"Effectual Call"

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but that verse doesn't say anything at all about grace being through faith. In the greek, the endings link both grace and faith to salvation. IOW, the passage is saying:
You are saved by grace.
You are saved through faith.

The passage cannot be rightly construed to be saying "Grace is through faith". Might it be? Yes, but this passage can't rightly be used to argue that.

 

I'm just trying to figure out where MB is coming from. From his previous posts, he seems to think that we don't receive grace until we reach out in faith first. Such a view is patently unbiblical. Even most non-Cals believe God is the one who initiates, by His grace, the Gospel call.

 

True. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Section 2 says it that men are passive in the effectual call. Yes, that's being born again, but that's not, to a Calvinist, the exact same thing as being saved. But you've been told this over and over again and you chose to ignore it. Nobody says you have to agree that they're different, by the way, but it's disingenuous to read the WCF and transport your own definitions rather than the definitions they are using into the text.

And, BTW, there are a whole lot of genuine Baptists who wouldn't see being born again and being saved as exactly the same thing, so don't make it a Baptist thing.

But word order in a sentence is not necessarily the chronological of the events, and in this case, with the punctuation etc, we know it's not chronological order.

You don't have to agree. But you need to understand how the other side defines the terms in order to understand what they believe so that you don't misrepresent their beliefs. When you say that Calvinists believe that people are completely passive in the process of salvation, you are misrepresenting their beliefs.

 

I disagree and so does Green's interlinear. It says "For by grace you are being saved, through faith"
This passage below also supports Grace is through faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Faith comes before any grace.
MB

 

No, that is second, but it is necessary. The first was God providing for us, in love, through Christ. He reached out to all of us that way.

THEN, how we respond is the telling point.

 

Even in 'normal English', listing things in a particular order does not mean that the things listed are done in a particular order...much less that the previous item causes the second item.

So, for instance, I could say:
"Today I washed my clothes, sunbathed, ate lunch, went shopping and changed the oil in my car." There is absolutely no reason based on a list like that to think that I did any of those things in the order listed. There is no hint that it is a chronological listing. For it to be a chronological listing, I would need to give some clue that it was - like including 'then' with each item. Agreed?

If so, why do you approach the WC differently and see chronology simply because things are listed in a certain order?

 

Hi Andy;

Actually Hellen gave a good answer. Of Course God has chosen us first but this isn't saving grace. Saving grace can only be had through faith.
MB

 

I'm always amazed at how people can take the English language to such an extent.

No I disagree If you listed things like that I would think you were still cover in oil and grease from changing the oil.
Eph 2:8 gives a chronicle order and there is no escaping it when it was said we are saved by grace through faith. The last two words gave it an order in which it happens.

I do not. Although by the word saying through faith it placed faith before grace. The scriptures listed grace first but it is through faith.
MB

 

Skypair,

Let's try this, which is the section on the effectual call from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 31. The Catechism is meant to accompany the Westminster Confession, and explain or teach what is found in it.

Is that clearer than the more complicated wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith?

 

??!! No it doesn't! In fact, if anything, it makes it even more clear that it doesn't.

The original text is in greek, so I recommend you find a greek scholar (any doctrinal position you like) and ask them if the greek supports your logic. I already know the answer because I was trying to discover if the 'that/it' of the next verse modified faith or salvation. Anyways, don't take my word for it, find someone who knows greek well and ask them based on textual (not doctrinal) reasons how it is best read.

But since neither of us knows greek lets just deal with the English in the text you give.
Subject: you
Predicate: are being saved
Prepositions: by grace; through faith

Prepositions never refer to each other. Go talk to an English teacher if you don't take my word on that one. I just went and asked two high school English teachers who teach grammar and they both very quickly replied that 'by grace' and 'through faith' would never been seen as refering to each other - both are added information about 'salvation'.

The grammar simply doesn't support the logic you claim for it. It doesn't conflict with your position, but it can't be used to support it.

This is a statement of present tense. Again, the structure of the sentence doesn't support your logic for it. The verse says that we have access by faith into grace in which we stand(present tense). That is not logically the same as saying that faith precedes grace...esp. if one is referring to 'saving grace'. It might be used to imply such a claim but it would be a stretch to make that particular claim for this passage.

 

As as been pointed out, that may be the way you see it, but its not the way the WC uses the concept. Don't impose your view on the document and it will make more sense.

What? The WC *explicitly* says the call is *to* salvation. I wasn't referring to what I believe but what the WC says.

Sure they believer regeneration comes before hearing...but you went far beyond that in the order you gave. Stick with your original argument please.

I don't follow you. Please restate.

 

Curious...when did I acknowledge the validity of some of your 'attacks'?

As to your understanding their teachings, in the month I have been here it seems a large portion of the forum is given over to Cists pointing out this very fact. It seems quite arrogant to me for someone to claim they understand someones position when the one's holding that position point out misconception after misconception. I hope you aren't so arrogant.

Thats fine, we can save that particular discussion for later. I merely wish to point out that your imposing of this concept, no matter how Scriptural it may be, is causing you to seriously misread the WC which does not hold that position.

I don't follow you here. What exactly is 'how silly'? And what are you trying to argue with the example of David dancing as they brought in the ark?

Heh, I doubt you would find many Calvinists (or Lutherans for that matter who would agree with that assessment, so your claims of ALL is rather overstated. But Finney is a discussion for a different thread. I merely point out the fallacy of reading too much into invitations or lack of them. Its a relatively recent historical phenomena.

I don't deny what *you see*. What you might see is not necessarily representative. I don't dispute that some Cists teach things contrary to others - just as some who claim to be Christians reject the deity of Christ. Lets deal, not with you might see in your own personal experience which may or may not be accurate, objective or representative, but instead with what is truly representative of Cist beliefs. There are many things which might fault Cists for and I would nod in sympathy but I am a student of logic and language and obvious straw men and fallacious reasoning I will protest against...I won't put up with from either side.

Lost me there. What has nobody offered? Is my restatement more accurate or not? If not, then what is your proof? If so, then drop your earlier misstatement.

Ok, lets assume that this is true. Now go find a Cist who agrees with you - one who can write and respond actively, not simply some writer who can't be here to clarify your or my misunderstanding of what they wrote. Do that and if they actually end up agreeing with you I will be glad to grant that maybe you aren't quite so arrogant in your self-assurance as you seem.

In the meantime though, let me simply point out that numerous Cists here have repeatedly pointed out your basic misconceptions...while none have disagreed with mine.

 

Nope, same time period, and by the same people. They were meant to go together. The Confession is written for parliament, though, and might be more technical.

 

A more recent formulation? Actually, it was written at the same general time as the WC by the same group which wrote the WC. IOW, its the writers of the WC interpreting the WC in simpler terms.

So, is that issue settled now. Do you agree that the WC does not in fact hold that enlightenment was a result of salvation?