Romans 9

[Hammster]

Still doesn't answer the issue of why He says to. To "invite" a non-elect to believe the gospel is to invite them to believe a lie, since the gospel doesn't apply to them, according to your theology. So you are still dodging the question again. But I guess you have no option here.


Well, at least you are being honest. You don't know because Calvinistm doesn't have an answer as to why. But the Bible DOES have the answer as to why.

The reason there is a general call or invitation to everyone is because Christ died for everyone. That is the answer, but it doesn't come from Calvinism. It comes from the Bible.


We know from Paul in 1 Cor 15:3 that of "first importance" in preaching the gospel is that "Christ died for our sins". How is that NOT a lie when presenting the gospel to any of the so-called non-elect? You haven't answered that. I'm sure because you don't know the answer.

There is no straw man here. Only honest questions that Calvinism cannot answer. Paul's gospel was "Christ died for our sins".

Can you honestly say that giving the gospel message to those you consider the non-elect to be truthful?

Consider the passage in John 5:16-47. It begins with the Jew persecuting Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. In verses 38, 40 and 43, Jesus noted that they didn't believe Him, or come to Him for eternal life. Pretty clear they weren't going to believe either.

Yet, please note v.34:
“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved."

Why would Jesus say that to those who didn't believe in Him and weren't going to?

There is so much evidence from Scripture that anyone can be saved, yet Calvinism claims that only those Christ died for will be saved.

What is so difficult about accepting that Christ died for everyone, yet only believers will be saved? What verses do you have that refute these statements? Any?

So your premise is that if I don't have an answer that satisfies you, Calvinism must be false. Gotcha.

 

[Hammster]

Before I give you mine, you didn't properly deal with what I said, which was:

You didn't address HOW or WHY he even got IN the kingdom before he was thrown out.

Are you ignoring my question or do you not understand what I'm asking?

You do realize that this is just a parable, right? It didn't really happen? My answer is based on what I believe the parable addresses.

So what is your view?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Actually, my question is directly related to the theology of Calvinism. Which is why I asked it. I haven't made any pre-suppositions as to the Calvinist position regarding why God would give a general call to all people when He has already chosen those He wants. I sure don't see any reason or how it serves any purpose, but I'd love to know how Calvinists answer the question. Or if they will.

I answered the question in my last post, and so did Hammster.

How is the call to be extended if we don't know who they are? It creates a pragmatic problem (which is solved by the general call)

God is glorified whenever the gospel is proclaimed.

Also, we do not know who the elect are.

The fact that you don't accept our answers or have a problem with them doesn't give you the right to say that we aren't answering. We continually answer every post that you make, and often have to repeat ourselves.

Since it is the Calvinist position that the elect have been chosen from eternity past, how or why would it matter the method? They've already been chosen. Just hearing a few bars of "Just as I am" should to the trick, right?

Maybe you can take that up with God. The Scriptures are clear that the Gospel should be proclaimed amongst all people, as Christ told the Apostles to do in Mark 16:15, as well as the command to repent in Acts 17:30.

But your question sidesteps the issue of my question. WHY give a general call since God is omniscient and knows who He has chosen. WHY a general call that involves the non-elect? For what purpose? That is the issue.

Maybe you can ask that to God when He called the evil ones of Israel in Isaiah 65:12.

I will destine you to the sword,
and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter,
because, when I called, you did not answer;
when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes
and chose what I did not delight in.”

Here the call is used as a means of condemnation. And clearly the same thing could be said for those who reject Jesus Christ:

John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It doesn't matter if you know or not. God surely does know. It's not up to you to know. But WHY give a "general call" that isn't effectual.

You could certainly ask that question about a lot of things. Why did God bother with Israel all of those years when He knew they would reject His Messiah? But again, there are many plausible and Scriptural reasons that have already been proposed and yet you continue to ask the question as if somehow it is damaging to our claim. You can repeat things as many times as you wish; it does nothing to to the truth.

Which brings up a point. So far the discussion has been about a "general call" and an "effectual call". Does Calvinism claim that in the "general call" to all people there is this "effectual call" that only "hits" the elect?

Or, are there 2 different "calls", one 'general' and the other 'effectual'?

If there are 2 different calls, how are they different? Can anyone explain how to tell them apart?

If you don't know the answer to this, then again, why are you arguing against us? I bring this up often because it is clear you don't know WHAT you are arguing against, which is a necessary prerequisite.

The general call is an outward call to all people, elect and non-elect.

Romans 10:17-18 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [bless and do not curse]But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

The effectual call, while it may contain some part of an outward call by which one is drawn, is technically and inward calling synonymous with irresistible grace/regeneration which by necessity results in justification and glorification.

