Can God save whom He wants?

[heymikey80]

Romans 8:30 is not a stand alone verse. Rom 8:30 is to be understood taking Matt 22:14 into account – “Many are called, but few are chosen”. We know that the chosen in Matt 22:14 are those predestined in Rom 8:30. I don’t think any Calvinist would deny this. Since we know they are both the same, we will refer to them as the Chosen/Predestined, or C/P for short.

To override a clear statement with a conclusion from a parable interpretation is not a strong exegesis, and risky in the best situations.

Parables are not allegories. We aren't forcing each player to act exactly like their allegorical counterpart.

There are readily other ways Jesus could've meant the parable than to explain predestination the way you want it. The parable could simply be referring to the comparison of Jewish Pharisees' reaction to the Gospel, with Samaritans, or Jewish outcasts, or ruffians on the highways that Jesus encountered. The transaction is soteriological, and that's what we're discussing. But the application could be centered around groups of people that Jesus is characterizing. The individuals here are typical of groups, those rejecting Christ, those who come in and are unworthy, and those who arrive without what's necessary.

Were this an allegory, the elephant in the room would be the king referring to those who were "worthy". They wouldn't be. And those unwilling to respond to the courteous call -- you note, they're later prevented from coming to the feast even on second thought. Again, another problem interpreting this as allegorical.

Those "called" are noted throughout the parable. So we're talking about an overarching group of calls when Jesus says "many are called [ones]". We're talking about the courteous invitations of the king; we're talking about the unworthy being summoned in; we're talking about the king moving on to outlaws, disabled people to meet His wish for a full response. Lots of calls.

The conclusion statement about called people and chosen people, Jesus is indeed explaining a distinction between those called and chosen, sure. But as you've said, we'd need to examine just who is in what group. Where is the reduction to "the chosen"? It's there.

Who's chosen? The people who have come, who have responded to the calls properly. This isn't the cause of their chosenness. There's no allegorical demand. It's simply to show the point: those chosen are reduced. Again, as an allegory, the guy arriving as an outlaw or a poor man or in work clothes and not prepared for the king's feast -- he's outta there. That'd be problematic. The theology says "Come as you are".

While the parable demands a better reading to cover Jesus' explicit theme, predestination is Paul's explicit subject in Romans 8. It's simply there, making the assertions. There's no allegory to tackle, no parabolic meaning to limit ourselves to. Paul's making statements.

Those He called, He justified. Those He justified He glorified.
​

When there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. The unity of the Scriptural message has to be understood by clear places; less clear places are explained by more clear.

Majoring on the majors, Romans 8:30 should be qualifying the parable if both are to be consistent with one another. The parable is the one with more limited application, being an illustration. Romans is an out & out statement of fact.

In Matt 22:14 the C/P are found among the many, and in Matt 22:14 the call did not go out to the C/P, it went out to the many. It was a single call that went out to the many. Calvinist tends to take this one single call and divide it into two calls to make it fit their Calvinist dogma. But nowhere in scripture is this division found. In scripture there is only one single call as Matt 22:14 clearly shows.

As Luke 14 shows, these were people compelled to come. Those found were compelled in the second call.

In Rom 8:30, Paul is describing this one single call from the perspective of the C/P. He does not have the many in view here. He is simply showing how the one single call affects the C/P. For the C/P it results in glory, but for the many it results in rejection; one single call, two different responses.

In Rom 8:30, Paul is describing the call from the perspective of those who are the Chosen/Predestined; those Chosen/Predestined are called, justified and glorified. But Paul’s description here in no way denies the fact that this same call went out to the many. It was from among the many that were called that the Chosen/Predestined emerged to be justified and glorified.

Isolated, you might be able to make that assertion. But Paul starts off with this address:

we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom 1:5-7
​

Paul is using the term "call" with special distinctive reference. He's not talking about everyone at Rome being called. Yet he's addressed his letter to "the called of Jesus ... called as saints". And opening addresses can't assume the question of chosen/predestined.

This essentially goes to the point again that "the call" is simply a more versatile term than some limited soteriological terminology would have it to be. In Greek thinking of course there would be a particular kind of call to the elect, an effective call, a productive call, as intended. The name wouldn't force any particular theology in Greek -- it'd only defy the narrowness of the use of the word. So its purely the soteriological implications of other contexts and words that makes it so significant in Calvinism. But there's no way to limit this language to prevent the possibility of another "call". And it's expressed so well in Paul that it's really not an issue.

What that other call is is very heavily developed in Calvinism. The language of "call" may open the door for this, but it certainly doesn't carry the whole weight of systematic theology on its shoulders. There are other reasons why Calvinists think a particular call is connected with natural men rejecting God; with God changing hearts; with God turning the will of people; with God's new creation of the spiritual person. But to reject all that on the basis that there can be only one call, is like herding cats. It isn't going to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

 

[beloved57]

Romans 8:30 is not a stand alone verse. Rom 8:30 is to be understood taking Matt 22:14 into account – “Many are called, but few are chosen”.

The many who were called was Israel [nationally] this was a mixed group of the saved and unsaved in that nation..stephen speaks of the church [called out ones] in the wilderness: acts 7:

This is he, that was in the church [called] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

However, as paul specified, all of that church [called out assembly] were not chosen Israel of God rom 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel[chosen], which are of Israel [called nationally]:

Thats the proper understanding of matt 22 14...God has only one chosen people to salvation, the rest have been chosen for perdition..

 

[cygnusx1]

There are no two calls. The idea of there being two calls is promoted by Calvinists .........

so you are a universalist , believing all who are "called" are justified predestined foreknown and glorified!

 

[heymikey80]

so you are a universalist , believing all who are "called" are justified predestined foreknown and glorified!

I think his idea is that each item in the Golden Chain is qualified by the context of those chosen/elect. So he's not a universalist re. salvation. Then the reading of Rom 8:30 might go:

Those [chosen] He predestined He also called, and those [chosen] He called He also justified, and those [chosen] He justified He also glorified.
​

Again, this wouldn't be a killer to the effective call, either. We already know that the call has specific reference to the elect, and this ... swallows that point, whole. The chosen will respond. The call is effective on the chosen.

Maybe we're getting into subtleties about there being a distinction, versus an overlap with external event of the General Call. I think the event of the General Call is what most believers answer to. The problem is, that response isn't just the natural outworking of human will. There's something else happening. We consider that "something else" to also be a summons, but one that's internal and has an effect -- hence it's a distinct call.

Romans 8:30 would continue to say that now, under doveaman's view.

But I think doveaman's postings are viewing that distinction as a separation. And to my knowledge, I don't think that's the point of the Internal or Effective Call. It's something more than the General Call. It's certainly not always something exclusive of the General Call.

 

[CmRoddy]

I think his idea is that each item in the Golden Chain is qualified by the context of those chosen/elect. So he's not a universalist re. salvation. Then the reading of Rom 8:30 might go:

Those [chosen] He predestined He also called, and those [chosen] He called He also justified, and those [chosen] He justified He also glorified.
​

Again, this wouldn't be a killer to the effective call, either. We already know that the call has specific reference to the elect, and this ... swallows that point, whole. The chosen will respond. The call is effective on the chosen.

Maybe we're getting into subtleties about there being a distinction, versus an overlap with external event of the General Call. I think the event of the General Call is what most believers answer to. The problem is, that response isn't just the natural outworking of human will. There's something else happening. We consider that "something else" to also be a summons, but one that's internal and has an effect -- hence it's a distinct call.

Romans 8:30 would continue to say that now, under doveaman's view.

But I think doveaman's postings are viewing that distinction as a separation. And to my knowledge, I don't think that's the point of the Internal or Effective Call. It's something more than the General Call. It's certainly not always something exclusive of the General Call.

I can see his point, but this can only stand if foreseen faith is the means by which God predestines. But we all know that "foreknown" in v. 29 does not mean that God used foreseen faith as conditions/qualifications for choosing. Doveaman has to add a human action into the passage in order to escape the implications, but there is no such human action anywhere in Romans 8:29-30. That makes his argument moot.

 

[Rightglory]

CmRoddy,

I can see his point, but this can only stand if foreseen faith is the means by which God predestines. But we all know that "foreknown" in v. 29 does not mean that God used foreseen faith as conditions/qualifications for choosing. Doveaman has to add a human action into the passage in order to escape the implications, but there is no such human action anywhere in Romans 8:29-30. That makes his argument moot.

This is the problem with Calvinist's theology. You try to interpret a verse to the exclusion of the rest of scripture. Verses are not isolated pieces of dogma.

This section of Romans Paul is speaking exclusively to believers. The whole chapter is about encouragement.
Paul does not have in mind here how a believer got into Christ though that is alluded to in the previous verse,"those that love Him" and he is not addressing unfaithful believers or the possibility that many will not endure.

Since all men are called by God to repentance and to believe, it is quite obvious that those who do believe were called. Those that believed are in Christ since we are justified by faith, entrance INTO Christ. If one is IN Christ then they shall also be glorified.

Nothing complex if one follows scripture and not Calvinism.

 

[CmRoddy]

CmRoddy,



This is the problem with Calvinist's theology. You try to interpret a verse to the exclusion of the rest of scripture. Verses are not isolated pieces of dogma.

This section of Romans Paul is speaking exclusively to believers. The whole chapter is about encouragement.
Paul does not have in mind here how a believer got into Christ though that is alluded to in the previous verse,"those that love Him" and he is not addressing unfaithful believers or the possibility that many will not endure.

Since all men are called by God to repentance and to believe, it is quite obvious that those who do believe were called. Those that believed are in Christ since we are justified by faith, entrance INTO Christ. If one is IN Christ then they shall also be glorified.

Nothing complex if one follows scripture and not Calvinism.

Umm... please show me, in this passage, where there is any action of man that determines their predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

 

[Rightglory]

CmRoddy,

Umm... please show me, in this passage, where there is any action of man that determines their predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

First, man has nothing to do with predestination. But man does have a choice in loving God. This is what verse 28 is stating. Loving God has nothing to do with predestination either. The whole purpose of Christ saving mankind, was to enable the purpose of man's creation, which was to be freely in communion with Him. Therefore God calls all men to repentance. Those that believe, (love) God, accept His call, thus in accepting they are justified, and those so justified will be glorified.

The predestination that God planned was that those that believed, who He foreknew would be the elect, would be made holy, blameless, and conformed to His Image. All works of God upon man, but ONLY if man desires, ONLY if man remains, Only if man endures with God. God cannot work without man's cooperation. It was that way in the beginning with Adam and has not changed. God's purpsoe has never changed regarding His creation, especially man.

 

[CmRoddy]

First, man has nothing to do with predestination. But man does have a choice in loving God. This is what verse 28 is stating. Loving God has nothing to do with predestination either. The whole purpose of Christ saving mankind, was to enable the purpose of man's creation, which was to be freely in communion with Him. Therefore God calls all men to repentance. Those that believe, (love) God, accept His call, thus in accepting they are justified, and those so justified will be glorified.

Umm... your first two sentences contradict each other. Man has nothing to do with predestination but then man has a choice in loving God? Are you saying that someone can be predestined but still not love God? Are you saying that someone can love God without being predestined onto salvation? Can someone be saved without being predestined? This entire paragraph makes no sense at all.

The predestination that God planned was that those that believed, who He foreknew would be the elect, would be made holy, blameless, and conformed to His Image. All works of God upon man, but ONLY if man desires, ONLY if man remains, Only if man endures with God. God cannot work without man's cooperation. It was that way in the beginning with Adam and has not changed. God's purpsoe has never changed regarding His creation, especially man.

Ah, the false belief that God uses foreseen faith in order to elect His people. You do realize that not a single Biblical passage supports this claim, right?

"God cannot work without man's cooperation"!!??!? Seriously?? Are you honestly going to make the Necessary dependent on the contingent creation?

Have you read Eph. 1:1-12? There is no indication anywhere in that passage about God depending on what man will do. It is all about what His purposes are that He created within Himself.

Please, don't tell me I have a wrong view of Scripture when you believe this kind of stuff. Show me one passage that teaches God uses foreseen faith to determine whom He will choose and I will show you where you are wrong.

 

[CmRoddy]

Amazing how your first paragraph completely contradicts the second. You say that man has nothing to do with predestination but then you turn around and say that God cannot work without the cooperation of man...

 

[heymikey80]

I can see his point, but this can only stand if foreseen faith is the means by which God predestines. But we all know that "foreknown" in v. 29 does not mean that God used foreseen faith as conditions/qualifications for choosing. Doveaman has to add a human action into the passage in order to escape the implications, but there is no such human action anywhere in Romans 8:29-30. That makes his argument moot.

Um, turning this back to doveaman, I'd also wonder -- if this were reliant on what someone would do or not do -- whether this whole chapter would be subverted. Paul's talking about how secure we really are, that "neither life nor death ... can separate us from the love in Christ Jesus."

How's it if our continued life could separate us from the love that is in Christ Jesus? Are we accepting Perseverance shall occur for all, regardless?

It bothers me because the logic that Paul seems to me to be using, doesn't apply. But I'd be interested in what logic would apply to make this exposition significant for forseen faith. Granted of course, that there are already two consistency arguments against this interpretation, I've always been interested in what the passage actually concludes, to those who read it in this way. Those I know either embrace perseverance of the saints and thus initial faith bringing perseverance, or don't have a strong meaning for the second half of Romans beyond, "Gee God loves you alot [but only if you keep trusting Him]." I've heard all these influences bear on Presbyterians as well -- a theology isn't immune to these issues, I'm certainly not, it takes a lot of focus to push them back and read Scripture for what it's saying.