Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
Z Man
New member
Here are a few:
Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'
2Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Exodus 3:13-14
Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
John 8:57-58
Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Z Man
New member
First of all, why would God need to convict and influence if we have free will? Can't we decide for ourselves if we want to repent or not? Why would we need God to "influence", or "persuade" us to choose Him? We have free will - we can make our own decisions without Him interferring, remember?
Secondly,
"What if Paul never repented? Then what? Would God just sit around, hoping that someone else would repent, so He could use them to do what He wished of Paul to do? The same with Billy Graham, or Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, etc. Was it by chance and by luck that these great men of faith repented, thus allowing God to do His great work in them, saving millions of other people? I think not. God does not run a big "casino"; nothing happens by chance. It was His will that each of these men repent, so that He could use them each in their area of the world and time to bring about the salvation of many others.
He didn't care that Paul's will was set against God and had hundreds of Christians murdered; God overrided Paul's will on the road to Demascus. He had a greater plan for Paul's life, whether Paul liked it or not. God's purpose isn't to "preserve" our freedom; it's to accomplish His will so His glory can be displayed. That's what is most important to Him."
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Godrulz,
Yes, Satan was involved, but God was the primary cause of all that happened to Job. God did not just allow it. What if the Sabeans had decided to not go raiding? What if the devil had decided it would be better to try and devour someone else? The Sabeans did what they did because the devil moved them, and the devil did what he did because it was in the plan of God:
JOB 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
And "he" means God here, I think, and not the devil.
God had even this in a plan for good, I would assure them of that. If God had a good purpose even in the cross, then we may trust his purpose in all pain and trials.
GE 18:14 Is anything too hard for the Lord?
MT 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
So the devil, by implication, has no authority on earth. Thus all that happens in heaven or on earth is in God's plan.
Jesus does oppose evil. Yet it is part of his plan.
JN 9:3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."
Jesus says that the man's blindness from birth had a good purpose, that the work of God might be displayed in his life. Now this was not the devil's purpose! Thus it must have been God's purpose. The blindness, as well as the healing.
JN 9:17 Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened." The man replied, "He is a prophet."
JN 9:38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
God has a good purpose for everything.
PS 119:91 ... for all things serve you.
Blessings,
Lee
Yes, Satan was involved, but God was the primary cause of all that happened to Job. God did not just allow it. What if the Sabeans had decided to not go raiding? What if the devil had decided it would be better to try and devour someone else? The Sabeans did what they did because the devil moved them, and the devil did what he did because it was in the plan of God:
JOB 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
And "he" means God here, I think, and not the devil.
God had even this in a plan for good, I would assure them of that. If God had a good purpose even in the cross, then we may trust his purpose in all pain and trials.
GE 18:14 Is anything too hard for the Lord?
MT 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
So the devil, by implication, has no authority on earth. Thus all that happens in heaven or on earth is in God's plan.
Jesus does oppose evil. Yet it is part of his plan.
JN 9:3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."
Jesus says that the man's blindness from birth had a good purpose, that the work of God might be displayed in his life. Now this was not the devil's purpose! Thus it must have been God's purpose. The blindness, as well as the healing.
JN 9:17 Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened." The man replied, "He is a prophet."
JN 9:38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
God has a good purpose for everything.
PS 119:91 ... for all things serve you.
Blessings,
Lee
"I do not believe it is God's ultimate purpose to save man. His ultimate purpose includes bringing the greatest good and glory to Himself."
Yeah, that's probably why God emptied Himself of His glory and allow Himself to be spit upon and mocked and scurged and beaten and crucified. All because God is more concerned about Himself than He is about His beloved creation.
Yeah, that's probably why God emptied Himself of His glory and allow Himself to be spit upon and mocked and scurged and beaten and crucified. All because God is more concerned about Himself than He is about His beloved creation.
