Greek definition for "ordain" implies Calvinism?

Is Calvinism taught in the Bible? Does man have free-will? Can a Christian apostatize? Discuss all related questions here.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Greek definition for "ordain" implies Calvinism?

Post by email » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:15 pm

Hi!

I visited your website but still have a hard time understanding the doctrine of limited atonement and unconditional election. Sometimes I find it hard to swallow, I was wondering if you can break it down for me.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:17 pm

Thanks for the great question! I'm sure you looked over these articles:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/election.html
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ement.html

So, what questions did you have in particular? Are you inclined to believe Calvinism, or not? Are there any particular concepts that seem troubling to you?

I am just trying to figure out where to start in answering your question. :-)

Thanks!

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:18 pm

Hi! I am inclined towards Calvinism. But there are too many false doctrines which are prevalent which I find hard to swallow. Someone had told me that "ordained" does not properly refer to an eternal decree, or directly to the doctrine of election. Is this true?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:28 pm

Thanks for the background. Now, to your question. ... It depends on what you mean as to "properly". The word, "foreordained", found in I Peter 1:20, is better translated as "foreknown". Please see the following definitions:
  • [UBS] proginosko (aor. proegnon) know already, know beforehand; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand
  • [Fri] proginosko 2aor. proegnon (1) know someth. beforehand or in advance (2P 3.17); (2) know someone previously (AC 26.5); (3) select in advance, choose or appoint beforehand (RO 8.29).
The same Greek word (proginosko -> to know beforehand, know already) shows up in: Acts 26:25; Romans 8:29; 11:2; I Peter 1:20; II Peter 3:17. Some passages refer to God, but the word can clearly be applied to man as well (Acts 26:25; II Peter 3:17). So, this particular Greek word does not necessarily refer to any feature of Calvin's doctrines. ... Incidentally, several versions translate I Peter 1:20 a little better on this account (NIV, NAS, YLT).

The next Greek word, which comes closer to the meaning under question is the word for "ordain" or "appoint", horizo:
  • [UBS] horizo decide, determine; appoint, designate
  • [Fri] horizo 1aor. horisa pf. pass. horismai 1aor. pass. horisthan (1) as setting a boundary; (a) of time fix, appoint (HE 4.7); (b) of space fix, determine (AC 17.26); (2) of pers. appoint, designate (AC 17.31); (3) as making a definite plan appoint, decide, determine (LU 22.22).
This Greek word is used in: Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 4:7. Although it is used in reference to God's general foreordination, it is also used in reference to man's planning as well (Acts 11:29, "each man ... determined"). So, again, this word does not necessarily refer to any tenet of Calvin's doctrines.

The next Greek word, sometimes translated as "ordained", is proorizo. You can tell by looking that it is similar to the last word, horizo, except it has the prefix, pro, which means "before, ahead of". Not surprisingly, the definition reflects this emphasis:
  • [UBS] proorizo decide from the beginning or beforehand, predestine; set apart from the beginning or beforehand
  • [Fri] proorizo 1aor. proorisa pass. prooristhan decide on beforehand, determine in advance.
Variants of this word are found in: Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29-30; I Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:5, 11. Each of these usages refer to God's foreordination; however, in light of the generic definition (no mention to God), and in light of the other two definitions, I would be extremely reluctant to assert that the word necessarily implies God as the one doing the foreordination. All we can prove is that in the New Testament, the context of this word always refers to God's foreordination, but we cannot say it is inherently part of the definition. (Please reexamine the above definitions.) I am not qualified to comment on its usage outside of the NT.

The final word, translated as "ordained" only in I Corinthians 7:17 (NKJ), comes from the Greek word, diatasso.
  • [UBS] diatasso command, order; give instructions; arrange (Ac 20.13)
  • [Fri] diatasso strictly, arrange carefully, make a precise arrangement; hence, order, direct, command (MT 11.1); mid. w. same sense (AC 24.23); pass. be ordered or ordained (GA 3.19).
This word is found 16 times in the NT, and it often refers to commands, appointments, arrangements, or ordinations given by men. It rarely refers to God's eternal foreordination.

In conclusion, and speaking of assumptions, I believe it is important to know that no one disputes that foreordination and election are both accurate, wholesome Scriptural doctrines. The question under debate is not whether these doctrines are taught in the Bible. It is the basis of the election and foreordination that is the point of disagreement. In other words, are Christians saved because God picked them out individually before time began, regardless of their deeds, or is it because He picked Jesus, and whoever joins Him, as the basis and membership of the elect (Galatians 3:26-27)? Did He pick them out by personal identity or by personal traits (Acts 10:34-35; I Peter 5:5-7)? It would be an assumption to consider any verse that merely mentions the keywords, "election" or "foreordination", as proof texts for Calvinism. For example, please read Ephesians 1:3-5 several times, asking yourself the question, "Does the verse say where or how the election would be established?" "Did God choose us individually, or us in Jesus?" The basis of God's choice needs to be established, not just the existence of God's choice. That is universally accepted. The so-called proof-texts are often victims of great prejudice. Please guard your heart and eyes carefully. We will all "see" what we want to "see", if we are not extremely careful and patient in these matters.

