Acts 18:4

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Synagogues NOT for Jews? Pull the other leg1
Paul was done with the Jewish leadership. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was talking about the Jewish leadership. You know very well that the term "the Jews" in the new testament more often refers to the leadership than it does the common people of the Jews. So when I say "the Jews" I mean the Jewish leadership.

Paul explicitly said that He was done with them. So whenever he went into the synagogues after saying he was done with them we know that the gospel was not intended for them.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is nothing in Scripture to support this claim. The authority that Jesus gave to His apostles had to do with miracles, NOT omniscience.
Where did I say that Jesus made them omniscient? I said that He conferred upon them the SAME authority that the Father had conferred upon Himself. Just as the Father gave Jesus to know who would believe, so Jesus gave the apostles to know who would believe. The apostles were prophets just as Jesus was a prophet. Their authority as prophets was EQUAL to Jesus' authority as a prophet.

Not even Paul suggested that he knew who would believe.
Paul said that the Gentiles would believe. How did he know that? Answer: He was a prophet.

Do you think that all the Gentiles who listened to him believed? If so, I suggest Acts 17:32-34.
Give one instance in the book of Acts where a Gentile did not believe.

Christ died for everyone, so the gospel is for everyone.
Nope!
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
FG2,

I commend you for your excellent reasoning here. Your position is the one that has scriptural support.
No! FG2 denies that the apostles were prophets having the same office and authority as Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Please respond to these three posts which are outstanding (being relevant to your post):

1. If Paul's statement in Acts 13 constituted a resolve not to preach further to Jews (as you assert), why does Paul say this in Acts 18:6
But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”?

Paul is merely talking about the Jews and Gentiles local to the area. Your assertion that Paul was not preaching to the Jews of Thessalonica because he had previously said that he was turning to the Gentiles (in Acts 13) does not hold.

2. That Paul preached to the Jews of Thessalonica is proven by following the personal pronouns.

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.​

If the 'you' of v.3 are not the Jews, then who are the 'them' of v.4? They aren't Greeks since Paul deals with such folk separately.

Whom do you say they are?

3. Not all the Gentiles believed:

Acts 17:12, 34
As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

How many believed Boxer - some or all?
See post #181.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
No! FG2 denies that the apostles were prophets having the same office and authority as Jesus.

I commended FreeGrace2 for his excellent reasoning in the post to which I responded. Who are you to intrude with this information that does not relate to the content of my reply to FG2?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I commended FreeGrace2 for his excellent reasoning in the post to which I responded. Who are you to intrude with this information that does not relate to the content of my reply to FG2?
FG2 was rebutting me. I said that Jesus conferred upon the apostles the SAME authority He Himself had. Then FG2 made it appear as if I was saying that the apostles possessed omniscience which I did NOT. I said only that Jesus conferred upon them the ability to know who would believe just as the Father conferred upon Jesus the ability to know who would believe. Jesus and the apostles ALL had this ability in their office as prophets.

You commended FG2 for his so called "excellent reasoning." But his "excellent reasoning" was a rebuttal to an assertion I did NOT make or even imply not to mention that he was thoroughly unbiblical.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
FG2 was rebutting me. I said that Jesus conferred upon the apostles the SAME authority He Himself had. Then FG2 made it appear as if I was saying that the apostles possessed omniscience which I did NOT. I said only that Jesus conferred upon them the ability to know who would believe just as the Father conferred upon Jesus the ability to know who would believe. Jesus and the apostles ALL had this ability in their office as prophets.

You commended FG2 for his so called "excellent reasoning." But his "excellent reasoning" was a rebuttal to an assertion I did NOT make or even imply not to mention that he was thoroughly unbiblical.

