Featured Justification by Faith

Yes. Most of us would believe that in a sense the words of scripture are written by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the messenger can be Spirit filled and somehow the preaching or teaching will be more effective. But when you say that, or even if you say the words of scripture have spiritual power you have to by definition mean that there is Holy Spirit generated power acting directly on the heart of the person hearing the gospel message. So here's what happens.

If this work of the Holy Spirit is "effective" and results in salvation then if a Calvinist labels that an "Effectual Call" is he doing something wrong?

If this work of the Holy Spirit is the decisive factor. In other words without such influence the person had no chance on his own of being saved, then is the Calvinist doing something wrong if he defines the person as "unable" to be saved on his own?

In other words, your post says God has placed in everyone the ability to trust Christ - upon having the supernatural influence of the POWER inherent in the words of the gospel itself. Is that really much different than what the Calvinist is saying? I find this all very confusing myself because some of the classical Arminian theology is very much the same as far as man's inability. Some of what Wesley wrote seems to agree with that too. The difference I guess is that they believe the Holy Spirit's acting is resistible but even there, some of the Puritan's seemed to agree. And it seems that in the Westminster Confession of Faith they just separated out the ones that resist and by definition put them into a "General Call" vs an "Effectual Call".

Lastly, I think discussions like this are helpful to allow us to understand scripture and develop a coherent world view but I in no way think your opinions reflect badly upon your faith or Christianity. I understand where you are coming from and respect your views. Don't ever take my replies as meaning any more than just discussion of theological topics.

 

John 15: 5 ¶ I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Nothing but fail, nothing but sin, nothing of eternal value.

Anyone can believe on Christ for the power is in the Gospel, and woe unto him, if he does not believe.

 

Austin, why do call Silverhair “Sliverhair”?

Is that a typo, or do you do it on purpose for some reason?

 

Austin you can deny scripture all you want but that does not change the facts does it.

Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith;

You have to believe in His son before God saves you.

 

I just saw this on my daily calendar, which is in John 5, and I thought it interesting in comparison to #142 above, John 15.

Verse 30, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

 

DaveXR650 wrote, and I replied:

Yes. Most of us would believe that in a sense the words of scripture are written by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the messenger can be Spirit filled and somehow the preaching or teaching will be more effective. But when you say that, or even if you say the words of scripture have spiritual power you have to by definition mean that there is Holy Spirit generated power acting directly on the heart of the person hearing the gospel message.

Of course I believe that, except I believe the words of Scripture are fully inspired (written) by the Holy Spirit, without bypassing the personality of the amanuensis.

So here's what happens.
If this work of the Holy Spirit is "effective" and results in salvation then if a Calvinist labels that an "Effectual Call" is he doing something wrong?

That's fine by me, if by "Effectual Calling" you mean the Holy Spirit quickened the Word to the man and the man responded in faith, believing, and that resulted in salvation, and by the same token, if the man is not saved, perhaps we could (not should) call it "Ineffectual Calling" when the Holy Spirit quickens the Word to the man and the man responds by rejecting the Spirit's call and rejecting the Word of God, does not believe, and does not result in salvation. I would prefer to say the onus is on the man, and not actually call it an "Ineffectual Calling", but rather instead say the man hardened his own heart and rejected the call.

If you want to call it "Effectual Calling", that's fine, because other Calvinists will get what you're saying, but I do think it could cause confusion to non-Calvinist believers, who would more likely see it as plain old, "So-and-so trusted Christ and was saved", or even just, "So-and-so got saved! Praise God!" The only real caveat I have about it is that by saying "Effectual Calling" it seems to imply the Holy Spirit did His job correctly, but if the man doesn't receive Christ, then it seems to imply the Holy Spirit did not do His job correctly. The Holy Spirit convicts people--people choose to reject that conviction, or believe on Christ, which results in conversion. Conviction and conversion are not the same thing.

If this work of the Holy Spirit is the decisive factor. In other words without such influence the person had no chance on his own of being saved, then is the Calvinist doing something wrong if he defines the person as "unable" to be saved on his own?

No one is saved "on their own". Someone preaches, witnesses, they find the Gospel in the Bible, a Chick tract, whatever--the Holy Spirit witnesses to the person, "Yes, that's right. You're a lost sinner and you must repent and believe on Christ to be saved". The Word and the Spirit do the work, and the person accepts or rejects. The one who witnesses to the person is the vessel that brings the Good News of salvation in Christ. All the glory still goes to God, just like when I drink a glass of water, I don't praise the glass. I praise the water.

