Romans 9

[Jack Terrence]

It's a different word for call in Romans and in Matthew. They aren't the same thing.

The word in Matthew 22 is the SAME word used in Romans 8:28 (Strong's #2822).

"Many are CALLED, but few are chosen" (#2822).

"God causes all things to work together for the good to them who are CALLED according to his purpose" (#2822).

 

[Hammster]

The word in Matthew 22 is the SAME word used in Romans 8:28 (Strong's #2822).

"Many are CALLED, but few are chosen" (#2822).

"God causes all things to work together for the good to them who are CALLED according to his purpose" (#2822).

2564 in Romans.

 

[Jack Terrence]

2564 in Romans.

In verse 30 it is #2564. In verse 28 it is #2822.

Therefore, the two words are interchangeable.

 

[Hammster]

In verse 30 it is #2564. In verse 28 it is #2822.

Therefore, the two words are interchangeable.

No. The uses aren't even the same.

 

[Jack Terrence]

No. The uses aren't even the same.

So it is settled then that the two words are interchangeable.

And, yes, the two issues are not the same. In Romans it is God who does the calling. God calls only those whom He has chosen. But in Matthew it is the servants that did the calling, and they called some of whom the king did not approve. The king noticed that one was invited who was not clothed properly. And if there was one, then there were others. Thus the servants called some who met the king's standards; and they invited some whom they thought were fit.

The two parables are about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish rulers and their mishandling of the things of the kingdom. Matthew says the chief priests and pharisees knew that Jesus spoke the parable of the Vinedressers against them. Then Jesus answered with the parable of the Wedding Feast which also indicted them.

Just as the first parable was about their unfaithfulness as servants, so the second parable was about their ineptness.

 

[Hammster]

So it is settled then that the two words are interchangeable.

And, yes, the two issues are not the same. In Romans it is God who does the calling. God calls only those whom He has chosen. But in Matthew it is the servants that did the calling, and they called some of whom the king did not approve. The king noticed that one was invited who was not clothed properly. And if there was one, then there were others. Thus the servants called some who met the king's standards; and they invited some whom they thought were fit.

The two parables are about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish rulers and their mishandling of the things of the kingdom. Matthew says the chief priests and pharisees knew that Jesus spoke the parable of the Vinedressers against them. Then Jesus answered with the parable of the Wedding Feast which also indicted them.

Just as the first parable was about their unfaithfulness as servants, so the second parable was about their ineptness.

It's isn't settled. They aren't interchangeable. I'm sure Paul would have used the same word.

Try again.

And there's no proof that the servants called some that the king hadn't approved.

Try again.

 

[janxharris]

But in Matthew it is the servants that did the calling, and they called some of whom the king did not approve. The king noticed that one was invited who was not clothed properly. And if there was one, then there were others. Thus the servants called some who met the king's standards; and they invited some whom they thought were fit.

and they called some of whom the king did not approve.

On the contrary, they did exactly what the king commanded of them:

Matthew 22:8-10
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.​

Question: Did the servants do as the king requested of them?

The two parables are about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish rulers and their mishandling of the things of the kingdom. Matthew says the chief priests and pharisees knew that Jesus spoke the parable of the Vinedressers against them. Then Jesus answered with the parable of the Wedding Feast which also indicted them.

Just as the first parable was about their unfaithfulness as servants, so the second parable was about their ineptness.

Except that in the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-44), it is the tenant farmers that represent the Pharisees that Jesus lambasts. The servants represent the prophets. You are seriously suggesting that the servants in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet represent the Pharisees?

That is false and I await proof of your assertions.

It is obvious that the parable of the wedding banquet is troubling for Calvinism, whether hyper or not. The banquet represents the kingdom of heaven and the king tells his servants to invite anyone they find. Anyone is invited. There are no conditions. However, there is a condition to remaining at the banquet and that is the correct dress code. This equates to having faith in Jesus Christ.

John 6:50
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.​

Eating the bread of life equates to putting one's faith in Jesus.

 

[Hammster]

On the contrary, they did exactly what the king commanded of them:

Matthew 22:8-10
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.​

Question: Did the servants do as the king requested of them?



Except that in the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-44), it is the tenant farmers that represent the Pharisees that Jesus lambasts. The servants represent the prophets. You are seriously suggesting that the servants in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet represent the Pharisees?

That is false and I await proof of your assertions.

It is obvious that the parable of the wedding banquet is troubling for Calvinism, whether hyper or not. The banquet represents the kingdom of heaven and the king tells his servants to invite anyone they find. Anyone is invited. There are no conditions. However, there is a condition to remaining at the banquet and that is the correct dress code. This equates to having faith in Jesus Christ.

John 6:50
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.​

Eating the bread of life equates to putting one's faith in Jesus.

I don't see how you can say that the parable is troubling for Calvinists. I've spent the majority of this thread explaining how it actually supports Calvinism. Where have you seen that I'm troubled?

 

[janxharris]

I don't see how you can say that the parable is troubling for Calvinists. I've spent the majority of this thread explaining how it actually supports Calvinism. Where have you seen that I'm troubled?

For the invite to be genuine, it has to be the case that any man can exercise faith in Christ. If such faith is dependent on whether one was to be regenerated or not, then the invite is not genuine, but monstrously disingenuous.

Remember that faith does not equate to work - Romans 9:30-32.

 

[Hammster]

For the invite to be genuine, it has to be the case that any man can exercise faith in Christ. If such faith is dependent on whether one was to be regenerated or not, then the invite is not genuine, but monstrously disingenuous.

Remember that faith does not equate to work - Romans 9:30-32.

Yet you have no way of explaining the man with the wrong clothes. He's there. But kicked out. Why was he denied access to salvation, to use your term?

 

[Jack Terrence]

For the invite to be genuine, it has to be the case that any man can exercise faith in Christ.

Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.

Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God designs the call for some men to be a "savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation."

[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

 

[Hammster]

Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.

Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God designs the call for some men to be a "savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation."

[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

You say I've contradicted myself, yet you do so in one post.

 

[janxharris]

Yet you have no way of explaining the man with the wrong clothes. He's there. But kicked out. Why was he denied access to salvation, to use your term?

The man with the wrong clothes refused to follow the dress code. He made a decision and should not be surprised that he was thrown out.

The king invited anyone. He did not decide in advance that some of them would be incapable of donning the appropriate wedding clothes. If that was the case then he would be guilty of disingenuity.

 

[Hammster]

The man with the wrong clothes refused to follow the dress code. He made a decision and should not be surprised that he was thrown out.

The king invited anyone. He did not decide in advance that some of them would be incapable of donning the appropriate wedding clothes. If that was the case then he would be guilty of disingenuity.

So we agree that the invitation went out to all, but there are some who willingly refuse to come in the right manner.

Where you seem to deviate is where you think those who are clothed rightly came freely, when the parable says otherwise.

Don't forget this part:

Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (Matthew 22:8 NASB)

 

[janxharris]

Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.

Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God designs the call for some men to be a "savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation."

[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

Okay, so you clearly believe that God does not call all men to salvation.

1. Do you concur with Calvin's assertion that 'he designs the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation.'?

2. God is love. Is that true or false?

3. Mark 16:15,16: He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Do you do this?

 

[janxharris]

So we agree that the invitation went out to all, but there are some who willingly refuse to come in the right manner.

Where you seem to deviate is where you think those who are clothed rightly came freely, when the parable says otherwise.

Don't forget this part:

Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (Matthew 22:8 NASB)

You are making an assumption that is not in the text. If they did not come freely then how did they come?

So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.

kalesate - invite.

I would appreciate it if you would address my specific point:
The king invited anyone. He did not decide in advance that some of them would be incapable of donning the appropriate wedding clothes. If that was the case then he would be guilty of disingenuity.

 

[Jack Terrence]

It's isn't settled. They aren't interchangeable. I'm sure Paul would have used the same word.

Try again.

Now you are in denial friend. In verse 28 Paul said that all things work together for the good of those who are "CALLED" according to God's purpose. This is the SAME word used in Matthew 22. Then in verse 30 he said that whom He "CALLED" He also justified. This is a DIFFERENT word. Therefore, the two words are interchangeable.

And there's no proof that the servants called some that the king hadn't approved.

Then why did the king not approve of some? Those who had no proper clothing shouldn't even have been admitted into the feast. They should have been turned away at the door.

Consider the parable of the dragnet. The bad fish were separated from the good fish by the messengers. But the servants of the king did not separate those who had no proper clothing from those who were properly clothed.

This proves that the parable was about the poor stewardship of the Jewish rulers as was the parable which immediately precedes. You do not help Calvinism by being stubborn.

 

[janxharris]

Now you are in denial friend. In verse 28 Paul said that all things work together for the good of those who are "CALLED" according to God's purpose. This is the SAME word used in Matthew 22. Then in verse 30 he said that whom He "CALLED" He also justified. This is a DIFFERENT word. Therefore, the two words are interchangeable.

That seems about right.

Then why did the king not approve of some? Those who had no proper clothing shouldn't even have been admitted into the feast. They should have been turned away at the door.

You are making an assumption and adding to the text. The servants did exactly as required.

Consider the parable of the dragnet. The bad fish were separated from the good fish by the messengers. But the servants of the king did not separate those who had no proper clothing from those who were properly clothed.

And you know for certain that they were told to? You are speculating so as to maintain a doctrine that is false. That is obvious.

This proves that the parable was about the poor stewardship of the Jewish rulers as was the parable which immediately precedes. You do not help Calvinism by being stubborn.

A parable about the kingdom of heaven seen through the analogy of a wedding banquet...and you focus on the servants who are never rebuked...

You are stretching the text Boxer.

 

[sdowney717]

The man without the wedding garments, no one noticed he appeared different.
Until the Master, the Lord shows up and He instantly notices.

What you can get from this, is the man without the wedding garments is as of those in your church who are friends of the church, attending and participating but are not saved, never having been born again. So they still wear the filthy rags of their own self righteousness. That those around that man did not notice is obvious as that even today you would not know the heart and thoughts of another person so would not know they had never been born again regenerated by the Lord and saved. It is God who clothes us with the proper garments to be acceptable to Himself. So the improperly clothed man, to the others senses, they would have expected him to be there and would not be perceived as unusual.

That the improperly clothed man appears with the others and is then separated, cast out shows that at the judgement, (consider the sheep and the goats parable), they were all gathered together and judgement rendered in the presence of them all, so all heard what HE said, and the judgement executed immediately after He spoke.

That the improperly clothed man was speechless, shows he is in shock and without excuse before God, probably such a person thought in their heart they were right before Him, but as this was revealed to him his serious lack and so deep his misunderstanding of God and he became without words to answer back so deep was his surprise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And there's no proof that the servants called some that the king hadn't approved.

Now, that's rich. Let's review just what the king told his servants.

Matt 22:8-10
8“Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10“Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.

I believe "as many as you can find" and "gathered together all they found, both evil and good" pretty much covers the FACT that there NO "disapprovals".

iow, the invitation was to everyone who was available. No one was excluded from the invitation.