Tom,

Judas was chosen by Jesus precisely so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so the Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:12 NASB

You did not choose Me but I chose you...John 15:16 NASB

Dennis Fischer

Dennis

The Greek can be red either way “might be fulfilled” can be read as result as well as purpose.  Just as the Old Testament reads God harden Pharah’s heart. The living Bible reads that “the prince of darkness has already been judged.: Read John 17:12 in Philips. A narrow reading is always in danger of error.  Just think of Dan 8:14. Tom

Greg,

Thanks for mentioning Clark H. Pinnock and his “Openness of God” theology. He believes that God does is not omniscient, He does not know all that will be in the future. Interesting is the reason he offers for his view: he wants to maintain the Arminian view of free will, and found that he cannot teach foreknowledge without foreordination (predestination).

[quote author="Deacon"]Foreknowledge is a far cry from foreordination. If God foreordained Cain to kill Abel or Judas to detray Jesus--then God is no different that the devil himself. To foreknow is to see in the future to foreordain is to “fix: the future. We all are called--few choose to come. Tom

Pinnock sees something else: that if God knows perfectly the future, this means that the future is fixed. And if it is not fixed by God, and neither by me, because I’m not living in the future, by whom or by which is it fixed? This is what forced Pinnock to come to the conclusion that God does not possess foreknowledge.

Finally I had to rethink the divine omniscience and reluctantly ask whether we ought to think of it as an exhaustive foreknowledge of everything that will ever happen, as even most Arminians do. I found I could not shake off the intuition that such a total omniscience would necessarily mean that everything we will ever choose in the future will have been already spelled out in the divine knowledge register, and consequently the belief that we have truly significant choices to make would seem to be mistaken. I knew the Calvinist argument that and I could not shake off its logical force. Clark Pinnock, The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, p. 25

Pinnock continues

Therefore, I had to ask myself if it was biblically possible to hold that God knows everything that can be known , but that free choices would not be something that can be known even by God because they are not yet settled in reality.... God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom. ibid.

Here is the commentary of R.C. Sproul regarding Pinnock and the Arminian position

At the practical level we wonder how God can know anything about the future except what he personally intends to do (intentions that are themselves open to change as he reacts to future decisions of men). If history is affected at all by the decisions of men and if God’s foreknowledge does not include future human decisions, how can God know anything about the future of world history? How can we find any comfort in the future God has promised for his people if that future destiny rests in the hands of man? R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, page 143

For an interesting article dealing with the way in which the Arminian position paints itself into a corner by being forced to conclude that their destinies are determined, there is a good article written by John Hendryx, Arminian Suicidal Tendencies. Just a quote

the Arminian position paints itself into a corner by being forced to conclude that their destinies are determined, for they could not be otherwise. But now the question is, by what are their destinies determined? If God Himself determines them then we no longer have election based on foreseen faith, but rather on God’s sovereign will. But if God does not determine their destinies then who or what determines them? Of course no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people’s destinies. That is a scary possibility! In rejecting “divine determinism,” the Arminian by default must embrace an impersonal determinism coming from some mysterious other source. And to be sure, this idea certainly does not leave much room for their much-boasted free will. The only possible alternative is to say their destinies are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But of what benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal and compassionate God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation.

Does it pay to fight God’s sovereignty? Is it worth to fight predestination?

Gabriel

I’ll stick with Karl Barth: “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.!  Deacon

[quote author="Deacon"]I’ll stick with Karl Barth: “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.! Deacon

And how is this assertion against election and particular redemption? Why is faith based on the testimony of the Scripture pitted against predestination and particular redemption? God said : “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” Rom. 9:15 ESV and “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Rom. 9:13

The Bible tells us that God loves sinners, and this is sufficient for believers to say “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so”. Jacob’s belief that God loves him is in harmony with truth. The fact that God hated Esau does not change the fact that he loved Jacob, the Bible tells us both these truths.

My wife loves me in a special way, in which she does not love the neighbor across the street. Do I need to be sure of her love only if she does love the neighbor across the street as she loves me? I don’t know about you, but I will be very concerned if she loves the neighbor in the same way she loves me. I need to know and be sure that she loves me with a special love.

The love between husband and wife is the image used to describe the love of Jesus for his church, the elect, His bride.

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” Eph. 4:25,26 ESV

Jesus “gave himself up for her”, this union between Him and the church is called a “profound mystery” Eph. 5:32 Jesus is has a special kind of love for His Church, a love in which the rest of the world has no part. Christ has only one bride, not two, or three.

Of maximum importance is that it is a saving love, since the result, or the end of giving himself up for her is salvation

“...so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:27 ESV

Jesus’ love for his church saves her, since He gave Himself to save her. The love Karl Barth claims that Jesus has for all people is unable to save them, since many, the great majority of those whom supposedly Jesus loved, will be lost. It does not accomplish salvation, Jesus will not present the entire world “without spot or wrinkle.. holy and without blemish”, the Bible does not tell us such a thing; the Bible tells us that only the Church will be blessed with such a love.

