I fear

After reading other threads, and while laying in bed last night, another question popped into my head.

Based on my testimony, would you consider me a Calvinist or an Arminian?

 

I'm not sure. I don't think there is enough in your testimony to make that clear.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Honest question, where is "effectual call" in scripture?

 

I've been asking that question for years. Another one is...where is "saving grace" as opposed to "grace" in scripture?

 

For starters, Romans 8:30 - those He called, He also justified. Romans 1:6-7, as well.

 

Andy, if you notice in this passage there is no mention of faith in the process. Does that mean faith is not a part of the process? Of course not, neither one of us believe that. Faith is assumed by Paul. Faith is not discussed, because Paul is talking to believers about believers. Because faith is not even brought up you have read something into the text to get your interpretation. Granted, we also have to read something into the text to get our interpretation, but that is because Paul doesn't say what needs to be said with regard to our point of contention:

So, when Paul states, "those he called, he also justified," you presume that means, "those he called irresistibly believed and were justified," and we presume that he means, "those he called who freely believed and were justified." Either way you have to read your interpretation into the text.

This passage states: 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The "call" to which is being discussed is introduced in verse 5 and clearly it is going to "all the Gentiles." And this church in Rome is no different as Paul points out that they too are among those who were called to reconciliation with God. They are the Church in Rome thus they are already believers and Paul is affirming their calling. This is significant because in that day many people were strongly questioning the legitimacy of the call to the Gentile people. Paul often begins his letters to predominately Gentile congregations thanking God for their being chosen and called, because so many people are denying that Gentiles are loved, chosen and called by God.

 

It is not so clear that the call is going to "the Gentiles." It is possible that a better translation would be "among all the nations" (as the ESV renders it). This is a better reading because it is highly unlikely Paul, who commonly refers to Gentiles by the word ἔθνος, would have included "in" and "all" if he was referring to Gentiles in general.

Later, in Romans 15, Paul quotes Psalm 117. The ESV translates the same word as "Gentiles" when it should translate it "Nations." The OT translation (in the ESV!) has "Nations." So, I'm not suggesting the ESV to be perfect. However, in this case, it gets Romans 1:5 right--referring to "Nations" not "Gentiles."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

The NKJV also translates Rom. 1:5 "among all nations." And then in v. 6 Paul tells the Roman believers they are "the called of Jesus Christ." And that call only applies to the redeemed - those who are of Jesus Christ.

And back to Skandelon's response on 8:30 - when I look at the beginning of the verse (those He predestined) and the whole context of v. 28-29 (called according to His purpose and also foreknew), the calling in mind here in v. 30 is one that is wholly effective.

 

Agreed. And, I might add, good points!

The Archangel

 

You do know that Gentiles is not a individual nation or group of people, but just a term that means all other nations besides Israel, right?

 

Believers are often referred to as "the called" throughout scripture, but we also know from other texts that "many are called, but few are chosen." It is incorrect to assume that only those who answer the call have been called.

For example, at a ministers conference the speaker might refer to his audience as those who have been "called," but does that mean that there aren't some people who were called to ministry who have refused or resisted that calling? A call is an appeal to reconciliation (2 Cor 5) and those who accept that call and are reconciled might be referred to as "called out ones," but that in no way signifies that others didn't equally receive that appeal.

Well, of course that is what you see, that is your belief. That is why we have a disagreement and thus the discussion as to WHY we come to our view.

Notice here that Paul doesn't say they are predestined to believe, in fact in verse 28, he has already introduced the fact that he is speaking of those who love God. Therefore, Paul is speaking of what believers are predestined to become..."conformed to the image of Christ." So, when I look at the beginning of the passage (to those who love God) and the whole context of v 28-29 (called according to His purpose and also foreknow), the calling in mind presumes the faith response (love of God) and doesn't address our point of contention with regard to the effectuality of that response of love and faith.

 

Of course. DUH! But there is a difference in translation and it seemed as though you were taking "Gentiles" as inviolable rather than seeing the possibility that Paul was talking about taking the gospel to the nations--including the church at Rome (consisting of both Jew and Gentile).

The Archangel

 

But that's not really what is going on in the text. In the first place, v. 28 is separated from v. 29 by the conjunction ὅτι. ὅτι is a much stronger conjunctive than γάρ and the meaning of ὅτι is to give the "because" of what was previously presented.

So, v. 28 says (roughly) God works all things together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. Why is that the case? Because those whom He chose (the meaning of "foreknew") He predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. That's huge! Because Paul has just been discussing suffering in v. 18. Why is that important. Because God even plans our suffering to make us more like Christ. Suffering makes us more Christ-like (conforming us to His image). And this suffering is not catching God by surprise--He has predestined us to suffer (at His hands) in order that we be conformed to the image of Christ.

That God afflicts those whom chose is to be comforting. It means that we are in His care and He is orchestrating the events of our lives and the world around us to be more Christ-like.

So, in the midst of suffering...we can have confidence that God is in control and is working in us--because of what has been called "the golden chain of salvation."

Paul continues: Those whom He predestined, He called. Those whom He called, He justified. Those whom He justified, He glorified.

All 5 verbs--chose, predestined, called, justified, glorified--are all Aorist. Therefore, these are all seen as completed actions, not progressive. So, in essence these are to be taken as one act (with God as the Actor doing the action) with 5 components.

Paul doesn't specifically mention belief--but we know that we are to repent and believe from other passages, even from Paul himself. But, considering this phrase (v. 29) is a "because" clause, it takes into account what he has been talking about earlier--prayer, the spirit interceding, etc. So, belief is assumed.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Admittedly, I am not a scholar of greek or hebrew, rather, having chosen to endeavor myself to the study of mathematics. I did however come acrosss this interesting take on Romans 8:28. So for you to enjoy and analyze:

http://www.mbseminary.edu/files/download/geddert1.htm?file_id=12815136

 

Let me pose a question for the Greek scholars.

In 8:28, the KJV refers to "the called" according to his purpose, which I read as a noun denoting a class of people. Thus, "the called" are by definition those who are redeemed.

The NIV, on the other hand, translated the passage as "those who have been called," which is obviously a verb form.

Both translations follow immediately by describing that group of people as ones who were predestinated, then called, justified and glorified.

Does the difference in translation make any difference in your exegesis?

Can the case be made from the Scriptures that there are two kinds of calling--a general call to all and a specific call which always leads to justification, etc.?

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

Well, if that is what you were saying, then we have no disagreement. Andy reference this passage as being a proof text for the "effectual calling." You and I appear to both agree that the Paul was talking about taking the gospel to the nations (both Israel and all others). Thanks for clarifying that. Hopefully that will help Andy as well.

 

I love how you think you can read Paul's mind. Doesn't the greek language have the word "chose?" If so, why didn't he use it if that is what he meant? I think he might have meant "foreknew"..."to intimately and perfectly know before hand."

I believe there are several ways you could take this:
1. He foreknew them based upon his choosing them for salvation
2. He foreknew them based upon their choosing to believe in and love Him

IN both this cases, God knows those who will spend eternity with him because God is not bound by time, so in either situation you have an intimate and perfect foreknowing of the individual. That does not necessitate a divine predetermination for that individual to love God.

However there is a third possible way to take this passage. As Adam Clarke more thoroughly explains, verse 29 (as you pointed out) is a break in which Paul shifts to show how our calling and overall plan of redemption is an example of how "all things work together for good." Thus, Paul simply takes us through the steps in the redemptive plan of God for those who love him.

In order to this he first gives us, in this verse, the foundation and finishing, or the beginning and end, of the scheme of our redemption: For whom God did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. To foreknow, here signifies to design before, or at the first forming of the scheme; to bestow the favour and privilege of being God's people upon any set of men, Romans 6:2. This is the foundation or first step of our salvation; namely, the purpose and grace of God, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9.

The best analogy I can think of for better understanding this perspective is that of a football coach before the season begins and before his team has been assembled: He might foreknow the final product that the players will become (saints in glory) and might predetermine a prefect game plan to train his future team to ensure they are conditioned (conformed) and execute their game so as to certainly win the championship (salvation/glorification), but that doesn't mean He predetermined who would or would not be on the team. I know analogies always have holes in them, they are just used for clarity.

Exactly my point earlier. Belief, and thus the means it was applied (effectually or freely), is assumed and thus this passage is not conclusive on our point of contention.

 

Another good "exchange" of ideas worthy of a few moments of time reading. Personally, if I MUST theologically commit to principles other than the "essentials" of Christianity, I think I might find myself leaning more to the Molinist perspective. But I will post, You decide. (I just love Fox News):smilewinkgrin:

http://reasontostand.org/archives/tag/molinism

 

Your understanding of "Foreknew" is flawed. Romans 11:2 clearly uses this word (the only two uses in Paul) as an antonym for "reject." Thus, the word means chose.

Also, it is not things about people that are chosen, it is people themselves. The language is personal.

The Archangel

 

Why didn't he use the word "chose" (ἐκλέγομαι eklegomai) instead of the word, "foreknew?" (προγινώσκω proginōskō)

I think he said what he meant and meant what he said. What about this text makes you think "reject" is the antonym for "foreknew?" While I don't disagree with the belief that God had, generally speaking, chosen Israel, I don't believe the word προγινώσκω means "chose" in the manner you have displayed. The verse states:

"God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." means...
"God did not reject his people, whom he knew from the beginning."

There is another verse where the word "foreknew" is used:
2 Pe 3:17: "You therefore, beloved, since you know beforehand..."

In Greek: Ὑμεῖς οὖν ἀγαπητοί προγινώσκοντες

And Act 26:5: They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

In Greek: προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν ἐὰν θέλωσιν μαρτυρεῖν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος

Now, clearly this same word "foreknow" (προγινώσκω proginōskō) is clearly interpreted as "to know beforehand" or "to know from the beginning." No implication of "choice" is found in this word. None of the lexicons I have even mention "chose" as an option.