Special Inward Call?

Arcoe said:

Why were they there? Easy, they freely accepted the invitation. I didn't read they were dragged in.

Click to expand...

So what? The king still rejected some of them. The servants were commanded to go out and invite all the people they saw both the good and the bad. This was AFTER the king's soldiers killed all those select guests who were originally invited but rejected the call.

After the select invited were killed the king commanded his servants to go out and invite all they saw both the good and the bad. The good and the bad both answered the call and came to the wedding. But the king rejected those that did not have a wedding garment. So those without the wedding garment were of the bad. They were cast out into outer darkness.

This corresponds to the parable of the dragnet. The net was cast into the sea and fish were gathered into it. The men separated the good from the bad and put the good into containers and threw away the bad.

In both parables the good were good before and after and the the bad were bad before and after.

Arminians have nothing from the parables to support hteir theology.

Hammster said:

Yeah, just skipped right over that part, eh?

Click to expand...

Do you have your wedding garment on?

The Boxer said:

So what? The king still rejected some of them. The servants were commanded to go out and invite all the people they saw both the good and the bad. This was AFTER the king's soldiers killed all those select guests who were originally invited but rejected the call.

After the select invited were killed the king commanded his servants to go out and invite all they saw both the good and the bad. The good and the bad both answered the call and came to the wedding. But the king rejected those that did not have a wedding garment. So those without the wedding garment were of the bad. They were cast out into outer darkness.

This corresponds to the parable of the dragnet. The net was cast into the sea and fish were gathered into it. The men separated the good from the bad and put the good into containers and threw away the bad.

In both parables the good were good before and after and the the bad were bad before and after.

Arminians have nothing from the parables to support hteir (sic) theology.

Click to expand...

Did you Calvinists have a meeting to toss this thread in every direction? Do you consider yourselves called of the first group, who were rejected by the king, or the second group, of whom, some were also rejected? Either way the 'calling' does not indicate, nor assure salvation.

And this does not fare well with your interpretation of Romans 8:30.

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

So, I say this parable does not support your theology either.

Arcoe said:

Do you consider yourselves called of the first group, who were rejected by the king, or the second group, of whom, some were also rejected? Either way the 'calling' does not indicate, nor assure salvation.

Click to expand...

First, who edited my post inserting the word "sic?" Second, the calling of the "good" of the second group assures salvation. The "bad" are rejected and discarded. The good were good before and after and the bad were bad before and after.

The first group must refer to the scribes and pharisees because:

1. Jesus had just spoken a parable that they correctly preceived was against them.

2. The first group in the parable had the priority and thus were the select "invited," but were proven unworthy. They mistreated and killed the servants who invited them. This corresponds to Jesus' indictment against the scribes and pharisees regarding their killing the prophets.

3. Paul told the scribes and pharisees that they had the priority but had proven themselves unworthy and so he was going to go to the gentiles (Acts 13:46-47).

And this does not fare well with your interpretation of Romans 8:30.

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Click to expand...

Someone has pointed out that the word "call" in the parable and in Romans 8:30 are not the same Greek word. I don't feel like investigating it right now.

So, I say this parable does not support your theology either.

Click to expand...

Oh yes it does! Calvinism teaches that the goats remain goats and do not become sheep. The tares remain tares and do not become wheat.

So the bad remain bad and do not become good!

The Boxer said:

First, who edited my post inserting the word "sic?"

Click to expand...

I did. Want to know what it means?

The Boxer said:

Second, the calling of the "good" of the second group assures salvation. The "bad" are rejected and discarded. The good were good before and after and the bad were bad before and after.

Click to expand...

So, the 'good' are called. I thought you held to the position that there are none who do good. How is a man good prior to justification, regeneration, and sanctification? So a man had to be good in order to be called to salvation?

The Boxer said:

The first group must refer to the scribes and pharisees because:

1. Jesus had just spoken a parable that they correctly preceived was against them.

2. The first group in the parable had the priority and thus were the select "invited," but were proven unworthy. They mistreated and killed the servants who invited them. This corresponds to Jesus' indictment against the scribes and pharisees regarding their killing the prophets.

3. Paul told the scribes and pharisees that they had the priority but had proven themselves unworthy and so he was going to go to the gentiles (Acts 13:46-47).

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with this.

The Boxer said:

Someone has pointed out that the word "call" in the parable and in Romans 8:30 are not the same Greek word. I don't feel like investigating it right now.

Click to expand...

Actually the same word is used (bid in Matthew, call in Romans)

kaleō
1) to call
a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
b) to invite

The Boxer said:

Oh yes it does! Calvinism teaches that the goats remain goats and do not become sheep. The tares remain tares and do not become wheat.

So the bad remain bad and do not become good!

Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the following:

Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How is it that the children of the kingdom (good) are cast into outer darkness? Did they not become bad at some point to deserve this?

By the way, what assurance and security did the children of the kingdom have of their salvation? Anyone can answer this.

Arcoe said:

Did you Calvinists have a meeting to toss this thread in every direction? Do you consider yourselves called of the first group, who were rejected by the king, or the second group, of whom, some were also rejected? Either way the 'calling' does not indicate, nor assure salvation.

And this does not fare well with your interpretation of Romans 8:30.

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

So, I say this parable does not support your theology either.

Click to expand...

All the elect are compelled to come to the wedding , many were called , true !
But few were chosen , The Kingdom of heaven is full of the least likely candidates , think of Paul , a guy full of hatred and persecution of believers has a complete change of heart .

cygnusx1 said:

...., think of Paul , a guy full of hatred and persecution of believers has a complete change of heart .

Click to expand...

But

The Boxer said:

.....

So the bad remain bad and do not become good!

Click to expand...

?

cygnusx1 said:

All the elect are compelled to come to the wedding , many were called , true !
But few were chosen , The Kingdom of heaven is full of the least likely candidates , think of Paul , a guy full of hatred and persecution of believers has a complete change of heart .

Click to expand...

How do you account for the one who was compelled to come (elect according to you), but was cast into outer darkness?

Few of those compelled to come (elect) were chosen? Was Simon the sorcerer compelled to come?

Arcoe said:

How do you account for the one who was compelled to come (elect according to you), but was cast into outer darkness?

Click to expand...

Can you think of a group of people, specifically chosen by Christ, from which one was cast into outer darkness?

crimsonleaf said:

Can you think of a group of people, specifically chosen by Christ, from which one was cast into outer darkness?

Click to expand...

How about the Israelites who were cut off because of unbelief?

Oh, I forgot this one -

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Who are the children of the kingdom you might ask.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;

JackSparrow said:

But



?

Click to expand...

Arcoe said:

How do you account for the one who was compelled to come (elect according to you), but was cast into outer darkness?

Few of those compelled to come (elect) were chosen? Was Simon the sorcerer compelled to come?

Click to expand...

Where in the parable are those compelled cast out , Simon was impelled to sin

gmm4j said:

So, you are denying Total Depravity (that all are bad), and Justification (bad becoming good).

Okay?

Click to expand...

I deny the Total Depravity of the Elect. They are regenerated when they are conceived in the womb. They have the GERM of spiritual life implanted into their souls at conception. But this does not mean that I believe they are "good" in the moral sense and are in no need of justification. That GERM of life must take root in their souls and it will indeed. It will result in faith and justification and sanctification.

The parable of the dragnet does not indicate that the Elect are good in the moral sense. The good fish, which represent the Elect are "good" in the sense of beneficial or useful. This is how the Elect are "good." Though the Elect come into the world just as sinful and just as condemned as the non-elect, God having chosen them as vessels of mercy regards them as beneficial and useful to serve His purposes.

Your question was valid and good. But there is no doubt that God sees the Elect differently. In both the parables of the wedding and of the dragnet that which is "good" is good both before and after.

cygnusx1 said:

Where in the parable are those compelled cast out , Simon was impelled to sin

Click to expand...

Matthew 22
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Boxer said:

I deny the Total Depravity of the Elect. They are regenerated when they are conceived in the womb. They have the GERM of spiritual life implanted into their souls at conception. But this does not mean that I believe they are "good" in the moral sense and are in no need of justification. That GERM of life must take root in their souls and it will indeed. It will result in faith and justification and sanctification.

The parable of the dragnet does not indicate that the Elect are good in the moral sense. The good fish which represent the Elect are "good" in the sense of beneficial or useful. This is how the Elect are "good." Though the Elect come into the world just as sinful and just as condemned as the non-elect, God having chosen them as vessels of mercy regards them as beneficial and useful to serve His purposes.

Your question was valid and good. But there is no doubt that God sees the Elect differently. In both the parables of the wedding and of the dragnet that which is "good" is good both before and after.

Click to expand...

You sir, are definitely a different breed of a Calvinist. May I ask, did you come to your conclusions on your own, or did the Spirit reveal these things to you? If the Spirit revealed them, why is He revealing totally different things to other Calvinists? Who are we to believe?

Arcoe said:

You sir, are definitely a different breed of a Calvinist. May I ask, did you come to your conclusions on your own, or did the Spirit reveal these things to you? If the Spirit revealed them, why is He revealing totally different things to other Calvinists? Who are we to believe?

Click to expand...

Historic Calvinism believed in the regeneration of elect infants:

Calvinism also teaches that infants, when yet unborn, are regenerated, even though they have no knowledge of Christ; and that, upon birth, infant baptism is to be practiced as a sign that the child is regenerate. John Calvin believed that all the children of believers were spiritually regenerated in the womb. To complete the salvation process Calvin also suggested that God granted a unique, supernatural faith to these infants in the womb. This would certainly add a new twist to the term “child-like faith.” But how is this all possible? John Calvin writes:

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be regenerated by the Lord. ...Many He certainly has called and endued with true knowledge of Himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p. 541,542]

Reformed Theology and Regeneration

A Puritan's Mind » A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant of Grace – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
​

Click to expand...

I take it to its logical conclusion. If the Elect are regenerated at conception, then they cannot be totally depraved. Yet they are still under the law and condemned until they believe on Christ which they will. Regeneration means only that they have the GERM of spiritual life implanted into their souls.

Isaac was born of the Spirit from Sarah's womb (Galatians 4:21-31).

Charles Hodge said, "All who die in infancy are saved" (ST 1.26). This implies regeneration. One who is regenerated is not totally depraved.

Arcoe said:

How about the Israelites who were cut off because of unbelief?

Oh, I forgot this one -

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Who are the children of the kingdom you might ask.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;

Click to expand...

I was thinking of closer to home.

Clue: there were 12 of them.