The universal love of Karl Barth fails to make people “without blemish,” and is impotent to save them for eternity–"eternal salvation” is a joke when billions supposedly loved by God will suffer the agony of hell. In contrast, the particular love of the much-hated Calvinism really saves people. The universal love view also forgets that God is also entirely holy and entirely just, and He will not let sin go unpunished.

Spurgeon said this in the face of the accusation that Calvinists limit the love of God:

The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"–and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement–Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. Particular Atonement

Soli Deo Gloria

Gabriel

Look Life is too short for vain argument.

I don’t believe that God created any rational being for damnation. I think sinners are condemned dispite all the efforts of heaven.  The fact that God can see the end from the beginning effects no one’s choice. I know my Redeemer liveth and that He is able to save me to the utter most.

Let us let the French man and the Dutch man have their say and cling to the words of Jesus: “Come ye blessed of my Father”.  Deacon

[quote author="Deacon"]I don’t believe that God created any rational being for damnation

What do you believe the following text is saying, I believe that it just contradicts your statement above.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory Rom. 9:21,22

Two kind of vessels:

1. Made for dishonorable use–prepareed for destruction
2. Made for honorable use–prepared for glory

God is the maker of both, and by His double predestination, election and reprobation, God is creating people for different destinations.

My question: do you have something substantial and biblical to say, or I will be again in the position to hear that I have a champion who is like Ellen White for me, and other insults which have no place in a civilized discussion?

Gabriel

Posted anonymously by: DeeAnna

In response to this last comment....I thought God gave us a choice to choose for Him or against Him. I thought we were created in His image to choose the course for our lives.
Are you saying that we don’t ?

Hi DeeAnna,

We are indeed created in God’s image but because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, sin entered the world. Ephesians 2:1-3 says we are “dead in our trespasses” and Psalms 51:5 says, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Being dead in our sins means that we do not naturally desire what is good and there is nothing righteous about us (see Romans 3:9-20). As such, if we are to be restored to Adam’s pre-fall righteousness, we need to be rescued from our sinful condition. Because sin permeates everything about us, we do not have the ability to “decide” to be rescued, but God, being rich in mercy, decides to rescue us (Ephesians 2:4-10, Romans 5:6-11, 2 Corinthians 5:11-15). Because it is God’s decision to save whom he will, we cannot boast in the salvation he gives us, but we should accept it gladly as a free gift and do the things he has prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Tom’s (the Deacon’s) argument is that every person can be saved, because there is still something in us that can respond to God’s grace. In other words, we’re not so much “dead” in our trespasses as we are “sick”. If a person is sick, he can seek out a physician or medicine to make him better, but if a person is dead, he can’t do anything to help himself. Most of us who have posted on this thread believe that without God, we are indeed dead and we are unable to do anything to gain salvation. This makes God’s grace all the more glorious, because it is not a reward for a wise choice we made, but an unmerited gift of God’s mercy.

The flip side is that because God gives the gift of salvation to some, he can also withhold it from others. This brings us to the heart of Paul’s argument in Romans 9. If the book of Romans were a mountain range, chapter 9 is its highest peak. The truths contained in this one chapter touch on almost every other attribute of God, but Paul’s words in this chapter are ignored by the majority of Christians.

Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is that God saves whom he will, and if we question God’s choices, we’re acting irrationally. Paul draws a parallel between humans and a lump of clay, with God being the divine potter who shapes the clay into any form he pleases. It would be silly for the lump of clay to question the motives of God, asking him “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:20). To carry the analogy to our situation, we cannot find fault with God if he decides to save some sinners and not others. After all, none of us deserve his grace since we are all sinners who deserve the full weight of God’s punishment. That God does decide to save many sinners is cause for rejoicing and thanksgiving.

Admittedly, this message does not “sell” well in the Christian church, particularly in America. We’d rather have a god (little “g") who is waiting for us to “decide” to love him, so that he can return the favor. But think about what this means...it means that God is not able to save some people whom he presumably sent his son to die for. Jesus’ blood is efficacious for some, while being completely impotent to save others. If God is all-powerful (sovereign) over his creation, this is a logical contradiction that must be satisfied. Scripture settles the problem in Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians 1, and elsewhere, but many people refuse to believe what God says about himself, content to read other passages that they find more to their liking.

DeeAnna, I realize this is a lot to swallow. I felt the same way when I was confronted by these passages. I know a theologian who, as a young man reading Romans for the first time, threw his Bible across the room in disgust when he reached chapter 9. Yet after careful study and much prayer, he concluded (as I have) that Romans 9 does fit the overall narrative of the Bible which reveals an infinitely loving, holy, just and completely sovereign God whose purposes do not fail. This is cause for great assurance for those who know God has begun a work in their life, because we have a guarantee that he will see it through to completion (Ephesians 1:13-14, Philippians 1:6).

DeeAnna, please don’t hesitate to ask further questions if this is unclear in any way. Most importantly, pray to God for understanding and ask him to help you see him for who he really is through the words of Scripture, in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. I will pray too, even for my own understanding which is still far from perfect.

