What is Lordship Salvation?

[Havensdad]

I posted multiple translations (including without bias to those I may not view as completely reliable) that boast use of original source manuscripts and multiple translators of eminence and scholarship that refute your view, I would suggest your reasoning is a bit faulty.

You posted no such thing. The sources you quoted were NOT interacting with the Greek text.

That or the scholarship of the translators leaves them with "not have(ing) the slightest knowledge of Greek"

I guess according to you, the actual rules of a language mean nothing. How does "are sanctified" express a participle (ing word)? What exactly is your argument? Are you denying that the word is a participle? I believe I posted the word.

I refuse to argue with someone who will just deny, without basis, anything posted. I have posted the actual word. It is a present passive participle. There is no denying that. "are" is not an accurate translation.

You stated, "Lastly, JUSTIFICATION, being "made perfect", is a decree. SANCTIFICATION, the fleshly reality that is gradually brought into concourse with this declaration throughout the course of ones life, most certainly is not."

Perhaps you are correct, however as you search the Scriptures more upon this matter, and post in "progress or no progress" such verses and the context which show sanctification is "gradually brought..." we can further the discussion there.

Despite your assertion on this verse, which I have shown is not accurate according to the multiple translators, I have not found such (gradually brought...) a verse anywhere in the Scriptures, perhaps you will.

But be sure to follow the OP of that thread.

Progressive sanctification is found throughout the text of scripture. But I won't discuss a subject with someone who denies plain reality.

 

[Winman]

There is no "Choice" in that voice at all. The only "Choice" in that text, is the choice of the Maker, who has "Blinded their eyes."

Choice is specifically negated. Joh 12:39 "Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,"


Could:dunami "to be able to do something"

That is very clear. Why don't you just accept what it says?

If these men were unable to believe, then why must God blind them? The fact that God blinded them proves they had the ability to see.

And pertaining to the OP. We see that a believer does not always reject the whole world and follow Jesus.

Jhn 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

These chief rulers were believers, the scriptures say so. But they did not confess Jesus publically for fear of being put out of the synagogue.

A lordship salvationist would say these particular chief rulers were lost. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, but the scriptures say they were believers.

 

[Havensdad]

If these men were unable to believe, then why must God blind them? The fact that God blinded them proves they had the ability to see.

And pertaining to the OP. We see that a believer does not always reject the whole world and follow Jesus.

Jhn 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

These chief rulers were believers, the scriptures say so. But they did not confess Jesus publically for fear of being put out of the synagogue.

A lordship salvationist would say these particular chief rulers were lost. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, but the scriptures say they were believers.

Woah there! One thing at a time. I am a busy man. I don't have time to respond to 50 different topics. I was only responding to one claim right now. It was said that these men had a choice. The text clearly says they did not. We also see clearly in this text that whatever "choice" is, it is not to "believe", rather "believe" is a result. For the text says that they had no choice.

Once you admit that, at least in this case, they had no choice, maybe we can move on to the topic at hand.

 

[Winman]

Woah there! One thing at a time. I am a busy man. I don't have time to respond to 50 different topics. I was only responding to one claim right now. It was said that these men had a choice. The text clearly says they did not. We also see clearly in this text that whatever "choice" is, it is not to "believe", rather "believe" is a result. For the text says that they had no choice.

Once you admit that, at least in this case, they had no choice, maybe we can move on to the topic at hand.

Time for church, I will respond later.

 

[Winman]

Woah there! One thing at a time. I am a busy man. I don't have time to respond to 50 different topics. I was only responding to one claim right now. It was said that these men had a choice. The text clearly says they did not. We also see clearly in this text that whatever "choice" is, it is not to "believe", rather "believe" is a result. For the text says that they had no choice.

Once you admit that, at least in this case, they had no choice, maybe we can move on to the topic at hand.

OK, now I have time to answer.

John 12:39 is the ONLY verse in all of scripture that says men "could not believe". Can this verse be pulled out of context to teach that all men lack the ability to believe and that supernatural regeneration is necessary for all men to be able to believe? No. This verse applies only to the specific persons spoken of and it is an abuse of scripture to say it is teaching total inability in all men. In fact, this passage is not teaching these men were "unable" to believe, it teaches the exact opposite. Read carefully;

Jhn 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

You cannot separate verse 39 from 40. Verse 40 is a continuation of verse 39 and gives the scripture spoken by Isaiah.

