Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You and I agree on these points...and no you are not a Calvinist...I'd be surprised if any of them claimed you as one anyway. :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Romans 10 and Deut. 30 disprove the concept of "Total Inability."
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
No the verse does not state any such thing.God is the source of salvation from start to finish.He grants it to His people.When someone believes savingly ,it is evidence of the Spirits work in that person.
You repeat your wrong view of hardening of Israel and try to stretch it to cover all persons....we have been over this before.
"Well, since we don't know who the elect are, I guess it is a moot point no matter who ends up being right in the end. Personally, I don't believe in limited atonement, nor I believe in irresistible grace. But I do not believe that man, of his own volition, will seek after God either. I also believe if God chooses not to draw someone, for whatever reason, they will not be saved nor have any hope whatsoever. Some say that is limited atonement, but I call it predestination and foreknowledge. I call myself a Calvinist because I don't believe you can lose your salvation and that God has to draw, but most people probably don't consider me a Calvinist. No matter what anyone's view, there are paradoxes."
Since we do not know who the elect are implies individuals were chosen before creation. If that election was corporate, then the elect are those whose faith God credits as righteousness and places in Christ, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. This view eliminates all the paradoxes.
Yes Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. But only those whose faith is credited as righteousness and placed in Christ by God "receive" the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Again, you are quite correct to reject the Calvinist view that everyone drawn is dragged irresistibly into Christ. However, once a person's faith is credited as righteousness, then God puts them in Christ and they are kept irresistibly for an inheritance reserved in heaven for them.
Three of the four soils were drawn by the Father in Matthew 13, the first soil was unable to understand, thus could not behold Christ high and lifted up.
The gospel is simple and without paradoxes, once you return to scripture and reject the rewrites and redefinitions of men.
Since we do not know who the elect are implies individuals were chosen before creation. If that election was corporate, then the elect are those whose faith God credits as righteousness and places in Christ, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. This view eliminates all the paradoxes.
Yes Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. But only those whose faith is credited as righteousness and placed in Christ by God "receive" the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Again, you are quite correct to reject the Calvinist view that everyone drawn is dragged irresistibly into Christ. However, once a person's faith is credited as righteousness, then God puts them in Christ and they are kept irresistibly for an inheritance reserved in heaven for them.
Three of the four soils were drawn by the Father in Matthew 13, the first soil was unable to understand, thus could not behold Christ high and lifted up.
The gospel is simple and without paradoxes, once you return to scripture and reject the rewrites and redefinitions of men.
So you are stating that when God calls to people they always respond and that is done so positively?..
If I can show you in scripture where God calls and His call was rejected.. what then?
Some state there are two kinds of calling yet nowhere in scripture does it ever make any distinction between one calling and another that comes from God. This position this purely suppositional based not on scripture but entirely on a theological premise. This is never a good thing to do.
Additionally, if you hold that God ultimately is in control of all people then your statement gives you a problem when you have people sinning. Your statement places God as the reason people sin because He has control of all people and things. If you hold to this, then there is a different aspect that needs to be addressed and not what is being discussed.
I agree with your first sentence, as this is truth that I find in scripture. However next you make a statement that is contradictory to your first, that is the Spirit can be rejected and that being, according to God's will. That makes no sense. Why is God the Spirit needing to work on a person to reject Him, when they already reject Him.
Again, I can't find in scripture any statement nor allusion to the point that when God calls, they irresistably come. You need to able to from scripture show such AND that there are no scriptures contrary to this statement. YET if there is ANY scripture or even scriptures that speaks contrary to your verse(s) you present then you must acknowledge the fact that you are potentially incorrect.
This takes me back to my first point... if God works on more people than just the elect, why? And if there are scriptures (and yes, there are) where by God calls and they reject.. what then?
It is interesting that we have scripture in which God is dealing with people, and they reject Him sometimes over and over.. if they are not the elect then why is it that we have scripture which states God gives them over. Did He not ALREADY give them over and thus they cannot be received unto eternal life - eternal salvation. The fact He gave them over necessitates that God was involved in and working upon them bringing them truth. The the question that needs to be answered biblically is WHY was God doing this if He is not intending to even hypothetically much less actually save them?
