“The promise is for you and your children”
(Act 2:39 ESV) 39 “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
“Promise” is clearly a reference back to Acts 2:33: “the promise of the Spirit.” And that makes sense, because this passage parallels such prophecies as —
(Isa 44:3 ESV) For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.
(Jer 32:38-39 ESV) 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.
As a result, the Spirit poured out in Acts 2 was not a one-generation event! We have today the very same “gift of the Spirit” and “promise of the Spirit” and “baptism with the Spirit” as the original 120. (But we are, of course, very differently gifted.)
“Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Now, we get to a challenging passage! What does “calls to himself” refer to? Well, we obviously have to start with the Prophets, not Calvin or Arminius. The word is borrowed from —
(Joel 2:32 ESV) And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.
Peter’s earlier quotation from Joel ended with the first sentence of Joel 2:32. He now paraphrases the last sentence, and “calls” in Joel 2:32 is the same Greek word as in Acts 2:39 — proskaleo. It means to summon, and it’s never used of a human calling on God, but rather is only used of God summoning a person —
(Act 13:2 ESV) While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
(Act 16:10 ESV) And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
In Acts, the word is used of God’s call to a mission. It’s not the same word as used by Paul in Rom 8 —
(Rom 8:30 ESV) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
But the interpretive challenge remains. Peter says the promise is for those whom God will call, that is, whom God will invite or summon to himself. (The ancient texts disagree as to whether “to himself” is in the original, which is why several translations don’t have the phrase.)
Well, it makes sense. After all, at this point in history, God has only called the Jews and, so far, only the Jews in Jerusalem. The call will be expanded, as Acts will soon tell us. But the promise is only for those who are called — but, of course, those who are called must respond in faith. And not all the Jews present did.
Questions:
- If the Spirit is promised to all generations, why aren’t the Spirit’s gifts as spectacular as they were back then? God continued to do miracles after the Exodus, but did he continually do miracles? Did he do them on request — every time?
- Why does God something answer prayers and sometimes choose not to do so?
- What is the purpose of a miracle? If it’s to show God’s glory, then how often are miracles necessary?
- What does it mean to be “called” in this Acts 2:39 sense? If God “summons” us, what does he summon us to do?
God isn’t going to save everybody. Not everybody is appointed to eternal life. (Acts 13:48) We can know for sure that the God does not draw everyone to himself. (John 6:44) We can also know that in some special way I don’t completely understand, God gives certain people to Jesus (John 17:7, 24), who would logically be those he has called, those who have been appointed to eternal life.
I know ideas and passages like these make most of us uncomfortable because we have been taught, at a minimum by example, to just pretend these and other passages like them are not in the Bible. But they are! So what do we do with them?
I came to the conclusion a few years ago that my options were limited. I can ignore them, not a good plan. I could try to explain them away, a worse plan. Or, I could believe them, even though I admit once more I don’t fully understand them. The more I examined such passages the more passages I found that seemed to be teaching the same thing. So I decided that I should believe them.
John 10 tells the story of Jesus explaining the kingdom from a viewpoint they were familiar with, sheep and a shepherd. There are other sheep out there who are not yet in his fold but when he calls them they will know his voice and come to him. And, Jesus said of those who do not come that they do not hear his voice because they do not believe. Read John 10 and John 17 carefully sometime.
So it is true, every sinner who will finally be saved must believe upon Christ or at least respond favorably to whatever light God gives, and he will demonstrate that belief with an obedient life. And it is just as true that everyone of those who will finally be saved God called to himself. You might ask “how can you believe both”? The same way I believe what Peter preached in Acts 2. The death of Jesus was according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. It was an act of God. “It pleased God to crush him” (Isaiah 53:10) . It is just as true that those who crucified Jesus were guilty of murder. (Acts 2:23).
We ought to be careful about picking out of the Word of God what we want to believe and not believe.
Need more precise definitions of words being used.
“…why aren’t the Spirit’s gifts as spectacular as they were back then?”
Why should we presume they are not? Do you mean “manifestations,” which is what we see or perceive? Maybe the gift is as spectacular, but our response is not. Isn’t “spectacular” a description from our human perspective of observation and definition?