These particular men "could not believe" because God had blinded them. The fact that God blinded them proves they had the ability to believe, else blinding would not be necessary.

You don't have to put a blindfold on a man born blind to blind him, you don't have to do anything to blind him, he is blind. You put a blindfold on a seeing person to prevent them from seeing. Ever play pin the tail on the donkey when you were a kid?

Now, you know this, it is almost silly to have to argue this point with Calvinists. Common sense and simple logic argues these men had the ability to believe, or else it would be utterly unnecessary for God to blind them. I don't believe God goes about doing unnecessary things.

This verse is similar to the verse spoken of Joseph's brothers in Genesis;

Gen 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

Is this verse teaching that it was absolutely impossible for Joseph's brothers to speak peacefully to him? No. In fact, his brothers did speak peacefully to him years later when they were reunited in Egypt. The reason they could not speak peacefully to Joseph at this time is because they were full of hate and envy. The scriptures do not teach this condition was permanent, in fact we know it was not.

And this was the case with these men also. Pilate knew that the chief priests and rulers delivered Jesus out of envy. They were just like Joseph's brothers.

These men were temporarily blinded by God to bring about God's purpose that Jesus would be delivered and crucified, just as God allowed Joseph's brothers to remain in their hate and envy so that they would sell Joseph into slavery to bring down Joseph to Egypt that he might save them afterward. This does not mean they were unable to repent later, in fact, they did.

And, we see in Acts that many of the men who did not believe in Jesus and cried for his crucifixion later repented and believed on Christ.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

These men, like the chief rulers also saw the wonders and signs which Jesus did, but did not believe and crucified Jesus. But did they remain in this state?

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?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

These same men who had before rejected Jesus in unbelief were now pricked in the heart by the preaching of God's word. They now saw and understood Jesus was the promised Christ. They recognized their peril and asked Peter what could they do to be delivered out of such a perilous position.

Note that Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. We know this means to believe, because no one has remission of sins until they first believe on Jesus.

Was this done by regeneration? No, because Peter told them if they repent and be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of sins (which requires faith), then afterward they would receive the Holy Spirit.

So, these men who rejected Jesus were not unable to believe, although they were temporarily blinded to bring about God's purpose.

God would not have needed to blind these men if they were unable to believe, that is plain common sense. This passage does not prove Total Inability, in fact it refutes it.

 

[DHK]

There is no "Choice" in that voice at all. The only "Choice" in that text, is the choice of the Maker, who has "Blinded their eyes."

Choice is specifically negated. Joh 12:39 "Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,"


Could:dunami "to be able to do something"

That is very clear. Why don't you just accept what it says?

I do. But you are not accepting it. You are ignoring the context.
The only reason they "could not believe" is the same reason Judas did not believe. It was a fulfillment of prophecy. It says so right in the passage. "that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled." Yet before that they were given the choice. God knew they would refuse and the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled.

 

[Greektim]

I do. But you are not accepting it. You are ignoring the context.
The only reason they "could not believe" is the same reason Judas did not believe. It was a fulfillment of prophecy. It says so right in the passage. "that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled." Yet before that they were given the choice. God knew they would refuse and the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled.

Yet before that they were given the choice. God knew they would refuse and the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled.

And if God cannot be wrong, then this "choice" is a silly concept since it was predetermined by God's infallible knowledge. That is how your argument seems to defeat itself.

 

[Havensdad]

OK, now I have time to answer.

I am going to ignore your answer. I did not read it, and will not. As I said, I do not have time to argue fifty different points. I guess you do not want to engage in point by point discussion.

 

[freeatlast]

I do. But you are not accepting it. You are ignoring the context.
The only reason they "could not believe" is the same reason Judas did not believe. It was a fulfillment of prophecy. It says so right in the passage. "that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled." Yet before that they were given the choice. God knew they would refuse and the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled.

So God new they would refuse and then He wrote prophesy around what He knew? Doesn't that make God subject to man?

 

[Iconoclast]

Found this online:
THE BELIEVER'S
PRACTICE

Those who are sanctified - This could be paraphrased as "those who are continually being sanctified, set apart or made holy" (see more discussion below). The NIV translation is more accurate in this passage than the NASB.

"By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (NIV)

Sanctified (37) (hagiazo [word study] form hagios [word study] = set apart ones in turn from a = privative + ge = the earth ~ because everything offered or consecrated to God was separated from all earthly use) means to set apart (or be set apart), to make holy, to consecrate (as of things set apart for sacred purposes).

Hagiazo - 29x in 26v - Mt 6:9; 23:17, 19; Lk. 11:2; Jn. 10:36; 17:17, 19; Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 15:16; 1 Co. 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; Eph. 5:26; 1Th 5:23; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 1:1; Rev. 22:11 and is rendered in the NAS by -- hallowed(2), keep holy(1), sanctified(16), sanctifies(2), sanctify(7).

A sanctified person is one set apart from ordinary (profane, common, "vulgar" [originally meant "common"]) use to be God’s own possession, for His use, and enjoyment (cp 1Co 6:19, 20). The opposite of sanctification is profanation (the act of making profane - treating with abuse, irreverence and/or contempt).

Without going into great detail, it should be noted that there are four types of sanctification in Scripture:

pre-conversion sanctification,
positional sanctification (our initial salvation experience when we were justified by faith in Christ, representing a one time setting apart, eg Acts 26:18),
practical sanctification (where believers live day by day, thus representing an ongoing event until the next stage of our salvation, cp 1Co 1:18),
and perfect sanctification (or glorification, when we see Jesus we will be like Him, 1John 3:2, 3). (See also Three Tenses of Salvation). As you read Hebrews sanctification is used several times and the context should help determine which meaning is in view but sometimes only knowing the verb tense will aid this distinction.

Hagiazo means to render or acknowledge to be venerable or to hallow. It means to separate from things profane and dedicate to God, to consecrate and so render them inviolable. It means to purify or cleanse, either externally as in the Levitical system or to purify by expiation so that one is free from the guilt of sin. In general, Christians are called "holy ones" indicating that they are those who have been freed from the impurity of wickedness, having been brought near to God by grace through faith. This latter meaning is seen in Acts were Luke records Jesus' charge to Paul to go to the Gentiles...

to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified (describes the initial setting apart at the time of salvation) by faith in Me.' (Acts 26:18)

Hagiazo is in the present tense, passive voice which signifies that believers are "works in progress" so to speak. We are all involved in the process of being continually sanctified. This process will not cease until the day we see Jesus face to face and are then glorified forever. The passive voice signifies that the process is being carried out by an outside force acting upon and in believers. The outside force (Who is at the same time the indwelling source - 1Cor 3:16, 1Cor 6:19-note) is the Spirit of Christ, Who is making us holy by exertion of His power, not as a result of our own power. (Cp Jesus in Hebrews 2:11-note]) This process is referred to as Practical sanctification is a day by day (moment by moment) growth in holiness of believers who are in Christ positionally (positional sanctification - see 1Th 4:3-note) In summary, Hebrews 10:14 describes a process whereas Hebrews 10:10-note describes our position in Christ.

We are continually being brought to the full purpose (telos = goal) for which we were created (Christlikeness) and while we are now in process, one day we will be like Him for we shall see Him face to face (1Jn 3:2-note). Lord, hasten the day. Amen! While the Spirit is continually sanctifying us, that truth does not give us license to live any way we please. Nor does it mean that we simply "let go and let God" as some falsely teach. In a somewhat mysterious way (at least to me) we as believers still have a responsibility to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Php 2:12-note), even while the Spirit indwelling us gives us the desire and the power to "work out our salvation! (See Php 2:13NLT-note) This "mysterious" process of growth in holiness, in greater and greater degrees of Christlikeness or of progressive sanctification (these are synonymous phrases) is what I like to refer to as "Sacred Synergism" (adapted from Jerry Bridges' book I highly recommend entitled The Bookends of the Christian Life).

John Piper explains that...

What this means is that you can know that you stand perfect in the eyes of your heavenly Father if you are moving away from your present imperfection toward more and more holiness by faith in his future grace. Let me say that again, because it is full of encouragement for imperfect sinners like us, and full of motivation for holiness. This verse means that you can have assurance that you stand perfected and completed in the eyes of your heavenly Father not because you are perfect now, but precisely because you are not perfect now but are "being sanctified", "being made holy", that, by faith in God's promises, you are moving away from your lingering imperfection toward more and more holiness. (See Hebrews 10:32, 33, 34, 35; 11:24, 25, 26 etc. for examples of how faith in future grace sanctifies, cp 1Peter 1:13-note) (John Piper's entire message "Perfected for All Time by a Single Offering")

KJV Bible Commentary notes that here in Hebrews 10 where we see the verb sanctify (here and Hebrews 10:10) used twice the writer is describing...

the twofold nature of salvation (see Three Tenses of Salvation). The believer possesses a positional, judicial standing of righteousness and, second, a remaining need for practical, progressive holiness. Three factors within this verse make perfected absolute, suggesting the eternal security of the believer. The word itself (Greek teleioo from telos = goal) involves completion, the bringing of something to its end. Second, the use of the Greek perfect tense (have been sanctified -- He 10:10-note) suggests that the perfection has been accomplished and its effects are continuing. Third, the modifier, forever, expresses security for the believer.

