Romans 9

[shturt678]

Jesus affirms the opposite to that which Calvin taught:

John 6:50-51
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

We also know that faith is not a work.

Romans 9:30-32
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.​

Faith cannot contain within it any trace of work, else it too would not have resulted in righteousness.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.​

 

[shturt678]

Both Mk.1:15 (Kingdom of God) & Matt.22:1-14 (Kingdom of God) = sedes doctrinae for the doctrine of election (Kingdom of God).

Just, have to agape that Kingdom of God, ol' old Jack

 

[hedrick]

OK, so what does the banquet represent?

So, what does the feast represent?

That's the feast?? And what makes you think Mark 1:15 has any direct connection to Matt 22?

When I provide verses from various places, I get charged with "apples and oranges".

Jesus' parables aren't necessarily allegories. So we don't have to come up with direct symbolic references for elements. I wouldn't too directly equate the banquet with heaven or some earthly entity.

There's no reason the banquet can't represent the Kingdom both on earth and in eternity. People come into it now. But those who are cast out end up in the outer darkness, which is normally an image of judgement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I understand you. I just think you're wrong. And as a side note, whenever 1000 is used in scripture, it's never literal.

Uh, never say "never". It's much safer that way.

But…how you manage to ignore the clear text of Rev 20 does amaze me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A few of my ol' Reformed true friends decades ago and I went at it over their Amil. Reformed theologian Mr. Simon Kistemaker's works vs. Amil. Lutheran theologian Mr. RCH Lenski's works, and Amil. Lutheran theologian Mr. William Hendriksen's works. Sorry, I forget who won the debate and all the other Amil. works? Sorry again, also got carried away putting a plug in for the Lutheran's Amil. works.

Just ol' old Jack

What's wrong with a literal 1,000 year reign with Christ, per Rev 20? what am I missing? Or adding?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus' parables aren't necessarily allegories. So we don't have to come up with direct symbolic references for elements. I wouldn't too directly equate the banquet with heaven or some earthly entity.

There's no reason the banquet can't represent the Kingdom both on earth and in eternity. People come into it now. But those who are cast out end up in the outer darkness, which is normally an image of judgement.

Since there is much teaching on the "Bride of Christ" in the NT, I see no reason why the banquet represents the "marriage supper of the Lamb", per Rev 19:9.

I know Jesus was speaking from the OT perspective, but He certainly knows all history. I see much parallel between His parable and that marriage supper. Lots.

 

[janxharris]

What's wrong with a literal 1,000 year reign with Christ, per Rev 20? what am I missing? Or adding?

Nothing is wrong with a literal thousand years.

 

[Hammster]

Uh, never say "never". It's much safer that way.

But…how you manage to ignore the clear text of Rev 20 does amaze me.

I don't ignore it. I just understand it properly.

 

[Hammster]

Nothing is wrong with a literal thousand years.

No, there's nothing wrong, per se. But it's better understood how John's readers would have understood it. The Jews would have been familiar with the 1000 meaning a lot of something since it's the only way used in scripture previously.

 

[janxharris]

No, there's nothing wrong, per se. But it's better understood how John's readers would have understood it. The Jews would have been familiar with the 1000 meaning a lot of something since it's the only way used in scripture previously.

What words would John have used if he had actually wanted to say a literal 'thousand years'?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't ignore it. I just understand it properly.

Not since you are amil, you don't. If Rev 20 isn't literal, what does 1,000 years mean to you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, there's nothing wrong, per se. But it's better understood how John's readers would have understood it. The Jews would have been familiar with the 1000 meaning a lot of something since it's the only way used in scripture previously.

"A lot of something"??????? What in the world does that mean?

 

[Hammster]

What words would John have used if he had actually wanted to say a literal 'thousand years'?

I don't know. I'm sure he would have come up with something. But we know how it's used in scripture previously. And that's how his readers would have understood it.

 

[Hammster]

Not since you are amil, you don't. If Rev 20 isn't literal, what does 1,000 years mean to you?

What it means to me is what it means.

 

[Hammster]

"A lot of something"??????? What in the world does that mean?

Cattle on a thousand hills. Thousand eyes. Etc.

 

[janxharris]

Cattle on a thousand hills. Thousand eyes. Etc.

What words would John have used if he had actually wanted to say a literal 'thousand years'?

 

[janxharris]

Cattle on a thousand hills. Thousand eyes. Etc.

'thousand years' is used six times in Revelation 20.

 

[Hammster]

'thousand years' is used six times in Revelation 20.

Cool.

 

[Jack Terrence]

So because two parables are next to each other, that gives you permission to read all sorts of things into one of them?

The two parables are both about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish leaders. Both parables are against them. Btw, you also read things into the text that aren't there. The parable does NOT teach a "general call" of salvation to all men. It says that many are called and not that all are called. You have been conditioned to see things that aren't there.

There's nothing in the text that supports your view, especially the "Let's call these, too."

First, my statement "Let's call these too" was ad-libbing on my part. The servants clearly called some whom they were not authorized to invite. Explain why one who was not clothed properly was invited?

Second, Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God brings the gospel to them to further condemn them. In commenting on Jesus’s statement that many are called but few are chosen Calvin said,

[T]here is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. Institutes 3.24.8

So Calvin did NOT teach that God calls all men to salvation as Calvinists erroneously teach.

Third, John Gill denied the "general call" doctrine. I know of no Calvinist who who accuses Gill of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gill taught that God calls only those who are thirsty to come.

The Calvinist's "general call" doctrine is absurd and thoroughly contradictory!

 

[shturt678]

Nothing is wrong with a literal thousand years.

Would be strange, indeed, if all the sudden we had a literal repeated 6 times 1,000 years when Revelation is full of symbolism and symbolic numbers.

10X10X10=1,000 highest completeness, ie, Satan bound at the Cross starting the 1,000 and symbolically ends at Rev.20:7. Satan personally cannot deceive the nations of course.

Just ol' old Jack's view