Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

[Winman]

The only way my views presented above can be "easily disputed" is by the use of eisgesis or poor Biblical methods of interpretation as illustrated in your response. Irrationality and a hardened heart against the truth cannot be corrected by anyone but God and so I leave you in his hands. It does no good to point out the flaws in your method of interpetation as you are willingly blind and want to remain so. Anyone who denies the presence of indwelling sin within the child of God lives in delusion. Neither Romans 6 or Romans 8 deny it. Indeed, the very exhortations in Romans 6 and Romans 8 demand it as those absolutely free from indwelling sin would need no such exhortations to yeild to the Spirit and deny the flesh would they????

No, I was able to dispute you with scripture. You said a Christian is under a "law of sin" and I showed you scripture that says we have been made free from the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

You can read, does this verse say that Christians have been made free from the law of sin?

Yes or no?

Therefore, Romans 7:14-25 cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved person, as a saved person has been made free from the law of sin.

You should try taking your Calvinist blinders off when you read scripture, you might learn something.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, I was able to dispute you with scripture. You said a Christian is under a "law of sin" and I showed you scripture that says we have been made free from the law of sin.

First, I never said any Christian was "under the law of sin" - that is not what I said. I said that the law of INDWELLING SIN resides within all Christians. Romans 6 and 8 prove that as Paul exhorts Christians (not lost people) to YEILD (Rom. 6) to the Spirit and NOT TO YEILD to the flesh and to put to death the flesh (Rom. 8). If your flesh is without the law of indwelling sin then I expect you will never get sick and/or die because both are the direct results of and presence of "the law" of indwelling sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

First, I never said any Christian was "under the law of sin" - that is not what I said. I said that the law of INDWELLING SIN resides within all Christians. Romans 6 and 8 prove that as Paul exhorts Christians (not lost people) to YEILD (Rom. 6) to the Spirit and NOT TO YEILD to the flesh and to put to death the flesh (Rom. 8). If your flesh is without the law of indwelling sin then I expect you will never get sick and/or die because both are the direct results of and presence of "the law" of indwelling sin.

There is a difference between not being "under" the law of Sin in regard to condemnation or its penalty and not beiing under the POWER of indwelling sin in regard to its influence. Whenever a child of God chooses not to walk in the Spirit he is under the influence of indwelling sin or "the flesh" as no christian walks in the Spirit at all times or else there would be no need to exhort any Christian to "put off" the flesh and "put on" the new man.

 

[Winman]

First, I never said any Christian was "under the law of sin" - that is not what I said. I said that the law of INDWELLING SIN resides within all Christians. Romans 6 and 8 prove that as Paul exhorts Christians (not lost people) to YEILD (Rom. 6) to the Spirit and NOT TO YEILD to the flesh and to put to death the flesh (Rom. 8). If your flesh is without the law of indwelling sin then I expect you will never get sick and/or die because both are the direct results of and presence of "the law" of indwelling sin.

That is not what Paul is saying. He is saying we are no longer under the dominion of sin. Even if we do sin, sin no longer owns us, sin can no longer give us the wage of death.

We now belong to Jesus, we are his servant, his slave. We do not earn life, but Jesus gives us the free gift of life.

But no Christian is under the law of sin, we have been made free of it. Paul says this repeatedly in Romans.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Just as a woman who is married is bound to her husband, when we sinned we became bound to sin. The only escape is death. When we trusted Jesus we were baptized into his body and died with him to sin. We are no longer bound by sin, just as when a woman's husband dies, she is free to marry another man.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are dead to sin, it has no more dominion over us.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

We are not supposed to sin, and we have no license to sin. Nevertheless, sin no longer has dominion over us, we are free from sin and death. It cannot give us the wage of death now, now we belong to another, Christ.

So, you do not understand the concept at all.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, as I mentioned on another thread, brevity is your friend. Please don't consider my unwillingness to tackle one of your dissertations as a victory on your part, as any of us could overwhelm our opponents with a flood of words in defense of our perspective.

A straw man argument that perverts our view and YOU KNOW IT. We believe NEITHER! The will of fallen man is as free as the will of God in regard to choice but no more free. Your concept of free will is an isolated entity that is not controlled by anything external or internal to a being and that simply does not exist as it would require the will itself to be an independent creature.

I address Compatibilistic free will, which I assume you ascribe to in my other post directed to Reformed.

Regarding your accusation of 'straw man,' I suppose that depends upon your view of 'free will,' because I specifically had compatibilistic freedom in mind, as explained in that other post.

Another straw man argument. We believer NEITHER! The whole of human nature existed and acted in the Person of Adam at that point when Adam acted as our representative in the divine test. We sinned when Adam sinned and we fell when Adam fell and thus we are responsible for our own fallen condition

I understand that, however it doesn't address God's holding men responsible for their respond to His appeal for reconciliation. Who, if not God, decided that all men would be bound over to a totally depraved nature due to the Fall? Only God could have been the one to decide to make all men unable to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled from that fallen condition because of that fallen condition.

Do you understand what I'm addressing? We both agree that men were represented by Adam and that in him we all fell. But we also both agree that God sends an appeal for all men to be reconciled from that fallen condition. MY OBJECTION (represented by the analogy) is concerning man's inability to respond to that appeal, while being held responsible for their response that appeal. It doesn't make much sense to presume that men cannot response to a divine appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition because of that fallen condition. That would be like a doctor discovering the cure for cancer concluding that the cure for cancer can't be cure those with cancer because they have cancer. It really doesn't follow. The gospel, God's appeal to be reconciled from the fall, is something for which God holds men responsible, thus there is no reason to presume that their fallen condition prevents mankind for being able to respond to that appeal. Do you understand?

 

[Reformed]

Several points here:

1. I never said the word 'author' because I know Calvinists avoid that term (not sure why), but for some reason that word is excluded, while just about any other implication about God's complete control over evil choices is still maintained.

I do not keep company with Calvinists who avoid using the term "author" when refuting the contention God created evil and sin. Just because someone claims to subscribe to Calvinism does not mean they are, in fact, a Calvinist. Not every Baptist Calvinist is confessional and covenantal. I am in the latter category. The differences between these groups are not just cosmetic.

I believe God uses the sinful choices of men for His purposes, but God did not create sin or evil. Perhaps you can find some Baptist Calvinists who disagree with this confessional, Particular Baptist position. If so, then I disagree with them as much as I do with you.

2. It doesn't appear logical as even the document you site seems to be claiming: "A, but not A"

I think it is how you are reading it. The framers of the Confession are in effect saying, "God is not the author of, nor culpable for sin. However, God will use man's sinful actions to accomplish His purpose (second causes)."

3. I agree that God uses evil for his purposes, but that is a far cry from His being the origin of man's desires and thus evil choices. Calvinists typically maintain that man cannot originate anything, including evil desires, because that would necessitate God is 'informed' by something outside himself. You make take a different approach, I don't know?

I do take a different approach. God is not the "origin of man's desires and thus evil choices". Man is responsible for his own sin. At the risk of being redundant, God will use man's sin for His purpose, but He did not create that sin.

When I refer to man being responsible for his own sin, I am not using creative language. In other words man did not create something outside of God. The Reformers struggled with this. Truth be told theologians of all stripes have struggled with this. The Bible clearly tell us that God is not culpable for sin (Jas. 1:13). The Bible also tells us that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (1 JN. 1:5). Darkness is synonymous with sin/evil. So, while no theologian can adequately explain where evil came from, no one can lay the blame for evil with God. We must take what the Bible has revealed (no darkness at all) and not add to it in absence of other biblical evidence.

Compatibilistic Calvinism, which is the most common, maintains that a choice is free as long as it is 'what the agent wants'...or 'in accordance with the man's desire.' They teach men will choose according to their greatest desire and that God, the creator of their natures, is the ultimate determiner of those desires. So, even though man is acting 'freely' (according to his greatest desire, and doing what he wants), it was God's determination of that man's nature and thus desires which ensured which choice would be made, and it could not have been other than what it was.

Calvinists can claim that view of 'free will' is not violated all day long, but I maintain that a will whose desires are determined by someone other than himself, is not a free will. Claiming that the will is free so long as the man is doing what he wants means little when what he wants is ultimately determined by someone else.

I see this through a different lens. God's desires become our desires. This occurs as we become more and more like Christ. The Holy Spirit writes the law of God in our hearts and minds (Heb. 10:16). The internal work of the Spirit progressively sanctifies us. The Spirit's work affects our desires and our choices. We are not robots. We freely choose. If we are free to choose God, why can we not freely choose against God? Well, we do in the micro. Christians still sin. But the true child of God will progress in his Christian walk. They are a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17) that is drawn to God through the Spirit. If you ask me how God coordinates the use of second causes to accomplish His purpose, I will truthfully answer, "I do not know". Then why do I hold to my position? Because I find no evidence in Scripture to suggest otherwise.

Your post is very respectful, and well presented. I VERY MUCH appreciate that! And you are right. This is my commentary, but I certainly could take the time to show many places throughout scripture where God doesn't appear to be manipulating, controlling or in any way dictating his opponents wills, but still He is able to use those evil choices (as you stated) to accomplish His purposes. I can show other times where God is presented as being upset or frustrated with men's choices, and desirous of them to change...even making appeals for them to change and 'holding out his hands to them' or 'longing for them to come.'

This is why anecdotes are just that. The only real substantive discussion on doctrinal matters is found in the scriptures.

I believe these types of passages support my analogy...in fact much of what you quoted from the confessions of old very much support my position, but sometimes words need to be defined to know what is really meant by them. To claim that 'free will,' for example, is not violated means little with that term hasn't been defined. I believe compatibilistic free will is a violation of free will and could argue that point further if necessary.

I can pretty much guarantee the words of the framers of the 1689 LBC do not support your position. You are interpreting their words through your understanding, not the understanding they had when the wrote the Confession.

 

[Skandelon]

I do not keep company with Calvinists who avoid using the term "author" when refuting the contention God created evil and sin. Just because someone claims to subscribe to Calvinism does not mean they are, in fact, a Calvinist. Not every Baptist Calvinist is confessional and covenantal. I am in the latter category. The differences between these groups are not just cosmetic.

I can appreciate that distinction... I do understand there are various degrees of this perspective. The same is true on our side of the isle.

I believe God uses the sinful choices of men for His purposes, but God did not create sin or evil. Perhaps you can find some Baptist Calvinists who disagree with this confessional, Particular Baptist position. If so, then I disagree with them as much as I do with you.

I agree with that assessment and respect your stance. Apparently we don't disagree on this point.

I think it is how you are reading it. The framers of the Confession are in effect saying, "God is not the author of, nor culpable for sin. However, God will use man's sinful actions to accomplish His purpose (second causes)."

If indeed that is all they are saying then I have no disagreement with them...but I'm quite certain many (if not most) Calvinists would assert that God does more than merely permit and use sinful actions. I'm not suggesting you should agree with them, but just that your view doesn't seem typical.

When I refer to man being responsible for his own sin, I am not using creative language. In other words man did not create something outside of God. The Reformers struggled with this. Truth be told theologians of all stripes have struggled with this. The Bible clearly tell us that God is not culpable for sin (Jas. 1:13). The Bible also tells us that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (1 JN. 1:5). Darkness is synonymous with sin/evil. So, while no theologian can adequately explain where evil came from, no one can lay the blame for evil with God. We must take what the Bible has revealed (no darkness at all) and not add to it in absence of other biblical evidence.

I could not agree more.

I see this through a different lens. God's desires become our desires. This occurs as we become more and more like Christ. The Holy Spirit writes the law of God in our hearts and minds (Heb. 10:16). The internal work of the Spirit progressively sanctifies us. The Spirit's work affects our desires and our choices. We are not robots. We freely choose. If we are free to choose God, why can we not freely choose against God? Well, we do in the micro. Christians still sin. But the true child of God will progress in his Christian walk. They are a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17) that is drawn to God through the Spirit. If you ask me how God coordinates the use of second causes to accomplish His purpose, I will truthfully answer, "I do not know". Then why do I hold to my position? Because I find no evidence in Scripture to suggest otherwise.

I think we are in agreement here too, but my comments were more about one coming to faith, not necessarily the choices of one already redeemed. With that said, I too willingly admit we cannot know how certain things work and respect greatly who can admit that within their own system of thought.

I can pretty much guarantee the words of the framers of the 1689 LBC do not support your position. You are interpreting their words through your understanding, not the understanding they had when the wrote the Confession.

Well, not only do I agree with their apparent choice of words, but I agree with you explanations of them.

I reject the concept that God preselected a particular number of people to irresistibly save to the neglect of the rest of mankind, but regarding these issues we don't seem to have much disagreement.

 

[Reformed]

I reject the concept that God preselected a particular number of people to irresistibly save to the neglect of the rest of mankind, but regarding these issues we don't seem to have much disagreement.

This is where our positions diverge. The Calvinist view of election teaches that God predestined a people for His own and brings them into covenant with Himself (i.e. "saves them") to the exclusion of all others. The individual is brought into covenant with God through (according to the Reformed ordo salutis), election/predestination, the Atonement, the general or "gospel call", the effectual or "inward call", regeneration, conversion (faith & repentance), justification, sanctification, and glorification.

