# Any *constructive* comments about Acts 2 & paedobaptism?



## biblelighthouse (Apr 16, 2005)

Guys,

I posted this a few days ago, and the "debate" ended up being over who used what word to describe someone else's position.  Nobody except Gabe bothered to address my original post.


I'm going to try this again. This time, please let me know if you have any constructive thoughts regarding the exegesis of Acts 2, and how it helps/hinders the doctrine of paedobaptism.

I really would like to hear anyone's input, whether paedo or credo. 



Paedobaptism & the nitty gritty of Acts 2

I wonder why more paedobaptists don't go into more detail in Acts 2. They so often just seem to quote that the promise is to "your children", mention the idea of children's continuing covenantal inclusion, and then they skip off to some other text. But there are a lot of questions to be asked of this passage.

The credobaptists often try to make much of the phrase, "as many as the Lord shall call", assuming that the word "call" there is in reference to an effectual, soteriological call. But I disagree:

First of all, they miss the entire point of Peter quoting the end of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39. Peter starts quotation of the prophecy in Acts 2:17-21, and then *finishes* Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39, to create a sort of inclusio to wrap up the whole passage. So it is not proper to try to exegete the meaning of the word "call" in Acts 2:39, in isolation from understanding the meaning of the word "call" used in Joel's original prophecy.

The Hebrew word for "call" used in Joel 2:32 is "qara'", and is also used in Joel 1:14, 1:19, 2:15, and 3:9. In no case is it a reference to God's effectual, saving call. The word is used twice in Joel 2:32, and I don't think it is in reference to an effectual saving call there, either. It certainly isn't the first of the two times, and I think that making it an "effectual" call the second time in Joel 2:32 would be special pleading.

Also, we need to remember that Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. In Luke/Acts, the word "call" (Greek "proskaleomai") is used 14 times. And in all of the 14 times, Luke *never* uses that word in the sense of a soteriological "effectual call". 

In short, I don't think the "many the Lord shall call" are the elect that God will effectually call. There is certainly some overlap there, and those called certainly include the elect. But I don't think we can fairly say that the word "call" is ever used in Luke/Acts as a technical term for soteriological effectual calling. So, if that's not what "call" means, then what does it mean?

In Joel 2:17, there is a direct covenantal reference to God's "people". I believe the reference is to God's covenantal people, and not to God's elect. Just look at all the OT references where God talks about the Israelites (both elect and non-elect) being His "people". How did they get to be God's people? By God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

When God "called" His people out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, with the same Hebrew word for "call"), both elect and non-elect people were called. After the first dispersion (to Babylon), God called His people back to Israel. And both elect and non-elect people were called. I think the same mindset is in Joel 2. God is talking about a covenantal calling, not a soteriological one. (Though of course, all of those savingly called are also covenantally called.) I don't think an "effectual call" based on election fits the context and main thrust of Joel 2. Thus, I don't think it had that meaning when Peter quoted it in Acts 2, either.

God called the remnant of Israel into covenant with Himself. But some of those in the covenant eventually apostatize (cf. Heb. 6 & 10). 

Possible very-loose expanded paraphrase of the verse in Acts 2:
"God's covenantal promises, including blessings for covenant-keeping, and cursings for covenant-breaking, are for you Israelites here today, for your children, and for those Israelites who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call back into the covenant, according to the context of Joel's prophecy."

That's where my thoughts are at the moment, anyway. 

If covenantal inclusion of infants is already strongly and explicitly taught in the OT, then we don't necessarily have to have a strong, explicit re-teaching of it in the NT. We just need to see clues to tell us whether children are still included, or not. If not, then we would expect strong, clear, explicit abrogation of OT covenantal infant inclusion. But if nothing has changed, we would just expect to see children included in a matter-of-fact way. And that is just what Peter does. He says the promise is for you, and your children. He doesn't explain himself in detail because he *doesn't have to*. The Israelites had already known for thousands of years that their children were included in their covenant with God. However, if Peter was trying to abrogate infant inclusion in any way at all, then we would expect a very clear statement to that effect (which he does not make), and we would also expect an angry reaction from the crowd (and there is none). If Peter had taken pains to explicitly tell them that their children were in the covenant too, I think their response would have been: "Duh!" <grin>
So, "and to your children" was enough. Peter didn't have to say any more. 

Does the "call" in Acts 2 applies to "you", "your children", and to "those afar off", or does the "call" just applies to "those afar off"? --- I would argue that the "call", in *this* particular text, only applies to "those afar off". The reason I believe this is because the phrase "as many as the Lord shall call" is taken from the end of the prophecy Joel 2. This is where the "inclusio argument" seems important to me. I still recognize some "fuzzy logic overlap" here, but if forced to make strict categories, I think the "call" has to apply to the "far off" people, just as it is meant in Joel 2. Also, the "you" and the "your children" are already present in Peter's audience, so it is hard for me to see how the future-looking phrase "shall call" could apply to them. It is "those afar off" who God "shall call". 

What about Peter's call to "repent/be baptized"? Does that mean that he expected all people to repent before baptism? --- Well, how did the OT Israelites understand the connection between repentance and circumcision? We knew that Abraham had faith *prior* to being circumcised. And his circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had" beforehand (Romans 4:11). As an adult, Abraham certainly had faith (and thus repentance) prior to receiving the covenant sign. However, as a result of Abraham's faith, his entire household came under the covenant, and the covenant sign was applied to all, whether or not they had faith yet. Isaac was circumcised at 8 days of age, signifying that he was *already* a covenant member. But I don't think Isaac had saving faith until years later. Now think about Gentiles who converted to Judaism. The same logic applied. The head of the household had to profess faith and repentance prior to circumcision. But at that point, his entire family was under the covenant, and his sons would be circumcised, regardless of personal faith. Like Isaac, infants were given the covenant sign prior to having saving faith. So, in light of these facts, how would Peter's audience have understood his message? When Peter said to "repent and be baptized", I think they would have understood it like they understood Abraham/Isaac, and like they understood proselyte conversions. They recognized that God was creating a "new Israel", if you will, and that baptism was the initiatory rite for the heads of households, and that the covenant sign would also be given to the children within the household. At least, that would be the natural assumption based on the religious background of Peter's audience. And what, if anything, did Peter say to make them think otherwise?


There are some more things to keep in mind regarding the Luke/Acts connection:

* Luke 1:15 reveals that the Holy Spirit can even be poured out on infants.

* Luke 18:15-16 says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants.

* In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.

* In Acts 16:31, Paul & Silas told the jailer that if *he* believed, then he would be saved, *and* his "house". The word "believed" in Acts 16:34 is singular, not plural, and most likely refers to the jailer himself, and not to his entire family. (But if a CB disagrees, then he needs to go all the way and also deal with the household of Zaccheus in Luke 19. Addressing Acts 16 without also addressing Luke 19 is special pleading, In my humble opinion. They just feel safe skipping it because baptism isn't mentioned.)

So, where in Luke/Acts does Luke ever seem to be concerned with telling us that God now deals with individuals, not families, and that children of professing believers are no longer automatically included in the covenant? If Luke is trying to do this, he's failing miserably, and he is even including a lot of texts that contradict that point. 

Does anyone here have any deep exegetical thoughts about Acts 2 (or Joel 2), or about paedobaptism in Luke/Acts in general? I would like to learn more about Acts 2, and I am often disappointed with how quickly and superficially this passage is (usually) treated by both PBs and CBs.

In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 17, 2005)

Joseph,
Very interesting post. You're way ahead of me in this study. I thought I'd look at one part for now and see if I can catch up to your thought process.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Also, we need to remember that Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. In Luke/Acts, the word "call" (Greek "proskaleomai") is used 16 times. And in all of the 16 times, Luke *never* uses that word in the sense of a soteriological "effectual call".



First, I'm using the KJV, and I only counted 14. Which ones did I miss?

Luk 7:19; Luk 15:26; Luk 16:5; Luk 18:16; Act 2:39; Act 5:40; Act 6:2; Act 13:2; Act 13:7; Act 16:10; Act 20:1; Act 23:17; Act 23:18; Act 23:23


Second, is there a better source for laymen to use than Vine's Expository dictionary of NT words? In this work, he says:

PROSKALEO, _pros_, to, and No. I, signifies:
(a) to call to oneself, to bid to come; it is used only in the Middle Voice, e.g., Matt 10:1; Acts 5:40; James 5:14

(b) God's call to Gentiles through the Gospel, *Acts 2:39*

(c) the Divine call in entrusting men with the preaching of the Gospel, Acts 13:2; 16:10

I don't know Greek, but I've heard Vine is well respected for his Greek scholarship. I read this morning that he comes from a dispensational background - I don't know if that would have any bearing on what he says about the use of the word call in Acts 2:39.

I started wondering, if (for argument's sake) Peter wanted to convey the thought that it was the calling unto salvation, which would be the best word to choose. I thought, maybe the word epikaleomai, as used in:

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Then, I searched for that same word, and found the following verses which have nothing to do with calling unto salvation:

Act 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

Is it true, then, that no matter what Greek word is chosen, it could still be argued that the word doesn't refer to calling unto salvation? Is there any Greek word that could have been used which would have definitively erased all doubt?

I'm sure I'll have more comments later about other parts of your excellent post, but I thought I'd start with this.

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## blhowes (Apr 17, 2005)

As an addendum, here's what Thayer says about the word:

proskaleomai
1) to call to
2) to call to one´s self
3) to bid to come to one´s self
4) metaphorically
4a) God is said to call to himself the Gentiles, aliens as they are from him, by inviting them, through the preaching of the gospel unto fellowship with himself in the Messiah´s kingdom
4b) Christ and the Holy Sprit are said to call to themselves those preachers of the gospel to whom they have decided to intrust a service having reference to the extension of the gospel
Part of Speech: verb


----------



## blhowes (Apr 17, 2005)

> In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.


If we take at face value what you say here, how do we then account for those in a covenant family who are not of the elect?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Joseph,
> Very interesting post. You're way ahead of me in this study. I thought I'd look at one part for now and see if I can catch up to your thought process.
> 
> ...



That's all of them. There are only 14. I must have made a typo in my post. I'll go back and edit it. Thanks for catching my typo!



> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Second, is there a better source for laymen to use than Vine's Expository dictionary of NT words? In this work, he says:
> 
> PROSKALEO, _pros_, to, and No. I, signifies:
> ...



Vine is well-respected. But unfortunately, it looks like his dispensational background got in the way. It appears that Vine's faulty exegesis of Acts 2:39 made him think that this verse is talking about "God's call to Gentiles through the Gospel". And this is one interpretation of Acts 2:39 that I am quite confident is *not* true. It's interesting to note that Acts 2:39 is the only passage he gives as support for that definition of proskaleo.

How do I know that Peter wasn't talking about God's call to Gentiles in Acts 2:39? Because Peter didn't even know about Gentile-inclusion until God dropped a sheet down from heaven to him in Acts 10. And even by Acts 15, the apostles were still debating over the level of equality of Gentiles in the church. The first synod was held over this very issue. So it makes no sense to assume that Peter just knew about and nonchalantly mentioned Gentile inclusion all the way back in Acts 2. That would be an anachronism.

Moreover, a "Gentile" assumption in Acts 2:39 completely ignores Joel's prophecy, which is the backdrop for Peter's sermon. First, carefully read Joel 2:28-32, which is the prophetic section that is important to Peter in Acts 2. Then, read Peter's recitation of the prophecy in Acts 2:16-21. Notice that Peter is in no hurry to just make a quick reference to the prophecy and move on. No, he goes to great lengths to quote the prophecy word for word. And yet, surprisingly, Peter cuts the quotation short by a couple sentences. In Joel, the prophecy is marked off today by verses 2:28 through 2:32. Yet in Acts 2, after quoting everything in Joel 2:28-31, Peter quotes half of Joel 2:32 and then stops. If Peter was so focused on Joel's prophecy, and was quoting it at length, then why did he fail to finish quoting the prophecy? Why didn't Peter finish quoting Joel, and say that "on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the LORD has promised; the remnant will be those whom the LORD will call." ?

The answer is that Peter *did* finish quoting Joel's prophecy. In Acts 2:39, Peter finishes by saying that "the promise is to and your children, and to those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call." Notice how well this verse fits with the second half of Joel 2:32. Joel talked about the "remnant" (of Israel) being those whom "the Lord will call". So in Acts 2:39, "those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call" are the same people: Israelites scattered abroad in the dispersion. Acts 2:39 has nothing to do with Gentiles. --- Peter was using Joel's prophecy as a "prophetic inclusio", if you will. He used the first and last parts of Joel's prophecy as literary "bookends" to mark off his argument into a single context.

Thus, since Vine's interpretation of Acts 2:39 is based on faulty assumptions, I personally don't give too much weight to his determination of the word's definition in that particular verse.



Bob, thank you very much for joining me in interaction with Acts 2. You are asking some good questions of the text. Some of your questions approach the text at angles that I haven't thought about before. I look forward to responding to your other comments/questions as time permits.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## blhowes (Apr 17, 2005)

> How do I know that Peter wasn't talking about God's call to Gentiles in Acts 2:39? Because Peter didn't even know about Gentile-inclusion until God dropped a sheet down from heaven to him in Acts 10. And even by Acts 15, the apostles were still debating over the level of equality of Gentiles in the church. The first synod was held over this very issue. So it makes no sense to assume that Peter just knew about and nonchalantly mentioned Gentile inclusion all the way back in Acts 2. That would be an anachronism.


That makes sense what you're saying. If, though, "you, your children, and those who are far off", is not referring to the Gentiles, but only to the Jews, how do we then make the connection into the NT to believers and their children (many/most of whom are Gentiles)?

---come to think of it, maybe you're not trying to make that kind of connection. Some, who believe in presumptive regeneration (I think) would see that verse as a promise that God would save their children as well. (I don't want to put words into your mouth)

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 17, 2005)

> Moreover, a "Gentile" assumption in Acts 2:39 completely ignores Joel's prophecy, which is the backdrop for Peter's sermon. First, carefully read Joel 2:28-32, which is the prophetic section that is important to Peter in Acts 2. Then, read Peter's recitation of the prophecy in Acts 2:16-21. Notice that Peter is in no hurry to just make a quick reference to the prophecy and move on. No, he goes to great lengths to quote the prophecy word for word. And yet, surprisingly, Peter cuts the quotation short by a couple sentences. In Joel, the prophecy is marked off today by verses 2:28 through 2:32. Yet in Acts 2, after quoting everything in Joel 2:28-31, Peter quotes half of Joel 2:32 and then stops. If Peter was so focused on Joel's prophecy, and was quoting it at length, then why did he fail to finish quoting the prophecy? Why didn't Peter finish quoting Joel, and say that "on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the LORD has promised; the remnant will be those whom the LORD will call." ?
> 
> The answer is that Peter *did* finish quoting Joel's prophecy. In Acts 2:39, Peter finishes by saying that "the promise is to and your children, and to those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call." Notice how well this verse fits with the second half of Joel 2:32. Joel talked about the "remnant" (of Israel) being those whom "the Lord will call". So in Acts 2:39, "those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call" are the same people: Israelites scattered abroad in the dispersion. Acts 2:39 has nothing to do with Gentiles. --- Peter was using Joel's prophecy as a "prophetic inclusio", if you will. He used the first and last parts of Joel's prophecy as literary "bookends" to mark off his argument into a single context.



This is very interesting. In our leadership Sunday school class, our Pastor was asked who the "called" were in Acts 2:39, and he refered to the Gentiles as well. I can't remember what verse he quoted for his proof text, but I remember him saying something to the effect that in this verse, Peter defined what "call", and was reading that definition into Acts 2:39.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 17, 2005)

This is from Vincent's Word Studies:

Act 2:39 - 
Afar off (ÎµÎ¹Ì“Ï‚ Î¼Î±ÎºÏÎ±Ì€Î½)
Lit., unto a long way. Referring probably to the Gentiles, who are described by this phrase both in the Old and New Testaments. See Zec_6:15; Eph_2:11-13. Peter knew the fact that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, but not the mode. He expected they would become Christians through the medium of the Jewish religion. It was already revealed in the Old Testament that they should be received, and Christ himself had commanded the apostles to preach to all nations.
Shall call (Ï€ÏÎ¿ÏƒÎºÎ±Î»ÎµÌÏƒÎ·Ï„Î±Î¹)
Rev. gives the force of Ï€ÏÎ¿ÌÏ‚, to:"œshall call unto him."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > How do I know that Peter wasn't talking about God's call to Gentiles in Acts 2:39? Because Peter didn't even know about Gentile-inclusion until God dropped a sheet down from heaven to him in Acts 10. And even by Acts 15, the apostles were still debating over the level of equality of Gentiles in the church. The first synod was held over this very issue. So it makes no sense to assume that Peter just knew about and nonchalantly mentioned Gentile inclusion all the way back in Acts 2. That would be an anachronism.
> ...




I make the Jew/Gentile connection elsewhere, in places like Romans 11 and Galatians 3.

In Acts 2, I get a feel for how the apostle Peter (inspired by the Holy Spirit) viewed the Church. In Romans 11 and Gald atians 3, I see for sure that Gentile believers like me are in God's covenant on an equal status with Jewish members of the covenant. Thus, because of Gentile equality in the Church, I can apply passages like Acts 2 to myself and my family, even though Gentiles weren't mentioned at the moment Peter was speaking in Acts 2:39.

Joseph

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.
> ...



We would account for them the same way the church accounted for non-elect covenant members in the Old Testament.

Israel was God's covenant people. He saved them from bondage in Egypt. They were *all* covenant members, and they were *all* partakers of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4), and yet not all were elect. God put many of them to death in the wilderness because of unbelief.

In Luke 19, Jesus says that salvation came to Zaccheus' *household* because of Zaccheus' faith. So what did Jesus mean? Here are a couple thoughts:

1) Now that Zaccheus has faith and is a covenant member, his children are automatically considered *"holy"* in a way that unchurched children of unbelievers are *not* (cf 1 Cor. 7:14). So not only Zaccheus, but his family as well, receives a change in position and status before God, because of Zaccheus' faith *alone*. There are real benefits associated with being a covenant member, whether or not one is regenerated yet.

2) As Jesus says, Zaccheus is a true "son of Abraham" because of his faith in Christ. And as we know from Galatians 3:29, the true children of Abraham are "heirs of the promise". Well, one part of the Abrahamic promise is this: "I will be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Genesis 17:7). God frequently chooses to extend grace through family lines, including saving grace. (Of course there are notable exceptions, like Esau.) God is not arbitrary. If a person is in covenant with God, has faith in Christ, and is being a covenant keeper, then part of that person's covenant-keeping will entail raising his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 6, and various Proverbs). And if Christian parents raise their children according to Scripture (something neglected by far too many parents), then those parents have every reason to believe that their children are elect, and will be Christians too. --- Of course God's election cannot be manipulated by man. But God predestines the *means* to salvation, as well as the *end*. And if God wants to save a child, a great means to that end is to place that child in a solid Christian home. And when Christian parents have a child, that child is a gift from the Lord. So when Christian parents "presume election" of their child, they should simply be recognizing the fact that God has sovereignly chose to send the child to *their* household instead of to another. So the "presumption" is based on God's sovereignty and on God's Word, not upon any magical qualities inherent in the baptismal font. The administration of baptism is a way for the parents to agree with what God has already revealed. On the flip side, withholding baptism is a way for parents to *deny* what God has already revealed. Now _that_ would be presumptuous! 

Sorry for getting on a soapbox and  . . . back to Acts 2 . . . what are *your* personal thoughts about the "promise" and the "children" mentioned in Acts 2?

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## blhowes (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I make the Jew/Gentile connection elsewhere, in places like Romans 11 and Galatians 3.
> 
> In Acts 2, I get a feel for how the apostle Peter (inspired by the Holy Spirit) viewed the Church. In Romans 11 and Gald atians 3, I see for sure that Gentile believers like me are in God's covenant on an equal status with Jewish members of the covenant. Thus, because of Gentile equality in the Church, I can apply passages like Acts 2 to myself and my family, even though Gentiles weren't mentioned at the moment Peter was speaking in Acts 2:39.


