• 0
Guest

Acts 13:48

Question

17 answers to this question

  • 0

is Acts 13:48 a proof text for predestination?

Not at all. Elect, like ordain, here, is a word that indicates that someone with authority has placed someone into a certain position they could not obtain on their own. However, neither word indicates it being outside of the will of the person being ordained, or elected.

I am ordained to be  preacher, but I would not be a preacher, had I not chosen to follow what I believe to be my calling. That the Lord calls me to something doesn't imply that I have no choice but to do it-not a preacher by force. I sought to be ordained, and I was eventually ordained.

So, a person who is ordained to eternal life, has, indeed, been ordained of God unto eternal life, (because we cannot obtain it ourselves-One with authority to ordain must ordain), but not because he had no say in it-the Lord calls ALL people to repentance, but not all answer. Those who DO answer, who DO respond positively, are then ordained unto eternal life.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

  • 0

is Acts 13:48 a proof text for predestination?

ABSO-TOOTLY young man :)

But it has zero bearing on us once saved down here on earth: Let's get out there and preach the Gospel to all we know and meet and then the Lord Himself shall sort them out. He only uses you and me to preach them the Gospel. There is no magical salvation fairy that waves a wand over His elect. Lets get busy...time is short

mkrishna likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The verse doesn't say when the ordaining was carried out but it's probably similar to John 3:20,21; Romans 2:7-10; and in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10 not as Calvin taught it since there was freewill involved.

The ordaining to believe unto eternal life took place sometime when they were carrying out good works. I dare to say you had some pre-gospel Gentiles (all Jewish proselytes-vs 43) who were followers of the law so God sealed their salvation by making sure they heard the gospel. So their good works is what got them ordained but it was the gospel that sealed the deal. They still had to come to the light of their own freewill, though.

Edited by Critical Mass
John Young likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On October 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Critical Mass said:

The verse doesn't say when the ordaining was carried out but it's probably similar to John 3:20,21; Romans 2:7-10; and in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10 not as Calvin taught it since there was freewill involved.

Can you show, according the the passage cited where "free-will" is talked about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A few things I have discovered about this subject:

#1 Neither Acts 13:48, nor any of the associated verses, says who ordained these Gentiles. 

#2 According to another use of the word "ordained", I have found in early English Literature, a person can become "ordained" to something of their own accord. See "The Parson's Tale" which is a section of "The Canterbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer.

#3. The Greek word tasso, translated as "ordained" in Acts 13:48, is the same word translated as "addicted" in 1 Corinthians 16:15.

So, what I think it means is that those Gentiles, though lost at the time, who already passionately desired eternal life(of their own freewill), readily believed on the Lord when they heard the Gospel.. There are also Gentiles today who, though they are lost, greatly desire and expect eternal life: Muslims, particularly "shaheeds"; suicide bombers.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not the way some think the word ordain means.

Here in Acts 13 the people heard the word and believed. They were 'trained' in the FACTS. 

That is the 'ordain' referred to here. "They were fully taught the facts" equals "ordained".

Even during the ordination process for a minister they are examined to make sure of what they believe.

Hope that helps.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 12/8/2016 at 11:00 AM, heartstrings said:

#2 According to another use of the word "ordained", I have found in early English Literature, a person can become "ordained" to something of their own accord. See "The Parson's Tale" which is a section of "The Canterbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Any clarity on what section of verse you refer here?

I have an Oxford edition written letter by letter the same as original copies that I love to peruse.

Please let me know here or p.m. me.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

On 12/8/2016 at 11:00 AM, heartstrings said:

#2 According to another use of the word "ordained", I have found in early English Literature, a person can become "ordained" to something of their own accord. See "The Parson's Tale" which is a section of "The Canterbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Never mind.  

X771 is the verse. 

And it doesn't say what you think Heartstrings.

Sorry.

(Edited)

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

?

(Sorry N.N. Edited above)

Section reference in "The Riverside Chaucer" by Anthony Burgess - Oxford University Press.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
No Nicolaitans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 9:43 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

 

Never mind.  

X771 is the verse. 

And it doesn't say what you think Heartstrings.

Sorry.

(Edited)

I'm afraid it does, bro. Surely you must realize that nobody "ordains"  "concupiscence" in a man, but himself? In view of this meaning of the word "ordained", the Gentiles in Acts 34 had arranged, ordered, established, their lives to "eternal life" of their own choice as well. So, basically the ones who did want to go to Heaven believed and any atheists present obviously would not. Likewise, today, people all over the world are counting on some type of afterlife however false or misdirected their concept may be. I have found definitions like "fixed", "appointed", "established", "arranged" "ordered" and "disposed". but I have not run across any definition of "ordained" as being "taught the facts".

." From Adam we took original sin;
"from him fleshly descended be we all, and engendered of vile
and corrupt matter;" and the penalty of Adam's transgression
dwelleth with us as to temptation, which penalty is called
concupiscence. "This concupiscence, when it is wrongfully
disposed or ordained in a man, it maketh him covet, by covetise
of flesh, fleshly sin by sight of his eyes, as to But earthly things, and
also covetise of highness by pride of heart."---Chaucer

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, Invicta said:

Where do you find Chaucer in the scriptures?

 

Do you ever look up definitions of Bible words in a dictionary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The issue at hand, of course, is that Calvin, (and Augistine before him, I believe) took scriptural terms, like ordain, elect, and dead and defined them according to their own understanding, not according to what they actually mean.

Death, for instance: they say that to be dead in sin, makes uone unable to make any good decision-but where is even that idea to be found in scripture? rather, throughout both old and new testaments, we see bad people, dead in sins, being continually exhorted to make good decisions: Jonah went to Nineveh to preach destruction to them, and they, though clearly 'dead in sin', were able to make the decisions to repent, to fast and weep before the Lord that they might be saved. Did God ordain them to do so? Well, according to His own word given through Jonah, God's will and plan was their total dest4ruction: He didn't even give them the option of repentance! Yet, repent they DID.

Again, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and their rejection of God. He wept and said how often He would have gathered them to Himself as a mother hen her chicks, yet they would not. Sounds pretty clearly that God's will was that they should come to Him, and to follow and receive Jesus as their Messiah, yet they rejected Him. Did Jesus weep over those that He had pre-ordained to death and destruction, , those He Himself has declared before the foundatio of time would reject Him? It would seem a bit...hypocritical of God to act sad over those HE gave no chance that they might obey, as though they might have. How cruel to demand obedience from those HE would not allow to be obedient. And how cruel to punish those who reject Him, if He would not allow them to follow Him unto salvation.

Genevanpreacher and Alan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As an addendum to my previous post, on the subject of death, I believe it is possibly one of the most misunderstood bible doctrines.  What is it to be 'dead"? This subject is why the JW's believe much of what they do concerning hell and the afterlife, and why Calvinists think one cannot make a decision, god or bad, when 'dead'.

Dead, simply, is 'without Christ'. Period. It does not mean without consciousness. Scripture tells us that "In Him was life". Jesus Himself said, "I am the resurrection, and the life", and I am the way, the truth, and the life.". Jesus IS life, and apart from Him, there is neither light nor life. Those who die in the life without Christ, go to a place of torment and regret, still conscious, but dead, without Christ. And these are not in hell because, being dead, they were unable to make a good choice, they are in hell because they rejected the grace of Jesus Christ.

Alan and John Young like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 2016/12/27 at 11:01 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue at hand, of course, is that Calvin, (and Augistine before him, I believe) took scriptural terms, like ordain, elect, and dead and defined them according to their own understanding, not according to what they actually mean.

Excellent.

The definitions by Calvin, modern day Calvinists, bible correctors, and those who find contradictions in the scriptures, have a real problem with defining Bible words. They want to define scriptural terms according to their own understanding (or the theology of their denomination).  

 

John Young and Ukulelemike like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now