The need, however, of a progressive sanctification is expressed by the word sanctified. The use of the present participle implies the thought of a sanctification that is continuing, rather than completed. There is an initial, or positional, sanctification involved in regeneration (1Cor 1:2; 6:1). Equally, there is a progressive sanctification by which the Holy Spirit continually maintains and strengthens the holiness imparted in regeneration (Ro 6:19-note; 2Cor 7:1-note; 1Th 4:3-note). Finally, there exists for the people of God an ultimate or completed sanctification whereby we will be freed from even the very presence of sin within our lives (1Th 5:23-note). Even though the believer’s sanctification is still in progress, yet because of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, he stands eternally secure and perfect because of Christ’s righteousness (2Cor 5:21). (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson or Logos) (Bolding added)

Oswald Chambers writes on The Impartial Power of God

We trample the blood of the Son of God underfoot if we think we are forgiven because we are sorry for our sins. The only reason for the forgiveness of our sins by God, and the infinite depth of His promise to forget them, is the death of Jesus Christ. Our repentance is merely the result of our personal realization of the atonement by the Cross of Christ, which He has provided for us. ". . . Christ Jesus . . . became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption . . ." ( 1Co 1:30 ). Once we realize that Christ has become all this for us, the limitless joy of God begins in us. And wherever the joy of God is not present, the death sentence is still in effect.

No matter who or what we are, God restores us to right standing with Himself only by means of the death of Jesus Christ. God does this, not because Jesus pleads with Him to do so but because He died. It cannot be earned, just accepted. All the pleading for salvation which deliberately ignores the Cross of Christ is useless. It is knocking at a door other than the one which Jesus has already opened. We protest by saying, "But I don’t want to come that way. It is too humiliating to be received as a sinner." God’s response, through Peter, is, ". . . there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). What at first appears to be heartlessness on God’s part is actually the true expression of His heart. There is unlimited entrance His way. "In Him we have redemption through His blood . . ." ( Ephesians 1:7-note). To identify with the death of Jesus Christ means that we must die to everything that was never a part of Him.

God is just in saving bad people only as He makes them good. Our Lord does not pretend we are all right when we are all wrong. The atonement by the Cross of Christ is the propitiation God uses to make unholy people holy. (My Utmost for His Highest)

><>><>><>

 

[DHK]

So God new they would refuse and then He wrote prophesy around what He knew? Doesn't that make God subject to man?

Your logic is:
God knew what food you would eat. You ate the food that God knew you would eat. Therefore you are smarter than God, and God is subject to you??
Your circular reasoning is astounding.

 

[freeatlast]

Your logic is:
God knew what food you would eat. You ate the food that God knew you would eat. Therefore you are smarter than God, and God is subject to you??
Your circular reasoning is astounding.

That was your reasoning not mine. It was a question because of what you wrote.

 

[DHK]

That was your reasoning not mine. It was a question because of what you wrote.

If you were asking a sincere question I apologize. No it does not make God subject to man.
God is omniscient. He knows the beginning from the end. For example, He knew Christ would be born of a virgin but he did not force Mary into that situation. Mary chose to be that willing vessel. Joseph could have chosen to divorce her. We see the story of one of obedience. But that doesn't mean they didn't have the chance or opportunity not to obey. They weren't forced to obey. Based on God's omniscience, God wrote part of that story long before it happened, but he never forced it to happen. They still had choices within the sovereign will of God. It is God that knew what they would do even before Adam sinned. They had choices, but God knew about those choices. They were not forced upon them. God is still in control at all times. Man cannot thwart his will.

 

[jonathan.borland]

1 Sam 23:11-13 shows that God knows even what won't happen. Just because he knows all possibilities doesn't mean that all possibilities are predetermined to occur, since that is impossible nonsense. The decision to stay and be captured or leave and be free was David's. Of course God knew what he would choose, but the choice was David's. And this has what to do with Lordship Salvation???

