John 10:26

Here, by the way, is Arminius' error in his own explanation.

First, he says that it is by necessity that the Holy Spirit regenerates the man, otherwise the man cannot possibly understand the Gospel let alone believe it unto salvation.

It logically follows (from his reasoning) that the Holy Spirit regenerates ALL men, since salvation is not limited to the elect. The difference between the saved and the unsaved, therefore, is that a regenerate man can kick out the Holy Spirit and go back to a degenerate and depraved state.

How does Arminius state this process?

Did you see that sleight of hand? First he says the man is regenerated, which is something that the Holy Spirit works WITHIN the man to enable him to understand the Gospel and actually will to receive and believe it.

Now he says that the man is able to resist the Holy Spirit (and how does the man do this if the Holy Spirit lives within him? he doesn't explain that part, of course) and by doing so, rejects the grace that is OFFERED.

"Offered?" Everything up to this point is counted to the miraculous inward work of the Holy Spirit -- and then he suddenly and totally arbitrarily reduces the process to an "offer". Why? In order to come up with an explanation as to why not everyone believes. Arminius was either a very self-deceived or very shifty fellow.

 

I would correct Nick's errors concerning his assestment of Arminius' words but since he won't interact with me I really don't see the point. Anyone, who takes the time to read what Arminius actually wrote and then Nick's conclusions can see the obvious error in Nick's reasoning. I pray that one of you will point that out to him so I can enjoy reading his rebuttals.

 

SO WHAT?

Tumbleweed, just respond to the scritpure. Catholics and others over the years have labeled and dismissed groups for years. If you insist on calling me Pelagin so you don't have to respond my scripturally based arguments then you are the one with the problem, not me. Just because you and Nick don't understand the historical perspectives on this issue don't ignore the scripture. That is really what we are hear to debate.

 

I'm still waiting on a response to the scripture I presented on July 23rd at 1:42pm on this thread.

Anyone?

 

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

 

Anyone? Buller...Buller...Buller

 

WEll I believe it. So maybe you mean "everyone but Bob". However I suspect others here believe it as well.

Notice that Arminius does NOT say "man must be regenerated to CHOOSE life, to CHOOSE to accept the Gospel". Rather he is speaking of doing ALL good works to be able to "Do whatever is right" in all cases. That is the work/walk life of the saint. But if you have the lost sinner - who is simply CHOOSING life or death - then the drawing power of God is sufficient to inform and enable that ONE choice as opposed to ALL good works "doing Whatever is right".

The details.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

If you study Arminius, you'll see he wavers back and forth. One moment he says salvation is something we choose of our own free will. The next, he says it is a process that the Spirit works upon all, and the unsaved are the ones who resist the Holy Spirit. In other words, one minute salvation is the choice to say "yes" or "no", and the next minute it's not a choice to say "yes" at all, but only the choice to say "no".

He was a very mixed up fellow who couldn't admit he was wrong, so he did mental contortions to avoid it.

 

Nick, the problem you have is that you don't reconize the WORD as a work of the Spirit, as scripture and Armininus clearly do. It is a choice of the will after being "worked on" by the Holy Spirit which happens when one hears the words of the spirit. Don't worry, many Calvinists make that mistake. Its pretty common.

 

Skan,
What do you mean by the WORD being a work of the Spirit?
Do you mean what I believe? I believe that, the Word and the Spirit cannot be seperated in their working of the "inward call" to salvation. One is the instrument that the Spirit uses, and the other is the accompanying power that uses the Word.

In Christ

 

Southern,

That is pretty close, however, I do not believe the work is "irresistable." I think that is the difference. Plus, I don't know that the scripture ever teaches about an "inward call." The spirit brought us the word and therefore the words themselves are a work of the spirit, so even the "outward call" is a work of the Spirit. Make sense?

 

Skan,
When "I" use the Word "inward" referring to God's call, I do this to distinguish between the outward call of the gospel. We are all called outwardly everytime we hear the gospel. The inward call is the one that the Holy Spirit uses to open mens hearts to respond (Acts 16 with Lydia) but is of course only possible through the outward call. Sorry for any miscommunication, I am not the best with words!

May God bless you

 

Southern,

There is nothing wrong with your choice of words. I knew exactly what you meant, but I was pointing out that the scripture really never teaches about a "inward call" as opposed to the "outward call." I believe their is only one calling. The Holy Spirit brought us this call and therefore it has power.

Lydia was not lost. She was a God worshipper. Read the text. She had faith in God but she just hadn't heard about the Christ yet. Her God prepared her to listen to Paul as she was already intune with Him.

 

Skan,
Thanks for the discussion.

You said:There is nothing wrong with your choice of words. I knew exactly what you meant, but I was pointing out that the scripture really never teaches about a "inward call" as opposed to the "outward call." I believe their is only one calling. The Holy Spirit brought us this call and therefore it has power.

Me: Let me give you a scripture to show you what I believe. Rom. 8:29 speakes of the "called". What I believe this verse to be teaching is that all who are called are also justified. So I distinguish this call from the "outward" call that gos to everybody.

You:Lydia was not lost. She was a God worshipper. Read the text. She had faith in God but she just hadn't heard about the Christ yet. Her God prepared her to listen to Paul as she was already intune with Him.

I have no major problem with this interpretation, but that was not exactly what I was getting at, but it helps to clarify the issue. Why did God have to prepare her and is this any different from any "preparing" the Spirit has to do in conversion.

Thanks, God bless.

 

Its not much to base a whole other call upon. This sequence could simply be assuming man's reponse to the call. So it would simply men...those he foreknew, he also called, those he called (who believed), he also justified, etc.

You have to assume that those he called DID in fact believe, right? We both believe that. So who is to say for certain that Paul wasn't merely speaking about God's part of the process in saving those who do believe and was merely presuming man's faith based response within the sequence of events? In other words, its not enough to base an entire theology of dual callings upon. Doesn't seem odd to you that God would spend so much time in scripture dealing with the general calling of the gospel, which really has no power alone according to your dogma, and then only mention the irresistable calling that really makes all the difference a couple of time in obscure passages? Christ himself speaks of the gospel message all the time yet neglects to ever teach on this secret calling. Granted you can find it by isogesis (reading it into the text) but you can't find it by exegesis (reading it out of the text or letting the text speak for itself without adding to it.)

Well, as a God worshipper doesn't God ever prompt you to do certain things or listen to certain people? Why does Thomas have to see Jesus in order to believe? Is the effectual calling of the Spirit not sufficient or was his seeing Jesus just the means God used to convince his will? God does intervene to convince the wills of men, He is not obligated to do this, but at times He obviously does. According to scripture some in certain cities would have believed unto repentance if they had seen the signs and wonders other cities refused to believe in. Why? The will of man must be in play. It cannot be ignored or avoided as a determining factor in faith and response.

 

Skan,

It says all who are called are justified. There is not much to assume. The person who is called is the exact same person who is justified. I am not following your interpretation, please expound. I would be interested in reading your interpretation later. The reason I ask this is because you mentioned reading into the text. I simply ask you, who is reading into this text?

Rom. 8:29 is not the only clear text. 1 Cor. 1:24 speaks of a specific group as the called which “again” could not refer to everybody. Please comment on how this could also be universal rather than particular.

On the Prompting that you talked about. Do you believe that God "prompts" to accept the Gospel like He "prompted" Lydia in Acts 16? If so, is this prompting “internal” and distinct from the words coming out of Pauls mouth? Maybe this will help.

Thanks and God bless

 

I admit when dealing with certain "more difficult" passages both of us can give the other that impression. But do you believe that those called do respond in faith? Of course you do. The text doesn't say they believe, so you must presume upon the text (based on what we know from other texts, that they do believe, right?)

Well, since the text doesn't tell us we presume it means it. Just like when the text says, 'he gave himself not only for us but the whole world." You guys presume he means "all kinds of people in the whole world." Or "not only us Jews but people from all nations." Its presumed based upon what you believe about other more explicit passages. So too, I presume that Paul means those he foreknew, he called, and those he called [who believe], he justified.

Notice that the object of discussion here are those who love God as the passage suggests, so it not Paul's point to show man's response, its his point to show the sequence of God's work in salvation. Those who love God were: foreknown, called, justified, and glorified. No more has to be read into that passage and it certainly isn't detailed enough to extract an entire doctrine of two calls. You still haven't told me why God would spend so much time speaking of the general non-effectual calling and so little (if any) time speaking about this oh so important effectual calling. That is quite revealing to me.

I Cor. 1:24 states: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Adam Clarke writes: "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. "

Those called are understood as being ones who have received the calling. A modern day example would be ministers being refered to as being "called". Is that because God hasn't called any others? No. Ministers are known as the "called ones" because they have recieved the call. Soilders are called "recruits" in the same way. Is it because the Army only attempted to recruit them? Of course not. They are the only ones who responded to the recruitment and thus are refered to by that title. I believe that is all this passage could be refering to and it certainly isn't enough to deduce a whole new doctrine of dual callings.

He may, but we don't know the means by which God prompted Lydia. He may have sent a friend of hers ahead to speak good things about Paul, we just don't know the means He employeed. We do know that God prompts men to faith through these means in the scripture: miracles, envy, gospel/preaching/scripture, etc.

 

Skan,

Rom. 8:29
I would agree with some of the things you said, for example:
Paul is definitely speaking about the ones “who love God” as you stated, but these same ones who “love God” are the “called” (there is that word again) according to His purpose. The point of this passage is that men are God lovers because they have been “called” according to His purpose.

You also made a statement about the number of times this topic is talked about. I will simply say that given the fact that you disagree with my view of the scriptures, you would probably say that any verse I brought up would not teach what Rom. 8 and 1 Cor. do clearly.


1 Cor. 1:24
Your examples of ministers being called has nothing to do with this context and totally ignores the context and hence irrelevant. The word ‘called’ can no doubt be used in different ways, but that does not explain the way Paul uses it here to explain the difference between the ones who reject and the ones who accept the Gospel.

There are two groups spoken of. One gospel is preached to both but yet there are two different responses. Why the difference? I say that the difference is God’s call to the “called” as found in Rom. 8:29. It makes no sense to me why Paul would contrast Jew’s and Greeks generally with those Jews and Greeks who are ‘called’ if the only difference between the two are their individual choices since in that view they would “all” be called and hence no reason to call one group “the called”. This would make “all called” and hence no distinction between the unbelievers and the believers. Your underlying interpretation seems to be not only artificial but not able to explain the contrary response to the gospel that Paul is presenting.


Acts 16
The Spirit was the “One” that prompted her by use of the spoken word of Paul. Had the Spirit not opened her heart she could not have responded positively to Paul’s message. The Spirit has used many means, but here the Spirit works in conjunction with Paul’s words.


Thanks Skan

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by Southern:
[QB] Skan,

Rom. 8:29
I would agree with some of the things you said, for example:
Paul is definitely speaking about the ones ;who love God[qb][/quote] Yes, they are lovers of God because they have been called and responded in faith to it. Do you disagree?

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?

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.

As I have shown, this is not about Lydia being saved. She is already a God worshipper. We have been through this before.

Blessings.

 

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.