Evidence for God from Science

Lowly One,

Not all of the elect are believers. If that were the case, then the Great Commission would be complete.

Who did Christ "secure eternal redemption" for (Hebrews 9:12)? Everybody? Did He succeed?

puritan lad wrote:Not all of the elect are believers.

But they are predestined to become believers, are they not? Or are you saying one can lose their status as an elect?

By the same token, can some of the unelect be believers, even though they are predestined to become unbelievers? (:? Huh? I'm writing this and I'm not sure it makes any sense. I'm just trying to look at the other side. ).

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Not all of the elect are believers.

But they are predestined to become believers, are they not? Or are you saying one can lose their status as an elect?

By the same token, can some of the unelect be believers, even though they are predestined to become unbelievers? (:? Huh? I'm writing this and I'm not sure it makes any sense. I'm just trying to look at the other side. ).

Byblos, I think he means not all of the elect are believers "yet".

FFC wrote:

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Not all of the elect are believers.

But they are predestined to become believers, are they not? Or are you saying one can lose their status as an elect?

By the same token, can some of the unelect be believers, even though they are predestined to become unbelievers? (:? Huh? I'm writing this and I'm not sure it makes any sense. I'm just trying to look at the other side. ).

Byblos, I think he means not all of the elect are believers "yet".

So he's preaching to the elect so they can become believers? If they're predestined, would that not make any preaching superfluous?

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Not all of the elect are believers.

But they are predestined to become believers, are they not? Or are you saying one can lose their status as an elect?

By the same token, can some of the unelect be believers, even though they are predestined to become unbelievers? (:? Huh? I'm writing this and I'm not sure it makes any sense. I'm just trying to look at the other side. ).

Byblos, I think he means not all of the elect are believers "yet".

So he's preaching to the elect so they can become believers? If they're predestined, would that not make any preaching superfluous?

It would seem so, but I'm thinking that the argument would be that the reason they need to be preached to is so that when God gives them the gift of faith coupled with His irresistible Grace they can make the right informative decision. What good is the gift of faith if you don't know what you are supposed to believe in, right.

Correct. Those who are ordained to eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48). Those who are not will not believe and be damned (Mark 16:16).

Lowly One,
Not all of the elect are believers. If that were the case, then the Great Commission would be complete.

Is that it? Is that the best you can come up with? All you have done is assert a calvinistic presupposition, and with those glasses you have interpreted 2 Pet. 3:9. Now you can say that "not all of the elect are believers, but that is entirely irrelevant to the issues of this passage. Did you forget so soon, to your own theological convenience, that Peter is writing to the elect, and the elect here are people that have already obtained precious faith? Not just in the unseen eternal realm waiting to affect them in some pre-appointed time, but in the temporal seen realm, where Peter is talking about those who were at that time, believers. So to you, you say that it is these people that God is longsuffering towards. Why is He longsuffering towards them? The answer is revealed, and Scripture isn't silent on this matter where we can come up with ideas filling in the blank with such answers as evangelism to the lost. No, the answer is because God is not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. If all Peter meant when he said "all" was only his believing readers, then wouldn't he be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance? Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet? Peter in this epistle doesn't even mention the word "elect" so it is clear he has no such idea in this epistle of anything about God chosen individuals God is going to save.

Those who are ordained to eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48 ).

Now hopefully, Puritan Lad, you are not trying to force a connection between this passage and 2 Peter 3:9, because there is no such connection:

Gregory Boyd's commentary on specific passages:

Acts 13:48:

“When the Gentiles heard this [preaching], they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.”

Luke does not specify when the Gentiles who believed were “destined for eternal life.” Compatiblists rightfully point out that the Gentiles' faith followed their being “destined for eternal life” but mistakenly assume that this “destiny” was decided by God from before creation. The text only requires us to believe that the Spirit of God had been at work preparing the hearts of all who did not resist him to accept the Gospel when they heard it.

God knows our heart before we express it through our words or through our decisions (Ps. 139:2—4). On this basis the Lord could assure Paul before his missionary endeavor at Corinth that “there are many in this city who are my people” (viz. whose hearts have been opened and who will therefore believe your message) (Acts 18:10).