I'm not sure I'm following you. Maybe you can help me out.

Earlier, you said:


> Also, the "you" and the "your children" are already present in Peter's audience, so it is hard for me to see how the future-looking phrase "shall call" could apply to them. It is "those afar off" who God "shall call".
> 
> and
> 
> So in Acts 2:39, "those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call" are the same people: Israelites scattered abroad in the dispersion.



So, according to this:
you = the Jews listening to Peter's sermons
your children = their kids
those afar off = Israelites scattered abroad in the dispersion

How does Romans 11 and Galatians 3 change that?



> "God's covenantal promises, including blessings for covenant-keeping, and cursings for covenant-breaking, are for you Israelites here today, for your children, and for those Israelites who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call back into the covenant, according to the context of Joel's prophecy."


This may very well be true, but if we looked at just the Acts and Joel passages, wouldn't we conclude that the promise spoken of was something different? I don't know exactly what it refers to, but wouldn't it be either:

1) the remission of sins (vs 38)
2) the gift of the Holy Spirit (vs 38)
3) they'd be saved if they call on the name of the Lord (vs 21)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2005)

> This is very interesting. In our leadership Sunday school class, our Pastor was asked who the "called" were in Acts 2:39, and he refered to the Gentiles as well. I can't remember what verse he quoted for his proof text, but I remember him saying something to the effect that in this verse, Peter defined what "call", and was reading that definition into Acts 2:39.



Ask you pastor how he came to this conclusion? Was Peter aware of this rationale when he made the statement? Absolutely not! In fact, Jesus told them to do just the opposite:

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 

Peters agenda was what? The gentiles? No. He was called of Christ to go to the jewish population. Later on in Acts 9, it is said that "Paul" was to be used in the lives of the gentiles.

Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 

The Jews were amazed. The Greek term implies that they were _insane_ over it!

In Acts 11 it is verified by the spirit.

Act 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 
Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 
Act 11:3 "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." 
Act 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 
Act 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 
Act 11:6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 
Act 11:8 But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 
Act 11:9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' 

So, to assume that is what Peter meant (Those whom are afar off or the _called_), is exegeting the scriptures based upon a false presupposition.



[Edited on 4-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 18, 2005)

I e-mailed my pastor, and the reference he used as a proof text for Acts 2:39 being in reference to the Gentiles is Ephesians 2:13. I have noticed that several commentators have taken this same opinion and have cited this verse as part of their proof text, but I see the arguments against this idea, and they are compelling.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I e-mailed my pastor, and the reference he used as a proof text for Acts 2:39 being in reference to the Gentiles is Ephesians 2:13. I have noticed that several commentators have taken this same opinion and have cited this verse as part of their proof text, but I see the arguments against this idea, and they are compelling.



How one can come to such a conclusion is in my estimation, irresponsible at best. That is why I am saying that the thinking is biased presuppositionally.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 18, 2005)

This is his full response:

"Just a thought off the top of my head. To say that the apostles didn't
know anything about Gentile inclusion until after God revealed the
sheet to Peter would ignore the theme of the entire OT. God's plan has
always been to redeem for Himself a people from every people, tongue,
tribe and nation. And the covenant promise to Abraham would show that
God intended to bless the nations through him. It's like we talked
about yesterday in class. Obviously, they didn't understand it
completely but it was there, even in the prophecies of the OT. Anyway,
just some thoughts. I'll think more about it."

I am actually reading the section in Matt's book on Covenant Theology where he dives into this passage. I think I am convinced that Peter is refering to the Jews.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 18, 2005)

If he's not referring to Jews there, then Acts 11 is meaningless for Peter, and God goofed in explaining something to him that he already knew.

You know the passage:

Acts 11:7-10 "And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 "But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.' 9 "But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' 10 "Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 

Let's rewrite it.

The Lost Books of the Bible chapter 5:32, "And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 "But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For I already know the Gentiles are part of the Jewish community based on passages in the OT. I'l trot right over to the Getniles now and prove it to you. But wait. You are God. You should already know that! 9 "But the voice answered me from heaven, 'Oops, sorry Peter. I forgot. I know you know that already. I should not have brought it up. My mistake." 10 "Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 

That presses the point I hope....satire....


----------



## blhowes (Apr 18, 2005)

> Joseph asked:
> what are *your* personal thoughts about the "promise" and the "children" mentioned in Acts 2?


What makes the most sense to me is that:

you = the Jews listening to Peter's sermons
your children = their kids
those afar off = Gentiles

I think 'as many as the Lord shall call' refers to all three..

From what I can tell by reading Acts 2 and Joel 2, the promise refers to salvation, as indicated in verses 21 and 38.

1) the remission of sins (vs 38)
2) the gift of the Holy Spirit (vs 38)
3) they'd be saved if they call on the name of the Lord (vs 21)


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 18, 2005)

I agree Matt.

It is interesting to note that the following commentators think that "all who are far off" refers to Gentiles is as follows:

Gill
Calvin
Henry
Poole
Pulpit Commentary

Albert Barnes' has an interesting comment:



> Afar off - To those in other lands. It is probable that Peter here referred to the Jews who were scattered in other nations; for he does not seem yet to have understood that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles. See Acts 10: Yet the promise was equally applicable to the Gentiles as the Jews, and the apostles were afterward brought so to understand it, Acts 10; Rom_10:12, Rom_10:14-20; 11. The Gentiles are sometimes clearly indicated by the expression "œafar off Eph_2:13, Eph_2:17; and they are represented as having been brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The phrase is equally applicable to those who have been far off from God by their sins and their evil affections. To them also the promise is extended if they will return.



Is it just my commentaries or do most people seem to make the mistake of saying Acts 2:39 refers to the Gentiles?


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> It is interesting to note that the following commentators think that "all who are far off" refers to Gentiles is as follows:
> 
> Gill
> ...


Thanks for listing all those commentaries. I assume a similar list could probably be made supporting the other view, but its still good to see that I'm not alone - I'm in good company. 

I think the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary pretty well summarizes what I've been thinking (similar to Albert Barnes' commentary):

_Act 2:39 - 
Afar off
Lit., unto a long way. Referring probably to the Gentiles, who are described by this phrase both in the Old and New Testaments. See Zec_6:15; Eph_2:11-13. Peter knew the fact that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, but not the mode. He expected they would become Christians through the medium of the Jewish religion. It was already revealed in the Old Testament that they should be received, and Christ himself had commanded the apostles to preach to all nations._

In addition, it seems we may be narrowing our scope too much if we just look at the Joel 2 and Acts 2 passages. Paul also quoted from the Joel passage and broadened the scope to include all who God would save:

Rom 10:12-21 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. *For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. * How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Is it just my commentaries or do most people seem to make the mistake of saying Acts 2:39 refers to the Gentiles?


All the ones that I have (from E-sword) that I've checked so far seem to support the idea that it was Gentiles. If they're all wrong, it'd be interesting to try and figure out if there's a common reason why they all came to this conclusion, especially since they come from different theological backgrounds - reformed (Calvin, Henry), baptist (Gill), etc. Even Clarke (an Arminian?) comes to a similar conclusion, though he seems to agree for the most part with both sides:

_To all that are afar off - To the Jews wherever dispersed, and to all the Gentile nations; for, though St. Peter had not as yet a formal knowledge of the calling of the Gentiles, yet, the Spirit of God, by which he spoke, had undoubtedly this in view; and therefore the words are added, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, i.e. all to whom, in the course of his providence and grace, he shall send the preaching of Christ crucified._


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > Joseph asked:
> ...




How would you answer Matt's objections that Peter was unaware at this time that Gentiles had been ingrafted into the covenant (Until Acts 10-11)? 

Although we can find similar language (Acts 2:39) in the writings of Paul that refers to the gentiles etc., the rules of hermeneutics require that we examine this statement first in the context of Peter and what he knew at the time he gave the sermon. I think the case is compelling that Peter was still unaware of the Genitle ingrafting at the time of Acts 2.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 19, 2005)

Did you see my post? The greek shows that the Jews were insane over the idea that the Gentiles were now included.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> So, according to this:
> you = the Jews listening to Peter's sermons
> your children = their kids
> ...



Romans 11 and Galatians 3 don't "change" anything. Acts 2 was written to the Jews, and only to the Jews. However, Romans 11 teaches us that Gentile believers are grafted into the *same tree* as believing Jews. And Galatians 3 teaches us that Gentile believers receive the *same promises* as Gentile believers. So, as a Gentile believer, I look at Acts 2 through this little syllogism:

1) Acts 2 makes promises to believing Jews.
2) Romans 11 and Galatians 3 tell me that all believing Gentiles receive the same promises as believing Jews.
3) Thus, since I am a believing Gentile, I receive the same promises as the Jews in Acts 2. 

If the promise was for them and their children, then the promise is also for me and my children.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2005)

Come on guys! This is a bit of oversimplification. 

Of course Peter knew that the Gentiles were to be included in the people of God. The OT is full of references to that effect - I just read Isaiah 59 about that today. There also were *examples* of Gentiles being included in the people of God (e.g. the Queen of the South), with the distinction that they became proselytes.

What Peter was experiencing in Acts 11 was the truth that Gentiles were included in the people of God as equals, and that the wall of separation was torn down by the cross, hence Eph. 2:13-15.

What Peter is discussing in Acts 10-11 is the complete fulfillment of the ceremonial law in Christ, and the fact that he, *as a Jew* was permitted to "break" the ceremonial food laws with impunity. If Peter did not know that the Gentiles were included, he _never would have gone to Cornelius' house in the first place._

Always be most careful before rejecting Calvin's interpretation:



> _And to those which are afar off_. The Gentiles are named in the last place, which were before strangers. For those which refer it unto those Jews which were exiled afar off, (and driven) into far countries, they are greatly deceived. For he speaketh not in this place of the distance of place; but he noteth a difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, that they were first joined to God by reason of the covenant, and so, consequently, became of his family or household; but the Gentiles were banished from his kingdom. Paul useth the same speech in the second chapter to Ephesians, (Ephesians 2:11,) that the Gentiles, which were strangers from the promises, are now drawn near, through Jesus Christ, unto God. Because that Christ (the wall of separation being taken away) hath reconciled both (the Jews and Gentiles) unto the Father, and coming, he hath preached peace unto those which were nigh at hand, and which were afar off. Now we understand Peter's meaning. For to the end he may amplify the grace of Christ, he doth so offer the same unto the Jews, that he saith the Gentiles are also partakers thereof. And therefore he useth this word call, as if he should say: Like as God hath gathered you together into one peculiar people heretofore by his voice, so the same voice shall sound everywhere, that those which are afar off may come and join themselves unto you, when as they shall be called by a new proclamation.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Did you see my post? The greek shows that the Jews were insane over the idea that the Gentiles were now included.



