Romans2 (and predestination)

[nobdysfool]

Here's something intersting --- I wonder how you understand it?

In John15:16, Jesus said "I chose you (to be Disciples), and appointed you to bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."

Now, in John6:70, Jesus said "I chose you the twelve..."

Did Jesus choose all twelve, and appoint all twelve to bear fruit, and that their fruit remain???

There isn't any way to answer that "no", is there?

Of course there is, Ben! Judas was chosen to be one of the Twelve by Jesus, KNOWING that it was Judas who would betray Him. Jesus didn't choose Judas to bear fruit that would remain (meaning good fruit), Jesus chose Judas to fulfill scripture which prophesied that He would be betrayed by one of His own.

It could be argued that Judas' fruit did remain, and that it did bring about a good thing, but scripture clearly condemns Judas for doing what he did, despite the good that came from it. Just the same as Jesus saying that "it is inevitable that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come". Just the same as Peter's words that Christ was foreordained to be crucified, but it was done by men with wicked hands, showing that those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions, even though God fore-ordained those actions. This clearly shows God's ordination of things, while still holding men responsible for their actions. God has the right to do so.

I know you will then say, "how can God hold man responsible for that which he was made to do?" Paul answered that question by saying, "who are you to talk back to God? Shall the thing made say to the Maker, why did you make me this way?" The obvious answer is clear: God does as He pleases, and does what seems good to Him, and it is not man's right to question what He does. And, those who did what they did, did so willingly, so the bogus charge of "coercion" cannot be made. Judas willingly betrayed Jesus; those who crucified Jesus willingly did so. No "coercion" or "machination", or "duress" of any kind was placed on them by God.

Jesus said it another way, when He was asked what would happen to the other Apostles: "What is that to you? Follow Me."

Judas was never saved. He was numbered among the Twelve, but he was there because Jesus chose him to fulfill scripture (prophecy), not to be saved. Judas' condemnation is all the more severe, because he saw and heard the Word of God made flesh, and did not believe savingly.

You make a big deal about Thomas, and ignore the fact that Judas saw the same things, and yet betrayed Christ for personal gain. Thomas did not believe Jesus had risen from the dead, but he believed the words that Jesus spoke, and saw the deeds, and even did some of them himself. Thomas' problem was with the Resurrection, not with Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus corrected Thomas' problem quite easily, and Thomas did not continue in his disbelief of the Resurrection. Jesus never afforded Judas the same, because of what Judas was fore-ordained to do, which he did willingly. Judas was not coerced to do what he did, but it was fore-ordained that he do so.

I know that disrupts your theology, but it cannot be helped. Your theology needs to be corrected in this area, as well as several others.

 

[cygnusx1]

That's not what Jesus said --- He said, "I appointed ALL TWELVE of you to bear GOOD (remaining) fruit".

All twelve, Cygnus. Yet Judas was appointed to bear GOOD fruit.
Prophecy states what WILL be. Jesus knew Judas would fall, but He appointed him anyway, that prophecy not be avoided.

Judas was appointed exactly the same as the others. In Jn6:67-70, Jesus is clearly asking "are the REST of you going to leave TOO? I chose all twelve of you, and ONE is a devil (one is leaving!!)".
Judas was a believer; as Judas fell, so could the rest of them have fallen. Disciples can fall --- so says Acts20:29-30.
Wait --- please tell me how you change "I appointed all twelve to bear good fruit", into "I appointed ONE to bear ROTTEN fruit"???

How doya change what Jesus said, Cygnus? Because of Jesus' decision? Or because he fell?

Please tell me how Jesus did not "appoint Judas (as one of the twelve) to bear good fruit". How didn't Judas violate Jesus' appointment?

You have done your usual TRICK ben , and I urge the reader to look into this carefully.

You are splicing different scriptures together in a most underhanded way.

I looked at your first post here concerning Judas , and noticed you quoted two scriptures from DIFFERENT parts of the Bible , then I look at this post and my suspicions were automatically aroused when I noticed you didn't even bother to reference what you said scripture said , and after going and looking I can see why!!!!!!!!

