Calvinism View of John 6-The Judas Conundrum

[DrJamesAch]

Everything I experienced is saturated with scriptures. No one can come to Him w/o Him first drawing them(both sides agree with this). As long as we were sinners and satisfied to be that way, we had no desire to come to Him. You show me a "happy go lucky" sinner that comes to Him. As long as a sinner is happy "status quo", they won't come. All this is I mean if left to their own desires. God must come in and change their desires.

Judas was called, Judas was elected, Judas was chosen and Judas was given to Christ, and yet John 17:11-12 says he was lost. So either Judas was actually a saved person that lost his salvation, or the Calvinist definitions of election, chosen, given, and call are dead wrong.

 

[saturneptune]

Judas was called, Judas was elected, Judas was chosen and Judas was given to Christ, and yet John 17:11-12 says he was lost. So either Judas was actually a saved person that lost his salvation, or the Calvinist definitions of election, chosen, given, and call are dead wrong.

This is worth repeating. You are flat wrong. Judas was chosen as a disciple. That has nothing to do with being chosen to salvation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

RM, you may not have seen the post on post #3 because it got snipped. EWF came straight out and said as a response to this thread said "LOL..idiot zionist", and he does that on every thread I start. Jovert is merely pointing out the obvious to him.

And I totally stand by that comment....so what? What they should of done is snipped the word "Idiot" cause your not an idiot (so that I apologize for) but you are someone harboring obvious biases & for that you MUST BE called out. Its you who have a serious axe to grind....Im just calling you out for it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Oh but i can read my friend...they were broken off....In UNBELIEF.....they were Covenant breakers....not the descendants of Ishmael

hebrews is clear they did not ENTER into His rest...try again:laugh:

Now you are attempting to argue something entirely different. Try sticking to one subject at a time, you'd get less confused that way.

Your statement was that not all Israel are of Israel in an attempt to prove that Judas being an Israelite was not necessarily an Israelite because Paul said not all Israel is of Israel. I corrected your misunderstanding of the verse by showing you that Paul was referring to the line of Hagar. Israel being broken off is an explanation that comes later in Romans 9-11, but there is an order of explanation that Paul is giving that you keep skipping over and confusing one text with another.

 

[Van]

Calvinism: To be drawn is to be dragged irresistibly.
Bible: To be drawn is to be attracted by God's lovingkindness.

Calvinism 100% of those drawn are saved.
Bible: 100% of those saved were drawn.

So yet again, Calvinism has hitched the horses behind the wagon, trying to pull the horses with a wagon that has no pull.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don't ever recall that...show me the comment

You don't even "recall" that?....it was at least snipped......

But if you were given points for it, than it would exist in your personal profile's infractions.....

Apparently, you didn't even receive an infraction for it.

I am not surprised. I also don't particularly care, and I don't WANT you to receive "infractions" for it.
I know, that you are a middle-aged man who became a Christian later in life, and are still "rough around the edges".

I get it. I have no problem with it.

I want to discourse with you despite that error, since I KNOW (and can recognize) that that is just a little bit of "old" you coming out as a new Christian who is still being worked on in the sanctification process. That's o.k. by me. I REALLY don't hold it against you............I just know that my sister's husband (H.O.S) was TOTALLY BANNED for FAAARRR less.....

and he was banned by a particular person who has apparently a History of adjudicating somewhat unfairly towards anyone who is:

1.) KJVO (apparently, a doctrine that that particular mod HATES)
2.) An un-ashamed non-Calvinist.

My Sister's Hubby was banned PERMANENTLY....for WAY less, than you are guilty of. Some research on that particular Mod will demonstrate that that individual has made something of a habit of banning those who disagree with them on OTHER (now defunct) boards.....and appears to have carried on the practice to some degree on this board.

E.W.F: You are middle-aged and a relatively new convert......and you are BEYOND "rough around the edges"....and although I don't always agree with you, I can recognize that, and deal with and be-friend you accordingly.....

But, you nominally and (somewhat veiled) threatened to KILL a man not so VERY long ago. That's true sir.

Do I want YOU BANNED? No, I don't. But, I just ain't too quick for hearing either Archangel or you, or S.N. whine that someone isn't "banned" while my sister's husband was nominally banned forever for WAAAAAYYYYYY less than that.............and from a Mod who hates KJVO'S...

 

[DrJamesAch]

This is worth repeating. You are flat wrong. Judas was chosen as a disciple. That has nothing to do with being chosen to salvation.

So you are saying that one can be a disciple and not be saved? Then why would Jesus tell the church to go make disciples of all men in Matthew 28:20. Now only part of what you said, I actually agree with, but there's a fundamental issue that you are missing and it's in the definition of chosen.

 

[jonathanD]

So you are saying that one can be a disciple and not be saved? Then why would Jesus tell the church to go make disciples of all men in Matthew 28:20. Now only part of what you said, I actually agree with, but there's a fundamental issue that you are missing and it's in the definition of chosen.

Page 27 my brother...start there.