You claim that Jesus conferred upon the Apostles the ability to know who would believe. You don't like this being labelled as omniscience. What would you prefer? Should it be called foreknowledge?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You claim that Jesus conferred upon the Apostles the ability to know who would believe. You don't like this being labelled as omniscience. What would you prefer? Should it be called foreknowledge?
No, it's NOT omniscience. Jesus didn't confer upon His disciples the knowledge of all things. Jesus didn't tell them the day and hour of His return because He Himself didn't know. But the Father gave Him to know who would and would not believe and He conferred this same authority upon His apostles.

Peter knew Simon the sorcerer's heart. How was this different from Jesus' knowledge of the hearts of men?

The apostle Paul knew that the Gentiles would listen.

Lydia confessed that the apostles knew whether she was a true believer or not.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
No, it's NOT omniscience. Jesus didn't confer upon His disciples the knowledge of all things. Jesus didn't tell them the day and hour of His return because He Himself didn't know. But the Father gave Him to know who would and would not believe and He conferred this same authority upon His apostles.

Peter knew Simon the sorcerer's heart. How was this different from Jesus' knowledge of the hearts of men?

The apostle Paul knew that the Gentiles would listen.

Lydia confessed that the apostles knew whether she was a true believer or not.

This is what I asked:
You claim that Jesus conferred upon the Apostles the ability to know who would believe. You don't like this being labelled as omniscience. What would you prefer? Should it be called foreknowledge?

Why didn't you answer my last question?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
This is what I asked:


Why didn't you answer my last question?
I have no "label" for it. Your question is evasive anyway. If the apostles knew who would believe, then it makes no sense that they would preach to those whom they knew would not believe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I have no "label" for it. Your question is evasive anyway. If the apostles knew who would believe, then it makes no sense that they would preach to those whom they knew would not believe.

My question is NOT evasive. I'm wanting to know what you believe about the apostles and their ability to know who would believe. Mine was an honest question. Why must you present me as an evader? I do not appreciate it when you treat me this way as one who is being dishonest as an evader. That is NOT what I am and is NOT what I did.

What biblical evidence do you have to demonstrate that all of the apostles knew who would believe among those to whom they preached?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Nothing here that deals with #174. Please respond to the actual arguments I make. There are three detailed points in my post.
Well, you seem to be unwilling to accept that Paul made a judgment AGAINST the Jews (the leaders) in both Acts 13 and 18. Once he made that judgment they were no longer candidates for salvation. Paul told the Corinthians that the cross was preached to the Jews (the leaders) to their condemnation. In other words, salvation was NOT always the goal of apostolic preaching.

Give one example in the Acts where a Gentile did not believe.

Furthermore, take a look at Acts 17:31,

31 Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. Douay-Rheims

It says that God gives faith to ALL. This proves that "all" does NOT mean every human being. Or are you a Universalist?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well, you seem to be unwilling to accept that Paul made a judgment AGAINST the Jews (the leaders) in both Acts 13 and 18. Once he made that judgment they were no longer candidates for salvation. Paul told the Corinthians that the cross was preached to the Jews (the leaders) to their condemnation. In other words, salvation was NOT always the goal of apostolic preaching.

Give one example in the Acts where a Gentile did not believe.

Furthermore, take a look at Acts 17:31,

31 Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. Douay-Rheims

It says that God gives faith to ALL. This proves that "all" does NOT mean every human being. Or are you a Universalist?

Whether Paul was preaching to Jewish leaders or otherwise is not relevant - your assertion that Paul only preached to those that would believe is disproven by that fact that not all the Jews believed:

Acts 17:3-4a
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed

Please answer these questions Boxer: how many of the Jews believed?
A) None;
B) All;
C) Some;
D) Other.

Was Paul preaching to them? Yes or no?

Not all the gentiles believed:

Acts 17:4c
and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

(ibid.) v.32-34
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Regarding Acts 17:31, the word in Greek is not 'faith' but 'proof':
'pistin'
'πίστιν'
'proof'
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Whether Paul was preaching to Jewish leaders or otherwise is not relevant - your assertion that Paul only preached to those that would believe is disproven by that fact that not all the Jews believed:
You operate under your FALSE assumption that apostolic preaching had always had savation as its goal. The apostles just as Jesus were commissioned to carry out God's plan of of hardening and blinding the Jewish leadership.

