As for eschatology, I grew up in a divided home. My mother was (and still is) amillennial in her view, having been educated in Church of God (Anderson,IN) schools. My dad was more baptistic and generally a dispensationalist. As a teenager, I just sat on the fence.

After changing my major to Bible and beginning to prepare for the ministry, I realized I would have to get off the fence. So I began reading all the major eschatological passages. Daniel, Olivet Discourse, Thessalonians, Peter, Jude, Revelation. From this reading I developed a pre-millennial position. From further study on a systematic basis, I have come to a pre-trib rapture position.

I think you can dogmatically argue the pre-mill position from the Bible, but the pre-trib rapture position, though I am completely convinced of it, cannot be argued as dogmatically. It is a reasoned position, and human reasoning is not infallible.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’m curious how your “biblical theology” preference meshes with your eschatology. I can’t see a pre-trib/pre-mil position really being developed without some sort of systematic approach.

Well, I suppose taking a different tack might make me an Arminian in the minds of some. I look at what both views teach and don’t like either position entirely.

I do think that there is a little too much name-calling that goes on in these debates. The C’s want to label the non-C’s as Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, or Pelagians. I can take the A label I suppose, but the other too are extremely offensive to me. On the other hand, the non-Cs will use the Hyper prefix in a way that the Cs find extremely offensive also. Basically, a non-C means that anyone who holds all five petals is Hyper, whereas a C calls those extremists who refuse to preach the gospel to the lost as Hypers.

The result of all that tends to poison the well and not much profit can be had from those kinds of debates. I have heard some Cs say that ‘anyone who doesn’t accept the doctrines of grace isn’t a believer.’ Well, where do you go from there? After running up that flag, anyone who deviates from your perfect kingdom is a spawn of Satan.

I would rather that when Cs and As (or whatever) debate, they could leave the labels alone and just talk about the Bible and what it says or doesn’t say.

As for labels, I do like the label biblicist, but it does drive some Cs wild. What I mean by it though is that I prefer biblical theology to systematic theology. In my opinion, the Bible trumps the system every time. Thus, I place more importance on what the Bible actually says than on what some theologian says. To me that is a better approach, but many differ.

I am used to being in the minority!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, I still see Calvin as trying to weasel out of it. The parable is a kingdom parable, the Lord introduces it as such, so if you are up on the kingdom teaching, you know that the Lord isn’t just talking about Israel. They are, of course, involved, but the kingdom is much more than that.

Then the parable goes through the actual destruction of “their city”, the city of those first invited. I take that to be a reference to AD 70, but I suppose that could be open to question. After that, the Lord sents his servants to the highways to invite guests, which implies to me somewhere outside of Israel, i.e., the Gentiles.

So to me, it is an open question if the last guest is a Jew or not.

And regardless of his national status, he is clearly lost. He is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. If that isn’t hell, I don’t know what is.

So what we have is at least one lost person who is called, but not chosen. That means that there is at least one person who was called, but apparently ineffectually. The Lord, of course, says ‘many’ but we can stick with Calvin here and say it is just this one. This is still a big problem for Calvinistic thought, it seems to me.

Anyway… I did think of a bit of an out for the Calvinist in that they could say that ‘all are called’, but only those chosen actually make it in. But then you have the problem of whether grace is irresistable or not.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

This is true- but again, Calvin seems to answer that by observing that the man is part of the “called” because he is a Jew, but is not part of the “chosen.” Romans 9:6 seems to be pertinent here.

Note Calvin’s interpretation:

But when he says, that the servants were sent to call those who were invited, these words are intended to point out a double favor which the Jews had received from God; first, in being preferred to other nations; and, secondly, in having their adoption made known to them by the prophets. The allusion is to a practice customary among men, that those who intended to make a marriage drew up a list of the persons whom they intended to have as guests, and afterwards sent invitations to them by their servants. In like manner, God elected the Jews in preference to others, as if they had been his familiar friends, and afterwards called them by the prophets to partake of the promised redemption, which was, as it were, to feast at a marriage It is true that those who were first invited did not live till the coming of Christ; but we know that all received an offer of the same salvation, of which they were deprived by their ingratitude and malice; for from the commencement, God’s invitation was impiously despised by that people.

There are definite problems in the overall breadth of his commentary on the passage (at least for this dispensationalist), but his application of the parable to the Jews particularly makes sense to me.

His argument isn’t compelling for even he admits “The object of the parable is pointed out by the conclusion, that few are chosen, though many are called”. If it is the conclusion of the parable, it is the conclusion of the whole, not of the part.

And even limiting it to the last character who is cast out of the banquet hall, the problem still remains: he, an obviously lost man, is among the ‘called’. But he is not among the elect.

So… I think it is still a difficult passage for Calvinism.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Pertinent commentary here.