Predestination is misunderstood...

[Johann]

Saul was rejected as king. Not salvation

1. 1 Samuel 26:20-24: During a confrontation with David, Saul acknowledges his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from God. He states, "Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" (v. 21).
2. 
   
3. Acts 13:22: In this passage, Luke recounts Saul's reign as king, followed by the introduction of David as God's chosen ruler. Verse 22 reads, "After removing Saul, he made David their king." However, this verse does not imply that Saul ceased following God during his tenure as king. Instead, it indicates that God chose another leader to replace Saul.
4. Psalms 51:10-12: Written by David, this psalm contains a prayer for forgiveness and restoration. Verses 10-12 read, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And sustain me with a willing spirit." These verses demonstrate Saul's desire to remain in a personal relationship with God.

Overall, these scriptural references indicate that Saul maintained his personal relationship with God throughout his life, despite being rejected as king. This statement is consistent with the broader narrative of the Old Testament, which emphasizes God's graciousness and forgiveness rather than abandonment or condemnation.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

1. 1 Samuel 26:20-24: During a confrontation with David, Saul acknowledges his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from God. He states, "Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord" (v. 21).
2. 
   
3. Acts 13:22: In this passage, Luke recounts Saul's reign as king, followed by the introduction of David as God's chosen ruler. Verse 22 reads, "After removing Saul, he made David their king." However, this verse does not imply that Saul ceased following God during his tenure as king. Instead, it indicates that God chose another leader to replace Saul.
4. Psalms 51:10-12: Written by David, this psalm contains a prayer for forgiveness and restoration. Verses 10-12 read, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And sustain me with a willing spirit." These verses demonstrate Saul's desire to remain in a personal relationship with God.

Overall, these scriptural references indicate that Saul maintained his personal relationship with God throughout his life, despite being rejected as king. This statement is consistent with the broader narrative of the Old Testament, which emphasizes God's graciousness and forgiveness rather than abandonment or condemnation.

he commited Suicide Because God was no longer speaking to him.

He deliberate disobeyed God's command to and spoke to mediums as well.

He knew fine well not to speak to mediums because he had them banished,

Once again you are wrong.

just like your in the wrong about many things.

 

[Johann]

Saul was a type as was David. Saul was the people's choice. David was God's choice. Saul represents the natural man. David is a type of Christ. So God's rejection of Saul pictures the rejection of those who live separately from God. It probably points to the lack of salvation for Saul.

I am not trolling you @Cameron143 but here is something to consider-


The statement provides a typological interpretation of Saul and David, comparing their roles and significance in relation to God's rejection and acceptance. While the statement includes elements of truth, it is essential to examine each aspect carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Saul as a type: Saul indeed served as a type, representing the natural man or humanity's tendency to stray from God's ways. However, the statement fails to mention that Saul began his reign as a faithful servant of God, demonstrating that even those who start well can still fall short.
David as a type: Likewise, David represented a different approach to leadership and faithfulness, serving as a foreshadowing of Christ. However, the statement overlooks the fact that David was far from perfect himself, committing numerous sins and facing consequences for his actions.

Representations of the natural man and Christ: The statement correctly identifies Saul as a representation of the natural man and David as a type of Christ. However, it oversimplifies the complexity of these figures and their relationships with God. Both Saul and David struggled with sin and faced challenges in maintaining their faithfulness to God.

Rejection pointing to lack of salvation: The statement suggests that God's rejection of Saul points to the absence of salvation for Saul. However, while Saul's failure as king led to his removal from office, it does not necessarily imply that he was eternally damned. As previously discussed, Saul expressed remorse for his failings and sought forgiveness from God.
Overall, the statement presents a simplified version of the typological interpretations of Saul and David. While it captures certain aspects of their stories, it neglects other critical components, such as their imperfections and God's mercy. For a complete understanding of these characters and their relevance to the themes of rejection and salvation, it is essential to consider the entirety of their narratives and the broader context of the Old Testament.

