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]

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.

Why do you think magic was used? What do you think magic is?

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.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to think he didn't have free will then.

Why was Paul forced?

I don't think he was forced. He was doing many bad things and was stopped and got a new chance what he took by his own will.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #10]

I'm with 1213 on that. Paul could have refused to do Jesus' bidding and resultingly eschewed being saved. Any other slant on this is adding one's own opinions to the matter.

[Mae von H]

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.

First, “accepting Jesus into your heart” is no where in scripture. It’s “repent and believe” a considerably more unpleasant experience. Repent and believe is a free will choice. Paul had that choice as well. Because we are told the story doesn’t preclude him choosing. He could have refused. Once he chose to repent and believe, God made his choice. I see no problem with that.

[Eddie Ramos]

[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?

First, my apologies for the late reply, I stepped away for some time.
Second, "free will" has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. This is a church teaching that has always been corrupt because it goes against the scriptures as a whole in truth. The Bible teaches us that God is no respecter of persons and what applies to one man applies to all the same way insofar as salvation is concerned as well as for sin. Salvation is purely a spiritual event, never brought about by something we do physically (repent, confess, be baptized, believe, etc). These are all works of righteousness which could never have saved anyone.

Titus 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Paul is an example of every elect child of God who would come to believe in Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:16 (KJV 1900)
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.

Paul's (Saul's) main objective before Christ appeared to him was to persecute and have killed all those who confessed Jesus Christ. But he was a chosen vessel, just like every elect child of God is. Therefore, what he was doing was soon going to come to an end. But the question is what got him to "have a change of heart"? Was it his sudden fright of Christ speaking from heaven? No. Was it his "free will choice" to finally believe in Christ and so be saved? No, believing is a work. But we don't have to guess at the answer because God gives it to us straight.

Galatians 1:13–16 (KJV 1900)
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul says that he was chosen to preach the very gospel that he was persecuting. And this happened when it pleased God to reveal that Jesus Christ was IN him. And what does it mean if Jesus Christ is IN you? It means salvation.

Romans 8:9–10 (KJV 1900)
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell IN you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be IN you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Now we can understand what Christ meant when he said to Paul:

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.

The elect are likened to donkeys, that's why this statement was made. Saul was chosen for salvation and yet, despite hearing the gospel message, he was still persecuting Christ. That's because Christ hadn't revealed to Paul that He was already in him. So, it was as though Paul was stubbornly resisting what he was chosen for. And this is the nature of fallen mankind, hating the light because their deeds are evil.

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.

Now, once God revealed himself to Paul (that he was IN him), the nature of the child of God changes from stubbon disobedience to humble obedience to the Word fo God. Thus Paul obeyed. But if anyone reads this through a "free will" filter, then they are forced to ignore all the contradictions that the Bible presents them. Here is a very helpful passage regarding no such thing as free will unto salvation.

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:

The above verse is avery popular amongst the free will proponents. This verse seems to be just as popular as John 3:16. But what about the very next verse in John 1? What is that verse not so popular? Well, because it puts a dead stop to the idea of free will unto salvation.

13 Which were born (meaning born again), not of blood (not because of bloodline), nor of the will of the flesh (not by anything physically anyone could have done) , nor of the will of man (not even by a desire or choice of man), but of God (not by the will of man (no free will) but only by the will of God).

And here's a good tien-in verse which ties in being begotten with the will of God, just like the above verse states.

James 1:18 (KJV 1900)
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

I hope this helps.

[Eddie Ramos]

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

I just responded to the idea of free will in my recent post #14. Please take a look at it and examine it against the scriptures.

Thanks.

[Eddie Ramos]

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!

That's incorrect. Water baptism was only an outward demonstration of the washing away of sins, it never actually washed away sins. Christ did that when he died to pay for sins and rose again.

1 Peter 3:21 (KJV 1900)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (water baptism), but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

When someone became saved, they became spiritually baptized by the Spirit of God. Physical water had nothing to do with the process of salvation but was only ever a demonstration of having had ones sins washed away.

1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV 1900)
For by (meaning through) one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

John 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (the gospel) and of the Spirit (of God), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Paul's salvation became officially was applied to him when he regained his sight.

Acts 9:17–18 (KJV 1900)
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost (Notice how being filled with the Holy Ghost (salvation) is associated with the receiving of sight here). 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, (now notice what happens AFTER he receives his sight, meaning, after he receives the Holy Ghost) and arose, and was baptized.

Water baptism is a sign of having had your sins washed away, and a sign points to the reality.

And Paul obeyed because God already revealed his son IN him (Gal 1:13-16), meaning, because God revealed to Paul that he was chosen for salvation, as is every elect child of God. Free will had nothing to do with Paul being chosen, nor for his salvation. As is the case for everyone God saved. (Please see post #14).

[Eddie Ramos]

First, “accepting Jesus into your heart” is no where in scripture. It’s “repent and believe” a considerably more unpleasant experience. Repent and believe is a free will choice. Paul had that choice as well. Because we are told the story doesn’t preclude him choosing. He could have refused. Once he chose to repent and believe, God made his choice. I see no problem with that.

But you're neglecting the fact that to “repent and believe” are both commandments of the Bible, and obedience to any commandment is a work of righteousness which could never have saved. No one was ever saved by their own works.

