Romans 9

[Hammster]

Since Matthew 22 is clearly talking about the kingdom of heaven then Jude 1 has to be understood with such in mind.

And we can tell by looking at Matt 22 that those who were at the wedding were those who were gathered. There's nothing in that parable that says any of the guests responded to the invitation. Those were the "chosen".

 

[FreeGrace2]

And we can tell by looking at Matt 22 that those who were at the wedding were those who were gathered. There's nothing in that parable that says any of the guests responded to the invitation. Those were the "chosen".

Actually, all who were at the wedding were invited. If you want to call them the "chosen", it would only be because they responded to the invitation. No other way.

Matt 22:9-10
9‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite (kaleo) 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.

We find the word 'kaleo' in v.3,4 and 8, referring to those who were invited to the wedding but refused the invitation. We also find it in v.9 in reference to those who actually came to the wedding.

So, there is "everything" in the parable that indicates that the guests who showed up were invited and they responded.

Unless you can find anything in the parable to indicate that the servants used force on those in attendance.

The word for 'gathered' is sunago, and if the guests were fish, I suppose you could argue that they were gathered together as fish in a net.

But we are speaking of people, not fish. So there is no sense that anyone was dragged to the wedding.

btw, how do you view the wedding guest (invited and responded) who was not wearing proper attire? Don't forget the customs of that time and the significance of proper attire.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, all who were at the wedding were invited. If you want to call them the "chosen", it would only be because they responded to the invitation. No other way.

Matt 22:9-10
9‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite (kaleo) 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.

We find the word 'kaleo' in v.3,4 and 8, referring to those who were invited to the wedding but refused the invitation. We also find it in v.9 in reference to those who actually came to the wedding.

So, there is "everything" in the parable that indicates that the guests who showed up were invited and they responded.

Unless you can find anything in the parable to indicate that the servants used force on those in attendance.

The word for 'gathered' is sunago, and if the guests were fish, I suppose you could argue that they were gathered together as fish in a net.

But we are speaking of people, not fish. So there is no sense that anyone was dragged to the wedding.

btw, how do you view the wedding guest (invited and responded) who was not wearing proper attire? Don't forget the customs of that time and the significance of proper attire.

Of course they were invited. That's the gospel proclamation. But as you pointed out, the guests were gathered. It doesn't say that they accepted the invite. That's your tradition.

As to the one who showed up, he came on his own. The evidence is that his righteousness was not accepted.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Matthew 22 is pretty clear that all are called to the banquet (which is the kingdom of heaven).

Jude 1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

They are 'called', 'loved in God' and 'kept for Jesus'. I'm not sure that one can build a case for effectual calling on this verse.

So you are of the opinion that the calling in Jude is a universal call to all people?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course they were invited. That's the gospel proclamation. But as you pointed out, the guests were gathered. It doesn't say that they accepted the invite. That's your tradition.

No, there's no tradition in my view. I showed that those who showed up were INVITED. Matt 22:9 says so. And they came. So it's pretty clear that they responded to the invitation.

No one invites someone to go somewhere and then just drags them there. But that is your tradition, right?

The fact that they were gathered has nothing to do with Calvinism. They did respond to the invitation by being at the wedding feast. And all who were invited and responded were gathered and brought there.

As to the one who showed up, he came on his own. The evidence is that his righteousness was not accepted.

How do you know that he "came on his own"? What verse says that? All those in attendance had been INVITED and GATHERED. So your conclusion might also be just your tradition.

Do you understand the parable as being about being in the kingdom of God? Since v.1 makes that clear, I hope you do understand that. And how do you explain this guy without proper wedding attire actually getting in?

Do you believe he represents an unbeliever, given your comment? If so, how did he get in? Can you explain that by your tradition?

 

[Hammster]

No, there's no tradition in my view. I showed that those who showed up were INVITED. Matt 22:9 says so. And they came. So it's pretty clear that they responded to the invitation.

No one invites someone to go somewhere and then just drags them there. But that is your tradition, right?

No. It's what's in the text.

 

[bling]

Except that such issues are not mentioned in verses 6-13 - that is, those verses immediately preceding v. 14 'Is God unjust?'

It is very much issue brought up by Paul in verses 6-13!

Paul talks about: only Abraham’s descendent son Isaac (a Jew) is heir to the promise and not the other son descendant of Abraham being Ishmael (a gentile). Paul then follows with the promise went to Jacob a Jew and not Esau a gentile. Yes, the Jews were a very select group to fulfill a very wonderful objective.

So what will the gentile Christians be thinking and feeling after hearing from Paul how they were treated by God compared to the Jews in the beginning?

Do those stories sound like God is being a little “unfair” to the gentiles?

Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

The promises were for Jesus Christ alone. You seem to disagree.

Were there lots of things promised Abraham? (land, number of descendants, being their God)

Were these same promises made to gentiles?

There was a promise concerning the “seed” singular made to Abraham, but the context of Paul’s discussion here is about, the Jewish people and the gentile people.

Romans 9:19-24
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?

I still think that Paul is asserting that all men, at some time in their life, are vessels of dishonour. We know from Romans 5:18 that condemnation has come to all. Also:

The King James version is not helping you here.

KJV “Thou wilt say then unto me…” is to convey the idea “one of you will ask…” (Meaning one of the Christians from Paul’s imaginary student this one being an imaginary gentile Christian will ask).

Again the KJV is doing you a disserves with “vessels of dishonor” and that is the reason I referred you to 2 Tim. 2: 20 even in the KJV it reads: 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Would there be wood and earth vessels that were “worthless” (disgraceful/ to be burned up) kept in a great house?

Paul is saying there are not only special vessels but common vessels are in a great house, which is the same analogy Paul uses in Ro. 9: 21.

Common vessels (made of wood and clay in Tim.) are not made for destruction but for good purposes, but not the same special objective other vessels are made for.

The problem is both special vessels and common vessels can become “damaged” (sin) worthy of destruction. Now God can be very patient with these damaged vessels (common or special) and (this is not being addressed) we know an all-powerful potter could repair his vessels.

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The vessels of mercy are those in Christ - surely?

The vessels of His mercy come from both the vessels made for a special purpose and vessels made for a common purpose Ro 9: 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

From v 24 you can see Paul is addressing Jews (special purpose vessels) and Gentiles (Common vessels).

v.23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Only those in Christ are prepared for glory.

Again it is because you assume: “vessels of mercy” = “vessels of honor” and “vessels of dishonor” = “vessels of wrath”, but that is not what Paul is saying. A better translation of the Greek would help you. Any vessel that becomes damaged has made itself a vessel made for destruction, but that is not the way it left God’s shop. All common and special vessels become damaged and God will patiently wait for the opportunity to be allowed to repair them.

I still say that a vessel is only honourable if they are in Christ. The promises were to Abraham and his seed - which is Christ.

How where they made to begin with?

Do you have a problem with God the potter repairing a common vessels, so it can fulfill its common purpose?

Vessels of honour in a 'chosen to service' sense, but not 'chosen to salvation'. I think we agree on this.

Both vessels; those created for a special purpose (you translate “honor”) and those created for a common purpose (you translate “dishonor”) all have a wonderful objective, but not the exact same purpose. They all become damaged and in need of the Potter’s repair, those that do not allow the potter to repair them, wind up in hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. It's what's in the text.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is what I said, that you responded to:

No, there's no tradition in my view. I showed that those who showed up were INVITED. Matt 22:9 says so. And they came. So it's pretty clear that they responded to the invitation.

No one invites someone to go somewhere and then just drags them there. But that is your tradition, right?

So, what are you referring to that is "in the text"?

And you failed to address my question:

And how do you explain this guy without proper wedding attire actually getting in?

Do you believe he represents an unbeliever, given your comment? If so, how did he get in? Can you explain that by your tradition?

Could you please answer it?

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is what I said, that you responded to:

So, what are you referring to that is "in the text"?

Read what you wrote. I responded to it.

And you failed to address my question:

Could you please answer it?

I didn't read it. I thought it was just more false assertions of the text.

 

[hedrick]

One of the issues here is that we're trying to answer questions that Jesus didn't have in mind. As far as I can tell he wasn't teaching either election or libertarian free will, though he certainly assumed that people made choices, for what they are held accountable. I'd say there are two main themes:

* that the first people invited didn't attend, so the host extended his invitation to everyone. I assume he's speaking here of Pharisees and other leaders not entering the Kingdom, but sinners responding.
* that God extends his grace to everyone, but expects people to respond to that by obedience.

In the second group, 22:9 uses "invited", just as 22:3 does. 22:10's "gathered" suggests a bit more forceful gathering than was used on the first group. It's hard to see how to extent that to election, however, since not all of those gathered ended up being accepted. Only those with a robe were accepted.

In sum, this seems to be a picturesque parallel to Jesus' statements that he came to call sinners and not those who considered themselves righteous. But pretty clearly Jesus never said that all sinners would end up in the Kingdom. Only those who followed him in obedience. Indeed that's what the final summary in 22:14 says.

The parallel in Luke (14:15 ff) can be more easily given a Calvinist reading. First, it uses a term that NRSV translates as "compel" for the second group. TDNT seems to agree, though CEB translates "urges." But note that in this version of the story the second group isn't split into those who have a robe and those who don't. Although it isn't said explicitly, my impression is that everyone in the second group ends up in the Kingdom. So there's no logical problem with this being an effective call, as there would be in the version in Mat.

 

[janxharris]

So you are of the opinion that the calling in Jude is a universal call to all people?

I honestly don't know. But Matthew 22 is pretty clear and explicitly explains how one is called to the banquet and accepted.

 

[janxharris]

It is very much issue brought up by Paul in verses 6-13!

Paul talks about: only Abraham’s descendent son Isaac (a Jew) is heir to the promise and not the other son descendant of Abraham being Ishmael (a gentile). Paul then follows with the promise went to Jacob a Jew and not Esau a gentile. Yes, the Jews were a very select group to fulfill a very wonderful objective.

So what will the gentile Christians be thinking and feeling after hearing from Paul how they were treated by God compared to the Jews in the beginning?

Do those stories sound like God is being a little “unfair” to the gentiles?



Were there lots of things promised Abraham? (land, number of descendants, being their God)

Were these same promises made to gentiles?

There was a promise concerning the “seed” singular made to Abraham, but the context of Paul’s discussion here is about, the Jewish people and the gentile people.

The King James version is not helping you here.

KJV “Thou wilt say then unto me…” is to convey the idea “one of you will ask…” (Meaning one of the Christians from Paul’s imaginary student this one being an imaginary gentile Christian will ask).

Again the KJV is doing you a disserves with “vessels of dishonor” and that is the reason I referred you to 2 Tim. 2: 20 even in the KJV it reads: 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Would there be wood and earth vessels that were “worthless” (disgraceful/ to be burned up) kept in a great house?

Paul is saying there are not only special vessels but common vessels are in a great house, which is the same analogy Paul uses in Ro. 9: 21.

Common vessels (made of wood and clay in Tim.) are not made for destruction but for good purposes, but not the same special objective other vessels are made for.

The problem is both special vessels and common vessels can become “damaged” (sin) worthy of destruction. Now God can be very patient with these damaged vessels (common or special) and (this is not being addressed) we know an all-powerful potter could repair his vessels.

The vessels of His mercy come from both the vessels made for a special purpose and vessels made for a common purpose Ro 9: 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

From v 24 you can see Paul is addressing Jews (special purpose vessels) and Gentiles (Common vessels).




Again it is because you assume: “vessels of mercy” = “vessels of honor” and “vessels of dishonor” = “vessels of wrath”, but that is not what Paul is saying. A better translation of the Greek would help you. Any vessel that becomes damaged has made itself a vessel made for destruction, but that is not the way it left God’s shop. All common and special vessels become damaged and God will patiently wait for the opportunity to be allowed to repair them.





How where they made to begin with?

Do you have a problem with God the potter repairing a common vessels, so it can fulfill its common purpose?







Both vessels; those created for a special purpose (you translate “honor”) and those created for a common purpose (you translate “dishonor”) all have a wonderful objective, but not the exact same purpose. They all become damaged and in need of the Potter’s repair, those that do not allow the potter to repair them, wind up in hell.

I will try to respond soon...

 

[janxharris]

One of the issues here is that we're trying to answer questions that Jesus didn't have in mind. As far as I can tell he wasn't teaching either election or libertarian free will, though he certainly assumed that people made choices, for what they are held accountable. I'd say there are two main themes:

* that the first people invited didn't attend, so the host extended his invitation to everyone. I assume he's speaking here of Pharisees and other leaders not entering the Kingdom, but sinners responding.
* that God extends his grace to everyone, but expects people to respond to that by obedience.

In the second group, 22:9 uses "invited", just as 22:3 does. 22:10's "gathered" suggests a bit more forceful gathering than was used on the first group. It's hard to see how to extent that to election, however, since not all of those gathered ended up being accepted. Only those with a robe were accepted.

In sum, this seems to be a picturesque parallel to Jesus' statements that he came to call sinners and not those who considered themselves righteous. But pretty clearly Jesus never said that all sinners would end up in the Kingdom. Only those who followed him in obedience. Indeed that's what the final summary in 22:14 says.

The parallel in Luke (14:15 ff) can be more easily given a Calvinist reading. First, it uses a term that NRSV translates as "compel" for the second group. TDNT seems to agree, though CEB translates "urges." But note that in this version of the story the second group isn't split into those who have a robe and those who don't. Although it isn't said explicitly, my impression is that everyone in the second group ends up in the Kingdom. So there's no logical problem with this being an effective call, as there would be in the version in Mat.

This seems to be the correct understanding, I would say.

 

[Hammster]

One of the issues here is that we're trying to answer questions that Jesus didn't have in mind. As far as I can tell he wasn't teaching either election or libertarian free will, though he certainly assumed that people made choices, for what they are held accountable. I'd say there are two main themes:

* that the first people invited didn't attend, so the host extended his invitation to everyone. I assume he's speaking here of Pharisees and other leaders not entering the Kingdom, but sinners responding.
* that God extends his grace to everyone, but expects people to respond to that by obedience.

In the second group, 22:9 uses "invited", just as 22:3 does. 22:10's "gathered" suggests a bit more forceful gathering than was used on the first group. It's hard to see how to extent that to election, however, since not all of those gathered ended up being accepted. Only those with a robe were accepted.

The assumption is that the man without the robe was gathered. I don't think the text supports that. I think that's a picture of those who "come" seeking what God gives, and not God Himself.

In sum, this seems to be a picturesque parallel to Jesus' statements that he came to call sinners and not those who considered themselves righteous. But pretty clearly Jesus never said that all sinners would end up in the Kingdom. Only those who followed him in obedience. Indeed that's what the final summary in 22:14 says.

No, it says many are called and few are chosen.

The parallel in Luke (14:15 ff) can be more easily given a Calvinist reading. First, it uses a term that NRSV translates as "compel" for the second group. TDNT seems to agree, though CEB translates "urges." But note that in this version of the story the second group isn't split into those who have a robe and those who don't. Although it isn't said explicitly, my impression is that everyone in the second group ends up in the Kingdom. So there's no logical problem with this being an effective call, as there would be in the version in Mat.

That's not a parallel passage, but I'm not sure it affects your point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Read what you wrote. I responded to it.

Your response made no sense.

I didn't read it. I thought it was just more false assertions of the text.

Well, read it and answer, please.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I honestly don't know. But Matthew 22 is pretty clear and explicitly explains how one is called to the banquet and accepted.

Sure, but not all answer the call. Which is why Reformed Theology differentiates between the general call and efficacious call. There is a general call made to all people, but only the elect will answer that call because of their election. Therefore it is effectual unto those who have the capacity to answer it, i.e. have been regenerated by the work of the Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sure, but not all answer the call. Which is why Reformed Theology differentiates between the general call and efficacious call. There is a general call made to all people, but only the elect will answer that call because of their election. Therefore it is effectual unto those who have the capacity to answer it, i.e. have been regenerated by the work of the Spirit.

Could you explain why there would even ben a "general call to all people", given your theology that only the elect will answer that call?

What is the purpose of a "general call" to those God didn't elect?

Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

Could you explain why there would even ben a "general call to all people", given your theology that only the elect will answer that call?

What is the purpose of a "general call" to those God didn't elect?

Thanks.

God is glorified whenever the gospel is proclaimed.

Also, we do not know who the elect are.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Could you explain why there would even ben a "general call to all people", given your theology that only the elect will answer that call?

What is the purpose of a "general call" to those God didn't elect?

Thanks.

God is glorified whenever the gospel is proclaimed.

Also, we do not know who the elect are.

I always have a chuckle when an argument is made like this. Let's assume you're right FG2, and the general call doesn't serve any purpose in our scheme (don't tell me your question doesn't infer this position either). How are the elect supposed to come? How is the call to be extended if we don't know who they are? It creates a pragmatic problem (which is solved by the general call). The argument is made that the general call is nonsensical, and yet, there is no alternative you can provide in bringing many sons to glory.

 

[Jack Terrence]

This is when you dropped the ball because you ignored the final phrase when Paul said "even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles"

The ones who are called (effectually) are the ones that put their faith in Christ.

Yep!