Preterism implies Calvinism

[didymus]

Sept 16, 2010 21:44:50 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said:

Faith alone is Biblical doctrine. John 3.16 was written way before John Calvin was born.

I have repeatedly said that faith alone was Paul's doctrine. Faith alone is Calvinistic in that it is the Calvinists that are the champions of it. All others attack it.

Didymus:
Well, if it wasn't for the fact that the Calvinists championed faith alone starting with Martin Luther you might still be required to pay indulgences to the RCC.

Christ and the apostles were the first to champion "faith alone," not Calvinists.

Didymus:

If this is your premise for saying Preterism implies Calvinism, it is a very weak premise.

Again, read the entire thread again starting from the beginning. I have never said that faith alone was my sole premise. Be fair. Fairness is a Christian quality.

Roo

I actually did re-read it, but I will again.

- coffee

[Morris]

Sept 16, 2010 12:49:03 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Ah but you do bring in your conjecture! You say that James' point was that faith produces works. But's that's not at all what James said his point was. He said that his point was that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

Then all I can say is that you haven't really thought about waht I have posted, much of it coming from James itself.

Morris:
ALL the apostles except James wrote of the death of Christ. Jude was not an apostle.

All we have is one small letter of James in scripture. How can you be certain, and so completely certain as to build a doctrine upon it, that James never spoke or wrote about Christ's sacrifice?

Morris:
James was written in the early 30's. It was the first epistle written. It was written before Paul received and disclosed his faith alone gospel from Jesus Christ.

Is this asserted because of the doctrine? In other words, what is it that you are basing these dates on? They are contrary to all other investigations regarding the date of this epistle. Generally, 45 AD is the earliest date for this letter.

If you are using this early date to support the doctrine that the new covenant had not yet come into effect, then you can't say that the doctrine is proof of the early date. The fact of the matter is that the chronology just doesn't support this order of events.

Paul said that the "tablets of stone" (the ten commandments) was the "ministry of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Then he said that that covenant "IS PASSING AWAY" (vs. 11). Note the present participle "is passing" away. This indicates that the old covenant was not yet abolished though it was indeed in the process of being abolished.

That's all fine and dandy but it must also be viewed in conjunction with other scripture. The New Testament is replete in its showing that God had made a new covenant which superseded the old by virtue of Christ. The old covenant was dead and abolished in Him and what they witnessed was a corpse that was decaying and would soon vanish.

James on the other hand gives no indication whatsoever that the ten commandments are on their way out in reference to our justification. Moreover, his epistle contains no new covenant truth whatsoever. So how could the writings of James and Paul have been contemporary?

Easily, we build on what they do say, not on what they don't say. James does not uphold the old ritual sacrifices in his letter. He says, "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:15,16).

He writes that the prayer of faith can forgive sins! And that confession is for healing! This is not Old Covenant understanding! If James didn't understand the sacrifice that Christ made there is no way he would tell people that prayer could forgive sins; the Law demanded a sacrifice for such.

Jude was not an apostle. He stated the purpose for his writing. He said that he was writing about what the apostles of Jesus Christ foretold. By contrast James was discussing how a man is justified before God with no reference to Christ's death whatsoever.

Sure there is, if you know what to look for and the terms the New Testament uses. Again, James did not promote the old covenant. In fact, he understood that the Law had been fulfilled in Christ and in His Law; the Law of Liberty! "So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty" (2:12).

1 Peter 2:16 basically says the same thing as James, "yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God". Just because we are not under the Law of Moses, whereby now all things are permissible but not profitable, we are not to use this freedom as an excuse to do our will, but it frees us to do the will of the Father. As James also states, "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ".

These distinctions you see just simply are not in scripture.

May I submit that you have not "shown." You have "explained" and your explanation does not work.

My explanation cannot work within the context of your doctrine, I agree.

I disagree. James was the very first epistle written. It was before Paul. Please give your evidence.

In all fairness, you have not provided any either.

And according to James if there was no works there was no justification. Why can't you just accept it for what it says? It says that a man is "JUSTIFIED by works."

