Does God Effectually Call all believers?

There is little doubt that the doctrine of the Effectual Calling of God is clearly taught in scripture. (sometimes refered to as "Irresistable Grace")

"All that the Father gives me will come to me." (Jn 6)

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man." (Gal.1:15)

For He wrought effectually in Peter to apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:8)

Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. (Eph. 3:7)

Many Arminians try to deny this obvious teaching by reinterpreting the text to somehow mean that God's calling unto salvation is not effectual, but is somehow able to be resisted by man's will. They only does damage to the truth of God's Word. Their vain efforts to disprove the Sovereign ability of God's effectual calling only hurts their cause. It invalidates the truths of their teachings.

Please listen to me Arminians, stop trying to disprove God's effectual calling of certain individuals. Your heart might be in the right place, but you method is contrayary to the clear teachings of the text.

Do you really think Paul, could have twarted God's plan by dening God's effectual call on his life? What about Noah, Moses, Jonah, Peter or any of those God Sovereignly chose to accomplish his divine purpose of redeemption? Come now, you must see that God's intervention in the lives of these men had to be effectual and unchanging, otherwise God's plan of redemption may have been twarted by a stubborn man.

Arminians, your arguement should not be that the scripture does not teach "effectual calling." It should be that "effectual calling" is uniquly applied to only those who have been chosen to carry out God's Sovereign unchanging act of Redeemption.

Notice all of the verses listed above are in reference to the first disciple's of Christ. The Apostles, God's uniquely called and gifted individuals, who were given the task of ushering in the New Covenant and to form the foundation for the church.

Calvinists call us prideful, because they say we think we "save ourselves." But, really whose doctrine is more pride filling? They are the ones who beleive that they were "set apart from birth" like Paul was (Gal. 1:15). And they think they were uniquly chosen like the apostles were (Jn 15:16). They believe they were "effectually called" as was Peter. How prideful is that? To assume that you have been "appointed" in the same way the apostles were eventhough the scriptures never specifically links all future believers to "effectual calling" or "Sovereign election." There whole system of belief is based upon one assumption. We all know what ASSuMEing can do.

What uniqueness has set the apostles apart from the rest of believers? What gave them the authority to write inspired words? What gave them the ability to perform even greater miracles than Christ? What gave them the right to start the church and teach the truths of God?

I submit that their uniqueness is found in their calling. Throughout history God has selected individuals to work through in order to accomplish His divine purpose. Despite the fact that He is completely sovereingn, He has chose to allow the spiritual forces of evil to rule this dark world (Eph. 6:12) Nevertheless, he still intervenes in the world to accomplish His ultimate purposes. He chose Noah out of the world to accomplish his plan of "starting over". He chose Moses to accomplish his plan of removing the Israelites from the hands of the Egyptians. He chose Jonah, despite his will, to preach the message to Ninevah. And he divinely chose to effectually call his first disciples to usher in the divine plan of redeemption which was accomplished in Christ.

How can one believe that we are called in the same way that these men were called?

Was Thomas, for example, saved by Grace, through faith? No. Faith was not required for someone who saw what he saw. Jesus said to him, "You believe because you seen me..."

The apostle's calling was different than our calling. Calvinist assume God saves us in the same way he saved them, that is an assumption that no one should make unless it can clearly be seen in the scripture. I have yet to see it.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

When I say "apostles" I mean all of those who followed Christ during the Apostolic age. These believers were uniquely gifted and given a special task of ushering in the New Covenant and providing a foundation for the church.

I'm not saying that their is no application to us as modern day believers in the scripture, but that when it comes to the giving of their personal testimonies of salvation, they are unique. How many people do you know who have met Jesus, healed someone, got blinded on a road to Damascus, started the first churches, wrote the scriptures. These passages must be interpeted within the context in which they were written.

Bro. Bill

 

Sturgman, we both have our speculations. Is the best arguement you can come up with is, "God doesn't change." When it comes to his plan of redeemption he has most definately employeed various means. In the Old Covenant, the Law was presented as a "means to righteousness" though it was not attainable. Are we to assume that God's plan couldn't include the Sovereign intervention of the apostles to usher in the Covenant of Grace through the means of faith to anyone and everyone who chooses to believe? It seems to me that even in the Old Testament God presented His people with the option to follow or not. The prophets, priests and kings were the ones that God Sovereignly called to carry out his ultimate purposes.

Here is a question for you:
God was upset with Israel because they continually rebelled against Him, right? The elect prophets of God did not rebell, they carried out God plan, sometimes even when they didn't want to (ie Jonah). If God would have "effectually called" the Israelites they couldn't have rejected Him. So, we know God didn't "effectually call" the causual Israelite man or woman, otherwise they wouldn't have continually rebelled and God wouldn't have grown angry with them. Therefore, we can conclude that the only ones who were Sovereignly Elected were the prophets and leaders who were "effectually called" to carry out God's Sovereign plan. If God only 'effectually called" the prophets of the OT why should you assume that he would "change" and start "effectually calling" every person, instead of just calling His divinly appointed leaders who are entrusted to carry out is Sovereign plan of redeemption?

It seems to me that your assumption is the one who is making God "change" his ways of "effectually calling" particular individuals to carry out His ultimate plan.

I know that is a long question, I hope it was clear. I await your answer.

Bro. Bill

 

Sturgman has written me off but I sincerely would like to hear a response to this last question from some of you who are not afraid to handle new ideas thrown your way.

Thank you,
Bro. Bill

 

How do you refute my claims?

1) Show a link between "effectual call" and "Sovereign election" to believers outside the apostolic age.

2) Tell me what it was about Paul that gave him his unique apostolic authority, if it was not his "sovereign election" and "effectual calling."

3) Address my arguement concerning OT election and why God got angry with Israel for resisting Him when he did not "effectually call" all of them.

This would be a good start to intelligent debate.

Bro. Bill

 

By the way, I need to also make another point about this.

I have never said that the bible does not apply to us. I said that specific teachings concerning "election" and "effectual calling" seem to be uniquly applied to the first disciples, thus giving them their unique authority.

Jesus also said to the apostles, "You will perform greater signs and miracles than this." Do you believe this also must apply to us? Most Calvinist I know don't, so why do you set me apart as making some new argument just because I question the application of your Calvinistic proof texts?

Look at my post to Russell55 on the other thread concerning Eph. 1 to see my full argument.

Bro. Bill

 

Actually Bro Bill, Calvinists believe all believers are Sovereignly Elected, not just themselves. Even one who claims to have believed under his own will, still God's Sovereign Election is true. We do not hold ourselves to be anything but sinners saved by Grace. And then to still possess the sin nature in our flesh, causing us to lean more and more upon Christ. This is the true claim of Calvinists, all who are saved are saved because they were Sovereignly Elected.
</font>[/QUOTE]I was shooting back at someone who was calling me prideful because I thought I could "save myself," which is a ridiculous accusation. IMHO

I wasn't meaning you personally Dallas. Remember I was once a Calvinist, I'm aware of the humility it produces, I say that with all sincerity. I don't believe all Calvinist are prideful. But when my system is accused of being pride producing I sometimes feel that I need to stoop to their level and show them how their system could also be pride producing. My theory is this, if your a prideful Arminian you would be a prideful Calvinist too. Pride has no respector of doctrine.

I'm sorry my shot at one of you hit you all, that is not a fair accusation. I'll try not to stoop to that level again. Please forgive me.

Bro. Bill

 

Yes, that may be true in your experience but the assertion that pride results from an Arminian stance is utterly ridiculous. None of us see belief as some kind of a merit that is reason to boast in, as many of you assume. We stand in awe of grace, just as the Calvinist, to assume otherwise is in itself a prideful act.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Then your definition of "Apostolic Authority" is non-sensical. </font>[/QUOTE]You're right. After re-reading that quote I see that it didn't come out like I meant for it to. I left out an important word or two, I should have said, "When I say "apostles" I mean all of those who followed Christ's direct revelation during the Apostolic age.

What I meant by this was that the apostles were the ones who were taught by Christ personally. In other words, the ones who didn't hear the message from a mere man, but heard the message directly from Christ Himself. In other words, they were eye witnesses to the account. I hope that clears up my previous statement. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill