Difference between being redemptively "in Christ" versus Representatively in Christ?

I did not say that conviction of sin was regeneration. I gave conviction of sin unto salvation as proof of regeneration (2 Cor. 7:10). Gospel conviction of sin is effectual unto salvation. With many, the gospel comes in "word only" but to God's elect (1 Thes. 1:4) the gospel comes "not in word only but IN POWER and ASSURANCE" (I Thes. 1:5).

Again, your problem is ignorance of the Biblical difference between the general and effectual call. Romans 8:28-33 is absolute undeniable evidence of the effectual call (and many more passages of scripture). In such contexts being "called" represents regeneration or "sanctification of the Spirit" before "belief of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13) but both occur within those who are "chosen from the beginning to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) in time by being effectually "called by our gospel unto the obtaining of the glory" (2 Thes. 2:14).

Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again before he told him about the gospel (Jn. 3:3-5 versus 3:15-16).

In 1 Jn 5:1 "born" is found in the Aorist tense whereas "beleiveth" is found in the present tense clearly demonstrating new birth is a completed action prior to believing in Christ.

Your quotation of John 7:37-39 has nothing to do with individual personal salvation but to the coming baptism in the Spirit on Pentecost. Such an application of John 7:37-39 denies the new birth before Pentecost and yet there are numerous statements previous to Pentecost of the new birth (Jn. 3:3-5) called circumcision of the heart in the Old Testament.

So, all your evidence is simply scriptures taken out context or misinterpreted to be something they cannot possibly be applied to (e.g. Jn. 7:37-39).

Regeneation LOGICALLY but not chronologically precedes conversion but is inseparable from conversion in a cause and effect relationship. There is eternal life by regeneration versus eternal life by justification. The former is IMPARTED life while the latter is IMPUTED life. The former is spiritual in nature while the latter is legal in nature. The former has to do with your actual person whereas the latter has to do with your position in heaven. The former is in regard to becoming a "tekna" (child) of God whereas the latter is in regard to "HUIOS" (son) of God. I know you cannot possibly grasp these things much less receive them but let me say it this way, there is no such thing as an unregenerated beleiver any more than there is a regenerated unbeliever. Regeneration and conversion are inseparable as repentance and faith and are in a cause and effect relationship.

Again, effectual versus non-effectual calling through the preaching of the gospel is what you trip over and it is clearly taught in 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; Rom. 8:28-32; I Cor. 1:26-31 and innumerable other passages.

 

My friend, if you live in a glass house you ought not to throw rocks. I am not a Calvinists, I am a Biblicists. My bias is Biblical.

You were not honest with the biblical texts and it is very easy to demonstrate your dishonesty. For example, I quoted 1 Thes. 1:4 with verse 5 but you completely ignorned it but it is the definitive introduction to verse 5. "Knowing...YOUR ELECTION of God." Paul wants them to know their election of God? How can they know they are God's elect? The answer is provided in verse 5 and yet you neuter the answer by making it no more applicable to them as to anyone else. Paul's proof of election is that the gospel did not come to them "in word only" BUT "in power and assurance." Verse 13 only demonstrates that it continues to be effectual. If the gospel came this way to all who hear it with the physical ear then Paul's statement is empty and worthless.

You did not dare tackle Romans 8:28-32! Why? Because you cannot honestly escape the contextual air tight case that Paul makes that the elect are EFFECTUALLY called by God. Take my challenge! I dare you!


Hebrews 4:1 simply demnstrates why those in chapter four apostatized. The gospel that they heard with the outward ears had nothing inside them to be mixed with it - faith. God's sovereignty, God's election does not invalidate human responsibility for their own inability due to sin or responsibility to repent and believe the gospel.

You fundementally misunderstand the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in salvation. Where there is an effectual cause there will also be consequences or repentance and faith in the gospel. God does not elect people to salvation apart from the gospel, apart from repentance and faith in the gospel 2 Thes. 2:13-14). Hence, the evidence of election is repentance and faith in the gospel (Act 13:48; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 Jn. 5:1). What you are trying to do is pit one against the other when they are harmoniously united by God in a cause and effect relationship where neither God's sovereignty is denied nor human responsiblity is denied.

John 1:12 makes a statement. John 1:13 explains the cause for the reality in that statement. Acts 13:48 says the same thing that John 1:12-13. The word translated "power" is not dumamis but exousia so your explanation of "power" is wrong from the start. Exousia speak of power in the sense of "authority" not "power" in the sense of ability. The term "sons" does not translate the Greek term "teknia" born sonship but "Huios" the term for LEGAL sonship. As many as received Christ through faith, which is the basis of justification or LEGAL RIGHT before God, God gave AUTHORITY to be LEGAL SONS - adoption (not regeneration). How did this occur? It occurred not by the human will but God's will through being made spiritually alive as spiritual life logically precedes all spiritual activity such as faith (fruit of the Spirit).

I have been where you are and arguing did me no good. God has to shew these things to you and until He does you will remain in spiritual darkness in this area of theology.

 

The Called according to His Purpose

Friends,

Countless times Paul addresses believers as "the called." If all men who hear the gospel are called in the same sense then such a descriptive phrase is empty of meaning as the believer would be no more "the called" than the unbeliever who heard the gospel and rejected it.

However, Paul restricts the words "the called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28) to only "them" who are foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified. This purpose of God in salvation is spoken of as a completed action (Aorist tense) and so completed in God's sight that Paul asks triumphantly, "If God be for US who can be against US?" Hence, he defines "them" as "us" and then defines "us" as "the elect" (v. 33).

In I Cor. 1:26-31 Paul says, "not many.... are called" in the sense he goes on to describe. In the very next two verses (vv. 27-28) the terms "chose" and "chosen" is substituted as synonyms for the word "called" and again God limits whom is chosen. It is this particular and restricted selection by God of the obviously undeserving that Paul argues glorifies God and not those called or chosen (vv. 29-31). This is why Paul could say "But OF him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us...".

This does not mean that God did not do this "THROUGH santification of the Spirit [regeneration] AND belief of the truth [conversion], whereof (regeneration/conversion) he called you unto the obtaining of the glory."

Dr. Hendriksen said of Romans 1:7 and Paul addressing the saints in Rome as "called":

"By this inner or effectual call is meant that operation of the Holy Spirit whereby he so applies the gospel to the minds and hearts of sinners that they become aware of their guilt, begin to understand their need of Jesus Christ, and embrace him as their Lord and Savior." - William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Romans, p. 47

C.H. Spurgeon illustrated the difference between the effectual and general call as the difference between sheet lightening and fork lightening. The former lights up the sky but hits nothing while the latter always strikes. He further differieniated it by the Johnny call. Dad yells, Johnny get out of bed it is time for school. But Johnny does not get up after three or four calls. That is the general call. However, dad goes up to the bedroom takes out his belt and whips back the covers and lays his belt on Johnny's behind and Johnny gets out of bed quickly. That is the effectual call.

Paul related his calling by God unto salvation in the following langauge:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me..." - Gal. 1:15-16a

"WHEN IT PLEASED GOD" not when it pleased Paul as Paul was in the process of rebellion against God and persecuting Christ and the saints.

"WHO SEPARATED ME FROM MY MOTHER'S WOMB" - Paul was completely passive in his FIRST BIRTH.

"AND CALLED ME BY HIS GRACE, TO REVEAL HIS SON IN ME" - Paul was just as passive in his NEW BIRTH. This is demonstrated by the comparison with the first birth. This is demonstrated "by his grace." This is demonstrated "to reveal His son in me" as Paul had no part in producing this revelation. It is this revelation by God (2 Cor. 4:6) that is part of regeneration giving LIGHT or LIFE to the Spiritually dead (Eph. 4:18).

Simply contrast the differences between 2 Cor. 4:6 with Eph. 4:18. What is it in Ephesians 4:18 that separates a person from "the life of God"? Where does Paul draw the analogy of 2 Cor. 4:6 from? Answer - Genesis 1:2-3. How did the light come in Genesis 1:3? It was a CREATIVE WORD spoken by God. This is the revelation that Paul spoke of in Galatians 1:16 "to reveal His on IN ME" - A Creative Word of Command by God. What kind of light? The light in direct contrast to the darkness in Eph. 4:18 that separates from the "life of God." This is God's effectual call that by divine fiat produces the revelation of Christ "in me" as the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. God reveals Christ "in me" as the cause of faith "in him."

