The Holy Spirit and Salvation !

[Tenchi]

Now notice that by a simple call to the supper that men made excuses not to come, but notice when the Master commanded that the servant in Vs 21 to go and BRING IN the Guest, it was different ! It was not up to the natural will of the guest, they WERE BROUGHT IN !

The words bring in here in the greek is Eisago and means:

to lead in
to bring in,

The words mean to cause to come

Its no longer up to the one being summoned to refuse, he or she must be caused to come, which is a blessing Ps 65:4

Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

But it is entirely an assumption on your part, made in service to your Calvinist doctrines, that the servants, by physical violence, forced those out in the highways and hedges to attend their Master's meal. Why should the uninvited be compelled to attend the meal when the invited were free to reject the invitation? Why are you ignoring the liberty of the invited to choose whether or not they would accept the invitation?

It does no damage to Christ's parable - and seems to me to make better sense of it - to understand that the same freedom given to the invited to refuse attendance at the man's meal was given to the uninvited, also. The servants "compelled" the uninvited by strong urgings, not physical coercion, to partake in the feast.

Psalm 65:1-4 (NASB)
1 There will be silence before You, and praise in Zion, O God, And to You the vow will be performed.
2 O You who hear prayer, To You all men come.
3 Iniquities prevail against me; As for our transgressions, You forgive them.
4 How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple.

The Calvinist must presume that "choose and bring" means to "individually and sovereignly decree and coerce." But this isn't what David actually wrote. Certainly, God is sovereign. It was His unilateral choice to make Abraham's descendants His Chosen People. Does this necessitate that when "iniquities prevailed" in David's life that they did so because God had decreed that they would? If I take David to be saying that God forcibly brought David near, and that He did so because He ordains whatsoever comes to pass, I must settle the blame for David's iniquity upon God, not David. This makes God's forgiveness of David's transgressions exceedingly odd, since David actually bears no real culpability for them. In any case, does it necessarily follow that, if God acts unilaterally in some instances, He must do so in all instances? Is this what I see described in Scripture? No.

In fact its Illustrated here 2 Cor 5:19-20

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This " be ye reconciled" is actually a imperative, but its in the passive voice, the ones being beseeched are at the same time by the power of the Gospel, being turned to or brought in, or compelled !

Its an imperative being issued, not a asking or giving a choice, Just like the servant was commissioned by the Master to do Lk 14:23

What need is there for Paul to implore (beseech) his readers to be reconciled to God if God is going to force them into His kingdom regardless of what they may want? This is a very strange, even absurd, thing for Paul to write if he really thought that being reconciled to God was something God did unilaterally to lost people, forcing them to salvation no matter what. Obviously, in such a circumstance, no beseeching is required.