Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[God's Truth]

Did you?

In examining the parable...

Spoiler

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.

Note from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and always brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31).

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others, all kinds of others from other nations.

Note also from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31). The man in the wrong attire was one of the professors of faith that does not possess the faith.

So this prevenient grace given to all does not work for all, so there is something else involved, man's correct choice. I avoid views that give man a reason to boast.

AMR

Obeying Jesus to be saved and to stay saved is something we can boast about.

You are not the jealous Cain brother are you?

 

[God's Truth]

I can be reconciled to my natural father, that doesn't mean I can't walk away again. Nothing can take us from Gods hands, Satan has got no hope. The only way we fall is if we are tempted and drawn away by our own lusts and listen to Satan.

To reconcile means to restore friendly relations, which God did with us did through Jesus Christ. But that doesn't mean we can't turn away again!

That is right. It can be a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. God will judge His people.

 

[God's Truth]

Matthew 5:13
[ Salt and Light ] “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Matthew 8:12
But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Luke 13:28
“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Luke 14:35
It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

 

[Rosenritter]

Romans 11:29 For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

I do not think that any of those passages establishes an "eternal salvation" that is already granted and completed and finished. Neither does it explain away passages already brought to light in this forum, even passages that you already posted to prove another point.

In Romans, I question the words of your translation. Here's what mine say:

Romans 11:28-29 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.


The gifts and calling of God are of the Gentiles, which are being grafted in. That's the context of the passage. The Gentiles are not to be removed, God does not regret his decision. The passage does not speak of individual salvation, but corporate salvation. You've taken the passage out of context.

Hebrews 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

He is able to save forever because the salvation that it speaks of is eternal life. We have not yet actually received that eternal life. We are still being tried. We have the promise of eternal life, which is a conditional promise. In its place we have the earnest of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5. It is called "earnest" because it is what we have in place of what is not yet received in full. If we had received it in full it would not be called "earnest" because that's the meaning of the word.

Did it say "God has saved forever those that drew close to him once?" Not quite. It does not quite say that.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life.

Has the promise of eternal life, and the unspoken assumption in that statement is that the person spoken of continues in hearing and believing. Elsewhere Jesus warns against those that would hear and believe, and then lose that faith. In multiple places, even.

Luke 9:62 KJV
(62) And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.


Mark 4:16-17 KJV
(16) And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
(17) And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

Do you remember what happens in that stony ground? That's the story of salvation lost, not eternal salvation granted from the moment of reception. I'd also point to the parable of the prodigal son. The son who, already secure in inheritance, chose to leave that inheritance and would have died. He would have died except he returned. If you believe that the son would not have died apart from his father, or that his father somehow secretly manipulated him into returning, then that would match the "eternal salvation" you spoke of, but it would not match the parable very well.


So none of what you cited establishes that one is "eternally saved" if they leave their faith and belief.

1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV
(27) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.


Revelation 2:26 KJV
(26) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:


Revelation 3:11-12 KJV
(11) Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
(12) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

... and you yourself cited Ezekiel 33 earlier.

Ezekiel 33:13 KJV
(13) When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

What can separate us from the love of Christ? Like Paul, I can give you a huge list of things that cannot. There is one thing that can. One thing so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, because Calvinism didn't exist back then. We can separate ourselves from the love of Christ. Not external forces, and God himself won't pull away from us. But we can.

 

[Rosenritter]

elects dont reject

Calvinists don't repent. Unless God makes them.

 

[Rosenritter]

You said it doesnt mean that. So what scripture says it ? You think you can make statements and dont prove them ?

I got proof from Rom 5:10 that the ones who have been reconciled by Christ's death, shall also be saved further by His Life. That sounds like eternal salvation to me !

Beloved, I cannot understand your question. Would you please phrase it with a little more descriptive?

By the way, you should keep reading the passage instead of stopping at one verse.

Romans 5:18 KJV
(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

"All men" it says. The question is not whether reconciliation has been made with all, or whether life shall be had by all, or whether the free gift has come upon all, but whether all will have life by acceptance of that gift. The context of the passage you cited speaks against your position.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I quoted where Christ said until He spoke to them, they had no sin and where a child isnt punished for the sins of another. They are innocent, until the age of accountability. Both the words of Christ and old testament scripture points to this being the case, where responsibility to seek and find and receive the truth is there.