 

2 Cor. 7:10 - effectual unto salvation

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. - 2 Cor. 10:7

The context concerns a former epistle that Paul rebuked them for sin. Their response was repentance. Paul tells them there are two kinds of "sorrow" over sin. There is the kind that "worketh repentance to salvation" and there is the kind that is of "the world" and "worketh death."

The qualifyer "of the world" necessarily means that the sorrow that "worketh repentance to salvation" is not "of the world" but rather is of God "godly sorrow."

In fact, the literal Greek text says "the sorrow according to God." Both are effectual in regard to their consequences. The God kind of sorrow "worketh repentance to salvation NOT TO BE REPENTED OF." The consequence of "godly sorrow" is irreversable (not to be repented of). It "worketh..to salvation" and thus is effectual to salvation in the sense change of mind first wrought in initial repentance toward God of sin in the coversion experience.

What makes it work? What guarantees it is "not to be repented of"? Why does it terminate in "salvation"? Paul defines the determining factor to be "God" originated in contrast to "sorrow" to be of this "world" - human originated.

God is the author and power behind the "sorrow" which "worketh to salvation." It is a work begun by God in the elect that manifests they are God's elect. The work God begins in you He will continue to perform it (Philip. 1:6). In the non-elect God never begins such a work but they are left to their own free choice which will not choose anything contrary to their nature any more than God will choose anything contrary to His nature.

It is God that makes this sorrow effectual to salvation. The difference is illustrated between the repentance of Judas versus Peter. Judas repented and went out and hung himself - worketh death! Peter repented and went out and preached the gospel and fed the Lord's sheep.

What is the difference? God is in one working while God was not in Judas working sorrow. Where God is not there is no repentance to salvation and where God is working there is always repentance to salvation because repentance to salvation is a gift of God:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. - Acts 11:18

God does not have to grant repentance unto "death" as that is already in this world.

 

You are misunderstanding my position as well as Paul's. The gospel always comes in words to all who hear it with the physical ear. The gospel has no power in and of itself. If it did have power in and of itself it would always come "IN POWER AND MUCH ASSURANCE" every single time it is preached. If that were Paul's meaning then Paul's point is mute as the gospel would not come any different to the elect than to anyone else and therefore "knowing....your election of God" would be a pointless statement with no distinctive evidence to know anything.

His point is that they can know their election of God because the gospel does not come to them this way but in that way. Obviously the gospel comes to someone "in word only" or his point is mute. It does not come to the elect "in word only" it comes to the elect in "POWER and in MUCH ASSURANCE." Therefore it comes to the non-elect "in word only" and without power and much assurance. The power is not in them or in the gospel but in God who elects them to such salvation (2 Thes. 2:13). Note the power precedes the assurance rather than vica versa.

Don't reverse Paul's argument! The way the gospel comes to them is the evidence of election rather than the obtaining of election. Election is the cause whereas the way the gospel comes to them is the consequence.


However, the distinctive that Paul is making between the "elect" and those who are not the elect is that the gospel comes to them in unique way more than in mere words alone "BUT IN POWER and MUCH ASSURANCE." This is a product of election.

 

God's call to salvation is always effectual

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor. 4:5-6

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Gen. 1:2-3

Paul draws a comparative analogy between God's creative word of command "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3 and the preaching of the gospel WHEN it is energized by God as His creative word of command to remove the power of Satan (darkness) within the sinner by creating INNER light.
The light occurred by the command of God in both cases. Light is a metaphor of life and darkness is a metaphor for ignorance of the truth that separates men from the "Life of God"

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: - Eph. 4:18

Mr. Arminian there is nothing within man but darkness until God creates the light/life of knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:3 - "this is eternal life that they might know the only true God and Jesus Christ..."). This is what Paul referred to when he said "when it pleased God to reveal his son IN me" (Gal. 1:16) although he had already heard the gospel and that hearing produced nothing but more rebellion. This is God giving the new heart IN ORDER THAT one may perceive, see and hear:

"Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." - Deut. 29:4

Get the order! Spiritual perception, seeing eyes and hearing ears do not precede a new heart but are the consequences of a new heart. The sinner in spiritual darkness does not repent and beleive in order for God to speak light/life of knowlege of Jesus Christ but God speaks light/life of the knowledge of Jesus Christ so that the sinner can perceive, see and hear and repent and believe. Light and darkness cannot co-exist. Where there is INNER darkness there is no light and life and where there is INNER LIGHT created by God there is no inner darkness and death.