I hope this helps, and I pray you will be able to study the series on our web-site, as it presents what I believe to be the Scripturally based truth on these matters. Plus it examines several commonly used proof texts and arguments for Calvinism. Just for your convenience, here is the starting lesson in our series:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/calvinism.html

I will happily answer any question you have regarding any thoughts expressed in these series.

May God help us to have a sincere love of the truth above all else!

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:29 pm

Thank you for your previous response. This person I am dialoguing gave his interpretation of Acts 13:48 from another perspective to try and teach me, this is what he said:
___________________________________________________________________


Here is another perspective of Acts 13:48.

"Actually the words of Acts 13:48-49 do not necessarily have any reference whatever to the doctrine of God's eternal decree of election. The passive participle tetagnemoi may simply mean 'ready,' and we might well read, 'as many as were prepared for eternal life, believed.'"

He adds, "Commenting on this word, Alford says, 'The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (v. 46); the Gentiles, 'as many as were disposed to eternal life,' believed...To find in this text preordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain.'"

This view is supported by the fact that the verb in Acts 13:48 is 'tasso', not 'protasso'. Thus, the translation of it as 'preordained' by many translations was an unfortuate and biasing translation.

Just another viewpoint to consider when we consider election.
________________________________________________________________

His argument sounds pretty convincing, is what he's saying true?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Understanding Calvinism (Acts 13:48)

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:15 pm

Yes, I do believe the person with whom you are dialogging is more or less correct. Technically, I would agree with his conclusion, although I'm not sure his argument from the Greek is entirely complete and exact.

First of all, the KJV rendering, which many Calvinists use to support their arguments, is indeed most unfortunate. Although it is not a horrible rendering, the English word "ordained" has become very "loaded". The word, "ordained", conjures a modern connotation that is not in the original Greek.

Does this verse mean the saved Gentiles were "foreordained" as unconditionally elect?

No, not in the Calvinistic sense of "foreordained" - that is to say, "unconditionally". The exact form of this word (tetagnemoi - verb participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural) is not found elsewhere in Scripture; however, other forms of the same root word are found in these passages (NKJ):
  • Matthew 28:16 - Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.
  • Luke 7:8 - "For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.
  • Acts 13:48 - Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
  • Acts 15:2 - Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
  • Acts 22:10 - "So I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.'
  • Acts 28:23 - So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.
  • Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
  • 1 Corinthians 16:15 - I urge you, brethren -- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.
Please note that this word does not always refer to decrees made by God. In fact, out of the 8 references to this word, at most 4 references could possible be in context of God's eternal decrees, including the verse under discussion (Matthew 28:16; Acts 13:48; Acts 22:10; Romans 13:1). The other 4 refer to arrangements and decisions made by mere men (Luke 7:8; Acts 15:2; Acts 28:23; I Corinthians 16:15). Therefore, the usage of this word (Gr. root: tasso) does not necessarily imply God's eternal foreordination of these people. It would be pure assumption to conclude that these saved Gentiles were eternally decreed as unconditionally elect, just because we found the word "ordained" in some translations of Acts 13:48.

What could the verse mean?

As your friend noted, the Greek word here is tetagnemoi, which is the form for both the passive participle and the middle participle (#230, Machan, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 103). Incidentally, most people fail to notice that is also the form for the middle participle. That is intriguing, because it would change the meaning radically, if the middle voice was intended. You see, a participle is a verb that is used as a noun or adjective. In this case the verb (root: tasso) can mean appointed, arranged, ordained, placed, or decided. Now, if the participle is passive, that means the Gentiles here were appointed, arranged, etc. by someone else. The action was done to them. They were "passive" in the matter. However, if the participle is in the middle voice, then it means they did it to themselves. Now, we don't really have a middle voice in our language. We typically indicate such ideas by following the verb with a reflexive pronoun. For example, "I dressed myself."

Do you see the wrinkle this ambiguity presents? This passage could very well be saying that the Gentiles appointed, arranged, or determined their own lot, just as easily as it could be saying that God did this to them!!! How can you tell the difference? How can we know if the participle is passive or reflexive? Well, the Greeks answered the question just like we do - look at the context!!!
Luke, the inspired historian, wrote:On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. "For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' " Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:44-48)
Notice the parallel and contrast between these two groups of people:
  • Jews: prejudiced by envy -> contradicted and blasphemed the spoken Word of God -> rejected it -> judged themselves unworthy
  • Gentiles: heard the spoken Word of God -> glorified the gospel -> fill in the blank: (God decreed their mind OR they made up their minds) -> believed
Did God make the Jews reject the gospel, or did they do it on their own? Likewise, did God make the Gentiles accept the gospel, or did they do it on their own? This passage sets up a a vivid parallel and contrast. Both were given the same opportunities: Both heard the gospel, evaluated it, and reacted to it. But, only the Gentiles accepted the truth. Why? Well, the Jews were prejudiced by their jealousy; however, the Gentiles were more open-minded. While the Jews rejected the gospel, the Gentiles received it! This ultimately indicates the basic idea as suggested by your friend, that the Gentiles were open-minded and ready to receive the Word of God. The context definitely indicates this truth, which stands in contrast to the prejudiced Jews. Therefore, we could also translate the verse, "as many as had arranged themselves for eternal life, believed". This reading suggests the Gentiles made up their own minds, based on the gospel they had heard, providing proof opposite to Calvin's case.

