who draws people to Jesus

Butterball1 · May 29, 2021

fli said:
I recently heard a sermon and the Preacher cited the below as proof of OSAS.

John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. NKJV

Hi,

John 6:43 does not teach OSAS. The preacher in the sermon you heard removed this one verse from all other contexts and assumed (and wanted you to also assume with him) that Christ will UNCONDITIONALLY raise him up on the last day no matter what.

But from the context, we see verse 40 that reads "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

The ones that will be raised up at the last day are the ones that CONDITIONALLY "seeth" and "believeth" on Christ. Both verbs are present tense denoting that the seeing and believing is continuous, ongoing sustained. So those that have a life long faithfulness in continuing to see and believe on Christ till death will be the ones raised up. Yet those that become unfaithful and quit seeing and believing will not be saved, unbelievers will be lost (John 3:18) and not raised up to salvation.

St_Worm2 · May 29, 2021

fli said:
To St Worm2, Psalms 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20 The same way the gospel has been done throughout history. You either believe God or not. I choose to believe.

Hello again Fli, so you came to believe/came to saving faith in Jesus Christ (without knowing anything about Him/without knowing His Name) simply on the basis of the Creation's general revelation about God? (my question is obviously rhetorical

)

My actual question remains however, in what way can it truly be said that ~ALL~ people, without exception, have been drawn to the Lord Jesus Christ since His crucifixion, since we know that, even today, many will die who have never heard the Gospel, who do not know who He is and/or who have never even heard His Name?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - just FYI, I believe that the answer you are looking for (to the dilemma that your understanding of v32 creates) can be found (at least in part) in the context of the same Chapter, beginning with John 12:20.

St_Worm2 · May 29, 2021

Butterball1 said:
John 6:43 does not teach OSAS.

CLEARLY

(John 6:44 on the other hand, taken in context, teaches both assurance and perseverance

)

Butterball1 said:
The ones that will be raised up at the last day are the ones that CONDITIONALLY "seeth" and "believeth" on Christ. Both verbs are present tense denoting that the seeing and believing is continuous, ongoing sustained. So those that have a life long faithfulness in continuing to see and believe on Christ till death will be the ones raised up.

I agree, and so does the Bible ("...the one who endures to the end will be saved" .. Matthew 10:22).

That said, the ones who "endure to the end" ~are Christians~, IOW, ~all~, who by God's saving grace alone have received "eternal life" from Him (~not~ conditional or probationary life), those who come to true, saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (and who then, by His sanctifying grace, are preserved by Him and will, because we are preserved, persevere in the faith to the end .. e.g. John 5:24, 10:27-28; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 5:13). You continue:

Butterball1 said:
Yet those that become unfaithful and quit seeing and believing will not be saved, unbelievers will be lost (John 3:18) and not raised up to salvation.

The CINO in the body of Christ .. see Matthew 7:22-23, 13:24-30, 36-43, who "claim" to believe, but never did (~never~ came to true, saving faith/~never~ knew or were known by either the Father or by the Son .. e.g. Matthew 7:22-23; John 17:3 cf 1 John 2:19) do not persevere in the faith, because they (like all other unbelievers) were ~never~ in the faith/~never~ in Christ to begin with (no matter what they may say/claim, or perhaps, even believe).

To sum up, all of us who (by God's saving grace) have come to true, saving faith in the Lord Jesus ~will continue~ to believe, ~not~ by the strength of our character/apart from God's grace, but ~because~ of His grace and the mighty work that He continues to do in each of us to see us safely through this life to be with Him in Glory :amen:

We don't continue in the faith/continue to believe to REMAIN Christians, rather, we continue to believe because we ARE Christians :preach:

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - as for context that supports the idea of the perseverance of the saints, here is a small part of it from the very same Chapter

John 6:37-40 (excerpt)
ALL that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me and .. of ALL that He has given Me, I LOSE NOTHING, but raise it up on the last day.
.

Butterball1 · May 29, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
CLEARLY (John 6:44 on the other hand, taken in context, teaches both assurance and perseverance )
I agree, and so does the Bible ("...the one who endures to the end will be saved" .. Matthew 10:22).

Assurance is to tose who CONDITIONALLY maintain a present tense seeing and believing. There is no UNconditional assurance found within the context.

Matthew 10:22 the verb "endureth" is also present tense meaning those who keep on enduring to the end. Those that fail to endure unto the end will not be saved.

St_Worm2 said:
That said, the ones who "endure to the end" ~are Christians~, IOW, ~all~, who by God's saving grace alone have received "eternal life" from Him (~not~ conditional or probationary life), those who come to true, saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (and who then, by His sanctifying grace, are preserved by Him and will, because we are preserved, persevere in the faith to the end .. e.g. John 5:24, 10:27-28; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 5:13).

The only ones to be saved will be Christians that conditionally endured. Endurance is not something the Christian does for a moment then quits, but must be life long till death.

Matt 24:10-13
And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold.
But he who endures to the end will be saved. The ones who endure is contrasted from those who fall away, lead astray, whose love grows cold. Clearly not all would endure. The "was never really saved" does not apply here for those who do not endure they "fall away"...(one always fallen cannot fall)....lead "astray" (one always lost cannot be lead astray for he was already in error.)

No verse says that God has taken the onus upon Himself to see to it that the Christian will unconditionally be guaranteed to persevere. God has put that onus upon the Christian, 1 Corinthians 9:17; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10; Jude 1:21; James 1:27; etc.

St_Worm2 said:
You continue:

The CINO in the body of Christ .. see Matthew 7:22-23, 13:24-30, 36-43, who "claim" to believe, but never did (~never~ came to true, saving faith/~never~ knew or were known by either the Father or by the Son .. e.g. Matthew 7:22-23; John 17:3 cf 1 John 2:19) do not persevere in the faith, because they (like all other unbelievers) were ~never~ in the faith/~never~ in Christ to begin with (no matter what they may say/claim, or perhaps, even believe).

Those who were never saved...were never saved. But that does not prove it is impossible for one who is saved (Christian) cannot fall way, go astray and not endure.

St_Worm2 said:
To sum up, all of us who (by God's saving grace) have come to true, saving faith in the Lord Jesus ~will continue~ to believe, ~not~ by the strength of our character/apart from God's grace, but ~because~ of His grace and the mighty work that He continues to do in each of us to see us safely through this life to be with Him in Glory

We don't continue in the faith/continue to believe to REMAIN Christians, rather, we continue to believe because we ARE Christians

God bless you!

There is no unconditional guarantee given to the Christian that it is impossible for him to stop believing. One beleives by volition and can stop belieivng by that same volition thus warning s about falling away into unbelief, Hebrews 3:12. Hebrews 6:6 "having (past tense) fallen away" ....not might or could fall away but already has fallen away.

St_Worm2 said:
--David
p.s. - as for context that supports the idea of the perseverance of the saints, here is a small part of it from the very same Chapter

John 6:37-40 (excerpt)
ALL that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me and .. of ALL that He has given Me, I LOSE NOTHING, but raise it up on the last day.
.

John 6:37 the ones God gives to Christ are the ones who CONDITIONALLY have a present tense belief per John 6:35.
"I will in no wise cast out" any person who conditionally has a present tense belief regardless of age, race, sex, social status, etc Christ will not cast aside, will not reject. So this is not referring to eternal security. Even Calvinist Albert Barnes says of this "Reject, or refuse to save. This expression does not refer to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, but to the fact that Jesus will not reject or refuse any sinner who comes to him."

"I lose nothing" this is referring again to those who CONDITIONALLY have and maintain a present tense belief. Again, the only ones God gives to Christ and that Christ will lose none are those who have and maintain a present tense belief. Judas was one God gave to Christ (John 17:6-9) hence Judas was a believer who Christ kept (John 17:12) but Judas became lost because he did not maintain a present tense belief.

St_Worm2 · May 30, 2021

Hello again @Butterball1, we (clearly) read certain Scripture passages very differently from one another. I would like to take a closer look at why we do, but there is a LOT to unpack from your last post, so let's start out small (because that's all that may be required

). For instance (starting at the bottom of your post), when you read these words from the Lord Jesus......

John 6
37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

......how/why did you come to the conclusion that you did (see below)?

Specifically, where does this passage teach us that, "I lose nothing", is actually referencing a group of people who, "CONDITIONALLY maintain a present tense belief", rather than a group that includes, "ALL that the Father has given Me" (as the Lord declares in that passage)?

Butterball1 said:
"I lose nothing" this is referring again to those who CONDITIONALLY have and maintain a present tense belief. Again, the only ones God gives to Christ and that Christ will lose none are those who have and maintain a present tense belief.

Thanks!

--David

disciple Clint · May 30, 2021

fli said:
To St Worm2

Ps 19:1-4 and Romans 1: 18-20 The same way the gospel has been done throughout history. You either believe God or not. I choose to believe

Thank you

To disciple Clint

1Peter 1:11 the theologians that I read are the Spirit of Christ who wrote through the OT prophets. John 14: John 15:26 I also believe Matthew, Mark, and John because they wrote by direction of the Spirit of Truth. Galatians 1:11 I believe Paul because He received scripture from Jesus. 2Peter 3:15-16 which Peter verified as scripture. These are the theologians that I agree with.

John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him." NKJV

The Jesus taught what the Father taught Him. The Spirit of Truth gave this to John to write.

I do not believe the writings of man over scripture.

Thank you

The problem is that you believe your interpretation of Scripture which may or may not be the interpretation that the writers of the Scripture intended to be communicated.

St_Worm2 · May 30, 2021

disciple Clint said:
The problem is that you believe your interpretation of Scripture which may or may not be the interpretation that the writers of the Scripture intended to be communicated.

Granted

I'm open-minded and here to learn as much as I can (which is why I'm interested in knowing how two people can look at a passage and come to such differing conclusions about it). If we are honest about it, I'm pretty sure that it has a lot to do with the presuppositions that we each bring to the table, which is why I'd like to get past those influences if we can (our systematic soteriologies) and just look at what the Bible is actually saying.

I realize that it probably isn't possible to do so, but hey, I can dream, yes

God bless you!

--David

disciple Clint · May 30, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
Granted I'm open-minded and here to learn as much as I can (which is why I'm interested in knowing how two people can look at a passage and come to such differing conclusions about it). If we are honest about it, I'm pretty sure that it has a lot to do with the presuppositions that we each bring to the table, which is why I'd like to get past those influences if we can (our systematic soteriologies) and just look at what the Bible is actually saying.

I realize that it probably isn't possible to do so, but hey, I can dream, yes

God bless you!

--David

The only correct meaning of a verse is the meaning it had to the people at the time and under the conditions it was written. So it requires quite a bit of work to have knowledge of all the things what were in the minds of the original hearers. Different rules apply to different genres as well.

Butterball1 · May 30, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
Hello again @Butterball1, we (clearly) read certain Scripture passages very differently from one another. I would like to take a closer look at why we do, but there is a LOT to unpack from your last post, so let's start out small (because that's all that may be required ). For instance (starting at the bottom of your post), when you read these words from the Lord Jesus......

John 6
37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

......how/why did you come to the conclusion that you did (see below)?

Specifically, where does this passage teach us that, "I lose nothing", is actually referencing a group of people who, "CONDITIONALLY maintain a present tense belief", rather than a group that includes, "ALL that the Father has given Me" (as the Lord declares in that passage)?

Thanks!

--David

Hi,

God does not randomly or unconditionally give certain individuals to Christ. The ones God gives to Christ are those that conditionally have a present tense coming and believing, John 6:35. Just as those who are Christ's sheep are those who have a present tense hearing and following, John 10:27. So those who conditionally have and maintain a present tense coming and believing are the ones Christ will not lose, those that conditionally maintain a present tense hearing and following will not be snatched from God's hand.

Here's the issue: if one does NOT maintain a present tense belief, if one quits coming and believing Christ he will become lost, those that quit hearing and following Christ remove themselves from God's hand.

--there is no verse that says Christ will UNconditionally save anyway those that quit coming and belieivng him. No verse says God will UNconditionally save anyway those who quit hearing and following Christ.

--there is no verse that says it is impossible for a Christian to quit coming and believing in Christ.

--No verse says God makes it impossible for the Christian to quit hearing and believing.