 

[Winman]

Everything I experienced is saturated with scriptures. No one can come to Him w/o Him first drawing them(both sides agree with this). As long as we were sinners and satisfied to be that way, we had no desire to come to Him. You show me a "happy go lucky" sinner that comes to Him. As long as a sinner is happy "status quo", they won't come. All this is I mean if left to their own desires. God must come in and change their desires.

Willis, the word of God convicts men. Some men will be "pricked at the heart" and come to Jesus in repentance, others will rebel and harden themselves against conviction.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

These Jews were pricked in their heart by Peter's preaching. They realized they were guilty of killing the Lord, they knew they were in serious trouble. These men repented and over 3000 came to Jesus that day.

But not all men repent and come to Jesus, some rebel and become more obstinate and hateful.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

These men resisted the Holy Spirit and hardened themselves. They gnashed their teeth in anger and took hold of Stephen, dragging him out of the city and stoning him.

So, it is not unusual for men to resist the Spirit as you did for a long time. But eventually you submitted to God. Paul did the same thing;

Acts 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Men can resist the Spirit, but it doesn't mean they will always resist.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

Now you are attempting to argue something entirely different. Try sticking to one subject at a time, you'd get less confused that way.

It is you who are confused as you still do not get it.

Your statement was that not all Israel are of Israel in an attempt to prove that Judas being an Israelite was not necessarily an Israelite because Paul said not all Israel is of Israel.

actually this was spoken of in reference to Deut 7:6-9 Israel spoken of as chosen.....but not every single one was...as in those reprobated in Jn8.
try again Ach.

I corrected your misunderstanding of the verse by showing you that Paul was referring to the line of Hagar.

you corrected nothing as Hagar is not in view here.

Israel being broken off is an explanation that comes later in Romans 9-11, but there is an order of explanation that Paul is giving that you keep skipping over and confusing one text with another.

No...you are wrong again because of your agenda....The fact that Paul speaks of an elect remnant shows the folly of your attempted response.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.


11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Give up your false agenda and maybe truth will come your way.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

So you are saying that one can be a disciple and not be saved?

Yes ..like these who also hated effectual calling....

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't even "recall" that?....it was at least snipped......

But if you were given points for it, than it would exist in your personal profile's infractions.....

Apparently, you didn't even receive an infraction for it.

I am not surprised. I also don't particularly care, and I don't WANT you to receive "infractions" for it.
I know, that you are a middle-aged man who became a Christian later in life, and are still "rough around the edges".

I get it. I have no problem with it.

I want to discourse with you despite that error, since I KNOW (and can recognize) that that is just a little bit of "old" you coming out as a new Christian who is still being worked on in the sanctification process. That's o.k. by me. I REALLY don't hold it against you............I just know that my sister's husband (H.O.S) was TOTALLY BANNED for FAAARRR less.....

and he was banned by a particular person who has apparently a History of adjudicating somewhat unfairly towards anyone who is:

1.) KJVO (apparently, a doctrine that that particular mod HATES)
2.) An un-ashamed non-Calvinist.

My Sister's Hubby was banned PERMANENTLY....for WAY less, than you are guilty of. Some research on that particular Mod will demonstrate that that individual has made something of a habit of banning those who disagree with them on OTHER (now defunct) boards.....and appears to have carried on the practice to some degree on this board.

E.W.F: You are middle-aged and a relatively new convert......and you are BEYOND "rough around the edges"....and although I don't always agree with you, I can recognize that, and deal with and be-friend you accordingly.....

But, you nominally and (somewhat veiled) threatened to KILL a man not so VERY long ago. That's true sir.

Do I want YOU BANNED? No, I don't. But, I just ain't too quick for hearing either Archangel or you, or S.N. whine that someone isn't "banned" while my sister's husband was nominally banned forever for WAAAAAYYYYYY less than that.............and from a Mod who hates KJVO'S...

Wait a cotton pickin minute....Are you saying I threatened to kill someone? If so, then disclose it man & dont worry about my reputation on here, personally not a big concern for me. You look at my profile & I flat out tell you Im a sinner & dude (I still am...but Im saved). So you just let it fly cause I can deal. :smilewinkgrin:

Oh, PS....thanks for the complement!

".and you are BEYOND "rough around the edges"

 

[Winman]

OK, you're both bad to the bone...



Can we get back to the OP now?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK, you're both bad to the bone...



Can we get back to the OP now?

FUNNY!:laugh:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ach



It is you who are confused as you still do not get it.


actually this was spoken of in reference to Deut 7:6-9 Israel spoken of as chosen.....but not every single one was...as in those reprobated in Jn8.
try again Ach.



you corrected nothing as Hagar is not in view here.




No...you are wrong again because of your agenda....The fact that Paul speaks of an elect remnant shows the folly of your attempted response.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.


11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Give up your false agenda and maybe truth will come your way.

And just what is my agenda? It certainly isn't the same as the "Zionist" agenda because most Israelites do not believe in Christ. I do. I do not support the one world order or "new" world order (like Bush, Obama, Netanyahu, Putin), I am not in the Bilderberg group. I am not on the CFR. I have no stake in the bogus IRS and Federal Reserve entity which is not governed by the US but by private bankers, none of which I am related to or support. I am not a member of the Trilateral committee, or the counsel of 33, or the Club of Rome. I am not a member of the Illuminati nor am I a Freemason. I do not believe there will EVER be "peace and safety" in Israel until the return of Jesus Christ.

But I do believe in defending my country as much as you believe as defending yours as an American. I can defend my country without agreeing with all of their politics in the same way that you can defend being American without agreeing with homosexual marriage, abortion, fascism, socialized health care, government sponsored terrorism, control over churches through 501(c)(3) status, treatment of blacks and Indians all through US history, giving 500 million dollars to terrorists in Egypt in support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Just because you are an American, doesn't mean that you support all of the above correct? So then why does it mean I support all of Israel's agenda's simply because I am from Israel?

So just what is my agenda then?

And again, you are WRONG about Romans 9. Paul makes it perfectly clear that he is referring to his kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH in 9:3.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

You have to be blind as a bat to not GET that Paul is referring to HAGAR's LINE because of the repeated references to children of the FLESH and the repeated contrasts between the children of promise and children that were NOT born through the line of Sarah/Jacob and Isaac.

Romans 9 and Galations 4:22-31 couldn't be anymore clear on this.

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. ....Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise....So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

There's no agenda here, it's believing what the Bible says.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Wait a cotton pickin minute....Are you saying I threatened to kill someone? If so, then disclose it man & dont worry about my reputation on here, personally not a big concern for me. You look at my profile & I flat out tell you Im a sinner & dude (I still am...but Im saved). So you just let it fly cause I can deal. :smilewinkgrin:

Oh, PS....thanks for the complement!

".and you are BEYOND "rough around the edges"

Meh....I don't really care much...but, as a Southerner, I must confess, you didn't EXACTLY use the phrase "cotton-pickin minute" quite correctly... it didn't work.

You tried, and did pretty well, but it just wasn't QUITE there....

Bro....you're a garbage sinner and so am I...we are BOTH trash in comparison to Jesus and the Almighty God who has decided to show us mercy.....

Who CARES!!! In heaven, bro... we'll both be "Trophies of Grace"...perfectly placed in the Body of Christ. So, let's not care a fig for who did what to whom.

You are gonna hang with me in glory dude :thumbsup: That's what matters:thumbsup: Praise God!!!!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ach



Yes ..like these who also hated effectual calling....

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Now I agree, Judas wasn't saved, but you failed to answer the question in the context of which I asked it.

Judas is an entirely different story, he was numbered with THE twelve. Son of perdition or NOT, you can not ignore what Jesus said about him in John 17.

John 17:9-12
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

[All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. JOhn 6:37]

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

The only way to reconcile the conflict is that if a Calvinist admits that election, chosen, given, does not have the theological implications that they say it does. The Calvinist relies on John 6 to PROVE their view that ALL THE FATHER GIVES to Christ, SHALL COME to Christ, and I don't care how you attempt to explain this away, you can not get around the fact that JUDAS WAS ONE OF THEM, it is explicit and clear in John 6:70, and John 17:9-12.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are out of line.

Negative...sir. Not in that application, and not to that particular poster at that time.

You are absolutely wrong....You appear to not know some of the nasty things S.N. has Pm'ed to Dr. J...

Because you speak from obvious ignorance.

 

[Revmitchell]

Negative...sir. Not in that application, and not to that particular poster at that time.

You are absolutely wrong....You appear to not know some of the nasty things S.N. has Pm'ed to Dr. J...

Because you speak from obvious ignorance.

Actually I speak from experience. I have known him for a number of years. And he is not an anti-semite. That accusation is extreme and out of line.

 

[Benjamin]

LOL...idiotic

[snipped]

Last edited by Dr. Bob; Today at 10:19 AM. Reason: Name calling. First part was accurate, *[] but not the slur *{bias in our face}

Please ...your deluding yourself that you do! Too bad we cant let my origional comment stand because that's what you truly are.

Hmm...

Another example of EWF name calling because someone merely said he is a Calvinist:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2003003&postcount=4

Hmm...

EWF obviously takes great offense to being referred to as a Calvinist yet he lashes out with his stereotypical examples of unethical, yet typically claimed to be “logical” debate methods [usually accompanied with his treasured horse laugh fallacy] but it appears Dr. JamesAch is a step ahead of him on the issue of his roots also.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87103

As we can all see Dr. JamesAch pinpoints the evasion of the typical opposition to it roots demonstrated in here in that not only does EWF attack when the doctrines of Calvinist are mentioned, but does so with very poor debate ethics and goals – EWF “logically” reasons it is “dirty name calling to call him a Calvinist and that that somehow justifies him to call dirty names back...hmm...

- But yet it stands that we still we know that you are a Calvinist EWF and how we know this. Now for a little of your {justifiable???} typical style of "logical" debate back at you: [horselaugh] :laugh::laugh: [/horselaugh] ...