The Apostle James on Particular Election of the Apostles

Bill, you should not be calling your Creator a deceiver of men. That is very dangerous on your part. And if you are wrong(as you have allowed in the past that you could be wrong and we Calvinists correct in interpreting the Bible), then in this case it does make a difference as you would have called God a deceiver. Watch your words, dear brother, watch your words.

 

If God is not absolutely sovereign then God is not God and we are all hopeless and lost. Sovereignty is what makes God to be God. If some other force, such as man's will, can override God's will, then God is not sovereign and is not dependable.

If some other force, such as man's will, can override God's will, God's purpose, even one time, then how can we have confidence that in another instance, some other force will not again override God's will, God's purpose? We could not have confidence, if it were true that at least one time God's sovereignty was overthrown, even in eternity that God would continue to be sovereign in all cases.

 

You guys make me laugh. Thanks for the humor.

Bill, God works all things after the counsel of his own will. That means man does not override it. That is clear Scripture. The verses you give present no problem to that.

You say "How can you not grant that which you did not give to them?" First, see how you inject your understanding into SCripture, without comparing it to Scripture to see if that principle is really there? That is a problem. We are to be guided by Scripture, not the logic of our sinful minds. Second, Scripture does command things that man cannot do, such as be perfect, keep the whole law, etc. This is not inconsistent. Third, the inability is moral. They can repent; their moral faculties have no desire to repent.

Have you ever punished your child and said to him, "I wish I didn't have to do this"? Of course, I heard that a ton of times from my parents. But they did it anyway becuase they had a commitment to a higher purpose. This demonstrates on a human level the fact that God has two wills. This is patently clear from Scripture.

As for Jas 1:18, I have not denied the usefulness of man's will. I have said what the passage says, that Ray explicitly denied. The passage says by his own will he brought us forth (gave us birth). It was his will. You have read in something that is not there. You do this all the time because it is necessary to support your position. I have showed this on multiple occasions.

You are the one who is confusing the issue here by equating things that should not be conflated.

 

That's not what this passage says. You've added words to Jeremiah's plain teachings.

The clay in the potter's hand does belong to the potter to do with as he wishes. I said that before. However, Jeremiah sure did believe that man had the responsibility to decide, and then the potter does with that clay has he wishes. Perhaps Jeremiah just didn't live late enough to understand Calvinism? Who knows?

If I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Their response is based upon God's warning to them. The conditional sentence sure makes it seem like the nation could repent or not repent.

 

I said that in the previous post.

Great Scriptural response. Considering the type of board this is and the type of post you are responding to, some kind of Scriptural proof would help.

Your response, in style, is reminiscent of how athiests respond to Scripture. With style and theory, but no substance. Care to try again?

 

I didn't add any words to the passage. Jer 18:4 says, Jeremiah 18:4 But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. The potter does whatever he is pleased to do.

Or maybe Jeremiah did believe what became known as Calvinism and you just don't like that ... We, along with jeremiah, believe that man has the responsibility to decide. That is not the issue. And God is certainly true: When his people repent, he will bring them back again. That is what the NC is all about.

Again, their inability is a moral one. They were choosing those things that they wanted to do. I can't see how you are arguing this passage contradicts what we believe. The nation could or could not repent. They chose not to because of the hardness of their hearts. That is what sin does to man.

 

But your position is that the potter could not be pleased if man could make a free choice concerning the potter. Is this a true statement?

Exactly! People repent, and THEN they are brought back. It is not that the are brought to a certain point, then they repent.

I think we are closer to each other than we think. The difference is that I think that God calls all men to him - it is a kind of call that allows man to choose for or against him. You think that while God calls all men, only certain people get a special call - it is a kind of call that makes man choose for God. Once called with the special call, man cannot say "no," just as in the regulat call, man cannot say, "yes."

 

I think the potter is pleased because men do make a free choice concerning the potter. They freely reject him. If they repent, then their future is changed. There is also in Jeremiah a national/corporate factor that must not be eliminated. This passage is about the nation more than individuals.