What if this alternate translation is wrong?

The majority of reputable versions translate this reading as "were appointed" (NIV, NIB, NAS, NAU, NKJ), while the next most popular rendering is "were ordained" (KJV, ASV, RSV, RWB). I am unaware of a reputable translation that offers the rendering I above presented, although it (or similar) is suggested by several commentators and other scholars (Alford, McGarvey, Robertson, Knowling). Since it is a debatable translation, it seems fair to consider the alternative. We might ask, "What if we follow the majority translation?" Does this prove Calvinism?

Definitely not! Again, there is profound assumption and prejudice being injected into such an interpretation. Even if the Gentiles were appointed or ordained unto eternal life, even before they heard the gospel, the text does not say who ordained them. More importantly, neither does the passage say what basis was used for the ordination! Again, no one would deny the Scriptural doctrine of foreordination and election. It is the "unconditional" election that is under dispute. It would be a severe and critical mistake to assume that every reference to election or ordination in the Bible always refers to Calvin's notion of these Bible words. Unfortunately, this is the bias that many people bring to interpreting this verse and similar.

The Calvinist must prove not just that a divine election exists, but he must prove that it is unconditional! In the best case for Calvin's argument, this passage can only prove that an election exists - but nothing more. In the worst case, it may actually disprove Calvinism!

Finally, as one closing contextual argument, please keep in mind that Calvin's theology required the direct operation of the Holy Spirit to save the elect. He argued that it is the Holy Spirit's miraculous and direct operation that reaches people, changes them, and ultimately saves them. However, who and what does the above passage say was sent by God to reach these Gentiles?
Luke again wrote:"'I (Jesus speaking) have set you (speaking to Paul, an apostle) as a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth'" Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord ..."
Dear friend, are you a Jew or a Gentile? Please consider tearing out all the pages in your New Testament that were written by Paul, maybe including those by his companions Luke, (gospel of Luke, Acts, Romans, I-II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I-II Thessalonians, I-II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and maybe Hebrews). What would you know about Jesus and salvation then? Now, imagine that these pages were once again included in your Bible. Can you say that Jesus' light has reached you? If so, how?

God does indeed operate on all of us, but it is not a direct operation. He uses means, which primarily consists of the written word, recorded by Jesus apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3:3-5; II Timothy 3:16-17). Please look again at the above passage and take it all in - not just the one word. Does the whole context indicate that God operated directly on these Gentiles by the Holy Spirit? Or, did He uses means - the apostles and the gospel? Does it indicate that the Gentiles received the Word because God forced them, or because they were open-minded? What changed their minds? God's direct operation or God's gospel, preached by His apostles and prophets? Maybe more importantly, will it change our minds? ...

Miscellaneous Facts and Closing Thoughts
  • Most lexicons focus on the root words. Few mention the past participle, which means some caution should be exercised in applying lexicons directly to Acts 13:48. Like the variant found in I Corinthians 16:15, extended forms can take on significantly altered meanings, which mandates some caution when operating exclusively on the root meaning.
  • Friberg is one reputable lexicographer who admits that Acts 13:48 could be rendered "those who were disposed" (possible), although he believes the other to be more probable for reasons not recorded. Alford prefers Friberg's "possible" rendering based on the context, as does MacKnight, if memory serves me.
  • McGarvey acknowledges the possible rendering of "were disposed", but he ultimately makes an interesting case for the term referring to the process of people making up their own mind, arranging and producing orderly thought from undecided chaos. He seems to have preferred "were determined".
  • If the majority translation is correct, Christians could be understood as elect or appointed in at least two other senses, beside Calvin's philosophy:
    • God has foreordained the plan and means for the salvation of all Christians - in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-5). All Christians are therefore elect in Christ. They were elected corporately (in Christ), not individually (unconditionally).
    • God has foreordained the type of person who will respond to the gospel. He has defined the traits or requirements for those who will be open to the gospel call (II Thessalonians 2:13-14). For example, some amount of humility is generally required, while the proud will be rejected (I Peter 5:5-7). Proud people will generally reject the gospel call, regardless of their pride's basis (I Corinthians 1:18-31). The beatitudes offer additional clues to some of these precursor virtues (Matthew 5:2-9). Jesus' parables also offer insight on this matter (Luke 8:15). Also, compare with Cornelius, before he even heard the gospel (Acts 10:1-2). Those who respond to the gospel call may be vile sinners (I Corinthians 6:9-11), but there will be some measure of open-mindedness and humility expected (compare the good ground to the wayside soil - Luke 8; Matthew 13).
Admittedly, this is a lot to digest. There's a lot of Scriptures to consider here! However, I am convinced you are deeply concerned about such matters, so I have great confidence! :-)

Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments.

May God help us to have a supreme and sincere love of the truth!

Post Reply