Question:
Does God appoint individuals for eternal life before they believe? Is this appointing to eternal life what enables them to believe? Calvinists assert that this verse supports the doctrine of Unconditional Election-- that before the world began, God chose those who he wanted to be with him for eternity. The one God has appointed to eternal life is the one who God will regenerate and enable to believe. Conversely, those God has not chosen and appointed to eternal life, cannot believe because God has not enabled them to do so. Does this verse support this teaching?
Answer:
No, this verse has nothing to do with God's unilateral choosing of non-believing individuals. On the contrary, it contrasts for us the Gentile God-fearers' (v. 16, 26, 43) predisposition toward God's word versus the Jews' predisposition against God's word. The Gentiles, called "devout converts to Judaism" in v. 43, "followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God." These Gentiles believed Paul's message that he had just given in v.16-41, where spoke of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and that "forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you" (v.38) and "Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (v.39) That these Gentile God-fearers, who already feared God, and who followed Paul (v.43), had believed in obedience to v.39 and consequently received the "grace of God" is clear because in v.43, Paul and Barnabas "urged them to continue in the grace of God".
When Paul and Barnabas returned the following Sabbath (7 days later), we are told that almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. (v.44). But the Jews were filled with jealousy because of the crowds. Does this remind you of anything? They reacted the same way against Jesus when they saw the crowds following him (and not them-- the Jewish religious leaders). They heckled Paul and railed against him.
Paul and Barnabas reply that because the Jews rejected the word of God and did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life, they would now turn to the Gentiles. Notice the underlined words. They clearly state that these Jews rejected the word of God. And notice very carefully here that he does not give as the reason for this rejection that God did not appoint them for eternal life. No, quite the opposite; he says that they "did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life". In other words, their rejection was because of their own decision to trust in righteousness gained by the Law of Moses instead of Jesus (v.38-39). They considered themselves unworthy of eternal life by fulfilling in themselves what the prophets had said of them in Habakkuk 1:5, repeated by Paul in v.41.
By contrast, Luke records for us in v. 47-48 that the Gentiles "were glad and honored the word of the Lord". Notice again that they were honoring the word of the Lord (in contrast to the Jews' rejection of it). This indicates that they were already believing and following. Thus when it says that they were "appointed for eternal life", it means the opposite of what Luke recorded about the Jews. The Jews did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life. By contrast, the Gentiles did consider themselves worthy of eternal life by believing. Notice it does not say that God appointed them but is simply stated in the passive-- that they were appointed. It is possible that they appointed themselves for it because they valued it. In support of this viewpoint is the definition of the word "appointed", which in Greek is tasso, which can mean "disposed". Thus, the Gentiles were disposed to eternal life because they were already following God and responding to his word, as mentioned earlier regarding v.43.
Now, if Luke meant to say that God did the appointing, this does not cause a problem. For the appointing by God would have occurred after the Gentiles were already following and believing, as earlier described in relation to v. 43.
So either way, whether the Gentiles were "disposed by their earlier belief" or "appointed by God" based on their earlier faith, it can be said that this description-- "appointed for eternal life"-- points to these particular Gentiles (out of the larger group of Gentiles) who were responding to the message as described in .v43. Those who were following were "appointed for eternal life" and thus reaffirmed their belief in God's word.
Yet another proof that the appointment for eternal life does not precede initial faith in Christ is Acts 14:2, where Luke describes that in a different place, "At Iconium Paul and Barnabas...spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers." If the "appointment for eternal life" (i.e. as Calvinists' interpret it, Unconditional Election) is all that is needed for one to believe, then why would it matter how effectively Paul and Barnabas spoke? Here it says that the effectiveness of their speech is what rendered belief in the great number of Jews and Gentiles. It is given credit for the large number of converts. And Luke explicitly records the reason why certain ones did not believe: they refused to-- ("the Jews who refused to believe"). And it says that they stirred up and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against the believers. So we see activity on the part of the unbelievers influencing the minds (and consequently, the wills) of some who were apparently undecided up to that point.
Finally, we read that in v.4, some of the Gentiles sided with the Jews and others with the apostles, as a result of this action.
In summary, there is no such thing as Unconditional Election, as the Calvinist describes it. This verse does not support it, and I will endeavor to disprove in later blogs where other verses are said to do so.
Comments are welcome. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Comments are welcome. I would love to hear your thoughts.