Romans 8:29-30 - For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

I see no pragmatic solution to having this "general call" to everyone, since not everyone has been chosen. In fact, because of this pre-choosing, there is no need whatsoever for a general call to all people.

If you wish to argue this point, you may as well take it to fruition and suggest that since God already knows who will choose Him, why didn't He just create them to not fall from the beginning? It is a silly argument; our beliefs are necessarily Scriptural, and the Scriptures teach two calls. I know you agree that there is a general call. The question is whether you believe in an effectual call. And I still maintain that Jude 1 clearly teaches an effectual call, and this has not been refuted. Janxharris has so far stated this about my argument:

I honestly don't know.

Which is fine; I don't claim to know everything either. But this is a very large hole which ought to be given proper consideration.

Why isn't there any alternative? God knows who He's chosen. Why does God provide a "general call" to those He never chose?

Already answered.

I believe the pragmatic problem is solved by ditching Calvinism and going with what the Bible says. God loves everyone, Christ died for everyone, providing eternal life for everyone, and God gives eternal life only to those who believe.

Christianity believes that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those for which His atonement was made, and is always living to make intercession for them. Do you believe that Christ is able to save to the uttermost, or will He fail?

Therefore, there is only 1 "call". It is an invitation to believe the good news that Christ died for your sins and provides eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.

Address κλητοῖς in Jude 1 and how that could possibly be the same call to unbelievers.

Where's the problem in that view? I see none. And I can back it up with Scripture.

Go for it.

 

[Jack Terrence]

God's grace has brought salvation to everyone.

But that doesn't imply that all men have salvation.

Your second statement contradicts your first statement. If God has brought salvation to everyone, then everyone has salvation. It's that simple. Like Hammster you are too comfortable with contradictions.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Your second statement contradicts your first statement. If God has brought salvation to everyone, then everyone has salvation. It's that simple. Like Hammster you are too comfortable with contradictions.

What do you make of Mark 16:15 and Acts 17:30 [regarding the general call to repent and believe]?

 

[Jack Terrence]

What do you make of Mark 16:15 and Acts 17:30 [regarding the general call to repent and believe]?

Those passages simply mean that the gospel is not exclusive to Jews only. God judicially blinds the minds and hardens the hearts of the non-elect (John 12:39-40). God would not call them after reprobating them. It is contradictory. If it is contradictory, then it must be wrong.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So your premise is that if I don't have an answer that satisfies you, Calvinism must be false. Gotcha.

No, not even close to that. You simply haven't provided an answer that addresses the question.

There is a very big difference between responding to a question with extraneous material and addressing the question with an answer specific to that question. You seem to prefer the former, and call that an "answer".

But at least we understand each other.

In fact, you admission that you did not know why to another question of mine reveals the false premise of Calvinism. Biblical theology does provide answers to questions. But you have admitted that you cannot answer some of my questions. (other questions were simply extraneous material)

I do find it curious that you don't seem to understand that your responses don't address my question.

 

[Hammster]

No, not even close to that. You simply haven't provided an answer that addresses the question.

There is a very big difference between responding to a question with extraneous material and addressing the question with an answer specific to that question. You seem to prefer the former, and call that an "answer".

But at least we understand each other.

My answer addressed the question. I think, however, you are trying to filter it through your theology. In that sense, it wouldn't make sense.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You do realize that this is just a parable, right? It didn't really happen?

Yes, it was a parable with meaning and a point. And parables don't "happen".

My answer is based on what I believe the parable addresses.

So what is your view?

Again, you sidestepped what I posted:

Before I give you mine, you didn't properly deal with what I said, which was:

You didn't address HOW or WHY he even got IN the kingdom before he was thrown out.

Are you ignoring my question or do you not understand what I'm asking?

When you address these questions, I will address your question. Just like I promised.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, it was a parable with meaning and a point. And parables don't "happen".


Again, you sidestepped what I posted:

When you address these questions, I will address your question. Just like I promised.

Then you have succeeded in avoiding answering. I've already addressed the questions. Your new "you didn't answer my question" tactics has grown old and stale. And it's quite obvious as to why it's employed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I answered the question in my last post, and so did Hammster.

There is a big difference between responding to a question with extraneous material and addressing the question specifically. Neither of you have addressed or answered that.

The fact that you don't accept our answers or have a problem with them doesn't give you the right to say that we aren't answering.

When you don't address the question, I have every right to say that you haven't answered.

We continually answer every post that you make, and often have to repeat ourselves.

You do respond, yes. But address the question specifically? No, you haven't.

Maybe you can take that up with God. The Scriptures are clear that the Gospel should be proclaimed amongst all people, as Christ told the Apostles to do in Mark 16:15, as well as the command to repent in Acts 17:30.

Maybe you missed the post where I gave hamster my answer to my own question. But you probably wouldn't like it either. How about reviewing it and telling me where I'm wrong, using Scripture to refute my answer? That should settle the matter rather easily.

Maybe you can ask that to God when He called the evil ones of Israel in Isaiah 65:12.

I will destine you to the sword,
and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter,
because, when I called, you did not answer;
when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes
and chose what I did not delight in.”

Here the call is used as a means of condemnation.

While this verse has no bearing on my question (extraneous material), it also doesn't help your cause at all. In fact, the verse demonstrates free will in action: that God invited (called) to those who would not answer. And because of that, He destines those who do not respond to the call to the slaughter.

You see, God holds each person accountable for their choices, as shown here.

And He never pre-selected certain ones unilaterally for salvation. He choses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21, a verse that seems to be either ignored or misunderstood by Calvinists.

Actually, this vere poses a very big problem for Calvinists.

And clearly the same thing could be said for those who reject Jesus Christ:

John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Yes, the same principle at work. Man is accountable and free. God invites everyone to believe the gospel, and destines the unbelievers to hell. Because of their choice, not His choice.

There are no verses that teach that God determines who will believe and who will not believe, yet Calvinism seems convinced of that. Why?

I asked this:

But WHY give a "general call" that isn't effectual.

And you responded with this extraneous material:

You could certainly ask that question about a lot of things. Why did God bother with Israel all of those years when He knew they would reject His Messiah?

This isn't an answer, nor close to an answer to my question.

But again, there are many plausible and Scriptural reasons that have already been proposed and yet you continue to ask the question as if somehow it is damaging to our claim.

In facrt, there have been no answers or reasons given from Calvinism that answer my question. None.

You can repeat things as many times as you wish; it does nothing to to the truth.

Actually, it reveals the truth: Calvinism cannot answer the question.

If you don't know the answer to this, then again, why are you arguing against us?

Here is my question:

Which brings up a point. So far the discussion has been about a "general call" and an "effectual call". Does Calvinism claim that in the "general call" to all people there is this "effectual call" that only "hits" the elect?

Or, are there 2 different "calls", one 'general' and the other 'effectual'?

If there are 2 different calls, how are they different? Can anyone explain how to tell them apart?

Of course I have an answer! I was looking for Calvinism's answer, which still hasn't been given. The answer is that there is only 1 call or invitation. And it is to everyone, because Christ died for everyone.

The idea of a general call and an effectual call is not found in Scripture.

I bring this up often because it is clear you don't know WHAT you are arguing against, which is a necessary prerequisite.

That's just laughable, seeing that you haven't answered my questions. Your responses are just extraneous material, irrelevant to my questions.

The general call is an outward call to all people, elect and non-elect.

Please answer me WHY there is a "general" or "outward" call to the non-elect.

WHY are the non-elect (according to your theology) called in the first place? That's what I'm trying to figure out because you aren't clear as to WHY.

Romans 10:17-18 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [bless and do not curse]But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

The effectual call, while it may contain some part of an outward call by which one is drawn, is technically and inward calling synonymous with irresistible grace/regeneration which by necessity results in justification and glorification.

All of this is just more reformed talking points. You haven't proven your claims with Scripture, and Rom 10:18-18 doesn't help you at all. It actually supports my theology, in that no one has an excuse for rejecting the invitation.

Romans 8:29-30 - For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This passage is just more extraneous material and doesn't answer my question.

I said this:

I see no pragmatic solution to having this "general call" to everyone, since not everyone has been chosen. In fact, because of this pre-choosing, there is no need whatsoever for a general call to all people.

If you wish to argue this point, you may as well take it to fruition and suggest that since God already knows who will choose Him, why didn't He just create them to not fall from the beginning? It is a silly argument

Yes, this is a very silly argument and not one that I would propose. And your response here continues to dodge the issue of my question.

our beliefs are necessarily Scriptural, and the Scriptures teach two calls.

I've not seen any evidence from any of you regarding that. Your claim needs to be backed up with Scripture. Since you think there is Scripture on 2 calls, what are they?

I know you agree that there is a general call. The question is whether you believe in an effectual call.

No, there isn't. There is only 1 call; to humanity. Those who respond are saved and those who don't are condemned. And I have Scripture to back up that claim.

And I still maintain that Jude 1 clearly teaches an effectual call, and this has not been refuted.

OK, you are free to maintain whatever you like. It is simply a statement by Jude regarding those he was addressing; believers who have been called. There isn't anything in the Bible about what you view a an "effectual call".

There is 1 call. Some respond and some reject. It's really that simple.

Janxharris has so far stated this about my argument: "I honestly don't know".
Which is fine; I don't claim to know everything either. But this is a very large hole which ought to be given proper consideration.

Of course no one knows everything. But I've given you my answer to my question. Can you refute my answer to my question from Scripture?

Already answered.

No, no one answered WHY God provides a general call to those He never chose. That issue has NOT been addressed by Calvinists. I see either extraneous material or irrelevant questions, all of which do NOT address the question.

Christianity believes that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those for which His atonement was made, and is always living to make intercession for them. Do you believe that Christ is able to save to the uttermost, or will He fail?

Of course Christ didn't fail. But we don't have the same meaning for the words we use. You erroneously think that Christ died only for some, and therefore, they are saved. What Scripture teaches that? None do.

I believe that Christ died for everyone, and God saves anyone who believes. And Scripture actually says that.

Address κλητοῖς in Jude 1 and how that could possibly be the same call to unbelievers.[/QUOTE]
A "call is simply an invitation. And men are free to respond to or reject that invitation. Why don't you believe that?

 

[Jack Terrence]

FG2,

How can you continue to misrepresent scripture after the thread I started today?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your second statement contradicts your first statement.

Well, let's look at them:

God's grace has brought salvation to everyone.

But that doesn't imply that all men have salvation.

Where is the contradiction? Oh, I see. You think that "brings" means to actually obtain, huh. Well, it doesn't. That's where you misunderstand my statements and Scripture.

God's grace brings the free gift of salvation to all men. That is the same as the general invitation or call to all. That doesn't mean that anyone gets it just because the gift has been brought to man. Man must receive the gift. Jn 1:12, 1 Tim 1:16, Gal 3:26. One "receives" when one "believes". The 2 terms go together. When one believes, they receive. And one receives when they believe. If I'm wrong about that, please proceed to refute it.

If God has brought salvation to everyone, then everyone has salvation. It's that simple.

I just refuted that idea.

Like Hammster you are too comfortable with contradictions.

Nonsense. My view doesn't have any contradictions. If there are any, please very specifically lay them out for me.

When I'm accused of being contradictory, the problem thus far has been because the accuser has failed to properly understand my view. Of course there will be "contradictions" when someone fails to understand my view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My answer addressed the question. I think, however, you are trying to filter it through your theology. In that sense, it wouldn't make sense.

No, you haven't addressed my question. It was just a response, not an answer.

If you are referring to where you admitted, "I don't know", then, yes, that was an answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then you have succeeded in avoiding answering.

This is most amazing! This is what I said to you:

When you address these questions, I will address your question. Just like I promised.

How have I failed to answer when I TOLD you I would answer AFTER you answered my question? I haven't failed. You failed. Repeatedly.

I've already addressed the questions.

Dodged. Sidestepped. Ignored.

Your new "you didn't answer my question" tactics has grown old and stale.

In fact, what has grown quite old and stale is your tactic of dodging, sidestepping and ignoring of questions.

And it's quite obvious as to why it's employed.

I do know why you emply them. You can't answer them, is why.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2,

How can you continue to misrepresent scripture after the thread I started today?

You're going to have to be a little more specific if you really want an answer from me.

 

[Hammster]

This is most amazing! This is what I said to you:

How have I failed to answer when I TOLD you I would answer AFTER you answered my question? I haven't failed. You failed. Repeatedly.


Dodged. Sidestepped. Ignored.


In fact, what has grown quite old and stale is your tactic of dodging, sidestepping and ignoring of questions.


I do know why you emply them. You can't answer them, is why.

Okay. "I don't know" is my answer. Now, fulfill your promise.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Those passages simply mean that the gospel is not exclusive to Jews only. God judicially blinds the minds and hardens the hearts of the non-elect (John 12:39-40). God would not call them after reprobating them. It is contradictory. If it is contradictory, then it must be wrong.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mark 16:15-16 is entirely against what you are teaching. v15 says to preach to all of creation, and immediately following in v16 are the outcomes of preaching to 1) the elect and 2) the non elect. One category of people will believe, one category of people will not.

Explain where my interpretation is wrong, and please, include v16 in your interpretation.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

There is a big difference between responding to a question with extraneous material and addressing the question specifically. Neither of you have addressed or answered that.


When you don't address the question, I have every right to say that you haven't answered.


You do respond, yes. But address the question specifically? No, you haven't.


Maybe you missed the post where I gave hamster my answer to my own question. But you probably wouldn't like it either. How about reviewing it and telling me where I'm wrong, using Scripture to refute my answer? That should settle the matter rather easily.


While this verse has no bearing on my question (extraneous material), it also doesn't help your cause at all. In fact, the verse demonstrates free will in action: that God invited (called) to those who would not answer. And because of that, He destines those who do not respond to the call to the slaughter.

You see, God holds each person accountable for their choices, as shown here.

And He never pre-selected certain ones unilaterally for salvation. He choses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21, a verse that seems to be either ignored or misunderstood by Calvinists.

Actually, this vere poses a very big problem for Calvinists.


Yes, the same principle at work. Man is accountable and free. God invites everyone to believe the gospel, and destines the unbelievers to hell. Because of their choice, not His choice.

There are no verses that teach that God determines who will believe and who will not believe, yet Calvinism seems convinced of that. Why?

I asked this:

And you responded with this extraneous material:

This isn't an answer, nor close to an answer to my question.


In facrt, there have been no answers or reasons given from Calvinism that answer my question. None.


Actually, it reveals the truth: Calvinism cannot answer the question.


Here is my question:

Of course I have an answer! I was looking for Calvinism's answer, which still hasn't been given. The answer is that there is only 1 call or invitation. And it is to everyone, because Christ died for everyone.

The idea of a general call and an effectual call is not found in Scripture.


That's just laughable, seeing that you haven't answered my questions. Your responses are just extraneous material, irrelevant to my questions.


Please answer me WHY there is a "general" or "outward" call to the non-elect.

WHY are the non-elect (according to your theology) called in the first place? That's what I'm trying to figure out because you aren't clear as to WHY.


All of this is just more reformed talking points. You haven't proven your claims with Scripture, and Rom 10:18-18 doesn't help you at all. It actually supports my theology, in that no one has an excuse for rejecting the invitation.


This passage is just more extraneous material and doesn't answer my question.

I said this:

Yes, this is a very silly argument and not one that I would propose. And your response here continues to dodge the issue of my question.


I've not seen any evidence from any of you regarding that. Your claim needs to be backed up with Scripture. Since you think there is Scripture on 2 calls, what are they?


No, there isn't. There is only 1 call; to humanity. Those who respond are saved and those who don't are condemned. And I have Scripture to back up that claim.


OK, you are free to maintain whatever you like. It is simply a statement by Jude regarding those he was addressing; believers who have been called. There isn't anything in the Bible about what you view a an "effectual call".

There is 1 call. Some respond and some reject. It's really that simple.


Of course no one knows everything. But I've given you my answer to my question. Can you refute my answer to my question from Scripture?


No, no one answered WHY God provides a general call to those He never chose. That issue has NOT been addressed by Calvinists. I see either extraneous material or irrelevant questions, all of which do NOT address the question.


Of course Christ didn't fail. But we don't have the same meaning for the words we use. You erroneously think that Christ died only for some, and therefore, they are saved. What Scripture teaches that? None do.

I believe that Christ died for everyone, and God saves anyone who believes. And Scripture actually says that.

A "call is simply an invitation. And men are free to respond to or reject that invitation. Why don't you believe that?

I have already refuted everything you have said. You simply don't accept it. I have no desire to go in circles with you; my prior post still stands as my answer to you, and anyone onlooking can go there to see my refutation of your objections against the Reformed view of calling.

I care not to have the last word... Your post can be considered the final word in our exchange here.

 

[sdowney717]

Mark 16:15-16 is entirely against what you are teaching. v15 says to preach to all of creation, and immediately following in v16 are the outcomes of preaching to 1) the elect and 2) the non elect. One category of people will believe, one category of people will not.

Explain where my interpretation is wrong, and please, include v16 in your interpretation.

Just adding an affirmation.
Their voice has gone out to all the earth, but the message is not believed if they are not elect. They do not respond if they hear, what they hear seems strange, wrong, evil even so being naturally minded, they do not receive the truth, they are disobedient. God says they are accountable, he says they are disobedient even if they are not elect.

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,[c]

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”[d]
8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”[e]
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Which is why scripture asks a question as in 'who has believed our report?' And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed.

When scripture says faith comes by hearing the message and that hearing is authorized by God that means those who are elect called chosen will be the ones who hear God speak to them. Which Jesus also says those who are of God hear what God speaks, and you do not hear because you are not of God.

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,[h]
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”[j] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”[k]

John 8

45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

That word hear also carries the idea of a response from a person if they are of God they hear what God says and respond to it, the calling being effectual, as in hear ==listen==obey what Jesus says.