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

[nobdysfool]

Logical deduction can be so inconvenient.....

 

[Van]

Hi Behe's boy, why did you change your question? First you asked:

If there is no inner call - what role does the Holy Spirit play in salvation?

I answer that question with the Holy Spirit's role of provideing the revelation of the gospel of Christ.

So then, as if you were asking the same question you write:

So what you are saying - if I am reading this right - is that the Holy Spirit plays no personal role in a person's salvation.

This is a different question. When we are spiritually placed in Christ, after God has credited our faith as righteousness, we are spiritually baptized into Christ, and that baptism is performed by the Holy Spirit. That is as personal as it can get.

There is no verse that mentions the "inner call." It is a fiction.

 

[cygnusx1]

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?

precisely my point when I said google "van is a fool" bro ! instead of realising the stupidity of looking at the numbers for a google I simply got reported ........ why ?

 

[nobdysfool]

Because Truth is not what is being sought here, I fear.....

 

[AndOne]

Hi Behe's boy, why did you change your question? First you asked:


I answer that question with the Holy Spirit's role of provideing the revelation of the gospel of Christ.

So then, as if you were asking the same question you write:
This is a different question. When we are spiritually placed in Christ, after God has credited our faith as righteousness, we are spiritually baptized into Christ, and that baptism is performed by the Holy Spirit. That is as personal as it can get.

There is no verse that mentions the "inner call." It is a fiction.

Actually I only asked the one question - the other was an assumption based on your answer. And even from your response here I would conclude the same thing since you are attributing all of the Holy Spirit's involvement to after a person's conversion.

Most Christians (regardless of personal sotorieology) believe that the Holy Spirit plays a role in a person's conversion - before he is converted. Even before I was a Calvinist I believed this.

Matthew 11:25-27 clearly indicates the inner call. So does Titus 3:5-7 - which clearly shows the Holy Spirit's role in this.

 

[AndOne]

precisely my point when I said google "van is a fool" bro ! instead of realising the stupidity of looking at the numbers for a google I simply got reported ........ why ?

Somebody has got it in for you Cyg!

 

[nill]

I was hoping, Van, that you would address these points each by themselves, at least acknowledging that I've said them, like I've done to yours. Could you please do that? I'd like to hear your insights on those.

---

Neal, how would the inner call occur before a person heard the gospel?

Doesn't it have to, according to 1 Corinthians 2:14, etc? Isn't the gospel foolishness to people whose ears or hearts are not awakened? What use is it for a person to hear something of vital importance if he has no understanding of it, and how would he have understanding of it, unless God speaks it to his heart?

You are equating the power of the gospel message with the inner call.

Well? How powerful is the gospel? Romans 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'"

But the so called inner call occurs before a person hears the gospel and causes the person to irresistibly receive the gospel.

But isn't the inner calling saying that a person truly sees Christ as He is, but that these things remain folly and hidden to the world (the walking dead, essentially) until it is made known by the Spirit of God (like in 1 Corinthians 2)?

One is biblical, the spiritual power of the gospel, and one is a fiction.

In this case, I think you could say that the inner call is the spiritual power of the gospel, because it's the Spirit of God making the gospel known to the hearts of men.

---

​

---

---

​

---

---

Lets look at 1 Corinthians 2:14. What does it actually say? "The natural person [meaning someone who has not been regenerated] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to them, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." So what are the "things of the Spirit of God" that are spiritually discerned? Calvinism teaches this refers to all spiritual things. But that is completely wrong. Paul is referring to the things that can only be discerned by those who are spiritual, those that have been regenerated. A babe in Christ, who has not learned from the Spirit, cannot discern what a mature Christian, who has learned from the spirit can discern. So in 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul says he cannot address the babes in Christ as spiritual people [those who are mature and have learned from the Spirit]. No, instead, Paul must speak to the babes in Christ in the same why he speaks to unregenerates, people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. Thus, both babes in Christ and those who have not been regenerated can indeed understand the milk of the gospel.

Van, I'm not sure, but it doesn't look like what you're saying lines up with how the apostle Paul speak later on in chapter 3. Look at 1 Corinthians 3:1-4: "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not being merely human?"

It seems he is saying that in speaking of those who are "of the flesh," he does not literally mean people who are unregenerate. He does address them as "brothers," and I don't think he speaks to the unregenerate in those terms (except, obviously when identifying himself by ethnicity--although I can't find it, I thought it was in the later chapters of Romans, when he calls them his brothers). Nevertheless, it is only "God who gives the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:7). So he calls his brothers in Christ as though they are "people of the flesh." What keeps them in that category? "Jealousy and strife," and so they are "behaving only in a human way."

This looks like it is not speaking, then, of unregenerate people, but of regenerate people who are behaving as though they were unregenerate.

Still, 1 Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." It's "folly" to them, isn't it? And we're not just talking about the "higher spiritual truths." It just says, simply, it's the "word of the cross." Is the message of the cross not a "spiritual thing," as you put it? You did say that the Holy Spirit's role in salvation was in "provideing [sic] the revelation of the gospel of Christ." If it's something the Spirit of God is accomplishing, does that not make it a spiritual thing?

So in relation to 1 Corinthians 1-2, I can see Paul talking about a distinction between the world, foolish in its thinking (2:14) and rejecting the gospel of Christ (1:18), and the saints, made wise by the Spirit of God (1:27) and given understanding of the things of God (2:12). In 1 Corinthians 3, though, he refers to some believers as though they were unregenerate, or a "natural" person: he says they are being, when submitting to jealousy and strife, "merely human" (3:4).

 

[Van]

Hi Behe's Boy, now you ask a third question, what role does the Holy Spirit play in conversion. I answered that one already, a person is converted from being spiritually dead in Adam to being spiritually alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Folks, read Matthew 11:25-27, it has nothing to do with the inner call of Calvinism. Read the passage, the idea is the external signs and wonders Christ performed would be sufficient to call folks in another city to repent. Not the inner call.

Read Titus 3:5-7 and again, the inner call of Calvinism is no where to be found, just a descripture of how spiritually, the Holy Spirit operated to accomplish our regeneration. Note the effort to blur the line between the Calvinist "inner call" and regeneration after a person's response to the gospel is credited as righteousness.

 

[Van]

Hi Neal,

Van, I'm not sure, but it doesn't look like what you're saying lines up with how the apostle Paul speak later on in chapter 3. Look at 1 Corinthians 3:1-4: "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not being merely human?"

It seems he is saying that in speaking of those who are "of the flesh," he does not literally mean people who are unregenerate. He does address them as "brothers," and I don't think he speaks to the unregenerate in those terms (except, obviously when identifying himself by ethnicity--although I can't find it, I thought it was in the later chapters of Romans, when he calls them his brothers). Nevertheless, it is only "God who gives the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:7). So he calls his brothers in Christ as though they are "people of the flesh." What keeps them in that category? "Jealousy and strife," and so they are "behaving only in a human way."

This looks like it is not speaking, then, of unregenerate people, but of regenerate people who are behaving as though they were unregenerate.

One of the rules I use when coming to an understanding of scripture is to evaluate both the content of the verse, subject verb, meaning of words, and the context, how does the verse fit in the passage.

Clearly Paul is saying spiritually mature Christians can understand things that seem like foolishness to unregnerates. So then to say "men of flesh" are regenerates, is unsound. Paul is comparing babes in Christ, those who have been born again, but have not yet matured, have not yet learned from their indwelt Holy Spirit, to spiritually mature Christians. They cannot understand what spiritually mature Christians can understand, but rather they understand what unregenerates can understand, for they are in the same state if you will, having learned nothing much from the Holy Spirit yet. This passage demonstrates that the unregerate can understand the milk of the gospel.

Still, 1 Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." It's "folly" to them, isn't it? And we're not just talking about the "higher spiritual truths." It just says, simply, it's the "word of the cross." Is the message of the cross not a "spiritual thing," as you put it? You did say that the Holy Spirit's role in salvation was in "provideing [sic] the revelation of the gospel of Christ." If it's something the Spirit of God is accomplishing, does that not make it a spiritual thing?

First I made a distinction between some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel, and the spiritual things appraised by the Holy Spirit, e.g. the spiritual things that can only be understood with the help of our indwelt Holy Spirit. I did not say the gospel was not a spiritual thing.

Turning now to 1 Corinthians 1:18, look at the passage. Paul is saying the word of the cross, which refers to the gospel of Christ, is folly to those who are perishing. Now for it to be folly, they would have had to have heard the gospel and rejected the gospel as folly. But others, who are being saved, accept the gospel. The Jews reject the gospel, they stumble over trusting in Christ rather than the works of the Law, and the gentiles think trusting in the One true God and His Messiah, is foolishness, why not trust in all the gods? But at the same time, to those who are called, meaning those whose response to the gospel God credited as righteousness, Christ is seen as the power of God and the gospel as the wisdom of the one true God.

The Bible clearly teaches people respond to the gospel differently, see Matthew 13:1-23, but it does not teach no one can receive the gospel but those under the influence of irresistible grace. This is demonstrated false my Matthew 23:13 where men were entering heaven, and therefore according to Calvinism, under the influence of irresistible grace, but were turned aside by false doctrine.

So in relation to 1 Corinthians 1-2, I can see Paul talking about a distinction between the world, foolish in its thinking (2:14) and rejecting the gospel of Christ (1:18), and the saints, made wise by the Spirit of God (1:27) and given understanding of the things of God (2:12). In 1 Corinthians 3, though, he refers to some believers as though they were unregenerate, or a "natural" person: he says they are being, when submitting to jealousy and strife, "merely human" (3:4).

1 Corinthians 2:14 is not talking about the world, but about unregenerates thinking the things revealed by our indwelt Spirit as folly. Lets refer to two sets of spiritual things, those discerned only with the aid of the indwelt Spirit, and those that can be understood by some unregenerate people and infants in Christ who have yet to learn from their indwelt Holy Spirit. Paul is contrasting two levels of understanding, based on whether a person is a mature Christian, and he makes no distinction between what an unregenerate can understand and what an infant in Christ can understand.

And again, the merely human (1 Corinthians 3:4) refers to infants in Christ acting like unregenerates. The idea here is that they are still infants in Christ and have not spiritually matured. They are still in group one, only able to understand spiritual milk.

Final point, Paul spoke to them not as spiritually mature people, but as men of the flesh. This does not suggest in the slightest Paul spoke to them as infants in Christ who had been enabled spiritually. Not what it says.

This passage is devastating to Calvinism. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4.

 

[cygnusx1]

God chooses man. He unconditionally, not based upon anything a man can do which is good or evil, elects people to everlasting life. Its God’s job to save, and our job to praise Him for saving us. The Scriptures shows this doctrine emphatically: Malachi 1:2; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:1ff; Ephesians 1:3ff.

those that cannot accept this deny salvation by Grace.

 

[holdon]

He unconditionally, not based upon anything a man can do which is good or evil, elects people to everlasting life.

This is not supported by any Scripture at all. It is a twisted theological view.

Election and predestination are NOT to everlasting life. It's simply not found in Scripture at all.

 

[Van]

These scriptures, Malachi 1:2; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:1ff; Ephesians 1:3ff do not support the fiction of unconditional election. Both Esau and Jacob were chosen in the womb for a purpose but not unto salvation. Unconditional Election posits that God choose foreseen individuals before creation, not from the womb. Therefore Mal 1.2 provides no support, yet was listed? Why? Calvinist post long lists of verses with no concurrant justification or explanation of just how they supposedly support the position to create the appearance of support where none exists. Shall we go to the next verse?

Why not! Romans 8:29 says those He foreknew referring to those who were called according to His purpose, were predestined. Being called according to His purpose is conditional. Therefore this verse supports conditional election.

Shall we go on? Why not. Romans 9:1 has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And if the actual idea is Romans 9, well the who chapter supports conditional election during our physcial lifetime. God choose Esau and Jacob to fulfill His purpose, and God chose Pharaoh to His purpose, God chooses who to have mercy upon unto salvation according to His purpose. He chooses believers.

How about Ephesians 1:3, again the verse has nothing to do with the topic, and if the reference is to the passage, well the passage supports conditional election for verse 13 tells us that only after we believed in Christ were we sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Four out of four, either no support for unconditional election, or actual support for conditional election. And so it goes.

 

[savedbygrace57]

This is not supported by any Scripture at all. It is a twisted theological view. [/font]

Election and predestination are NOT to everlasting life. It's simply not found in Scripture at all.

You got to be kidding me , right ?

 

[Van]

Holdon is right to a degree, the predestination of believers only applies to those "in Christ" which means born again believers, and does not apply to those not yet "in Christ." Scripture says born again believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, and to an inheritance as a child of God, referring to our bodily resurrection at Christ's second coming. That's it folks.

 

[Jipsah]

The Calvinist simply repeat their false doctrines hoping no one will notice.

"False doctrines", in your vernacular, apparently meaning taking the Bible at what it says rather than what you think it ought to "mean". Yep, we keep repeating what you wish were "false doctrines", and hoping that everyone will notice.

1 Peter 2:9-10 says we live without mercy before we are chosen.

And Ephesians 1 says that WE were chosen before the foundation of the world, no matter how much you wish it didn't.

So we were not chosen individually before creation.

So you say. The Bible says we were. You lose.

Therefore "He chose us in Him" does not mean "He chose us as foreseen individuals before we lived without mercy."

Can't deal with what it actually says, can you?

 

[Jipsah]

Calvinist post a load of horse pucky, such as they believe in irresistible grace

Our Lord apparently believed in irresistible grace, since He said that of all that the Father sent Him He would lose none (not some, as you apparently believe) and that no one could pluck them from the Father's hand.

The inner call is a fiction

No one led by the Holy Spirit, huh? I guess you've didcarded that along with God's omniscience, huh?

 

[Jipsah]

NBF keeps pushing his doctrines of Open theism

You appear to be the only open theist, i.e. one who doesn't believe in the omniscience of God, here. NBF is most certainly not; and in fact no Calvinist can be. The positions are contradictory.

When God chooses us individually, he has mercy on us.

Obviously.

We are called by the gospel, an external call during our lives.

Yes, we know that's your opinion. But the Bible says that God called us from before the foundation of the world. So much for your opinion to the contrary.

 

[Jipsah]

Why is it that NBF denies that many scholars believe Augustine paved the way for the dark ages?

Are these more of your mythical scholars, Van? Cite some if you'd be so kind.

 

[Ormly]

Yes, we know that's your opinion. But the Bible says that God called us from before the foundation of the world.

Where does it say that in scripture?

 

[nill]

Van,

1 Corinthians 2:1-5: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

There is absolutely no doubt Paul is speaking of the gospel here, which he said was the "word of the cross" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Why would something like the gospel--Christ's free grace and redemption of sinners--be called folly by the unregenerate? Paul says why in Ephesians 4:17-18: "Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." So, their minds are futile, their understanding is darkened, their life is alienated from God, and their hearts are hardened.

Since you said the Holy Spirit's job is to provide revelation of the gospel of Christ, why doesn't the Holy Spirit also testify that what He is revealing is true? Obviously people don't believe it, but it's also obvious that they cannot see it. Not a very good job on the revealing of the Holy Spirit's part, don't you think? So what makes a person with a futile mind, darkened understanding, alienated life, and hardened heart accept the gospel as the truth of God and not as a folly, Van?

Because you don't believe that the Holy Spirit plays a personal role in bringing people to faith in Christ--i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit don't get a say in who is saved--you have no reason to account for Paul's conversion. Paul's conversion was a fluke, since, according to you, the Holy Spirit didn't even testify that anything Jesus was saying was true. The Holy Spirit just said, "Here's the gospel; take it or leave it." And then you leave it to the darkened, futile mind to suddenly switch on the lights and think that everything that was folly and damnable and wicked is now true and right and good (à la Saul of Tarsus, apparently).

You have got it so backwards.

Folks, look it up. Van is a fiction.