What part did Saul have about his conversion?

[Artfuldodger]

Also how or what words did Paul utter to confirm his conversion? How did Paul confirm that he was enlightened, converted and born again? Did he cry, ask for forgiveness, repent, confess, rejoice, etc?
I can't find any scripture that really says he expressed any type of a hallelujah moment. No word that he suddenly started believing. No word on if he confessed Jesus is Lord with his mouth.

I guess the point I've noticed is, it didn't take anything from Paul for his conversion to happen. If it did he didn't say.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I also wonder what God's purpose was to send Ananias to give Saul his sight and to receive the Holy Spirit. Why was a man used by God to do this? I don't think conversion or receiving the Holy Spirit is usually the way God operates.
Maybe that was somehow to let Ananias know or learn that God had chose Saul as a vessel to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Perhaps to give a divine account of Saul's conversion and divine purpose by another man.

 

[gordon 2]

It shows to me ( what Ananias did) the power of the Church in the very beginning of Christianity. Ananias was probably informed by the Church or the believers of a Saul especially needing its ministry.

Ananias probably knew what Paul was and what he was about regards the persecution of Christians-- which makes it all the more impressive that Ananias would judge that for Paul baptism was Paul's remedy. Ananias or the Church did not judge as the world judges I would suggest. Paul is their great example of this.

The heavenly times they have changed. It is no longer the usual way to operate.

 

[Artfuldodger]

It's interesting that it's one of the greatest conversion stories ever but also very simple in Paul's talks about the actual event. Plus if Paul's salvation was all from the grace of God and Paul didn't have anything to do with it or about it, why was there a need for Paul to go spread the same gospel that he never wanted any part of until after his conversion?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Romans 1:1
This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.

It doesn't seem like Paul "accepted" Jesus in the sense that he had a choice like walking to the altar at a revival meeting. There was no one saying "If you would like to accept Jesus as your Savior, come forward.

Not that that is the only way to salvation, just one way and not Paul's way. He didn't accept Jesus. Maybe even "conversion" is wrong term. What did he convert to, he was already a Jew. Maybe he had an awakening or a radical reorientation in his understanding of the Messiah.

I'm not even sure I would call it a "calling" if it was I would say it was an effectual calling. Some call it a transformation.

We do know that Paul became a follower of Christ.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I heard one preacher said that Paul used his free will to reject Jesus until God lead him to Jesus at his conversion and at that point Paul had no choice but to believe.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

This discussion reminds me to complete writing about "The Problem with Salvation Recipes." Many traditions have their own spin on how conversion should look often combined with notions about how long it should take. Few appreciate that conversion can be a process and the order of events in the process don't all fit into their preferred recipe.

Reading the whole of Acts 9 reveals all the expected ingredients, but the order and timing don't conform as well to some of the preferred 20th and 21st century recipes: Lordship of Jesus (Acts 9:5, Jesus as Son of God and Messiah (Acts 9:20-22), Obedience to Jesus (Acts 9:6-8), Baptism (Acts 9:18).

Is there an essential element of Christian conversion you find lacking in the account of Acts Chapter 9?

 

[gordon 2]

I think Paul was a kind of guy who could assess things in the present with their implications to the past and the future. He had the intellectual capacity to have the micro and the macro easily interplay in his inner being. He was this kind spiritually before he was a Christian.

Paul was a Roman, and a Jew ( culturally), and a Pharisee. Lots of themes were available to Paul just from these items.

I think, as other do also, that he had a crises of conscience. The Jewish cult was sending him to round up heretics who would be tortured and killed. That was enough I think to set him off with doubts about the religious. He was a young man and to his fresh eyes the righteousness that the cult proposed was not the righteousness the cult practiced on the ground or in the "real world". The world gets real for young Paul the Pharisee, the minister, the official and his role in it is at issue in his conscience.

The Romans were hard people and some people in the Jewish cult especially those who had not issues with stoning to death people like Steven and sending young Paul to collect people like him--- they also that sent him out were hard.

After meeting Jesus conversion and ministry for a smart young man like Paul with his spirit was a no brainer. Christ and being a Christian were the answers to Paul' conscience. It was the escape from sin for him and the hard knocks of life and the way to proceed as others had done already with a very different outlook-- opposite even.

The young man who had been called to be a Pharisee had a higher calling. No more games with a little bit of evil to provide for the good.

The road to Damascus event he had, no matter for what reason it came about rewired Paul and his time spent with Christians shortly after that made a new man out of the young Roman and the young Jew.