First John 15


16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


No mention of "GOOD" fruit ......... seems ben has added his bit to make it say what it doesn't say .

Also you are ignoring context , who is the people he is talking to ? He calls them his friends , but there is a condition .........

v14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

This is the context , is Judas fulfilling this criteria ? Did Judas do whatever Christ commanded him ? Was Judas a friend while he was stealing from the common purse ? such questions don't need answering , they are self disclosing.

NEXT ;

John 6



6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.


The fact that 12 were chosen is niether here nor there , over a million people were "chosen " to leave Egypt , but few had faith and were saved , only a remnant (also chosen) are said to be saved by Grace.

the question is does this selection of Judas add up to Judas being a believer ..... you say yes , but scripture says NO!

John 6

6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

clearly you are guilty of splicing texts , ignoring context and making scripture say what it doesn't ... I would recommend you REPENT .

and may the reader keep a careful eye over ben's well worn techniques.

The Fruit of the Spirit is what believers have , the fruit of unbelievers is what Judas had.

 

[Ben johnson]

Of course there is, Ben! Judas was chosen to be one of the Twelve by Jesus, KNOWING that it was Judas who would betray Him. Jesus didn't choose Judas to bear fruit that would remain (meaning good fruit)...

Jesus chose all twelve; in Jn6, there is no indication except that Jesus meant any of the remaining 11 could betray Him, just as the ONE was going to.

Jesus chose Judas to fulfill scripture which prophesied that He would be betrayed by one of His own.

Jesus chose --- BELIEVERS. Knowing which one would have betrayed Him, He coulda not chosen Judas; but He chose Judas, a believer, to fulfill Scripture.

...to demonstrate that "betrayal is possible"...

It could be argued that Judas' fruit did remain, and that it did bring about a good thing, but scripture clearly condemns Judas for doing what he did, despite the good that came from it.

Wait --- did God ordain Judas' sin? How can a perfect God, ordain sin?

Just the same as Jesus saying that "it is inevitable that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come". Just the same as Peter's words that Christ was foreordained to be crucified...

No, Jesus was predestined; He was the only one...
...Jesus was different than other men...

but it was done by men with wicked hands, showing that those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions, even though God fore-ordained those actions.

Jesus was put in a time and place when the Crucifixion would happen. God did not cause anyone to do it.

This clearly shows God's ordination of things, while still holding men responsible for their actions. God has the right to do so.

You are misunderstanding which part of history was "ordained", and which was "allowed".

God is perfect, and cannot cause sin. That's an absolute.

I know you will then say, "how can God hold man responsible for that which he was made to do?"

_I_ would say that? What makes you think so?

Paul answered that question by saying, "who are you to talk back to God? Shall the thing made say to the Maker, why did you make me this way?"

And again, you misunderstand; that statement was from a hypothetical arguer who was complaining about "ALSO GENTILES".

The only meaning in Paul's words, is: "If God wants to save Gentiles, as well as Jews, what's it to you?"

The obvious answer is clear: God does as He pleases...

He cannot please to cause sin; He cannot tempt anyone. He cannot do evil.

... and does what seems good to Him, and it is not man's right to question what He does.

We are given descriptions of His nature; He cannot cause sin.

And, those who did what they did, did so willingly, so the bogus charge of "coercion" cannot be made. Judas willingly betrayed Jesus; those who crucified Jesus willingly did so.

...through no fault nor manipulation of God...

No "coercion" or "machination", or "duress" of any kind was placed on them by God.

That is right; they freely chose.

Jesus said it another way, when He was asked what would happen to the other Apostles: "What is that to you? Follow Me."

What did Jesus mean when He said, "Are YOU going to leave Me TOO?"

Judas was never saved.

I do not believe Jesus appointed an unbeliever; Judas was one of the TWELVE who were chosen and ordained to bear fruit. God CANNOT ordain anyone to sin. There is no distinction made between Judas, and the other 11.

He chose all twelve.