Some more interesting material:

Act 13:48 - As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akouonta ta ethne¯ echairon). Present active participle of akouo¯ and imperfect active of chairo¯, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles.

Glorified the word of God (edoxazon ton logon tou theou). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Gal_4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews.

As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi e¯san tetagmenoi eis zo¯e¯n aio¯nion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tasso¯, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.

Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuo¯. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God. Robertson's Commentary

Act 13:48 - As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Act_16:14, &c. It is observable, the original word is not once used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers. Wesley Commentary

As many as were ordained to eternal life. This passage has been used as a proof text for the extreme Calvinism that makes God arbitrarily select some for salvation and reject others. Wesley, on the other hand, says: "The original word rendered ordained is not once used in the Scriptures to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sense is that those, and those only, now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest; it was his will that they also should be saved, but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were those who then believed forced to believe. Grace was offered to them and they did not thrust it away." It is God's ordination that those of humble, teachable, honest hearts, seeking the truth and life, shall come to life when it is offered, and such accepted the gospel on this occasion. PNT Commentary

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

"For thus the Lord has commanded us, I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU SHOULD BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
And 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 (NASB).

Verse 46: The rejection of the Jews (or rather the Jewish nation) as God's present evangelistic agent, was based on their volitional rejection of God. Jesus taught this at Matthew 21:33-46 and Matthew 23:37-38; "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and YOU WERE UNWILLING. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

They had previously been appointed (as a group) to this function and privilege (Exodus 19:5-6), but through their continued failure to represent the Messianic promise to the world, which was ultimately demonstrated by their rejection of the personal presence of the Messiah, God temporarily (for He will again return to them; Romans 11:25-29) replaced them with a new body (a spiritual nation rather than physical) which is taken out from both Jew and Gentile, and is called the church (1 Peter 2:9-11).

Part of Paul's ministry was to communicate this message to them as he went from town to town, and to announce a formal rejection of the Jewish race as God's priestly house. Many of these occasions are recorded in Acts, and clarify, as does this one, that the Jews made a volitional choice of rejecting the gospel message and clinging to their man-made traditions of works and human heritage as the basis for acceptance before God. Paul says, "you have evaluated yourselves," which communicates the individual and collective rejection of Paul's message. Paul's message is the eternal life which is offered through the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. It is this that the Jews rejected and in so doing, essentially deemed themselves unworthy of that eternal life.

Paul's words that he is now "turning to the Gentiles," is the formal statement of rejecting Israel in preparation for their physical rejection through the destruction of the temple in about 25 years.

Although the quote in verse 47 has the Messiah in view (Isaiah 49:6), Paul applies it to those who are the brethren and the ambassadors of the Messiah, as ones who carry out His purpose.

The Gentiles who are present, have heard the gospel message (Verses 38-39) as Paul has been proclaiming it to the Jews on both sabbaths, as well as during the week (verse 43). This group of Gentiles included both proselytes and non-proselytes (verses 43-44), who are interested in the good news of Paul's teaching; not only that God is offering salvation (eternal life) to all peoples, but also that the Gentiles, as an independent group from the Jews, are being offered the function and privilege of being part of God's evangelistic agent to the world. The second factor would have significance only to the proselytes who understood the Old Testament teachings on this, but the first factor (forgiveness of sins) would be a welcome message to the entire group.

Thus, out from this group there are those who express their interest and joy in the message, and in response to it, believe in Jesus.

The progress of thought expressed here is common and necessary for embracing God's plan of salvation. There must first come an "interest" in the promise of forgiveness and eternal life, and then a response to the detailed "mechanics" of acquiring that forgiveness. This can be seen, for example, with the Philippian jailer, whose interest was stirred first by the Christian message represented in the songs and praises of the prisoners, and then by their act of trust, when they did not run away. After the impact was made, he asked, "what must I do to be saved?" Upon which, Paul gave him the simple mechanics (Acts 16:31) and then the more detailed mechanics after they had been taken to his home (Acts 16:32), after which, he trusted in Christ as the Messiah/Savior. Likewise with the Jews on the day of Pentecost, after Peter's message, they were convicted (pierced in the heart) and inquired, "what must we do?" Upon which, Peter told them that they needed to change their mind (repent), which in turn, resulted in believing the gospel (Mark 1:15). And then we see Nicodemus, who when Jesus told him that he must be born again, inquired, "how can these things come about," (John 3:9). And Jesus told him that it was by believing in the Son of Man (John 3:14-15).