Compare Isaiah 6:9-10 with John 12:37-41.

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

40 “He [God] has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”


See also 2 Corinthians 4:4,

4 God has blinded the minds of those of this age who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
My question is NOT evasive. I'm wanting to know what you believe about the apostles and their ability to know who would believe. Mine was an honest question. Why must you present me as an evader? I do not appreciate it when you treat me this way as one who is being dishonest as an evader. That is NOT what I am and is NOT what I did.

What biblical evidence do you have to demonstrate that all of the apostles knew who would believe among those to whom they preached?
I have already given the evidence. Lydia confessed that the apostles knew whether she truly believed or not. Peter knew the heart of Simon the sorcerer. Paul predicted that the Gentiles would listen. Jesus gave the apostles the authority to remit or retain the sins of men. They would have to have known who would and would not believe.

Paul said, "Though I have ALL knowledge and have not love it profits me nothing."

It seems funny to me that you would readily admit that Jesus knew who would and would not believe, but deny that the apostles would also know. The apostles received from Jesus the SAME authority that Jesus received from the Father.

The apostles were prophets in the SAME SENSE and to the SAME DEGREE that Jesus was.

I have given this evidence time and time again and you simply ask, "How do you label this?" This appears evasive to me.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Paul said, "Though I have ALL knowledge and have not love it profits me nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:1-4 states:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (ESV).
These are conditional sentences. Paul is NOT saying that he has 'ALL knowledge'. I do wish you would understand the meaning of this grammar for conditional clauses.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You operate under your FALSE assumption that apostolic preaching had always had savation as its goal. The apostles just as Jesus were commissioned to carry out God's plan of of hardening and blinding the Jewish leadership.

Compare Isaiah 6:9-10 with John 12:37-41.

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

40 “He [God] has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”


See also 2 Corinthians 4:4,

4 God has blinded the minds of those of this age who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Jessu does not commission the apostles to harden and bind the Jewish leadership. He does explain why He speaks in parables though. Further, Jesus gives the reason for the lack of understanding - the calloused heart:

Matthew 13:14-15
‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

And, as has already been stated, your argument makes Judas Iscariot elect (per your definition).
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well, you seem to be unwilling to accept that Paul made a judgment AGAINST the Jews (the leaders) in both Acts 13 and 18. Once he made that judgment they were no longer candidates for salvation. Paul told the Corinthians that the cross was preached to the Jews (the leaders) to their condemnation. In other words, salvation was NOT always the goal of apostolic preaching.

You appear to contradict yourself. If the judgement was made in Acts 13 (as you have previously suggested), and that 'once he made that judgement they were no longer candidates for salvation', then they were candidates for salvation prior to that moment.

Paul preached salvation to the Jews, including the leaders:

Acts 13:14,15,38:
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Give one example in the Acts where a Gentile did not believe.
Here is one example that not all who heard Paul preach the gospel believed:

Acts 18:8 - Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Clearly doesn't say "all who heard him believed".

Furthermore, take a look at Acts 17:31,

31 Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. Douay-Rheims

It says that God gives faith to ALL. This proves that "all" does NOT mean every human being. Or are you a Universalist?
Let's unpack this verse a little more fully.

Here is the KJV: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Hm. The Greek word for "assurance" is pistis, usually translated faith.

However, we must consider the range of meaning, to understand WHY the KJV used "assurance" rather than the D-R translation:

pistis
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things
, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on

As relating to God, and 1a1, Rom 1:19,20 supports the KJV rendering of assurance, rather than faith.

Further, the NASB supports the KJV more than the D-R:

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

I wouldn't give much weight to the D-R on this verse. And the verse doesn't support your view either.
 
Upvote 0