• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Nature of "called" in 1 Cor. 1:26-31

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Eternal life is not the end goal, but rather eternal life in Christ Jesus resurrected; something God had yet to bring about in Jn 2:24 and Jn 5:24. Their eternal life was guaranteed but yet to be brought to completion.

"for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" (1Cor 15:22)

What does any of this have to do with the nature of calling in 1Cor 1?

You have a "Martha" soteriology which Christ viewed as wrong:

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?



Nobody denies it is brought to completion at the Second Coming of Christ in the glorification of the body. However, eternal life is a present possession at the moment of regeneration (Jn. 5:24) in the spirit of man as the regenerated spirit NEVER DIES "believeth thou this"?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Once again a real Bible would benefit your understanding.
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I don't think it's logical to ignore the fact that the Same word is used in 2 verses.
I also think maybe you are missing Paul's point, he is telling the Corinthians hey , you Have the Spirit, you can understand these spiritual truths I am teaching you, you are not like a natural (lost) man who lacks the Spirit in his life.
Notice the first word in vs 14 "BUT" he is now pointing out they are not like a spiritless Lost man.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jude 1:19
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Same word, natural, sensual men have not the Spirit.

Many people think the NASB is a real bible. But those whose doctrine is based on mistranslation love other versions. The Greek word translated mind set on means what one has in mind. It does not say that a lost person who is without the indwelt Spirit is incapable of setting his or her mind of some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel. OTOH, without the Spirit we are unable to understand spiritual solid food (meat).
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see 2 Corinthians 4:4 has been trotted out yet again, claiming the gospel is hid from all the lost, unless enabled by Irresistible Grace. And of course, that claim remains bogus.

Jesus taught of four kinds of responses to the gospel in Matthew 13:1-26. The first soil had been blinded, and so they [the first soil] were perishing. The other three soils could receive the light of the gospel. These three soils did not suffer from the invention that falsely claimed the fall blinded all of the lost.
 

Gregg T

Member
You have a "Martha" soteriology which Christ viewed as wrong:

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?



Nobody denies it is brought to completion at the Second Coming of Christ in the glorification of the body. However, eternal life is a present possession at the moment of regeneration (Jn. 5:24) in the spirit of man as the regenerated spirit NEVER DIES "believeth thou this"?

Christ viewed Martha's soteriology as incomplete, but that's beside the point.

Yes, eternal life is a present possession for both OT and NT believers. Except that regeneration by the indwelling of the Spirit did not begin to occur in the believer until after the Resurrection of Christ, a concept yet unknown [or at least unrealized] at the time of Jn 2:24 and 5:24.

Nor did salvation in and through Jesus Christ begin to occur until after His Resurrection. Salvation, redemption, lasting righteousness and reconciliation, and atonement in and through Jesus Christ had yet to occur; I was speaking generally about Jesus saving with these things in mind.
 

Gregg T

Member
Let me provide how I see the immediate context unfolding and then if you are among those who repudiate this passage refers to elective calling to salvation then please point out by the IMMEDIATE contextual analysis why you believe my analysis is incorrect.
You are asking for immediate contextual analysis, and yet your superimpose "elective" upon "calling" and "elective calling" upon "salvation", both from a not-immediate source, even an extra-biblical source.

You are doing the very thing you ask others not to do.

May I point you to 1Cor 1:21, "It pleased God ... to save them that believe". Nothing here about God electing before they believe, much less a predetermined irresistible calling.

Note that it does not say 'It pleased God ... to save them that He predetermined to believe.'
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are asking for immediate contextual analysis, and yet your superimpose "elective" upon "calling" and "elective calling" upon "salvation", both from a not-immediate source, even an extra-biblical source.

You are doing the very thing you ask others not to do.

May I point you to 1Cor 1:21, "It pleased God ... to save them that believe". Nothing here about God electing before they believe, much less a predetermined irresistible calling.

Note that it does not say 'It pleased God ... to save them that He predetermined to believe.'
Spot on!!
 

Gregg T

Member
I know there are some on this forum that deny that the above passage refers to election to salvation through the effectual call. I want to understand why you do from a contextual perspective.

