Many are called, FEW choose to be chosen ...

[mrhappy3]

ever thought why this is ???

 

[Always in His Presence]

Which verse are you referring to?

Matt:20:12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”

or

Matt 22:11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and[a] cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Thank you in advance

 

[mrhappy3]

I would say number 2

although an explanation of both would be great. thanks x

 

[Petruchio]

The "choose" within that has been inserted. That is not the sense of the text at all. The text merely states that "many are called," indeed, almost the entire world is called these days, "but few are chosen," that is, not based on their merits, but by God's grace. A good example of this in action is in Acts:

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

All of them were called, that is, by the preaching of the Gospel, but only those who were ordained to eternal life believed.

Faith is the gift of God, and is utterly dependent upon the giving of the Father:

"[N]o man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father" (John 6:65).

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1 Co 12:3 "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

And no one who is given by the Father to the Son ever fail to come:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[mrhappy3]

The "choose" within that has been inserted. That is not the sense of the text at all. The text merely states that "many are called," indeed, almost the entire world is called these days, "but few are chosen," that is, not based on their merits, but by God's grace. A good example of this in action is in Acts:

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

All of them were called, that is, by the preaching of the Gospel, but only those who were ordained to eternal life believed.

Faith is the gift of God, and is utterly dependent upon the giving of the Father:

"[N]o man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father" (John 6:65).

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1 Co 12:3 "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

And no one who is given by the Father to the Son ever fail to come:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

I do wonder about all this sometimes - but ultimately leave it to the Lord - he knows all hearts (Acts 15v8).

If I thought that God had it sewn up and all that would come will come anyway - my evangelism would be toothless. At the end of the day people still need to hear the word......cause whether they are ordained to believe or not, they can't if they haven't heard ! a paradox of sorts !?!

 

[Alithis]

i like the military analogy -
a line of a thousand soldiers stand -
the call goes out for a mission... who is chosen?

the few who stepped forward from the line in answer to the call.
hence-the many were called, but few ,were chosen.

 

[MikeBigg]

I do wonder about all this sometimes - but ultimately leave it to the Lord - he knows all hearts (Acts 15v8).

If I thought that God had it sewn up and all that would come will come anyway - I suppose my evangelism would be toothless. At the end of the day people still need to hear the word......cause whether they are ordained to believe or not, they can't if they haven't heard ! a paradox of sorts !?!

It is Calvinism - the L of TULIP is for limited atonement - that the cross did not work for all, and that those it did work for cannot avoid it.

I find the notion problematic for a number reasons:

1) As you have said, what is the point of our evangelism, taking the Gospel to all nations, the need to hear to believe in Romans 10 etc.

2) There are other verses which seem to contradict it:

1 John 2: 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Tim 4: 10 That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.

John 12: 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

1 Tim 2: 1 - 4 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (My emphasis).

To mention just a few.

3) What does limited atonement say about God? The idea that God would allow people to be born knowing that most, (actually the vast majority if church attendance numbers are anything to go by) will end up in eternal conscious torment does not sound like the actions of a loving God to me.

Limited atonement doesn't add up for me.

Regards,

Mike

 

[mrhappy3]

I tend to agree Mike - must be far more to it, in order to reconcile it all. Hope your well x

 

[Petruchio]

It is Calvinism - the L of TULIP is for limited atonement - that the cross did not work for all, and that those it did work for cannot avoid it.

I find the notion problematic for a number reasons:

1) As you have said, what is the point of our evangelism, taking the Gospel to all nations, the need to hear to believe in Romans 10 etc.

This is not actually a problem historically. Calvin, by the way, did not invent these doctrines. These were the Reformation doctrines as expressed by Luther himself, which Calvin only gets his name attached since he was so influential later. And before Luther was Augustine (not surprising, since Luther was himself an Augustinian monk), and before Augustine, of course, was the scripture, and the Apostles.

We who are Christians desire to serve God, and do so because He commands and pulls us to it. John Knox, that student of Calvin and of Geneva, was not a toothless evangelizer, nor were any of the other great reformers who went about the world with their evangelistic zeal.

2) There are other verses which seem to contradict it:

There are no verses which contradict it, only verses which we, English speakers, do not understand. One must be aware of the unique peculiarities Jews make use of in their language. For example, from Gill’s commentary, commenting on the Jewish use of the words “all the world, the world, the whole world, all the men of the world,” etc, Gill begins by quoting Jewish examples where the word is used in radically different ways from how we would use it today:

“Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles, “the world”; and “the whole world”; and “the nations of the world” (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word “world” is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that “there is no propitiation for them” (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),

‘it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, “the whole world” went after him;’’(n)

which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,

“amle ylwk, “the “whole world” has left the Misna, and gone after the “Gemara”;’’

which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),

“amle ylwk, “the whole world” fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;’’

where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when

“R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), “the whole world” stood up before him;’’

that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),

“when a great man makes a mourning, “the whole world” come to honour him;’’

i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, “the whole world” is not divided, or does not dissent (s); “the whole world” are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, “all the men of the world” (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, “all the world”, or “the whole world”, in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world”

(From Gill’s Commentary on 1 John 2:2, quoting from (l) Jarchi in Isa. liii. 5. (m) T. Hieros. Nazir, fol. 57. 3. Vid. T. Bab. Succa, fol. 55. 2. (n) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 71. 2. (o) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 33. 2. (p) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 22. 2. (q) T. Bab. Horayot, fol. 13. 2. (r) Piske Toseph. Megilla, art. 104. (s) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 90. 2. & Kiddushin, fol. 47. 2. & 49. 1. & 65. 2. & Gittin, fol. 8. 1. & 60. 2. (t) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 48. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 11. sect. 16.)

Scriptural examples of this include:

Luk 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

By this Luke means, not the whole habitable world, as much of it was still undiscovered, and not even the whole known world, which even in those days was not all under the power of the Roman empire, but just the Roman empire itself, or perhaps Judae.

Another one, which Gill mentioned:

1Jn 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

Obviously we are no longer under the power of Satan, but have been released from his clutches by the power of Jesus Christ.

Another:

Luk 11:42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

Some translations render this “all manner of herb,” but, literally, it is “every herb,” which, obviously, the meaning is only every kind of herb.

St. Augustine uses this example in his explanation of the verse 1 Ti 2:4 “Who will have all men to be saved”:

“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)

Another example:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
(Rom 3:10-11)

Obviously this cannot mean that no one seeks or understands, as, obviously, all Christians seek and understand (though maybe not perfectly). But, Paul’s meaning is more general,r referring to the depraved world, or of all Christians prior to Christ saving them, who, before that time, are incapable of seeing, believing or understanding until the Holy Spirit moves on them.

Another example, Christ distinguishing between the world and those given to Him out of the world:

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Thus the world does not mean everyone in the world, but all those not given to Him.

Finally, more direct examples, by comparing seemingly contradictory verses with their parallels:

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Joh_11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Thus the meaning is, Christ is the atonement for all the sins of the children of God scattered abroad, of every nation and tribe.

3) What does limited atonement say about God? The idea that God would allow people to be born knowing that most, (actually the vast majority if church attendance numbers are anything to go by) will end up in eternal conscious torment does not sound like the actions of a loving God to me.

You do not escape this problem, actually, as you would imagine that God allows millions of people to be born, in every century, into the world who are absolutely ignorant of the Gospel, and, likely, will always remain so, and therefore can never be saved. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, nor is anyone saved by their works, as the scripture plainly teaches. They are called "without hope," and "without God" in the world, and all inexcusable and condemned by the law that has been implanted in their hearts. This is a righteous judgment, yet, in your system, God was powerless to give them the opportunity to be saved?

We do not claim that God "allowed" anyone to be born who would never be saved. We claim that He absolutely ordained it, as the all knowing and all powerful God, who foresees all things, does not see them contingently, but establishes the events of the world according to His own good purpose, which, though mysterious to us, ultimately will bring out good out of the evil that exists in the world all for our benefit.

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
(Rom 9:19-24)

Tis a hard doctrine, but God is righteous, and is not obligated to give His mercy to all. But when He saves anyone, it is in mercy that He does so, as none of us are deserving of it; and if He judges us, it is in justice that He does so, as judgment is the only thing any of us actually deserve.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

 

[gideons300]

It is Calvinism - the L of TULIP is for limited atonement - that the cross did not work for all, and that those it did work for cannot avoid it.

I find the notion problematic for a number reasons:

1) As you have said, what is the point of our evangelism, taking the Gospel to all nations, the need to hear to believe in Romans 10 etc.

2) There are other verses which seem to contradict it:

1 John 2: 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Tim 4: 10 That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.

John 12: 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

1 Tim 2: 1 - 4 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (My emphasis).

To mention just a few.

3) What does limited atonement say about God? The idea that God would allow people to be born knowing that most, (actually the vast majority if church attendance numbers are anything to go by) will end up in eternal conscious torment does not sound like the actions of a loving God to me.

Limited atonement doesn't add up for me.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, correct me if i am wrong, but is this basically not universalism, the belief that in the end, all will come to heaven to be with God? If so, Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the dangers of hell, the horrors of eternal separation and the great regret people will suffer if they do not give all to Christ in this life. Why would he not have instead presented hell as an extended purgatory and that the love of God would eventually redeem all?

Of you are not talking about universalism, then forgive my questions.

Blessings,

Gids

 

[lismore]

I would say number 2

although an explanation of both would be great. thanks x

Both passages are talking about guys who just did not get it.

In the first passage the wage was a denarius, no matter how long you worked. Whether you believe in Christ aged 5, 15, 50 or five minutes before your death. You are saved.

In the second passage the guy is not arrayed in the robes of righteousness. The Lord has arrayed us in the robes of righteousness and the garments of salvation. Your own robes just won't do.

The Lord Jesus is saying that there are some who just don't get it, how salvation by grace works.

However the word 'few'. The number of people who have accepted the Lord and are accepting the Lord is by now a large army. People from every tribe and tongue, language and kin group. Sometimes we seem like few, but worldwide and down through the ages God has a large flock who will one day be with him, all together.

 

[MikeBigg]

Mike, correct me if i am wrong, but is this basically not universalism, the belief that in the end, all will come to heaven to be with God? If so, Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the dangers of hell, the horrors of eternal separation and the great regret people will suffer if they do not give all to Christ in this life. Why would he not have instead presented hell as an extended purgatory and that the love of God would eventually redeem all?

Of you are not talking about universalism, then forgive my questions.

Blessings,

Gids

Those are texts often used by universalists, but I was using them to show why I think Augustinianism/Calvinism has problems.

That said, I'm not convinced by Arminianism either - I think that has problems, too, even though there is a decent amount of texts that can be used for proof and the idea that a man's will can be somehow stronger than God's will to see them saved. So again, Bible verses and nature of God in conflict, in my view.

I know there are both Calvinists and Arminianists in the forum - I've just alienated myself from both

Blessings,

Mike

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

as a calvinist myself, I can say you haven't alienated yourself from me Mike These are tricky exegetical issues, and I try not to be dogmatic about it, Ultimately, God knows.

 

[MikeBigg]

This is not actually a problem historically. Calvin, by the way, did not invent these doctrines. These were the Reformation doctrines as expressed by Luther himself, which Calvin only gets his name attached since he was so influential later. And before Luther was Augustine (not surprising, since Luther was himself an Augustinian monk), and before Augustine, of course, was the scripture, and the Apostles.

I am aware of the history of Calvinism (and the brutal, murderous character of John Calvin).

I've snipped your reply for brevity, I won't be commenting on it save to say that, having considered Augustianism in the past, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't hold water.

That said, I know that many good, sincere people do accept it.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

as a calvinist myself, I can say you haven't alienated yourself from me Mike These are tricky exegetical issues, and I try not to be dogmatic about it, Ultimately, God knows.

Thank you for saying that.

I agree they are tricky issues - many, many hours have been spent, miles of ink written and millions of pixels used in the pursuit of answers.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[mrhappy3]

Both passages are talking about guys who just did not get it.

In the first passage the wage was a denarius, no matter how long you worked. Whether you believe in Christ aged 5, 15, 50 or five minutes before your death. You are saved.

In the second passage the guy is not arrayed in the robes of righteousness. The Lord has arrayed us in the robes of righteousness and the garments of salvation. Your own robes just won't do.

The Lord Jesus is saying that there are some who just don't get it, how salvation by grace works.

However the word 'few'. The number of people who have accepted the Lord and are accepting the Lord is by now a large army. People from every tribe and tongue, language and kin group. Sometimes we seem like few, but worldwide and down through the ages God has a large flock who will one day be with him, all together.

great

 

[Petruchio]

I am aware of the history of Calvinism (and the brutal, murderous character of John Calvin).

Judging from this reply, I would say that you are not aware of the history of Calvinism or of Calvin. I don't mean to offend you here, but too many Arminians and Pelagians rely on vapid personal attacks and torn up history in order to make their points. You did not refute the missionary zeal of the Reformers by this ugly calumny against Calvin, and I urge you, as a fellow Christian, to be more open minded on these matters.

I won't be commenting on it

To be honest with you again, there is no legitimate comment on my reply that you could have possibly made. My position is irrefutable, and it is Reformed theology only that can reconcile the entirety of the scripture. On the other hand, can you survive even a fair reading of one wicked, evil Calvinist text?

Let's do an experiment:

In this text, Jesus Christ explains to the unbelievers the reason for their unbelief. Can you tell me what reason He gives? Here are some possible answers (but only one actually works):

1) Because God foresaw their disbelief and therefore rejected them
2) Because God foresaw their evil works and therefore rejected them
3) Because God did not give it to them to believe
4) Because they rejected the grace of God

Now the verses:

Joh 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

So again, why is it that they do not believe, and why did Jesus tell them what He did?

 

[mrhappy3]

Judging from this reply, I would say that you are not aware of the history of Calvinism or of Calvin. I don't mean to offend you here, but too many Arminians and Pelagians rely on vapid personal attacks and torn up history in order to make their points. You did not refute the missionary zeal of the Reformers by this ugly calumny against Calvin, and I urge you, as a fellow Christian, to be more open minded on these matters.



To be honest with you again, there is no legitimate comment on my reply that you could have possibly made. My position is irrefutable, and it is Reformed theology only that can reconcile the entirety of the scripture. On the other hand, can you survive even a fair reading of one wicked, evil Calvinist text?

Let's do an experiment:

In this text, Jesus Christ explains to the unbelievers the reason for their unbelief. Can you tell me what reason He gives? Here are some possible answers (but only one actually works):

1) Because God foresaw their disbelief and therefore rejected them
2) Because God foresaw their evil works and therefore rejected them
3) Because God did not give it to them to believe
4) Because they rejected the grace of God

Now the verses:

Joh 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

So again, why is it that they do not believe, and why did Jesus tell them what He did?

Granted- but do you believe in evangelism and if so why ?

 

[Petruchio]

Granted- but do you believe in evangelism and if so why ?

Because it is my passion, and it is commanded of me, for this is how God has chosen to gather His elect, and condemn the world.

 

[mrhappy3]

fair enough x