An Examination of Key Biblical Texts Used by Calvinists
Jan 30, 2023 15:03:38 GMT -8
civic and rockson like this
Post by Theophilus on Jan 30, 2023 15:03:38 GMT -8
Lets take a look at some of the aspects of election: first, it is unconditional, that is, there is absolutely nothing either good or bad in the person that conditions or influences God’s choice of who will be saved and who will be lost.
Second, the Calvinist’s position involves the granting of salvation to individuals, not groups or classes of people.
Third, election is entirely a prerogative of God and a manifestation of God’s sovereignty. It is God as the Sovereign that has both the authority and power to decide and effect who will and (therefore) who won’t be saved.
Fourth, such a view of election follows inexorably from the Calvinist notion of human depravity as total and therefore making the sinner utterly unable to do anything of spiritual good, for example, believe the gospel.
Finally, the decision by God as to who would be chosen for salvation and who would not be the recipients of such blessing was made by God from all eternity, before any specific individuals actually existed.
This last point is quite important in that it underscores the unconditionality of election—obviously, if God had a fixed number who would believe and hence be saved even before they were born, i.e., in eternity past, then those coming to salvation within time could only be those whom God had predetermined would comprise part of his elect, and was in no way conditioned by anything in the individuals themselves.
A further point is worth noting briefly before we go on to examine the key biblical texts appealed to by Calvinists to justify this view of election. The view of election outlined here is a subcategory of the Calvinists broader view of providence. Through his providence, the Calvinist believes, God governs the world to ensure everything in it unfolds exactly as he determines—the salvation of individuals is one aspect of this controlling providential activity.
“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.”Acts 13:48
The backdrop to this incident is as follows: Paul and his travelling companion Barnabas had left Syrian Antioch on their first missionary journey. On the way, they stopped at Pisidian Antioch in the Roman Province of Asia Minor (modern-day southeastern Turkey). Initially their reception at the Jewish synagogue there was positive, but when the two returned the following sabbath some of the local Jews resisted Paul and his teachings. Following Paul’s citation of Isa 49:6 to the effect that God’s mission would now turn from a priority to the Jews to the Gentiles, the Jews reacted by instigating persecution against Paul and Barnabas, while the Gentiles reacted quite differently and many embraced the gospel message, exercised faith and gained eternal life (Acts 13:44–48).
Calvinists of course view Luke’s observation in v. 48 as proof that God has a predetermined number (the elect) designated for salvation. Wright is typical: “This indicates that Luke considered evangelism the provision of a predestined opportunity for the elect to come to faith.” Others concur. Pink, for example, makes the following observations: “Believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree, . . . a limited number only are ‘ordained to eternal life,’ . . . ‘as many as,’ not one less—who are thus ordained to eternal life will most certainly believe.”
Piper comments: “Notice it does not say that as many as believed were chosen to be ordained to eternal life. It says that those who were ordained to eternal life (that is, those whom God elected) believed. God’s election preceded faith and made it possible. This is the decisive reason some believed while others did not.” Grudem believes that “it is significant that Luke mentions the fact of election almost in passing. It is as if this were a normal occurrence when the gospel was preached. How many believed? ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'
While superficially, this observation on the part of Luke seems to support a Calvinist understanding of election, closer examination would suggest a more nuanced conclusion. First of all, v. 34b should not be isolated from the broader context—and this context makes clear that the reason that some Jews were not recipients of eternal life is not because they were excluded from an eternal decree to elect them but rather because they repudiated Paul’s preaching and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:46).