He was numbered among the Twelve, but he was there because Jesus chose him to fulfill scripture (prophecy), not to be saved. Judas' condemnation is all the more severe, because he saw and heard the Word of God made flesh, and did not believe savingly.

You also misunderstand God's severity.

You see "God being severe for man's choice", even though that choice was ordained (caused) by God.

This conflicts the contrast of God's "kindness" and "severity" in Rom11:21-23. God's severity are to those who FELL; His kindness applies to us, if we CONTINUE in His kindness otherwise we will ALSO be cut off (receive His severity!!!). And of those to whom He's severe --- His kindness will again embrace them, if they do not CONTINUE in unbelief.

That's the correct understanding of God's kindness, and severity.

You make a big deal about Thomas, and ignore the fact that Judas saw the same things, and yet betrayed Christ for personal gain. Thomas did not believe Jesus had risen from the dead, but he believed the words that Jesus spoke, and saw the deeds, and even did some of them himself. Thomas' problem was with the Resurrection, not with Jesus as the Messiah.

With respect, this misses the largest part of the Gospel. In 1Cor15:14, Paul writes: "If Christ not be raised from the dead, then your faith is in VAIN!"

Refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, is aboslutely an "unsaved" position. Another absolute.

Jesus corrected Thomas' problem quite easily...

No, it wasn't so "easily" --- Jesus was THERE; what of those who lived AFTERWARDS (through today), who do not have Jesus to appear and SHOW them?

That's why "I make such a big deal about Thomas" --- as Jesus said:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

At once, "seeing" caused "believing" --- not "predestination". AND, unseen faith is GREATER than seen faith, which conflicts predestination (which asserts "both faiths would be ORDAINED, one CANNOT be greater than the other, 'cause BOTH were God's sovereign decree).

... and Thomas did not continue in his disbelief of the Resurrection. Jesus never afforded Judas the same, because of what Judas was fore-ordained to do, which he did willingly. Judas was not coerced to do what he did, but it was fore-ordained that he do so.

Thomas expressed a willingness to believe (although, tied it to "seeing"). Judas expressed a willingness for betrayal.

Viva la difere'nce.

I know that disrupts your theology, but it cannot be helped.

Nope.

Your theology needs to be corrected in this area, as well as several others.

Sorry, my friend; no disruption, no conflict. I answered it all.

 

[Ben johnson]

what is your problem ben ........ all men bear fruit , some good , some rotten .certainly Judas rotten fruit has remained , we see it very clearly and very often.

Judas was not chosen in an identical way as the others , the intention of Jesus was to fulfill scripture regarding this son of perdition , how many did Jesus cleanse? all except Judas !!

Jesus knew from the beginnning that Judas would betray him , have you never read , "the Son of man goes as it has been determined " .......... see , scripture does not say as it was forseen , but determined !

Judas bore exactly the fruit he was destined to bear , he had a place prepared on the other side for him , in hell. Acts 1

I'm sorry that I answered NBF's post before I saw yours; but your points, were answered in #163. Will you peruse what I said to NBF?

I looked at your first post here concerning Judas , and noticed you quoted two scriptures from DIFFERENT parts of the Bible , then I look at this post and my suspicions were automatically aroused when I noticed you didn't even bother to reference what you said scripture said , and after going and looking I can see why!!!!!!!!

The John15 passage was addressing the Disciples. The John6 passage was addressing the Disciples. There's no way to disconnect "I chose you, and ordained that you bear fruit, and that your fruit remain". There's no way to assert that a perfect God ordained ANY sinfulness. There's no way to then say "I chose all twelve", to be asserting a different "choosing".

One "choosing". One "ordination to bear fruit that remains".

...and one Disciple who chose for his fruit NOT to remain.

...and another Disciple who NEARLY fell. Lk22:32...

 

[nobdysfool]

You're not even listening Ben, you are resisting just to resist. You're not even making sense anymore. This is just a knee-jerk reaction to a Calvinist trying to correct your mis-use of scripture.

