For Calvinists: Struggling with Matthew 22:14

[Tania11]

5 wise virgins get in.
5 foolish virgins do not.

So that's a 50% success rate JUST IN THE CHURCH.

Then there are those outside of the church...

The majority are not saved.

Man...I wish I didn't post my question. I think it's best for me to not focus on this.

 

[Tania11]

Your answer will come from you asking yourself: "Why do I prefer my judgment over that of God?"

That's why I'm here. I don't accept my judgement. Because of my sinful nature, I'm having difculty understanding this one verse. I thought other Christians could help

 

[Religiot]

I know God didn't have to save any. I'm still getting saddened over the fact that not many are going to be saved and are unable to respond because of their nature. John 3:16 used to comfort me but after reading Matthew 22:14, I'm kind of in the dumps.

How do I get out of this?

For Calvinists struggling with Calvinism:

 

[Tania11]

For Calvinists struggling with Calvinism:

View attachment 278477

Oh man. Please don't blaspheme! I feel wretched for making this post where this is done.
I'm certainly not getting any advice about God from Jefferson

 

[Religiot]

Oh man. Please don't blaspheme! I feel wretched for making this post where this is done.
I'm certainly not getting any advice about God from Jefferson

You should look into Jefferson, not the stuff said about him after he died, but the stuff said about him when he lived--very different, and quite edifying for Christians.

 

[St_Worm2]

You should look into Jefferson, not the stuff said about him after he died, but the stuff said about him when he lived--very different, and quite edifying for Christians.

Hello Religiot, are you saying that all of our historians, as well all of the authors of his biographies (most of whom, at least the ones I've read, seemed to hold him if very high regard), falsified the truth and the evidence that we have about him and his life?

Why would they do that, and to what end

Thanks!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

This is pretty standard stuff about Jefferson from Wikipedia. Which parts are patently false, or is all of it a lie, and if so, what is the truth?

If you are correct, perhaps we need to use a pair of "Jeffersonian Scissors" on Wikipedia's article? Here's what it has to say about him, in part.

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the traditional Christianity of his era. Throughout his life, Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, religious studies, and morality.[1][2] Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion, Theistic rationalism, and Unitarianism.[3] He was sympathetic to and in general agreement with the moral precepts of Christianity.[4] He considered the teachings of Jesus as having "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,"[5] yet he held that the pure teachings of Jesus appeared to have been appropriated by some of Jesus' early followers, resulting in a Bible that contained both "diamonds" of wisdom and the "dung" of ancient political agendas.[6]

Jefferson held that "acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence" (as in his First Inaugural Address[7]) was important and in his second inaugural address, expressed the need to gain "the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old".[8] Still, together with James Madison, Jefferson carried on a long and successful campaign against state financial support of churches in Virginia. Also, it is Jefferson who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. During his 1800 campaign for the presidency, Jefferson even had to contend with critics who argued that he was unfit to hold office because of their discomfort with his "unorthodox" religious beliefs.

In a letter to John Adams dated August 22, 1813, Jefferson named Joseph Priestly (an English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (an English Deist) as his religious inspirations.[9]

Jefferson used certain passages of the New Testament to compose The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (the "Jefferson Bible"), which excluded any miracles by Jesus and stressed his moral message. Though he often expressed his opposition to many practices of the clergy, and to many specific popular Christian doctrines of his day, Jefferson repeatedly expressed his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher, and consistently referred to himself as a Christian (though following his own unique type of Christianity) throughout his life. Jefferson opposed Calvinism, Trinitarianism, and what he identified as Platonic elements in Christianity. In private letters Jefferson also described himself as subscribing to other certain philosophies, in addition to being a Christian. In these letters he described himself as also being an "Epicurean" (1819),[10] a "19th century materialist" (1820),[11] a "Unitarian by myself" (1825),[12] and "a sect by myself" (1819).[13] Upon the disestablishment of religion in Connecticut, he wrote to John Adams: "I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character."[14]

Jefferson refused to serve as a godparent for infants being baptized, because he did not believe in the dogma of the Trinity.[17] Despite testimony of Jefferson's church attendance, there is no evidence that he was ever confirmed or was a communicant.[18]

--David
p.s. - You can read the rest of the article here if you'd like to here: Religious views of Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia​

 

[Religiot]

Hello Religiot, are you saying that all of our historians, as well all of the authors of his biographies (most of whom, at least the ones I've read, seemed to hold him if very high regard), falsified the truth and the evidence that we have about him and his life?

Why would they do that, and to what end

Thanks!

--David

No... You've just quoted what I said... ...why don't you think it's what I meant?

 

[St_Worm2]

No... You've just quoted what I said... ...why don't you think it's what I meant?

My response to what you wrote was one of surprise because I'd (obviously) never heard this before.

Do you have examples of what was written about him prior to his death that show a marked contrast with what was written about him after his death (what he did and what he believed), information that you could share with us so that we can see for ourselves what you are talking about?

Again though, what do you believe our historians' and biographers' purpose(s) was in falsifying the historical records concerning Jefferson? What did they hope to accomplish?

Thanks again!

--David

 

[solid_core]

You could not be more wrong.

Do the 10 commandments also only apply to Jews?

10 commandments, as a part of a legal covenant between God and Israel, was given to Jews only, through Moses. Not to Russians or Australian Aborigins.

That does not mean that other nations did not have similar laws, because at least 6-7/10 commandments are natural and pretty basic.

 

[Inkfingers]

10 commandments, as a part of a legal covenant between God and Israel, was given to Jews only, through Moses. Not to Russians or Australian Aborigins.

That does not mean that other nations did not have similar laws, because at least 6-7/10 commandments are natural and pretty basic.

The very notion that the 10 commandments are not binding on all....is heresy.

 

[solid_core]

The very notion that the 10 commandments are not binding on all....is heresy.

Of course its not binding. No other nation than ancient Israel kept Sabbath or not making images of God etc.

If you think this simple stating of facts is heresy, your choice, you are too religious.

 

[Religiot]

My response to what you wrote was one of surprise because I'd (obviously) never heard this before.

Do you have examples of what was written about him prior to his death that show a marked contrast with what was written about him after his death (what he did and what he believed), information that you could share with us so that we can see for ourselves what you are talking about?

Again though, what do you believe our historians' and biographers' purpose(s) was in falsifying the historical records concerning Jefferson? What did they hope to accomplish?

Thanks again!

--David

You continue to presuppose that I was alluding to falsification of his life, by historians, which I'm not.

My statement was intended to imply that there is an alternative version of Mr. Jefferson's life, one only knowable by independent investigation: this alternative is not necessarily in denial of what is commonly published, but an addition to what is commonly known, and for clarification of the same.

For example, the falsely so called 'Jefferson Bible' is not the title Mr. Jefferson called his work for the Native Americans, but it is commonly called that today, which title is the cause of much confusion amongst the laity--of which I'm also a part of.

I only posted his comment on Calvinism, because I've never seen so well a description, in such a concise manner, of what John Calvin actually believed.

--Mr. Jefferson is not an authority on what is true, he's just another witness to what I already believe.

Moreover, I'm not here to debate Calvinism with you, nor anyone, I think it is a theology too depraved to debate.

I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time with me, for I've already seen on your avatar, that you are a Calvinist.

 

[Monksailor]

I know God didn't have to save any. I'm still getting saddened over the fact that not many are going to be saved and are unable to respond because of their nature. John 3:16 used to comfort me but after reading Matthew 22:14, I'm kind of in the dumps.

How do I get out of this?

I just finished participating in one of my Sunday morning worship sessions. This one was under Dr. Michael Youssef of "Leading the Way." He brought up that verse and tied it in to his sermon regarding Matthew 25:1-13. I thought of your thread. Maybe you would benefit from listening to it: Are You Ready for the End Times?

 

[Tania11]

You continue to presuppose that I was alluding to falsification of his life, by historians, which I'm not.

My statement was intended to imply that there is an alternative version of Mr. Jefferson's life, one only knowable by independent investigation: this alternative is not necessarily in denial of what is commonly published, but an addition to what is commonly known, and for clarification of the same.

For example, the falsely so called 'Jefferson Bible' is not the title Mr. Jefferson called his work for the Native Americans, but it is commonly called that today, which title is the cause of much confusion amongst the laity--of which I'm also a part of.

I only posted his comment on Calvinism, because I've never seen so well a description, in such a concise manner, of what John Calvin actually believed.

--Mr. Jefferson is not an authority on what is true, he's just another witness to what I already believe.

Moreover, I'm not here to debate Calvinism with you, nor anyone, I think it is a theology too depraved to debate.

I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time with me, for I've already seen on your avatar, that you are a Calvinist.

If you truly thought someone is lost and on their way to hell, wouldn't you want to talk them out of it? Why scurry them away?

 

[Religiot]

If you truly thought someone is lost and on their way to hell, wouldn't you want to talk them out of it? Why scurry them away?

My lack of desire to debate Calvinism is not from a lack of concern for his followers, but from the belief that I have in God's word, i.e., the Spirit warns that not all conversations are profitable, and I know from experience, that a debate with one of John Calvin's followers has never resulted in a fruitful exchange.

Be at peace, sister, for the Spirit draws to Christ, those that are His, and they know His voice, and in no case would they follow anyone, but Him.

Godspeed.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I know God didn't have to save any. I'm still getting saddened over the fact that not many are going to be saved and are unable to respond because of their nature. John 3:16 used to comfort me but after reading Matthew 22:14, I'm kind of in the dumps.

How do I get out of this?

I might be wrong because I'm pretty new to reformed theology but when Jesus said that many are called but few are chosen he meant that in the sense of Israel. In other words, God wanted and desired for all of Israel to be saved but because of their unbelief, their idolatry, their pride, and their unrepentance and hardened hearts only a few Jews are actually chosen by God. This statement of Jesus was backed up by the Prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 10:22 & by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:27-29. The Apostle Paul also explains why in Romans 9:6-9.

It is a reformed belief that many people will in fact, be chosen by God and therefore saved. Mainly because of God's promise to Abrhaham in Genesis 15:5 & Genesis 17:4-5. The Apostle John also confirms the multitude when he saw all of the saved in heaven in Revelation 7:9.

Like God and John say: The actual number of people in the book of life are an incountable number of people from every tribe, people, and nation. One of the greatest reformed pastors Charles Spurgeon even made the comment and believed that there would actually be more people in heaven than in hell. It was a pretty controversial statement at the time that he made it in the late 19th century. Heck, it still is. I don't think I would quite go THAT far but you never know. We won't know until we all get there.

 

[Neostarwcc]

My lack of desire to debate Calvinism is not from a lack of concern for his followers, but from the belief that I have in God's word, i.e., the Spirit warns that not all conversations are profitable, and I know from experience, that a debate with one of John Calvin's followers has never resulted in a fruitful exchange.

Be at peace, sister, for the Spirit draws to Christ, those that are His, and they know His voice, and in no case would they follow anyone, but Him.

Godspeed.

If you actually read God's word you would believe reformed theology because every book in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation supports it. The Reformed don't just use John and Romans to support Reformed Theology we use every book in the Bible which is something that no other movement can actually claim. There's a reason why the reformers "found" it in scripture for the "first time" and it was declared biblical by the vast majority of the Protestant Church for over 300 years after the Reformation. It wasn't until the 19th century that different Major movements started to form in Protestantism as Protestants were starting to move farther and farther away from what scripture actually says. They instead started to make up things that scripture did NOT say but, what man wanted scripture to say. But, from the 16th to 19th century Reformed Theology was declared Biblical. Yes, I'm aware that Arminianism started in the 17th century. But, it was declared unbiblical at the Synyod of Dort in 1619 and rejected by a majority of the Chruch for several hundred years after that. Today, it's different and Armminianism and "Free Grace" are accepted by the majority (About 700-900 Million Protestants) and Reformed is the minority (About 100 million Protestants). but more and more people over the last 20-30 years or so are starting to accept Reformed Theology as being Biblical again. There are becoming more and more Theologians teaching Reformed Theology than in over a hundred years. John Piper, John Mcarthur, R.C. Sproul, James White, Michael Horton, Steven Lawson (Okay he's not a theologian but he is a well known and respected Pastor and Authur of Christian Theology). To name a few of the most popular and well respected. There are literally over 50 Reformed parcticing Theologians now in the 21st century.

But anyway, there's a reason why St.Augustine believed it and it was believed and taught by the apostles up until the apostle John died around 80 AD and by the church until around 150 AD. Church history teaches this. It was taught and believed because it's the truth of scripture and it was Divine Revelation given to the Apostles themselves by God himself. I'm not saying that people who don't believe Reformed Theology cannot be saved or aren't saved but merely that they're ignorant of what scripture actually says.

Scripture from Genesis to Revelation says that God chose people from before the foundation of the world, that those people are special and are "his". God calls his chosen people "Descendants" of Abraham and heirs according to the promise. He demonstrates this in BC times by choosing Israel to be his people who would spread his word to the world and to design humanity's eternity over. That his election of these people had nothing to do on their own merits or anything that they had done but are merely by his own grace.

Scripture says that salvation was and is completely 100% a work of God, and that God promised Adam and Eve a redeemer who will redeem his people. Scripture also says that because of Adam and Eve humanity is totally depraived and cannot go to God on their own because we are all born with a flesh nature who sins. Jesus and the Apostles (And parts of the Old Testament) always taught and talked about the security of those who were God's. If you just went by Jesus's statements in the Gospels you could come to this conclusion on your own but the New Testament (and parts of the OT) are literally chuck full of the doctrine of Preserverence of the Saints A.K.A Eternal Security, OSAS ...etc.

But Christ made other statements about the security of those and the preservation of those who were written in his book of life in the Book of Revelation. Several times.

And what I just described was just T.U.L.I.P there's also a lot more of Reformed Theology actually taught in the Bible.

Don't believe me, read for yourself and study what the early church and what the Reformers actually believed to get called "Heretics" by the Catholic church and by the Mainstream Protestant church today. I'm not going to quote literally hundreds of verses of scripture and even if I did you wouldn't actually read or believe them because there's "No way scripture could actually say that because God isn't a puppeteer that just controls us. We have free will." I'm just saying that by experience and by people's rejection of Biblical Christianity these days.

Just like Scripture doesn't actually say that if you divorce somebody and Marry and sleep with somebody else you're not comitting adultery, or God didn't actually say that women couldn't be Pastors, or doesn't teach the roles of Husbands and Wives. Or that Homosexuality is a sin, or that the Five Sola's (Including Scriptura) are actually taught in the Bible or... need I really go on? Nope, it says nothing about that at all. The Fundamentalists just made it all up.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Of course its not binding. No other nation than ancient Israel kept Sabbath or not making images of God etc.

If you think this simple stating of facts is heresy, your choice, you are too religious.

While the Ten Commandments were given in covenant to Israel the work of the law was also written in all as we read,

“ Romans 2:14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

And the true Light lighteth every man that come the into the world John 1:9

 

[StillGods]

calvinism creates a lot of anxiety in those who believe it.