Sovereignity of God

Scripture

No matter what God doesn't tempt people with evil or even to do evil. He did what he did on his own, but God used it for His will. His good pleasure to save those who trust in His Son.

The greatest lesson we can learn from this lesson on Judas it is not what some have turned it into.

To me it is no matter what we do, deny Christ as Peter did or be apart of the murder of Christ through believers as Saul before he becomes Paul did or even betray Jesus. We can be forgiven or we to will be sons of perdition.

 

Willis,

First off, thank your kind and fair response. I rather enjoy discussing things which are in the text and I dislike other discussions that degenerate into ad hominem attack posts. Seeing your posts, I think we can engage in the former and not degenerate into the latter.

It seems you are using Strong's Concordance. Strong's can be good, but it leaves out huge gaps that are very important in the quest to determine meaning. Actually, a text-book definition is only one step to determining meaning. The second step (and perhaps most important) is to see how the biblical authors use a particular word, how it is used in a particular passage, etc.

With the word "Destruction" in John 17:12 is, as you rightly stated, apoleia (in Greek ἀπώλεια). This word is the noun form of the verb apollumi (in Greek ἀπώλλυμαι) which you can find in your Strong's, it is word #622.

The noun form is used in the New Testament to refer to a state of exclusion from God's grace. There are many examples in the New Testament of this usage.

What makes John's usage particularly interesting is that John juxtaposes the verbal form and the noun form. "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost (the verbal form) except the son of destruction (the noun form), that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

So Jesus is saying that none of His disciples have been lost to destruction. Why? He Himself has kept them. Why, then, was Judas seemingly lost? Because he was never one of Jesus' disciples. Though he appeared to be, Judas was always a person outside of God's grace, a "Son of Perdition."

Now, why does the text say that Judas was "foreordained" to be the "son of destruction? Again, the biblical idea of sonship is key here. In john 17:12 there is what is called a hina clause (from the Greek conjunction ἵνα). Now, hina is translated "so that" and it gives the reason for the previous statement. So, when Jesus says "so that the scripture might be fulfilled" what He is saying is that the scripture decreed that not one of His sheep would be lost and it also decreed that one of His own would betray Him. In the disciples--11 true disciples and 1 son of destruction--the scripture is fulfilled perfectly. Again, this shows that Judas was never one of Christ's sheep, no matter how well he played the part from time to time.

The first issue here is that this passage is not intended to shed specific light on 17:12. But, it is part of the context of the Book of John and of the Bible as a whole.

I will agree that one does not become a child of God until we receive Him. It is the receiving that gives one the right to become His child. As an aside...the Bible also talks about God adopting us as His children and, as we know, the adopted does not get to choose the adopter. So, John is only talking about one specific aspect in 1:12 and is not intending to give a complete overview of salvation.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is this: It makes man neutral. You are suggesting that there is a choice between being a child of God and being a son of destruction. There is no such middle ground. Every human who is ever born is born as a son of destruction.

Where do I get this? Look at Genesis 5:3 "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image." This is particularly interesting. This means that we as humans are primarily in the image of Adam. But this is the post-fall image. Understanding "image" properly is key to understanding the difference between being "in Adam" and being "in Christ."

Image in the Bible refers primarily to bearing the characteristics of the one being imaged. So when the Bible tells us that Mankind was created in the image and likeness of God it means two things: 1.) We are God's representatives. He is the King, we are the "Govenor." We rule in His stead as under-rulers. 2.) To look at us is to see what God is like. Before the fall, had creation wanted to know what God was like, creation only had to look at Mankind.

Of course, after the fall, Adam and Eve have been radically affected by sin and the "Image" of God has been hopelessly marred. Now, according to Genesis 9, Mankind still bears the image of God in some way. But, it must be noted, that we, mankind today, are not primarily created in God's image. We bear God's image because we are human and God created humans to bear his image. Today, however, we are procreated in Adam's image. After all, Adam's son Seth leads to Noah (through whom the entire world was repopulated), so we all are in Adam's image primarily.

So, when Paul writes "in Adam all die" this is what he means: We bear the image of Adam and because of this we are all, by nature, rebels against God just as he was. The marks of "Adam's helpless race" are death, rebellion, radical depravity, being--by nature--children of wrath, dead in our trespasses and sins, etc.

So, there are, in essence, two strains of Humanity--the line of Adam (which we are all in by default) and the line of Christ. After all, Paul does make quite the effort to show the distinction between being "in Adam" and being "in Christ." The only way, according to Ephesians 1, to be taken out of the line of Adam (who's end is destruction) is to be adopted by God, which takes place before the foundation of the world.

So, it cannot be that Judas became the "son of destruction" after Satan took him over because it was already his natural state to be against God. It isn't like Judas was neutral--being able to choose whether he wanted to be in Adam or Christ. Judas was naturally in Adam and because of that, he was already at enmity with God. What is more, as John 17:12 makes perfectly clear, it was never God's intention to redeem Judas (which is to say, it was never God's intention to adopt Judas out of the line of Adam and into the line of Christ). Why? Because Judas is the son of destruction, not a "son" of God.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Good point, which is very much misunderstood. The words translated "foreknowledge" in Romans, for instance, mean "chose."

This is where a little Greek can help quite a bit to guard us from theological error.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

1 Peter 1

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Translation from Greek to English has many words that it can be translated into English. I'll trust the way God had the Holy Bible translated for me.

