John UK wrote: Not being unkind, but Lurker, you are saying that you have been taught by God, but all other men have only dung doctrine. Sounds cultish, man.
I said no such thing. Is this the way its going to be because I'm being hard on you, forcing you to defend what you espouse as truth? If it won't stand up to the test of non-contradiction, its dung.
You want me to continue in this discussion? If yes, stay focused. I'm not going to follow rabbit trails.
The point of my post was a biblical answer from Deut 32:34-43 and Amos 9:10 for the means by which God kills outside of Himself; the (two-edged) sword. Not a peep in response to those texts. I picked them from many because their fulfillments are tied to the time of Paul's calling through NT quotes of the same, which I kindly provided. If you are going to simply ignore the scripture I rely on to prove my point, there is no point in continuing.
If you don't agree these texts prove my argument of when Paul died and by what means, offer a biblical reason why. I might be wrong.
I say, by the authority of a multitude of prophecies which came to pass "in that day", he died by the sword (a figure of the Decalogue) when he was blinded by the light, also a figure of the Decalogue. And you say?
Deut 32:34-43 To me belongeth vengeance (cited Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30).... For the LORD shall judge his people (cited Heb 10:30).... I kill, and I make alive.... If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies.... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.... Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people (cited Rom 15:10): for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries......
Amos 9:7-12 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword.... In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old (cited Acts 15-15-17).
The citations establish timeline of fulfillment. The sword is God's means to kill outside of Himself. Everyone knows the sword of the spirit is a figure of the word of God.......... what is the two edged sword a figure of?
Come on people..... clear your minds of the doctrines (dung) of men and let God be your teacher (Is 54:13). He is able but your mind must be opened. Do some cross-referencing, expand your knowledge beyond immediate context, stop being lazy, spoon-fed with the opinions of men.
John UK wrote: Can you fill in the gaps? I'll do the first one: For I [Paul] was alive without the law once [?????] but when the commandment came [??????] sin revived [???????] and I died [???????]
Repeat the same thing expecting a different result? I don't think so.
What you believe regarding Paul's conversion, right or wrong, has no eternal consequence and I have no problem agreeing to disagree. What troubles me though, and it should trouble you, is how willing you are to ignore scripture which refutes your errors and rewrite the bible when it doesn't fit the doctrines of men you've filled your head with. Its not possible to have reasoned discussions when we don't have the same final authority. I ended all discussions with Presby for the very same reason.
John UK wrote: 1) On the contrary bro, he did claim to have been mistaken about his former claims.
2) Did Paul experience a spiritual death when "the commandment came"? He was born dead.
3) If people are not born dead, they have no need of the new birth, they already know God, they have no need to be reconciled to God.
1) No he didn't. He recanted of his former self righteous works calling them dung. Was Paul inspired by the HS in his writings? If yes, why didn't the HS just have him write "I thought I was alive without law once, but when the commandment came I realized I had been dead from the womb." That's precisely what your trying to peddle here, John. And why not "I thought I was blameless but I was mistaken." I thought you believed the KJV was inerrant. So why the need to rewrite it? To fit your doctrines? This doesn't bother you? You would do well to count them as dung if you've got to pervert the bible to hold them up. Take it as it comes and DEAL WITH IT. If that means you've got to scrap everything you thought you knew, isn't the Truth worth it?
2) Born dead? Repeat the same lie enough and it becomes truth.
3) The hall of saints were born again? Heb 11:39-40 says otherwise.
John UK wrote: Morning bro. I think I see now where you've gone with this. But... Romans 5:12 KJV (12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ok, thanks. I see your perspective now as well. What if Paul was not mistaken when he said he was alive without law and blameless? After all, he didn't admit he was mistaken about these claims. Nor can scripture contradict itself.
First, the text states "death" passed on all for "all" had sinned. And "death reigned from Adam to Moses." It does NOT say all were dead. That could not happen until sin was imputed by God by means of the law. For an understanding of that I refer you to 2 Cor 3:7.
I'd like to continue my thoughts but I'm out of time for now. Perhaps what separates us is not so much what the soul being spiritually dead means but when it happens..... at imputation.
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
For Jews, I believe imputation came when the commandment came, all were blinded.
John UK wrote: Hi bro, I'll best understand what you're saying, if you could answer these questions for me. 1. Mankind is born in sin, born sinners. Because of this sin, they are born dead. How did they die, except by God's hand? 2. You say the Holy Ghost uses something outside himself, because he is love. Is that the same as saying that the death penalty in America is enforced by a man using something outside himself, such as an electric chair or hangman's noose?
Hey John, 1) I can't accept your premise as biblical so I can't answer your question. Here's why:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
I assume in your premise you speak of spiritual death of the soul. I trust you will agree Paul is speaking of spiritual life and death as well. Therefore, for your premise to be true, Paul's statement must be false. As I read the verse, his soul was alive when he was not under law, his soul died by imputed sin when the commandment came, his soul was quickened by the HS and finally his mortal body was quickened by the same Spirit when the accepted time, the day of salvation commenced. I don't see any way to reconcile your premise with this.
John UK wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying that God must use a means outside himself to convict of sin.
Morning, well evening for you,
I'll try to elaborate a bit before I'm off for the day. God said in Deut. "I kill, I make alive". In the prophets He said "The soul that sins shall die". In Amos 9:9 He said "All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword" and by means of Acts 15:15-17 this (Amos 9:10-11) can be tied to the time God took the kingdom of God from the Jews and sent it to the Gentiles by means of Paul.
Take this back to the song of Moses (Deut 32) where He speaks of whetting His glittering sword. The song ends at the time He provoked the Jews to jealousy by turning to the Gentiles (Deut 32:43 quoted by Paul at Rom 15:10).
I can appreciate this method of interpretation may be confusing to some but why would we limit ourselves to trying to interpret Paul's conversion from immediate context when there are so many prophecies and NT texts which can shed light on the event?
To sum up, God is love and love makes alive but it does not kill. For that reason I say the HS must use a means outside Himself to convict of sin which sin, in Paul's case slew his soul.
John UK wrote: There are some things which are most evident from the passage in question. 1. Saul became aware that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. 2. Saul became aware of God's holiness and awesomeness, manifested his holy light. 3. the Holy Spirit was doing a convicting work in Saul's heart. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
1) Agree. 2) Much subjective reasoning about the light which blinded Paul. Have a look at 2 Thes 1:8, 2:8 for another perspective. Also Isaiah 60:1-3. Note different effects for enemies and faithful. 3) True. John 16:8 bears this out. But.... herein is the problem. By the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). The HS is God, God is love. So..... the HS, being God, must use a means outside Himself to convict of sin. What?
Precisely the same page up till "with the seed of the Word of God." In my understanding, the Word of God is the gospel but let's not make that a distraction.
The point I made to John above I present to you also. By what means did Paul experience the pricks in his heart? "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Paul was alive without the law but when the commandment came, he died. When did his soul die and by what means?
What saith the Scripture wrote: First, will agree that the spiritual blindness which he had was the greater issue and you draw proper analogies from it. Just saying like Rodney, in his case it was both. All of the verses that use the word blinded clearly refer to the understanding, spiritual not physical blindness. In fact blinded and hardened are use interchangably.
Yes, blinded and hardened, same meaning. Consider stony hearts Ezek 36:26.
I can deal with both. After all, literal blindness has little to do with God's purpose of election which began with Paul, but spiritual blindness certainly does.
Now if someone would take the next step and make a case for what spiritual blindness actually means from God's perspective, this discussion may prove profitable after all.
John, Thanks for your thoughts. I should say I don't take Paul's conversion as a cookie cutter pattern but there certainly was an order of God's work spread over 3 days which doesn't show up anywhere else. An order of events which seems largely missing in todays preaching to the lost.
Rom 11:7-8 Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day.
All the Jews were blinded that day. Not only blinded but made deaf. Single out Paul as being literally blind if you must but what will you do with the rest of the Jews who clearly were not literally blind or deaf? Was Paul a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin? Blindness is likened to the spirit of slumber and people sleep in the night, drunken in the night (1 Thes 5:7); figures of spiritual darkness (Rom 13:12). But if your heart is set on Paul being literally blind there isn't much I can show you to change your minds. More importantly, this is a diversion from the more important issue of Paul's calling as a pattern for all who would believe unto eternal life thereafter (1 Tim 1:16) which hasn't been able to get to first base.
Yes, exactly as you wrote it. Coming under the condemnation of the law was the cause of his blindness and death which passed when he received the HS and thereby similar to Deut 29:4.
Thank you for your thoughts. I need to end my comments on the subject as I have a busy week coming up and only time for 1 or 2 evening posts at best.
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh ***the law of sin***.
. . .
Penny wrote: 1- "saw no man", was led by hand, indications of physical blindness.
This is what happens when an interpretation is limited to immediate context. The reader *subjectively* decides if something is literal or figurative. The goal should always be to obtain an *objective* meaning and that is best accomplished by drawing on as many prophecies and NT texts as possible in exactly the same timeline.
