Context of Acts 13:48

[unprofitable]

JD731-

Christ came to minister to Israel to bring them into the new covenant. They could not continue in the old because it was to be fulfilled and pass away. He came to bring forth a new creation where the two sticks are now made one in the church, a place of refuge for the gentiles, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.

You say the church is not a nation. When Christ told the Jew that the kingdom would be taken from them (plucked up, pulled down, cast down under a perverted old covenant) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof (under the new covenant), what nation did he give the kingdom to? Has there not been a nation bringing forth fruit for 2000 years? Has the Holy Spirit been absent from that nation this long? When will the new covenant go into effect? The New Covenant is the constitution of the kingdom/nation of God? Has the kingdom of God yet to be established? Both Christ and John the Baptist came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. A kingdom IS a nation. Do you think that the kingdom of God is still a future event?
What nation do you think Peter was addressing when he said in 1 Peter 2:9 YE ARE a holy nation therefore a people (vs 10) and therefore a kingdom and a royal priesthood necessary for a holy nation?

The church at the time of Christ was and, now is, even in its fallen down condition, full of leaven, as was Israel at his time, the people, nation, kingdom of God. Yet a remnant shall be saved, the true Israel of God.

 

[unprofitable]

Why do you get upset when I say you are a calvinist? You claim to hold to their DoG, which ones those are you did not say.

Please re-write, hard to understand

 

[unprofitable]

The metaphor that God uses to describe gentiles is "dogs." Gentiles are dogs in the eyes of God, not sheep.

You won't believe this, I am guessing, but I will give you one passage of many where we are told this.

Matt 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

At least consider what the text says. Sheep are a metaphor for the house of Israel.

Jeremiah 50:17
Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.

The main point of these verses is the beginning of the fulfillment of the bringing into the kingdom of the gentile nations.

 

[kyredneck]

The main point of these verses is the beginning of the fulfillment of the bringing into the kingdom of the gentile nations.

Excellent.

I think the 'very beginning' of Christ bringing in 'His sheep of the other fold' can be pinpointed in
Acts of the Apostles 10.

 

[kyredneck]

what verses give clear indication of the context of this verse and what is the context of this verse?

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes...... Acts 13

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

45 ..... they were filled with jealousy..... Acts 13

21 ........I will move them to jealousy with those that are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. Dt 32

45 ....... and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed. Acts 13

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. Jn 10

48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Jn 10

 

[Silverhair]

Please re-write, hard to understand

Which part is hard to understand?
Why do you get upset when I say you are a calvinist?
You claim to hold to their DoG, which ones those are you did not say.

 

[AustinC]

Which part is hard to understand?
Why do you get upset when I say you are a calvinist?
You claim to hold to their DoG, which ones those are you did not say.

Why do you ignore me when I call you a humanist? You claim man causes God to save by grace when man chooses God.

 

[Silverhair]

Why do you ignore me when I call you a humanist? You claim man causes God to save by grace when man chooses God.

I don't ignore you because you called me a humanist, I just ignore you. Not to hurt your feelings but you are just to illogical.

 

[Van]

I'm just saying that the above doesn't fit well into the context of the verse. It is redundant. I'll accept that there may be more than one way to translate the Greek here but this translation makes the sentence awkward. This type of trying to squeeze the meaning of a verse into a preconceived theology is what some on this thread have been accusing the Calvinists on here of doing all along. It looks like you are doing it too.

I have said before that I do not see the primary purpose of this passage of scripture as being designed to teach a lesson in predestination. But the fact that this isn't the primary purpose, yet the whole book of Acts, and indeed the whole Bible, is permeated with an assumption that the plan of salvation, of God redeeming people for Himself, is always portrayed as a predetermined projection of God's will and power - makes it all the more natural that "appointed" should be stuck in there, more as a matter of fact; as if to say "of course" they were appointed.

There have been other threads on here where I take issue with other Calvinists because I don't believe in determinism to the extent they do. But when it comes to our salvation I have to admit that this is one area where because of our sin and our natural state before God it requires an active projection of power from God or no one gets saved. In the ancient world this does not seem to be controversial. And wherever you stand on the extent of determinism and how it works, when it comes to an area where God is exerting His stated will - in that case it will happen, it must happen and it was indeed predetermined.

You made several points:
1) I am reading into the text of Acts 13:48 things that are not contextual.
2) Predestination simply is God determine to cause something in the future. That is not at issue. The claim God has predetermined before creation who individually He will save is the issue. And that false doctrine cannot be found in scripture. His plan of redemption was indeed formulated before creation, as the Lamb of God was known before creation. But the plan is to choose individuals whose faith God credits as righteousness.
3) As I pointed out Matthew 23:13 demonstrates the lost can be seeking God without the fictional Irresistible Grace of Calvinism.

