WHY WAS SAUL OF TARSUS SAVED AGAINST HIS WILL?

[Eddie Ramos]

The dangers of the doctrine of free will unto salvation is that so many truths of the Bible must be overlooked or ignored in order to desperately hold on to a doictrine which actually contradicts the Bible as a whole. Let's take Saul of Tarsus as our example for this OP and ask a few questions to those who hold to the doctrine of free will unto salvation.

1. Did Saul believe/accept in Jesus Christ and the gospel in order to become saved?

2. Wasn't Saul rather persecuting Christ by persecuting the followers of Christ?

3. Was not Saul God's chosen instrument to preach the gospel which Saul was zealously persecuting?

4. Why did God tell Saul that he was "kicking against the pricks"?

Since the way the gospel is preached by the majority of self-professed Christians, they firmly believe that a person, upon understanding the gospel presented to them, must make an informed "free will" decision to "accept Christ into their heart" if they desire to become saved. Yet everything about that position gets thrown out the window when it comes to the account of Saul of Tarsus and how God saved him and told him that he was chosen to preach the gospel of Christ, despite Saul being zealous to do the exact opposite.

Acts 9:1–6 (KJV 1900)
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 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. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts 9:13–16 (KJV 1900)
Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.


I look forward to discussing the doctrine of free will from this angle and also to comparing the responses with the whole of the scriptures.

[1213]

...
Since the way the gospel is preached by the majority of self-professed Christians, they firmly believe that a person, upon understanding the gospel presented to them, must make an informed "free will" decision to "accept Christ into their heart" if they desire to become saved. Yet everything about that position gets thrown out the window when it comes to the account of Saul of Tarsus and how God saved him and told him that he was chosen to preach the gospel of Christ, despite Saul being zealous to do the exact opposite. ...

There is no reason to think Saul could not have said no to the offer. Saul had perhaps more compelling question than some, but still, he had the freedom to choose also otherwise. And he could have wanted something else.

To me free will means the ability to want freely what ever one wants. It doesn't mean things also goes as person wants. therefore, even if Saul would have bee forcefully saved, it doesn't mean his will was forcefully changed. It could have been possible that he still wanted something else.

[Eddie Ramos]

...
Since the way the gospel is preached by the majority of self-professed Christians, they firmly believe that a person, upon understanding the gospel presented to them, must make an informed "free will" decision to "accept Christ into their heart" if they desire to become saved. Yet everything about that position gets thrown out the window when it comes to the account of Saul of Tarsus and how God saved him and told him that he was chosen to preach the gospel of Christ, despite Saul being zealous to do the exact opposite. ...

There is no reason to think Saul could not have said no to the offer. Saul had perhaps more compelling question than some, but still, he had the freedom to choose also otherwise. And he could have wanted something else.

To me free will means the ability to want freely what ever one wants. It doesn't mean things also goes as person wants. therefore, even if Saul would have bee forcefully saved, it doesn't mean his will was forcefully changed. It could have been possible that he still wanted something else.

The main problem stems from not understanding that salvation was completely a spiritual work. This means that salvation was never brought about by any action on our part. To help us understand this, Jesus tells us in the parable when he speaks with Nicodemus and says that we must be born again. Now, Nocpodemus was no slouch when it came to understanding the law of God, yet he completely failed to understand the spiritual truths concealed within the law. He immediately took Christ's words at face value and was a mile off. But his answer (which was inspired by God) was written down to teach us the physical impossibility on behalf of humankind to achieve being born again.

John 3:3–4 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

The spiritual truth in those words is that with man salvatyion is impossible. Which is confirmed for us all throughout the scriptures.

Matthew 19:25–26 (KJV 1900)
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

The account of Saul and the way he became saved, illustrates for us the very nature of man who is not saved. They are in rebellion against God and his Word and are not able to see the truth. That is, until God brings their dead soul to spiritual life, which is 100% a spiritual act which only God could do.

