The Beast of Revelation 13

[Musicman1228]

I know that nowhere in Jesus' words was the command to ignore or do away with his prophet and apostle Paul, who Jesus personally called and instructed on the road to damascus. He also gave a vision to Ananias and instructed him to go and help Saul/Paul since Jesus had struck him blind with his brightness.

Jesus struck Paul blind? This is the same Jesus that gave sight to the blind when He was here on earth, and raised Lazarus from the dead. I want you to show me in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John or Luke for that matter one single time where Jesus Christ the Son of God EVER used physical coercion to force someone against there directly opposed will to change their stand from evil to good. Did Jesus do this to any of the leaders of the Jews? Did he do this in acquiring His disciples? If this is an approved tactic of God then why didn't God simply force Satan to change his position of disobedience back to one of obedience to the will of God up in Heaven, thereby forgoing this whole mess of sin in which we find ourselves?

I truly and honestly don't understand. Please help me to understand how God could operate outside of His own Law of free will and justify the use of overwhelming force to force anyone to act against what they have determined to be their own best interest. If this is really the way God works then isn't God doing exactly what Satan accused God of doing in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, that is, demanding obedience that could not be performed?

If God can force obedience to His will in all of His created beings is not God then the tyrant that Satan makes HIM out to be in the world today?

I am not being flip or snide, I really want you to explain all this to me in simple terms that even I can understand. I thought that the crowning achievement in all of God's creation was the idea of 'free will'. What I hear you (and others) saying is that in reality we do not actually have free will, but that our futures have already been predetermined for us based on the whim of our Creator; our decisions do not count. Please tell me this isn't so.

[Guest]

God didn't force anything, or operate outside of his law. And no he never did use any of the leaders of the Jews. Turn to the book of Acts and read it for yourself. Is that another part of the Bible you don't need? I can see where this would place you at a great disadvantage when it comes to finding out what truth is.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey Richard, when God told His people in Revelation 2:2 that it was good for them to put those who called themselves apostles to a test, then (a) isn't it good for us to do the same thing? and ( who was it that was found to be false apostles? and © can you tell me what that test is? (I suppose I could also ask you when did this happen?)

But--the thing I really want to know from you is: If causing someone to go blind to get them to do something is not force, then what do you call it?

[Guest]

Saul was blind before his vision was affected by brightness. That's what caused him to see the way things really were. Do you really believe that he was forced into anything?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I know that nowhere in Jesus' words was the command to ignore or do away with his prophet and apostle Paul, who Jesus personally called and instructed on the road to damascus. He also gave a vision to Ananias and instructed him to go and help Saul/Paul since Jesus had struck him blind with his brightness.

Jesus struck Paul blind? This is the same Jesus that gave sight to the blind when He was here on earth, and raised Lazarus from the dead. I want you to show me in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John or Luke for that matter one single time where Jesus Christ the Son of God EVER used physical coercion to force someone against there directly opposed will to change their stand from evil to good. ...

[Guest]

Amen

[Musicman1228]

Teresaq,

You are right in saying that it was the light that surrounded Saul that blinded him, not Jesus, because Jesus Christ was no where near the Damascus road. If it was not Jesus that sent that light then who was it? And if Saul was blinded how did he know it was Jesus; he couldn't see him, and had no idea what he sounded like. Under those conditions it is just possible that Saul was fooled into believing a lie just because it seemed as if it was the truth. He couldn't know any better so it would be impossible for him to realize it was all a lie.

Still, no one has shown where in the gospels that Jesus used force of any kind to get someone to make a choice against their determined, opposed will. Saul was totally against Jesus and His followers; he was helping to imprison them and murder them.

Not even in the OT did God ever use force except to inflict judgment on those that by law deserved it.

I honestly don't care what you believe about this, except you believe that God would do something that He would NEVER do. You believe the lie that God would coerce someone to do something against their own will. Then you will say that if He can do that to Saul He will do that to anyone; and because He would do that for anyone then everyone will eventually make the 'choice' for Him before the end.

Free will is the most precious gift God ever gave humanity; it is even more important than the opportunity for salvation, because without free will salvation is meaningless. God wants only people in His Kingdom that want to be in His Kingdom. If God decided to He could forgive everyone from their sins even before they sinned; He could save even Satan if He so chose, and there would be NOTHING anyone including Satan could do to stop Him, because He is sovereign, all powerful, and all loving. And yet even though He wants to do this because He would rather have it that NO ONE be lost, He will NEVER, EVER go against what we really want.

If you want to say that Saul really wanted to be a servant of God before the Damascus road experience even though he clearly demonstrated this not the case I will grant you that. But if that is so then none of us have anything to be concerned about with respect to salvation, because then there is nothing we can do change that outcome; we will all be saved like it or not. And if that is the case then we will all by necessity be mind-numbed robots, because we will not have any freedom to choose our own destiny, to choose to love God freely. Where there is no free will there can be no true love.

Frankly, to me that really would be hell, not heaven.

[Guest]

MM, where do you get this "everyone will be saved" nonsense? That is nowhere in scripture, and no one here has said anything like that.

[Musicman1228]

Of course the 'everyone will be saved' theology is in Scripture; as long as you class Paul as Scripture. What do you call the gospel of 'salvation through grace by faith'? Grace as proposed by Paul either operates for everyone or no one. If the Law no longer applies (as he says-no law, no violation Rom.4:15) then no one, not even Satan, can be condemned by it, and therefore denied access to salvation through grace. Since there is no longer any condemnation because the Law for righteousness is gone (Rom.10:4), then EVERYONE will be saved in spite of themselves.

As to no one on the forum saying the above, my answer to that is anyone who defends Paul's idea of salvation by grace through faith does believe it and has said it in one form or another. Either grace operates as he has stated or it doesn't. If it does then no one can be lost. If it doesn't then Paul lied when he said;

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom.8:38-39.

[Guest]

You deliberately twist and pervert the scriptures. I know you are intelligent enough to put those texts back into the context where they belong, and see that Paul is not saying everyone will or can be saved.

[Musicman1228]

Richard, I could easily say the same about you.

[Guest]

No you couldn't. I don't deliberately twist or pervert scripture. I didn't used to think you did either until now. Anyone who wants to can, with half a brain, find out what Paul is really saying.

[Musicman1228]

As I said, I could say the same about you. I can also say that I don't twist of pervert Scripture any more than you do. My understanding is much different than is yours, that's all. I do not criticize you for not seeing things my way, why should you criticize me for not seeing things your way? After all, we do believe in the same Jesus Christ, don't we?

[Guest]

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.

1Cr 10:21

...just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:21

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. 1Cr 9:27

Dosn't sound like everybody's going to heaven.

[Musicman1228]

Paul often says one thing, then follows that with a hearty "Did I say that, by no means", followed the his saying the opposite. Here is but one example:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Rom.10:4.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Rom.3:31.

On one hand he says the law for righteousness has ended, then he says we don't overthrow the law by this same belief. This is confusing.

[John317]

Paul often says one thing, then follows that with a hearty "Did I say that, by no means", followed the his saying the opposite. Here is but one example:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Rom.10:4.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Rom.3:31.

On one hand he says the law for righteousness has ended, then he says we don't overthrow the law by this same belief. This is confusing.

Romans 10: 4 is saying that Christ is the end (or goal) of the law for righteousness. The Greek word for "end" or "goal" is telos. We don't look to the law to produce righteousness or to save us. Our righteousness and our salvation is in Christ.

But since Christ is our righteousness and our salvation, does that mean we go on living in sin? Does belief in Christ therefore mean we live contrary to the moral law of God? No, of course not. In fact, faith in Christ establishes God's law; faith doesn't do away with law.

[John317]

What do you call the gospel of 'salvation through grace by faith'? Grace as proposed by Paul either operates for everyone or no one. If the Law no longer applies (as he says-no law, no violation Rom.4:15) then no one, not even Satan, can be condemned by it, and therefore denied access to salvation through grace. Since there is no longer any condemnation because the Law for righteousness is gone (Rom.10:4), then EVERYONE will be saved in spite of themselves.

It seems to me that you're reacting to a perversion of Paul's teaching-- i.e., his teaching as some have misinterpreted it-- and not to what Paul actually taught. That would be a good topic for another thread.

[Musicman1228]

That would be a terrific thread, and I would participate because I really want to know the truth about Paul, as with everything. I think that his teachings have been misinterpreted and I would love to find out what others see that interpretation to be.

[Dr. Rich]

Come on Musicman--they are just yank'n your chain! Might want to read Glen Beck's new book before ya get yank'd again!

[Guest]

What's the name of the book?

[John317]

OK, we'll open a thread just for a discussion of the theology of Paul. It will be also a good place to compare and contrast Paul's theology with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Speaking as the moderator:

If the thread is used to attack Paul as being of the devil, etc., the thread will have to be made private. All questions and views are accepted but not personal attacks against Paul or calling him names. It's the same with members: the rules allow for attacks against ideas and arguments but not against individual members.

[Twilight]

Could you post the link here please John, when it is live.

Mark

[Musicman1228]

John,

What will be acceptable proof of the truth or falsehood of Paul? Will the words of Jesus be less, equal or superior in weight to the words of Paul? How will Scripture from the OT be viewed in this setting? Could you define for us some ground rules? I will abide by whatever you decide.

[Dr. Rich]

John, not sure why you would want to 'hide' the thread or the posts on the thread--can you give us one good reason? You should know me by now, I like to keep things in the open and in the light. "Things" done in 'darkness' tend to bother me. But I totally agree none should (including me) talk 'trash and smash' about other posters. I have admitted calling people 'wimps' and I apologize for this. BUT--my one big question is this: If Jesus said (and I believe He did), you are either for Him or against Him (no gray area) then if anyone presents evidence that would show or prove that Paul was against what Jesus said or taught, then what would you do about or with this post?

[John317]

Could you post the link here please John, when it is live.

Mark

Sure, be glad to. :-)