Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

[Allan]

Jne1611: Here is a little backtracking per your questions.

So. Exactly what are you driving at.

Take the decree to allow man to fall or the decree of mans fall.
We know it is true but there is not a scripture that states God decreed He would allow man TO fall or that states God decreed or established that man WILL HAVE TO fall. But we do know that He knew Man WOULD Fall and therefore [logic] concludes within context a decree is made. I state this since Logic is not supposed to be a key player in Calvinistic theology However it system is based on the logical sequence of how and when these decrees played out that seperates Supra - Infra

Not being smart, but what point are you making? In essence. What exactly is your position on the subject Allan? I'll look for your answer tomorrow

I agree Decrees are in the bible James, and did not state they were NOT there.

What I was alluding to was the some decrees can be argued and some are postulated and others are actually there, but all were put together to better show the system of Calvinistic theology.

And yes, they use scripture to show where a decree IS, or is ALLUDED to (thus the postulation).

But if it can be contextually argued in that it shows a differing view but same truth it is not a clear representation of Fact and therefore an obvious View of Fact

What position - It was stated that logic does not play a big role in the Calvinist theology - I think it does. This does not mean that first you think of a logical next step then search the scripture to prove the point but that given the scriptures logic is used to set it in order and in that logical system some things (like some decrees) are a postulation. Take for example the decree of the Fall of Man. We know nothing that is past, present, or future is outside of God first decreeing it or allowing it to be as He chooses. We know God decreed to make man (for He states let us make man...) We know that God knew man WOULD fall (Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) but nowhere in scripture does it state in any form God knowing the fall would occur decree it to be. However based on LOGIC it reveals that there is a missing decree and it follows that if God makes man but before He physically makes him, Jesus was to be their sacrifice for sin, we know there is a fall that God knew about and decreed it to be. Thus a decree not actually IN scripture yet there standing out ready to slap you.

Now if this decree is not specifically in scripture we can not make any absolute theological stands on anything more than we can postulate or assume. In this case that God HAD to know there was to BE a fall of Man (since He did not decree before man election/damnation we know God knew it would happen but not that He CAUSED it to happen).
We do not know anything more, like was He activily involved or did He allow them a freedom to choose (regarding Man in the Garden). Since the first necessitate that God brought about seperation and damnation to Man we know that Man had choice. What was the extent of that choice can be debated but it still follows at least [a] choice was theirs to make.

The problem comes that since there is nothing that tells us which order the decrees where give it is LOGIC that sets them in up in a systematic way. And depending on where you put a decree can very well determine you theological view and biblical position. Then add to that We do not entirely know or understand the way in which God set His decree to be played out and how you view this to will change you theological view and biblical positioin based on the construct Mostly on scripture, partially postulation, and partially logic when dealing with decrees. IMHO

Basic questions for me from me:
Do I agree there are decrees - Yes
Do I beleive theology should use them - Yes
Do I think how you see them played out will determine our theology - we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. I beleive in each of decree the Calvinist does, I just think their postulation on some parts are inaccurate just as they do mine. But we are still brothers in Christ - Only I'm called by my brothers Uncle F. Ree Willie :laugh: But ** cough** That is not my real name.

 

[webdog]

Jne1611: Here is a little backtracking per your questions.



What position - It was stated that logic does not play a big role in the Calvinist theology - I think it does. This does not mean that first you think of a logical next step then search the scripture to prove the point but that given the scriptures logic is used to set it in order and in that logical system some things (like some decrees) are a postulation. Take for example the decree of the Fall of Man. We know nothing that is past, present, or future is outside of God first decreeing it or allowing it to be as He chooses. We know God decreed to make man (for He states let us make man...) We know that God knew man WOULD fall (Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) but nowhere in scripture does it state in any form God knowing the fall would occur decree it to be. However based on LOGIC it reveals that there is a missing decree and it follows that if God makes man but before He physically makes him, Jesus was to be their sacrifice for sin, we know there is a fall that God knew about and decreed it to be. Thus a decree not actually IN scripture yet there standing out ready to slap you.

