The CALL, Is there One Call to All or not

I will have to disagree with this as well.
1st because, Nowhere in this text is there a place that says one word about being chosen or given because of believing. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. Those given or chosen believe based on that foundation and no other. And what distinguishes them is their being given by the Father to the Son & so believing on him. Not just simply their believing on him.

 

Amen, Bro.!! I already said as much, but it did not seem to get through to some. Maybe you will succeed where I failed. The Scripture does not say Lazarus was raised to be able to hear the Lord call, "Lazarus! Front and Center!" as the military would say. When Jesus, who already and always was the second personage of the Triune-God of heaven, the one who created Adam - the body from clay; the soul and spirit from nothing, spoke to that dead man and said "Lazarus, come forth!" - Lazarus, who was dead up until that point, -'revived' and came forth. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

Did anything tell you inside when you were not a Christian that the things you were doing were wrong and then say the dead can't hear? I don't know of a man who didn't know that he was sinning when he did sin, I sure did and I was dead and someone told me it was sin. You think I couldn't "hear"?

Just take your own lives and answer the question!!!, amen

Did the Calvinist accept Christ the first time they knew they were lost, I doubt it.

 

OK, sorry I missed your meaning. I usually try to be brief because I don't have a lot of time.

When we talk about the effectual call we are speaking of the call producing a certain result (belief). Romans 8:30 says "those whom he called he also justified" - no exceptions. If there is only one call which can be believed or rejected then not all who are called are also justified. For another example see Acts 2:38-39 which says "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'" The gospel invitation is for everyone, but this call is only for those who will believe.

First, He doesn't "MAKE" anyone believe in the sense of "force", so you could probably say that a different way. Maybe you didn't mean "force", I don't know.

Second, He did it this way so that no one could boast (Eph. 2:9). Salvation is not primarily about getting us out of Hell. That is a most fortunate result of salvation, but salvation is primarily about declaring the glory of God. Rom. 3:26 says "It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." The spotlight must be on Him and what salvation teaches us about Him. Nothing is worth more than this knowledge of Him, not even rescue from Hell.

You ought to spend some time in John 17 looking at Jesus' prayer on the eve of His death. He starts this way: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." How different is that than the way we normally think about salvation? How offensive would it be (assuming you are the preacher) if you stood up next Sunday in church and prayed something like "Father, glorify me in this sermon that I am about to preach"? If you heard someone pray like that what would you think?

Then notice who it is to whom He gives eternal life, and notice what that eternal life is. Then read on and you'll come across sentences like "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." Why does He want to save us? Not ultimately so that we won't burn, but ultimately so that He can show us His glory. Then notice running through the whole prayer a note of exclusivity - He is not praying for the world, but only for those who have been given to Him and those who will believe later, those whom the world hates. To me this is some of the strongest evidence for effectual calling (and limited atonement) in the whole Bible.

So chew on that for a while and let me know what you think.

 

This sounds like irresistible grace to me, unless you are saying that Lazarus heard Christ's voice and then chose to come back to life. Is that what you are saying?

 

Sounds like the "dead" hearing.

 

So how about it, Brother Bob? Did Lazarus hear Christ's voice and then choose to come back to life? Could he have chosen to stay dead?

 

The point is that he heard while he was dead. Can all the dead refuse to come forth in the resurrection?

Please answer the following for me whatever?

Did anything tell you inside when you were not a Christian that the things you were doing were wrong and then say the dead can't hear? I don't know of a man who didn't know that he was sinning when he did sin, I sure did and I was dead and someone told me it was sin. You think I couldn't "hear"?

Just take your own lives and answer the question!!!, amen

Did the Calvinist accept Christ the first time they knew they were lost, I doubt it.

 

You won't answer me, why should I answer you?

All of the dead who are called to life, like Lazarus was, live. None choose to remain dead. You cannot take one who was called from the dead and then lived again and use him to prove that others are called to life and choose to remain dead. That just doesn't make sense.

