Quick Answers to Calvinists Acts 13:48 - Jacques More

[IronsideNewell]

It was a good exegesis. But "ordained" (set or arrange) is in the passive in Greek. Not active. In other words, they were not doing the setting or arranging. Somebody outside of them is doing it.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi IronsideNewell,

Actually it is Middle and passive. And let's not forget "ésan" = THEY WERE precedes it: as many as THEY WERE set/arranged/determined

[edwardpf123]

If there was an original LXX, it is not presently extant. The current LXX is a compilation of Origens Hexapla, which includes his revision of the LXX, along with the Greek renderings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. See Ewert, pp. 105-110.(Fn.32)

Christ's use of Targums, Dean Burgon Society.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

I am not advocating the LXX as inspired; just useful.

Origen was around 185254AD

The dead sea scrolls are of 150 BC to 70AD

LXX

Cave 4 Leviticus, dated 100 B.C. (the oldest extant manuscript of the LXX)

Cave 7 Exodus chapter 28. Other scrolls contain a copy of Numbers and 2 copies of Deuteronomy.

Etcetera

Then there are versions of books with varying closeness to either the Masoretic Hebrew text or the LXX

Remember these were discovered well after Burgon.

[edwardpf123]

@edwardpf123 note the Mss. that you have mentioned, all were from the Torah and are not dated anywhere in 3rd century B.C. Nothing found in the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed anything. The fact is that the LXX we have today was not from the BC era and Christ and the Apostles never quoted from it.

The article I cited wasn't from Burgon, it was from the Dean Burgon Society.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion -Amen.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion -He thought he was an Egyptian who had led a revolt in that area (so he must have been able to communicate with those around him). There is no record of Christ ever speaking Greek to the people in Greek. Devout Jews would have learned Hebrew.

And Aramaic is quite common in that region as well.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion -That group listening to Paul were a mob, not just the 'educated'

No doubt Aramaic was spoken as well. But knowing many languages was common in that day, as it is in Europe. The Centurian who saved Paul was surprised that Paul knew Greek (Acts 21:37). You are making unsupportable assumptions.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion 'And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence:'(Acts 22:2)-The Jews understood Hebrew.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion -No, the Lord didn't use a corrupt Alexanderian Gr. version. Origen simply copied back into his own Gr. edition of the LXX the words of the NT.

[edwardpf123]

@twmapsion -Most Jews in that day could speak both Hebrew and Greek.

The LXX is a totally corrupt version and has no Mss supporting the view of it existing in the BC other than a few scraps from the Torah. The 'original' BC LXX was considered to be only the Torah, not the entire OT. There is an excellent article on Christ's possible use of Targums on the Dean Burgon Website.

[edwardpf123]

Great job exposing the false Calvinist reading of 13:48. The Gentiles were 'prepared' for the Gospel (Rom.2) and responded to it when it was preached to them.

One small note, the Lord and Apostles never quoted from the LXX. The LXX wasn't in existence in the BC period. The LXX we have today is from the 3rd century AD.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

Thank you.

The LXX was produced in the 3rd century BC.

When Jesus says "and Him ONLY you shall serve" the ONLY is not in the Heb. but in the LXX - Mat.4:10 C Deut.6:13

When Paul says "if your enemy hungers FEED HIM, if he thirsts, give him a drink" Rom.13:20 the whole verse = that in the LXX and BREAD and WATER are NOT mentioned. Bread and water are in the Heb. C Prov.25:21

Etc...

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -Brother, Origen had a copy of the NT in front of him when he edited the other 3 AD editions of the LXX. He simply copied into the LXX, NT readings.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

From my reading, when Origen set out to correct the LXX he did so with clearly marked notes as to what he was adding or correcting by using different columns hence the name of his works: the Hexapla and the Tetrapla. There are very few copies or versions extant of Origen's work.

There were other attempts at correcting the LXX and indeed also to translate the Hebrew O.T. into the Greek.

I understand the LXX text extant with us is not from Origen.

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -Actually, the LXX text is from Origen, the 5th column (see the ISBE comment)

And many of his corrections aren't specified

'But Origen also interfered with the text of LXX without indicating it, so that the form of the LXX he gave in the fifth column is called the Hexaparic recension.

