Sovereignity of God

You know this has to do with God choosing Jacob over Esau. It has nothing to do with God knowing our choices concerning salvation.

 

Close but this is only a step in understanding how God controls evil.There is much mystery to how God is sovereign over all things but the example of judas shows us that God didn't save judas from Satan as He did for the 11. So I'd say one way of secondary causation is that God leaves the reprobate to their bondage of sin and to Satan so His will be done.

 

Lets look once again at the context.

Back in Romans 8 Paul says these words...

NOTICE once again that Christ is the one that died. The death was a act of LOVE and over powers anything that anyone else would do. Therefore Paul says...because of Christ death, who can charge ANYTHING toward Gods elect.

>>>>>>Now think about this for a moment.
Christ came to die. This we call the atonement. This is a English only word, but a rich one. AT-ONE-MENT. All that Christ die for are now AT ONE with the FATHER.

Now this is the reason why Christ came. This is a LOVE ACT. This was his intent in the LOVE ACT...that is to SAVE or to make men AT ONE with God.

Did it work?

Look at verse 35..

Who can make CHRIST LOVE ACT not work????

Paul says NNE!!!

Paul goes on and makes a list...

PAUL....are you sure???
Are you SURE that Christ ACT OF LOVE worked??? Are you SURE that all those he died for are now AT ONE with God?

Now why did Paul go into this essay on Gods everlasting love?


back in verse 12 he talks about the true HEIRS OF CHRIST...


12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.


NOW we can go to chapter 9...


At the start of chapter 9, Paul address what he knows others are thinking. WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS???

PAUL SAYS....Look "is not as though the word of God has failed". vs 6

WHY DOES PAUL SAY THIS???

Then he comes to our passage where he shows election has always been this way...

So , yes this is indeed Pauls point. Jacob is only used to show it has always been that way.

He goes on..

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?

By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17

Its hard to get around the truth of Scripture.

 

Judas

Judas didn't listen and learn from the Father, he was selfish and too worried about a profit from the Lord. He really thought Jesus was going to set up His kingdom on Earth and make him a leader. He didn't like the message of Jesus about dying. He thought that he would hurry it up by the act.

God could of forgiven him, but he didn't listen and learn. When Jesus didn't do what he expected Jesus to do. He then realized what he done.

Some still have the wrong ideas about Jesus and what He has come to do.

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

1 Timothy 1:15
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

John 5:25
Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

 

You are perfectly willing to allow God the choice to choose where it fits with your system, but not in other cases. Just wondering if God is always God for you, or perhaps if you are still falling under the delusion of Eve in the Garden, where she decided that what God said was not quite as important as what it was that she wanted to do at the time?

As Paul squarely places the Jacob I have love and Esau I have hated citation squarely in the center of his discussion of salvation, I think that you may be misplaced in your assessment. Paul was using Jacob and Esau to illustrate a larger issue -- God's sovereignty in election.

 

Just wondering... Can you supply Scripture for your ideas above? It all sounds nice, and it is a good reason for the actions of Judas, but where did you get the idea that what you wrote is "truth"?

 

Zechariah 14:9

9 The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name.


John 12
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.[Greek three hundred denarii]” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

This is what many disciple's thought through the word that Jesus would set up His Kingdom on Earth. If Judas would of listened to Jesus instead of his own desire for money. That His Kingdom was not of this world.

John 18:36
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Even the Pharisees believed this when placing a charge against Him King of the Jews.

Matthew 27:37
Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:
35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”

36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”

 

Psalm,
Are u refuting what I said or adding to it? I don't disagree with ur assumptions that judas rejected Jesus. I would add that the 11 trusted him but were also ignorant of his work until after he rose from the dead

 

This is just another example of how a Christian brother uses carefully chosen words to by-pass the rules against questioning another poster's salvation.

You are free to believe anything you want to about God's dealings with mankind. If you choose to believe that God only loves a certain group of people (of whom you are a part, of course), go ahead. There is nothing I can say that will convince you of this error.

I will stand by what the Word of God actually says: that God is a loving God who loved sinful mankind so much that he gave His Son to die in man's place. A God who offers salvation to everyone who will, of his own accord, repent and accept this wonderful gift.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the Scripture that shows that God's foreknowledge could not possibly be connected with his understanding of the choices He knows in advance man will make.

 

You did state your position and it was very clear. Thank you for your succinctness.

However, when you stated your position, to what did you appeal? Did you derive your position from scripture or not? If so (and I don't recall that you did this) please give the scriptural basis for your position. And, if I did miss you doing this earlier, please post a link for me to read.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Actually, these verbs are not "past tense." In English they are, but in Greek they are aorist. And it isn't just "glorified," it is all 5 verbs--Foreknew, Predestined, Called, Justified, Glorified--that are Aorist.

The aorist shows a summary action. If Paul was being linear, he would likely have used the imperfect rather than the aorist.