If this is a question to me, I saw it and I am definately leaning toward agreeing with you!


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 19, 2005)

Ok, let me play devil's advocate a little:



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Of course Peter knew that the Gentiles were to be included in the people of God. The OT is full of references to that effect - I just read Isaiah 59 about that today. There also were *examples* of Gentiles being included in the people of God (e.g. the Queen of the South), with the distinction that they became proselytes.




The Old Testament surely makes it known that Gentile would someday be included into the Covenant. That being said, if anyone was slow to understand these prophisies and what they REALLY meant, it was Peter. There are also examples in the O.T. of gentiles being saved (i.e. Job, the Ninivites, and many others), but the common mindset of the Jews had become such as that they were the only TRUE people of God (or at least the PRIMARY people of God). Just because clear evidense is given in the O.T. about the inclusion of the gentiles doesn't necessarily mean that Peter *got it* when he gave his sermon in Acts 2.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> What Peter was experiencing in Acts 11 was the truth that Gentiles were included in the people of God as equals, and that the wall of separation was torn down by the cross, hence Eph. 2:13-15.



I would probably agree with this. This being said, if Peter did NOT view the Gentiles as equal partakers in the Covenant of God in Acts 2, would his sermon include them in the phrase "all who are far off?"



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> What Peter is discussing in Acts 10-11 is the complete fulfillment of the ceremonial law in Christ, and the fact that he, *as a Jew* was permitted to "break" the ceremonial food laws with impunity. If Peter did not know that the Gentiles were included, he _never would have gone to Cornelius' house in the first place._



I will need to study this a bit more.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Always be most careful before rejecting Calvin's interpretation:



Amen

The problem is, that Calvin in his commentaries doesn't explain WHY he interprets it the way he does. The REASONS for interpreting it what way is what will convince me. I still lean toward him refering to the Jews in Acts 2:39.


----------



## kceaster (Apr 19, 2005)

I agree with Fred. The reason I do so, is because in looking at the great commission, which was given to Jews only, they were commanded to make disciples of all the nations. What is the word nation? Gentile. We can't honestly believe that Peter and the other 10 thought that the commission was only for the Jews in these nations.

We mustn't forget also, that in Acts 1, Christ commands them to go to Samaria. Samaritan's were worse than Gentiles, they were dim-witted half brothers.

I know I've argued on the other side before, but I don't think the argument can bear the weight. Even if Peter only had Jews in mind, what did the Holy Spirit wish to convey from what Peter said? Only God knows whom He has chosen, and those are the ones He will call.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot hope for our children to be among those called.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2005)

The other problem is, as Calvin points out, that if Peter is essentially saying:

"to the Jews, to their children, and oh yeah the Jews physically really far away" 

there is no reason to say that. Why such a useless and unhelpful repetition? What does he mean there? It also cuts against Peter's use of the OT in both his 1st epistle - in fact he is more inclusive than even Paul is - and in his other sernmons in Acts (e.g. applying Joel 2 and Psalm 2)

Again, if Peter had no idea that Gentiles were included, why would he even go to Cornelius' house? Why wouldn't he object to the Great Commission in Acts 1?

You see, in order to give this strained interpretation, you must assume that Peter was clueless about the testimony of the OT, *and the Holy Spirit desired that cluelessness to continue.* Ultimately, that wasn't Peter's sermon. It was the Holy Spirit's.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> That doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot hope for our children to be among those called.
> 
> ...



Of course! Because the promise is to us, our children, and all of whom God will call. The covenant promise she is still the covenant promise. It is just now expanded to a larger class of people.


----------



## Robin (Apr 19, 2005)

To Fred's posts....

Plus, let's not forget the Covenant language in Genesis 17:7 where God says:
"I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an EVERLASTING covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee."

Baptism is the covenant sign for circumcision:

Colossians 2:11-15
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. 



R.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Did you see my post? The greek shows that the Jews were insane over the idea that the Gentiles were now included.


Scott, are you saying that if Peter had meant Gentiles in Acts, that this is how the Jews would have reacted? I don't think so. Here are some excerpts from a couple of commentaries. In summary, it seems they were reacting to the manifestation of the Spirit, not to the Gentiles getting saved. 



> Matthew Henry:
> Act 10:44-48 -
> What impression it made upon the believing Jews that were present (Act_10:45): Those of the circumcision who believed were astonished - those six that came along with Peter; it surprised them exceedingly, and perhaps gave them some uneasiness, because upon the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, which they thought had been appropriated to their own nation. Had they understood the scriptures of the Old Testament, which pointed at this, it would not have been such an astonishment to them; but by our mistaken notions of things we create difficulties to ourselves in the methods of divine providence and grace.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 19, 2005)

Bob,
I am saying that when the Jews were finally faced with the idea of the Gentiles coming _onboard_, they were insane over the idea. They didn't believe it; in fact, it wasn't until the HS accomplished His goal of falling upon the Gentiles did they believe the reality.

Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 

The Greek term _amazed_ implies that the Jews were bordering upon insanity in regards to the Gentiles and what was happening.

[Edited on 4-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

> *Jeff wrote:*
> How would you answer Matt's objections that Peter was unaware at this time that Gentiles had been ingrafted into the covenant (Until Acts 10-11)?


I'd answer his objections by saying "I'm a Calvinist, and John Calvin says..."

Seriously, I don't think we can know for sure what Peter was aware of at that moment. We know that Jesus had just given the "great commission" some 50 days or so earlier, so he knew that the gospel was to be preached to all nations. 

We also know that on the day of Pentecost, there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven to hear Peter's sermon. We know that, when they spoke in tongues, they spoke in the dialect of the nations these devout Jews came from. The Bible doesn't give details, but Peter may have wondered why they were speaking to devout Jews via tongues in the foreign languages instead of Hebrew or whatever language was common in Jerusalem at the time. He of course recognized what was going on as a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, but he may also have wondered why the tongues fulfilment of Joel was done in the foreign languages instead of perhaps Hebrew.

We know that, in Luke 4, Jesus was kicked out of Nazareth for teaching that God had blessed Gentiles in the OT. Peter walked and talked with Jesus for three years or so. Perhaps this may have come up in the conversation - perhaps not.

We can only guess what he may or may not have known, but I don't think we can know for sure. 



> *Jeff wrote:*
> Although we can find similar language (Acts 2:39) in the writings of Paul that refers to the gentiles etc., the rules of hermeneutics require that we examine this statement first in the context of Peter and what he knew at the time he gave the sermon. I think the case is compelling that Peter was still unaware of the Gentile ingrafting at the time of Acts 2.


I'll have to take your word for that, as I've never studied hermeneutics.

It seems, though, that finding out what Peter may or may not have known would be only part (an important part) of what we need to do to find out the meaning of a passage. Wasn't it Daniel (I may be mistaken) that was given a prophecy, asked what the prophecy meant, and wasn't told its meaning? 

Since the Bible is inspired, the correct meaning of a passage may be more than what the original author had in mind. It seems to me that both sides of this debate would agree to that. Both sides arrive at conclusions that Peter at that time may not have known about.

"My side" might use the Ephesians 2 passage to argue that Peter was talking about Gentiles being saved. In Ephesians 2, there's a clear distinction made between the Jews and gentiles and its clear that the gentiles are those who were afar off. It may be valid to apply Ephesians 2 to the Acts 2 passage, but there's a good chance that at that time Peter may not have realized that connection.

"The other side" might use other verses to say that those who are saved are the true Israel of God, were grafted into the olive tree, and therefore the Acts 2 passage refers to gentile believers and their children, just like it does for the Jews and their children. This may be true, but if Peter didn't realize that what he was saying was referring to gentiles (those who are far off), he certainly wouldn't have understood at that point that when he said "to you and your children" that he was talking about gentile believers and their children.

[Edited on 4-19-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bob,
> I am saying that when the Jews were finally faced with the idea of the Gentiles coming _onboard_, they were insane over the idea. They didn't believe it; in fact, it wasn't until the HS accomplished His goal of falling upon the Gentiles did they believe the reality.
> 
> ...



I think the point I'm trying to make is that their strong reaction was because they had seen the Shekinah glory appearing outside the boundaries of Israel (as Gill and Henry mention), not because the Gentiles were getting saved. Did the Jews react to and resist the idea of gentiles being saved just like the Jews? Yes, definitely, but I'm just saying this amazed, insane reaction was because of something different.

We see a somewhat different level of response in the beginning of the next chapter. When the Jews in Jerusalem heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God, they of the circumcision contended with Peter about his having gone to the house of a gentile and eaten with him. It doesn't sound like they're amazed (insane) the way those in chapter 10 were, but are just questioning him about how he could do something that for so many years had been forbidden. Peter rehearses what had transpired, and these Jews just basically held their peace and accepted what God was doing among the gentiles. They had questions, but not the insane amazement that we see in the previous chapter. They didn't even react directly to the fact that the Gentiles had received the word of God, but talked about going to the house and eating.

[Edited on 4-19-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Robin (Apr 19, 2005)

Hey There, Bob,

If we rise up to a more "aerial" view of the NT....the tension between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christian comes from (as Scott is explaining) the inherent incredulity of the Jews that Gentiles are indeed being grafted into God's (spiritual) Temple--not only is the concept exasperating; the Gentiles gross-out the Jews by eating disgusting things (unkosher)---doing disgusting things like sexual impropriety (Gentiles had no notion of the 10 Commandments; Moses; covenant, et al.) It goes on and on....this is much of the backdrop behind Corinthians, Romans, James, Etc. A variety of tensions prevailed in the NT churches due to the cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles. We're simply out of touch with this awareness and must carefully read the NT books with the aforementioned situation in mind.

Stand back and ponder WHY the Judaizers were jealous of Titus? The whole argument about circumcision (Jews/Gentiles) comes from the utter disgust (and pride) on the Jews part towards the Gentile converts.

Don't worry about verses --- read large chunks and/or the entire letters in order. 



R.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

Robin,
Thanks for the excellent advice. I appreciate it and will heed what you say.
Bob


----------



## Robin (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> I think the point I'm trying to make is that their strong reaction was because they had seen the Shekinah glory appearing outside the boundaries of Israel (as Gill and Henry mention), not because the Gentiles were getting saved. Did the Jews react to and resist the idea of gentiles being saved just like the Jews? Yes, definitely, but I'm just saying this amazed, insane reaction was because of something different.
> 
> ...



Some more thoughts: the Shekinah glory was not present in Acts 2---nobody sees that and lives, Btw.

Here is what the Geneva commentary says about Acts 2:


2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with *c* other tongues, as the *d* Spirit gave them utterance. 

(*c* He calls them "other tongues" which were not the same as the apostles commonly used, and Mark calls them "new tongues". 
(d) By this we understand that the apostles were not speaking one language and then another by chance at random, or as eccentric men used to do, but that they kept in mind the languages of their hearers: and to be short, that they only spoke as the Holy Spirit directed them to speak. 

2:8 *e* And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 

(*e* Not that they spoke one language, and different languages were heard, but the apostles spoke with different languages: for otherwise the miracle would have been in the hearers, whereas it is really in the speakers; Nazianzen in his oration of Whitsunday. 

2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, *f* Jews and proselytes, 

(*f* By Jews he means those that were *both* Jews by *birth and* Jews by *profession* of religion, though they were born in other places: and these latter ones were proselytes, who were *born* Gentiles, and embraced the Jewish religion. 

2:12*2* And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 

(*2*) God´s word pierces some in such a way that it drives them to seek out the truth, and it so chokes others that it forces them to be witnesses of their own impudency. 

2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Robin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 19, 2005)

Here's a simple question: What scripture was Peter quoting? Joel? Where in the world do we come up with gentile people in this statement????


----------



## blhowes (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Here's a simple question: What scripture was Peter quoting? Joel? Where in the world do we come up with gentile people in this statement????


Looking just at Acts 2 and Joel alone, I don't think we could conclude that Peter was talking about gentiles - just as I don't think we could conclude either that 'you and your children' is referring to Christians and their children (just by looking at those two passages)


----------



## Robin (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Are you guys kidding???? Peter would have been taught (as a Jew) the covenants from birth. He -- sinful as he was ---- would be familiar (more than we) with all the covenant language of the OT. Genesis 17 matters?.......or not? OY! 

R.


----------



## Robin (Apr 20, 2005)

Acts 2 Review and Thoughts about Covenant Signs/Seals

Peter speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit:



> 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel






> 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams



Peter setting forth the truth of God against the false accusations of men, shows in himself and in his companions that the prophecy of Joel concerning the full giving of the Holy Spirit in the latter days has been fulfilled: and this grace is also offered to the whole Church, to the certain and undoubted destruction of those who condemn it. 
All without exception, both upon the Jews and Gentiles. That is, men.[/b] 

2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 

The most important use of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit is to bring men to salvation by faith. 

2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 

2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the s pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 

As David foretold, Christ did not only rise again, but also was void of all decay in the grave. 

2:27 Because thou wilt not t leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 

2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 

2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 

Refers to Covenant-God swears the oath 2 Samuel 7:12, 13

2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 

Peter witnesses that Jesus Christ is the appointed everlasting King which he manifestly proves by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of David--pointing to covenant fulfillment 

2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 

2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ 

Christ is said to be "made" because he was advanced to that dignity, and therefore it is not spoken with reference to his nature, but with reference to his position as Covenant Mediator-King

2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Repentance and remission of sins in Christ are two principles of the Gospel and therefore of our salvation: and they are obtained by the promises apprehended by faith, and are *ratified* by baptism as we enter the "new covenant" 

2:39 For the *promise* is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 

Covenant promise-oath....to any/all God will call


A heavy thought:

How come it is a "New" and better covenant if it does NOT include 
children (same as the Old covenant did?)


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

Keep the pressure on - you've got me thinking. 

Question: In the phrase "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off", do you think the term "afar off" is referring to somebody that's geographically afar off or covenantally afar off?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 20, 2005)

Bob,
Read the whole book of Joel. That will answer your question.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Keep the pressure on - you've got me thinking.
> 
> Question: In the phrase "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off", do you think the term "afar off" is referring to somebody that's geographically afar off or covenantally afar off?




I believe this could be taken in conjunction with "The ends of the Earth" statements of out Lord.

I do not believe their is ONE dogmatic answer for this phrase.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

Peter is speaking to unbelievers and not to Christian parents. He is telling convicted sinners how to be saved, not giving believing parents the assurance that their children are "in the covenant." The "you" in the phrase "the promise is unto you" are unbelievers asking what they must do to be saved. In the very next verse (40), Peter exhorts these unsaved people to "save yourselves from this untoward generation." How can an exhortation to lost sinners to trust Christ be turned into a promise to Christian parents that their children are in a special covenantal relationship with God?


The children of believers have no more unique promise in this text than do those who "are afar off" (the heathen). Peter understood the gospel promise of whosoever in Joel to include three distinct groups. The promise that "whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved" is given to the following persons:

(1) To "you", unconverted and convicted sinners; and the same promise is to

(2) "Your children, " if they will repent and believe; and likewise the same promise is to

(3) "All who are afar off" in heathen Gentile lands, if they will also repent and believe the same gospel.


The last phrase "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" must be applied to all three categories mentioned in the text. Peter is saying, "as many as God shall call from among you, shall call from among your children, and shall call from among the heathen afar off." It is the sovereign effectual call of God in all three categories that determines the true objects of the promise. The one and only thing that determines whether a person is either "in" or "under" grace is the eternal election of God, and the only thing that proves it in time is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. Being "under a covenant of grace" has nothing at all to do with physical birth. We must not destroy the universal offer of the gospel of God's free grace by turning it into a supposed "covenant of grace" given exclusively to Christian parents and "their seed." We also must not overthrow the doctrine of sovereign election by making the physical children of believers to be in a special spiritual category before God though physical birth and baptism.

A birth certificate proving you were born in the right home does make you a covenant child. I repeat, this text of Scripture promises just as much to a "pagan" child who is "afar off" as it does to a so called "covenant child" born in a Christian home. The "promise" in Acts 2:39 is given equally to the pagans, to the hearers, and to their children.


The people addressed in Acts 2:39 are still unbelievers in vs. 40, and they themselves get converted and baptized in vs. 41. It is exegetically impossible to make Acts 2:39 refer to Christian parents. Such a gross misuse of a text of Scripture is only possible by totally misunderstanding the "promise made to Abraham and his seed."



The gospel of grace is to be preached to "whosoever believeth," not just one nationality or group and their physical children. There is no such thing as a "covenant community" inclusive of all "physical" children now that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. No one group any longer has any special claim or privilege because of birth. There is only ONE status before God - GUILTY, regardless of who your parents are, and there is only ONE gospel message to every guilty sinner - REPENT and BELIEVE. This is the one message we must preach to the children of believers as well as the children of unbelievers




Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 20, 2005)

Jospeph,
Why do we talk past each other? All I see here is people offering opinion. Please read the book of Joel; see the quote Peter makes in light of Joel, and show me how he is referencing gentiles.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 20, 2005)

Remember that Peter does also quote from several psalms in that sermon, even more than he does Joel.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jospeph,
> Why do we talk past each other? All I see here is people offering opinion. Please read the book of Joel; see the quote Peter makes in light of Joel, and show me how he is referencing gentiles.




I thought the above post shows that Scott. hahahaha

What Peter is declaring is this: Just as all men without exception ("covenant" children included) are guilty lost sinners who need to be saved, so all men without exception ("covenant" children included and no "non"“covenant" children excluded) are freely invited in the one gospel of grace to believe and be saved. Peter is showing that the gospel message is now to all men without exception and not just for the Jews. There is now only one category of lost people before God. No one is physically either inside or outside of a special covenantal category by birth. There is only one gospel message, and that one message is for all men without distinction or exception. You do not have unregenerate "pagan" children and unregenerate "covenant" children with different promises for each group. There is one gospel for all lost sinners.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Is this what Joel meant?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Remember that Peter does also quote from several psalms in that sermon, even more than he does Joel.



How does this change what Joel meant?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 20, 2005)

It means that there is more context to the sermon of Peter. But the question is better put: what is there in Joel that makes it _exclusive _to Jews?

Calvin comments:



> But what he meant was, that the worship of God would be universal among all nations. The same thing is intended by Joel when he says, I shall pour forth my Spirit upon all flesh: your old men shall dreams dream, and your young men shall visions see. We now see the whole meaning of the Prophet.



Especially in light of the similar language in Ezekiel 47, and Isaiah 59 and other such passages that have a *clear *universal aspect to it (even mentioning the Gentiles/the nations by name?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Peter is speaking to unbelievers and not to Christian parents. He is telling convicted sinners how to be saved, not giving believing parents the assurance that their children are "in the covenant." The "you" in the phrase "the promise is unto you" are unbelievers asking what they must do to be saved. In the very next verse (40), Peter exhorts these unsaved people to "save yourselves from this untoward generation." How can an exhortation to lost sinners to trust Christ be turned into a promise to Christian parents that their children are in a special covenantal relationship with God?



Joseph, you have created a false dichotomy. Peter is telling convicted sinners how to be saved, AND he gives believing parents that their children are in the covenant, just as children have *always* been included in the covenant along with their believing parents.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The children of believers have no more unique promise in this text than do those who "are afar off" (the heathen). Peter understood the gospel promise of whosoever in Joel to include three distinct groups. The promise that "whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved" is given to the following persons:
> 
> (1) To "you", unconverted and convicted sinners; and the same promise is to
> ...



To make this conclusion, you have to ignore the entire context of the book of Joel from which Peter quotes.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The last phrase "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" must be applied to all three categories mentioned in the text. Peter is saying, "as many as God shall call from among you, shall call from among your children, and shall call from among the heathen afar off."





> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> It is the sovereign effectual call of God in all three categories that determines the true objects of the promise.



The "call" in Acts 2:39 is NOT God's effectual, inward, electing call. As I pointed out in my original post, Luke uses this Greek word for call 14 times in Luke/Acts, and *never* uses it in the sense of God's "effectual call". You are confusing the writings of Luke and Paul. To assume that Luke meant "effectual call" here is special pleading. Luke never used that word in that way. Luke is not Paul.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The one and only thing that determines whether a person is either "in" or "under" grace is the eternal election of God, and the only thing that proves it in time is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. Being "under a covenant of grace" has nothing at all to do with physical birth.



Really? The Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia". And in Acts 7:38, Luke uses this specific word to describe Israel. The nation of Israel was the church of the Old Testament, and included both believers and unbelievers, just like the visible church today does. And ALL people in the church were in covenant with God, whether they were saved or not. Likewise today, all church members are in covenant with God, whether they are saved or not.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> We must not destroy the universal offer of the gospel of God's free grace by turning it into a supposed "covenant of grace" given exclusively to Christian parents and "their seed."



You are confusing categories here. The universal offer of God's grace includes an invitation into the covenant. All true Christians are also covenant members. And there are also some covenant members who are not Christians. Think of it as concentric circles: The big outer circle is "humanity", and includes all people everywhere. Within that circle is the "covenant of grace", and includes all members of the visible church. The circle within that is made up of the "elect", and includes all who are regenerate, who will ultimately go to Heaven. 

You can be a member of humanity without being one of the elect, but you cannot be elect without being a member of humanity. Likewise, you can be under the covenant of grace without being saved, but you cannot be saved without being under the covenant of grace.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> We also must not overthrow the doctrine of sovereign election by making the physical children of believers to be in a special spiritual category before God though physical birth and baptism.



If you are correct, then the apostle Paul was very confused. In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul says that the children of believers are "holy", whereas children of unbelieving parents are "unclean". Also in Malachi 2:15, God expresses His desire for the "holy seed" that come about via Christian parents.

You also need to revisit Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and Romans 11. An unbeliever can be under the covenant, while other believers are left outside the covenant. An unbeliever can be part of the tree of Romans 11. And according to Hebrews 6 & 10, covenant members:
* are enlightened
* have tasted of the heavenly gift
* are made partakers of the Holy Ghost
* have tasted the good word of God
* have tasted of the powers of the world to come
* have received the knowledge of the truth
* are sanctified by the blood of the covenant

These are more blessings than I would want to shake a stick at.
And think about it: Are unsaved children enlightened at all? Have they tasted the good word of God? Have they received knowledge of the truth?
Are they sanctified (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14)? I would say that the answer to each question is "Yes". The children of believers are beneficiaries of the covenant in ways that the unchurched children of unbelieving parents are not. Covenantal membership does NOT merely entail "potential"
blessings.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> What Peter is declaring is this: Just as all men without exception ("covenant" children included) are guilty lost sinners who need to be saved, so all men without exception ("covenant" children included and no "non"“covenant" children excluded) are freely invited in the one gospel of grace to believe and be saved. Peter is showing that the gospel message is now to all men without exception and not just for the Jews. There is now only one category of lost people before God. No one is physically either inside or outside of a special covenantal category by birth. There is only one gospel message, and that one message is for all men without distinction or exception. You do not have unregenerate "pagan" children and unregenerate "covenant" children with different promises for each group. There is one gospel for all lost sinners.
> 
> Joseph



And that one gospel has always been the same. That one message has ALWAYS been for all men without distinction. There has ALWAYS been one gospel for all lost sinners. It was NEVER "just for the Jews".

You are incorrect when you say, "There is now only one category of lost people before God." In the Old Testament, there were lost people outside of Israel (outside the covenant), and there were lost people inside Israel (inside the covenant). But all believers were inside the covenant. In the New Testament, there are lost people outside the church (outside the covenant), and there are lost people inside the church (inside the covenant). But all believers are inside the church.

You are also incorrect when you say, "You do not have unregenerate 'pagan' children and unregenerate 'covenant' children with different promises for each group."
--- If you think you are correct here, then you need to deal with 1 Corinthians 7:14, Malachi 2:15, Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10, for starters. All of those passages contradict your views.

Joseph, I'm not ticked at you at all, so if I come across that way (which I often do), please accept my apologies. I tend to be a little strong-willed and overbearing. I myself would have agreed wholeheartedly with you just a few months ago. I have been a Calvinist for about 2-3 years, but only recently have realized that covenant theology is biblical, and have wholeheartedly embraced it.

If any of my comments above are too strong, please just take them with a grain of salt. You and I are both trying to understand the Scriptures, and to apply them correctly. May the Lord help our "iron to sharpen iron" on this issue.

Blessings,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> The "call" in Acts 2:39 is NOT God's effectual, inward, electing call. As I pointed out in my original post, Luke uses this Greek word for call 14 times in Luke/Acts, and *never* uses it in the sense of God's "effectual call".


Is there any way to tell from the greek word itself that its not talking about the inward, electing call? Is there a greek word which, if used here, would strongly teach that Peter's talking about the inward call - or does context dictate its meaing?

(I had mentioned in an earlier post that the word epikaleomai seemed like a likely candidate, since it was used in some verses (Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13) to indicate the salvation-type calling, but then that same word was used elsewhere (Acts 10:5,18) to just indicate one person calling for another)

I don't know greek, but it seems like just looking at the greek word used doesn't really show anything. It seems that you could only tell by looking at its context.

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




Peter was not only parroting Joel. He knew the promise Scott. He took Joel and included the promise in it. Joel specifically intended to announce that this blessing was to fall on the Gentiles as well as the Jews.



Joseph


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bob,
> Read the whole book of Joel. That will answer your question.


Is there something specific that you see that rules out gentiles? I read it through, and found:

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon *all flesh*; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 

which seems to say that its not restricted to just the Jews, and I found:

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the *remnant whom the LORD shall call*. 

which seems to say that its restricted to just the Jews.

Is this what you were referring to, or should I keep looking?



> _Originally posted by Fred_
> Remember that Peter does also quote from several psalms in that sermon, even more than he does Joel.


Thanks for this "useful tidbit".


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It means that there is more context to the sermon of Peter. But the question is better put: what is there in Joel that makes it _exclusive _to Jews?



Joel directs his prophecy to the inhabitants of the "land" (of Israel) in 1:2, 1:6, 1:14, 2:1, and 2:18 . . .

Joel specifically addresses "Zion" in 2:15 and 2:23 . . .

Joel makes a distinction between God's "heritage" - His "people" (Israel) and the Gentiles (the nations) in 2:17 and 2:19 . . .

Joel directly addresses his audience as "Israel" in 2:27.

And then the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 comes on the scene, with all of this "land", "heritage", "peope", "Zion", "Israel" language as the backdrop. This prophecy is *definitely* being made to Israel, and not to the nations in general.

Israel had been consistently addressed, all the way up to 2:27. Then in 2:28, God makes a prophecy about *your* sons, daughters, old men, and young men. The word "your" must be in reference to Israel. And nothing changes this fact all the way down to 2:32.

Then, _immediately_ after the prophecy, Joel 3:1 says, "For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of *Judah* and *Jerusalem*,"
--- Does that sound like Gentile inclusion? I don't think so!

The next verse, Joel 3:2, then says this: "I will gather all the *nations* and bring them down to the valley of Jehosh'aphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there, on account of my people and my heritage *Israel*, because they have scattered them among the nations, and have divided up my land,"

--- Notice 3 things in that verse:

1) There is a distinction made between Israel and the nations.
2) The nations are *judged* here, not included with Israel's Joel 3:1 blessing.
3) Joel _specifically_ mentions the fact that many Israelites are _scattered_ throughout the nations. And this verse occurs only 2 verses after Joel 2:32, which has the "as many as the Lord shall call" passage. This lends further credence to the fact that Joel (and thus Peter) were talking about God's calling of scattered Jews, and not God's calling of Gentiles.

Joel 3:4 definitely seems to look at 3 of the Gentile nations differently than Israel. I don't see Gentile inclusion here.

Joel 3:6 is just as strong.

In fact, look at all the rest of Joel 3. It is very Israel-centered.


I'll close with Joel's last word's in his book:

[16] And the LORD roars from *Zion*, and utters his voice from *Jerusalem*, and the heavens and the earth shake. But the LORD is a refuge to *his people*, a stronghold to the *people of Israel*.
[17] "So you shall know that I am the LORD your God,
who dwell in *Zion*, my holy mountain. And *Jerusalem* shall be holy and strangers shall never again pass through it. 
[18] "And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the stream beds of *Judah* shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the valley of Shittim.
[19] "*Egypt shall become a desolation and Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done to the people of Judah*, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.
[20] But *Judah* shall be inhabited for ever, and *Jerusalem* to all generations. 
[21] I will avenge their blood, and I will not clear the guilty, for the LORD dwells in *Zion*."

I agree that Gentile inclusion was revealed in the Old Testament. But I don't agree that it was in the book of Joel. And it wasn't revealed in Acts 2 either, In my humble opinion.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 20, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BibleLighthouse_
> ...



You missed my point entirely. Do you know what the philosophical term "special pleading" means? It means that the person making an argument is assigning special meaning to a term in one place, to support his argument, even though he would not allow the same definition to apply to the same term elsewhere. I was accusing *you* of special pleading, not Peter. 

I repeat: The Greek word used for "call" in Acts 2:39 was used by Luke 14 times in Luke/Acts. And Luke *never* used the word "call" in the way you are using it. Luke didn't use the word "call" in the same way that the apostle Paul did. So if *you* argue that "call" means "effectual call" in Acts 2:39, then I believe *you* are guilty of special pleading.






> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The one and only thing that determines whether a person is either "in" or "under" grace is the eternal election of God, and the only thing that proves it in time is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. Being "under a covenant of grace" has nothing at all to do with physical birth.



