tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post5103245866799289634..comments2023-09-01T16:11:44.564+08:00Comments on Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): The full response to Tony Byrne, and sufficient refutation of Neo-Amyraldism [AMMENDED]Daniel Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-58106856219542421302009-07-03T11:23:38.557+08:002009-07-03T11:23:38.557+08:00SB:
Agreed. With regards to the first invitation...SB:<br /><br />Agreed. With regards to the first invitation which was universally rejected, it must be understood that the parable was spoken against the Jews who rejected the Gospel en masse, thus those who were "officially" invited to the feast were the Jews as a covenant people and they all reject Christ.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-46263756035305038592009-07-02T23:42:39.703+08:002009-07-02T23:42:39.703+08:00In thinking about the universal offer, Matt 22:14 ...In thinking about the universal offer, Matt 22:14 comes to mind: "Many are called but few are chosen."<br /><br />The entire parable (Matt 22:1-14) really serves to illustrate the difference between the universal call (those who were invited to wedding feast) and the effectual call (those who finally (and legitimately) attend it.<br /><br />In fact there are three groups of people in Benghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10424667985021268808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-60602934140396857272009-07-01T01:05:30.801+08:002009-07-01T01:05:30.801+08:00SB:
Oops... thanks. I have made some minor change...SB:<br /><br />Oops... thanks. I have made some minor changes to the paper now.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-4289546775342221092009-06-30T00:37:36.598+08:002009-06-30T00:37:36.598+08:00Reading slowly through it right now. There are a f...Reading slowly through it right now. There are a few instances where "perceptive" should actually be "preceptive", I think.<br /><br />Some very good points to Chew on. Oops, was that a pun? Sorry. ;)Benghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10424667985021268808noreply@blogger.com