-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
An honest question about free will.
- Thread starter Farley
- Start date
We don't know what happened to the companions later. But as for Saul, in response to Rev. G., he was breathing murderous threats towards those he thought were blaspheming God. Who is going to say this is wrong? I feel the same way when I hear of God's character being belittled and blasphemed. I feel angry. I also feel somewhat helpless. Paul, however, did not feel helpless. He was going to try to erase the blasphemy.
What Jesus did was show him that it was not blasphemy and that He was, indeed, God and the God of the very sect that Saul was hating.
Saul would not have been a 'super Pharisee' had he not wanted to know the truth and please God. He was zealous for the truth he thought he knew. That is not a bad thing!
Jesus showed Saul the truth and, as Jesus knew he would, Saul responded. It was what he had wanted all along anyway.
Saul, in Acts, did not turn from an evil person into a good person per se. He turned from a misdirected person into a directed person, and only God knows what the man's heart was truly like before and during. We have got to quit judging men's hearts. We know Saul was changed. We know he was born again. But how God was judging him at any given time is not ours to know.
=========
edit: Dallas, your post got in before mine; mine is not in disagreement with yours.
[ November 03, 2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
What Jesus did was show him that it was not blasphemy and that He was, indeed, God and the God of the very sect that Saul was hating.
Saul would not have been a 'super Pharisee' had he not wanted to know the truth and please God. He was zealous for the truth he thought he knew. That is not a bad thing!
Jesus showed Saul the truth and, as Jesus knew he would, Saul responded. It was what he had wanted all along anyway.
Saul, in Acts, did not turn from an evil person into a good person per se. He turned from a misdirected person into a directed person, and only God knows what the man's heart was truly like before and during. We have got to quit judging men's hearts. We know Saul was changed. We know he was born again. But how God was judging him at any given time is not ours to know.
=========
edit: Dallas, your post got in before mine; mine is not in disagreement with yours.
[ November 03, 2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
"But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you." Gal. 4.18
These are the words of Paul, they imply to me he understood his zealous actions were not a good thing.
Also remember the sons of Aaron who offered strange fire in the altar of God; they certainly were zealous, but not in the right way and they displeased God.
Respectfully, Helen I do not want to give the impression of disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, but we cannot say the actions of a zealot are a good thing because the intentions were from the perceived service they do to God.
Jesus told the desciples the day would come when they would think they do God a service to kill them.
The Taliban perceives their actions to be in line with the will of God.
Zealous actions are only good when measured by the Grace of God, otherwise they fall into a category of "what ever I want is o.k." just attach the name "religion" to it and everything is alright.
Scripture is not seperated from itself, but everywhere always should be in support of itself; if not, we open the door to things such as we have seen, (attempts of some to justify the actions of Jesse Jackson as the only option he had to bring 'the young lady to the Lord.'). Of course he was zealous, but is this a biblical method approved in bringing any to Christ?
NO! It is no more than sin, any who would propose zealous actions are justified by the perception the individual has of right and wrong is permitting the throwing out of scripture and saying 'anything goes.'
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
OK, let me put it this way then. Here is a picture a wonderful older sister in Christ gave me one time that helps me in my refusal to judge people.
If you have a rubber ball on a short string and you swing it around, it cannot go very high or low. If you have a rubber ball on a long string and swing it around, it can go very high and also very low.
Paul's zealousness, if you will, was a long string. He had swung very low. But that very string, that very zealousness in his nature, was also what swung him so high when he responded to Christ. That is what I was trying to say with 'misdirected' and 'directed.' The zealousness itself is not a bad thing. It is where it is directed which counts.
Sometimes maybe I just say things badly?
If you have a rubber ball on a short string and you swing it around, it cannot go very high or low. If you have a rubber ball on a long string and swing it around, it can go very high and also very low.
Paul's zealousness, if you will, was a long string. He had swung very low. But that very string, that very zealousness in his nature, was also what swung him so high when he responded to Christ. That is what I was trying to say with 'misdirected' and 'directed.' The zealousness itself is not a bad thing. It is where it is directed which counts.
Sometimes maybe I just say things badly?
I am not perfect either.
I still believe zealous behavior when controlled by depraved wills begets depravity.
When directed by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit the result is humble servants such as Paul of Tarsus.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:...hatred...fits of rage...But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
- Galatians 5:19-23
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light..."
