I'm not going there. I'm going to Jesus's own conclusion. The phrase is well known and yet, relatively unexamined.
"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt 22:14)Seems plain, straightforward, easy to understand. Barnes' commentary says, "The Jews had been called, but few of them had been chosen to life." Clarke's commentary says, "Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with God in glory." This doesn't seem like it's complicated. Nor is it difficult to see from the story. Lots of people were called. There were the original invitations to people that scorned the king followed by a grand "round up" by the servants, but only some of those who were brought got to stay. All of the originals and at least one of the second group didn't made it. "Many are called, but few are chosen."
It wouldn't be a big deal if we weren't toting around this belief that God wants to save everyone. People will cite passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and say, "See? His will is that none should perish." In fact, if this is not the case, many think God would be unfair, arbitrary, unloving, and unkind. But Jesus said that "few are chosen." Broad call; narrow selection.
But this is what Jesus says elsewhere, isn't it? "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14) There's that "few" again.
We humans tend to side with humans and think that we are pretty important. Even if we don't voice it, we think that God ought to plan to save us all. Maybe He can't because of our free will, but He ought to plan to save everyone, shouldn't He? I would say that "few are chosen" suggests that "few are chosen" and God plans to save the "chosen" and will certainly accomplish that plan. Indeed, the concept of "the chosen" is the theme of Scripture, starting with Adam and progressing through Noah, Abraham, David, and even all Israel. It is repeated repeatedly (just having fun there) in the New Testament, referencing "the elect" or "the chosen". Revelation speaks of the judgment of those "whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world" (Rev 17:8), requiring that this choice was done before the foundation of the world. Now, we can discuss how God chose (well, you can -- I don't find any texts that tell me how He chooses), but isn't it abundantly clear that "Many are called, but few are chosen"? If God says it, I think I'm okay with it.
14 comments:
"God is not willing that any should perish"
i love this one. this is great case for failure to apply even the most basic hermeneutics.
to whom were Peter's letters written? what was the context? what was peter trying to convey?
not to mention the contradiction created when trying to apply this idea to the unsaved.
if God is not willing that any should perish, why then are people perishing? the additional problem occurs when we try to solve this delima by using freewill to solve that problem.
"you see God is willing but man by his freewill declines the offer of salvation." if this is the case, than how can we trust God will be able to save any? His calling and Election would be ineffectual.
Here is a list of the types of "God's will"
Decretive: What God has decreed to come to pass, this will is both sovereign and hidden.
Preceptive: the will of God that has been revealed by his word. God's moral law, and what we should do to please Him.
Disposition: Dis positional will: this will goes to additude. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is not willing that any should perish, but all men come to repentance.
when we ask the question "what is the will of God for my life?"
if we are trying to know God's Decree. we are guilty of tresspass into the secret concil of God. but if we want to know God's Preceptive will, then all we have to do read his word.
what form of "God's will" is expressed in 2nd Peter 3:9?
(Psst! You listed "God is not willing that any should perish" under God's will of disposition, so I'm guessing that the answer to your question about 2 Peter 3:9 is "God's will of disposition". So ... did I get it right? I mean, I didn't study for this test or anything, but ...)
yea that was pretty stupid. i didn't really think that one thru. but i am getting better..
Getting better at what? Writing better tests? Did okay otherwise as far as I can tell.
ok so what is with the guy without the wedding garments? was he just crashing the party?
or did they run out of garments before he got there? did he really want to stay but was rejected? i guess i could speculate, but perhaps the point is, that the host did not make provision, or exception for this man. i mean the host called him friend. and then boom..
Curious about him myself. Clearly the host (king) gets to do what he wants and is not liable to anyone for his actions.
Given the number of scriptures that say basically the same thing, I cannot understand how anyone can come up with a coherent theology of universal salvation. It just doesn't make sense.
And yet, there are STILL not-small numbers of universalists.
Not only that, but there are enough "outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth" mentions that I don't see how anyone can conclude that there is not some sort of post death conscious punishment either.
It just seems pretty clear that not everyone gets into heaven and those that don't end up in a bad place.
Regardless of the literalness of "outer darkness", "lake of fire", and the like, I cannot fathom how people end up with, "Well, sure, it says that, but it doesn't mean it" in any sense at all. Worse, the most information we have on the place comes from Jesus.
i have done a little research and found out that it was customary for the king to provide wedding clothing. this makes sense especially if the guest were brought in from the country side with soiled clothing. so in this case we have a person that
1. He excepted the invitation
2. in disobedience, He did not accept the provision (clean clothing) of the king.
3. in error; the man thought that his own clothing was sufficient, to attend the wedding.
what are the practical implications?
many may except the invitation, but of those, some still depend upon their own righteousness?
just spit balling here...
So saith Spurgeon.
Stan, I agree, even if it's not literal fire or gnashing or whatever I don't see how you can suggest that it's going to be anything but conscious and unpleasant. It's also interesting how willing they are to contradict Jesus on this.
Post a Comment