular time, which you know

There's absolutely no ground for that one at all That was weird, but the original presentation he had given

Which was what I was listening to in my tire went flat While writing the original presentation that he gave was very standard and it's it's gonna be the best you're gonna hear from the

Armenian side because they Honestly, there's only one way they can approach this text. They have to go for the most unusual

Translation they've got to go for the New World translation thing. And that's they do so we're gonna listen to that and We're also gonna go through the text ourselves

And compare Compare the two. So let's look at Acts chapter 13 You know what has been going on here

Paul and Barnabas preaching the gospel the city becomes quite excited about their message and the the

Jews become jealous and so acts 1346 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said

It was necessary the Word of God be spoken to you first Since you repudiate it and judge

Yourselves unworthy of eternal life note that phrase Because the Arminian says see the

Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life This is a re this is an action that they are taking in regards to themselves

They judge themselves unworthy of eternal life behold We are turning to the

Gentiles for so the Lord has commanded us I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth

Fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy there hence verse 48 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 now

The argument in essence is this in Acts 1346. This is from the

Arminian perspective the synergistic perspective non -Calvinist perspective, whatever terminology you wish to utilize in 1346 the

Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life This is an action with reference to themselves in contrast in 1348 the

Gentiles Do something else and the argument that is put forward is that the

Greek term Tasso the Greek term Tasso in Acts 1348 can either be middle or passive and If you translate as a classical middle, then it would be they disposed themselves

The Gentiles were rightly disposed to eternal life and hence believed it was a

Predisposition on their part unlike the Jews who had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life

They themselves judged themselves evidently to be worthy of eternal life. I mean that would be the opposite They generally don't put it that way but it says they they they were rightly disposed and hence believed unto

Eternal life and that this is not in reference to an ordination of God When it says they were appointed or ordained to eternal life

Some will say that this is this is due to the Vulgate This is due to Calvinist influences

And if you're just to allow the text to speak for itself What you have here is is a disposition that is being referred to and they will frequently

Take you over to 1st Corinthians 16 15 1st Corinthians chapter 16 verse 15 and now

I urge you brethren You know the household of Stephanus that they were the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves

That's Tasso again. They have devoted themselves for ministry the Saints And so here is this action where they have devoted themselves.

They have disposed themselves to the ministry of the Saints and therefore you can you can here's an example where the the

Greek terms used this way and They would say this is much more consistent with the whole tenor of Scripture.

You don't have to do what what? Dave Hunt did you don't have to you know say well

Ordained is not even given as a meaning by this lexicon when actually it was but Dave can't read Greek So he probably couldn't find it and you don't have to then come up with the the first 13 chapters of Acts were originally written in Hebrew argument

Which remains by the way in his book even though it's gone through another printing and he said he was gonna change it

But it's still there. Yeah, you don't have to do all of that that kind of silliness to come up with This particular perspective and you can find a number of scholars who have

Obviously non Calvinistic scholars who have said well there's there's nothing here about it a divine ordination of Of God to these people to believe you can certainly find a number of people who have said that but the question of course is

What does the text itself say? So that's the argument that's put forward now Let me go back and address those things before we listen to a fairly lengthy section from mr.

Greg I want to make sure that everyone Understands exactly what it is. He's saying so I'm gonna play a fairly lengthy section

Make sure there's no out of context accusations to be made. Let me read you the translations provided by Pretty much all in fact to my knowledge all committee created

English translations that is they're not translations done by a single individual, but they are done by a committee of scholars

For example go back to the King James Version of the Bible as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Go back to 1901 the American Standard Version as many as were ordained to eternal life believed the

New King James Version 1982 as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed the NIV 1984 and all who were appointed for eternal life believed the

New Revised Standard Version 1989 and as many has been destined for eternal life became believers the

NASB update 1995 as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed the New Living Translation 96 and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers the

New English Translation 1998 and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed and how about the

English Standard Version as many as were appointed to eternal life Believed now you may notice that there is something rather consistent here.

They all say the same thing In fact to my knowledge the only

Trent two translations that are in print Done by something.

Well, actually one of these is not a translation at all the Living Bible, which of course is a

Paraphrase says as many as wanted eternal life believed Well, we don't have to worry too much about the

Living Bible because it's not a translation But then of course we have the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Which says and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became?

Believers and of course we understand why the Jehovah's Witnesses would do that the New World Translation is a perversion of the

Bible not a translation of the Bible and they do not believe in predestination election and Do not believe that God even has exhaustive knowledge of future events and therefore

They can't have appointed for eternal life. And so they have rightly Disposed why would there be such a consistency?

Is there really something to the accusation? That's in essence what you have going on here is a massive

Calvinistic conspiracy where the Calvinists are in charge of the publishing industry and they have

Forced this translation on everyone. Well No, that's that's that's not the case

The presentation that mr Greg will give you the presentation that you will read in other sources the the

Presentation that I gave you of the Arminian perspective as common as it is and you will find it in numerous sources

It's also very surface level and very shallow And what I mean by that is that it's when you hear someone saying this

Greek term can be translated this way hopefully little red alarm bells go off because folks

None of us use words in a vacuum we use words in contexts and We also recognize that when you're looking at the general usage of a term

It's also good to first start with what a particular writer how a particular writer uses the term and then expand beyond that notice

I went from Luke in x 1348 To first Corinthians and that's Paul now

Paul's usage may be relevant. We can look at that. But the point is That you don't just simply dive from the one to the other further and this is this is clearly

One of the one of the biggest issues from from my perspective and that is the language, especially the

Greek language expresses itself through grammar and Then the next step above that is called syntax the relationship of grammatical terms to one another and So much of what

I see on the net and so much of what I see even in commentaries at times ignores

Syntax I did not hear and work. I'll listen again very carefully to The discussion as it as it appears when we play it from from mr.

Greg, but I heard no discussion of the syntactical

Interpretation of the text I heard him say now this could be a middle or a passive and you know passive He at least defined what a middle and a passive were but he did not go into discussion of for example the fact that Luke uses significantly more passives than middles that the passive is significantly more common in Koine Greek than the middle is and There are all sorts of issues that go into That particular subject, but the fact of matter is if you're going to identify a term as being used in the middle a weight comes

Upon you to demonstrate that the passive is not meant because that is really the default when you have

A phrase and the form can either be a middle or a passive by default you translate it as a passive unless there is a reason due to for example some words in the middle voice have a different meaning and Therefore there will be indicators of that and and there are other ways that you can you can

Recognize that a middle voice is being used but but by default The the general translation is gonna be passive and if you're going to insist on a middle you need you're gonna need to find something

More than just well, I like it better that way You're gonna have to come up with something a little bit more than that. But what's beyond that is there's no discussion of the fact

That in acts 1348. This is not just a verb sitting there Being a verb and doing its thing

What I mean by that is that this is what's called a periphrastic

Construction the term Tasso isn't just sitting there as as a as a verb it actually is there as a perfect passive participle and right before it is the

Greek term a son and A son is a particular form of the verb.

I need the verb of being and so when you have a form of I me and A participle in this form you have what's called a periphrastic

Construction and periphrastic constructions are our beasts unto themselves They have means of being interpreted unto themselves and this particular one where you have an imperfect form of I me

With the perfect passive participle this becomes what's called a pluperfect Translation a pluperfect periphrastic and so it's telling us that this action took place in the past and It's not saying anything as a perfect would that it has abiding results in the future, but it is a completed action

So whatever else it is These if you're going to say this means they they were disposed.

This means that as a finished action prior to this point

They had disposed themselves to eternal life There's no way you can escape that these people even before they heard

The gospel itself were somehow better than the Jews were they had disposed themselves to eternal life

Because this took place before this event to say well this took place

You know in the few moments in which there had been dispute going on or something like that. That's ridiculous.

This would be before The events of acts 1348 they were disposed to eternal life

So you're gonna you'd have to go there So you'd have to defend the middle which I would then ask you where does

Luke ever do that? And as we'll see here in a moment, he didn't he's never used Tasso in that way where do you get the middle and Could you please explain?