For example, Acts 15:15-17 points to the time God confined the Jews in unbelief and turned to the Gentiles in mercy. The source prophecy quoted is Amos 9:11-12. The timeline of the preceding verse "All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword" is tied to the same timeline. No mention of a major sword battle killing all the sinners at the time of Paul's calling when the Jews were blinded. So....... is the sword in Amos 9:10 a literal sword or a figure of a spiritual reality? If a figure, how do you define it *objectively*?
Mourner wrote: Are these literal scales that fell from his eyes? if yes, why? If we cannot prove either assertion literal scales, literal blindness from the Scripture it is merely conjecture.
Hmmm. I guess I thought it was common knowledge that Paul's blindness was spiritual and not literal (sorry Mike, I don't mind but don't agree ). But let's not speculate when the bible will give us an objective answer.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
A couple cross references are now available for more context; Is 29:10, Psalm 69:22-23. Also, let's not forget Deut 29:4.
I believe its safe to say that unless todays Christ rejecting Jews are literally blind, Paul's blindness was spiritual. For 3 days He was as blind as the blind leaders of the blind and today's Jews. Now, what does being spiritually blind mean?
John UK wrote: Looking forward to hearing more about Paul's conversion and its "mechanics". I would say something, but I've not grasped the points made thus far, so I'll just tune in and wait.
I have my doubts this discussion will amount to anything useful even though it (freewill theism/decisional regeneration) is entirely relevant, well somewhat relevant, to the news thread. It seems talking about Graham's faults is preferable to actually coming up with an objective biblical refutation.
In days gone by we used to have extended biblical discussions with those we disagreed with about such things but now it seems most just choose up sides and refuse to directly engage anyone who doesn't agree with them.
1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
The HS inspired Paul to write this. Seems to me that anyone who attempts to minister to a lost soul should know and understand the pattern; know and understand how God works His redemptive work of mercy. But, alas...... absolutely no consensus. The result? False gospels which people just love to talk about but have no solution. Discouraging
Mourner wrote: If blindness was his fallen frailty in the presence of the Light of the world, who had begun a good work in him: Who art thou, Lord? I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: then it was an effectual call because it was Christ's.
Indeed it was effectual. God never fails, is never thwarted by the freewill of man. Paul's conversion was all of God and so are all subsequent conversions that are initiated by God.
That said, the mechanics, if you will, of what happened, when it happened, by what means it happened and in what order it happened is what I have brought into question.
I recall a woman poster years ago said she liked the idea of God choosing her but her decision to choose God is what she relied on for assurance of her salvation. Isn't that a shame? How many would admit to the same thing if pressed? It's a false assurance as 1 John 3:17-24 makes clear. Expositing Paul's conversion as a pattern (1 Tim 1:16) will take away that false assurance and will expose decisional regeneration for the lie it is.
Looking ahead to your next post; re: Paul's blindness.....
Why did Ananias say "receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost" if the light which blinded him was an external illumination of the HS as some suggest?
Ladybug wrote: 1) Just to clear the air, what i said was the Holy Spirit must do a work before sinners can repent and believe.
2) Even faith and repentance are of God.
3) This references back to a quote from Graham ministries and their statement of faith which claims once sinners believe, they are then given the Holy Spirit. That insinuates sinners must do a work.
Once our understanding is opened, we will come to Christ because we have been given eyes to see.
1) Agree. The means to accomplish the work is what remains in question.
3) I have not checked their statement of faith so assuming what you say is true, I agree with your premise entirely. It falls within the Arminian doctrine of open theism which give man's freewill final say over God's mercy.
I see significant value in understanding precisely what happened on Damascus Road. Rodney questioned if we were splitting hairs. From my perspective I'd say not at all. God kills and makes alive. By His nature (love) He makes alive but He must use means to kill as love, in and of itself, can't kill. The law plays a role in God's plan of salvation and that is what is missing in the perverted preaching to lost sinners of this day (2 Cor 2:15-17).
pennned wrote: 1) to make this clear, are you saying you believe that the Holy Spirit is working through the law and an "outer" dwelling or influence to convict Paul's heart of sin, which leads to an understanding of Christ and surrender or repentance later?
2) Do you think that the same formula is used by God everytime? (not rhetorical questions, I'm enjoying this conversation and wanted to hear more, thanks)
Hey sister, 1) Close but not exactly. John 16:8 says the HS reproves (convicts) of sin. Paul said (Rom 3:20) "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Therefore, the pricks Paul experienced when the light of Jesus appeared to him were pricks of guilt brought on by coming under the condemnation of the law (Decalogue, Rom 3:19). The law didn't kill him, his sin did (Rom 7:11). Now, if the HS is God and God is love, did love convict Paul of sin? Of course not. Therefore, God the HS must use a means outside of Himself to make the sinner feel pangs of guilt....... the law. Paul's guilt, brought on by the law, led him to repentance but he didn't come to faith till being HS indwelt 3 days later.
2)1 Tim 1:16 says yes. This verse should prompt us to study Paul's conversion so we can objectively refute false gospels and decisional regeneration.
Mourner wrote: Lurker on Comment to Ladybug 9/4/15 2:20AM see Rom 7:7-11 I understand this to mean that Paul was alive once without the law because the sentence of death or the righteous judgment of a broken commandment had not broken in upon his understanding until Jehovah Jesus spoke to him as his Prophet/Priest/King.
Let me say again so there is no misunderstanding.... Paul's conversion was entirely a work of God.... no freewill theology being peddled here.
I first spoke up when Ladybug asserted that the HS must indwell the called elect before repentance and faith is effected. IOW, a born again unbeliever for a brief time. Then she backed away a bit and asserted, in the case of Paul, that the HS externally illuminated him which brought him to faith and repentance and HS indwelt 3 days later. No explanation how this illumination blinded Paul.
Rodney pointed out, the comforter convinces of sin which is why Jesus said it was hard for Paul to kick against the pricks of guilt in his heart; a function of the law, not of grace.
The reason why preaching to the lost is so perverted (decisional regeneration) is because the pattern of Paul's conversion has been perverted or ignored and so far only Rodney seems open to discuss it. What say you?
Agree Acts 9 doesn't state anything about Paul being alive or dead. That must come from somewhere else. As for Rom 7:9, you assume Paul was enlightened by the HS on Damascus Road but that is not stated either. What we do know is Paul was blinded by the light and before he could see, and after receiving the HS 3 days later his sight was restored. Blindness doesn't seem to describe an external enlightening (with but not in) of the HS (eg: blind leaders of the blind, Rom 2:19-24, 2 Pet 1:9) as you suggest.
As for what happened re: Rom 7:9, it is equally important to know when it happened. When did Paul die if not on Damascus Road?
Amos 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword (commandment came)....
Read the next 2 verses and compare to Acts 15:15-17. When it happened is when God confined the Jews in unbelief (Rom 11:32) and turned to the Gentiles in mercy. If you don't believe the Amos prophecy was fulfilled beginning with Paul on Damascus Road, when? When did the commandment come...... when did Paul die? If you want to get to the truth, these questions must be answered objectively.
John 16:8..... consider: The HS is God and God is love. Love doesn't kill but God kills sinners (Deut 32:39) by means outside Himself; the Decalogue.
ladybug wrote: Acts 9... Nowhere in those verses does it indicate Paul was still 'dead' in his sins.
If Paul wasn't dead then he had been quickened 3 days before he received the HS. If that's what you want to believe, don't let the truth stand in your way. Rom 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Oh, perhaps you should strike out Rom 3:19 from you bible..... since the condemnation of the law to turn the called elect to God doesn't work anyway.
Rodney K. wrote: This doesn't address your post directly, but have you ever done a word study of the word "draw" in the verse you quoted (Jn. 6:44)?
Yes, to unceremoniously drag which is why I posed the questions about Paul. Is this something the life of the HS would do or rather the condemnation of the law? Scripture teaches the latter. Don't mistake my point. I'm not advocating for the freewill of man to choose God...... far from it. I'm advocating that if eternal life is in the Son and the called elect must be dragged to that life, a means other that that life must be the means of dragging. I propose that that means was imposed on Paul for 3 days before he was indwelt by the HS. Rom 7 describes what happened.
ladybug wrote: My point was that the order is wrong, sinners cannot repent and believe without first being quickened by the Spirit.
Paul said his conversion was a pattern for all who would believe unto eternal life henceforth (1 Tim 1:16). I take that as a pointer to Damascus Road. What happened? He was blinded, not literally..... he came under the condemnation of the law per Romans 7. Three days he remained blinded, still dead in his sins, knew he was guilty before a righteous God, yet he was obedient to the call of Jesus. He turned (repented) from his persecution of Jesus and His people. Do you suppose this is what Jesus meant when He said the Father would draw all He gave to the Son to Him? Do you suppose the pangs of guilt Paul felt when the Decalogue was imposed on him were meant to bring Paul to repentance and that before he was indwelt by the HS 3 days later?
Mike and I have had these same discussions with Presby in the past, both of us opposing the reformed tradition of the HS indwelling sinners to make them willing and able to believe. Utter nonsense and Paul's pattern refutes it completely. The condemnation of the law is what effects guilt and repentance in the called elect making their hearts contrite and humbled (Is 57:15-21).