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. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Travel Update and Schedule Changes

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 it and then all of a sudden there's like I'm 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. 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 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 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 going to 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 1348 That means everyone who has 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 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 Stephanas that they were the first fruits 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 and 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 that's that's not the case. The presentation that mr Gregg will give you the presentation that you will read and 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 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 mean 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 proceed to Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had tassoed which he had Designated to them and that's a an heiress form and That's an that's an heiress 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 is simple it's 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 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. Gregg 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. Gregg 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 Tasso and it is being used in a very parallel form to that in the act 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 Tasso 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 Tasso 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 1615 we 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 Tassoed by God and specifically that is a Tata men.

I and 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 paraphrasing 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 Tasso at X 1348 Substantiated by New Testament usage, but there is first Corinthians 1615 Where it does say that they have devoted themselves To the Saints and there you do have the term Tasso.

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 Atoxin and then we have the term. Hey, I'll toots. Hey, I'll toots. Hey, I'll toots is a pronoun but it is a reflexive pronoun a reflexive pronoun and if you want to have Tasso 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 toots 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 X 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 ipsodix it. 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 message 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 one of the two. 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 four ordination 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 recognized that everything that had happened to Jesus Everything that had 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.. Greg 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.. Greg 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.. Greg 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.

Steve Gregg on Acts 13:48

One of the harder verses to deal with in this passage is is x 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 your 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 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 saying 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.