Irresistable Grace

[Pastor Larry]

So Ray, about that verse ... Rom 8:29. What kind of call is that since it justifies all who receive it?

[ January 16, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Yelsew]

Your first sentence is technically wrong. When a command was issued, only those affected by it were supposed to do something, not everyone.

Everyone to whom the command was issued, for not everyone got the call! Whereas, the call to the Kingdom says 'whosoever', so whether you are died in the wool compulsive shopper, or simply a casual window shopper, if you hear the call, you are invited to come. The point is, if you think that the call is for you, You're right!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Everyone to whom the command was issued, for not everyone got the call! Whereas, the call to the Kingdom says 'whosoever', so whether you are died in the wool compulsive shopper, or simply a casual window shopper, if you hear the call, you are invited to come. The point is, if you think that the call is for you, You're right!

No kidding Yelsew ... this is what we have said from day one and you keep telling us we are wrong.

The question you can't answer is why some people respond to the call and others do not.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23, 24)

In this text, Paul teaches that the gospel is the power of God unto them which are called. If one must be called in order for the gospel to be the power of God unto them, it is quite evident that there must be a call prerequisite to receiving the gospel of Christ.

Good point. And with respect to other discussions on the "call", the phrase "but unto them which are called" (with the operative word being "but") also implies that not all are called (or, if you prefer, not all are effectually called). If all are called equally, then this verse would make no sense.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
The point is, if you think that the call is for you, You're right!

And if you don't think the call is for you, there's a chance you're also right.

 

[romanbear]

Hi PB;

A quote from you;

________________________________________________

Amen! However, there are two sides of this coin. Are you saved by chance? Was it the purpose of God to visit the Gentiles and call out a people for His name or was it a desperate measure because of His rejection by the Jews? If it was the purpose of God to call the Gentiles, it must have also been the purpose of God for the Jews to reject Jesus Christ as the promised Seed. Think about it...

_______________________________________________________

I'm Saved By the Grace of Jesus Christ.I wasn't saved by chance. I was saved because I choose to believe in Him.A decision is never by chance.Actually Calvinism is the only doctrine that claims to be saved by chance.To be chosen before man has the opportunity to know Christ.In other words no choice.

Your next question I can't answer truthfully because I don't know and neither do you.Only God knows the answer to that question because we don't know the mind of God.We can only speculate and to do that is really ignorant because it's like the men who built the Titanic and said it was unsinkable.You have to realize that God didn't tell man everything in the Bible He just gave us what we needed to know.

Your next question is about God visiting the gentiles.I have never thought that God is desperate for anything from man.He can always wipe us out and start all over again somewhere else.I thank God that he did give the gentiles the opportunity to know Him.However if the Jews hadn't rejected him what would of happened then. I don't know .I believe he visited the gentiles because of the Jews rejection and He did this to make them jealous.I believe this is why they in retaliation because of this jealously have rejected Him even more.There jealousy only serve to harden there hearts even more.I have a Prayer book from an old friend who was Jewish. In it are scriptures all most the entire old testament, but parts of Isaiah and the Psalms 22 were not in it. I asked him why they weren't there. He said he wasn't aware that it was missing.I can't prove it but I think it's because these scriptures would serve to convict the Jewish people.The prayer book was what he carried with him during WW 2.

I don't think the Jews rejecting Him, was Gods purpose, but the effect of the Jews free will and by the way the Jews do not believe in predestination as do the Calvinist. They Believe in mans free will.Which is another reason that I can't accept Calvinism It's merely an Idea of man.

Romanbear

Peace

[ January 16, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by romanbear:
I wasn't saved by chance. I was saved because I choose to believe in Him. A decision is never by chance. Actually Calvinism is the only doctrine that claims to be saved by chance.

Are you truly misinformed about Calvinism or is this intellectual dishonesty?

Originally posted by romanbear:
To be chosen before man has the opportunity to know Christ. In other words no choice.

Did you actually read what you wrote? To be chosen. There most certainly is choice. The choice simply belongs to God.

 

[4study]

The question you can't answer is why some people respond to the call and others do not.

I've often seen a question like this used as physical proof that Calvinism is a correct view. It appears "obvious" to most of us that not ALL respond to the call. But is this premise a healthy testimony to Calvinism? Perhaps. Yet if it is, it is just as healthy for those who believe in "choice" (i.e Those who do not respond to the call have chosen to reject it).

I've often wondered if this premise is actually a preconcieved idea before one is even exposed to the idea of "choice" or Calvinism. Do we read our own opinion of this question into scripture?

