Predestination and Acts 10:34.

[pawnraider]

If God has foreordained those whom He will save and those He will not then why did Peter state "God is no respecter of persons"? Isn't this exactly what the doctrine of perdestination claims God is doing while Peter claims otherwise?

Acts 10:34 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.

 

[DeaconDean]

If God has foreordained those whom He will save and those He will not then why did Peter state "God is no respecter of persons"? Isn't this exactly what the doctrine of perdestination claims God is doing while Peter claims otherwise?

Acts 10:34 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.

Peter is right, God is not a respecter of persons.

But, read what Romans 8:29 says:

"he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son"

Predestination sets the goal, not the course.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[pawnraider]

Peter is right, God is not a respecter of persons.

But, read what Romans 8:29 says:

"he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son"

Predestination sets the goal, not the course.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Not sure I nor anyone else understands what you're trying to say but your response does nothing more than avoid the question. Romans just means those who accept Him are to be conformed to Him. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are you trying to tell us that Romans 8:29 negates Acts 10:34? Besides, you're going to have to do better than pick out a verse with your favourite word in it.

 

[singpeace]

I quote Calvin here, and his definitions/translations/doctrines are warped.

John Calvin: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."


Biblical response to Calvin

Romans 8:29-30
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

"Foreknowledge" is what God knows in advance and "Predestination" is what God works out in the believer's life to serve Him.

John Calvin: “Scripture clearly proves this much, that God determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure to admit to salvation, and those it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that the elect were founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment."

Biblical response to John Calvin

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Ezekiel 18:21-23 and Ezekiel 18:32
"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22. "All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23. "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? 32. "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live.""

 

[Anoetos]

Two things:

1. Peter is not talking about anyone being capable of salvation. He is talking about realizing from seeing Cornelius saved that the covenant once open only to Israel, is now open to believing Gentiles as well.

2. That said, Peter's remarks are true even in a universal sense: Everyone is in exactly the same condition with regard to God and His standard of perfect righteousness; i.e. fallen, wretched, dead, and bound for hell. Those whom God, in unfathomable mercy, chooses to save are not chosen in view on anything they have or are, they are chosen and saved solely by grace, freely, without respect to them as meriting anything.

 

[pawnraider]

Two things:

1. Peter is not talking about anyone being capable of salvation.

Actually, no one is capable of salvation, Jesus Christ purchased our salvation for us. We just have to accept His gift.

He is talking about realizing from seeing Cornelius saved that the covenant once open only to Israel, is now open to believing Gentiles as well.

It's never spoken of as being covenantal except in reformed circles. This gift is available to all. One just has to accept it.

2. That said, Peter's remarks are true even in a universal sense: Everyone is in exactly the same condition with regard to God and His standard of perfect righteousness; i.e. fallen, wretched, dead, and bound for hell. Those whom God, in unfathomable mercy, chooses to save are not chosen in view on anything they have or are, they are chosen and saved solely by grace, freely, without respect to them as meriting anything.

As for the rest I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[DeaconDean]

Not sure I nor anyone else understands what you're trying to say but your response does nothing more than avoid the question. Romans just means those who accept Him are to be conformed to Him. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are you trying to tell us that Romans 8:29 negates Acts 10:34? Besides, you're going to have to do better than pick out a verse with your favourite word in it.

Predestination is only used a very few times in the New Testament.

Let us look at the definition given in Kittel’s dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: “prowpisev.” From the root word: “proorizw,” which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel’s), K. L. Schmidt comments:

This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense “to foreordain” “to predestinate.” Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: “h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, “hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn,” 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: “proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ,” Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “proopizw”, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Also, one other usage of this word is found in 1 Pet. 1:20.

Jesus Christ was "foreordained" to go to the cross for you and me:

"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," -1 Pet. 1:20 (KJV)

In 1 Pet. 1:20, Peter is relating how the Savior was manifested to provide the atonement.

As I said, “prowpisev” from the root word "to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine" is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Just as Jesus' goal "foreordained/predestinated" was to go to the cross, our predestination is to be conformed to the image of His Son.

And as far as Acts 10:34 is concerned, God does not look forward in time and base our election on any foreseen faith or works. If He did, then Peter would be a liar and so would the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Anoetos]

Actually, no one is capable of salvation, Jesus Christ purchased our salvation for us. We just have to accept His gift.
It's never spoken of as being covenantal except in reformed circles. This gift is available to all. One just has to accept it.


As for the rest I have no idea what you're talking about.

My point was that until Cornelius, the possible inclusion of Gentiles in saving relationship with God in Christ was something Peter was unsure of. This is the point of Acts 10:34, not whether grace is universal in a sense that undercuts the Reformed understanding of predestination.

