Outer Calling And Inner Calling.......

[Jipsah]

Lets see, I googled "Augustine, Father of the Inquisition" and got a listing for about 108000 entries.

That's weird. Here's what I got:

Your search - "Augustine, Father of the Inquisition" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.

You sure that's what you typed?

But according to the Calvinists, they do not include many scholars.

Grand total None, if we're taking Google hit counts as of great significance.

Folks the inner call is a fiction

Still addressing the imaginary audience, eh?

Let me repeat, over 100,000 hits. Only one scholar. LOL

What string did you really Google, Van?

 

[nobdysfool]

Lets see, I googled "Augustine, Father of the Inquisition" and got a listing for about 108000 entries.

And of course, you can vouch for every one of them, that they are unbiased, scholarly works of the utmost gravity and truth....?

Funny, some people are having trouble finding this treasure trove of stuff....I have found it, and it is mostly repetitious multiple links, and from anti-Calvinist and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox points of view. So the nature of such treatises are not those of scholarly unbiased examination. I seriously doubt whether any of them are.

 

[Oye11]

And of course, you can vouch for every one of them, that they are unbiased, scholarly works of the utmost gravity and truth....?

Funny, some people are having trouble finding this treasure trove of stuff....I have found it, and it is mostly repetitious multiple links, and from anti-Calvinist and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox points of view. So the nature of such treatises are not those of scholarly unbiased examination. I seriously doubt whether any of them are.

There is no such thing as an unbiased examination. And when it suits you are not at all shy about linking to a most dramatic and poorly documented Calvinist website.... Plus a Romanist point of view on that particular topic might be pretty fair as Augustine is one of their main saints. He is also a saint with the EOs for that matter but less highly regarded.

 

[nobdysfool]

There is no such thing as an unbiased examination. And when it suits you are not at all shy about linking to a most dramatic and poorly documented Calvinist website.... Plus a Romanist point of view on that particular topic might be pretty fair as Augustine is one of their main saints. He is also a saint with the EOs for that matter but less highly regarded.

I do not have an objection to someone (anyone) expressing an opinion. What I do object to is trying to pass that opinion off as fact, beyond reproach, when it is so obviously biased. That was what was taking place.

Which Calvinist site do you believe is poorly documented and dramatic, and can you provide examples of this? Or is that just your opinion? I'm not saying I agree with every last thing those sites link to, or say, and I'm sure most, if not all, of my Calvinist brethren would say the same. But monergism.com and apuritansmind.com (which I'm sure one of them is what you're referring to), on the whole has more good than bad. I don't just blindly swallow what anyone says, not even Calvinists.

I know that such an attitude upsets the anti-Calvinists, who insist that we are all monolithic, and in so doing, engage in the "Procrustean bed" actions they decry in Calvinists. It's a fiction born of an inability to answer the doctrine.

 

[Oye11]

I do not have an objection to someone (anyone) expressing an opinion. What I do object to is trying to pass that opinion off as fact, beyond reproach, when it is so obviously biased. That was what was taking place.

Which Calvinist site do you believe is poorly documented and dramatic, and can you provide examples of this? Or is that just your opinion? I'm not saying I agree with every last thing those sites link to, or say, and I'm sure most, if not all, of my Calvinist brethren would say the same. But monergism.com and apuritansmind.com (which I'm sure one of them is what you're referring to), on the whole has more good than bad. I don't just blindly swallow what anyone says, not even Calvinists.

I know that such an attitude upsets the anti-Calvinists, who insist that we are all monolithic, and in so doing, engage in the "Procrustean bed" actions they decry in Calvinists. It's a fiction born of an inability to answer the doctrine.

We had an exchange like that recently and I wish I knew where the post was. It was in the heat of some debate about Finney and you linked us to this poorly documented Calvinist site with all these silly pictures, in this case a guy in a 19th C. suit with a wolf`s head. Reminded me of the Dan Comer site, the theological opposite but extremes and cheesy dramatics find much in common as do the Jack Chick tracts... Turned out the author had no stated credentials and I posted a link to a systematic rebuttal of the self-same article.

John Hendryx from Monergism.com seems a straight up guy and he has a great testimony, though he is still working on his theological credentials and through mail order. I`m sure he has plenty of useful articles up.

As to opinion and fact, well, sometimes we have to assume a statement as "opinion" even in the absense of a qualified "IMO"... True historical "facts" are tough to come by. Ancient writings tend to come with perspectives, spins, and agendas then they are still filtered through the limitations of the historian who tries to connect the dots. Van may well have said too much or lacks the skills of guarded language. Okay, so back to the topic...

 

[Van]

Many scholars say that Augustine paved the way for the dark ages because he provided the theological underpinnings for the use of force to require adherance to orthodoxy.

No scripture refers to the "inner call" it is a fiction of Calvinism.

 

[Jipsah]

Many scholars say that Augustine paved the way for the dark ages because he provided the theological underpinnings for the use of force to require adherance to orthodoxy.

That's OK, a good many scholars believe that the "OSAS" doctrine that is the backbone of Baptist soteriology is simply whitewashed antinomianism. Given your apparent reverence for scholarship, I suppose you'll have to adopt that position as well, n'est-ce pas?

No scripture refers to the "inner call" it is a fiction of Calvinism.

Is that the real Bible you're referring to, or your contrived "teachings" of the Bible?

 

[Van]

Scripture says many are called but few are chosen. That puts calling before choosing. That puts election after we hear the external call. But that does not fit with the false doctrine of Calvinism that God choose foreseen individuals before creation to be saved. So how do they rewrite the verse? Why what it really means, is that few were chosen before creation, but God went ahead and called many to create the illusion of the opportunity of salvation. But logically, there would be no need for the external call of the gospel, if everyone chosen was going to be given the "gift of faith." Consider this, say one of the supposedly preselected elect died before the age of 2. How could they not be condemned for unbelief? Why in this case, God would simply pour faith in Christ into them. Volia, no actual need for the external call. The whole concept is false, unbiblical and illogical.

 

[nobdysfool]

Scripture says many are called but few are chosen. That puts calling before choosing. That puts election after we hear the external call.

The verse is not a statement of sequence. Reading that into it is eisegesis of the worst order.

But that does not fit with the false doctrine of Calvinism that God choose foreseen individuals before creation to be saved. So how do they rewrite the verse? Why what it really means, is that few were chosen before creation, but God went ahead and called many to create the illusion of the opportunity of salvation.

This is nothing but slander and falsehoods against Calvinism, a violation of rules..

But logically, there would be no need for the external call of the gospel, if everyone chosen was going to be given the "gift of faith." Consider this, say one of the supposedly preselected elect died before the age of 2. How could they not be condemned for unbelief? Why in this case, God would simply pour faith in Christ into them. Volia, no actual need for the external call. The whole concept is false, unbiblical and illogical.

More falsehoods and slander, not representing Calvinism correctly but creating a straw man and making a show. Folks, Van does not know Calvinism, he has proven this over and over again. He is telling deliberate falsehoods. Do not be fooled by this pack of junk.

Keep in mind that this is coming from an admitted Open Theist, who doesn't believe God is Omniscient, but "learns" as time progresses. Calvinism is not heresy, but Open Theism is.

 

[nobdysfool]

Note the effort to shoot the messager, to brand me as a heretic. This is the sum and substance of the defense of the false doctrines of Calvinism. Why, because the views cannot be supported biblically.

The "messenger" was the one who made the statement that God "learns", meaning that He is not Omniscient. You brought it up, but claim that taking you to task for the statement is "off topic"? Your statement is heretical. If you teach heresy, then pointing that out is not shooting the messenger, it is telling the truth.

No it is based on the traditions of men, and includes Greek philosophy (Plato) and Science Fiction (the divine matrix where God gives us all our thoughts). There is no support for "inner call" in scripture.

In your opinion. There has been plenty of proof given, and your rejection of it does not sweep it away.

Note how the Calvinists slander others with lies like this. They trump up charges concerning me personnally, because they cannot defend their false doctines.

You made the statements, live with the consequences. So your response is to violate the very rule you say we violate. Do you believe that two wrongs make a right?

More slander, more lies, more personal attacks on me, but no mention of the topic, no content, no nothing.

Sorry, you were the one who accused Calvinists of employing the "Procrustean Bed". That was the subject I addressed. Where is it written that you and your position should not be examined, and flaws pointed out? You seem to have no problem pointing out the "flaws" in others, especially Calvinists. You're getting back what you give.

 

[savedbygrace57]

van says

Scripture says many are called but few are chosen. That puts calling before choosing.

Choosing happens before time began calling occurs in time ..

eph 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

It appears your philosophy and scripture are not in agreement..

 

[Van]

Scripture does not say nor suggest anyone, other than Christ was chosen before creation. Ephesians 1:4 says He chose us in Him, which means He chose Him before the foundation of the world to be His Redeemer, and therefore when God chooses us, individually during our physical lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10, and spiritually places us in Christ, then we share in His election, hence, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him.

You inference is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10 because we lived without mercy before we were chosen.

 

[Van]

God can choose to look into our hearts and know our character and the strength of our faith, or He can choose not to look into our hearts and test us to find out our character, as He did with Abraham, when He said, "Now I know...." Calvinists try to be put God in a box and say He can only do what their traditions claim, rather than what scripture actually says. I share some of the Calvinist views of scripture, but that does not make me a Calvinist, and I share some of the views of Open Theists, but that does not make me an open theist. Ditto for Arminian views.

Absolutely no proof has been given for the inner call, what was listed were verses that included the word call, and then it was claimed some of them referred to the never mentioned inner call. On the other hand, the external call of the gospel of Christ is specifically mentioned, God crediting our faith as righteousness is specifically mentioned, and therefore those whose faith has been credited as righteousness, Romans 4:20-25 receive the blessing. The sequence is clear, we hear the gospel, then believe in Him, then God credits our faith as righteousness.

He says I say not to use the Bible as a standard, but has no quote. Of course we are to use scripture as a standard.

And finally Calvinism tries to stretch scripture so it fits their doctrine. They say it does not mean what it says.
What shall I do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus. But when placed on their Procrustean Bed, it means "What shall I do to be saved? Nothing, God will cause you to believe if you are one of the elect." They change the meaning of words, verses and whole passages to pour their invented doctrines into scripture.
Their's is a one size fits all doctrine, they say no body has spiritual ability, but Jesus in Matthew 13:1-23, tells us about 4 kinds of people, three of which do have some spiritual ability. I could go on and on.

 

[Van]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Scripture says many are called but few are chosen. That puts calling before choosing. That puts election after we hear the external call.

The verse is not a statement of sequence.

Folks, do you hear Procrustean Bed winch stretching the verse into confessing it does not say what it says?

Many are called but few are chosen is clear, first we are called, then from among those that heard the call, a few are selected. Few are those that find the narrow path that leads to life. Our faith in Christ provides our access to God's grace, Romans 5:2. On and on folks, verse after verse demonstrates the invention of the inner call is a fiction.

 

[Van]

Keep in mind that this is coming from an admitted Open Theist

The thing to keep in mind is this statement of NBF is coming from an admitted Open Theist. No quote will be forthcoming. I share some biblical views with Open Theists but so do all Calvinists.

 

[Van]

Why do Calvinists defend their false doctrines? Because they know they are false! If Irresistible Grace was true, then false doctrines mean nothing, everyone will get to heaven that was chosen, and no one will be prevented from entering heaven because they are lead astray by false doctrines. Do you believe that? I do not. And based on the witness of their posts, neither do the Calvinist. LOL
The inner call is a fiction, folks, a complete fiction, not found in scripture.

 

[Oye11]

Good morning one and all. Thanksgiving eve blessings to you. It`s nice to see we got back on the topic of "the inner call"......

 

[savedbygrace57]

van says

Scripture does not say nor suggest anyone, other than Christ was chosen before creation. Ephesians 1:4 says He chose us in Him, which means He chose Him before the foundation of the world to be His Redeemer,

No it means what it says, you cannot change scripture no matter how much you try.lol

He chose us[ the elect] when ? before the foundation of the world..

Even concedeing to your interpretation that God chose christ before the foundation of the world, its still means he chose us at the same time, because we were his body..Not unless you talking about a bodiless christ...

He has always been the head of his body the elect, we were his seed...

 

[nobdysfool]

Why do Calvinists defend their false doctrines? Because they know they are false! If Irresistible Grace was true, then false doctrines mean nothing, everyone will get to heaven that was chosen, and no one will be prevented from entering heaven because they are lead astray by false doctrines. Do you believe that? I do not. And based on the witness of their posts, neither do the Calvinist. LOL
The inner call is a fiction, folks, a complete fiction, not found in scripture.

What stunningly illogical "logic"! "Calvinists defend their beliefs because they're false".

That ranks up there with your statement,

"Anytime a Calvinist argues that his or her doctrines are correct, he is actually testifying that his doctrines are not true." Such statements reflect badly on the one making them, not who they're directed against.

Stop flaming Calvinists and Calvinism, and just deal with the topic, without all the personal slams.

You get them because you give them.

 

[nobdysfool]

Many scholars say that Augustine paved the way for the dark ages because he provided the theological underpinnings for the use of force to require adherance to orthodoxy.

No scripture refers to the "inner call" it is a fiction of Calvinism.

Names. "Many Scholars" is a fiction, because if there were actually many, you could provide names. So far, none have been provided. The "Many Scholars" charge is fiction.

Folks, isn't it odd that while it is claimed that there is no proof for the inner call, and it is decried as being "proof" that it is fiction (despite the fact that proof has been provided), somehow we aren't supposed to question the contention that "many scholars" believe that "Augustine inaugurated the Dark Ages". This, despite the fact that after multiple calls for actual proof, i.e. names of these scholars, etc., and no proof having been provided, if we further pursue this scurrilous charge, it is being labeled as "off topic", when the charge was made as "proof" of the topic.