Compel Them to come in....

[seer]

Here is a principle that I believe will clear up a lot of confusion. Through out the history of Israel God always saved a remnant. See Roman 11:4,5 with 1 Kings 19:18. That for His Special Sovereign purposes on earth God will use an extra measure of coercion.

Yet,in all this I do believe that those not of the remnant had a real and genuine God given ability to respond to His overtures.

Look at Romans 10:21

"But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Here the Calvinist has to say that God's outreach to these disobedient Jews was not genuine. That He really did not give them the ability to repent and obey.

This principle can be again found in our Lord's teachings:

See Luke 14:1-24 were Christ speaks of entering (eating bread) in the Kingdom. For our purpose we will focus on verses 21-24


After one group of men (unbelieving Jews I assume) reject the invitation:

"So the servant came and reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.' And the servant said, 'Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.'"

Notice that many receive the invitation and come in. But there is still ROOM. And it is only at this point that God uses an extra measure of coercion, and compels the others to the supper.

My point is that all men have the God given ability to respond to His overtures ( Jn.1:7-9,Rom.1:19,20,Rom.2:14,15,etc..) and are therefore responsible. And yet at times God uses that extra measure of coercion for His special purposes.

[sacre]

The problem I have with that interpretation is that the text specifically says (in v. 18) "They ALL ALIKE began to make excuses", and in v. 24 "For I tell you, NONE of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner." Therefore, my interpretation would be that only those whom God "compels" will come.

cf. John 6:37: "ALL that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."
John 6:44: "NO one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (COMPELS?) him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[seer]

The problem I have with that interpretation is that the text specifically says (in v. 18) "They ALL ALIKE began to make excuses", and in v. 24 "For I tell you, NONE of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner." Therefore, my interpretation would be that only those whom God "compels" will come.

Look again, "And the servant said, 'Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room." What was commanded? To go out and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame. This was done - then there was still room left, that is when the compelling takes place - not before.



"So the servant came and reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.' And the servant said, 'Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.'"

Now don't get me wrong. God must draw and enlighten, but in special cases,as I mentioned in my opening post,at times He seems to use extra measures.

[Arminian]

The semantic range of the word in question needs to be taken into account, as well as the context and any genre guesses. The world translated "compel" here also means to "urge." Not only that, but this is about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The idea is that God would have a people regardless of the response of national Israel, specifically because God would call them "my people" who were not "my people" because God would have a new chosen people (a people of faith).

[sacre]

If the word means "force" or "urge", it matters little, because it clearly required further action by the master to get ANY GUESTS AT ALL to show up. Or, to put it in terms of our current debates, the common "prevenient grace" did not convince the people who were invited to come in, so the servant went to the weak and lowly, who knew they could not receive such a feast of their own merit.

Furthermore, there have been no comments on my other references (i.e. John chapter 6). Despite whether the word "draw" specifically means "to drag" (which it does), or whether it means "to urge" or "to plead" makes little difference, because God still, AFTER "all have been taught of God" (John 6:45), God still had to do XYZ before they would come.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[seer]

...If the word means "force" or "urge", it matters little, because it clearly required further action by the master to get ANY GUESTS AT ALL to show up. Or, to put it in terms of our current debates, the common "prevenient grace" did not convince the people who were invited to come in, so the servant went to the weak and lowly, who knew they could not receive such a feast of their own merit.


The point is,that many came BEFORE the servant went back out to urge. Read it again. And you are wrong about John 6. The word can mean to drag but it was also used by the ancient greeks to influence. Even Strong (a Calvinist) defines it as moral infuence.

[sacre]

many came BEFORE the servant went back out to urge.

To "urge", perhaps... but NONE came before the servant went back out, period. This means (to me) that the common grace (invitation) only serves to convict, but not to effectively call. After the servant went out, whether or not he urged, makes no difference to the analogy, but that all the "invited" refused.

Also, I feel that my point concerning John 6 still stands, even if the word doesn't mean "to drag", which was the idea I was trying to get across. Even if the word means "to hiccup", God must still, apart from His prevenient grace (which would have applied to Jesus' whole audience (ALL have been taught of God)), God must first "hiccup", and all at whom God "hiccups" will come to Him, and will be raised up on the last day. Clearly, God must still be the one to work. For the record, I agree with Strong's "moral influence" interpretation, but I would use a stronger term, such as "indwelling." ;)

Godspeed,
R.

[seer]

...To "urge", perhaps... but NONE came before the servant went back out, period. This means (to me) that the common grace (invitation) only serves to convict, but not to effectively call. After the servant went out, whether or not he urged, makes no difference to the analogy, but that all the "invited" refused.

And it would mean to me that some men can receive the invitation and some men can reject it. And not all the invited refused, the second group,before the third group that was "urged," did accept and come.

...Clearly, God must still be the one to work. For the record, I agree with Strong's "moral influence" interpretation, but I would use a stronger term, such as "indwelling." ;)

Well of course. But the question is: is this work of God universal,and can it be resisted. We would probably disagree on that.

[sacre]

And it would mean to me that some men can receive the invitation and some men can reject it. And not all the invited refused, the second group,before the third group that was "urged," did accept and come.
I see two different "invitations" here. The first, I think we can agree, was to the whole world, and it was universally refused. The second was to the lame, blind, etc. IF any of these refused to come, then I would concede your point on this verse... but notice that the master did not say "extend the invitation to the blind, lame, etc", but "BRING IN the blind, lame, etc." Thus, I believe that, to prove your point about this particular passage (although, granted, one way or the other would not prove or disprove the doctrine by itself), you would have to show that some of the blind and lame, etc, refused the "invitation".

...the question is: is this work of God universal,and can it be resisted?

At the moment, we are still assuming that prevenient grace exists (which, by the way, I would deny), so we will answer "yes" to the first, for the time being. The second question, though, is at the root of the matter, and here we converge with our other thread "Total Depravity" (didn't you know it would come back to that root?).

Regards,
R.

[seer]

...Thus, I believe that, to prove your point about this particular passage (although, granted, one way or the other would not prove or disprove the doctrine by itself), you would have to show that some of the blind and lame, etc, refused the "invitation".

But it doesn't say that they all came in. And it doesn't say that just some came in. So we are left in the air...


...At the moment, we are still assuming that prevenient grace exists (which, by the way, I would deny), so we will answer "yes" to the first, for the time being.

prevenient grace is perfectly biblical. but yes?


...The second question, though, is at the root of the matter, and here we converge with our other thread "Total Depravity" (didn't you know it would come back to that root?).

of course...

[Arminian]

sacre,

Thanks for the response. I'll want to make a comment concerning the parallel passage and also the John passage. I have to find an old post to copy and post first. Right now my leg is killing me too much to address what you have said.

For now, the word also means to "urge strongly," which suggests an even more emphatic appeal. But I'll explain later.

[sacre]

...it doesn't say that they all came in. And it doesn't say that just some came in. So we are left in the air...

I agree, the passage is not explicit about who came and who did not, and yet the passage does say "BRING IN the blind, lame, etc.", and so you could see my tendancy to lean in the direction I do.

If you would, then, give me one more chance to try to convince you of what this passage is trying to say by looking at the overall passage to determine the general issue?

Luke 1:13-14 uses similar language concerning the guests. ""But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Thus, the subjects of the kingdom of God are not subjects because we have any works to offer God, but precisely because we DON'T have anything to offer God. When we move on to the next few verses, then, and find the same group of people attend the banquet of the Christ, but not because they had anything to offer God; it was because they had nothing, and God chose them anyway. In the end, it says (v. 24) "For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner." Thus, it wasn't the "called" that came, but the "chosen", clearly seperating the two groups.

Godspeed,
R.

[seer]

"For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner. Thus, it wasn't the "called" that came, but the "chosen", clearly seperating the two groups."

So all that God calls are not chosen? But again,one group responded and the other didn't. And it makes you wonder why God would call those He knows CAN NOT respond. Does He want to rub their unchosen depravity in their faces? Not very gracious... It's like God is playing games with men's souls - agreed?

[Arminian]

sacre,

Luke 1:13-14 uses similar language concerning the guests. ""But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Thus, the subjects of the kingdom of God are not subjects because we have any works to offer God, but precisely because we DON'T have anything to offer God. When we move on to the next few verses, then, and find the same group of people attend the banquet of the Christ, but not because they had anything to offer God; it was because they had nothing, and God chose them anyway. In the end, it says (v. 24) "For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner." Thus, it wasn't the "called" that came, but the "chosen", clearly seperating the two groups.

The lame and the blind represent the Gentiles. They were invited because the Jews rejected the opportunity. God's chosen people are made up, then, of those who accepted the invitation, rather than those who were chosen BEFORE they were invited. God only chose who would be invited, and then those included in the people were those who accepted the invitation.

[Arminian]

Thus, it wasn't the "called" that came, but the "chosen", clearly seperating the two groups.

The "chosen" are those ALREADY at the party. Anyone who wants to be one of them can.