I don't think these two are necessarily mutually exclusive, unless I misunderstand you. The point I would make is that faith and repentance begin with God, not with man.

This is probably accurate. My problem with your position that all men called equally is that the Scriptures in sevearl different places make the "call" the difference between saved and unsaved. The "called" are a synonym for teh saved, and hence, the "called" cannot be the unsaved.

 

You say "freely reject" on one sentence, then in the next, you talk about "if they repent." Can man freely repent?

And isn't it Ken Hamilton (H or the Spurgeonite - whatever) who would ask, "But who is the nation made up of?"

I agree that it begins with God - but we disagree about the nature of enlightenment and regeneration.

But many are called, but few are chosen. This uses call in a much different way - the called are indeed unsaved!

 

Sure, he can repent at any time he wants to. "Free" has to do with the nature of the individual. He can do anything in accordance with his nature. He chooses not to repent because of his nature and that is a free choice.

Yes, but that is apples and oranges. There is a corporate election of the nation and an individual election. Ken's (and my) response is to those who confuse corporate election in teh OT with individual election to salvation. If you elect the body of Christ which is made of regenerated individuals, then you have chosen the individuals. In corporate election, you have a nation chosen and their shared characteristic is their ethnic heritage. So you are taking one thing and trying to apply to something else.

My point is that when the nation was sold in bondage for apostasy, every single individual was not apostate. For exampe, you still have Daniel and his three friends who were faithful but because the nation did not repent, they were punished.

In terms of the general call, yes. But in 1 Cor 1:24, "the called" are those who see the wisdom of Christ and they are contrasted with those who see Christ as foolishness and a stumblingblock, i.e., the unsaved. I listed a number of similar passages the other day where "called" or "call" cannot be a general invitation to the gospel because it delineates a difference between saved and unsaved.

We don't argue that call is never used in the way you mention above. We agree. But it is used other ways as well. This is what you deny. You seem to think that "call" must mean "general invitation to be saved" each time it is used. We disagree and cite the Scripture to support it.

 

And you ignore what I guess is the crux of the argument - that God gives man the ability to make such a choice, IN SPITE of his sinful nature.

But there are many who see the church in the same way - a body was chosen and their shared characteristic is their identity as children of God. In other words, how many Israelites would have had to turn to God for the nation to turn? Half? 75%? All of them? How does a nation repent?

So, what is the percentage here? If this is indeed talking about nations, what is the dividing line between a nation punished and a nation redeemed?

Here is I Corinthians 1:22-24

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

In I Corinthians 1, the point in this passage is that God has called to the Jews and the Greeks. To say that there is a special saving call here that is not meant for others is not in the passage at all. It is read into it.

I must have missed that.

The word used here and in the "Many are called, but few are chosen" is kletos. Theyer's states that the term refers to an invitation to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God through Christ. The hard part for you is that there is only this definition of the word, and the fact is, Matthew calls the strongest separation between kletos and "chosen," while your side makes them almost synonymous. A simple word study of kletos shows as much.

 

I think the Scriptural statements about inability (John 6; Rom 8; etc.) and the scriptural descriptions of "dead in sin" contradict this statement. That is why I cannot accept it.

I realize there are many who see it that way, but I cannot find that teaching in Scripture. In Scripture, election to salvation is individual and personal. They were chosen to believe and chosen to faith and chosen to salvation. As for the percentage, I don't know. Based on Christ's words to the Jewish leaders as well as based on the OT prophets, the leaders were the key issue in this. As went the leaders, so went the nation.

We are not told what it was.

I think you didn't read closely enough. Notice vv. 23-24.

About the message, there is a contrast being made:
1) The Jews and Greeks --> stumbling block/foolishness
2) the called --> Christ the widom and power of God.

The contrast is between the "called" and the rest. You need something along the lines of "THe called who rejected" and the "CAlled who accepted." If some do not see Christ as the wisomd of God and the power of God, then they were not "called" by the definition of this verse.

