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

[Van]

Calvinist post a load of horse pucky, such as they believe in irresistible grace, when in fact, they believe folks can be led astray. The inner call is a fiction, and even the Calvinists testify they do not believe it with every post.

 

[Van]

NBF keeps pushing his doctrines of Open theism, teaching that he knows Calvinism is a form of religious determinism. When God chooses us individually, he has mercy on us. Scripture says we are called, chosen and faithful. Being chosen comes after the call. We are called by the gospel, an external call during our lives. In verse after verse, the truth shouts out, Many are Called but few are chosen. First we live without mercy, then we are chosen. Note 1 Peter 2:9-10 does not say we live without mercy, then we are saved. It says we are not part of the chosen people. And to not be part of the chosen people means we have not yet been chosen. Scripture means what it says.

 

[Akathist]

Thread closed for staff review.

 

[nobdysfool]

The Calvinist simply repeat their false doctrines hoping no one will notice. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we live without mercy before we are chosen. So we were not chosen individually before creation. Therefore "He chose us in Him" does not mean "He chose us as foreseen individuals before we lived without mercy."

Only if you think that God's choice must result in immediate application of mercy. It does not. Of course you believe that God's choice comes after our choice...your free will rebellion.

Eph 1:4-10 even as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love (5) he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (6) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (7) In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (8) which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight (9) making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ (10) as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.


The focus of the passage is what God has done for US, not some "generic group" in Christ. A careful reading of this will show that the anti-Calvinist view is not scriptural, no matter how many time he repeats it.

 

[cygnusx1]

Isn't the inner call otherwise described as the Spirit of God whispering to a person's heart, to convict him of his need for Christ?

Don't you acknowledge the inner call, Van, whenever you witness to someone? Because you know you can say all the right words, but inside, in the person's heart, you know you can't change it; you know that has to be the Spirit of God working in him. You maybe give the right words, and preach the gospel--the "outer call"--but the Spirit of God actually has to wake the person up--the "inner call"--so that those things that you just said become wisdom and don't remain foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14).

That's my take, anyway, on acknowledging the "inner calling" of the Spirit of God every time you preach or witness.

Bravo !!!!

 

[cygnusx1]

anyone who has read your posts and knows your theology will testify , as I now do , that you are no open theist bro.

why anyone would wish to falsify what you believe is beyond a benevolent explanation.

 

[nobdysfool]

anyone who has read your posts and knows your theology will testify , as I now do , that you are no open theist bro.

why anyone would wish to falsify what you believe is beyond a benevolent explanation.

Thanks, Bro. I am at a loss to understand such actions.

 

[Van]

Neal, how would the inner call occur before a person heard the gospel? You are equating the power of the gospel message with the inner call. But the so called inner call occurs before a person hears the gospel and causes the person to irresistibly receive the gospel. One is biblical, the spiritual power of the gospel, and one is a fiction.

 

[Van]

Why is it that NBF denies that many scholars believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages? Anyone can google Augustine, Father of the Inquistion and find lots of articles that address this issue. Some are for it, some are against it, but only NBF denies that many scholars hold that position.

The inner call is a fiction, and the idea that many scholars do not believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages is a fiction.

 

[nobdysfool]

Why is it that NBF denies that many scholars believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages? Anyone can google Augustine, Father of the Inquistion and find lots of articles that address this issue. Some are for it, some are against it, but only NBF denies that many scholars hold that position.

The inner call is a fiction, and the idea that many scholars do not believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages is a fiction.

I didn't deny it, I said that names need to be named if the charge is going to be made . Google is a search engine, not a theological source. I question the integrity of the results. Anyone who can read would know that. The refusal to address this calls the entire statement into question.

Not only that, but just because many scholars believe a certain thing, that doesn't mean it is true. That is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy can never be proof of anything.

The same tired mantra is repeated over and over again,. We get the fact that some don't accept the idea of the inner call. We get it. But that doesn't make it so. It is opinion. But opinion does not necessarily equal truth. We see it differently. Accept that fact, and quit slandering Calvinism and Calvinists because we don't accept what anti-Calvinists say.

