Who has not failed?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: Sorry Steaver but you are not exhibiting a sound understanding of the atonement.

 

[steaver]

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

You keep missing that in our discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan;

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".

BobRyan;

My POV states 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".

BobRyan;

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.

You have made it very clear that you believe Paul's "acting ignorantly in unbelief" EXCUSES Paul from this very sin BECAUSE the Holy Spirit has not convicted Paul of this sin.

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.

You just said in this quote above that Paul rejected the gospel "ignoranly in unbelief".

BobRyan;

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 most certainly have argued that "God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save" and you said you "prove this" with Paul's own testimony in 1 Tim 1.

Look at your own words Bob...

....."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."

Do you see your own words describing how Paul heard the gospel and rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief" as he (Paul) said? And where do you say Paul said this?

Bob: ..."I prove that with Paul's own 1Tim 1 "I acted ignorantly in unbelief"

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.

I have inserted no such thing. Read your own words, follow your own inserts and explain why you say.... "I never argue "God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

1) You say Paul heard the gospel and rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief".

2) You say "ignorantly in unbelief" means NOT convicted by the Holy Spirit.

3) You say "I never argue God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

You have a contradiction in your own views. Feel free to explain, change or retract something.

 

[steaver]

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.

in Christ,

Bob

This reply does not answer any of my questions. The purpose of my questions are so I can be clear on what you posted and why. I do not want to misrepresent your view. If you want someone to understand your points you have to be willing to entertain questions meant for clarifications.

Here is my post again, if you will answer my questions then I will know if you are speaking about the Holy Spirit conviction concerning the gospel or if you are thinking of something else.....

You said,

Quote:
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,

Quote:
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]

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.

Interesting, you want to know where it is written that Paul heard the gospel prior to his encounter with Jesus?

I don't see where the scripture ever says the Spirit revealed Himself to Paul either prior to or during his conversion. It says Jesus revealed Himself, yet you believe the Spirit did.

Your right, the scripture does not write out the words "Paul heard the gospel of Jesus Christ".

So that settles that right? Paul spent his time rounding up Christians and Paul had no idea what a Christain even was. Paul had no idea what "The Way" these Christians adhered to even was. Paul never even heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is your exegesis of the facts we know about Paul? You want to stick with this?

Act 9:1¶And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.



So you believe Paul had no idea what he was so angry about? Paul just hated Christians but had no idea what a Christian believed?

Now you insist you need to see scripture that states Saul heard the gospel, but you do not need to see scripture stating the Holy Spirit withholds conviction selectively, yet you believe and preach this?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

HP: Sorry Steaver but you are not exhibiting a sound understanding of the atonement.

I don't recall us debating the atonement in this thread.

Calvin preached a Limited Atonement, right?

You preach a Limited Holy Spirit Conviction.

I don't know how you harmonize this limited conviction doctrine with this scripture...

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I don't know why you believe the Holy Spirit would withhold conviction if God would like to have all men come unto the knowledge of the truth.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Calvin preached a Limited Atonement, right?

HP: Yes he did.

Steaver: You preach a Limited Holy Spirit Conviction.

HP: You confuse two differing notions. First, there is conviction of sin that is as universal as sin is. Second there is enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to His offer of salvation. Such enlightenment magnifies ones conviction over sin no doubt, but conviction over sin and the offer of salvation are not one in the same as you seem to confuse them. One can be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and have no earthly idea as to the offer of salvation. A pure heathen can have conviction over sin yet never once heard the gospel message.

Once the gospel is preached, one can then come under a special conviction of repenting and believing the gospel, but no one can be under that conviction without hearing and being able to comprehend the gospel message. Some conviction of the Holy Spirit is universal, but the gospel message needs human aide as well as Divine aide, i.e., a preacher. (no need to tell me about the Apostle Paul. He was certainly once again an exception to many rules)

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Let me stop here to see if I am making myself clear this far.

 

[steaver]

HP: You confuse two differing notions. First, there is conviction of sin that is as universal as sin is. Second there is enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to His offer of salvation. Such enlightenment magnifies ones conviction over sin no doubt, but conviction over sin and the offer of salvation are not one in the same as you seem to confuse them.

I have confused nothing.

You and Bob keep going back to the FACT that the Holy Spirit DOES convict ALL of sin. I have never disagreed with this.

You and Bob keep going back to the Holy Spirit convicting one of the gospel being SELECTIVE. I DO NOT agree with this.

There is no confusion on my part.

God has commanded ALL men everywhere to repent...

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Do you notice it says ALL men?

With your doctrine of Limited Conviction you have a Preacher giving a man the gospel and God going against His own word by NOT allowing the man conviction for, as you say, "reasons known only to God".

We also have this scripture...

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

However, your doctrine of Limited Conviction goes against God's word once again. Again it has a man hearing the gospel (and let's not get this confused with any silly nonsense about not hearing it said right) and God selectively withholding conviction.

Calvin said that the atonement of Christ was only for those elected to be saved.

Your doctrine is not much different except for the fact that your doctrine allows those God elects for conviction to then chose to accept or reject. Calvin said there was no choice.

Your form of election does not allow ALL men who hear the gospel a chance to be saved.

Calvin's election is a direct rebirth of the person.

HP's election is the election of who gets to be convicted when they hear the gospel.

Interesting...

:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: However, your doctrine of Limited Conviction goes against God's word once again. Again it has a man hearing the gospel (and let's not get this confused with any silly nonsense about not hearing it said right) and God selectively withholding conviction.

HP: Most confused individuals do not recognize when they are confused, and you prove to be no exception. You throw around the words ‘limited conviction’ when I have clearly stated conviction is universal dealing with conviction over sin. If there is sin, there is conviction to some degree or another. Let’s see if you get it this time. Conviction for sin is universal when sin is present. Did I say it was limited? No, I said it is universal when sin is present.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, what is this conviction over the gospel you keep speaking of?? How does one get 'convicted' over a gift being offered?

 

[steaver]

If there is sin, there is conviction to some degree or another. Let’s see if you get it this time. Conviction for sin is universal when sin is present. Did I say it was limited? No, I said it is universal when sin is present.

Once agian, as I said in the last post...

You and Bob keep going back to the FACT that the Holy Spirit DOES convict ALL of sin. I have never disagreed with this.

Do you see the part I underslined? So this is settled between us. We agree that the Spirit is at work convicting ALL of sin.

Let's move on to the point of contention now.

We are discussing the Convicting power of the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of the gospel.

This is what you have said is SELECTIVE...

You and Bob keep going back to the Holy Spirit convicting one of the gospel being SELECTIVE. I DO NOT agree with this.

There is no confusion on my part.

God has commanded ALL men everywhere to repent...

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Do you notice it says ALL men?

With your doctrine of Limited Conviction you have a Preacher giving a man the gospel and God going against His own word by NOT allowing the man conviction for, as you say, "reasons known only to God".

We also have this scripture...

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

However, your doctrine of Limited Conviction goes against God's word once again. Again it has a man hearing the gospel (and let's not get this confused with any silly nonsense about not hearing it said right) and God selectively withholding conviction.

Calvin said that the atonement of Christ was only for those elected to be saved.

Your doctrine is not much different except for the fact that your doctrine allows those God elects for conviction to then chose to accept or reject. Calvin said there was no choice.

Your form of election does not allow ALL men who hear the gospel a chance to be saved.

Calvin's election is a direct rebirth of the person.

HP's election is the election of who gets to be convicted when they hear the gospel.

 

[steaver]

Steaver, what is this conviction over the gospel you keep speaking of?? How does one get 'convicted' over a gift being offered?

HP: Second there is enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to His offer of salvation.

Clear your position up for me.

Does the Holy Spirit always convict a person when they hear the gospel?

Or is the Holy Spirit selective as to who gets convicted and who does not when they hear the gospel?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: We are discussing the Convicting power of the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of the gospel.

This is what you have said is SELECTIVE...

HP: You cannot be convicted of refusing something you have yet to have heard or understood concerning. All men have not heard the gospel message, and all men do not have the same knowledge of salvation even IF they hear about it, therefore it may take more than one time hearing for the truth of the gospel to make an inroad into their life. Some may never hear the gospel message at all.

God has made co-workers together with him in the spreading of the gospel, and it is more than merely possible that some may not hear due to our failed or lack of effort. God has chosen the means of preaching, as strange as that might sound to us. Why has he chosen such a finite limited means? I know He desires to use men, possibly to have something to reward them for, besides other factors I am certain known only to God Himself.

 

[steaver]

HP: You cannot be convicted of refusing something you have yet to have heard or understood concerning. All men have not heard the gospel message, and all men do not have the same knowledge of salvation even IF they hear about it, therefore it may take more than one time hearing for the truth of the gospel to make an inroad into their life. Some may never hear the gospel message at all.

God has made co-workers together with him in the spreading of the gospel, and it is more than merely possible that some may not hear due to our failed or lack of effort. God has chosen the means of preaching, as strange as that might sound to us. Why has he chosen such a finite limited means? I know He desires to use men, possibly to have something to reward them for, besides other factors I am certain known only to God Himself.

Ok, let's narrow this down and get on the same subject.

It is not about who hears being selective.

It is about those who do hear and whether or not the Holy Spirit selectively convicts them when they hear.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Does the Holy Spirit always convict a person when they hear the gospel?

HP: I believe it falls like water off a ducks back with some. That is not God being selective but rather due to the hardness of men’s hearts.

