When was St Paul regenerated?
"Gift of Christmas" - Prestonwood Baptist
4,945 Views |
165 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by The Banned
Zobel said:
If people have no free will, then they didn't put themselves anywhere. You can't have it both ways.
If you have no free will, then neither is there consequence for your actions. This has been Christian teaching from the beginning - St Athenagoras wrote "men [have] freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice, for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power."
Again, St Cyril of Jerusalem "The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to you the thought of fornication: if you will, you accept it; if you will not, you reject. For if you were a fornicator by necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If you were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory?"
I did not say we do not have free will. Our understandings of free will, however, differ a bit.
I appreciate your efforts and the time you put into your responses. I'm going to skeedaddle off now. There is so much wrapped up in this discussion; this means of communication makes it a bit difficult.
A will that is wholly incapable of desiring the good is not free, and such a will would produce no good or righteous or virtuous actions, period. Yet we see righteous people before the Incarnation of Christ, before baptism, before the indwelling of the Spirit. The scriptures say people followed the whole Torah, which is surely good and righteous.
Even aside from the logical problems this makes, the church has simply always taught that humans have free will, which means the ability to choose between good and evil.
Even aside from the logical problems this makes, the church has simply always taught that humans have free will, which means the ability to choose between good and evil.
Zobel said:
When was St Paul regenerated?
Well, whatever you want to call it. One minute ravishing the church and the next he wasn't. How'd he accomplish that?
If it's a misunderstanding and misapplication by reformed theology, I am wanting to hear more on it.
I waver between Christian Universalism (which ironically would show the ultimate sovereignty of God as Scripture clearly stated He desires all men to be saved) and God, in His sovereignty, allowing man to choose or reject God.10andBOUNCE said:
Yes, a reformed and universalist walk into a bar….
Far different ends of the spectrum
Neither one of those make God evil like TULIP coupled with eternal conscious torture hell do.
A one has to wonder, what Scripture and church teachings so radically changed with the Reformers?
Did the wording of the Scriptures on predestination and election change? I mean, the church had been pretty consistent for centuries. Why did Calvin have such a radically different interpretation?
Why is there such a relatively small percentage of five or even four point Calvinists in Christendom? Are they not "elect"?
Why are not more theologians Reformed/Calvinists? And the theological differences are huge when you really think about it.
A completely different view of God's character.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Something I am planning to center my 2025 study plans around.
It's not whatever I want to call it, though. You've created a point in time where something changed and called it regeneration. When did that happen?
You tell me when he was regenerated and I'll tell you who did what and how.
You tell me when he was regenerated and I'll tell you who did what and how.
So you think it is just to create a person and preordain them to eternal torture? And they have no chance to escape eternal torture?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:Very well stated. If God does not offer His grace to all, He is evil. And God is not evil.Zobel said:
Can't have it both ways. If people are free, they are of course free to sin and bear the consequences of their sin. But they are also free to repent and enjoy the mercy and love of God.
If people are not free, then they are not free to sin or repent. Their sin or repentance is not their choice, or a consequence of their own actions. In which case, God did "drown them".
Being deserving of salvation is not the same thing as having the ability to do it apart from God. Free will does not preclude God's mercy.
And likewise, God's mercy is not at odds with His judgment. His judgment is perfectly merciful, and His mercy is perfectly just. Separating them is an error.
If we are all sinners deserving damnation, it is just for all of us to be judged appropriately.
It is only merciful when God saves us.
So we either receive a just punishment or merciful and gracious salvation.
No evil in that equation.
How is that just? Perishing or annihilation could be considered as just as you created the person.
I believe preordained eternal torture is evil. We disagree.
Does not sound like "Good news" to me.
And how do you reconcile that theology with Scripture that clearly states God desires to save all men?
You have never answered that. Only given links to Piper or Sproul who frankly do not answer it either.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Nobody knows the exact moment of regeneration.
But the account as written of in Acts 9, 22, 26.
