Was Luke lying?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Willingness of Men 2
- Thread starter ad finitum
- Start date
- Status
Are you saying that some men are by their own nature righteous and godly in God's eyes?
Silverhair, you need to accept what is actually being said, not what you want it to say.
Show me what I do not accept in the text. When Paul says "all" I believe him.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I would be more concerned about the fact you seem to be saying that Christ Jesus was lying.
Also as for Act 13:48 are those the same men, both Jews & Gentiles, that heard Paul speak about Christ Jesus and salvation thru faith in Him. Act 13:16-48 So were these men appointed to salvation or did they chose for themselves, well we have scholars on both sides of that view so no definitive answer. But what we do know for sure is that they heard the gospel and believed the gospel and they were saved.
Now isn't that what we see Paul saying is the way for people to come to salvation in Rom 10:14-15. And isn't that what we see Christ Jesus saying in Joh 3:14-18 and we know this is a universal call because He tells us it is Joh 12:32.
You keep saying that we should believe the bible and I fully agree. My question for you is why do you not believe what it says?
Austin I have no problem with a verse like
Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED." because that is what I really believe and it is what I see in the biblical text. Whereas you have to modify the text to make it fit your theology by reading into the text a preconceived idea.
Paul never teaches free will. If you actually read the entire letter to the Romans, you see how chapter 1 fits with chapter 10 and you see that believing is not a free will act, but instead is a work of the Holy Spirit moving in a person so that they do believe. When we grasp this there is no need to dance around Acts 13:48 like you are doing.
God appoints people to salvation. "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy..." Silverhair, you are rejecting the whole because you demand your philosophy be true.
ad finitum
Active Member
...who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
So it doesn't say "all men". It says "all ungodliness and unrighteousness" of men who fit the description of "holding the truth in unrighteousness".
ad finitum
Active Member
Notice the difference between the two mentions of mercy. The second one is a subjunctive.
This is ALL men...unless you believe there are some men who are self-righteous and holy before God while living unreconciled lives to Christ Jesus.
Are there other perfect humans, like Jesus, walking this earth?
Paul answers this in Romans 3:5-10.
But if our unrighteousnessserves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
No matter how you attempt to slice it, Paul is declaring all to be unrighteous.
I ask you this: Why do you hate the idea that God is Lord over all things?
Notice what God tells you, which you seem to think is unbearable.
Romans 9:15-16 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Paul dos teach free will in Romans you just refuse to see it. You have swallowed hook line and sinker that calvinist line of theology and have disregarded what the text of scripture says.
Rom 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 How will they preach unless they are sent?...
Now if you cannot see free will in this text then that means that God has only allowed a select number of people to be saved and that Austin means that all those that are not saved are not saved because He did not want to save them. So as I said before your theology requires that God condemn billions to hell because He did not select them.
And you are right your calvinist view is most assuredly blasphemous.
ad finitum
Active Member
So faith is a work? The Bible is pretty emphatic that it's not, isn't it?
ad finitum
Active Member
If Paul meant "all men" he would have said so. You are injecting an idea into the text that is not there, creating a false dichotomy. Paul is not making the distinction that you claim he's making. Consider that Christians can go astray by making idols of celebrities, human philosophy, human self-improvement and demonic practices like yoga. Christians can even practice homosexuality. But not all men do these things. Not even all unbelievers do these things.
Just look at Romans 2:1. Who do you think he's talking to, the heathen?
ad finitum
Active Member
The quotation doesn't indicate that. He will have mercy (future) on whom he already has (or has had) mercy. That's conditional. In the context of Exodus, everyone is already a believer, all saved under the blood of the Passover Lamb. The mercy (or lack of it) is expressed toward people who are already Chosen People under the Covenant.
The unsaved heathen are not even in view.
ad finitum
Active Member
Luke was not lying. But the English translation might be. The issue boils down to whether one deems the "appointed" word (tetagmenoi) as a passive or middle voice. Naturally, all mainline translations assume the passive voice. The middle voice would indicate that they had "placed themselves" in a favorable position for salvation instead of the passive, "were placed". However, the verse is not standing by itself. It's standing within a context. If there is an answer as to which voice is intended, the context is where it will be found. The Bible interprets itself, if we will but allow it.
In the narrow context, the Jews had begun to blaspheme and the apostles responded, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first. Since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). The contrast Luke makes between the words of the apostles and his own statement in Acts 13:48 is clear. Since the Jews had put themselves in a position hostile to eternal life, the apostles were very explicit with the use of the reflexive pronoun "yourselves" to indicate that the cause was their attitude. Then Luke, in explaining the opposite response of the Gentiles, would be most likely intending a reflexive middle to describe their attitude, which in 13:42 was evinced in their pleading with the apostles to come back on a second Sabbath to give the word of God. The parallel is striking.
In the broader context of Luke's statements in Acts, we have a close parallel in Iconium: "...they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a great multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks" (Acts 14:1). Here, Luke describes a human cause for many coming to faith, "...speaking is such a manner!..". He does not attribute it to irresistible grace or predestination.
There is another close parallel in Berea: "Now these were more nobleminded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men" (Acts 17:11-12). Again, the "therefore" emphasizes the cause.
These are examples of people, by their own action and decisions, putting themselves in a position to receive the Gospel and to believe. We are therefore on safe ground in determining that the middle voice is indicated in Acts 13:48. The Bible is its own commentary.
So the verse should be rendered something like,
Hearing it then, the Gentiles were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and as many as had devoted themselves to eternal life, believed.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
In a similar vain, Isaiah in Ch 1 vs. 3 "The Ox knows its owner And the donkey its master's voice But Israel does not know, My people do not consider."
Here God is pleading with Israel to come to Him, He refers to them as His people, then goes on to chastise them as a parent would discipline a child. Calvinists cannot imagine one that they think is elect not coming to God but they cannot see it the other way either, one of their elect turning away from God.
Man is always looking for a way to exercise power over others and looking for a way to have some skin in the game with respect to their salvation, man exercising power over God, and in that Calvinism does not disappoint. It makes the simple, complex.
My point is there is not an "elect" in the verse according to the YLT and Greens interlinear. "Sojourner" does not mean elect The word elect was added by the translators.
ME'TIC, n. [Gr. house.] In ancient Greece, a sojourner; a resident stranger in a Grecian city or place.
MB
.
There is nothing in Romans 10 that teaches free will.
You desperately want God to take the back seat while you declare yourself as choice maker, but Romans 10 never teaches free will.
My goodness, you want to ignore the whole of Romans. Look at you, desperate to change what Paul wrote.
Read Romans 9. The non-elect Esau is certainly in view. Remember that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they ever were born or could do right or wrong.
Last edited:
He did say all, and if you chose to read the entire letter you would know what his full argument is. But...doing so would force you to admit you are wrong and that you never chose God. God chose you.
- Status