A. If you believe Paul was setting up a "
stark textual contrast"between
TWO SEPARATE KINDS OF CALLS,
one which is outward and human and the other which is
inward and divine. Please cite the verses where Paul does makes this point?
Chapter 7 is about the inadequacy of the law to produce life in us. After struggling with and failing to do what he knew he
SHOULD do the Paul finally came to the conclusion (at the end of that chapter 7) that HE
could not deliver himself but needed
Christ to deliver Him.
B.
Chapter 8 begins with how his experience
radically changed once he had became a believer in Jesus. The very first change we see is that he was "
set free from the law of sin and death." This began his new way of life
walking in the Spirit, which he describes throughout
chapter 8
C. Do you see anywhere in this passage where Paul explains your "
TWO CALLS" hypothesis which you insist is the very point of these chapters? The sequence of God's redemptive plan outlined in Romans 8
BEGINS with a person
already IN CHRIST.
D Paul introduces the chapter saying There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life IN CHRIST JESUS has set us free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2)
What follows is a description of what it is like to
walk in the Spirit which explains why the term Spirit is mentioned in almost every verse.
So far, you have not shown yourself to be a
text-critical workman. Your points are not grounded in the written text but have been imported from
extra-Biblical sources like Calvin and Luther. Now you are so blinded by
confirmation bias that you can no longer read the scriptures any other way.
You have attempted to recycle your previous arguments, but repetition does not cure your textual blind spots. You ask me to show you the "two calls" in the text, and then you immediately turn to John 15 to claim that salvation is a conditional tightrope where the elect can be cast into hell fire if their independent human willpower fails.
Let let us place your "plain text" claims under the absolute microscopic lens of Greek grammar to see who is actually mishandling the Word of God.
1. The Explicit Textual Proof of the "Two Calls"
You arrogantly demand:
"Please cite the verses where Paul makes this point [of two calls]?"
The fact that you cannot see the two calls in Romans proves you are ignoring the clear text right in front of you. Let us compare Paul’s words in the exact same letter:
- The Universal, Outward Call (Romans 10:18): Paul writes concerning the preaching of the gospel: "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." This is the general, external proclamation. It lands on the physical ears of all men, Jews and Gentiles alike.
- The Particular, Inward Call (Romans 8:30): Paul writes: "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified..."
Look at the arithmetic of the text. The outward "sound" of the preacher goes out to
all the earth (Romans 10:18), yet many who hear it reject it and remain under condemnation. But the inward "call" of Romans 8:30 has a
100% success rate. Every single person who receives
this call is justified and glorified.
If there is only one uniform "call" as you claim, your system forces you to choose between two heresies: either Paul is flatly wrong because millions who hear preaching are never justified, or you must embrace
Universalism and believe everyone who hears a sermon goes to heaven. The text forces a distinction: the outward call is the voice of the human preacher; the inward call is the sovereign, irresistible command of the Holy Spirit raising the dead sinner to life.
2. The Deception of "God Making Bogus Offers"
You claim that if an outward call is issued to those who cannot respond, it makes God "deceitful," "dishonest," and his offers "bogus."
This emotional objection stems from a completely unbiblical view of human responsibility. When a preacher commands sinners to repent and believe, he is delivering God’s
preceptive will—what God rightfully demands of His creatures.
- Does the fact that a sinner is spiritually dead and unable to obey (Romans 8:7) make God's command a lie? Absolutely not.
- If a man owes a bank ten million dollars and is completely bankrupt, the bank is not "deceitful" or "performing theater" when they send him a bill demanding payment. The bill exposes his true debt and his total inability to pay it.
The outward call of the gospel commands all men to repent, which leaves the reprobate entirely without excuse (
Romans 1:20). Their rejection is not because God "tricked" them; they reject it because they
willfully hate the light (
John 3:19). God is completely vindicated in his judgment, and His grace is magnified in the elect whom He sovereignly rescues from their own stubbornness.
3. John 15 and the Complete Abuse of the Imperative Mood
You attempt to shatter the unbreakable chain of Romans 8 by running to
John 15:4-6, claiming that because "abide" is in the
imperative mood (a command) and the
present tense, it proves that remaining in Christ depends on ongoing human effort and can be permanently forfeit.
Your grammatical argument is a complete disaster. Let's look at how biblical grammar actually operates:
- A Command Does Not Imply Human Ability: You claim that because "abide" is a command, we must possess the independent power to execute it. This is a massive theological blunder. God commands all men everywhere to be sinlessly perfect: "Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16). Does that command prove that fallen human beings have the inherent ability to live a sinless life? Of course not. The commands of Scripture are designed to show us our duty and drive us to utter dependency on the Savior, not to fluff up the pride of human free will.
- The Subjective vs. Objective Branch: You quote John 15:6—"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned"—to prove a believer can lose their salvation. But you are ignoring how the New Testament explicitly defines these "withered branches."
Look at
1 John 2:19, written by the exact same author (John) using the exact same covenantal theology:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
John completely shuts down your apostasy theory. If a branch does not abide, if it withers and is thrown into the fire, it does not prove that a genuinely justified, elect child of God fell out of the covenant. It proves they were a superficial, fruitless professor who lacked the vital, internal sap of the Holy Spirit from the very beginning. They were attached to the corporate visible church, but they were never organically united to the true Vine.
Conclusion
Your theology presents a weak, helpless God who builds a beautiful redemptive chain in Romans 8, only to have it completely snapped and thrown into the fire by the sovereign whim of a creature's willpower in John 15. You have a Savior who tries His best to keep the branches alive, but ultimately fails depending on how well the branch performs.
The text of Scripture presents a radically different reality. In
Romans 8:38-39, Paul concludes his masterpiece by declaring that absolutely nothing—not life, nor death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
anything else in all creation—can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
If a believer's independent free will could walk away and break that chain, then human free will is more powerful than the sovereign decree of the Almighty. I will stick to the text: Whom He called, He justified; and whom He justified, He guaranteed to glorify.
