Sovereignty of God in the Conversion of Saul

“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

Those were the words that cut Paul to the quick when he realized that the God he thought he was serving he was actually persecuting. IMO, Paul's sin pales in comparison to what David did.

Thank you. I knew that but had forgotten. I was actually trying to peg down (in my mind) in the scriptures the other day where Saul's name was changed.

 

ESV 8And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am(P) Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9(Q) Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[b] the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

I believe those who were with Saul heard the voice but had no clue as to who was talking. They heard the voice but did not understand who was doing the talking, not that they did not understand the language. That's merely a theory. Maybe Saul was the only one to see the light that blinded him.

 

...or they did not understand who was talking, or how a voice could be heard without anyone being seen.

 

...which doesn't contradict what I said.

 

Ever wonder why people ignore questions that might challenge their narrow theological window and dismiss them as senseless while quoting scriptures that have nothing to do with what is being questioned?

We could always find out by asking the Pharisees of Christ's day because they were really good at that.

 

I understand that, but I was asking you to speculate as to WHY you THINK God may have chosen such outwardly visible means with regard to Paul, but no so much with the rest of us?

I asked this to draw attention to the uniqueness of Paul's calling and the basis for his authority as an apostle. I did this to help draw a distinction in the manner by which God might set aside his divinely appointed messengers and those who are meant to respond to their message. If that distinction is not apparent to you already maybe this line of questions would help?

Oh, good then we have something in common. I was a devote Calvinistic preacher for just over 10 years. Let me ask you, did you ever study and come to understand the doctrine of Israel's judicial hardening?

 

It occurs to me that many an Arminian (or one who holds a similar position while disavowing the label) are greatly afraid of trusting God with their eternal destiny.

After all, what if God fails to chose them?

I can understand why so many would want to be materially involved in their own salvation, but I also understand that it may be, ultimately, of no avail.

Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation is of and by the Lord only -- on His terms -- and those who have formulated some religious expression that does not hold God as sovereign will one day likely learn the error of their ways. Perhaps not all, for some may indeed be the elect of God, perhaps even more than we might imagine, but not all, for salvation is of the Lord as the Lord wills, not as man wills.

 

Not true. Both Calvinists and Arminians "trust God with their eternal destiny."

God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him. Again, I believe both camps affirm this biblical truth.

Materially involved? What does that mean?

Regardless, both Calvinists and Arminians believe men are "involved" in that even Calvinists affirm that faith is needed for salvation, so I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make?

Amen!

 

First, it strikes me that you really enjoy the debate. That may or may not be the best, for with your enjoyment of the debate, you may at times not care as much for God's Word or for the damage you do to God's people in living for the argument instead of for Him. But, that being said, you are bringing subtle fallacies into your points that may not be evident to some with whom you debate. I'd like to address those below.

Here, you have introduced equivocation in making "trust God with their eternal destiny" mean the same thing for yourself and for me. It is obvious that we do not agree as to what that term actually means or else, there would be no reason to debate at all. We would be on the same page and walking arm-in-arm in our Reformed doctrine together. So, what do I mean that is different from what you mean?

I would suggest that the context of my remark is that God ALONE decides whether one is destined to be with Him for an eternity, while you would add that God makes use of our human effort at "faith" in order to see whom it is that He should select for an eternity with Him.

I am not including any human efforts such as pre-justification faith in my use of the term "trust God with their eternal destiny," hence my use of that phrase very literally as, "trust God -- completely -- with one's eternal destiny. He ALONE decides, elects, and proceeds to an effectual call, etc.

Here you involve just the mental gymnastics I outline above. Both camps do not "affirm this biblical truth" in the manner in which you use it. That is a very Arminian thought and not at all a Reformed Doctrine. As you well know, those with a Reformed perspective do not see God "obligating Himself to save whosoever believes in Him..." but rather, those whom He has elected. Persons with Reformed theology would say that "All those God elected would equal the "whosoever" comes." This subtle difference is important, for it states a biblical monergism versus a religious synergism perspective.

I meant by that, "God selects those who He sees in faith." I do not believe that God operates in that fashion, and I do not believe that point can be proven out biblically with any solid exegesis of texts. That position is also (as above) synergistic versus monergistic.

But, this again is equivocation. While we both have a tenet of our theology that includes a faith response of man, that response is timed differently and is as outlined above. Faith comes in response to God's election and effectual call, not preceding those as in Arminian views (and in fact, even true Arminianism does not teach that faith precedes God's grace).

 

As apposed to you who are doing this against your desire? Come now, let's not engage in the futile attempt to guess the intent of each other's heart, okay?

It is a good thing you are here to point these things out to all the others who remain in ignorance.

The term equivocation usually connotes the idea of purposeful deception or vagueness or misleading. Now, I'm pointing out how we both believe that God is to be trusted with our eternal destiny, which is most definitely true, while you imply that non-Cals do not believe this. So, who is being purposefully deceptive and misleading? My statement was to force you to better explain and define your point of view because stating that you "trust God with your eternal destiny" without clear explanation suggests that we do not...which is MISLEADING and at the very root of "equivocation."

And by making the statement that I did I force you to better explain your position because you failed the first time to draw any distinction in our views. That is what a discussion is all about.

And there you have it, a distinction between our two points of view without "equivocation" (a misleading statement). Was that so difficult?

Really? You don't affirm that God has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him? Most Calvinists seem to affirm this, why don't you? Whether or not one affirms the unconditional election of individuals or not they both typically affirm that God has chosen to save whosoever believes. Whether the individual believes as a result of a free response to the gospel's call or the result of the effectual calling doesn't change that truth.

Believe it or not, not all non-Cals believe in a foresight of faith view with regard to election and or predestination.

How is it equivocation to point out the truth of what we believe? We, as you just stated, do affirm God's gracious work prior to salvation, yet the first time you implied that we don't even believe that our "salvation is of and by the Lord only -- on His terms." To suggest that only Calvinists believe this is the fallacy of "begging the question." I attempted to point that out by simply agreeing with your statement in hopes that you would take another stab at it and better define your position and the actual points of contention between us, which now you have done. Thanks

 

It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.

 

Doesnt take long does it:laugh:

 

What are you in it for, the opportunity to misrepresent, judge hearts and attack?

 

Trolls hunt down people on other threads to pad their post count. Is that you? :love2:

 

Didn't you say they could hear sound but not understand the language? If so, what I said is not what you said.