How it is that human beings dispose themselves to eternal life without Ending up with the idea that Salvation is completely of man and that there are some people who are just better than others because they're more spiritually sensitive

They have softer hearts, you know, whatever else it might be You have to deal with the blue perfect paraphrastic and explain how before this they had disposed themselves unto eternal life

That means these must have been the good Gentiles That means there must be some bad Gentiles that hadn't disposed themselves to eternal life or something like that Is what you're having to read in here is if that actually was what

Luke was Talking about in this context, which we will discover it is not well, let's let's look at the other places where Tasso is used in the

New Testament and Keep an eye on how it is used what form it's using in Matthew 28 16

But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had tassoed which he had

Designated to them and that's a an heiress to form and that's an that's an heiress to middle

That one you can tell and yet it still means to arrange to a point Jesus had now here you have a use of a middle now

So the middle part of simple is not in a paraphrastic instruction and it's not in Luke Okay, but we're just looking at the uses.

There's only a certain number of them in the New Testament But here you have to designate a point. It was not that the point had disposed itself to be met there this was clearly something that Jesus had done and It's it does not mean to dispose.

It means to a point Luke 7 8 for I also a man placed under authority with soldiers under me under me and there there you have a

Participle but it's it's a present placed under authority This is a frequently a military term

Tasso is frequently used of arranging soldiers and stuff And this is how it would be using be used right here one placed under authority

And that would be consistent with the regular translation. Then the next one is X 1348. So let's go past that to acts 15 to and this is going to be important because this is still

Luke 7 8 would be important because that's Luke and Luke's writing acts 1348 unless of course he was writing in Hebrew, but we've already had that discussion with Dave Hunt anyway

So acts 15 is going to be important as well Because it likewise is from Luke and when

Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them the brethren Determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the

Apostles and elders concerning the issue and so there is there is debate that takes place in this particular situation and It was this decided determined arranged appointed ordered

That Paul and Silas would go up and there you have the term Tasso there in the indicative heiress form in acts 15 to and it is consistent with the idea of not

Self -disposition, but the outside authority appointing or ordering something acts 2210 and I said

What shall I do Lord and the Lord said to me get up and go into Damascus and there you'll be told of all that Has been appointed for you to do and here we do have a perfect passive it is not a participle, but fairly close as far as a perfect passive and Clearly this is the very same meaning as it has been translated in acts 1348 by all major English translations because This is not it there.

You will be told of all that you have been disposed to do It's there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do and that is by whom well by God God has appointed certain things this servant he is called the servant into his service at this point in time and He has a certain plan for him and it has been appointed for him to do these things now again

I don't know how any open theist or anybody like that You know can even deal with text like this But we leave them off to the side the moment

God had appointed that Paul would do these things now I would note in passing when mr.

Greg says that that Paul could have resisted the God's conversion attempt on the road to Damascus then

How long could Paul have held out? And if he had held out for years there would be things that God had appointed him to do he couldn't get done

So evidently this appointment. I don't again. I don't know how mr. Greg could put all this together I do not see any consistent doctrine of God And God's knowledge of future events creator etc.

Etc. And that's why Consistent Armenians are open theists, but anyway here is the the term

Tosso And it is being used in a very parallel form to that in fact 1348 and then acts 2823 and when they had set a day for Paul they came to him at his lodging in large numbers, and that is the term

Again Tosso there is a participle they had set the date they had established it

It was not a date that Paul was simply disposed toward so notice what we've had in Luke 7 8 15 to 22 10 20 23 in the specific uses by Luke there is

No utilization of Tosso in the way that is suggested by Armenians that it should be taken at X 1348 so What's your what

I'm saying? That is you're gonna have to admit, okay? I'm using this term in a way that Luke never uses it now that is not a fatal objection you can still contextually

Establish this needs to be the way that it's taken But you better start driving stuff right out of the immediate context to be able to do this because if you can't well

Then you're gonna have a problem. We've already seen some of Paul We saw first Corinthians 16 15.

We'll look at again Romans 13 1 first every person is to be in Subjection to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and those which exist are

Tossoed by God and specifically that is a tetog men

I and that that is a direct parallel to the form that is found in Act 1348 the only difference is that it's feminine because of exousia the authorities are feminine

In X 1348 it's masculine because of its antecedent, but other than that it's the same word, but it is not

Identical because Here though you have a sort of a paraphrasic instruction because Ison comes afterwards

I mean The verb is not coming immediately before it, but it's very very close, and what does it mean?

those which are Established by God not those which are disposed to be used of God those which are established by God God's doing something

He's establishing. He's ordering and so what are we seeing so far in the New Testament? So far we have not seen the suggested interpretation of Tosso at X 1348

Substantiated by New Testament usage, but there is 1st Corinthians 16 15 Where it does say that they have devoted themselves

To the Saints and there you do have the term Tosso. It's an heiress But here is what is missing from all of these discussions in which?

Mr.. Greg did not mention, and I don't know that mr.. Greg would be able to mention it. I don't know

But this is what's missing the term at the end of 1st

Corinthians 615 that the the verse reads twice huggies a Toxin and then we have the term.

Hey, I'll toos. Hey, I'll toos. Hey, I'll toos is a pronoun, but it is a reflexive pronoun a reflexive pronoun and if you want to have

Tosso Functioning reflexively you need to have a reflexive pronoun now

That's not found in X 1348, but if you turn back to X 1348 it is interesting if you go back to X 1346

X 1346 the first verse we looked at notice what it says Since you repudiate it speaking of the

Jews since you repudiate the Word of God and Judge yourselves

Unworthy axius crinit a judge Unworthy hey,

I'll toos the reflexive pronoun is used again It's not a middle form

It is an active form, but the point is that the the reflexive aspect found in 1346 is provided by the reflexive pronoun that's right there and So the question then is is there a reflexive pronoun in X 1348 and the answer is

No, there is not It simply says and they believed

However as many as had been appointed unto eternal life. There is no

Reflexive pronoun in the text. It's not a textual variant nothing like that So to go back to 46 and say ah see see here's this they judge themselves.

Yes with a reflexive pronoun pronoun But there is none in 1348 and the only other place in the

New Testament where Tasso is translated that way is with a reflexive pronoun and there isn't one in 1348 and if you go back to the

Septuagint usage Guess what the only two times we have a reflexive use there guess what's provided the reflexive pronoun and that means to make this argument for mr.

Greg to make this argument for his all of his heroes that he cites to make this argument They would have to show us reflexive pronoun 1348.

They would have to show us something other than just their Ipsa Dixit to substantiate this assertion in light of the fact that Luke doesn't use it that way and The one time it's used in the

New Testament with that meaning it has the reflexive So if it's not there, then upon what basis do you make this the singular exception to the usage?

And I would like to suggest to you that the reason you do so is one reason tradition

That's the only reason that you read it at this point is pure tradition and So what is the text actually saying we'll think about it

Something again that wasn't noted by mr. Greg is that Tasso This this particular term notice notice was found in in Verse 47

For so Dolores commanded us. I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles You may bring salvation to the end of the earth

And so here they're seeing that this bringing of the proclamation to Gentiles that this was something that was a part of God's plan all along and when the

Gentiles heard this That is that these men are a light to the

Gentiles are bringing the gospel to Gentiles are turning the Gentiles are proclaiming this measure of hope Then they began rejoicing and glorifying the

Word of the Lord they didn't know that this message was for them up to this point The idea that they had somehow disposed themselves or they were somehow better.

That is pure Eisegesis there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to see that in the text

When they heard that the message was going to be coming to them Then they began rejoicing and glorifying the

Word the Lord and As many as had been ordained as many as had been appointed to eternal life

Believed there is no reason to render this in any other way outside of Yeah, if you don't recognize that you are culturally deprived or culturally depraved

Yes, indeed tradition That's that's the only way you get around what acts 1348 is saying now

I don't it was not Luke's intention to Introduce a lengthy in -depth discussion of the forward nation of God.

I Wouldn't go here to start my presentation But the reason he can say this so easily the reason he does not have to expand upon this is because This was what they understood

This is the same writer who records in Acts chapter 4 verses 27 through 28

Where the early church prays and they're being persecuted But they recognize that everything that had happened to Jesus Everything that happened at the hands of Pilate and Herod and the

Jews and the Romans it had been predestined Predestined by the hand of God to occur

Beforehand you can't get around that they this is what they believed and It's ironic because Mr.

Gregg spends this tremendous amount of time Saying that basically all all us

Calvinists were just followers of Augustine and Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy And so it's all just a bunch of Greek philosophy coming to the church when the reality is of course the

Greek philosophy Justin Martyr and Tertullian and these others were deeply Deeply if Justin Martyr knew more about Greek philosophy than ever knew about the

Apostle Paul I can assure you of that and It is Greek philosophy which is not some unified singular thing but Greek philosophy which so often emphasizes human autonomy and things like that and It if you didn't have that commitment to the concept of human autonomy you would not even suggest reading acts 1348 that way but That's what ends up happening so with that.

