The Staunch Calvinist

"Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God." - Jonathan Edwards

Search


You searched for 'John Owen'

I've found 9 results!


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary

... atonement and salvation for all men without exception who would repent and believe. While the Calvinist believes in a definite and certain atonement made on behalf of everyone whom God has chosen and through which faith and repentance are purchased for the same group. Our discussion is based on the fact that the atonement was substitutionary as we argued above. If we do not agree that the atonement was meant to propitiate the wrath of God there is no use of speaking about Limited Atonement. All cases for Particular Redemption are based upon the fact that the atonement satisfies the wrath of God against our sins. John Owen made also a very powerful argument in favor of Limited Atonement. The argument goes like this:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

  1. All the sins of all men.
  2. All the sins of some men, or
  3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

  1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
  2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
  3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"[21]

If you wonder if unbelief is a sin, check John 16:8-9; Hebrews 3:12; Revelation 21:8. His argument is forceful and convincing. 1) If Christ died for all sins of all men, then hell should be emptied and no one is to perish. But this is contrary to the biblical testimony (e.g. Matt. 25:46). 3) What if Christ died for some sins of all men? In this case, none would be saved as no complete atonement is made for any person. A partial atonement has been made on behalf of every single person, but none is saved as the wrath of God has not been fully satisfied. 2) Only in the second option, we see the freedom of God to elect as He pleases and also the consistency of God not judging us believers while throwing the reprobate to hell for their sins. It is not unrighteous for God to throw the wicked into hell to pay for their sins since no payment was made for their sins. But if the atonement was universal, then it would be unjust for God to punish Christ for the same sins which He will punish the sinner in hell. In this scenario, God would demand double payment, one by Christ on the cross, the other by the sinner himself in hell.

The logic of Limited Atonement in light of Unconditional Election is not disputable, rather what is disputed is if this logic is in agreement with the biblical testimony about Christ’s death. It is my purpose here to make a biblical case for Limited Atonement through looking at the purpose of the atonement, the extent of the atonement and trying to give some answers for texts used against the doctrine of Definite Atonement. But first, let us go to the intermediate section about John Owen's case for Definite Redemption.

John Owen's Case for Particular Redemption

(This section was added on the 22nd of March 2017 and may also be found as a separate post in here.)

Dr. John Owen’s work titled “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” is, by the admission of many Calvinists, the most...


John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

...

John Owen’s Case for Particular Atonement

 

(This post was originally written for a section in chapter 8 of the 1689 Baptist Confession.) 

Introduction

Dr. John Owen’s work titled “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” is, by the admission of many Calvinists, the most extensive work on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, or better named, Particular/Definite or Atonement/Redemption. Therefore, it is beneficial for us to take a brief look at his case for Particular Atonement over against Universal Atonement. Dr. Owen is aware and acquainted with the material of the opposing position and he interacts with them and answers their objections. He is not writing against caricatures of the opposing side but has researched the materials and arguments of the opposing side and, in my opinion, utterly refutes their arguments.

Almost everyone who has any reasonable knowledge of the debates concerning limited or unlimited atonement must have heard of Owen’s trilemma, which we have presented above. The trilemma is really forceful, but it is merely one argument out many more from Dr. Owen’s arsenal. The trilemma is not his only argument for Particular Redemption. But it may be an accurate summary of his case. He argues each of his points biblically. For a good summary of his arguments see here.

Dr. Owen’s book is divided into four books and various chapters dealing with the issues related to the atonement.

  1. Book 1 (8 chapters) deals with the purpose of the Trinity in the design of the atonement.
  2. Book 2 (5 chapters) deals with the effects and application of the work of Christ.
  3. Book 3 (11 chapters) presents 16 arguments against Universal Atonement and for Definite Atonement.
  4. Book 4 (7 chapters) answers various interpretations and objections to Particular Atonement.

Note: All biblical references in the quotes are modernized (e.g. John i. 1 to John 1:1 for the ease of reading and the recognition by the Scripture Tag).