Because the context does not mention or insinuate 'effectual', much less 'effectual call', and even much less ' "the" effectual call.'
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Christ viewed Martha's soteriology as incomplete, but that's beside the point.

I don't think you understand his point. His point is that resurrection life of the body is not regenerative life of the spirit. The body comes later, but resurrection life of the spirit is present and inseparable with faith in Christ. Notice, Christ says it is the believer that "shall never die" and he is not referring to his body but another aspect of his being that presently has eternal life.You seem to think eternal life is something abstract and distinct from the being of the believer, but what Christ is denying is that there is an aspect of his being that shall "never die" or is not subject to death. Jesus himself confirms that it is the "spirit" of man that is the subject of new birth (Jn. 3:6). Lazerus' body was in the grave dead but Jesus is affirming that some aspect of Lazerus physical death does not affect and is not subject to death and "shall never die."

Yes, eternal life is a present possession for both OT and NT believers.
No, it is more than a "possession" it is the current STATE of spirit and that is what "shall never die" as it is existing in a condition of immortality incapable of death.


Except that regeneration by the indwelling of the Spirit did not begin to occur in the believer until after the Resurrection of Christ, a concept yet unknown [or at least unrealized] at the time of Jn 2:24 and 5:24.

Ezekiel 44:7-9 demands new birth "circumcised in heart" for Levitical priests to serve in the temple long before the first coming of Christ. Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for being ignorant of new birth, which if your doctrine is right, Jesus had no right to rebuke him as it had no existence.

You don't seem to understand that the fallen condition of man is a SPIRITUAL CONDITION that is characterized by spiritual SEPARATION from God who IS life, IS light, IS love and IS holy and thus that SPIRITUAL CONDITION is a state of spiritual deadness, darkness, depravity and enmity just as described in Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:18-19 and in Romans 8:7 and the only possible remedy is spiritual union with God in order to possess life, light, love and holiness.

Nor did salvation in and through Jesus Christ begin to occur until after His Resurrection. Salvation, redemption, lasting righteousness and reconciliation, and atonement in and through Jesus Christ had yet to occur; I was speaking generally about Jesus saving with these things in mind.

So, you have eternal life existing OUTSIDE of Christ for pre-first coming saints. I suppose Abraham was justified OUTSIDE of Christ as well (Rom. 4)? Paul defines the justification of Abraham as inclusive of righteousness and remission of sins (Rom.4:6-8) and Peter says all the prophets preached that "remission of sins" was obtained by faith by all pre-cross saints (Acts 10:43). So, you are forced to embrace and then defend remission of sins OUTSIDE of Christ. Where does the Bible teach there is any kind of salvation from God OUTSIDE of Christ at any time? Where does the bible say clearly and unequivocally no salvation existed prior to the resurrection of Christ? Are you not denying the very essence of salvation when you admit that pre-cross saints had "eternal life" but did not have salvation.
 
Last edited:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are asking for immediate contextual analysis, and yet your superimpose "elective" upon "calling" and "elective calling" upon "salvation", both from a not-immediate source, even an extra-biblical source.

there is no superimposition at all as the very term "chosen" is used in the context to describe those "called". The immediate context following in chapter two is talking about salvation. Verse 30 explicitly states they were in Christ "of God" and thus they were in Christ by being "chosen" and "called" by God as the preceding context denies this choice and calling were universal but limited.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because the context does not mention or insinuate 'effectual', much less 'effectual call', and even much less ' "the" effectual call.'
Wrong! It most certainly does infer it as both those "chosen" and "called" are limited and not universal and this choice and calling is effectual as it gives the glory all to God alone (vv. 29, 31) and it is this same limited effectual calling that explains how they are in Christ "of God" not of men (v. 30)
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nor did salvation in and through Jesus Christ begin to occur until after His Resurrection. Salvation, redemption, lasting righteousness and reconciliation, and atonement in and through Jesus Christ had yet to occur; I was speaking generally about Jesus saving with these things in mind.

Your view demands three different kinds of human beings (1) lost ungodly; (2) Old Testament people outside of Christ; (3) Saved in Christ. The Bible only knows of two kinds - those (1) In Adam versus those (2) in Christ - there is no third party. There are only those in the kingdom of Satan or those in the kingdom of God. There are only those who born again children of God or natural born children of Satan. Paul said that all who have not have the Spirit of Christ "are none of his" - Rom. 8:9.

the problem is that you have adopted extreme hyper dispensationalism - a man made doctrine that the Bible clearly and completely repudiates over and over again by explicit scriptures.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nor did salvation in and through Jesus Christ begin to occur until after His Resurrection. Salvation, redemption, lasting righteousness and reconciliation, and atonement in and through Jesus Christ had yet to occur; I was speaking generally about Jesus saving with these things in mind.

Put aside the pressure of debate and consider some things together with me. Ask yourself is there some other source of death among men than the fall in the garden (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12). Paul explicitly states that death entered this world by the sin of one man.

Ask yourself are there more than two sources for the spiritual state of all mankind other than being (1) In Adam versus being (2) In Christ? What third source can you provide and you must provide it because your system requires three different kinds of human beings; Your system requires two different kinds of people prior to Christ's coming both of which are OUTSIDE of Christ and yet one kind has "eternal life" without being "in Christ."

Ask yourself is there more than one kind of lost condition due to more than the fall in the Garden because your view requires more than one kind of human condition OUTSIDE of Christ.

Don't answer too quickly, think it through a little.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord.

Let us begin again, and make some unquestionable conclusions and ask some obvious questions.

1. The immediate preceding context is about salvation - vv.17-25
2. The immediate foregoing context is about the impotency of the preacher of the gospel - ch. 2

Now, for some obvious questions:

1. What in verses 26-28 would lead one to believe all the glory belongs to God for salvation so that no man could glory in his presence?

2. Does Paul in verses 26-28 claim because you "believed" God chose you or called you?

3. Is there anything in verses 26-28 that would lead you to think this is a universal choosing and calling by God or is he saying the very opposite?

4. How could the limited choosing and limited calling be helpful in making the case for his conclusion that they were "of God in Christ Jesus"?
 

Gregg T

Member
I don't think you understand his point. His point is that resurrection life of the body is not regenerative life of the spirit. The body comes later, but resurrection life of the spirit is present and inseparable with faith in Christ. Notice, Christ says it is the believer that "shall never die" and he is not referring to his body but another aspect of his being that presently has eternal life.You seem to think eternal life is something abstract and distinct from the being of the believer, but what Christ is denying is that there is an aspect of his being that shall "never die" or is not subject to death. Jesus himself confirms that it is the "spirit" of man that is the subject of new birth (Jn. 3:6). Lazerus' body was in the grave dead but Jesus is affirming that some aspect of Lazerus physical death does not affect and is not subject to death and "shall never die."

No, it is more than a "possession" it is the current STATE of spirit and that is what "shall never die" as it is existing in a condition of immortality incapable of death.




Ezekiel 44:7-9 demands new birth "circumcised in heart" for Levitical priests to serve in the temple long before the first coming of Christ. Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for being ignorant of new birth, which if your doctrine is right, Jesus had no right to rebuke him as it had no existence.

You don't seem to understand that the fallen condition of man is a SPIRITUAL CONDITION that is characterized by spiritual SEPARATION from God who IS life, IS light, IS love and IS holy and thus that SPIRITUAL CONDITION is a state of spiritual deadness, darkness, depravity and enmity just as described in Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:18-19 and in Romans 8:7 and the only possible remedy is spiritual union with God in order to possess life, light, love and holiness.



So, you have eternal life existing OUTSIDE of Christ for pre-first coming saints. I suppose Abraham was justified OUTSIDE of Christ as well (Rom. 4)? Paul defines the justification of Abraham as inclusive of righteousness and remission of sins (Rom.4:6-8) and Peter says all the prophets preached that "remission of sins" was obtained by faith by all pre-cross saints (Acts 10:43). So, you are forced to embrace and then defend remission of sins OUTSIDE of Christ. Where does the Bible teach there is any kind of salvation from God OUTSIDE of Christ at any time? Where does the bible say clearly and unequivocally no salvation existed prior to the resurrection of Christ? Are you not denying the very essence of salvation when you admit that pre-cross saints had "eternal life" but did not have salvation.

there is no superimposition at all as the very term "chosen" is used in the context to describe those "called". The immediate context following in chapter two is talking about salvation. Verse 30 explicitly states they were in Christ "of God" and thus they were in Christ by being "chosen" and "called" by God as the preceding context denies this choice and calling were universal but limited.

Wrong! It most certainly does infer it as both those "chosen" and "called" are limited and not universal and this choice and calling is effectual as it gives the glory all to God alone (vv. 29, 31) and it is this same limited effectual calling that explains how they are in Christ "of God" not of men (v. 30)

Your view demands three different kinds of human beings (1) lost ungodly; (2) Old Testament people outside of Christ; (3) Saved in Christ. The Bible only knows of two kinds - those (1) In Adam versus those (2) in Christ - there is no third party. There are only those in the kingdom of Satan or those in the kingdom of God. There are only those who born again children of God or natural born children of Satan. Paul said that all who have not have the Spirit of Christ "are none of his" - Rom. 8:9.

the problem is that you have adopted extreme hyper dispensationalism - a man made doctrine that the Bible clearly and completely repudiates over and over again by explicit scriptures.

Put aside the pressure of debate and consider some things together with me. Ask yourself is there some other source of death among men than the fall in the garden (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12). Paul explicitly states that death entered this world by the sin of one man.

Ask yourself are there more than two sources for the spiritual state of all mankind other than being (1) In Adam versus being (2) In Christ? What third source can you provide and you must provide it because your system requires three different kinds of human beings; Your system requires two different kinds of people prior to Christ's coming both of which are OUTSIDE of Christ and yet one kind has "eternal life" without being "in Christ."

Ask yourself is there more than one kind of lost condition due to more than the fall in the Garden because your view requires more than one kind of human condition OUTSIDE of Christ.

Don't answer too quickly, think it through a little.

Could you rephrase all of that with one or two short simple responses, and without assuming also what I think?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Could you rephrase all of that with one or two short simple responses, and without assuming also what I think?
Just take it one section at a time. I never assumed what you thought, I reacted to what you said and stated the necessary conclusions for what you said.
 

Gregg T

Member
Just take it one section at a time. I never assumed what you thought, I reacted to what you said and stated the necessary conclusions for what you said.

Okay, let's begin with the first of those 5 responses, the first phrase of the 1st response. There you said:
I don't think you understand his point.

But here you say, "I never assumed what you thought".

Which is true:

1. You don't think I understand his point

or

2. You never assumed what I thought
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Okay, let's begin with the first of those 5 responses, the first phrase of the 1st response. There you said:


But here you say, "I never assumed what you thought".

Which is true:

1. You don't think I understand his point

or

2. You never assumed what I thought

Based ON WHAT YOU SAID I said this and then explained why I said this. However, it seems you are more interested in avoiding the real issues. Could it be that you simply can't deal with the issues placed before you, and so this is your tactic, change the subject to quibble over nothing and finally get out of the whole debate?
 

Gregg T

Member
Based ON WHAT YOU SAID I said this and then explained why I said this. However, it seems you are more interested in avoiding the real issues. Could it be that you simply can't deal with the issues placed before you, and so this is your tactic, change the subject to quibble over nothing and finally get out of the whole debate?
I do not want to get out of this 'whole debate'. As you suggested to 'just take it one section at a time' so I chose the first section, the first phrase. You did not answer my question, but you changed the subject; a tactic you are accusing me of.

My point is you do indeed "sometimes" assume what I think, although you said, 'I never assumed what you thought.'

As with me, you also sometimes assume much in Scripture. You assume 'those "chosen" and "called" are limited and not universal and this choice and calling is effectual' - concepts not present in 1Cor 1:26-31.

Where does 1Cor 1 say anything is limited or effectual? Those concepts are not present there. Your saying they are inferred, or understood in Paul's thinking, does not make it so.

You introduce those concepts into you reading of 1Cor 1 because of how you define 'calling' and 'chosen.' You bring a definition and meaning to those words that do not exist in 1Cor 1, and thereby assume such concepts as 'effectual' and 'limited' are also present.

I was hoping that you would realize that because you sometimes assume what I think, you might also realize the possibility of your assuming things in 1Cor 1.

See, I am not 'avoiding the real issues' as you might be thinking, as you questioned above. My tactic was to take your advice and tackle each post one at a time, phrase by phrase, your line by your line. Evidently, that was not agreeable.

---

As to the OP:

"your calling, brethren" in 1Cor 1:26 refers to their reputation, what they are known by, the average vocation of believers in Corinth or to their station in life as God found them when they first believed in the LORD - not many of them are wise, but perhaps some of them are; not many wise after the flesh, but perhaps a few are; not many mighty or noble, but perhaps a couple of them are. That is their κλῆσιν, the reputation of the believers at Corinth, the character of their name, that they are comprised of mostly average salt-of-the-earth people with equal standing before the Lord. They are not righteous before God because of their station in life, neither do they have salvation in Christ Jesus because of their vocation or merits - but because every believer there has trusted in God for righteousness and in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. They derive the character of their name because of who God is, because of what He has brought about in His Son. None of them have a right to boast in their vocation or station or freedom or citizenship, but in the Lord only. That is their name, their κλῆσιν, that they have a name because of the Name, of Christ. He is their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. He Himself is their glory, Lord, power, strength, might, a very wellborn One.
 

Gregg T

Member
The root of 'calling' in 1Cor 1:26 is κλῆσιν and is a noun. The root of 'chose' in 1Cor 1:27 is λέγω and is prefixed by ἐκ, to form ἐκλέγω, a verb. These are two different words, unrelated to one another, each with multiple meanings based on context.

The OP sites the "nature of called" in the title, and then underlines 'called' in 1Cor 1:26. This is the nature of "called" in 1Cor 1:26 ... that word 'called' both ending v26 and in the OP title is not there in the Greek text, but was assumed to be present by the translators. It has no nature, as something not there in the Greek text can not have a nature.

1Cor 1:26 does not have any verbs except βλέπω, 'you see' beginning the verse. Now the reader may see that in v26 no [verbal] actions are upon wise, powerful, or high-born ones. In other words v26 does not say that not many wise, powerful, or high-born ones are called; but rather those 3 adjectives characterize or are adjectival to 'brethren'.

They were not somehow mysteriously chosen before the world began, or unconditionally elected, or effectually called.

Although I appreciate and consult the KJV, it seems they assumed the verb 'are called' to be present in 1Cor 1:26 when it is not present; and have set the president for readers to also make other assumptions [perhaps such as effectual or limited being present in concept, although I do not see how].
 
Last edited:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I do not want to get out of this 'whole debate'. As you suggested to 'just take it one section at a time' so I chose the first section, the first phrase. You did not answer my question, but you changed the subject; a tactic you are accusing me of.
I did answer your question, you just didn't like my answer. I said my response, which you are questioning was my reaction to what you said. If you go back you can see that clearly, but you are obviously not interested in that at all, but just want to argue a ridiculous point in order to get off point.


As with me, you also sometimes assume much in Scripture. You assume 'those "chosen" and "called" are limited and not universal and this choice and calling is effectual' - concepts not present in 1Cor 1:26-31.

Where does 1Cor 1 say anything is limited or effectual? Those concepts are not present there. Your saying they are inferred, or understood in Paul's thinking, does not make it so.

You introduce those concepts into you reading of 1Cor 1 because of how you define 'calling' and 'chosen.' You bring a definition and meaning to those words that do not exist in 1Cor 1, and thereby assume such concepts as 'effectual' and 'limited' are also present.

I have presented the evidence you are demanding in the very posts you cite. Instead, you ingnore the evidence presented and pretend as though I offered nothing to prove these points from the context. I will simply wait to get to my posts where the evidence is cited and see how you can deny that evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top