Acts 26

[webdog]

2 things that stood out to me reading this yesterday.

19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.

First, it is stated by calvinists that Paul's conversion is the model we should look at in understanding unconditional election, yet we see Paul was obedient, contrary to the "I" in TULIP. Does this not show unconditional election to be based on a condition...obedience?

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

Second, was Paul's desire a carnal one...or a spirit filled one? If the former, how...and if the latter, how could his desire be different than the Lord's considering most in the multitude (upwards of 2000 people I have heard) would not be as Paul was without the chains? Why would his desire be other than the Lords?

 

[InTheLight]

2 things that stood out to me reading this yesterday.


First, it is stated by calvinists that Paul's conversion is the model we should look at in understanding unconditional election, yet we see Paul was obedient, contrary to the "I" in TULIP. Does this not show unconditional election to be based on a condition...obedience?

You make a great point.

The more I read the Bible through the lens of the Cal/non-Cal debate here on BB, the more verses I find that negate TULIP. However, I don't find many verses that tend to support TULIP.

 

[Skandelon]

Webdog,

I asked virtually the same question in regard to Paul's words at the beginning of Romans 9 where he wishes himself accursed for the sake of the hardened Jews, his fellow countrymen who are persecuting the church.

Was Paul, writing under inspiration, more merciful than the God who was inspiring his writings? Because if Calvinism is true, then clearly Paul is much more merciful than God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.

Of course he was not obedient to the heavenly vision. That is the very essence of Irresistible Grace. 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.'

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

So far as we know, Agrippa was not converted, so Paul's prayer went unasnwered. 'So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.' Or not in that case (Exod 33:19).

Steve

 

[jbh28]

Webdog,

I asked virtually the same question in regard to Paul's words at the beginning of Romans 9 where he wishes himself accursed for the sake of the hardened Jews, his fellow countrymen who are persecuting the church.

Was Paul, writing under inspiration, more merciful than the God who was inspiring his writings? Because if Calvinism is true, then clearly Paul is much more merciful than God.

Paul could hardly be called "more merciful" seeing as Paul died for no one and didn't atone for the sins of anyone.

 

[webdog]

Of course he was not obedient to the heavenly vision. That is the very essence of Irresistible Grace. 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.'

Did you mean disobedient? If so, words have meanings. Disobedience means the failure or refusal to obey. Was he obedient, or was it merely an illusion?

So far as we know, Agrippa was not converted, so Paul's prayer went unasnwered. 'So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.' Or not in that case (Exod 33:19).

Steve

What about the rest (possibly thousands in the amhitheater)? He desired they all were as he were...yet clearly in your doctrine God doesn't truly desire all to really be as Paul was else they would be. Was Paul's desire carnal then?

 

[Winman]

Of course he was not obedient to the heavenly vision. That is the very essence of Irresistible Grace. 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.'



So far as we know, Agrippa was not converted, so Paul's prayer went unasnwered. 'So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.' Or not in that case (Exod 33:19).

Steve

Well, there you go folks, this is Calvinism. According to Calvinism God did not want to save Agrippa, for if God did want to save Agrippa he would have regenerated him and he would have irresistibly believed.

Paul may have wanted Agrippa to be saved, but according to Calvinism, God did not.

Wow.

 

[Amy.G]

Well, there you go folks, this is Calvinism. According to Calvinism God did not want to save Agrippa, for if God did want to save Agrippa he would have regenerated him and he would have irresistibly believed.

Paul may have wanted Agrippa to be saved, but according to Calvinism, God did not.

Wow.

How do you know that God had not already turned Agrippa over to a reprobate mind? Bernice, who came with him, was not his wife, but his sister, and their affair was big deal in Rome. Agrippa was known for this incestuous affair and other sinful practices.

 

[Skandelon]

Paul could hardly be called "more merciful" seeing as Paul died for no one and didn't atone for the sins of anyone.

He was writing under the inspiration of the HS, so we must all presume he was not lying, and he expressed his overwhelming desire to see the hardened Jews come to faith, so much so that he wished himself accursed for their sakes. Now, either he was lying or he really did want them to be saved so much that he would die on their behalf. God, on the other hand, according to Calvinism had hardened them from birth as reprobates and never had this type of desire to save these people. Paul was more merciful than God if Calvinism is true, period.

 

[jbh28]

He was writing under the inspiration of the HS, so we must all presume he was not lying, and he expressed his overwhelming desire to see the hardened Jews come to faith, so much so that he wished himself accursed for their sakes. Now, either he was lying or he really did want them to be saved so much that he would die on their behalf. God, on the other hand, according to Calvinism had hardened them from birth as reprobates and never had this type of desire to save these people. Paul was more merciful than God if Calvinism is true, period.

Paul could hardly be called "more merciful" seeing as Paul died for no one and didn't atone for the sins of anyone.

 

[Skandelon]

How do you know that God had not already turned Agrippa over to a reprobate mind?

Even if He had, according to our view, God still longed to 'gather him under his wings' and still 'held out his hands to him' and 'desired him to repent and be saved.' Giving someone over to their reprobate mind is not necessarily a death sentence. The Jews were 'given over' or 'cut off' but Paul is clear that they can still be saved (Rm 11:14ff).

The father in the story of the prodigal son gave his son his inheritance and let him go (gave him over to his reprobate mind), but later he came to his senses and returned.