You need to go back and re-read Genesis 17, and Deuteronomy, and all the passages in the OT and NT that address covenant breaking. How can a person be a "covenant breaker" if they were never in the covenant to begin with? How can branches be "cut off" the covenantal tree in Romans 11 if they were never attached to the tree to begin with. How can the reprobate have "left us" in 1 John 2:19 if they were never "with us" to begin with? That is like saying that a person can be "divorced" without having ever been "married". It is nonsense. OF COURSE many reprobate people have been in covenant with God, and many reprobate people are currently under God's covenant. If not, then there would be no covenant breakers!



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Here is a classic illustration concerning Biblical terminology versus phrases like "covenant of grace."



You know, the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, but I still believe in it. Do you have some "Biblical terminology" for the Trinity? Or do you use the word "Trinity"? There is nothing wrong with using a term such as "covenant of grace", as long as the truth it represents is taught in the Bible. And from Genesis 3:15 through Revelation, the covenant of grace is of key importance.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> How can one be in the Covenant and not be in the Covenant? This is a thought I have never heard before. The reprobate were never included in the covenant.



I never said that anyone can be "in the Covenant and not be in the Covenant". That is nonsense. You are putting words in my mouth. 

You can be in the covenant, but not be _regenerate_. Being "regenerate" is NOT the same as being a covenant member. It never meant that in the OT, and it doesn't mean that in the NT, either.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Joseph, if you conclude in one area that there is only ONE Gospel, then how can it be different for different groups? THis makes no sense and appears to widen the understandign to which it was neve intended.



I never said that the Gospel can be different for different groups. You are putting words in my mouth again. 

Let me repeat: Being regenerate is NOT the same as being in the covenant. Those are two different terms with very different meanings.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> I believe there is some good to CT, but I also believe it is not completely perfect. I have become the opposite of you. I stared out 100% CT, and now am being moved in a different direction. I believe those in the Covenant are those Called by God and regenerated. Physical descendants are not guaranteed to be elect in any sense. SOme have believed this, but wrongly.



No covenant theologian I know of, including myself, would EVER say that physical descendants are guaranteed to be elect. I never said that, and I have never heard any covenant theologian say that. 

Because of the numerous terms that you obviously misunderstand my statements and put words in my mouth, it sounds to me like you never really understood CT in the first place. You don't understand what CT teaches, and that is why you think you are rejecting CT. But you are not really rejecting CT. You are rejecting your faulty _misinterpretation_ of CT.

Covenant theologians do not believe that anyone can be both "in the covenant" and "out of the covenant". And Covenant theologians do not believe that the children of believers are guaranteed to be elect. I have never heard a CT guy teach either of these things.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



I think people are getting their "Covenants" confused. We must make a distinction between the Covenant of Grace (the visible church - those who profess the gospel and their children) and the Covenant of redemption (the elect). 

The Covenant we are speaking of is the Covenant of Grace, which includes elect and reprobate alike.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 20, 2005)

*Romans 1:28* And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a *reprobate mind*, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers*, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




How does Grace have anything to do with the reprobate? The reprobate have absolutely no part of grace.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



This statement makes me think that your concept of the Covenant of Grace is different from the Reformed concept.

Chapter VII
Of God's Covenant with Man

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]


Surely you would say that offers sinners life by the gospel, and yet some of these who hear the gospel are reprobate.

Faith is the condition of the covenant of grace, the reprobate don't meet that condition.

Christ's active and passive obedience are the only conditions of the covenant of redemption.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 20, 2005)

If the reprobate have no part of grace, then who does?


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Let me first say Joseph, since I am at work, I do not have time to respond to your lenghtly posts. SO in the amount of time I shall allot. I will say this.

I have studied CT. And what you are espousing is exactly what I have become disagreable with.

I am not arguing anything about "the call" It says what it says. The whole of Peters sermin is telling unregenerate sinners who have been pricked by the spirit what to do. It is simple. To do linguistic gymnastics is nto necessary nor intended. IT is only done when attempting to speak of children of the cov and infant baptism.

The Covenant of the purpose of God in Christ for His elect cannot be broken Joseph. The Covenant at Sinai could most certainly be broken. These were the branches cut off.

God redeemed in eternity cannot break this covenant.

The Cov of grace, as you call it, was made between the trinity, not God with Man. The Sinai Cov was made between God and Man. You should know this difference.

And please settle down with the "Theologian of the century" mentality. You may find it necessary to look in every nook and cranny of scripture to spiritualize what you want it to say, but I do not find that need Joseph. 

ANd I will repeat, Unregenerate Elect have always been in Christ from eternity. Reprobate have never been included in the Cov of Redemption or in Christ. The non elect were, are and never will be under the New Covenant Joseph. 

Again, God provided the increase and added to the church daily. This included Gentiles.


Joseph


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 20, 2005)

Joseph, was Judas a member of the New Covenant? Did Christ choose him to be his disciple and one of his inner twelve apostles?

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




How can faith be a condition? When saving faith is a gift. Let us not digress into that discussion please. But show me where God is in anywhere gracious to the reprobate in a salvific manner? DOnt use the sun and rain proof text either. That is weak.

I do nto have a concept of the eternal cov of grace as tradition espouses. I believe in the eternal purpose of God in Christ. That which was sealed in eternity for His sheep.

Again, What part of Gods grace does the reprobate enjoy?

The Gospel either hardens or converts. period. The Cov is a union with Christ. Complete and preserved for eternity..


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 20, 2005)

I'm pretty sure being allowed to live is a result of God's grace toward the reprobate. Am I wrong?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> I have studied CT. And what you are espousing is exactly what I have become disagreable with.
> 
> I am not arguing anything about "the call" It says what it says. The whole of Peters sermin is telling unregenerate sinners who have been pricked by the spirit what to do. It is simple. To do linguistic gymnastics is nto necessary nor intended. IT is only done when attempting to speak of children of the cov and infant baptism.



Joseph, with all due respect, *you* are the one doing "linguistic gymnastics", not me. I *agree* that the text "says what it says". Luke uses the word "call" here, like he does 13 other times in Luke/Acts. And *not even one* of those 13 times does the word "call" mean "effectual call". Instead of complaining to me, go look them up yourself! Luke *never* uses the word "call" that way. So when you demand that he *is* using the word that way, *you* are the one doing "linguistic gymnastics".




> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The Covenant of the purpose of God in Christ for His elect cannot be broken Joseph. The Covenant at Sinai could most certainly be broken. These were the branches cut off.



Those are not the only branches cut off. Look closely at Romans 11 again. *After* gentiles are *grafted into* the covenant tree of Romans 11, *they* can also be cut off for not "continuing in His kindness". Also, how do you reckon with Hebrews 6 and 10? These chapters definitely talk about people who are covenant members, but later become apostate, and prove themselves to be reprobate.

You are correct that the *elect* will not be covenant breakers. But the elect are NOT the only ones in covenant with God. Some of the reprobate are under the covenant of grace too. Again, consider Hebrews 6 and 10, and Romans 11. 1 Cor. 7:14 is also telling in this regard.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> God redeemed in eternity cannot break this covenant.



I agree. But I have not been talking about God's "redeemed in eternity". I don't think I ever even brought them up as a part of this discussion. I am talking about covenant members. I am not talking about the elect. There are people who are covenant members, but are not part of the elect. They will become apostate covenant breakers, and they will never be "redeemed in eternity". You keep confusing your categories, Joseph.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The Cov of grace, as you call it, was made between the trinity, not God with Man. The Sinai Cov was made between God and Man. You should know this difference.



Now I am positive that you are confused about Covenant Theology, and that you do not understand what it is. The covenant made within the Trinity (between the Father and Son) is called the "Covenant of Redemption", NOT the "Covenant of Grace."

The Covenant of Redemption ONLY included the elect as the object of saving grace. 

The Covenant of Grace includes many people, both elect AND nonelect. And ALL covenant members receive some measure of grace. But ONLY the elect receive ALL the benefits of the covenant. Only the elect ultimately go to Heaven. The nonelect members of the covenant are the ones who inherit the covenant *curses*.

Joseph, you need to stop confusing the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace. They are two very different things.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> And please settle down with the "Theologian of the century" mentality. You may find it necessary to look in every nook and cranny of scripture to spiritualize what you want it to say, but I do not find that need Joseph.



I never claimed to be a "Theologian of the century". Many of the active members on this board are FAR more theologically capable than I am. Just because I study with diligence, please do not accuse me of claiming to be something I am not. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am very saddened to hear that you do not find the need to "look in every nook and cranny of scripture" to learn what it has to say. Maybe you need to *start* doing that. It would make you better able to leave behind your false presuppositions. The only way you can hope to really understand the Bible is to look at it as a WHOLE, and not just focus in on a single text, ignoring what's going on in the rest of Scripture. You can make the Bible say almost anything you want it to when you do that. But when you look in detail at the BIG picture, and start comparing Scripture with Scripture, then you stand a better chance of being challenged in certain areas. A certain point of view may *appear* correct when you look at Acts 2 in a vacuum, but once you compare it with the book of Joel, and with the rest of Luke/Acts, the whole picture starts to change. It sounds to me like you are currently locked into a certain way of looking at the text, and you refuse to even let other passages of the Bible itself question your interpretation. Your interpretation is one of many possibile interpretations, if Acts 2 is considered by itself. But once we also look closely at Joel 2 and Luke/Acts, the picture becomes much clearer, and your view becomes impossible to logically hold.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ANd I will repeat, Unregenerate Elect have always been in Christ from eternity. Reprobate have never been included in the Cov of Redemption or in Christ. The non elect were, are and never will be under the New Covenant Joseph.



You are correct that the reprobate have never been included in the covenant of Redemption. No argument there.

But you are totally incorrect about the new covenant. Many nonelect are members of the new covenant. You need to read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10 a little more closely.

Respectfully yours,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> What part of Gods grace does the reprobate enjoy?



According to Hebrews 6 & 10, covenant members:
* are enlightened
* have tasted of the heavenly gift
* are made partakers of the Holy Ghost
* have tasted the good word of God
* have tasted of the powers of the world to come
* have received the knowledge of the truth
* are sanctified by the blood of the covenant

These are more blessings than I would want to shake a stick at.