Z Man
New member
Thank God that He loved us enough to die for us. But why did He do it? I understand it was to make "amends" with mankind, but what was His driving purpose to die for our sins? There's more to it than just wanting a "love relationship" with mankind.Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
"I do not believe it is God's ultimate purpose to save man. His ultimate purpose includes bringing the greatest good and glory to Himself."
Yeah, that's probably why God emptied Himself of His glory and allow Himself to be spit upon and mocked and scurged and beaten and crucified. All because God is more concerned about Himself than He is about His beloved creation.
Z Man,
Do you understand why things that are wrong are wrong? It's not because God said so, that's not it, that is not it at all.
The reason why right is right and wrong is wrong is because of WHO God is. It is wrong to be selfish, not because there is some rule that only applies to us humans. It's not wrong because of any rule at all whether it applies to us or not. It's wrong because God is not selfish. He does seek the good of others FIRST, that's what makes Him glorious in the first place! His righteousness IS His glory!
For you to sit there and try to convince us that God seeks His own “greatest good” is at best a meaningless thing to say and at worst it is sickening! Even if seeking the good of others is what you mean by Him seeking His own “greatest good”, then you end up with what is effectively a false dichotomy. If, on the other hand, you are saying that God's greatest good is a separate issue than doing rightly by others, then you turn God into a megalomaniac who is selfish beyond all comprehension. I am firmly convinced that you are pressing the latter of these two possibilities and it quite literally sickens me. God is not selfish and I don't care how many word games you want to play, you will never convince me otherwise.
Now it’s not like I know you really well or anything like that, but I do know you well enough to know that it is not your intention to be insulting toward God, indeed I’m very sure your intent is quite the opposite, but you really do need to repent of this line of thinking immediately. It's ridiculous to the point of blasphemy.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Do you understand why things that are wrong are wrong? It's not because God said so, that's not it, that is not it at all.
The reason why right is right and wrong is wrong is because of WHO God is. It is wrong to be selfish, not because there is some rule that only applies to us humans. It's not wrong because of any rule at all whether it applies to us or not. It's wrong because God is not selfish. He does seek the good of others FIRST, that's what makes Him glorious in the first place! His righteousness IS His glory!
For you to sit there and try to convince us that God seeks His own “greatest good” is at best a meaningless thing to say and at worst it is sickening! Even if seeking the good of others is what you mean by Him seeking His own “greatest good”, then you end up with what is effectively a false dichotomy. If, on the other hand, you are saying that God's greatest good is a separate issue than doing rightly by others, then you turn God into a megalomaniac who is selfish beyond all comprehension. I am firmly convinced that you are pressing the latter of these two possibilities and it quite literally sickens me. God is not selfish and I don't care how many word games you want to play, you will never convince me otherwise.
Now it’s not like I know you really well or anything like that, but I do know you well enough to know that it is not your intention to be insulting toward God, indeed I’m very sure your intent is quite the opposite, but you really do need to repent of this line of thinking immediately. It's ridiculous to the point of blasphemy.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."
Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason?
Job 1:10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face."
Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand.
It was God who initiated the whole thing. God asked Satan what he was up to and then said, "Hey what about Job. Why don't you take him for a spin? I'll bet you can't get to him. He loves me more than anyone else." God is sovereign over His creation. And all things work according to His plan.
God bless,
St4Him
(Lee, Lightson, and Z)
LEE: A careful reading of Job would show that Satan initiated the test. God responded with permission to test Job to shut Satan up, strengthen Job's faith, bring glory to Himself, demonstrate grace in suffering, etc. God did not dream this up trillions of years ago. God responded to Satan's challenge.
Satan and man are responsible for evil, not God.
