Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

When we say that the unregenerate do not seek God, we mean that they do not seek to embrace the gospel on His terms, as helpless sinners wholly dependent on the righteousness of Christ to gain acceptance by Him.

-Please prove your assertion from scripture please.

This is taken from Rom 3:9-26 primarily.

-The righteousness that is imputed to us comes by faith, not before. (Rom 4:5)

Yes. And faith is the gift of God.

Regeneration comes through faith and is not the cause of it:


Act 15:9 [He] made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

So the question of when our hearts are purified (regenerated) is answered by Peter. Faith is not the result of regeneration but must be present for regeneration to occur. Unless you believe Peter is not talking about regeneration.

[/quote]

Strange. Acts 15:9 is where you get the doctrine that faith precedes regeneration? The context of the passage is not even talking about the ordo salutis; it's talking about the gospel being made available to the Gentiles. So I don't see how Peter is "answering the question", when the question isn't even asked in that passage. He could very well be talking about sanctification.

To get back to the original point that I'm supposedly "dodging," Darin said:

This typically Calvinistic definition of "seeking God" is not useful in any meaningful discussion - if one can appear to seek after God and think they're seeking after God and the only way you can know it is by knowing the true condition of their heart (as only God does), then it's nonsensical to even discuss whether any particular person may have sought after God, don't you think ?

I don't hold to the premise, so even if the conclusion follows, it's irrelevant. It's known as a "straw-man."

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Bob,

You wrote:

13:48 indicates the prior ordaining to eternal life.

Do you have any proof from the narrative in Acts 13 that the gentiles were "ordained" to eternal life prior to Paul's preaching the gospel in the synagogue on the Sabbath one week before Acts 13:48?

Here is what Rice said:

" Who does not know that there are a thousand things which we admire at first sight, and as many to which we feel a decided aversion? Does not this prove that there may, and does exist in the mind a disposition or inclination to love some objects, and dislike others, even before we have any knowledge of them? There are dispositions in the mind, as well as tastes and appetites in the body, before the knowledge of the appropriate object calls them into exercise. A child loves sweetness the first time it tastes it; and it is charmed by music the first time it hears it. Why, then, may not the soul be in such a moral state, that when it is first made acquainted with the character of God, it will admire, love and adore him; or that it will turn from him with strong aversion."

Rice was illustrating how a regenerate person responds to the gospel as compared to the unregenerate.

A big thanks to Darin for the tip on google books! After a few minutes to download, I found the quote within seconds. Amazing!

[Guest]

Bob wrote:

Sean wrote:

bshow1 wrote:
When we say that the unregenerate do not seek God, we mean that they do not seek to embrace the gospel on His terms, as helpless sinners wholly dependent on the righteousness of Christ to gain acceptance by Him.

-Please prove your assertion from scripture please.


This is taken from Rom 3:9-26 primarily.

This is not an answer. You just said where you get your peculiarly derived definition of "seek God", without showing from the cited text how your definition is correct. What you mean by "seek God" doesn't appear to be in the text. How do you get that out of it?

[Guest]

When we say that the unregenerate do not seek God, we mean that they do not seek to embrace the gospel on His terms, as helpless sinners wholly dependent on the righteousness of Christ to gain acceptance by Him.

This is taken from Rom 3:9-26 primarily.
[/quote]

Can you show me where in Romans 3:9-16 that says the unregenerate do not seek God? Or are you adding this to the text to mold the passage to your presuppositions? Is the context of Romans 3 about the inability of the unregenerate to recieve the gospel? Or could it possibly be that "all are under sin"?

Yes. And faith is the gift of God.

I agree. Can a gift be refused, denied, destroyed or made "shipwreck"?

Strange. Acts 15:9 is where you get the doctrine that faith precedes regeneration? The context of the passage is not even talking about the ordo salutis; it's talking about the gospel being made available to the Gentiles. So I don't see how Peter is "answering the question", when the question isn't even asked in that passage. He could very well be talking about sanctification.

It's one place where this is stated. Another is John 3:14-16 and John 20:31.

I'm simply stating what Peter states, the heart is purified by faith. Either you believe faith is present for the heart to be purified (regenerated) are you do not. Calvinist normally do not believe this, they state (contrary to Peter) that faith comes out of an already regenerated heart. So the strength of Peter's statement stands.

Your comment is interesting though, if you don't believe Peter is speaking in this context about the order of salvation then we learn nothing about the subject. I guess I should argue the same way about Acts 13:48.

------------------------

I also wanted to comment about Acts 13:48, but I couldn't get the forum to work to edit my last post. One point James White makes is how could they be disposed (if that were the correct translation) to eternal life before hearing the gospel. In addition to what Homer stated (about Paul speaking to them the week before) I would like state that Cornelius is an example of a man who was devout and feared God, but Cornelius was not yet regenerated. So was Cornelius disposed to eternal life before even hearing the gospel?

[Guest]

Acts 13???

I have a question.

In acts 7 Stephen gives a argument for the messiah. Saul (paul) was present at his stoning.

Did Saul believe at stephens sharing of the gospel?

If not then is it fair to say...
Some who were apointed unto eternal life DID NOT BELIEVE.

For surely saul is elect according to calvinism. But in acts 7 saul the elect did not believe on that day.

Steve in his debate with James White kinda pushed a similar argument when he asked James "Does act 13 require ALL (who heard the messaged) who were appointed unto eternal life believed". So does that mean Everyone there who are elect and heard the message believed? Does this mean that anyone there who was not saved on that day WILL NOT BELIEVE and will forever be damned?

Saul not believing in acts 7 is a day that the elect DID NOT BELIEVE.

I feel acts 13 proves very little for the calvinist.

Aug

[Guest]

James White has responded fully to the un-credited and poorly documented posting of an article by "Bob Anderson" in this thread. You can find it here.

James White suggests the posting of such glaringly dishonest articles on this forum indicates a substantial problem with those who simply refuse to accept the text as it stands.

[Guest]

James White has responded fully to the un-credited and poorly documented posting of an article by "Bob Anderson" in this thread. You can find it here.

James White suggests the posting of such glaringly dishonest articles on this forum indicates a substantial problem with those who simply refuse to accept the text as it stands.

Is he too good for this place, or what's his deal ?

[Guest]

JWhipps,

So we lit a fire under Dr. White, did we? I'll see if I can get a little more info for you on Bob Anderson. I had pasted his comments from a reply by another person on FWB Net. (Free Will Baptist).

I must say, Dr. White seems a bit excitable.

God Bless, Homer

[Guest]

I must say, Dr. White seems a bit excitable.

I do wish he would come here to interact. He asks for someone -- anyone -- to deal with the periphrastic construction, and here we are trying to do so, and even bring in some treatment by someone who seems to know a bit about the subject, and his reaction is heavily laden with a criticism of his unknown scholarly qualifications.

At the very least, here is an opportunity for him to educate us. For some reason he seems to prefer doing so on his monologue web site instead of direct dialogue where we can ask questions or clarify our own positions. I don't suggest any ill motive, it's just not as helpful as it could be.

[Guest]

Has anyone noticed the Living Bible treatment? I'm not a big Living Bible fan, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The New Living Bible: When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and rejoiced in Paul's message; and as many as wanted eternal life, believed.