- 1 John 2:9-10
So, Helen, the murder of Christians isn't wrong? Yes, Paul acted in ignorance and unbelief - but that doesn't mean those things are not sinful. In fact Paul states that he was once himself a "blasphemer" and a "persecutor" and a "violent man" - and that he was the "worst" of sinners because of this (1 Tim. 1:13-16). It is sad that you are downplaying the heinousness of sin to make it seem like Paul was better than he was. This is especially true since your approach tends to make it appear that Paul was a "good" but "misguided" man who was useful to God rather than a rebel who was saved only because of the grace of God.
Rev. G
Y
Yelsew
Guest
You need to ask Jesus that Question, but you'll notice there is no further mention of them.
Why didn't they have the same experience? Why didn't God give them a "fair" chance to "hear"?
Rev. G
Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]Again, Rev. G for an answer to either question you need to ask Jesus. What we do know is there is no further mention of Saul's companions.
"Lord, what made Paul to differ from his companions, who were seemingly unconverted? What makes Yelsew, or Chappie, or Helen, or me different from the unrepentant?"
"FOR WHO MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM ANYONE ELSE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE? AND IF YOU DID RECEIVE IT, WHY DO YOU BOAST AS THOUGH YOU DID NOT?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7
"I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION. IT DOES NOT, THEREFORE, DEPEND ON MAN'S DESIRE OR EFFORT, BUT ON GOD'S MERCY." - Romans 9:15-16
The fact that they can't do it without the enabling power of God doesn't mean God can't use what you say or do as part of the plan. It is true that God's will is done whether or not we are obedient, but this question is still meaningless to anyone who is truly His. The motivating force isn't to add "souls won for Jesus" notches to our belts. God is the motivating force. We do these things because God works them in us.
Rev. G, I'm putting you and Ken on a short list that so far has included only a few evolutionists I have debated with. The list is of those who deliberately distort my meaning when I write something. At least I know from the PM's I am getting that others are not misunderstanding me, so your tactics, if that is what they are (and that is actually what I am presuming) are not working.
Helen:
How in the world have Ken and I distorted your meanings?
What you said:
What else you have said:
Look, Helen, I have been trying to honestly dialogue with you about the extent of the atonement, etc. We obviously don't agree, but I have tried to dialogue honestly and respectfully with you.
Rev. G
[ November 04, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]
How in the world have Ken and I distorted your meanings?
What you said:
What I said:
These are full quotes. Only the bold lettering has been added.
What else you have said:
You have accused Ken and me of deliberate distortion and of using "tactics" against you. Sounds like you are judging our hearts...
Look, Helen, I have been trying to honestly dialogue with you about the extent of the atonement, etc. We obviously don't agree, but I have tried to dialogue honestly and respectfully with you.
Rev. G
[ November 04, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Could we agree that man is a reactionary?
By this I mean: Man acts depending upon what external forces motivate him.
a. I work, earn money, primarily to provide shelter, (motivated by external need to provide shelter).
b. I work, to provide sustenance for my physical body
c. I work to pursue accumulation of "wealth" at least to an extent to which I am able to live a more comfortable life.
d. I work to provide for my family (as the other things also are provided), those things I perceive they are desirous of.
e. I work righteously because God has worked in me His righteousness. Not before am I able to work the righteousness of God, but only that comparable to the Pharisees. Jesus said: except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees...
The will of man, is something which motivates toward certain of these goals. The will of man, however is depraved, like it or not, it fell, being part of Adam, when Adam fell, like it or not I have inherited this depraved will. When I attempt from out of this depraved will to bring forth righteousness, it results in something less than the righteousness of God revealed in Christ. Unless God moves upon me to provide me with that righteousness, I am unable to obtain it.
Consider this and reconcile it with your ideas of the ability of man to will himself into a relationship with God through Christ:
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Gen. 3.22-24
Why did God expell man from the Garden? Because man disobeyed God. What else do we learn from vs. 22? "...lest he put forth his hand and eat, and live for ever." God also expelled man from the garden of Eden to prevent the eating of the fruit of the tree of life in his depraved condition and living in this condition. Note the words: "lest he take" also note the tree of life, while man was in his original state of innocence was not forbidden to be eaten from, yet in the will of man, yet sinless, he chose to hearken to the pleasures of sin for a season and partake of that forbidden, how now can we hope the fallen will of man can do any thing but the same or worse? Without the Spirit of God to turn him, he cannot be turned.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
By this I mean: Man acts depending upon what external forces motivate him.
a. I work, earn money, primarily to provide shelter, (motivated by external need to provide shelter).
b. I work, to provide sustenance for my physical body
c. I work to pursue accumulation of "wealth" at least to an extent to which I am able to live a more comfortable life.
d. I work to provide for my family (as the other things also are provided), those things I perceive they are desirous of.
e. I work righteously because God has worked in me His righteousness. Not before am I able to work the righteousness of God, but only that comparable to the Pharisees. Jesus said: except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees...
The will of man, is something which motivates toward certain of these goals. The will of man, however is depraved, like it or not, it fell, being part of Adam, when Adam fell, like it or not I have inherited this depraved will. When I attempt from out of this depraved will to bring forth righteousness, it results in something less than the righteousness of God revealed in Christ. Unless God moves upon me to provide me with that righteousness, I am unable to obtain it.
Consider this and reconcile it with your ideas of the ability of man to will himself into a relationship with God through Christ:
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Gen. 3.22-24
Why did God expell man from the Garden? Because man disobeyed God. What else do we learn from vs. 22? "...lest he put forth his hand and eat, and live for ever." God also expelled man from the garden of Eden to prevent the eating of the fruit of the tree of life in his depraved condition and living in this condition. Note the words: "lest he take" also note the tree of life, while man was in his original state of innocence was not forbidden to be eaten from, yet in the will of man, yet sinless, he chose to hearken to the pleasures of sin for a season and partake of that forbidden, how now can we hope the fallen will of man can do any thing but the same or worse? Without the Spirit of God to turn him, he cannot be turned.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
Rev. G., if you look, you will see that what I said was that zeal for the Lord wasn't wrong, and it isn't. If Paul hadn't cared about the things of God, he wouldn't have cared about the Christians. But he did care. He cared a great deal. Typical of the time, he thought originally that he could earn favor with God through strict obedience to the rules and regulations. He mentions this himself.
Thus when this upstart sect came along (and that is what it looked like at the time), following someone who claimed to be the Messiah and even God Himself, Paul was furious. And if Paul had been right about his understanding of his Scriptures, he would have had every right to be.
Paul's zeal was not wrong. The object of his zeal was wrong. It is that exact same zeal we later see on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I never said it was right to kill Christians. That was an absurd statement on your part in regard both to what I wrote and in regard to what you certainly know about where I stand as a Christian!
But looking at it from Paul's point of view, or rather Saul's, he was defending the God of Scripture. He was mistaken, but his intent was correct -- to stand up for the truth he thought he knew.
Jesus corrected him. Rather dramatically, too! And Saul made no effort to 'stand up for himself' and offer excuses that we have read. In other words, from his reaction, I am guessing that he really did want to please and honor God all along.
And that is also why I said we don't know how God judged his heart. Saul's zealousness for God was not wrong at all! Nor, by the way, did he ever murder a Christian! What was wrong was his understanding of the truth, and when the Truth presented Himself to him, Saul immediately followed. This, I think, might be saying something about his character as Saul that we should pay attention to.
Now, I have copped a few phrases from emails I have gotten regarding some of our exchanges and I thank those who recognize their own words. What puzzles me, though Rev.G., is that these laymen understood clearly what I was trying to say, but you didn't. I don't know why, unless you have been simply looking to tear me apart because I am not a Calvinist. But yes, you have distorted things I have said and in another thread even denied that I had already explained something which I then had to search for and link for you -- which was only a few days old from a conversation with YOU!
In the long run, though, I understand that I am not actually speaking TO you, but rather using the opportunity you present to help others understand why so many of us oppose Calvinism and consider it unscriptural, and even worse.
Still, you can be awfully frustrating.
Thus when this upstart sect came along (and that is what it looked like at the time), following someone who claimed to be the Messiah and even God Himself, Paul was furious. And if Paul had been right about his understanding of his Scriptures, he would have had every right to be.
Paul's zeal was not wrong. The object of his zeal was wrong. It is that exact same zeal we later see on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I never said it was right to kill Christians. That was an absurd statement on your part in regard both to what I wrote and in regard to what you certainly know about where I stand as a Christian!
But looking at it from Paul's point of view, or rather Saul's, he was defending the God of Scripture. He was mistaken, but his intent was correct -- to stand up for the truth he thought he knew.