ZMAN: Free will does not make God an indifferent, aloof, Deist God. The Spirit's ministry is to convict, convince, persuade, influence (I am sure you can find the verses that indicate this), reveal truth, etc. God got Paul's attention and righteously applied strong influence possibly because He saw Paul's heart and zeal and knew He would respond to Jesus if He got His attention. Falling off horses is not the normative means of conversion or call to ministry. I would still suggest that Paul could have hardened his heart and stupidly refused to surrender to God. Moot point, because He did repent and trust. Paul's conversion did not differ from the rest of humanity. We all must surrender to Christ as Lord and Savior. The exact dynamic of man's will, God's will, etc. is not revealed, but it is not unilateral based on explicit verses (repent, believe, obey, trust, love, faith, follow me, etc.).
LIGHTSON: Open Theism involves far more than the issue of time and eternity (different OVs would hold differing views, but I think they would be inconsistent or incongruent). Its primary strength is to take Scripture literally as far as possible (God's revelation of repenting/changing His mind, feeling, experiencing duration, etc. are not accommodations or anthropomorphisms...they are truth statements about God and His creation/relations). It also correctly portrays God as dynamic, personal, transcendent and immanent, responsive, creative. This is contrary to some aspects of classical theism that have been tainted by pagan philosophy (Unmoved Mover, static, perfect=changeless, impassible= no feelings, Deterministic Sovereign= meticulous control, etc.).
The Open View is more about the type creation God chose to make. It is the openness of creation, more than Openness of God. God created free moral agents that are factors in the universe. Contingencies are genuine (freedom involves alternatives).
The Open View also affirms God's great attributes including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence but seeks to define them more precisely and consistent with Scripture and godly philosophy.
LEE: A careful reading of Job would show that Satan initiated the test. God responded with permission to test Job to shut Satan up, strengthen Job's faith, bring glory to Himself, demonstrate grace in suffering, etc. God did not dream this up trillions of years ago. God responded to Satan's challenge.
Satan and man are responsible for evil, not God.
ZMAN: Free will does not make God an indifferent, aloof, Deist God. The Spirit's ministry is to convict, convince, persuade, influence (I am sure you can find the verses that indicate this), reveal truth, etc. God got Paul's attention and righteously applied strong influence possibly because He saw Paul's heart and zeal and knew He would respond to Jesus if He got His attention. Falling off horses is not the normative means of conversion or call to ministry. I would still suggest that Paul could have hardened his heart and stupidly refused to surrender to God. Moot point, because He did repent and trust. Paul's conversion did not differ from the rest of humanity. We all must surrender to Christ as Lord and Savior. The exact dynamic of man's will, God's will, etc. is not revealed, but it is not unilateral based on explicit verses (repent, believe, obey, trust, love, faith, follow me, etc.).
LIGHTSON: Open Theism involves far more than the issue of time and eternity (different OVs would hold differing views, but I think they would be inconsistent or incongruent). Its primary strength is to take Scripture literally as far as possible (God's revelation of repenting/changing His mind, feeling, experiencing duration, etc. are not accommodations or anthropomorphisms...they are truth statements about God and His creation/relations). It also correctly portrays God as dynamic, personal, transcendent and immanent, responsive, creative. This is contrary to some aspects of classical theism that have been tainted by pagan philosophy (Unmoved Mover, static, perfect=changeless, impassible= no feelings, Deterministic Sovereign= meticulous control, etc.).
The Open View is more about the type creation God chose to make. It is the openness of creation, more than Openness of God. God created free moral agents that are factors in the universe. Contingencies are genuine (freedom involves alternatives).
The Open View also affirms God's great attributes including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence but seeks to define them more precisely and consistent with Scripture and godly philosophy.
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
I know this was for Lee, but, uh, where is that verse located? What Scriptural evidence do you have that says Satan initiated the attack on Job, or came up with the "challenge"?
:ha: Paul murdered people who confessed Jesus as their Savior. What good in Paul's heart did God see fit to pay him a visit on the road to Demascus, hoping it would lead to his repentance? You are also assuming that God only intiates and convicts people towards salvation depending upon the criteria of their heart. If people have a "good" heart, then they "deserve" to be saved. Unbiblical, if you ask me...