Being dead doesn't mean that you don't know that you are dead. The rich man was sure that he was dead. Being dead simply means that you cannot choose to come back to life. Neither can the dead, when called back to life, choose to remain dead.

 

Whatever, I will answer you posting "if" I can later tonight as my work station computer is acting like a dial up and even worse. I think the server is doing a diagnostic run and that it is not viral - I'll go crazy without this compter.

But I wanted to interject here between you and Bob.

I must admit I got to laughing very hard at your commenting back to Bod who said: "Sounds like the Dead Hearing."

Then you stated:
"This sounds like irresistible grace to me, unless you are saying that Lazarus heard Christ's voice and then chose to come back to life...snip..."

I gotta admit it was a cute come back. :laugh:

However let us set the record straight on this. Was Lazarus a believer BEFORE he was called forth. - We all remember the words Jesus spoke: He who believes in Me, though he were dead yet shall he live. This...well lets just leave it to you two to enjoy the context and principles of that verse... :laugh:

Although, He rose and was a believer already - So technechally he was obeying His masters command. Now if Jesus would have called forth the Rich man - that would be another discussion all together.

You also stated:

This is absolutely true, that they of or by themselves can not come back to/into life by their own choosing without intervention. But they being dead can accept life which God offers them that they themselves could not do on their own.

Your point about the rich man is taken but remember that he was told when he begged someone go back to his brothers and tell them. He was told "they have the Moses and the prophets (the old testiment) let them hear them." What would this matter if they were not the elect and incapable of hearing. Then the rich man states send someone from the dead that they may repent. To wit it was said "If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they hear one who would rise from the dead."

The point is the dead spiritually can hear as in the Rich mans brothers but if they refuse to hear the Word of God, it wouldn't matter if the Word of God - Jesus - spoke to them.

 

Just so you all know (who are waiting for my replies) It took 18 mins to type and post my previous post. And this one has taken about 3 mins HELP ME!!!

 

I agree with BrotherBob in that you are attempting to read more into this, than what is being said. And I have never said anything about being called to life, and choosing to remain dead, FTR.

The comment I have twice responded to is that "Dead men do not hear." I have given multiple examples that this is reading theology into Scripture, where Scripture makes no such statement, at least in the passages in question. Now I get it from the other side, as well. The problem is an atttempt to lump all sorts of things into a catch-all basket. The result is, unfortunately, eisegesis. One size does not necessarily fit all, unlike, say, a men's necktie or a woman's head scarf. And just in case you are wondering, we are not going to disturb that rabbit, as we walk by.

But I will answer your comment with Scripture. You said, "Being dead simply means that you cannot choose to come back to life." While this sentence, in a some of its meanings would be true for EdSutton, it is simply too broad a statement for Scripture. I cannot 'choose' to come back to physical life, were I to die, physically; I cannot choose to become spiritually alive, as one born dead in trespasses and sins, at least in some sense as well. And no, we are not taking a shot at the rabbit sitting quietly in that tuft of grass that looks very much akin to the C/A grass species.

But One did "choose to come to back to life". "I lay down My life..."; "No man takes it from me, I lay it down that I may take it up again." "...I will raise it up."

And another individual did in fact, "choose" to come back to life - the so-called 'Prodigal Son'. "This, my son was dead, and is alive again!" said the father. And he repeated it for his other older obnoxious, self-centered, self-righteous son, and the brother of the Prodigal. so, at best. \

So that is two cases where that statement does not fit!

Ed

 

You need to read that again Allan; It was "Sounds like the Dead Hearing." that was the come back.;)

 

Brother Bob, I'm all in your court, but to me it was funny.

But you have to wonder though, was Lazarus made alive before Jesus called to him??

Not according to context.

 

I was simply stating the differences come from how we see scripture [state man was elected] (identifier) that determines how many calls are actually viewed to exist.

NOTE: I have spoken with many (other) calvinists who state there are two calling the one is effectual but the other is called general. Their veiw however concerning general is not that it is general (preaching to all and the saved among them) but it also involves a call from God for ALL to repent (just as the elect) however this call will not be heeded due to God not giving them repentence.

This is what I refer to in the general (feeble or opposite of effectual) Call. You may or may not hold this veiw but I figured it would better help you understand what it entailed.

 

I do agree but I don't per-say agree that they alone will hear but that all will hear yet only those who WILL believe WILL respond (elect) and the others reject it (non-elect). It is sort of semantics but then again it depends on how dogmantic one wants to be on How the election was decided upon by God. Both veiws are base in the truth that God knows who are His.

But I think I hold what Spurgeon did... (paraphase) that mans responsibility and Gods soveriegnty will probably never be hammered together on any earthen anvil but both roads meet somewhere in the Eternal God. If you want the exact quote just ask and I'll post it.

 

I agree, the called are those who have believed therefore Gods elect and as such The Called.

If Matthew 22:14 is ONLY about the chosen then who are the few not chosen out of the many the BE called? NOW, I do agree that it is concerning the elect in part but who were the others called that were not chosen.

I understand were you are coming from for this and that mainly the dead can't hear and if God doesn't enable them to hear it wasn't ment for them therefore it wasn't effectual.
My problem here is who said the call had to be effectual in the sense of 'making' one a believe, this is part of the Calvinist view; That being man can not believe unless God make him have a desire to believe in Him. - What I mean by that is God gives man a new nature (born-again) and therefore man MUST follow this new nature (man can only obey his nature) to salvation and therefore God makes man believe - Man was elected, and this to me begs a substantial questions. Would he have believed if God wouldn't have given man the new nature first. If "no" then why must man believe in the first place since it is the new nature that changes a man or proves the salvation of a man since he must become who he is? And man will not change unless God create a new nature to change him. Belief is no longer valid to a relationship.

I do not contend the call is effectual in this meaning since the 'effectual' Call is found nowhere in scripture. The word effectual is used in scripture 6 times and in each instance deals with a ministry and not a [the] Call or Calling ever. It is after the fact always. If God knew about the effecual call and set it so plainly why is it never mentioned in conjunction with the Call? Here are the verses for anyone wondering what they are:

I agree however, (my twist) I believe the Holy Spirits work is what Jesus said it was with regard to:
Jhn 16:8 And when He is come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Jhn 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Jhn 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Jhn 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
Notice the Spirit will convict the "world" of their unbelief. How is that if Only the Elect hear the Spirit of God and why would it matter if the non-elect is convicted for they will never repent?

These are just some questions of mine concerning the Calls - It really entails more than just the calling but is regeneration really before salvation and is belief actually something that a person places in God or something God places in man?

 

Ok but clarify the bolded line for me.

The called here as stated previously is/are the elect and like I also state identifies them as those who have believed. This of itself is indicitive of the same call others of whom did not believe.

If my interpretation was in error please show me where with in context you said was correct. I simply spoke about the context so I am somewhat baffled by my 'interpretation' unless you are refering to the the Called statement. Is that correct or not?

 

Yes and here is where we will keep butting heads. I believe the elect are the ones who are ordained to believe because God knew they WILL believe if He would but Call man to repentence. I believe that God Knew who would/specifically WILL believe and it was these He ordained to eternal life thus they are the elected and chosen from among man according to His purpose, plan, and good pleasure. Awe, now we are trying to change the thread discussion from One of more calling to prove foreknow. Not yet, this one first. Besides I have delt with it to some degree but the fact is those same verse can and are construed in a differing light depending on your theological bent.

Which is one reason I did this thread to show they all have the same Immutable truths by which they are based in but where you say there isn't one scripture that... I also say to the opposite, there isn't one scripture that... And then we both go to vertually the same scriptures to prove a point. Both sides of the same coin both the Word of God both interjected with mans opinions (logic :laugh: that was for you James - Jauthor) in places and therefore both show each illogical due to man trying to FULLY understand the mind of God.

But in truth am I not ordained to believe like I do, and to be having this same conversation on this board. I hope so :tongue3:

 

Yes, but lest we forget He is the Saviour of ALL men, ESPECIALLY them that believe. 1 Tim 4:10