Steaver: Or is the Holy Spirit selective as to who gets convicted and who does not when they hear the gospel?

HP: God has assigned and granted the task of spreading the good news to men, as imperfect as that might seem or appear to you. There are any number of scenarios that we might discuss. The sky is the limit depending on the light and knowledge of the person who hears, the hardness of their hearts, etc. Time does not permit to discuss every possibility that does or could exist, neither would it profit us to attermpt such an undertaking.

 

[steaver]

HP: I believe it falls like water off a ducks back with some. That is not God being selective but rather due to the hardness of men’s hearts.

Then you agree that the Holy Spirit is always at work convicting each person who is hearing the gospel, but it is man who is the problem and therefore held accountable for rejecting the Holy Spirit's prompting at the hearing?

I see you are shying away from Bob's pov that Paul indeed heard the gospel yet rejected it BECAUSE the Holy Spirit never convicted Paul that it was truth.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

1) You say Paul heard the gospel and rejected it "ignorantly in unbelief".

2) You say "ignorantly in unbelief" means NOT convicted by the Holy Spirit.

3) You say "I never argue God withholds Holy Spirit conviction that could save".

You have a contradiction in your own views. Feel free to explain, change or retract something.

It is undeniable from 1Tim 1 that God does not convict all on all doctrine instantaneously - for even one so well educated as Saul argues that HE acted ignorantly in unbelief.

I don't see how you expect to get out of that point alone.

But all are always convicted on some sin and if they choose Christ instead of sin - even at that level - they end up in the Romans 2 position of a saved Gentile - saved even though they have NO access at all to Scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

It is undeniable from 1Tim 1 that God does not convict all on all doctrine instantaneously - for even one so well educated as Saul argues that HE acted ignorantly in unbelief.

I don't see how you expect to get out of that point alone.

But all are always convicted on some sin and if they choose Christ instead of sin - even at that level - they end up in the Romans 2 position of a saved Gentile - saved even though they have NO access at all to Scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

Ok, but Saul, according to you, was not sinning and was not choosing Christ either.

Are you telling me that Saul was saved while he was persecuting the church because he was not held accountable for he was doing it in ignorance in unbelief?

:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Then you agree that the Holy Spirit is always at work convicting each person who is hearing the gospel, but it is man who is the problem and therefore held accountable for rejecting the Holy Spirit's prompting at the hearing?

HP: Again, I have never been under ‘conviction’ about being offered or getting a gift, have you? I have been under conviction for my sin. I see no evidence whatsoever that the Apostle Paul heard the gospel message prior to when he was struck blind. If he heard it before you make up your own mind as to whether or not he was convicted of his sins. I see no evidence that he felt any conviction, for he said he lived in all good conscience. Believe as you so desire. I am done with the issue as far as I am concerned because it makes no sense to argue over the manner in which the Holy Spirit dealt with Paul. I cannot see how it affects me or you or the manner in which we are told to spread the gospel.

As for BR’s position, I am not shying away from nor saying I entirely agree with him. You do with it as you wish. I see no reason to continue discussing this issue.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, but Saul, according to you, was not sinning and was not choosing Christ either.

Are you telling me that Saul was saved while he was persecuting the church because he was not held accountable for he was doing it in ignorance in unbelief?

:godisgood:

Again not a quote of me.

You are once again stating the extreme - "no sin is comitted if ALL sin is not being convicted of" and then asking if I am willing to take up the cause for that straw man.

My argument has been from the start that ALL are convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit.

Your argument has been that if the Holy Spirit has not convicted of some special sin - then the other sins do not matter or they are not really conviction or that conviction was on pointless subjects or..

Your POV requires you to go to some unnusual places in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Your argument has been that if the Holy Spirit has not convicted of some special sin - then the other sins do not matter or they are not really conviction or that conviction was on pointless subjects or..

Your POV requires you to go to some unnusual places in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

You will not be able to produce one post that would remotely suggest that this is "my argument". As always, I invite all questions regarding my post and I am willing to clarify or explain any of them. I can only hope that you will someday do the same and realize the value in being able to answer tough questions or explain yourself.

A good bible teacher will explain and answer all questions that arise out of matter of fact statements. I believe that you see the problem in your belief system and rather than entertain the thought that your views might have some problems you decide the questions are "extreme" scenarios.

Now I asked you a simple question, will you simply answer it?

Do you believe Saul was saved while he was persecuting Christians?

I ask this because you claim Paul said he was "blameless". You also declared he was not accountable for doing what he was doing against Christians because "ignorantly in unbelief" excuses him from guilt.

So, was Saul saved while being blameless as he said and persecuting Christians in ignorance?

If not, then what does "blameless" really mean to you?

:jesus: