"Effectual Call"

Please -- my view is the biblical view, sky. I realize already that it is not the your view and so that makes yours wrong, do ya see?

Oh wait...that was very non-helpful and counterproductive


My point is not about right or wrong, Scripturally speaking. Your initial argument in this thread was not the the WC was wrong Scripturally, but that it was self-contradictory. That is all I am arguing against. It is disingenous to argue that the WC is self-contraditory when you do so based solely on your imposition of outside definitions and terms on it. If you wish to argue that the WC is unScriptural in its approach, fine. Thats NOT what you were initially arguing. Lets stick with the original topic.

Now, given the explanation in the Shorter Catechism, do you still hold that the WC is self-contradictory? If so, why?

 

If thats the primary issue now, then you pulled a little bait-and-switch. The primary issue initially was whether the WC stated that enlightenment was a result of salvation. That is the point about which Russell and I have been disagreeing with you on. Lets stick with that for now.

I will state again that this chronology is not present in the WC. The grammar and punctuation doesn't allow for it. The Shorter Catechism makes the extremely clear. This is the rock on which you argument falters.

Maybe we should clear this up: Does the text of the Shorter Catechism put for this short of chronology?

 

Was that a yes or no?

The ability to spiritually and intellectually understand the 'foolishness of the cross'.

 

Hi dwmoeller;

With out a doubt it does

The majority of text was translated by Greek scholars and the direct translation word for word is what I showed you straight from the Greek text.

Of course those high school teachers are experts on Greek grammar and the translation of it.

Your argument isn't worth pursuing simply because the example you gave isn't a word for word rendition. This is your translation;

The text simply cannot be made to say something it doesn't. The translators of the Bible in any version you might like, doesn't say what you claim it does at all. Strange how all those experts are wrong and your right.
MB

 

Simply asserting something continually doesn't make it true.

a. the greek doesn't give that logical connection. Go ask a greek scholar. I already have so I know.
b. the word for word translation into the English doesn't give that connection either.

No but I gave them the word for word translation in the English and they made clear that the English translation doesn't give that connection either. So, either you are reading the greek, in which case we have a disagreement among greek scholars and we will simply have to agree to disagree since the experts (you being one evidentally) can't agree either. That, or you are reading it in the English, in which case you are making a connection which the English translation doesn't support either. Which is it?

I said no such thing about the Rom passage. Stick with what I actually said and respond to that.

 

Unitended? ...<sigh>

Ok, let me try and clarify again to make sure we are on the same page. Forget for a moment that the WC might have the wrong definition of salvation and answer this: Does the WC itself argue that 'hearing' is both a cause and effect of salvation?

 

The Cist would typically hold that all who hear the gospel have been called. Not all of those however receive the 'effectual call'. IOW, hearing the gospel it not enough - it is foolishness to the natural man. For the call of the gospel to be effectual, the hearer must hear under the influence and wooing of the Spirit.

Embracing Jesus Christ would be 'salvation' in WC terms - belief and acceptance of Christ along with the corresponding repentance from sin.

 

"Rom passage" I never said a word about Romans We were speaking about Eph. 2:8.
MB

 

Check out post #25, then #31 in which the latter half is a response to your posting of the Rom passage. Then in #48 you reply to #31. Now what do you mean about never saying a word about Romans? Do you mean that the that the following was referring back to Eph 2:8?

 

Lets examine the facts of the case.
1. You give the English translation of one expert. Yet you don't give their commentary on the translation, you give your own. It is *you* who make the claim for what the translation means.
2. I, on the other hand, took the English translation to experts to have them interpret its possible meaning. They flatly rejected that the structure in the English could mean what you say. Since it is ENGLISH that we are both reading in, their expert testmony is perfectly relevant.
3. Might the greek still mean what you assert? Maybe. However, the way the translators translated it into the English, its flatly impossible. You can't claim that what you say is what the experts say because you only are reading their ENGLISH translation - a translation which, in English (that is the language we are working with here), cannot possibly mean what you say.
4. So how do you reach the conclusion you do. You haven't referenced any experts which say any such thing. You only give your interpretation of an ENGLISH phrase...and your interpretation of the phrase is impossible in the English.
5. Furthermore, I have referenced experts in greek. They also say that such a connection does not exist.

So, IOW, your above statement it totally contrary to fact. It is I who has referenced experts - you merely give your own interpretation of a translation done by experts. Contrary to what you claim, it is the experts who disagree with YOU and not me. If you doubt me, go find an expert in the greek or English and ask them. I have done so, and they both disagree with you.

I agree, it is very strange that you would argue contrary to what the experts are saying.

 

Hi dwmoller;

The subject originally between you and I, is Eph 2:8-9 Romans 5:1-2 backs it up that's all we were not talking about Romans.
You know that if you read post 25. I'll just take it to mean you have no answer because you don't know, which is why your avoiding it. Your explanation of Grace through faith lack's any real evidence. Most Calvinist would disagree with what you said about it.
MB

 

You see, I had started talking about Rom. The positioning of your response to that had confused me.

Then they would be wrong as well if they tried to claim that Eph 2:8 supported this concept. The passage in Eph simply doesn't support it. I am not denying that grace is through faith. I am showing that Eph 2:8 doesn't support that. If its Scriptural, then stick with a passage that actually shows it. Eph 2:8 doesn't support in either the greek or any English translation. Again, I refer to the experts. Go talk to one and see if they agree with you. Barring that, there is not much else I can say.

 

Not exactly what I was trying to ask...but ok.

Then, this following statement of yours you agree is inaccurate, correct? The WC does not, in fact, use circuitous logic as you stated originally?

If you want to fault the WC for having unScriptural definitions, thats one thing - its this argument that there is circuitous logic present in that text that I am harping on.

 

Again, you are imposing your own definitions on Cists reasoning and creating strawmen as a result. Cists create a distinction between regeneration and salvation.

Scripturally speaking there is nothing which equates the two. Yes, Scripture clearly teaches that any who are saved are also regenerate, but Scripture no where teaches that those who have been regenerated are also saved at the same time.

Essentially correct. Where we were disagreeing before was over what the WC said about salvation.

You are confusing Cists with "reformed churches". Besides, I find the same sorts of faults can be leveled against most evangelical churches as well. Its not a Cist thing in particular. Belief and practice don't always line up - thats a fact of human existence. In short, your observation doesn't really touch on the assertion I made about Cists beliefs.

As to finding a 'sinners prayer' in Cists churches...I should hope not. Few evangelical practices are more unScriptural than that concept. You simply wont' find it in Scripture.

As to baptism, you again confuse Cism with 'reformed practices'. There are plenty of credobaptist Cists. Most of the baptist churchs up till the late 19th century fit the description.