• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Calvinist interpretation Luke 13:34

trident343

Member
Jan 15, 2005
250
12
44
Saskatoon
Visit site
✟631.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

What are the other interpretations of this verse other than James White's Jerusalem="Jerusalem's Leaders"

Also if you know an alternative view, could you let me know which writer/theologian came up with it. Thanks
 

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟26,878.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Actually I think that James White's point is significant, but most people miss it. I've seen people completely miss the significance of Jesus gathering his people together and pronuning judgment on apostate rulers. A few months ago, I debated an Arminian and a parallel verse to this one was thrown out (Matt. 23:37). Below is my response to that particular verse citation, I hope that it helps clarify things because I believe that it is the majority Calvinist interpretation.

 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I think you will be hard pressed to find any other interpretation within Calvinist circles of the passage from Luke 13 or Matthew 23 that is different from that of James White. It really is a pretty cut and dry point that Jesus was making - any other intepretation would have to have an agenda attached to it as far as I'm concerned.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I really don't get it. What's the nature of the objection?

Is it Irresistible Grace? Then it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Calvinistic doctrine.
Is there an assertion that Jerusalem is entirely elect at this point in time? If so, why?

If not, nobody's said that irresistible grace can't be resisted by those on whom it's never delivered. That would just be silly.

Further afield, resistance / opposition isn't the point of irresistible grace. It's a grace that we don't have the facility to actually put up any force against God. Nobody can prevent God from creating.

Is it an assertion about free will? Then it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the free agency aspect of free will -- on which even Calvinists agree.

Calvin himself pointed out that people have the ability to move in directions that they will -- that their actions are not fatalistically inclined against their wills. Their wills conform their actions to the will's desire.

The problem is the sinfulness of the will.

Is it an assertion of God's concern for the lost?
it's a more interesting proposition, and it would tend to subdivide Calvinists in debate over whether Christ's expressed concern is for reprobates, or a general group of mixed saved & reprobate, or not specifically relevant to salvation but to God's representation by the Israelites, or a group God will eventually bring to salvation, or ... what. The splits develop a "divide & conquer" strategy among opponents to Calvinism. The issue is interesting, though it has multiple answers to consider.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0