In other words, your post says God has placed in everyone the ability to trust Christ - upon having the supernatural influence of the POWER inherent in the words of the gospel itself. Is that really much different than what the Calvinist is saying?

Here's the difference that I personally see--keep in mind I was raised in a hyper-Calvinist church (Primitive Baptist) and they are sure enough honest Calvinists, through and through. They believe and teach that you can be a Muslim, a heathen, whatever, but if you are elect, you will be saved whether or not you ever believe on Christ. That's why I call them "hyper".

But to your question--all the Calvinists I have ever met (or "met" online) believe that God saves a person BEFORE they believe, rather than BECAUSE they believe. They call it "Total Depravity" but in practice it is to them "Total Inability" and they use (what I consider) a false analogy to death to say a person must be saved before he can be saved (my wording, not theirs). What they literally say is a person must be made alive, regenerated (isn't that salvation?) and THEN they will believe on Christ. I think they do that partly because of an abject fear of giving a man credit for his own salvation, which is impossible, but they do believe it's possible. God saves us. He requires us to believe, but believing doesn't mean you lived a sinless life, and died on a cross, shedding your blood for your salvation, and even if you could do that, you're not God made flesh, born of a virgin, without a sin nature. No, God gets all the glory because salvation is of God, Jonah 2:9; Psalms 3:8. Double predestination is another area I can't agree with.

I find this all very confusing myself because some of the classical Arminian theology is very much the same as far as man's inability. Some of what Wesley wrote seems to agree with that too. The difference I guess is that they believe the Holy Spirit's acting is resistible but even there, some of the Puritan's seemed to agree. And it seems that in the Westminster Confession of Faith they just separated out the ones that resist and by definition put them into a "General Call" vs an "Effectual Call".
Lastly, I think discussions like this are helpful to allow us to understand scripture and develop a coherent world view but I in no way think your opinions reflect badly upon your faith or Christianity. I understand where you are coming from and respect your views. Don't ever take my replies as meaning any more than just discussion of theological topics.

I have read that Jacob Arminius said he would agree with Calvin, if Calvin had used the word "believers" instead of "elect".
God saves all believers. That makes Biblical sense to me.

Dave, I would say this--don't let it worry you. 500+ years of back and forth between Calvinists and non-Calvinists has not, and will not, solve the differences in the belief systems. Scripture says to make your calling and election. Be sure you are trusting God to save you by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Know whom you have believed. Don't trust in yourself, just trust in Christ. Depend, rely, lean on, however you can understand it. Just trust in Christ, and rejoice that He keeps His Word--"He that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out."

Thank you for an excellent response. I have to tell you, I really appreciate being able to discuss without rancor, or seeing each other as enemies, because we should not do that. We're on the same team, I hope, because I hope we all want to see people come to Christ, be saved, and be with Him, worshiping and praising God and enjoying His presence and each other forever.

 

Effectual Calling

The doctrine of the internal call cannot be avoided if we take the Bible seriously, and it leaves no room for man to play a part in his own salvation.
Why do some people respond to the Gospel? Because God called them.
Why do others not respond? Because God did not call them.

Effectual Calling | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

So what we see here is that it is not a man's sin that condemns him to hell it is the fact that God did not call him effectually so that he could be saved. That is such an anti-biblical

What do you think Dave if a Calvinist labels that an "Effectual Call" is he doing something wrong?

 

LOL, read what you just wrote and try to discern why it's twisted logic.

The fact we are all condemned is because we are by nature corrupted by sin.
What you won't acknowledge is that God should cast us all into hell without ever calling anyone. It would be just and...it would prove that no one seeks God, not even one. That means you and I would never, ever be saved. We would burn eternally in hell and it would be a correct and just thing.

That God calls anyone is purely because God, before the foundation of the world, chose to call a particular people out and die for them and save them. This is what the hymn writer calls "amazing grace."

But here you are attempting to condemn God for graciously choosing to save whom He wills.

 

It's so simple, but MAN confuses everything. Here's how simple it is: GOD SAVES THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON CHRIST.

Silverhair's post makes perfect sense, logically and Biblically, and honors God's Word, putting the blame for being lost squarely where it belongs--on the shoulders of those who by their own volition have rejected God's call, when they didn't have to.

 

Read Ephesians 2:1-10 and see why your teaching that "God saves those who save themselves by believing" is wrong.

 

Austin can you not read or are you just blind to the truth? You hang your hat on the effectual call and when the truth of that view is shown to you you just run and hide from the truth. Your theology is not biblical and you refuse to see that. Man is condemned because of his sin as the bible says but under your theology he is condemned because God did not give him the chance to be saved. The Calvinist God is not very loving is He.