At Acts 13:48, Luke's summary of the decision that was made is seen in two parts. First, the interest is expressed when they hear the gospel message, and then they believe.

The apparent difficulty and controversy in this passage, revolves around the phrase, "as many as had been appointed to eternal life."

The Calvinists, of course, want to make this a pre-determined assignment of God that then virtually "makes" these who have been pre-determined believe in Christ. However, this is neither the intent of Luke nor a grammatical or Biblical necessity. A. T. Robertson writes, "This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an 'absolutum decretum' of personal salvation" (Word Pictures, Acts). R. J. Knowling, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, writes, "There is no countenance here for the 'absolutum decretum' of the Calvinists, since verse 46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice."

The morphology of the word can go either of two directions.

On the one hand, the more popular, it is seen as a perfect passive participle of the verb, tasso, which is rendered, "as many as WERE appointed (set) unto eternal life." On the other hand, as a perfect middle participle, it would be rendered, "as many as had set themselves unto eternal life." As Knowling observes, "Some take the word as if middle, not passive . . . and in support of this Rendall refers to 1 Corinthians 16:15." There we find the aorist active indicative with the reflexive pronoun, heautos, so that it translates, "and they have set (or appointed) themselves to the ministry of the saints." But it seems that the basic meaning of the verb is altered when one tries to fit this at Acts 13. For it is certain that these unbelievers have not "appointed" themselves unto eternal life, but perhaps have "dedicated themselves" to the pursuit of and acquisition of eternal life, so that upon hearing what was required for the possession of life, they would follow through and believe. But as observed, it seems that this changes the basic meaning of the word.

The verb itself occurs only 7 other times in the New Testament; two of which are in the active voice (Acts 15:2; 1 Corinthians 16:15), three are in the passive voice (Luke 7:8; Acts 22:10; Romans 13:1), and two are in the middle voice with an active function (Matthew 28:16; Acts 28:23;) and all but one clearly indicate the idea of appointment, and even there (Acts 15:2), "they appointed" is easily conceded so that we have, "they appointed that Paul and Barnabas . . . should go up to Jerusalem."

The LXX does not differ significantly from this usage and does not lend support for the middle voice usage at Acts 13.
The better translation thus, seems to be "as many as were appointed unto eternal life." However, the idea of "appointment" to salvation by a sovereign act of God cannot be found in Scripture, while the teaching that God places someone into the state of salvation based on His foreknowledge is clearly stated in several passages. This then, is an acceptable understanding of this passage from the standpoint of Volitional Theology; that God foreknows the decision that each individual will make and assigns that person to a destiny of either heaven or hell based on whether he rejects or believes in Christ.
What makes this an obstacle for Calvinists is that generally speaking, they fail to acknowledge the place that foreknowledge has in the whole redemption process or the fact that faith precedes the impartation of spiritual life.

In summary, the alternative for Acts 13:38, that these are ones "who have set themselves (or appointed themselves) to (the pursuit of) eternal life, while being grammatically feasible, seems not to be the best choice. The idea that God appoints some to eternal life does not violate the principle of volition, when we recognize that such an appointment unto eternal life; such a placement into the status of salvation, is based on God's foreknowledge of what decision a person would make, and that it is the actual volitional choice of each individual that determines whether a person is saved or not.

Sorry Lowly One,

You haven't addressed any of the meat in my posts. All you've done is object to a refutation of an objection, and site an Open Theist for support. How about citing someone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, not a weak and ignorant god?

puritan lad wrote:Sorry Lowly One,

You haven't addressed any of the meat in my posts. All you've done is object to a refutation of an objection, and site an Open Theist for support. How about citing someone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, not a weak and ignorant god?

That's a rather circular argument.

You'll only accept refutations from people you already agree with?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Sorry Lowly One,

You haven't addressed any of the meat in my posts. All you've done is object to a refutation of an objection, and site an Open Theist for support. How about citing someone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, not a weak and ignorant god?

That's a rather circular argument.

You'll only accept refutations from people you already agree with?

