Sovereignty of God in the Conversion of Saul

[kyredneck]

“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

Those were the words that cut Paul to the quick when he realized that the God he thought he was serving he was actually persecuting. IMO, Paul's sin pales in comparison to what David did.

As I understand it Saul didn't become Paul. It wasn't like the case of Abram's name being changed by God to Abraham. He is still referred to as "Saul" in Acts 13.7:

who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
​

Saul was his Jewish name name, and Paul his Roman name, for the bible makes clear that he was a Roman citizen.

Thank you. I knew that but had forgotten. I was actually trying to peg down (in my mind) in the scriptures the other day where Saul's name was changed.

 

[webdog]

Acts 22:8-9 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

It obviously means that they could not understand the voice since the previous passage says that they did hear the voice.

They heard the noise it made but not the words which it spake.

ESV 8And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am(P) Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9(Q) Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[b] the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

I believe those who were with Saul heard the voice but had no clue as to who was talking. They heard the voice but did not understand who was doing the talking, not that they did not understand the language. That's merely a theory. Maybe Saul was the only one to see the light that blinded him.

 

[annsni]

ESV 8And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am(P) Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9(Q) Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[b] the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

I believe those who were with Saul heard the voice but had no clue as to who was talking. They heard the voice but did not understand who was doing the talking, not that they did not understand the language. That's merely a theory. Maybe Saul was the only one to see the light that blinded him.

You forgot the footnote in there which says "or hear with understanding"

It's not that they didn't know who was talking but they did not understand what was said. The word that is used is certainly speaking of not hearing (as in being deaf) or with no comprehension

 

[webdog]

You forgot the footnote in there which says "or hear with understanding"

It's not that they didn't know who was talking but they did not understand what was said. The word that is used is certainly speaking of not hearing (as in being deaf) or with no comprehension

...or they did not understand who was talking, or how a voice could be heard without anyone being seen.

 

[annsni]

...or they did not understand who was talking, or how a voice could be heard without anyone being seen.

That is not the sense of the verse at all. The words mean that they did not hear with understanding.

 

[webdog]

That is not the sense of the verse at all. The words mean that they did not hear with understanding.

...which doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[annsni]

...which doesn't contradict what I said.

Yes it does.

I believe those who were with Saul heard the voice but had no clue as to who was talking. They heard the voice but did not understand who was doing the talking, not that they did not understand the language.

They did not understand - not that they didn't know who was talking. It is clear by the context and the original languages that they did not understand. It might have been a different language - or God shut them from understanding but it had nothing to do with just not knowing who was talking. You said:

Apparently they heard enough to lead him into Damascus, as Christ had said.

If Jesus was completely hidden from these men, how did they hear and know enough to lead Saul to Damascus?

What I said completely contradicts what you said. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Ever wonder why God did that to Paul but not to others? Seems God could save a lot more if He blinded them and audibly talked to them.

The scripture indicates that Paul was set aside from birth and chosen for a noble cause (apostleship). This tells me that God does choose to sovereignly and uniquely intervene in the lives of his divinely appointed messengers to ensure that his message is properly delivered. However, proof that God effectually changed Jonah's will to go to Nineveh, is not proof that he also effectually changed the wills of each individual who believed Jonah's message. Same is true of Paul.

Ever wonder why God uses different means to accomplish His will without consulting Skandelon?

I didn't question God's use of means, I questioned you about why you think such means were utilized when an "effectual call" would have done the job and when the "effectual call" is sufficient in conversions of "normal folks" like you and me?

Ever wonder why Lydia had to have her heart opened by God?

Ever wonder how Lydia was described as a "worshiper of God" prior to this? How is that possible when a person prior to "regeneration/effectual calling" is a totally depraved soul and enemy of God?

Ever wonder if Skandelon believes Paul's salvation is different than others?

He has chosen some for noble purposes and others for common use. There were some in Israel who were individually selected by God to be the messengers to the rest of the world and the rest of Israel was temporally hardened in their rebellion. Those hardened may be provoked to envy by seeing the conversion of the Gentiles and thus may also repent and be saved through Paul's message of reconciliation. So, yes there is a very distinct difference in the conversion and calling of Paul and that of those who heard his message.

Ever wonder if Skandelon has ever read works by those of the Reformed view?

Yes, I've read them, studied them and even believed them for many years of my life (as have many non-Calvinistic scholars who have rejected the reformed doctrines); but I know it is easier to dismiss others as "not really understanding" than it is to actually address their arguments in a meaningful and objective manner.