We are even told by A W Pink that God does not love everyone the same:
"When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody; if He did, He would love the Devil." SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons - Sermon Index

But what does the bible tell us about the love of God:
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life

Now I do not think that the devil or his demons would ever truly love Christ but it is not my place to say that God would not forgive them if they did repent and trust in Christ. Such is the love of God. I have to agree with Augustine in this quote:
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.” Augustine

There is no one beyond the reach of the love of God contrary to what A W Pink says.

Effectual Calling

The doctrine of the internal call cannot be avoided if we take the Bible seriously, and it leaves no room for man to play a part in his own salvation.
Why do some people respond to the Gospel? Because God called them.
Why do others not respond? Because God did not call them.
Effectual Calling | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

Calvinists are the one's that would tell us that many are beyond the love of God. So now you have to decide which you will follow, The Holy Spirit or Calvinism.

 

It is very apparent that you do not see your fallacy despite being shown in multiple occasions. You have been shown your error regarding John 3:16,yet you don't care because you are married to man ruling his world.

 

I'm not sure what to make of Ligonier's take on it. The point I was trying to make was that if you read the WCF it basically says that the Effectual Call is the work of the Spirit that is - effectual. If you believe that a work of the Spirit is necessary, truly necessary, then there isn't really a lot of difference. And in Chapter 10 part 4 regarding others who are part of the general call the WCF says that "they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ; and therefore cannot be saved." Is not that the same thing you believe?

And in Chapter 14 "Of Saving Faith". It says "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments and by prayer, it is increased and strengthened." Here again, notice who it is that believes. Also how it is wrought (by the ministry of the Word). Same as what you guys are saying. Now I don't put the emphasis on the sacraments they did but give em a break, this was the 1600's. Plus, I'm a Baptist.

So the Holy Spirit is necessary for someone to be saved and they call the Holy Spirits work "Effectual" if it is effectual. The word of God and the Holy Spirit is the primary cause of this. If people, in spite of the work of the Holy Spirit do not come to Christ then that is the reason they cannot be saved. Boy that's weird!

And later, they said saving faith was "ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word". Those crazy Calvinists.

 

Are the words different in your bible because they sure are clear in mine.

I have given you a few bible versions to choose from or use one of your own. Pick which version of John 3:16 you want and tell be what my error is.

Now don't be shy Austin, show us your great theological insights that the rest of us have missed. Or are you going to duck for cover and refuse to answer.

(ABPs+) For thusG3779 G1063 God lovedG25 G3588 G2316 theG3588 world,G2889 so thatG5620 G3588 [4sonG5207 2hisG1473 G3588 3only bornG3439 1he gave],G1325 thatG2443 every one G3956 G3588 trustingG4100 inG1519 him,G1473 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 should haveG2192 [2lifeG2222 1eternal].G166

(BSB 1.2) For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(ESV) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(LEB Q) GodLove for the World For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

(NASB 95) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

(NET+) For this is the wayN36 God loved the world: He gave his one and onlyN37 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perishN38 but have eternal life.N39

(NIV 1984) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(NKJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

(NLTs) "For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

(NRSV) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

(Alford+) οὕτωςG3779 γὰρG1063 ἠγάπησενG25 ὁG3588 θεὸςG2316 τὸνG3588 κόσμον,G2889 ὥστεG5620 τὸνG3588 υἱὸνG5207 αὐτοῦG846 τὸνG3588 μονογενῆG3439 ἔδωκεν,G1325 ἵναG2443 πᾶςG3956 ὁG3588 πιστεύωνG4100 εἰςG1519 αὐτὸνG846 μὴG3361 ἀπόληταιG622 ἀλλ᾽G235 ἔχῃG2192 ζωὴνG2222 αἰώνιον.G166

(BSBr) For γὰρ - ὁ God Θεὸς so Οὕτως loved ἠγάπησεν the τὸν world κόσμον, that ὥστε He gave ἔδωκεν, [His] τὸν - τὸν one and only μονογενῆ Son, Υἱὸν that ἵνα everyone πᾶς who ὁ believes πιστεύων in εἰς Him αὐτὸν vvv μὴ shall not perish ἀπόληται but ἀλλ’ have ἔχῃ eternal αἰώνιον. life. ζωὴν

(KJV+) ForG1063 GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 theG3588 world,G2889 thatG5620 he gaveG1325 hisG848 only begottenG3439 Son,G5207 thatG2443 whosoeverG3956 believethG4100 inG1519 himG846 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 haveG2192 everlastingG166 life.G2222

(KJV+TVM) ForG1063 GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 [G5656] the worldG2889, thatG5620 he gaveG1325 [G5656] hisG846 only begottenG3439 SonG5207, thatG2443 whosoeverG3956 believethG4100 [G5723] inG1519 himG846 shouldG622 notG3361 perishG622 [G5643], butG235 haveG2192 [G5725] everlastingG166 lifeG2222.

(NASB+s) "For GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 the worldG2889, that He gaveG1325 His onlyG3439 begottenG3439 SonG5207, that whoeverG3956 believesG4100 in Him shall not perishG622, but haveG2192 eternalG166 lifeG2222.

(NKJ+TVM) "For G1063 God G2316 so G3779 loved G25 (G5656) the world G2889 that G5620 He gave G1325 (G5656) His G846 only begotten G3439 Son G5207, that G2443 whoever G3956 believes G4100 (G5723) in G1519 Him G846 should G622 (00) not G3361 perish G622 (G5643) but G235 have G2192 (G5725) everlasting G166 life G2222.

(TRi+) Οὕτως G3779 ADV γὰρ For So G1063 CONJ ἠγάπησεν Loved G25 V-AAI-3S ὁ G3588 T-NSM θεὸς God G2316 N-NSM τὸν The G3588 T-ASM κόσμον World G2889 N-ASM ὥστε That G5620 CONJ τὸν G3588 T-ASM υἱὸν G5207 N-ASM αὐτοῦ His Son G846 P-GSM τὸν The G3588 T-ASM μονογενῆ Only Begotten G3439 A-ASM ἔδωκεν He Gave, G1325 V-AAI-3S ἵνα That G2443 CONJ πᾶς Everyone G3956 A-NSM ὁ Who G3588 T-NSM πιστεύων Believes G4100 V-PAP-NSM εἰς On G1519 PREP αὐτὸν G846 P-ASM μὴ Him G3361 PRT-N ἀπόληται May Not Perish, G622 V-2AMS-3S ἀλλ' But G235 CONJ ἔχῃ May Have G2192 V-PAS-3S ζωὴν Life G2222 N-ASF αἰώνιον Eternal. G166 A-ASF

 

Dave the gap between you and I is really not that great but one place we do part is in your dependence on the WCF. I am not saying that everything they wrote is bad but there is enough bad to place it in the do not depend upon it for proof of concept. My standard is the bible first and last.

We both will agree that the Holy Spirit convicts sinners but where we part is that you require that the conviction be effectual but without any input from the person. Notice that the bible says the Holy Spirit convicts it does not say it convinced or forced but that is what you keep alluding to by your insistence that it has to be effectual. The reality is that since God does not drag/force people to believe then they have to choose to believe. That is free will, they can accept or reject the call. When someone chooses to accept the invitation to trust in Christ Jesus because the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their sin then that would mean the conviction was effectual but you are really saying nothing different than the person exercised their free will to accept the gospel message. If the person rejected the gospel then the call was not effective was it?

The bible does not say that the Holy Spirit only convicts those that latter believe. If it did then the effectual call in the way you present it would be correct. But the Holy Spirit convicts the world so is not effectual as you present it as many reject the conviction and do not trust in Christ Jesus. The conviction of sinners by the Holy Spirit actually proves man has a free will.

 

I don't rely on the WCF as I do scripture but more as a quick reference for finding out what the official Calvinist position would be as practiced by the Puritans, who I happen to admire. It's interesting though that you mention it because in the world I run in, Reformed Baptists, as in Young, Restless and Reformed, Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, John MacArthur the average member in those churches has no idea what the WCF is or could site anything in it. We certainly don't sit around reciting it. A lot of that could just be the Baptist aversion to creeds in general or maybe that's just an American Baptist thing in that we only read things that are new.

When the Puritan paperbacks became popular and accessible to people I was attracted to their devotion to Christian practice and their seriousness in the pursuit of holiness. It wasn't until later that I looked into the doctrines of grace or Calvinism as a systematic theology. And frankly, I think there are some flaws in it. One thing, like I noticed above, is that I have never understood the need to mess with John 3:16. I think it means exactly what it says.

 

You realize, I hope, that you prove my point regarding your rejecting context and thus misunderstanding the sentence. We have gone over this before, (snip)

 

As I expected you duck and run for cover rather than answer the question. Your bragging always lets you down when it is time to prove your boast.