A plan formed before the world began

JEFF TURNER

Before a single atom of the physical universe was called into existence, God already knew what would happen. He foresaw the fall of humanity. He understood the full weight of what sin would cost. And, most importantly, he planned our redemption.

Think about it. God chose, before the foundation of the world, to redeem fallen human beings through the blood of his Son. The plan was not a response to an emergency. It was not a contingency formed after the fact. It was woven into the eternal purposes of God before time itself began its count.

What this plan actually required is where the mind staggers. God the Father, in his infinite wisdom and love, purposed to send his only begotten Son into the world, to let him live among humanity in mortal flesh, and ultimately to allow him to bear the weight of human sin on a cross, shedding his blood so that your sin and mine could be forgiven.

To grasp even a portion of this is to be undone by gratitude. The God who made the stars looked ahead to your need and made provision for it before he made the morning itself.

For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

1 Peter 1:20

God speaks through his Spirit

TEXAS GOSPEL VOLUNTEER

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will guide believers into all truth.

God never makes a mistake. He does not always act as people want, at the time they want, in the way they want or for the reasons they would choose. He permits things that people dislike and things they cannot understand, yet he makes no errors.

I believe that when a believer is walking in obedience and listening, and God wants to give a sense of direction, he impresses the believer’s spirit so strongly that the person simply knows they have heard from God.

What are your thoughts?

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons and daughters of God.

Romans 8:14

Becoming all things to all people without compromise

TEXAS GOSPEL VOLUNTEER

The apostle Paul once wrote that he had become all things to all people so that he might by every possible means save some. This is something today that gets used to justify church strategies aimed at appealing to the surrounding culture. But is this what Paul meant?

Properly understood, I don’t think Paul was describing compromise. He didn’t advocate for adopting sinful behaviour in order to identify with those who practice it. Wouldn’t this run counter to everything in his character and calling? Instead, Paul was describing a willingness to remove any unnecessary offence from his approach. He adjusted his sensitivity depending on whether he addressed Jews, Gentiles, or weaker believers. He even abstained from meat entirely if eating it caused a fellow believer to stumble.

I don’t see that Paul’s goal was to become like the people he was reaching. He wanted to avoid needlessly offending them while still proclaiming the truth.

Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.

1 Corinthians 8:13

A Conversation About Paul, Part Three: A Vision or a Real Encounter?

DAVID INGRAM

In the last two articles, I responded to two points raised by an acquaintance who approached me in a spirit of dawah, the Islamic practice of inviting others to consider Islam. The first article addressed whether Paul had any real connection to Jesus since he never walked with him in person. The second addressed Paul’s violent past as Saul, before his conversion. Now I want to turn to his third complaint.

His argument was that Paul claims that Jesus spoke to him in a vision on the road to Damascus, not in a physical, in person meeting. Since this was only a vision, the argument goes, it carries less weight than an actual, physical encounter with Jesus, and he claimed that it raises doubt about whether Paul truly received authority to teach in Jesus’s name.

I want to respond to this honestly and directly.

It’s true that the accounts in Acts describe Paul encountering a bright light and hearing a voice while traveling to Damascus, rather than sharing a meal with Jesus or walking beside him on a road the way the twelve disciples did. But the word “vision” can be misleading if we assume it means something imagined. According to Acts 9, the men traveling with Paul also experienced this event. They saw the light and heard something, even if they didn’t fully understand the words. Paul was struck blind for three days afterward, a physical effect that lingered well past the initial moment. This was not a private daydream or an inward feeling. It had outward, physical, and lasting consequences that other people around him witnessed.

Paul also describes this event elsewhere in a way that treats it as a genuine appearance of the risen Christ, not a lesser kind of experience. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul lists the people Jesus appeared to after the resurrection, including Peter, the twelve disciples, more than five hundred believers at once, and then he adds, “last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” Paul places his own encounter in the same category as the others, as a real appearance of the risen Jesus, not a separate or lesser category of religious experience.

It’s also worth remembering that the resurrection itself is central to the Christian message. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he was no longer limited to walking dusty roads with a small group of followers in Galilee. A postresurrection appearance to Paul, even if it came through blinding light and a voice rather than a shared meal, fits within the pattern of how the risen Jesus is described appearing to others in the Gospels as well, sometimes recognized immediately, sometimes not, sometimes appearing suddenly in a locked room.

So while the nature of Paul’s encounter was different from how the twelve disciples first met Jesus during his earthly ministry, it does not follow that this makes it less real or less authoritative. It was a genuine encounter with the risen Christ, with physical effects witnessed by others, and Paul treats it with the same weight as the other resurrection appearances recorded in the New Testament.

This is the third point my acquaintance raised. The next article will address his claim that the details of this event are described differently across different verses in Acts, which he offered as evidence of contradiction.

A conversation about Paul, part two: What about his past?

DAVID INGRAM

In the last article, I responded to the first point a Muslim raised after he approached me in a spirit of dawah, the Islamic practice of inviting others to consider Islam. That first point questioned whether Paul had any real connection to Jesus’s teachings since he never met Jesus in person before the crucifixion. Now I want to move to his second argument.

His point was that before he became known as Paul, he was called Saul, and Saul was a man who hunted down and hurt early followers of Jesus. Some were even killed because of his actions. He used this history to suggest that Paul’s past disqualifies him from being trusted as a genuine teacher of the faith.

This is worth taking seriously, so let me respond honestly.

It’s true. Saul persecuted the early church before he became Paul. The book of Acts does not hide this or soften it. Acts 8:3 says Saul was “ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.” Acts 9:1 describes him as “breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord.” Paul himself admits this openly in his own letters. In Galatians 1:13, he writes that he “persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” In 1 Timothy 1:13, he calls himself “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.”

Here is why this history does not disqualify Paul. It actually supports the truth of what happened to him.

Paul never hides his past or tries to rewrite it to look better. A person inventing a religious story to gain followers or power would likely try to present himself with a clean record, not openly confess to being a violent persecutor of the very people he later joined. The fact that Paul repeatedly brings up his own guilt, without being forced to do so, points toward honesty rather than deception.

More importantly, Christianity does not teach that a person’s past determines whether God can use them. It teaches the opposite. The core message of the Christian faith is that all people fall short and are in need of grace, and that God’s mercy is bigger than anyone’s failures. Paul’s transformation from a violent enemy of the church into one of its most sacrifice-filled leaders is not a weakness in the story. It is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that something real happened to him on that road to Damascus. Do people typically suffer and die for a cause they know is a lie? Especially one they once fought against?

So rather than disqualifying Paul, his past actually strengthens the case that his conversion was genuine. Paul’s story is about a dramatic change from persecutor to persecuted.

By the way, though the Muslim didn’t raise this specific comparison, a stronger version of his argument might point to how Islam treats its own early opponents. Abu Jahl was a powerful leader in Mecca who fiercely opposed and persecuted Muhammad and his early followers. He is remembered in Islamic tradition as one of the clearest villains of that era. He is known as a man whose past left him with no credibility in Islamic teaching. Someone could argue that if Islam judges Abu Jahl this way because of his persecution of believers, then consistency would require Christians to view Paul with the same suspicion. Perhaps from an Islamic perspective this makes sense. But isn’t forgiveness and remission of sin why Jesus died on the Cross? Islam’s Abu Jahl died opposing the faith he persecuted, while Paul was transformed. Though Paul suffered greatly for following Jesus, he rejoiced!

This is the second point my acquaintance raised, and I hope this response shows the same respect and honesty I intend to bring to each one. In the next article, I will address his claim about the differences in how the Damascus road vision is described across different verses in Acts.