I don't really want to post my personal thoughts yet, but was wondering about different views concerning Saul....did he secure eternal life in heaven or hell? Not trying to be causing strife, was just wanting to know what others thought. Thanks in advance.
Greetings Rawhide.
I liked the TV series Rawhide with Clint Eastwood, which I watched as a child. Like the song too. "Rolling Rolling Rolling, Keep those doggies moving - Rawhide!"
All we know about Saul is what is actually written about him in the Bible, and since all who are saved are saved through Jesus, which became apparent in the first century AD, yet I'm sure many OT people will be saved through Jesus, but we mortals on Earth today, or at least this mortal, do not know with certainty how that happens. And there is no point in speculating on it. We need to set our minds on the here and now, and share the good news of Jesus Christ as best we can to those we actually do have contact with.
May God continually pour out His many blessings upon you, rawhide.
One of my favorite perspectives on Old Testament salvation is from Ezekiel 18, the passage that serves to destroy the doctrine of an inborn sinful nature. In this passage God makes it perfectly clear what He's looking for. As in New Testament theology,God remains committed to saving those whose hearts have been converted to serve Him.
All we know about Saul is that according to the text, he was not in that kind of a faith position when he was killed. None of us would assume authority to judge, but it doesn't look good for Saul.
Contrast that with Nebuchadnezzar. Now there's a real jerk on history's stage. But in his last appearance in Daniel, some of which he apparently wrote himself- he passed on with a genuine faith in the Most High God.
One of my favorite perspectives on Old Testament salvation is from Ezekiel 18, the passage that serves to destroy the doctrine of an inborn sinful nature.
Wait, are you talking about original sin/total depravity, or generational curses?
Not to stir a hornet's nest, but this chapter from Ezekiel was very instrumental in my own salvation. Through this and other scriptures I saw my sin not as some natural curse from my father, but as choices I made to gratify my own lusts outside of the law of God.
"The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge" was a common saying used in that day to explain the natural inheritance of sin from one generation to another. God pulls the plug on that kind of thinking in Ezekiel 18. He hates it.
This word of the Lord from Ezekiel is that God only sees individuals, and holds each one accountable. He gives no quarter to inherited sin, and as you can see in the passage He works all the father/ son/ sin/ repentance/ righteousness angles one by one so that God's expectation is perfectly clear. To me it was a call to repent and in no way was I permitted to blame anyone- my father, his father, Adam, and certainly not the Heavenly Father for my sin. Mine alone, repentance the only cure.
You are right. Though formerly a committed Calvinist, I am one no longer.
I'm no longer a Calvinist either. :)
However, that begs one question: Was it theoretically possible (not probable, but possible) that a person could live a life entirely free of sin from birth to death, being blameless in and of themselves?
"However, that begs one question: Was it theoretically possible (not probable, but possible) that a person could live a life entirely free of sin from birth to death, being blameless in and of themselves?".. EverestoSama
No, it is not, because the entire Gospel rests upon the reality of Adams fall, and the Satanic Nature that rested within him.
Romans 5:11-13
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
This idea is historically the called the error of Pelagianism,
"Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God.
In other words, a person's free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention. Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam."
Some say the Finney was bound by these prejudices, as I too believe. In the end, Grace will be cut off from you by adapting the concept that you can overcome by choice, You cannot. It is supreme legalism.
Revelation 12:10-12
"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."
We have a cross to bear. We will ultimately crucify Jesus and live for ourselves, our allow the Holy Spirit to crucify ourselves and Jesus to sit on the throne of our lives. We can please Him no other way.
Oh, I'm with you Brothertom, I'm just curious the reasoning for saying that one is born without sin, and what direction and ultimate beliefs that will take the adherents to this way of thinking to.
To say that man is born without sin leaves the possibility (remote as it may be) that there theoretically could be a person who was able to live a sin free life (born from the seed of Adam I mean)and have no need of Christ's sacrifice or atonement. Which would contradict what Scripture says on the issue.
Maybe you are looking in the telescope from the wrong end. If you are born with an inherited sin nature, you have an excuse for the sin you commit. Do you really believe that?
In the passage from Romans, notice how it says that by one man Adam sin entered the world and then death passed to all men. It does not say that sin passed to all men, as is commonly assumed. The text is true and good. There is no Scripture to support the notion that sin is excusable because it is part of human nature- it becomes part of human nature by repetition and habit. That's why God calls people to repent, turn from wicked ways, and practice righteousness.
Could a man be born who could perfectly obey the law of God and bypass the curse of death? Allow me to introduce my friend Jesus, the Son of Man who did exactly that, and demonstrated to the world that it is not only possible, but incumbent on men to do the same.
We are in trouble not because righteousness is impossible, we are in trouble because we choose to gratify ourselves in defiance of God's clear commands. Commands which, as John points out, are not burdensome.
I have seen way too many people approach God for salvation believing they were powerless over sin but secretly believing it wasn't really their fault. Oh they probably are saved, but not much evidence of it shows up in their lives. They think sin is just normal life and they live in it- spiritually powerless.
I can't live like that. Sin is evil, destructive, insulting to my loving Father, and to you or anyone whose only view of Jesus Christ might be me. It is certainly a snare lurking around to catch me, but I regard it as an enemy and nothing more.
Consider these scriptural concepts and give them some meditation.
God said to Cain, "Sin is crouching at the door and it's desire is to have you- but you must master it!" Does God really mean that?
Jesus said of the Pharisees, "Before I came, they did not have sin. But now they have hated both Me and My Father." Whoa. Is He serious?
Jesus to the woman taken in adultery and nearly stoned, "Go- and sin no more." Did He have the authority to tell her that?
And a couple more things before I have to go paint a screen door.
"The error of Pelagius" is a phrase laid on this man by those who in defiance of Ezekiel 18 prefer to explain sin as a natural component of human nature. Pelagius tried to tell people that they were responsible for their behavior. What a fool...??
Charles Finney? 500,000 conversions with a 10 year retention of faith at around 80%? Whole cities weeping in repentance? All without electronic media? A life of daily miracles, a baptism in the Holy Spirit that would put the Assemblies of God to shame?
In error?? Puhhhleeeze!
Could a man be born who could perfectly obey the law of God and bypass the curse of death? Allow me to introduce my friend Jesus, the Son of Man who did exactly that, and demonstrated to the world that it is not only possible, but incumbent on men to do the same.
I said from the seed of Adam. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost. So this is what I'm curious of then still. It IS possible (note still, I'm not saying probable, but possible) for a man to live a life completely free of sin, and not be in need of salvation from his sin, having no sin of his own? You're saying that apart from Christ there is the chance, remote as it may be, that a person could be without need of the atoning power of Christ, correct?
And I'm not sure I understand the distinction from sin entering the world vs sin entering into mankind. If sin just enters into the world but not into man then so what? Obviously sin had entered into the physical world before Adam ate of the fruit. The serpent existed before the fruit was eaten. Sin was in the world, if we're just referring to it as a physical locality. The devil twisted God's Words and lied. Sin was (physically) in the world, but sin was not in man.
Since you cited Romans, it's interesting to note that the word used for world is kosmos. The same word used in John 3:16. For God so loved the (kosmos). Does it mean the rock and atmosphere that we live on, the physical place and the creation outside of man, or is it the people who dwell on this rock? Which "world" is it talking about? (I'm not discounting that sin has a destructive effect on the physical world either)
And for the record I don't think anyone is trying to pass the buck here. We sin because we want to sin. It's in our nature. That's why we're in need of a new one.
Pelagius taught that man is born innocent and can do right if he choses whereas Augustine the true heretic said man cannot chose not to sin, obviously a reflection of his own excuses. Pelagius further, did not teach that man can be saved without Christ, he was a holy man and a theologian who could actually read the scriptures in their original languages which is more than Augustine could do. The majority of the Christian world has been built upon the errors of Augustine and this is why it has such a bad name of hypocricy.
Sorry, King Saul- we have drifted into other water...
Pelagius and Augustine were contemporaries, born the same year 354. Not surprisingly, theological disputes from then until fairly recently were resolved by those of one thought killing off those of another. To be labeled a heretic was a very big deal, and unfortunately for Pelagius, that is his most prominent legacy. Augustine won the argument of the day one might surmise, and his view that sin is a physical component of human nature is still the dominant theology of most church denominations, both Roman Catholic and Protestant.
Charles Finney took all that to task, and is also despised as a heretic in many circles, to include the ministerial staff of the church where I go. Charles was taught the traditional Calvinist view early on, and concluded that if God was so unjust and unreasonable that he could be found guilty of someone else's sin, he wanted no part of it. He was converted when he found that the bible actually did not teach the inborn sinful nature doctrine, and when he preached full responsibility for sin thousands came forward confessing and repenting. In 50 years of ministry, few have been so effective in bringing people to genuine conversion. If you have not read his autobiography, I highly recommend it. Helen Wessel's edited version can be found on line, paperback and cheap. (I knew Helen, and....she knows God!)
Think about it, if sin is natural and unavoidable you will not see it as something destructive in your life that must be dealt with and conquered. It is no big thing, "It's just the way I am."
But if you can see sin as an evil choice against God and take full responsibility for it, you have a path through forgiveness to righteousness, and I must say when you are filled with righteousness you will be filled with happiness!
My personal theology begins in James,3:17. "The wisdom which is from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason..."
Salvation for me is all those things, demonstrated in the phenomenal words of Jesus, and the sacrificing of Himself so that I might have eternal life. He only expects from me that which is reasonable and doable by me.
What does the Lord require of me? "To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with Him."
I can do that. And if I fall, He is there to pick me up.
I am in love with Jesus my Lord and Savior!
First off, thank you for this conversation. In the end we probably won’t agree on all points, but that’s not the most important thing. I do know that my truth is only partial, and that to get to better truth I need to learn from others who have heard from God. In the meantime, I believe I too have heard from God and the things I present here are open to scrutiny. May the things I write and say be edifying to His children and I welcome correction if my thoughts are amiss. I trust the integrity of the Bible.
In the matter of the conception of Jesus Christ, I believe He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary that He might be fully God and fully man. If bypassing Joseph was to prevent the sin substance from being born in Jesus, then He is not fully man, and does not qualify to be the savior.
Isaiah prophesied thus “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” Jesus the child was born in Bethlehem a natural human birth. Jesus the man begins here. But the Son of God is eternal, cannot start at a birth, so He is given. And so, just as prophesied, He is fully God and fully man.
Here is what I believe happened in regard to Jesus walking as a sinless man. At the baptism by John in the Jordan, Jesus removed the “Son of God” mantle, as Paul says in Phillipians 2 He emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant man. From there He went into the presence of Satan and was tempted thusly- “If you are the Son of God turn these stones into bread.” But His response gave the devil shivers. “Man shall not live by bread alone…” or to paraphrase, “I’m not coming to defeat you as the Son of God, Satan. I have come to defeat you as a man.”
Just as the riches of man’s first estate were surrendered to Satan by Adam, the redeeming of all things will be through this man, Jesus. To do it, He must be fully man.
So Jesus walked that sinless road, His equality with God set aside. And one day on the mountain with only the three disciples, He received the rapture reward that God has prepared for man. Owing no death for sin, He could have gone into eternal heaven right then- but he chose to take it off. He knew that without the sacrifice we would be lost. He went down the mountain to pay the price we owed for sin. He was doing all of this as a man.
I would pause to say that yes it is theoretically possible for a man to walk a sinless life and be received into the presence of God, just as Jesus demonstrated. The fact that we don’t do it doesn’t logically mean that we cannot do it, especially since the scripture clearly teaches that “This law is not too hard for you…” Deut 30:11 and John’s epistle “His commandments are not burdensome.” I Jn. 5:3b
We don’t obey the law because we want to do things and have things in spite of, and in defiance of God. In this incredible simplicity we see why we are so guilty, so in need of repentance, so in need of this Savior.
I don’t see Satan’s presence in the Garden of Eden as sin entering the world. I see the world (the physical globe) as being created as a habitation for man, God’s beloved crown of creation. I see all of it under Adam’s authority and control (whatever that was like?) and Satan coming in to challenge the man for control of it. I don’t think that Satan, whether in spirit or serpent form could wield any influence until he had seduced Adam into sin.
In Romans 8 when Paul speaks of the total redemption of the physical world into the glorious liberty of the children of God, I perk up! It seems to me that when Christ Jesus’ work in us is finished, and He rules the earth, that everything will be freed from the curse of death. Oh how I want to see that!
Many in traditional doctrine have their hopes in a physical flight to the sky when the earth is redeemed, but I don’t see that as a bible doctrine. My vision is captured in Psalm 149 “6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand, 7 To execute vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, 8 To bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron, 9 To execute on them the judgement written; this is an honor for all His faithful ones.”
This is where the action is. I probably talk way too bold now, but when this war breaks out I want to be fighting it here, filled with the Spirit of Christ. When the time came for the real battle, Jesus did not run away. I only want to be with Him.
I would pause to say that yes it is theoretically possible for a man to walk a sinless life and be received into the presence of God, just as Jesus demonstrated.
Thanks for answering. That's what I was curious about.
So then the possibility exists (though improbable as it may be), that a person on judgement day COULD present their righteous life to God apart from Christ, and be accepted into the presence of the Father based solely on the fact that had not sinned in their own strength, correct?
What we learn from the following two verses and context of the lives of the two men is that King Saul was extended a temporal revocable mercy, and Solomon was extended an eternal irrevocable mercy from God.
2 Samuel 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
King Saul was damned, whereas Solomon was saved.
OJ
Could you imagine someone coming to the judgement and saying to the Father,
"I really wanted to obey You perfectly, but You made it too hard."
I don't think that would fly.
Yet in reality, people blame God all the time.
"Search me and know me, O God- and see if there be any wicked way in me."
Now that is one of the best prayers ever.
This discussion is locked.
