Comments on: Acts 13:48 – “Appointed” or “Disposed?”

By: Calvinism and Arminianism | Scripture Zealot

Calvinism and Arminianism | Scripture Zealot — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:45:11 +0000

[...] doesn’t usually come up in comparisons. Luke slips in predestination… – He Is Sufficient Acts 13:48 – “Appointed” or “Disposed?” – I follow Christ Acts 13:48: Arminian? Calvinistic? – Connecting Acts 13:48 An Exegetical Study – [...]

By: Doulos Christou

Doulos Christou — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:30:27 +0000

Here is a bit more on the Greek detail for the conversation, especially regarding the passive / middle issue in parsing the verb. http://loveacceptforgive.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/acts-1348-an-exegetical-study/

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:50:55 +0000

PL,

I do believe you hit the nail on the head

By: Puritan Lad

Puritan Lad — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:36:59 +0000

disposed??? Which translation is that?

In any case, I don’t see how this could help the cause of Arminianism. Did God create some that were disposed to eternal life? That’s just not fair.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:28:41 +0000

I think that David Ker, according to his comment, is positing ambiguity where none is necessary. In fact, he says that it is better explained in the larger narrative- but if we follow the biblical narrative, we see the same issues- Why was Abram chosen? Why was Isaac chosen? Why did some Israelites believe and some didn’t? Paul points the the answer as given to Moses in Exodus 33.19b: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” He says the answer lies in the mercy of God- i.e., it was God’s mercy that Isaac didn’t have the same fate as Esau. Certainly, it was merciful for God to reveal himself to Abram. Just as it was mercy that appointed the Gentiles to salvation in Acts 13, and mercy that any of us are among the ἐκλεκτοὶ- the elect.

Cf. Romans 9.6-8,13-18

To say that we should take it as cultural is unnecessary- and I’m not really familiar with any scholars who have taken that interpretation. Even I. Howard Marshall says that the reformed view is there, but he prefers to take it as “disposed themselves” (see TC’s blog post linked above). Plus, I’ve tried to show that I don’t think the verse IS ambiguous- we should take Luke’s Greek for what it is.

Also, I want to say that I have a lot of respect for David Ker- and he is certainly smarter than I am in a lot of areas, but in this case I just simply have to disagree.