Understanding Galatians 1:15-16

[ituttut]

I thought Van was looking for something to hang his hat on. To understand Galatians 1:15-16 it is advisable scripture be proved showing the purpose of God, and it will come about. I believe in cases as we find in these two, they have no choice. Jesus Christ says Paul will suffer greatly for Him. We know Jonah and Paul, as well as others were by design. God executes His plans when appropriate.

When the time came Jonah was born and the fish was prepared. Jonah couldn't be born before Noah, and he couldn't be born after Jesus (3 days 3 nights, which most ignore). The same with Saul/Paul. He had to be born contemporary with Jesus, be a Roman citizen, a Pharisee to the core taking part in the stoning of Stephen. Damascus Road could not happen until the tree was cut down, at the stoning. Saul is the chief cause of the Saints being scatted from Jerusalem, and Judah. Damascus Road had to happen before Peter, against his will, was sent to Cornelius.

Scripture looks to say the switch/s were flipped in both cases at just the right time. In the dispensation that Jonah lived, in the time Jesus and Paul lived, and after Jesus returned to heaven.

One of the mysteries of God was made known shortly before the Word was born, and another on Damascus Road. The light had to be turned on for the Gentile, bringing to light the body of Christ.

 

[Van]

Yet another complete fabrication based on the conjecture of men without biblical support. Just another pink elephant in orbit around Mars.

Lets accept that an understanding of scripture must be logically consistent with our understanding of all other scripture. But if you play fast and loose with scripture, i.e it does not mean what it says or worse, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. Lydia was not really a worshiper of Yahweh, such "consistence" provides no check against false doctrine.

Next we have the idea that "how" God accomplishes His purpose is by the means of the conjecture of Calvinism, rather than by the means plainly stated in scripture. Lets say God says something will happen in the future. How does He bring it about, how does He fulfill His prophecy? He causes it to happen at the time and place of His choosing. Let us say Paul had been set aside for presenting the gospel of Christ to the world, i.e. in accordance with Romans 1:1. God had a plan for Paul's life, and at any necessary point or points in his life, God caused certain circumstances to arise. Born into a Hebrew family, raised as a Pharisee, etc, etc. Paul was zealous, even when while strongly for God and opposed to the way. But God knew Paul's heart and knew if the circumstance of the Damascus Road event occurred, how Paul would react. Just as Jesus knew how those in other towns would have reacted, had they seen His miracles. So God brought about Paul's revelation on the Road, and what resulted was absolutely according to God's plan which cannot be thwarted.

This is what happened according to scripture.

 

[Van]

Reply to Martin,

But Van,
You're missing the wood for the trees.
When it pleased God to heal the ten lepers, they were healed.
When it pleased God to cure Bartimaeus' blindness, he was cured.
When it pleased God to reveal Christ to Paul, he believed. God is sovereign. He does what He wants. End of story.

Steve

I see the trees, but I do not see the imaginary forest of Calvinism.
God does as He pleases, but if God pleases to allow His creation to make autonomous choices which alter the outcome of their lives, He can do it because He is sovereign and is not ruled by man-made doctrine. Calvinists use "sovereign" as code for God predestines everything. But that is just another "pink elephant".

God of course can and does intervene and bring about some of our decisions such that is purpose is fulfilled. For example God hardens hearts. He also shapes the lives of those He loves. But none of this requires exhaustive determinism. And scripture teaches, if you do not rewrite it or redefine the meanings of words, that God sets before us a choice between life and death, and begs us to choose life. Scripture does not say what Calvinism claims, that God sets death before some and life before others, with all the decisions being predestined. Just another pink elephant.

 

[Tom Butler]

The call to each of these men took place in time. But in the mind of God, the call was a reality before they were a born; and so was their salvation.

Tom, I know this is Calvinist doctrine, but it is unbiblical. You are again telling us you know what was in God's mind but without any biblical revelation. Now if I asserted God put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars, you might doubt it, but the only way to argue against it would be to say no where in the bible does it say that. And I would counter that God made everything and so this figment of my imagination is what God did.
There is no end to assertions based on extrapolation, conjecture, and enabling arguments to justify man-made doctrine.