--the present tense of the verbs coming, believing, hearing and following shows the action is ongoing, sustained for one cannot quit coming, quit believing yet still be saved in unbelief.

--John 3:16
"that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
--the verb 'believeth' is present tense showing the believing must be ongoing, sustained for life.
--the verb 'should' is subjunctive mood, a mood of potential or possiblity, that some event (perishing or not perishing) may or may not happen depending on the circumstance if one maintains a present tense belief or not. So combining the present tense of "believeth" to the subjunctive "should" means if one continues to believe he should not perish. Yet if one quits believing he should perish. This is why the NIV, which is Calvinistically biased, changed the subjunctive "should" to the indicative "shall" to get around this.

John 6:40 the NIV changed the subjunctive "should/may" to indicative "shall". Having everlasting life depends on the condition if one maintians a present tense belief or not...maintains a present tense belief may have everlasting life yet quit believing may not have everlasting life.

Those that back eternal security do not like to deal with the present tense of verbs for it undermines their intrepretation that are wanting to apply to a particular verse...if one continues to believe he should not perish, if one quits believing he should perish.

Charles Stanley, a eternal security proponent, struggled with the present tense of verbs and reached the erroneously conclusion one can quit believing and be saved anyway:

(my emp)
Stanley’s Struggle
Charles Stanley is not unaware of the weakness of his argument. He raises this question: “If our salvation is gained through believing in Christ, doesn’t it make sense that salvation would be lost if we quit believing?” (p. 73).

He concedes that such arguments sound “convincing,” but he believes he has a solution to the problem, and he spends several chapters in his book struggling with it.

As suggested in our discussion of John 3:18 (above), the promise of security is conditioned upon our sustained belief. The present tense form pisteuo (believe) is found several times in John’s Gospel within this type of context (cf. 3:14-16,18; 5:24; 6:29; 6:40).

Now what is the significance of the present tense in Greek? Dana & Mantey (two Baptist scholars) note that the “principle tense” for representing “action as continuous” is the present tense (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1968, p. 178). A.T. Robertson, the greatest Baptist grammarian ever, wrote: “the present tense expresses incompleted action” (A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908, p. 140).

Quotations of this nature could be multiplied many times over.

I introduce this matter to emphasize that it is incredible that Mr. Stanley, in attempting to avoid the force of the present tense, should say: “The normal use of the present tense does not denote continuous, uninterrupted action” (p. 85).

The gentleman introduces John 4:13 in attempting to sustain his point. Jesus said, “Everyone who drinks [present tense] of this water [from Jacob’s well] shall thirst again.” He declares that it is ridiculous to suggest that those folks were “continuously drinking from Jacob’s well” (p. 86).

He will have to dispute the matter with one of his own spiritual kinsmen — a top Baptist scholar whose scholarship considerably eclipsed that of the Atlanta “Pastor.” Professor Kenneth Wuest translated John 4:13 in this way:

“Whosoever keeps on drinking of this water shall thirst again” (his emp.). He then comments: “Continual drinking at the wells of the world never quenches the soul’s thirst for heart satisfaction” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, Chicago: Moody Press, 1946, p. 43).

Of course the people of Sychar were not drinking in an “uninterrupted” fashion; they were, however, drinking on a sustained basis. And that is what we must do. In spite of temporary lapses of faith due to weakness, we must progressively persevere — if we expect to enjoy eternal life. The tenses make this certain.

What is the point of all this? Mr. Stanley is trying to prove that one does not have to keep on believing in order to make his salvation secure. He advocates the notion that a Christian can completely abandon his faith in God and Christ, become a rank atheist, and the Lord will save him anyhow. Hear him:

“Even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand” (p. 74). Is this not an incredible statement?
Can a Christian Ever Be Lost?

We cannot overlook the significance of the present tense verbs in John 6. Christ loses none of those that conditionally maintain a present tense coming and believing in Him. Christ does not UNconditionally keep and save those that quit believing as Charles Stanley falsely claims.

fli · May 31, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Calvinism was not true even before Jesus drawed all men unto Himself.

