Paul was saved before he met Christ?

[steaver]

Okay I will bite and I agree with Brother Joe!... Let Brother Steaver chew on this... According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world... I have only one question... Was Saul/Paul included in the him?... Brother Glen

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The OP is asking if Paul possessed eternal life while he was hating Jesus Christ and Christians? If so, how do you explain his hateful heart towards Jesus and others if he possessed eternal life in his heart?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Eternal is sorta a misnomer steaver. Eternal means no beginning or ending, and only God, as Father, Son, and Spirit can make the claim of being eternal. We do have everlasting life as believers of Christ.

Saul of Tarsus was just as lost as you and I was prior to meeting Christ on the Damascus road. However, he, you, I, and all other believers were chosen from before the creation of the world.Christ was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world. God saw us in Christ before He created us. Why? In His perfect foreknowledge...not the foreknowledge mwc is advocating, either...chose us in Christ. Christ was slain from the creation of the world, yet this slaying took place between 29-35 AD...depending upon who you believe. Saul, from God's perspective, saw him in Christ before He spoke 'Let there be light,' yet He saw Him in need of saving when He called out and shined His light upon him.

So, eventhough we were chosen in Christ from before the creation of the world, according to His, not man's, will and purpose, we still needed saved. He saves at the time He has appointed to each and every believer.

 

[steaver]

This is weird. Did two and a half pages disappear from this thread? I read comments earlier today and just got on to reply and a lot of post are missing. Or is it my computer?

 

[steaver]

Anyways, one of the comments I can remember I wanted to address is this one from brother Joseph..

Joseph said, "I believe it (Psalm 22:9-10) applied to Christ too, but you need to recognize David was the one who wrote it and since he used the word "I" it was also applicable to him".

Brother Joseph, with all due respect, I can't believe you would say such a foolish thing that because David wrote "I" by the Holy Ghost it means it also applies to himself.

The very context demands the verses in question belong to Christ alone...

"But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. When was David despised of the people?
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. When did the people say this of David?
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." (Psalm 22)

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

 

[kyredneck]

The very context demands the verses in question belong to Christ alone...

No it doesn't, cut the hyperbole.

 

[kyredneck]

Wow, I've had like twenty posts vanish, several on this thread. I suspect all it takes is for someone to get their little feelings hurt and report the post and then the deleting begins. Sad.

 

[steaver]

No it doesn't, cut the hyperbole.

Good rebuttal! Guess it's the only one you could have.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

The very context demands the verses in question belong to Christ alone...

"But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. When was David despised of the people?
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. When did the people say this of David?
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." (Psalm 22)

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

Brother Steaver,

There are well respected theologians that believe Psalm 22 are applicable to both Jesus and David. This author takes that stance and you will notice the article was copy written by Dallas Theological Seminary http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...19-psalms/text/articles/heinemann-ps22-bs.pdf

Even if one accepts your position that Psalms 22 applies only to Jesus, there are other scriptures talking about babies being regenerated such as John the Baptist having the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. How do you explain this verse, "And said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” (Matthew 21:16)" This puts you in the same position even if we throw out Psalm 22 and say it only applies to Christ. How can nursing infants be born again if your teaching that one must believe the gospel to get born again is true? The fact that there are regenerated nursing infants proves the doctrine of sovereign regeneration by the Spirit without means.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I think this new 'uprgrade'...bleck...has more glitches in it than swisscheese has holes. I think a bunch of posts came up 'poof', posts posted in one forum only to end up somewhere else before. I am NOT impressed with this new system.

 

[tyndale1946]

Wow, I've had like twenty posts vanish, several on this thread. I suspect all it takes is for someone to get their little feelings hurt and report the post and then the deleting begins. Sad.

Seeing that we claim to be Christians it seem to me we have overlooked what Christian Brother and Sister are commanded by our Lord to do... I thought this was our standard?... This is what separates us from others... Could I be wrong?... Brother Glen

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

 

[Jerome]

For anyone interested I suggest reading this interesting writing by Samuel Richardson, one of the original signers of the London Baptist Confession of Fatih titled "Justification by Christ Alone" written in 1647.

At supralapsarian.com it says that in 1648 Thomas Killcop, another of the original signers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, countered Richardson's scheme:

in his work entitled "Ancient & Durable Gospel,". . .[Killcop] maintained that the redemption of the elect. . .would occur at his Second Coming

But of course it was the 1689 London Baptist Assembly that settled the matter, answering the inquiry

The Questions Proposed from the Several Churches, Debated, and Resolved
. . . . .
Whether believers were not actually reconciled to God, actually justified, and adopted, when Christ died?

with this ruling:

That the reconciliation, justification, and adoption of believers, are infallibly secured by the gracious purpose of God, and merit of Jesus Christ. Yet none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by faith; and so by virtue of this their union with him, have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them.

And this, we conceive, is fully evidenced, because the scripture attributes all these benefits to faith as the instrumental cause of them, Rom. iii. 25. v. 1, 11. Gal. iii. 26. And gives such representation of the state of the elect before faith, as is altogether inconsistent with an actual right in them. Eph. ii. 1, 2, 3, 12.

[p. 14, A Narrative of the Proceeding of the General Assembly (London, 1689)]

 

[BrotherJoseph]

At supralapsarian.com it says that in 1648 Thomas Killcop, another of the original signers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, countered Richardson's scheme:



But of course it was the 1689 London Baptist Assembly that settled the matter, answering the inquiry

with this ruling:


[p. 14, A Narrative of the Proceeding of the General Assembly (London, 1689)]

Hi Brother Jerome,

However, notice none of those quotes you provided made it into the actual London Baptist Confession of Faith. Also, scripture is the final authority, and I gave plenty of scripture to prove my points on this thread which you offer no rebuttal to. Also, do some research, William Kiffen wrote the introduction to Richardson's writing, Kiffen is the only one to sign both the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist confession of faiths (source http://www.credomag.com/2012/04/30/ten-baptists-everyone-should-know-william-kiffin/ ) and wrote in the intro, "Justification By Christ Alone Sets Forth the True Place of Faith in Salvation As An Evidence of Interest In Christ But Not A Join-Partner With Christ". If Kiffen's beliefs were so heretical why is he the only man to sign both London Baptist confessions of faith?

I suggest you actually read what Richardson wrote as well as what William Kiffen wrote in the intro and do your research before you try to refute something and call it a "scheme". Here is the link again to Richardson's writing http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index08.htm
After your done, why don't you private message me to notify me you have started a thread on the topic and I would be happy to debate the points of his writing you disagree with.