"However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for eternal life."
Paul claimed that he was chosen in effect, to be a prototype Jesus intended to be a pattern for those who after him would come to faith (1 Tim 1: 16). A "pattern" of what? A pattern of and for God's sovereign-grace and mercy! That is a very significant thing to say! Therefore, we ought to carefully examine the principles and process of Paul’s conversion to see what we truths and principles we can and must glean from it. In recounting his own conversion, Paul tells us some profound things. Just prior to what he said in verse 16, he says,
“Although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, an insolent man: but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 1: 13 -14 -emphasis added).
Notice carefully, that Paul claims it was not merely “grace” which was given to him, but rather God’s grace included the necessary component of faith. It came with it! Paul would tell the Ephesians that “Faith is the gift of God” (Eph 2: 8-9) This passage definitively proves that the “it” Paul mentions in Ephesians 2: 8 – 9, saying “...It is the gift of God”, is in fact faith itself! Please notice carefully though; It is not merely a gift God gives, but rather the gift. It is the definitive gift of God. By means of it, once bestowed, all His other gifts and blessings, (important as they are though nevertheless clearly of a secondary nature to salvation itself), are received from Him. Peter, the one who was the first apostle to confess Jesus as God’s own and only Son, was told by Jesus that “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt 16: 17). Indeed, “faith” (which includes the necessary componet of "understanding" - see "The Purpose Of The Parables") is the gift of God. Notice, the GIFT of God! If God grants it to someone, they have not earned it. He is not "rewarding" them for service rendered to Him. He is showing them MERCY - His "un-merited" favour in doing so.
Those who have been given this from the Father are not “better than”, “smarter than” or “more diligent” than those who have not been so given, for “There is none righteous, no not one. There is none who does good, none who understands and none who seek God”, as we’ve seen. Thus, there is nothing in themselves for which they can claim some measure of “credit” or “worthiness” for why God gave to them what He has obviously withheld from others (This will be explored indepth in the section entitled "The Purpose Of The Parables"). The idea that it is something in us ourselves, by our own wisdom, willpower or works, which was the basis of cause of God's choice to bring us to Himself, is as we've already seen, considered by Him to be “arrogant and evil boasting”. Those who have received this “gift” (they did not produce it), are however, profoundly blessed though. As Jesus said to Peter – “Blessed are you Simon, son of John…” As such they can take no credit whatsoever for the understanding and faith which they possess, but did not produce. And by means of which alone, their “choice to accept” Jesus was made both possible and certain by God! That is why, in the precise context of many people not being able to grasp His meaning, Jesus stated as a matter of fact, “All that the Father gives Me, will come to Me” (Jn 6: 37- emphasis added). And again in Jn 6: 65, Jesus said, "That is why I said to you 'No one can come to Me unless it has been granted (or 'given') him of (or 'by') My Father."
Keep in mind that what God granted to the likes Saul of Tarsus, in order to bring him to faith in Christ (not merely faith in “God” in the general sense), was far more than He gives to most of humanity! He gave people like Saul (and "doubtingThomas") a lot more than merely a message to choose to accept or reject! He also gave them more than outward “miracles” of healing or deliverance to evidence the veracity of the gospel message. Concerning “miracles”, I must remind you of something crucial here; No one has ever produced more miracles than Jesus Himself. Yet while His miracles were attested to beyond doubt, many still did not believe in His claim to be the Son of God. It is not admittance of the fact of a miracle that saves anyone though, but rather belief in the person of Jesus as God’s only begotten Son and in His substitutionary atonement that does. Muslims and many others could easily attest to the fact that God merely ‘anointed’ Jesus to perform miracles, as He had done for the likes of Moses or Elijah, without its necessitating that Jesus was and is God’s unique and only Son. You see, it is possible to admit a miracle, but not come to saving faith! Jews did not deny Jesus did miracles, only that His source was the prince of devils to do them. It is even possible to believe that God was the source of Jesus’ miracles, yet still not be a Christian. Muslims do this. It is possible to see something “miraculous” and yet still come to the wrong conclusion about Who sent it, why and what it signifies.
John stated, “But though He had done so many miracles among them, ... they could not believe in Him.” (Jn 12: 37 - 41) They had been hardened and blinded to prevent them from doing so. (For an in-depth treatment of this particular point, refer to the article entitled "The Purpose Of The Parables"). Thus, even with a miracle, unless it is accompanied by the internal work of God within the heart and mind enabling the person to understand what it means, who sent it and why, then unless or until they are enabled to do so, they are, in point of fact, unable to. In Part I of "Paul's Conversion", we saw that on the road to Damascus that day, Jesus as revealed "in" Paul, not merely "to" him (Gal 1: 16). That is why I say that outward miracles in and of themselves are not enough to bring someone to saving faith in the person and atonement of Jesus. Something more must be “given”, not merely "to" a person, but "in" them.
So when I, in this context, speak about the “miracles” God did for and to Saul or Thomas, remember, I am talking specifically about the objective, verifiable proof of the resurrected Jesus. Not merely a blind man being given sight, or a lame man walking etc (as compelling as such may be in its own right). Those things can be misunderstood or misapplied as to why they happened or what they signify or which source they came from. But to see someone you knew was brutally tortured and crucified, who was speared through His heart, died and was buried alive again in glorious transformation, now that is something rather profound indeed! I admit, miracles are compelling testimonies for sure, but I say that as a believer already, not as an unbeliever. Since Jesus came, faith in “God” in the general, Old Testament sense is no longer sufficient to justify or save anyone. Now, faith must be placed personally and specifically in the person and work of Jesus, which manifestly means, in His uniqueness as God’s “only begotten Son” and in His atoning death and literal resurrection from death. That is what saves someone.
Thomas had witnessed multitudes of “miracles” from the hands of Jesus and was himself on at least two occasions with the other disciples, previously empowered by Jesus to go do miracles as well. None of that succeeded in causing Thomas to believe the report of the resurrection he heard from the women and other disciples though. This proves my point here. But the resurrected Jesus standing in front of him, whom He could see, hear and touch – now that produced faith in him! This was not merely a “vision”, for one could doubt what they saw or thought they saw in a vision. This was a literal person standing in front of Him whom he could objectively verify with his natural senses! That is what was given to Saul as well. Jonah’s “second chance” after death – way more than witnessing say, a “miracle” of healing - sure produced a change of heart in him too!
So, how I am defining “miracle” here? In this context, it is God doing whatever it takes in the heart of those whom He chooses, to bring them to understanding and faith in the person and work of Jesus. How He does so varies from person to person. But the truth, in principle is, that is what He does for all whom He chooses. Let God give to all men the type of objective, verifiable, demonstratable evidence of and for the resurection of Jesus that He has obviously given to Paul and Thomas (to name only a few) - something far superior to the mere "hearing of a gospel message" in some form– and then lets talk about ‘free-will’ in this context. But unless or until He does, any and all talk of ‘free-will’ in this context, is insofar as I can determine or see, utterly irrelevant and therefore, quite meaningless. Until, in this context, the “playing field is level”, so to speak, to even suggest that sinners who are denied the same measure of revelation and persuasion God has given to some, possess a “free-will”, is not only illogical, but quite unbiblical.
God–forbid, I do not say this out of an uncharitable or arrogant heart. I have been deeply grieved myself over the years by both the ignorance and pride that was so entrenched in my own heart. I was well on the way to becoming a “Pharisee”. By my insistence on “free-will”, without due recognition to and of the role the grace of God played in my life, I was indeed thinking I was “better” than other men (see "Why Sovereign-Grace?"). This is because my thinking told me that if God is giving the same thing to all, but all are not Christian by means of it, then it can be rejected and since I am a Christian, I cannot attribute to God and His grace alone the reason for why I am. Therefore, I can attribute it only to myself – my own wisdom, diligence, obedient response or the like. This attitude is surely inherent in the entire “free-will” model and surely produces the “leaven of the Pharisees”, as Jesus warned against.
Since God is “no respecter of persons” (assuming the “free-will” way of understanding that term is correct), then if He wants to save all men equally and without exception, He ought to at least do as much or give as much to them, as He did for the likes of Thomas and Saul! That would at least be consistent with His supposed desire to want to save them and the supposed idea that He loves them all equally. He had no trouble granting to Saul and Thomas what He did to and for them, but does not do so for all alike. To deny all people what He gave to some (while having us to believe that He loves them all equally), and thus, by "HARDENING" some so as to render it certain that they cannot come to Christ, hence to damn them, (see "The Purpose Of The Parables") – is utterly incompatible with the suggestion that He “loves” them! Both facts, I therefore submit, cannot be simultaneously held and still be true. They are utterly irreconcialble! For "love" by His own definition of the word, would and could not do this! If God wants someone saved because He loves them, He will not "harden" them so as to prevent them from being able to come to Him! They cannot overcome this "hardening" of their own power (else it amounts to nothing at all), therefore, for as long as He hardens them, they cannot be saved. In which case, they are viewed by Him as "objects of wrath", and not "vessels of mercy". Only if God were to reverse this condition of "hardening" them and turn and "grant them repentance" would they be capable of it. One cannot have a "square/sphere", for such is an impossibility of law, logic and physics. “Love” therefore does not and I submit, cannot, at the same time want to save someone, while actively hindering, restricting and preventing him or her from being so! Or denying them what it has given to others, which succeeded in bringing those others to faith.
Now, IF there exists in God some infinite way to "reconcile" His acts of "hardening" some and denying some what He clearly gives to others in order to bring them to faith, while at the same time truly "loving" those to whom He denies or withholds the same, then this is obviously for us, utterly unknowable and unfathomable! (Perhaps what Paul refers to when in Romans 11: 33 he says in profound exasperation, "O the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!"). For to us, being limited and finite, there is no way to reconcile this gross contradiction! For all human attempts to reason it out, it is irreconciable and therefore, a mystery. (If indeed true that God loves those whom He is said to "harden" and make unable to come to Him). Since no one but God "makes" God choose to harden some, and God chooses to do this, then His own actions - insofar as any human ability to reasonably determine, in this regard, are at significant and irreconciable odds with His love. If in His infinite wisdom and mind, He can reconcile them, He has not shown us how that is. Therefore, from all human reasonable standpoints, this point is established - God does not and cannot love those whom He is said to "harden", for such an action is incompatible witht the statement that "Love bears all things, believes all things, endures all things, and love never fails (ceases to operate)." It is incompatible with the truth that "Love does not keep a record of wrongs" and "seeks not her own interests". Is God seeking the BEST interests, the spiritual welfare and healing of those whom He Himself is actively "hardening"? He is not - not while they are so hardened at least! For while in that state, they cannot "come to their senses, acknowledge the truth and escape the snare of the evil one who has them held captive to do his will", UNLESS or UNTIL God first "grants them repentance" (2 Tim 2: 25 -26).
I will not prevent my children whom I love from each and every lesser choice and consequence they can or will make in this life. But if we’re talking about saving their very life itself, the argument is utterly mute … because I love them! IF I love them, and it is within my own power to be able to save them, and not hinder them from being saved from death, I will do all I can to save them- which manifestly means, I will NOT do anything to purposefully, actively hinder or prevent them from being saved! Let God therefore do for all what He clearly has done for some – which would include a second chance even after death itself (per Jonah) – and then if they “reject” Him, I’ll concede the point that the “free-will” model was accurate all along. But to deny them that, while at the same time insist that God loves those whom He refuses to do as much for in order to save them, is, insofar as I can see, utterly illogical, self-contradictory and unbiblical in the light of these facts! And to claim that sinners “blinded, hardened and enslaved” by and to sin and Satan, as well as some having been prevented from turning to God by God Himself, possess a “free-will” in that condition, is in my reasoned opinion, an utter contradiction of logic and scripture itself. It is therefore both a theological and intellectual error and absurdity!
Though the way - the method - God uses varies, the fact is, for all whom He chooses, God does provide everything necessary to each one individually, knowing each one perfectly, to sufficiently subdue their will and persuade them to freely come to Him for salvation. He knows what internal and or external work needs to be done in each one He has chosen, so that at some point (even if its not right away - and it wasn’t for Jonah, Thomas and Saul, and indeed most of us who come), they will ultimately believe… at least all whom He chooses. So it is, that when all is said and done, it will ultimately be seen to have been Him and His choice, His mercy and His grace operating in us, which was responsible for both our choice to want to come to Him, and the fact that as a result of having come to Him, our iniquities were ultimately subdued by the power of His cross and grace! The words of the prophet Isaiah are in complete agreement here. He said, “Lord, You establish peace for us for You also have done all our works in us” (Isa 26: 12 – emphasis added).
Notice, that here the prophet ascribes to God and not ourselves, the works which were done in us. They are “ours” Isaiah said, but in reality, were God’s! This is a wonderful paradox. They are “ours” in the sense that repentance and faith are acts we perform, as J.I. Packer in his article “Justification By Faith Alone” says. But they are not our work. We perform the act, but it is God does the work which makes the act both possible and in the case of His elect, certain. Paul, who had instructed the Philippians to “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” in the very next verse, stated the proviso, which alone makes that instruction possible. He said, “For it is God who is at work in you to both will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil 2: 12 - 13 - emphasis added). This is the process of how God ultimately subdues our iniquities…for all whom He chooses.
Please consider just how selective God’s sovereign choice really is. We know from the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 and 22, that there were men who accompanied him on his way to Damascus that day when Jesus appeared to him in blinding glory. We know that while they saw the light and heard the voice of Jesus (Acts 9: 7), they did not see Jesus personally. Later on in Acts 22:9, Paul recounts that very experience claiming, “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me” (Acts 22: 9).
Now the question is why not? Why, when these men were present at that exact moment when that exact same Divine manifestation was “given” to Paul, were they prevented from being able to see and understand Jesus, as Paul was? I thought God wanted to save everyone equally? I thought He loved all equally. How then could He withhold from these men, what He clearly gave to Paul in order to save him? How much better would their “chances” to be saved be - for them to “choose to accept Jesus”, had they been given the same thing Paul was? Please consider; What God gave to Paul here, was markedly different than what He gives to most. For though Paul had heard and consistently rejected the gospel many times previously, because he did not believe it to be of God, God gave him more than a message to either accept or reject. “Free will” theologians cannot convincingly answer this point. God withheld from the men who were with Paul, what He gave to Paul, and the result was that, by means of that revelation, Paul became converted!
Luke is in complete agreement with this issue of how understanding and faith, hence the choice to accept Jesus comes to those who receive it. Lydia was a devout Jewish woman believer in God who had heard the gospel from Paul. Luke tells us “God opened her heart to heed those things which were spoken of by Paul” (Acts 16: 14). Now, why bother to tell us this particular fact, unless it was essential that we understand it? If it was ultimately merely a matter of her own “free will”, why even bother with this bit of information? At best it would be merely secondary or incidental to her own choice to believe. But Luke records it, not merely as secondary or incidental to her faith, but as causational for it. It provides the answer for both why and how she believed. According to Luke, it was not Lydia herself who “opened her own heart” to be able to “heed” -to hold the mind towards, to understand, to embrace - Paul’s message. It was God who did! If Lydia therefore did both understand and embrace Paul’s message, how could anyone credit her for having done so? Neither could she credit herself! That would utterly negate what Luke says God did for her, and why God did so!
So it is that later on, when speaking of the ministry of Apollos, Luke tells us, “Now when He (Apollos) had come, he was of great help to those who by grace had believed” (Acts 18: 27b - emphasis added). Please notice here as well, that Luke tells us these believers he mentioned there believed by grace. As such, “grace” was not merely the content of what they believed in or about. Rather, “grace” was what was responsible for their ability to believe in the first place! This is what God did for them. It is what God did for Paul. This is why Paul, yet again, elsewhere claimed, “But by the grace of God, I am what I am. And His grace to me was not without effect, but I worked harder than them all. But it really wasn’t I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Cor 15: 10). Thus, even when momentarily taking credit for his ‘hard work’, Paul at least recognized his error, and placed all the credit back where it ought to have been all along, which was God and His grace!
So it is that Luke - speaking of the Gentiles who had come to the place where they “glorified the word of the Lord” - which means that they as Gentiles, came to understand the message from the Jewish Paul, about a Jewish Messiah whom God raised from death itself to be Lord and Saviour - said, “Now when the Gentiles heard these things, they glorified the word of the Lord and as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13: 48). In the light of all this evidence, arguing as many attempt to do, that the appointment to eternal life mentioned here, came only “after they first chose to ‘glorify’ the word of the Lord” is a logical absurdity. Since they were Gentiles, the only way they could truly “glorify” the Jewish God’s message of the Jewish Jesus who was the universal Saviour and Messiah, is because they were firstly able to understand it and recognize its truthfulness! Again and again, we see how consistently the “free will” arguments place the effect before the cause, which is illogical in that such is impossible, for no effect ever precedes it cause.
This ability to understand, as Jesus plainly said, was given to them - but not to all. For it was only “as many as had been appointed to eternal life” (hence, chosen by God’s sovereign choice) who were so enabled to do so. And they all - everyone so appointed - did believe! That’s why Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me”. He did not say, “All who come to Me, the Father will give Me.” Nor did He say, “Some of all those whom the Father intends to give to Me will come to Me.” What He said, the way He said it, was packed full of Divine sovereignty. It most assuredly provides the foundation upon which to build our understanding of this all-important truth. What we do with what He has given to us, once it has been given is a related, though clearly secondary matter. That is where the issue of “our choices” comes into play –in consequence of salvation already received, not as the cause of it!
Those who argue for "free-will" almost always run to the verse in Acts 26: 19, where after recounting his conversion on the road to Damascus before King Agrippa, Paul says,"So then King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision." This is often suggested to mean that Paul "chose to accept Christ as His saviour" here. But that is certainly not what Paul was referring to by this statement! The moment Paul acknowledged and understood that the One who had knocked him off his horse in blinding splendor that day was "the Lord", Paul was a believer in Jesus Christ! That is not what he "assented" to, in the sense of "choosing to believe" that fact. What he, by reason of the faith which was revealed both "to" and "in" him at that moment did assent to, was not the offer of eternal life, but the commission for ministry! His next statement verifies this. He went on to say, "...But first to those in Damascus then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea and to the Gentiles also I preached ..." (Acts 26: 20). Decisions to follow the One in whom we now believe, subsequent to that initial coming to saving faith itself, while clearly important and necessary to evidence or "work out" our salvation (never to be confused with "work for" it), are a separate (though clearly related) issue. It was not a "consent to accept Jesus" which Paul gave here. It was a consent to now go and obey the charge to preach about the One in whom he now so obviously and unmistakeably believed.
Summary:
· Paul was “the pattern” God would thereafter use as an example for all who would come to faith after him. This "pattern" can be seen not merely in God's patience and kindness to Paul, but also to the principles contained in the records of Paul's conversion.
· The principles pertaining to how Jesus was revealed both “in” and “to” Paul, are therefore equally and wholly applicable to all who have since believed.
· Paul claimed that God’s “grace” included the essential component of “faith”.By means of that faith, Paul also chose to obey the call to ministry - itself made possible by the same grace - 1 Cor 15: 10
· Like Paul, Luke often emphasized the supernatural work and grace of God as being the cause for why and how the hearts of some were “opened to heed the message”, or why they were able to believe.
· Luke explicitly emphasized “sovereign-grace” in Acts 13: 48; Acts 16: 14, 18: 27.
· If God intends to choose anyone and everyone who will choose Him, then in point of fact, God has never made a real choice. He merely opened the door to all and sundry, as it were. But Paul consistently thanks God for His choice of some. But unless God’s choice was the definitive factor in the equation, there would be no need to “thank” Him for it.
· Paul did not ever thank those who believed for their choice of God. But he always thanked God for His choice of them.
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