 

[Van]

Your translation is terrible. It does, however, promote man as the cause of salvation and God as the effected party. Do you think God ever teaches man as cause agent and God as the effected party in salvation?

The translation is crystal clear and demonstrates your interpretation is terrible.
It does not indicate "man" is the cause of salvation. Salvation depends on God alone, Romans 9:16. A person is not saved because they come to faith, but because God alone chooses to credit that worthless filthy rag faith as righteous faith.

Acts 13:48, Yet the Gentiles hearing this rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were in agreement with the arrangement into everlasting life believed.

 

[AustinC]

The translation is crystal clear and demonstrates your interpretation is terrible.
It does not indicate "man" is the cause of salvation. Salvation depends on God alone, Romans 9:16. A person is not saved because they come to faith, but because God alone chooses to credit that worthless filthy rag faith as righteous faith.

Acts 13:48, Yet the Gentiles hearing this rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were in agreement with the arrangement into everlasting life believed.

It's certainly a translation that a humanist would like, but it's not one that any serious translator would do. It reminds me of how Charles Taze Russell translated the Bible to fit his theology.
Van, you say that salvation depends on God alone and then you contradict yourself by saying man must do...
It's clear you are comfortable with having major contradictions in your theology so that you lift up man to be equal with God in salvation. It's also clear that you cannot see it.

 

[unprofitable]

Which part is hard to understand?
Why do you get upset when I say you are a calvinist?
You claim to hold to their DoG, which ones those are you did not say.

I didn't get upset because you called me a calvinist. I was upset that you said I called myself a
calvinist when I did not. Just because someone may agree with several points of doctrine with
calvinist doesn't make them a calvinist. To me, there is much more to the scriptures than just the
doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace were known long before Calvin.

Also believing in some point of the doctrines of grace no more makes me a calvinist, than being
baptized makes me an anglican.

I understand you made assumptions but I believe you will see in the process of time more of what I mean.

I also stated that I hold no honor for Calvin because according to memory, he viewed the Ana-baptists as vermin
and heavily persecuted them.

 

[AustinC]

I don't ignore you because you called me a humanist, I just ignore you. Not to hurt your feelings but you are just to illogical.

This doesn't hurt my feelings. The Greek humanists also thought the Gospel was illogical.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 5 am EST / 2 am PST

 

[Silverhair]

I didn't get upset because you called me a calvinist. I was upset that you said I called myself a
calvinist when I did not. Just because someone may agree with several points of doctrine with
calvinist doesn't make them a calvinist. To me, there is much more to the scriptures than just the
doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace were known long before Calvin.

Also believing in some point of the doctrines of grace no more makes me a calvinist, than being
baptized makes me an anglican.

I understand you made assumptions but I believe you will see in the process of time more of what I mean.

I also stated that I hold no honor for Calvin because according to memory, he viewed the Ana-baptists as vermin
and heavily persecuted them.

Have you actually taken the time to work through the DoG to there logical end point? I agree there is much more to scripture but the doctrines of grace are not biblical and you are correct the DoG were known long before Calvin. Augustine was the one that came up with them. He was greatly influenced by Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism & Manichaeism and incorporated many of their ideas into his Christian view. Those ideas were latter followed by calvin. So the foundation of calvinism can be found in those pagan philosophies.

So while you may agree with some of the points of calvinism that would be like tasting of the fruit of a poisoned tree.

I am curious though, which ones of the DoG do you agree with and if not to much trouble why? Since this thread will be closed soon you could just PM me with your response.

 

[AustinC]

Have you actually taken the time to work through the DoG to there logical end point? I agree there is much more to scripture but the doctrines of grace are not biblical and you are correct the DoG were known long before Calvin. Augustine was the one that came up with them. He was greatly influenced by Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism & Manichaeism and incorporated many of their ideas into his Christian view. Those ideas were latter followed by calvin. So the foundation of calvinism can be found in those pagan philosophies.

So while you may agree with some of the points of calvinism that would be like tasting of the fruit of a poisoned tree.

I am curious though, which ones of the DoG do you agree with and if not to much trouble why? Since this thread will be closed soon you could just PM me with your response.

The doctrine of grace and the 5 solas are fully expressed in God's word. If one dismisses these as "illogical" it is only because that person does not rightly divide the word of God.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 5 am EST / 2 am PST

This thread is closed