Romans 9

FreeGrace2 · Nov 8, 2013

Hammster said:
Okay. "I don't know" is my answer. Now, fulfill your promise.

Yes, that would qualify as an answer.

The parable of the wedding feast in Matt 22 deals with several things. The first one is about God's invitation to the wedding feast. Many have rejected that invitation. You term those as the "non-elect", an unbiblical term. I term them simply as unbelievers. They rejected the invitation.

Those who actually came to the wedding did accept the invitation, clear from the context. No one was forcefully brought in. The word "gathers" refers to the fact that all who accepted the invitation were brought to the wedding feast.

So, all who were at the feast are believers, saved and in the kingdom. So, what about the improperly dressed man? In a number of places, the Bible speaks of "proper dress" in regards to one's proper lifestyle. Just use your Bible study software and look up "washed their robes", "clean while linen", etc.

In the ancient near east, those who gave wedding banquets provided the proper garments to wear to the occasion. The ill-dressed man represents a believer who didn't follow the rules and therefore didn't demonstrate proper lifestyle. As a result, he was ejected from the banquet, but NOT the kingdom. To conclude he wasn't saved is to ignore the clear context. In the ancient near east, weddings took place at night, so it would be dark outside, and all the early readers of Matt would have understood that immediately. He was ejected outside the banquet hall, not ejected from the kingdom.

He represents a believer who has forfeited blessings and reward IN the kingdom. But I know that Calvinism generally rejects the teaching of reward for obedience and faithfulness. Never mind how many times we find the word "reward" in the NT.

Since you don't have an answer, other than you don't know the answer, how can you refute mine? You'd have to have an answer in order to refute mine.

FreeGrace2 · Nov 8, 2013

Jesusfreak5000 said:
I have already refuted everything you have said.

Let's just be clear, here. OK?

Your last post was #59 on p.6, which I responded to and refuted in post #63 on p.7. So, now you just show up and claim you refuted me? You haven't even responded to my post #63.

If I've missed a post of yours (I don't think so), please note the post #.

In addition, your post #103 on p.11 was refuted by me in post #111 on p.12, which you haven't responded to. Other than your latest post which claimed you "already refuted" what I have said. Not at all.

AndOne · Nov 8, 2013

Jesusfreak5000 said:
I have already refuted everything you have said. You simply don't accept it. I have no desire to go in circles with you; my prior post still stands as my answer to you, and anyone onlooking can go there to see my refutation of your objections against the Reformed view of calling.

I care not to have the last word... Your post can be considered the final word in our exchange here.

Agreed. Well said brother. Titus 3:10 might apply here.

janxharris · Nov 8, 2013

Hammster said:
Everyone was invited. But he was thrown out. So the reason he came could not have been because of the invitation. Or are you arguing that there are some who want to come but have no access to salvation?

11But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend? The man was speechless.

13Then the king told the attendants, Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Many (all) are invited, but of these, few are chosen. You are suggesting that not all are invited, but those that are, are always chosen. This does not sit with v. 14 which, obviously, refers to the exclusion of the man without the wedding clothes.

janxharris · Nov 8, 2013

Hammster said:
The problem is your myopic view of the verse. Nobody will argue that it couldn't have the linguistic meaning of all men everywhere at all times. However, you ignore the proceeding verses and the those following.

The proceeding verses list a whole range of people. Older women, younger women, men, masters, slaves, etc. Then Paul drops v 11 in there. So in context, it's impossible (unless you have a tradition to prop up) to have Paul all of the sudden change context and mean every person everywhere. In context, he's talking about types of people.

Then, he goes on to say what the grace actually does. He's very specific. There's no way that this can mean that everyone has the same benefit from this grace.

Your view has to assume that, in that verse, there's some sort of option for men to respond to the grace. It's a huge assumption because it's nowhere implied.

Your view has once again been proven lacking in two areas, if context is considered.

Paul is teaching that salvation is offered to all sorts of people? When did anyone in scripture suggest that some types of people were not to be offered salvation?

Paul is affirming, in verse 11, that shepherds are offered salvation as well as Pharisees and teenagers? Somebody wanted confirmation of this?

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

FreeGrace2 said:
He represents a believer who has forfeited blessings and reward IN the kingdom. But I know that Calvinism generally rejects the teaching of reward for obedience and faithfulness. Never mind how many times we find the word "reward" in the NT.

Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 22:13 NASB)

That doesn't sound like someone who has lost rewards for disobedience. That's sounds like someone cast into hell.

