“For many are called, but few are chosen.” —Matthew 22:14

[hedrick]

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭1:1-2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I'm not sure whether it affects the meaning, but the syntax of this translation is unusual. "Chosen" actually isn't where it shows. The original wording is closer to the Good News Bible:

"To God’s chosen people who live as refugees scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. [You were chosen] according to the purpose of God the Father and were made a holy people by his Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be purified by his blood."

I've supplied the brackets to indicate words not there in the original but supplied to make the meaning clear.

Again, I'm not sure how much it affects things, but chosen is actually in vs 1 rather than vs 2

 

[BNR32FAN]

You’ll have to explain how that goes against God choosing. God punished all sin, either by the person himself, or by His Son.

on the day of wrath and revelation of judgement. This is referring to judgement day.

 

[Hammster]

on the day of wrath and revelation of judgement. This is referring to judgement day.

I know. That’s why I’m glad that God choses some for salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I know. That’s why I’m glad that God choses some for salvation.

Are you saying you believe in purgatory? That the chosen will pay for their sins on judgement day?

 

[Hammster]

Are you saying you believe in purgatory? That the chosen will pay for their sins on judgement day?

Nope, and I have no idea why you’d ask.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope, and I have no idea why you’d ask.

Because I don’t understand how what I originally posted didn’t explain how God’s choosing can’t be the cause of people receiving God’s wrath on judgement day. Since your reply was that God punishes all sin and acknowledged that this does refer to judgement day that made me think that perhaps your saying that these people will be punished for their sins on judgement day, that this is not referring to punishment in the lake of fire. So explain how these people receiving God’s wrath can be the result of God’s choosing them so I can explain again that if they are receiving God’s wrath as a result of not being chosen then the cause is not their stubbornness but instead their inability to comply with God’s expectations. I really don’t understand how this isn’t abundantly clear since you understand the implications of total depravity and unconditional election.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Within in the historical context of a "royal" wedding....

The king made the choice of who from the group (called) would receive the wedding garments, as he supplied them to the guests to glorify His family. That is how he determined the guest list and that is who he knew the one who he had not given the garments to.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Are you saying that "you are a cult if you follow the teachings of Jesus found in scripture in the case of the gospel of Matthew"??

That's exactly what I am saying.

That clears that up

I hate to accuse someone of saying something wrong that they themselves claim they are not saying.

 

[Marumorose]

Th

The larger text below and poll is up.

Does this passage mean there is a difference between calling and choosing? It seems so.

How would one come to an understanding that a multitude would be called and then only some chosen?

In this case we can see the Gospel is this large general call as we are commanded by Christ to preach it to the world. The “few are chosen” is solely the work of God or what is called an effectual call from God. God provides the wedding garment.

Matthew 22: NASB


1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3“And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. 4“Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ 5“But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, 6and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.

7“But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. 8“Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10“Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.

11“But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13“Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The children of Israel are chosen and the gentiles are called
For example some people are born prophets but others become prophets through faith
May god Bless You

 

[BNR32FAN]

Good Day,

Within in the historical context of a "royal" wedding....

The king made the choice of who from the group (called) would receive the wedding garments, as he supplied them to the guests to glorify His family. That is how he determined the guest list and that is who he knew the one who he had not given the garments to.

In Him,

Bill

It doesn’t say the king supplied the wedding garments

 

[Hammster]

Because I don’t understand how what I originally posted didn’t explain how God’s choosing can’t be the cause of people receiving God’s wrath on judgement day. Since your reply was that God punishes all sin and acknowledged that this does refer to judgement day that made me think that perhaps your saying that these people will be punished for their sins on judgement day, that this is not referring to punishment in the lake of fire. So explain how these people receiving God’s wrath can be the result of God’s choosing them so I can explain again that if they are receiving God’s wrath as a result of not being chosen then the cause is not their stubbornness but instead their inability to comply with God’s expectations. I really don’t understand how this isn’t abundantly clear since you understand the implications of total depravity and unconditional election.

Let’s go back to what I said here, because I think you missed it.

You’ll have to explain how that goes against God choosing. God punished all sin, either by the person himself, or by His Son.

Hopefully that will clear it up.

 

[ZNP]

Chosen and elect are the same thing. Same word.

They are not the same in the parable that he quoted because Jesus says "many are called" but "few are chosen" there is a very clear distinction.

Likewise the gospel is preached to everyone, not all receive it.

 

[ZNP]

Wow. A partial verse without context.

You are going to get judged according to your work. My work gets judged all the time, but that judgement doesn't determine eternal salvation, only reward or not.

 

[ZNP]

How do you tell the difference between them that were called and not chosen and them that were called and chosen?

Some had wedding garments on, some didn't.

 

[Hammster]

They are not the same in the parable that he quoted because Jesus says "many are called" but "few are chosen" there is a very clear distinction.

Likewise the gospel is preached to everyone, not all receive it.

I’m not sure how that relates to my post.

 

[Hammster]

You are going to get judged according to your work. My work gets judged all the time, but that judgement doesn't determine eternal salvation, only reward or not.

I’m not sure how that relates to my post, either.

 

[Blade]

Well seems easy.. who did He come to? His own. Those that hear His word. His will is that none should die. Came to His own.. then went out into the world.

And SOME should do as they said and stick to the op. No your not.

 

[CaspianSails]

I agree with what you said and you are correct. The issue though is that there will not be a doctrinal standard within Christianity.

You will end up with Churches built on single verses from the scripture. There are many of those types of churches these days.

I hope Jesus returns real soon; as I do not see anyway out of this theological crisis.

I would tend to agree with you on the fact that doctrine is not important to many non traditional churches today. Doctrine is too defining and many non aligned churches are looking to be that something different and to certainly not be associated with anything that looks like a denomination or alliance. We have a smorgasbord of pastors and churches proclaiming they are not theologians or a denomination or that we don't do things here just because other churches do them, we are different. It is dangerous and alienating and divisive if you ask me. There is one church, one holy catholic church, and by catholic I mean universal church that incorporates all who believe and are alive on earth, everywhere. Don't be confused with the Roman Catholic church. We cannot be one body if we all have a different doctrine. All Christian churches should be able to acknowledge a basic creed, such as the Apostles Creed. There is not that much division that we cannot rally around a creed as basic as that one would think. However it was just recently I was in a meeting of church leaders and made a comment on something the pastor said about God's abiding presence with us and that when we go to meeting the Holy Spirit comes with us and is present because He indwells the believer. I made the mistake of saying, if you belive that then why does the church open with words like God, please come and be with us as we gather in your name. If God is with us and abides in us would it not be more appropriate and correct to then say something like, Lord we thank you for your abiding presence in us. We thank you that as we gather together you are with us as you promised. Why do we need to beg God to join us when He is with us. After some discussion the result was, well you and I understand that but the people do not so we need to appeal to them in a way that they think we are drawing Gods presence to us. My response, if we keep not teaching the truth they will not know. Our voice from the pulpit, no matter who is speaking, needs to align with the truth and not some perceived need to stir up the people. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. In the end it was well, we just need to do this. I no longer attend that church, not just for this reason but it was the straw.....

 

[BobRyan]

I would tend to agree with you on the fact that doctrine is not important to many non traditional churches today. Doctrine is too defining and many non aligned churches are looking to be that something different and to certainly not be associated with anything that looks like a denomination or alliance. We have a smorgasbord of pastors and churches proclaiming they are not theologians or a denomination or that we don't do things here just because other churches do them, we are different.

They tend to be high on story telling and large crowds -- but low on Bible knowing much less believing

It is dangerous and alienating and divisive if you ask me. There is one church, one holy catholic church, and by catholic I mean universal church that incorporates all who believe and are alive on earth, everywhere. Don't be confused with the Roman Catholic church. We cannot be one body if we all have a different doctrine. All Christian churches should be able to acknowledge a basic creed, such as the Apostles Creed. There is not that much division that we cannot rally around a creed as basic as that one would think.

It is unclear to me that the former group you mentioned would know enough about their own beliefs to be against something like the Apostle's creed.

However it was just recently I was in a meeting of church leaders and made a comment on something the pastor said about God's abiding presence with us and that when we go to meeting the Holy Spirit comes with us and is present because He indwells the believer. I made the mistake of saying, if you belive that then why does the church open with words like God, please come and be with us as we gather in your name. If God is with us and abides in us would it not be more appropriate and correct to then say something like, Lord we thank you for your abiding presence in us. We thank you that as we gather together you are with us as you promised.

1. Why would it be "either or"?
2. The Holy Spirit is God -- and omnipresent... and yet "he will come" after Christ leaves John 16.
both are true.

 

[Hawkins]

"Chosen" is spoken in God's sovereignty. It means God knows in advance who is who even before the creation and with their names written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, though the outcome is a result out of a fair judgment.

Calvinism's advocate is that we are saved because God knows who we are before hand. I think that a more accurate description is that we are saved because we can pass the judgment of a carefully designed covenant which identifies the righteous from the wicked. This process however won't escape what God's omniscience can foresee.