Acts 18:4

[rick357]

In my view this is an issue of integrity. How can people preach the gospel to all who are hearing the proclamation and not believe that that gospel is available to all who hear that message?

But then, after they come to Christ they learn that this Gospel was only meant for not ALL who heard, but only a LIMITED number whom God had selected.

For one we do not determine right or wrong and God does not answer to us...let me say that it is by Gods forknowledge of what that person would desire of he shined his light in their heart not a random lottery...but If he came to me in a vision and said son you are wrong I just picked a few for my purpose. Then I still know he is loving and.right and my oponion of what that means is wrong... The argument that that cant be right because God is nice is invalide because it is a projection of what you have decided nice is...God uses words like ..elect ..predestined we cant ignore it by saying the.words dont mean what they mean

 

[OzSpen]

For one we do not determine right or wrong and God does not answer to us...let me say that it is by Gods forknowledge of what that person would desire of he shined his light in their heart not a random lottery...but If he came to me in a vision and said son you are wrong I just picked a few for my purpose. Then I still know he is loving and.right and my oponion of what that means is wrong... The argument that that cant be right because God is nice is invalide because it is a projection of what you have decided nice is...God uses words like ..elect ..predestined we cant ignore it by saying the.words dont mean what they mean

At no point have I ever suggested anything that sounds like your response: 'The argument that that cant be right because God is nice is invalide because it is a projection of what you have decided nice is'. I have never said anything that closely resembles that charge.

 

[janxharris]

For one we do not determine right or wrong and God does not answer to us...let me say that it is by Gods forknowledge of what that person would desire of he shined his light in their heart not a random lottery...but If he came to me in a vision and said son you are wrong I just picked a few for my purpose. Then I still know he is loving and.right and my oponion of what that means is wrong... The argument that that cant be right because God is nice is invalide because it is a projection of what you have decided nice is...God uses words like ..elect ..predestined we cant ignore it by saying the.words dont mean what they mean

let me say that it is by Gods forknowledge of what that person would desire of he shined his light in their heart not a random lottery

What does this mean? It has the appearance of the Arminian position.

 

[nobdysfool]

Still trying to create a problem where there is none. This is your grand opus to take down Calvinism. You failed.

 

[nobdysfool]

.

 

[janxharris]

Still trying to create a problem where there is none. This is your grand opus to take down Calvinism. You failed.

Nothing here that even attempts to resolves the issue.

Proclaiming belief in the resurrection is the equivalent of telling your audience that Christ died for all - which is why Romans 10 is so significant. Paul's citation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 is the diametric opposite of your supposed doctrine of divine election and reprobation where some are foreordained to eternal damnation.

The is but one way to resolve this and that is to ditch your interpretation of Romans 9. (Or, of course, tell your audience that Christ's resurrection was not for all men - but you have already spurned such a recourse).

 

[OzSpen]

Still trying to create a problem where there is none. This is your grand opus to take down Calvinism. You failed.

There is a BIG problem when one is preaching the resurrection to all but not meaning it is for ALL. It's an issue of integrity. Who are the ones creating a problem?

 

[janxharris]

There is a BIG problem when one is preaching is the resurrection to all but not meaning it is for ALL. It's an issue of integrity. Who are the ones creating a problem?

Indeed, Acts 17:2-3 (Paul in Thessalonica):
As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.

 

[OzSpen]

Indeed, Acts 17:2-3 (Paul in Thessalonica):
As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.

jan,

It's important to note that Paul reasoned with the plural, 'them', from the Scriptures, and he was continuously proclaiming 'to you' (plural). It does not say he was reasoning with 'some of them' who are in the elect for salvation' or 'proclaiming to some of you, the elect'.

There is not an indication here that Paul was telling his audience, 'This is not for some of you; it's only for the elect'.

 

[Jack Terrence]

jan,

There is not an indication here that Paul was telling his audience, 'This is not for some of you; it's only for the elect'.

Your conclusion is false. The Acts 17 narrative is AFTER Paul had said that they were done with the Jews and were going to "turn to the Gentiles." From that point onward they went into the synagogues where Greeks were present.

If Paul meant what he said, then his preaching in the synagogues was NOT for the Jews.

 

[Jack Terrence]

There is a BIG problem when one is preaching the resurrection to all but not meaning it is for ALL. It's an issue of integrity. Who are the ones creating a problem?

See post #170.

 

[OzSpen]

Your conclusion is false. The Acts 17 narrative is AFTER Paul had said that they were done with the Jews and were going to "turn to the Gentiles." From that point onward they went into the synagogues where Greeks were present.

If Paul meant what he said, then his preaching in the synagogues was NOT for the Jews.

Synagogues NOT for Jews? Pull the other leg!!

 

[OzSpen]

See post #170.

#170 was a non-event.

 

[janxharris]

Your conclusion is false. The Acts 17 narrative is AFTER Paul had said that they were done with the Jews and were going to "turn to the Gentiles." From that point onward they went into the synagogues where Greeks were present.

If Paul meant what he said, then his preaching in the synagogues was NOT for the Jews.

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?

 

[janxharris]

jan,

It's important to note that Paul reasoned with the plural, 'them', from the Scriptures, and he was continuously proclaiming 'to you' (plural). It does not say he was reasoning with 'some of them' who are in the elect for salvation' or 'proclaiming to some of you, the elect'.

There is not an indication here that Paul was telling his audience, 'This is not for some of you; it's only for the elect'.

You are right.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sheep pass through the narrow gate - goats do not. There are more goats than sheep. Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats - hence proving that there are is a group whom salvation was never intended....

However, there is no mention of goats anywhere in John 10, the context passage. Jesus was clear about who He would lay down His life for: the sheep.

If He had said, "My sheep", then you'd have a point. He clearly indicated that there were His sheep, but He didn't say He would lay down His life just for them. He died for THE sheep, not HIS sheep exclusively, as Calvinism believes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No! Jesus conferred on the apostles the SAME AUTHORITY He had Himself. Jesus had the authority to know who would believe. Likewise, the apostles had the same authority to know who would believe.

There is nothing in Scripture to support this claim. The authority that Jesus gave to His apostles had to do with miracles, NOT omniscience. That attribute is exclusively for Deity. Not even Paul suggested that he knew who would believe.

Paul said that he would go to the Gentiles for "they will listen." Paul knew that they would listen.

Do you think that all the Gentiles who listened to him believed? If so, I suggest Acts 17:32-34.

It makes absolutely no sense at all that the apostles would preach to those whom they knew would not believe. And it makes no sense that Christ would die for them.

Only from a reformed view. It makes perfect sense to preach to every creature, since Christ died for everyone. The Bible actually SAYS so.

The only way your theology can work is if you are an Open Theist who denies the foreknowledge of God.

Wrong. As are open theists. Of course God knows who will believe, but that's not the issue at all. Christ died for everyone, so the gospel is for everyone.

 

[OzSpen]

There is nothing in Scripture to support this claim. The authority that Jesus gave to His apostles had to do with miracles, NOT omniscience. That attribute is exclusively for Deity. Not even Paul suggested that he knew who would believe.

Do you think that all the Gentiles who listened to him believed? If so, I suggest Acts 17:32-34.

Only from a reformed view. It makes perfect sense to preach to every creature, since Christ died for everyone. The Bible actually SAYS so.

Wrong. As are open theists. Of course God knows who will believe, but that's not the issue at all. Christ died for everyone, so the gospel is for everyone.

FG2,

I commend you for your excellent reasoning here. Your position is the one that has scriptural support.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2,

I commend you for your excellent reasoning here. Your position is the one that has scriptural support.

Thanks, Oz. I will be interested in the Boxer's response to my post.

 

[janxharris]

Your conclusion is false. The Acts 17 narrative is AFTER Paul had said that they were done with the Jews and were going to "turn to the Gentiles." From that point onward they went into the synagogues where Greeks were present.

If Paul meant what he said, then his preaching in the synagogues was NOT for the Jews.

Are you going to respond to #174?