So, my view still stands. Those at the wedding feast are the elect. They were clothed in Christ's righteousness. The man in rags came only for the food, otherwise he would have taken the robes. And as such, he was cast into hell.

Your view doesn't reflect the reality of the parable.

Charis kai Dunamis · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
Paul is teaching that salvation is offered to all sorts of people? When did anyone in scripture suggest that some types of people were not to be offered salvation?

1 Timothy 2:1-2 clearly teaches that some were either not practicing or entirely against making supplication and prayer for those who were in authoritative positions, specifically and obviously persecuting them.

Jack Terrence · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
11But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend? The man was speechless.

13Then the king told the attendants, Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Many (all) are invited, but of these, few are chosen. You are suggesting that not all are invited, but those that are, are always chosen. This does not sit with v. 14 which, obviously, refers to the exclusion of the man without the wedding clothes.

You should read the parable again. Jesus spoke a series of two parables which were both against the pharisees.

Here is how it goes. The king sent his servants out to call those who were invited to the wedding. But the servants took it upon themselves to call some in addition to those whom the king had invited.

Those invited by the king correspond to the few that were chosen. The servants correspond to the pharisees, and the many they called correspond to those that the pharisees deemed fit for the wedding, but whom the king rejected.

Many were called by wicked servants, but few were chosen by the king.

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
11But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend? The man was speechless.

13Then the king told the attendants, Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Many (all) are invited, but of these, few are chosen. You are suggesting that not all are invited, but those that are, are always chosen. This does not sit with v. 14 which, obviously, refers to the exclusion of the man without the wedding clothes.

You've confused me a bit on what you're driving at. Why do you think he was there, and then thrown out?

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
Paul is teaching that salvation is offered to all sorts of people? When did anyone in scripture suggest that some types of people were not to be offered salvation?

Paul is affirming, in verse 11, that shepherds are offered salvation as well as Pharisees and teenagers? Somebody wanted confirmation of this?

It's irrelevant as to whether or not there were some people who thought that salvation wasn't offered to everyone. The context is still that the grace has come to all types, and that there's a specific purpose. Your questions expose the fact that you still see the verse as singular, and not part of the whole passage.

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

The Boxer said:
You should read the parable again. Jesus spoke a series of two parables which were both against the pharisees.

Here is how it goes. The king sent his servants out to call those who were invited to the wedding. But the servants took it upon themselves to call some in addition to those whom the king had invited.

Those invited by the king correspond to the few that were chosen. The servants correspond to the pharisees, and the many they called correspond to those that the pharisees deemed fit for the wedding, but whom the king rejected.

Many were called by wicked servants, but few were chosen by the king.

The parable does not support that in any way. Your presuppositions have you blinded.

Jack Terrence · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
Paul is teaching that salvation is offered to all sorts of people? When did anyone in scripture suggest that some types of people were not to be offered salvation?

Paul is affirming, in verse 11, that shepherds are offered salvation as well as Pharisees and teenagers? Somebody wanted confirmation of this?

Exactly! Salvation was offered to all sorts of people as opposed to Jews only. It is not offered to every individual. If that were the case, then God could not allow for anyone to die without ever hearing it. But we know that many die every day without ever being offered Christ.

You are beginning to speak the bible's (and Calvinism's) language.

janxharris · Nov 8, 2013

The Boxer said:
Those passages simply mean that the gospel is not exclusive to Jews only. God judicially blinds the minds and hardens the hearts of the non-elect (John 12:39-40). God would not call them after reprobating them. It is contradictory. If it is contradictory, then it must be wrong.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Something very similar occurs in Matthew 13, but here the citation is longer:

Matthew 13:14,15
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this peoples heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.

The other problem for your position is that Judas is in the wrong group:

v. 11 He replied, Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

'you' is the twelve and other Jews.

Mark 4:10,11
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

sdowney717 · Nov 8, 2013

janxharris said:
Something very similar occurs in Matthew 13, but here the citation is longer:

Matthew 13:14,15
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

The other problem for your position is that Judas is in the wrong group:

v. 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

'you' is the twelve and other Jews.

Mark 4:10,11
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

Judas fulfilled the role assigned to him by the scriptures.
Just because Judas was there does not imply what your trying to imply.

Jesus Identifies His Betrayer

18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’[c] 19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He.

“I do not speak concerning all of you" He says this all the way back in John 13.
So you can not include Judas at all except for that the scriptures were required that Judas play that role.

FreeGrace2 · Nov 8, 2013

Hammster said:
Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 22:13 NASB)

That doesn't sound like someone who has lost rewards for disobedience. That's sounds like someone cast into hell.

First, hell isn't mentioned. So you are only pre-supposing. Second, why doesn't weeping and gnashing sound like someone who has forfeited great reward? It sure does to me. And if that one was being cast into hell, you have a huge problem of explaining HOW he ented up in heaven in the first place.

But waityou can't answer that, right.

So, my view still stands. Those at the wedding feast are the elect.

So far, we agree, except I call them "believers".

They were clothed in Christ's righteousness.

Go ahead and ignore the customs of the day. No problem.

The man in rags came only for the food, otherwise he would have taken the robes. And as such, he was cast into hell.

Except you have no support for your guesswork. You can't explain how in Jesus' parable that one of yer non-elect got past the guards and entered heaven itself. Seems your view of God is that He isn't quite all that omniscient, and one of His not-to-be-chosen ones slipped past. Really?

Your view doesn't reflect the reality of the parable.

Now, that's funny!

First you claim that you don't know, and now you come up with an answer that violates the text, and didn't come close to refuting what I presented.

In fact, it is your view that doesn't square with the reality of the parable. It is your view that has one of your so-called non elect actually IN heaven. How real is that? Gimme a break!

Jack Terrence · Nov 8, 2013

Hammster said:
The parable does not support that in any way. Your presuppositions have you blinded.

Denial is not rebuttal.

The parable of the Wicked Vinedressers which immediately precedes is clearly against the pharisees. The parable of the Wedding Feast is also against them. The issue of the wedding feast has to do with those the pharisees counted worthy to attend the wedding as opposed to those whom the king (Christ) counts fit.

The king sent his servants out to invite only those whom he had previously invited. But the servants went beyond the king's order saying, "Let's call these too." But the guests the servants included were not dressed properly and so the king rejected them. The guests the king invited would have been told beforehand what to wear to the wedding.

The Arminians are eating you alive here because you are beset with so many contradictions and inconsistencies. Yet you continue to regurgitate historic Calvinism no matter what.

FreeGrace2 · Nov 8, 2013

The Boxer said:
Denial is not rebuttal.

He seems to think so.

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

FreeGrace2 said:
First, hell isn't mentioned. So you are only pre-supposing. Second, why doesn't weeping and gnashing sound like someone who has forfeited great reward? It sure does to me. And if that one was being cast into hell, you have a huge problem of explaining HOW he ented up in heaven in the first place.

But wait…you can't answer that, right.

So far, we agree, except I call them "believers".

Go ahead and ignore the customs of the day. No problem.

Except you have no support for your guesswork. You can't explain how in Jesus' parable that one of yer non-elect got past the guards and entered heaven itself. Seems your view of God is that He isn't quite all that omniscient, and one of His not-to-be-chosen ones slipped past. Really?

Now, that's funny!

First you claim that you don't know, and now you come up with an answer that violates the text, and didn't come close to refuting what I presented.

In fact, it is your view that doesn't square with the reality of the parable. It is your view that has one of your so-called non elect actually IN heaven. How real is that? Gimme a break!

Oh, you think the kingdom is heaven. Well, that explains your error. And you also think there will weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven. Oh, boy.

Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 22:13 NASB)

Either Jesus is describing hell, or just talking about people losing their rewards and crying in heaven.

janxharris · Nov 8, 2013

Jesusfreak5000 said:
1 Timothy 2:1-2 clearly teaches that some were either not practicing or entirely against making supplication and prayer for those who were in authoritative positions, specifically and obviously persecuting them.

I don't understand why you have written this jf.

Hammster · Nov 8, 2013

The Boxer said:
Denial is not rebuttal.

The parable of the Wicked Vinedressers which immediately precedes is clearly against the pharisees. The parable of the Wedding Feast is also against them. The issue of the wedding feast has to do with those the pharisees counted worthy to attend the wedding as opposed to those whom the king (Christ) counts fit.

The king sent his servants out to invite only those whom he had previously invited. But the servants went beyond the king's order saying, "Let's call these too." But the guests the servants included were not dressed properly and so the king rejected them. The guests the king invited would have been told beforehand what to wear to the wedding.

The Arminians are eating you alive here because you are beset with so many contradictions and inconsistencies. Yet you continue to regurgitate historic Calvinism no matter what.

So because two parables are next to each other, that gives you permission to read all sorts of things into one of them? There's nothing in the text that supports your view, especially the "Let's call these, too."

Romans 9

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Veteran

Veteran

Carpe Chaos

χάρις καὶ δύναμις

Fighting the good fight

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Fighting the good fight

Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Fighting the good fight

Senior Veteran

Carpe Chaos

Veteran

Carpe Chaos

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency