Understanding Acts 13:48

[canadyjd]

It is not surprising, then, that the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford argued for the rendering, “as many as were disposed,” in his well respected 4 volume work, The Greek Testament. (John Piper of all people sings Alford’s praises thus: “When I’m stumped with a . . . grammatical or syntactical or logical flow in Paul, I go to Henry Alford. Henry Alford mostly answers-he . . . comes closer more consistently than any other human commentator to asking my kinds of questions.”) Alford’s treatment of Act_13:48 can be found in this volume available online.

This verse is important because it shows that the exclusion of the Jews from the ranks of the saved was their own choice, not the result of some predestining activity of God. The Jews specifically judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. This is exactly the opposite of the Gentiles’ reaction, especially when Paul and Barnabas applied Isa_49:6 to themselves: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Act_13:47). Act_13:48 then describes the reaction of the Gentiles to this preaching. It was in fact just the opposite of the Jews’ reaction: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord.” Then follow the crucial words: and as many as set themselves toward eternal life believed. How did they set themselves toward eternal life? By hearing and heeding the word of God (cf Rom_10:17; Eph_1:13).
We cannot ignore the symmetrical contrast between the reaction of the Jews in Act_13:46 and the reaction of the Gentiles in Act_13:48. Whereas the Jews rejected the gospel and judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life (Act_13:46), the Gentiles received it gladly and embraced the message of eternal life (Act_13:48). In both cases the decision was a matter of free choice. There is no support for Calvinism in Act_13:48 Dr. Cottrell

It would be best for you, Austin, to tap out and admit you have no legitimate argument.

What the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford doesn’t do is agree with Van rendering of Acts 13:48 as an agreement by mutual consent.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

What the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford doesn’t do is agree with Van rendering of Acts 13:48 as an agreement by mutual consent.

peace to you

Do you not consider it a mutual consent if two parties agree on something. God wants to save those that trust in His son, the gentiles trusted in His son for salvation. Two parties both agreeing on the means of salvation, trust in the Son.

Faith is not the cause of salvation but the condition of receiving it. Our faith does not save us, but we are saved only by Christ, in whom we have faith.

 

[Silverhair]

Acts 13:48 Commentary - Henry Alford's Greek Testament

Thanks 37, I see that my reference did not link through.

 

[canadyjd]

Do you not consider it a mutual consent if two parties agree on something. God wants to save those that trust in His son, the gentiles trusted in His son for salvation. Two parties both agreeing on the means of salvation, trust in the Son.

Faith is not the cause of salvation but the condition of receiving it. Our faith does not save us, but we are saved only by Christ, in whom we have faith.

I don’t believe you have any credibility to offer guidance on understanding scripture or theology based on your statements in other threads.

Please do not respond to my posts.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Do you not consider it a mutual consent if two parties agree on something. God wants to save those that trust in His son, the gentiles trusted in His son for salvation. Two parties both agreeing on the means of salvation, trust in the Son.

Faith is not the cause of salvation but the condition of receiving it. Our faith does not save us, but we are saved only by Christ, in whom we have faith.

So you teach conditional salvation. Got it.

 

[Silverhair]

I don’t believe you have any credibility to offer guidance on understanding scripture or theology based on your statements in other threads.

Please do not respond to my posts.

peace to you

What you think or believe as to what I say is not of concern to me. You have made many comments on here that do not comport with scripture but that is your right to do so. It is also my right to comment on yours or anyone else's posts. As for credibility or guidance that would come from the scripture that I post but you and a few others do not seem to trust what the bible says if it conflicts with your man-made views.

 

[Silverhair]

So you teach conditional salvation. Got it.

Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned;
but he who does not believe is condemned already,
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sure looks like a conditional salvation there Austin. So are you now going to tell Christ Jesus He got it wrong?

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but he who does not believe will be condemned.

There are those pesky conditions again. Looks like Christ disagrees with you again. Austin perhaps you need to do a rethink of your theology?

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,
for it is the power of God to salvation
for everyone who believes,

And your going to have to tell Paul he was wrong, he is just not a good calvinist.

 

[canadyjd]

What you think or believe as to what I say is not of concern to me. You have made many comments on here that do not comport with scripture but that is your right to do so. It is also my right to comment on yours or anyone else's posts. As for credibility or guidance that would come from the scripture that I post but you and a few others do not seem to trust what the bible says if it conflicts with your man-made views.

I believe your comments in other threads renders you without credibility to offer guidance on understanding scripture or theology..

Although you certainly have the right to comment on my posts, I am asking you not to comment on my posts, as it serves no edifying purpose.

peace to you

 

[unprofitable]

37818-
I will freely admit that I don't know the first dot about Greek neither do I intend to study it. I see enough misinterpretations with it that I will leave it to my more learned brethren. Brother Marprelate has more than covered your question to me.

My question to you is since disposed or pre-disposed indicates an already existing condition that would contribute to performing or accomplishing a task, what do you think that the condition is or was?

