Will everyone who calls on the name of the Lord be saved? Of course not

In Romans 10:13 we read “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” First let me quote another part of the Bible that says the same thing. Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved As stand alone sentences, this means: cause – call; effect – saved. But…

bography
2–3 minutes

In Romans 10:13 we read “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” First let me quote another part of the Bible that says the same thing. Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved As stand alone sentences, this means: cause – call; effect – saved.

But then what to make of:

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

In the saving kind of call, we are calling on what we recognize to be a saviour. To do this implies some knowledge of Christ’s atoning work for sinners. The caller acknowledges that he is one of these. In this context, anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Here is Lewis Johnson:

“When Paul says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” He’s talking about calling upon him in virtue of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s rather interesting to me that in the Old Testament it is said, I think of Abraham as I remember, that he called upon the name of the Lord three times, and every time that it is said that Abraham called upon the name of the Lord, it is in the vicinity or right by the side of an altar of sacrifice. For when we call on the Lord, we call on him who has offered an atoning sacrifice. And we plead that atoning sacrifice for our salvation. That’s what Paul means when he says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Christ has paid the debt for sinners, and I may call upon God for salvation by virtue of what Jesus Christ has done. ” (Salvation and Confession, p. 16 ).

The calling in Matt 7:21 is about sounds emanating from a desperate or fearful voice box , not from a repentant heart.

So, as with so many words in the Bible such as “all,” “whosoever” and “world” let context, not pretext be your guide. If you don’t you’ll end up in the margin – outisde the text. Which, if you’re a relativist, is ok, because there is no main text.

Romans 10:13 says nothing about how one comes to believe (Calvinism – God’s grace is both necessary and sufficient to save [monergism]; Arminianism – God’s grace is necessary but not sufficient to save [synergism]).

If you’re an Arminian it would be nice if you knew something about the distinction between a voluntary act (doing what your heart desires) and a free will act (where one can neutralise one’s heart and choose between loving Christ and hating him), keeping in mind that the human heart is desperately/incurably sick/wicked/deceitful/crooked, who (besides God) can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).

Flee will! Now you’re ready to call – if you know what I mean.

12 responses to “Will everyone who calls on the name of the Lord be saved? Of course not”

  1. mariamaria3 Avatar
    mariamaria3

    You have to immediately notify God about this news. He has to change the writing of the Bible from the beginning starting with the making men in His image and then giving such a man an horrible wicked heart to begin with without exception :-). Difficult to understand for you dear Bog unselfish acts from anyone.

    Reply
    1. bography Avatar
      bography

      “To begin with?”

      Where did you read that?

      By the way, for the “de facto” Jew (one who follows Kabbalah), God made the mess; the Jew is cleaning it up.

      When the Jew cleans up the Holy One of Israel’s Mess, Messiah will he come?

      Reply
  2. mariamaria3 Avatar
    mariamaria3

    I read it in your thoughts…consequentially

    Reply
    1. bography Avatar
      bography

      I see.

      Reply
    2. bography Avatar
      bography

      Maria, who or what do you think of Adam?

      Reply
      1. mariamaria3 Avatar
        mariamaria3

        Adam was God’s creature that He loved and equipped with free will, something that, from a point of view of a Creator God, is an extremely exceptional gift. He didn’t withdraw his gift after the fall. As your Jewish ancestors would say: God never takes back His promise or His gifts. If men then are gifted with free will they are able to be as good or bad as their free choices allows them to be. This is why there are people who are not believers but are very good people, and their being good is given by their personal choices and not by anything else. And this is why you have people who are actually believers and are rotten by their personal choices.

        Reply
        1. bography Avatar
          bography

          Maria, Is there anything different – except gender – between Adam and you? If yes, what?

          Reply
  3. SLIMJIM Avatar
    SLIMJIM

    Good point–wittingly stated.

    Reply
  4. mariamaria3 Avatar
    mariamaria3

    I knew that you would have mentioned “Adam’ with my “TO BEGIN WITH”….and I also knew that in my “To begin with” there is also the end.
    There is nothing we can say about this topic anymore. I know my position I hope you know yours too. My reality is a constant confirmation of what I believe with all the ‘angelic being’ that God sends me on this earth in form of human being. I hope your reality is not the representation of your own belief

    Apart from his being in the Earthly Paradise before the fall…almost nothing else  since we both make bad choices 
    “ By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).[47] Catechism of the Catholic
    The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[48][49] Within man “is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin.”[50] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam’s guilt, and teaches instead that “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants … but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man”.[51] “In other words, human beings do not bear any ‘original guilt’ from Adam and Eve’s particular sin.”[52] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Roman_Catholicism

    Reply
    1. bography Avatar
      bography

      Would you agree or disagree with A.A. Hodge below?

      1st. All men, without exception, begin to sin as soon as they enter upon moral agency. 2nd. They are all born with an antecedent and prevailing tendency in their nature to sin. 3rd. This innate tendency is itself sin in the strictest sense. It is inherently ill–deserving as well as polluting and destructive, and without any reference to its origin in Adam, it fully deserves God’s wrath and curse, and except when expiated by the blood of Christ is always visited with that curse. President Edwards, “Freedom of the Will,” pt. 4, sec. 1, says, “The essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart lies not in their cause but their nature.”

      Reply
      1. mariamaria3 Avatar
        mariamaria3

        First and most I don’t agree to the way it is expressed, the general feeling and presumptuous way it is written, the obscurity or lack of light that leaves beyond. What is all this irrationality without even the good jest of ‘anger’?: “inherently ill–deserving as well as polluting and destructive”? If there was ‘anger’ in this statement some sort of invective, Saint Augustine’ stile, I would understand it more 🙂
        I instead understand and fully agree with the tune and the idea of this:
        “An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” (De Malo, iv, 1). Saint Thomas
        As with Saint Augustine who speaks about the responsibility of the human family and therefore the voluntary act conformed in everybody in any act assumed by human family behavior, strange to say this is why law conform to reactions of choices made by people  Great thinkers have the general idea of a general responsibility therefore they understand that there is no contradiction of terms in being born with the original sin and still be free to choose. I told you already in some other posts that I am not keen in discussing this topic for me has been settle long time ago

        Reply
        1. bography Avatar
          bography

          Maria

          your “As with Saint Augustine (and)…. great thinkers have the general idea of a general responsibility therefore they understand that there is no contradiction of terms in being born with the original sin and still be free to choose.”

          By “free to choose” I assume you mean to include to be free to choose to believe in Christ.If so, how do you understand Augustine’s “Grant what You command, and command what you desire?” https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/grant-what-you-command-and-command-what-you-desire-pelagius-the-jew-and-augustine/

          I’m trying to understand you, so forgive my question:

          Is this your view?

          All have sinned in Adam because all were in him when he sinned. So sin is brought in with birth, and not removed save by the new birth.

          Reply

Leave a comment