 

[Skandelon]

Ever wonder why people take theological truths and make light of them with sensless questions, in direct violation of 2 Tim 2:23?

Ever wonder why people ignore questions that might challenge their narrow theological window and dismiss them as senseless while quoting scriptures that have nothing to do with what is being questioned?

We could always find out by asking the Pharisees of Christ's day because they were really good at that.

 

[Skandelon]

If he wishes to make Saul willing by a blinding light, then he may certainly do so. If he wishes to make him willing by submersing him in a sea of spaghetti he may do that as well.

The point is that God made him willing. His means are strictly up to him.

He made you willing one day to yield to Christ, probably not by a blinding light and a mighty voice from heaven, but in his own way.

That is what God does. It is his prerogative to do it howsoever he pleases.

I understand that, but I was asking you to speculate as to WHY you THINK God may have chosen such outwardly visible means with regard to Paul, but no so much with the rest of us?

I asked this to draw attention to the uniqueness of Paul's calling and the basis for his authority as an apostle. I did this to help draw a distinction in the manner by which God might set aside his divinely appointed messengers and those who are meant to respond to their message. If that distinction is not apparent to you already maybe this line of questions would help?

Yes, I considered then the whole ten years or so that I was a devout Arminian- a Free Will Baptist preacher.

Oh, good then we have something in common. I was a devote Calvinistic preacher for just over 10 years. Let me ask you, did you ever study and come to understand the doctrine of Israel's judicial hardening?

 

[Luke2427]

ESV 8And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am(P) Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9(Q) Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[b] the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

I believe those who were with Saul heard the voice but had no clue as to who was talking. They heard the voice but did not understand who was doing the talking, not that they did not understand the language. That's merely a theory. Maybe Saul was the only one to see the light that blinded him.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[glfredrick]

It occurs to me that many an Arminian (or one who holds a similar position while disavowing the label) are greatly afraid of trusting God with their eternal destiny.

After all, what if God fails to chose them?

I can understand why so many would want to be materially involved in their own salvation, but I also understand that it may be, ultimately, of no avail.

Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation is of and by the Lord only -- on His terms -- and those who have formulated some religious expression that does not hold God as sovereign will one day likely learn the error of their ways. Perhaps not all, for some may indeed be the elect of God, perhaps even more than we might imagine, but not all, for salvation is of the Lord as the Lord wills, not as man wills.

 

[Skandelon]

It occurs to me that many an Arminian (or one who holds a similar position while disavowing the label) are greatly afraid of trusting God with their eternal destiny.

Not true. Both Calvinists and Arminians "trust God with their eternal destiny."

After all, what if God fails to chose them?

God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him. Again, I believe both camps affirm this biblical truth.

I can understand why so many would want to be materially involved in their own salvation, but I also understand that it may be, ultimately, of no avail.

Materially involved? What does that mean?

Regardless, both Calvinists and Arminians believe men are "involved" in that even Calvinists affirm that faith is needed for salvation, so I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make?

Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation is of and by the Lord only -- on His terms -- and those who have formulated some religious expression that does not hold God as sovereign will one day likely learn the error of their ways.

Amen!

 

[glfredrick]

First, it strikes me that you really enjoy the debate. That may or may not be the best, for with your enjoyment of the debate, you may at times not care as much for God's Word or for the damage you do to God's people in living for the argument instead of for Him. But, that being said, you are bringing subtle fallacies into your points that may not be evident to some with whom you debate. I'd like to address those below.

Not true. Both Calvinists and Arminians "trust God with their eternal destiny."

Here, you have introduced equivocation in making "trust God with their eternal destiny" mean the same thing for yourself and for me. It is obvious that we do not agree as to what that term actually means or else, there would be no reason to debate at all. We would be on the same page and walking arm-in-arm in our Reformed doctrine together. So, what do I mean that is different from what you mean?

I would suggest that the context of my remark is that God ALONE decides whether one is destined to be with Him for an eternity, while you would add that God makes use of our human effort at "faith" in order to see whom it is that He should select for an eternity with Him.

I am not including any human efforts such as pre-justification faith in my use of the term "trust God with their eternal destiny," hence my use of that phrase very literally as, "trust God -- completely -- with one's eternal destiny. He ALONE decides, elects, and proceeds to an effectual call, etc.

God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him. Again, I believe both camps affirm this biblical truth.

Here you involve just the mental gymnastics I outline above. Both camps do not "affirm this biblical truth" in the manner in which you use it. That is a very Arminian thought and not at all a Reformed Doctrine. As you well know, those with a Reformed perspective do not see God "obligating Himself to save whosoever believes in Him..." but rather, those whom He has elected. Persons with Reformed theology would say that "All those God elected would equal the "whosoever" comes." This subtle difference is important, for it states a biblical monergism versus a religious synergism perspective.

Materially involved? What does that mean?

I meant by that, "God selects those who He sees in faith." I do not believe that God operates in that fashion, and I do not believe that point can be proven out biblically with any solid exegesis of texts. That position is also (as above) synergistic versus monergistic.

Regardless, both Calvinists and Arminians believe men are "involved" in that even Calvinists affirm that faith is needed for salvation, so I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make?
Amen!

But, this again is equivocation. While we both have a tenet of our theology that includes a faith response of man, that response is timed differently and is as outlined above. Faith comes in response to God's election and effectual call, not preceding those as in Arminian views (and in fact, even true Arminianism does not teach that faith precedes God's grace).

 

[Skandelon]

First, it strikes me that you really enjoy the debate.

As apposed to you who are doing this against your desire? Come now, let's not engage in the futile attempt to guess the intent of each other's heart, okay?

But, that being said, you are bringing subtle fallacies into your points that may not be evident to some with whom you debate. I'd like to address those below.

It is a good thing you are here to point these things out to all the others who remain in ignorance.

Here, you have introduced equivocation in making "trust God with their eternal destiny" mean the same thing for yourself and for me

The term equivocation usually connotes the idea of purposeful deception or vagueness or misleading. Now, I'm pointing out how we both believe that God is to be trusted with our eternal destiny, which is most definitely true, while you imply that non-Cals do not believe this. So, who is being purposefully deceptive and misleading? My statement was to force you to better explain and define your point of view because stating that you "trust God with your eternal destiny" without clear explanation suggests that we do not...which is MISLEADING and at the very root of "equivocation."

It is obvious that we do not agree as to what that term actually means or else, there would be no reason to debate at all.

And by making the statement that I did I force you to better explain your position because you failed the first time to draw any distinction in our views. That is what a discussion is all about.

I would suggest that the context of my remark is that God ALONE decides whether one is destined to be with Him for an eternity, while you would add that God makes use of our human effort at "faith" in order to see whom it is that He should select for an eternity with Him.

And there you have it, a distinction between our two points of view without "equivocation" (a misleading statement). Was that so difficult?

Here you involve just the mental gymnastics I outline above. Both camps do not "affirm this biblical truth" in the manner in which you use it

Really? You don't affirm that God has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him? Most Calvinists seem to affirm this, why don't you? Whether or not one affirms the unconditional election of individuals or not they both typically affirm that God has chosen to save whosoever believes. Whether the individual believes as a result of a free response to the gospel's call or the result of the effectual calling doesn't change that truth.

I meant by that, "God selects those who He sees in faith."

Believe it or not, not all non-Cals believe in a foresight of faith view with regard to election and or predestination.

But, this again is equivocation. While we both have a tenet of our theology that includes a faith response of man, that response is timed differently and is as outlined above. Faith comes in response to God's election and effectual call, not preceding those as in Arminian views (and in fact, even true Arminianism does not teach that faith precedes God's grace).

How is it equivocation to point out the truth of what we believe? We, as you just stated, do affirm God's gracious work prior to salvation, yet the first time you implied that we don't even believe that our "salvation is of and by the Lord only -- on His terms." To suggest that only Calvinists believe this is the fallacy of "begging the question." I attempted to point that out by simply agreeing with your statement in hopes that you would take another stab at it and better define your position and the actual points of contention between us, which now you have done. Thanks

 

[glfredrick]

It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.

Doesnt take long does it:laugh:

 

[webdog]

It is as I thought... You are in this for the argument.

What are you in it for, the opportunity to misrepresent, judge hearts and attack?

 

[glfredrick]

What are you in it for, the opportunity to misrepresent, judge hearts and attack?

Trolls hunt down people on other threads to pad their post count. Is that you? :love2:

 

[webdog]

Isn't that what I said?

Didn't you say they could hear sound but not understand the language? If so, what I said is not what you said.