And the times of this ignorance God winked
at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed
a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom
he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath
raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:30-31)
The
following are a collection of responses to an interpretation of Acts 17:30-31
by some who deny “duty-faith”—the Reformed teaching that all men are seriously
called by God (and therefore duty-bound) to repent and believe in Jesus Christ—opponents
of “duty-faith” assert that only those who are regenerated or who show signs of
regeneration are to be called to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, or at
least those only are to be addressed in the preaching with regard to the call
to repent and believe, etc.
The
arguments of those who oppose duty-faith are indented. The responses are below
each statement.
[It] is self-evident that God hath not given pistis
(“faith”) in Christ’s resurrection [as a token of God’s impending judgement]
unto all men, head for head. The “all men” of v.30 must correspond to the “all
men” of v. 31. And since the Father and Jesus are one (John 10:30) in willing
and doing, God cannot call more men to repentance, than His Son, Who explicitly
says that He came NOT to call the [self] righteous, but [self] sinners to
repentance. The Reformed principle of “analogy of faith” demands that the less
specific, more general passages must be interpreted in light of more detailed
statements. This principle is generally observed by the Reformed as regards the
scope of the Atonement. The “all men” passages are customarily explained in
light of more explicit statements concerning the beneficiaries of Christ’s
atoning work. The same method is to be applied in reference to the gospel
call—whom Christ calls to Himself. “And Jesus answering said unto them, They
that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Lk.5:31,32). (Anon.)
Acts 17:30 must refer to the elect alone; for Paul goes on to say that God “hath given assurance unto all
men, in that he hath raised him [i.e., Jesus] from the dead” (v. 31). Since the
word for assurance in verse 31 is pistis, which is commonly translated
“faith,” and since God gives faith as a gift only to His elect, the “all men”
in both verses 30-31 must refer only to the elect. (Anon.)
The
word pistis does indeed mean faith,
but its meaning is not determined merely from a lexicon, but from the context.
The meaning of the phrase here is to furnish proof, to demonstrate something,
that is, the resurrection of Christ proves to all men that Christ will judge
the world on the Last Day. The resurrection of Christ is clear, objective
proof—whether men will believe or not—that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
The
argument against the plain teaching of Acts 17:30 from the context is
foolish. The context has Paul preaching to a crowd of idolaters in
Athens, none of whom was a believer before Paul preached. To these
unbelieving heathens, the apostle preached that God now commands all men
everywhere to believe: “all men everywhere,” whereas formerly He
winked at unbelief in heathen lands. No one without the stubborn
determination to deny a call to all hearers to believe would ever imagine that
Paul in fact meant that most if not all of his Athenian hearers were not called
to believe. “Assurance” in verse 31 is certainty, or proof. It
is the certainty of a coming judgment. All humans, unbelieving as well as
believing, have the certainty of a future judgment conducted by Jesus, because
of God’s raising Jesus from the dead to be the judge. “All” in verse 31
is the same as “all men” in verse 30, and the reference is definitely to
unbelievers as well as believers. It is not only believers who make
up the world that will be judged, but all humans without exception. (Prof. David J. Engelsma, 18/06/2018)
Is it not at all clear that Paul is, in fact,
spiritually addressing the elect and regenerated among the Athenians?: For, in
Acts 17:23, Paul mentions the altar “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” and goes on to say to
them, “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship,
him declare I unto you.” He speaks as though the “unknown God,” whom (some) of
them were ignorantly (i.e. without proper knowledge) already worshipping, and
the God he was about to speak about, were one and the same God …
In vv. 28-29, Paul says this: “For
in him (the unknown God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also
of your own poets have said, For we are also his
*offspring*. Forasmuch then as we are the *offspring of God*, we ought
not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by
art and man’s device.”
Paul is surely spiritually
addressing the elect, who, though being God’s “offspring / generation” by God’s
decree and eternal covenant, yet up until now have been in the dark as to the
proper worship and access to the unknown God. He is addressing those of them
who have been made of the Spirit to seek and to feel after Him (v. 27).
This understanding of Acts 17 is mistaken.
