Skan,
You Said:
Clearly, to you maybe. My point is still this: Why would God spend so much time talking about the general call of the gospel, which has no real effect on people in and of itself, and then only merely mention this so called irresistable calling in vague passages that could be taken in more than one way? What gives?
Me: About the word called. The word ‘called’ is used different ways in the scripture. You assume that most of the time the word called is used it refers to a general call which you are assuming and what we are discussing. The call we are talking about now is taught either by direct teaching, implication, or example just like many other doctrines. Again, let me say, you would probably say any verse that I brought up would not teach what I believe they clearly teach and is in my opinion not necessary when the verses before us are clear. Like the statement you made above about these verses only being clear to me proves that if you do not accept these there is no reason to move on to other verses. I will leave it up to those reading to see which one of us is ‘stickin’ (ok, now you know I am from the South) closer to the text under discussion.
Back to the text of scripture, Paul shows that If ‘one’ of these statements is true, then all are true. If not, how can you insert a break into this passage? Not all are predestined, not all are glorified, yet you seem to be saying that this one thing (calling) is an exception when these are all truths that are distinct for the elect.
Skan said: It is irrelevant. As I clearly stated, I was giving you a modern day example of how that word was used then. I also used the example of "recruits". I wasn't trying to say that it was what Paul was refering to, I was showing the way in which the word could be used. You ignored Adam's Clarkes remakes all together.
Me: You brought up many examples but did not give me an example of how the word “called” is used in this text. Paul is not talking about a call to ministry in either of these verses and hence it does not fit. Your quote by Clarke is actually helpful, why is it a term to label Christians when all are “called”? Actually this seems to be kind of fishy that Paul would label Christians by a name that practically is something true of all people. I would not totally disagree with Clarke, but would simply ask, “Why is it a term for only Christians when all are called?” Well unless you can’t believe in an effectual call, you would have no problem understanding why Paul uses this to distinguish Christians because they alone are the called in this sense.
In I Cor. Paul shows the difference between the ones who think the message is foolish and those who do not. Paul preached one gospel message that was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks but what was the exception? The exception was the “called”. If you believe that all are called and only the ones who respond are named the “called” doesn't seem to fit Paul’s purpose.
Neither does your army scenario fit the term “called” . Notice: This would be like saying, all are recruited but only the ones who accept are recruited (that doesn’t make sense). This is the same as you saying all are called but only the ones who accept are termed the called. In other words, the way you are using the word “called” cannot be used in the same way as with the word “recruit” and only muddies the water. You would have to insert “tried to recruit” in your example and it would then mess up the whole analogy.
Secondly, In the army you could not refer to anybody that was not recruited as a recruit, but yet you believe that everybody is called and yet call a specific group the called, even though all are called. If your example were true, we would have to say that everybody is recruited, but only those who accept the recruit are called recruits. I hope you understand what I am trying to say about the word recruit and called not being a very good example.
Even if this did fit, an Army recruiter cannot promise that all those ‘attempted’ to be recruited will actually come when in fact God promises that all those who are given to Him will come (John 6:37; Acts 13:48) and in fact that is just what the text in Rom. 8:28 says that all who are called are justified. That is why Paul ends this section in I Cor. with God “choosing” (vs. 27) and gives the final glory to God (vs. 34).
Also, Your interpretation of an army recruit would have nothing to do with “choosing” (vs. 27) because like you said, they are different from the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles because of their own self, God is attempting to call both of them. The final glory would not go to the army recruiter for them being recruited because in fact, like you said, the thing that set them apart from the rest was not some special call of God but their “acceptance” of some general call that applies to all. The difference lies not in God but in the man himself. IMO, your interpretation just doesn’t fit Paul’s train of thought in this passage.
Thanks Skan, and God bless you. I would welcome any corrections on my part or points from your view for my future viewing. Sorry for the long post, but it seemed like alot of the "examples" caused more problems then they solved.
