Details - Details

The "Call" IS clearly HEARD according to John 16 because the Spirit "CONVICTS" the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment. They can not be CONVICTED of what they can not hear!!

But they may still REJECT the Holy Spirit's conviction (living in an internally conflicted state in that case).

God says HE DRAWS ALL -- that DRAWING (even by Calvinist standards) ENABLES the choice that TD disables!! So AGAIN - it is working!!

The fact that FREE WILL enables those who are DRAWN and who are CONVICTED to TURN and REJECT LIGHT does NOT change the DRAWING or the CONVICTING -- indeed "I STAND at the door and KNOCK IF ANY MAN hears my voice AND opens the door THEN I WILL COME IN and fellowship with him".

How facinating to find that Calvinism has not a leg to stand on!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

In John 8, Christ tells the Pharisees that they "cannot hear." That is not about physical ability, but about spiritual ability. They could not hear/understand his word because they had the wrong father. Until their father changed, they would not be able to hear. That doesn't contradict anything in Roman 10:17, Gal 3:2 or anything else. It simply indicates taht spiritual understanding does not belong to everyone.

 

One of these days, take some time to demonstrate this. So far, you have not even offered a reasonable objection, much less a refutation. You don't have to do it soon. I know you are busy posting all this other nonsense ... but sometime, just try to spell out the problems with Calvinism. That way, you can get away from this other stuff and focus on things that matter.

 

Well at least those two parts of your post were correct!!

We take what we can get.

No lets SEE how Romans 10 fits so perfectly into the John 8 model!! It says "Faith comes by hearing AND hearing by the Word of God" then it argues the Calvinist point "SURELY they have never HEARD have they"???

God not only finds HEARERS among the Jews but EVEN in the case of those who REFUSE to hear - God works for them trying to move them by the motive of "jealousy"

Indeed the argument that God blinded all the jews so they would all go to hell as "His CHosen people for ..." Hell? -- Can not be sustained in scripture as Paul points out that the saints come from BOTH the Jews AND the Gentiles

So although one might argue eisegetically that God caused all Jews not to hear - and base it on a quote of the OT -- yet Paul debunks those tactics

The same eisegesis that Paul stops in Romans 11 is stopped as well in John 8. Christ is not arguing that they CAN not hear because God STOPPED them - rather it is already pointed out that "THEY rejected God's PURPOSE FOR THEM"!! Only in that context can we see how perfectly John 8 fits in with the debunking that Paul is doing in Romans 11 regarding those who would argue that GOD STOPPED them from hearing!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mumm is the word

 

I think we can cut to the chase here pretty quick by pointing out that the problem is John 8 was not a physical hearing problem, but one of spiritual understanding. And Jesus said they were "unable" to understanding because of who their father was. Until their Father is God (i.e., born again or regenerated), they will not be able to understand.

Romans 10 is perfectly consistent. Withour hearing the message, they will not be saved. But all who hear are not saved, and do not understand the spiritual truths, as Scripture clearly points out.

The universal call is made the effectual call by the work of hte Holy Spirit in the life. We do not know precisely how that works (John 3), as the old song says "I know not how the Spirit moves convincing men of sin." I don't know how it works, but 1 Cor 1 makes clear that the difference between saved and unsaved is "the call." There, the unsaved Jews and Gentiles and contrasted with "the called." Clearly, the unsaved were not part of "the called."

 

Efficacious for what? If the word always accomplishes its purpose each and every time out, then what is its purpose? To bring faith? We have to say no. To make people believe they are sinners? We have to say no.

There is a hardening affect in the message as well as a saving affect.

I am not aware of any place it says in John 9 that they believed. What verse do you have in mind?

This was not out of belief, but out of anger.

I never said there was a foolish call and a powerful call. There isn't. There is a universal call and an effectual call. They are both real calls.

Not at all. The universal call is not worthless.

An effectual universal call would lead to universalism. Man cannot turn an effectual call into foolishness. That is a contradiction. "Effectual" means it effects its intent. If the call to salvation is "effectual," then by definition people respond in belief to salvation.

 

Paul points out in places like Romans 11 that those who reject the gospel as foolishness are LATER grafted in in many cases and are in other cases "moved" even by being made jealous to embrace the gospel.

At Pentecost many priests and leaders accept Christ - the SAME people that considered Him foolish and rejected him prior to that.

Trying to "stretch 1 Cor 1" into saying something it does not - creates a host of problems in the text of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Only if God were to hand all "definitions" over to Calvinists. But IF GOD determines that "EFFECTIVE" is defined as ENABLING REAL choice among those who HAVE NO choice without the actual EFFECTIVE enabling -- then it is EFFECTIVE even when the person CHOOSES poorly.