Because I must also just accept what other things are said; John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” ".

And Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them". I will continue to give God the credit for what He does through the one He created (me) in Christ, that the works He prepared to do done through me may bring glory to Him.

What do you not understand about the "not out of faith only" part? If James was written contemporaneously with Paul's reception and propagation of his gospel, then he clearly contradicts Paul for Paul totally excluded works altogether in reference to our justification.

What do you not understand about justification being a gift and a mercy from God and not based on what we do? We are justified by faith first. The works that God performs through us (i.e. by us submitting our will to Him) is the evidence/fruit that we do in fact know Him. Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work". When we don't know Him, when we have not placed our faith in Him, we are not eligible for the works God desires to do through us.

I don't know why the simplicity of scripture is so complicated by man.

The Westminster Confession refutes your statement in bold.

Scripture refutes the confession.

[kangaroojack]

Sept 16, 2010 22:04:49 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Roo,
The holes in your line of reasoning are numerous. Just because Calvin confirms 'faith alone' doesn't tell us a thing about how he defined that. So for preterism to imply Calvinism, we first have to see if they even agree on what 'faith alone' means. And as for your hair-splitting with James and Paul, I already mentioned that James spoke to his readers of their having the faith of Christ (James 2:1). Are you now going to say that these Jewish believers had a different faith in Christ than Paul's audience did?

So much for "faith alone"! Since now we must determine which faith it is...

Hi Robin,

I think I have clearly defined "faith alone" as that "faith" which excludes all works in reference to ur being justified before God. This "faith" is new covenant faith. I have said also that the "faith" which included works was old covenant. You apparently have not followed this thread that closely. Please see the Wikipedia link below for the Reformed definition of "sola fide" (faith alone).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

Preterists claim that they have made a clean break from the old covenant. Yet many Preterists here still hold on to works which is old covenant.

The problem as I see it is that many Preterists still fail to recognize that God's new covenant revelations came to the first Christians progressively over a period of about 50 years. I will cite Milton S. Terry who was a Preterist of the 19th century:

The different writings of the New Testament all appeared within a period of about half a century but they also furnish the means of tracing the development of life and thought in the early apostolic Church. Our present canonical Scriptures, therefore, are to be recognized as the records of a progressive divine revelation. Biblical Hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry, p. 566

Therefore, what you call my "hair splitting" over James and Paul I call "tracing the development of apostolic thought" concerning the subject of how a sinner is justified before God. James clearly said that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Paul said just the opposite. James said that they had to fulfill the law to be just before God. Paul said that the righteousness of God "is being revealed APART fom the law" (Romans 3:21).

Paul's use of the present participle "is being revealed" strongly indicates that God's new covenant truths were revealed to Paul progressively. Therefore, James' method of justifcation was abrogated. The epistle now applies only in that it can give us instruction in righteousness as the old testament books. But in the matter of justification James has been trumped by Paul who claimed that his faith alone revelation was from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11).

Mograce:

And as for your hair-splitting with James and Paul, I already mentioned that James spoke to his readers of their having the faith of Christ

Did you read my reply to James' reference to the "faith of Christ?" The apostle to the Hebrews said that Christ's doctrines of faith and repentance were "elementary principles" and that they were to "leave" those principles and to not lay that foundation again (Hebrews 6:1-6).

Paul said his gospel was the righteousness of God that was being revealed from heaven "out of faith into faith" (Romans 1:16-17). I have explained this already. What is your explanation of the phrase "out of faith into faith?"

Preterists claim that they have left the old covenant behind. But they cannot leave the old covenant behind and still embrace works salvation.

blessings,

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Roo,
Morris is probably better suited to deal with this topic since I get annoyed by Calvinism. But the works of faith which James is speaking about is not an old covenant work of law at all. And since Abraham was not under any such law before it was given then the works that justified him - born of his faith is not the type of works as you say at all!

We are justified by that faith alone which God births in us - but He also brings that work - which is His alone, forth to the birth. A faith without such evidence of itself is DEAD as in not a living faith. And that is the faith we have, one that lives in us. James is showing that dead works of law without faith (which is what they were) didn't justify anyone by the keeping of them. We need a living faith - one that can work. And this Christ gives us as the evidence He is working by grace thru faith bringing us into the love of God.

