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

Synergy

Well-known member
Matthew 22:14: "For many are called, but few chosen."

Mat 22:11 And the king coming in to look over the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι).

First of all, it is God that does both the calling and the choosing (election). Calling is not some external announcement of the Gospel, it is internal working of God. That’s made clear because verse 13 uses figurative language about hades/hell so the entire parable has eschatological ramifications (outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth).

Second of all, what role does man play? Let’s look at Prov 1:24:

Prov 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

It is man who does the refusing or the reverse of refusing, i.e.: accepting. Synergy is manifested in all its facets.

Third of all, the fact that the number of people ("many") called by God decreases to the number of people ("few') elected by God hits hard at both the Irresistible Grace and the Preservation of Saints theories.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Matthew 22:14: "For many are called, but few chosen."

Mat 22:11 And the king coming in to look over the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι).

First of all, it is God that does both the calling and the choosing (election). Calling is not some external announcement of the Gospel, it is internal working of God. That’s made clear because verse 13 uses figurative language about hades/hell so the entire parable has eschatological ramifications (outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth).

Second of all, what role does man play? Let’s look at Prov 1:24:

Prov 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

It is man who does the refusing or the reverse of refusing, i.e.: accepting. Synergy is manifested in all its facets.

Third of all, the fact that the number of people ("many") called by God decreases to the number of people ("few') elected by God hits hard at both the Irresistible Grace and the Preservation of Saints theories.
I reckon we agree that the one who didn't have a Wedding Garment on, was not Called; right?
 

Synergy

Well-known member
I reckon we agree that the one who didn't have a Wedding Garment on, was not Called; right?
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι).

The conclusion of Mat 22:14 comes directly right after Mat 22:13. So yes he was called or it's a major disconnect with Mat 22:14.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι).

The conclusion of Mat 22:14 comes directly right after Mat 22:13. So yes he was called or it's a major disconnect with Mat 22:14.
That's a good point; but it's also a good point for the king to ask his friend how he got in. The asking shows that the friend wasn't Called...

John 10:1 NIV; “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
 
Last edited:

Synergy

Well-known member
That's a good point; but it's also a good point for the king to ask his friend how he got in. The asking shows that the friend wasn't Called...
You need to read the entire verse:

Mat 22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

So the question being asked is: how did he get in without choosing to put on a wedding garment. That's man's responsibility, synergy in other words.
 
G

guest1

Guest
That's a good point; but it's also a good point for the king to ask his friend how he got in. The asking shows that the friend wasn't Called...
You do realize that scripture not once ever says the elect,chosen, called are saved, have salvation/eternal life. Prove me wrong :)

That is a calvinist assumption not found in the text.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
You need to read the entire verse:

Mat 22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

So the question being asked is: how did he get in without choosing to put on a wedding garment. That's man's responsibility, synergy in other words.
Perhaps he entered some other way than through the Gate...
 

Synergy

Well-known member
Perhaps he entered some other way than through the Gate...
Now you're speculating. I prefer to stick to what's been revealed.

So, there are 4 major Calvinist pillars that fall with this parable:
1) Monergism (Total Depravity),
2) Preservation of Saints,
3) Irresistible Grace,
4) and even Limited Atonement because as many as could possibly be found were invited.

Come to think of it, throw in 2 Pet 1:10 which proves that election is not a done deal (Unconditional Election is false), it needs our part to make it sure, then you have the entire TULIP plucked.

2 Pet 1:10: "Therefore, brothers, rather be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, you shall never fall."
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Now you're speculating. I prefer to stick to what's been revealed.

So, there are 4 major Calvinist pillars that fall with this parable:
1) Monergism (Total Depravity),
2) Preservation of Saints,
3) Irresistible Grace,
4) and even Limited Atonement because as many as could possibly be found were invited.

Come to think of it, throw in 2 Pet 1:10 which proves that election is not a done deal (Unconditional Election is false), it needs our part to make it sure, then you have the entire TULIP plucked.

2 Pet 1:10: "Therefore, brothers, rather be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, you shall never fall."
No problem friend. My speculation is as valid as your speculation. I used John 10:1, and you used Proverbs 1:24; both of which are outside the Context of Matthew 22:11-14, and both are 'Revelation' (IE what's been Revealed). To object to my going outside of the passage, should be you also objecting to you doing the same thing; right? Surely you are not trying to restrict me to just the Passage; especially after you left the Passage as early as your Op...

Let's just agree that it's okay for both of us to use All Scripture to decide if the friend was Chosen or not...
 
Last edited:

Synergy

Well-known member
No problem friend. My speculation is as valid as your speculation. I used John 10:1, and you used Proverbs 1:24; both of which are outside the Context of Matthew 22:11-14, and both are 'Revelation' (IE what's been Revealed). To object to my going outside of the passage, should be you also objecting to you doing the same thing; right? Surely you are not trying to restrict me to just the Passage; especially after you left the Passage as soon as in your OP, using Proverbs 1:24...

Let's just agree that it's okay for both of us to use All Scripture to decide if the friend was Chosen or not...
I'm willing to restrict myself to only the Wedding Feast parable. Are you?

I can remove Proverbs 1:24 and replace my 2nd point as follows:

Second of all, what role does man play? Let's look at Mat 22:12:
Mat 22:12 "And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless."
So the question being asked is: how did he get in without allowing a wedding garment to be placed on him. That's man's responsibility, synergy in other words.

Can you do the same with John 10:1?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Now you're speculating. I prefer to stick to what's been revealed.

So, there are 4 major Calvinist pillars that fall with this parable:
1) Monergism (Total Depravity),
2) Preservation of Saints,
3) Irresistible Grace,
4) and even Limited Atonement because as many as could possibly be found were invited.

You do realize, I hope, that the only reason you think the "Calvinist pillars" fall, is because you are making self-serving assumptions that cause them to fall, right?

If you don't make the assumptions, there's no problem.

1) You are assuming that the person who came without a garment was one of the "saints".
2) You are assuming that all who the servants invited were "elect".

Come to think of it, throw in 2 Pet 1:10 which proves that election is not a done deal (Unconditional Election is false), it needs our part to make it sure, then you have the entire TULIP plucked.

2 Pet 1:10: "Therefore, brothers, rather be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, you shall never fall."

3) You are assuming that this verse means that our calling and election are not yet "sure" until we "do" something.

You haven't "proven" that Calvinism is false, you have only ASSUMED that it is, and made your assumptions accordingly.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I'm willing to restrict myself to only the Wedding Feast parable. Are you?

I can remove Proverbs 1:24 and replace my 2nd point as follows:

Second of all, what role does man play? Let's look at Mat 22:12:
Mat 22:12 "And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless."
So the question being asked is: how did he get in without allowing a wedding garment to be placed on him. That's man's responsibility, synergy in other words.

Can you do the same with John 10:1?
As a 5-Point Calvinist, I am not Willing to restrict myself to the passage, being compelled by you to deny that All Scripture is Good for any Doctrine from the passage. In one way, as a Synergist I can't even believe you would suggest such a thing. For instance, if I told you that it doesn't depend on the friend Willing or Running, and asked you to stay in Romans 9:16; you would go "Pffttt!'...

I'll suggest to you that perhaps the so-called friend in your Passage, crawled over the walls instead of entering through the King's gate. Sticking to your Passage as you wish, there are no Sins listed which would illicit the King's response; except for entering without a Wedding Garment. Taking the Passage as the rule, the friend 'entered' without the garment; instead of entering with the garment and taking it off...

Sticking with the immediate Context or with the whole Context of Scripture, we can show that the friend was not Chosen to be there...
 
Last edited:

Synergy

Well-known member
As a 5-Point Calvinist, I am not Willing to restrict myself to the passage, presuming that All Scripture is not Good for any Doctrine from the passage.
First you criticized me for going outside the parable and now you are not willing to do the same. Fascinating....
In one way, as a Synergist I can't even believe you would suggest such a thing. For instance, if I told you that it doesn't depend on the one who Wills or Runs, and asked you to stay in Romans 9:16; you would go "Pffttt!'...
Here come the personal attacks. I'm so used to it by now because it is part of the Calvinist iconoclastic ethos.
I'll suggest to you that perhaps the so-called friend in your Passage, crawled over the walls instead of entering through the King's gate. Sticking to your Passage as you wish, there are no Sins listed which would illicit the King's response; except for entering without a Wedding Garment. Taking the Passage as the rule, the friend 'entered' without the garment; instead of entering with the garment and taking it off...

Sticking with the immediate Context or the whole Context of Scripture, we can show that the friend was not Chosen to be there...
You're mixing up "called" with "chosen". He was called but not chosen, hence: "For many are called, but few chosen." IG and PofS pillars fall.
 
G

guest1

Guest
As a Christian the gospel is only contained in passages that discuss the gospel

That excludes all the passages calvinists use in the John 1-21. So much for the sheep, chosen , elect etc.........

And Romans 9 never mentions the gospel or salvation. Dismantling calvinism is way to easy.

oops

next

hope this helps !!!
 
G

guest1

Guest
First you criticized me for going outside the parable and now you are not willing to do the same. Fascinating....

Here come the personal attacks. I'm so used to it by now because it is part of the Calvinist iconoclastic ethos.

You're mixing up "called" with "chosen". He was called but not chosen, hence: "For many are called, but few chosen." IG and PofS pillars fall.
Yes ad hominems are what you get when one cannot defend their false doctrines.
 

christ_undivided

Well-known member
As a Christian the gospel is only contained in passages that discuss the gospel

That excludes all the passages calvinists use in the John 1-21. So much for the sheep, chosen , elect etc.........

And Romans 9 never mentions the gospel or salvation. Dismantling calvinism is way to easy.

oops

next

hope this helps !!!

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Did you forget this verse?

Dispensationalism isn't compatible with Calvinism. You've never really been a Calvinist. You carried that junk over to your new Arminian position.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Did you forget this verse?

Dispensationalism isn't compatible with Calvinism. You've never really been a Calvinist. You carried that junk over to your new Arminian position.
I was discussing the book of John and Romans 9. Typical response, here a little there a little , running to and fro. Its what JW's do when cornered.

deflection on your part.

next........................
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
First you criticized me for going outside the parable and now you are not willing to do the same. Fascinating....

Here come the personal attacks. I'm so used to it by now because it is part of the Calvinist iconoclastic ethos.

You're mixing up "called" with "chosen". He was called but not chosen, hence: "For many are called, but few chosen." IG and PofS pillars fall.
It's not a personal attack friend, but since you view it as a personal attack; please forgive me. The main thing I took from Marriage Counseling is that if my wife felt something was true even though I didn't think it is true; it is true for her. If I were in your Sunday School class, you would have been more easily able to tell it wasn't a personal attack...

I have no problem with us going outside of the passage, and I recommend it. If what I wrote seems as if I criticized you, please forgive me. Since I want to be able to go outside the Passage, you shouldn't think I criticized you for going out of the Passage. My point is that since you want me to stay in the Passage, you didn't stay in the Passage when you quoted Proverbs 1:24...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I have no problem with us going outside of the passage, and I recommend it. If what I wrote seems as if I criticized you, please forgive me. Since I want to be able to go outside the Passage, you shouldn't think I criticized you for going out of the Passage. My point is that since you want me to stay in the Passage, you didn't stay in the Passage by quoting Proverbs 1:24...

It seems that he wants to go outside the passage to colour the meaning in a particular, self-serving way, but he doesn't want you to go outside the passage to colour it in a different way that he doesn't like.
 
Top