Now if this decree is not specifically in scripture we can not make any absolute theological stands on anything more than we can postulate or assume. In this case that God HAD to know there was to BE a fall of Man (since He did not decree before man election/damnation we know God knew it would happen but not that He CAUSED it to happen).
We do not know anything more, like was He activily involved or did He allow them a freedom to choose (regarding Man in the Garden). Since the first necessitate that God brought about seperation and damnation to Man we know that Man had choice. What was the extent of that choice can be debated but it still follows at least [a] choice was theirs to make.

The problem comes that since there is nothing that tells us which order the decrees where give it is LOGIC that sets them in up in a systematic way. And depending on where you put a decree can very well determine you theological view and biblical position. Then add to that We do not entirely know or understand the way in which God set His decree to be played out and how you view this to will change you theological view and biblical positioin based on the construct Mostly on scripture, partially postulation, and partially logic when dealing with decrees. IMHO

Basic questions for me from me:
Do I agree there are decrees - Yes
Do I beleive theology should use them - Yes
Do I think how you see them played out will determine our theology - we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. I beleive in each of decree the Calvinist does, I just think their postulation on some parts are inaccurate just as they do mine. But we are still brothers in Christ - Only I'm called by my brothers Uncle F. Ree Willie :laugh: But ** cough** That is not my real name.

Very well worded post. Allan :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

"Before" is a time quotient. Outside of time would be more accurate.

More accurate........lol. Again I'll ask you webdog, how does this change what I stated in my question, "could Adam and Eve have chosen differently than they did?" I doubt you would answer that because of your view of man's free will being sovereign over God.

 

[webdog]

More accurate........lol. Again I'll ask you webdog, how does this change what I stated in my question, "could Adam and Eve have chosen differently than they did?" I doubt you would answer that because of your view of man's free will being sovereign over God.

First, "before" time is a "time" before time. Outiside of time is more accurate.

Second, your question is silly. If you ate pizza for lunch yesterday and I asked you today "could you have eaten anything different", could you...looking back NOW that it has already come to pass? Adam and Eve both had the freedom to eat of the fruit or obey God. If they were forced into eating it, God is the author of sin, as He decreed it. Now that it has happened, no, they could not have obeyed God. Hind sight is 20/20.

 

[jne1611]

Jne1611: Here is a little backtracking per your questions.



What position - It was stated that logic does not play a big role in the Calvinist theology - I think it does. This does not mean that first you think of a logical next step then search the scripture to prove the point but that given the scriptures logic is used to set it in order and in that logical system some things (like some decrees) are a postulation. Take for example the decree of the Fall of Man. We know nothing that is past, present, or future is outside of God first decreeing it or allowing it to be as He chooses. We know God decreed to make man (for He states let us make man...) We know that God knew man WOULD fall (Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) but nowhere in scripture does it state in any form God knowing the fall would occur decree it to be. However based on LOGIC it reveals that there is a missing decree and it follows that if God makes man but before He physically makes him, Jesus was to be their sacrifice for sin, we know there is a fall that God knew about and decreed it to be. Thus a decree not actually IN scripture yet there standing out ready to slap you.

Now if this decree is not specifically in scripture we can not make any absolute theological stands on anything more than we can postulate or assume. In this case that God HAD to know there was to BE a fall of Man (since He did not decree before man election/damnation we know God knew it would happen but not that He CAUSED it to happen).
We do not know anything more, like was He activily involved or did He allow them a freedom to choose (regarding Man in the Garden). Since the first necessitate that God brought about seperation and damnation to Man we know that Man had choice. What was the extent of that choice can be debated but it still follows at least [a] choice was theirs to make.

The problem comes that since there is nothing that tells us which order the decrees where give it is LOGIC that sets them in up in a systematic way. And depending on where you put a decree can very well determine you theological view and biblical position. Then add to that We do not entirely know or understand the way in which God set His decree to be played out and how you view this to will change you theological view and biblical positioin based on the construct Mostly on scripture, partially postulation, and partially logic when dealing with decrees. IMHO

Basic questions for me from me:
Do I agree there are decrees - Yes
Do I beleive theology should use them - Yes
Do I think how you see them played out will determine our theology - we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. I beleive in each of decree the Calvinist does, I just think their postulation on some parts are inaccurate just as they do mine. But we are still brothers in Christ - Only I'm called by my brothers Uncle F. Ree Willie :laugh: But ** cough** That is not my real name.

OK. I see your stand. I have been looking close lately on the doctrine of double pre. And it appears that I did not understand the implications of the doctrine as taught by some, so I only use the term in my own context now. But I am glad you have the attitude you have. I do regard you my brother in Christ.

 

[Jarthur001]

First, "before" time is a "time" before time. Outiside of time is more accurate.

.

I love it....

Coming soon in a book called..."Yes, he really said that"

 

[Blammo]

I love it....

Coming soon in a book called..."Yes, he really said that"

You don't understand "outside time"?

 

[Scott J]

First, "before" time is a "time" before time. Outiside of time is more accurate.

Second, your question is silly. If you ate pizza for lunch yesterday and I asked you today "could you have eaten anything different", could you...looking back NOW that it has already come to pass? Adam and Eve both had the freedom to eat of the fruit or obey God. If they were forced into eating it, God is the author of sin, as He decreed it. Now that it has happened, no, they could not have obeyed God. Hind sight is 20/20.

Are you arguing that God's foresight is less than 20/20? If we wouldn't hold you accountable for knowing in hindsight what Hitler did is your argument any more valid that God was responsible for Adam's and Eve's sin because He foreknew it and planned for it to include extending grace to the elect?

 

[Jarthur001]

You don't understand "outside time"?

yes...but the time argument that has seen so much on here , just does not work.

This has been shown many times, and still we see it posted. This is "solo atemporalist".

The idea of a "timeless" person and even God is incoherent. Would you care to see why I say this?

 

[Blammo]

yes...but the time argument that has seen so much on here , just does not work.

This has been shown many times, and still we see it posted. This is "solo atemporalist".

The idea of a "timeless" person and even God is incoherent. Would you care to see why I say this?

Yes, James, I would like to see why you say this?

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes, James, I would like to see why you say this?

I thought you might.

The lesser idea 1st..

Time is one standard of creation. The other 2 are space and matter. Time, matter and space are the 3 fundamental characteristics of the universe, even at the level of physics. Lets say God is outside of time. In order for God to work with matter in the universe, He must step into time. Man is matter that takes up space in time. When God touches man, a rock or a tree, he touches time, for that matter which He touches is time. If God saves many, and He does, He is in time working.

But there is a bigger reason...for God is a person. God in 3 persons yet One.

A person, in order to be a person, must be able to remember. To remember is time-bound, but beyond it takes time. The Bible tells us that God can and does remember.

I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.


There is a certain amount of duration with them. It takes time to remember something. It takes time to deliberate about something. These are actions are subject to temporal succession and relationship.

Oscar Cullmann in his 1960 book Christ and Time argued that the idea of timelessness is not a biblical concept at all. It is rather an improper import from Greek philosophy. The Bible knows nothing of a time and eternity distinction at all. What the Bible actually says about time is that there is distinction between limited time, which is our time, and God's unlimited time. We might even call it our timeliness and God's timefulness.

Therefore, I say God is forever. "Forever" even carries a idea of time. God uses words in the Bible that shows He knows what time is, other wise He would not use those words.

If the Bible says "before", this means it has happened. If the Bible says it was before the world, this means the event happened before the world. This was not just for our understanding, but it was placed there for it is the truth. If the Bible says, "Christ will return", this will happen in time. In the "day of the Lord", is a day that will come in His time. When the Bible says, 3 days and 3 nights...it mean 3 days and 3 nights. "weeks" have a few meanings in the Bible, but each meaning has a SET TIME...and it was real.

Do you agree?

 

[Blammo]

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Is this true? (I would think so)

 

[Allan]

What most do not place into the complete picture is this IMO:

1. Man was perfect in the sense of sinlessness.
2. Man was NOT in a "perfect" relationship with God but there was a relationship.
----a. Man did not speak with God any time he wished but did so when God entered the Garden in the evening.
----b. Man did not have the Holy Spirit enabling him "perfect" knowledge, so his knowledge was not complete in ALL things, but was so in relation to his current realm
3. God knew man even in an innocent state WOULD still fall. WHY?
----a. When Man is left "TO HIMSELF" (God not IN mans life but APART of it) will still and always fall, without the empowering of God giving Him perfect knowledge. We see this same facet with man "IN SIN", but more so the outcome; as man will not seek God if left to himself (especially due to our current condition worse than the one of innocents) but the principle is still maintained. Unless God intervene man will stray from God if "left to himself".
----b. So God gave man the freedom of relationship based upon obedience. Mans fall was not based upon his nature but upon the very nature of our relationship with God and therefore since man was not "IN" God he would have the tendency to stray "FROM" God. Which is why IMO, God knew man would fall and that Jesus was the chosen Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
----c. This IMO, puts in perspective the purpose and plan of God, being that God “desires” an intimate relationship with His creation that "desires" Him. This allowed man to fall of his own, places man in a unique position to see with greater clarity the full nature of God in all His aspects including that of His Love and Justice. God did not make or decree man to have no choice or that he had choices but God would only allow man to choose the choice God already made for him. But that ALL of mans choices had the same out come if again, "left to himself".
----d. Mans choice of God after the fall is based upon the "revelation" of knowledge of God that one may accept of reject. This revelation is GIVEN BY GOD via His Calling otherwise there is no understanding of scripture. On this we agree (it is the degree of this knowledge [call] that is debatable). When God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden that "revelation" or knowledge went with them and their children (those the bible tells us about) had this same "revelation of knowledge" for them to worship and offered up to God. Yet still, the principle is maintain as we see in Cain - Having a relationship to God still did not change his tendency to now fall/sin (miss the mark of righteousness) when left to himself. Cain WITH this knowledge and God WILLING TO RESTORE this relationship, rejected truth and sought HIMSELF to make things right is his own distorted eyes. This of course led to God Cursing Cain but loving Him still permitted none to kill him...

So we can see even from following there into biblical future that in the beginning of man as a people there were a majority who know or believed in God from Adam and Eve and possibly God himself speaking with them (Cain and Able). But man when left to himself or a being the basis for initiating the relationship "WILL" eventually fall and do so completely - Noah’s leak in the attic and in the basement - and then it began again with ALL at the beginning knowing and fearing God moved to the same conclusion and therefore one final judgment will be rendered upon man.


Forgot specifically where I was going but since I wrote this much enjoy and destroy! :thumbs: :laugh: Oh Yeah that man has a choice! :BangHead:

 

[jne1611]

What most do not place into the complete picture is this IMO:

1. Man was perfect in the sense of sinlessness.
2. Man was NOT in a "perfect" relationship with God but there was a relationship.
----a. Man did not speak with God any time he wished but did so when God entered the Garden in the evening.
----b. Man did not have the Holy Spirit enabling him "perfect" knowledge, so his knowledge was not complete in ALL things, but was so in relation to his current realm
3. God knew man even in an innocent state WOULD still fall. WHY?
----a. When Man is left "TO HIMSELF" (God not IN mans life but APART of it) will still and always fall, without the empowering of God giving Him perfect knowledge. We see this same facet with man "IN SIN", but more so the outcome; as man will not seek God if left to himself (especially due to our current condition worse than the one of innocents) but the principle is still maintained. Unless God intervene man will stray from God if "left to himself".
----b. So God gave man the freedom of relationship based upon obedience. Mans fall was not based upon his nature but upon the very nature of our relationship with God and therefore since man was not "IN" God he would have the tendency to stray "FROM" God. Which is why IMO, God knew man would fall and that Jesus was the chosen Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
----c. This IMO, puts in perspective the purpose and plan of God, being that God “desires” an intimate relationship with His creation that "desires" Him. This allowed man to fall of his own, places man in a unique position to see with greater clarity the full nature of God in all His aspects including that of His Love and Justice. God did not make or decree man to have no choice or that he had choices but God would only allow man to choose the choice God already made for him. But that ALL of mans choices had the same out come if again, "left to himself".
----d. Mans choice of God after the fall is based upon the "revelation" of knowledge of God that one may accept of reject. This revelation is GIVEN BY GOD via His Calling otherwise there is no understanding of scripture. On this we agree (it is the degree of this knowledge [call] that is debatable). When God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden that "revelation" or knowledge went with them and their children (those the bible tells us about) had this same "revelation of knowledge" for them to worship and offered up to God. Yet still, the principle is maintain as we see in Cain - Having a relationship to God still did not change his tendency to now fall/sin (miss the mark of righteousness) when left to himself. Cain WITH this knowledge and God WILLING TO RESTORE this relationship, rejected truth and sought HIMSELF to make things right is his own distorted eyes. This of course led to God Cursing Cain but loving Him still permitted none to kill him...

So we can see even from following there into biblical future that in the beginning of man as a people there were a majority who know or believed in God from Adam and Eve and possibly God himself speaking with them (Cain and Able). But man when left to himself or a being the basis for initiating the relationship "WILL" eventually fall and do so completely - Noah’s leak in the attic and in the basement - and then it began again with ALL at the beginning knowing and fearing God moved to the same conclusion and therefore one final judgment will be rendered upon man.


Forgot specifically where I was going but since I wrote this much enjoy and destroy! :thumbs: :laugh: Oh Yeah that man has a choice! :BangHead:

I may have read you wrong. Correct me if I did. But you seem to know that a strong point can be made on this "calling". For the Calvinist makes a strong stand right here. And there is significant Scripture to substantiate the fact that the calling that the "elect" receive is very much different from that which is heard with the physical ear. The calling in Scripture as related to the elect of God is particular in its very nature. Have you seen this Allan? That this calling is not just what they hear when the gospel is preached, but a powerful activity taking place in them & the end result being salvation. I can share the Scriptures that I believe apply here if you wish. But I mainly want to know if in your statement about "calling", you see a particular kind of calling as relates to those who are saved?

 

[Jarthur001]

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Is this true? (I would think so)

Yes it is true. Therefore I rest my case.

 

[jne1611]

Yes it is true. Therefore I rest my case.

:laugh: :laugh::laugh:





http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZNxpt237YYUS&utm_id=7926

 

[Allan]

I may have read you wrong. Correct me if I did. But you seem to know that a strong point can be made on this "calling". For the Calvinist makes a strong stand right here. And there is significant Scripture to substantiate the fact that the calling that the "elect" receive is very much different from that which is heard with the physical ear. The calling in Scripture as related to the elect of God is particular in its very nature. Have you seen this Allan? That this calling is not just what they hear when the gospel is preached, but a powerful activity taking place in them & the end result being salvation. I can share the Scriptures that I believe apply here if you wish. But I mainly want to know if in your statement about "calling", you see a particular kind of calling as relates to those who are saved?

Actually, it was a general statement regarding "calling" since there are differing views but they still maintain the premise of the "Call". What you refer to as a "strong" point, has never been a substantially proven point. There is no scripture that designates there are only two types of calls given (efficient and the opposite of that is a feeble calling) but states the elect have been called. No where in scripture does it state there is any other calling but a Holy Calling or a Calling by God. Since scripture states there is a "calling" but does not ACTUALLY state how this call is active within people allows for differing perspectives (as we see even here on BB) and it is mechanics of "the Call" and not "the Call" itself that is percieved in differing ways. :thumbsup:

 

[jne1611]

Actually, it was a general statement regarding "calling" since there are differing views but they still maintain the premise of the "Call". What you refer to as a "strong" point, has never been a substantially proven point. There is no scripture that designates there are only two types of calls given (efficient and the opposite of that is a feeble calling) but states the elect have been called. No where in scripture does it state there is any other calling but a Holy Calling or a Calling by God. Since scripture states there is a "calling" but does not ACTUALLY state how this call is active within people allows for differing perspectives (as we see even here on BB) and it is mechanics of "the Call" and not "the Call" itself that is percieved in differing ways. :thumbsup:

I'll give an example of what I mean:

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Notice "the called", this is not descriptive of something general to all mankind, but particular to God's elect only. Had he said just simply "called", then there might be grounds to doubt, but the language is to plain.


I do not think there can be any doubt that the word "called" in this context is restricted to the elect only.

Then again:

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

It would be impossible for anyone being true to the context of the word "called" to give this to any but God's elect.
Would you not agree that this proves a particular call applicable to God's elect only?

 

[Allan]

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Notice "the called", this is not descriptive of something general to all mankind, but particular to God's elect only. Had he said just simply "called", then there might be grounds to doubt, but the language is to plain

Ok then:
Let's take what you have a look at it. Rom 8:28 - ...them that love God...the Called..
I understand this to be believers just as you do but were we differ is not so much the interpretation of its metaphorical usage as it is the postulation of differing "calls".
Let me show you what I mean.
First let us look at the Greek wording here: [τοις κλητοις] translates - the invited; and it is observed that it is a "metaphor" taken from inviting guests, or making them welcome to a feast. Called is not an improper translation but it means the same thing regarding the metaphorical usage. So how does this help establish my point.

Well lets begin this way: you believe God only saves those He "Calls". Your answer is yes and no. (correct me here if Im wrong) Yes as to effectual and no as to the general. Please show me where there are two types of callings. Most specifically where God gives to other men another that is a feeble call. I use this word since it is the opposite of effectual and shows a complete ineptness in its usage - In other words God does something (general Call) without any purpose to it since He is not expecting any results. :BangHead:

Now scripture tells here also:

16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen

.
Note if you will "BE" called, so in other words "have been". You may say Allan you just answered you own question. Wait brother, just wait... Also in relation to the parable it is speaking of those whom God called to be laborers for Him. And when the Owner of the Vineyard asked why these mem were standing around they stated, because no one has "hired - invited/called" us. But the question now is did ALL go, we see no they did not. Yet it was the same Call from the Master or God. Again this same phrase is used elsewhere, so before we get to set on what it means just yet, let us look at Mat 22 also.

Look at the Wedding Feast:

Mat 22:2-13

and 14 For many are called, but few are chosen

Where were those the Father (God) called and declared to be His guests. They went their own ways and did not come. They rejected it.
God told the sevents to go find anyone they could and invite them TILL His house was filled. This parable ends the same way the other does concerning the Call being an invitation TO come.

Now what about as you stated "THE CALLED". It is a good question and glad you asked. I will use this illistration to make the point.

If you are invited to be the guest at the Bash of the Millennia (Christian of course :laugh: ) as well as the 499 other Guests. The place is packed but you notice the ticket meter does not read near the designated 500 mark. But once the Bash begins the doors are locked and security takes their posts. Now the annoucer comes to the platform and says I would like to thank "THE Guests" tonight for coming. Now 500 people were offered to come but only those who acted upon the invitiation were Identified as THE GUESTS (The Called) but the others once those doors were closed, even though they have an invitation are rejected admittance because they did not act in accordance with the request made. For this story it is be here at a certain time, for God it is believe what I have said.

Didn't Jesus CALL the 12 and one was not of them.

The Called is simply an identifier of what HAS already happened with respect to the Gods calling (let us not add to scripture what is not there concerning effectual calling). However, no one can be there unless invited, right?

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

9b...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And so on...

Let us however go back to Rom 8 for a sec and finish it. I'm sure you will note 28 &29 speak of us having confidence in the future due to a past action.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Work together for good to them who are The Called. A key here is this piece; "...according to His purpose". How so and what is that good? He DID foreknew, THEN He did predestinate THAT they (the Called) for the purpose of being conformed to the image of Jesus being the first born of many. We need to note that foreknow and predestinate as seperate actions being described here and foreknow, preceedes predestine. And why is this important, because it shows what predestination concerns - that it is not the action of election but the action of justification, sanctification, and glorification that we may be the image of Gods Son (this was/is His purpose FOR Calling not the call itself) as we see in the next verses. Remember that foreknew is before predestination and predestination is about conforming The Called - those who acted upon the invitiation. Now we see just how the conforming works within man according to Gods good pleasure.
[

B]30[/B] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified

Now we see predestined looking from the action to the person with whom the action is relating and see that this person IS predestined but predestined not according to election, no but according to verse 29 "those whom He FOREKNEW..." Now my view here differs from some so listen closely here: (Foreknew is not FORESEE as all things with God before time was, was actually IN God as time present) God foreknew who would believe DUE to His knowing there would be a Fall, and a need for a Sacrificial Lamb slain AND that man if left to himself will not seek after God but the God Himself would have to be the initiator and propagator of Salvation. So God Knows who is to accept the OFFER of the Grace of salvition, due to His desire that none should perish and the very reason Jesus is the light that lighteth EVERY man that cometh into the WORLD. In others words God knows it is He who must call man to repent, and in this knowing He knows (Not foresees) who will beleive the offered Grace He extends that

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Clear as Mud??

 

[Allan]

In short it is another postulation concerning a variety of calls or just a single call to which those who beleive are simply The Called.

Man that was much shorter