Acts 13:48

It doesn't mean everyone without exception. It means whosoever accepts the appeal to be reconciled, which is clearly meant for all without exception.

 

Note that in God's realm of His sovereignty He has left a place for man's free will. He has not predetermined man's salvation outside of his foreknowledge. To do so would make man nothing more than a robot, or to force salvation down his throat so to speak.
What happened?
The Gentiles heard. Why?
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
It was necessary that they hear the word of God in order that they be saved. This is not predetermined salvation/election. It is based on those that hear the Word and then having heard the Word make a choice whether to believe or not to believe. It is their choice. God does not force them to make this decision.

After they believed, (and speaking only of the ones that believed--there were no doubt some that did not believe), they rejoiced, and glorified, not only God, but the Word that they heard. Why? Because it was through the Word that they met Christ. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Had they not heard the Word they would not be saved.

Had not the apostles been obedient and obeyed the Great Commission and gone to them they would not have been saved. It works both ways. It is our obligation to obey God and witness of the saving grace of God to give them the opportunity to hear it so that they might be saved. The choice is ours to obey God and be a witness for him or not to obey God and not witness. Their blood will be upon our hands. They will not be saved unless we go and tell them. They must hear the word of God in order to be saved. They glorified the word of God.

And as many as were appointed to eternal life were saved. The words ordained, and those words that speak of predestination always refer to the believer. They come after the person puts his faith in Christ. God knows who is going to be saved; we don't, and we ought not to presume to have the foreknowledge of God, therefore the entire point of the "elect" is moot for we cannot see what God sees. Our obligation is to go and tell others the gospel that they may hear and have the opportunity to be saved. And that is what that verse teaches.

 

Each of those passages are explained in their context to mean exactly what they say. What you have offered isn't. You added something that isn't in the text. The word world is always qualified but the word Gentiles is not. You have added a qualification that makes the wording of the text nonsense.

 

Which is why both sides should try to refrain from those types of charges, since both sides have difficult passages to deal with. I'll have to say, I see this charge coming more from A's against C's than vice versa. But I'm biased.

 

Yes you are bias. If you spent your time explaining the Arminian view of "difficult" passages you would be much more privy to this charge from the Calvinistic side. I've been on both sides of this debate and trust me it is pretty equal on both sides.

 

Which is exactly our claim about this verse.

Which is exactly our claim about what you say about those other verses.

By whom? The qualification is offered by the one doing the interpretation of the text, whether a Calvinist addressing the word "all" or "world" or an Arminian addressing the various Gentiles nations. What's your point?

Which is the exact charge brought against the Calvinistic interpretation of the texts I mentioned. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Depends on what you mean by "appoint"

If you mean, "Did God effectually cause all men to freely choose to repent," then no, because that would be a contradiction. How does one "make" someone do something freely? Plus that would be universalism.

If you mean, Did God allow/permit mankind to freely choose to repent?" then yes, I agree.

Not if they did so genuinely.

 

Ok, you are clearly not understanding my perspective. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but could you just simply restate what I believe so I know you at least understand my argument? Otherwise we are just talking past each other.

 

Because they believed they were appointed. Election always refers to the believer. Do you deny the foreknowledge of God??

If God has predetermined them to be saved then why not go one step further. Did he predetermine those Muslims to fly planes into the WTC. Does he predetermine all rapes and abortions? Is he the author of evil? Does he ordain all things? No. He, in the great scheme of His sovereignty allows man to exercise a certain amount of free will. And thus the Bible says that every man shall give account of himself. Why would man have to give account of himself if everything was predetermined? That doesn't make sense. God is at fault if everything is predetermined.
Foreknowledge is different than predetermination.

Why is he pleased with that?
Because not all things are predetermined. Man has a free will.

They have faith in Christ because they chose to have faith in Christ. God knew about it. He knew that it would happen. But he did not force the matter. He did not predetermine it.

I don't deny the sovereignty of God; but I believe I have a better understanding of it than you do. I believe that God can be sovereign and allow the free will of man at the same time.

 

The Greek word has no futuristic value to it. It simply means that someone with authority at some time appointed or ordained something or someone to something. In the context it simply means that at the time of their receiving the truth they were appointed, not that in some time past before they accepted they were appointed having to come at some future point.

 

The difference is that when we add a quailfier to the words world and all it is legitimate. World and all require a qualifier. If I just say world or all in order for you to understand what I am talking about you must ask which world and all what. But that is not the case with the word Gentile. It has one connotation and is easily understood. It simply means non-Jew. For you to add a qualifier to it in this text is not required and therfore not legitimate.

 

I think you mean "the historic Augustinian/Calvinistic orthodox position is"

In a world where God decrees/determines the nature/desires of man in such a way that they can only do what God has decreed/determined for them to do, such a view of "free will" is meaningless. It's not free just because it is "according to what the agent desires" if those desires/nature are determined by someone outside the agent himself. Even instinctive animals act according to their desire, but we don't presume their choices to be free and thus morally accountable.

Go back and reread what I have written. I explain it as clearly as I know how. If you still don't understand let me know and maybe I can try again in another way.

 

Well, surprise, surprise, you think you're right and were wrong. Amazing.

And what is the meaning of the word "Gentiles?" Does it not need qualification or defining?

So a Samartian is a non-Jew, right? What about a Ninevite? Or a Philistine? Edomite? All are Gentiles, right? Considering that many in those days argued about national election and made the case again and again that only Israel was elect, wouldn't it mean something to a debate about various nationalities coming to faith? Really?

No qualification needed, uh? Ok. You will hear what you want to hear.