The effectual call is when God empowers the preaching of the gospel making it His creative word of Command and effectually calls the sinner out of Satan's kingdom of spiritual darkness and death into the kingdom of light.

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son

This is what Paul meant when he told the Thessalonican's that they could know their election of God by the way the gospel did not come to them versus how it did come to them:

"For our gospel came not in word only BUT in power and in much assurance.."

The effectual call is when the gospel comes in word accompanied by the creative power of God. It does not always come that way. In fact most of the time it comes "in word only" and the evidence is that there is no one saved that hears it.

 

Try this little test. Go in a pitch black dark room and read Genesis 1:3 and see if the written Word of God when verbalized has POWER to do what it says - "Let there be light." Go to a hospital and find a lame man and speak the written words of Jesus "Take up thy bed and walk" and see if the written Word has such inherent power.

The texts you have given as proof texts are misinterpreted and pitted against other texts.

The Word "OF GOD" is powerful and the gospel is the power "OF GOD." 2 Cor. 4:6 clearly demonstrates that the power is not in the gospel apart from GOD but in God who engergizes the word as in Genesis 1:3 and "God said, Let there be light and there was light." Paul makes this same truth clear in 2 Cor. 3:3-6 where he denies that the gospel or its messanger has any power but the power is "of God" (v. 5).

James 1:18 says that it is God that beget us "with the word of truth" not that the Word of truth begat us. Again the power is not in the word but in God who energizes the Word when it pleases Him (Gal. 1:15-16 "when it pleased God...who called me....").

Salvation is a revelation of Christ to the soul (2 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:16 ("revealed his Son IN me..") and the written or spoken word has no such power. That is the power of the Holy Spirit whereas the Word is the "sword of the Spirit" or instrumental means used (James 1:18).

Hebrews 4:12-13 have the PERSON of God in view and that is what makes the word "of God" powerful.

Your position ignores the overall context of Scripture and even ignores the immediate context in every proof text you use. There is no inherent power in the written or spoken word of God in and of itself. There is no scripture that teaches the written or spoken word has such inherent power APART FROM THE PRESENCE AND POWER OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Even the texts you have used deny the gospel is "power" any more than any other aspect of the written or spoken Word "of God." The written Word has its source with God and even when the written Word is verbalized by men it has no power apart from the Person and power of the Holy Spirit.

Neither the written Word when read or verbalized has any inherent "power" apart from the Person and Power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does not always empower the written Word when you verbalize it. If you think he does then go try the little experiment I suggested at the beginning.

This is the distinction that Paul refers to in how the elect can know their election. The gospel came to them "not in word only" but "in power" because the Holy Spirit chose to energize the preaching of the gospel in their INDIVIDUAL cases just as in Genesis 1:3 the verbalized words "Let there be light" were energized by God and this is the exact analogy used by Paul (2 Cor. 4:6).

 

["I]Now I will address Romans 8:28-33 that you said I ignored.[/I]

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

You say this passage proves there are a general and effectual call, I say it proves no such thing. I would agree with you that the elect are called, but the scriptures also show men who are called that are not chosen or elect." - quoted from Wiman


For you position to be true than all the other things mentioned would equally have to be true in some sense of the non-elect. That is exacty what you are demanding when you say others were called in the SAME SENSE as those called the "elect" in this passage. Then all were predestinated in the SAME SENSE and all were foreknown in the SAME SENSE and all were justified in the SAME SENSE and all were glorified in the SAME SENSE and all mankind must be included in the words "whom...them" in the SAME SENSE. Or else these things were UNIQUE to "the elect" and not true of all other men.

Notice that the subject remains the same throughout "whom...them." Your position would require the inclusion of all mankind in the word "whom" and yet Paul demands that all who are contained in the word "whom" are all contained in the word "them." Thus if all of "whom" he "called" all "them" were also justified and glorified. This contextual "whom...them" which are defined as "us" (v. 31) and "the elect" (v. 33). Your interpretation and position utterly fails here.

Why would Paul address the saints as "the called" if all men were equally called in the same sense? What is the point of that designation as your position sees nothing significantly different in being "called" but rather in the human response to that calling as you believe all men who physically hear the gospel are called in the SAME SENSE? Paul says that in a unique sense "not many...are called" (1 Cor. 1:26) but you say all who hear the gospel are called in the same sense.