I love to study Greek, but I will not translated according to my understanding and take away from how God attended it to be. Oh yeah God struck down the one carrying the arc wrong dead. I not only have reverence for the Lord, but a reverence fear of the Lord

 

I hear this often; do you have any Scriptural proof?

How do you know that God didn't choose those who He knew would choose to believe the Gospel message?

 

Because the word "Foreknowledge" means more than God just knowing something.

If you look at Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 11:2, you will see Paul's only uses of the word "foreknowledge." In Romans 11:2 he emphatically states God has not rejected His people whom he foreknew. Obviously, foreknew is an antonym to rejected. Foreknew means "chose." Further, whenever Israel is discussed, they are called "the chosen people," not merely the "foreknown people." The Old Testament is replete with references to God choosing Israel (and, by implication, rejecting all the other nations).

So, when we get the the so-called "Golden Chain of Salvation" in Romans 8 and we see Paul use "foreknew" (especially considering it is the same exact word, same form, same everything), it is clear that Paul is saying that God chose certain persons.

The thought of foreknowledge being "a looking through the corridors of time to see who would believe" makes God, in effect, the responder and man the initiator--a position God is never in in the Bible. He is always the initiator and man is always the responder.

The Archangel

 

I believe foreknowledge means exactly what it means.

The plan of God was set in motion long before. Not only does He foreknew us, but has the end result. I am sorry but I will not go on chosen but by ever word that comes from the mouth of God. He knows us by name.

Just imagine seeing all your chosen at your table right now. That is God.

He has set in motion from the beginning to save believers.

Jesus has not come to save the righteous, but sinners.

It is His word that set in motion that those who believe shall be saved and those who do not will be condemned. So He is the initiator and now we are the responder.

God has chosen Israel to be His, chosen before the foundation of the world. Unfortunately those who have been cut out are those who do not believe not for not being His people, but simply was disowned because they have disowned Him. He included us who was not His when we heard the Gospel of our salvation having believed. Fear not Israel for you are still His beloved, you can be grafted back in if you don't continue in your unbelief.

 

All you have proven is that if "forknew" means what I believe it means, that God chose based on our choice to accept the Gospel, then it doesn't go along with Calvinistic doctrine. This is clearly proven by your last paragraph:

This is not proof, it is conjecture based on your preconceived desire that Calvinism be correct.

If God chose to give man a choice to accept or reject the Gospel, it in no way challenges His sovereignty. It only challenges the Calvinistic understanding of sovereignty.

 

Robert,

I truly wonder if it will ever be possible for you to see past a person's Calvinism and to truly evaluate what he or she has to say.

Your response, while cordial, doesn't deal with any of the arguments I have made. Rather, you've basically stated "Not it doesn't" without offering any reasoning why.

The closest (and it's still a far way off) you came to offering anything of an "argument" is in stating that my assertion that God is always the initiator and man is always the responder is "conjecture." You never suggest why it is conjecture.

Therefore, your response offers little to the conversation, which is unfortunate.

It is my hope you can see the arguments we (Calvinists) make and the arguments that others (non-Calvinists) make and judge the validity of the argument based on scripture, not on whether someone is or isn't a Calvinist.

The Archangel

 

As soon as someone can show me, in the bible, that God's foreknowledge could not be based on His knowing what our choices will be, I will remain unconvinced. Until this happens I will refrain from farther comment. I have stated my position, based on my understanding of what God says in His Word. To continue to repeat myself does no on any good. We can only continue to beat a dead horse so long.

 

You are doing just fine Robert. Be strong and courageous in your convictions. Often times, "reformed theology" seems so "tight" simply because it relies heavily on deductive logic. Nothing inherrantly wrong with that, but as is always the case, it is the "premises" where we have "differences", most often in degree, not in kind. Inductive logic requires great a bit more though and analysis as well as a "big picture" perspective. Both "reformed" and "non-reformed" theologies have "issues". No matter what one may claim, or how loudly they claim it.

 

Hello Bob,

Etymology speaking, you have a problem. But the problem does not end there. This is something that amuses me when I see free-willers, post that God does not determine, but rather only foreknows. I don't really mean to be hard on you, because this is common among free-willers.

The fact is, if God is creator, one can not divide the two.

Let me ask you this. Why is grass green?

 

jarthur, you would be so much better recieved (by myself and others I am sure) if you would attempt to respond in way that does not "seem" to be pejorative toward those who hold different psitions from your own.

 

Jesus said well before the betrayal by Judas that one would betray Him. He never let on who, when, or that it would be one of the 12.

I think the OP has God's sovereignty nailed down fairly well. As has been said to death here on the board, God is not "deterministic" but His will is done. In fact, Jesus taught us to pray exactly those words, "Thy will be done."

 

Yes well, the only word that anyone could object to would be amuse.

I do find it funny and to say other wise would be a lie.

Let me ask you. Do you understand why I would say this? I mean this is a MAJOR point with free-willers, so one would think it would matter. Now as said before, the word does not mean what they believe it does, but, lets say it does. If we give them that meaning, it still does not change ANYTHING in the end. does it?

God knows.....
God makes.....

Its the same as supralapsarianism

 

Your talk is cheap! Where's the Scripture to back up what you say?

 

So, in the end, God is not able to create and be Sovereign while still permitting some degree of free agency (meaning more than the typical reformed view allows for) in His creation?

What I mean by the pejorative comment is "free willers" seems to be "spoken" with a bit of disdain, forgive me if I read too much sensitivity into it, spoken by a "free willer".