It's turning into a waste of time again, Ben. You haven't listened to a thing we've said. You just trot out the same old tired, refuted, repetitive list you always do. Funny that you do exactly what you accuse us of doing with our supposed "5-way". You have your own "5-way".

Since we don't actually employ a 5-way (that's your own invention and delusion), we find it almost comical that you are scrambling as you are. What prevents it from being truly comical is that it is so sad....

 

[Ben johnson]

I answered in great detail; your response seemed more like just saying, "No it's not".

Why don't you point out what it was I said, that didn't make sense?

Was it what I said about the Disciples all being chosen and ordained to bear fruit?

Or about God never ordaining sin?

Or about God's severity and kindness applied TO unbelievers or believers?

Or what I said about Thomas?

Which points? Or was it all of them?

Please tell how I'm "so far off"...

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm sorry that I answered NBF's post before I saw yours; but your points, were answered in #163. Will you peruse what I said to NBF?
The John15 passage was addressing the Disciples. The John6 passage was addressing the Disciples. There's no way to disconnect "I chose you, and ordained that you bear fruit, and that your fruit remain". There's no way to assert that a perfect God ordained ANY sinfulness. There's no way to then say "I chose all twelve", to be asserting a different "choosing".

One "choosing". One "ordination to bear fruit that remains".

...and one Disciple who chose for his fruit NOT to remain.

...and another Disciple who NEARLY fell. Lk22:32...

still CHOSING not to repent ben , then you are hardening your heart , splicing scripture is a very serious issue

 

[nobdysfool]

Jesus chose all twelve; in Jn6, there is no indication except that Jesus meant any of the remaining 11 could betray Him, just as the ONE was going to.

You're forcing an unnatural understanding onto the text. Jesus asked the Twelve if they would leave as well, not because He wasn't sure, but to gain a profession of faith from them. Notice it was Peter who assured Him they would not leave. Judas was silent. Jesus knew when He chose Judas, that Judas would betray Him.

Jesus chose --- BELIEVERS. Knowing which one would have betrayed Him, He coulda not chosen Judas; but He chose Judas, a believer, to fulfill Scripture.

No, you assume what you want to believe. None of them were believers when Christ chose them and asked them to follow Him. Scripture does not indicate in any way that they were Believers prior to his choice of them.

...to demonstrate that "betrayal is possible"...

Talk about assuming your conclusion! Your fast-and-loose handling of scripture is truly shocking!

Wait --- did God ordain Judas' sin? How can a perfect God, ordain sin?

He chose Judas, knowing that Judas would commit the specific sin of betraying Jesus. God did not have to cause Judas to sin, which is what you are falsely accusing. Men sin because it is their nature to sin. God uses that nature to achieve His purposes. God did not say, "Judas, thou shalt sin and betray Jesus", God (through Jesus) chose Judas because He knew that given the opportunity, Judas would do as God had determined beforehand to be done. Judas committed the sin, by his free choice to do so. God used it to further His Purpose, to help fulfill the Covenant that the Father and the Son made together before the world was formed, that Jesus would die and rise again to redeem His People.

No, Jesus was predestined; He was the only one...
...Jesus was different than other men...

That is the only way you will allow predestination, by limiting it to Christ. Scripture does not support such a notion..

Jesus was put in a time and place when the Crucifixion would happen. God did not cause anyone to do it. You are misunderstanding which part of history was "ordained", and which was "allowed".

The crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ were fore-ordained. Scripture is clear on that point. It happened exactly as God determined that it would. You have a twisted and false sense of God's ordination of all things. It has been explained to you many times, but your ears are not open to hear it.

God is perfect, and cannot cause sin. That's an absolute.

He allows and uses the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purpose, and to make sure that which he has determined. That principle was made clear back in Genesis, with Joseph and his brothers. God's dealings with men are not reactionary to their sins, the sins of men are used to move His Plan forward, and to bring about that which He has determined beforehand to do.

_I_ would say that? What makes you think so?

Oh, just a hunch....

And again, you misunderstand; that statement was from a hypothetical arguer who was complaining about "ALSO GENTILES".

That is the twisting of scripture to do away with an inconvenient Truth for the anti-Reformed, anti-sovereignty of God crowd. That is not what Romans 9 teaches.

The only meaning in Paul's words, is: "If God wants to save Gentiles, as well as Jews, what's it to you?" He cannot please to cause sin; He cannot tempt anyone. He cannot do evil. We are given descriptions of His nature; He cannot cause sin. ...through no fault nor manipulation of God...

Then you're going to have a real hard time explaining away this passage of scripture:

1Ki 22:19-23 KJV And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. (20) And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. (21) And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. (22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so. (23) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

​

This is proof positive of God's ordination of all things, including the sins of men, which He uses to achieve His Purposes..

That is right; they freely chose.

Men do not have any trouble choosing to sin. But they did exactly as God fore-ordained, and they did so freely.

What did Jesus mean when He said, "Are YOU going to leave Me TOO?"

Why, do you think He didn't know?

I do not believe Jesus appointed an unbeliever; Judas was one of the TWELVE who were chosen and ordained to bear fruit. God CANNOT ordain anyone to sin. There is no distinction made between Judas, and the other 11.

Oh yes there is. Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was the one who would betray Him. He chose Judas with that knowledge. Jesus always knew that Judas would eventually leave, by sinning against the Lord. Jesus choses Judas because it was necessary to do so, so that scripture, and God's Purpose would be fulfilled. The crucifixion would not have happened without that betrayal. The prophecy of that event was not just a random observation, it was a necessary component of God's Plan.

None of the Twelve were Believers when they were chosen and called. They were all Jews, but that didn't make them Believers.

He chose all twelve.

Yes He did. We do not have an argument on that detail. Jesus chose the Twelve. Why do you suppose it was Twelve? There were Twelve Tribes of Israel. Twelve stones on the Ephod of the High Priest. Twelve sons of Jacob....

You also misunderstand God's severity. You see "God being severe for man's choice", even though that choice was ordained (caused) by God.

I'm not the one with the problem, Ben, you are. I have given you scriptural proof that God ordains all things, including the sins of men. but that does not remove their guilt for committing those sins, because men sin as a result of their fallen natures, which causes all men to sin, and God uses those sins to further His Purpose, which does not ameliorate their guilt, but proves that God is Sovereign over all the affairs of men, even their rebellion.

This conflicts the contrast of God's "kindness" and "severity" in Rom11:21-23. God's severity are to those who FELL; His kindness applies to us, if we CONTINUE in His kindness otherwise we will ALSO be cut off (receive His severity!!!). And of those to whom He's severe --- His kindness will again embrace them, if they do not CONTINUE in unbelief.

Rom 11:21-23 ESV For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. (22) Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. (23) And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

​

The context of this passage is with regard to the Jews and Gentiles, and the fact that they are one tree, even when the Gentiles are grafted in. You are ignoring context, to try to set aside a principle that you obviously don't understand. Kindness and severity in this passage are in reference to the salvation of the Gentiles. Look back to verse 13 and see who Paul is addressing.

That's the correct understanding of God's kindness, and severity.

With regard to the Gentiles being grafted into the Olive Tree, which is Israel. You are trying to apply this passage in a way which it does not address. Your skill with scripture is sorely lacking.

With respect, this misses the largest part of the Gospel. In 1Cor15:14, Paul writes: "If Christ not be raised from the dead, then your faith is in VAIN!" Refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, is aboslutely an "unsaved" position.

Thomas was a bit of a realist. He was not unsaved at that point, just skeptical of the claims of the others that Jesus was risen. Thomas had seen Him die. That's a hard image to get out of one's mind, when he is then told that the One he had seen die is now alive again. Would you have done any different if you had been Thomas? Jesus had compassion for Thomas, and appeared to him, so that Thomas could overcome his natural skepticism. To say that Thomas was not saved is going beyond scripture.