You missed my whole point with the Jimmy analogy and then asking what would of happened had Paul not repented.
God wants Europe to hear His message so that other's may come to know Him. Jimmy is going on a trip to Europe and will be staying with a family who is in desperate need of God. They also have a lot of friends. If Jimmy were to get saved, then pass the gospel on to the family in Europe, there could be a widespread revival. God knows this, but can't do anything about it, because He wants to "preserve" man's freedom, according to your beliefs.
That's unbiblical. Paul was saved by God so that the gospel could be spread throughout many nations. Sure, anyone probably could of done it, but God chose Paul, obviously. If God was more interested in "preserving" man's free will, and did not "save" Paul, but rather just gave him the option to choose, what would of happened had Paul not repented? How could God go about getting His message preached to the rest of the world? Would He just sit and wait, hoping that someone would repent so He could use them to spread the gospel? If that was the case, none of God's plans and purposes would go according to how He so desired. Nothing would be certain.
You think Jesus just randomly picked 12 guys to follow Him, hoping they would believe and spread His message after He ascended? Also, hoping that one of them would betray Him so that He could be crucified, which was the whole reason He came to Earth to begin with! Wow, God has some really good "luck"...
Z: Again, I either do not make myself clear or you read wrong ideas into simple statements. People are not saved because they have a 'good heart' (we agree). You have a tendency to put words in my mouth to avoid the argument. Reminds me of political parties who twist things to sway opinion instead of dealing with the issues.
Why do you think Judas or a betrayer was necessary for the crucifixion to happen. Jesus wisely chose the 12 after prayer. He chose Judas, the disciple of Christ and trusted him in the inner circle. Judas later went off track. Jesus would not chose a betrayer. Whether Judas died for Christ or turned Him in does not affect the fact that the atonement would have been provided, regardless of what Judas did or did not do.
I think you are a smart man, but some of your arguments or misunderstanding seem hasty and not well thought out.
Why do you think Judas or a betrayer was necessary for the crucifixion to happen. Jesus wisely chose the 12 after prayer. He chose Judas, the disciple of Christ and trusted him in the inner circle. Judas later went off track. Jesus would not chose a betrayer. Whether Judas died for Christ or turned Him in does not affect the fact that the atonement would have been provided, regardless of what Judas did or did not do.
I think you are a smart man, but some of your arguments or misunderstanding seem hasty and not well thought out.
God_Is_Truth
New member
that's one of the main reasons i am an OVER! because it necessitates an absurdity! i posted one argument on here before and i remember you reading it. i have since rewritten the same argument in 2 different forms and if you are interested in seeing them, i will gladly either post them or pm them.
Z Man
New member
Godrulz,
You specifically said:
"God got Paul's attention and righteously applied strong influence possibly because He saw Paul's heart and zeal and knew He would respond to Jesus if He got His attention."
Now, I read that to mean that the reason God got Paul's attention was because He saw the heart of Paul and his zeal. Well, what did He see? You answer by stating that whatever God saw in the heart of Paul, it was enough to know that Paul would probably respond to Jesus, if He got his attention enough.
There is no other way to read that statement. That's what it means, whether you meant to say that or not. If that's not what you meant, then you need to reword your sentence, so I won't get confused and "misquote" you. But if that is what you meant, then you are simply stating that based on the conditions of our heart, God knows if we are "good" enough to respond to Jesus, thus He will try to "get our attention"...
Basically, if a man can have a "good" heart and zeal, God will get His attention, hoping it will save him. If a person does not have a good enough heart, then God will not bother with them. That's what you said.
Judas was picked to fulfill Scripture:
Psalms 41:9
Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.
Psalms 55:12-14
For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; Then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; Then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, My companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, And walked to the house of God in the throng.
John 6:70-71
Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Acts 1:15-20
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry." (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For it is written in the book of Psalms:
'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'(Ps 69:25);
and,
'Let another take his office (Ps 109:8).'
Ps. 41/55 had a historical fulfillment in the OT (Psalmist) and was also applied to Judas (dual fulfillment is recognized in many OT/NT applications). Note it does not mention Judas by name. It is a wrong assumption that Judas was destined from eternity past to betray Christ. God would have to coerce this. Another human could have betrayed Him if Judas did not. Even if no one betrayed Him, He would still have been crucified.
Jn. 6 does not say He chose a devil. This would be contrary to the wisdom of God Jesus received in prayer. Jesus called TWELVE DISCIPLES (a common word for salvation). Judas was in a state of salvation at the time. It does not say WHEN he became a devil, but was not one from the beginning (based on how Jesus referred to him and the 12 in the early years). John made a comment from a position of looking back in retrospect. When he wrote the book, Judas had already betrayed Him. The statement of Jesus was made at a point in the historical narrative where Judas had gone bad. You are wrongly assuming that Judas was this way the day He originally chose him. Jesus knew what was in a man, and when Judas departed from the truth, THEN he made the statement. If the statement was made earlier before it was known which way Judas would go, then you have a point. There is no reason to assume that it was a foregone conclusion in the mind of God before Judas even was born. Jesus said I have chosen 12, and 1 of you (now/present tense) is a devil. He did not say I have chosen 11 of you but one is a devil. (you will not agree with this because of your TULIP bias and extreme view of predestination).
Jn. 17 does not have to mean Judas was coerced and predestined into his role. 'Jesus Christ Superstar' promoted this wrong concept. If he was, he would not be accountable/responsible in a just moral government. He fulfilled Scripture, but he could have repented and remained true. He did not, so he, and not another was recorded as the fulfillment.
Acts 1 OT verses that had historical fulfillment in the OT were applied by the Spirit as an ILLUSTRATION of a NT situation. They were not always predictive prophecy. The Spirit inspired the application and explicitly stated so. We cannot take any OT verse and read things back into it without the Spirit inspiring that application. Peter had hindsight and now knew that Judas fulfilled the Scripture. If another person like Fred Flintstone had betrayed Christ, he would have stated so. It is reading too much in to think Judas himself was predestined from trillions of years ago specifically.
The election of the 12 disciples (from "God's strategy in human history"- Forester/Marston)
i) Jesus chose 12 from his followers (Lk. 6:12,13; Mk. 3:13,14= you do not chose a devil to go out and preach eternal life)
ii) All 12 were chosen- Judas too (Jn. 6:70,71)
iii) Jesus foreknew their reactions (based on knowing their past and present heart and mind, not from eternity past before they existed) (Jn. 13:14-18)
iv) The apostolic task was to witness to Jesus' life and resurrection (Jn. 15:16,27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1:2,3; 3:15; 10:40-42)
v) Judas FELL from God's chosen office for him (Acts 1:17-25) The reason they had to replace him, was that he FELL from the office implying he was in good standing in the beginning.
Election is the bestowal of an office, but is not irresistible. "You have not chosen me but I have chosen you" is addressed to the apostles (office) and is not an assertion about God selecting people for salvation (unjustifiable). Jesus' choice is linked to their appointment to an apostolic office. Judas was chosen WITH the other 11, but subsequently "FELL from his office". Judas was one one of the 12, and his election was no different than the others. Peter does not say Judas was never really an apostle, but that he FELL away from his ministry.
"The point is that this election had nothing to do with whether a person went to heaven or hell; it was a bestowal of an office and a task."
Jesus chose them. The disciples' own wishes could not determine His choice, nor could they appoint themselves to the office (not about salvation). God alone ordained their calling to office.
What God did not ordain was how they would match up to the task he had allotted them (man's will is a factor). Eleven chose to fulfill the calling through the power of the Spirit, not in their own strength (without me you can do nothing). They were WILLING, whereas Judas was not. He had the same calling, office, ministry, BUT he fell away from it. Peter does not say that God made Judas fall away, but that he simply did fall away. It was his own choice, and he was culpable for it. He could not un-choose or un-call himself. Judas fell away from the ministry and so forfeited the blessing he could have had.
The election of the apostles was unmerited. With privilege came responsibility. Judas fell from it and the consequence was great condemnation. Election is not irrestistable, but conditional.
Jesus knew what was in Judas' heart near the end, but He did not cause him to fall (cf. election of nation of Israel Rom. 9-11...not talking about individual salvation...election is corporate here).
Jn. 6 does not say He chose a devil. This would be contrary to the wisdom of God Jesus received in prayer. Jesus called TWELVE DISCIPLES (a common word for salvation). Judas was in a state of salvation at the time. It does not say WHEN he became a devil, but was not one from the beginning (based on how Jesus referred to him and the 12 in the early years). John made a comment from a position of looking back in retrospect. When he wrote the book, Judas had already betrayed Him. The statement of Jesus was made at a point in the historical narrative where Judas had gone bad. You are wrongly assuming that Judas was this way the day He originally chose him. Jesus knew what was in a man, and when Judas departed from the truth, THEN he made the statement. If the statement was made earlier before it was known which way Judas would go, then you have a point. There is no reason to assume that it was a foregone conclusion in the mind of God before Judas even was born. Jesus said I have chosen 12, and 1 of you (now/present tense) is a devil. He did not say I have chosen 11 of you but one is a devil. (you will not agree with this because of your TULIP bias and extreme view of predestination).
Jn. 17 does not have to mean Judas was coerced and predestined into his role. 'Jesus Christ Superstar' promoted this wrong concept. If he was, he would not be accountable/responsible in a just moral government. He fulfilled Scripture, but he could have repented and remained true. He did not, so he, and not another was recorded as the fulfillment.
Acts 1 OT verses that had historical fulfillment in the OT were applied by the Spirit as an ILLUSTRATION of a NT situation. They were not always predictive prophecy. The Spirit inspired the application and explicitly stated so. We cannot take any OT verse and read things back into it without the Spirit inspiring that application. Peter had hindsight and now knew that Judas fulfilled the Scripture. If another person like Fred Flintstone had betrayed Christ, he would have stated so. It is reading too much in to think Judas himself was predestined from trillions of years ago specifically.
The election of the 12 disciples (from "God's strategy in human history"- Forester/Marston)
i) Jesus chose 12 from his followers (Lk. 6:12,13; Mk. 3:13,14= you do not chose a devil to go out and preach eternal life)
ii) All 12 were chosen- Judas too (Jn. 6:70,71)
iii) Jesus foreknew their reactions (based on knowing their past and present heart and mind, not from eternity past before they existed) (Jn. 13:14-18)
iv) The apostolic task was to witness to Jesus' life and resurrection (Jn. 15:16,27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1:2,3; 3:15; 10:40-42)
v) Judas FELL from God's chosen office for him (Acts 1:17-25) The reason they had to replace him, was that he FELL from the office implying he was in good standing in the beginning.
Election is the bestowal of an office, but is not irresistible. "You have not chosen me but I have chosen you" is addressed to the apostles (office) and is not an assertion about God selecting people for salvation (unjustifiable). Jesus' choice is linked to their appointment to an apostolic office. Judas was chosen WITH the other 11, but subsequently "FELL from his office". Judas was one one of the 12, and his election was no different than the others. Peter does not say Judas was never really an apostle, but that he FELL away from his ministry.
"The point is that this election had nothing to do with whether a person went to heaven or hell; it was a bestowal of an office and a task."
Jesus chose them. The disciples' own wishes could not determine His choice, nor could they appoint themselves to the office (not about salvation). God alone ordained their calling to office.
What God did not ordain was how they would match up to the task he had allotted them (man's will is a factor). Eleven chose to fulfill the calling through the power of the Spirit, not in their own strength (without me you can do nothing). They were WILLING, whereas Judas was not. He had the same calling, office, ministry, BUT he fell away from it. Peter does not say that God made Judas fall away, but that he simply did fall away. It was his own choice, and he was culpable for it. He could not un-choose or un-call himself. Judas fell away from the ministry and so forfeited the blessing he could have had.
The election of the apostles was unmerited. With privilege came responsibility. Judas fell from it and the consequence was great condemnation. Election is not irrestistable, but conditional.
Jesus knew what was in Judas' heart near the end, but He did not cause him to fall (cf. election of nation of Israel Rom. 9-11...not talking about individual salvation...election is corporate here).
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Godrulz,
I will just quote!
I agree with this, and with what Z Man posted as well.
I agree with Z Man's verses, here is another:
JN 6:64 "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
Here I would agree with Clete (sorry, Z Man!):
JN 13:15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
Which was "showing them the full extent of his love" by washing their feet.
PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus...
Speaking here of humbling himself, emptying himself, and the cross.
1CO 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
1JN 1:5 God is light.
1JN 4:16 God is love.
God is glorious indeed, but he is also love, we may combine these, and note that God not only wants to reveal his glory, but, because of love, to share it:
RO 8:17 ... that we may also share in his glory.
JN 17:22 I have given them the glory that you gave me.
Blessings,
Lee
I will just quote!
I agree with this, and with what Z Man posted as well.
I agree with Z Man's verses, here is another:
JN 6:64 "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
Here I would agree with Clete (sorry, Z Man!):
JN 13:15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
Which was "showing them the full extent of his love" by washing their feet.
PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus...
Speaking here of humbling himself, emptying himself, and the cross.
1CO 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
1JN 1:5 God is light.
1JN 4:16 God is love.
God is glorious indeed, but he is also love, we may combine these, and note that God not only wants to reveal his glory, but, because of love, to share it:
RO 8:17 ... that we may also share in his glory.
JN 17:22 I have given them the glory that you gave me.
Blessings,
Lee
God_Is_Truth
New member
Originally posted by LightSon
I suppose you could only remember me reading it, if I actually responded to it in some fashion.
My memory is getting rusty or somethin' :down: If you could provide a link or repost, that would be appreciated.
i recall you asking me how sure i was that it was valid and i said about 8 out of 10. i showed it to my philosophy professor who said that it was in fact a valid argument so if the premises are correct, then it should be sound and i find no reason to think that it's not.
here is the 1st version of my argument, the one i think i showed to you.
Argument for a partially open future
1. I can freely choose either “a” or “b”
2. “a” is not “b” and “b” is not “a”
3. I cannot choose both “a” and “b”
4. I must choose only “a” or only “b”
5. Being able to freely choose between two options is known as free will.
6. Based on statement 1, I have free will.
7. For any decision I make to be free, it must be contingent.
8. If it is contingent then it may or may not happen and is not certain.
9. Assume God knows I will choose “a” before I make my decision
10. What God knows is certain and must happen
11. God is infallible and cannot make mistakes
12. If God knows I will choose “a” then it is certain I will choose “a”
(Contradicts: 6, 7)
13. If “a” is certain, then there is no possibility of choosing “b”. (Contradicts: 1,6)
14. If there is no possibility of choosing “b” then it is not actually a choice. (Contradicts: 1,6)
15. If “b” is not actually a choice then there really is no choice at all.
(Contradicts: 1, 6)
16. If there is no choice at all then when I “choose” “a” then I am really doing the only thing I can do. (Contradicts: 1,6)
17. Since God knows with certainty that “a” will be chosen, the original choice is not contingent. (Contradicts: 1,6,7,8)
18. Because the original choice is not contingent it is not free. (Contradicts: 1,6)
19. Since it is not free, there is no free will. (Contradicts: 1,6)
The conclusion that we have no free will clearly contradicts our first premise. Because the conclusion contradicts the premise, the assumption is false. Therefore God does not know the free will decisions of a person before the person makes them.
here is the 2nd version of it which i like better and my friends find easier to understand.
Argument for a partially open future-attempt 2
1. I have free will.
2. Free will is defined by having the ability to freely choose between two or more options when making a choice.
3. For any decision I make to be a free decision, it must be contingent.
4. If a decision is contingent then both choices exist as possible.
5. If I have only two choices and one of them cannot be chosen, then the decision, in this case, would not be contingent because only one choice can be made.
6. Let us assume that God foreknows our every choice in regards to the future. This is also known as exhaustive foreknowledge.
7. What God knows is certain because God is omniscient and does not make mistakes.
8. If what God knew was not certain, then he would not know it for sure and could be wrong. If God could be wrong then he would be fallible.
9. Since everything God knows is certain, then the future is also certain.
10. If the future is certain then it cannot be changed.
11. If God knows in a given situation that I will choose “a” over “b” then because his foreknowledge is certain and the future cannot be changed, I must choose “a”.
12. If, in a decision, I must choose option “a” over option “b” (based on the foreknowledge of God) then the decision is not contingent.
13. Based on statement 3, because this decision is not contingent, the decision is not free.
14. Therefore, for this decision, I am not free.
15. Since God’s foreknowledge is complete (exhaustive) it includes all of the future.
16. If God foreknows the results of every decision I will ever make, and every decision that God knows is not contingent and thus not free, then I do not have free will.
17. But we already established in statement 1 that I do have free will. Thus we have a contradiction. (Statement 1 and 16)
18. Nothing contradictory can follow from true statements.
19. Since the assumption we made in statement 6 about God’s foreknowledge gave us a contradiction, then it is incompatible with free will.
20. Therefore, since we have free will, God does not foreknow the choices we will make.
and here is the 3rd version i wrote which you might find easier.
Argument for a partially open future-attempt 3
1. I have free will
2. We define free will as the ability to choose equally between two or more options when presented with a choice.
3. For any decision I make to be free, each choice must be contingent.
4. A contingent choice is one where each choice has an equal possibility of being chosen.
5. Let us assume now that we have a choice before us and that God has absolute foreknowledge of what choice I will pick before I pick it.
6. Since his knowledge is absolute, there is no way he can be mistaken about it. In other words, what he knows is absolutely certain.
7. Whatever is absolutely certain cannot be changed. If it could be, it wouldn’t be absolutely certain.
8. Thus, the choice God knows I will make, because it’s absolutely certain, cannot be changed. Whatever choice God knows I will make cannot be changed.
9. Now let us say that I have a decision before me between choice “a” and choice “b”.
10. Let us also say that God has absolute foreknowledge that I will choose choice “a”
11. Thus, from number 6 it follows that my choosing of choice “a” is absolutely certain.
12. It also follows then from number 7 that my decision of choice “a” cannot be changed.
13. It follows that if God knows I will choose “a” then he also knows I will not choose “b”.
14. This knowledge is also absolutely certain and cannot be changed per numbers 6 and 7.
15. Thus, since God is certain that choice “b” will not be chosen by me then choice “b” is not an option I can choose. If I could choose it then God’s knowledge would not be absolutely certain.
16. Since “b” is no longer a choice I can choose then there is not an equal possibility of both “a” or “b” being chosen and the decision is no longer contingent.
17. Since any decision that is not contingent is also not free, per number 3, then this decision is not a free one.
18. Thus, for this decision I do not have a true free will because there is only one choice I can make and that is the one God has absolute foreknowledge of.
19. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future then every decision we make follows the exact same pattern as described here-not contingent and thus not free.
20. Thus, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then we do not have free will.