Back to Morris, since you don't seem to understand me!

[kangaroojack]

Morris:

All we have is one small letter of James in scripture. How can you be certain, and so completely certain as to build a doctrine upon it, that James never spoke or wrote about Christ's sacrifice?

Morris,

Your answer was incomplete. James said that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. What about this? You agree with me Paul taught that justification is by faith alone. Therefore, Paul abrogated James' method of justification.

Morris:

Is this asserted because of the doctrine? In other words, what is it that you are basing these dates on? They are contrary to all other investigations regarding the date of this epistle. Generally, 45 AD is the earliest date for this letter.

I asked you first. Give your internal evidence please. Then I will give mine.

Morris:

If you are using this early date to support the doctrine that the new covenant had not yet come into effect, then you can't say that the doctrine is proof of the early date. The fact of the matter is that the chronology just doesn't support this order of events.

That the new covenant had not come into effect abruptly is standard Preterist teaching. Hebrews 8 says that the old "is passing away." The present participle indicates continuous action in present time. The early date for James only supports the Biblical teaching that the new covenant had not yet fully come into effect. Even Paul offered an animal sacrifice for the Days of Purification (Acts 21). He later condemned this and so did the book of Hebrews. Therefore, the new covenant had not fully come until later on. If Paul had possessed all new covenant truth all at once he would never have offered an animal sacrifice.

Morris:

That's all fine and dandy but it must also be viewed in conjunction with other scripture. The New Testament is replete in its showing that God had made a new covenant which superseded the old by virtue of Christ. The old covenant was dead and abolished in Him and what they witnessed was a corpse that was decaying and would soon vanish.

Your explanation fails to take into account that Christ had to enter the heavenly sanctuary and make the atoning intercession on the heavenly altar. This was in accordance with the law of Moses. The new covenant could not fully come until every jot and tittle of the law had been fulfilled.

You make the same mistake the futurists make. You think all things happened in punctiliar time. This was not at all the case. It all happened in linear time as the present participles indicate. You say that the old covenant was abolished all at once. Yet Paul said that Christ "has abolished death." You don't believe that death was totally abolished then. Am I right?

Morris:

Easily, we build on what they do say, not on what they don't say. James does not uphold the old ritual sacrifices in his letter.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until ALL be fulfilled.

Morris:

He says, "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:15,16).

What does this prove? Jesus said to a man, "Your faith has saved (healed) you." This was clearly before the new covenant had been instituted.

Morris:

He writes that the prayer of faith can forgive sins!

You misread the text. It is talking about the prayers of elders forgiving sins. This was similar to the act of the high priest in old covenant times. Do elders forgive our sins today? Absolutely not? The text you give actually supports my position that James does not contain new any covenant truth whatsoever.

Morris:

This is not Old Covenant understanding! If James didn't understand the sacrifice that Christ made there is no way he would tell people that prayer could forgive sins; the Law demanded a sacrifice for such.

There is nothing new covenant about it. And the fact that these things no longer happen since the new covenant age came proves my contention.

Morris:

Again, James did not promote the old covenant. In fact, he understood that the Law had been fulfilled in Christ and in His Law; the Law of Liberty! "So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty" (2:12).

It was indeed the law of "liberty" under the old covenant. But under the new covenant the law became the law of death (Romans 7). Paul said that the law was "holy, just and good" but that it became "DEATH" (Romans 7:12-13). Therefore, if James' doctrine of the law of God was new covenant he would have said that it was "DEATH."

Morris:

1 Peter 2:16 basically says the same thing as James, "yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God". Just because we are not under the Law of Moses, whereby now all things are permissible but not profitable, we are not to use this freedom as an excuse to do our will, but it frees us to do the will of the Father. As James also states, "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ".

We are talking about how a man is justified before God.

Morris:

Because I must also just accept what other things are said; John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” ".

Faith is a work of God in us but justification is not. I said that justification is not a work of God in us.

