|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Oct 10, 2015 14:58:22 GMT -6
"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry."
What do you think Paul means by "He counted me faithful," particularly since the Lord said at the very time of his conversion (without any time to prove his faithfulness), "He is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15)? Also, v. 20 says that Paul immediately preached the Christ in the synagogue. Could it perhaps mean that during his time in Arabia he proved himself to be faithful (Gal. 1:16-17) before returning to Damascus and later Syria and Cilicia (Acts 9:30; Gal. 1:21-24)? How should I take this phrase?
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Oct 14, 2015 10:09:33 GMT -6
Great question! Just a quick thought... that the time of the aorist participle (your "putting" but perhaps better "having placed") should be seen as preceding the time of the main Aorist verb (counted). The participle acting like the perfect tense in this example. So how about - "And I thank Jesus Christ our Lord who has strengthened me, because the one who placed me into His ministry has since counted me faithful." So the strengthening was because of Paul's continued faithfulness, not his being placed into the ministry because of some foreseen faithfulness or proof of faithfulness from his pre-salvation or early salvation development of it. It would be interesting to see how favorite commentators have taken this verse. I'll have to take a look.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 11, 2016 10:13:59 GMT -6
I think we might let scripture, speak for it's self here.
Galatians 1:15 - But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16a to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; KJV
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 14, 2016 22:14:45 GMT -6
Samuel, good to have you on board!
Would you elaborate on your understanding of the phrase, "He counted me faithful"?
Are you suggesting that his faithfulness was a pre-conversion faithfulness?
Daniel
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 16, 2016 19:54:34 GMT -6
I see it as God’s call was on Paul from before his birth, and in due season it was made effective. I am one of those TULIP guy’s, so election is the ticket for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 24, 2016 20:24:03 GMT -6
Welcome Samuel! I look forward to helping you out of the philosophical web of Calvinism that you are apparently trapped in! :-) Paul said "from his mother's womb" so you are literally correct to say "from before his birth", as long as you don't think it has to infer, before his conception or before creation. For I believe that God has an intention for each life when it is conceived, but He allows for human freedom to be molded, or not, for that plan (Jer 18). Paul was "obedient" to that call (Acts 26:19). I believe Paul is telling Timothy (1:12) that he has continued in that faithful obedience to God's plan for him, and that is why God is strengthening him.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 25, 2016 9:59:49 GMT -6
Welcome Samuel! I look forward to helping you out of the philosophical web of Calvinism that you are apparently trapped in! :-) Paul said "from his mother's womb" so you are literally correct to say "from before his birth", as long as you don't think it has to infer, before his conception or before creation. For I believe that God has an intention for each life when it is conceived, but He allows for human freedom to be molded, or not, for that plan (Jer 18). Paul was "obedient" to that call (Acts 26:19). I believe Paul is telling Timothy (1:12) that he has continued in that faithful obedience to God's plan for him, and that is why God is strengthening him.
OK, but good luck. I wasn't trained to believe in so called Calvinism, nor did I study Calvin. I arrived at my conclusion!, studying scripture. I used to be free will for many years, and no one talked me out of it.
So it was not a trained, taught, or argued into position, but one of my owen understanding of scripture. 
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 25, 2016 10:48:22 GMT -6
I promise you that I will not try to train, talk, or argue you out of your position... just help you think through relevant Scriptures. And I hope you will help me do the same! ☺
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 25, 2016 11:27:21 GMT -6
Well, not to provide false information. I have since read some of Calvin's works, but that had no influence on my position. I found one flaw in Calvin's theology, there is no call for. Calvin was strongly into “Replacement Theology”, which I strongly would have to disagree with.
I bought a 1599 Geneva bible, and that was the source of my replacement theology findings. I constantly warn folks that are contemplating buying a Geneva bible, about this. The scripture gives you a pre-KJV look, but the notes for a large part like the Puritans; I could leave out.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 26, 2016 6:41:53 GMT -6
Very Good observation Samuel! It shows how when theology moves away from taking verses as normally, contextually, grammatically as possible, it can come up with views that undermine clear passages and the general tenor of Scripture about a subject.
Now, have you considered that unfortunately it is not just Bible footnotes that have been influenced, but even translations themselves have been influenced by the theology of the translators, so that they do not give sometimes a fair representation of the normal, contextual, grammatical meaning that the original text had? I see Calvinistic, Anglican leanings in some choices of translation in the KJV that the original or the tenor of Scripture seems to contest. Maybe we should start another thread on this subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 26, 2016 10:50:03 GMT -6
On footnotes; I have advised many times others, asking about study bibles. That they must realize when buying some ones study bible, you are getting much of the time their opinion of the scripture. So, I am very slow about endorsing any study bible.
I have most of the translations in popular use today, including several study bibles. I do this to have reference to other translations, my personal is my Cambridge Concord. I have also done quite a bit of research on the origins of scripture references, and those who have been involved in translation.
I really do not get into discussions over scripture sources “A” , “B”, and “C”. I have my own preferences, and prefer to leave it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 26, 2016 12:33:18 GMT -6
Sounds good! I wasn't thinking about textual criticism but translation choices when looking at the original (whichever text one chooses). For instance, the KJV translators chose "candlesticks" in Rev 2 and 3 instead of "lampstands" because of the Anglican religious culture using candles instead of lamps in their cathedrals. The ESV translates the Greek preposition (apo) as "before" in Rev 13:8, even though it can never mean "before", but only "from" or "since", but they made that choice because of their Calvinistic theological bent.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 26, 2016 15:24:59 GMT -6
I think one must also take into consideration, at what time a translation was made. I find in the Geneva for instance, words/phrases that in a KJV related translation, seem slightly archaic. However one of my pet words/ phrases in the KJV, “in my fathers house are many Mansions”. leading to a most atrocious rendition. Where the modern translations have it right, “in my fathers house are many Rooms”. This problem arose from the English of 1611, Mansion was a term used for a large boarding house/hotel, with many rooms. Which has led to a teaching that we would all be rich, when we get to heaven. Which is a true statement, but not with big/mansion houses. Of course I also have encountered words in some modern translations, which caused me to go and buy a word thesaurus. I was talking to my son, just prior to checking the board, about some of these exact problems. He of course prefers modern translations to my KJV. But I realize I was about 25 when he was born, so now he is just a slight shy of 50, and on the other hand Pop is 75. Case closed. |
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 26, 2016 23:47:26 GMT -6
Well, looks like I missed out on a good discussion today. You know, I have learned that labels are slippery. A few years back someone asked me, "Daniel, are you a Calvinist?" My years of pastoral experience finally showed some fruit in my response to him, and I heard myself answer, "Well, tell me what you mean by a Calvinist and then I'll tell you whether I am one or not." Samuel, you might enjoy the discussion that Brian and I had on Psalm 139:16 under the Hebrew heading. It's somewhat technical, but it shows the challenge of nailing down some of the key verses on this subject. Brian has such a sharp mind and has helped me in many ways here on the forum. I know you'll enjoy his insights too.
Back to my original question ... in Revelation 2:10 the church is instructed to "be faithful unto death." We also read in 2 Tim. 2:13, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful," so evidently faithlessness on our part implies that we can be faithful. Samuel, you might find me a relatively kindred spirit on the topic of election, yet clearly we are commanded to be faithful nonetheless. But am I right that you take this solely as a reference to God's faithfulness in election and not to any aspect of personal responsibility on Paul's part?
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Feb 27, 2016 10:13:39 GMT -6
I saw John MacArthur Asked a very similar question once, on a Q&A session. His comment was that the subject was inscrutable, or beyond our comprehension. He sympathized with his host, in saying I feel your pain, and sometimes I wonder. But that he was not going to try to unscrew, the inscrutable.
As I said I believe God chose Paul before his berth to salvation, and his purpose for Paul. Most people believe what is called Calvinism, means God drags men kicking, and screaming to a salvation they would otherwise reject. And the truth is man would reject salvation, on the ground of disbelief.
The gift of God is faith to believe, mans response is to act on that faith. Being now aware of his sin, and acting in repentance. Paul spoke several times on continuing in faithfulness, until the end Which we see Paul did to the end, by a Roman executioners ax
So we might say that mans responsibility in salvation, is to preserve and protect Gods gift of Faith, by persevering to the end.
What is said of those who do not persevere. We say that they were simply not saved?. This is where the unscrewing part begins, and where I end.
|
|