Titus 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Repenting and believing in the manner which God requires it are both done after salvation, because after salvation, these works are done out of obedience to demosntrate our love for God who saved us. This was never done in order to become saved, but because we became saved. Thos who trust in their own works of righteousness for their salvation, are trusting in a work they have done which actually condemns them.

Galatians 5:4 (KJV 1900)
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Also, please see post #14 for an additional explanation of the false doctrine of "free will".

[Mae von H]

First, “accepting Jesus into your heart” is no where in scripture. It’s “repent and believe” a considerably more unpleasant experience. Repent and believe is a free will choice. Paul had that choice as well. Because we are told the story doesn’t preclude him choosing. He could have refused. Once he chose to repent and believe, God made his choice. I see no problem with that.

But you're neglecting the fact that to “repent and believe” are both commandments of the Bible, and obedience to any commandment is a work of righteousness which could never have saved. No one was ever saved by their own works.

They aren’t commandments. Read the ten commandments again. They aren’t there. Jesus gave a new commandment. They weren’t included.

Titus 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Repenting and believing in the manner which God requires it are both done after salvation, because after salvation, these works are done out of obedience to demosntrate our love for God who saved us. This was never done in order to become saved, but because we became saved. Thos who trust in their own works of righteousness for their salvation, are trusting in a work they have done which actually condemns them.

Galatians 5:4 (KJV 1900)
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Also, please see post #14 for an additional explanation of the false doctrine of "free will".

This theology is one I’ve encountered. It paints God as unjust, capricious, manipulating and downright evil. But I also know the adherents believe it extremely firmly because their assurance of Heaven rests on their defending its veracity. All the scriptures telling us to choose are ignored. All the rational and obvious arguments are ignored. Their whole Heaven hangs on them being relived of the weight of any choice. These are in for a very rude awakening one day.

[Eddie Ramos]

First, “accepting Jesus into your heart” is no where in scripture. It’s “repent and believe” a considerably more unpleasant experience. Repent and believe is a free will choice. Paul had that choice as well. Because we are told the story doesn’t preclude him choosing. He could have refused. Once he chose to repent and believe, God made his choice. I see no problem with that.

But you're neglecting the fact that to “repent and believe” are both commandments of the Bible, and obedience to any commandment is a work of righteousness which could never have saved. No one was ever saved by their own works.

They aren’t commandments. Read the ten commandments again. They aren’t there. Jesus gave a new commandment. They weren’t included.

The 10 commandments represent ALL the commandments of the Bible, that's why there's not 9 or 11, but 10. When the number 10 is studied it demonstrates that it represents the whole of whatever is in view. Like the parable of the 10 virgins which represent ALL those who believe that they are saved. Yet, we read that 5 were and 5 weren't.

Also, a commandment in the Bible was identified long before the 10 commandments were given to Moses.

Genesis 26:5 (KJV 1900)
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Notice how all these words, God's voice, his charge, his statutes, his laws are spoken in the same manner as his commandments, as things that need to be kept.

Now, this takes us to your comment that to believe in Jesus is not a commandment, yet the Bible seems to disagree.

1 John 3:23 (KJV 1900)
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

If you still stand by your comment that to believe in Christ is not a commandment, you should ask yourself who is wrong here, you or God.
The fact is, anytime God speaks for something to be done, it is a commandment. Here's one example of thousands.

Genesis 6:14 (KJV 1900)
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

No where do we read, "this I command you to do" or "this is my commandment", yet the Bible explains to us that this certainly was a commandment.

Genesis 6:22 (KJV 1900)
Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Also, it may help to know that the "Ten Commandments" are better understood as "Ten WORDS" because the word "commandment" is most often translated as "WORD" which describes the entire WORD of God. This is another way in which God ensures we understand that the "Ten WORDS" are to be understood as ALL his Words.

[William]

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.

Given that the concept of "free will" is unproven and sits awkwardly against the modern evidence of brain-wave activity and subsequent behaviour, the idea that this is all "Gods Game", yet the players in the game have the conviction that they are agents of free will can cause apparent inconsistencies.

It may simply be a matter of perspective. From God's perspective, Saul - like every other player in The Game - is an agent of the God's will while from the player-perspective, each thinks they are agents of their own free will - something they possess and was somehow gifted from God.

[Replying to Mae von H in post #18]

This theology is one I’ve encountered. It paints God as unjust, capricious, manipulating and downright evil. But I also know the adherents believe it extremely firmly because their assurance of Heaven rests on their defending its veracity. All the scriptures telling us to choose are ignored. All the rational and obvious arguments are ignored. Their whole Heaven hangs on them being relived of the weight of any choice. These are in for a very rude awakening one day.

Given the choice, since there are at least 2 significant opposing interpretations re the options, Who's perspective should we best trust?
Why should we think ill of a God who determines the outcomes through inputting the data in the manner which suits the God re the outcomes?

Why would such a God be "painted" as "unjust, capricious, manipulating and downright evil" in the case of the Saul/Paul story?

Perhaps this is because there appear to be no "Justice" for those persecuted/bound/killed by Saul (on behalf of Rome) because of his conversion/repentance?

Something else?