(The Text of the OT, Wurthein, p.56) . That '5th column' is also called the 'LXX' in the preface to the Brenton edit. of the LXX. There were other attempts which did mix with Origen.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

Reading on it appears some suggest the Codex Vaticanus (B) is not influenced by Origen like the Codex Sinaiticus nor like the Codex Alexandrinus, of which is said "borrows much from the hexaplar text [Origen]", so that we do have versions of the LXX closer to the original than Origen's influence.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has compared the LXX versions: e.g. the extant codices and published a comparative map of the differences

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -No, there are no closer versions to the 'original' since there wasn't an 'original' BC LXX. Those who are talking about the influences of Origen on 'B' vs 'Aleph' I believe are talking about his influence on the NT, not the OT (LXX) in those ms, since both of those Mss disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the Gospels alone. Origen was the great corrupter of Mss, both Old and New.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

What I read earlier was about the O.T. only in regards to those codices. I read that there are 617 folios of the O.T. in Vaticanus. These are understood to predate Origen's work.

Have you not read of Aristobulus mention of the Greek O.T. in the 2nd century B.C.?

He wrote that the version of the Law into Greek was completed under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -The only Mss evidence that is suppose to predate Origen (BC) are a few scraps from the Torah and they were likely Targums. Aristobulus (if he was indeed the author) was dependent on the letter of Aristeas which was found to be a total fraud. And you will note that only the Law is mentioned, not the entire OT.

The LXX today is the 5th column of Origen, mixed with many revisions.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

The problem I would have with the idea that the LXX today is only Origen's work is this:

Both the quotes in the N.T. and the text in the LXX - since they are the same in numerous places - differ equally from the Hebrew text. And, since we have much more solid evidence for the N.T. text itself, it then becomes a witness to the contents of the LXX as valid.

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -I didn't say that the LXX was only Origen's work, but that the LXX is from his 5th column Hexapla, other revisions were added to his '5th column'. The quotes are the same because Origen, and (those who followed him) had a NT in front of them to quote from and simply put the exact NT quote into their Gr. OT reading. There is no Mss evidence that an entire OT LXX existed.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

I'm not sure you are understanding me.

Granted, whether it is Origen or another and IF the N.T. Text was copied back into the LXX, it would explain the 'modern version' having identical quoted portions.

This does not explain why the N.T. itself has the quotes 'incorrect' in the 1st place and thus points to something other than the O.T. Scriptures in Heb. to quote from.

And IF things were copied back, why aren't all quotes identical to the LXX?

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -Why would the quotes be 'incorrect' if not exact. The author (The Holy Spirit) has the freedom to alter those quotes as He sees fit. The revelation was given to the writers of the NT on what to write.

And it is the LXX that has changed OT verses from the New to make them 'match'. why would the true readings be identical with the LXX?

The true line of Bibles didn't use the LXX, they used the pure Heb. MT.

[madmax3789]

@edwardpf123 He wasnt claiming the LXX was scripture, he was using it to demonstrate the Greek understanding of the word. Obviously. Your arguments are invalid.

[edwardpf123]

@madmax3789 -No, since the LXX was composed in the 3rd century AD not BC. So it is not shedding any light on how a Greek word should be used in the NT. So his appeal to it for an 'ancient usage' of the Greek is invalid.

And what matters is the usage of the word in it's context, which means 'prepared'. Those in Acts 13:48 were prepared to hear the Gospel (ordained) and responded to it by faith.

[madmax3789]

@edwardpf123 uh wut, the Septuagint was written in the 3rd century BC.

"The Septuagint (pronounced /ˈsɛptuː.ədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation ,[1] is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd century BCE in Alexandria.[2] It was begun by the 3rd century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.[3" -Wikipedia

[edwardpf123]

@madmax3789 -Actually, there is very little Mss evidence of a BC LXX (an entire OT in Greek).

There are only some scraps from the Torah, which were likely Targums, not from a BC LXX. The LXX used today is from the 3rd century AD, not BC, and is mostly the work of Origen and his Hexapla.

[madmax3789]

@edwardpf123 Just because our earliest current manuscript is from the 3rd century AD does not mean the LXX was initially written then. There are other indications of its age, such as references in other literature, widespreadedness, and content, and scholars and historians have placed the writing of the LXX firmly hundreds of years before Christ.

[edwardpf123]

@madmax3789 -There are no BC references to any LXX in existance. The LXX we have today has nothing to do with any BC LXX. The Lord didn't refer to it, He made reference to the Hebrew OT when He noted the Hebrew order of Books, Torah, Prophets, Writings. The LXX doesn't have that order. See my videos on the subject.