Another point that is interesting is that God gives them over or turns them over to their own desires when they will not yield. We not only find this in Rom 1 and other places but looking also to 2 Thes 2 with those who will be followers of the anti-christ (not saved nor ever will be). Scripture states they did not receive the gospel that they 'might be saved'. THEREFORE (in light of or because of this) God sent them a strong delusion.. who did not believe but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
According to scripture, the reason for the gospel being given to them was for the purpose of saving them. At least that is directly what scripture is stating. Yet they choose to not believe and they were condemned and while this was and is no surprise to God (this was written even before it has happened) it was still something we see God offering to them and once they chose not to believe THEN they were condemned. Why is that germain to conversation? Because here the non-elect are being offered the gospel and not yet condemned. It was after they rejected the gospel, He sent a strong delusion that all those who reject it will be condemned.
True, but what does scripture state is the only way for man to do any good thing?.. by faith.
Faith according to Rom 4:3-5, is not a work.
Man in and of himself can never come to understand sin, His righteousness, and the judgment to come unless God reveal it to man. This is why the Spirit of God is sent into the word to convict the world of these things. Now.. what happens if God works upon man to know and understand these things which he will never come to understand unless God reveal it?
This isn't what the Word of God says though.. it states HE has called them and they have refused. We see this in Prov 1:23-33, Jer 35:15-17, Rom 1:18-32, Rom 10:21 (which reflects back to Prov 1), Heb 3:8, 15 (which reflects back Psalms 95) - and many more. All of these illustrate that He is the one doing the talking/working and the people either have or are able to refuse God's calling, working on their hearts. It is the very reason Paul pleads.. do not harden your hearts when you HEAR HIS VOICE.
This is a rhetorical question because I know your answer:
Do you believe that when you speak to people concerning your faith that it is without Spirit of the Living God to reveal truth.. or do you think that mere words will work on a person's conscience and convict them of sin apart from the Spirit of God?
Please give scripture to back this statement that the elect or believers hear differently or that God speaks to them any differently. I can give you much more than what I gave above to back my position that speaks equally to all and in fact what I gave above shows this because all are given the opportunity to believe and to not harden their hearts as 'others have'.
But I will agree they hear it at the proper time. Yet while it is given to all the same, the message itself is one that only some will respond to positively. (This is God's design) The message is crafted in such a way that only a certain group will receive it and that group are those who receive Him by faith.
t has been good talking with you again.. May God strengthen your faith and draw you closer to Himself as you seek to know Him more.
Last edited by a moderator:
Allan,
Good post with many good discussion questions...lets take a look at it.
There are many verses dealing with God calling sinners. Some teach a general call to a large group .Some teach a specific and inward..effectual ,call that is always effective to the person thus called. This is based entirely on scripture...examining many passages of scripture. I will start a seperate thread to deal with this issue...as not to totally derail this thread.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Furthermore ..reprobates who reject the gospel are said to always reject the Spirit.
1 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
This is not the effectual call at all!
There are many passages that address this....hence we can look forward to the new thread.
The Spirit convicts the world of sin. God is good to sinners. They have no excuse as they are responsible to live Holy lives...they do not and indeed cannot. That does not negate the reality that God is good to them.
Some of the how and why is answered by the fact of the outworking of God's providence. Some has to do with angelic beings looking into the things of salvation. Some has to do with the unsaved friends and family members who read both christians and hypocritical false professors and interact with them as time unfolds.
Salvation takes place in real time. God saves whole persons...mentally ,emotionally , physically, spiritually. This speaks to the thread where people asked why does scripture speak of urging and pleading for sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
God works through the means he has ordained.
Those explanations are recorded in scripture for our benefit that we may learn and understand exactly what is taking place in the unseen realm. Like sign gifts showed outwardly what was taking place inwardly...election and reprobation are not always clearly manifested...like this- speaks to both issues;
Sadly this demonstrates their depravity;
This along with psalm 78 is a terrible record of man with a bad record and a bad heart.
13 They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel:
14 But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.
Not necessarily......
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
Agreed
no...they were already condemned...
jn 3:
8 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Good post with many good discussion questions...lets take a look at it.
There are many verses dealing with God calling sinners. Some teach a general call to a large group .Some teach a specific and inward..effectual ,call that is always effective to the person thus called. This is based entirely on scripture...examining many passages of scripture. I will start a seperate thread to deal with this issue...as not to totally derail this thread.
God the Holy Spirit is not needing anything. God is good to all men...and yet we are told he will not always strive with man-
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Furthermore ..reprobates who reject the gospel are said to always reject the Spirit.