The covenant is the b'rith of the Old Testament, it is the circumcision, the yoking of the children of Israel with the Law. Christ is the completion of this. This is what is meant by "covenant". It is not an exclusively Reformed idea. It was used extensively by Augustine and the idea of a pactum between God and His people has a rich tradition all throughout history.

It is true that the Reformed have historically done the most with the idea, but it is far from exclusively ours. Indeed, noted Catholic apologist Scott Hahn makes extensive use of it in his writing as well.

Here is what I mean by the rest: God is not a respecter of persons because there is nothing in any person for God to respect. He does not save the ones he saves because they deserve it; no one deserves it, so even if Peter WAS speaking universally, he is justified in doing so.

So, the upshot of all this is that you need to be more careful with your Bible so that when you cull it for arguments you are actually choosing texts that apply to the issue at hand. Additionally, it would be wise for you to acquaint yourself with the doctrine you want to controvert.

 

[pawnraider]

Predestination is only used a very few times in the New Testament.

Let us look at the definition given in Kittel’s dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: “prowpisev.” From the root word: “proorizw,” which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel’s), K. L. Schmidt comments:



Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “proopizw”, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Also, one other usage of this word is found in 1 Pet. 1:20.

Jesus Christ was "foreordained" to go to the cross for you and me:

"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," -1 Pet. 1:20 (KJV)

In 1 Pet. 1:20, Peter is relating how the Savior was manifested to provide the atonement.

As I said, “prowpisev” from the root word "to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine" is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Just as Jesus' goal "foreordained/predestinated" was to go to the cross, our predestination is to be conformed to the image of His Son.

And as far as Acts 10:34 is concerned, God does not look forward in time and base our election on any foreseen faith or works. If He did, then Peter would be a liar and so would the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Wasn't Kittel an anti-semite?

 

[pawnraider]

My point was that until Cornelius, the possible inclusion of Gentiles in saving relationship with God in Christ was something Peter was unsure of. This is the point of Acts 10:34, not whether grace is universal in a sense that undercuts the Reformed understanding of predestination.

The covenant is the b'rith of the Old Testament, it is the circumcision, the yoking of the children of Israel with the Law. Christ is the completion of this. This is what is meant by "covenant". It is not an exclusively Reformed idea. It was used extensively by Augustine and the idea of a pactum between God and His people has a rich tradition all throughout history.

It is true that the Reformed have historically done the most with the idea, but it is far from exclusively ours. Indeed, noted Catholic apologist Scott Hahn makes extensive use of it in his writing as well.

Here is what I mean by the rest: God is not a respecter of persons because there is nothing in any person for God to respect. He does not save the ones he saves because they deserve it; no one deserves it, so even if Peter WAS speaking universally, he is justified in doing so.

So, the upshot of all this is that you need to be more careful with your Bible so that when you cull it for arguments you are actually choosing texts that apply to the issue at hand. Additionally, it would be wise for you to acquaint yourself with the doctrine you want to controvert.

You’ve made everything less clear now, thank you. I still cannot figure out if you’re a supporter of Calvinism or not; but I’m beginning to think that you are. However, you do appear to be taking great pains in making the scripture appear to be saying something when it clearly does not, or at least that is my impression. But I do think one should be more careful in how one reproaches others since you have now made an appeal not to the Bible but theologians and apologists, and questionable ones at that I might add, for assistance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m sure that you will, but doesn’t the doctrine of Predestination teach, in effect, that God chooses who will be His? It’s His choice and no one else’s? Or am I close?

 

[Anoetos]

Ok, let me try one more time:

Peter is saying that he now understands that Jesus did not come to save only Jews but Gentiles as well. He is not saying anything about how many of either group He came to save.

Predestination is the biblical doctrine which says that God has predestined all things, the salvation of the elect as well as the passing over of the reprobate.

He does not save any of the elect because pf any merit in them. So, He is no respecter of persons as Peter says, or as Peter would say if this was what he was talking about.

 

[DeaconDean]

Wasn't Kittel an anti-semite?

So was Martin Luther, but what has that to do with the subject at hand?

And Martin Luther wrote one of the very best treaties against "free will".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jpark]

If God has foreordained those whom He will save and those He will not then why did Peter state "God is no respecter of persons"? Isn't this exactly what the doctrine of perdestination claims God is doing while Peter claims otherwise?

Acts 10:34 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.

God did not have any partiality in predetermining people to their eternal fates, that is, God had no preferential bias when He predetermined some people to go to heaven and predetermined some people to go to hell.