Am I forgiven?
Johann.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I am not trolling you @Cameron143 but here is something to consider-


The statement provides a typological interpretation of Saul and David, comparing their roles and significance in relation to God's rejection and acceptance. While the statement includes elements of truth, it is essential to examine each aspect carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Saul as a type: Saul indeed served as a type, representing the natural man or humanity's tendency to stray from God's ways. However, the statement fails to mention that Saul began his reign as a faithful servant of God, demonstrating that even those who start well can still fall short.
David as a type: Likewise, David represented a different approach to leadership and faithfulness, serving as a foreshadowing of Christ. However, the statement overlooks the fact that David was far from perfect himself, committing numerous sins and facing consequences for his actions.

Representations of the natural man and Christ: The statement correctly identifies Saul as a representation of the natural man and David as a type of Christ. However, it oversimplifies the complexity of these figures and their relationships with God. Both Saul and David struggled with sin and faced challenges in maintaining their faithfulness to God.

Rejection pointing to lack of salvation: The statement suggests that God's rejection of Saul points to the absence of salvation for Saul. However, while Saul's failure as king led to his removal from office, it does not necessarily imply that he was eternally damned. As previously discussed, Saul expressed remorse for his failings and sought forgiveness from God.
Overall, the statement presents a simplified version of the typological interpretations of Saul and David. While it captures certain aspects of their stories, it neglects other critical components, such as their imperfections and God's mercy. For a complete understanding of these characters and their relevance to the themes of rejection and salvation, it is essential to consider the entirety of their narratives and the broader context of the Old Testament.

Am I forgiven?
Johann.

You really are a piece of work trying to wind me up deliberately aren't you.

 

[Cameron143]

Saul was a man who was changed by the spirit.

It doesn't matter if he was a king

Saul certainly experienced the effects of the Spirit, but he never gave signs of a circumcision of the heart. Saul is like one of those in Hebrews 6 who experienced many wonderful manifestations of God but never came to truly believe on His name.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I am not trolling you @Cameron143 but here is something to consider-


The statement provides a typological interpretation of Saul and David, comparing their roles and significance in relation to God's rejection and acceptance. While the statement includes elements of truth, it is essential to examine each aspect carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Saul as a type: Saul indeed served as a type, representing the natural man or humanity's tendency to stray from God's ways. However, the statement fails to mention that Saul began his reign as a faithful servant of God, demonstrating that even those who start well can still fall short.
David as a type: Likewise, David represented a different approach to leadership and faithfulness, serving as a foreshadowing of Christ. However, the statement overlooks the fact that David was far from perfect himself, committing numerous sins and facing consequences for his actions.

Representations of the natural man and Christ: The statement correctly identifies Saul as a representation of the natural man and David as a type of Christ. However, it oversimplifies the complexity of these figures and their relationships with God. Both Saul and David struggled with sin and faced challenges in maintaining their faithfulness to God.

Rejection pointing to lack of salvation: The statement suggests that God's rejection of Saul points to the absence of salvation for Saul. However, while Saul's failure as king led to his removal from office, it does not necessarily imply that he was eternally damned. As previously discussed, Saul expressed remorse for his failings and sought forgiveness from God.
Overall, the statement presents a simplified version of the typological interpretations of Saul and David. While it captures certain aspects of their stories, it neglects other critical components, such as their imperfections and God's mercy. For a complete understanding of these characters and their relevance to the themes of rejection and salvation, it is essential to consider the entirety of their narratives and the broader context of the Old Testament.

Am I forgiven?
Johann.

The fact that God rejected Saul is because his faith had become dead works.

But it does not mean he had lost his salvation.

 

[Johann]

Saul certainly experienced the effects of the Spirit, but he never gave signs of a circumcision of the heart. Saul is like one of those in Hebrews 6 who experienced many wonderful manifestations of God but never came to truly believe on His name.

The question of whether King Saul lost his salvation is a matter of theological debate, and there are differing opinions on the matter. Some argue that Saul was never saved, while others believe that he was saved but fell away from God. The Bible does not explicitly state whether Saul lost his salvation or not. However, it is clear that Saul began his career with a humble, God-fearing heart, but later committed egregious sins and disobeyed the Lord. Some argue that this disobedience does not necessarily mean that he lost his salvation, but rather that he was a disobedient believer who was disciplined by God. Ultimately, the matter of Saul's salvation is between him and God, and only God truly knows the answer.
J.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Saul certainly experienced the effects of the Spirit, but he never gave signs of a circumcision of the heart. Saul is like one of those in Hebrews 6 who experienced many wonderful manifestations of God but never came to truly believe on His name.

he was elected by the people, to be King, God decided to let him be king, and accepted it, because Samuel told him the spirit will come upon you and you will prophecy, Samuel also said the spirit will change you.

The only point I'm trying to make Cameron, is simply this, faith comes first, salvation comes next.

I'm also emphasizing that a faith that doesn't obey the lord becomes dead works, it doesn't mean salvation is lost.

It's means a person has to be humble and wait for the lord to forgive.

It's also means we have to obey the lords commandments.

 

[Cameron143]

I am not trolling you @Cameron143 but here is something to consider-


The statement provides a typological interpretation of Saul and David, comparing their roles and significance in relation to God's rejection and acceptance. While the statement includes elements of truth, it is essential to examine each aspect carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Saul as a type: Saul indeed served as a type, representing the natural man or humanity's tendency to stray from God's ways. However, the statement fails to mention that Saul began his reign as a faithful servant of God, demonstrating that even those who start well can still fall short.
David as a type: Likewise, David represented a different approach to leadership and faithfulness, serving as a foreshadowing of Christ. However, the statement overlooks the fact that David was far from perfect himself, committing numerous sins and facing consequences for his actions.

Representations of the natural man and Christ: The statement correctly identifies Saul as a representation of the natural man and David as a type of Christ. However, it oversimplifies the complexity of these figures and their relationships with God. Both Saul and David struggled with sin and faced challenges in maintaining their faithfulness to God.

Rejection pointing to lack of salvation: The statement suggests that God's rejection of Saul points to the absence of salvation for Saul. However, while Saul's failure as king led to his removal from office, it does not necessarily imply that he was eternally damned. As previously discussed, Saul expressed remorse for his failings and sought forgiveness from God.
Overall, the statement presents a simplified version of the typological interpretations of Saul and David. While it captures certain aspects of their stories, it neglects other critical components, such as their imperfections and God's mercy. For a complete understanding of these characters and their relevance to the themes of rejection and salvation, it is essential to consider the entirety of their narratives and the broader context of the Old Testament.

Am I forgiven?
Johann.

You have made no offense. Had you, I'm not obliged to take offense.
The information you share is helpful to me and I'm sure many others. I am a little disappointed, though; having a personal troll could prove interesting.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

The question of whether King Saul lost his salvation is a matter of theological debate, and there are differing opinions on the matter. Some argue that Saul was never saved, while others believe that he was saved but fell away from God. The Bible does not explicitly state whether Saul lost his salvation or not. However, it is clear that Saul began his career with a humble, God-fearing heart, but later committed egregious sins and disobeyed the Lord. Some argue that this disobedience does not necessarily mean that he lost his salvation, but rather that he was a disobedient believer who was disciplined by God. Ultimately, the matter of Saul's salvation is between him and God, and only God truly knows the answer.
J.

No it's not a matter of the Theological debate, as much as you would like it to be, it's a matter for God and God alone.

 

[Johann]

You have made no offense. Had you, I'm not obliged to take offense.
The information you share is helpful to me and I'm sure many others. I am a little disappointed, though; having a personal troll could prove interesting.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Cameron143]

The question of whether King Saul lost his salvation is a matter of theological debate, and there are differing opinions on the matter. Some argue that Saul was never saved, while others believe that he was saved but fell away from God. The Bible does not explicitly state whether Saul lost his salvation or not. However, it is clear that Saul began his career with a humble, God-fearing heart, but later committed egregious sins and disobeyed the Lord. Some argue that this disobedience does not necessarily mean that he lost his salvation, but rather that he was a disobedient believer who was disciplined by God. Ultimately, the matter of Saul's salvation is between him and God, and only God truly knows the answer.
J.

I don't think he lost it. I don't believe he was ever saved. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were partakers and beneficiaries of the provision of God in manifold ways, but all but 2 of the original generation perished in the dessert.
Over 5,000 were fed one day. People were healed and even raised from the dead. Yet these same people yelled, "Crucify Him", in the not to distant future.
God is good to all, even sometimes manifesting Himself in incredible ways, and people still do not come to genuine faith.

 

[Cameron143]

he was elected by the people, to be King, God decided to let him be king, and accepted it, because Samuel told him the spirit will come upon you and you will prophecy, Samuel also said the spirit will change you.

The only point I'm trying to make Cameron, is simply this, faith comes first, salvation comes next.

I'm also emphasizing that a faith that doesn't obey the lord becomes dead works, it doesn't mean salvation is lost.

It's means a person has to be humble and wait for the lord to forgive.

It's also means we have to obey the lords commandments.

I understand your point. I believe life is given first. I don't believe dead people can respond.

 

[Cameron143]

Care to elaborate?

On which part?
I never take offense to anything anyone shares.
The troll part was just a bad joke.

 

[Johann]

I don't think he lost it. I don't believe he was ever saved. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were partakers and beneficiaries of the provision of God in manifold ways, but all but 2 of the original generation perished in the dessert.
Over 5,000 were fed one day. People were healed and even raised from the dead. Yet these same people yelled, "Crucify Him", in the not to distant future.
God is good to all, even sometimes manifesting Himself in incredible ways, and people still do not come to genuine faith.

I concur-re Saul-


The statement "I don't think he [Saul] lost it. I don't believe he was ever saved" reflects a viewpoint that Saul was neither saved nor lost his salvation. This perspective differs from traditional interpretations that either affirm Saul's salvation but acknowledge his loss of favor with God due to disobedience or maintain that Saul was never genuinely saved in the first place.
The Bible does not explicitly state whether Saul was saved or not. Therefore, this viewpoint falls outside the mainstream interpretations of Saul's salvation status. Those holding this perspective typically base their argument on Saul's repeated acts of disobedience and his refusal to surrender fully to God's will.
It is important to remember that the Bible does not contain exhaustive information about every character's spiritual journey. Consequently, debates surrounding Saul's salvation status will likely persist among scholars and laypeople alike. Ultimately, the matter of Saul's salvation status is between him and God, and only God truly knows the answer.

I can be a bit "pushy"-sometimes.
J.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I understand your point. I believe life is given first. I don't believe dead people can respond.

Thanks, it's so nice to have a short agreeable answer,

My point is also that a person can be predestined to be given faith, as this would see the beautiful side of predestination, and not all this miserable stuff people keep revoking.

it does my head in.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I understand your point. I believe life is given first. I don't believe dead people can respond.

sorry do you mean salvation is given first.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I concur-re Saul-


The statement "I don't think he [Saul] lost it. I don't believe he was ever saved" reflects a viewpoint that Saul was neither saved nor lost his salvation. This perspective differs from traditional interpretations that either affirm Saul's salvation but acknowledge his loss of favor with God due to disobedience or maintain that Saul was never genuinely saved in the first place.
The Bible does not explicitly state whether Saul was saved or not. Therefore, this viewpoint falls outside the mainstream interpretations of Saul's salvation status. Those holding this perspective typically base their argument on Saul's repeated acts of disobedience and his refusal to surrender fully to God's will.
It is important to remember that the Bible does not contain exhaustive information about every character's spiritual journey. Consequently, debates surrounding Saul's salvation status will likely persist among scholars and laypeople alike. Ultimately, the matter of Saul's salvation status is between him and God, and only God truly knows the answer.

I can be a bit "pushy"-sometimes.
J.

a person is saved by faith until they are saved by salvation.

When you understand that you may accept baptism is necessary for salvation too.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I don't think he lost it. I don't believe he was ever saved. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were partakers and beneficiaries of the provision of God in manifold ways, but all but 2 of the original generation perished in the dessert.
Over 5,000 were fed one day. People were healed and even raised from the dead. Yet these same people yelled, "Crucify Him", in the not to distant future.
God is good to all, even sometimes manifesting Himself in incredible ways, and people still do not come to genuine faith.

Honestly Cameron, he must have been saved for the spirit to come upon him.

Why wouldn't you believe dead people can't be given faith first before salvation,

Why should a dead person receive salvation first before faith.

 

[Cameron143]

sorry do you mean salvation is given first.

I believe people are quickened and made alive, granted hearing through the gospel, and exercise faith. However one wants to categorize it isn't important to me.