Your using John 15:22 has nothing to do with this. This passage denies ignorance can be used as an excuse to deny Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus reminded the disciples that the Father had demonstrated categorically that He was God's Son. He did not just say it, He demonstrated it by the power that was entrusted to Hine, by the miracles that He performed in the presence of eyewitnesses all over Israel. No one in that generation could claim ignorance as an excuse for rejecting Him.

There is a reason only some of a certain age could enter into the promised land.

Numbers 14:28-30

Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

All those under 20 were not held accountable with the others.

Let's interpret narratives in Scripture by the didactic in Scripture.

The narrative in Number 14:28-30 teaches us of God's mercy to the children even of these rebels. They should have a seed preserved, and Canaan secured to that seed Numbers 14:31: Your little ones, now under twenty years old, which you, in your unbelief, said should be a prey, them will I bring in. They had angrily and resentfully charged God with a design to ruin their children (Exodus 14:3). But God will let them know that He can put a difference between the guilty and the innocent, and cut them off without touching their children. Thus the promise God had made to Abraham, though it seemed to fail for a time, was kept from failing forever and, though God chastened their transgressions with a rod, yet God's loving kindness would not utterly be taken away.

This passage has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

I quoted where Christ said until He spoke to them, they had no sin and where a child isnt punished for the sins of another. They are innocent, until the age of accountability. Both the words of Christ and old testament scripture points to this being the case, where responsibility to seek and find and receive the truth is there.

There is a reason only some of a certain age could enter into the promised land.

Numbers 14:28-30

Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

All those under 20 were not held accountable with the others.

Although there's a possibility of principle there, you're talking about two different things. Entering the land of Canaan may be analogous to entering the kingdom of heaven, but they are not the same thing. Is it not written, "all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God?" So here's the question for consideration:

Do you think salvation is dependent on "not doing" something? That is, simply "not sinning?" or "not sinning that much?" If so, the infant would surely qualify. And by extension, if you really believe that you should crusade abortion and genocide, or ideally create robot farms that would fertilize embryos and kill them, thus maximizing the people sent to heaven. Like the Matrix. If all babies go to heaven then kill all the babies before they can send themselves to hell. That's the consistent path that doctrine takes.

Or do you think salvation is dependent on "becoming" something? That is, granted that we are flawed, dangerous to ourselves and others, and prone to sin, acknowledging that and being willing to become what God would have us be? An infant hasn't repented, or even realized what it is yet. I realize that leads to another question (or problem) that isn't answered here yet, but that option is at least consistent with the gospel. And it also means that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation, not "dying as an infant" which would be another door.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Never said otherwise, please tell me, how HIM allowing us to say no in this life, diminishes His Sovereignty in any way.

God is not a debtor to anyone. Making faith to be a choice, yes or no, by man assigns merit to man and obligation to God.

PS there are a lot of people that do not love God. Do you actually believe that part of Gods character is to harm someone without cause?

All not saved hate God, so yes there are a lot of people who do not love God. God is not harming anyone without cause. Those upon whom God has not set His special love upon deserve His justice. You are basically repeating claims here based upon a faulty view that denies the consequence of original sin. All are born sinners.

Repeated attempts to dismiss the doctrine of original sin as a peculiarity of Calvin or Luther, Augustine or Paul fail to take seriously the fact that the same assumptions are articulated in the Psalms (Psalm 51:5,10; 143:2), the prophets (Isaiah 64:6; Jer. 17:9), in the Gospels (John 1:13; 3:6; 5:42; 6:44; 8:34; 15:4-5) and in the catholic epistles (James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; 10; 5:12). The doctrine of original sin may be seen to arise as a result of two principal sources: the covenant itself as the biblical paradigm for relating divine-human relations and the narrative of the fall from an original state of integrity.

A covenantal account of original sin focuses on the representative, federal, covenantal structure of human existence before God. We are not only guilty for Adam’s sin; we are guilty as sinners in Adam (see Joshua 7 for an example of solidarity}. In Paul’s treatment in Romans 5:12, ‘sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…’ In other words, every human being was present representatively, federally, and covenantally in Adam. Our own personal acts of sin flow from this corrupt nature and add to our original guilt.