The General Purpose of Christ’s Death

First, he enquires about the “general of the end [i.e., purpose] of the death of Christ” (book I, chap. 1). What does the big picture of Scripture say about the death of Christ? What is indisputable there about it? He divides this question into two sections:

  1. “that which his Father and himself intended in it” (book I, chap. 1):
    1. Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
    2. 1Tim. 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
    3. Matt. 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
    4. Gal. 1:4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,
    5. Eph. 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
    6. Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

After citing and alluding to the above-cited passages, Owen says:

Thus clear, then, and apparent, is the intention and design of Christ and his Father in...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant - Commentary

... to express by way of covenant. The Confession speaks of the reward of life, which in this case was what was promised to Adam had he obeyed. But notice that this reward of life is not due to man's obedience deserving that.  But it is God's arragement to bless and reward that obedience because of His promise and condescension. This condescension of God, which He expresses by way of covenant, is most voluntary and free. There is no obligation placed upon God to be gracious or to commune with man. It is His mere good pleasure and will to do so.

Concerning the blessings and obedience of and within the Covenant of Works, John Owen writes the following:

The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative [profitable, rewarding], respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar to the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it [our obedience], and the subject of them was formally reward only.[13]

No covenant of God with man is ever strictly based on only man's works. God is gracious in all of His works and dealings with man.

An aspect which makes the Covenant of Works with Adam different from all the rests is that it did not provide a way to return back to God because man had not been estranged from God. It provided no atonement, neither forgiveness of sins. This point is brought up by Coxe in this way:

As to the terms and condition of this covenant that God made with Adam and all mankind in him, it was a covenant of works. With respect to immediate privilege and relationship it was a covenant of friendship. With regard to the promised reward it was a covenant of rich bounty and goodness. But it did not include or intimate the least iota of pardoning mercy. While its law was perfectly observed it raised man within a degree of the blessed angels. But the breach of that law inevitably brought him under that curse which sank him to the society of apostate devils and left him under a misery like theirs.[14]

While its blessings were greater than man could ever deserve, even in his sinless state, yet breaking the covenant had severe consequences. To summerize, Pink says it in this way:

The compact which the Lord God entered into with Adam is appropriately termed “the covenant of works” not only to distinguish it from the covenant of grace, but also because under it life was promised on condition of perfect obedience, which obedience was to be performed by man in his own creature strength.[15]

Disobedience to the Covenant of Works brought the whole human race into ruin and perdition, rendering them unable to attain and unfit for the life for which they were created.

Is It A Covenant?

Some may object to this covenant seeing that there is nothing in Genesis 1-3 said about a covenant. Well, if by that they mean that the word "covenant" is not found, they're right. But that's not satisfying. The word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but all its elements are taught in the Bible (see chapter 2). We have the same in Genesis 1-3 about the Adamic Covenant of Works. There are the covenant people (Adam and Eve) and the covenant God (Yahweh). There are the blessings (to eat of the Tree of Life, Gen. 3:22, which he would have done had he obeyed). There are the curses (death for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2:16-17). There are the “symbols” (if t...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day - Commentary

...Historical Foundation, Present Obligation, and Practical Observance. (Trinity Pulpit Press, 2016).
  • Francis Nigel Lee. The Covenantal Sabbath. (London, ILQ: Lord's Day Observance Society. 1974; out of print). Available online.
    • This is a very extensive work on the Sabbath, which is out of print, but available online. Luckily, I was able to find a physical copy. Read my review here.
  • John Owen. A Treatise On The Sabbath. (Forgotton Books, 2015). A photo-copy edition, which is also available online.
  • Richard Barcellos, etc. Going Beyond The Five Points. Ed. by Rob Ventura. (San Bernardino, CA: [CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform], 2015). pp. 53-56.
  • Richard Barcellos. 
  • Roger T. Beckwith, Wilfrid Stott. This Is The Day: The Biblical Doctrine Of The Christian Sunday In Its Jewish And Early Church Setting. (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott. 1978, 181 pp. Out of print). Can be found online.
  • Robert L. Dabney.
  • Charles Hodge. Systematic Theology, Volume 3. 1872. § 8. The Fourth Commandment.
  • A. H. Strong. Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed For The Use Of Theological Students. (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1970. Originally, 1907). pp. 408-410.
  • Thomas Watson.
  • Ezekiel Hopkins. An Exposition Of The Ten Commandments. 1690. The Fourth Commandment. pp. 192-224.
  • Jonathan Edwards. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2. Revised and corrected by Edward Hickman. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 edition). pp. 93-103.
    • Three sermons entitled, “The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath” which could also be found online:
  • Samuel E. Waldron.
  • John Giarrizzo. The Lord’s Day Still Is. Booklet, 2013.
  • Philip Schaff. The Lord’s Day. Booklet, 2013.
  • A.A. Hodge. Sabbath, The Day Changed: The Sabbath Preserved.
  • Archibald Alexander. A Brief Compendium of Bible Truth. The Lord’s Day. 1846.
  • B.B. Warfield. The Foundations Of The Sabbath In The Word Of God. 1951.
  • Francis Turretin. The Fourth Question – The Lord’s Day. 1679-1685.
  • John Murray.
  • A.W. Pink. The Christian Sabbath.
    • His comments on the fall of Satan being prior to the seventh day so that he does not accept the common understanding of “rest,” I find very strange.
  • Ian Campbell. Why Easter Makes Me a Sabbatarian. Reformation 21, 2012.
  • Jon English Lee. Biblical Theology and the Transfer of the Sa...