I doubt that any expositor of the Bible has ever
explained the passage in that way. This is another criticism I have
of the hyper-Calvinists: They wrest Scripture to suit their erroneous teaching without
any regard to the interpretation of passages by Reformed commentators before
them. Calvin wrote about the worship of the unknown God by the Athenians
that they did “not know what they are worshipping, and do not have any definite
deity.” When Paul said that he preached the God whom they ignorantly
worshipped, he was not “praising what the Athenians had done, but takes free
material for teaching from their attitude, corrupt though it was.” Read
the entire commentary on the Acts 17 passage.
The Athenians were not believers when Paul preached
the sermon of Acts 18. They were idolatrous unbelievers who added to
their pantheon of idols an unknown god in case they had missed one. They
were ignorant of the true God, which means that they lacked the knowledge that
is faith. Only a few believed after the apostle had
preached the sermon of Acts 17 (v. 34).
To this heathen, unbelieving audience, Paul gave
the command in the name of God to repent (v. 30), which hyper-Calvinists would
never do. Contrary to their doctrine, God commands all men, not only
believers, everywhere, including idolatrous Athens, to repent. Thus is
refuted the error of hyper-Calvinism.
That humans are the offspring of God refers to the fact that
originally God made man in His image and the evidence of this remains in all
humans. The opposite of image in the passage is gold, silver, etc., that
is, whatever the idols of Athens are made of. (Prof.
David J. Engelsma, 26/06/2018)
Regarding Acts 17:31, which says that the
“pistis” (“faith”/“assurance”/“proof”) of this coming judgment by Jesus Christ
has actually been given to all men by the fact that Christ has been raised …
Seeing that not all men, head for head, “believe” in Christ’s resurrection, how
could His resurrection be properly deemed a “certainty/proof” to them
personally of Christ’s coming judgment? Wouldn’t the resurrection be proof of
the coming judgment only to those who actually *believe* in the resurrection of
Christ and acknowledge it as fact?
The
assurance of verse 31 is exactly that: assurance. Regardless that
men are and remain unbelieving, God has given them assurance, or proof, that
God will judge the world by Christ in that He raised Christ from the
dead. That they reject the proof in unbelief does not negate the fact
that the proof confronts them.
Do
not overlook that all the strained, false explanation of the passage is
deliberate distortion of the passage, against the right interpretation of
Calvin and of all Reformed exegetes after him, in order to escape the plain
meaning of the text, namely, that the apostle of God commanded the idolaters of
Athens to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ. God now
commandeth all men, not only believers, every where, not only at church, to
repent.
One
implication of hyper-Calvinism’s false doctrine is that unbelievers are not
responsible for, and guilty before God of, refusing to repent and believe—for
God never commanded them to repent and believe. What this means
positively is that every passage in the Bible that condemns humans for their
unbelief implies that God does indeed command unregenerated humans to repent
and believe. (Prof. David J.
Engelsma, 26/06/2018)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Peter preaches in Acts 3 before an indiscriminate crowd whom he commands to "Repent and be converted" v.19 , he subsequently , as Paul in Acts 17:30,31 , associates the basis and purpose of the command to repent with the resurrection of Christ and teaches that the command reflects God's desire to bless each one of his hearers in so far as He wills to turn each one from his/her iniquities - that is , the resurrection demonstrates that God desires the salvation of each one in Peter's audience of Jews in the first place , but , by necessary implication , all the Gentiles next - which is to say that if Peter indiscriminately commands repentance and faith , then , according to the necessary implication of Peter's closing proposition , God sends this command with the purpose of blessing each one so commanded - and thus God desires to save "all men" indiscriminately on condition of repentance and faith - which is the necessary implication of the teaching of this blog that preachers indiscriminately address the command to repent and believe, when applied to Peter's sermon , which implication fully accords with this blog's "Common Grace" title.
ReplyDeleteWhen Peter states in Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; - does not the apostle promise each one he commanded to repent and believe unto the forgiveness of their sins - so that Peter does not follow the formula of indiscriminate evangelical commands with a subsequent general promise to "He who obeys the command" but rather he promises all those whom he has commanded - that "your: sins may be blotted out. If Peter addresses all men indiscriminately does he not provide the example and justification to command and promise any man to repent and believe so that his sins may be forgiven? That is, would not an indiscriminate address by Peter of the promise of salvation to all those commanded to repent necessarily imply hypothetical universalism ?
ReplyDelete