Why Interpret Acts 13:48 More Literally Than Acts 13:46

JDS

Active member
Here are the two verses together.

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

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

This is the first recorded sermon of the Apostle Paul in the scriptures, the God ordained apostle to gentiles. The time frame could have been no earlier than AD 42.

There are some immediate questions that arise from reading this text. Why was it necessary for the word of God to be spoken to the Jews first before the gentiles. Why did God speak to them at all if they were not chosen. But wait, Paul said God did choose these people. Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. The Passover was the birthday of the nation and foreshadowed in type his salvation through a Lamb and it's blood. They were baptized three days later in the Red Sea. See 1 Cor 10. Every single Israelite who put the blood of the Lamb on their door with Hyssop were delivered out of Egypt. None were left.

Question two. How could these people in the audience in that synagogue of the Jews that Saturday judge themselves unworthy of eternal life? How does one go about judging oneself unworthy of eternal life?

Read this.
22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Question next. How can this be seeing as how Israel was not saved through this man after he rose from the dead and the former apostles preached to none but Israel for the first 7 years afterwards? Was it the fault of God and was Paul making a sick joke?

Question next. Can anyone charge God with making the Jews unworthy of eternal life after reading this sermon? Does anyone remeber the 12th thing God promised to Abraham in his covenant with him? In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Is this why the Jews must first have the Gospel preached to them?

No Calvinist alive today believes this next statement from Paul, who said it under divine inspiration.

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

The next verse gives the reason that Paul is now in gentile land preaching this salvation gospel to Jews and proselyte gentiles in the synagogue. Watch it.

27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

It was not because these Jews and rulers in Jerusalem were not chosen of God, because they were, but the cause of their rejection of him is given as not knowing him or the prophets writings, which he called their voices, which they had been reading every Sabbath day for hundreds of years. He even quoted a verse from them, a verse they read in the synagogue he was standing in when he preached this news.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

The word Paul said here is "ye shall not." He did not say "ye can not." There is a huge difference of what God said and what Calvinists sees.

There are two sermons in this chapter. One preached to the Jews first in the Synagogue and the next in the town square to everyone who would hear.

The gentiles who believed were appointed to eternal life and that is consistent with what Paul says in all his epistles to the gentiles. It was wonderful that these gentiles believed but Paul would later write a warning to gentiles similar to what the prophets wrote to Israel. Read it here.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, (they were not broken off because they were not chosen, because they were) and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

The next verse tells us when the gentiles will be cut off. It is when they will no longer believe. We are not there yet but I believe we are really close.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, (because they are elected)

Calvinism perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ and does not believe the word of scripture. Believe the words.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member

Why Interpret Acts 13:48 More Literally Than Acts 13:46


It's not a matter of interpreting one "more literally" than the other.

The issue is whether they are "parallel passages" (as non-Calvinists argue), or whether they are not parallel passages (as Calvinists argue).

And off the top of my head, here are three main reasons for not accepting them as "parallel" passages:

1) The verbs are different ("judge" v. 46, vs. "appointed" v.48).

2) v. 46 has the reflexive pronoun, "heautou", while v.48 does not.

3) The verb "appointed" in v.48 is grammatically passive/middle, and such verbs are to be interpreted as passive unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them instead as middle (and in this case, there is not). Middle voice was going out of favour, and "middle" is NOT the same as "reflexive", as non-Calvinists try to twist this verb.

Calvinism perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ

No, we don't.

and does not believe the word of scripture. Believe the words.

We believe EVERY word of Scripture.
We simply disagree on your MISINTERPRETATIONS.
 

JDS

Active member
It's not a matter of interpreting one "more literally" than the other.

The issue is whether they are "parallel passages" (as non-Calvinists argue), or whether they are not parallel passages (as Calvinists argue).

And off the top of my head, here are three main reasons for not accepting them as "parallel" passages:

1) The verbs are different ("judge" v. 46, vs. "appointed" v.48).

2) v. 46 has the reflexive pronoun, "heautou", while v.48 does not.

3) The verb "appointed" in v.48 is grammatically passive/middle, and such verbs are to be interpreted as passive unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them instead as middle (and in this case, there is not). Middle voice was going out of favour, and "middle" is NOT the same as "reflexive", as non-Calvinists try to twist this verb.
Good grief. Only a Calvinist would make the scripture impossible for anyone to understand with verbiage like this. It reminds me of this warning.

2 Cor 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

There is nothing simple about that response.

No, we don't.
You add words and believe them. "Irresistible" grace, "Sovereign" grace, "original" sin, "total depravity," "limited" atonement, and the list is as long as my arm. You do not believe the words we are given in the scriptures or you would not need to add some of your own. That is how simple it is.



We believe EVERY word of Scripture.
We simply disagree on your MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Many, if not most things in scripture, does not need to be interpreted, but you interpret them anyways. By interpreting them you foul them up with your own spin.

Interpret this.

Rom 5 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Good grief. Only a Calvinist would make the scripture impossible for anyone to understand with verbiage like this. It reminds me of this warning.

The only reason you find it "impossible" is that your false theology is getting in the way of seeing the truth of what Scripture teaches.

You add words and believe them. "Irresistible" grace, "Sovereign" grace, "original" sin, "total depravity," "limited" atonement, and the list is as long as my arm. You do not believe the words we are given in the scriptures or you would not need to add some of your own. That is how simple it is.

The CONCEPTS of all those doctrines is certainly found in Scripture.
That's why so many Christians spanning hundreds of centuries have found them independently of each other.

Many, if not most things in scripture, does not need to be interpreted, but you interpret them anyways. By interpreting them you foul them up with your own spin.

<Chuckle>

The reason you will never convince me of anything is that you don't seem to realize that EVERY written text needs to be "interpreted". You need to parse the verbs, you need to study the syntax, you need to choose the correct definition (eg. does "can" mean (1) "metal reptacle", (2) "ability", (3) "permission", (4) "toilet", (5) "terminate employment", or something else).

But heretics use this false claim, "You're interpreting the passage, I'm just reading and believing the words", to try to make it look like your opponents have a wrong understanding.

If you don't realize that YOU are interpreting the text just as much as everyone else, then it is more than likely YOU and your lack of self-awareness has the wrong understanding.

Interpret this.

Rom 5 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Why?
Can't you understand it?

Whatever answer I give, you're simply going to tell me I'm wrong, so you can puff up your pride, so why should I waste my time?
 

JDS

Active member
The only reason you find it "impossible" is that your false theology is getting in the way of seeing the truth of what Scripture teaches.
Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Here is the question.

If God said he had raised a savior of Israel, Jesus, meaning he has raised him from the dead, why isn't Israel saved?

Think about that before you answer.

He sure as anything said that. Jesus is a savior of Israel. Yet, Israel is not saved. Why? Does the text tell us.

Now you say you believe the words in a text. Here is your opportunity to shine. Did God really mean that he sent a savior to Israel and raised him from the dead and if your answer is yes, as surely it will be, if they did not get saved, was it God's fault or Israel's fault?

Your answer here will tell us if you are honest about believing the words you read.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Here is the question.

If God said he had raised a savior of Israel, Jesus, meaning he has raised him from the dead, why isn't Israel saved?

Think about that before you answer.

Why should I waste my time answering, when all you're going to do is insult me and tell me I'm wrong?

Please stop wasting my time.

He sure as anything said that. Jesus is a savior of Israel. Yet, Israel is not saved. Why?

If you can't figure it out, that's a sure sign that you are in WAY over your head, and have no business "presuming" to lecture others or try to "teach" them.




Now you say you believe the words in a text. Here is your opportunity to shine. Did God really mean that he sent a savior to Israel and raised him from the dead and if your answer is yes, as surely it will be, if they did not get saved, was it God's fault or Israel's fault?

Your answer here will tell us if you are honest about believing the words you read.

When you call me "dishonest", you prove you are not saved.
And hence, you have nothing to teach me.
 

JDS

Active member
Why should I waste my time answering, when all you're going to do is insult me and tell me I'm wrong?

Please stop wasting my time.



If you can't figure it out, that's a sure sign that you are in WAY over your head, and have no business "presuming" to lecture others or try to "teach" them.






When you call me "dishonest", you prove you are not saved.
And hence, you have nothing to teach me.
These are important questions that get to the heart of our differences. The correct answers, which the text demands, will get to the heart of our different views of God and the Bible. It will cause one of us to re-examine what we believe and teach about election and salvation.