I said Paul was set apart, probably as a spokesperson for God, and if you look at Romans 1:1 you will see my view is consistent with scripture. Your assertion on the other hand is based on what the bible does not say, or in my mind, just a different elephant.

I'm not trying to make this issue fit into the Calvinist box. I'm trying to make it conform to what scripture teaches.

So, let's see.

Paul, Isaiah and Jeremiah were set apart and called before they were ever born.

God does not change, so God's purposing to call them at that point was his purpose from eternity. God's decision to set them apart includes both the end and the means.

In order for Paul, Isaiah and Jeremiah to fulfill their calls, they had to be saved. Will anybody argue otherwise?

Will anybody argue that there was a possibility that they might have refused God's call to either salvation or service?

I understand the foreknowledge argument. But to rely on that argument exclusive of God's determinant counsel makes God reactive instead of proactive. God could choose Isaiah and Jeremiah only because he knew they would respond positively. God's choice was dependent upon their choice.

Same for Jesus' confrontation with Saul on Damascus Road. Jesus put the hard sell on Saul; was his choice of Saul dependent on his knowledge that Saul would respond positively?

Which came first? God's choice or Isaiah's choice?

When Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost, he said that Jesus had been delivered up for crucifixion by "the determinant counsel and foreknowledge of God." Peter didn't try to separate them. Neither should we.

 

[Van]

It is ok to claim your view "just happens to fit into the Calvinist box" but me thinks thou doth protest too much.

God does not change. Now that is an open ended statement. Actually God's attitudes and attributes do not change. That is the actual biblical truth. His purpose from eternity was to choose for Himself a people for His own possession. It does not matter how He makes that choice, any manner fulfills His purpose of choosing.

Was Paul saved in the same manner as Isaiah and Jeremiah? Of course not. Isaiah and Jeremiah "obtained approval" through faith under the Old Covenant. Paul obtained salvation through faith in Christ Jesus under the New Covenant in His blood. And a person does not have to be saved to fulfill being the instrument of God, consider Judas and Pharaoh.

What does "determinate counsel" actually mean? Is it code for exhaustive determinism, God predestines everything. Did you answer the question, does God predetermine everything?

God did not need to know how Isaiah and Jeremiah would respond!! He caused them to respond according to His purpose and plan. That is what the Bible actually says.

As far as God choosing Paul from the womb, did God's choi8ce depend of knowing Paul's choice? Of course not. God brought about the outcome required by His plan for Paul and no plan of God can be thwarted. That is what the Bible actually says.

Which came first, God's choice of Isaiah or Isaiah's choice? God's choice for Isaiah to be a prophet. Does it logically follow that is the order for God choosing someone for salvation? Nope. That sort of thinking is the fallacy of proving "A" and then claiming "B" was proven. I could offer just as illogical an argument that says since God chose Isaiah from the womb, He chooses everyone for salvation from the womb and not before the foundation of the world. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And no one is separating God's predetermined plan and his knowledge beforehand of that plan. No need to claim pink elephants when scripture alone tells us the truth.

 

[jbh28]

For Van

i'm enjoying the irony of your postings by the way. Reminds me of a person that punches someone and then says that punching is bad.

 

[ituttut]

Yet another complete fabrication based on the conjecture of men without biblical support. Just another pink elephant in orbit around Mars.

Lets accept that an understanding of scripture must be logically consistent with our understanding of all other scripture. But if you play fast and loose with scripture, i.e it does not mean what it says or worse, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. Lydia was not really a worshiper of Yahweh, such "consistence" provides no check against false doctrine.

Next we have the idea that "how" God accomplishes His purpose is by the means of the conjecture of Calvinism, rather than by the means plainly stated in scripture. Lets say God says something will happen in the future. How does He bring it about, how does He fulfill His prophecy? He causes it to happen at the time and place of His choosing. Let us say Paul had been set aside for presenting the gospel of Christ to the world, i.e. in accordance with Romans 1:1. God had a plan for Paul's life, and at any necessary point or points in his life, God caused certain circumstances to arise. Born into a Hebrew family, raised as a Pharisee, etc, etc. Paul was zealous, even when while strongly for God and opposed to the way. But God knew Paul's heart and knew if the circumstance of the Damascus Road event occurred, how Paul would react. Just as Jesus knew how those in other towns would have reacted, had they seen His miracles. So God brought about Paul's revelation on the Road, and what resulted was absolutely according to God's plan which cannot be thwarted.

This is what happened according to scripture.

Your words are not empty for they parrot my words, only differently. Can't you see you have no faith in what you are saying, but see someone else saying the same to be in error?

Really don't Calvinists believe just about the same as you? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Surely those claiming to be Calvinistic don't believe every thing he did, but know he is saved just as they, and they like him.

Should we hate those God accepts?

 

[Van]

ROFLOL, Ituttut, we are not saying the same thing. You say God flips supernatural switches to cause people to believe, and I say God saves those whose autonomous faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.

 

[Iconoclast]

ROFLOL, Ituttut, we are not saying the same thing. You say God flips supernatural switches to cause people to believe, and I say God saves those whose autonomous faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.

That is why one of you is wrong....dead wrong.....and we know who it is!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Tom Butler]

It is ok to claim your view "just happens to fit into the Calvinist box" but me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually, I made no such claim. In fact, I said I was not trying to make it fit into the Calvinist box. If it fits, it fits and won't require anybody to try to jam it into the box.

God does not change. Now that is an open ended statement. Actually God's attitudes and attributes do not change. That is the actual biblical truth. His purpose from eternity was to choose for Himself a people for His own possession. It does not matter how He makes that choice, any manner fulfills His purpose of choosing.

Gee whiz, I don't know what we're arguing about. I agree with just about all of this. I would not go so far to describe God's immutability as an open-ended statement. God said he does not change, period. (James 1:17, I Sam 15:29).

Agreed, his attitudes and attributes don't change. Neither does his purpose. So, what are you saying does change? His methods of choosing different people? Anything else?

Was Paul saved in the same manner as Isaiah and Jeremiah? Of course not. Isaiah and Jeremiah "obtained approval" through faith under the Old Covenant. Paul obtained salvation through faith in Christ Jesus under the New Covenant in His blood. And a person does not have to be saved to fulfill being the instrument of God, consider Judas and Pharaoh.

I'm not getting into whether God saved people differently in the Old Testament. My point is that he saved them.

And being used as an instrument of God is not the same as following, serving and worshiping God. God used Balaam's ass as an instrument, too, but nobody's arguing that it was saved.

What does "determinate counsel" actually mean? Is it code for exhaustive determinism, God predestines everything. Did you answer the question, does God predetermine everything?

Here's the way several versions render "determinate counsel:"
NIV--set purpose
ESV--definite plan
NASV--predetermined plan
Weymouth NT--settled purpose

In other words, God decreed that Jesus should be delivered up at the hands of wicked men.

You asked, does God predetermine everything?

Acts 4:28. Peter is praying to God. He is speaking of Herod, Pontius Pilate, who he said conspired with the people against Jesus.

Then, he prayed "they did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

God did not need to know how Isaiah and Jeremiah would respond!! He caused them to respond according to His purpose and plan. That is what the Bible actually says.

Yes, exactly. I hold that God did actually know how Isaiah and Jeremiah would respond because he had decided beforehand that they would.

As far as God choosing Paul from the womb, did God's choice depend of knowing Paul's choice? Of course not. God brought about the outcome required by His plan for Paul and no plan of God can be thwarted. That is what the Bible actually says.

What's going on here? We agree again.

Which came first, God's choice of Isaiah or Isaiah's choice? God's choice for Isaiah to be a prophet. Does it logically follow that is the order for God choosing someone for salvation? Nope. That sort of thinking is the fallacy of proving "A" and then claiming "B" was proven. I could offer just as illogical an argument that says since God chose Isaiah from the womb, He chooses everyone for salvation from the womb and not before the foundation of the world. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Don't worry, I won't make the argument that God chose you for salvation from the womb. Actually, it was from eternity.

And no one is separating God's predetermined plan and his knowledge beforehand of that plan. No need to claim pink elephants when scripture alone tells us the truth.

But some do make the separation, and base God's choices totally on his foreknowledge. I'm glad you don't.

Is a pink elephant similar to a straw man?

 

[Van]

God said he does not change, period. (James 1:17, I Sam 15:29).

This statement clearly demonstrates the fallacy of Calvinism. God makes an open ended statement - God does not change - and rather than see it is open ended, Calvinism inserts their made-up ending and claims that is what scripture says, period. God does not change what? To insert "everything imaginable" is adding to scripture. What is the minimum God could be saying? He does not change in His attitudes or attributes. Everyone can agree on that, and there are plenty of supporting verses that specifically address these aspects of immutability. Yes, His method of dealing with people changes, the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. And His purpose does not change. But what Calvinism does is claim God cannot learn, because that would be a change, even though scripture has God saying "now I know" indicating He did not know beforehand. Calvinism claims God cannot react, treat people this way if they do this, and treat people this other way, if that do that. But again, both are consistent with His purpose and do not violate the attribute of immutability.

James 1:17 addresses God's reliability, He can be trusted. The verse does not even address immutability. Why not use actual support for the attribute? You know, God is the same yesterday, today and forever?

And Samuel 15:29 says God does not lie, and we agree on that and does not "change His mind" as a man changes His mind. God does not repent either. He does not change from going in the wrong direction to going in the right direction. But God can change His mind and go from one right direction, say justice, and change and go in another direction, say mercy. This is what scripture says.

If you do not want to get into the method of salvation for the OT saints, then do not say He saved them. Say they gained approval through faith. And therefore God does not need to save people in order to use them as His instrument for His purpose. Your premise is false.

And you did not answer my question does God predestine everything. You can an example of God predestining some thing. We agree on that. It is the scope where we differ. I say some but not all things, and you say ... you will not answer. Never mind the scripture that says our yes should be yes and our no should be no.

And yes I agree God knows beforehand what He has predestined beforehand. So back to the basic question!!!

And then you evade, with a little humor, the issue of proving "A" and then claiming "B" was proved. Why not speak plainly?

No, a pink elephant is not a strawman. A pink elephant is a claim not based on what scripture says, but on an unwarranted inference not specifically addressed or precluded by scrpture. It is assigning the Calvinist ending to God does not change. That is a pink elephant. And if you claim you cannot see it, why it is an invisible pink elephant. You see when you make stuff up, you can evade the truth.

 

[ituttut]

ROFLOL, Ituttut, we are not saying the same thing. You say God flips supernatural switches to cause people to believe, and I say God saves those whose autonomous faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.

Three of your concerns are addressed here - Lydia, and Calvinism, and last what I saw in your OP.

In the post of yours I answered was a reference to Lydia that I did not acknowledge to you, but will here for it is a good opportunity to show I believe Lydia was a worshipper of Yahweh, just as you say. So we say the same thing, but say them differently. Yet there are deeper things here we probably do not agree on. However our believing Lydia was a worshipper of Yahweh doesn't mean we understand the Body of Christ alike.

I say there is a reason for Saul/Paul, and Damascus Road, and the intervention of Jesus Christ from heaven. Why was Lydia water baptized, and included her family? She was of those promised the Kingdom, so the Great Commission applied to her. We know the Acts period was a time of translation, a time of displacement of the original (Old) to something better (completely new). Missing this understanding puts us on the road to continue in believing the Great Commission. Lydia is a Kingdom Saint; I am not, for I am in the Body of Christ. We are connected with those of the Kingdom belief, which are those that hold onto Water Baptism, arguing either it most certainly should be done, either before or after salvation.

If we remove Water Baptism as a requirement, then we can see very clearly the light that was revealed to Paul over time for we Gentiles today. It is different from that given specifically, and to them (and their whole family and household) only. But NOW it is remission of sins Through Faith only, with One request. We are to remember Him in One way, and I don't believe it is at Christmas time, as man has told us o do.
We are on the same foundation of the Covenant people, but are we They? The One circumcision and baptism done without hands makes us One. We are told there is One Body, One Sprit, called in One Hope; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:4-a5).

Then to disciples of Calvinist, and Arminian, as well as others are disciples of Jesus Christ. "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius," I Corinthians 1:12-14. If we will follow Paul to II Corinthians, we find something different, and thereafter as the revelation of Paul's Gospel from Jesus Christ is presented to us. Any further reverence we may find from Paul as to Baptism, has nothing to do with Water Baptism. By this time we can notice that really All Now are considered to be Gentile, leaving behind the Great Commission. Of course Hebrews is written to whom it says, which tells us is talking directly to them.

To end, I saw in your OP we say the same thing, but differently, and I notice a switch took place. Things like Paul Was set apart; Through His Grace, Reveal His Son in me, and preach His Gospel among the Gentiles. So we say the same things. but differently. I say the same things as you, but you see error in what I say, and contend a bright light was not turned on.

 

[JesusFan]

Three of your concerns are addressed here - Lydia, and Calvinism, and last what I saw in your OP.

In the post of yours I answered was a reference to Lydia that I did not acknowledge to you, but will here for it is a good opportunity to show I believe Lydia was a worshipper of Yahweh, just as you say. So we say the same thing, but say them differently. Yet there are deeper things here we probably do not agree on. However our believing Lydia was a worshipper of Yahweh doesn't mean we understand the Body of Christ alike.

I say there is a reason for Saul/Paul, and Damascus Road, and the intervention of Jesus Christ from heaven. Why was Lydia water baptized, and included her family? She was of those promised the Kingdom, so the Great Commission applied to her. We know the Acts period was a time of translation, a time of displacement of the original (Old) to something better (completely new). Missing this understanding puts us on the road to continue in believing the Great Commission. Lydia is a Kingdom Saint; I am not, for I am in the Body of Christ. We are connected with those of the Kingdom belief, which are those that hold onto Water Baptism, arguing either it most certainly should be done, either before or after salvation.

If we remove Water Baptism as a requirement, then we can see very clearly the light that was revealed to Paul over time for we Gentiles today. It is different from that given specifically, and to them (and their whole family and household) only. But NOW it is remission of sins Through Faith only, with One request. We are to remember Him in One way, and I don't believe it is at Christmas time, as man has told us o do.
We are on the same foundation of the Covenant people, but are we They? The One circumcision and baptism done without hands makes us One. We are told there is One Body, One Sprit, called in One Hope; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:4-a5).

Then to disciples of Calvinist, and Arminian, as well as others are disciples of Jesus Christ. "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius," I Corinthians 1:12-14. If we will follow Paul to II Corinthians, we find something different, and thereafter as the revelation of Paul's Gospel from Jesus Christ is presented to us. Any further reverence we may find from Paul as to Baptism, has nothing to do with Water Baptism. By this time we can notice that really All Now are considered to be Gentile, leaving behind the Great Commission. Of course Hebrews is written to whom it says, which tells us is talking directly to them.

To end, I saw in your OP we say the same thing, but differently, and I notice a switch took place. Things like Paul Was set apart; Through His Grace, Reveal His Son in me, and preach His Gospel among the Gentiles. So we say the same things. but differently. I say the same things as you, but you see error in what I say, and contend a bright light was not turned on.

Are you saying that the Apostle Paul was where Church actually started up, that Pentacost was still in "Kingdom Age" where the transistion was still being made from old to new Covenant, so today the Church is NOT to observe things like water Baptism.Communion etc?

 

[jbh28]

God said he does not change, period. (James 1:17, I Sam 15:29).

or, God does not change in every area other than what Van says.

I'll stick with the Bible

 

[ituttut]

Are you saying that the Apostle Paul was where Church actually started up, that Pentacost was still in "Kingdom Age" where the transistion was still being made from old to new Covenant, so today the Church is NOT to observe things like water Baptism.Communion etc

The answer is in my post. Please slow down, and absorbe. Peter says we all should do this in order to understand the gospel of Paul.

 

[ituttut]

God said he does not change, period. (James 1:17, I Sam 15:29).

or, God does not change in every area other than what Van says.

I'll stick with the Bible

You give good advice. Stick with His Word, and believe what you read. I notice that you quote James, and Sam. What about Jesus while still on this earth, and He tells us a change is coming? Samuel was not interested, and neither was James. They are secure for they believed God they made Covenant with.

Again, Jesus does tell things will change as we see in Luke 12:52-32, "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Something happened when Pentecost came. All Israel did not accept Messiah, and Jesus knew this, viz. all things would not at that time become common.

Some day Christians in the Kingdom, and those in the Body of Christ, on the same foundation, will be common in Him, but we can clearly see today, that change He said was coming