1. 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!

"Effectual Call"

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by skypair, Feb 26, 2007.

  1. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to be nitpicky or anything, but that verse doesn't say anything at all about grace being through faith. In the greek, the endings link both grace and faith to salvation. IOW, the passage is saying:
    You are saved by grace.
    You are saved through faith.

    The passage cannot be rightly construed to be saying "Grace is through faith". Might it be? Yes, but this passage can't rightly be used to argue that.
     
  2. Andy T.

    Andy T. Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm just trying to figure out where MB is coming from. From his previous posts, he seems to think that we don't receive grace until we reach out in faith first. Such a view is patently unbiblical. Even most non-Cals believe God is the one who initiates, by His grace, the Gospel call.
     
  3. Blammo

    Blammo New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
     
  4. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Section 2 says it that men are passive in the effectual call. Yes, that's being born again, but that's not, to a Calvinist, the exact same thing as being saved. But you've been told this over and over again and you chose to ignore it. Nobody says you have to agree that they're different, by the way, but it's disingenuous to read the WCF and transport your own definitions rather than the definitions they are using into the text.

    And, BTW, there are a whole lot of genuine Baptists who wouldn't see being born again and being saved as exactly the same thing, so don't make it a Baptist thing.

    But word order in a sentence is not necessarily the chronological of the events, and in this case, with the punctuation etc, we know it's not chronological order.

    You don't have to agree. But you need to understand how the other side defines the terms in order to understand what they believe so that you don't misrepresent their beliefs. When you say that Calvinists believe that people are completely passive in the process of salvation, you are misrepresenting their beliefs.
     
  5. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I disagree and so does Green's interlinear. It says "For by grace you are being saved, through faith"
    This passage below also supports Grace is through faith.
    Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
    Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

    Faith comes before any grace.
    MB
     
  6. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, that is second, but it is necessary. The first was God providing for us, in love, through Christ. He reached out to all of us that way.

    THEN, how we respond is the telling point.
     
  7. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even in 'normal English', listing things in a particular order does not mean that the things listed are done in a particular order...much less that the previous item causes the second item.

    So, for instance, I could say:
    "Today I washed my clothes, sunbathed, ate lunch, went shopping and changed the oil in my car." There is absolutely no reason based on a list like that to think that I did any of those things in the order listed. There is no hint that it is a chronological listing. For it to be a chronological listing, I would need to give some clue that it was - like including 'then' with each item. Agreed?

    If so, why do you approach the WC differently and see chronology simply because things are listed in a certain order?
     
  8. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Andy;
    Actually Hellen gave a good answer. Of Course God has chosen us first but this isn't saving grace. Saving grace can only be had through faith.
    MB
     
  9. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm always amazed at how people can take the English language to such an extent.
    No I disagree If you listed things like that I would think you were still cover in oil and grease from changing the oil.
    Eph 2:8 gives a chronicle order and there is no escaping it when it was said we are saved by grace through faith. The last two words gave it an order in which it happens.
    I do not. Although by the word saying through faith it placed faith before grace. The scriptures listed grace first but it is through faith.
    MB
     
  10. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skypair,

    Let's try this, which is the section on the effectual call from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 31. The Catechism is meant to accompany the Westminster Confession, and explain or teach what is found in it.
    Is that clearer than the more complicated wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
     
  11. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    ??!! No it doesn't! In fact, if anything, it makes it even more clear that it doesn't.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  12. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, this is very disconcerting

    Yeah - when a "system" says "saving" or suggests "regeneration," I take note that that is only available with salvation!

    I don't think you agree with the WC then -- which is good!

    Beg to differ, friend. MOST Cavists think that regeneration comes BEFORE hearing. It's not MY logic but theirs that is defective.

    Again, I think you are prejudicial towards Calvinism. Why not mention that one is not saved by the call?

    skypair
     
  13. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    What -- you just acknowledged the validity of some of my "attacks" and now you say I don't understand their teachings?? Let's look, shall we?

    Nor by Calvinists -- BUT IT IS THE SAME IN SCRIPTURE!! So if the WC is flawed, so is Calvinism!

    How silly! Calvinists would have us believe that but that is the "passive" thing, d-dub! David didn't watch from his window while they brought the ark of the covenant back into Jerusalem -- he was dancing half-naked in the streets!! Finey was, indeed, a GREAT evangelist whom ALL acknowledge as such and it wasn't in spite of his invitations -- it was because he won souls to Christ!

    Another admission on your part. Just quit denying what I say and see what you come up with, OK?

    Nobody has offered that -- except Calvin by the way he typifies belief or th esinner's prayer or any other outward response.

    Another admission (confession? :D) Look -- maybe I DON'T misunderstand Calvinism. Maybe it is you need to, like Micahel Jackson, "take a second look." :laugh:

    skypair
     
  14. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, but you don't get it unless you BELIEVE -- reach out to God.

    skypair
     
  15. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    What? The WC *explicitly* says the call is *to* salvation. I wasn't referring to what I believe but what the WC says.

    Sure they believer regeneration comes before hearing...but you went far beyond that in the order you gave. Stick with your original argument please.

    I don't follow you. Please restate.
     
  16. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I "choose to ignore it" because Jesus did, too! "Born again" IS salvation! IS regeneration. IS "renewed." You ain't gonna be regenerated and UNsaved. It's IMPOSSIBLE! If anything, you are regenerated, then saved.

    YOU just did, for heaven's sake!!

    Oh? It's "disigenuous" place Bible defintions above the WC?

    Fine with me. I truly hope it is not a "Baptist thing!" :D

    I showed you 2 ways that word order could be -- should be -- construed as chronology and you pass it off as without meaing? What's YOUR authority?

    You would have to prove that to me. I know there are many Calvinists that DIDN'T come by the "chronology" that they now embrace. Nevertheless, MOST do. Youy dare not even believe as they say that is a "work!" Maybe you need to get in touch with come Calvinists and find out what you really believe. :D

    skypair
     
  17. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russ -- I like that a lot better!! Sounds like a more recent formulation and I agree so long as "enlightening" isn't equated (like it is in much of Calvinism) with "regeneration."

    My "issue" with Cism is they only let someone "hear" who has been regenerated. Well, regenerated/born again IS saved! So they would have someone hearing AFTER they are born again. No. ALL can "hear." "Hearing" is no exclusive club called "elect."

    skypair
     
  18. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Curious...when did I acknowledge the validity of some of your 'attacks'?

    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. 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.

    Thats fine, we can save that particular discussion for later. I merely wish to point out that your imposing of this concept, no matter how Scriptural it may be, is causing you to seriously misread the WC which does not hold that position.

    I don't follow you here. What exactly is 'how silly'? And what are you trying to argue with the example of David dancing as they brought in the ark?

    Heh, I doubt you would find many Calvinists (or Lutherans for that matter who would agree with that assessment, so your claims of ALL is rather overstated. But Finney is a discussion for a different thread. I merely point out the fallacy of reading too much into invitations or lack of them. Its a relatively recent historical phenomena.

    I don't deny what *you see*. What you might see is not necessarily representative. I don't dispute that some Cists teach things contrary to others - just as some who claim to be Christians reject the deity of Christ. Lets deal, not with you might see in your own personal experience which may or may not be accurate, objective or representative, but instead with what is truly representative of Cist beliefs. There are many things which might fault Cists for and I would nod in sympathy but I am a student of logic and language and obvious straw men and fallacious reasoning I will protest against...I won't put up with from either side.

    Lost me there. What has nobody offered? Is my restatement more accurate or not? If not, then what is your proof? If so, then drop your earlier misstatement.

    Ok, lets assume that this is true. Now go find a Cist who agrees with you - one who can write and respond actively, not simply some writer who can't be here to clarify your or my misunderstanding of what they wrote. Do that and if they actually end up agreeing with you I will be glad to grant that maybe you aren't quite so arrogant in your self-assurance as you seem.

    In the meantime though, let me simply point out that numerous Cists here have repeatedly pointed out your basic misconceptions...while none have disagreed with mine.
     
  19. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, same time period, and by the same people. They were meant to go together. The Confession is written for parliament, though, and might be more technical.
     
  20. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    A more recent formulation? Actually, it was written at the same general time as the WC by the same group which wrote the WC. IOW, its the writers of the WC interpreting the WC in simpler terms.

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