So the "called" are believers and they are contrasted with unbelievers. It would not do justice to the passage to say that the Jews and Greeks were "called" with the same "call" as the "called" were because then there is very little sense. The passage continues to use this distinction talking about the called in the rest of it. It is not me who has read something into it; it is you. The contrast is between the "called" and the "Jews/Greek who find it foolishness/stumblingblock."

I don't even know where it is now.

Rom 1:6 and 17:14 uses this same form in reference to the saved. It is used 10 other times in various ways. The term also refers to apostleship (Rom 1:1), the saved (Jude 1). It is also the word used in 1 Cor 1:24 in contrast to the unsaved. You cite Thayer but omit a part of his definition (the part that contradicted you). I have highlighted some portions for consideration. He says, [Greek omitted] devoted to Christ and united to him, Rom. 1:6; [Greek omitted] "holy (or `saints') by the calling of God," Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2. b. called to (the discharge of) some office: [Greek omitted] i. e. divinely selected and appointed (see kale,w, as above), Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1 (L brackets klhto,j); cf. Gal. 1:15.

A word can be used in different ways in different contexts. Don't assume it alwasy means the same thing.

 

Larry, this statement clearly shows the commone error that Calvinists make.

You assume that God calls men in two different ways. 1. A general universal calling
2. A special inward irresistable calling

This is not supported in the text, it is assumed based on upon a few misapplied texts which are read with a this false presumption in mind.

Usually when the scripture talks about a unique calling it is emphasizing the fact that Gentiles are now being called as opposed to just Israel. For example, "I thank God that He has chosen you..." is not in reference to God's choosing individuals to the neglect of others, but instead is a statement of expressing thanks to God for now choosing the Gentiles to hear the gospel so that they might believe.

Calvinists are just reading these texts with their Calvinistic lenses and assuming that the authors must have had a Calvinistic intent, but that is just not the case. Their concern had to do with the Gentiles being included in the new covenant and are speaking of God choosing to call them to repentance and faith.

The same is true in regard to "granting repentance." Calvinists once again assume the authors intent as being God's granting repentance to certain individuals as opposed to others. Again, this is wrong. Instead, the authors are expressing the mystery that the Gentiles have now been granted repentance just as the Jews had for generations.

 

Like it or not, I gave the texts that show that the difference between the saved and the unsaved is "the call." You are simply wrong. It is supported by the text and ample evidence has been given of that. You reject it because your position is too important to you and must be maintained.

Patently false. In 1 Cor 1, it is Jews and Greeks who reject and the called, both Jews and Greeks, who accept. That is the simple text and it says that the "called" are those who except and separates them from the rest.

This is not in the text. You have decided that "you" must mean Gentiles becuase of your system, not because of the text. Your presupposition has been shown to be wrong.

The text is still the key and the text is on my side here.

 

Adam Clarke explains it well:

Verse 23. But we] Apostles, differing widely from these Gentile philosophers:- Preach Christ crucified] Call on men, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe in Christ, as having purchased their salvation by shedding his blood for them.

Unto the Jews a stumbling block] Because Jesus came meek, lowly, and impoverished; not seeking worldly glory, nor affecting worldly pomp; whereas they expected the Messiah to come as a mighty prince and conqueror; because Christ did not come so, they were offended at him.

Out of their own mouths, we may condemn the gainsaying Jews. In Sohar Chadash, fol. 26, the following saying is attributed to Moses, relative to the brazen serpent: "Moses said, This serpent is a stumbling block to the world. The holy blessed God answered: Not at all, it shall be for punishment to sinners, and life to upright men." This is a proper illustration of the apostle's words.

