Is Acts 17:30 only the elect or the entire human race?

[HankD]

Denial [emoji57] [emoji109]

No, I just don't accept labels.

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

No, I just don't accept labels.

HankD

So you don't accept the label of Christian? Interesting... [emoji56]

 

[Robert William]

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Now, Calvinists teach that the will of man is in bondage, and therefore no able to chose whether to follow the Lord Jesus or not. This, they say is only what the "elect" can do, since they have been predestined, and enabled by the Holy Spirit to come to Jesus.

However, the Holy Bible, as we can very clearly see here, states that GOD COMMANDS ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT, something that is IMPOSSIBLE, if ALL MEN, that is, the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, does not have the God-given capacity to repent. How can God COMMAND something from the WHOLE WORLD that is IMPOSSIBLE, if, as the Calvinist would have us believe, that they CANNOT?

It is very clear from the many posts on this forum, that Calvinists have a PROBLEM, in that THEY do NOT want to see EVERY LOST SINNER repent and come to Jesus Christ for salvation. They will also CHANGE the meaning of words like "WORLD" in John 3:16-17, to refer to only the "elect", even though JOHN CALVIN himself is AGAINST this! So, we challenge the Calvinist of twisting the meaning of the Bible, and instead of admitting this, which is what they do, and repenting from this, they instead attack you and issue warnings! SUCH is the love that they have for their fellow brothers! I wait to see how they deal with this passages from Acts, and see that cunning they use to make it say other than what is intended by the Teaching of the Holy Bible. That is if this post is not removed and I banned by some who really cannot stand being wrong!

Many with Proverbs 1:29 assume that because God says to someone choose, or because someone doesn’t turn at His reproof that it automatically means they have the ability to do that. The principle is true, that God does require that people do what they cannot naturally do it. Matthew 5:48, for example, be perfect for I am perfect, and nobody can do that, I’m sorry. Notice God gives the standard of perfection which is Himself. Be perfect because I am perfect. How about 1 Peter 1:16, “Be holy because I am holy.” He gives the command to be holy, gives the command to be perfect and he gives it to the sinners who are not holy, and the imperfect cannot achieve perfection because they are imperfect. You see, we in reformed circles would say that God is the standard of righteousness. He is the one who requires perfection because He is perfect. It doesn’t mean we’re automatically able to do it. 1 Peter 1:16, God grants them their holiness or imputes it, that He, gives them what they cannot do on their own. I’m making this case from scripture and showing you that’s the case. So when you go to Proverbs 1:29 and you want to say that when God says they did not turn at God’s reproof means that they have to be able to do that, these scriptures, counter that argument. John 1:12-13, But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[HankD]

So you don't accept the label of Christian? Interesting... [emoji56]

errata post #121: "I just don't accept man's labels".

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

errata post #121: "I just don't accept man's labels".

HankD

Humans came up with the term "Christian." It was initially a derogatory term. Do you not accept the term Christian? Do you reject being a Christian?

 

[HankD]

Humans came up with the term "Christian." It was initially a derogatory term. Do you not accept the term Christian? Do you reject being a Christian?

Humans? - "Christian" - a label through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

Humans? - "Christian" - a label through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

HankD

Yep, humans.

Acts of the Apostles 11
[26]When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.)

The term was originally a derogatory statement.

Do you reject the label, Hank?

I think you get my point. You are being a bit snooty in trying to skirt around labels that help define our reading of God's word.

You either believe in sola gratia or you don't. It is either grace alone or you add more to it by stating that humans must do something to be saved.

Calvin, Luther and Zwingli all believed in sola gratia.

 

[HankD]

Yep, humans.

Acts of the Apostles 11
[26]When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.)

The term was originally a derogatory statement.

Do you reject the label, Hank?

I think you get my point. You are being a bit snooty in trying to skirt around labels that help define our reading of God's word.

You either believe in sola gratia or you don't. It is either grace alone or you add more to it by stating that humans must do something to be saved.

Calvin, Luther and Zwingli all believed in sola gratia.

What is your problem M?

I am a Christian - a label approved by the scriptures.

I am saved by grace alone.

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

What is your problem M?

I am a Christian - a label approved by the scriptures.

I am saved by grace alone.

HankD

Yet, you shun Calvin, who is a brother in Christ; someone who let the Bible speak for itself without imposing a philosophy of free will upon the text.

Your shunning of labels strikes me as being unwilling to let the text define your belief.

You accept the label, Christian, even though it is a man-made term. The early church called themselves "The Way." Was that a label you would accept or reject?

There is nothing wrong with labels, Hank. Own them.

From what I read in your comments, you hold to a semi-pelagian belief.

 

[HankD]

Yet, you shun Calvin, who is a brother in Christ; someone who let the Bible speak for itself without imposing a philosophy of free will upon the text.

Your shunning of labels strikes me as being unwilling to let the text define your belief.

You accept the label, Christian, even though it is a man-made term. The early church called themselves "The Way." Was that a label you would accept or reject?

There is nothing wrong with labels, Hank. Own them.

From what I read in your comments, you hold to a semi-pelagian belief.

You have free will to believe whatever you want about me.

HankD

 

[MennoSota]

You have free will to believe whatever you want about me.

HankD

That has nothing to do with salvation.

Sola gratia means salvation by grace alone.

Grace alone means that human will (an action of work from you) cannot be added. When you add your will to salvation you remove grace and add your own work to salvation. You make it so that God is removed from choosing you and you replace it by declaring that you take Yahweh off the pantheon shelf of god's by your own free choice. God becomes a passive observer of your actions, but he finds pleasure in your good choice.

Free-will eliminates grace from salvation.

Do you believe in grace alone?

 

[Revmitchell]

Ichthus, the more I read your comments the more I see you condemning God for being weak by not saving all humanity. Your comments make me pity you.

I do not really like the attitude displayed by the author of the op but this is just completely false. He never said God is weak and therefore should not be saddled with such an accusation. A strawman at best, lack of integrity at worst.

 

[Rlee]

As I understand it there is no monolithic doctrinal statement that all Calvinists adhere to. You would have to ask each person individually. I can only answer for myself. God did NOT decree all things that come to pass. I have tried to tell you several times there is a HUGE difference between the decretal will of God and the permissive will of God but it seems to be going right past you.

I call myself a Christian, after my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Do you also condemn all Lutherans who are named for Luther? Or Wesleyans who are named for Wesley? Or Tertullianists who are named for Tertullian? And who are Baptists named after?
No. He tried to prevent it. His arrest was ordered by the Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic authorities sentenced him in absentia to death by slow burning.

After being arrested in Geneva the city council decided to write to other Swiss cities for their opinions, thus mitigating their own responsibility for the final decision. While waiting for the responses, the council also asked Servetus if he preferred to be judged in Vienne or in Geneva. He begged to stay in Geneva. When the replies from Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen were read the council condemned Servetus as a heretic. The following day he was sentenced to burning at the stake. Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burned which would have been much more humane. Their plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burned alive at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva by order of the city council.

Didn't Calvin also plead with Servetus not to come to Geneva simply because he knew what would happen to him?

 

[Revmitchell]

I feel that you are self-blinded to the Truth on what anyone says that goes against what you believe. You think that because you have been a Christian a long time, that you have all the answers. You always come back with your rather lofty responses, even though they are completely wrong! Instead of admitting that the Reformed position of the "decrees of God" are indeed unbiblical, and DO make God the author of sinful actions of man, you and the rest of those who follow this, will do everything to defend the undefendable!

As is with them it is also true of you. It is ungodly to misrepresent their arguments and their positions. I am convinced they are fully persuaded of their position, whether right or wrong, and they have no need to admit to anything. I disagree with much of their theology but they do have a defensible position. Being wrong does not mean their position is indefensible. Something incorrect can and often is defensible. It doesn't make them right but it does mean they are being sincere and honest to the best of their ability.

 

[Yeshua1]

FWIW, I've said this before.

There is something either missing or we do not understand concerning what is called "the tension" between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of man.

Personally I am watching and waiting until HE returns to ask Him about this

Luke 12:38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

HankD

I think that when we go thru the portal into Heaven, on our side we will see "whosoever will may come", and once thru, it reads " chosen from the foundation of the world"

 

[MennoSota]

What is your view of Acts 17:30 as a verse related to unlimited atonement and universalism, Revmitchell?

Present your case.

I find the attempt to create the basis of theology from a historic narrative to be poorly built. What say you?

 

[Rlee]

I speak of Calvinists, as far as I recall, I asked you if you were one and you declined to answer! The fact remains whether you like it or not, that no true Calvinist really loves ALL of the lost, as they do NOT believe that Jesus cares enough for ALL because He did not die for ALL. Forget your theology about sufficient and efficient, as your STRAW MEN, this is NOT what the Bible teaches. I do hate anything that is opposed to the True Gospel Message of the Bible, that God is not willing that ANY should perish, and not try to keep on twisting their meanings to something other, because it does not suit our "theology".

So why don't Calvinists preach what they ACTUALLY BELIEVE, tell the lost that God may not love you, and that it is very possible that Jesus did not die for you, so there is a greater chance that you will end up in hell, because you are not one of the chosen! This is is warped teaching of Calvinism, but Calvinists are afraid to preach what the believe! It is Calvinism that teaches that God has foreordained ALL that comes to pass, which then would include the sinful acts of man.

Whether you agree or disagree with the doctrine of the elect, we are commanded at the end of Matthew to give the Gospel to the world. There's not a single person who knows who will or won't be saved and it's not our business to try and find out. Obedience regarding going "into all the world and preach the Gospel" is our command. It is then the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

 

[MennoSota]

I do not really like the attitude displayed by the author of the op but this is just completely false. He never said God is weak and therefore should not be saddled with such an accusation. A strawman at best, lack of integrity at worst.

Where do I claim he literally said those words?
His views present God as being weak. I stand by that claim.

 

[TCassidy]

Didn't Calvin also plead with Servetus not to come to Geneva simply because he knew what would happen to him?

Yes.

 

[Van]

Many with Proverbs 1:29 assume that because God says to someone choose, or because someone doesn’t turn at His reproof that it automatically means they have the ability to do that. The principle is true, that God does require that people do what they cannot naturally do it. Matthew 5:48, for example, be perfect for I am perfect, and nobody can do that, I’m sorry. Notice God gives the standard of perfection which is Himself. Be perfect because I am perfect. How about 1 Peter 1:16, “Be holy because I am holy.” He gives the command to be holy, gives the command to be perfect and he gives it to the sinners who are not holy, and the imperfect cannot achieve perfection because they are imperfect. You see, we in reformed circles would say that God is the standard of righteousness. He is the one who requires perfection because He is perfect. It doesn’t mean we’re automatically able to do it. 1 Peter 1:16, God grants them their holiness or imputes it, that He, gives them what they cannot do on their own. I’m making this case from scripture and showing you that’s the case. So when you go to Proverbs 1:29 and you want to say that when God says they did not turn at God’s reproof means that they have to be able to do that, these scriptures, counter that argument. John 1:12-13, But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

I see we are at 7 pages of denial of the obvious. Every born anew person is "perfect." The fact that you would assert otherwise demonstrates selective study of scripture. Ditto for Holy. God tell us to be reconciled to God. Can we do that? No. But God can set us part in Christ through faith in the truth, where we are justified, made perfect, holy and so forth.

What you really deny is that we can grasp spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel and respond such that God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness.

Finally John 1:12-13 teaches God gave the right to become children of God to those who believe.... Thus again God giving the right to become child to believers.

To come full circle, God desires all men to be saved - according to His purpose and plan - which is for us to respond to the gospel and for God to evaluate our faith, and then for some professing faith in Christ, to credit their faith as righteousness and transfer them into Christ.