Paul and The Philosophers at Athens

[FHII]

This was a city that was full of idol worship, which caused Paul’s spirit to be provoked within him. He immediately began by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection (because he preached to them Jesus and the Resurrection, v.18). In response to the inscription, “To an Unknown god”, Paul used this to tell them about the One True God of the Holy Bible, and the real Hope that there is for all sinners, in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In verses 26-27, Paul tells these:

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us”

Paul tells these that they “should seek the Lord”. That is, ζητέω, to “seek after, desire, investigate, to feel the want of”. Then we have the interesting Greek word, “ψηλαφάω”, used, which means, “feel or grope about to find a thing, like a blind man”. Why all of this, if sinners have been “elected to salvation”, and are meant to DO nothing? This is what the Lord Jesus says in Luke 14:24, “Make every effort (strive) to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able”. If the Reformed/Calvinistic teaching is Biblical, then these passages in the Bible will not be there!

Paul goes on to tell these,

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, “because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by braising Him from the dead.” (30-31)

Paul addresses these words to all those who were listening to him, not some select few, as some wrongly teach. God, says Paul, now demands that ALL humans EVERYWHERE must repent of their sins, because ALL will face the Lord for Judgement some day.

We are told in verse 32, that “some mocked” at the preaching of Paul, and others told him they would hear him again. And some men and women “joined him and believed”, the Gospel. In chapter 28 we read of the encounter that Paul had with some Jews, where it says, “And some believed by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.” (24). Again, it is clear from what the Bible says, that a sinner who hears the Gospel Message, might “believe” in what is preached, while others are not interested. They have a choice, not as some falsely teach, that God chooses their salvation for them! He also “repents and believes” on their behalf! These are perversions of the Gospel Message.

As with the people of Nineveh, who were very wicked and caused great harm to the Jews at that time, yet God in His Great Mercy and Compassion and Love, sent the Prophet Jonah to tell them the Great News of their salvation! Likewise, here in Acts 17, God saws these wretched, lost people who were “given to idol” worship, and sent the Apostle Paul with the Gospel of Hope, so that these could also “repent and believe”, and have eternal life. However, there are always some moaners, like in the time or Jonah, and now with the so called “Reformed”, who see that Greatness of God’s Salvation for the entire human race, do, like Jonah did, say to the Lord at least in their hearts:

“But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm. “Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for bit is better or me to die than to live!” (Jonah 4:1-3)

This so much describes the “Reformed/Calvinist”, who always try to find verses that don’t exist in the Bible, for their favorite flower, the TULIP!

All the thought and work that went into this... Just to take a swipe at one particular group?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

All the thought and work that went into this... Just to take a swipe at one particular group?

to show that there are "Evangelical" groups that teach a Gospel that is very much unbiblical. So you think what I have said to be wrong? then please free to have a "swipe" at me.

 

[CadyandZoe]

the whole point of the OP is to show that the Gospel is freely available to every single human being, because Jesus died for their sins. Maybe it is not clear to you, as you say.

Revelation 22:14-17

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

Why does Jesus often use the expression, "he who has ears, let him hear?" There are at least two possible explanations: 1) some people have ears, while others don't; or 2) everyone has ears so let everyone hear. In Revelation 22:17 Jesus adds a qualification: "let the one who is thirsty come." This case presupposes that some will not be thirsty. And so, while the offer is free to anyone who wants it, the offer is only relevant to those who are thirsty. Those who are not thirsty, the offer is uninteresting, trivial, not worth investigating.

My point is this. While we can certainly agree that the offer is available to everyone, our discussion shouldn't stop there lest we come away with an incomplete picture.

Surely you have wondered, as I have, why someone would reject such a great thing? The Bible answers that question. Some people have hearts of stone. Can God give someone a heart transplant? If so, why doesn't he?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Firstly, I do not agree with either nouns ἱλαστήριον (Rom 3.25), and ἱλασμός (1 Jn 2:2), have anything to do with God the Father being "appeased" by the Death of Jesus Christ, as though both Persons in the Godhead were in some conflict with each other.

I don't either. The enmity is between God and man.

Secondly, I believe that the Death of Jesus Christ was "potential", and not "actual".

Based on what?

Thirdly, the ONLY Biblical Teaching of the Death of Jesus Christ, is Penal Substitution, whereby a sinner is Justified by His Death, upon their confessions of sins, Jesus' Righteousness is "Imputed" to the sinner.

Based on what scripture? I maintain that Christ's death on the cross was not penal substitution and I argue against this theory of the atonement both philosophically and Biblically.

First, it is evil to kill some or put someone to death for a crime he didn't commit. To suggest that the Father had his own son executed instead of punishing those who perpetrated the crimes is to suggest that the Father is evil. I don't think you intend to affirm that the Father is evil, but your belief in Penal Substitution suggests otherwise.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus' death on the cross is the basis for our justification, but our justification is granted as a gift of God's grace; not as just compensation for wrongs committed. No where does the Bible teach that God is accepting payment in exchange for our salvation. Our sins are forgiven, not redressed. Justification is not forensic as many suggest. Rather, Paul describes the cross as the occasion of our reconciliation with God, where the question is, "What will it take to establish friendly relations between you and me?" Are we at peace with God or not? If not, what will it take to establish peace? What does God want?