Not so, as I have already answered refutations time and again from many who disagree with me. The point here is that Lowly One has not answered any refutation with any substance. His attempts to refute previous scriptures amount to citing "Open Theism" nonsense. Mr. Boyd's nonsense has already been answered in the very first post in this thread.

I would hope it to be unnecessary to do a detailed refutation of Open Theism, a heresy that would put the most ardent Pelagian to shame. Isaiah 46:9-11 is enough to do that, as well as the many scriptures already cited.

puritan lad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Sorry Lowly One,

You haven't addressed any of the meat in my posts. All you've done is object to a refutation of an objection, and site an Open Theist for support. How about citing someone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, not a weak and ignorant god?

That's a rather circular argument.

You'll only accept refutations from people you already agree with?

Not so, as I have already answered refutations time and again from many who disagree with me. The point here is that Lowly One has not answered any refutation with any substance. His attempts to refute previous scriptures amount to citing "Open Theism" nonsense. Mr. Boyd's nonsense has already been answered in the very first post in this thread.

I would hope it to be unnecessary to do a detailed refutation of Open Theism, a heresy that would put the most ardent Pelagian to shame. Isaiah 46:9-11 is enough to do that, as well as the many scriptures already cited.

Yes, I understand and respect that you answer refutations from those who don't agree with you. That's not the same as what I said. What I suggested, and it may just be that your statement struck me as funny and I'm reading too much into it, is it seems you are appealing to authority in the sense of a "list" of "open theists" who the site you refer to defines as denying that God knows the future exhuastively.

I suspect they would not describe their position in quite the same terms (although I am far from an expert on this area by any means.)

I see elements of Greek Philosophy possibly at work on both sides of this argument, and that is partly why I seek not to get as caught up into it as I was in the past. There seems to be a desire to "nail" all elements down against any assault or refutation and over time the passion becomes not so much to understand the nature of God and walk in personal relationship in Holiness with a loving, merciful, sovereign and just God, despite the apparant contradictions that all those qualities can give rise to from our limited perspective, as to prove who is "right" and that drive I think tends to move both camps to extremes rather than seeking some kind of understanding that takes all the passages, and all the systematic structuring into account.

Over time, the camps have defined themselves and become self-referring and self-sustaining and people begin talking past each other instead of really trying to hear what the other is saying and agreeing that there is that element of mystery.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I'm not defending "Open Theism." I would certainly disagree that God could not know everything, unless by same stretch of the imagination He could choose to be so in a particular area despite having the ability to be otherwise. While I believe that paradox is part of the answer when it comes to "free will" in terms of omnipotence, I don't see any reason to proffer it in terms of foreknowledge.

As is often the case, I think we attempt to our detriment to define God and His attributes in terms of our own knowlege and experience.

Foreknowlege has no real meaning to God as I believe he exists outside of time and is not limited to experiencing time in the linear sequence that we presume to be a given.

Whenever we attempt to stretch by implication the attributes, character and nature of God, by proof-texting or philosophical interpretation, I think we're always going to hit a point where the analogy breaks down.

Wait, Bart, are you saying we can't possibly know all there is about the mind of God and his ways !?

FFC wrote:Wait, Bart, are you saying we can't possibly know all there is about the mind of God and his ways !?

That does seem to be a recurring theme with me, doesn't it?

Sorry Lowly One,
You haven't addressed any of the meat in my posts.

I wasn't attempting to! I merely seen you present a faulty interpretation of 2 Peter 2:9, in which I corrected. I still await your response to my last post concerning that passage.

All you've done is object to a refutation of an objection, and site an Open Theist for support. How about citing someone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, not a weak and ignorant god?

You do realize that the material I posted by Greg Boyd only consists of approximately 6 sentences, right? The rest is not by him, and besides, I hope you didn't plan to dismiss Greg's material, by referring to him as an open theist and one who doesn't actually believe in the God of the Bible. That type of thing is definitely fallacious, and therefore until you can show how his understanding of Acts 13:38 is wrong, it still stands. Also, what do you make of the rest of the material I posted? Do you plan to "pass by" it like the God of Augustine and Calvin's understanding does to those he doesn't want to be saved, which by the way is exactly unlike the good samaritan in a parable of Jesus' and much like the religious Priest and careless Levite.