But Paul was "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) and aimed to "please all men in all things" (1 Cor 10:33) by his own admission, telling them what they wanted to hear as long as they acquiesced to his story.
Kosta, i am bit surprised at you in this, as surely you must understand context as well as Paul's testimony. Paul elsewhere expressed that he was not going to compromise his message even if it meant persecution, (Gal. 5:11), which it typically did, and having chastened the Corinthians for their liberal inclusiveness (1Cor. 5) which made them sorry, and among other warnings, having excluded impenitent sinners from the kingdom, (1Cor. 6) he is not about to tell them to tell people whatever they want to hear as long as they believe the gospel! Which gospel would not even be consistent with what he preached, unless you want to cut and paste things to fit your construct, as he called sinners to repentance. (Acts 26:20)
In the chapter at issue, Paul defends his apostleship and (tough) love for them by recounting his manner of life, in which he adapts to persons and cultures as regards his Christian liberty which was the subject of the preceding chapter, and which relates to non-moral aspects. In making himself a “servant to all,” (v. 19) he forsakes his liberty so that with the Jews he was kosher, and made himself as one under the law (going to synagogues, etc.) To them that were without law he was not kosher, but “without law” does not mean was an Antinomian, but just the opposite as he established in Rm. 6 and addressed in Gal. 2:18, as being under the law to Christ was the supreme standard. Thus Paul condemned violations of the moral law. To those who converts were “weak, meaning in faith, having scruples as regards ceremonial law, and which he addressed in Rm. 14 and 1Cor. 8:7-12, he took care not to offend them, in accordance with his instructions on such. While Christians can eat pork etc. it is no compromise not to, like as in observing cultural taboos against it, while adopting non-moral customs such as native dress is not sin (unless immodest).
At other times, Paul says you have to confess "with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" (Rom 10:9).
There was no change in message. First, as relates to the above, if you study Paul's missionary preaching, one can clearly see adaptation in method, not in the essential message. To the Jews he used Scripture, (Acts 13) to the illiterate barbarians he appealed to natural revelation and the miraculous, (Acts 14:6-18) while to intellectual pagans he used reason and invoked a line of truth from one of their own poets. (Acts 17) But in all of these were calling souls to repentance toward God and and faith in the LORD Jesus, (Acts 20:21) though in Acts 14 he could not get as far as the latter.
And as far as Rm. 10:9, it is true faith justified, but faith, like love, is not something abstract from life, but determines how one lives, and the only kind of faith that saves is one that is confessional in nature, in word and in deed, and thus baptism was the typical “sinners prayer” in body language. (And contextually, it often took a lot of years off your physical life expectancy.) Thus this is entirely consist with Paul's statement that he preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) God-given faith is what is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4) but Paul makes it very clear that this is Abrahamic type faith, characterized by “the obedience of faith” and repentance when convicted or not doing so. Thus Paul's discipline in 1Cor. 5, and his exclusion of “fornicators” etc. in 1Cor. 6:9,10 does not simply apply to heathen ones, and a father has “denied the faith” who does not care for his own family, (1Tim. 5:18) and he states there are “things which accompany salvation.”
So, here you have to meet certain requirements (conditions) in order to be saved, hence it is not an "unmerited" gift.
As for the “free” aspect, which i understand is the real issue, “free” is used as opposed to wages earned, not that no response is required, which is really an extreme view outside the Bible as well. The free aspect relates to the fact that you have a gift offered which you cannot merit but is offered on Christ's expense and merit. What is received by the response is not merited by the response, while it is God who gives that faith (Eph. 2:8,9) and grants repentance (Acts 11:18). If you offered me a million dollars for “nothing“ i would not say it was not free if i had to come to you and open up my closed hand to receive it, even more so if you had to convince me to do it.
This use of “free” as without a purchasing price but which requires a response is nothing new: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1)
In other situations, you may be an unbeliever as long as you are married to a believer and that's enough to save you!
Is that an infallible interpretation (are you in the chair)? You are reading too much out a verse. The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved, (“Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial:” 1Sam. 2:12). And Paul's affirmation of Timothy's salvation was not because he had a believing mother, but because he was “persuaded” that that faith was in him also. (2Tim. 1:5) It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) And that was Paul's message. (Rm. 6:17)
So, here, again, we have a conditional salvation which doesn't qualify as a free gift.
Again, it does as it is not earned. To repeat, the conditions necessary to receive a free unmerited, unearned gift do not earn it. God convicts souls of their need, often by preaching, and grants repentance and gives faith, though i believe man's will is involved, but that does not earn the gift. Calvinists believe regeneration precedes the faith response, but still, if a doctor convinces a man against his normal will (making him willing) to assent to an operation that saves his life, i do not think the patient can take any credit for it, as left to himself he would have chosen the way of death.
In Romans 11:14 he says "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." Again, conditions have to be met, the requirement must be satisfied or nothing. No free gift.
Again, a skewed and unBiblical idea of free. Yet if you are supposing becoming jealous is necessary to be saved, the you can be... right, in the sense that seeing God work and change the lives of despised Gentiles can move a Jew to humble Himself a sinner, and thus Jesus remarked that hookers went into the kingdom of God before the Jewish hierarchy. (Mt. 21:31) Thus God works to moved soul to faith, if they yield.
Or what about this: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22) Here, Paul is not only implying that it is through his work that some are saved but that it is he who so, through his work, save them!
Surely you understand that expressing yourself as an instrument in bring souls to receive the gift of salvation is not the same as saying you actually save them. Thus 1Cor. 15:10. The persons who persuades and directs villagers to a free vaccine that will save their lives can be said to have saved them, though the vaccine did so, and it was free, except in an extreme formal sense some want to restrict it to.
Then to the Ephesians (2:8) he changes the story and says they have been saved through grace and faith. However, in 1 Thess (2:16) he suggests that preaching (which is works) saves.
The preacher tells of Gods salvation to the Gentiles, eating with “sinners,” and they believe on the LORD Jesus for a salvation they need but cannot earn. The preacher tells Jews of the grace the Gentiles have realized, angering some who see themselves as the elect, which is what Jesus did, (Lk. 4:16-30) so they may humble themselves and be saved. None of this is contrary to salvation being a free gift, nor does is constitute a different message.
Again, salvation is a gift of God because it cannot be merited, but a God-enabled response is necessary to receive it. In order for that to occur preaching is often employed, for faith comes by hearing the word of God, thus “"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1Thess. 2:16) prevented them from acting in faith. Working as an instrument by which souls may be saved by receiving the gift the preacher tells them of is not salvation by works. God chooses to employ men in persuading men to receive the unmerited gift, by a God-enabled choice.
At other times he says God had saved the elect before the foundation of the world, so the rest was just going though the hoops so to say. A mixed message, at best.
Paul is not mixed up at all, though his words are often wrested. (2Pt. 3:16) Here, believers in Christ such as the ones in my illustration having been “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4) or “elect according to the foreknowledge of God,” (1Pt. 1:2) does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so. Likewise Jesus being “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rv. 13:8) The basis by which they were chosen is the big debate.
Why are you surprised???? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.. they are foolishness to the perishing
The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects
God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.
It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem
That's not always the case.
Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”
Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!
Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...
Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.