Morris:

And Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them". I will continue to give God the credit for what He does through the one He created (me) in Christ, that the works He prepared to do done through me may bring glory to Him.

Why is it that you keep changing the subject to sanctification? James is not talking about how a man is sanctified. He is talking about how a man is justified before God. He said that a man was justified by works and not by faith only. This is CLEARLY the old coveant method of justification.

Morris:

We are justified by faith first. The works that God performs through us (i.e. by us submitting our will to Him) is the evidence/fruit that we do in fact know Him.

James is not talking about post-justification works. He is talking about works which JUSTIFY. Again, this is clearly the old covenant method of justification. Please pay attention to what James said!

Morris:

Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work". When we don't know Him, when we have not placed our faith in Him, we are not eligible for the works God desires to do through us.

What has this to do with justification?

Morris:

Scripture refutes the confession.

The Confession states in agreement with Paul that we are justified by the obedience of Christ (Romans 5). Christ's obedience was subjective to Him meaning that it was objective to us. His obedience cannot be a work "in" us but rather a work imputed "to" us.

blessings,

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Sept 17, 2010 12:04:35 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Roo,
Morris is probably better suited to deal with this topic since I get annoyed by Calvinism. But the works of faith which James is speaking about is not an old covenant work of law at all. And since Abraham was not under any such law before it was given then the works that justified him - born of his faith is not the type of works as you say at all!

We are justified by that faith alone which God births in us - but He also brings that work - which is His alone, forth to the birth. A faith without such evidence of itself is DEAD as in not a living faith. And that is the faith we have, one that lives in us. James is showing that dead works of law without faith (which is what they were) didn't justify anyone by the keeping of them. We need a living faith - one that can work. And this Christ gives us as the evidence He is working by grace thru faith bringing us into the love of God.

Back to Morris, since you don't seem to understand me!

See my post to Morris immediately above. That you get annoyed with Calvinism is a sign to me that I am preaching the truth.



Roo

[didymus]

Robin,

I too get annoyed by Calvinism. To make the conclusions Calvinism does, you have to totally ignore all the Scriptures that indicate man's choices.

[Morris]

Gone for the weekend! Have a great one folks!

[kangaroojack]

Good Night All,
See you later

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 17, 2010 13:14:09 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Your answer was incomplete. James said that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. What about this? You agree with me Paul taught that justification is by faith alone. Therefore, Paul abrogated James' method of justification.

Jesus taught that words justify, not works.
Matthew 12:37
"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned"

Does this mean yet another covenant change to go from Jesus' gospel, to James' gospel, to Paul's gospel?

Even Paul stated this,
Romans 3:4
"Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged"

The old testament, as far as I have been able to find, does not say anywhere that a man is justified by his works or deeds. However, I have been able to find that it says the same things as the new testament, that being, the Lord will justify a man.

Isaiah 45:21-25
"Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.
He shall say, ‘ Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength. To Him men shall come, And all shall be ashamed Who are incensed against Him.
In the LORD all the descendants of Israel Shall be justified, and shall glory.’ "

The way a person is justified has always been the same. You can do the works and still not be justified. God's interest was always toward the hearts of people, that they were toward Him. This is specifically seen even in the books of the law.

But if their hearts were toward God, then they will obey because they want to. Thus David says,
Psalm 37:31
"The law of his God is in his heart; None of his steps shall slide"
Psalm 40:8
"I delight to do Your will, O my God,And Your law is within my heart"

I read scripture and cannot see where God changes. He is the one who justifies the one who loves and believes on Him. When I stand before Him I know that all that counts toward my righteousness and justification is what He has done. I am no different than any man, ever, that has stood before Him.

Isaiah 51:7
"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, You people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, Nor be afraid of their insults."

Isn't this the new covenant? The law of God in your heart?

Morris:
That the new covenant had not come into effect abruptly is standard Preterist teaching.

I am not a Preterist and am bound to no doctrinal structure in which I must interpret scripture. I do my best to allow scripture to speak with the voices of all of what scripture says on a subject.

Morris:
Your explanation fails to take into account that Christ had to enter the heavenly sanctuary and make the atoning intercession on the heavenly altar. This was in accordance with the law of Moses. The new covenant could not fully come until every jot and tittle of the law had been fulfilled.

You have it backwards, in my opinion. The Law of Moses was in accordance to what Christ would do. All proof texts are dependent on special interpretation to arrive at the above conclusion.

You make the same mistake the futurists make. You think all things happened in punctiliar time. This was not at all the case. It all happened in linear time as the present participles indicate. You say that the old covenant was abolished all at once. Yet Paul said that Christ "has abolished death." You don't believe that death was totally abolished then. Am I right?

Did Christ not say, "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.” (John 8:51)? People didn't believe Him then either. "Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death." (John 8:52)

Morris:
Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until ALL be fulfilled.

Indeed, and that is exactly what happened. Christ redeemed us from the Law at the cross!
Galatians 3:13
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” )".

You may disagree but that is what it says. More soon.

[kangaroojack]

Sept 17, 2010 13:41:00 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Robin,

I too get annoyed by Calvinism. To make the conclusions Calvinism does, you have to totally ignore all the Scriptures that indicate man's choices.

"No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44 NKJV).

I would like to know which scriptures indicate that man has the power in himself to "choose" Christ.

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 20, 2010 13:11:04 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

"No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44 NKJV).

I would like to know which scriptures indicate that man has the power in himself to "choose" Christ.

Roo

James 4:8
"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded."
(From James at that! )

The point of that verse in John is simply that we can't come to God by anything in our power. We can only come to God by virtue of His mercy. There is no way to earn access to God. If He didn't draw all men, none would be able to come.

1 Timothy 2:3,4
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

If what you are saying is true, then God is a liar when He says He desires all men to be saved. If He desired all men, and then didn't choose them all, what was it that overwrote that desire? Fickleness? Not in a jealous God!

Matthew 22:14
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Would you have me believe that God would call some and then say, 'changed my mind, I don't want you" ?! The problem with Calvinism is that it needs to pick the coins and look at the other sides.

[kangaroojack]

I said:

No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44 NKJV).

I would like to know which scriptures indicate that man has the power in himself to "choose" Christ.

Morris replied citing James:

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded."

James is old covenant Morris! Paul said that we were "brought" near to God (Ephesians 2). God brought us to Himself! Paul said also that God was found by them who did not seek Him:

20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:

“ I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” Romans 10:20

Morris cites Paul:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

God does NOT desire all men to be saved in the sense you claim. The term "all men" refers only to those are covenantally in Adam. Not all men are covenantally in Adam. I will start a separate topic for this. You are handing out false hopes to people brother!

Morris:

If what you are saying is true, then God is a liar when He says He desires all men to be saved.

Please don't reply until you see my new topic on "all men."

Morris cites Jesus:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Would you have me believe that God would call some and then say, 'changed my mind, I don't want you" ?! The problem with Calvinism is that it needs to pick the coins and look at the other sides.

Read the context bro! The king himself did not invite "many." His servants went out and "called" some who were not worthy. The king himself "chose" only those who were worthy. Thus, many were called illegitimately while few were chosen by the king.

I will answer your first post tomorrow. Right now I am going to begin the topic on "All Men."

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 20, 2010 14:59:28 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

James is old covenant Morris! Paul said that we were "brought" near to God (Ephesians 2). God brought us to Himself! Paul said also that God was found by them who did not seek Him:

If James was old covenant, so was John 6:44.

God does NOT desire all men to be saved in the sense you claim. The term "all men" refers only to those are covenantally in Adam...
Thus, many were called illegitimately while few were chosen by the king.

Your interpretation of verses cannot be used as the proofs for the doctrines that drive these interpretations. I don't like doctrines that continually tell me "this is not what is being said here". Doctrines obscure what scripture makes plain by creating new definitions and divisions.

There isn't a whole lot of point in discussing scripture (other than to clarify our various beliefs) because we each come to them from such different angles.

[kangaroojack]

Morris said:

If James was old covenant, so was John 6:44.

