Paul's Conversion: Essential Principles
In this section, I will outline the principles involved in Paul's conversion experience, to see how they apply to this issue and question of "sovereign-grace".
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood" (Gal 1: 15 - 16)
What is striking here is the precise things Paul says about his own conversion. Firstly, we should notice that Paul understood his conversion occurred "when it pleased God". This is highly significant for it most assuredly underscores the sovereignty of God in and over the process of salvation. True spiritual awakening, in the salvation sense - the moving from the kingdom of darkness to light, from being "dead in trespasses and sins" to "alive to God in Christ Jesus", from being "blinded by the god of this world", to having our "heatrt opened to heed the message", never occurs when it pleases we ourselves. We do not determine when God will reveal His son in and to us. Rather, as Paul plainly states here, as was true for him (whom God intended to be the "pattern" for all after him who would come to faith, as we shall soon see), so also for us; We are "quickened" by the Spirit of God, when it pleases God to do so! How different this from the common assumptions of men, sincere and well-intended as they are, which assume that it is within our own power or ability to "choose to come to Christ". Jesus said, "No man can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jn 6: 44).
Consider well: He said no one could come to Him of or by their own initiative or power. He meant it! The more important thing though is why can't they? Just who or what (or both) is preventing them from being able to do so, of or by their own power or ability? And if something or someone (or both) is in fact preventing them from being able to come to Christ on their own initiative or power, in what legitimate way can their will in this context -the most important one of all life, be said to be "free"?
"The wind blows where it wills", Jesus said (Jn 3: 8). The "wind" here is an analogy for the Spirit of God. Jesus concludes the analogy by saying, "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (Jn 3: 8). This is how it is for all who are truly saved, not merely some. So this can be interpreted, "The Spirit moves where He wills" (in the precise context of regenerating lost people). Taken together with Paul's statement of when he was converted, we can put both ideas together to state conclusively, "When it pleases God, and where it does, He sends and directs His Spirit's presence and power to bring about conversion".
Indeed, as Solomon had said, "To everything under heaven there is a time and a season. A time to be born..." (Eccl 3: 1). Obviously this is true of spiritual re-birth as well as natural. And he goes on to state, "He has made all things beautiful in His (or its) time." Either way, He is the One who determines when "the fulness of time" has come for all things and purposes under heaven.
This gets more indepth. Not only does Paul state matter of factly that the timing of his conversion was determined by God's sovereign will alone, but that in addition to setting the time of it, God had already chosen Paul from his mother's womb! This is highly significant, because to "separate" means to "sanctify" and to "sanctify" means to "set apart for a holy purpose". Notice carefully,Paul states that he was so 'set-apart' by God's sovereign will, and not merely his own. Furthermore, to underscore the "sovereign" aspect of this will which so set him apart, Paul tells us when it occurred. It was 'from his mother's womb.' This phrase can mean either "from within his mother's womb", or "from the moment of birth itself".
Either way though, the point is unmistakeably clear! Paul's "will" or "choice" in this setting apart of himself as a vessel chosen for a holy purpose, had nothing to do with it! He was utterly incapable of such a choice while "in the womb" of his mother, or "from birth". So, as God had done for Jacob over Esau, something Paul would later teach on, He also did for Paul. He made a sovereign decision that He wanted Paul "set-apart" for Himself and His purposes, and so that sanctification indeed took place! So we see that God's choice of Paul came first. God's choice is always first.Our response to Him is always a consequence of His choice and grace, never its condition!
"Chosen by God, for salvation, from the beginning, through sanctification by the Spirit"
Later on, Paul would write to the Thessalonians, that God had "chosen them for salvation, from the beginning, through sanctification of (or "by") the Spirit and belief in the truth." ( 2 Thess 2: 13). It was assumed by myself for years the the "sanctification" Paul referred to there was a choice made by the people themselves. When they chose to come to Christ, they became "set-apart" by their own will and belief, and thus were saved. But that is not what Paul either said or meant! He meant precisely the same truth as he claimed God had did for him. From the "beginning" of at least his earthly life, God had "set him apart" for His own purposes. Paul says the believers at Thessalonica were also chosen "from the beginning" and there is simply no justification for not understanding the "beginning" Paul refers to there, to be at least the same as was true for himself. In fact, since he claimed God intended him to be "the pattern" for all who after him would believe, we have conclusive evidence to understand the "beginning" Paul refers to of himself, to be the same thing he meant when he said this to the Thessalonians. So at the very least, the "beginning" of their life on earth - in which case, long before they were capable of making a choice for Jesus!
This is a very striking thing to say. It must be underscored as of supreme significance here. According to Paul, Jesus was not merely revealed "to" him, by some purely external, auditory or visual perception (as powerful and compelling as such would be). No. Jesus was revealed "in" Paul! What is the difference?, you ask. The difference is the difference between understanding and confusion, between being "made alive" and being "dead in sin", between saving faith, and a mere intellectual profession or acknowledgement of a truth. Some refer to the "inward, effectual call of the Spirit". That is what Paul describes here. There were in fact two revelations of Christ on the road to Damascus that day, the external one Paul both saw and heard with his natural senses (the same thing all who "hear" or "see" a gospel presentation in any format experience); and the internal one, in and by which, like Lydia, his heart was "opened" (see Acts 16: 14) and predisposed to understand and recognize the person and voice of the Lord Jesus.
This is what Jesus meant when He said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (Jn 6: 44). This is why, when confronted with the very disbelief and inability of the Jews to grasp His teaching, He repeated this profoundly "sovereign-grace" truth, when He reiterated the same thing again in Jn 6: 65, saying, "This is why I said to you, 'No one can come to Me except it has been granted him of My Father." This is why Jesus, in the parable of "the Sower" explicitly taught that it is only those who "hear and understand the message" who "believe and bear fruit." (Matt 13: 23), contrasting them with "those who hear the word and do not understand it", from whose hearts He said, "the evil one snatches away the seed" (Matt 13: 18).
Clearly, according to Jesus, the ability to understand the "message of the kingdom" is absolutely essential for one's being able to believe it. Equally clear here, is the fact that we're explicitly told by Him that this ability to understand is "given" by the Father. Upon hearing Peter's confession of faith in Himself as God's Son, He said to "Blessed are you, Simon son of John, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven." (Matt 16: 17) . Jesus did not commend Peter's wisdom, willpower or diligence in this confession. He did not commend Peter at all. He acknowledged that Peter was "blessed" by the Father in this!
"He was of great help to those who by grace had believed"
Luke wrote of the ministry of Apollos saying, "Now when he (Apllos) had come he was of great help to those who by grace, had believed". (Acts 18: 27b). What is so significant here is that Luke did not say that Apollos helped those who had believed "in" grace (as opposed to the Law of Moses). Had he said this, Luke would have merely described the content of what these believers believed. But what Luke, by the inspiration of the Spirit actually said was, that they had believed "by" grace. Thus, grace was responsible for their ability to believe in the first place, just like Paul said was true of himself -"the pattern", and what the Lord said to myself (See the first article in this series, "Why Sovereign Grace"?). Whenever anyone assumes they are responsible for the faith they possess but did not of themselves produce, such having been "given" to them by God, they sin by both ignorance and or arrogance. They assume credit to themselves for that which rather, they ought to give thanks for. They sin by pride and self-righteousness! And it is the "self" part of that equation which is so serious to our Holy Lord.
Indeed as Paul would write to the Corinthians, "One plants the seed, one waters it, but ONLY GOD makes it grow (or 'brings the increase'). So then, neither he who plants, nor he who waters is anything, but ONLY GOD who makes it grow." (1 Cor 3: 6 -7).
Summary:
In the next section, I will finalize the principles invloved in Paul's conversion, and examine the statement that God intended him to be "the pattern" for all who would after him come to faith.
In His grace,
Adapted from: "God I Thank You That I Am Not Like Other Men: Exposing The Pride Inherent In The Free-will Model Of Salvation", (c) 2007, by: John M. Platanitis