I propose the idea that none of us truly knows who responds and who doesn't. God is the only one who knows our hearts. We cannot judge whether one is "called" or not. If we do, we do it based upon what we see externally. In other words, we have no right to say whether somone is or is not "among the elect", "lost", or "saved". So is it safe to use the idea as support for your theology?

Yet for the sake of discussing the concept, the answer to this question really proves nothing. It is simply an idea that fits into one's existing theology. Those believing in Calvinism will say "because they are not of the elect". Those believeing in "choice" will say "because they chose to reject the call".

 

[Ray Berrian]

Why do the majority of people reject His claim on their lives?

There are almost as many options as to their turning Christ aside as there are 'free wills.'

Secondly, there are absolutely no elite calls of the Gospel to the up and coming elect and an inferior call to the unlucky souls who have been made ready for Hell.

In Romans 8:29-30 technically is not unto salvation. The Apostle Paul, being God's spokesperson desires that Christians ' . . . become conformed to the image of the Son.' Even as a sinner we are 'created in His Image' but now He desires that we become mature in Him and demonstrate that we have been spiritually changed because of His wonderful grace. There is no question that we are in the process of one day seeing Him and living with Him forever in our future, spiritual bodies. Those who are justified will also be glorified.

Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same as most Calvinists think. It would be redundant for the Apostle Paul to say in verse 29 "For whom He did predestinate, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." This being true the word 'foreknowledge' must have another meaning. The word is 'prognosis' or as I say it He knows omnisciently and sovereignly what the outcome of His having given to human beings 'free will,' will affect. This does mean that He always forever has known what our personal response to His one call will have been. In other words, forknowledge and predestination are only distant cousin and not 'spiritual clones.'

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
Those believeing in "choice" will say "because they chose to reject the call".

No, you can't really reduce it to that, because it leaves open the question of why they choose to accept or reject the call. The Calvinist answer does not leave that question open.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same as most Calvinists think. It would be redundant for the Apostle Paul to say in verse 29 "For whom He did predestinate, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." This being true the word 'foreknowledge' must have another meaning.

I've always wondered about that, myself. In particular, I've wondered if "those He foreknew" is in any way related to (emphasis mine):

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Or is "I never knew you" a figure of speech? Anyone have any idea? Perhaps this should be a different thread, though.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Secondly, there are absolutely no elite calls of the Gospel to the up and coming elect and an inferior call to the unlucky souls who have been made ready for Hell.

Why you talk of elite and unlucky?? WHy not use the theological terms that are well accepted? IT is not elite, it is effectual. And these souls are not unlucky; they are receiving the just reward for their sin. No one deserves heaven Ray. That is why if God passed over us all, he would be perfectly just in doing so.

In Romans 8:29-30 technically is not unto salvation.

Technically, anytime you get justification and glorification, it is salvation. IT is pure revisionism to say otherwise. IT is defending your case in spite of the text rather than letting teh text speak for itself.

The Apostle Paul, being God's spokesperson desires that Christians ' . . . become conformed to the image of the Son.' Even as a sinner we are 'created in His Image' but now He desires that we become mature in Him and demonstrate that we have been spiritually changed because of His wonderful grace.

Obviously, but not really helpful here. We agree on that. There is no salvation without conformity to teh image of his son. Therefore, to say that this is not about salvation but rather about being conformed to his son is to make a dichotomy the text doesn't make.

Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same as most Calvinists think. It would be redundant for the Apostle Paul to say in verse 29 "For whom He did predestinate, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." This being true the word 'foreknowledge' must have another meaning.

Of course it has a different meaning. IT does not mean predestine. As you say, that would be redundant.

The word is 'prognosis' or as I say it He knows omnisciently and sovereignly what the outcome of His having given to human beings 'free will,' will affect. This does mean that He always forever has known what our personal response to His one call will have been. In other words, forknowledge and predestination are only distant cousin and not 'spiritual clones.'

Foreknowledge means to choose as the lexicons will tell you. IT means that the one he chose, he predestined to become conformed to his image. Who he predestined, he called, whom he called he justified; whom he justified he glorified.

For some reason, you are intent on omitting the "Call" from the verse. That is not permissable. YOu cannot just pretend as if it is not there. The text is clear: Those who are called are justified and then glorified. Therefore, everyone is not called, in the sense that this verse uses the word "call."

[ January 16, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[4study]

Quote from npetreley: No, you can't really reduce it to that, because it leaves open the question of why they choose to accept or reject the call. The Calvinist answer does not leave that question open.

I think this is going to get confusing. I wasn't attempting to give my detailed opinion on the matter. I just thought the question "why do some respond to the call and others do not" was interesting. If one believes in Calvinism, I suppose one will want a complete answer to the question. But I don't see why it's that important. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It's all about your theology. One is no more right/wrong than the other because it's simply not based upon scritpure. It's based upon one's personal beliefs about God APART from scripture.

