Why does Paul refer to only believers as “called” in 1 Cor 1:24?

Why does Paul refer to only believers as “called” in 1 Cor 1:24? In Matthew 22, called (kletos) means “invited” in Christ’s parable of the wedding feast and it’s easy to see why Gentiles, who hadn’t previously been invited, would be exited by their invitation or that the host of a party might refer them as “his invited guests”. What I like about “invited” is it highlights the graciousness and initiative of the host and the newness to the Gentiles, but that alone might not be enough to explain why believers came to be know as “the called”. “Invited” seems to be missing the authority of the call, the group aspect, and the exclusivity.

“Summoned”, like a court summons, is better because it highlights the commanding nature and responsibility to respond. But the group aspect is best brought about as “assembled” or “a convocation” like kletos is used in the LXX for Exodus 12:16 or Leviticus 23:2. A church is an ekklesia or assembly and the root is the same as kletos and they are exclusively God’s people.

In 1 Cor 1:9 the group aspect is depicted as “called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”, and “called” in verse 24 conveys the same idea. In 1 Cor 1:18 Paul says “to us who are being saved it [the gospel] is the power of God” and in verse 21 he says believers are saved through preaching. Notice Paul’s focus on what the gospel means to those who have already positively responded. The negative response is presented in verse 22, where Paul says Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, which explains why Paul’s preaching is assessed as foolishness by Greeks and becomes a stumbling block to Jews. Conversely, to those called, Paul’s preaching is God’s power and wisdom.

“Those called” is a reference to the group of those who are gathered together to Christ as His church, His covenant people, through the call of the gospel. This understand is the same as Clement of Alexandria who in Stromata, book 1, Chapter 18, when commenting on 1 Cor 1 says: “All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called."” 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more