  • 1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints - Commentary

    ...ref="https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/hebrews-6.html#4"here.
  • Matthew Henry – Complete Commentary on the Bible. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
  • Bob Utley – You Can Understand The Bible (Not that explicit). Commentary on Hebrews 6, here and here.
  • John Owen – Exposition of Hebrews. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
  • Steven J. Cole – Lesson 17: When Repentance Becomes Impossible (Hebrews 6:4-8).
  • The passage describes regenerate believers who have fallen away:

    I have collected some commentaries, articles, and sermons on this passage in a document which you can download (it does not include all the commentaries listed above).

    I believe that the passage speaks about false believers and warns those who have sat under the preaching of the Word of God, the manifestation of the Spirit’s work and who themselves have professed to belong to Christ that they will perish eternally without no possibility of true repentance if they do not have true faith. The description is not definitive proof that those spoken of are true believers, because the analogy in vv. 7-8 moves us to say that those spoken of were unbelievers from the start. I don’t claim that by me consulting articles and commentaries on this passage that I will have an answer to every question on this passage. But what I do want to claim is that there are interpretations which are credible and do not force us to deny other biblical doctrines (i.e., the Perseverance of the Saints). I do want to stress the context of Hebrews that it is an epistle written to Hebrew Christians steeped into the Old Testament and Israel’s history, therefore I will try to interpret it with this in mind and not try to make a modern application every time.

    Audience

    Who are the ones being described in this passage? Is the audience the ones being described in vv. 4-6? No, they are not. Rather, they are a different group spoken of in the third person (“those” v. 4, “them…they…their own” v. 6). The Author is not describing his present audience. In fact, he explicitly says that in v. 9. Previous to this passage the author spoke in the plural “you” to the audience (e.g. Heb. 5:11-13), including himself in 6:1 by using “us”. After v. 9, he speaks of the “beloved” and those whom he encourages to “have the full assurance of hope until the end”. The warning is not about them, but about those who receive a clear light of God’s Gospel, make a profession of faith and appear to all to be true believers, yet later fall away. It is those who will not be brought to true repentance by God and be left in their sins to perish eternally.

    The audience the Author is writing to is one of Hebrew Christians in general who are being tempted to go back to the old Judaism and abandon their current religion. The Author throughout the letter shows that the New Covenant and its Mediator are better and they are the fulfillment of the promises and shadows in the Old Testament and therefore, there is nothing to go back to. The apostasy being spoken of here is that in which a person leaves Christianity to go back to Judaism before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Obviously, it can have modern applications of those who leave their profession of Christianity wherein they have clearly ...


    Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

    ...ref="https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/hebrews-6.html#4"here.
  • Matthew Henry – Complete Commentary on the Bible. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
  • Bob Utley – You Can Understand The Bible (Not that explicit). Commentary on Hebrews 6, here and here.
  • John Owen – Exposition of Hebrews. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
  • Steven J. Cole – Lesson 17: When Repentance Becomes Impossible (Hebrews 6:4-8).
  • The passage describes regenerate believers who have fallen away:

    I have collected some commentaries, articles and sermons on this passage in a document which you can download (it does not include all the commentaries listed above).

    I believe that the passage speaks of false believers and warns about those who have sat under the preaching of the Word of God, the manifestation of the Spirit’s work and who themselves have professed to belong to Christ, that they will perish eternally without no possibility of true repentance. That the description is not definitive proof that those spoken of are true believers, yet the analogy in vv. 7-8 moves us to say that those spoken of were unbelievers from the start.

    I don’t claim that by me consulting articles and commentaries on this passage that I will have an answer to every question on this passage, but what I do want to claim is that there are interpretations which are credible and do not force us to deny other biblical doctrines (i.e., the Perseverance of the Saints).

    I do want to stress the context of Hebrews that it is an epistle written to Hebrew Christians steeped into the Old Testament and Israel’s history, therefore I will try to interpret it with this in mind and not try to make a modern application every time.

    Audience

    Who are the ones being described in this passage? Is the audience the ones being described in vv. 4-6? No, they are not. Rather, they are a different group spoken of in the third person (“those” v. 4, “them…they…their own” v. 6). The Author is not describing his present audience, in fact he explicitly says that in v. 9. Previous to this passage the author spoke of the plural “you” to the audience (e.g. Heb 5:11-13), including himself in 6:1 by using “us”. After v. 9 he speaks of the “beloved” and those who he encourages to “have the full assurance of hope until the end”. The warning is not about them, but about those who receive a clear light of God’s Gospel, make a profession of faith and appear to all to be true believers, yet later fall away. It is those who will not be brought to true repentance by God and be left in their sins to perish eternally.

    The audience the Author is writing to is one of Hebrew Christians in general who are being tempted to go back to the old Judaism and abandon their current religion. The Author throughout the letter shows that the New Covenant and its Mediator are better and they are the fulfillment of the promises and shadows in the Old Testament and therefore, there is nothing to go back to. The apostasy being spoken of here is that in which a person leaves Christianity to go to Judaism before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Obviously, it can have modern applications of those who leave their profession of Christianity wherein they have clearly seen God’s work and His Word, ...


    1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

    ...m, the New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Westminster Federalism teaches that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. But the Covenant of Grace reaches its final administration and revelation in the New Covenant. But we, 1689 Federalists, deny this. We believe rather that the New Covenant/Covenant of Grace was revealed in these covenants and the blessings thereof given to the elect, but not because of the covenant they found themselves in, but because they believed the promise. We believe that the Covenant of Grace, prior to the cross, existed in promise form, and not an established covenant. As John Owen famously said, “Believers were saved under it [the Mosaic Covenant], but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.”[18] See more on 1689 Federalism and the case for it in chapter 7.

    Signs

    What do we actually mean by a sign and a seal? A sign is something visible which points to inward and spiritual realities. The rainbow was the visible sign of the Noahic Covenant, it functioned as a token (“Something serving as an indication, proof, or expression of something else”[19]) that God will not destroy the earth by water again (Gen. 9:13-17). Circumcision functioned as a visible sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, which symbolized the need to be cleansed from sin through blood spilling. For Abraham, it was a sign and a seal of the faith which he had prior to circumcision (Rom. 4:11). The Sabbath functioned as a visible sign of the Mosaic Covenant. It functioned as a sign that God had set His people apart (Ex. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20). There is no sign mentioned in connection with the Davidic or the New Covenant explicitly. But the throne would probably fit as a visible sign for David that he will always have someone from his posterity to sit on it and rule over Israel. As for the New Covenant, we only have two “positive and sovereign institution[s]” (1689 28:1). I admit from the start that we have no text in the New Testament identifying baptism or the Lord's Supper either as a sign individually, or signs together of the New Covenant. But does this then imply that we have no reason to see them as signs at all? Obviously not. We see them as signs of the New Covenant when we understand what a sign or a token is.

    We noted above on Colossians 2:11-12 that we do not see baptism replacing/fulfilling circumcision as the sign of the New Covenant, as it is often alleged by our Presbyterian brethren, but rather, circumcision of the foreskin has its counterpart in the circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the foreskin was not fulfilled in water baptism, but rather in the circumcision of the heart. There is nothing said there about water baptism being fulfilled and has become the sign of the covenant, as it functioned for the Abrahamic Covenant. That was not the purpose or intention of the Apostle. But we may indeed see baptism as a sign of the covenant because baptism signifies something. Our Confession says that baptism is a sign of fellowship and union with Christ, as we tried to show above. Baptism shows us the blessings of the covenant. In water baptism, we picture the spiritual union which we have in Christ and thus we have it as a sign of the blessings of the New Covenant. In baptism, we picture the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Christ and our union with Him. Therefore, baptism is a sign...


    1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 32: Of the Last Judgment - Commentary

    ...assage does not merely describe eternity, but it describes the conditions of the sheep and the goats in eternity. One group goes “into eternal punishment,” the other “into eternal life.” We know that Christians will not be annihilated, but will forever live with God, therefore, since the condition of the righteous is that of unending life, it is unjustified to believe that the punishment of the wicked is not unending, just like the duration of eternal life. The natural implication of the language is that the duration is the same for both the righteous as well as the wicked, although the condition is radically different. Albert Barnes quotes John Owen saying:

    The original word -  αἰώνιον  aionion - is employed in the New Testament 66 times. Of these, in 51 instances it is used of the happiness of the righteous; in two, of God’s existence; in six, of the church and the Messiah’s kingdom; and in the remaining seven, of the future punishment of the wicked. If in these seven instances we attach to the word the idea of limited duration, consistency requires that the same idea of limited duration should be given it in the 51 cases of its application to the future glory of the righteous, and the two instances of its application to God’s existence, and the six eases of its appropriation to the future reign of the Messiah and the glory and perpetuity of the church. But no one will presume to deny that in these instances it denotes unlimited duration, and therefore, in accordance with the sound laws of interpretation and of language itself, the same sense of unlimited duration must be given it when used of future punishment - Owen, in loc.[4]

    We know that this has been the common and plain understanding of these words throughout the ages of the Church. If the condition of the righteous is one of unending life, the condition of the wicked should also be that of unending punishment.

    Matthew 25:41 says, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” The wicked meet the same fate as the devil and his angels. They share in his punishment, having been followers of his. The wicked go into “the eternal fire”, in contrast, of the righteous He says, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). Again, the conditions are totally opposite and v. 46 makes clear that the duration is the same. Furthermore, in v. 41 the fire is said to be “the eternal fire”. John Gill says that what “is meant, [is] the wrath of God; and the phrase expresses the intolerable fierceness of it, and its perpetual continuance; the sense of which, without intermission, will ever be felt in the conscience; and is the punishment of sense, the wicked will for ever endure”[2]. The fire itself is described in the same way and with the same word as the punishment is (c.f. Matt 3:12; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17). Therefore, both the fire as well as the punishment by that fire is everlasting. In this passage (vv. 41, 46), both the eternal fire and the eternal punishment are connected together. As Alan W. Gomes observed, “If suffering is lacking, so is punishment; punishment entails suffering. But suffering entails consciousness.”[5] Therefore, it will not do to say that only the fire is described as eternal and unending, while the suffering itself is not. That is not the case. Both things are described in the same word...


    Limited Atonement, Definite Redemption - Scripture List & Case

    ... are chosen” (Mt. 22:14). Christ encouraged Paul to preach the gospel in Corinth; “for I have many people in this city” (Ac. 18:10). It is true that whoever believes in Christ will be saved, but the Bible teaches that some believe and others do not believe because of the electing choice of the Father and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. God makes those dead in sins and unable, alive and able (Eph. 2:1). The unwilling are made willing. “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:44).[11]

    John Owen’s case for Limited Atonement[12]

    The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

    1. All the sins of all men.
    2. All the sins of some men, or
    3. Some of the sins of all men.

    In which case it may be said:

    1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
    2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
    3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

    You answer, "Because of unbelief."

    • I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

    Usage of the word “all”, usually indicates all of a set or many depending on the context

    Mt 2:3-4 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

    Mt 3:5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,

    Mt 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of[13] evil against you falsely on my account.

    Mt 10:21-22 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

    Mk 1:5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Lk 7:30)

    Lk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened,

    Jn 4:29 “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?”

    Jn 8:2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.

    Acts 2:17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

    Acts 10:12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. (“kinds of” is not in the Greek text)

    Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,

    Acts 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

    Acts 21:27-28 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia,...