The hatred is plain for all to see. Public lies should require public apologies.

 

[Van]

Now NBF accepts that many scholars do indeed think Augustine paved the way for the dark ages. So each and every post asking me for names was simply an attempt to sidetrack the debate.

NBF, you are an open theist,and you believe in exhaustive determinism. How could this be so, because by your own definition if you share a belief with Open Theism, that makes you an admitted Open Theist, and if you share a belief with Hyper Calvinism, that makes your a hyper Calvinist. Of course it is absurd, by that is your position not mine.

 

[Van]

Folks, the inner call, irresistible grace is unbiblical. Matthew 23:13 tells us of men who are entering heaven. According to the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, they could not be entering heaven, unless they had experienced the "inner call" which supernaturally altered their core character such that are unable not have saving faith. But, the text says they were turned aside by false doctrine. Therefore the inner call is unbiblical.

It is a fiction, not found in scripture. Many are called but few are chosen says first many are called, and then from those called, few are chosen. Thus the external call comes before a person is chosen. Now a person must be alive to hear the gospel, and before they hear the gospel, they condemned already for unbelief, therefore they are living without mercy. Then they hear the call, and some respond to the call, and some of them God credits their faith as righteousnes. So many are called, but few are chosen, put election during our physical lives. Just as 1 Peter 2:9-10 does. Just as Romans 11 does. And on and on. The inner call is a fiction, false doctrine, and has no support in scripture.

 

[nobdysfool]

I am not an Open Theist, I reject all doctrines associated with that heresy. I do not accept the idea that Augustine caused the Inquisition, which is what is being promoted by the argument of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. One cannot establish or defend truth through employment of logical fallacies. I don't believe everything I read, with the exception of the Word of God.

I reject the denial of the inner call, because it is taught in scripture, although it is hidden to those who do not use the Word of God skillfully. All the arguments marshaled against the doctrine are misinterpretations of scripture, inserting ideas that aren't in the scriptures, and imposing sequence where comparison is being used. Repeating a fallacy over and over again does not make it true.

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is a short quote that defines the inner call as being distinct , but NOT SEPERATE from , the external call of the Gospel , it will be noted that the effectual inner call is certainly soteriological in nature ;


How is it then, that people who are of a mind set that is hostile to God, and out of that hostility refuse to submit to God's commands (Romans 8:7) come to willingly belong to Him? How is it that people who dislike the knowledge of God so much that they traded it for something they know, deep down, is a lie (Romans 1:25), come to be His sons and daughters who cry out to Him, "Abba! Father!" (Romans 8:14, 15)? Well, if you're really looking up those verse in Romans 8, you probably already can see that the solution to our problem has something to do with the work of the Spirit. It is through the Spirit that we are brought into our relationship as adopted sons and daughters who can have the confidence of a child who knows that their father wants only good things for them and that he can always be approached in the boldest of ways. We come into this relationship of trust toward God rather than animosity through the work of the Spirit.

Calvinists (as Tim has reminded us) like to call this work of the Spirit the inner call, the inner call being the work of the Spirit that is successful at bringing people to Christ, or the work that causes people who are existing in a state of hostility toward God to seek Him out and embrace Him. This is distinguished then from what is called the outer call, the call of the gospel that goes out worldwide to all people, the call that encompasses those commands to seek God, a call that is always rejected unless it is accompanied by that inner work of the Spirit that turns people who are, as a result of the fall, naturally hostile toward God and His outer call to them, into people who see the value in the gospel and who embrace God and the call of the gospel.

We can see this always successful call here in Romans 8, too. Verse 30 tells us that there is a sort of call that always leads to justification:

....whom He called, these He also justified.... (NKJV)

The grammar leaves no room for this sort of call to be unsuccessful. Every person called in this way is justified by God, and since we know that we are not justified unless we believe, we know that everyone who is called in this way is successfully brought to faith. Those who receive this effective call come to embrace God and the gospel through faith.

We can also find this successful call in 1 Corinthians 1: 23-24.

http://everydaymusings.blogspot.com/2004/04/effective-call-or-how-people-come-to.html

 

[cygnusx1]

The ordo salutis

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)


notice the Gospel call and the inner call are related but distinct. The inner call comes to the elect through the Gospel call.

 

[Van]

NBF is an admitted Open Theist. He says I am an admitted Open Theist, yet I say I am not. According to his rules, if you share any view held by Open Theists, that makes you an open theist. Therefore NBF is an Open Theist.

To say that many scholars believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages by providing the theological underpinning for using force to compel adherance to orthodoxy, is not saying the concept is true because many believe it to be truth. The adsurd tactic of the Calvinists, is one they say, post the many, then they say that is a logical fallacy. So anytime they ask me to to provide the many they are baiting, taunting, and trolling.

Why? Because they cannot defend the fiction of the inner call, so they seek to sidetrack the discussion.

And look at the order posted, a person must hear the gospel call before they receive the inner call. If a person is has no spiritual ability, they cannot hear the external call, and in fact they are hostile toward God. This effort to deny the actual order of Calvinism, where Irresistible grace alters the person so they can understand the gospel, is simply an effort to hide the false doctrine as being the same as the power of the gospel unto salvation.

 

[Van]

Scripture is clear, no one is predestined to be born again, rather the born again are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and to inherit eternal life as a child of God.

There is no mention of the inner call in scripture. But the external call of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Jesus teaches in Matthew 13:1-23 that people respond in 4 different ways to the gospel. Some do not understand it. Some accept it superficially, but do not embrace it, a rootless sort of faith. And some embrace it, but still cling to other treasures in their heart. And finally, a fourth kind, the good soil, receives the gospel and is born again and indwelt, for they produce fruit. The idea is that by cultivating, planting, and watering, believers can help prepare good soil, in which God causes the increase.

The inner call is a fiction, never mentioned in scripture.

 

[savedbygrace57]

van says

Scripture is clear, no one is predestined to be born again,

If being born again is an act of God, then its predestinated , in His time the elect are born again,,

Ecc 3

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

 

[nobdysfool]

I assert again that I am not, and never have been an Open Theist.

I do not accept or endorse any portion of Open Theism.

How that charge can be made against me is baffling. It is a false charge, and is made by one who knows full well it is a false charge.

There is one here who has admitted that he endorses some of their doctrines, heretical though they are. I ask, who are you going to believe? One who disavows ALL of the Open Theist position, or one who admits that he accepts some of their doctrine, yet claims that does not make him an Open Theist?

Folks, who is the Open Theist? It is not me. I challenge any and all to provide even one quote, one shred of evidence from any post that I have ever made, where it can be proven that I am an Open Theist. This charge is a LIE. Lies are not of Christ. Liars cannot inherit the Kingdom. Scripture is clear on that point.

 

[nobdysfool]

The slander of Augustine has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. It is brought up to sidetrack the discussion, and to incite flames and cause strife. Googling something and pointing to the number of hits is disingenuous, because the search engine only lists the number or web pages where the words, either in the phrase, or separately, occur and does not rank them according to truth, or content. Thus, pointing to Google results as "proof" of anything is logically incorrect, and fallacious. It proves nothing, other than many people have used the words of the phrase searched on. That does not make them right, nor does it prove the phrase as being a true statement.

Google the phrase, "God is dead". There are 76,700,000 results for this phrase. Should we conclude then, that because there are over 76 million separate results for this search, that God is, in fact, dead? That is the kind of reasoning being employed with the slander against Augustine.

A person is free to believe that there is no such thing as the Inner Call, if one wishes to believe so. What becomes tiresome is the repeated insistence, over and over again, that this view (no inner call) is true, and Calvinists are deceivers, liars, and false teachers because we disagree, with scriptural reasons. Any doctrinal discussion is turned into a screed against Calvinists. I ask, is this vendetta of Christ? Is it motivated by the Holy Spirit, unto the building up and edification of the Body of Christ? Or is it motivated by an unreasoned hatred of Calvinism?