"Effectual Call"

[dwmoeller1]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
MB

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.

 

[Andy T.]

Andy,

This is a great question, but, it ignores the fact that there must be something to have faith in. "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". Without the word of God, there would be nothing to have faith in. (Except for maybe a chair, an airline pilot, a bridge, etc., but those things can't save you.)

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.

 

[Blammo]

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.

 

[russell55]

Look at para. II. Do you see the same thing there? Man is "passive" and then suddenly born again/renewed? That's what Baptists call renewed - born again/saved.

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.

In these, I tracked the numbers or letters of the chronological order that I see. Here's what those terms mean to me as a Baptist:

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.

Look, I don't want you and brutus and PL and whoever to think that I am not willing to look at it from YOUR texts and show you what I see. You may not define the terms the same as I do, especially if you don't agree that one must be saved to be "regenerated." But I really can't see someone being born again/enlightened/regenerated/renewed as not being saved. That is just contrary to John 3 totally!

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.

 

[MB]

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 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

 

[Helen]

MB, are you trying to say the only way we can receive grace is for us to reach out to God first?

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

In these, I tracked the numbers or letters of the chronological order that I see.

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?

 

[MB]

Hi Andy;

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.

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

 

[MB]

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

 

[russell55]

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.

What is the effectual call?

Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

??!! 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.

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

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.

 

[skypair]

Well, this is very disconcerting

No. Where are you getting that from? Maybe you are imposing your concept of 'saved' onto the WC?

Yeah - when a "system" says "saving" or suggests "regeneration," I take note that that is only available with salvation!

First of all, no where does the text say that the call grants salvation. The call is *to* salvation. The call is not salvation nor does it 'grant' salvation. The call merely *results* in salvation at some point.

I don't think you agree with the WC then -- which is good!

Secondly, even if the text *did* say that, it still doesn't give an order of events and you put forth.

Beg to differ, friend. MOST Cavists think that regeneration comes BEFORE hearing. It's not MY logic but theirs that is defective.

Your logic of 'having to be saved before being able to hear' simply is not present either explicitly or implicitly in the text of the WC.

Again, I think you are prejudicial towards Calvinism. Why not mention that one is not saved by the call?

skypair

 

[skypair]

As I have said before and will say again, your attacks against Cism are largely based on basic misundertandings of their teachings.

What -- you just acknowledged the validity of some of my "attacks" and now you say I don't understand their teachings?? Let's look, shall we?

Ahhh, there is your mistake - quickening and renewing are not seen as the same as salvation in the WC.

Nor by Calvinists -- BUT IT IS THE SAME IN SCRIPTURE!! So if the WC is flawed, so is Calvinism!

Invitations as found in today's churches are a product of the mid-19th century... Finney. To associate the lack of them with belief in passive salvation is fallacious. It would be more accurate to say that lack of invitations is based, at least partly, on the belief that belief and salvation are a response to God, not a response to man.

How silly! Calvinists would have us believe that but that is the "passive" thing, d-dub! David didn't watch from his window while they brought the ark of the covenant back into Jerusalem -- he was dancing half-naked in the streets!! Finey was, indeed, a GREAT evangelist whom ALL acknowledge as such and it wasn't in spite of his invitations -- it was because he won souls to Christ!

Well I am sure that some do say that...just as some non-Cists would hold that man is saved by his own effort.

Another admission on your part. Just quit denying what I say and see what you come up with, OK?

More accurately, no works can be done to *earn* or *merit* salvation.

Nobody has offered that -- except Calvin by the way he typifies belief or th esinner's prayer or any other outward response.

Thats understandable at first, but eventually they become simply strawmen when you have been told clearly where you err in your understanding.

Another admission (confession? ) Look -- maybe I DON'T misunderstand Calvinism. Maybe it is you need to, like Micahel Jackson, "take a second look." :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

Yeah, but you don't get it unless you BELIEVE -- reach out to God.

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yeah - when a "system" says "saving" or suggests "regeneration," I take note that that is only available with salvation!

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.

I don't think you agree with the WC then -- which is good!

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

Beg to differ, friend. MOST Cavists think that regeneration comes BEFORE hearing. It's not MY logic but theirs that is defective.

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

Again, I think you are prejudicial towards Calvinism. Why not mention that one is not saved by the call?

I don't follow you. Please restate.

 

[skypair]

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.

I "choose to ignore it" because Jesus did, too! "Born again" IS salvation! IS regeneration. IS "renewed." You ain't gonna be regenerated and UNsaved. It's IMPOSSIBLE! If anything, you are regenerated, then saved.

Nobody says you have to agree that they're different, by the way...

YOU just did, for heaven's sake!!

...but it's disingenuous to read the WCF and transport your own definitions rather than the definitions they are using into the text.

Oh? It's "disigenuous" place Bible defintions above the WC?

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.

Fine with me. I truly hope it is not 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.

I showed you 2 ways that word order could be -- should be -- construed as chronology and you pass it off as without meaing? What's YOUR authority?

When you say that Calvinists believe that people are completely passive in the process of salvation, you are misrepresenting their beliefs.

You would have to prove that to me. I know there are many Calvinists that DIDN'T come by the "chronology" that they now embrace. Nevertheless, MOST do. Youy dare not even believe as they say that is a "work!" Maybe you need to get in touch with come Calvinists and find out what you really believe.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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?

Russ -- I like that a lot better!! Sounds like a more recent formulation and I agree so long as "enlightening" isn't equated (like it is in much of Calvinism) with "regeneration."

My "issue" with Cism is they only let someone "hear" who has been regenerated. Well, regenerated/born again IS saved! So they would have someone hearing AFTER they are born again. No. ALL can "hear." "Hearing" is no exclusive club called "elect."

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

What -- you just acknowledged the validity of some of my "attacks" and now you say I don't understand their teachings?? Let's look, shall we?

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.

Nor by Calvinists -- BUT IT IS THE SAME IN SCRIPTURE!! So if the WC is flawed, so is Calvinism!

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.

How silly! Calvinists would have us believe that but that is the "passive" thing, d-dub! David didn't watch from his window while they brought the ark of the covenant back into Jerusalem -- he was dancing half-naked in the streets!!

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?

Finey was, indeed, a GREAT evangelist whom ALL acknowledge as such and it wasn't in spite of his invitations -- it was because he won souls to Christ!

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.

Another admission on your part. Just quit denying what I say and see what you come up with, OK?

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.

Nobody has offered that -- except Calvin by the way he typifies belief or th esinner's prayer or any other outward response.

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.

Another admission (confession? ) Look -- maybe I DON'T misunderstand Calvinism. Maybe it is you need to, like Micahel Jackson, "take a second look." :laugh:

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.

 

[russell55]

Russ -- I like that a lot better!! Sounds like a more recent formulation

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Russ -- I like that a lot better!! Sounds like a more recent formulation and I agree so long as "enlightening" isn't equated (like it is in much of Calvinism) with "regeneration."

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?