I'd like to know how it was Paul's free will that saved him.
But the account as written of in Acts 9, 22, 26.
I'd like to know how it was Paul's free will that saved him.
Howdy, it is me! said:
Unless you believe every person will be saved, no matter what you believe in the how or why, at the end of time, some will perish. God is creating people and allowing them to perish.
Even if you believe it's our own "free will" to repent or reject, at the end of the day God is still allowing people to perish. He could find a way to save them if that was His chief desire, but He does not. So why doesn't that make Him evil?
If I'm dead at the bottom of a pond, with no hope unless God picks me, He is not "allowing" me to perish. It is His active choice to withholding life saving care, and it's His choice alone.
In a scenario where I'm drowning and He offers a rescue boat, and I reject it, that is Him "allowing" me to die. His active choice was to help me, but with the freedom for me to reject it.
One scenario God really does want all to be saved. The other it's clear that He does not.
In other words, one is Scriptural and the other is not. One is based on centuries of church tradition and theology, and one is not.The Banned said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Unless you believe every person will be saved, no matter what you believe in the how or why, at the end of time, some will perish. God is creating people and allowing them to perish.
Even if you believe it's our own "free will" to repent or reject, at the end of the day God is still allowing people to perish. He could find a way to save them if that was His chief desire, but He does not. So why doesn't that make Him evil?
If I'm dead at the bottom of a pond, with no hope unless God picks me, He is not "allowing" me to perish. It is His active choice to withholding life saving care, and it's His choice alone.
In a scenario where I'm drowning and He offers a rescue boat, and I reject it, that is Him "allowing" me to die. His active choice was to help me, but with the freedom for me to reject it.
One scenario God really does want all to be saved. The other it's clear that He does not.
And not only does God choose not to regenerate them, He has preordained them to eternal torment. With absolutely zero chance to avoid it.
That is why CS Lewis rejected Calvinism/Reformed theology. And most theologians do also. And most Christians.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
If nobody knows then what use is it to ask about whether God does something first or not? Nobody can answer that question.
God saved St Paul because while St Paul was a sinner He died for Him on the cross. While St Paul was a sinner and an enemy He appeared to Him, and called Him to His service.
St Paul was saved because when He was called by the Messiah he was faithful, not just the one time when he obeyed and was healed and baptized but throughout his whole life. And throughout his life God gave him the grace and strength to obey.
God saved St Paul because while St Paul was a sinner He died for Him on the cross. While St Paul was a sinner and an enemy He appeared to Him, and called Him to His service.
St Paul was saved because when He was called by the Messiah he was faithful, not just the one time when he obeyed and was healed and baptized but throughout his whole life. And throughout his life God gave him the grace and strength to obey.
I would suggest that the reason that Calvinism is such a small percentage of Protestantism is because very few are open to accepting the logical end of monergistic salvation. It has to be synergistic to avoid that evil, unless you're willing to accept some logical fallacies.
But then synergism opens you up to being an active participant in your salvation (which most Protestants don't like) and even be able to lose your salvation, which most Protestants reject. Once saved, always saved started with Calvin. Calvinism is real ready there in any church accepting this teaching.
The more I look at it, the more I believe that it just doesn't work. It confirms more and more often that Jesus intentionally did not leave a book for us to read and understand. He left a church for us to be a part of so that we can be guided in our faith journeys.
But then synergism opens you up to being an active participant in your salvation (which most Protestants don't like) and even be able to lose your salvation, which most Protestants reject. Once saved, always saved started with Calvin. Calvinism is real ready there in any church accepting this teaching.
The more I look at it, the more I believe that it just doesn't work. It confirms more and more often that Jesus intentionally did not leave a book for us to read and understand. He left a church for us to be a part of so that we can be guided in our faith journeys.
You guys are obsessed with Calvin, even more so than who follow reformed theology.
A recent sermon I listened to from Martyn Lloyd Jones even alluded to the idea that Calvin sometimes went too far, which I have no disagreements with. He was a fallible man, like we all are. You all make it seem like he wrote the New Testament or something.
A recent sermon I listened to from Martyn Lloyd Jones even alluded to the idea that Calvin sometimes went too far, which I have no disagreements with. He was a fallible man, like we all are. You all make it seem like he wrote the New Testament or something.
Well, that is kind of what reformed theology is rooted in. God's sovereign grace which acts first in one's salvation.Zobel said:
If nobody knows then what use is it to ask about whether God does something first or not? Nobody can answer that question.
Paul was DEAD on the road to Damascus and Jesus gave him a new heart of flesh.
Do you believe in double predestination?10andBOUNCE said:
You guys are obsessed with Calvin, even more so than who follow reformed theology.
A recent sermon I listened to from Martyn Lloyd Jones even alluded to the idea that Calvin sometimes went too far, which I have no disagreements with. He was a fallible man, like we all are. You all make it seem like he wrote the New Testament or something.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
You need to define that first. It is one of the most misunderstood concepts.
When did he receive that heart of new flesh?
I'll rephrase again.
How did Paul all the sudden become a Christian?
How did Paul all the sudden become a Christian?
He didn't. St Paul never changed his faith or converted. He says so several times.
10andBOUNCE said:
You need to define that first. It is one of the most misunderstood concepts.
It is actually very easy to understand.
From the beginning of time, God preordained the "elect" to eternal glory and bliss and "passes" over others who had no chance to avoid eternal conscious torment hell.
Reformed theologians like Piper and Sproul will tap dance around the obvious implication of this which is God has preordained some people He created to ECT hell.
They will say election is an active movement of Gof and that "passing over"
is a passive one so that the people are left to their sins and have no chance of escaping ECT hell.
Whether that is the true interpretation of that is correct or not, the dirty little secret is that the truth is the outcome is the same. Either heaven or hell. So God created people destined for hell. With no chance to escape it.
I could not have kids if I believed that. No way I am bringing a child into this world who may have no chance to escape eternal conscious torment. I love my kids too much to do that.
I guess in your theology your God does not love that much. Seems weird.
And forget about Calvin or whomever. It is the theology you believe. And I think it makes God evil (which He is not) and incorrect when you look at the totality of Scripture.
And for the umpteenth time, how do YOU reconcile Scripture that clearly states God desires to save all men? No what Piper or Sproul think.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel said:
He didn't. St Paul never changed his faith or converted. He says so several times.
Can you please provide examples?
10andBOUNCE said:
You guys are obsessed with Calvin, even more so than who follow reformed theology.
A recent sermon I listened to from Martyn Lloyd Jones even alluded to the idea that Calvin sometimes went too far, which I have no disagreements with. He was a fallible man, like we all are. You all make it seem like he wrote the New Testament or something.
Calvin followed the logic (in the technical sense) of monergism to its only end. Anyone saying he went too far has a problem with monergism, which I would agree with. Trying to hold on to monergism without making God the primary cause of damnation just doesn't compute, no matter how hard you try. Even Derm, who is one of the most outspoken against reformed theology, struggles with the idea of monergism when he says that he is unsure of how God's desire can be beaten by human free will. Toss out monergism and the answer is obvious: He lets us choose.
I'm not obsessed with Calvin by any means, but I respect him for being consistent. Unfortunately his consistency in monergism was unbiblical and historically inaccurate. This is important to me because I think the doctrines he developed (including once saved always saved) create the very theological tensions that make us multiple churches today. We can throw bible verses at each other all day, but if we apply incorrect reason to the verses, the divide will remain indefinitely. Maybe I'm way off, but I think the RCC and EO have probably reconciled by now if there weren't 1000 other theological differences to deal with from Protestantism.
Yes, I believe in the active and passive explanation of double pre-destination.