Most every Calvinist leaning proponent never reads John 6:44 in context to John 6:45. Jesus was not even sent yet to unbelieving Gentiles (at this point in the story), and folks want to make John 6:44 about unbelieving Gentiles. Verse 45 is referring to the faithful Jew who had learned and heard of the Father. This is the one who is drawn in verse 44. The Jew was not being forced against their will here, but they were being drawn because they had already learned and heard of the Father beforehand (John 6:45). Calvinists are simply not believing verse 45 (Which is the context).

No offense to anyone, but Calvinism is about as illogical as believing in a flat Earth. There are tons of verses that obviously refute it over, and over, and over again. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that the reason why those who perish are perishing is because they received not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. There is no MIGHT be saved in Calvinism.

In Luke 13:3, we learn that Jesus basically tells people (in shortened words) to,
“repent or perish.” But in Calvinism, the Elect cannot perish, and the Non-Elect cannot repent. So Calvinism must be discarded as not being in line with the Bible. Besides a surface reading of Romans 9 taken out of context, nothing in the Bible really paints the picture of the world of Calvinism. It's really obvious if a person just reads and believes their Bible plainly.

Bible Highlighter

I don't know how I overlooked your reply. Verse John 6:45 is the key to then and today. Who are those who learn from God today? It should be all Christians. How many people believe the scriptures today. Those who use only the bible as their ultimate source of truth are ridiculed and thought to be, at best, naive. Just as in Jesus' day most people relied on the experts and oral traditions (commentary) over scriptures. Luke 6:48 Anyone who places mans word over God's are on sandy ground. They think by using mans word they don't have to dig.

Thank you

fli · Jun 1, 2021

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. NKJV

The word translated no one in John above means:

NT:3762 oudeis (oo-dice'); including feminine oudemia (oo-dem-ee'-ah); and neuter ouden (oo-den'); from NT:3761 and NT:1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing:

All that is needed to prove John 6: 44 is no longer true is to prove that one person, not drawn by the Father, has received eternal salvation.

Acts 9: 3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." NKJV

Jesus is the one talking to Paul. The goads poking Paul were the witness of the Christians Paul had called before his judgment seat. Most of these he had tortured and killed trying to get them to deny Jesus as their savior.

Luke 21:14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; 15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist. NKJV

The words the Christians had spoke were from Jesus. The body of Christ provided the voice of Christ as a witness to Paul. Jesus drew Paul to Himself.

St_Worm2 · Jun 1, 2021

Hello @fli, ahh, I think I get it now, you believe that the Father's "drawing" is the same thing as the outward call of the Gospel, yes? However, if that's true, then (to the best of my knowledge) the Father has never "drawn" anyone to faith (in the way that you believe He has) because no man has or can see the Father .. e.g. Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 John 4:12, 20.

Rather, I believe the "drawing" of the Father (e.g. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:44, 65 cf Ephesians 2:4-5) is directly related to His, "enabling grace", the grace that prepares our hearts (quickens us/makes us alive .. spiritually) so that we can hear, understand, accept and believe the Gospel.

Again, the Arminian believes that the Father's "drawing" is for ~all people without exception~ (everyone, everywhere), while the Calvinist believes that His drawing is for ~all people without distinction~ (IOW, for Jewish AND/OR non-Jewish/Gentile saints to be), but both sides believe that His drawing is necessary, because the Bible tells us that it is .. John 6:44 ("no one CAN come" if he/she is not "drawn" by the Father).

Finally, I wish that there was standard terminology for us to go by within the Christian church, so that we could understand each other from the get-go, but sadly, there is not.

--David

St_Worm2 · Jun 1, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Assurance is to those who CONDITIONALLY maintain a present tense seeing and believing.

Hello again Butterball1, the assurance of our salvation can be a fleeting thing (as I believe it is often tied to where our walk is in the moment).

That said, and before I comment further on your last post, I was hoping that you'd explain exactly what you mean by your use of the word "CONDITIONAL" in this case. I 'think' that I know what you mean by it, but you use it so often that I'd like to make sure (as it can and does mean a number of different things to different people).

Thanks for your help!

--David

fli · Jun 2, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
Hello @fli, ahh, I think I get it now, you believe that the Father's "drawing" is the same thing as the outward call of the Gospel, yes? However, if that's true, then (to the best of my knowledge) the Father has never "drawn" anyone to faith (in the way that you believe He has) because no man has or can see the Father .. e.g. Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 John 4:12, 20.

Rather, I believe the "drawing" of the Father (e.g. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:44, 65 cf Ephesians 2:4-5) is directly related to His, "enabling grace", the grace that prepares our hearts (quickens us/makes us alive .. spiritually) so that we can hear, understand, accept and believe the Gospel.

Again, the Arminian believes that the Father's "drawing" is for ~all people without exception~ (everyone, everywhere), while the Calvinist believes that His drawing is for ~all people without distinction~ (IOW, for Jewish AND/OR non-Jewish/Gentile saints to be), but both sides believe that His drawing is necessary, because the Bible tells us that it is .. John 6:44 ("no one CAN come" if he/she is not "drawn" by the Father).

Finally, I wish that there was standard terminology for us to go by within the Christian church, so that we could understand each other from the get-go, but sadly, there is not.

--David

Yes, all those Christians witnessed to Paul. But it was not just the gospel. Paul's weapons were words and the ammo he used was scripture. He would accuse those Christians and explain from the scriptures just why Jesus couldn't be the Christ. When he gave them their chance to repent they would turn those same scriptures against him. The only way Paul could best them was to have their heads chopped off.

Acts 9:20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. 21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, "Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?" 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ. NKJV

How do you think Paul could immediately prove that Jesus was the Christ? That did not come from his previous training. Every Christian he called in to persecute taught him. Paul learned more from shepherds, tax collectors and prostitutes than all the rabbis he had been trained by. He couldn't believe those Christians could know the scriptures better than himself. He learned from people who couldn't even read or write. After Jesus opened the scriptures to Paul He hooked him as a fish and drew him in on the Damascus road.

It wasn't just the gospel that Paul had learned. Jesus enabled Paul to hear and believe the gospel by destroying his pride. Paul had been taught by God (Jesus) from the mouths of those he killed.

St_Worm2 · Jun 2, 2021

fli said:
Yes, all those Christians witnessed to Paul. But it was not just the gospel. Paul's weapons were words and the ammo he used was scripture. He would accuse those Christians and explain from the scriptures just why Jesus couldn't be the Christ. When he gave them their chance to repent they would turn those same scriptures against him. The only way Paul could best them was to have their heads chopped off.

Acts 9:20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. 21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, "Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?" 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ. NKJV

How do you think Paul could immediately prove that Jesus was the Christ? That did not come from his previous training. Every Christian he called in to persecute taught him. Paul learned more from shepherds, tax collectors and prostitutes than all the rabbis he had been trained by. He couldn't believe those Christians could know the scriptures better than himself. He learned from people who couldn't even read or write. After Jesus opened the scriptures to Paul He hooked him as a fish and drew him in on the Damascus road.

It wasn't just the gospel that Paul had learned. Jesus enabled Paul to hear and believe the gospel by destroying his pride. Paul had been taught by God (Jesus) from the mouths of those he killed.

Hello again Fli, the Bible tells us that the Apostle Paul was one of the rising stars in the ranks of the Pharisees (he, in fact, described himself as, a Hebrew of Hebrews).

Pharisees, who were worth their salt anyway, had the OT memorized, and they certainly knew all of the prophesies concerning the Messiah who was to come (though they came to wrong conclusions about Him, obviously). Paul would have been able to quickly replace the nameless Messiah from the OT (and everything that he knew about Him) with the Lord Jesus and correctly demonstrate/prove that Jesus was indeed, the Messiah who was to come (I'm sure that the disciples, who he lived with for several days after His experience on the road with the Lord/prior to venturing out to witness, told him what they knew and answered any questions that he had .. Acts 9:19-20).

Of course, in very short order (prior to writing any of his Epistles, and prior to going on any of his "missionary journeys") he left for Arabia and spent three years there with the Holy Spirit who taught him all that he needed to know about the Christian faith (not unlike the 3 years that the Apostles spent learning from the Lord Jesus before they began their personal ministries in Acts). For instance:

Galatians 1
15 When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Notice that it is was God the Father who set the Apostle Paul apart (from the womb) and called Him to witness for His Son, just like the Lord Jesus told us in John 6:44 that , "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him....".

We may not like what the Bible says at times, especially when it doesn't support our presuppositions, but changing the words or the meaning of the words of the Bible to better fit a personal presupposition is never a good idea, ~especially~ in a case like this when you consider Who is speaking!

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - when I became a Christian (2 months to the day after my 30th birthday), I knew FAR less about the Bible than Pharisee Saul/Apostle Paul did, but I was so filled with joy that I witnessed to anyone and everyone who would listen (I wanted them to know and to have what I did). Not doubt Paul was even more excited than I was, especially considering the experience that he had just had with Jesus

fli · Jun 3, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
Hello again Fli, the Bible tells us that the Apostle Paul was one of the rising stars in the ranks of the Pharisees (he, in fact, described himself as, a Hebrew of Hebrews).

Pharisees, who were worth their salt anyway, had the OT memorized, and they certainly knew all of the prophesies concerning the Messiah who was to come (though they came to wrong conclusions about Him, obviously). Paul would have been able to quickly replace the nameless Messiah from the OT (and everything that he knew about Him) with the Lord Jesus and correctly demonstrate/prove that Jesus was indeed, the Messiah who was to come (I'm sure that the disciples, who he lived with for several days after His experience on the road with the Lord/prior to venturing out to witness, told him what they knew and answered any questions that he had .. Acts 9:19-20).

Of course, in very short order (prior to writing any of his Epistles, and prior to going on any of his "missionary journeys") he left for Arabia and spent three years there with the Holy Spirit who taught him all that he needed to know about the Christian faith (not unlike the 3 years that the Apostles spent learning from the Lord Jesus before they began their personal ministries in Acts). For instance:

Galatians 1
15 When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Notice that it is was God the Father who set the Apostle Paul apart (from the womb) and called Him to witness for His Son, just like the Lord Jesus told us in John 6:44 that , "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him....".

We may not like what the Bible says at times, especially when it doesn't support our presuppositions, but changing the words or the meaning of the words of the Bible to better fit a personal presupposition is never a good idea, ~especially~ in a case like this when you consider Who is speaking!

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - when I became a Christian (2 months to the day after my 30th birthday), I knew FAR less about the Bible than Pharisee Saul/Apostle Paul did, but I was so filled with joy that I witnessed to anyone and everyone who would listen (I wanted them to know and to have what I did). Not doubt Paul was even more excited than I was, especially considering the experience that he had just had with Jesus

Yes in Galatians 1:15 Paul stated that God called him. So you are saying that calling and drawing are the same. In my original post I said that Jesus drew even those that the Father gave Him.

John 10:1 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. NKJV

Jesus called Saul by name on the Damascus road. Just as it states Jesus would call His sheep by name.

Acts 2: 39 as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. The Father does not call people to Himself to be saved. Jesus calls people to Himself to be saved. The Father cannot save people without going through Jesus. Jesus is the only savior of the world. Just as it states Jesus will call His sheep.

As for Paul knowing the scriptures prior to questioning the Christians he persecuted. I will agree. It is also obvious that Paul had a wrong understanding of the scriptures. He believed the scriptures as those who taught him believed the scriptures. We know of one of those teachers and there is no evidence that Gamaliel came to believe. His understanding of the scriptures was wrong and so was Paul's. Don't forget the goads that were prodding Paul. He was having serious doubts about what his mission. The goads came from those he persecuted.

Phil 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. NKJV

He had a zeal to persecute the Church. Zeal comes from love and a strong believe in what one is doing. He loved the God that he knew and that did not include Jesus. He had a pride in his works for God and in his learning. The majority of time between the death of Steven and Paul's preaching Jesus as the Messiah was spent persecuting, and learning from, the church. They reinterpreted the scriptures for him. Yes, Paul spent certain days with the believers. No time is given for certain days. There is no evidence that any of those he stayed with could confound the unbelieving Jews as Paul did. Paul was taught by Jesus.

Thanks and God Bless

PS shortly after coming to Jesus I also started witnessing.

who draws people to Jesus

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Simul Justus et Peccator

Active Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Active Member

Similar threads