John 3:5–7 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (the gospel) and of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Here God is distinguishing what type of rebirth he is spekaing of, a spiritual rebirth. And before this rebirth, we were all dead in sins while being phisically alive.

1 Timothy 5:6 (KJV 1900)
But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

Ephesians 2:5 (KJV 1900)
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us(made us alive) together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Lazarus is one of the best examples that God gives us of what role man plays in their salvation (being born again) because his physical resurrection is used to typify the spiritual resurrection (salvation). Christ calls out to Lazarus, "Lazarus come forth", but Lazarus was deader than dead and completely unable to respond to Christ's command. That is until God first raised him from the dead. That is exactly how salvation took place. The dead soul was brought to life by the Word of God (By Christ) which means that the elect individual was born again, that is, he was born of water (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit. A complete spiritual work in which the individual played absolutely no part, no work of righteousness of his own.

This is why John chapter 1 helps us by confirming for us that all those who were born again, were not born again by the will of man, but by the will of God. So much for free will.

John 1:12–13 (KJV 1900)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born(meaning born again), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

So, we can understand how Saul's salvation took place based on biblical information and not suppositions. Saul (like all the elect) were saved against their will because in man's unsaved condition, they do not seek after God.

Psalm 10:4 (KJV 1900)
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God:
God is not in all his thoughts.

Isaiah 64:6–7 (KJV 1900)
6 But we are all as an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
And we all do fade as a leaf;
And our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name,
That stirreth up himself to take hold of thee:
For thou hast hid thy face from us,
And hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

John 3:19 (KJV 1900)
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Another perfect example that God provides for us is when he compares us to fish which are caught in a net. Have you ever met a fish which was caught in a against his will? Every single one.

John 21:11 (KJV 1900)
Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

We can picture what Peter phisically did, can't we? He physically dragged the net ful of fish to shore. Well this word "drew" (dragged) is the same word Christ uses concerning those who he brings to himself.

John 6:44 (KJV 1900)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Bible defines this word "draw", never as "compel", never as "coerce", never as "plead with", but always as "drag". That demonstrates the stubborness of unsaved man, like a mule that refuses to move in the direction he's supposed to move, despite being pricked to move, like Saul of Tarsus.

Acts 9:5 (KJV 1900)
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

So, the free will you think you have never had anything to do with salvation because even our physical free will is restrained to some extent by God, else our sin would would run rampant.

[1213]

...This is why John chapter 1 helps us by confirming for us that all those who were born again, were not born again by the will of man, but by the will of God. So much for free will....

Sorry, I don't think that means people don't have free will in that, or can't say no to it.

...Another perfect example that God provides for us is when he compares us to fish which are caught in a net. Have you ever met a fish which was caught in a against his will? Every single one. ...

If something happens against ones will, it does not mean one doesn't have free will, it means only that things don't go always as one wills.

[Eddie Ramos]

...This is why John chapter 1 helps us by confirming for us that all those who were born again, were not born again by the will of man, but by the will of God. So much for free will....

Sorry, I don't think that means people don't have free will in that, or can't say no to it.

I hope we can atleast agree that the truth of the scriptures don't rely on what each of us "think" something means or doesn't mean. There is only one truth and that truth is harmonious throughout the whole Bible. Our job as Bible students is to find that truth. Therefore, since you believe that John 1:13 is not at all teaching that men were not born again by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but rather believe that men were indeed born again by their own will, then how does John 1:13 fit with your doctrinal position since it states the exact opposite? Please show from the Bible how free will is in view in this passage.

...Another perfect example that God provides for us is when he compares us to fish which are caught in a net. Have you ever met a fish which was caught in a against his will? Every single one. ...

If something happens against ones will, it does not mean one doesn't have free will, it means only that things don't go always as one wills.

You hit the nail on the head here. After the spiritual death of mankind in the garden, man's ability to bring themselves back to spiritual life was dead. A living breathing human being with a dead soul (unsaved) had only a physical free will (and limited at that). He could wake up at 5 am or at noon, he could wear green socks or purple socks, he could follow the speed limit or break the law. But this free will has absolutely zero to do with the spiritual act of coming to spiritual life. Remember the acount of Lazarus? He was a picture of everyone before salvation. BUt Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life, had to first bring Lazarus to life and only then could Lazarus obey the command of the Word of God. Do, you not see how all the various accounts I have given you from the scriptures (Lazarus, John 1:13, fish in a net, being dragged by Christ, etc) are all following the same thread of harmony? Free will unto salvation has nothing to do with any of those accounts. We are dead before coming to spiritual life, and as the account of Lazarus showed us, one must first be brought to life before being able to obey any commandment of the Word of God, like the commandment to believe.

Take a look at two more passages which agree with this truth.

Romans 10:13 (KJV 1900)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Could this passage be any more clear? At least that's what so many think. They rationalize that if God declares something then I must be able to do it if I so choose to. After all, it clearly says "whosoever". But let's add to that another piece of the same puzzle to see what this next passage does to the common understanding of Rom 10:13.

Psalm 80:18 (KJV 1900)
So will not we go back from thee:
Quicken us(bring us to life), and we will call upon thy name.

A living breathing human being is asking God to bring him to life and he will call upon his name. Notice what comes first, not calling upon his name with our physical voice in order to come to life, but being brought to life first so that we can call upon His name with a pure heart. This teaches us that it doesn't matter what we do physically to obey a commandment of God (repent, believe, call upon) because salvation is purely a spiritual work of God. The body does not benefit until it is changed at the last day. Looking for and finding these pieces that God placed all throughout the Bible is the key to seeing the whole picture clearly.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #5]
Of course Paul did not get saved against his will. We all have the gift of free will, and he could have declined to obey Jesus when encountered on the road to Damascus. He was very much in agreement to follow Christ's admonition and begin following His instructions. Indeed, he said:

"What things were gains to me, these I have considered loss on account of the Christ. Why, for that matter, I do indeed also consider all things to be a loss on account of the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. On account of him I have taken the loss of all things and I consider them as a lot of rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in union with him, having, not my own righteousness, which results from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that issues from God on the basis of faith." (Philippians 3:7-9)

Does that seem like he was saved against his will?

[1213]

I hope we can atleast agree that the truth of the scriptures don't rely on what each of us "think" something means or doesn't mean.

I agree that truth is truth, regardless of what people think. But, without thinking we would not know or understand anything.

There is only one truth and that truth is harmonious throughout the whole Bible. Our job as Bible students is to find that truth. Therefore, since you believe that John 1:13 is not at all teaching that men were not born again by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but rather believe that men were indeed born again by their own will, then how does John 1:13 fit with your doctrinal position since it states the exact opposite? Please show from the Bible how free will is in view in this passage.

I agree also that Bible is harmonious. John 1:13 doesn't mean that humans would not will it, it means only that the will of man would not be sufficient on its own to cause the change. It happens by God's will, not by mans will, even if a man would want it.

To me free will means person can want anything. And in the case of John 1:13, a man can want to be born anew, it just is not sufficient to cause that. It happens only by God's will.

...After the spiritual death of mankind in the garden, man's ability to bring themselves back to spiritual life was dead. A living breathing human being with a dead soul (unsaved) had only a physical free will (and limited at that). He could wake up at 5 am or at noon, he could wear green socks or purple socks, he could follow the speed limit or break the law. But this free will has absolutely zero to do with the spiritual act of coming to spiritual life.

To me free will doesn't mean that things go as person wants. For example the green socks, person can want to have them freely, but it is possible he doesn't get them. It does not mean he has not free will, only that he can't do everything he wants.

I think it is weird why some think free will should mean that person is omnipotent.

Romans 10:13 (KJV 1900)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Could this passage be any more clear? At least that's what so many think. They rationalize that if God declares something then I must be able to do it if I so choose to. After all, it clearly says "whosoever". But let's add to that another piece of the same puzzle to see what this next passage does to the common understanding of Rom 10:13.

Psalm 80:18 (KJV 1900)
So will not we go back from thee:
Quicken us(bring us to life), and we will call upon thy name.

A living breathing human being is asking God to bring him to life and he will call upon his name. Notice what comes first, not calling upon his name with our physical voice in order to come to life, but being brought to life first so that we can call upon His name with a pure heart. This teaches us that it doesn't matter what we do physically to obey a commandment of God (repent, believe, call upon) because salvation is purely a spiritual work of God. The body does not benefit until it is changed at the last day. Looking for and finding these pieces that God placed all throughout the Bible is the key to seeing the whole picture clearly.

Psalm 80:17-19 is interesting. Finnish translation says there, "let us live and we will call on your name". And for example World English Bible says "receive us and...".

Let your hand be on the man of your right hand, on the son of man whom you made strong for yourself. So we will not turn away from you. Revive us, and we will call on your name. Turn us again, Yahweh God of Armies. Cause your face to shine, and we will be saved.
Psalm 80:17-19 (World English Bible)

That is why I don't think the correct meaning is "bring us to life".

[Revelations won]

Dear Eddie Ramos,

Saul was very successful in his determination to persecute the saints. It is also very evident that in his zeal he was hearkening to the adversary and was effectively his servant. He was sincere, but misguided.

We next must consider that the Lord knew Sauls heart and that with his encounter with the Lord in which the Lord got his attention very effectively Saul did in no way lose his God given power of agency.

He could have continued his agenda or could have given serious reconsideration. The Lord did not interfere with Sauls choice. He was still free to chose either direction. He was simply given new light and knowledge and by his own agency made a 180 degree course correction. The natural man is an enemy to God and is not every one of us at some point in our life faced with a similar choice to choose whom we will serve?

I see Paul as a man whom exercised his agency and was then willing to endure all manner and persecution to serve the Lord, even unto death for his testimony and witness.

Kind regards,
RW

[MissKate13]

Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus. He wasn’t saved until he was baptized.

Ananias commanded Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’” (Acts 22:16)

No one can be saved without having his/her sins washed away. No one forced Paul to be baptized. He chose to obey!

[The Nice Centurion]

...
Since the way the gospel is preached by the majority of self-professed Christians, they firmly believe that a person, upon understanding the gospel presented to them, must make an informed "free will" decision to "accept Christ into their heart" if they desire to become saved. Yet everything about that position gets thrown out the window when it comes to the account of Saul of Tarsus and how God saved him and told him that he was chosen to preach the gospel of Christ, despite Saul being zealous to do the exact opposite. ...

There is no reason to think Saul could not have said no to the offer. Saul had perhaps more compelling question than some, but still, he had the freedom to choose also otherwise. And he could have wanted something else.

To me free will means the ability to want freely what ever one wants. It doesn't mean things also goes as person wants. therefore, even if Saul would have bee forcefully saved, it doesn't mean his will was forcefully changed. It could have been possible that he still wanted something else.

Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus. He wasn’t saved until he was baptized.

Ananias commanded Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’” (Acts 22:16)

No one can be saved without having his/her sins washed away. No one forced Paul to be baptized. He chose to obey!

Jesus struck Paul blind with destructive magic, using his praised healing powers in reverse.

Christian Wizard Ananias, days following, lays his hand on him. Magicking the horrible blindness away, but commanding him to accept a Catholic Baptizing at once.

So what choice did Paul have than to do as ordered if he disliked the thought to again be made blind or worse?

He was not phisycally forced, but mentally, and so it was the first known to us Enforced Baptism.

There goes free will down the . . . whatever Ananias house had for where to abort.

Why was Paul forced?
Clearly he was a man with many qualitys which the christian sect, very down and unknown then, saw and decided to force him to join.

Paul was for Jesus what Brigham Young for Joseph Smith.
Only Joseph never struck blind or forced anyone to join so he would join mormon church.