And I 100% ascribe to the idea that not all of it is comfortable and easy to sit with. Not everything in theology can just be neatly wrapped up in a bow. Some of it will remain a mystery for all of eternity, and I am okay with that.
And I 100% ascribe to the idea that not all of it is comfortable and easy to sit with. Not everything in theology can just be neatly wrapped up in a bow. Some of it will remain a mystery for all of eternity, and I am okay with that.
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
I agree with your post and am coming to the conclusion that monergism is the problem. The only way I could accept monergism was via Christian Universalism which I am slowly turning away from. If you follow monergism to its obvious conclusion, unless God saves all then he is preordains people to hell.The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:
You guys are obsessed with Calvin, even more so than who follow reformed theology.
A recent sermon I listened to from Martyn Lloyd Jones even alluded to the idea that Calvin sometimes went too far, which I have no disagreements with. He was a fallible man, like we all are. You all make it seem like he wrote the New Testament or something.
Calvin followed the logic (in the technical sense) of monergism to its only end. Anyone saying he went too far has a problem with monergism, which I would agree with. Trying to hold on to monergism without making God the primary cause of damnation just doesn't compute, no matter how hard you try. Even Derm, who is one of the most outspoken against reformed theology, struggles with the idea of monergism when he says that he is unsure of how God's desire can be beaten by human free will. Toss out monergism and the answer is obvious: He lets us choose.
I'm not obsessed with Calvin by any means, but I respect him for being consistent. Unfortunately his consistency in monergism was unbiblical and historically inaccurate. This is important to me because I think the doctrines he developed (including once saved always saved) create the very theological tensions that make us multiple churches today. We can throw bible verses at each other all day, but if we apply incorrect reason to the verses, the divide will remain indefinitely. Maybe I'm way off, but I think the RCC and EO have probably reconciled by now if there weren't 1000 other theological differences to deal with from Protestantism.
Could He do that? Sure He can do anything. Would He do that after revealing His character through Jesus Christ?
I say a strong no!
Does God love all He created?
I say a strong yes.
I am beginning to develop a strong free will theology as espoused by folks like CS Lewis. The gates of hell are locked from the inside.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
As I'm arguing in the other thread, one cannot be passive in one sense and active in the other.
Example: let's say I wake up on a train bound for Dallas. I can get off at the next stop as to avoid that destination. But even if i just woke up on the train, staying on the train is still a willful choice. I'm not stuck there. I have the freedom to leave. So staying on is me choosing not to leave. If I can't choose to stay, then I never had a choice to leave. It's either both an active choice or both a passive choice. It cannot be a combo.
So if God is choosing who to save, He by definition must be choosing who to leave. He cannot be active and passive at once. It's a logical contradiction. But it's hard for reformed folks to see this because of the lens through which they have been taught.
Example: let's say I wake up on a train bound for Dallas. I can get off at the next stop as to avoid that destination. But even if i just woke up on the train, staying on the train is still a willful choice. I'm not stuck there. I have the freedom to leave. So staying on is me choosing not to leave. If I can't choose to stay, then I never had a choice to leave. It's either both an active choice or both a passive choice. It cannot be a combo.
So if God is choosing who to save, He by definition must be choosing who to leave. He cannot be active and passive at once. It's a logical contradiction. But it's hard for reformed folks to see this because of the lens through which they have been taught.
We are under a different covenant. The cross opened up God's grace to everybody.10andBOUNCE said:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
And it is so frustrating because it seems so clear.The Banned said:
As I'm arguing in the other thread, one cannot be passive in one sense and active in the other.
Example: let's say I wake up on a train bound for Dallas. I can get off at the next stop as to avoid that destination. But even if i just woke up on the train, staying on the train is still a willful choice. I'm not stuck there. I have the freedom to leave. So staying on is me choosing not to leave. If I can't choose to stay, then I never had a choice to leave. It's either both an active choice or both a passive choice. It cannot be a combo.
So if God is choosing who to save, He by definition must be choosing who to leave. He cannot be active and passive at once. It's a logical contradiction. But it's hard for reformed folks to see this because of the lens through which they have been taught.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:We are under a different covenant. The cross opened up God's grace to everybody.10andBOUNCE said:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
So the God of the OT was a monster, to use your phrasing?
Will you please answer how you reconcile Scripture that clearly states God desires all men to be saved?10andBOUNCE said:
Yes, I believe in the active and passive explanation of double pre-destination.
And I 100% ascribe to the idea that not all of it is comfortable and easy to sit with. Not everything in theology can just be neatly wrapped up in a bow. Some of it will remain a mystery for all of eternity, and I am okay with that.
I have asked it many times. Thanks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
yeah -- i will start a new thread
No. Please do not put words in my mouth like the other poster did. I believe the theology of double predestination makes God into a monster. God is not a monster obviously. So I reject dp.10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:We are under a different covenant. The cross opened up God's grace to everybody.10andBOUNCE said:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
So the God of the OT was a monster, to use your phrasing?
It was a different covenant. It was a covenant of law, not grace.
Where did Jesus or any of His followers kill anyone or give people diseases? They only healed and loved all.
And I believe Jesus revealed God's character under the new covenant of Grace. That is why it is called the Gospel. Good news.
And I truly applaud you if you have kids knowing that you and they are completely powerless to avoid eternal conscious torment in Hell.
I love my kids too much to even expose them to that possibility. I would be childless and probably unmarried as I do not want to love someone and know they have no choice on their eternal destiny.
Say I have 10 kids. They are caught in a burning house. I can save all of them but choose to only save 3. And leave the other 7 to die and then let them burn eternally. It would have been better if those 7 had never been born in my opinion. And would their deaths and torture bring glory to me somehow?
Is that just? Or merciful? Or loving?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE said:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
How does one reconcile this in church history?
The Jewish people were chosen to bring the messiah to all nations. They weren't "chosen" in the sense that only they would have faith. Ruth was not Jewish. Rahab was not Jewish. In fact a number of people in the older testament were either not Jewish or questionable so. The people of Nineveh and they believed Jonah's preaching. The Psalms say the nations (plural) will recognize God.
So yes the Jews were blessed, but they were blessed as to bless others. Not to be the only ones saved.
wrong. God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then He allowed Joseph to go to Israel so that many people could be saved - which included Egyptians. The sons of Israel intermarried with the Egyptians - including Joseph.Quote:
From the very beginning of time, God has shown a common thread of how he has a chosen race, an elect peoples he has saved.
In the Old Testament, this was the Israelites. Not the Egyptians, whom he stuck down many of the firstborn babies (10th Plague). Not the other nations - the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. God destroyed them all, for the sake of his chosen peoples.
When the sons of Israel went out of Egypt, a mixed multitude went with them (Exodus 12:38). There were people of all kinds of genetic descent in Israel, in the Exodus. What made you an Israelite was not who your father was, but whether or not you participated in the Passover (Exodus 12:43, 47). And, if you participated in the Passover, you had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as your father. This is the same as when non-gentile Christians come to be faithful to the Messiah - those same mixed multitude became their fathers. (1 Corinthians 10:1)
God revealed himself not only to Israel, but also the Egyptians! (Exodus 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14,14:4, 18) and to the whole world (Exodus 15:15, Ezekiel 36:23, 37:28, 38:23, and other places).
The distinction made is - God's chosen people are those faithful to Him, and to the people who possess the promises. That is why Edom was cut off. That is why the northern tribes of Israel were cut off. Not because of blood, because of faithlessness (John 15:6).
It is your understanding that needs reconciliation.Quote:
How does one reconcile this in church history?
Featured Stories
See All
21:35
8h ago
3.8k
Buzz Williams' Ags are proving why experience, continuity still matter
by Luke Evangelist
13:15
10h ago
2.5k
Hungry
Elko adds DJ Mann as A&M's Associate Director of Player Personnel
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
101