 

[romanbear]

Please don't spank me Pastor

[ January 17, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

[Grasshopper]

Here are some good sermons I've just found on the Doctrines of Grace. http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

Hit AudioSermons link.

[ January 16, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Grasshopper ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
It's based upon one's personal beliefs about God APART from scripture.

I disagree. One of the reasons there is such heated debate on these forums is that each side believes its view is scriptural. Saying neither is scriptural is yet another view.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Here are some good sermons I've just found on the Doctrines of Grace. http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

Hit AudioSermons link.

Thanks for the link! Here's one thing I found interesting on the site -- from the London Baptist Confession of 1644

XXII.

That faith is the 1 gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and believe the truth of the 2 Scriptures, and not only so, but the excellency of them above all other writing and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in His attributes, the excellency of Christ in His nature and offices, and the power of the fullness of the Spirit in His workings and operations; and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth thus believed.

1) Eph. 2:8; John 6:29; 4:10; Phil. 1:29; Gal. 5:22
2) John 17:17; Heb. 4:11-12; John 6:63

XXIII.

Those that have this precious faith wrought in them by the Spirit, can never finally nor totally fall away; and though many storms and floods do arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon, but shall be kept by the power of God to salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being formerly engraven upon the palms of God's hands.

Mat. 7:24, 25; John 13:1; 1 Peter 1:4-6; Isa. 49:13-16

XXIV.

That faith is ordinarily 1 begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to 2 any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly 3 passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power, 4 then that which raised Christ from the dead.

 

[4study]

Posted by npetreley: I disagree. One of the reasons there is such heated debate on these forums is that each side believes its view is scriptural. Saying neither is scriptural is yet another view.

Point well taken. Yet we cannot deny that our positions, whatever the subject may be, are based upon choices we've made before approaching scripture. I believe you yourself admitted to this in a previous dicussion we were having regarding Adam. A particular key point in that discussion, I think, was when you agreed your premise was not based upon any particular scripture. It was just something you belived about Adam. As result, your interpretation of a particular scripture in Genisis was bent toward your presuppostion. We all do this.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Neptreley,

Under God's sovereignty He has allowed human beings complete free moral agency, but with responsibility to Him at the judgment.

Now, as to how people use that freedom I believe you know the answers. The unsaved rather than receiving Christ has in rebellion turned from Him. How do they express this? In many ways the turn from our Lord. Some people have the love of money, position in life, some desire to live the 'fast life' with no thought except their human lusts. Other people are committed to only their selfish ways and activities, with no thought toward God.

The Parable of the Sower gives us a better understanding of how people respond to the seed of the Gospel in their lives. Matthew thirteen explains the response of the various human hearts and how they use their will, in most cases, to reject Christ, while the ones in verse eight refer to you and me. As you probably have come to understand some Christians bring forth 30 fold, 60, and the best ones 100 fold.

 

[Eric B]

That doesn't make sense. How do you keep something the way it is and call that a "process"?

For lack of better words. Since "blinding" is an action that could be a process, that's where the idea of process came from.

Regardless, I don't want to quibble over semantics. I simply don't know where you get the idea that anyone says man is in a neutral position. Nobody is ever in a neutral position, and although.

Of course, nobody says "neutral". I used that word to raise the point about man having to be "blinded" or "hardened" (especially in light of the common use of Rom.9 which discusses neutral "lumps of clay" and people "not yet having been born, [to] do good or evil" being assigned wrath or mercy). If this is in order to 'keep them from moving out of the damnation column', than that is not quite "keeping them as they were", because "the way they were" was not only in "damnation", but also apparently they were in motion, (possibly to salvation), this would assume, but now you have frozen them in damnation.

I'm guessing you have difficulty with this concept because you're assuming that keeping someone damned is the goal of God blinding some, perhaps even the only goal. I'm not assuming any such thing.

Since I don't take those scriptures that way, I don't believe blinding has much to do with damnation at all. Some people who refuse to repent he "gives over" to sin, for whatever reason, and others like Pharaoh, he hardened for the first part of His plan, (Israel), and likewise, Israel itself He would later harden for the next phase of His plan-- opening up to the Gentiles.(the true context of Rom.9 and others) In neither case is an individual "reprobated" or "preteritioned" to damnation. (the former case had plenty of opportunity to repent, which he squandered; the latter doesn't specify they will never have their eyes opened, and will for that cause end up dyin in their sins.)

[ January 17, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]