Banquet, is this free will?

Luke 14:23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.

Is this a symbol of election in salvation?

 

I don't think the story has anything to do with election or free will. IMO, Jesus was talking about how God was about to switch His focus from the Jews to the Gentiles. The vast majority of the Jews rejected God (no surprise to God, of course, as is clear from the OT prophecies that salvation would come to the Gentiles). So God used the stubbornness of the Jews as part of His work to bring in His "other" sheep, the Gentile elect. Right now He is focusing on the Gentiles, in part, to provoke the Jews to jealousy. (See Romans.)

Some people point to this as evidence for free will. They would ask, What is the point of provoking someone to jealousy if you're not trying to influence their "decision"?

I would point to it as evidence against free will, however. Obviously, God doesn't behave like the so-called "perfect gentleman" who doesn't interfere with our free will decisions. He does manipulate our decisions. One of the many ways He does it is to provoke people to jealousy.

I do think it's amusing that God actually uses the psychology "let's you and him fight" as part of His work to accomplish His will. Paul used that tactic once, too, to avoid trouble with the Pharisees and Sadducess. It's in Acts.

 

Jesus said he was only sent to the house of Israel and offer to take them "under his wings, but they would not",

If this act had been "predestined", then Jesus would not, even if they would have.

So who's "Will" directed the following course of events, God's or Israel's???


Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword:

Man reaps what Man sows, God didn't sow rejection of Jesus in the hearts of Israel, or any man, that's why Jesus said he would, they wouldn't.

What's reaped is determined by what's sowed.

I agree that God "works around" those who reject him, but the "Detour" is not God's choice, evidents by Jesus coming only to the Jews, and would have, but they would not.

How much "Different" would the Jews/world be today "IF" Israel had not rejected Jesus???

 

I hate to point out the obvious to you, but we would all still be in our sins because Jesus would have never died on the cross if they had not rejected Him.

This is really a silly point. It was impossible for the Jews to accept Jesus when He came first. Isaiah 53 had already been written.

 

If anything, the rejection is exactly what we calvinists say it is. It is the will, in bondage to sin (therefore, not free), doing exactly what the Bible says the will in bondage to sin will do - reject.

 

saturneptune.

I would suggest that you get a copy of "The Other Side of Calvinism" and read it. It will answer all your questions.

http://vancepublications.com/calvinism.htm

http://vancepublications.com/excerpt%20calvinism.htm

Reviews:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/bookreviews/vance.htm

http://www.baptistfire.com/books/calvinism.shtml

 

It bolsters my theology every way, and by every word. I think it not only shows free will but also shows that those that turn down the invitation will NEVER be invited again.
It says to compel, it is like draw more so then capture and bring which the calvinist claim.
Great passage!

 

I love johp favorit verse too. vs 26 hate his own father and mother and wife and childred, bothers and sisters.
Of course those that rightly divide knows that what is said is in comparision of your love for me (God) Or that you love these less then me.

 

OK, so I've read some of the exerpts from this book on the linked website. I assume this is not written by a Calvinist. So, I really only have one thing to say. If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, ask a Calvinist, not a non-Calvinist.

It is the same with any other view. We all, myself included, present our opponents views unfairly at times. I recently read a book written by a Covenant Theologian about Dispensationalism. He unfairly presented things out of context. But that is how he saw them.

This book, I assume (since I haven't read it), does the same. No matter how many quotes it has by Calvinists, it will present a one-sided view that is inaccurate.

 

Great book Jack. I have it but have only read about one chapter. Have too many projects going at one time.

 

OK, so I've read some of the exerpts from this book on the linked website. I assume this is not written by a Calvinist. So, I really only have one thing to say. If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, ask a Calvinist, not a non-Calvinist.

It is the same with any other view. We all, myself included, present our opponents views unfairly at times. I recently read a book written by a Covenant Theologian about Dispensationalism. He unfairly presented things out of context. But that is how he saw them.

This book, I assume (since I haven't read it), does the same. No matter how many quotes it has by Calvinists, it will present a one-sided view that is inaccurate. </font>[/QUOTE]Standard answer calvi...why do you think all who debate against calvinist are at least consistant in what results from calvinist theology? I am not buying that line anymore. We understand all too well what calvinism is , better then most calvinist it appears!!

 

You don't even understand English very well.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, compel means:

1. To force, drive, or constrain
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on

The Greek word for compel is anagkadzo which means "force, compel, urge, insist." It hardly means to draw or invite.

So, the NIV is accurate when it says "force." This is exactly what the Calvinists claim.

 

Which brings up the matter of all scripture being spiritually discerned!

 

Which brings up the matter of all scripture being spiritually discerned! </font>[/QUOTE]Except that I've read just as many books by Dispensationalists unfairly presenting the Covenant view out of context. Ditto with the Calvinism/Arminianism thing. This is why I say, if you want to know what someone believes, ask them. Don't ask their opponent.

 

You don't even understand English very well.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, compel means:

1. To force, drive, or constrain
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on

The Greek word for compel is anagkadzo which means "force, compel, urge, insist." It hardly means to draw or invite.

So, the NIV is accurate when it says "force." This is exactly what the Calvinists claim. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh you got me! I repent of all my attacks on cal....errr wait a minute. just kidding.
I read where even J. MacArhur says it means not by voilence or force, but earnest pleading. Man here we go again. I am qouting a calvinist who explains away irrs. grace. So men can compel others to Christ. Know what calvi, instead of always trying to insult your debater why not spend some of that energy in honest study!

 

I would suggest that people not use books by Lawrence Vance for support (or other books that frequently play number, letter, and word games).

 

OK, so I've read some of the exerpts from this book on the linked website. I assume this is not written by a Calvinist. So, I really only have one thing to say. If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, ask a Calvinist, not a non-Calvinist.

It is the same with any other view. We all, myself included, present our opponents views unfairly at times. I recently read a book written by a Covenant Theologian about Dispensationalism. He unfairly presented things out of context. But that is how he saw them.

This book, I assume (since I haven't read it), does the same. No matter how many quotes it has by Calvinists, it will present a one-sided view that is inaccurate. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh no, that was not my intention. My intention was for Saturneptune to learn the truth of God's Word. Not what Calvinists teach.

And I suppose that you think that if he/she reads a Calvinist book that he will get an unbiased view?

That's a good one!

 

I would suggest people not use The Doctrines of Grace, The Westminster Confessions, The Institutes of the Church, The Synod of Dordt, etc...


Read the Holy Bible and believe it's writings.