But the wider context, say, verses 26 through 39 speak in several places of our response to divine love: we are to search for the right prayer with the help of the spirit (vv 26-27); we are to have hope in our ability to overcome,with divine help, the evil "principalities" (v 37-38).
God must grant it first, then they repent
Yes, of course. The order, from the human temporal perspective is:
The order for God does not exist, because He acts outside of time. God both sends the grace and predestines the elect in the same eternal act of love.
why is the order of a person responding first, then getting forgiven now an issue?
It is an issue because we are discussing free will. You say that because God knows his elect from the foundation of time, man has not free will. I say that it does not follow because God also knows the free-willed responses to grace before the foundation of time. This nuance is escaping you and I need to magnify it in order to make the explanation that you asked for.
clearly the order of the Acts 13:48 states that those who had been appointed unto eternal life then believed
Yes, but they also responded to grace, in that case, to Paul's and Barnabas's preaching (Acts 13:42ff). We see the same pattern in Matthew 25: those who did good works: fed the hungry, clothed the poor, etc., are proclaimed the elect "from the foundation of the world". But nothing in Matthew 25 or here in Acts 13 suggests that these righteous responces to grace (feeding the hungry, spreading the faith, and so on) were somehow not freely chosen.
I'll take it one step further and say that the Bible contains passages that would seem to have no other purpose but to teach us that God waits (in a metaphorical sense) for our response, then metes justice. God the Father, following the fall of Adam, is depicted not knowing where Adam and Eve were. Why did Holy Moses put that inspired passage in the book, and risked us doubting the absolute omniscience of God? The only reason I can think of is to underscore that Adam and Eve acted on their own free will in the garden (the hesitation accompanying the eating of the forbidden fruit also points to their free will). Similarly, Jesus acts as if He does not know that the woman with a blood disease touched His garment, yet He proclaims the woman saved. In all the healing episodes there is a pattern: the one being healed has to do something himself or someone has to intercede for him or her, and then the healing is granted. But we are to see the paradigm of salvation in the healing episodes, are we not? And then it is the same order again: grace is present; response to grace is freely made; salvation "from the foundation of the world" is granted.
The concept of a “wider context” argues against your view. Consider the wider context to include then the entire message of the letter to the Romans. Clearly, Romans 9 (the follow on of chap. 8) underscores that there is no human input into the decision God makes regarding whom He will rescue. I reproduce much of that argument here...
11 “...for though the twins were not yet born (Jacob & Esau) and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE WOULD STAND, not because of works but BECAUSE OF HIM WHO CALLS, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ SO THEN IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MAN WHO WILLS (chooses) OR THE MAN WHO RUNS (behaves), BUT ON GOD WHO HAS MERCY...
16 You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you O man who answers back to God?...”
The wider context is arguing that God alone is deciding the fate of men, not the men themselves. The order of choosing to trust Christ is critical here. You argue that God bases His rescue on your response. We argue that you respond because of His rescue. Notice, the order of these events is very important to both sides of this issue. Your view has got to have the man act first (following the common grace bestowed on all mankind). We have got to have God acting first, because we contend that is what the Scriptures state.
And, yet we notice that you continue to say, “Yes, but they also responded to grace, in that case, to Paul’s and Barnabas’s preaching (Acts 13:42ff).” Of course they responded to grace BECAUSE THEY WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE. The appointment occurred first, then the response occurred. That is what the text teaches. “...and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Notice, it does not say, “They responded and were then appointed to eternal life.” That is what makes the report of Luke so very powerful and central to the point he was trying to make. The Gospel is not about men coming around, but God reaching out to rescue the unlovely. Then the men begin to come around to trust, obey and respond to grace.
But, you continue to argue that the issues of the order of acting make little difference. Then you contend that the response of man HAS TO OCCUR FIRST. Can you see this happening?
The paradigm of salvation is the raising of Lazarus. He is dead three days, beginning to stink from the rotting flesh. The crowd is angry that Jesus waited so long. He could have come earlier and maybe something could have been done. But, now...it is hopeless. Really? Jesus simply walks in to the smelly toe-tag dead corpse and orders Lazarus to rise. The dead man gets up and comes out of the tomb. This is analagous to salvation. Now, do you contend that the “free will” of Lazarus saying, “Okay, let me think about this and if I personally choose to respond, I will come back to life and get up.”?