Sin is first a condition that is simultaneously judicial and moral, legal and relational. Accordingly, we sin because we are sinners rather than vice versa. Under Adam’s headship, the whole race is guilty and corrupt; under Christ’s headship many are justified and made alive. Original sin is not only a biblical doctrine that has to do with origins and human sinfulness, it also has to do with salvation from sin. In Adam, those whom he represented died. In Christ, those whom He represents live. God has revealed that men are guilty in Adam but, correspondingly, they are found righteous in Christ. This is not merely "legal fiction" but comes about by union with the party reckoned to. Either we are in the first Adam or in the Second.

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

God is not harming anyone without cause. Those upon whom God has not set His special love upon deserve His justice

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Disagree. None of us are guilty for Adams sins. Already shown scripture states otherwise.

You quote a couple of verses that do not mean what you think they mean for you have yet to demonstrate that they do, then declare the church that has held to original sin, declared from study of Scripture by numerous church councils for over a thousand years, got it all wrong because you have shown otherwise. Really?

Spoiler

418 AD - Council of Carthage (Early Christian Church)

This council's position on original sin was, even "new-born children... have in them... original sin inherited from Adam".

529 AD - Council of Orange (Early Christian Church)

"... it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was 'changed for the worse' through the offense of Adam's sin..."

"...also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race..."

1530 - Augsburg Confession (Lutheran Church)

"...since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, ...and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again..."

1537 - The Smalcald Articles (Lutheran Church)

"... sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin."

"This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures..."

1618 - The Canons of Dordt (Reformed Church)

"Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God's just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants – except for Christ alone – not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature."

"Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin;..."

"... original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race..."

"... unregenerate man is... totally dead in his sins... [and is] deprived of all capacity for spiritual good..."

1618 - Belgic Confession (Reformed Church)

"... by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race."

"It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race,..."

1644 - First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"... first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death,..."

1646 - The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church)

"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit."

"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."

"Every sin, both original and actual,... bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death..."

1689 - Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

"... and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death,..."

Ezekiel 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.


Deuteronomy 24:16 it says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

Contrasted with:

Exodus 20:5-6 says "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving-kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and keep My commandments"

You are not properly understanding these verses.

Conseqences visited upon future generations...
A. (Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
B. (Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
C. (Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
D. (1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."


Legal matters of Jewish Courts...
A. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
B. (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (Exodus 20:2), laws (Exodus 20:3-17), rewards (Exodus 20:6,12), and punishments (Exodus 20:5,7).

Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world consequences of sin effected many generations.

On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context Deuteronomy 24:6-19 shows. Ezekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch.

Therefore, the context of second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. The previous set of verses deal with God visiting upon the descendents of the rebellious the consequences of the rebellious fathers' sins.

As I have discussed, there is a concept in the Bible called Federal Headship. This means that the male, the father, represents the family. We see this in the garden of Adam and Eve. He was the first one to eat of the fruit; she was the first one to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5), not Eve. This is because Adam was the Federal Head of all mankind. Furthermore we see in the Hebrews 7:7-10 the following:

"But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. ⁸And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. ⁹And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, ¹⁰for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. We can conclude that God will visit the inequities of the fathers upon the descendents because the fathers have failed to be covenantally faithful. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people.

I have taken the time to explain the passages you have been using to show them as irrelevant or misunderstood as to the topics under discussion. You, in response to my posts, offer up snippets of agree or disagree laden with more opinion than analysis.

AMR

 

[theophilus]

Did you?

In examining the parable...

Spoiler

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.

Note from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and always brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31).

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others, all kinds of others from other nations.

Note also from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31). The man in the wrong attire was one of the professors of faith that does not possess the faith.

So this prevenient grace given to all does not work for all, so there is something else involved, man's correct choice. I avoid views that give man a reason to boast.

AMR

[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION],

I spent almost a year studying this parable and never really received a completely satisfactory understanding. Thanks to your exposition I have more complete understanding and I sincerely appreciate your explanation.

