What sort of “calling” does Paul have in mind?

Explanation:

We can understand the calling Paul has in mind when he refers to being called according to God’s purpose by noticing why he includes this clause. It follows the statement that for those who love God, all things work toward good. Paul does not want his audience to mistakenly think that on the condition of their loving God, all things work toward good, for God’s grace is not conditioned on our loving him. Rather, God works things toward our good and offers his grace even before we love him. So, Paul follows up the statement that for those who love God, all things work together for good by clarifying that these are called according to God’s purpose. In other words, it is God who calls people to love him, and for those who love God, all things work together for good.³

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Romans 8:28b may be used not to clarify but to extend Romans 8:28a. That is, while Romans 8:28b is related to Romans 8:28a, this does not mean that Paul is saying the reason people love God is because they are effectually called by God to love them. Rather, he may be saying that those who love God are called according to God’s purpose. In other words, on the condition that one loves God, one is called according to God’s purpose, which is to conform that person to the Son.⁴ So Romans 8:28b may be used to extend rather than to clarify Romans 8:28a.

Response to counterargument:

Paul goes on to repeat the notion that one loves God due to the calling of God. For when we reach Romans 9:10–12, Paul explains that God is the one who calls, not because of works.⁵ He then explains that before Jacob and Esau were even born, God chose Jacob but not Esau. Paul is referring to the same calling in Romans 8:28b. That is, people are called to love God according to his purpose, so people are saved not because of works, but because of him who calls.

Explanation:

We can detect that the calling Paul has in mind is effectual, that is, it cannot be resisted, based on what Paul writes in Romans 8:30. For in Romans 8:30 he explains that those who are called are justified, and those who are justified are glorified.⁶ Of course, if those who are called are justified, and those who are justified are glorified, then those who are called are saved. This implies that the call is not an invitation. Rather, the call is God’s effectual call that cannot be resisted and results in salvation.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that this argument assumes that when Paul refers to being called, he has individuals in mind. But he may have a corporate calling in mind. That is, Paul may be saying that those whom God calls at a corporate level he also justifies at a corporate level, but this does not imply that every individual who is associated with that corporate level is called and saved. We can detect that Paul may have a corporate calling in mind because one important theme in Romans is that the Gentiles are included as God’s chosen people. That has to do with the fact that God’s corporate calling has extended from the corporate calling of the Jews to the corporate calling of Jews and Gentiles. In other words, Paul may be explaining that while the Jews were corporately called and therefore justified corporately, the fact is that anyone called corporately by God is justified corporately, and this now includes the Gentiles.⁷

Response to counterargument:

This argument overlooks the individual nature of the immediate context. Paul has been referring to the individual experience of believers who do not know how to pray but have the Spirit who prays for them. He then explains that for those who love God all things work for good, for those called according to his purpose. Given that Paul just explained how the Spirit works in individuals, it is hard to see why, when he refers to those who love God, he would suddenly have in mind corporate bodies such as the Jews, or Gentiles, rather than individual believers. Of course, if he has individual believers in mind, then when he says those who are called are justified, he means that those individuals who are called by God are also justified by God, which is why the calling is effectual and cannot be resisted.

Explanation:

That the calling Paul has in mind is effectual can be determined by the fact that he writes in Romans 4:17 that God gives life to the dead and calls into existence the non-existent.⁸ There Paul explains that Abraham had faith in God, so God made him the father of many nations. He then characterizes God as the one who gives life to the dead and calls into existence that which does not exist. In other words, when God calls something into existence, such as giving a promise to Abraham, that call is effectual and cannot be resisted. Likewise, those who are called by God are like those who were non-existent and brought into existence. For the calling of God is effectual and cannot be resisted.

Counterargument:

That God calls into existence the non-existent does not mean that when Paul refers to God calling people according to his purpose, this calling is effectual. For the verb to call is nuanced and can be used to refer to calling someone by name, offering an invitation, or being summoned with authority.⁹ Clearly, that God calls the non-existent into existence suggests God’s summoning things into existence by authority, so those things have no choice but to begin to exist. On the other hand, Paul could be using the term in Romans 8:28 to refer to an invitation. In that case, he is referring to those who are invited according to God’s purpose to conform to the Son.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that the immediate context suggests Paul has in mind a summons by authority, and not an invitation. For in the next verse, Paul associates those who are called with those whom God foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. Of course, it is very unlikely that when Paul refers to God’s foreknowing and predestining people to conform to the image of his Son, he has in mind God’s knowing who he would invite to be conformed to the image of his Son. Rather, these are predestined to conform to the image of the Son, so there is no escaping the result, which implies that the call is not an invitation but a summons.

One weakness of this view is that it is not clear how humans could be responsible for their actions if they are effectually called by God to faith. That is, humans seem to be responsible for whether or not they accept the gospel, but if God is the one who effectually calls people to faith, then it is not clear how this responsibility is sustained.

Explanation:

Paul explains that for those who love God all things work for good, before clarifying that these are called according to purpose. What is important to understand is that the purpose Paul has in mind here is not God’s purpose, but human purpose.¹²  In other words, Paul is referring to those who are called according to their own purpose, that is, their desire to love God. So God calls all people, but only those who are called according to their own purpose to love God are justified and glorified.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that what Paul writes in Romans 8:29 suggests that Paul has in mind God’s purpose, not human purpose. For in Romans 8:29 Paul follows this up by saying that those God foreknew he predestined to conform to the image of his Son, where being conformed to the image of the Son is God’s purpose. So Paul is referring to those whom God called according to God’s purpose, a purpose that is to conform those called to the image of his Son.

Response to counterargument:

This argument overlooks a crucial implication. In particular, if the calling is effectual to save, then why is it that not all are saved?¹³  For either God calls all to salvation so that all are saved, which cannot be true because not all believe in Christ, or God only calls some to salvation, which does not make sense in light of the fact that Christ died for all (Romans 5:8). Putting these together, we can see that when Paul refers to those called according to purpose, he must have in mind those called according to their own purpose to love God, for loving God is not compulsory or forced, by voluntary.¹⁴

Explanation:

Paul writes that all things work together for good for those who love God, noting that these are called according to God’s purpose. What he means is that all who love God are called according to God’s purpose, so that being called according to God’s purpose is an invitation from God for those who love him. We can detect this because we find other passages referring to the fact that those who love God are special to God. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:9 we read that no eye has seen nor ear heard what God has prepared for those who love him. And in Deuteronomy 7:9 we read that God keeps covenant with a thousand generations of those who love him.¹⁵ Likewise, in Romans 8:28 Paul is saying that those who love God are called, which is to say invited by God, according to his purpose, which is to be conformed to the image of his Son.

Counterargument:

This argument takes Romans 8:28a as a condition, but there is no grammatical indication that we should take it as such. Rather, the grammar suggests that those who love God are those who are called by God according to his purpose. In other words, the grammar does not support the idea that those who love God are invited to partake in God’s purposes, but that those who love God are partaking in God’s purposes. Thus, the call of God is not an invitation to those who love him, but those who love God are those who are summoned by God according to his purpose. This is why Paul can say in Romans 8:30 that those who are called are also justified and glorified. For the call is a summons, not an invitation.

We know from elsewhere that we cannot love God aside from God’s favour and effectual call (John 6:44).