Conversely, it is not insignificant that immediately preceding Luke’s comment we are told that, in response to the gospel proclamation the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the word they heard. The Jews did not gain eternal life; the Gentiles did. Contra Piper, it would seem that Luke wishes to make clear that the reason some did not gain eternal life and that some did gain eternal life is intimately tied to their own attitude and response to the gospel. In fact, the entire passage, Acts 13:44–52, stresses conditionality; the Jews resisted Paul’s message and consequently judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:44–46), the Gentiles rejoice and glorify (i.e., fully accept) the word of the gospel and obtain eternal life (Acts 13:48, 49), the Jews persecuted Paul and Barnabas and consequently are effectively subject to God’s judgment (Acts 13:50–52). In short, however Acts 13:48b is understood it must not be made to nullify the contextual observations just made concerning the passage.
Pursuing the above line of reasoning a little further, Luke’s intent in expressing Gentile gaining of eternal life the way he did can be seen to fit a pattern that runs throughout the book of Acts. In sharp contrast to the Calvinist’s simplistic appeal to a few words in one verse and their ignoring of both the immediate literary context as well as the broader theological context, an examination of Luke’s theological goal in recounting the spread of the gospel sheds light on the intended meaning of Acts 13:48b. Theologically, Luke has structured his message of gospel advance in a distinct pattern. This pattern takes the form of (1) divine initiative (usually in bringing the gospel to a community), (2) response on the part of the hearers (positive or negative), (3) a following divine response according to human receptivity or rejection of the gospel. Often, the stated divine response is exaggerated, i.e., God makes his response abundantly and unambiguously clear.
The pattern is seen, for example, in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2: (1) Peter proclaims the gospel focusing on the resurrection of Jesus (the divine initiative) (vv. 14–36); (2) the hearers respond favorably (vv. 37–41a); (3) unambiguous divine blessing ensues with many being added to the church with clear evidence of a mighty work of God, including the working of “many wonders and signs” through the apostles (2:43). Tellingly, Luke concludes his account of gospel receptivity and expansion with a beautifully balanced expression of divine-human interaction in the saving of many: “And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (2:47).
Similarly concerning Philip’s preaching in Samaria (Acts 8:4–24): (1) God’s initiative is seen once more in the gospel being proclaimed in the city by Philip (v. 5); (2) the positive human response on the part of the crowd (vv. 6–8; 12); (3) unambiguous divine blessing in response to belief (vv. 7–8, 13b).
A final example is seen with the incident involving Cornelius in Acts 10: (1) Peter proclaims the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:35–43); (2) Cornelius’s favorable receptivity is not explicitly recorded but the preceding verses make it clear that Cornelius was already disposed to believing the gospel once he heard it; (3) unambiguous divine blessing in the clear provision of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and those present (Acts 10:44–47).
Not every evangelistic activity in Acts fits this pattern precisely; sometimes one or more elements are implied and not explicitly described. But generally speaking, whenever an evangelist brings the gospel to a region this pattern is operative: the gospel is brought and proclaimed, a human response on the part of an individual or group is recorded, and the resulting divine activity is either explicitly or implicitly stated. As noted above, often the divine response is clear and unambiguous—it is God who is at work either for blessing (salvation) or judgment. My point is that Acts 13:48b may be a rhetorical device whereby Luke is emphasizing divine blessing following a positive response on the part of the Gentiles to Paul’s gospel proclamation. This would fit well Luke’s theological pattern throughout the book of Acts.
The key word in Acts 13:48 is the Greek word τεταγμενοι (tetagmenoi), which the NASB, ESV, and NIV translate as “appointed to.” The root idea is that of assignment, appointment, placement. Significantly, this word in this form appears nowhere else in the New Testament. The appropriate meaning, from the range of possible meanings, must therefore be determined from the context. While the word “appoint” is certainly a possible translation of the word, the fluidity of meaning is seen in that, for example, the Bauer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament understands the word in its passive form to be best translated as “belong to, be classed among those possessing.” Packer seems to adopt this understanding when he says, “τασσō denotes God’s appointment of . . . individual persons to attain eternal life through believing the gospel (Acts 13:48).” That is, those who believe the gospel are classed among those appointed by God to receive eternal life. This translation seems a good one in that it attributes a reasonable meaning to the key word τεταγμενοι, while also fitting well with Luke’s theology throughout Acts.
SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH OR SAVED BY DECREE?
A Biblical and Theological Critique of Calvinist Soteriology
By Geoffrey D. Robinson.
Second, the Calvinist’s position involves the granting of salvation to individuals, not groups or classes of people.
Third, election is entirely a prerogative of God and a manifestation of God’s sovereignty. It is God as the Sovereign that has both the authority and power to decide and effect who will and (therefore) who won’t be saved.
Fourth, such a view of election follows inexorably from the Calvinist notion of human depravity as total and therefore making the sinner utterly unable to do anything of spiritual good, for example, believe the gospel.
Finally, the decision by God as to who would be chosen for salvation and who would not be the recipients of such blessing was made by God from all eternity, before any specific individuals actually existed.
This last point is quite important in that it underscores the unconditionality of election—obviously, if God had a fixed number who would believe and hence be saved even before they were born, i.e., in eternity past, then those coming to salvation within time could only be those whom God had predetermined would comprise part of his elect, and was in no way conditioned by anything in the individuals themselves.
A further point is worth noting briefly before we go on to examine the key biblical texts appealed to by Calvinists to justify this view of election. The view of election outlined here is a subcategory of the Calvinists broader view of providence. Through his providence, the Calvinist believes, God governs the world to ensure everything in it unfolds exactly as he determines—the salvation of individuals is one aspect of this controlling providential activity.
“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.”Acts 13:48
The backdrop to this incident is as follows: Paul and his travelling companion Barnabas had left Syrian Antioch on their first missionary journey. On the way, they stopped at Pisidian Antioch in the Roman Province of Asia Minor (modern-day southeastern Turkey). Initially their reception at the Jewish synagogue there was positive, but when the two returned the following sabbath some of the local Jews resisted Paul and his teachings. Following Paul’s citation of Isa 49:6 to the effect that God’s mission would now turn from a priority to the Jews to the Gentiles, the Jews reacted by instigating persecution against Paul and Barnabas, while the Gentiles reacted quite differently and many embraced the gospel message, exercised faith and gained eternal life (Acts 13:44–48).
Calvinists of course view Luke’s observation in v. 48 as proof that God has a predetermined number (the elect) designated for salvation. Wright is typical: “This indicates that Luke considered evangelism the provision of a predestined opportunity for the elect to come to faith.” Others concur. Pink, for example, makes the following observations: “Believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree, . . . a limited number only are ‘ordained to eternal life,’ . . . ‘as many as,’ not one less—who are thus ordained to eternal life will most certainly believe.”
Piper comments: “Notice it does not say that as many as believed were chosen to be ordained to eternal life. It says that those who were ordained to eternal life (that is, those whom God elected) believed. God’s election preceded faith and made it possible. This is the decisive reason some believed while others did not.” Grudem believes that “it is significant that Luke mentions the fact of election almost in passing. It is as if this were a normal occurrence when the gospel was preached. How many believed? ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'
While superficially, this observation on the part of Luke seems to support a Calvinist understanding of election, closer examination would suggest a more nuanced conclusion. First of all, v. 34b should not be isolated from the broader context—and this context makes clear that the reason that some Jews were not recipients of eternal life is not because they were excluded from an eternal decree to elect them but rather because they repudiated Paul’s preaching and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:46).
Conversely, it is not insignificant that immediately preceding Luke’s comment we are told that, in response to the gospel proclamation the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the word they heard. The Jews did not gain eternal life; the Gentiles did. Contra Piper, it would seem that Luke wishes to make clear that the reason some did not gain eternal life and that some did gain eternal life is intimately tied to their own attitude and response to the gospel. In fact, the entire passage, Acts 13:44–52, stresses conditionality; the Jews resisted Paul’s message and consequently judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:44–46), the Gentiles rejoice and glorify (i.e., fully accept) the word of the gospel and obtain eternal life (Acts 13:48, 49), the Jews persecuted Paul and Barnabas and consequently are effectively subject to God’s judgment (Acts 13:50–52). In short, however Acts 13:48b is understood it must not be made to nullify the contextual observations just made concerning the passage.