What is the definition of “gift” and the definition of “spectacular” in this question?
What are “the Spirit’s gifts?” I only read of “the gift” (singular) in Acts. Are you mixing “the gift” in Acts with gifts (charismata) in 1 Cor 12-14? Why should they be the same?
There is much more evidence that they are not the same.
“why does God answer prayer sometimes and not others?”
Again, isn’t this question asked from our human perspective of what we are looking for in an “answer?” Doesn’t this question place our human definition of “answer” and assign that to God — God answered or He did not, based on my definition? Can we presume that our sovereign God doesn’t always answer?
“what is the purpose of a miracle. How often are miracles necessary?”
How is “miracle” being defined in this question? Is it a definition that comes from the scripture, or is it an implied definition that is contaminated by our common usage of the term? Like, “It’ll be a miracle if Alabama beats LSU.” (That was just to get your attention, Jay.)
God called the Jews but not everyone who is descended from Isreal belongs to Isreal only the children of promise. I believe chapter 9 in Romans is a good explanation of who is called and why. I like your comment Royce
I appreciate Jay’s questions at the end of the post, and one question he did not posit. Tradition often presumes that miraculous signs were given to the early church for the sole purpose of proving genuine the message that the apostles et al were preaching. I have always found this idea unjustifiably narrow. Dorcas was raised from the dead among a body of believers, not among unbelievers. I continue to experience how religious folks scoff when a group of believers gathers together and then claims to have witnessed a miracle. Such a thing is not accepted as “proof” of that group’s doctrine, even by Christians.
Why do we not see miracles every time they are sought? Because it is God who originates these things, according to his will and wisdom. I think the biggest missing ingredient in prayers of this kind is an original position of seeking God’s will to be revealed that we might pray in accordance with it. We pray OUR will, and then go on to argue about why God does what He does, as though there is some unspoken obligation for God to follow our will.
I am also not so sure that miracles have actually declined, except in the measure that the church has ceased to believe. Consider, if you will, that Judea was chock full of people who doubted Jesus and yet he still performed miracles among them. But when he came to his own people in Nazareth and THEY refused to believe, he did not do such things among them. This may hold part of the explanation of what we do not see among us, but only hear about from elsewhere.
■What is the purpose of a miracle? If it’s to show God’s glory, then how often are miracles necessary?
sēmeion– of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s
as far as I can find the word miracle is used once in the old testament.
mowpheth – wonder (as a special display of God’s power)
I don’t believe “a miracle” is necessary to see God’s Glory” look around you.
Laymond,
Semeion is better translated as “sign;” dunamis is “miracle.” Semeion is found primarily in John and Acts (only the “sign” of Jonah in M,M,&L). This use of “sign” correlates with the purpose of the gospel of John and book of Acts. Dunamis is also translated “power” — as in “the same power that raised Jesus from the dead.” Paul said we have this power. What is “glory?” Paul said 2 Cor that we are being transformed into increasing glory. Is that transformation by the power of the flesh or is it by the power of God? If your answer is choice #2, that is dunamis, miracle.
Again, we flounder around from lack of precision of the meaning of “miracle.” You may or may not have intended this, but your last sentence essentially says that the power of God isn’t necessary. Yet, “God’s Glory” is the manifestation of His dunamis power. There is a contradiction.
That is why I called for a scriptural definition of “miracle” and not the definition of the world that we have become so accustomed to using. We can turn off our own spigot. The water pressure is the same. You have a shutoff valve for yourself.
Please research some more.
Charles wrote:
Excellent observation! Some act as if they can command God instead of submitting themselves to Him and His will.
Many need a sign every once in a while today.
The Jews went 400 years, we have gone 2,000. We want to work spreading the gospel, a little help sure wouldn’t hurt.
Laymond says you don’t need miracles to see the glory of God.
Laymond’s regular use of the phrase “don’t need” on one subject or another has me thinking. We need wood to make fire and houses and furniture. So why did God create so many kinds of trees? The pine would have been sufficient. We didn’t need the rosewood and the purpleheart and the dogwood. Why are they here?
Manna sufficed to feed the rebellious children of Israel for 40 years. So why has God given us all these kinds of food? Entire areas subsist on corn or rice. Who needs apples or lobster or chocolate? Why did God give them to us?
A couple can only procreate during a brief period of time during any particular month. We don’t need sex to be enjoyable the rest of the time. So why did God make it so?
Oysters don’t need pearls. Why do they grow them?
I think the narrow concept that “we don’t need that” misses the immensely lavish generosity that is in the very character of God. When we misunderstand God’s character, it is easy to misunderstand what He does, and to underestimate what He will do.
Jay,
Something that has always kinda sorta bothered me about “this” that Luke is speaking to…
acts 2:38 “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit… ” “which is life through the resurrected Son by Promise (GRACE)
or is
as most are stating the “Gift Of The SPIRIT”
is the gift the “SPIRIT HIMSELF’?
OR
IS
the GIFT of the PROMISED blessing by grace through faith,WHICH WOULD REFER BACK TO THE ETERNAL LIFE found in believing Gods words delivered by the “specific gift” given to the apostles promised by jesus.
and so…
“Promise” is clearly a reference back to Acts 2:33:” yoU stated
“the promise of the Spirit.” And that makes sense, because this passage parallels such prophecies as —
you stated above
now I see as the context of acts 2…
Acts 2:21
Acts 2:24
To me peter answers the ? Acts 2:37 “what must we do…???” because of they stood guilty and are asking ‘Peter ! acts 2:21 “how do we call on the Lord and be saved?”
What is the “Promise”?…
gal:14 “So that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
life?
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life,
then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
Gal.3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ sredeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged uon a tree”—14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
The Law and the Promise Gal. 3:15
To give a human example, brothers:
“Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now athe promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now than intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that othe promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus uyou are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized winto Christ have put on Christ.”
thanks Jay
also < p.s.
that if i am right would eliminate this conjecture.as the s
Spirit him self would be gifting the church as HE WILLED.
1ST COR.12:11
SO that the hirmanudic of the 12 and 13th chapter along with acts which works along with the hiperbole of 13…
yes?
Imagine the Jews of the 1st century saying…ok raising the dead…so that’s supposed to be a miracle ??…let’s see you stop the sun…how about rolling back the red sea….. let’s march around Rome and watch it crumble… Where’s that angel that wiped out 180,000…we could take over Rome tomorrow !! God does what He wants when He wants to meet His purposes… I know of no greater miracle than the illumination of Truth in an unbeliever’s mind…
Thank you God for answering my prayer above!
Tim Tebow and the 3;16 miracles sure has convinced a lot of people and got their attention . The national news has even preached it.
Now, we must use every miracle given today and do so giving thanks to You.
I’m currently reading C. S. Lewis discussion titled, “Miracles” for the nth time. His logic and clarity of reason help me a lot. As has been mentioned above, we are unable even to agree on the definition of miracles, much less on whether they still (or ever) occurred. I believe they have and still do. But my definition is probably overly broad to some. I assert that any divine interaction in creation that transcends natural law is miraculous. I believe that I have personally experienced such power in my own life. I see no need (per previous discussion) to limit divine power in any way, and view such positions as presumption of the highest order! God works His will in mysterious ways, and for His own purposes…
As to prayer, it has been my experience that my life has been much more manageable since I have taken the advice of Bill W., et al, and simply prayed for the ability to discern His will and for the power to carry that out. I have learned that the more unselfish my prayers are, the more power I am given. And I am convinced this empowerment is through the Spirit’s presence within me.
I would call our attention to our old proof text – 2 Thes. 2:14 – That He calls us through the gospel. And to the extent that the gospel is presented as good news, that call remains powerful to this day. Please note that I do not claim that this is exclusive…
Emmitt said: “As to prayer, it has been my experience that my life has been much more manageable since I have taken the advice of Bill W., et al, and simply prayed for the ability to discern His will and for the power to carry that out. I have learned that the more unselfish my prayers are, the more power I am given. And I am convinced this empowerment is through the Spirit’s presence within me.”
