Who has not failed?

So Saul knew he needed salvation because the Holy Spirit had convicted him of his sin,

But then when the salvation Saul knew he needed was revealed unto Saul, the Holy Spirit decided NOT to convict Saul of that very salvation Saul knew he needed, God's salvation in Jesus Christ.

So then Jesus had to visit Saul personally.

And this makes perfect sense to you?

 

I have good news for all of you who find yourselves kicking against the pricks.

All who argue against the truth of OSAS.
All who argue against the truth of original sin.

You will not be held accountable for you are "acting out of ignorance and in unbelief".

:wavey:

 

Here is what you say you believe; show me if I misrepresent what I say you believe.

1) God convicts ALL of sin and thus they are held accountable (condemnation) for their sin and they know they are in need of salvation.

2) God does NOT convict ALL that Jesus Christ is the atonement for their sin and that receiving this atonement by faith would save them. Thus God withholds the Holy Spirit conviction that could possibly save them if they would so choose. (they are ignorantly in unbelief).

How is this much different than Calvin's selective election accept for the free will choosing part? In your model God is still selectively choosing who get's possible saving conviction and who does not. Everyone does not get the chance to be saved.

 

Those in Matt 7 you say.... "who were convicted".

Then you say "Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition."

You have been arguing that Saul had NOT been convicted because Paul said he did it "ignorantly in unbelief".


Is this a misspeak on your part? If so please reword it for me that it may not contradict yourself.

 

What was the specific point Saul was NOT convicted on?

1Ti 1:13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

WHY did Saul reject believing in Jesus Christ?

You claim, BobRyan, that Paul's sin of "ignorance in unbelief" is excused because the Holy Spirit did NOT convict Saul concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I have promoted no such wild idea and neither have you.

Things that do not exist can be very illusive indeed.

I'm not sure if you are diliberately posting red-herrings or if you truly do not understand my point of view and your own contradictory statements.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have just misunderstood a post of mine somewhere. If you have a post of mine that would contradict what I just said above feel free to bring it forward and let me either defend it, explain it or retract it.

:jesus:

 

I have extended to you the offer of bringing forward any post of mine that may look as though I have contradicted myself that I may have a chance to explain. I am asking you to explain your post so I will not misrepresent your pov in this disscussion.

You said,

By saying "were convicted" are you saying they were convicted by the Holy Spirit to obey the commandment to believe on Jesus Christ?

I ask this because you then say,

That "same condition" would be "convicted" by the Holy Spirit to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

But you said earlier that Paul was not convicted by the Holy Spirit to believe on Jesus Christ and therefore was not held accountable for his "unbelief".

Was he convicted on this point as was those in Matt 7 or wasn't he?

Clear this up for me because these "notices" are contradicting your earlier comments.

Please, stay on point.

:jesus:

 

Act 22:20And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Do you suppose Saul was LOVING his brother as he ws CONSENTING unto his death?

Gal 1:13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


Do you suppose Saul was persecuting and wasting the Christians out of love for them?

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Did Saul actually do any of the physical killing? I think not, nor would the Jews actually do the physical killing of Jesus, it was not allowed, yet they were guilty of rounding Him up. Paul most certainly understood his guilt in his part of rounding them up for the slaughter. Do you believe no Christians lost their lives as an indirect result of Saul's persecution?

Paul confessed his sins and you want to say to Paul, "No Paul, you did nothing wrong because the Holy Spirit did not convict you, it is the Holy Spirit's fault that you were confused about thou shall not kill".

Jesus sure didn't see the scribes and Pharisees the way they seen themselves.

When Paul says he was "blameless" it was from his sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical point of view of what a good God fearing person ought to be. Paul was "blameless" according to the rules of his sect.

 

In your pov then, unless God convicts, or as you say "opens the eyes", of a person of the truth of the gospel they cannot choose to obey the gospel which they have heard. Hearing simply isn't enough for accountability.

Have I understood your position?

If I have, then in your understanding of scripture the Holy Spirit chooses to open the eyes of some and others He does not.

So the ones who hear the gospel but do not get the chance to believe on Jesus Christ because the Spirit chooses to withhold conviction, do these still get condemned for unbelief?

:jesus:

 

Are you serious! And you want to post here to teach us the scriptures?

You can take a single scripture such as 1Ti 1:13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

and contsruct a doctrine that declares the Holy Spirit withholds conviction at random.

"Who said Paul ever heard the gospel?"

I pray you can say such a thing with a good conscience towards truth. It is more likely you see a flaw in your pov but at all cost the pov must stand.

Hold on to the pov at all cost! Maybe Paul never heard the true gospel spoken in the correct way. Ok.

But acording to your pov, even if Paul heard the gospel in the correct way the Holy Spirit still could have chosen to NOT allow Paul conviction of it's truth.

What gospel did Paul hear that led him to believe? Can you answer that for me? What sayeth the scripture?

Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

There is the gospel Paul heard that day. Jesus is Lord. Believe it or not, that is your choice, that is salvation, that is the portion of the gospel message that saves, and it saves even if one does not understand all the semantics.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

What is missing in this text is your pov that the Holy Spirit must convict. It would most correctly read....

So then faith [cometh] by hearing and the Holy Spirit's election, and hearing by the word of God.

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world, But the Spirit did not select all to be convicted.

Boy, doesn't this sound very familiar? Ever hear of Calvin?

Calvin has Limited Atonement. You two have Limited Gospel and Limited Conviction.

:jesus: