"Effectual Call"

[skypair]

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.

Please -- my view is the biblical view, d-dub. I realize already that it is not the Calvinist view and so that makes Calvinism wrong, do ya see?

Sure the believer regeneration comes before hearing...

No, it DOESN'T come before hearing. ALL can "hear" the gospel. Every person on earth can "hear" and understand the proposition therein in his own language. It is upon BELIEVING that gospel -- being saved -- that they are enlightened/regenerated to "see" the "hidden wisdom of God, 1Cor 2:14. Calvinism confounds the issue of salvation by not distinguishing the easy to understand gospel with the impossible to naturally understand "hidden wisdom of God."

skypair

 

[skypair]

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 [no one understands me, right?]. 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.

We're just quibbling now, dw. The primary issue is that Cists see regeneration before understanding. Thus, the moment of salvation itself -- when one is delivered from darkness into light (Col 1:13) -- is based upon nothing experiential. By the time a Cist realizes he/she is elect, their justification is past and only their sanctification through "embracing" Christ (nebulous term to say the least) is future.

Here's the "flow" from the biblical perspective:

"Call" (hear the gospel),
"Believe" (trust in Christ unto salvation),
"Regenerated"/"born again"/"saved"/"renewed" (able to understand, "beyond the gospel," spiritual things)

Now see how this differs from the WC:

"Effectual call unto salvation" (you're saved/"elect" passively on your part, some say by infant baptism even)
"Regenerated" (you understand spiritual things including the gospel)
"Believe" (NOW you can believe, but since you are already saved, one thing you don't need is to be saved again)

Time and again I have tried to illustrate this with duplicate chronologies (with and without observing the semicolon) contained in the WC. And you appear not to deny that one must be regenerated before one can believe, right? But that is not biblical.

That being the case, it brings into question whether "irresistible grace" is biblical, doesn't it? If we are not "passive," then grace/salvation is resistible.
It brings "unconditional election" into question. Suppose belief is the condition for salvation.

Obviously, the WC is not going to state positions that threaten the whole fabric of the overarching theology, dw.

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

I'll agree if you agree that there is no such thing taught in WC as "irresistible grace" and "unconditional election."

What is "enlightenment" as result of in your view of the WC?

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Please -- my view is the biblical view, d-dub. I realize already that it is not the Calvinist view and so that makes Calvinism wrong, do ya see?

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?

 

[dwmoeller1]

We're just quibbling now, dw. The primary issue is that Cists see regeneration before understanding. Thus, the moment of salvation itself -- when one is delivered from darkness into light (Col 1:13) -- is based upon nothing experiential. By the time a Cist realizes he/she is elect, their justification is past and only their sanctification through "embracing" Christ (nebulous term to say the least) is future.

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.

Now see how this differs from the WC:

"Effectual call unto salvation" (you're saved/"elect" passively on your part, some say by infant baptism even)
"Regenerated" (you understand spiritual things including the gospel)
"Believe" (NOW you can believe, but since you are already saved, one thing you don't need is to be saved again)

Time and again I have tried to illustrate this with duplicate chronologies (with and without observing the semicolon) contained in the WC. And you appear not to deny that one must be regenerated before one can believe, right? But that is not biblical.

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?

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'll agree if you agree that there is no such thing taught in WC as "irresistible grace" and "unconditional election."

Was that a yes or no?

What is "enlightenment" as result of in your view of the WC?

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

 

[skypair]

Your initial argument in this thread was not the the WC was wrong Scripturally, but that it was self-contradictory.

That must have been one of those "unintended consequences" of trying to show it was SCRIPTURALLY wrong, I guess. :saint:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Russ, dw

Shorter Catechism Q. 31: "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."

There are only 2 things that make me skeptical: 1) Why "effectual" except to restrict the call only to the "elect?" This is "technical lingo" at best to say that not everyone "hears" (only the enlightened" elect) nor gets a choice by strict definition of Calvinism. 2) What does "embracing Jesus Christ" involve? Does the Catechism answer that?

Otherwise, it sounds pretty straight-froward: the gospel is preached -- anyone might be "convicted of sin and of righteousness and of judgement" -- we discover (are "enlightened") what Christ died for -- we CHOOSE (my word) Christ as Savior rather than self ( = repentance). Is that summation agreeable to you?

skypair

 

[MB]

Hi dwmoeller;

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

With out a doubt it does

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.

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.

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.

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

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

You are saved by grace.
You are saved through faith.

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

With out a doubt it does

Simply asserting something continually doesn't make it true.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

That must have been one of those "unintended consequences" of trying to show it was SCRIPTURALLY wrong, I guess. :saint:

skypair

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?

 

[dwmoeller1]

There are only 2 things that make me skeptical: 1) Why "effectual" except to restrict the call only to the "elect?" This is "technical lingo" at best to say that not everyone "hears" (only the enlightened" elect) nor gets a choice by strict definition of Calvinism.

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.

2) What does "embracing Jesus Christ" involve? Does the Catechism answer that?

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

 

[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.

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

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?

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

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.

 

[MB]

Hi dwmoller;

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?

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

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

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.

 

[skypair]

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?

No -- "hearing" is not mentioned. Score one for you.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

Of course -- that is why the one is called "effectual."

But notice from Calvinism itself -- only the "spiritual man" can hear. According to Paul, that is the man who is ALREADY PERFECT, 1Cor 2:6, 14. So Calvinism HAS TO BE SAYING that the one who "hears" the gospel is already saved/regenerated. And this, indeed, is the position of most Calvinists I debate with. It is why I bother to debate it at all -- cause a lot of people THINK they are saved but AREN'T!

Now we've said that the WC does not use the word "hear." Instead it uses "renewed," "enlightened," to show that the one who is "effectually called" is already regenerated before he hears.

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

Man, I'd LOVE to believe that! But my experience has been that they "embrace" instead a Christian way of life (i.e. in MacArthur's paradigm, "Lordship Salvation" obedience). They're faithful in church -- say the "Apostle's Creed" without hesitation -- recite the Lord's Prayer (which was really just meant as a "pattern" for prayer and not to be recited in "vain repetition") at the end of EVERY prayer. To me, it seems they are going through the motions they were taught trying to be the "elect" they think they are.

Do YOU find people saying a "sinner's prayer" of repentance much in your Calvinist church? How about believer's baptism (most early Reformers called it, derogatorily, "rebaptism")? Do you see any of that? I mean, that latter is a HUGE sign that a person knows they have been born again, not just "elect!"

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

No -- "hearing" is not mentioned.

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?

Problem is, it is circuitous logic. They, according as I read it, can't hear the Word and Spirit until they are enlightened and they can't be enlightened until they hear.

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But notice from Calvinism itself -- only the "spiritual man" can hear. According to Paul, that is the man who is ALREADY PERFECT, 1Cor 2:6, 14. So Calvinism HAS TO BE SAYING that the one who "hears" the gospel is already saved/regenerated. And this, indeed, is the position of most Calvinists I debate with. It is why I bother to debate it at all -- cause a lot of people THINK they are saved but AREN'T!

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.

Now we've said that the WC does not use the word "hear." Instead it uses "renewed," "enlightened," to show that the one who is "effectually called" is already regenerated before he hears.

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

Man, I'd LOVE to believe that! But my experience has been that they "embrace" instead a Christian way of life (i.e. in MacArthur's paradigm, "Lordship Salvation" obedience). They're faithful in church -- say the "Apostle's Creed" without hesitation -- recite the Lord's Prayer (which was really just meant as a "pattern" for prayer and not to be recited in "vain repetition") at the end of EVERY prayer. To me, it seems they are going through the motions they were taught trying to be the "elect" they think they are.

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.

Do YOU find people saying a "sinner's prayer" of repentance much in your Calvinist church? How about believer's baptism (most early Reformers called it, derogatorily, "rebaptism")? Do you see any of that? I mean, that latter is a HUGE sign that a person knows they have been born again, not just "elect!"

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.