Featured Were theElect always Sheeps, and not Goats at all?

Is that the definition of a "goat"?

From the parable, I thought a goat was something that LOOKS like a sheep when it is young (like tares and wheat) and can be found congregating with the sheep (as any Church can affirm), but was not, is not and never will be a sheep.

 

Technically, the parable that deals with that distinguishes between "not of my sheep" and "my sheep" with the Father giving (elsewhere described as 'draws') the sheep to Jesus ... who lays down his life for SHEEP (elsewhere clarified as 'while we were yet sinners').

A stray sheep is still a sheep. It still belongs to the shepherd that foreknew it. It must be found and brought into the flock.

 

However, I will grant that 'feral' sheep do live like wild goats (Ephesians 2:1-3) ... until rescued and carried back to the flock.

 

Utter nonsense. Just more man-made fiction copy and pasted.
No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

 

No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

 

Repeating nonsense is all they have, but note the lack of scripture to support their bogus views.
They deny through ambassadors, God begs the lost to be reconciled. They deny all the verses that say "your faith." his faith" and "my faith." They deny Paul taught that people are to believe in Jesus.(Acts 19:4)

 

You did not answer his actual question ... "You think Paul had actually means to reject Jesus at that point in time?" A simple "Yes" or "No" could have answered it, but you do not seem to have addressed what YOU think at all.

Since your response seemed directed towards "Calvinism" and "they", I take that as an open invitation for anyone to respond. So I will.

1. No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.

• I agree. No verse says that. There are lots of things that are not said in the bible. Some true and some false. However, I also know of no one else (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) that says that Paul was not convinced Jesus was God on the road to Damascus. This would seem to be either a red-herring or a strawman or a non sequitur.

2. After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.

• So states the book of acts and the letters of Paul. Again, I know of no reasonable person, Calvinist or non-Calvinist, that claims otherwise. [I do know of two individuals that believe that Paul was a false Apostle sent to sow tares among the holy scriptures, but they are extreme outliers that I do not consider followers of Christ.] The question was not "DID PAUL OBEY GOD?", since it is obvious that he did. The question is "COULD PAUL HAVE REFUSED GOD?"
• Does any verse say that Paul could have refused to do as God willed and commanded? (Jonah tried and failed.)

3. Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

• Perhaps, but you have yet to actually prove it from scripture. What does Reformed Theology teach that cannot be supported with scripture, but scripture unequivocally proves false?
  
• Personally, I believe that Sotierology comes down to interpretation, which is why arguments from the 4th century are still being made using the same common book of scripture.

4. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

• So you claim, but have not presented any proof.
• I once referred to this as making claims "ex cathedra", which was not actually intended as a reference to the pope. "Ex cathedra" is latin for "from the chair" and refers to a statement made with the full authority of office. In other words, I was accusing you of making claims that we are expected to accept as true simply on the authority that "YOU SAY SO".
• What specific assertion was made (and by whom) and what specific scripture does that assertion conflict with?
• Equally important is to view the whole Bible, so are there also any scriptures that support the specific assertion?