Were theElect always Sheeps, and not Goats at all?

[atpollard]

if yes, had to be goats at that time, as dead in sin, and not in a relationship with God!

Is that the definition of a "goat"?

From the parable, I thought a goat was something that LOOKS like a sheep when it is young (like tares and wheat) and can be found congregating with the sheep (as any Church can affirm), but was not, is not and never will be a sheep.

 

[Yeshua1]

No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.

After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.

Your assertions were not supported by the verses cited once again. Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

God the Father and Jesus Christ had called Saul to be Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, so his conversion and Apostleship was a done deal!

 

[Yeshua1]

Is that the definition of a "goat"?

From the parable, I thought a goat was something that LOOKS like a sheep when it is young (like tares and wheat) and can be found congregating with the sheep (as any Church can affirm), but was not, is not and never will be a sheep.

Could be how we define being a sheep,as my understanding would be one that actually has Jesus as their Lord messiah, which none of us here had until born again!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ephesians 2

We "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved"

Puritan Favorites ❧ Thomas Adams (1583-1652) ❧ Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Vol. I, Sermon XXII, p. 415:

"Paul was once a tare, who after proved good wheat, and is now in the garner of heaven. Recte dicitur glacialem nivem calidam ease non posse; nullo enim pacto quamdiu nix est, calida esse potest, —It is truly said that the frozen snow, can by no means be made hot; for so long as it is snow, and frozen, it will not be warmed. Yet if that snow be melted, the liquid may be made hot. God, that is able to turn a stony heart into a heart of flesh, work this change upon them"

Hallelujah!

Stills seems like we were once goats, and now are sheeps!

 

[atpollard]

Could be how we define being a sheep,as my understanding would be one that actually has Jesus as their Lord messiah, which none of us here had until born again!

Technically, the parable that deals with that distinguishes between "not of my sheep" and "my sheep" with the Father giving (elsewhere described as 'draws') the sheep to Jesus ... who lays down his life for SHEEP (elsewhere clarified as 'while we were yet sinners').

A stray sheep is still a sheep. It still belongs to the shepherd that foreknew it. It must be found and brought into the flock.

 

[atpollard]

However, I will grant that 'feral' sheep do live like wild goats (Ephesians 2:1-3) ... until rescued and carried back to the flock.

 

[Van]

God the Father and Jesus Christ had called Saul to be Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, so his conversion and Apostleship was a done deal!

Utter nonsense. Just more man-made fiction copy and pasted.
No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

 

[Yeshua1]

Utter nonsense. Just more man-made fiction copy and pasted.
No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

You think Paul had actually means to reject Jesus at that point in time?

 

[Van]

You think Paul had actually means to reject Jesus at that point in time?

No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

 

[Yeshua1]

No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

So you would agree that God will was done in case of Paul, so why not the same way for all who get saved? Due to the will and predetermined will of God to save them?

 

[Van]

So you would agree that God will was done in case of Paul, so why not the same way for all who get saved? Due to the will and predetermined will of God to save them?

Repeating nonsense is all they have, but note the lack of scripture to support their bogus views.
They deny through ambassadors, God begs the lost to be reconciled. They deny all the verses that say "your faith." his faith" and "my faith." They deny Paul taught that people are to believe in Jesus.(Acts 19:4)

 

[Yeshua1]

Repeating nonsense is all they have, but note the lack of scripture to support their bogus views.
They deny through ambassadors, God begs the lost to be reconciled. They deny all the verses that say "your faith." his faith" and "my faith." They deny Paul taught that people are to believe in Jesus.(Acts 19:4)

NO Calvinist denies we must receive Jesus thru faith, but we do say that those who do that act would be able to do it being the elect of God whom he gave saving faith towards and enabled them to do that!

 

[atpollard]

No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.
After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.
Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

You did not answer his actual question ... "You think Paul had actually means to reject Jesus at that point in time?" A simple "Yes" or "No" could have answered it, but you do not seem to have addressed what YOU think at all.

Since your response seemed directed towards "Calvinism" and "they", I take that as an open invitation for anyone to respond. So I will.

1. No verse says Paul was not convinced Jesus was God based on the Damascus Road vision.

• I agree. No verse says that. There are lots of things that are not said in the bible. Some true and some false. However, I also know of no one else (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) that says that Paul was not convinced Jesus was God on the road to Damascus. This would seem to be either a red-herring or a strawman or a non sequitur.

2. After being persuaded Jesus is the Christ, Paul as His bond-servant did as God willed and commanded.

• So states the book of acts and the letters of Paul. Again, I know of no reasonable person, Calvinist or non-Calvinist, that claims otherwise. [I do know of two individuals that believe that Paul was a false Apostle sent to sow tares among the holy scriptures, but they are extreme outliers that I do not consider followers of Christ.] The question was not "DID PAUL OBEY GOD?", since it is obvious that he did. The question is "COULD PAUL HAVE REFUSED GOD?"
• Does any verse say that Paul could have refused to do as God willed and commanded? (Jonah tried and failed.)

3. Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

• Perhaps, but you have yet to actually prove it from scripture. What does Reformed Theology teach that cannot be supported with scripture, but scripture unequivocally proves false?
  
• Personally, I believe that Sotierology comes down to interpretation, which is why arguments from the 4th century are still being made using the same common book of scripture.

4. On and on they post assertions read into the text, but the assertions conflict with scripture over and over.

• So you claim, but have not presented any proof.
• I once referred to this as making claims "ex cathedra", which was not actually intended as a reference to the pope. "Ex cathedra" is latin for "from the chair" and refers to a statement made with the full authority of office. In other words, I was accusing you of making claims that we are expected to accept as true simply on the authority that "YOU SAY SO".
• What specific assertion was made (and by whom) and what specific scripture does that assertion conflict with?
• Equally important is to view the whole Bible, so are there also any scriptures that support the specific assertion?