Who has not failed?

[steaver]

1. I claim that the Holy Spirit ALWAYs convicts ALL of sin.
2. I also claim that the Holy Spirit does not make ALL sin apparent to ALL and I prove that with Paul's own 1Tim 1 "I acted ignorantly in unbelief".

But the fact that they are ALL convicted of sin means they are ALL made aware of their need of salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

So Saul knew he needed salvation because the Holy Spirit had convicted him of his sin,

But then when the salvation Saul knew he needed was revealed unto Saul, the Holy Spirit decided NOT to convict Saul of that very salvation Saul knew he needed, God's salvation in Jesus Christ.

So then Jesus had to visit Saul personally.

And this makes perfect sense to you?

 

[steaver]

I have good news for all of you who find yourselves kicking against the pricks.

All who argue against the truth of OSAS.
All who argue against the truth of original sin.

You will not be held accountable for you are "acting out of ignorance and in unbelief".

:wavey:

 

[steaver]

My POV does not even remotely allow for Calvinism's limited atonement because I do not argue that God does not convict the wicked nor that He "does not convict some of the wicked" of sin and of their need.


in Christ,

Bob

Here is what you say you believe; show me if I misrepresent what I say you believe.

1) God convicts ALL of sin and thus they are held accountable (condemnation) for their sin and they know they are in need of salvation.

2) God does NOT convict ALL that Jesus Christ is the atonement for their sin and that receiving this atonement by faith would save them. Thus God withholds the Holy Spirit conviction that could possibly save them if they would so choose. (they are ignorantly in unbelief).

How is this much different than Calvin's selective election accept for the free will choosing part? In your model God is still selectively choosing who get's possible saving conviction and who does not. Everyone does not get the chance to be saved.

 

[BobRyan]

1. God's Word claims in John 16 - that the Holy Spirit ALWAYs convicts ALL of sin.
2. God's Word claims in 1Tim 1 and in John 16 - that the Holy Spirit does not make ALL sin apparent to ALL and I prove that with Paul's own 1Tim 1 "I acted ignorantly in unbelief" as well as the statement in John 16 "I have many MORE things to say to you but you cannot bear them now.



My POV accepts the John 16 truth that God "convicts ALL" the world of Sin - but it also allows for the truth of the scripture we find in 1Tim 1 where some are "acting out of ignorance and in unbelief".


Steaver - you have already painted yourself in a corner by arguing that Paul's statement about "acting in ignorance out of unbelief" is placing him outside the reach of the Holy Spirit from which there is no recovery.

God's Word says he was shown mercy "because" he acted ignorantly in unbelief RATHER than in bold defiance against God.

Paul a leading student of Scripture. The bible told him "thou shalt not murder" just as it tells us today.

But "he thought" that the "saints were in fact heretics and blasphemers".

The Bible does not even remotely allow for Calvinism's limited atonement because the Bible does not say that God does not convict the wicked nor that He "does not convict some of the wicked" of sin and of their need.

The Bible says in John 16 that ALL are convicted - the Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment.

But as Paul points out in 1Tim 1 He does not convict ALL the World of ALL their sin - because some are "acting in ignorance out of unbelief".

But the fact that they are ALL convicted of sin means they are ALL made aware of their need of salvation.

The fact that they are ALL convicted of "Righteousness and judgment" means that they are ALL convicted that God is the answer to their sin problem.

Thus as Paul points out in Romans1 EVEN the barbarians with no Bible access at all "are without excuse"

===================================

In the short version....."I WANT IT BOTH WAYS" :tear:

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Where your error lies in in your misinterpretation and misapplication of 1 Tim 1. You need to stick with John 16.

Actually you are caught between the fork of 1Tim 1 and John 16 - using both of them in my cause is required to expose the flaw in your argument.

So as much as you struggle with the problem of allowing for both to be true - my POV requires both texts to be true.

And so - we differ.:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what you say you believe; show me if I misrepresent what I say you believe.

1) God convicts ALL of sin and thus they are held accountable (condemnation) for their sin and they know (at some level) they are in need of salvation.

2) God does NOT convict ALL that Jesus Christ is the atonement for their sin and that receiving this atonement by faith would save them. Thus God withholds the Holy Spirit conviction that could possibly save them if they would so choose. (they are ignorantly in unbelief).

Notice that those in Matt 7 who were convicted are in the end "self decieved" into thinking they are saved when they are not.

Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition.

Notice that I have never said "God witholds conviction that could save them" -- only Calvinists make that claim.

Rather I keep pointing to "the TEXT" of John 16 that says "I have many MORE things to tell you but you CANNOT BEAR them now".

In your "reach for extremes" model you want to insert into the text that the disciples are not convicted on ANY truth as long as they are not aware and convicted on ALL truth. Your reach-for-extremes solution is not working.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jon-Marc]

Apparently one person has managed to live a perfect and sinless life since rebirth--must be nice.

 

[steaver]

Notice that those in Matt 7 who were convicted are in the end "self decieved" into thinking they are saved when they are not.

Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition.


in Christ,

Bob

Those in Matt 7 you say.... "who were convicted".

Then you say "Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition."

You have been arguing that Saul had NOT been convicted because Paul said he did it "ignorantly in unbelief".


Is this a misspeak on your part? If so please reword it for me that it may not contradict yourself.

 

[steaver]

Notice that I have never said "God witholds conviction that could save them" -- only Calvinists make that claim.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan;

My example of someone NOT convicted on a specific point was SAUL who later becomes PAUL. Just exactly how does that provid you an example of limited atonement that excludes Saul from salvation?

What was the specific point Saul was NOT convicted on?

1Ti 1:13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

BobRyan;

And you mention the fact that Paul living in Jerusalem at the time of christ would most certainly have heard what Christ, and John the baptizer and the apostles were preaching - yet he rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief" as he said.

WHY did Saul reject believing in Jesus Christ?

BobRyan;

1. I claim that the Holy Spirit ALWAYs convicts ALL of sin.
2. I also claim that the Holy Spirit does not make ALL sin apparent to ALL and I prove that with Paul's own 1Tim 1 "I acted ignorantly in unbelief".

You claim, BobRyan, that Paul's sin of "ignorance in unbelief" is excused because the Holy Spirit did NOT convict Saul concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Those in Matt 7 you say.... "who were convicted".

Then you say "Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition."

You have been arguing that Saul had NOT been convicted because Paul said he did it "ignorantly in unbelief".


Is this a misspeak on your part? If so please reword it for me that it may not contradict yourself.

Not true at all.

I have said that ALL are convicted of "sin and righteousness and judgment".

you ALONE keep promoting the idea that is of the form -- if people are not "convicted on ALL sins - with absolute perfect doctrine -- then they are not convicted on ANY sins". It is rather difficult to understand how you come up with that wild idea - but you post as if we all think the same thing in that regard.

so I say again -I find your logic illusive at that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

you ALONE keep promoting the idea that is of the form -- if people are not "convicted on ALL sins - with absolute perfect doctrine -- then they are not convicted on ANY sins". It is rather difficult to understand how you come up with that wild idea - but you post as if we all think the same thing in that regard.

I have promoted no such wild idea and neither have you.

so I say again -I find your logic illusive at that point.

Things that do not exist can be very illusive indeed.

I'm not sure if you are diliberately posting red-herrings or if you truly do not understand my point of view and your own contradictory statements.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have just misunderstood a post of mine somewhere. If you have a post of mine that would contradict what I just said above feel free to bring it forward and let me either defend it, explain it or retract it.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Notice that those in Matt 7 who were convicted are in the end "self decieved" into thinking they are saved when they are not.

Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition.


in Christ,

Bob

I have extended to you the offer of bringing forward any post of mine that may look as though I have contradicted myself that I may have a chance to explain. I am asking you to explain your post so I will not misrepresent your pov in this disscussion.

You said,

Notice that those in Matt 7 who were convicted are in the end "self decieved" into thinking they are saved when they are not.

By saying "were convicted" are you saying they were convicted by the Holy Spirit to obey the commandment to believe on Jesus Christ?

I ask this because you then say,

Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition.

That "same condition" would be "convicted" by the Holy Spirit to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

But you said earlier that Paul was not convicted by the Holy Spirit to believe on Jesus Christ and therefore was not held accountable for his "unbelief".

Was he convicted on this point as was those in Matt 7 or wasn't he?

Clear this up for me because these "notices" are contradicting your earlier comments.

Please, stay on point.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Steaver, when you start accusing Paul of murder on this thread, on this thread the point should be cleared up. That is no rabbit trail.

Act 22:20And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Do you suppose Saul was LOVING his brother as he ws CONSENTING unto his death?

Gal 1:13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


Do you suppose Saul was persecuting and wasting the Christians out of love for them?

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Did Saul actually do any of the physical killing? I think not, nor would the Jews actually do the physical killing of Jesus, it was not allowed, yet they were guilty of rounding Him up. Paul most certainly understood his guilt in his part of rounding them up for the slaughter. Do you believe no Christians lost their lives as an indirect result of Saul's persecution?

Paul confessed his sins and you want to say to Paul, "No Paul, you did nothing wrong because the Holy Spirit did not convict you, it is the Holy Spirit's fault that you were confused about thou shall not kill".

Quote:
What does 'who Paul was taking his orders from' have to do with "most of the other Pharisees" considering themselves blameless just as Paul, as you proclaim???? Show us the evidence and the connection.
Do some research HP. To be a Pharisee was to be considered "blameless" and "righteous", at least by their own self-aprasal.

Quote:
1) A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity. (Blue Letter Bible)
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus sure didn't see the scribes and Pharisees the way they seen themselves.

Quote:
Phar⋅i⋅see –noun 1.a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.2.(lowercase

) a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person.
It is estimated that about 6000 persons were members of this sect at the time of Jesus. You could not be accepted as a Pharisee unless you followed the rules of the sect. You would have us to believe that Saul was the only one who was considered a "good" Pharisee.

When Paul says he was "blameless" it was from his sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical point of view of what a good God fearing person ought to be. Paul was "blameless" according to the rules of his sect.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Act 22:20And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

HP: Who says that is murder? If a man stands by consenting to one dying in the electric chair, does that make such a one guilty of murder? (I would say it may or may not, depending on several factors, some of which only God knows.)There is every indication that what Paul was doing was not simply of his own accord, but rather it would appear that Paul was carrying out the wishes of the religious leaders of his day.

Steaver: 1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

HP: I do not think anyone that is not born again can get a grasp on that true statement.

Steaver: Do you suppose Saul was LOVING his brother as he ws CONSENTING unto his death?

HP: I believe Paul indeed had love towards those he felt were God’s chosen. He was doing what he was doing to preserve the heritage he knew (or thought he knew) was from God.

Steaver: Gal 1:13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

HP: There again, he evidently honestly thought he was doing God and the truth a service. Fortunate for him God opened his eyes while there was still time. Many in the last days will die in their sins I believe, killing God’s servants deceived in their actions and that most likely for eternity.

Steaver: 1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

HP: Paul was deceived and was in all good conscience doing the things he was doing. He was indeed an exception to the rule.

Steaver: Paul confessed his sins and you want to say to Paul, "No Paul, you did nothing wrong because the Holy Spirit did not convict you, it is the Holy Spirit's fault that you were confused about thou shall not kill".

HP: No, I do not say that at all. It became sin to him when God revealed the truth, not before. If he would have continued on after that point in his actions, he could not have stated he lived in all good conscience, and neither do I believe God would have used him as He did.

Steaver: Jesus sure didn't see the scribes and Pharisees the way they seen themselves.

HP: True, but Paul was no ordinary Pharisee. His father was not the devil as we well found out as we read the rest of the story. God NEVER addressed Paul in the same manner Christ confronted the scribes and Pharisees on several occasions.

 

[steaver]

HP: There again, he evidently honestly thought he was doing God and the truth a service. Fortunate for him God opened his eyes while there was still time. Many in the last days will die in their sins I believe, killing God’s servants deceived in their actions and that most likely for eternity.

In your pov then, unless God convicts, or as you say "opens the eyes", of a person of the truth of the gospel they cannot choose to obey the gospel which they have heard. Hearing simply isn't enough for accountability.

Have I understood your position?

If I have, then in your understanding of scripture the Holy Spirit chooses to open the eyes of some and others He does not.

So the ones who hear the gospel but do not get the chance to believe on Jesus Christ because the Spirit chooses to withhold conviction, do these still get condemned for unbelief?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: In your pov then, unless God convicts, or as you say "opens the eyes", of a person of the truth of the gospel they cannot choose to obey the gospel which they have heard. Hearing simply isn't enough for accountability.

Have I understood your position?

HP: Who said Paul ever heard the gospel?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, I have certainly heard some present what they would call the 'gospel' that I personally believe is NOT the gospel. The 'gospel' means different things to different people. I know one thing, if a heart is open and willing, God's Spirit has certainly been at work. God certainly can with hold the gospel from whosoever He so desires for reasons known only to Himself. God is under no obligation to give any man the gospel.

 

[steaver]

HP: Who said Paul ever heard the gospel?

Are you serious! And you want to post here to teach us the scriptures?

You can take a single scripture such as 1Ti 1:13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

and contsruct a doctrine that declares the Holy Spirit withholds conviction at random.

"Who said Paul ever heard the gospel?"

I pray you can say such a thing with a good conscience towards truth. It is more likely you see a flaw in your pov but at all cost the pov must stand.

Steaver, I have certainly heard some present what they would call the 'gospel' that I personally believe is NOT the gospel. The 'gospel' means different things to different people.

Hold on to the pov at all cost! Maybe Paul never heard the true gospel spoken in the correct way. Ok.

But acording to your pov, even if Paul heard the gospel in the correct way the Holy Spirit still could have chosen to NOT allow Paul conviction of it's truth.

What gospel did Paul hear that led him to believe? Can you answer that for me? What sayeth the scripture?

Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

There is the gospel Paul heard that day. Jesus is Lord. Believe it or not, that is your choice, that is salvation, that is the portion of the gospel message that saves, and it saves even if one does not understand all the semantics.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

What is missing in this text is your pov that the Holy Spirit must convict. It would most correctly read....

So then faith [cometh] by hearing and the Holy Spirit's election, and hearing by the word of God.

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world, But the Spirit did not select all to be convicted.

God certainly can with hold the gospel from whosoever He so desires for reasons known only to Himself. God is under no obligation to give any man the gospel.

Boy, doesn't this sound very familiar? Ever hear of Calvin?

Calvin has Limited Atonement. You two have Limited Gospel and Limited Conviction.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Posted by steaver
Here is what you say you believe; show me if I misrepresent what I say you believe.

1) God convicts ALL of sin and thus they are held accountable (condemnation) for their sin and they know (at some level) they are in need of salvation.

2) God does NOT convict ALL that Jesus Christ is the atonement for their sin and that receiving this atonement by faith would save them. Thus God withholds the Holy Spirit conviction that could possibly save them if they would so choose. (they are ignorantly in unbelief).

I never argue "God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

You keep missing that in our discussion.

But a reason for that is that you insert the idea that full doctrinal understanding of atonement is needed before God is allowed to convict someone in a way that saves them.

Notice that those in Matt 7 who were convicted are in the end "self decieved" into thinking they are saved when they are not.

Notice that Paul himself claims to have been in that same condition.

Notice that I have never said "God witholds conviction that could save them" -- only Calvinists make that claim.

Rather I keep pointing to "the TEXT" of John 16 that says "I have many MORE things to tell you but you CANNOT BEAR them now".

In your "reach for extremes" model, you want to insert into the text that the disciples are not convicted on ANY truth as long as they are not aware and convicted on ALL truth. Your reach-for-extremes solution is not working.

I have extended to you the offer of bringing forward any post of mine that may look as though I have contradicted myself that I may have a chance to explain. I am asking you to explain your post so I will not misrepresent your pov in this disscussion.

You said,



By saying "were convicted" are you saying they were convicted by the Holy Spirit to obey the commandment to believe on Jesus Christ?

I ask this because you then say,



That "same condition" would be "convicted" by the Holy Spirit to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

That last statement is where you provide your own "insert".

There you quote "you" --- not me.

I fully agree that if you mix your views with mine at some point a contradiction results.

But you said earlier that Paul was not convicted by the Holy Spirit to believe on Jesus Christ and therefore was not held accountable for his "unbelief".

Correction: I am not the author of 1Timothy chapter 1.

You are citing the 1Tim 1 text that does not fit your views and attributing that text to me.

I already pointed that out in this fashion -

Here is what Paul says OF HIMSELF in those days.

1Tim 1

12I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

Steaver - you have been carefully explaining to us WHY Paul should not have "received mercy" as though "acting ignorantly in unbelief" is not a factor -- as if James 4:17 is wrong "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not TO HIM it is sin".

Your argument is "with the text" and so since you have not accepted it - you complain when you find someone who DOES accept that text. But in the end your argument is still just with the text itsef.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

James says in James 4:17
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

And the response to that text from Steaver "appears to be" that scripture is merely individual POV.

In your pov then, unless God convicts, or as you say "opens the eyes", of a person of the truth of the gospel they cannot choose to obey the gospel which they have heard.

However James 4:17 is not "my POV" it is scripture.
1Tim 1:12-13 - is scripture -- not my POV.

12I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

In Romans 2 Paul already gave the example of gentiles - with no access to scripture at all - (thus no full orbed fact check on the complex doctrine of substitutionary atonement) - being fully engaged under the NEW COVENANT in the changed heart work of the Holy Spirit.

By contrast - rebelling Jews had a vastly superior understanding of the Lev 16 concept of "Atonement" than the gentile that had no scripture at all that is being highlighted by Paul in Romans 2. Yet those informed Jews were out -- and the ignorant Gentile of Romans 2 was IN - in this example.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, I know full well that the Holy Spirit revealed Himself to Paul and that at that time he heard the gospel, but my remark was concerning hearing the gospel 'prior to' that encounter. Where does it ever say that 'PRIOR TO' the Holy Spirit's enlightenment when he was blinded that he had heard the gospel? Sorry if I did not make myself clear.