Who has not failed?

You have made it very clear that you believe Paul's "acting ignorantly in unbelief" EXCUSES Paul from this very sin BECAUSE the Holy Spirit has not convicted Paul of this sin.

You just said in this quote above that Paul rejected the gospel "ignoranly in unbelief".

You most certainly have argued that "God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save" and you said you "prove this" with Paul's own testimony in 1 Tim 1.

Look at your own words Bob...

....."the fact that Paul living in Jerusalem at the time of christ would most certainly have heard what Christ, and John the baptizer and the apostles were preaching - yet he rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief" as he said."

Do you see your own words describing how Paul heard the gospel and rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief" as he (Paul) said? And where do you say Paul said this?

Bob: ..."I prove that with Paul's own 1Tim 1 "I acted ignorantly in unbelief"

I have inserted no such thing. Read your own words, follow your own inserts and explain why you say.... "I never argue "God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

1) You say Paul heard the gospel and rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief".

2) You say "ignorantly in unbelief" means NOT convicted by the Holy Spirit.

3) You say "I never argue God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

You have a contradiction in your own views. Feel free to explain, change or retract something.

 

This reply does not answer any of my questions. The purpose of my questions are so I can be clear on what you posted and why. I do not want to misrepresent your view. If you want someone to understand your points you have to be willing to entertain questions meant for clarifications.

Here is my post again, if you will answer my questions then I will know if you are speaking about the Holy Spirit conviction concerning the gospel or if you are thinking of something else.....

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:

 

Interesting, you want to know where it is written that Paul heard the gospel prior to his encounter with Jesus?

I don't see where the scripture ever says the Spirit revealed Himself to Paul either prior to or during his conversion. It says Jesus revealed Himself, yet you believe the Spirit did.

Your right, the scripture does not write out the words "Paul heard the gospel of Jesus Christ".

So that settles that right? Paul spent his time rounding up Christians and Paul had no idea what a Christain even was. Paul had no idea what "The Way" these Christians adhered to even was. Paul never even heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is your exegesis of the facts we know about Paul? You want to stick with this?

Act 9:1¶And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.



So you believe Paul had no idea what he was so angry about? Paul just hated Christians but had no idea what a Christian believed?

Now you insist you need to see scripture that states Saul heard the gospel, but you do not need to see scripture stating the Holy Spirit withholds conviction selectively, yet you believe and preach this?

:jesus:

 

I don't recall us debating the atonement in this thread.

Calvin preached a Limited Atonement, right?

You preach a Limited Holy Spirit Conviction.

I don't know how you harmonize this limited conviction doctrine with this scripture...

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I don't know why you believe the Holy Spirit would withhold conviction if God would like to have all men come unto the knowledge of the truth.

:jesus:

 

I have confused nothing.

You and Bob keep going back to the FACT that the Holy Spirit DOES convict ALL of sin. I have never disagreed with this.

You and Bob keep going back to the Holy Spirit convicting one of the gospel being SELECTIVE. I DO NOT agree with this.

There is no confusion on my part.

God has commanded ALL men everywhere to repent...

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Do you notice it says ALL men?

With your doctrine of Limited Conviction you have a Preacher giving a man the gospel and God going against His own word by NOT allowing the man conviction for, as you say, "reasons known only to God".

We also have this scripture...

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

However, your doctrine of Limited Conviction goes against God's word once again. Again it has a man hearing the gospel (and let's not get this confused with any silly nonsense about not hearing it said right) and God selectively withholding conviction.

Calvin said that the atonement of Christ was only for those elected to be saved.

Your doctrine is not much different except for the fact that your doctrine allows those God elects for conviction to then chose to accept or reject. Calvin said there was no choice.

Your form of election does not allow ALL men who hear the gospel a chance to be saved.

Calvin's election is a direct rebirth of the person.

HP's election is the election of who gets to be convicted when they hear the gospel.

Interesting...

:godisgood:

 

Once agian, as I said in the last post...

Do you see the part I underslined? So this is settled between us. We agree that the Spirit is at work convicting ALL of sin.

Let's move on to the point of contention now.

We are discussing the Convicting power of the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of the gospel.

This is what you have said is SELECTIVE...

 

Clear your position up for me.

Does the Holy Spirit always convict a person when they hear the gospel?

Or is the Holy Spirit selective as to who gets convicted and who does not when they hear the gospel?

:jesus:

 

Ok, let's narrow this down and get on the same subject.

It is not about who hears being selective.

It is about those who do hear and whether or not the Holy Spirit selectively convicts them when they hear.

:jesus:

 

Then you agree that the Holy Spirit is always at work convicting each person who is hearing the gospel, but it is man who is the problem and therefore held accountable for rejecting the Holy Spirit's prompting at the hearing?

I see you are shying away from Bob's pov that Paul indeed heard the gospel yet rejected it BECAUSE the Holy Spirit never convicted Paul that it was truth.

:jesus:

 

Ok, but Saul, according to you, was not sinning and was not choosing Christ either.

Are you telling me that Saul was saved while he was persecuting the church because he was not held accountable for he was doing it in ignorance in unbelief?

:godisgood:

 

You will not be able to produce one post that would remotely suggest that this is "my argument". As always, I invite all questions regarding my post and I am willing to clarify or explain any of them. I can only hope that you will someday do the same and realize the value in being able to answer tough questions or explain yourself.

A good bible teacher will explain and answer all questions that arise out of matter of fact statements. I believe that you see the problem in your belief system and rather than entertain the thought that your views might have some problems you decide the questions are "extreme" scenarios.

Now I asked you a simple question, will you simply answer it?

Do you believe Saul was saved while he was persecuting Christians?

I ask this because you claim Paul said he was "blameless". You also declared he was not accountable for doing what he was doing against Christians because "ignorantly in unbelief" excuses him from guilt.

So, was Saul saved while being blameless as he said and persecuting Christians in ignorance?

If not, then what does "blameless" really mean to you?

:jesus: