1 Cor. 2.10-16

Yes, I see how you think certain parts of the text are "good" while others should be glossed over quickly. It amazes me how you can be so emphatic that the simple use of the phrase "those he called" and interpret that to mean that there must be two calls, one that works and the another that is... well... useless, but you can gloss over Romans 11:32 on another post which specifically teaches that God shows mercy to all of those He binds over to disobeidence by saying "all" means two different things in the same sentence. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

Yes, those who believe were called, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that only those who believed were called. The fact is we know that everyone in the world is called or invited (which is a possible translation of this word) to faith and repentance, where does it say there is a second call to only a select few? Do you just read that into passages like this that can be taken more than one way?

Paul could have simply been emphasizing the fact that God was calling people now from both the Jews and Greeks, which is a major issue of that day.

In pharaphase fashion this is what I believe what Paul is basically trying to say in this text:

God was pleased to save those who believed what so many deem as a foolish message. The Jewish people who don't believe think it's foolish and want to see signs and wonders, the Greeks who don't believe and think it's foolish are looking for worldy wisdom. But to those who are called (and believe), both from the Jews and the Gentiles, Christ is powerful.

You may criticize me for adding in the "and believe" after the word called, but isn't that what you all do when we are sometimes faced with the word "all?" You say it must mean "all of you" or "all of the elect." So don't go arguing that I'm doing any kind of injustice to this text. I'm only supplying possible interpretations in light of verse 21's reference to "those who believe" in connection to "those who are called."

You are claiming to know for certain what Paul must have been thinking when he wrote this. How can you with complete certainity say that Paul may not have been intending "but those who are called and believe..." based on what he has already said in verse 21? There is know way for you to know, just like when Paul says, "He has bound all men over to disobeidence so that he may have mercy on them all," you cannot conclusively say that "all" doesn't mean "all." You are speculating his intent. Can you point to a more conclusive passage that teaches that there are two callings, a general and a effectual?

Only in your mind does this passage conclusively teach two callings. You even admit that two callings can't be determined in this passage alone, I'm simply asking if there is a passage that does show that there are two separate callings.

Nick lets say you are a Senior High School English teacher and every year you had a tradition of having your class come over to your house for an end of school party, but one year you decide to invite the entire school instead of just your normal English Class. So, you make a "general" announcement to the entire school and you tell your students to invite everyone in the school to come to the party.

One day friend who is aware of your normal tradition asks who will be coming to the end of the school party this year and you reply:

"I would be pleased to have anyone who accepts my invitation but some of the students think the party is foolishness. The under classmen, who don't want to come, think its for the upper classmen and the upperclassmen, who don't want to come, think they are too cool, but those who I invited, both from the upperclassmen and underclassmen, will certainly see that they were both mistaken once they get there."

Does this mean that you only invited those who actually show up? Of course not. You are just emphasizing that you have invited the entire school, not just you class, and you are showing that they will see that the party is not foolish as those who don't come think it is.

But look at the absurd conclusions your hermeutics would draw from this reply:

Nick said he wanted everyone in the school to come to his party and he even told his class to invite everyone in the school, but secretly for a whatever reason Nick only wants honor students to show up to his party. So, while his students are inviting everyone in the school as instructed, Nick is only allowing certain students to come by individually calling them on the phone with the instructions on how to get to his house while leaving everyone else without this knowledge. So, while his students think they are doing some good by inviting everyone really there invitation means nothing unless Nick personally calls them and gives them directions. The rest of those invited couldn't come to the party even if they wanted too. So, there are two invitations, one that goes out to the entire school which means absolutely nothing, and another that is a secret invitation from Nick himself.

How did we come to the conclusion that there are two invitations based upon the response he gave to his friend? Beats me, but it is entertaining to watch.

And why did he ask his students to generally invite everyone if he only wanted honor students to come? Why didn't he just invite the honor students in the first place? Why does Nick put on a show pleading a "longing" for everyone to come to the party when he doesn't even give them the directions to his house? Nick sure sounds deceptive to tell his class one thing while intending another.

 

Don't look now, Bill, but you just completely went off the deep end.

 

The master of MUMBO JUMBO ladies and gentlemen!