Who has not failed?

[steaver]

HP: Again, I have never been under ‘conviction’ about being offered or getting a gift, have you?

Yes. I was ten years old. I was listening to a Billy Graham special and he said we all do wrong (sin) and if I will call on Jesus Christ he will forgive me of all sins (past, present, future) and give ne the gift of eternal life. The Holy Spirit convicted me of these truths and I chose to call on Jesus that night. So far, Jesus has not failed to make good on His promise. He has seen me through my transgressions and at the end of the day eternal is still eternal! Praise Him!

I see no evidence whatsoever that the Apostle Paul heard the gospel message prior to when he was struck blind.

Maybe you have been struck blind!

If you believe Saul had no idea what a "Christian" was or what the "Way" was that he was warring against then no amount of evidence would ever persuade you any different. So what do you call that?

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.

This is an interesting statement,

You believe Saul was not convicted of any sinning, Saul declaring he was "blameless" means he is in no need of a Saviour. No sin, no Saviour necessary.

Now you are going to insist that Saul still needed a Saviour, Why? If Saul was blameless then why did he need a Saviour?

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.

Your are right, it does not affect me or you or the manner in which we are told to spread the gospel. But we are not talking about those things are we? We are talking about doctrinal point of views. It appears you are seeing some problems with your view and you would just like to drop the subject.

If Paul's statement of being "blameless" is as you say, then why did he need a Saviour? Was Saul saved before meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus? He had a "good conscience" before God right? So he was saved according to Your view of Romans 2, right?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Posted by BobRyan
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.

Ok, but Saul, according to you, was not sinning

I have never said that.

What I HAVE said is that you have imagined a strange scenario where IF God does not convict on ALL sin - then God is not convicting on ANY sin (that matters).

We can keep cirlcing back to that each time you go there if you like.

But it does not turn into a solid argument until you answer the point that is raised against your idea.

Are you telling me that Saul was saved while he was persecuting the church

I do not know whether he was or not - all I know is that on that specific sin -- he had not yet been convicted.

My point is that ALL are convicted of sin - but all are not convicted of ALL sin.

This is clear from 1Tim 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

'Eternal' judgment does not happen until the world to come. God has as long as He so desires to convict one of sin or offer one His salvation. No knowledge, no sin. That does not mean that ‘in the end’ one will not have knowledge at some point in time and then might be accounted to them as sin.

The same goes for the Apostle Paul. He was evidently not convicted of sin till his Damascus road experience. He had lived in all good conscience up until that point in time where he received knowledge, and then obeyed from that point in time forward in light of that new revelation. Paul was indeed an exception to most every rule.

I will let Steaver determine if he sinned or not and will allow Steaver to be his final judge if he believes he is capable of doing that. Be reminded, such might entail setting God straight, something I would not desire to place myself in that position. I for one will leave the Apostle Paul to His final judge, and in the meantime I will accept his testimony as truth when he declares he has lived in all good conscience until that day.

It is entirely possible for one to see himself in retrospect, with new enlightenment from God, as a sinner, when in fact God did not judge the ‘sin’ due to real ignorance of the truth. Job is another great illustration of this point, in reading how God saw Job as a perfect man, and how with ‘new revelation’ from God, Job saw himself. I never see God judging Job, or Paul for that matter, as the sinner they both saw themselves as subsequent to new revelation.

Could such ‘sin’ as in the life of Job and Paul, have anything with ‘sins not unto death?’ Just a thought that comes to mind.

 

[steaver]

What I HAVE said is that you have imagined a strange scenario where IF God does not convict on ALL sin - then God is not convicting on ANY sin (that matters).

We can keep cirlcing back to that each time you go there if you like.

But it does not turn into a solid argument until you answer the point that is raised against your idea.


in Christ,

Bob

"We" do not keep circling back, "You" keep setting up a straw man. If you believe this is a point that is raised against "my" idea, then show me a post of mine that suggest this is "my" idea and we will take it from there. Until you show me a post of mine that portrays this "idea" you speak of it will stand as a straw man argument set up to avoid the problems of your view.

I do not know whether he was or not - all I know is that on that specific sin -- he had not yet been convicted.

My point is that ALL are convicted of sin - but all are not convicted of ALL sin.

This is clear from 1Tim 1.

in Christ,

Bob

You don't know whether Saul was saved or not?

Well, what is your pov of what it is that saves a person?

Is it faith in God? Saul had faith in God did he not?

Is it keeping the Law? Saul said he was "blameless" at keeping the Law did he not?

Please explain BobRyan's pov of what saves a person and then use Paul's own testimony to examine if his life portrayed the life of a saved person.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

I will let Steaver determine if he sinned or not and will allow Steaver to be his final judge if he believes he is capable of doing that. Be reminded, such might entail setting God straight, something I would not desire to place myself in that position. I for one will leave the Apostle Paul to His final judge, and in the meantime I will accept his testimony as truth when he declares he has lived in all good conscience until that day.

You say you will not be Paul's judge, right after you declared Paul without sin!

The same goes for the Apostle Paul. He was evidently not convicted of sin till his Damascus road experience. He had lived in all good conscience up until that point in time where he received knowledge, and then obeyed from that point in time forward in light of that new revelation. Paul was indeed an exception to most every rule.

Was Saul saved while he was wasting the children of God?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

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:

Saul said that he counted himself as being blameless - "as to the the righteousness which is in the law - found blameless" Phil 3:6.

I say this proves that in his pre-Christian state - he was ignorant of a few things.

I say that his 1Tim 1:12-13 statement "I acted ignorantly in unbelief" proves that he was not aware of one or two imporant items.

So far I am stating the obvious.

You are free to object.

I also point out the obvious in John 16 where we are told that God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment - so while Saul may not have been convicted on ALL sin - he was being convicted in the area of some sin.

Again - just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You don't know whether Saul was saved or not?

True enough - that is the Holy Spirit's job

Well, what is your pov of what it is that saves a person?

In the case of Timothy as Paul reports it in 2Tim 3:15 - accepting "the scriptures" even before he became a Christian - was sufficient to bring him to salvation.

And in the Heb 11 list - we find saints saved all through time - some of those listed in Heb 11 - were saved even before the existence of written scripture.

Turns out that God the Son - has been around a lot longer than many seem to suppose.



As Paul states in Rom 2 regarding Gentiles that have no access to the word of God at all - there are some of them that show the works of the law "written on the heart" in fulfillment of the New Covenant promise that is found in Jeremiah 31 and reported to us again in Hebrews 8.

So without my own handy-dandy save-o-meter to point at each person, I myself can only be assured of MY OWN salvation, for in this world we walk by faith not by sight, but when we get to heaven then we will know, even as we are known.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by steaver

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?

Saul said that he counted himself as being blameless - "as to the the righteousness which is in the law - found blameless" Phil 3:6.

I say this proves that in his pre-Christian state - he was ignorant of a few things.

I say that his 1Tim 1:12-13 statement "I acted ignorantly in unbelief" proves that he was not aware of one or two imporant items.

So far I am stating the obvious.

You are free to object.

I also point out the obvious in John 16 where we are told that God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment - so while Saul may not have been convicted on ALL sin - he was being convicted in the area of some sin.

Again - just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

Sweet. :wavey:

I believe I have made my point to the list. I know you will not consider the error in your doctrine.

The observer will see your non-answer, dance and spins.

Originally Posted by steaver
Well, what is your pov of what it is that saves a person?

In the case of Timothy as Paul reports it in 2Tim 3:15 - accepting "the scriptures" even before he became a Christian - was sufficient to bring him to salvation.

And in the Heb 11 list - we find saints saved all through time - some of those listed in Heb 11 - were saved even before the existence of written scripture.

Turns out that God the Son - has been around a lot longer than many seem to suppose.

As Paul states in Rom 2 regarding Gentiles that have no access to the word of God at all - there are some of them that show the works of the law "written on the heart" in fulfillment of the New Covenant promise that is found in Jeremiah 31 and reported to us again in Hebrews 8.

So without my own handy-dandy save-o-meter to point at each person, I myself can only be assured of MY OWN salvation, for in this world we walk by faith not by sight, but when we get to heaven then we will know, even as we are known.

in Christ,

Bob

Nice spin :thumbsup:

We went from my question which was about your pov on what saves a person and ended up with a speech about individual assurance.

You go on and on, post after post, thread after thread about salvation and now you declare you have no idea what saves a person.

My questions are so simple;

Maybe I can make them even more simple. I will leave Paul out of it.

Do you believe BobRyan;

One can be in the state of keeping the Law blameless, having faith in God, rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ, all at the same time and be considered saved?

It is a "yes or no" question.

You see, answering situational questions helps the student understand with certaintly the teaching pov of the one making doctrinal claims as matter of facts.

It's a simple question;

Is keeping the law blameless in good conscience with faith in God enough to save a person EVEN if that person hears the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it?

We will all be awaiting your reitteration of John 16, 1 Tim 1, 2 Tim, Rom 2, Heb, etc, etc and of course absolutely no yes or no to the very simple question.

You are becoming to predictable Bob.

Take HP's lead and retreat. It seems we always find ourselves at this end. Pointed questions get raised and you two begin the dance and spin routine. You two should consider running for public office, you would make great politicians.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Saul said that he counted himself as being blameless - "as to the the righteousness which is in the law - found blameless" Phil 3:6.

I say this proves that in his pre-Christian state - he was ignorant of a few things.

I say that his 1Tim 1:12-13 statement "I acted ignorantly in unbelief" proves that he was not aware of one or two imporant items.

So far I am stating the obvious.

You are free to object.

I also point out the obvious in John 16 where we are told that God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment - so while Saul may not have been convicted on ALL sin - he was being convicted in the area of some sin.

Again - just stating the obvious.

Sweet. :wavey:

I believe I have made my point to the list. I know you will not consider the error in your doctrine.

The observer will see your non-answer, dance and spins.

If you are happy with my just stating the obvious and you having to ignore it - I am not the one that is going to complain.

That is a great outcome in my book as well.

It is nice to end that point on a note where we both seem to be so happy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of Timothy as Paul reports it in 2Tim 3:15 - accepting "the scriptures" even before he became a Christian - was sufficient to bring him to salvation.

And in the Heb 11 list - we find saints saved all through time - some of those listed in Heb 11 - were saved even before the existence of written scripture.

Turns out that God the Son - has been around a lot longer than many seem to suppose.

As Paul states in Rom 2 regarding Gentiles that have no access to the word of God at all - there are some of them that show the works of the law "written on the heart" in fulfillment of the New Covenant promise that is found in Jeremiah 31 and reported to us again in Hebrews 8.

So without my own handy-dandy save-o-meter to point at each person, I myself can only be assured of MY OWN salvation, for in this world we walk by faith not by sight, but when we get to heaven then we will know, even as we are known.

In the case of Timothy as Paul reports it in 2Tim 3:15 - accepting "the scriptures" even before he became a Christian - was sufficient to bring him to salvation.

And in the Heb 11 list - we find saints saved all through time - some of those listed in Heb 11 - were saved even before the existence of written scripture.

Turns out that God the Son - has been around a lot longer than many seem to suppose.

As Paul states in Rom 2 regarding Gentiles that have no access to the word of God at all - there are some of them that show the works of the law "written on the heart" in fulfillment of the New Covenant promise that is found in Jeremiah 31 and reported to us again in Hebrews 8.

So without my own handy-dandy save-o-meter to point at each person, I myself can only be assured of MY OWN salvation, for in this world we walk by faith not by sight, but when we get to heaven then we will know, even as we are known.

Saul said that he counted himself as being blameless - "as to the the righteousness which is in the law - found blameless" Phil 3:6.

I say this proves that in his pre-Christian state - he was ignorant of a few things.

I say that his 1Tim 1:12-13 statement "I acted ignorantly in unbelief" proves that he was not aware of one or two imporant items.

So far I am stating the obvious.

You are free to object.

I also point out the obvious in John 16 where we are told that God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment - so while Saul may not have been convicted on ALL sin - he was being convicted in the area of some sin.

Again - just stating the obvious.

In the case of Timothy as Paul reports it in 2Tim 3:15 - accepting "the scriptures" even before he became a Christian - was sufficient to bring him to salvation.

And in the Heb 11 list - we find saints saved all through time - some of those listed in Heb 11 - were saved even before the existence of written scripture.

Turns out that God the Son - has been around a lot longer than many seem to suppose.

As Paul states in Rom 2 regarding Gentiles that have no access to the word of God at all - there are some of them that show the works of the law "written on the heart" in fulfillment of the New Covenant promise that is found in Jeremiah 31 and reported to us again in Hebrews 8.

So without my own handy-dandy save-o-meter to point at each person, I myself can only be assured of MY OWN salvation, for in this world we walk by faith not by sight, but when we get to heaven then we will know, even as we are known.

So far -- so good.

You see, answering situational questions helps the student understand with certaintly the teaching pov of the one making doctrinal claims as matter of facts.

It's a simple question;

Is keeping the law blameless in good conscience with faith in God enough to save a person EVEN if that person hears the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it?

funny - but not very convincing.

The point was never that Saul "must be saved" or "must not be saved" - which is why when you asked "was Saul saved" - I said I did not know.

Now you "pretend" that you did not get that point - and go off on a "does this save" wild goose chase.

The initial point about James 4:17 "stands" (to him that knows to do right and does it not to him it is sin). You seem to struggle with that concept all through these pages.

You then want to imagine that I have to know who is and who is not saved - or else we can simply ignore what the Bible says.

None of that has worked for you so far.

Try something else for a while?

It is up to you. I am patient.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

We will all be awaiting your reitteration of John 16, 1 Tim 1, 2 Tim, Rom 2, Heb, etc, etc and of course absolutely no yes or no to the very simple question.

Hey, I am a prophet now! :tongue3:

 

[steaver]

Moving on now, since you have no intention of answering the previous pointed questions;

Hbr 10:16This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

What does this mean to you? Anyone can reply.

When does this take place? At regeneration?

Is this limited? Are some laws written there and others withheld?

Is this speaking of just the two laws; Love God and love one another?

If some are withheld, why do you believe God would not want one of His children to know certain laws?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Exegesis demands that we look at the context for "Law" as it was used in Jer 31 (where we find the New Covenant). Clearly God's Word was accepted by Jeremiah as binding - as LAW.

But it is even more highlighted in the case of the Ten Commandments when we consider Deut 5 "He spoke these TEN words and ADDED NO MORE".

So also in 2Cor 3 when Paul speaks of the Law He says it is "WRITTEN on TABLETS of STONE" -- so again - the Ten Commandments.

In Romans 7 when Paul speaks of the Law and quotes from it he quotes "you shall not COVET" -- if we ignore the Gold and Silver on idols mentioned in Deut 7 -- then the only place in all of scripture where Paul could be quoting from law in Romans 7 - is the Ten Commandments.

James does the same thing - quoting from the Ten Commandments as the LAW that applies to the saints.

Thus it is the SAME law - that is written in stone - but it is located on the tablets of the human heart - under the Old Testament New Covenant Gospel -- instead of merely external on tablets of stone under the old Covenant of death.

The Law of God is written on the heart - as part of the New Birth -- the New Birth takes place AFTER a person chooses to subjmit to the convicting of the Holy Spirit. The convicting of the Holy Spirit is how God "draws ALL mankind" unto Him.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Exegesis demands that we look at the context for "Law" as it was used in Jer 31 (where we find the New Covenant). Clearly God's Word was accepted by Jeremiah as binding - as LAW.

But it is even more highlighted in the case of the Ten Commandments when we consider Deut 5 "He spoke these TEN words and ADDED NO MORE".

So also in 2Cor 3 when Paul speaks of the Law He says it is "WRITTEN on TABLETS of STONE" -- so again - the Ten Commandments.

In Romans 7 when Paul speaks of the Law and quotes from it he quotes "you shall not COVET" -- if we ignore the Gold and Silver on idols mentioned in Deut 7 -- then the only place in all of scripture where Paul could be quoting from law in Romans 7 - is the Ten Commandments.

James does the same thing - quoting from the Ten Commandments as the LAW that applies to the saints.

Thus it is the SAME law - that is written in stone - but it is located on the tablets of the human heart - under the Old Testament New Covenant Gospel -- instead of merely external on tablets of stone under the old Covenant of death.

The Law of God is written on the heart - as part of the New Birth -- the New Birth takes place AFTER a person chooses to subjmit to the convicting of the Holy Spirit. The convicting of the Holy Spirit is how God "draws ALL mankind" unto Him.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob,

So Saul had these commandments written on his heart and mind yet could claim "ignorance" as to what they really meant?

What then is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart and mind as opposed to just reading them on paper or stone?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

And my second question?

What then is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart and mind as opposed to just reading them on paper or stone?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

in Christ,

Bob

What do you mean "in all time"? Do you mean the New Covenant was from the beggining of Adam and Eve?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Hey BobRyan......:wavey:

 

[steaver]

In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

So far we have 32 voters and one has declared they have been perfect at keeping God's commandments since their rebirth.

Does this mean HP is right? Do we have an example among us that proves it is possible to keep God's commandments with the perfection God requires for salvation?

Or, is it possible that this voter has actually transgressed God's Law by their very vote? Could some people be deceived into thinking they are a perfect Law keeper?

I always believed that the Law's purpose was to point us to God's grace, Jesus Christ, and this continually lest we become full of pride and boast of ourselves.

I personally need the grace of Jesus, my High Preist, everyday lest I end up living in my own conceits.

:jesus: