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

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"?

 

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.

 

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"?

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.