[edwardpf123]

@madmax3789 -Also, I agree with his conclusion that the word 'ordain' can mean 'arrange' since it is a synonym for 'prepared'. No need to run to the 'Greek'. The context of Acts 13:48 and the Webster's 1828 dictionary explain the meaning of 'ordain'.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Edward,

btw, I'm not a great fan of Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus and more of a textus Receptus man as regards the N.T.

For example for Mark 16:9-20 there is a gap for this and yet this passage is quoted by various early church fathers who predate those codices and is in over 900 extant manuscripts (or was it over 800? - I need to look my sources up anew to remind myself)...

[edwardpf123]

@gracetruthguy -Amen! The ending of Mark 16:9-20 has overwhelming MSS support. And no Gospel is going to end with the disciples being afraid (16:8)

[ShownMercy]

@edwardpf123. And you call yourself a Christian, a steward of God's word? The text is crystal clear without a need for an interpretation. Luke was very clear and precise when he penned those words. The problem is, you can't accept what it says. The stinch of pride is the vilest of all. You have no desire to understand the truth, only a desire to keep in tact the reputation that proceeds you. Have you no shame? How dare you proclaim the name of Christ and call Him a liar with the same mouth

[ShownMercy]

The lengths that man will go to maintain man's sovereignty in Salvation is incredible. To actually make a video completely reversing what Luke penned and the Holy Spirit inspired, is blasphemy. God will not excuse man's ignorance, or for that matter PRIDE, for the sake of man. He will punish the wicked with eternal fire, all those who do not obey the Gospel of Christ. You will know them by their fruits. I know, by your fruits, that you are NOT born of God, nor are you raised up with Christ.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

B4 Augustine the universal orthodox teaching was synergism not monergism.

It is what the bible teaches.

As many as received Him He THEN gave the right to become childrne of God.

John 1:12

The then birthing process is all of God. V.13

It is explicit: The right to become a child was not made in eternity past, but AFTER the reception. And since the ability is universally given by God: he gets the glory.

[ShownMercy]

@gracetruthguy.. Like I said, the lengths man will go to retain his own sovereignty. You surly can't accept what God has said. "But by HIS DOING you are in Christ Jesus".. Why can't man just accept these words? Because they don't actually believe what God has said. They have called God a liar, and all accusers will partake in everlasting fire. The untaught and unstable distort God's word to their own destruction.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

All men have been given life by God. And their ability to choose too. So that if man chooses good rather than evil who is that praising?

His Maker and His sovereignty or not?

It is confusion to suggest using the ability GOD gives for good as abusing or going against God's declared purposes and ways of working.

Denying this is calling God a liar.

We are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

No faith = no sonship

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

When God said,

" 'Let us reason together' says the LORD, 'though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.

If you are willing and obedient.' " Isaiah 1:18-19

This is synergism. God and man co-operate.

"if you refuse and rebel" V.20

Shows the condition that prevents them receiving mercy.

Monergism is thereby against the testimony of Scripture.

[ShownMercy]

I love how you COMPLETELY fail to expound on the TENSE of the word Tasso. This shows your total lack of knowledge when dealing with Greek. Slimy little snake you are. You also fail to comprehend that ONLY 3 verses that contain Tasso are in the PERFECT TENSE.

Acts 13:48

Acts 22:10

Rom 13:1

All in which GOD IS THE ONE WHO HAS PERFORMED THE APPOINTMENT. Only when GOD performs an actions, is the verb in the PERFECT tense.

This is basic Greek, maybe you should consider trying to learn the rules

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy, Acts 13:48 TASSÓ as a participle in the Perfect middle and passive The Perfect is a completed action A tense is not the preserve of God: it is just a tense The video shows: Acts 22:10 tetaktai all things which are appointed for thee to do KJV Romans13:1 tetagmenai the powers that be are ordained of God KJV There is no room for movement in any of these: Are appointed FOR THEE Are ordained OF GOD

[ShownMercy]

@gracetruthguy.. And the snake in the garden was more crafty than any beast of the field. Your baby-talk doesn't dismiss the fact you can't accept what the verse actually says. It says what it says. There is a distinct reason that Luke penned it as he did. There's no way around it.  This is the type of verse that divides the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, the natural from the spiritual man. You search high and low for a scape goat, yet none to be found.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

Luke penned it:

And they believed - as many as - they were - TASSÓ - into life eternal.

Why was it changed around by the translators if not to perpetuate what Augustine began?

Why do you think the Christian writers before Augi taught otherwise?

"conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated [persistently taught] by the Greek Fathers" - "History of Christian Doctrine

Prof. Fisher of church history Yale Uni

[ShownMercy]

@gracetruthguy.. What you can't explain is the word "pisteuo" (believed) is in the Aorist tense, and tasso in the perfect. The tenses of these two verbs squashes your argument. Theres no way around it.

But, people like you, the unstable and untaught, will continue to distort God's word to your own destruction.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

Jesus said (5 X in the N.T.)

To him who has more shall be given...

These believed - aorist meaning at a set point in the past B4 Luke reported it.

AFTER their hearts WERE SET - perfect completed action

a completed action in the past.

It is because their hearts were set that they received the good news with joy and then believed with their minds: what their hearts were already ripe to receive.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

Jesus said (5 X in the N.T.)

To him who has more shall be given...

These believed - aorist meaning at a set point in the past B4 Luke reported it.

AFTER their hearts WERE SET - perfect completed action

a completed action in the past.

It is because their hearts were set that they received the good news with joy and then believed with their minds: what their hearts were already ripe to receive.

[ShownMercy]

@gracetruthguy.. Wrong again. The text is clear. They believed when they HEARD the gospel preached. Paul and Barnabas preached the Word of the Lord on that day, that those gentiles who heard, believed and began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. There is no way around the text. Your fugal attempts to disregard what is CLEARLY written by Luke are in vain. You WILL be judged for your incompetence. You should consider James 3:1

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

When Paul wrote Romans 2:14-15 he made clear that those who do not have the law or the gospel and yet practise the law as written in their hearts are a law unto themselves. These were ready in their hearts - set into internal life - If these then hear the gospel, they are then able to believe with their minds what their hearts were already set into. Remember Matthew 13:12 et al?

I consider Galatians 6:1

[ShownMercy]

@gracetruthguy.. Good grief, just stop already while you still have an ounce of dignity. Romans 2:14-15 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gentiles in Acts 13 hearing the Gospel and believing in Jesus. Being a "law unto themselves" is merely accountability, and has NOTHING to do with salvation. The ACCOUNTABILITY is the PROBLEM. Seriously, you have absolutely no business teaching. You should really consider taking down these videos that witness against you.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour and immortality Romans 2:7

+ glory, honour and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek V.10

+ for when Gentiles . .. do the things in the law, althought not having the law [or the gospel] are a law to themselves V.14

+ in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according ot my gospel. V.16

Is eternal life about salvation?

[edwardpf123]

@ShownMercy -And why don't you explain the supposed 'significance' of the difference between the tenses in the greek for the verse? You won't-because there isn't any!

The Aorist Indicative of a few verbs is used in the New Testament to denote a present state, the result of a past act, hence with the proper force of a Greek Perfect.-Burton's Moods and Tenses.

[edwardpf123]

@ShownMercy-Why don't you explain the supposed 'significance' of the Gr. tense in that passage?

You won't- because there isn't any! 86. Since the Aorist and the Perfect both involve reference to a past event... it is evident that whenever the result of the past action does still exist, either tense may be used, according as the writer wishes either to affirm the result or merely the event

[SpaceAboveSky]

@ShownMercy Isn't that impossible according to your beliefs? Or, we can't help BUT to do that right? Because we're rejected by God from eternity. So why complain from what He decreed?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

I agree that EPISTEUSAN is PISTEUÓ in the Aorist Active.

I fail to see the fact this meaning that the belief happened at one point in time helps your argument.

Luke is telling us they believed at that point of being told the good news.

But, why they believed is only because their hearts were already set to receive.

And that bacause THEY WERE set (Acts 13:48).

No implication is given as to the SETTER. from the tenses whatsoever.

[ShownMercy]

LOL! What a day of Judgment there will be for the wolves who construe God's word to fit their own wicked agenda.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ShownMercy,

This is my agenda:

"a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition" 2 Timothy 2:24-25

This is a teaching video to demonstrate and bring forth what is there; not impose something not there (and also previously non-existent, as this imposed meaning was not there before Augustine: See my video: "Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More")

[madmax3789]

@ShownMercy How do you reconcile 2 Peter 2:20-21, wherein it is explicitly stated that a group of people followed God, knew Jesus, overcame the corruption of the world, and fell back?

They were the elect and chose to be otherwise. Thats a problem for you. Right?

p.s. describing brothers in Christ you disagree with as "wicked" is much, much more unChristian than any given opinion about free will.

[yastunt]

A video worthy to be favourited!