I don't see your logic here.

Morris:

I don't like doctrines that continually tell me "this is not what is being said here".

Ergo, you don't like it when someone points out to you that you have put words into God's mouth. The expression "all men" must be interpreted according to what GOD meant by it and not what you think it means. In its covenantal context the expression "all men" refers only to those who were condemned in Adam AND justified in Christ.

And please note the context inwhich the statement "many are called but few are chosen" is found. It was NOT the king himself who called many. It was his servants who called many. Many of those that they called were not worthy while a few were worthy. The king himself chose only the few that were worthy. If you insist that the king himself called many then you make him a cruel person. He would be cruel because he called many when he intended all along to choose only a few.

God is not cruel. He does not call many and choose a few. He calls ONLY those He has chosen. The rest He leaves to themselves and they can have no legitimate beef with Him for it.

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 21, 2010 10:41:17 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Morris said:

If James was old covenant, so was John 6:44.

I don't see your logic here.

If James is old covenant and what was said John is new covenant, we go old, new, old, new.

You said earlier, "Jesus said to a man, "Your faith has saved (healed) you." This was clearly before the new covenant had been instituted." You established that what was said in the gospels was old covenant. I'm just being consistent here.

God is not cruel. He does not call many and choose a few.

Yet this is what happens in the parable. Let's put it up for viewing.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.

Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.

But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.

Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” "

Note how clear this is;
- He sent for the invited guests but they didn't come. If we don't have a choice, how is it that the invited didn't want to come?
- The servants did only according to His instructions. They did not invite anyone until the King instructed them to do so.
- It was the invited that were not worthy and were destroyed.
- Of those who came by invitation, some did not come properly, showing disrespect for the King. These came under 'their own rules' so to speak.

[kangaroojack]

I said:

God is not cruel. He does not call many and choose a few.

Morris answered:

Yet this is what happens in the parable. Let's put it up for viewing.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.

Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.

But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.

Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” "

Note how clear this is;
- He sent for the invited guests but they didn't come. If we don't have a choice, how is it that the invited didn't want to come?
- The servants did only according to His instructions. They did not invite anyone until the King instructed them to do so.
- It was the invited that were not worthy and were destroyed.
- Of those who came by invitation, some did not come properly, showing disrespect for the King. These came under 'their own rules' so to speak.

Brother, where does it say in the narrative that the king himself invited anyone? Why would the king invite many when he intended to accept only a few? It makes no sense. Such a person is cruel.

Why would God invite Jews to be saved when He had every intention of blinding and hardening them so they could not believe?

37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:


“ Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him John 12:37-41 NKJV

The Jews could not believe BECAUSE God had blinded their minds and hardened their hearts. How can God be inviting people to believe whose eyes He is blinding and hearts He is hardening so they cannot believe? This would be cruelty!

Again, the parable does not say that the king himself invited the guests. The servants did the inviting and the king chose a few.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

In Ezekiel it says much the same thing about those to whom he was sent: the idolatrous priests, the lying prophets and the elders who were seeking to hear their words for 'peace'. There is no peace for the wicked, nor do they receive light - instead the Lord said that those lying priests would be given a lie just for those elders who sought them out. This is not unlike how Pharoah's heart was hardened because of his stubborn unbelief when he saw the testimony of Moses from the miracles God wrought thru him. When the word of the Lord goes out to the wicked who refuse to repent, who refuse to hear the truth, it has the effect of hardening their heart even further - bringing blindness because of sin. God was not blinding any faithful men thru these words of Isaiah, only those whose bent was already turned away from God. Those who had ears to hear, heard Jesus and followed Him. That is a gift given to the obedient, not the wicked. My sheep hear My voice...

[Morris]

Sept 21, 2010 13:41:35 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Brother, where does it say in the narrative that the king himself invited anyone?

"The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come."

Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come.

Then he sent them out with a message; "Tell those who are invited". This is very clear, there were those who were already invited by the king and the servants were to go call those invitees that the wedding was now prepared, come.

Why would the king invite many when he intended to accept only a few? It makes no sense. Such a person is cruel.

