Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The word in Matthew 22 is the SAME word used in Romans 8:28 (Strong's #2822).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).
In verse 30 it is #2564. In verse 28 it is #2822.2564 in Romans.
No. The uses aren't even the same.In verse 30 it is #2564. In verse 28 it is #2822.
Therefore, the two words are interchangeable.
So it is settled then that the two words are interchangeable.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.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
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.
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
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)
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.It's isn't settled. They aren't interchangeable. I'm sure Paul would have used the same word.
Try again.
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.And there's no proof that the servants called some that the king hadn't approved.
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.
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.
Now, that's rich. Let's review just what the king told his servants.And there's no proof that the servants called some that the king hadn't approved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?