Elect

[Guest]

I think I'm gonna retire for awhile. 8)

[Guest]

And I submit that this is where Calvinism breaks down, and why I am not one. You have just made the typical Calvinist assertion that is anti-biblical.
Faith is not meritorious (Rom 4:2-5). Not only that, faith is contrasted against works! (Rom 4:16, Gal 3:2-3, Eph 2:9) God purifies the heart through faith.

You misunderstood the poster Sean, but he has answered.

We know Arminians teach with us regarding faith and works, but in their theology, they say one thing, but imply otherwise when saying that faith results in regeneration!

Arminians are saying that a man must do something (faith) in order to be regenerated.
Meaning, one man does what another man does not do! namely to exercise this thing called faith.

Meaning, the difference between an unbeliever and a believer is not God’s grace alone, but an act of one man exercising faith vs the unbeliever who does not exercise faith.
That is latent works salvation, not grace alone!

Salvation is either by sheer grace alone otherwise it is not grace! It becomes works!

So which is it?

Are Arminians believing in grace alone, or are they believing in what they did in order to receive salvation?
The difference between grace and works is in the “doing”, and if you cannot see the difference, then I suggest you do not believe in grace at all, but rather in the “doing” which receives salvation.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in the “receiving” part, but we are opposite when it comes to the “doing” part.

We “do”, because we have been regenerated “freely” by the “grace” of God.

Arminians believe we are regenerated (made alive) by the doing.
That is works salvation.

It makes absolutely no difference if the Arminian screams that taking a gift is not works!
It can be nothing other than a work of man. Therefore it is works salvation.

My sincere advice to the Arminian, is to simply ask one question of themselves.

Did they choose God, or did God choose them?
(Amos 3:2; Mt. 7:23; John 10:14; Eph 1:4,5).

If you say you chose God, then you are believing you did something that the unbeliever did not do.
Again, that makes salvation dependant upon an act of man and not an act of free grace.

To be saved, is to be “elected by grace” alone.Rom 11:5

Rom 11:6 But if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it is of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work.

see below

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... faith.html

It's one thing to debate what God "foreknew", it's quite another to attribute opposite meanings to words: calling faith a meritorious work.

No Calvinist teaches that “true” faith is a meritorious work, and no one here is saying that! Please. Not even Bb if I am reading him aright.

Because the objector thinks that God predestined people so that they can only do what God wills, a common Greek misunderstanding of God. Paul corrects this mis-perception of the nature of God by pointing out that by asking the question this person is resisting God by "replying back".

Sean, bro, this is just silly!
I can’t believe you think that is what Paul is responding to?
That man can resist God’s will, and to prove it, the objection is the proof?

Talk about turning a passage on it’s head bro.

Paul is just got done saying, Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
And what is the objection anticipated to this?
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!

The objection is simple. How can God love one and not the other!
Remember what was previously stated?
Rom 9:11 (for the children had not yet been born, neither had done any good or evil; but that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who called,)

See the objection now?

Then we read,

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of God, the One showing mercy

Please note the flow of Paul’s thought. He is not leading the audience to the subject of whether or not man resists God’s will.
He is plainly telling them that God’s will in the matter of salvation is done, with no regard to man’s will---Sheesh, read verse 16 ten times if you have to, then read it slowly and let it sink in bro!

Then continuing with the though of God’s will being done, he illustartates the fact by telling these people that even the Mighty Pharoa was expressly raised up and used for the very purpose of showing how God’s will rules. His power is declared with no regard for the will of man!

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth."

How much clearer does all of this have to be?

He then, continuing the same thought, reminds them again, that God’s will is done. He will show mercy to whom He will show mercy and to whom He wills, He hardens. V 18

Follow the thought Sean!

He now anticipates the reaction, that if God controls the will of man, and He elects based upon His own free choice and not the good or evil of the creature V 11, and that He shows mercy to whomever and hardens whomever, then people shall scream loudly about this will of the creator.

They shall think that what is the point then? If what you are saying is true Paul, and God is controlling these things, then how on earth can we be blamed for resisting His will? We are doing exactly what we are supposed to do, right? We are mere puppets in the hands of this puppet master? How on earth can God find fault in us puppets!?!

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?

This is the objection Sean, NOT SOME SILLY GREEK IDEA THAT MAN CAN RESIST GOD AND PAUL IS GOING TO PROVE THAT BY ALLOWING THEIR RESISTANCE!!!,

but Paul anticipates a response consistent with the response in V 14, that essentially says what on earth is the point if God predestines and controls mans will and makes choices based upon whatever His standard is for choosing? Is he unrighteous or what?

And Paul, same thought, leading to this further objection V 19, leading and flowing naturally from the earlier objection in verse 14, says

Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?

Prove regeneration precedes faith.

The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.'

With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws (Ez 36:26-27).

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Rom 8:29-30)

Charles Spurgeon once made the statement that, "we all, by nature, are Arminians." While on the surface this statement may seem needlessly polemical to some, perhaps experience and a little reflection suggest that it is more than just a little bit accurate. Anyone who has had the opportunity to witness the typical reaction manifested in those hearing the Calvinistic doctrines explicated for the first time can't help but wonder, if for a moment, whether Spurgeon may just have hit the nail squarely on the head.

For, as soon as predestinarian buzzwords such as elect, chosen, and predestined are brought out, there is almost invariably a rather militant and visceral recoil on the part of the hearer that objects, "Why, then, does God still blame us? This just doesn't seem right or fair to me!"

Indeed, there is often an immediate effort made to eviscerate the predestinarian language found in Scripture of its import and to creatively cast it in another interpretive mold. This fact should prove instructive to any person interested in these matters regardless of whether they ultimately pitch their tent in the Calvinist or Arminian camp.

What is it, precisely, in the so-called "Calvinistic system" that causes people (believers and unbelievers alike) to so quickly revile its teachings and respond so paroxysmally? What do we learn of human nature and its habits by virtue of these nearly ubiquitous reactions to an aged church teaching? Clearly there is something that swells in our natures, compelling us to protect whatever it is that Divine monergism threatens. What is it exactly?

From the vantage point of Biblical anthropology, it cannot be anything other than our innate desire for autonomy. The fallen nature of humankind is such that we have a natural aversion to anything that smacks of overwhelming authority and control and which threatens to derogate our sense of freedom and liberty to choose for ourselves our own destinies.

But was this not, after all, the primordial sin in the Garden and precisely the spiritual cancer that Adam has past on to us, his distant progeny? Ah, yes! Things begin to make sense. There is a natural angst that forcefully conjures up within us when first introduced to the fundamentals of Reformation theology and its teachings on grace which inalterably entails predestination in the plain sense of the word.

To find out that God has no interest in allowing our destiny to remain in our hands is a scary thought when we trust ourselves more than God. It might cause sleepless nights. It might inspire heated arguments. We might wish to avoid these for the sake of love-but love of what? Certainly not God. God is the primary one to whom we relate, and He will not have one of his creatures loved above Himself. To avoid dealing with central questions concerning salvation out of love is not spiritual, it is carnal.

Simply stated, human beings don't like to be told that they're not in charge and that, in fact, are quite literally at nothing less than the unmitigated mercy of God and the agents of His means.

Paul labors to drive this point home to the congregates of the churches in Rome proclaiming unambiguously that, given God's absolute sovereignty, Divine favor "does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" and that "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Rom 9:16;18).

Of course, being the apologist par excellance, the apostle immediately anticipates the aggrieved words of those who would object to this authoritative teaching saying, "One of you will say to me, 'then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" (Rom 9:19). And to this, Paul delivers a most humbling and forceful rejoinder somewhat reminiscent of Job's famous interchange with God so many centuries earlier:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory (Rom 9:20-23).

1 Cor 1:30 where he says, It is by His doing that you are in Christ Jesus"

Jesus teaches the doctrine of unconditional election in the most monergistic terms possible:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away…And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day…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 6:37,39,44).

Jesus adds in verse 65 that "…no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." In this one passage alone,

Jesus at once affirms at least four of the so-called "five points of Calvinism" including total depravity ("no one can come" unless he is drawn (v. 44)), unconditional election (the Father gives believers to the Son, (v. 37)), irresistible grace ("All that the Father gives will come…" (v. 37)), and perseverance of the saints ("I shall lose none of all that he has given me (v. 39))!

Later, in chapter 10, Jesus engages in a very revealing dialogue with the unbelieving Jews in which He explains the nature of His relationship, as the Great Shepherd, with His "sheep":

14 'I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.'
19 At these words the Jews were again divided.
20 Many of them said, 'He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?'
21 But others said, 'These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'
22 Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
23 and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.
24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.'
25 Jesus answered, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one' (Jn 10:14-30).

Of critical importance here, is the order in which Jesus iterates His rebuke in verse 26.
Why does Jesus say the Jews don't believe? The answer is because they are not His sheep.

The Arminian system reverses this order.
In order for it to work, someone's not being numbered among the sheep must be due to their non-belief.

But Jesus makes clear that in order to believe in the first place, you must be among His sheep whom the Father gives to Him! (v. 29).

This order of things in how a believer comes to believe is restated in different ways throughout other parts in Scripture.

Luke makes mention of it in Acts 13:48 where he records that upon hearing the gospel message, the Gentiles there "were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

The belief of the Gentiles was the result, not cause, of the appointment to eternal life given to them by God.

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16)

More later, just getting started!

Mark











[/b]

[Guest]

Great stuff bud. Thanks for that thorough and cogent reply. I was going to respond to Sean but I think yours did the task quite eloquently. Thank you very much. I always enjoy reading your posts.
God bless you and Sean.

[Guest]

Sean - on "choosing God" in salvation:

This is a fun project I'd like everyone on the board to try:

Load up a biblesearch program (biblegateway.com/esword?) and put in the words "choose" "chose" "choosing" "chosen" "choice" and limit it to the New Testament.
You will find out of the 43 or so times (numbers may vary + or - slightly based on translation) those words appear, not a SINGLE ONE ever refers to man choosing God. NOT A ONE.
41 of those all refer to God choosing man. 2 refer to man choosing another man (the apostles picking a replacement in Acts, etc.)
The question is obvious: if the bible never speaks of man choosing God in salvation, why should we? Why are most of our churches altar-calls riddled with this kind of phrasing? Our terminology and gospel presentations need to be biblical. Our soteriology has to be scripturally submissively based.
Since the bible never once speaks of man choosing God, we shouldn't either. And since it does speak of God choosing man at least 41 times, we should preach it as well.
Do you want to? Does Homer, Paidon? Are you comfortable proclaiming that God chooses man? The bible says He does over 41 times.
You may ask "why doesn't it say man can choose God?" Because... man, in and of himself, CAN'T. However, the bible does say "believe" many, many times. Man does believe in God, once regenerated and made alive by the Spirit. There's a world of difference in the definitions of "pisteuo" "pistis" (noun and verb forms of believe), faith, and choose.
Man isn't capable of believing, apart from the work of grace and the Holy Spirit. And even that faith is not man's, it comes as a gift from God.

[Guest]

Well actually I believe man makes a choice in the process of salvation, as the early church fathers have stated they believed. I'm simply called an Arminian because I disagree with Reformed theology. So since the early church fathers pre-date even Augustine, do I win?

Sean, would you care to quote a couple of those church fathers saying we have libertarian free will, since that's how you mean "choose"? Just because you'll find the word "choice" or "chose" in church father's writings does not mean that they have the semi-pelagian interpretation you're putting on them.

In fact, John Gill wrote an excellent, exhaustive book on this very subject. It is called "The Cause of God and Truth". He has a huge section listing quotes from every major church father on each area of reformed theology/TULIP.

Would you care to look at it? Its free online, and I'll post the link right here for you bud:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/ ... hive.htm#5

You will find that all of these church fathers unanimously and unequivically agree to and believe what eventually became known in the reformation teaching known as the Doctrines of Grace. Predating Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Augustine. How is this possible? Because they took it directly out of scripture.

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION

Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Ignatius
SECTION 3. - Justin
SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus
SECTION 10. - Novatianus
SECTION 11. - Athanasius
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 19. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 2. OF REDEMPTION.

Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Barnabas
SECTION 3. - Ignatius
SECTION 4. - Justin
SECTION 5. - Ecclesia Smyrnensis
SECTION 6. - Irenaeus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Cyprian
SECTION 10. - Lactautius
SECTION 11. - Paulinus Tyrius
SECTION 12. - Eusebius Pamphilius Caesariensis
SECTION 13. - Julius Firmicus
SECTION 14. - Athanasius
SECTION 15. - Macarius AEgyptius
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensia
SECTION 17. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus
SECTION 19. - Victorinus
SECTION 20. - Marcus Eremita
SECTION 21. - Faustinus
SECTION 22. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 23. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 24. - Didymus Alexandrinus
SECTION 25. - Gregorius Nyssenus
SECTION 26. - Pacianus Bareinonensis vel Barcilonensis
SECTION 27. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 28. - Ambrosius Mediolanesiss
SECTION 29. - Epiphanius
SECTION 30. - Gaudentius Brixiensis
SECTION 31. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 32. - Ruffinus Aquileiensis
SECTION 33. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC.

Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Barnabas
SECTION 3. - Ignatius
SECTION 4. - Justin
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Gregorius Neocaesariensis
SECTION 10. - Cyprian
SECTION 11. - Arnobius
SECTION 12. - Lactantius
SECTION 13. - Eusebius Caesariensis

CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC. (CONT.)

SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius
SECTION 15. - Athanasius
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensis
SECTION 17. - Victorinus Afer
SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus
SECTION 19. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 20. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 21. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 22. - Gregorius Nyssenus
SECTION 23. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 24. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 25. - Epiphanius
SECTION 26. - Marcus Eremita
SECTION 27. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 28. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 4. OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE

Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clenems Romanus
SECTION 2. - Barnabas
SECTION 3. - Justin
SECTION 4. - Irenaeus
SECTION 5. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 6. - Tertullian
SECTION 7. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 8. - Cyprian
SECTION 9. - Eusebius Caesyreinsis
SECTION 10. - Athanasius
SECTION 11. - Marcus Egyptius
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 14. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 15. - Didymus Alexandrinus
SECTION 16. - Gregorius Nysseuus
SECTION 17. - Hillarius Diaconus
SECTION 18. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 19. - Marcus Eremita
SECTION 20. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 21. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 5. OF PERSEVERANCE.

Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Barnabas
SECTION 3. - Ignatius
SECTION 4. - Irenaeus
SECTION 5. - Epistola Martyrum Galliae
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Cyprian
SECTION 10. - Lactantius
SECTION 11. - Eusebius Caesariensis
SECTION 12. - Chronomatius
SECTION 13. - Athanasius
SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius
SECTION 15. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
SECTION 16. - Basilius Ceasariensis
SECTION 17. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 18. - Oregorius Nyssenus
SECTION 19. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 20. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 21. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 22. - Hieronymus

I dare you (and others) to read it! [/url]

[Guest]

Mark, Bilbofett

Greetings

I "choose" to step back a little. You guys cover a lot more ground than I ever possibly could! One thing I would like to point out though. Have either of you or anyone else with a reformed view mentioned Apostle Paul's conversion as a direct biblical example that regeneration precedes faith? Was he "choosing" Jesus before or after persecuting the disciples?LOL.. Maybe our Arminian friends will "choose" to elaborate?

Peace in Him
Bob

[Guest]

Sean,

Quote: "Show me scripture that says regeneration comes before faith"


Ezek: 36:25-27 This is clear enough. The implanting of that "seed", or what I called the principle of new life is clearly implied. He gives us a "new heart" and "moves us". Nothing is mentioned here that man initiated the process. New birth, belief, conversion, faith, etc. follows.

Your interpretation of John 1:12 should be understood from this scripture. Those of us who have "recieved and believed" Jesus is because of a prior work of grace upon us;, i.e.... the power to believe! And that is all I am saying. God by his grace alone has given us "new birth", not of our natural will, but of his mercy and of his good pleasure.

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

Bob, your bringing in Paul's conversion is a great example of regeneration preceding faith, as well as Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Irresistible grace.

Arminians I have spoken to, never deal head on with his conversion, and many will flat out twist the whole event to somehow bring in Paul's so called free will choice in salvation.

They seem to forget that we Calvinists teach that man has a will, and that so called “free” will is the “fallen” will heading upon the road to an eternal Damascus, unless, like Paul, we are knocked off our horse and in our blindness are lead and become healed.

Mark

[Guest]

My hearts prayer to God, is that my bretheren, called Arminians might be saved, for they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Rom 10:1

Then read on to Romans 10:20 for the real truth about who come to Jesus.

The Arminian with his feeble cry at "seeking God" is silenced not by Tartanarmy, Steve Gregg or the early Church, but by Holy Scripture.

Mark

[_Paidion]

Apostle Paul's conversion as a direct biblical example that regeneration precedes faith? Was he "choosing" Jesus before or after persecuting the disciples?LOL.. Maybe our Arminian friends will "choose" to elaborate?

So you are saying Paul's conversion is an example of regeneration preceeding faith.

Let's see. Did Paul have faith after Jesus met him on the road to Damascus? Let's look at Paul's own account in Acts 22:6-16

"But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me,
and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’

"And I answered, ‘Who are You, Sir?’

And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.’

"And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

"And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’

And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’

"But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus.

Yes, Paul, had faith. He asked the Lord what he should do. The Lord told him to go on into Damascus, and that is exactly what he did (though he had to be led because of his blindness). Paul's obedience was proof of his faith.

But when was Paul regenerated? When were his sins washed away? The rest of the account tells us:

"A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. "And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. ‘For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Paul had faith when the risen Jesus met him on the road to Damascus and told him what to do. He demonstrated his faith by obeying Jesus.

Paul had his sins washed away and was regenerated when he was baptized.

Faith precedes regeneration.