Nor does He have involvement in predetermination (He does not mold, shape our lives to lead to damnation or salvation. It's all written down so it goes on like a tape recording. However, He can intervene anytime during predetermined instances and change it (Jer. 18:7-10; Jon. 3:10) for the better (Rom. 8:28)). He also grants opportunity to repent (2 Tim. 2:25; Rom. 2:4), during which we can have free will, but even during these instances, He can intervene and influence us (Rom. 9:19).

He only shows partiality to the obedient... I believe this is indicated in Acts 10:35. Obedience is what is pleasing to Him (1 Samuel 15:22) and those who abide (John 15:5) and live (John 11:26) in Him are in His love (John 13:8) since they are clean and repentant.

Now consider Gen. 3:21. Gen. 3:21 implies that God forgave Adam and Eve. What does this indicate? Was it because they were the first human beings? Or was it because they had a personal relationship with Him (in Gen. 3:9-13, we see what appears to indicate familiarity)?

 

[Tallen]

If God has foreordained those whom He will save and those He will not then why did Peter state "God is no respecter of persons"? Isn't this exactly what the doctrine of perdestination claims God is doing while Peter claims otherwise?

Acts 10:34 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.

Why did you stop in the middle of the sentence? Continue to read and understand the context of the Apostle's words.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

This disqualifies any who are not fearing Him and working righteousness. In fact, these verse are telling us just the opposite of what you are inferring. YHWH does respect persons, He respects those that fear Him and work righteousness above those who do not. If you are in that category of obedience, then He accepts you the same as He does anyone who is obeying Him. Whether Gentile or Jew, He accepts those that are obedient to Him. Otherwise..., you don't even get considered and are disrespected.

Besides this, what do these verses have to do with predestination?

 

[DeaconDean]

Why did you stop in the middle of the sentence? Continue to read and understand the context of the Apostle's words.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

This disqualifies any who are not fearing Him and working righteousness. In fact, these verse are telling us just the opposite of what you are inferring. YHWH does respect persons, He respects those that fear Him and work righteousness above those who do not. If you are in that category of obedience, then He accepts you the same as He does anyone who is obeying Him. Whether Gentile or Jew, He accepts those that are obedient to Him. Otherwise..., you don't even get considered and are disrespected.

Besides this, what do these verses have to do with predestination?

Let me play devils advocate here.

Tell me the works of righteousness of the thief on the cross.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

Let me play devils advocate here.

Tell me the works of righteousness of the thief on the cross.

Why, what does that have to do with the context of Acts 10:34-35? And why would I try to make an argument from something that scripture is silent on?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Let me ask you a question. What does the above verses say? Are those that do not fear Him and work righteousness, accepted?

 

[Jpark]

Let me play devils advocate here.

Tell me the works of righteousness of the thief on the cross.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The thief demonstrated reverence of God on the cross. Therefore, when God saw this, the thief was eligible to go to heaven. In other words, God made His decision based on what He saw (1 Samuel 16:7). Works, confession of faith, etc. are evidence to God. They cannot save a person.

It is a misconception that the judgment is after death. It can also be in your last moments, which is why premeditated repentance on your deathbed has no merit. However, the thief clearly did not do such a thing. He had likely heard of Jesus while he was committing evil deeds and here he is, sincerely repenting of his sins without regret (it is implied) and accepting Jesus as his Lord and Master (Luke 23:42).

 

[Tallen]

I appreciate your attempt to answer DeconDean. But I am left to think that his post was nothing more than obfuscation and avoidance of the point of the Apostle's words in the verses in Acts.

I am waiting for his answer to what those verse say contextually.

 

[DeaconDean]

I appreciate your attempt to answer DeconDean. But I am left to think that his post was nothing more than obfuscation and avoidance of the point of the Apostle's words in the verses in Acts.

I am waiting for his answer to what those verse say contextually.

You seem to forget the last half of the verse you used.

"hen Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

I submit:

"he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him"

The thief on the cross certianly feared Him, but where did he "work righteousness" to be accepted with Him?

Show me the thief's works.

That is all I ask.

What works of righteousness did the thief do to be accepted of God?

Define a "work of righteousness" for me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[James1979]

The thief in himself does not have any righteousness him but the thief recognized he needed a savior to cover his sins because he was in trouble with God with all of the sins he committed against God as the Holy Spirit had already saved him (giving the thief a new heart and a new spirit=eternal life, this was done before he said the things he said to Jesus). Once the Holy Spirit applied the words of Christ to his life, penetrating his old heart with the new heart and the old spirit/soul with the new spirit/soul, now the thief has a new nature in Christ and is now driven to produce good fruit. But at the same time, that thief cannot take the credit for what has happen to him, all the credit goes to the Glory of God.