God EFFECTIVELY makes Lucifer a FREE WILL , sinless PERFECT child of God EVEN though Lucifer later USES that gift for evil.

God EFFECTIVELY makes Adam a free Will, sinless, happy, PERFECT child of God EVEN Though Adam will later ABUSE those gifts and fall into rebellion.

Calvinism would charge God with "NOT EFFECTIVELY Making Lucifer a sinless being".

Such "man-made contrivances" should not be injected into God's actions AS IF they had substance or even bound God in some way. They do not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

None of which has anything to do with 1 Cor 1. That passage teaches clearly that the difference between the saved and unsaved is the call. The fact that people are at one point hostile and later are "grafted in" or "accept Christ" is certainly. All "the called" at one point rejected Christ and were hostile to him. So what you said, really doesn't address my point or the point of 1 Cor 1.

Well, God didn't determine the meaning of "effective." What you describe isn't the way "effectual" or "effective" is used in this discussion. You can certainly change the meaning if you want, but that doesn't help. The "effectual call" is the call of God that brings a person to salvation. If the person chooses poorly, then the call was not effectual. God doesn't fail in what he sets out to do.

You can't just change topics. "Effectual call" has a specific meaning. You can't just change it to try to make a point about something else.

We are not injecting anything into God's plan, but rather taking what God said in his word. I think if you study effectual call from a Calvinistic viewpoint, you will see that your responses here really do not deal with it at all.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But IF GOD determines that "EFFECTIVE" is defined as ENABLING REAL choice among those who HAVE NO choice without the actual EFFECTIVE enabling -- then it is EFFECTIVE even when the person CHOOSES poorly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that case Calvinists are free to call God's Drawing "inneffective" whenever they "choose".

In the mean time - Arminians will simply observe that the drawing of God "effectively" enables the choice to come to God that depravity disables.

That was easy!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul points out in places like Romans 11 that those who reject the gospel as foolishness are LATER grafted in in many cases and are in other cases "moved" even by being made jealous to embrace the gospel.

At Pentecost many priests and leaders accept Christ - the SAME people that considered Him foolish and rejected him prior to that.

Trying to "stretch 1 Cor 1" into saying something it does not - creates a host of problems in the text of scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually it does if you try to argue the point that those who failed to accept Christ today - must not be called or elect. When you notice that they DO come to Christ tomorrow you see what a contrived "definition" Calvinism was trying to inject into the chapter.

In Christ,

Bob

 

What? God's call is never ineffective. It always accomplishes its purpose. Where we differ is on what the purpose is.

You can say that, and if you use "effectively" like Calvinists would, then we will agree. But what is clear from Scripture is that the call is not "effective" in this sense for all mankind without distinction.

No Bob, think about this a bit. Those who fail to accept Christ today may still be elect. There are elect that aren't saved. Don't forget that. Election guarantees that they will be saved before they die. But that has nothing to do with what 1 Cor 1 says.

Read it closely, and note the difference between Jew (for whom Christ is a stumblingblock), Greek (for whom a crucified Messiah is foolishness), and "the called" (for whom Christ is the wisdom and power of God). Go through and ask yourself how God describes those people: The jews and Greeks are both unsaved. The "called" are saved. There are no "called" in that passage for whom christ is not the power of God and wisdom of God. The "called" is coextensive with the saved. If you think about what the passage is saying for a bit and put aside your preconceived notions, I think you will see it pretty easily.

 

If you think about what the passage is saying for a bit and put aside your preconceived notions, I think you will see it pretty easily.

That's the problem here isn't it?

Good luck on understanding Rom 8:30 if there isn't a difference between and effectual call and an outward call (non effectual)...

 

Hey now we are on to something.

In John 6 we find that no one can come to God unless they are drawn. What is the "purpose of the drawing" but to enable someone to come to God??

In John 12 we find that God DRAWS mankind - is it your argument that Calvinism claims that this drawing is NOT EFFECTIVE in drawing the sinner to God and enabling that choice to come to God that depravity disables???

OR do you claim it "is Effective" but not in doing the above - because it does even less than that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the mean time - Arminians will simply observe that the drawing of God "effectively" enables the choice to come to God that depravity disables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an Arminian I would argue that "IT IS effective for ALL mankind without distinction" in drawing them to God such that they are fully ENABLED to choose life -- a choice that was DISABLED with depravity and is only ENABLED by the effective DRAWING of God of ALL mankind and yet that means "without distinction".

In Christ,

Bob