Give it a shot and let's see your answers. I talked mostly about the synagogue sermon on the first Saturday. There is more to say about the town square sermon on the second Saturday.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
These are important questions that get to the heart of our differences. The correct answers, which the text demands, will get to the heart of our different views of God and the Bible. It will cause one of us to re-examine what we believe and teach about election and salvation.

I've been studying theses issues for over 30 years.
I'm good.
I don't feel the need to put myself up for scrutiny just because some anonymous Internet Yahoo thinks I'm wrong.

If you think you have something useful to say, nobody's stopping you from presenting it. And we can read it, and we can choose to agree with you, or choose to disagree with you.

But when people disagree with you, you choose to harass them.
And I don't know if you know this, but people don't like that.

Give it a shot

No, thank you.
I don't feel like wasting my time.
 

JDS

Active member
I've been studying theses issues for over 30 years.
I'm good.
I don't feel the need to put myself up for scrutiny just because some anonymous Internet Yahoo thinks I'm wrong.

If you think you have something useful to say, nobody's stopping you from presenting it. And we can read it, and we can choose to agree with you, or choose to disagree with you.

But when people disagree with you, you choose to harass them.
And I don't know if you know this, but people don't like that.



No, thank you.
I don't feel like wasting my time.
Well, thank you for being so nice to everyone.

I think I have asked some questions that demand an answer from one of the passages that Calvinists go to prove particular election. Of the two people groups in the passage the one who is said to be chosen was the one to whom the savior, Jesus, was sent. It is they who would not believe, giving the opportunity to the gentiles. It is evident from the context that the gentiles being appointed to eternal life had nothing to do with them being previously chosen of God.

This prophecy should help to explain some of what was going on in Acts 13. Read it with me.

Luke 14:16-24
16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think I have asked some questions that demand an answer from one of the passages that Calvinists go to prove particular election.

Why do you think anything "demands an answer" to you?
If you don't like Calvinism, don't hold to it.
Not a difficult concept...

Of the two people groups in the passage the one who is said to be chosen was the one to whom the savior, Jesus, was sent. It is they who would not believe, giving the opportunity to the gentiles. It is evident from the context that the gentiles being appointed to eternal life had nothing to do with them being previously chosen of God.

That seems to be an ASSUMPTION on your part.

This prophecy should help to explain some of what was going on in Acts 13. Read it with me.

Sorry, I graduated grade 3 many decades ago.
If you need help reading, you need to find someone else.

Luke 14:16-24

You're lucky I love this parable.

16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

This demonstrates "total depravity".
I personally believe that it's referring to Jews, but that is admittedly an assumption on my part, so I'm not dogmatic about it.

21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

The parallel passage in Matt. 22 goes into even greater detail, not only do they reject the invitation, they attack the King's servants. This is another example of total depravity. And again, I believe it is referring to Gentiles, and again I'm not dogmatic on the issue.

23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

This would be teaching "irresistible grace".
He is no longer merely "inviting" people, but COMPELLING them to come.

"Compel".
I love this word!
Kind of destroys the idea of "free will", doesn't it? ;)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Actually it doesn't

The compelled have to be forced against their free will

It sort of pre supposes it

If they truly had "free will", then it would be impossible to be "compelled" to do anything.

It's utterly amazing to me that your theology is so messed up, that you have designed a way to make CONTRADICTIONS to your theology as if they "support" your theology!
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Only a Calvinist would make the scripture impossible for anyone to understand with verbiage like this. It reminds me of this warning.
If you can't understand the Scriptures the way Calvinists interpret them, then how is it you are able to understand them and subsequently argue against the points they make?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
If they truly had "free will", then it would be impossible to be "compelled" to do anything.