 

[Skandelon]

Paul could hardly be called "more merciful" seeing as Paul died for no one and didn't atone for the sins of anyone.

I agree, so why are you still a Calvinist if you agree?

 

[jbh28]

2 things that stood out to me reading this yesterday.


First, it is stated by calvinists that Paul's conversion is the model we should look at in understanding unconditional election, yet we see Paul was obedient, contrary to the "I" in TULIP. Does this not show unconditional election to be based on a condition...obedience?

How so? I'm not following.

 

[Amy.G]

Even if He had, according to our view, God still longed to 'gather him under his wings' and still 'held out his hands to him' and 'desired him to repent and be saved.' Giving someone over to their reprobate mind is not necessarily a death sentence. The Jews were 'given over' or 'cut off' but Paul is clear that they can still be saved (Rm 11:14ff).

The father in the story of the prodigal son gave his son his inheritance and let him go (gave him over to his reprobate mind), but later he came to his senses and returned.

No, the prodigal was not given over to a reprobate mind. The text says nothing of the sort. Once God gives one over, there is no chance for salvation. But I guess that should be another thread.

 

[Winman]

How do you know that God had not already turned Agrippa over to a reprobate mind? Bernice, who came with him, was not his wife, but his sister, and their affair was big deal in Rome. Agrippa was known for this incestuous affair and other sinful practices.

You speak far more harshly of Agrippa than Paul did.

Acts 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.

Acts 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Paul certainly did not consider Agrippa to be a reprobate.

And we do not know if Agrippa believed later in life. We should not judge the man.

This is another fruit of Calvinism.

And why would God have to turn an unelect man over to a reprobate mind? The man's fate was sealed before he was born if Calvinism is true. The man was already spiritually blind if Calvinism is true, does God need to gouge his eyes out to make him MORE blind?

Nonsensical.

 

[Iconoclast]

2 things that stood out to me reading this yesterday.


First, it is stated by calvinists that Paul's conversion is the model we should look at in understanding unconditional election, yet we see Paul was obedient, contrary to the "I" in TULIP. Does this not show unconditional election to be based on a condition...obedience?


Second, was Paul's desire a carnal one...or a spirit filled one? If the former, how...and if the latter, how could his desire be different than the Lord's considering most in the multitude (upwards of 2000 people I have heard) would not be as Paul was without the chains? Why would his desire be other than the Lords?

1]all the elect are obedient...because God works in them.

2] Paul...as a good calvinist preaches the gospel to all men.No one who preaches the gospel desires to see men perish...nevertheless paul obeyed the principles of ezk33:
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles

 

[jbh28]

I agree, so why are you still a Calvinist if you agree?

Well, I could be wrong, but I really thought you disagreed with me. And really I could care less if I'm labeled a "Calvinist" or not. I believe what the Bible teaches. If it is "Calvinism" then so be it. If not, ok. That's why I don't feel bad if I disagree with some other Calvinist.

My point is that Paul didn't atone for the sins of anyone, so he hardly could be called more merciful than God. Desire doesn't equal actually doing it. God has actually atoned for the sins of people, Paul has never done that. If God only saved one single person and sent everyone else to their deserved place of punishment, it would be the greatest act of mercy ever. God could have showed everyone mercy. The death of Christ is sufficient for everyone. The just payment sufficient for all has been made, but God has chosen to not show everyone mercy. You say, well God required faith to show mercy. Well, it was God that made that decision knowing that not all would believe.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, I could be wrong, but I really thought you disagreed with me.

I don't disagree with that statement because I actually believe God is more merciful than Paul because God also wants the hardened Jews to come to repentance. I just believe those who believe Paul is expressing a desire not shared by the God who is inspiring him to write are mistaken.

 

[Winman]

Well, I could be wrong, but I really thought you disagreed with me. And really I could care less if I'm labeled a "Calvinist" or not. I believe what the Bible teaches. If it is "Calvinism" then so be it. If not, ok. That's why I don't feel bad if I disagree with some other Calvinist.

My point is that Paul didn't atone for the sins of anyone, so he hardly could be called more merciful than God. Desire doesn't equal actually doing it. God has actually atoned for the sins of people, Paul has never done that. If God only saved one single person and sent everyone else to their deserved place of punishment, it would be the greatest act of mercy ever. God could have showed everyone mercy. The death of Christ is sufficient for everyone. The just payment sufficient for all has been made, but God has chosen to not show everyone mercy. You say, well God required faith to show mercy. Well, it was God that made that decision knowing that not all would believe.

Nah, Paul never did anything to save lost people.

2 Cor 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

I am amazed and shocked at how callous and cold-hearted Calvinists are concerning lost folks. They seem almost to rejoice when a person is lost.

Of course, if you believe God throws folks in the lake of fire to glorify himself, this is the natural product you would expect from folks who believe a theology like this.

 

[jbh28]

Nah, Paul never did anything to save lost people.

Did I say that Winman? Also, Paul could save no one. Only Jesus can save. Paul did a lot and went through a lot to give the gospel to people. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am amazed and shocked at how callous and cold-hearted Calvinists are concerning lost folks. They seem almost to rejoice when a person is lost.

Uncalled for and totally false. Let's not bring this type of stuff into the forum.

Of course, if you believe God throws folks in the lake of fire to glorify himself, this is the natural product you would expect from folks who believe a theology like this.

Where did anything I say warrant a statement like this. I sometimes think you just disagree with anyone who is a Calvinist for the sake of disagreeing.