Unto the Greeks foolishness] Because they could not believe that proclaiming supreme happiness through a man that was crucified at Judea as a malefactor could ever comport with reason and common sense; for both the matter and manner of the preaching were opposite to every notion they had formed of what was dignified and philosophic. In Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho the Jew we have these remarkable words, which serve to throw light on the above. "Your Jesus," says Trypho, "having fallen under the extreme curse of God, we cannot sufficiently admire how you can expect any good from God, who place your hopes epÆ anqrwpon staurwqenta, upon a man that was CRUCIFIED." The same writer adds: "They count us mad, that after the eternal God, the Father of all things, we give the second place, anqrwpw staurwqenti, to a man that was crucified."Where is your understanding," said the Gentiles, "who worship for a god him who was crucified?" Thus Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. See Whitby on this verse.

Verse 24. But unto them which are called] toiv klhtoiv. Those, both of Jews and Greeks, who were by the preaching of the Gospel called or invited to the marriage feast, and have accordingly believed in Christ Jesus; they prove this doctrine to be divinely powerful, to enlighten and convert the soul, and to be a proof of God's infinite wisdom, which has found out such an effectual way to glorify both his justice and mercy, and save, to the uttermost, all that come to him through Christ Jesus. The called, or invited, klhtoi, is a title of genuine Christians, and is frequently used in the New Testament. Æagioi, saints, is used in the same sense.

 

Readiug quickly here, I agree that he explains it pretty well. However, he agrees with me, not with you.

See, "the called" is the genuine Christians, not the whole world in general. In this passage, "the called" is distinguished from the rest. The defining mark is that "the called" are saved. According to you, all are called with this call. Therefore, in the words of Clarke whom you quote, all would be genuine Christians. We both agree that is not true.

So once again, we see someone teaching exactly what I have said -- that there is a call which distinguishes lost from saved. That is exactly the opposite of what you have said.

It makes we wonder why you brought evidence against yourself to this trial. Usually, you let the other side do that.

 

You read too quickly. Read it again. And if you still understand it to support your Calvinistic presuppositions then you'll need to read it again. We know Adam Clarke is not a Calvinist and yet you have the ability to read your interpretation into his words just like you do the writers of the New Testament. That is the error of your ways Larry. You can't view anything objectively. Everything you take in is colored Calvinistically which is why you misrepresent Paul and the other writers of the NT.

You can deny it all day long, but now I have proof. You have taken the words of an Arminian scholar and used his words to support your Calvinistic presupposition. Don't make a habit of that, its really bad hermeneutics. To do it to a commentator is one thing, but when you continually do it to the scripture it gets dangerous.

Adam is explaining the term "the called" is used to refer to believers. It does not imply that they are the only ones called, but just that they were called. If I called 50 people to come to my house and 20 showed up and I refered to the 20 as the ones I called it in no way negates the fact that I called the other 30 as well. To assume that it does goes against the rest of the scripture. You get aroung that by creating a doctrine that teaches two calls. That is not taught in scripture, it is only implied in a couple of passages that can be taken in different ways.

 

I read what he said and his comments on v. 24 are what calvinists teach. If Clark contradicts that in other places, I DON't know. I don't use Clarke so I don't really know what he believes.

Adam says that the "Called" Is another name for genuine believers. That is what I say and what every calvinist says. If he contradicts taht elsewhere, that is up to him. I really don't care.

The point that I am making and that you have not refuted is taht Paul makes a distinction between those who accept and those who reject. The ones who accept are distinguised from the rest by the name "the called." I HAVe addressed this many times from Scripture and have shown the proof. Your problem is not with me; it is with the text of Scripture. I have only said what that says.

And if you throw a party, you can call it whatever you want. You didn't invent salvation; God did. He is teh one who gets to define the terms, not you.

[qutoe]You get aroung that by creating a doctrine that teaches two calls. That is not taught in scripture, it is only implied in a couple of passages that can be taken in different ways. </font>[/QUOTE]I have created nothing. Scripture teaches that there is an effectual call. Again, I say, your issue is with Scripture, not with me. I HAVE shown the proof. Your system rejects it.

 

The general call goes out to all who hear the Gospel. Those who receive Christ become the elect of God. His love, care and benevolence goes out to all sinners. [I Timothy 2:6] The Christian God is unbiased.