Another parable that prove Calvinism false

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
Jesus was asked about the future kingdom of God. He responded with a parable.....(Luke 14:15-)

Jesus said, "A man made a great supper and invited many: And sent his servants at supper time to say to them that were invited, 'Come, for all things are now ready......."

To shorten the OP, 'cause you can read and I am sure you have already read it many times,.......... that those initially invited decided not to come, for various reasons.

This ticked off the man hosting the banquet. So he invited others

In conclusion, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That NONE OF THOSE MEN WHICH WERE INVITED, shall taste of my supper.

Fact: Jesus is teaching about the future marriage supper at the start of the millennial kingdom.

My questions for the Calvinists

If God specifically invites someone to come to the banquet.....do those so invited have the choice/freewill to come or not to come? yes or no?
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Jesus was asked about the future kingdom of God. He responded with a parable.....(Luke 14:15-)

Jesus said, "A man made a great supper and invited many: And sent his servants at supper time to say to them that were invited, 'Come, for all things are now ready......."

To shorten the OP, 'cause you can read and I am sure you have already read it many times,.......... that those initially invited decided not to come, for various reasons.

This ticked off the man hosting the banquet. So he invited others

In conclusion, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That NONE OF THOSE MEN WHICH WERE INVITED, shall taste of my supper.

Fact: Jesus is teaching about the future marriage supper at the start of the millennial kingdom.

My questions for the Calvinists

If God specifically invites someone to come to the banquet.....do those so invited have the choice/freewill to come or not to come? yes or no?
Good quote. I agree that that scripture demonstrates freewill, which negates Calvinism. The whole Bible in fact negates Calvinism. Nothing unusual about that. However, understanding the meaning of the parable correctly is also important. That parable was a reference to the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the acceptance of it by the Gentiles. The initial “invited guests” were the Jews, or house of Israel, and the others were the Gentiles. The parable has reference to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and his acceptance by the Gentiles, the same as what Paul was saying here:

Acts 13:

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [the Jews]: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


Thus the gospel was initially always taken to the Jews first, or to the house of Israel; and after they had rejected it, it was taken to the Gentiles. This, however, does not mean that the Jews have been rejected completely. After the Gentiles at some point in the future will have also rejected the gospel, the house of Israel will be reinstated once again as the true covenant people of the Lord that they originally were, as Paul explains here:

Romans 11:

24 For if thou [Gentiles] wert cut out of the [wild] olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree [house of Israel]: how much more shall these [the Jews], which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


That point may be very close at this time.
 
Last edited:

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
Good quote. I agree that that scripture demonstrates freewill, which negates Calvinism. The whole Bible in fact negates Calvinism. Nothing unusual about that. However, understanding the meaning of the parable correctly is also important. That parable was a reference to the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the acceptance of it by the Gentiles. The initial “invited guests” were the Jews, or house of Israel, and the others were the Gentiles. The parable has reference to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and his acceptance by the Gentiles, the same as what Paul was saying here:

Acts 13:

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [the Jews]: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


Thus the gospel was initially always taken to the Jews first, or to the house of Israel; and after they had rejected it, it was taken to the Gentiles. This, however, does not mean that the Jews have been rejected completely. After the Gentiles at some point in the future will have also rejected the gospel, the house of Israel will be reinstated once again as the true covenant people of the Lord that they originally were, as Paul explains here:

Romans 11:

24 For if thou [Gentiles] wert cut out of the [wild] olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree [house of Israel]: how much more shall these [the Jews], which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


That point may be very close at this time.
For the most part I agree. But because you quoted Acts 13:46 I need to point out the subject is not "everlasting life" but "age lasting life".

The word is aionios and not aidios. The text is speaking about living in the kingdom yet to come........not living in eternity.
 

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
A Milliennial Exclusionist and a Mormon walk into a bar...
I guess that is supposed to be funny?

Question: Can a Mormon state a Divine Truth? Is that possible?
Question: Can a Calvinist state a Divine Truth? Is that possible?
Question: Can both the Mormon and Calvinist state a falsehood?

"Today, if you hear His voice harden not your hearts as in the rebellion......" Ps. 95 Heb. 3+

Go learn the truth of that message and you will come to the realization that many of God's children will not inherit the age to come, the millennium...........be excluded! And seeing you don't know this........I'd say you are on that path.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
For the most part I agree. But because you quoted Acts 13:46 I need to point out the subject is not "everlasting life" but "age lasting life".

The word is aionios and not aidios. The text is speaking about living in the kingdom yet to come........not living in eternity.
I trust the KJV translation more. “Everlasting life” and “eternal life” mean the same thing. They both mean salvation in the kingdom of God in heaven.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Jesus was asked about the future kingdom of God. He responded with a parable.....(Luke 14:15-)

Jesus said, "A man made a great supper and invited many: And sent his servants at supper time to say to them that were invited, 'Come, for all things are now ready......."

To shorten the OP, 'cause you can read and I am sure you have already read it many times,.......... that those initially invited decided not to come, for various reasons.

This ticked off the man hosting the banquet. So he invited others

In conclusion, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That NONE OF THOSE MEN WHICH WERE INVITED, shall taste of my supper.

Fact: Jesus is teaching about the future marriage supper at the start of the millennial kingdom.

My questions for the Calvinists

If God specifically invites someone to come to the banquet.....do those so invited have the choice/freewill to come or not to come? yes or no?
Depends on their circumstances. What if their in prison?
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Jesus was asked about the future kingdom of God. He responded with a parable.....(Luke 14:15-)

Jesus said, "A man made a great supper and invited many: And sent his servants at supper time to say to them that were invited, 'Come, for all things are now ready......."

To shorten the OP, 'cause you can read and I am sure you have already read it many times,.......... that those initially invited decided not to come, for various reasons.

This ticked off the man hosting the banquet. So he invited others

In conclusion, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That NONE OF THOSE MEN WHICH WERE INVITED, shall taste of my supper.

Fact: Jesus is teaching about the future marriage supper at the start of the millennial kingdom.

My questions for the Calvinists

If God specifically invites someone to come to the banquet.....do those so invited have the choice/freewill to come or not to come? yes or no?
NO This parable is about the nation of Israel first having the Gospel preached to them in the OT types and shadows. That nation has now been set aside from Gods Salvation Purpose in Christ.
 

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
Depends on their circumstances. What if their in prison?
Nonsense point..."prison"? The text is about individuals being invited, period.

Just to address your point.........If God invites someone in prison to come to His banquet.......can they come? Or are you making some kind of point that God would actually invite some He knows cannot come, to come? Would that be in the nature of God?
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Nonsense point..."prison"? The text is about individuals being invited, period.

Just to address your point.........If God invites someone in prison to come to His banquet.......can they come? Or are you making some kind of point that God would actually invite some He knows cannot come, to come? Would that be in the nature of God?
I could invite someone in prison. Are they free to attend?

What you need to do is prove your premise. Because they are invited they have the will/choice to attend. Good luck
 

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
NO This parable is about the nation of Israel first having the Gospel preached to them in the OT types and shadows. That nation has now been set aside from Gods Salvation Purpose in Christ.
Just to make a point.....the "nation of Israel" is made up of individuals. Correct?

You stated "no". How does what I wrote conflict with what you wrote?
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
The parable also shows the depravity of man unwilling to come to Christ. The plain preaching of the Gospel in word only will never convert a sinner. But notice, later it was said go out and bring in people, not invite, but bring Lk 14:21

21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

Then another time they are to compel men to come Lk 14:23

23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
 

civic

Well-known member
Jesus was asked about the future kingdom of God. He responded with a parable.....(Luke 14:15-)

Jesus said, "A man made a great supper and invited many: And sent his servants at supper time to say to them that were invited, 'Come, for all things are now ready......."

To shorten the OP, 'cause you can read and I am sure you have already read it many times,.......... that those initially invited decided not to come, for various reasons.

This ticked off the man hosting the banquet. So he invited others

In conclusion, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That NONE OF THOSE MEN WHICH WERE INVITED, shall taste of my supper.

Fact: Jesus is teaching about the future marriage supper at the start of the millennial kingdom.

My questions for the Calvinists

If God specifically invites someone to come to the banquet.....do those so invited have the choice/freewill to come or not to come? yes or no?
Where is the millennium mentioned in the text ?

You are adding to scripture which is a no no.
 

Oldsaint24

Well-known member
I could invite someone in prison. Are they free to attend?
No.......unless you have the authority to commute sentences. What's your point? Seems you missed mine. You......are not God or the Governor or the President.

So, if God invites anyone whether in prison or not.....can they come? Is it in the nature of your God to invite someone who could not come? Would your God do that?
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Depends on their circumstances. What if their in prison?
Two problems with that:
  1. Those who were initially invited were not “in prison”. Their condemnation came because the chose not to come, not because they were not able to come. The same goes for those who were later invited.
  2. Even assuming that some of those invited had been in prison, the ruler who had invited them would have been able to release them from prison to enable them to come, otherwise he would have been a stupid hypocrite to invite people in prison who were not able to come.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I have a number of posters on "ignore". What this means is that I see a number of "one-way" discussions, where I don't see what the ignored poster is saying, but I see responses.

There is also an interesting artifact that if an "ignored" poster starts a thread, it isn't listed when I am in the "Arminianism and Calvinism" forum, so I don't even know it exists. But if I'm in the parent "Theology" forum, and a thread by an "ignored" poster is the last thread responded to, it is listed there.

So it appears that someone is trying to claim that the "parable of the wedding feast" proves Calvinism false. That's a VERY interesting claim, and (IMO) a very silly claim. You have to actually READ "free will" into it, in order to make it take one side or other. IMO, it fits Calvinism EXTREMELY well, and there is one point where it SCREAMS Calvinism.

Let's look at it:

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: 17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. 18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. 19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. 20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

So the gospel was given to Jews, and NOBODY came.
That looks a LOT like "total depravity" to me.

Luke 14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. 22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

Okay, this version of the parable is a little vague, and says even though the servants went out again, "yet there is room". It isn't clear how many (if any) came this second time. But if we compare it to the parable in Matt. 22, we see that still no one came. "Total depravity" strikes again. I believe this is referring to extending the gospel to the Gentiles, but without God drawing them, still nobody comes.

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

"Compel"... That's a very interesting word.
That sounds an AWFUL lot like "unconditional election" to me.
How does "compulsion" fit in with the idea of "free will"? Not very well, it seems.

SO do we now have to REDEFINE "compel", just like Arminians have
REDEFINED "draw", and
REDEFINED "regeneration", and
REDEFINED "world", and
REDEFINED "foreknow", and so many OTHER terms?

Just an FYI, I will probably not see any replies, as this thread is usually invisible to me...
 
Top