Fourthy, you say, "It isn't as if he paid for the sins of the whole world". Which is error, because if Jesus Christ did not "purchase" by His blood, ALL of the sins of the entire human race, then no sinner can ever be saved! Rev 5:9 says, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation". "Redeemed" is in the Greek, "ἀγοράζω", which is "to buy, purchase", as Paul tells is in 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23.

The fact that Jesus' blood was the purchase price for our redemption is incontrovertible. The question is a matter of how the blood is being applied to that effect. In what way or manner does the blood purchase our redemption? The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind's sins. I would argue that this is evil and since God is not evil, he would never cause his son to suffer for another man's sins, let alone for all of mankind's sins, which is absurd on its face.

The Bible does not teach the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice. To the contrary, the Bible teaches us that divine mercy trumps (surpasses) divine justice. Romans 5:15-17 The Bible doesn't teach us that our debt to justice was fulfilled by Jesus. We are reconciled to God through an act of propitiation, which is not the payment of a debt but an appeal for divine favor in light of the debt. Our sins are forgiven, not paid.

Think about it. If the Father has, for some reason, decided that Jesus' death on the cross PAID for the sins of the entire world, then God would be unjust to damn anyone to hell. The Penal substitution theory first assumes that God is so evil that he would cause or allow an innocent person to be executed for a crime he didn't commit. Secondly, it assumes that God is so evil that he wouldn't apply this payment to all human beings, since Jesus paid the penalty for all their sins.

I think Theologians don't always think things through.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

First, it is evil to kill some or put someone to death for a crime he didn't commit. To suggest that the Father had his own son executed instead of punishing those who perpetrated the crimes is to suggest that the Father is evil. I don't think you intend to affirm that the Father is evil, but your penal substitution belief in suggests otherwise

It looks like you get your theology from someone like Steve Chalke? It is clear that you do not understand the Bible's Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ. One Scripture shows that what you have written here, as unbiblical.

"Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:4-6)

Clear that God the Father caused OUR "punishment" for OUR sins to be "punished" in Jesus Christ. As Paul says in Galatians 3:13, "hrist redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse FOR us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree". And in 2 Cor 5:21, "Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him"

Penal Substitution is the ONLY Teaching that is Bible

 

[CadyandZoe]

It looks like you get your theology from someone like Steve Chalke? It is clear that you do not understand the Bible's Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ. One Scripture shows that what you have written here, as unbiblical.

What is clear to me is that you didn't consider what I wrote or care what I said. I understand that perspective. I'll leave you to chase your dreams.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

What is clear to me is that you didn't consider what I wrote or care what I said. I understand that perspective. I'll leave you to chase your dreams.

I dealt with this first, as it is very important, especially when reading the language that you unwisely used. I see that you simply reject out of hand what the Bible very clearly says, because it goes against your "theology"! By you calling Penal Substitution a "dream", shows your igrorance of the Bible on this.

 

[FHII]

to show that there are "Evangelical" groups that teach a Gospel that is very much unbiblical. So you think what I have said to be wrong? then please free to have a "swipe" at me.

Ahh, I'm sorry, ByGraceThroughFaith... Just seems like its "pile on Calvinists" season. And yet, there are so many factions that have equally unbiblical doctrine and so many that are eager to point it out. It makes me think of the first 4-5 verses of Matt 7.

I am not in support of any false doctrine, including that of "Calvinistic/Reformers" or whatever label you assigned to them. In fact, its a pet peeve of mine to even attach Calvin's name to a doctrine he preached against! I think its a disgrace to him, and I don't even agree with everything he said!

I liked the foundation of what you wrote, but you could put a number of other groups in that and it would fit...

 

[CadyandZoe]

I dealt with this first, as it is very important, especially when reading the language that you unwisely used. I see that you simply reject out of hand what the Bible very clearly says, because it goes against your "theology"! By you calling Penal Substitution a "dream", shows your igrorance of the Bible on this.

I wasn't talking about Penal Substitution. Your "dream" is to be the dragon slayer. I'm simply acknowledging this is your dream and I am bowing out of what I thought was a discussion.

 

[Curtis]

Question: These were God's people according God's own testimony. Why didn't he perform a heart transplant on all of them from the day Moses gathered them at Mt. Sinai? And don't say, "because they were a stubborn people", because that's the point. God could have performed heart surgery on everyone from the very start, creating a nation of obedient, God-loving, God-fearing people. So why didn't he?

Because they were not given the Holy Spirit to indwell them yet. That’s promised to happen in the new covenant, not the old.

In the new covenant God puts His spirit within His people.

The old covenant was deliberately a yoke of burden to contrast trying to earn righteousness by keeping 613 laws with the new covenant with faith, grace, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Shalom.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because they were not given the Holy Spirit to indwell them yet. That’s promised to happen in the new covenant, not the old.

In the new covenant God puts His spirit within His people.

The old covenant was deliberately a yoke of burden to contrast trying to earn righteousness by keeping 613 laws with the new covenant with faith, grace, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Shalom.

Yes, I understand that. Good point Curtis. Nonetheless, my rhetorical questions were an attempt to push us to think past the slogans we inherited from the Reformers. "Justification by faith alone" is true as far as it goes. The Gospel of John, however, seeks to explore the question: why do some people believe while others don't?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Justification by faith alone

is 100% NOT Bible, NO sinner can be saved unless they FIRST "repent of their sins and believe in the Gospel"