Please see the last post on the series, “Doctrine of Salvation,” Christ’s Atonement
Divine calling/Gospel call can be defined as the call that invites and draws the unsaved person to Christ for salvation. The definition may not be straight forward, as it seems because there are particulars that needs to be considered. For example, what are the different callings of God? Is the Gospel message effective that people hear, read, and see, effective? In order to tackle that, we need to understand that there is general call and irresistible/effectual call. Is a calling necessary and can the calling be resisted? Next talking point will be the historical views. But before we get into it, I will try to define and describe the terms that are critical to our understanding of Divine calling.
The first term to cover is effective/effectual calling. Effective calling can be defined as the act of God the Father that operates in the context of the Gospel proclamation in which He calls people to Himself for salvation. Effective calling is referred to as internal calling. The Gospel call is offered to all people—even to those who do not desire the Gospel. Sometimes, the Gospel call is referred to as external calling or general calling. Since the Gospel call is the vehicle used in Gospel proclamation and is intended to be preached to all, it can operate as an effective call or general call to the sinner. In order to get more clarity, it will be beneficial to see the elements involved.
The elements of the Gospel call, which invites sinners to embrace the message, involves the explanation of the facts concerning salvation. The facts concerning salvation indicates that all of mankind have sinned (Rom. 3:23), the penalty of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty of sin (Rom. 5:8). Another element is the invitation to respond to Christ via repentance and faith (Matt. 11:28-30; Matt. 11:28; John 1:11-12); and thirdly a promise of forgiveness and eternal life (John 3:16; Acts 3:19; cf. 2:38; John 6:37). Let’s now move into the historical views.
As for the general call, Pelagians and Liberals believe that the call can be responded to without divine assistance. In other words, humans can respond with their own strength. This humanistic thinking is a result in a denial of original sin, denial of total depravity, and a belief in the universal fatherhood of God upon everyone.
As for Lutherans, they believe that the special ability to hear the Gospel maybe resisted. Also the universal call to salvation in their mind, brings some measure of illumination that reveals that sinners need Christ and are provided some measure to respond to the Gospel message. However, they do believe that sinners may resist God’s grace. In their perspective concerning external calling and internal calling, they do not believe that there is a Calvinistic distinction.
When it comes to the Arminians, they believe that all are able to respond to the general call. They believe that there is a single, general call of God to the sinner for salvation. They believe that the emphasis on the general call and inner effectual call from Calvinism is not warranted. As a result, general call and effectual/inner call should not be distinguished from their perspective. Arminians also believe that since prevenient grace neutralizes the effects of Adam’s sin, all people are able to respond to God’s universal call to salvation. They also believe that those who respond to God’s general call are the elect and the called. Moreover, since prevenient grace neutralizes the effects of sin that came from Adam, sinners are able to respond positively to God’s Gospel call. Also, the Spirit’s work in calling people to faith is resistible.
As for the Reformers, the general call (which happens in the Gospel proclamation) can be resisted, but the special call cannot be resisted (Romans 8:29-30). This camp believes that because of sin and total depravity, a person does not have the ability in his own strength to believe God for salvation. Man cannot respond to God on His own because of total depravity (Ephesians 2:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:14). Man’s mind is marred by sin and can never respond to spiritual things. As a result, a sinner needs the Holy Spirit to intervene (John 3:8; Titus 3:5). As stated earlier, general call is for all to hear, but the response to the general call depends upon the gracious power of God’s Spirit. If he chooses to work upon an individual, then the person will respond. Once they respond, then it becomes a special call or effective call. Another important area to cover is the language of calling.
In the Old Testament, the verb qara and the root-related words occur 689 times and means, “to call out” or “invite.” And in the New Testament, the term kaleo, which means, “to call,” is a term that is used 148 times. When Apostle Paul uses the words kaleo (29 times), klesis (8 times) and kletos (7 times), it is almost always used with the sense of divine calling. Apostle Paul understands that the calling is the process by which God calls those who are elected before the foundation of the world. And He does that for the elect in order to justify them and sanctify them. On another note, in the NT Epistles and Revelation, the word kaleo is a particular word and related word that becomes a technical term used in conjunction of drawing sinners to Christ through His powerful Word and Spirit. Moreover, the effectual drawing that happens in the context of the Gospel call/general call, brings sinners to faith. For that example, please see Matt. 22:9; Acts 2:39 (proskaleomai); Rom. 8:30; 9:11; 1 Cor. 1:9, 26; 7:20; Gal. 1:6, 15; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 3:1; 9:15; 1 Pet 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 1; Rev. 17:14; 19:9. In each of those verses, those whom God called, inevitably came to saving faith in Christ because those whom God elected will come to salvation (Ephesians 1:3-4) I will now move into the OT and NT understanding of the external call of God.
The general call, which is also referred as the Gospel call because of its general invitation, takes place whenever the Gospel or the Word of God is preached. It is used in the OT (Isa. 45:22; Isa. 65:2; Jer. 7:13) and in the NT (Matt. 11:28; Luke 5:32; Luke 13:34; Rev. 22:17). It must also be remembered that the Gospel call is not a sham or deception. Anyone who responds will be saved. And when people do not respond, it is not God’s fault, but it is the fault of the person who desires a lifestyle of rebellion. Scripture indicates that the fault of the person not being saved lies not with God, but with the spiritual impotence of the depraved person. God does not force people to sin or make them sin. God is holy and perfect. For example, they do not respond because some hardened their hearts (Exod. 7:13; 8:15, 19, 32);“there is no one who understands” (Rom. 3:11); and things that come from God are foolishness to the unbeliever (1 Cor. 2:14). In order for them to respond, they need their eyes open by the sovereign Holy Spirit.
As for the Bible’s description of effective calling that happens in the Gospel proclamation, there are many verses that gives great insights, but we will only cover a few. For example to be called by God means to be delivered from “darkness and into His marvelous light.” To be called by God, means to “enter into His own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:12; Acts 2:39). To be called by God means one “belongs to Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:6), a “saint” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2), “citizen of the realm of peace.” To be called by God means that one has “freedom” (Gal. 5:13), “hope” (Eph. 1:18; 4:4), “holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7), “eternal life” (1 Tim. 6:12), etc. [1]
[1]Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 692-693.
Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.
Thanks Truth2Freedom.
“As for the general call, Pelagians and Liberals believe that the call can be responded to without divine assistance.”
Or is it rather that they believe God gave everyone the ability to respond if they so choose a long time back. The only real difference I see between Arminianism and Pelagianism on this point is that prevenient grace in the Arminian system is granted to everyone in there here and now, whereas in Pelagianism prevenient grace was granted to the whole world immediately after the fall. But in a way both require prevenient grace. As Calvinism also requires it but stingily reserves it for the elect alone and thus makes God an immoral monster who damns people without even giving them a chance.
Also, from an escalotogical view that takes into account the fact that Paul thought the second coming was going to happen in his lifetime and wrote and preached accordingly, the elect means nothing but those believers who will “be alive and remain” at his coming, It means only the escalotogical generation. Paul, of course, turned out to be wrong about when the second coming was going to take place, and the expectation had to be pushed into the super-distant future by the later generations of the church; there is no reason why the corresponding notion of the elect should not be dropped as another mistake from Paul’s mistaken escalotogical views.
“there is no reason why the corresponding notion of the elect should not be dropped as another mistake from Paul’s mistaken escalotogical views.”
What other mistakes do you believe that Paul made? I think your bibliology might be very telling for where you land concerning soteriology.
Descriptivegrace, as SLIMJIM said, we would want to know what are the other mistakes you see Paul making. Are there any other mistakes?
Do you not agree that Paul thought the second coming was going to take place in his lifetime? I thought everyone acknowledged this! Wow, I found a few fundamentalist who are so far off into their fundamentalism they can’t even acknowledge this despite every other fundie on earth acknowledging it.
I guess I just found a guy name descriptive grace who has to resort to ad hominem fallacy and red herring when asked a question.
Good analysis, SLIMJIM. Too much ad hominem and red herring fallacies going on these days. It is such a waste of time to dialogue with someone who does not want to engage in a respectful manner.
Yeah, I agree with you EvangelZ, and it didn’t have to go south.
Its a much bigger waste of time to try and reason with anyone so fossilized in traditional errors as to not acknowledge that Paul taught the second coming was going to happen in his own time.
Hey,
I think you need to watch your manners. All I did was asked you a question, “What other mistakes do you believe that Paul made?” and state “I think your bibliology might be very telling for where you land concerning soteriology.” Anyone can engage in name calling and mean rhethoric. If you want to call me a fundie with the description of “fossilized” and “traditional” and imply that I’m a fool, hey, be my guest. I’m willing to be blasted as a fool for Jesus (1 Corinthians 1). If you feel you have to let me know that you are smarter (which really shouldn’t be the issue), feel free to feel that way but what little I know include knowing that mere assertions is different than proving a claim. I hope you think about what I have to say tonight. Good night.
Well, at least you guys are in good company…lol
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5450
What an honor…although James White gets more batch of them than we do!
Descriptivegrace,
I hope you understand that we are not the typical blog that engages in name calling. We are serious about truth and serious about ministering to the Church. If you can’t dialogue in a respectful manner but rather prefer name calling, then this is not the place to debate. I hope your conscience is convicted by the Holy Spirit. Have a good night.
Better said than how I said it. Amen.
I would to God that you were a fool for Jesus. But as it stands, its Paul not Jesus that you are a fool for.
What??
If you want to continue commenting can you be constructive and begin by answering the question I had?
[…] an example of an ad hominem fallacy? I will use an example from a recent exchange on our blog with a guy name “Descriptive Grace” at the comment section of EvangelZ’s post on G…. (You can go over there and read the short back and forth if you […]
Reblogged this on True Forms.
[…] Please see the last post on the series, “Doctrine of Salvation,” The Gospel/General Call and Effective Calling […]
I wish study Theology online through my e-mail address with Theologians online by my e-mail address .
I would love study Theology online through my e-mail address.
This is my e-mail address
alidzayi3@gmail.com
Salvation is so rich