1 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
This is not the effectual call at all!
There are many passages that address this....hence we can look forward to the new thread.
The Spirit convicts the world of sin. God is good to sinners. They have no excuse as they are responsible to live Holy lives...they do not and indeed cannot. That does not negate the reality that God is good to them.
Some of the how and why is answered by the fact of the outworking of God's providence. Some has to do with angelic beings looking into the things of salvation. Some has to do with the unsaved friends and family members who read both christians and hypocritical false professors and interact with them as time unfolds.
Salvation takes place in real time. God saves whole persons...mentally ,emotionally , physically, spiritually. This speaks to the thread where people asked why does scripture speak of urging and pleading for sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
God works through the means he has ordained.
Those explanations are recorded in scripture for our benefit that we may learn and understand exactly what is taking place in the unseen realm. Like sign gifts showed outwardly what was taking place inwardly...election and reprobation are not always clearly manifested...like this- speaks to both issues;
Sadly this demonstrates their depravity;
This along with psalm 78 is a terrible record of man with a bad record and a bad heart.
13 They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel:
14 But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.
Not necessarily......
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
Agreed
no...they were already condemned...
jn 3:
8 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree another thread would be good because nothing I have found nor debated from/in scripture states nor alludes to 2 separate types of callings from God (regarding the gospel). It is assumed due to a theological construct and nothing I have found in scripture can be show support there is any distinction in the call to the gospel to the elect and non-elect.
If the Spirit of God is not needing anything then why is He moving upon/revealing anything at all? Is it not for a response or action, or it is to just kill time? :tongue3: (don't answer that, I know
)What is there to strive over if He as already passed them over and will not be offering to them, legitimately, salvation. Thus what is the 'good' you are referring to regarding the gospel message of 'GOOD news'.
What is God striving or wrestling with man over??
You do realize that this statement is directed at the nation of Israel and yet there were those in that nation that did not reject Him. Let me give you an example - you realize that Saul of Taursus was there, of whom was included in the statement, one of those stiffnecked and uncircumcised.
I see nothing here which reflects it was anything more than 'a' calling of God toward all there, and which eventually worked in the salvation of at least 1 and he became one the most spoken of apostles of God.
In light of this, do we continue holding the view that these (as you called them) reprobates always reject...
In what way is God 'good' to sinners in the context of spiritual life, ie.. the Gospel or GOOD news?
Ok, to a degree I agree but I say that because this still doesn't address my question posed which is directly related to the rest of the post regarding God's calling:
... if God works on more people than just the elect, why?
And if there are scriptures (and yes, there are) where by God calls and they reject.. what then?
While the normal words of men telling the gospel tale, can be used to do what you state (I agree by the way) it does not answer why God wrestles with them, reveals His truths to them, and convicts them.
Thus the point of the question is specific in that most Reformed don't believe that God works on the non-elect nor deals with them, and IF He does it is to give them knowledge to know but no ability to act on it - thus making it effectual.
Therefore my question is why?
Why deal with someone and bring truth into their lives and to convict them of these truths for... well.. for no purpose at all since they would never believe anyway. Because the same effect would have been no different than just using men to convey information.
I agree, and thus you have the same calling to all. What we see is never that God is doing something different in differing men, but that man is responding different to what God is doing to all men everywhere.
I agree it illustrates man depravity but it still does not answer my question:
" The the question that needs to be answered biblically is WHY was God doing this if He is not intending to even hypothetically much less actually save them?"
While that is true additionally, it is not what the text explicitly states. It states of these non-elect that they did not receive (meaning to take to themselves or make their own) the love of the truth, that "they might be saved". Scripture declares the very reason for the truth being conveyed to them - that they might be saved. There is no question here why it was given to them. It was intended/offered to them that they might be saved.
Now we both agree God knew they would not believe.. but here is the point, He offered to them salvation.. and the only way God can offer to the non-elect salvation is that in some way the work of Christ extends toward them so the offer is legitimate and not a lie or deception, thus without merit, empty, and false.
No, the passage here is specific and explicit. Their condemnation is assured (though still alive) because they did not believe. It is appointed once to die AND THEN the judgment. If they have rejected and not believed, then they stand condemned already.. just as 2 Thes 2:11-12 states:
Hehehehe.. it is fun speaking with you brother, but I can't be on to much to often (so forgive me if I don't get back to you soon).. MUCH to much to do with 2 churches (one a church start and an hour from each other - Oi!). I also think we are moving into to broad or many faceted posts to really deal - efficiently (like how I did that :laugh: ) with each others posts. I like to try to explain my point of view instead of quick one liners so the person doesn't just know what I believe but understands where it is coming from and why I hold it. So forgive me if my posts are over long - wall of texts. I try for brevity but usually I get misunderstood.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
This is a linchpin issue in this debate. It should be apparent to any objective observer (one not already blindly devoted to a theological construct) that only one appeal or call is issued in scripture.
The gospel appeal for all enemies to be reconciled is talked about dozens of times and expounded upon in great depth throughout the scriptures. Scriptures talk about the gospel's 'power,' its 'appeal', its 'effectiveness,' etc. But NOT one chapter, not even one passage, is devoted to expounding upon this so called 'irresistible calling' created by Calvinism's construct. You'd think that of the two callings, the one that actually saves people would be talked about pretty extensively, wouldn't you? But even by Calvinists own admission, there are only a couple of verses which subtly allude to this effectual call....and of course those, IMO, can easily be shown to be misapplied.
Allan, Skandelon,
with respect to calling the New Testament overwhelmingly refers to those who are saved as "the called" and when it is done so it is clearly exclusively speaking of those saved. Calling is an identifying marker of the elect.
There are two greek words used for call/called/calling. One is kaleo and one is kletos.
kletos is either appointed, or invited
kaleo is literally call ie. out loud.
Most "called" in the NT is kaleo, some are kletos. The only verses I could find referencing either of these words with respect to salvation where the unsaved are inview is Mat 20:16 and Mat 22:14 "Many are called (kletos) but few are chosen" Here kletos is cleary speaking of a call of invitation. In every other case kaleo or kletos refers to salvation the elect are clearly spoken of.
Acts 2:39, Rom 1:6, Rom 1:7, Rom 8:30, Rom 9:24, Rom 11:29, I Cor 1:2, I Cor 1:9, I Cor 1:24-26, I Cor 7:18, I Cor 7:22, Gal 1:6, Gal 1:15, Gal 5:13, Eph 1:18, Eph 4:4, Php 3:14, Col 3:15, 1Th 2:12, 1Th 2:14, 2 Th 1:11, 2Th 2:14, 1 Ti 6:12, 2 Ti 1:9, Heb 3:1, Heb 9:15, 1 Pe 1:15, 1 Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:21, 1 Pe 3:9, 1Pe 5:10, 2 Pe 1:3, 2 Pe 1:10, Jude 1:1, Rev 17:14, Rev 19:9
whether there are two callings or twenty there is clearly one that refers exclusively to the elect.
with respect to calling the New Testament overwhelmingly refers to those who are saved as "the called" and when it is done so it is clearly exclusively speaking of those saved. Calling is an identifying marker of the elect.
There are two greek words used for call/called/calling. One is kaleo and one is kletos.
kletos is either appointed, or invited
kaleo is literally call ie. out loud.
Most "called" in the NT is kaleo, some are kletos. The only verses I could find referencing either of these words with respect to salvation where the unsaved are inview is Mat 20:16 and Mat 22:14 "Many are called (kletos) but few are chosen" Here kletos is cleary speaking of a call of invitation. In every other case kaleo or kletos refers to salvation the elect are clearly spoken of.
Acts 2:39, Rom 1:6, Rom 1:7, Rom 8:30, Rom 9:24, Rom 11:29, I Cor 1:2, I Cor 1:9, I Cor 1:24-26, I Cor 7:18, I Cor 7:22, Gal 1:6, Gal 1:15, Gal 5:13, Eph 1:18, Eph 4:4, Php 3:14, Col 3:15, 1Th 2:12, 1Th 2:14, 2 Th 1:11, 2Th 2:14, 1 Ti 6:12, 2 Ti 1:9, Heb 3:1, Heb 9:15, 1 Pe 1:15, 1 Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:21, 1 Pe 3:9, 1Pe 5:10, 2 Pe 1:3, 2 Pe 1:10, Jude 1:1, Rev 17:14, Rev 19:9
whether there are two callings or twenty there is clearly one that refers exclusively to the elect.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
WITBOTL,
The army also refers to those who have recently joined as 'recruits,' but we all know that those who actually join aren't the only ones that the Army attempted to recruit. Likewise, I've heard people refer to those called to ministry as the 'called' in a similar fashion. To refer to those who respond to the call as 'called' is not unusual and certainly doesn't imply that none others were included in that calling.
Given that there are MANY passages which clearly show that the appeal of the gospel's call is meant for 'every creature,' I see little reason to take your approach of interpreting the reference those 'called' as exclusive.
Plus, this is not consistent with other similar terms. For example, it is a given that the Jews (as a group) were often referred to as 'the elect' simply by virtue of being in the lineage of Abraham, yet even Jews of that day wouldn't have considered every Jewish person as being saved (in covenant with God). So, in the one since someone might have referred to a rebellious non-law abiding Jew as 'the elect' simply because of his lineage, but at the same time not believed him to be in covenant with God.
This is what Paul addresses in Romans 11 when he speaks of being grafted in or cut off from the tree. The tree represents the CALL...or being ELECT. The Jews corporately were grafted into that 'calling'...they were elect...meaning they had the invitation and means to enter covenant with God...that GROUP was elect, but each individual in that group had a responsibility to that covenant appeal. But then the Jews were cut off, and God grafted in the Gentiles...meaning he CALLS THEM to covenant. The gospel goes first to the Jew and then the Gentile....that is calling...that is election. He GRANTS them repentance...he GRANTS them faith by sending them the gospel.
The army also refers to those who have recently joined as 'recruits,' but we all know that those who actually join aren't the only ones that the Army attempted to recruit. Likewise, I've heard people refer to those called to ministry as the 'called' in a similar fashion. To refer to those who respond to the call as 'called' is not unusual and certainly doesn't imply that none others were included in that calling.
Given that there are MANY passages which clearly show that the appeal of the gospel's call is meant for 'every creature,' I see little reason to take your approach of interpreting the reference those 'called' as exclusive.
Plus, this is not consistent with other similar terms. For example, it is a given that the Jews (as a group) were often referred to as 'the elect' simply by virtue of being in the lineage of Abraham, yet even Jews of that day wouldn't have considered every Jewish person as being saved (in covenant with God). So, in the one since someone might have referred to a rebellious non-law abiding Jew as 'the elect' simply because of his lineage, but at the same time not believed him to be in covenant with God.
This is what Paul addresses in Romans 11 when he speaks of being grafted in or cut off from the tree. The tree represents the CALL...or being ELECT. The Jews corporately were grafted into that 'calling'...they were elect...meaning they had the invitation and means to enter covenant with God...that GROUP was elect, but each individual in that group had a responsibility to that covenant appeal. But then the Jews were cut off, and God grafted in the Gentiles...meaning he CALLS THEM to covenant. The gospel goes first to the Jew and then the Gentile....that is calling...that is election. He GRANTS them repentance...he GRANTS them faith by sending them the gospel.
Sorry that I must be quick here...
I agree with what you have above and specifically that the 'calling' is an identifying marker of the elect.. however this does not negate that others were called as well but never came. It is a title referring to how they came to be.
Much like if I sent out invitations for all people to come to a wedding, those who come are 'the invited' or guests, those who did not come at the pointed time, though they 'were' invited are not counted among those who were invited - (friends and family). It is the same reason the word 'kletos' is used in describing the 'calling' at the wedding feast in Christ's parable. The invite/call went out to all in the same way, but only those who responded are identified as 'the invited/called'. We also use other words reflect this decision such as guests, friends, family (or spiritually - believers, friends of God, family) to better convey the relationship and not just the action to moved them into the relationship.
Many are called (this many in context, in fact refers to all men) but few are chosen.
Yes, I understand this. Just so you know (I haven't interacted with you to my knowledge) I am well versed in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. This is not to belittle you or statement (I affirm it) or brag on me in ANY way so please understand this is ONLY to state information to help the conversation flow. That way you can know you don't have to work with me from the ground up
Again I agree but must also ask - He is giving an invitation 1. For what, and 2. to whom?
Additionally, while I also agree in the main above, I do take issue with your last statement and personally see it as being untrue in that in 'every other case ...[the call] refers to salvation of the elect.
If you just take just your first listed verse of Acts 2.. this is not speaking of only the elect but is in fact to all in the audience and everyone else (you, your children, others far away - as many as the Lord shall call). There is no qualifier that that states nor alludes to the fact (in this instance) God's call is to a select few but in fact the very context identifies the Call of God is toward all, but not all receive it at the same time. And that is just one of your verses you listed. However, I acknowledge that many times, yes it is referring (In the NT) believers.
The fact that even you point out the scriptural witness to my point about God's calling goes even to the non-elect (of which the Wedding parable is about salvation), illustrates what I am saying. In the OT we see God calling as well, and the same emphasis and examination should be acknowledged there as well as in the NT.
Again, here I disagree contextually. It is not that there is a call exclusively (as in only to them alone) to the elect but that the elect have responded to the call.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Allan,
thank you for your reply. As usual you have given a kind, measured and well reasoned response. While we don’t agree on some things I do have a great deal of respect for you for your knowledge, articulation and civility. I understand that you are well versed in Hebrew and Greek beyond my small exposure and would not presume to teach you anything in this area! I only point the greek words out to raise the point that there is a distinction of two ideas (2 greek words) in view.
Do I understand you correctly that you say when the unsaved are spoken of as not called that you don’t believe they have not been called but they do not qualify for the title because they have not responded?
1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
by saying not many of these are called is he not saying "many are NOT called?"
While I understand your point that “called” as an identifying marker doesn’t negate others called, I think that the “called” is not just an identifying marker but a distinguishing and contrasting one... Because of this I believe there is a negating of other’s called. What I mean is that “called” doesn’t just identify them in these verses, it distinguishes them in contrast to them “not called” In this I believe it is then more than a title, but a reference to a distinguishing (and distinct) call itself.
Notice he says (Rom 8:30)“and whom he called, them he also justified...” The called here is not used as a title it is specifically referencing the call and it is directly linking that call with justification without exception. In other words there is a direct line from foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justifying and glorifying. So, the exact number foreknown are glorified. Not to belabour the point but working backwards: all glorified have been justified, all justified have been called, all called have been predestinated, all predestinated have been foreknown. If we believe only some called have been predestinated or only some called have been justified then we do damage to this verse.
Interestingly, there is one at the wedding supper who responded to the call but was cast out for not having a wedding garment.
thank you for your reply. As usual you have given a kind, measured and well reasoned response. While we don’t agree on some things I do have a great deal of respect for you for your knowledge, articulation and civility. I understand that you are well versed in Hebrew and Greek beyond my small exposure and would not presume to teach you anything in this area! I only point the greek words out to raise the point that there is a distinction of two ideas (2 greek words) in view.
Do I understand you correctly that you say when the unsaved are spoken of as not called that you don’t believe they have not been called but they do not qualify for the title because they have not responded?
1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
by saying not many of these are called is he not saying "many are NOT called?"
While I understand your point that “called” as an identifying marker doesn’t negate others called, I think that the “called” is not just an identifying marker but a distinguishing and contrasting one... Because of this I believe there is a negating of other’s called. What I mean is that “called” doesn’t just identify them in these verses, it distinguishes them in contrast to them “not called” In this I believe it is then more than a title, but a reference to a distinguishing (and distinct) call itself.
Notice he says (Rom 8:30)“and whom he called, them he also justified...” The called here is not used as a title it is specifically referencing the call and it is directly linking that call with justification without exception. In other words there is a direct line from foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justifying and glorifying. So, the exact number foreknown are glorified. Not to belabour the point but working backwards: all glorified have been justified, all justified have been called, all called have been predestinated, all predestinated have been foreknown. If we believe only some called have been predestinated or only some called have been justified then we do damage to this verse.
Interestingly, there is one at the wedding supper who responded to the call but was cast out for not having a wedding garment.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As my previous response indicated, and Allan eloquently explained, there are certainly two ways to interpret the scriptures reference to believers as being 'called ones.'
1. That there are two different callings (one universal/one effectual) and only a particular number are called by both.
OR
2. That these is one call and those who respond to it are referred to by that calling. (like 'recruits' in the Army)
OR
2. That these is one call and those who respond to it are referred to by that calling. (like 'recruits' in the Army)
Now, if indeed there are TWO different callings then can you explain why the universal gospel call for all enemies to be reconciled is talked about dozens of times and expounded upon in great depth throughout the scriptures, but NOT one chapter, not even one full passage, is devoted to expounding upon this so called 'irresistible/effectual calling' created by Calvinism's construct?
You'd think that of the two callings, the one that actually saves people would be talked about pretty extensively, wouldn't you? But even by Calvinists own admission, there are only a couple of verses which subtly allude to this effectual call (those you just brought up)....and of course those, IMO, can easily be shown to be misapplied to anyone not attempting to support their already adopted theological construct.
Witbotl
Good post.... that is exactly where I was going to go with the new thread.If you do not mind...i might use your list as a time saver to illustrate the point!!!
Allan,
I enjoy your interaction in that you usually mount a serious biblical case for your view,which I look over and see if i can glean from it.....as we do disagree to an extent...lol...nevertheless....you conduct yourself in a godly fashion...for the most part.It is the BB after all.
i want to get into the new thread...either later on tonight and use witbotl list of verses as a base to expand upon....
Take care of your oversight responsibilities and I will pray God grants you wisdom and patience to accomplish the work at hand.
l
Good post.... that is exactly where I was going to go with the new thread.If you do not mind...i might use your list as a time saver to illustrate the point!!!
Allan,
I enjoy your interaction in that you usually mount a serious biblical case for your view,which I look over and see if i can glean from it.....as we do disagree to an extent...lol...nevertheless....you conduct yourself in a godly fashion...for the most part.It is the BB after all.
i want to get into the new thread...either later on tonight and use witbotl list of verses as a base to expand upon....
Take care of your oversight responsibilities and I will pray God grants you wisdom and patience to accomplish the work at hand.
l
I do believe in two kinds of calls. Again I try not to be narrow minded or sound simplistic when describing these calls because there are various possibilities within each type of call. Lets label the two types of calls “outward” and “inward”. The outward call is powerless as it is merely truthful words spoken to all people unless the Spirit of God uses it. This is why some are affected and some aren’t. The inward call is simply the Spirit using the outward call. I believe my statements above are Biblical and again I appeal to John 6 and Romans 8:30 for starting points.
Now, Within the sphere of God’s sovereignty when calling the elect there are various possibilities as God works uniquely in everyone’s lives. Could the Spirit speak to a non elect person and convict? I have no biblical warrant to say one way or another. Can the Spirit speak to an elect and convict for years prior to actually effectually leading him/her to Christ? I believe so based on personal experience although I have no biblical warrants that make “black and white” statements. The point is that if God chooses someone to save, it happens, and the call He gives to the soul is at the proper time according to His plans and purposes. I probably over-answered the question but I just want to keep it real if you know what I mean
I want to say that this is an excellent point because this is the hardest question to work out as it seems that by calling God sovereign and in control of all events that we have now put Him in complete control of evil (though we do not charge Him with temptation or sin in any way). It is easy to say God works in a man for His good will, but how then does the evil and darkness within God’s will come to pass the way God ordains? We cannot simply state that He “allows” things to happen and works around them or can we say He is the cause of evil. If we say He allows and creates good works in and through the evil fallen angels and men cause then God is limited to what He does based on what men and angels do. Very tough. To me this is a mystery as I have no idea or logic skills to give the answer, nor do I know if Scripture gives the answer when looking at evil from this perspective. Logic of how God works falls to the non-cals favor when it comes to discussing God’s control of evil if I understand you correctly. So it is important for me to note that my convictions on this topic do arise from Scripture and God’s teaching and b/c of this I accept the mystery of His sovereignty over evil even though I have no answer. I am not accusing you of being less biblical but just clarifying my view.
I was not saying God works in a person to reject them, but what I was saying is that within God’s will He may speak more directly to one lost soul than another lost soul. I don’t limit my Calvinistic theology to the non-elect never hear God’s Spirit and only outward calls, but I do limit it to say that when God’s Spirit decides to be effectual to save His elect it no doubt will happen. The Spirit is the one who takes words of preachers and saves the soul of a man. I do not believe the Spirit simply opens the heart for response opportunities in the sense that He aids the lost soul. Rather, I do believe that when God saves through the gospel, through faith that the grace that comes is a complete saving mission of God’s Spirit. I think this is a point that can be taken from John 6 (specifically v. 35-40).
I do not know how well you are following my view here, but I have no contradictions in my theology with passages showing men and woman rejecting the gospel or even the Spirit of God. I agree that you must indeed take all passages equally into consideration and reconcile them together rather than ignoring or picking and choosing. The way I come to my conclusion is that the passages you are speaking of fall under my theology rather than guide it as some naturally determine others. Let me give an example:
Passage A: “All the Father gives me will come to me…”
Passage B: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumsized in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit…”
What do I do with the above passages. My theology explains that you can’t resist the Holy Spirit because He effectually calls His elect. It’s simple and in line with all I have said thus far; God’s Spirit always effectually and uniquely calls the elect at the proper time of His will. As for the non-elect, He calls and they refuse and in some way shape or form than can even resist the Holy Spirit whether you understand that to mean from the mouths of preachers, the Spirit speaking to their hard hearts, or whatever the case is. My logic leads to the much more dominant passage for theology the John 6 passage (Which I am intentionally leaning on in this thread).
In the Romans 1 passage we see the wrath of God who exchange truth for their unrighteousness because God clearly revealed Himself to them through works of creation (and intuition). Since creation people were given truth through God’s creation therefore there is no excuse to escape God’s wrath. Specifically addressing your question from Romans 1 verses 21, 24, 26,28 all show God giving them into their desires. An argument could be made that God allows people to continue to let their hearts calcify or harden more the more they live life in rejection of Him (in sin), but I think the key point to this passage is all men from creation on have been given revelation (general revelation) from God and yet choose to reject Him. Because of this rejection of revelation of God, God does let them fall into their own pits of varying degrees. Some turn into Nero, Hitler, or Stalin while others are still wicked yet live typical Hebrew quiet lives apart from God. No matter what the case is, all are under sin and the wrath of God. So in the context of Romans 1:18-32, wrath is there for those who don’t heed to general revelation (none do 2:1). God’s giving over in this passage is not people who still have a chance or who the Spirit is opening the door to but rather a condemnation to people who have rejected God’s general revelation. It is no different than saying if you don’t sin you will have life. The key argument Paul is making is that they have neglected righteousness and have been given over to unrighteousness. He is not talking about any means of salvation they have been given over from as there are only two possibilities for salvation perfection or forgiveness. Forgiveness is not mentioned in this context.
I addressed Romans 1 above, so I will look at 2 Thes. 2:1-12 here.
I believe this passage more directly hits your thrust. I agree with all you said in interpreting the passage.
You said above, “Did He not ALREADY give them over and thus they cannot be received unto eternal life - eternal salvation. The fact He gave them over necessitates that God was involved in and working upon them bringing them truth.”
Can you please explain this a little deeper?
I agree with everything except the emphasized above. I disagree with the statement I emphasized because I think it is misreading 2 Thes 2:12. I don’t think the passage is saying people are not condemned until they choose not to believe. In fact I would take this and John 3:18 to mean that people are already condemned and under God’s wrath before and after unbelief. Now, I do think that once someone does hear and reject the gospel they can seal their judgment because that literally was their only out. I also would agree that God can and does seal up the door sending into further delusion speaking in humanly terms. Its as if they undergo greater judgment when rejecting Christ. I would appeal to Romans 1 and 2 to back my statements about the wrath of God abiding on those who have not have a chance to reject or hear specific revelation.
My analogy was not intended to say man does only evil therefore cannot do any good, but to illustrate how I believe inability is in my view misunderstood. My point was it’s not like God says pick up the rock and throw it in the lake but has not given us arms. We can pick up the rock and throw it in the lake just like a lost person can turn to Christ. Inability would be better called impossibility. We need the Spirit to work for us to believe.
You are assuming the degree of God’s work here. When God calls and the people refuse it is because they in and of themselves willfully choose to refuse and remain prideful and hard hearted. You are claiming that the passages illustrate that the Spirit is the one working in the souls of men here in the most effective sense. I already addressed Romans 1 above. You are also assuming Paul wrote Hebrews ahh (jk). Just because I believe in the effectual call by which the Spirit in His artistic and unique way always saves who God has always planned to save does not mean that people can’t and won’t reject the word of God. I guess I do not fully understand your point in refute here.
When I speak I believe that it may or may not be the Spirit of God giving me words. I do not think that it is mere words that the Spirit speaks through me but when I am being led by Him He uses me and He also works in the person I am speaking to. I believe both are necessary, but the later is more important.
There is no black and white Scripture that comes to mind. If the Scripture does teach that there is an elect group of people who God is going to save then there must be something different about how He controls who comes and who doesn’t. I believe John 6:35-40 and Romans 8:30 both illustrate the guarantee of the one God chooses, saves, and sovereignly secures. I would like to hear your take on the above passages to start.
I don’t know what you are getting at here, but I wont guess. Good talking to you as well!