I kept saying I would play what mr. Gregg had to say I'm gonna do so hopefully get that done in time to take our phone calls and Go on from there because I still have the

Reuben Israel Chavez thing to play I don't know if we'll get to that, but it's not nearly as important as this stuff anyways

But we'll look take a look at but here's now with this background information in other words

Recognizing the periphrastic instruction recognizing the actual use of the terms and that you should look at Luke first and look at the broader context

Looking at the syntax all of these things recognizing the reflexive pronoun There's that folks.

That's what's called exegesis. All right. That's actually looking at what the text has to say Now I think of most people listened to what mr.

Gregg has to say here They'd go wow that sounds that but now that you know the whole in from the whole enchilada shall we say now

Listen and see if you can't see where it sounds good, but it's not exegesis What are the harder verses to deal with in this passage is is acts 1348?

This is a really difficult verse to know its exact meaning This is talking about the response of the listeners to Paul At the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch where he was largely rejected by the

Jews, but very largely His message was embraced by the Gentiles, but in this passage

It says this In Acts 13

Verse 46 through 48 it says then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said to the Jews It was necessary that the

Word of God should be spoken to you first But since you rejected and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life

Behold we turn to the Gentiles for so the Lord has commanded us I have set you to be a light to the

Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth now when the Gentiles heard this verse 48

They were glad and glorified the Lord Word of the Lord and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed now there's

Certainly the way it reads there Which way as many as were appointed to eternal life believed?

Sounds like the appointment was individual God Individually appointed that certain people would believe and be saved here, and they did but once he appointed

The King James even sounds more Calvinistic in its statement because there's as many as were ordained for eternal life believed and It sounds very clearly as if God has made it a decree that is simply

No irresistible that God has decreed these people and no others would believe would be saved now

I want to say first of all the verse would be much more solidly a Calvinistic verse

If it said as many as were appointed to believe We're saved that would mean that the appointing had to do with they were appointed to believe that they were ordained to be believers all it says is they were ordained to salvation and They believed well

God had already ordained as Arminian believes that anyone who believes Belongs to that class of people who are chosen to be saved

God chooses to save the class that are described as those who believe and here some people believed and therefore they

Are now in the class of those that God has appointed for salvation As I say it would it would be much more

Difficult for the Arminian to deal with this verse if it said as many as were appointed for faith Or as many as God had appointed to believe

God saved But he doesn't say that it was their believing that was appointed necessarily therefore even if we do nothing in terms of Retranslating this verse are looking at the words more closely in the

Greek or anything We could say that the verse sounds fairly Calvinistic, but on Arminian presuppositions if it fits

Perhaps not as neatly perhaps. It's a more awkward But there's nothing about it that would preclude the possibly that Luke who wrote the verse might have had views that were more

Non -Calvinistic than Calvinistic now. I'm not going to say that that settles the question I'm saying that that does remove the argument that only a

Calvinist can make sense of this verse But there's more the word ordained or appointed in the King James.

It's ordained in the New King James It's appointed appointed to eternal life Actually is a word whose translation is open to dispute

There are some scholars who would translate it disposed On page 18 of the notes.

I've given you there is a note there that says that gives the names of some of the

Commentators who believe that disposed is perhaps a better translation Alfred Wordsworth Meyer Rotherham Bloomfield Thayer Bartlett These are some of the ones who are said to make this observation now not all of those actually say it should be translated disposed

But some of those say most those say that what this is suggesting is that the people who believe on this occasion?

Were in some sense disposed toward eternal life without designating for sure who disposed them

The fact that verse 46 says that the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life

And then these other people were disposed for eternal life or were I'm going to talk more about the word

I don't think disposed is the best translation, but it has sort of that Possible aspect which suggests that as one group judged themselves eternal

Unworthy of eternal life the other group who did not judge themselves Unworthy, but who were disposed toward eternal life they believe now there is a contrast there, which seems to put the

The responsibility there on the side of the person either believing or not believing But that it doesn't solve a problem in itself by itself

I have read a number of commentaries on this most of them by Calvinists And of course the

Calvinist just say what Calvinists say about it. I encountered this statement In the

Tyndale commentary written by E .M. Blake will have to stop there for a moment Calvinists just say what

Calvinists say about it No Calvinists point out things like reflexive pronouns, and they point out syntax and they point out

Paraphrastic constructions and what the pluperfect means and they point out that you have a reflexive and in 46 you don't have it in 48 and they look at usage in Luke and then look at usage in Paul and look at usage in The Septuagint and I guess that's the difference between you know

Calvinists who can't do exegesis and your minions who are doing this insightful exegesis Or something I don't know what do you mean

Calvinist just say what Calvinists say about it. No Calvinist go into quite a deal Good bit of depth like we just did

That's The the Arminian some just talk I would have assumed prior to reading this that Blake Locke was a

Calvinist because most the commentators in this series are written by men Who are? But it appears either he is not a

Calvinist or else. He's not what he'd call an extreme Calvinist because here's the note Here's how he wrote about this particular verse

In the commentary on acts in the Tyndale series E .M. Blake Locke professor of classics in Auckland University in New Zealand who?

Very good comment here, by the way, he said this Extreme Calvinism has sought a foothold in this verse

But in so doing takes insufficient notice of context or language note one the

Jews had already judged Themselves unworthy verse 46 they had in other words exercised their will and made their choice

Turning to the Gentiles the Apostles found faith among those who had now here's how he translates it those who had arranged themselves for eternal life

To notice this the verb as the translation given immediately above suggests is

Middle middle and passive coincide in this tense and thus implies some personal action

I'll tell you more about this if you don't understand the middle tense The metaphor is military the Gentiles had set themselves in place by faith

For eternal life ordained of course in the a be that's King James Translation is not necessarily indicative

Of a Calvinistic bias I'm surprised. I think it's not but anyway

What what he says here is that this verb is in the middle voice now

We know that there's active voice and passive voice an active voice would say I appoint

I'm the one acting on the subject of sentence and the action is my action. It's an active voice of the verb

I appoint The Passive voice would be I was appointed meaning someone else appointed me

I am the still the subject of the sentence, but the verb does not describe my action, but actually it was done to me

I am passive in it so that's called the passive voice I was appointed the way It's read in the way it reads here in in the translation

About the King James and the New King James and many others they read it as if it's in a passive voice and it could be

But what Blake Locke says is that the passive in the middle voice of this verb in this case are Are the same and this could be understood in the middle voice now middle voice is

Where you are in a sense acting upon yourself? Yeah, I just I just very briefly stop at that point and again point out

The form could be either one however That to say up it.

Yep That's just you know there's no way of knowing you just you can go either direction Without taking into consideration the blue perfect Paraphrastic instruction without taking into consideration

Usage by the writer usage in the New Testament without containing into consideration that immediately before this verse 46

In a phrase that they themselves recognize is relevant you use the reflexive pronoun

To just say well it could be the one is is misleading The default is the passive there's no question about that I mean you try to you try to take this kind of reading start reading through all of Luke And you're going to be you're gonna end up with a total mess

It would destroy the entire translation to start throwing stuff like this around The the default translation and and even if you didn't know that the fact that every stinking

Meaningful English translation done by a committee says the same thing should make you go hmm

I wonder why we have to keep changing these you know we've been looking at Fell over at Liberty you know and and how he keeps having to change the translation

You know see Gordon Olson well You know yeah sure all the translations say is but you know it might be better to go this there might be a reason you know

Maybe you haven't been talking to enough Jehovah's Witnesses and looking at the New World Translation recently to know that you know what when you have to start changing consistently

The regular translation of the Bible to fit your theology might mean your theology isn't quite where it needs to be

I Decided for myself. I chose for myself. I appointed that I I Determined that I would do this determined in a case like that would be not exactly active or passive That sense would be called the middle voice

It's not just that I'm acting or that something's activated. I'm acting on myself And that's called the middle voice now apparently the way the verb stands in the text

In the form it is it can either be middle voice or passive the Calvinist assumes

It's passive these people were appointed that is by someone else by God to believe to have eternal life

But it could be those who had appointed for themselves those who had ranged themselves

It's a military term to range or to set in order That that Blake Locke thinks that if it's the middle voice that they ranged themselves they were ranged in favor of Eternal life, but by whom that doesn't that's not stated

It's it's not clear one person who takes the path the actually Calvinist view of this verse a

T Robertson one of the greater Greek scholars In terms of respected in the scholarly world for his

Greek scholarship a T. Robertson He said on this verse quote this verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty in human free agency

There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decreed over an absolute decree of personal salvation

Now this is that's a statement from a man a T. Robertson in his word studies in the New Testament He's he didn't believe that this necessarily solves the problem or makes a

Calvinistic statement though he He leans toward a more passive Taking of the verb that they were appointed

It doesn't say by whom not though this particular Greek word usually does Usually is used in the sense of one person appointing another person however, the word only appears eight times in the

New Testament and There is at least one time if you look at 1st Corinthians 16 15

Where the same verb appears, but it's translated differently in this place 1st Corinthians 16 15

Says I urge you brethren You know the household of Stephanus that it is the first fruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the

Saints The word devoted there is the same word That is found that we're discussing in Acts 13 48

Now devoted is not necessarily the best translation either, but whatever it is. It's saying they did it to themselves in other words

Notice that there is no discussion of the reflexive pronoun no recognition of its existence

No recognition of the different forms the word It's just well same word.

Well. It's same root word different form different context different syntax Actually, it's quite different not even parallel at that point, but hey, you know

It's it helps me to substantiate my my eisegesis of Acts 13 48 If we'd say well the word means appointed and how silly to say they appointed themselves people don't appoint themselves

And yet we have a case here with a very same verb in the Greek one of the eight places in the New Testament where it appears speaks very specifically of people appointing themselves or Disposing themselves and notice the themselves is a word

Heyaltoos in the Greek text that's not in verse 48.

That's not coming from Tasso You see how this isn't relevant. That's not coming from Tasso That's not coming from the same

Greek verb So to say same Greek verb and it's them themselves doing themselves without recognizing it

That's actually from how to use is to demonstrate you're not reading the text You're reading somebody else and then repeating it arranging themselves or inclining themselves or devoting themselves

Very clearly the verb itself can speak of what one does to himself. Whatever English would we choose?

For that verb and there may be many choices It is clear that the verb itself is does not necessarily imply someone else did it to you.

You can do it to yourself if You have a reflexive pronoun which isn't at X 13 48

And that is exactly how that verb is used in 1st Corinthians 16 15 and that being the case

We have at least be possibly open to us that the verb in Acts 13 48 also speaks of someone doing this to themselves now notice

Again if I think of Steve Gregg had not gone into that section Where he was talking about how easy it is for our minions to exegete so naturally and so easily

The Calvinistic text and how desperate the Calvinists are To to get around the

Arminian texts that I probably wouldn't be quite as quick to jump on these but folks

What you're listening to here is a defense of eisegesis What you're listening to here is a defense of reading a text in the most unnatural possible way

A way that is simply not substantiated, but you're going well You know this verb is found over in a different context in a different form and the different syntax

But it means this here, so it's at least possible that maybe we could read it this way. That's not exegesis

That's eisegesis reading into this text if you want to know what Luke himself meant there really isn't any question about that They disposed themselves they arranged themselves as Blake Locke translated.

They devoted themselves They appointed themselves if you prefer although, that's a stranger construction

But the point is they are in contrast to those who judged themselves Unworthy of eternal life therefore.

It's more likely it seems that Luke's meaning is these ones however did not judge themselves unworthy of eternal life

They arranged themselves favorably toward eternal life now notice He just said this is the more likely translation the more likely understanding is the one

He's promoting not not equally but more likely and we've already seen that not a

Scintilla of foundation that once you actually do the exegesis and therefore they believe

I've taken a long time on this, but this verse is one of the classic and important key verses In this discussion because of the way it sounds

But I'm trying to say to you Scholars do not all agree with the Calvinist on the meaning of the verb and even we can make a choice for ourselves without the scholars

Simply by comparing the use of the verb in 1st Corinthians 16 15 which clearly speaks of a middle voice

Person is doing something for their own benefit now There there is a perfect example of why a little

Greek is a dangerous thing Because he's wrong. He's simply wrong

Yeah, that's Tosso, but the reflexive action is not found because it's being used in a middle

The reflexive action is because of the reflexive pronoun That's why it's rendered that way different context different syntax different meaning

That's why a little Greek is a dangerous thing. You just turn say we can do this for ourselves out the scholars.

