Yes. And? I said that it doesn't say they were appointed to believe. Which is true. Is there something you don't understand about that?
Do you have a point? I've not argued that the text
says "they were appointed to believe." They were appointed to eternal life. But their act of belief
flows from that prior divine appointment, not the other way around. You can't dispute that grammatically. Your best bet for defending your view would be to argue for the middle reading of
τεταγμένοι, not a reversal of the syntax.
Wrong. That doesn't line up with the rest of scripture.
This comment of yours was offered in response to a straightforward grammatical analysis of Acts 13:48, not a theological argument. Labeling the
grammar as "wrong" or saying it "doesn't line up with Scripture" tacitly concedes that your theology, rather than the text itself, is your standard of truth. Luke's syntax is painfully clear: the entire relative clause
ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ("as many as had been appointed to eternal life") functions as a single substantival unit and occupies the
subject position of
ἐπίστευσαν ("believed"). It
cannot mean "those who believed were appointed." That reading is grammatically indefensible, as it would require
ἐπίστευσαν to lie within the relative clause as its predicate, reversing the syntactic relationship. Luke wrote the opposite: the appointed ones [subject] believe [predicate]. The Greek allows no other reading.
Whatever
your view of the rest of Scripture, it must be reconciled with the grammar Luke actually wrote. If it cannot, then it is your interpretation, not my presentation of the syntax, that produces the apparent contradiction.
Does it matter to you if you interpret that verse in a way that doesn't contradict other scripture...
The irony is hard to miss. You ask whether it matters to me not to contradict other Scripture, yet you dismiss the plain grammar of the verse because it contradicts
your interpretation of other passages. Which is more likely at fault: Luke's Greek, or your reading of the rest of the Bible? I am letting Luke speak for himself; you are imposing your system over his syntax. If anyone is forcing a contradiction here, it is not me.
Acts 13:46 which talks about the Jews who were there and rejected the gospel judging themselves unworthy of everlasting life, implying that it was their choice to believe the gospel or not
The issue isn't whether humans make choices. We obviously do. The question is
why some believe while others do not.
In your doctrine, God alone judges people to be unworthy of everlasting life
Misrepresenting my argument won't help your case. As I stated in my prior replies:
"The contrast between v. 46 and 48 is between that of self-judgment and divine appointment. Self-judgment explains unbelief. Divine appointment explains belief." (Post
#22)
and
"That is the point of v. 46. Their rejection is morally their own. But the deeper explanation for why one group
remains in that hostile unbelief while another responds in faith is given in v. 48. Human unbelief is natural to our fallen nature; God does not need to manufacture it." (Post
#23)
Did you miss these, or are you deliberately misrepresenting my position?
God has appointed that anyone who believes will have everlasting life (John 3:16)
This is a direct contradiction of what Luke actually wrote, and it is not what John 3:16 says.
Ὅσοι is a nominative, headless relative pronoun introducing a substantive relative clause. The entire clause,
ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, functions grammatically as the
subject of
ἐπίστευσαν ("believed"). That is not a matter of interpretation. Grammar dictates the logical order: appointed [subject] --> believed [predicate].
John 3:16 contains no concept of "appointment," let alone an appointment that could override Luke's syntax. You are subtly shifting the meaning of "appointed" in an attempt to evade the text. In Acts 13:48,
τεταγμένοι refers to
persons who had been placed, assigned, or arranged toward eternal life. But in your statement, "appointed" suddenly refers to a
general principle ("God has appointed
that anyone who believes..."). These are entirely different categories. You are changing the sense of the term to try to neutralize what Luke clearly wrote.
That does not mean He appointed anyone to believe, as if people don't have a choice in the matter.
Can you clarify what you mean by "choice in the matter"? Again, choice itself is not the point. The issue is the
basis of that choice. Does the desire to believe originate autonomously within the fallen human will, or must it be generated by God? (See John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8).
Acts 13:46 shows that people do have a choice in the matter. Why interpret Acts 13:48 without taking Acts 13:46 and other scriptures into account?
This is a loaded question. You're implying I've ignored verse 46, when it is obvious I've already addressed it. Your choice not to engage my comments doesn't erase them. They're right there for anyone to see. At this point, it looks like you're just firing off replies to keep the disagreement going.
I did not interpret Acts 13:48 without considering verse 46. I explained Luke's contrast: verse 46 reflects
self-judgment in unbelief, while verse 48 reflects
divine initiative in belief. You've chosen to ignore that explanation, misrepresent my position, and double down on remarks I already addressed. If this is how you intend to engage, our conversation is over.
And once more: context does not override the grammatical subject-predicate relationship. If your understanding of Scripture conflicts with what Luke actually wrote in Acts 13:48, the problem lies in your interpretation, not the text.