The significance of these 5 verbs being aorist is that God sees all these actions as being already completed. They are not attributes. They are completed actions (and God is the subject, so God has completed these actions).

The Archangel

 

I was under the impression a completed action was past tense, particularly since the aorist here is not showing an action indicating it's completion or continuation. Glorification has not occurred for the believer yet. If you are going to maintain that these 5 verbs are as "God sees them"...why are the reformed so adamant that predestination be taken literal and not how He sees them? If anything that supports the notion most hold to "knowing beforehand".

At any rate, "to love beforehand" is an inaccurate definition of foreknow and it must also be plausible that knowing beforehand is also how "God sees it" to be consistent.

The summary action is describing these 5 as being completed, not as God seeing them completed, but an actual done deal. Since foreknowledge and predestination are not things that can be completed by anyone but God, they are most definitely attributes of God alone. God's many "omni's" encompass these attributes.

 

Willis,

You are still arguing a neutrality of sorts. From the instant of our conception our place in Hell is sealed (so to speak). God's adopting intervention must take place to, as it were, reset the default for His children.

The problem here is two fold: 1. A translation issue. "Gave them up" is probably not the best understanding (even my beloved ESV translates it this way). The idea is better said "giving them over" So in the context of Romans 1, Paul is saying people are doing the sinful things in v. 24 and following because God has already given them up. These sinful things do not bring about the giving up. To put it another way, when one commits these sinful things it is evidence of non-belief.

2.) "Retain God in their knowledge" is a very problematic translation. The word retain likely comes from the Greek exo, here using the infinitive "To have." Also, knowledge is too soft of a word. The word epignosis is much stronger than knowledge. Epignosis refers to knowledge in and through participation. So, a better understanding is "to have knowledge through participation in." So, the implication here is that these people already wanted nothing to do with God. And, because of that, He gave them over and as a result, they commit heinous sins.

But, there is no concept of God having them first.

This is a very problematic statement. If you follow your statement through it means that the worst thing we can do for someone is share the Gospel with them, because it means their innocence will be lost and they will now be held accountable, and if they keep rejecting the Gospel they will go to Hell.

The reformed position clearly affirms that man is held accountable for his actions. It also affirms that God is absolutely sovereign. There is a tension between the two. This is why reformed theologians say "God for-ordains the free actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory."

I am equally critical of the so-called hyper Calvinist who claims that God makes persons sin. This gives the person a neutral standing. Men desire to sin naturally, God doesn't have to push for man to sin.

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, mankind as a whole has been doing what Romans 1 describes--ignoring God, making idols out of themselves and for themselves. As a result of mankind's inherent God-less-ness, God gives mankind over to their inherent sinful passions. I, along with other reformers, suggest this is God's removal of common grace.

I hope that helps.

The Archangel

 

I agree with what you said here, but the opportunity for being saved was opened to Judas just like the other 11, it is Judas that gave up not God on him.

The control of evil is by removing a hedge of protection or placing a hedge of protection, and how far it can go which means the hedge isn't completely removed. It does not stop forgiveness, it is open to all sinners even with the hedge of protection removed.

This is always open for us. We can take refuge in the Lord

Psalm 46

Devil can tempt us, but we are dragged away by our own evil desires

If God didn't have control then we would have already destroyed ourselves. Salvation is open to all sinners just as they are dead in their sin through Jesus Christ.

 

The aorist views the action of the verb as completed...in a one-moment-in-time fashion. It is a snapshot of the verb with the action already being accomplished. The aorist gives no sense as to how long the action took to be accomplished, however. The aorist is not showing continuation (that would be the perfect tense, in this case).

Having this be "as God sees it" is an OK way to describe it, although it is a bit cumbersome to describe it that way. The difference here as to the reason why it can't be "seeing through time" is because God is the subject here. God is doing these things. He actively chose (foreknowing) people; he actively predestined those whom he chose; he actively called those whom he chose and predestined; he actively justified those whom he called, chose, and predestined; and he actively glorified those whom he chose, predestined, called, and justified.

Another way to think of the 5 verbs being in aorist is to say that it is a done-deal. Once someone is chosen (foreknown), it is an absolute certainty that they will be glorified.

Again, do not misunderstand the phrase "as God sees it" to be looking through time. The passage in question doesn't suggest that. When I used the phrase "as God sees it" I mean that, in some sense, God views the chosen, predestined, called, and justified Christian as already (but not yet) glorified.

The problem here, though, is that foreknowledge and predestination are not spoken of in this passage as an attribute. They are spoken of actions that God takes--as are called, justified, and glorified. All five of these verbs are showing actions God performs, not attributes of Him.

The Archangel

 

Psalms

I find myself in agreement with you. I do not think there is, nor ever has been a person for whom God's grace of salvation was unavailable.

 

Except the righteous, that is why it is so important to spread the message that there is none righteous not one.

 

, of whom I am chief.