A few final thoughts...

I am thankful that you were able to see the distinction I made between Calvinistic Baptists and Confessional/Covenantal Baptists (often called "Reformed Baptists). The 17th Century Baptists fit this latter description. They are the ones who produced the 1644/46 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the later 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Their view was more Reformed than many of the Calvinistic Baptists of today.

Why is this helpful to our discussions here on the BB? Because there are two categories of Baptists that some mistakenly merge into one. As I said before, I am Confessional and covenantal. I am not a dispensationalist. I may agree with my Calvinistic Baptist brethren on soteriology, but we disagree substantially on many other topics. I believe in elder rule, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Covenant Theology et. al. I state this just to inform you that Calvinists have internal battles. If I understand your position correctly you would have a similar disagreement with those who believe in the foreseen faith view. You hold to the corporate election view. I owe you the courtesy of recognizing your view of election differently than those who hold to foreseen faith view.

 

[Skandelon]

Reformed, we disagree on some matters obviously, but you have thoroughly earned my respect. You make some important distinctions and are obviously very well versed in theology. My hats off to you brother...

 

[Reformed]

Reformed, we disagree on some matters obviously, but you have thoroughly earned my respect. You make some important distinctions and are obviously very well versed in theology. My hats off to you brother...

Skan, you also have my respect and thanks. It is good to dialogue in a way that glorifies God -- even in disagreement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, as I mentioned on another thread, brevity is your friend.

Read this carefully! Eight ponts to summarize why your whole position of corporate election is wrong is EXTREMELY BRIEF. Four points to summarize the contextual flow of John 6:29-65 is EXTREMELY BRIEF. I realize exactly what you are doing, but don't talk down your nose to me when you have not yet dealt at all with the most condemning point against your whole interpretation and that is the case of Judas found in the very context we are debating which proves election to office is not inseparable from election "to salvation." Any sunday school child who has been trained a few years in church knows that the call to apostleship occurred much later in the gospels than their call to follow Jesus and so they are not inseparable events. Just honestly deal with the objections rather than attempt to change the discussion to speculative philosophy. I know what you are doing and so do the others who support my position.

Please don't consider my unwillingness to tackle one of your dissertations as a victory on your part, as any of us could overwhelm our opponents with a flood of words in defense of our perspective.

Of course, nobody is wrong on this forum regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I address Compatibilistic free will, which I assume you ascribe to in my other post directed to Reformed.

I refuse to leave the sphere of God's Word and enter into the sphere of secular speculative philosophy to define or defend what I believe . The fact that you flee to that refuge to defend your position is another form of eisgesis in my opinion. I have defended my position from the scriptures alone and the scriptural terms alone and I will not entertain any speculative philosophy in this discussion. I provided you two clear Biblcial terms that clearly express my Biblical based positon and that is sufficient to demonstrate and illustrate my position. Deal with it from a Biblical basis or let's stop the discussion.

Do you understand what I'm addressing? We both agree that men were represented by Adam and that in him we all fell. But we also both agree that God sends an appeal for all men to be reconciled from that fallen condition. MY OBJECTION (represented by the analogy) is concerning man's inability to respond to that appeal, while being held responsible for their response that appeal. It doesn't make much sense to presume that men cannot response to a divine appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition because of that fallen condition. That would be like a doctor discovering the cure for cancer concluding that the cure for cancer can't be cure those with cancer because they have cancer. It really doesn't follow. The gospel, God's appeal to be reconciled from the fall, is something for which God holds men responsible, thus there is no reason to presume that their fallen condition prevents mankind for being able to respond to that appeal. Do you understand?

I understand you are running as fast as you can from the subject we had been discussing - corporate election - and ignoring the objections placed before you in a BRIEF EIGHT POINTS. I understand that quite well. Now you want to change the subject and I understand why.

 

[Skandelon]

Read this carefully!...I realize exactly what you are doing, but don't talk down your nose to me

Why..Why do you have to make this personal? You don't know me. You have no idea what my intent is. Maybe I just really don't like having to wade through tons of content in order to reply to you? Could that be it? Or does it have to be pride? And you are able to tell that by what I write through a forum? How about we just stick with the topic?

when you have not yet dealt at all with the most condemning point against your whole interpretation and that is the case of Judas

Asked and answered. I still have no idea why you think MY system, the one where people can make a choice to disregard God's calling, would have a problem with Judas. I already explained to you that he wasn't really ever called to apostleship..."they who go away from us were never really of us." He APPEARED to be, but wasn't. See, not that difficult, and I already took the time to write that twice now. How many more times do I need to type it before you will stop claiming that I'm ignoring it? This is why I got off the merry-go-round with you. I was just repeating myself to answer your same arguments over and over...I'm done.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why..Why do you have to make this personal?

Was it not you that said you wanted to give me some "personal" advice? You brought it down on a "personal" level. Did I ask you for "personal" advice? No, I did not. Do you think I am so stupid I can't see what you are doing? It seems very apparent that you do think I am that stupid, especially with this kind of follow up.

How about we just stick with the topic?ve

We were talking about "corporate election" were we not? I did not change topic but you did! You changed it to "personal advice" and then changed it again another topic as I pointed out in my last post. Perhaps you might consider practicing what you are preaching?

Asked and answered. I still have no idea why you think MY system, the one where people can make a choice to disregard God's calling, would have a problem with Judas. I already explained to you that he wasn't really ever called to apostleship..."they who go away from us were never really of us." He APPEARED to be, but wasn't. See, not that difficult, and I already took the time to write that twice now. How many more times do I need to type it before you will stop claiming that I'm ignoring it? This is why I got off the merry-go-round with you. I was just repeating myself to answer your same arguments over and over...I'm done.

First, I never saw this response and still don't know what post you placed it in.

Second, Jesus directly contradicts you by claiming he did choose Judas as an apostle and I quote:

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

He did not say "have not I chosen you ELEVEN"

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry[/U][/B].

Tell me, how can Judas FALL from an office He never was chosen unto and never fille?

 

[Skandelon]

Was it not you that said you wanted to give me some "personal" advice? You brought it down on a "personal" level.

You are right. I did. I apologize. I didn't think that was insulting (as 'looking down you nose' is), but apparently you took it as such and for that I'm sorry. I just didn't want to ignore your posts and for you not to know why. Ask around, most people don't like tackling very long posts, but I've been known to be to wordy as well. I was speaking from my past mistakes, but I should have sent that by PM.

Did I ask you for "personal" advice? No, I did not. Do you think I am so stupid I can't see what you are doing? It seems very apparent that you do think I am that stupid, especially with this kind of follow up.

No I don't. I think you might be too smart for your own good. Smart people like to talk alot more because they have a lot to explain...I just suggested you take it in more bite sized chucks so as not to overwhelm. Again, sorry if I offended...that wasn't my intent.

First, I never saw this response and still don't know what post you placed it in.

HERE IT IS

Second, Jesus directly contradicts you by claiming he did choose Judas as an apostle and I quote:

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

He did not say "have not I chosen you ELEVEN"

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry[/U][/B].

So, you believe he was saved and then lost his salvation? Was he really one of them, and then not one of them? Or were his motives always impure and was he always a fake that Jesus allowed to come in so as to accomplish a redemptive purpose? I'm not sure how you think this helps your view or in anyway affects mine.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are right. I did. I apologize.

I accept your apology.

HERE IT IS

So, you believe he was saved and then lost his salvation?

You are the one that argued that salvation and calling to apostleship were inseparable not I. I was arguing they were not inseparable but completely two different events separate by time and purpose. I pointed out that TWO different subjects are addressed John 17 and that being given by the Father is in reference to salvation in John 17:2-3 and John 6 and not apostleship.

 

[Skandelon]

You are the one that argued that salvation and calling to apostleship were inseparable not I.

So, what are you saying? That God would call an unregenerate/unsaved man to be his divinely appointed apostle for real? Don't you agree that he was included with them only for the purpose of fulfilling the plan? Surely you don't think Jesus called him in the same "irresistible" manner he did the others, do you? That is why your use of Judas is perplexing to me. You, not me, are the one who thinks God's call is irresistible. How does that fit your system for Judas to not be irresistibly drawn?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, what are you saying? That God would call an unregenerate/unsaved man to be his divinely appointed apostle for real? Don't you agree that he was included with them only for the purpose of fulfilling the plan? Surely you don't think Jesus called him in the same "irresistible" manner he did the others, do you? That is why your use of Judas is perplexing to me. You, not me, are the one who thinks God's call is irresistible. How does that fit your system for Judas to not be irresistibly drawn?

It is "perplexing" to YOU because you can't think outside your theological box. Your theological box demands that being elected to salvation and to apostolic office are inseparably connected. You have made this abundantly clear that is YOUR THINKING.

However, the facts of scriptural context repudiate the "box" you are trying to force them to fit. There are two indisputable clearly established Biblical facts:

1. Judas was without question chosen by Christ and the Father to the office of apostle:

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

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

Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;......17.... and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

There can be no question that both the Son and the Father CHOSE Judas to be an apostle.


2. Judas was NEVER a saved man :

Jn. 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Present tense "IS" and no "devil" is saved.

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

At minimum he is listed among those whom Christ knew from the beginning of their calling to follow him as disicples they were false professors among the "some of you that believe not."

So, he "IS" a devil at the chronological point of this discussion and according to John 6:64 Jesus knew "from the beginning" who the unbelievers were among his disciple and among which Judas is explicitly placed. This is long before John 17.

Jn. 17:12 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.

Hence, the Father gave Judas to Christ to be an Apostle, but the Father never gave Judas to Christ for eternal life (Jn. 17:2) and thus never gave Judas to Christ as part of that "ALL" of which NONE fail to come to Christ for eternal life and NONE given are ever lost (Jn. 6:37-39; 64-65).


Conclusion: You are "perplexed" because Scripture does not fit in your theological box and you can't think out of your box. Scripture demands Judas was given to the Son by the Father to be an apostle. Scripture demands the Father NEVER gave Judas to the Son for eternal life (Jn. 17:2) as ALL who come to Christ for eternal life, ALL do in fact come and NONE "of all" given are lost - Jn. 6:37-39).

Therefore, your interpretation of John 6 and 17 is simply wrong! John 17:2-3 and John 6 deals with the Father giving a specific number "as many as" and "OF ALL" to the Son for eternal life not apostleship, and ALL given do in fact come to Christ for eternal life and NONE given are lost. Hence, the call to apostleship and the call to follow Christ as Savior are not inseparable but very different in regard to purpose and time and Judas is indisputable proof of this.

 

[Skandelon]

It is "perplexing" to YOU because you can't think outside your theological box.

I could say the same to you...which is usually an indication of an argument not worth making.

Your theological box demands that being elected to salvation and to apostolic office are inseparably connected.

Actually, it just means that when God calls us to follow him, in WHATEVER capacity, that is also to call to eternal life. He doesn't call you to eternal life and then to follow him. His call to follow is a call to life. Most Christian scholars (even Calvinistic ones) agree with that, btw.

I'm not attempting to say that everyone is called to be an apostle, or that their calling wasn't unique in that regard. I'm simply pointing out that their calling to follow Christ resulted not only in their being an apostle but also in their getting eternal life....just as your call to follow Christ, in whatever capacity He were to call you would result in your salvation. You keep pointing to the part of the verse which speaks about them getting eternal life as if the intent of the author now has to be addressing all people who get eternal life and you are using that as you proof that the historical context regarding Israel being hardened, the apostles being set apart, and the world being sent the gospel appeal after Christ is lifted up doesn't matter to the context. Of course the Remnant from Israel reserved from the Hardening process and called to be apostles would receive eternal life, but that is not a basis by which to presume more than the text, within that context, actually states.

Plus, I'm not even trying to deny the fact that NNE can come Christ (believe in Christ, or follow Christ) UNLESS they are drawn, and that includes Jews and Gentiles of all kinds. So, again, I'm not sure what you THINK you got on me, but it just comes across that you haven't fully grasped my perspective yet.

All the time you are spending on Judas also goes to support this...I'm very familiar with the scholarly debates over these perspectives and this is NOT one of the approaches the opponents of this view take to rebut it...not one I've ever read in my 13 years of studying this topic. Maybe that my fault because I said something unclearly? I don't know, I just know that your rebuttal is...well...new to me and doesn't make much sense from my perspective. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, but its not clicking. Sorry

 

[Reformed]

May I add a slightly different contribution to the discussion? I agree with Biblicist that there is a distinction between Judas' calling as a disciple and the effectual call (calling to salvation). Judas was no more called to salvation than Pharaoh during the time of Moses. Judas, besides fuflling prophecy, is an example of 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us because they were never of us". Judas is an example of a false sheep in the fold.

Personally I would not use Judas to support either side of the Calvinist debate.

 

[Skandelon]

Reformed, would you say that God's call to follow Christ is his call to eternal life, or is there a call to eternal life, then another call to follow Christ? I think this rabbit trail is the result of a misunderstanding of my perspective regarding John 6, but I do think we should all be able to agree that God's call to follow Christ is His call to salvation.