Another absolute. No, it wasn't so "easily" --- Jesus was THERE; what of those who lived AFTERWARDS (through today), who do not have Jesus to appear and SHOW them?

Well, since you believe that it is our faith, unaided by God, which saves us, then you have to admit that there are many who say they are Christians who are not, because they don't believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ. would you not agree? The problem is not in my theology, it is in yours.

That's why "I make such a big deal about Thomas" --- as Jesus said:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

At once, "seeing" caused "believing" --- not "predestination". AND, unseen faith is GREATER than seen faith, which conflicts predestination (which asserts "both faiths would be ORDAINED, one CANNOT be greater than the other, 'cause BOTH were God's sovereign decree).

Ben, this has nothing to do with predestination. You are dragging a red herring across the trail here. It is obvious to all here that you detest predestination and election. You try to tie it in with everything you say in trying to refute Calvinism, which you never have accomplished, and never will.

Jesus appeared to Thomas to help him to believe that He was risen. Yet He gently rebuked Thomas for his reluctance to believe without seeing. You take it too far in trying to establish some over-riding principle regarding faith. Are you going to say that Thomas was less blessed because he wanted to see Jesus risen before he would believe (in the resurrection)? Does that mean that Thomas went through the rest of his life continually being less blessed because of that one incident?

Thomas expressed a willingness to believe (although, tied it to "seeing"). Judas expressed a willingness for betrayal.

And did exactly as it was foretold he would do.

Nope. Sorry, my friend; no disruption, no conflict. I answered it all.

you provided "answers", but that doesn't mean you refuted anything I've said. I have shown where you were wrong, and provided you with a conundrum which deals a serious blow to your theology. I have refuted your errors, clearly and decisively. You may try to claim otherwise, but my word is just as good as yours, and I provided scripture where needed to reinforce my points. Your errors have been refuted.

 

[nobdysfool]

I answered in great detail; your response seemed more like just saying, "No it's not".

Actually, it was your attempted answers which fall into that category...

Why don't you point out what it was I said, that didn't make sense?

I did

Was it what I said about the Disciples all being chosen and ordained to bear fruit?

i corrected you on that point.

Or about God never ordaining sin?

i corrected you on that point as well.

Or about God's severity and kindness applied TO unbelievers or believers?

I showed where you misapplied that scripture. You failed to consider the context, as you often do, to your shame.

Or what I said about Thomas?

You try to make an over-riding principle out of a specific to the individual event. When I received Christ, I saw Him crucified. God didn't have to do so, but He graciously granted me that vision and insight. It was bloodier than you can imagine.

Which points? Or was it all of them?

Please tell how I'm "so far off"...

It was "all of them", save one: Jesus chose the twelve. That's the only one you got right. But then you tried to say that they were Believers when Christ chose them, which betrays your wrong theology. I corrected you on that.

I showed you where you are "so far off". The question is, will you receive it?

 

[Ben johnson]

still CHOSING not to repent ben , then you are hardening your heart , splicing scripture is a very serious issue

In Jn15:16, was Jesus referring to the "twelve"?

Were all twelve chosen and "ordained to bear fruit, and the fruit remain"?

Does God ever ordain bad fruit (sins)?

Where is my error?

 

[cygnusx1]

In Jn15:16, was Jesus referring to the "twelve"?

Were all twelve chosen and "ordained to bear fruit, and the fruit remain"?

Does God ever ordain bad fruit (sins)?

Where is my error?

explained in full .... http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36128089&postcount=162 ..... you must not splice scriptures or add your own words to them .. now repent.

 

[Rick Otto]

Were all twelve chosen and "ordained to bear fruit, and the fruit remain"?
Does God ever ordain bad fruit (sins)?

Joh 6:70 - Show Context Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

 

[Ben johnson]

You're forcing an unnatural understanding onto the text. Jesus asked the Twelve if they would leave as well, not because He wasn't sure, but to gain a profession of faith from them. Notice it was Peter who assured Him they would not leave. Judas was silent. Jesus knew when He chose Judas, that Judas would betray Him.

