When you get involved in any sports, etcetera, it requires that you learn its' language. The same is true with regards to Christianity. For instance, some new believers don't even know that "the nations" can refer to Gentiles alone, or can refer to Gentiles AND Israel.
Same with the phrase "the peoples".
So, no matter what, there is a learning curve.
In the case of "general call" versus "effectual call", the difference is that believers preach the gospel to everyone, yet they know that only the elect will respond, and this response is because they are one of the "sheep" that Jesus says listen to his voice (John 6, 10) and have been given to him by the Father.
To deny this distinction, between the elect and the non-elect, and two different kinds of calling is really to entertain confusion.
There are reasons for theological language, and regardless of theological language, biblical language needs to be clarified, too, such as my example about "the nations", "the peoples". One can't even read Psalms with a decent level of comprehension until they know how the Bible uses phrases, etcetera.
I learned this trying to teach people in a parachurch ministry. Their eyes may have been running across the pages, but they didn't understand the meaning of the text.
Someone asked me how much Bible I read a day. I told them, two chapters. He bragged and told me that was nothing; he reads like ten chapters a day, in order to make himself appear to be the authority. Well, it was obvious from our conversation that he wasn't reading it in depth and was only letting his eyes glance over the page. I doubt if he understood phrases like "the nations", especially since he claimed Israelites were all black, latino or Native American tribes.
He also wanted everyone to use Yehoshua or something like that to refer to Jesus.
He became so angry with me for pointing out the problems with his claims, that he called me the F word, because I didn't accept them. Then he blamed me for making him cuss. I'm laughing right now thinking about that.
Same with the phrase "the peoples".
So, no matter what, there is a learning curve.
In the case of "general call" versus "effectual call", the difference is that believers preach the gospel to everyone, yet they know that only the elect will respond, and this response is because they are one of the "sheep" that Jesus says listen to his voice (John 6, 10) and have been given to him by the Father.
To deny this distinction, between the elect and the non-elect, and two different kinds of calling is really to entertain confusion.
There are reasons for theological language, and regardless of theological language, biblical language needs to be clarified, too, such as my example about "the nations", "the peoples". One can't even read Psalms with a decent level of comprehension until they know how the Bible uses phrases, etcetera.
I learned this trying to teach people in a parachurch ministry. Their eyes may have been running across the pages, but they didn't understand the meaning of the text.
Someone asked me how much Bible I read a day. I told them, two chapters. He bragged and told me that was nothing; he reads like ten chapters a day, in order to make himself appear to be the authority. Well, it was obvious from our conversation that he wasn't reading it in depth and was only letting his eyes glance over the page. I doubt if he understood phrases like "the nations", especially since he claimed Israelites were all black, latino or Native American tribes.
He also wanted everyone to use Yehoshua or something like that to refer to Jesus.
He became so angry with me for pointing out the problems with his claims, that he called me the F word, because I didn't accept them. Then he blamed me for making him cuss. I'm laughing right now thinking about that.
but about what you said about sheep. dont we become sheep when we believe? once you believe you are sheep right?