Greg

Deacon, I’m disappointed by your answers on this thread. I have asked you several times to correct my understanding of Romans 9, John 6 and Ephesians 1, but in the end, you’ve not interacted with the biblical text but instead quoted Karl Barth. I find this sadly ironic because of what you wrote yesterday about others who are blinded by their favorite theological “champion” like Adventists are blinded by Ellen White.

It’s not enough to make assertions, you must also provide evidence. Until you tell me what those texts mean and how I’ve misinterpreted them, unfortunately I’ll be left to conclude that you don’t have a serious answer.

I realize this is a difficult subject and I am content to let it go away quietly, but your assertion that you believe in Paul and John’s gospel while disbelieving significant aspects of what they teach brought me to a point of serious concern–concern for maintaining the accuracy and truthfulness of God’s revealed word and for putting an end to the false dichotomies that pit the biblical writers against themselves (e.g., “I don’t believe in predestination, but I believe Paul’s gospel").

We can’t claim Paul and John’s gospel for ourselves if we disagree with them on major theological points. Let’s be humble and open to understanding, and let’s be humbled and edified by what these great men of God have written. And in all things, let us pray for each other’s mutual understanding as fellow believers in Christ.

To God alone be the glory,

Greg

[quote author="DeeAnna"]In response to this last comment....I thought God gave us a choice to choose for Him or against Him. I thought we were created in His image to choose the course for our lives.
Are you saying that we don’t ?

DeeAnna, Greg already answered your question. Left to themselves, in our sinful condition, we cannot help but chose according to our sinful nature. We can’t do otherwise

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Rom. 8:7 ESV

We can’t submit to God, we are not able to do this, and this is, as Greg said, because the fall. Also because we can believe only by God’s intervention, His intervention is decisive for our destiny. We decide for Him only if He decided to give us faith, our decision is the outcome of God’s decision. ”You did not choose me, but I chose you” John 15:16

Gabriel

Posted anonymously by: DeeAnna

Ok...I see what you all are saying now......( I think ).
At first, I thought you were literally saying that God has already chosen who He will let accept Him....and that it was already a pre-determined thing. But what you are really saying is that God softens our hearts so we CAN accept Him when he “choses” us.....right ? The Holy Spirit can then do it’s work in us.....

Greg

I think I answered your three key text awhile back.  If you give me time--I will give a more complete response.

I am reluctant to respond in full because, I seem to be getting the Tinker treatment. Frankly I don’t need that. I sincerely believes that Jesus Loves me, died for me, and how is at the Right Hand of God as my advocate.

I also believe that every ratinal son and daughter of Adam has the same opportunity as I do.  God, obvously, knows the end for the beginning--including Judas’s heart and mind set.

That was something that Judas fed not God.  Deacon.

Please give me time to give an full reply before I say goodby. Deacon. 

Hey Deacon, I am not chasing you away and I will never revoke your posting privileges because you disagree with me. I am not sure if that’s what you were alluding to in your post, but I just want to clarify this.

My concern is that whenever this topic comes up, people are quick to label me and others as followers of a man (Calvin), rather than understanding that we came to these conclusions as a matter of personal study and conscience. I want to give you and others who disagree the same latitude that I expect to be given, however, I do think we need to be careful to answer the biblical texts that are quoted in support on both sides. We need to be careful about being dismissive of a position simply because it violates our sensibilities and long-held beliefs. If it is wrong, let the Bible tell us why it is wrong.

Tom, if you’d rather not have this discussion, I understand. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, and if I’ve done that, I apologize.

Greg

Greg

Regarding the blind man at the pool, the key question was: “Who sinned this man or his parents?” Jesus replied, “neither” He was born blind that the power of God could be revealed.  The wrong conclusion drawn is that God manipulates human lives for His pleasure. That is not the lesson of John 6. The lesson of John 6 was, of course sin brought with it illness and death, but disease is not necessarily the result of a specific act of transgression.  In this case, Jesus said; This man’s affliction gave Jesus an opportunity to do two thing: restore sight and to get the Jewish leaders a lesson in Sabbath keeping.

It was a further lesson that God was still in charge of his universe not Satan.

Romans 9 is a condemnation of the presumption of the Jews that they were God’s chosen people.

Paul is attempting to make it clear that those that hear and follow God’s voice are His children by Adoption. God Chose Abraham as the linage of Jesus–for that he was chosen and through him all the nations of the earth have been blest.

The potter makes the pot, of course, but the buyer chooses the use.

“For God so love the world (nothing left out) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” The remains the core of the Gospel.

One can not understand Eph. 1 without reading Eph. 2.  Where Christ makes the two one.  I suggest you read. John R. W. Stott’s little book.  God’s New Society.

The bottom line is of course God knows.  But He does not interfere with the choice of man.  He didn’t in the Garden and He doesn’t now.  He offers invitation after invitation.  At the end time He knows who has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior–but he doesn’t put His finger on the scale.
To make it come out His way.  The Deacon. Thanks for listening. I am not going away angry.  I am moving--I am too tired to debate what was settled years ago. Jesus Christ is Lord .  I was hurt by the comment I was on a bridge to nowhere. I think any son or daughter of God deserves better. Deacon.