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The Gospel either hardens or converts. period. The Cov is a union with Christ. Complete and preserved for eternity..



The Israelites in the desert were in covenant with God, AND they were partakers of Christ. Yet they were unbelievers. How do you explain that?

Looking forward to your response,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Joseph, was Judas a member of the New Covenant? Did Christ choose him to be his disciple and one of his inner twelve apostles?
> 
> [Edited on 4-20-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]



Judas was chosen for specific ordained purpose. He was not part of the Covenant. Not even close.

Just as God chose King Cyrus. And he was not part of the covenant neither


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> Now I am positive that you are confused about Covenant Theology, and that you do not understand what it is. The covenant made within the Trinity (between the Father and Son) is called the "Covenant of Redemption", NOT the "Covenant of Grace."



Where is the Holy Spirit? How can the triune Godhead be seperated like this? I have seen this error mentioned many times before.




> The Covenant of Redemption ONLY included the elect as the object of saving grace.



I agree 



> The Covenant of Grace includes many people, both elect AND nonelect. And ALL covenant members receive some measure of grace. But ONLY the elect receive ALL the benefits of the covenant. Only the elect ultimately go to Heaven. The nonelect members of the covenant are the ones who inherit the covenant *curses*.



What grace? I guess you are espousing common grace, of which I do not agree with. Benefits of Gods providence cannot be confused with grace. When the writers speak of Grace in the Writ, this is always done out of love, not for any other reason



> Joseph, you need to stop confusing the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace. They are two very different things.



I agree, And I do nto believe I am confusing them. I am just lookign for when the COG wsa cut historically. And i believe the bible lacks this pertinent info.





> But you are totally incorrect about the new covenant. Many nonelect are members of the new covenant. You need to read Romans 11, Hebrews 6, and Hebrews 10 a little more closely.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> Joseph M. Gleason



Joseph I have read them. And your reasoning makes the covenant conditional. This is the problem I have. I have read many writing on those scriptures and do nto agree with many of them. Those in Romans 11, those in Hebrews were not part of the covenant. How can one leave a covenant that was not made with them but with Christ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are confusing the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace again. The Covenant of Redemption was made within the Trinity, not between God and man. The Covenant of Grace was made between God and man, not within the Trinity.

A person cannot leave the covenant the Father made with Christ. That is the Covenant of Redemption. 

A person CAN break the Covenant of Grace, because that covenant was made between God and man.


You said that "those in Hebrews were not part of the covenant."

Then please explain this passage in Hebrews 10:

"How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the *covenant* by which *he was sanctified*, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29)

According to Hebrews 10:29, a person can be sanctified by the blood of the *covenant*, and yet still be an apostate covenant breaker.

Please respond to Hebrews 10:29.

Thank you,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm pretty sure being allowed to live is a result of God's grace toward the reprobate. Am I wrong?



Long suffering does not equal grace. A stay of execution does not equal grace.

They are allowed to live for His purpose only.

Does that mean those who live longer get more of Gods grace? An elect infant who dies does nto receive as much grace as a 100 yr old reprobate?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

Lamb,

The Covenant of Grace is not to say that Grace is given to all the members of the covenant. I deny *common grace* proper as you know (but affirm indiscriminate providence).

The Covenant of Grace is where grace is OFFERED. See WCF above. Your definition of this covenant drastically differs from that of the Confession.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

Joseph. Hebrews 10:29 speaks of an outward sanctification by attending to the sacraments. 

These were never regenerated by the Spirit.

A professor, a tree with no fruit. These will be cut because they are not in Union with Christ.


Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Lamb,
> 
> The Covenant of Grace is not to say that Grace is given to all the members of the covenant. I deny *common grace* proper as you know (but affirm indiscriminate providence).
> ...



Indiscriminate providence I agree with. God is gracious in ALL HE does. But this does not equate showing a loving salvific grace to the reprobate.

I do not believe grace is offered to the reprobate. I believe it is presented, but not offered.

To tell a person Jesus died for you specifically isa error I believe. Not one I would break fellowship over.


The reprobate have a duty to believe, yet are not given the ability. Hence the "offer" is gracious in an of itself, but not to the reprobate because they have no liking towrds it.

For instance, I make a mean Pasta Alfredo. It is awesome. hahahhaa

If you dont like it, that does not make it a bad dish.

So Gods grace is shown, but the reprobate have no liking towards it, but that does not make it any less gracious of God.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Joseph. Hebrews 10:29 speaks of an outward sanctification by attending to the sacraments.
> 
> These were never regenerated by the Spirit.
> ...



You are correct. And I never said anything about them being "regenerated by the Spirit". 

My point is that these people were in covenant with God, but were not regenerated by the Spirit. They were covenant breakers.

Also, please respond to Romans 11. The Gentiles were grafted in, and were thereby in covenant with God. However, some of the Gentiles who were grafted in are later cut off. This is another example of unregenerate people being in covenant with God.

Additionally, consider 1 Corinthians 10. The Israelites in the desert were partakers of Christ. Nevertheless, many of them were unbelievers who committed apostasy, and God was displeased with them and put them to death in the desert.

Please respond to Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 10. In both cases, unregenerate people are *clearly* in covenant with God. (Otherwise, how could covenant breakers even exist?)

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




I am not equating and outward form of Godliness with being in the covenant in the true sense. Again, I do not see scripture speaking in this way either. For the Covenant made with Christ has His speical elect only. Now the Cov at Sinai was for all of Israel. 

Again, being cut off, does not hint of being cut off from the covenant Joseph. How could it? That means the Cov can be broken by a perosn who did nto raitify it.


----------



## Robin (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_





And....guys....God only deals with people C O V E N A N T A L L Y. Peter (Joel, et al) are pointing to the New Covenant.

Think Covenant....not individually. God works through FAMILIES. Always has; always will. God's people are a Covenant People.

Robin



[Edited on 4-20-2005 by Robin]


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



WHo is thinking individually Robin? Who are Gods people then? Are the reprobate?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> I am not equating and outward form of Godliness with being in the covenant in the true sense. Again, I do not see scripture speaking in this way either. For the Covenant made with Christ has His speical elect only. Now the Cov at Sinai was for all of Israel.
> 
> Again, being cut off, does not hint of being cut off from the covenant Joseph. How could it? That means the Cov can be broken by a perosn who did nto raitify it.




Ok, let's back WAY up. . . 

1) What is your definition of a "covenant"? 

2) Why do you believe that a person's covenant with God cannot be broken? 

3) And if it cannot be broken, then why does God bother to include so many warnings to covenant breakers? If all covenant members are covenant keepers, then why bother putting so many warnings in the Bible?

4) In the entire Bible, where do you see anything that says the Covenant is for God's "special elect only" ?

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> WHo is thinking individually Robin? Who are Gods people then? Are the reprobate?




Yes, the God *specifcally* calls some of the reprobate "His people".

Look at Hebrews 10, for example:

[29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 
[30] For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge *his people*."

Joseph, you already agreed with me that the people in Hebrews 10 are reprobate, and are not elect.

And yet we can clearly see in Hebrews 10:30 that these reprobate are "his people" [God's people].

So yes, some of the reprobate are "God's people", if those people are in covenant with Him.

The covenant is conditional. But God grants perseverance to the elect so that they will never become apostate covenant breakers.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Indiscriminate providence I agree with. God is gracious in ALL HE does. But this does not equate showing a loving salvific grace to the reprobate.



I agree



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> I do not believe grace is offered to the reprobate. I believe it is presented, but not offered.



I disagree



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> To tell a person Jesus died for you specifically isa error I believe. Not one I would break fellowship over.



Nobody is suggesting that. I think it ridiculous to present the gospel by "Jesus died for you." We can't know that for sure. We can say, "Jesus died for sinners." By offer, I mean what the WCF says, "If you believe, then"¦."



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The reprobate have a duty to believe, yet are not given the ability. Hence the "offer" is gracious in an of itself, but not to the reprobate because they have no liking towrds it.
> 
> For instance, I make a mean Pasta Alfredo. It is awesome. hahahhaa
> ...



This analogy is good. Let's work with that. You offer me (let's say I'm a reprobate for discussions sake) some of your *mean* Alfredo. I hate Alfredo. You know I hate it. You know I won't accept it. In fact, you hate ME! Yet you still offer me your Alfredo. WHY? You offer me your Alfredo KNOWING I won't accept it, KNOWING I hate it, KNOWING that I will reject it SIMPLY to HARDEN MY HEART!!!!!!

Because you have offered this to me, I will hate you all the more, I will despise your offer and my hatred of Alfredo will only increase. This is not grace. Grace has intention. It is unmerited FAVOR. You are not offering me your Alfredo because you want to favor me, or bless me, but you want to harden my heart through the offer.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 20, 2005)

> This analogy is good. Let's work with that. You offer me (let's say I'm a reprobate for discussions sake) some of your *mean* Alfredo. I hate Alfredo. You know I hate it. You know I won't accept it. In fact, you hate ME! Yet you still offer me your Alfredo. WHY? You offer me your Alfredo KNOWING I won't accept it, KNOWING I hate it, KNOWING that I will reject it SIMPLY to HARDEN MY HEART!!!!!!
> 
> Because you have offered this to me, I will hate you all the more, I will despise your offer and my hatred of Alfredo will only increase. This is not grace. Grace has intention. It is unmerited FAVOR. You are not offering me your Alfredo because you want to favor me, or bless me, but you want to harden my heart through the offer.




Well we agree then Jeff....

My point of contention is to say, as Joseph alludes to, that the reprobate are part of the New Covenant, this is a terrible error. This makes Christs blood a waste. He only shed His blood for those IN the Covenant. Not one drop was shed in vain. So when you disagreed with me saying it is not offered, I meant it is not an offer with Favor attached to it. 


Joseph


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

I didn't mean FAVOR, I meant Matt 22:1-15. We still disagree that unregenerate people can be in covenant as defined by WCF (see above). The Covenant of Redemption (the one you are talking about) I agree, it is salvific, unregenerates are NOT IN.

I am just using the WCF terminology.

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2005)

Thread split; keep on topic.

Go here to continue w/ your definitions:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10631

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