For Paul the yoke was light in Christ comparatively and Paul was far sighted regards the implications for things that motivated people--- Romans, Gentiles, Jews, Pharisees.

Paul was “kicking against the pricks”. As some point out, " Paul was suffering."

 

[Artfuldodger]

This discussion reminds me to complete writing about "The Problem with Salvation Recipes." Many traditions have their own spin on how conversion should look often combined with notions about how long it should take. Few appreciate that conversion can be a process and the order of events in the process don't all fit into their preferred recipe.

Reading the whole of Acts 9 reveals all the expected ingredients, but the order and timing don't conform as well to some of the preferred 20th and 21st century recipes: Lordship of Jesus (Acts 9:5, Jesus as Son of God and Messiah (Acts 9:20-22), Obedience to Jesus (Acts 9:6-8), Baptism (Acts 9:18).

Is there an essential element of Christian conversion you find lacking in the account of Acts Chapter 9?

Not really and you made my point better than me. Just noticed that Paul didn't have much to do with his salvation recipe nor did he talk about it using the terms modern Christians use.
Using your dialogue, this would help individuals who think they have salvation maybe understand it better if they did not have the same experience that Paul did, maybe. Or anyone else they see or hear about in testimony. Perhaps like someone at the end of a sermon who starts hopping over pews screaming and shouting all the way to the altar. Maybe another example would be a drug addict that gave testimony more similar to what Saul experienced vs some teenager who believes but didn't feel much of a halaluhuah experience when they took an altar call.
Plus it shows that not every "awakening" even requires an altar call.

 

[gordon 2]

A simple starting point in the meanings we place in salvation might be to ask, "What are Christians saved from?"

Do you notice when we read Paul saying ( and he says this a few times or it is said a few times in scripture) that he received his instructions from Jesus that sometimes the instructions are not from his road to Damascus experience and that Paul seems to indicate that he was instructed by Jesus via other believers or not from Jesus directly? For Paul Jesus seems to be present and guiding through the body of believers-- from individuals such as himself (Paul) and through the body or the church simply or in general.

For Paul it seems he was saved from a life in the world of sin which had the great capacity to distance itself from God, even for those who called on His name and he was saved to a new order of life with the greatest capacity, this side of the end of this age, to cleave to God not only because sin was purged due his baptism and God now is not veiled from him individually, but also because " in Christ" or because of the new life in the way, because of the church- the body, it was now a feature active in the world separate from Paul. The very material make up of the world had changed where Paul had the assurance not only of his right standing with God but also that other Christians were in right standing with God and that God directed not only Paul ( himself) but all others in the faith. Therefore just as we read Paul to get an understand of what God wills us to know, Paul could and did the same by accepting the ministry of other believers and the church.

What do you think? Jesus comes to you via the body of believers and Jesus comes to you via " Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." a personal witness. And Jesus comes to people in many more ways than these. All are saved from... at least. All are saved to a new life, they know it or not. The choice might be how walk in the new life...

 

[gordon 2]

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

" show myself to them."

Often when people talk about being born again I think they mean this " show myself to them" and maybe not for the reason listed in the verse does the " show myself to them occurs. We sometimes equate this "show myself to them" as the stamp of salvation-- it is often so very powerful.

There is much that could be said about what this " show myself to them" experience does to individuals even with a scripture study, but also simply by asking people's to witness, as we do.

Truth is however that salvation and being born again is separate from this " show myself to them" which people identify as their "born again" or " I know I'm saved" experience. Perhaps.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I think Paul was a kind of guy who could assess things in the present with their implications to the past and the future. He had the intellectual capacity to have the micro and the macro easily interplay in his inner being. He was this kind spiritually before he was a Christian.

Paul was a Roman, and a Jew ( culturally), and a Pharisee. Lots of themes were available to Paul just from these items.

I think, as other do also, that he had a crises of conscience. The Jewish cult was sending him to round up heretics who would be tortured and killed. That was enough I think to set him off with doubts about the religious. He was a young man and to his fresh eyes the righteousness that the cult proposed was not the righteousness the cult practiced on the ground or in the "real world". The world gets real for young Paul the Pharisee, the minister, the official and his role in it is at issue in his conscience.

The Romans were hard people and some people in the Jewish cult especially those who had not issues with stoning to death people like Steven and sending young Paul to collect people like him--- they also that sent him out were hard.

After meeting Jesus conversion and ministry for a smart young man like Paul with his spirit was a no brainer. Christ and being a Christian were the answers to Paul' conscience. It was the escape from sin for him and the hard knocks of life and the way to proceed as others had done already with a very different outlook-- opposite even.

The young man who had been called to be a Pharisee had a higher calling. No more games with a little bit of evil to provide for the good.

The road to Damascus event he had, no matter for what reason it came about rewired Paul and his time spent with Christians shortly after that made a new man out of the young Roman and the young Jew.

For Paul the yoke was light in Christ comparatively and Paul was far sighted regards the implications for things that motivated people--- Romans, Gentiles, Jews, Pharisees.

Paul was “kicking against the pricks”. As some point out, " Paul was suffering."

I don't think Paul's conversion came through the "Church" or any man, Christian or not. Paul’s message had its origin in God, not in the apostles. “I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus”

Paul said;
“The gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel” (v. 11). Paul is here responding to his opponents.

“For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (v. 12). It was not just a revelation from Christ — it was Christ being revealed to Paul (v. 16).

I do agree that Paul might have got some input on teaching from man, but he pretty much as told us it didn't happen for his conversion or divine revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

He was aware of the gospel before he received his salvation. I don't think it had any bearing on his conversion/salvation.

To me salvation means to escape eternal death and to gain everlasting life.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Isn't it ironic that Paul's, whatever you want to call it, didn't come from the Church or man but directly from God. But yet his revelation was to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

What Paul received was not taught but what he taught was received. It's a wonder folks didn't say "well if yours didn't come from any man, why are you even among us telling us about the gospel? Aren't you a man? You want me to get mine from you but just said your didn't come from a man. The same gospel you were aware of but didn't receive from any man nor your instructions to spread it.

 

[Madman]

Isn't it ironic that Paul's, whatever you want to call it, didn't come from the Church or man but directly from God. But yet his revelation was to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

What Paul received was not taught but what he taught was received. It's a wonder folks didn't say "well if yours didn't come from any man, why are you even among us telling us about the gospel? Aren't you a man? You want me to get mine from you but just said your didn't come from a man. The same gospel you were aware of but didn't receive from any man nor your instructions to spread it.

Paul’s revelation came from God but his learning came from the Apostles.

 

[gemcgrew]

Paul’s revelation came from God but his learning came from the Apostles.

A very strange thing to say.

 

[Madman]

A very strange thing to say.

Why

 

[gordon 2]

"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

This^ is what Jesus tells Paul after he asks him " Who are you? and Jesus replies, "I am Jesus that you persecute."

Paul will testify latter in scripture that Jesus gave him his marching orders personally. If this is the case, then Paul's understanding of how in manner Jesus gives him instructions directly might be somewhat different than we might imagine?


Just as Paul's letters tell us what to do and we know his instructions as due to Paul being in Christ and a member of the Church it was likewise for Paul that he was instructed by the ministers of the Church-- those also in Christ that ministered to his needs.

I could say it this way perhaps: The Holy Spirit that was teaching and directing the ministers who were sent to Paul was also ministering to Paul through them. So Paul can* say, " I was directed-personally by Jesus...directly, especially that the Lord send me to the city and where latter God sent Ananias to me and I spent some time with the disciples etc."*paraphrase or supposition here.

 

[gordon 2]

Paul’s revelation came from God but his learning came from the Apostles.

Yes we know that Ananias "learned him" this: The Lord has sent me. And Ananias knew full well why he had been sent. * Do you think he told Paul maybe?

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus."

 

[gordon 2]

Isn't it ironic that Paul's, whatever you want to call it, didn't come from the Church or man but directly from God. But yet his revelation was to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

What Paul received was not taught but what he taught was received. It's a wonder folks didn't say "well if yours didn't come from any man, why are you even among us telling us about the gospel? Aren't you a man? You want me to get mine from you but just said your didn't come from a man. The same gospel you were aware of but didn't receive from any man nor your instructions to spread it.

I think Paul's first instinct was to minister to his people. When that did not work or it was unsafe for him to do so, he knew from prophecy regards the gentiles:

"I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

And how does this salvation come about?

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

For Paul the trained Pharisee this was simple math or 2-1=1. For Paul as an apostle it was a no brainer where he would go, especially that the Church suggested to him it was not prudent for him to continue and minister to Jews or in Jewish synagogues etc.

"And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. 30Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

 

[1gr8buildit]

I heard one preacher said that Paul used his free will to reject Jesus until God lead him to Jesus at his conversion and at that point Paul had no choice but to believe.

My opinion is that Paul wants to project the idea that it was not from his being wise that he figured it out, but that God chose to reveal himself to him