Saul of Tarsus was reprobate.......

CharismaticLady said:

There are three

Thorn in the flesh:

Ezekiel 28:24
(24) And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

Numbers 33:55
(55) But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Judges 2:3
Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

Click to expand...

Why you did not quote the pertinent ones ? re Paul's thorn ?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Why you did not quote the pertinent ones ? re Paul's thorn ?

Click to expand...

You mean the New Testament ones about the messengers of Satan? I thought you already knew them and wanted to know what type of thing they referred to. Thorn in the flesh is like our Pain in the neck. Just an idiom for harassing people not eye trouble.

CharismaticLady said:

You mean the New Testament ones about the messengers of Satan? I thought you already knew them and wanted to know what type of thing they referred to. Thorn in the flesh is like our Pain in the neck. Just an idiom for harassing people not eye trouble.

Click to expand...

In this case, the Bible is clear what the thorn was for Paul. A messenger of hasatan. Yes. Simple.

I think that there is not a need to embellish it with man-made ideas like so many commentaries do, or references to things /thorns/ not related to Paul's thorn.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

In this case, the Bible is clear what the thorn was for Paul. A messenger of hasatan. Yes. Simple.

I think that there is not a need to embellish it with man-made ideas like so many commentaries do, or references to things /thorns/ not related to Paul's thorn.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked at commentaries on this, just as I would not ask what "pain in the neck" means. It means mother-in-laws. LOL Just kidding.

ilovejcsog said:

SS is good at that. Paul was not a reprobate but Saul was I opened this topic in your honor because the Uni's took yours over.

Click to expand...

That was a very kind thing you did and i'm flattered. I agree Paul was one of the best and in fact he is my favourite Apostle closely followed by John.

I also saw the other thread you made about cats. Can't say I share the same enthusiasm for animals hehe. My love is for God and humanity.

ilovejcsog said:

Look where he ended up. I was detained during the last related thread and wasn't able to comment. Here's your chance to if no cults take it over Not many greater than Paul in the new testament.

Click to expand...

Since Daniel C linked back to the closed thread, I got his definition.

Do I understand your question to mean that the Apostle Paul was reprobate by this definition?

Because King Saul was not from Tarsus, so I am confused.

Daniel C said:

Yeah that was my thread but I was forced to have it closed because @Saint Steven derailed it beyond repair with off topic universalism posts.

Click to expand...

That is too bad. It is very wearisome when some one takes control of a topic to pound their own agenda. When a point is being forced on others, it makes me think that they don't really believe their point either and are trying to convince others to buttress their own doubts.

When someone is truly convinced there is no need to convince others, except in the case of seeing serious harm that the other could be spared.

AlexDTX said:

That is too bad. It is very wearisome when some one takes control of a topic to pound their own agenda. When a point is being forced on others, it makes me think that they don't really believe their point either and are trying to convince others to buttress their own doubts.

When someone is truly convinced there is no need to convince others, except in the case of seeing serious harm that the other could be spared.

Click to expand...

Also it's rude and inconsiderate. A person has a stated topic that they wish to discuss and it gets hijacked for something different.

Daniel C said:

Also it's rude and inconsiderate. A person has a stated topic that they wish to discuss and it gets hijacked for something different.

Click to expand...

I agree. I am trying not to strive anymore. It seems like 9x out of 10 the point I make is ignored while an incidental comment with my point gets pounced on. I have been posting less and less on CF to avoid getting my ire up then I get reported or banned.

AlexDTX said:

I agree. I am trying not to strive anymore. It seems like 9x out of 10 the point I make is ignored while an incidental comment with my point gets pounced on. I have been posting less and less on CF to avoid getting my ire up then I get reported or banned.

Click to expand...

Yes it can be frustrating but at least the benefits of being an observer and not contributor gives one more time to read and learn from the other members on the forum.

ilovejcsog said:

Saul of Tarsus was reprobate

Click to expand...

I assume that you mean the thread to be about how Saul wasn't believing on Jesus and God Himself is the sole reason he came to believe.

Paul's conversion is one of the strongest testimonies in the scriptures concerning Salvation being of God and not ourselves.

While Paul certainly came to be a man of faith - he was saved by grace.

Salvation is by grace through faith. Many here seem to have read the verse backward.

They teach that we enter God's grace through a faith we have coming out of our old nature

We are born again by believing the Word of God. But there can be no doubt that we believed that Word because of a special grace extended to us by God when we least deserved it.

One is born because he has first been regenerated and nor regenerated because he is born.

"No man can come to me unless it has been granted to him by my father." "All those the Father has given to me will come to me." "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord' but by the Holy Spirit."

If that be so called "Calvinism" so be it. That's a term coined by men.

God says the same teaching as Calvin in other ways - and in several places and different words and with different characters - not the least of which was Saul of Tarsus.

“...... he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Acts 9:15-16

"By grace you have been saved through faith- and that, not of yourselves lest any man should boast."

Hi there,

Not clear on what definition of reprobate you are using.

I note that Paul's pre-conversion sin was extreme - does this mean that a sinner must err from God's ways more than Paul to qualify for being sealed eternally to be separated from God's love in this life?

ilovejcsog said:

Saul was reprobate and then became Paul.

Click to expand...

Yes, according to the Biblical understanding. No, according to the Calvinistic understanding.

His student said:

If that be so called "Calvinism" so be it.

Click to expand...

No, it is not Calvinistic. All Christians believe this.

His student said:

One is born because he has first been regenerated and nor regenerated because he is born........If that be so called "Calvinism" so be it.

Click to expand...

Andrewn said:

No, it is not Calvinistic. All Christians believe this.

Click to expand...

You are right in saying that it is not Calvinistic. It is simply Biblical.

But you are wrong in saying that all Christians believe it.

ilovejcsog said: ↑
Saul was reprobate and then became Paul.

Andrewn said:

Yes, according to the Biblical understanding. No, according to the Calvinistic understanding.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I'm not a Calvinist per se.

But if a person is saved then he was never "reprobate" but rather "elect" according to Calvinism.

ilovejcsog said:

...what is the thorn...

Click to expand...

The thorn was a person according to Paul.