“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.
Sovereignty of God in the Conversion of Saul
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Jan 23, 2011.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
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. -
It's not that they didn't know who was talking but they did not understand what was said. The word that is used is certainly speaking of not hearing (as in being deaf) or with no comprehension -
-
-
-
-
TomVols said: ↑Ever wonder why people take theological truths and make light of them with sensless questions, in direct violation of 2 Tim 2:23?Click to expand...
We could always find out by asking the Pharisees of Christ's day because they were really good at that. -
Luke2427 said: ↑If he wishes to make Saul willing by a blinding light, then he may certainly do so. If he wishes to make him willing by submersing him in a sea of spaghetti he may do that as well.
The point is that God made him willing. His means are strictly up to him.
He made you willing one day to yield to Christ, probably not by a blinding light and a mighty voice from heaven, but in his own way.
That is what God does. It is his prerogative to do it howsoever he pleases.Click to expand...
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?
Yes, I considered then the whole ten years or so that I was a devout Arminian- a Free Will Baptist preacher.Click to expand... -
webdog said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
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. -
glfredrick said: ↑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.Click to expand...
After all, what if God fails to chose them?Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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?
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.Click to expand... -
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.
Skandelon said: ↑Not true. Both Calvinists and Arminians "trust God with their eternal destiny."Click to expand...
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.
Skandelon said: ↑God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him. Again, I believe both camps affirm this biblical truth.Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑Materially involved? What does that mean?Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑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!Click to expand... -
glfredrick said: ↑First, it strikes me that you really enjoy the debate.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
Here, you have introduced equivocation in making "trust God with their eternal destiny" mean the same thing for yourself and for meClick to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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 itClick to expand...
I meant by that, "God selects those who He sees in faith."Click to expand...
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).Click to expand... -
It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporterglfredrick said: ↑It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.Click to expand...
-
glfredrick said: ↑It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.Click to expand...
-
webdog said: ↑What are you in it for, the opportunity to misrepresent, judge hearts and attack?Click to expand...
-
Luke2427 said: ↑Isn't that what I said?Click to expand...
Page 2 of 5