It's utterly amazing to me that your theology is so messed up, that you have designed a way to make CONTRADICTIONS to your theology as if they "support" your theology!
No force can over ride free will

The application of force shows resistance that is a ciointrary will

presuposing a free will

Like when God restrain a man from doing something what is he restraining but the free will of men
 

JDS

Active member
If you can't understand the Scriptures the way Calvinists interpret them, then how is it you are able to understand them and subsequently argue against the points they make?
Please deal with the questions and comments I have presented from Acts 13. I am charging Calvinists of not believing the words of scripture. The reason I am not a Calvinist is because I do believe the words. Someone will be going to hell for adding descriptive terminology to a finished revelation, a word revelation. Things like limited atonement, original sin, sovereign grace, total depravity, irresistible grace, and such like. God could have included these words if that is how he wanted us to understand him. These are the words of men, not words of God.

1 Corinthians 2:9-1
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Verse 13 instructs us that God teaches us in words the Holy Spirit chooses. You can see the process above. The Holy Spirit, who is in both God and the preacher can teach the mysteries that otherwise cannot be known without this revelation through words. No visions, no dreams, no thunderous voice from heaven, just words chosen by the Spirit of God. In this way we have the mind of Christ.

If a religion must add words to make it understandable it can only mean the religion does not come from God. It comes from men.

Believe the words.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Please deal with the questions and comments I have presented from Acts 13.

You seem to think you're our Lord Jesus Christ.
Newsflash: We do NOT take orders from you.

I am charging Calvinists of not believing the words of scripture.

And when you meet your Creator on that great day of judgment, you will have to answer to Him for your FALSE claim.

Someone will be going to hell for adding descriptive terminology to a finished revelation,

Yes, and because of that I feel sorry for you.

Believe the words.

We do, your misrepresentation notwithstanding.
But I'm not looking for vengeance. That will come from the Lord.
You HAVE been warned.
 

JDS

Active member
You seem to think you're our Lord Jesus Christ.
Newsflash: We do NOT take orders from you.



And when you meet your Creator on that great day of judgment, you will have to answer to Him for your FALSE claim.



Yes, and because of that I feel sorry for you.



We do, your misrepresentation notwithstanding.
But I'm not looking for vengeance. That will come from the Lord.
You HAVE been warned.
Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

How do those who are dead and unable to reason and use logic and have no will judge themselves unworthy of eternal life?
 

civic

Well-known member
Good grief. Only a Calvinist would make the scripture impossible for anyone to understand with verbiage like this. It reminds me of this warning.
Only someone with an agenda would post such nonsense as you . Only someone who cannot understand the context of a passage would make this comment and disregard proper hermenuetics. Only a person with an agenda with disregard the initial response to you OP the poster made then run away from the context to another passage that has no relation to the passage in Acts.

Just another miserable failure on your part once again jds.


hope this helps !!!
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
jds

Why was it necessary for the word of God to be spoken to the Jews first before the gentiles.

That was Gods order, the Gospel to the jews first then to the greeks or gentile Rom 1 16

Why did God speak to them at all if they were not chosen.

At that present time there was a remnant upon them of the election of Grace Rom 11 5

But wait, Paul said God did choose these people. Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.

The Nation was Called and He was their God under a National Covenant, but the Fathers were Chosen, meaning Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, David, they were Chosen to Salvation, they also were part of the remnant.

The Passover was the birthday of the nation and foreshadowed in type his salvation through a Lamb and it's blood. They were baptized three days later in the Red Sea. See 1 Cor 10. Every single Israelite who put the blood of the Lamb on their door with Hyssop were delivered out of Egypt. None were left.
That speaks to particular redemption

Question two. How could these people in the audience in that synagogue of the Jews that Saturday judge themselves unworthy of eternal life? How does one go about judging oneself unworthy of eternal life?

There actions towards the word discovered in them their unworthiness by nature of eternal life, and showed God was abandoning them to that. Of course all men by nature are unworthy of eternal life,, but God by His Spirit and Grace makes men meet Col 1 12

giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

made meet is the greek word hikanoō:

to make sufficient, render fit

  1. to equip one with adequate power to perform duties of one to enable, i.e. qualify:
 

TomFL

Well-known member
jds


The Passover was the birthday of the nation and foreshadowed in type his salvation through a Lamb and it's blood. They were baptized three days later in the Red Sea. See 1 Cor 10. Every single Israelite who put the blood of the Lamb on their door with Hyssop were delivered out of Egypt. None were left.
That speaks to particular redemption

There is no reference at all to unconditional election to salvation in the passage

each man was responsible for applying the blood
 
Top