Why do think he wouldn't have accepted all those who he already invited. There is no indication that this is the case. That thought came from doctrinal thinking, not from the passage.

Why would God invite Jews to be saved when He had every intention of blinding and hardening them so they could not believe?

That is the problem when assuming God chooses arbitrarily and doesn't allow a person a free will.

The Jews could not believe BECAUSE God had blinded their minds and hardened their hearts. How can God be inviting people to believe whose eyes He is blinding and hearts He is hardening so they cannot believe? This would be cruelty!

Yes it would be, if God just arbitrarily picks and chooses. Now, why do you believe that no Jew can believe because they were all blinded and hardened?

Again, the parable does not say that the king himself invited the guests. The servants did the inviting and the king chose a few.

Sorry, but it just doesn't say that at all. They were sent to call those who the king already invited.

[MoGrace2U]

Hi Morris,
I think somewhere beneath the Calvinist underpinnings is the idea that all men are innocent unless proven guilty - but God knows the heart and He knows the guilt they have and judges accordingly. And He reserved the severest judgment for the ruling religious hypocrites, as He prepared them for the wrath they would face, while He prepared the remnant for glory. They weren't innocent, but they were hiding their sin well from men - yet not from God.

[Morris]

Sept 21, 2010 21:41:42 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

They weren't innocent, but they were hiding their sin well from men - yet not from God.

Well put.

[mellontes]

Sept 21, 2010 16:26:37 GMT -5 Morris said:

...Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come...

Morris, when you posted the above, you forgot to include some proper formatting and highlighting. You should have said it this way in order for Roo to gain some understanding:

"Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come."

[kangaroojack]

Hi All,

Just to let you know that I am taking a break from here while I deal with PT over at CARM. When that discussion lets up a little I will be back here. My post today took me three hours.

I fear no one!



Roo

[Morris]

Sept 22, 2010 14:12:28 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Morris, when you posted the above, you forgot to include some proper formatting and highlighting. You should have said it this way in order for Roo to gain some understanding:

"Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come."

Ah, yes. That was slightly obscure on my part. Thanks for clarifying it for me!

[Morris]

Sept 23, 2010 16:07:20 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Hi All,

Just to let you know that I am taking a break from here while I deal with PT over at CARM. When that discussion lets up a little I will be back here. My post today took me three hours.

I fear no one!



Roo

That's fine, and just as well, really. This discussion isn't going anywhere as we are looking at the same scripture from very different angles. In cases like this quoting scripture is not showing each other anything because the messages in scripture are slanted by our views of them. (I.e. we use the same scriptures to 'prove' opposing viewpoints).

Nothing will change until the foundations from which we interpret scripture changes. I don't foresee either of us doing that.

[kangaroojack]

Sept 22, 2010 14:12:28 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Sept 21, 2010 16:26:37 GMT -5 Morris said:

...Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come...

Morris, when you posted the above, you forgot to include some proper formatting and highlighting. You should have said it this way in order for Roo to gain some understanding:

"Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come."

Mellontes,

They were already invited but it does not say that they were invited by the king does it? They were probably invited by the son for it was the son's wedding. Those invited were unwilling to come as you say. But what you fail to see that unwilling means unable.

God hardened the hearts of the Pharisees so they COULD NOT believe. This is why they UNWILLING to believe. Unwilling means unable.

39 Therefore they COULD NOT believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” John 12:39-40

They were unwilling because they were unable. It's clear! Morris needs something more than his explanation of a parable to prove his case.

Roo

[didymus]

Sept 25, 2010 13:38:45 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Sept 22, 2010 14:12:28 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Morris, when you posted the above, you forgot to include some proper formatting and highlighting. You should have said it this way in order for Roo to gain some understanding:

"Right there, the king sent the servants out to call "those who were invited". The servants didn't invite anyone, they were sent to call those already invited. But they were not willing to come."

Mellontes,

They were already invited but it does not say that they were invited by the king does it? They were probably invited by the son for it was the son's wedding. Those invited were unwilling to come as you say. But what you fail to see that unwilling means unable.

God hardened the hearts of the Pharisees so they COULD NOT believe. This is why they UNWILLING to believe. Unwilling means unable.

39 Therefore they COULD NOT believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” John 12:39-40

They were unwilling because they were unable. It's clear! Morris needs something more than his explanation of a parable to prove his case.

Roo

Roo,

I speak English. And as I understand the word, "unwilling." it does not mean "unable." "Unwilling" suggests the possibility of that one might be "willing," which suggests an act of the will, not the act of ability. "Willing" and "unwilling" is the same as, "I will," or "I will not."

Even I understand that. So, you will have to better than that to convince Robin, Morris, and Mellontes, who are much more knowledgeable than I.

Didy

[Morris]

Sept 25, 2010 13:38:45 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Unwilling means unable.

I don't feel the need to prove anything against this argument.

[MoGrace2U]

Roo wrote:

The Jews could not believe BECAUSE God had blinded their minds and hardened their hearts. How can God be inviting people to believe whose eyes He is blinding and hearts He is hardening so they cannot believe? This would be cruelty!

Again, the parable does not say that the king himself invited the guests. The servants did the inviting and the king chose a few.

Isaiah is speaking of a blindness imposed upon wicked men. The parable speaks of the same thing. The call from God goes out thru the prophets and that word has an effect upon the wicked that is radically different than it has upon those who are willing to hear it.

And both the parable and the prophet speak of the difference between those 2 types of men - those who continue in the will of God receive the warning and turn, while the others are hardened further to fill up their sin.

The whole point of this parable is to show these religious but unfaithful Pharisees, that they were the children of their fathers who murdered the prophets. Which parable had the effect of bringing them to plot the murder of the Lord. The word of God thus exposes their guilt - but the blindness comes by way of their sin. For the remnant, the word finds its way thru faith to bring repentance.

Thus the will of man is affected by the word of God in relationship to the path each is taking. Those who obey are NOT hardened in further blindness because of sin, because the word searching their hearts finds faith. But for those in whom no faith is found, it does exactly that.

[kangaroojack]

Sept 27, 2010 11:58:28 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Roo wrote:

The Jews could not believe BECAUSE God had blinded their minds and hardened their hearts. How can God be inviting people to believe whose eyes He is blinding and hearts He is hardening so they cannot believe? This would be cruelty!

Again, the parable does not say that the king himself invited the guests. The servants did the inviting and the king chose a few.

Isaiah is speaking of a blindness imposed upon wicked men. The parable speaks of the same thing. The call from God goes out thru the prophets and that word has an effect upon the wicked that is radically different than it has upon those who are willing to hear it.

And both the parable and the prophet speak of the difference between those 2 types of men - those who continue in the will of God receive the warning and turn, while the others are hardened further to fill up their sin.

The whole point of this parable is to show these religious but unfaithful Pharisees, that they were the children of their fathers who murdered the prophets. Which parable had the effect of bringing them to plot the murder of the Lord. The word of God thus exposes their guilt - but the blindness comes by way of their sin. For the remnant, the word finds its way thru faith to bring repentance.

Thus the will of man is affected by the word of God in relationship to the path each is taking. Those who obey are NOT hardened in further blindness because of sin, because the word searching their hearts finds faith. But for those in whom no faith is found, it does exactly that.

Yes God imposed blindness on wicked men. But ALL are wicked in the sight of God. Then there is the problem that Jesus wanted to save them but the Father would not save them. To those wicked Jews Jesus said:

34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. John 5:34

So Jesus wanted to save those wicked Jews but the Father blinded them.

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

“ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” John 12:39-41

The "He" who blinded the Jews was the Father. The "I" who was prevented from converting and healing those Jews was Jesus. Therefore, though they were wicked they were still salvable to Jesus. But His Father imposed judicial blindness upon them for His own purposes and prevented Jesus from saving them.

Jesus loves all men and He is our example. Therefore, we should want all men to be saved just as Jesus did. But the Father does not love all men and neither has He any intention of saving all. And it is not our business to determine whom the Father will and will not save. We are to have the heart of Jesus who desired the salvation of all.

Roo