Pursuing the above line of reasoning a little further, Luke’s intent in expressing Gentile gaining of eternal life the way he did can be seen to fit a pattern that runs throughout the book of Acts. In sharp contrast to the Calvinist’s simplistic appeal to a few words in one verse and their ignoring of both the immediate literary context as well as the broader theological context, an examination of Luke’s theological goal in recounting the spread of the gospel sheds light on the intended meaning of Acts 13:48b. Theologically, Luke has structured his message of gospel advance in a distinct pattern. This pattern takes the form of (1) divine initiative (usually in bringing the gospel to a community), (2) response on the part of the hearers (positive or negative), (3) a following divine response according to human receptivity or rejection of the gospel. Often, the stated divine response is exaggerated, i.e., God makes his response abundantly and unambiguously clear.
The pattern is seen, for example, in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2: (1) Peter proclaims the gospel focusing on the resurrection of Jesus (the divine initiative) (vv. 14–36); (2) the hearers respond favorably (vv. 37–41a); (3) unambiguous divine blessing ensues with many being added to the church with clear evidence of a mighty work of God, including the working of “many wonders and signs” through the apostles (2:43). Tellingly, Luke concludes his account of gospel receptivity and expansion with a beautifully balanced expression of divine-human interaction in the saving of many: “And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (2:47).
Similarly concerning Philip’s preaching in Samaria (Acts 8:4–24): (1) God’s initiative is seen once more in the gospel being proclaimed in the city by Philip (v. 5); (2) the positive human response on the part of the crowd (vv. 6–8; 12); (3) unambiguous divine blessing in response to belief (vv. 7–8, 13b).
A final example is seen with the incident involving Cornelius in Acts 10: (1) Peter proclaims the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:35–43); (2) Cornelius’s favorable receptivity is not explicitly recorded but the preceding verses make it clear that Cornelius was already disposed to believing the gospel once he heard it; (3) unambiguous divine blessing in the clear provision of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and those present (Acts 10:44–47).
Not every evangelistic activity in Acts fits this pattern precisely; sometimes one or more elements are implied and not explicitly described. But generally speaking, whenever an evangelist brings the gospel to a region this pattern is operative: the gospel is brought and proclaimed, a human response on the part of an individual or group is recorded, and the resulting divine activity is either explicitly or implicitly stated. As noted above, often the divine response is clear and unambiguous—it is God who is at work either for blessing (salvation) or judgment. My point is that Acts 13:48b may be a rhetorical device whereby Luke is emphasizing divine blessing following a positive response on the part of the Gentiles to Paul’s gospel proclamation. This would fit well Luke’s theological pattern throughout the book of Acts.
The key word in Acts 13:48 is the Greek word τεταγμενοι (tetagmenoi), which the NASB, ESV, and NIV translate as “appointed to.” The root idea is that of assignment, appointment, placement. Significantly, this word in this form appears nowhere else in the New Testament. The appropriate meaning, from the range of possible meanings, must therefore be determined from the context. While the word “appoint” is certainly a possible translation of the word, the fluidity of meaning is seen in that, for example, the Bauer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament understands the word in its passive form to be best translated as “belong to, be classed among those possessing.” Packer seems to adopt this understanding when he says, “τασσō denotes God’s appointment of . . . individual persons to attain eternal life through believing the gospel (Acts 13:48).” That is, those who believe the gospel are classed among those appointed by God to receive eternal life. This translation seems a good one in that it attributes a reasonable meaning to the key word τεταγμενοι, while also fitting well with Luke’s theology throughout Acts.
SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH OR SAVED BY DECREE?
A Biblical and Theological Critique of Calvinist Soteriology
By Geoffrey D. Robinson.