Does Matthew 22:14 prove Calvinism and Predestination?

[boxman144]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

 

[solid_core]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

To be precise, it proves election.

Certainly not the whole calvinistic system or calvinistic explanations of everything.

 

[Albion]

Maybe not. If many are called

but few chosen

it may be taken the opposite way. Unless, that is, election is understood in a way that Calvin did not.

 

[Mr. M]

Romans 1:6. Among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen.
Revelation 17:14b. They that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
2 Peter 1:10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure*: for if you do these things, you shall never fall.
1 Co 4:2. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
John 20:27. Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be faithless, but be Faithful.”
Every scripture tells a story, don't it.
*Chosen=election, as noted by Solid_Core.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

The problem with Calvinism is that it does not make sense in light of reading the majority of the Bible. Very few verses even remotely sound like Calvinism. The biggest chapter that sounds like Calvinism is Romans 9. But the rest of Bible.... "no way." Through the whole of the Bible: God is constantly punishing people for their sin and desiring for them to repent. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. In Jonah 3, Jonah tells the Ninevite people that the Wrath of God is coming for them in 40 days. Yet, the Ninevite people escaped God's judgment by seeking forgiveness with God and in forsaking their evil ways. When God had seen that they forsaken their evil ways, He did not bring forth the wrath and judgment that He was originally going to bring upon them. If Calvinism was true, this scenario would simply not be possible. If the Ninevites were chosen for damnation, there is nothing that they could have ever done to change God's mind. If the Ninevites were chosen for salvation, then Jonah telling them that their city was going to be destroyed in 40 days would have been false or untrue. If Calvinism was true, then why is there a Judgment? If God forces some to be saved, and others to not be saved against their will, then the Judgment is a joke or a farce and it makes no sense.

2 Peter 2:5-6 talks about how the global flood was an example to all who would live ungodly thereafter. This does not help the person who it unable to come to God because of their own Depravity. The people who perished in the global flood perished because of their wicked lifestyle or sins. They are an example of not to do that for even us today. Yet, Calvinists will say that we cannot come to God. Jeremiah says, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13).

 

[Albion]

The problem with Calvinism is that it does not make sense in light of reading the majority of the Bible. Very few verses even remotely sound like Calvinism. The biggest chapter that sounds like Calvinism is Romans 9. But the rest of Bible.... "no way."

Well, there is John 10 and there are other passages, too, so it's not as decisive as you are saying.

 

[Dave L]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” John 6:37 (KJV 1900)

 

[HTacianas]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

If you read the parable you'll see that the "choosing" is done at the end.

The one who was thrown out of the banquet was invited along with everyone else, but showed up wearing dirty clothes. Both clean and dirty clothing are recurring analogies in the new testament. When a person is baptized he is considered clean, and wears "white raiment". To dirty ones clothes is to sin afterwards:

Rev 3:4 - ‘But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.

Those of Sardis who had soiled their garments through sin will be cast out at the end, but the righteous will continue to walk in white.

So no, Matthew 22 doesn't do much for Calvinism.

 

[paul1149]

Let's take a step back and look at the hermeunics here. We must not hinge a doctrine with such profound consequences with respect not only to human salvation, but to the nature of God's character, on the meaning of one word, let alone one word in a translated language, (and much less one word in one translation of that language, though in this case most of the translations agree). There are too many other Bible passages that would have to be reconciled with your interpretation of this one before it would pass muster - passages that clearly indicate that we are responsible for our choices and that our choices matter profoundly as to our destiny.

 

[Dave L]

If you read the parable you'll see that the "choosing" is done at the end.

The one who was thrown out of the banquet was invited along with everyone else, but showed up wearing dirty clothes. Both clean and dirty clothing are recurring analogies in the new testament. When a person is baptized he is considered clean, and wears "white raiment". To dirty ones clothes is to sin afterwards:

Rev 3:4 - ‘But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.

Those of Sardis who had soiled their garments through sin will be cast out at the end, but the righteous will continue to walk in white.

So no, Matthew 22 doesn't do much for Calvinism.

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, there is John 10 and there are other passages, too, so it's not as decisive as you are saying.

I thought you were going to say John 6:44 (Which is read from a Calvinistic interpretation). (Note: This interpretation is easily refuted if they were to read verse 45).

As for John 10: If you are referring to how believers are sheep that follow Jesus:
Well, first, I do not know of too many Calvinists who truly believe in the following part. Their idea of following includes one thinking they can sin and still be saved on some level (Which is not following Jesus because Jesus never justified sin). Also, if they believed they have to live holy, it takes effort on their part to do that. They do not just become super sheep followers overnight.

 

[HTacianas]

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)

You now have a contradiction:

1Jo 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[Dave L]

You now have a contradiction:

1Jo 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Does scripture contradict itself?

 

[HTacianas]

Does scripture contradict itself?

No it doesn't.

 

[Albion]

I thought you were going to say John 6:44.

As for John 10: If you are referring to how believers are sheep that follow Jesus:
Well, first, I do not know of too many Calvinists who truly believe in the following part.

If true, that would be irrelevant. The topic concerns the use of the word chosen and whether it refers to election/predestination.

My view, for what it's worth, is that there is too much on BOTH sides to be found in Scripture for us to know for certain that Election is either true or false.

 

[Dave L]

No it doesn't.

Then why say it does?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If true, that would be irrelevant. The topic concerns the use of the word chosen and whether it refers to election/predestination.

My view, for what it's worth, is that there is too much on BOTH sides to be found in Scripture for us to know for certain that Election is either true or false.

There is no other side. Calvinism is unbiblical. Words like Predestination are redefined to mean what they want it to say. The whole Bible is chocked full of stories that have a moral lesson in not sinning or you will be punished. That makes no sense in Calvinism. God trying to teach people to not sin? Yeah, okay. That doesn't work in Calvinism. They are all about how one is either saved or unsaved by God's choice or design. Why on Earth would God feel grieved or upset about their sinfulness? Why would God destroy an entire world with a global flood for their wickedness (Especially when God could have just zapped these people to be saved and righteous)? Why destroy the whole world? 2 Peter 2:5-6 says that the global flood was an example to all who would live ungodly thereafter. This suggests that the lesson in that story is not to live in sin like those in the global flood or we too can perish. But if Calvinism was true, such things in Scripture would not exist. We would read in Genesis 6 how God was pleased in electing the many who were sinful to be reprobate and He just felt like destroying a bunch of people to satisfy His own good pleasure (instead of force saving them all to be saved). But that is not what is stated in Genesis 6.

 

[HTacianas]

Then why say it does?

I didn't say it contracted itself, only that you have a contradiction. I have to assume you to mean that it implies a Christian cannot sin, since you posted it in reply to what I said above.

 

[Dave L]

I didn't say it contracted itself, only that you have a contradiction. I have to assume you to mean that it implies a Christian cannot sin, since you posted it in reply to what I said above.

Do you think I have a contradiction? When all I did was quote scripture without comment?

 

[Albion]

There is no other side. Calvinism is unbiblical, and untrue.

That's it? Well, on to another thread, folks!

Words like Predestination are redefined to mean what they want it to say.

It's a theological term just like dozens that we all use frequently in order to refer to something more complicated in the Bible.

The whole Bible is chocked full of stories that have a moral lesson in not sinning or you will be punished.

Yes. We know that evildoing merits punishment. That's not the issue at all.