>>
Is there any way to send Emmett on a tour of CoC pulpits to preach just this simple paragraph? I’d certainly write a check toward that purpose. When he gets through the CoC, we’ll send him everywhere else, too.
Lightning in a bottle, here, that’s what this is, a true “word of wisdom” for the church. I’ve said the same thing, only in a hundred times as many words. Emmett’s word is much better.
Emmett’s words are good. His working definition (consistent with C.S.Lewis) of “miracle” is the scriptural definition. Our commonly used definition that a miracle is something “supernatural” or “against a law of nature” is, itself, undefinable, since these are just more imprecise terms. As we discover more about this universe, less would be classified as “supernatural.” Penicillin was called “the miracle drug” because its results were so spectacular for the time. As we find out more about quantum and celestial mechanics, even a “law” of nature is challenged or redefined. This worldly definition of “miracle” as “something we don’t understand” (at this time) is out of the flesh. So why do Christians use that definition? Is it because that makes the true supernatural easier to dismiss, and people will not be bothered with having faith for the power of God? Too busy checking out at Wal-Mart or picking up a pizza. Maybe too busy attending “church” at the appointed hour. — ! Maybe hearing a sermon about why those people over there are wrong or why you can’t be saved unless you do this. (Hopefully attitudes of the past, but even so, we are still paying the price for it.)
The scriptural definition of miracle is “anything that involves the dunamis power of God.” It is a definition based on source, not on the outcome which is evaluated according to our physical perception. So, considering this definition, the question isn’t, “What is a miracle;” the question is, “What is not a miracle?”
How one perceives “miracle” depends on one’s perspective — on one’s “filter.” There is a balance of discernment of what is of the Spirit and what is of the flesh. Christians are supposed to be able to make that distinction. For many people, honing those spiritual perceptions requires too much time and energy, so they are glad to define any matters of the Spirit out of existence. Who loses?
Paul said in 1 Cor 12:1 that he didn’t want the Corinthians to be “ignorant about spiritual matters.” We consider the Corinthian church to be so “immature.” If that’s true, then where is the church today in the operation of the Holy Spirit? The church at Corinth was the poster child of division. What has the church learned from reading 1 Corinthians? The litmus test is Eph 4:3, “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” How is the church doing on that one? Is the church today unified after 2000 years compared to that chaotic, divided, immature church at Corinth?
In the Luke/Yoda lines from Star Wars, “I can’t believe it!” “That is why you fail.” Faith is not wishing for something; faith is an action.
It is true that people can be fooled because miracles can be counterfeited — except for one. Scripture reveals that there is a miracle that surpasses all others. Price came close to identifying it.
A brother states something that just doesn’t “compute.” He writes: the Spirit poured out in Acts 2 was not a one-generation event! We have today the very same “gift of the Spirit” and “promise of the Spirit” and “baptism with the Spirit” as the original 120. (But we are, of course, very differently gifted.)
———————————-
“Gift” of the Spirit is general. It’s used of each gift. But baptism in/with the Spirit is promised only to the apostles and was given to them alone. The gift of the Spirit could just as easily have been described as “baptism in the Spirit” IF that was what was being promised. But it surely was NOT what was promised or what was given to the 3,000 and to all later converts who obeyed the gospel as the 3,000 did. The “gift” of the Spirit we receive conveys no particular signs by which anyone would know we had received it. The one time that signs are seen to follow a baptism other than that of the apostles was when the first Gentiles were baptized in/with the Spirit and THEN, and only then, was Peter persuaded that these non-Jews could be baptized into Christ. When they were baptized in water and received the gift of the Spirit, there were no signs to prove it. Both times when it’s reported that some were baptized in/with the Spirit, there WERE signs which proved it. There’s no sensible reason any Bible student would need to confuse between the two entirely different baptisms–one in water with NO signs, and one in the Spirit, WITH signs.
I agree that the word used by Luke for “gift” is general and is more specifically defined by the context. Two suggested meanings of “gift of the Holy Spirit” have involved salvation and have involved external manifestations (specifically, tongues). To associate “gift” with manifestations, one has to import meanings from 1 Cor 12-14, Rom 12, and 1 Pet 4, particularly 1 Cor, where the word charismata is used. Luke does not use charismata in Acts, and the word used for gift is the same word Paul uses for the gift of Christ or gift of salvation. This does not support “gift” in Acts 2:38 as referring to observable manifestations, but related to what was promised by God of a new heart, consistent with change, forgiveness of sin, indwelling Spirit, salvation, etc.
The reason to erroneously limit the “baptism within the HS” and the “gift” to the 12 apostles (other than we don’t want to have to deal with it) is that Jesus was talking “to” His apostles when he said the baptism in the HS would happen. There are at least 3 problems with this. (1) When Jesus says this in Acts 1:4-5, He quotes John the B who preached this to everyone, not just to the 12 apostles. Why would God have John preach the baptism within the HS to everyone and then limit it to only the 12 apostles? (2) So what if Jesus was talking to his apostles? Why would the Holy Spirit have Luke record something only for the apostles and irrelevant to our salvation? Jesus was talking to his future apostles in John 13-16, also. Does that eliminate the Comforter, the peace that Jesus left, the lesson about foot washing from applying to us? How about the “Great Commission?” Spare me the application of CENI logic (or lack of). The “He was talking to the apostles” argument is weak. To me, that is in the same category of saying the scripture is inspired …. except in this verse and this place and …. Watch out for the operation of the enemy on this one. We are talking about our faith for the power of God operating today. Of course, the enemy wants us to define that out of existence. Unity goes with it. (…unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace Eph 4:3). (3) The promise is for all. The promise is the backbone onto which the baptism within the HS and the gift of the HS and the eperchomai (Acts 1:8) of the HS are attached. The promise is for all, and the “attachments” are also. The promise in Luke 24:49, the promise in Acts 1:4, the promise in Acts 2:33, the promise in Acts 2:39 is for all. Linked to the promise is power (Lu 24:49), baptism within the HS (Acts 1:5), coming upon by the HS (1:8), new heart (Acts 33), and gift of the HS (Acts 2:38). That includes salvation, but a lot more. It happens because that’s what God said.
It’s another discussion why external manifestations (signs) are not part of the promise.
But baptism in/with the Spirit is promised only to the apostles and was given to them alone.
Ray, I know I have addressed this once, without a reply. I would humbly ask you to explain how you reconcile the words of John the Baptist with the conclusion you repeat above? John clearly was NOT speaking only to the Twelve. (Please see Matthew 3:1-11, Mark 1:4-8, Luke 3:7-16) So, how do explain that what John preached a word to people from all over Judea that was not really to them at all, but was to only twelve men?
Ray, ignoring this obvious contradiction between scripture and your position will not make it go away, just as repeating your position will not mend its fatal flaws. I continue to look forward to your explanation of the facts above.
RANT WARNING: Those seeking cool, kindly counsel may want to skip this post entirely. Thanks. Now then—
This exercise in one-eyed hair-splitting that appears over and over in the argument that “Jesus was only speaking to the Twelve” is, frankly, a bit maddening. It is used arbitrarily to divorce the church from particular NT passages with which we do not wish to be personally associated. It is, in the majority of cases, an attack-after-the-fact on scripture itself, not a hermeneutic in any real sense of the word.
I know, because I ask positers of this idea regularly how they KNOW which passage is which; which words are to the Twelve AND to us, and which ones are only to the Twelve. Sometimes they do explain their method. But not yet have I heard any explanation which was either plausible, consistent, or –God forbid– biblical. Every single time someone gives me their long-winded and Gordian dissertation on how they make this “distinction”, I find it to have been invented out of whole cloth with no basis offered other than itself, salted with a few statements of the obvious, and thoroughly riddled with inconsistencies in application. Frankly, in every case so far, the proposed methodology is less reminiscent of thoughtful hermeneutics than of those straight-faced explanations we used to hear about how NASA faked the moon landings.
Are there differences in application as to the words of Jesus we find in scripture? Of course! It is only a misbegotten black-letter-law approach to the NT that reduces this reality to Spirit-less hairsplitting. It is the height of folly that those who bring this extrabiblical approach to the scriptures would use the same kind of reasoning to supposedly resolve the inconsistencies which their approach produced in the first place. It is analogous to the man who, having had his legs blown off by a stick of dynamite, attempts to reattach them with a second application of the same product.
Okay, deep breath. Rant ends. I can now be reasonable and rational again for a while without my hair catching on fire.
Because I think to receive the Spiruit is more important than to receive a spectacular gift. What else but e.g. speaking in tongues is it, that the Spirit produces in us? There is the fruit of the Spirut, there is power to 9overcome sin, there is guidance and growing understanding of God’s will and word. There is so much in fact, that we should not so much focus on the “extraordinary”, which is (as i see it) like icing on a cake. See, we can prophesy in the name of Christ and even cast out demons in His name and still be counted among the lost. But even if we never do anything like that but live a Christlike, fruitful life in the Spirit, we are among the saved.
Actually, this is a different topic, but a good question. I bet this question has been asked and answered very often – mostly in a rationalizing way, sometimes trying to find excuses for a God who does not recognize our faith. I think we shouold ask e.g. Isaak who prayed for 20 years until his wife Rebekka became pregnant. One reason I see: We give up too soon. But there are opther reasons, we all know well …
Mark 16:20 shows that signs were given (also) as a confirmation of a message. There we can ask: How often does the message have to be confirmed?
In this context I view the calling as the proclamation of the Gospel to all nations, not the sense of “some are called and others aren’t”. So the gift is open to all, in every generation.
Alexander
Ray wrote:
Charles replied:
Ray, not only did John the B. address all sorts of people (in fact Luke observes that “he said unto them all….”), but Paul expressly states that “in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). I have suggested both of these passages to you several times in the past, but you continue to ignore them, both in their context and in their substance. Please answer people’s objections to your assertion that none but the twelve were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Mere assertion does not overcome the clear force of Scripture.
The last part of Acts 2:39 (“…as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”), tells us that the Lord God has the sovereign right to call all to Himself—Jew, Greek, Gentile—beckoning all to come to Him in humility, repentance and faith in Christ. This is a rebuke to the prideful Jew who those because of his chosen status, no other group or nation could be called by God.
“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:39).
Paraphrase of Acts 2:39: This promise of salvation, along with the gift of the Holy Spirit, is for you and your children. This PROMISE is even for those living in distance lands, both Jews AND GENTILES. Hence, the underlying message at the end of Acts 2:39 is that God can even call Gentile to come to Him. By comparing Scriptures with Scriptures this interpretation is confirmed by the clear testimony of Acts 17:30 which reads:
“God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,” (Acts 17:30).
In other words, Acts 17:30 tells us that now—during the Church Age—God is commanding (solemnly calling) “all people everywhere” to repentance and faith in Christ. It is a sever twisting of the Scriptures to say that Acts 17:30 means that God is only calling or commanding the elect to repentance and be salvation.
Now does Acts 17:30 really mean that God is declaring that only a few people from some nations repent and receive Christ? Indeed not, for as Acts 14:27 tells us, God has now “opened a door of faith to the Gentiles,” (not some Gentiles). Hence, a door of faith is now open for all Gentiles whereby they can enter into a right relationship with God. Acts 14:27 does not tell us that a door of faith has been opened only for the elect or that a door of faith has been opened for some Gentiles. God has opened this door of faith for all Gentiles because in His great love (John 3:16). He has pour out His Spirit on all flesh (John 16:7—11; Acts 2:17) so that anyone may freely choose to call on the name of the Lord and be saved (Acts 2:21). As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “take hold of the eternal life to which you were called,” (1 Timothy 6:12). God calls all of us to experience eternal life through Jesus Christ, but it is our responsibility to “take hold” of it by exercising faith in Christ.
thanks for your time
harry murphy
Harry,
I agree entirely with your exegesis. Thanks