Jesus corrected him. Rather dramatically, too! And Saul made no effort to 'stand up for himself' and offer excuses that we have read. In other words, from his reaction, I am guessing that he really did want to please and honor God all along.
And that is also why I said we don't know how God judged his heart. Saul's zealousness for God was not wrong at all! Nor, by the way, did he ever murder a Christian! What was wrong was his understanding of the truth, and when the Truth presented Himself to him, Saul immediately followed. This, I think, might be saying something about his character as Saul that we should pay attention to.
Now, I have copped a few phrases from emails I have gotten regarding some of our exchanges and I thank those who recognize their own words. What puzzles me, though Rev.G., is that these laymen understood clearly what I was trying to say, but you didn't. I don't know why, unless you have been simply looking to tear me apart because I am not a Calvinist. But yes, you have distorted things I have said and in another thread even denied that I had already explained something which I then had to search for and link for you -- which was only a few days old from a conversation with YOU!
In the long run, though, I understand that I am not actually speaking TO you, but rather using the opportunity you present to help others understand why so many of us oppose Calvinism and consider it unscriptural, and even worse.
Still, you can be awfully frustrating.
I shouldn't speak for Rev. G, but I was rather taken aback by your statement, too. This all started with the following statement:
And that was followed by...
I will.
Do you doubt the zeal and sincerity of homicide bombers who kill innocent Jews for Allah? Will you defend their zeal in the same way because it is zeal for their god?
I suspect that you are unwittingly cutting Paul an undeserved break because you know how he ended up. I wonder if you'd be so eager to defend his zeal for God if he was never changed and ended up becoming famous for cheering at the deaths of Christians for the rest of his life.
I don't know what people are saying to you in email, but I didn't get the impression Rev G. misunderstood what you were saying at all.
Helen:
Or, let's put it closer to home. Zwingli, in his zeal for the Lord, drowned Anabaptists. Was his zeal good, but the object of his zeal wrong?
Let me say again, I count you as a sister in Christ. I have never counted you as an enemy. I have never tried to tear you apart because you are not a "Calvinist." And, above these things, I do hope that you will go back and take a look at our posts / exchanges. I may have been smart alecky once or twice, I don't doubt that, but I think you will find that I have tried to be fair with you and I have truly tried to understand your position.
Rev. G
So what separates Saul from the Muslims who flew airplanes into the WTC? They had a great zeal for God, although the object of their zeal was wrong.
Or, let's put it closer to home. Zwingli, in his zeal for the Lord, drowned Anabaptists. Was his zeal good, but the object of his zeal wrong?
Helen, you claim I don't understand what you are writing and that I misrepresent your position. Think about what you claim about my statements as well. I know that you never said that it was right to kill Christians. I was pointing out that Saul had murderous intentions in his heart. This is sinful! This is wrong! You seemed to downplay that aspect. Here is what you stated:
Does my statement make any sense to you now, in light of pointing this out to you?
It's always nice to deal "up front" with people, isn't it?
Can you please give me some "for instances"?
Helen, I've told you a couple of times that I consider you a sister in Christ and that you are loved. I have tried to communicate with you honestly. I think, though, that you have tried to tear me (and some others) apart because we are "Calvinists."
Helen, if you go to that page you will see that I did not forget. There is a difference between an explanation and "fully explaining" something. Go back and read the posts, friend.
Yes, while no "Calvinists" have made the claim that you "Arminians" are agents of the evil one or that what you believe is heresy we have been accused of such things, as well as of being unloving and unkind and untruthful, etc., etc., etc.
Ditto.
Let me say again, I count you as a sister in Christ. I have never counted you as an enemy. I have never tried to tear you apart because you are not a "Calvinist." And, above these things, I do hope that you will go back and take a look at our posts / exchanges. I may have been smart alecky once or twice, I don't doubt that, but I think you will find that I have tried to be fair with you and I have truly tried to understand your position.
Rev. G
KenH
Well-Known Member
Helen,
Only God can give a person spiritual eyes to see with and spiritual ears to hear with - it is God who gives spiritual understanding. All I can speak about is the understanding of the Bible that God used to bring me to repentance toward Him and faith in Jesus, and hope that God will bless what I say to His glory. If you disagree with what I say, there is nothing I can do about it, except that I pray for all people(including myself) that God will give them spiritual understanding according to His will.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
[ November 04, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]