Does Matthew 22:1-14 Disprove Calvinism?

Does Matthew 22:1-14 disprove Calvinism?  According to some people it does.   According them, the kings servants invited many, many people, but someone was cast into outer darkness.  Therefore Calvinism is false.  This allegedly disproves Unconditional Election &/or Irresistible Grace. 


As to Unconditional Election, the text states, “And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.  (Matthew 22:10, ESV)”


It’s hard to see how this disproves Unconditional Election.  Those gathered are found from among both good & bad people.    The opposing position (Conditional Election) teaches that God elects those from among all walks of life who do a good thing —- exercise saving faith & repentance.   The texts emphasis is on the gathering of people. 


As to Irresistible Grace, the text says that the king commanded that the servants go into the highways & invite everyone they found.   In response, the servants **gathered** people into the wedding hall.  The words for invite & gathered are not the same word.   


Among those in the wedding hall there is only one man who has refused the wedding garments.  He appears as a representative of those **invited** in the first part of the parable.    


In the conclusion, Yeshua says many are **called** & few are **chosen.**  The many fill the wedding hall. The few are cast into outer darkness. 


“Called” refers to both inviting (a general call) & gathering (an effectual call.   “Chosen” refers to the invited one who, because he refused to wear the wedding garment was cast into outer darkness.   He was chosen to be passed over (reprobated) & considered for reprobation as a sinner, which supports the Infralaparian Order of Decrees. 


Nothing in the text fails to support the Doctrines of Grace.  


Thank you for reading, & “Go & Sin No More.” 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

  Paul is following the basic outline of a suzerain covenant in general     & the outline of Lev. 18 in particular.   Shema & Decalogue (Rom. 1:18 - 20)   God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.    God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to his Law & Gospel.    This corresponds to Lev. 18 : 1 & 2. A - Rom.    1:18 - 19.  God’s wrath falls on those who suppress His image.   B - Rom 1:20  - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made so that people are without excuse.  What is the teleological intent of the created order?    To serve as an epistemic warrant on par with God Himself? No!  It’s purpose is to serve as a pointer to God who is Himself the only sufficient epistemic warrant for all faith & practice....
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more