Where is the concept "to gain a profession of faith"? That's something added in, isn't it?

Jesus: "YOU'RE not going to leave Me TOO, are you?"
Peter: "No; we know You're the Messiah."
Jesus: "Did I not choose you the twelve, and one is a devil?"

Jesus' second statement, is in answer to Peter's assurance.

"Are you going to leave?"
"No."
"I chose all twelve of you, and one is leaving."

It makes much more sense to understand Jesus saying "leaving is possible, one of you already is", than "I don't really think you can leave, I only want you to profess stronger."

Talk about assuming your conclusion! Your fast-and-loose handling of scripture is truly shocking!

Nope, it's the context.

"Are you leaving too?"
"No."
"ONE of you already is."

 

[Ben johnson]

No, you assume what you want to believe. None of them were believers when Christ chose them and asked them to follow Him. Scripture does not indicate in any way that they were Believers prior to his choice of them.

To assert Jesus chose them as Disciples BEFORE they believed, conflicts much of Jesus' words. Jesus detailed the principles of salvation, in parables like Matt22:2-14; everyone ended up being called ("many are called"), but only those who CAME and put on righteousness ("but few are chosen"), were chosen. Voluntary belief, and then selection as Disciples makes sense.

In Judas' case, the future was already known; Jesus could have selected someone other than Judas --- but He selected Judas anyway, because the Prophecy had already forseen what Judas would do.

He chose Judas, knowing that Judas would commit the specific sin of betraying Jesus. God did not have to cause Judas to sin, which is what you are falsely accusing. Men sin because it is their nature to sin. God uses that nature to achieve His purposes. God did not say, "Judas, thou shalt sin and betray Jesus", God (through Jesus) chose Judas because He knew that given the opportunity, Judas would do as God had determined beforehand to be done. Judas committed the sin, by his free choice to do so. God used it to further His Purpose, to help fulfill the Covenant that the Father and the Son made together before the world was formed, that Jesus would die and rise again to redeem His People.

Judas was not essential to God's plan; God didn't need to have a "betrayer"; without Judas, Jesus would still have been crucified.

Judas' betrayal embodies the idea of "I chose all twelve of you, and ordained you to bear fruit --- but one of you betrays Me".

There's no way that Jesus ordained Judas to sin. The only fruit Jesus could have ordained, is "good". So much for "sovereign irresistible ordination"...

 

[Ben johnson]

That is the only way you will allow predestination, by limiting it to Christ. Scripture does not support such a notion..

Yes it does. Consider these points:
1. Eph1:4-5 says "we were predestined according to the kind intention of His will".
2. His will is clearly asserted in Jn6:40, "that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved".
3. 1Pet1:20-21 says "JESUS was foreknown before the foundation of the world."
4. In Eph1:4, the words "Chose us in Him before the foundation of the world", it's critical to understand that "in Him", is "by faith".

The crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ were fore-ordained. Scripture is clear on that point. It happened exactly as God determined that it would. You have a twisted and false sense of God's ordination of all things. It has been explained to you many times, but your ears are not open to hear it.

As I said, had Jesus been born a few hundred years earlier, or later, He would never have been crucified.

 

[Ben johnson]

That is the twisting of scripture to do away with an inconvenient Truth for the anti-Reformed, anti-sovereignty of God crowd. That is not what Romans 9 teaches.

Rom9, specifically verses 11-24, has as its theme, "Also Gentiles". In discussing Rom9, Calvinists don't want to discuss verses 31-32, and the connection with Heb3:18-19 and 4:11.

Then you're going to have a real hard time explaining away this passage of scripture:

I haven't studied that one; but I'm sure it can be explained similarly to how "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus10:1), when it was really Pharaoh himself who hardened his own heart. Exodus 9:34.

This is proof positive of God's ordination of all things, including the sins of men, which He uses to achieve His Purposes..

God is perfect --- He cannot ordain sin, nor does He tempt anyone.

Men do not have any trouble choosing to sin. But they did exactly as God fore-ordained, and they did so freely.

Something can be "God-ordained", or it can be "free"; but not both.

 

[Ben johnson]

The context of this passage is with regard to the Jews and Gentiles, and the fact that they are one tree, even when the Gentiles are grafted in. You are ignoring context, to try to set aside a principle that you obviously don't understand. Kindness and severity in this passage are in reference to the salvation of the Gentiles. Look back to verse 13 and see who Paul is addressing.

The dynamic in that part of Rom11, presents the idea of "being cut off for unbelief" and "being grafted in again for belief". You would have to bend that to mean "across GENERATIONS" to avoid the reality that INDIVIDUALS were believing (and being saved again), or disbelieving (and being cut off from where they WERE saved).

"You stand by faith; do not be arrogant, they fell from unbelief, and you can ALSO be cut off. And they will be grafted in again, if they do not continue in unbelief."

It would have to be parents FOREVER unbelieving, and children COMING to belief, to avoid the clear MOVEMENT being conveyed. Movement "into salvation", and "out of it". There is no "generational gap", it's given with immediacy to the listeners.

You're denying the movement from BOTH Jews AND Gentiles, out of, and into (again), salvation.

With regard to the Gentiles being grafted into the Olive Tree, which is Israel. You are trying to apply this passage in a way which it does not address. Your skill with scripture is sorely lacking.

Sorry,NBF---it says "Jews were cut off for unbelief; if they return to belief, they will be saved again; don't be arrogant for YOU can be cut off for unbelief, too." That's movement, in the immediate. There's no way to deny Paul was speaking of "moving in and out of salvation".

 

[Ben johnson]

Thomas was a bit of a realist. He was not unsaved at that point, just skeptical of the claims of the others that Jesus was risen. Thomas had seen Him die. That's a hard image to get out of one's mind, when he is then told that the One he had seen die is now alive again. Would you have done any different if you had been Thomas? Jesus had compassion for Thomas, and appeared to him, so that Thomas could overcome his natural skepticism. To say that Thomas was not saved is going beyond scripture.

Please explain how you believe it is possible for a Christian to disbelieve Jesus' resurrection.

Well, since you believe that it is our faith, unaided by God, which saves us, then you have to admit that there are many who say they are Christians who are not, because they don't believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ. would you not agree? The problem is not in my theology, it is in yours.

No matter how many times I say "I never said unaided by God", still you say things like that.

And it doesn't matter whether you or I consider anyone a Christian; Paul said, "If Christ be not raised from the dead, then your faith is in vain." Further, the absolute foundation of Christianity, is the Cross, and the Resurrection. As Paul eloquently recounts in Rom6, "we are united into His death, AND into His resurrection". Jesus' resurrection is the source of our being "born again".

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, this has nothing to do with predestination. You are dragging a red herring across the trail here. It is obvious to all here that you detest predestination and election. You try to tie it in with everything you say in trying to refute Calvinism, which you never have accomplished, and never will.

Jesus appeared to Thomas to help him to believe that He was risen. Yet He gently rebuked Thomas for his reluctance to believe without seeing. You take it too far in trying to establish some over-riding principle regarding faith. Are you going to say that Thomas was less blessed because he wanted to see Jesus risen before he would believe (in the resurrection)? Does that mean that Thomas went through the rest of his life continually being less blessed because of that one incident?

It has everything to do with "predestination". Jesus said "believe BECAUSE you see" --- not "believe because Godchose you". Jesus praised unseen belief over seen belief; one was superior. And neither would be better, if BOTH were predestined.

God receives man's faith; unseen faith can only be "better", if it's man's choice. Heb11:6

 

[Ben johnson]

you provided "answers", but that doesn't mean you refuted anything I've said. I have shown where you were wrong, and provided you with a conundrum which deals a serious blow to your theology. I have refuted your errors, clearly and decisively. You may try to claim otherwise, but my word is just as good as yours, and I provided scripture where needed to reinforce my points. Your errors have been refuted.

I've just responded to everything you said, and "refuted your refutations".

Which of us has refuted the other?