Thank you SO MUCH!



~Teryl

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What can separate us from the love of Christ? Like Paul, I can give you a huge list of things that cannot. There is one thing that can. One thing so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, because Calvinism didn't exist back then. We can separate ourselves from the love of Christ. Not external forces, and God himself won't pull away from us. But we can.

Do you believe that one can LOSE their eternal life?

 

[God's Truth]

Did you?

In examining the parable...

Spoiler

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.

Note from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and always brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31).

We know from other passages of Scripture that those who refuse God’s invitation to come to the wedding feast designed for His Son really cannot come, for they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). In fact, Our Lord said on one occasion, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6: 44). So, it would be easy to conclude that it was not really the case that these invitees would not come; rather, they could not come because their hearts needed to be changed so that they would have a desire or disposition to come. That is all true, but it is also true that we cannot do what we will not do. Thus, there is a sense in which these people could not come to the feast precisely because they would not.

Every person in every moment of decision chooses according to his strongest inclination at the moment. This is the free will spoken of in Scripture. That is, no one ever does something that, in the final analysis, he does not want to do.

The ones who were invited to the king’s feast were not willing to come. That they were unable to will otherwise in no way removes from them their duty to come. In modern evangelicalism, the customary way of doing evangelism is to invite people to place their trust in Christ. However, that concept is quite foreign to Scripture. God does not invite people to come to Christ; He commands them to come. The invitation in Jesus’ parable was no different. The invitees were given a royal summons and it was their duty to obey.

The invitees indifference to the King as they tended to worldly matters and outright hatred of some provoked a righteously vengeful response from the king whose patience had been exhausted. Nevertheless, the king would not be thwarted for it was his express desire that his son should be honored and that every particular seat made available be taken at his wedding feast. If the original invitees were not interested in coming or were violently opposed to the king, still the king would find people who would come to the wedding feast.

By the way, this portion of the parable of the wedding feast had much in common with some of Jesus’ previous teachings since His triumphal entry. It showed once again that those who had been entrusted with the kingdom—Israel’s priests, elders, scribes, etc.—had forfeited their place by rejecting the King, Jesus Himself. Therefore, the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others, all kinds of others from other nations.

Note also from the parable that the last group of servants went out to the highway and invited whomever they found there, good or bad, to come to the king’s banquet. Now these people were delighted to come, so they hurriedly prepared themselves. Yet when the guests were assembled together and the king came amongst them, he encountered one man who had come in without proper attire.

If we are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we will not be welcome at the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, because all of our righteousness, the Bible says, is like filthy rags (Isa. 64: 6). Ours is an alien righteousness, that of Another, not of ourselves. We can enter the kingdom of heaven only if we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to all who believe (Zech. 3: 3-4).

When confronted by the King the improperly clothed man could offer up no excuses, but was speechless, just as Scripture teaches about man’s silence before the tribunal of God on judgment day (Ps. 76: 8-9; Zeph. 1: 7; Zech. 2: 13).

Finally in Matthew 22: 14 we find that from the parable the many are called means that many have been invited to the wedding feast. But not all those invited are actually the ones who are supposed to be there, because few are chosen. This is the general call or the outward call: the gospel is proclaimed to all people everywhere, both those who will believe and those who will not.

However, Paul also mentions another kind of calling, the effective call or inward call from God that comes powerfully to individuals and brings a positive response. When the gospel is proclaimed, only some are inwardly called—those who are the elect—who respond with true faith (1 Cor. 1: 24, 26-28). This is consistent with Our Lord’s statement that “few are chosen,” for the ones “chosen” (eklektos, “selected, chosen”) are the elect, a term used by Jesus to refer to his true disciples (Matt. 11: 27; 24: 22, 24, 31). The man in the wrong attire was one of the professors of faith that does not possess the faith.

So this prevenient grace given to all does not work for all, so there is something else involved, man's correct choice. I avoid views that give man a reason to boast.

AMR

You were doing so well with that parable, but then you got confusing with the Calvinistic teachings. You are explaining things in a way to support your false doctrines. Being commanded versus being invited is just not there. According to the parable, a special group was invited and did not come, but there is no difference in being invited and commanded for the first group or the second.

God commands/invites all now, and even out of those who do come, it is important that they have the right clothing, i.e. obedience to Christ, or they will be thrown out.

That parable does an excellent job at refuting Calvinism, for one came and was thrown out.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The ability to sin was passed down by Adam. One of the punishments of Adam's sin was "physical death," which was also passed on to all humanity. Another punishment for humanity was, men were to henceforth till the land and woman were to have pain in childbirth. Christ was sent into the world to die on the cross and pay for all of humanities sins. However, in order to reap the benefits of Christ's work on the cross, one must place all their faith in Christ as their Savior. That is the prerequisite for being: sealed, indwelt, and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ. One also receives the Righteousness of Christ and the promise of eternal life in Heaven. The unsaved will be judged by their WORKS and if their name isn't written in the "Lamb's Book of Life," they will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That is right. It can be a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. God will judge His people.

Correction: Christ will judge those in the Body of Christ for rewards to be received or the loss of said rewards. There is NO condemnation or punishment involved in that particular session that will take place. It is separate from the Judgement seat of Almighty God for the unsaved.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Obeying Jesus to be saved and to stay saved is something we can boast about.

You are not the jealous Cain brother are you?

That makes YOU a "WORKER" and not a "FAITHER."

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The God of the Bible, will in no wise send an aborted baby or an infant into eternal damnation under any circumstances. It wouldn't be in His character or intent.

Although the Bible appears to be silent on this subject, we can only look at God's character to see that, He shows mercy and is righteous and logical. A dead baby had no way of hearing the Gospel and placing their faith in Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

The ability to sin was passed down by Adam.

God does not want robots. Our life is like a test to keep loving/obeying God no matter what our hardships.

Adam and Eve were thrown out...all creation was thrown out...but now through Jesus, the whole world and all creation would be reconciled to God...brought back in. However, there is a way to be brought back in, and that Way is by doing what Jesus says to be brought in.

We have to have faith that is not dead, but rather 'alive'. Our faith is alive because it has right action with it.

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. That means the people who would 'hear' Jesus and be saved...they would have to first repent of their sins.

To say that we do not have to repent of sins to be saved would be to say John the baptizer, the prepare-er was just not needed.

We still have to prepare our hearts for Jesus to come to live there.

One of the punishments of Adam's sin was "physical death," which was also passed on to all humanity. Another punishment for humanity was, men were to henceforth till the land and woman were to have pain in childbirth. Christ was sent into the world to die on the cross and pay for all of humanities sins. However, in order to reap the benefits of Christ's work on the cross, one must place all their faith in Christ as their Savior.

The Jews who believe Jesus and the Jews who were cut off for not believing in Jesus are proof of our salvation being that of FAITH and OBEDIENCE. See, it is a known fact that Jews are supposed to obey, but it was not a requirement at the time to have faith. Those Jews who had faith were allowed to come to Jesus, and the other Jews who did not have faith, they were cut off.

When Jesus was crucified, then all nationalities could come to him to be saved, even the the cut off Jews.

The only message one can rightly make is to say ALL are invited and even commanded...but they are not truly saved unless they have faith and obey.

That is the prerequisite for being: sealed, indwelt, and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ.

You say not by water; however, the Father in heaven uses symbols and likes ceremonies. The water symbolizes washing by Jesus, and literal water symbolizes that SPIRITUAL TRUTH. We should still symbolically make the pledge to God to live a life dead to the sins of the world and arise out of that washing in obedience to Christ.

One also receives the Righteousness of Christ and the promise of eternal life in Heaven. The unsaved will be judged by their WORKS and if their name isn't written in the "Lamb's Book of Life," they will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity.

That is right; however, the saved who behave as the unsaved will also fall into the same judgment that is what the written Word of God says.

 

[beloved57]

I can be reconciled to my natural father, that doesn't mean I can't walk away again. Nothing can take us from Gods hands, Satan has got no hope. The only way we fall is if we are tempted and drawn away by our own lusts and listen to Satan.

To reconcile means to restore friendly relations, which God did with us did through Jesus Christ. But that doesn't mean we can't turn away again!

You failed to show me the scripture.