Jeremiah 24:7 I WILL GIVE (grace as a gift/disposed) them a heart to know me that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart. Place, set, order, appoint, dispose,

Jeremiah 32:38 I WILL GIVE them one heart (pre-disposed condition by the grace of God) and one way that they may fear me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. Place, set, order, appoint, dispose

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart WILL I GIVE you (grace) and a new spirit WILL I PUT within you (therefore pre-disposed) and I will take the stony heart out of your flesh,and give you a heart of flesh.

Acts 13:46 ...but seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life...not
disposed, no new heart.

Deu 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

 

[Silverhair]

I believe your comments in other threads renders you without credibility to offer guidance on understanding scripture or theology..

Although you certainly have the right to comment on my posts, I am asking you not to comment on my posts, as it serves no edifying purpose.

peace to you

As you may have come to realize, it is not you that I am posting for it is for those that read what you have posted and then see that what you have posted is not correct. I am just correcting what you have posted. So while I understand that you would rather I not respond to your posts I feel that it is necessary for me to do so. I am not attacking you but rather what you have stated in your posts.

What you see as correct I see as error as you do not align with scripture although I am sure you will disagree with my assessment. You have in numerous posts, as in this one, have shown you disagree with what I post and that is well within your right to do so.

With that being said I am sure we will continue to have differing opinions on this board.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 4 am EST / 1 am PST

 

[canadyjd]

As you may have come to realize, it is not you that I am posting for it is for those that read what you have posted and then see that what you have posted is not correct. I am just correcting what you have posted. So while I understand that you would rather I not respond to your posts I feel that it is necessary for me to do so. I am not attacking you but rather what you have stated in your posts.

What you see as correct I see as error as you do not align with scripture although I am sure you will disagree with my assessment. You have in numerous posts, as in this one, have shown you disagree with what I post and that is well within your right to do so.

With that being said I am sure we will continue to have differing opinions on this board.

As you may have come to realize, I consider you to lack any credibility to offer guidance on the understanding of scripture or theology based on your prior posts in other threads.

And while you do have the right to respond to my posts, I’d rather you not simply because you can never accurately state my beliefs on anything.

Therefore, none of our conversations could possibly be edifying to anyone and are, without a doubt, a waste of cyberspace.

Please do not respond to my posts.

Thank you Lord Jesus this thread will soon be closed.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

As you may have come to realize, I consider you to lack any credibility to offer guidance on the understanding of scripture or theology based on your prior posts in other threads.

And while you do have the right to respond to my posts, I’d rather you not simply because you can never accurately state my beliefs on anything.

Therefore, none of our conversations could possibly be edifying to anyone and are, without a doubt, a waste of cyberspace.

Please do not respond to my posts.

Thank you Lord Jesus this thread will soon be closed.

peace to you

@canadyjd it is to be expected that you would say I never accurately state your beliefs on anything. What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is just your stated beliefs that I do not agree with so logically I will disagree with them. Would you expect me to do any less or would you do any less? You make broad brush comments in regard to what I post do you not. I could make the same comment to you regarding your posts as you have made to me in this post. "I consider you to lack any credibility to offer guidance on the understanding of scripture or theology based on your prior posts in other threads."

You view scripture through a certain lens whereas I view it through another. Does this mean that we should not support and defend our respective views? If we went by your request then we should not. That, to me, is not a viable option as this is a discussion board. So while I respect your request I can not agree with it.

 

[canadyjd]

@canadyjd it is to be expected that you would say I never accurately state your beliefs on anything. What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is just your stated beliefs that I do not agree with so logically I will disagree with them. Would you expect me to do any less or would you do any less? You make broad brush comments in regard to what I post do you not. I could make the same comment to you regarding your posts as you have made to me in this post. "I consider you to lack any credibility to offer guidance on the understanding of scripture or theology based on your prior posts in other threads."

You view scripture through a certain lens whereas I view it through another. Does this mean that we should not support and defend our respective views? If we went by your request then we should not. That, to me, is not a viable option as this is a discussion board. So while I respect your request I can not agree with it.

@Silverhair, you know full well why I believe you to lack any credibility to offer guidance on understanding scripture or theology. Your stated beliefs in other threads disqualify you from being a teacher to others.

If it were simply a matter of presenting our beliefs and making our arguments for why we believe it, I could debate you. But you spend your time misrepresenting what I believe and dismissing out of hand any argument I make without addressing it.

Therefore, all conversations with you are unproductive, unedifying, and a complete waste of time, including this one.

Come Lord Jesus

peace to you

Edit to add… please do not respond to my posts.

 

[Salty]

@Silverhair,

Edit to add… please do not respond to my posts.

If you do not want someone to respond to your post - you need to block them

 

[canadyjd]

If you do not want someone to respond to your post - you need to block them

Thank you for the suggestion. I prefer to know when I’m being slandered

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Thank you for the suggestion. I prefer to know when I’m being slandered

peace to you

That is your choice - but any person can respond to any post if they wish

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 4 am EST / 1 am PST

This post is closed