Well Again, when you when you come up with a reading that is the exact opposite of what you find in all those

English Translations something should go. Hmm. I think I might have a problem here.

That's what should happen Well, really quickly Kendall in Iowa has been very patient. Hi Kendall How you doing

Kendall do well interesting topic. Yes, sir John Owen display of Arminianism on that verse.

Well, that's one of the that's one of the books. He likes to go after oh, yeah, see the one of the the main books he showed familiarity with was

Owen's display of Arminianism and Ness and Sproul those are the three that he quotes

Owen says he falls foul on the Word of God they believed say it's the Holy Ghost who were ordained to eternal life and he quotes acts and You know, he just says how do they get around this?

Anyway, that's different. That's not why I called Yes, an interesting topic. The reason I called was and I'm in the reform camp

Mm -hmm have been since the early 90s, but early on I started getting Dave hunts

Bree and call. Mm -hmm years ago and So I just thought well, I'll keep getting it.

Anyway, my question is he has in his latest

Let's see. May. Yeah, May 2007 this Calvinism biblical and it says the animated exchange between Dave and James White clearly

Demonstrates the contrast between the opposing sides of this old controversy There's both educational and revealing 73 minutes long and I thought

Boy did a debate happen that I didn't know about No, but what is that must be the kpxq radio program?

I I filled in for Marty Minto in was that two thousand two thousand one 2 ,000 and in 2000

I think and it was a To our radio program, but once you take the commercials out, what does it say 73 minutes that gives you an idea of Make commercials you have during drive time, but it was a a radio program.

We have it number 490 on our website if you want to get our version of it and That that was instrumental in bringing about what love is this and that is where I started off asking

Dave I asked him You know you and I together have debated more Roman Catholics and probably any of the two people put together and yet when it comes

To the issue of the the grace of God and the nature of the will of man You stand with them against me you stand against the

Reformers and his response was the very first question. He goes Well James, I'm very ignorant to the

Reformers. I've never read any of their works I just like to go with the Bible and then six months later off his own radio program

We we have a quote from him going. I I think I know more about Calvinism than most

Calvinists do and so He had learned very very that was him preaching in a church.

No that was his radio program. Oh, this is radio program I've got all your books. I highly recommend to everyone.

I've run into Potter's freedom and I Would like to see you guys do a live debate well, so would

I? Dave has a standing Invitation to do a live debate and every time anyone brings it up to him and asks him why he won't he said we already did

Our debate we did a debate on the radio, which wasn't a debate. I was actually hosting the radio program so it's hardly like I had equal time and The book the book saw the debate we need to do now.

He'll debate other people He'll write other books on Calvinism, but when it comes to debating me Dave Hunt won't do it

And I've said this before this is not braggadocious on my part This is a simple fact of reality

Dave Hunt will not debate me because Dave Hunt knows he would lose and lose badly

He cannot answer the questions. He cannot answer the errors that I have demonstrated in his book.

He has no responses He has no way so he's he's hiding from the debate That's all there is to it, and I think

I wish he'd just be open up front about and say you know what? I can't can't do that, but instead.

He's he's we've actually played go back in our old dividing lines Yeah, I've been listening to you for years.

I remember I remember you playing those clips Yeah, not only that but in preaching in churches He has actually said

I didn't want the book published and and Calvinists were behind the the the end of loyal publishing and all this

Other silliness, it's just just utterly ridiculous back in the early 90s You know I was interested in studying cults and stuff, and I got a couple

Dave Hunt books somebody in church Just asked me last week. What do you think of Dave Hunt? I've lost respect because just went haywire on on this

Calvinism thing. Yeah, misquoting misunderstanding it well Unfortunately, it's also led me to have to look at what he's done on other subjects and Yeah, there's other subjects pretty bad.

Hey Kendall. Thanks for calling. I bless and thanks for listening to the dividing line I hope the discussion backs 1348 was useful to you remember

Thursday It's going to be an a .m.. Dividing line same time as this program on this coming

Thursday. See you then God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at p .o.

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o -m -i -n dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks