There is absolutely no question that Paul did repent (i.e., had a change of direction in his heart), as is clearly attested to in scripture. Therefore, the question being raised isn’t really an issue of exactly where (or when) this change within him may have occurred, other then how it relates to having occurred before or after his salvation. If his salvation preceded his repentance, then surely it must be attributed completely and entirely to God’s grace (and foreknowledge), given that Saul/Paul was a “chosen vessel.” (see Exodus 33:19;Acts 9:15.)
Peter spoke (to the whole house of Israel) on the day of Pentecost and instructed them to “repent and be saved.” However, Paul preaches a slightly different message that makes little to no mention of repentance being required as a condition of salvation, referring to his message of salvation by a new name, “the gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20:24.) In fact, Paul states that it is the goodness of God that leads one to repentance in Romans 2:4.
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and
longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?
Repentance, at some point, is what God commands of all men (Acts 17:30)… but why is there so little mention of it in all of Paul’s epistles if it is thought to be a prerequisite to salvation?
Is it because the Gentile nations were not under the law (as Israel was) and would simply not relate to repentance in the same way that Israel did?
Romans 4
[15] Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression. [16] Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by
grace…
This question has evolved from another question (that was downvoted twice, for reasons I do not understand) that is posted here:
When did Paul’s repentance (i.e., change of heart) and salvation occur? On the road to Damascus, or only after being baptized in Damascus?
Anonymous
Link Hudson perhaps another video is in order here for Philip Williams
Anonymous
Troy Day in Christ there is neither male nor female!
Anonymous
Philip Williams you fell that way too?
Anonymous
Troy Day they are a vast number!
Anonymous
Philip Williams copout
Anonymous
Yes 💯 male
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey based on WHAT?
Virgins anywhere in the NT is used ONLY in regard of women
Anonymous
Revelation 14:4 “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgin (Greek: παρθένοι pure).”
Anonymous
παρθένοι pure Michael Ellis Carter Jr. Michael Chauncey John Mushenhouse in this form is used ONLY 4 times in the NT – all other 3 times is used about women. I see interlinear parsing it as either masc. or fem. but in reality it is plural and cannot identify gender as in
pure THEY are – are they men or women?
παρθένοι pure does not DEFINE this
MIND YOU Athena παρθένον – the other form of the word pure derives from rich Greek history From Athena Parthenos – a statue of a female goddess cult, which begun in 447 BCE and dedicated in 438 BCE; it would remain the great city’s symbol for a thousand years until, in Late Antiquity, it disappeared from the historical record, possibly taken to Constantinople and there later destroyed.
Anonymous
Troy Day They are men as they did not defile themselves with women. In other words, they remained sexually pure and unmarried.
Anonymous
If taken literally, they’re all male.
If taken symbolically then it could be the church.
There are hints to symbolically being the church. But I have yet to find a good explanation of what the number of 144,000 would mean. So I’m going stick with the literal meaning for now.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs how do you mean ?
Anonymous
yes
Anonymous
Brethren (Both brothers and sisters) only.
Anonymous
Rasiah Thomas Revelation does NOT say any of that
Anonymous
Troy Day Although the Word does not mention clearly, men or brethren are inclusive of both genders.
Anonymous
Jehovah Witnesses
Anonymous
hahaha
Anonymous
My question is are they physical virgins or spiritual virgins? If the latter is true technically some of them could be both.