 

[DHK]

1 Sam 23:11-13 shows that God knows even what won't happen. Just because he knows all possibilities doesn't mean that all possibilities are predetermined to occur, since that is impossible nonsense. The decision to stay and be captured or leave and be free was David's. Of course God knew what he would choose, but the choice was David's. And this has what to do with Lordship Salvation???

We were okay at pages 7 and 8, until FAL threw out that bomb that "faith is a work," which it is not. Then the discussion went into the origin of faith. From faith it goes to choice in believing. At page 7 the discussion was on both repentance and faith. Also it was about sanctification. All of these topics are related to LS.

 

[Herald]

1 Sam 23:11-13 shows that God knows even what won't happen. Just because he knows all possibilities doesn't mean that all possibilities are predetermined to occur, since that is impossible nonsense.

I used to be amazed at that the inflammatory language used in theological debate. Not anymore. When you insult a whole group of people do you really think they're going to take whatever it is you have to say seriously? Isn't it better to argue your position on it's scriptural merit? If the other person isn't convinced of your position end the conversation with grace. Your display of Christian character may cause the other person to reconsider your argument at a later time. Also, it's an arrogant position to lump men such as John Gill, Benjamin Keach, Charles Spurgeon, John Dagg, John Piper, John MacArthur, Samuel Waldron, and Al Martin into the category of promoting "impossible nonsense."

 

[jonathan.borland]

I used to be amazed at that the inflammatory language used in theological debate. Not anymore. When you insult a whole group of people do you really think they're going to take whatever it is you have to say seriously? Isn't it better to argue your position on it's scriptural merit? If the other person isn't convinced of your position end the conversation with grace. Your display of Christian character may cause the other person to reconsider your argument at a later time. Also, it's an arrogant position to lump men such as John Gill, Benjamin Keach, Charles Spurgeon, John Dagg, John Piper, John MacArthur, Samuel Waldron, and Al Martin into the category of promoting "impossible nonsense."

So you think it was possible for David to stay and be captured and leave and not be captured at the same time? God knew both possibilities, but both possibilities did not occur, because, like I said, that is impossible nonsense!

 

[Don]

So you think it was possible for David to stay and be captured and leave and not be captured at the same time? God knew both possibilities, but both possibilities did not occur, because, like I said, that is impossible nonsense!

Oh, I dunno; quantum mechanics says both are possible....

(facetiousness intended to defuse hostile climate)

 

[Winman]

I am going to ignore your answer. I did not read it, and will not. As I said, I do not have time to argue fifty different points. I guess you do not want to engage in point by point discussion.

I had already answered your question (or rather your insistence that there was no choice) earlier.

The scriptures themselves show these men had choice.

Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Speaking of the same men in the same context, Jesus said these men "rejected" him. This is a conscious choice.

The definition of "rejecteth" here is;

1) to do away with, to set aside, disregard
2) to thwart the efficacy of anything, nullify, make void, frustrate
3) to reject, to refuse, to slight

Your refusal to consider my post is a perfect example. You are quite able to read and consider it, but you reject it. This was your CHOICE.

I rather believe you rejected my post because you cannot refute it.

Barnes on this verse;

They could not believe - See Mark 6:5; "He could there do no mighty works," etc. The works can and could are often used in the Bible to denote the existence of such obstacles as to make a result certain, or as affirming that while one thing exists another thing cannot follow. Thus, John 5:44; "How can ye believe which receive honor one of another." That is, while this propensity to seek for honor exists, it will effectually prevent your believing. Thus Genesis 37:4 it is said of the brethren of Joseph that they "could not speak peaceably unto him." That is, while their hatred continued so strong, the other result would follow. See also Matthew 12:34; Romans 8:7; John 6:60; Amos 3:3. In this case it means that there was some obstacle or difficulty that made it certain that while it existed they would not believe. What that was is stated in the next verse; and while that blindness of mind and that hardness of heart existed, it was impossible that they should believe, for the two things were incompatible. But this determines nothing about their power of removing that blindness, or of yielding their heart to the gospel. It simply affirms that while one exists the other cannot follow. Chrysostom and Augustine understand this of a moral inability, and not of any natural want of power. "They could not, because they would not" (Chrysostom in loco). So on Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin," etc., he says, "he does not say if is impossible for a wicked man to do well, but, because "they will not, therefore they cannot." Augustine says on this place: "If I be asked why they could not believe, I answer without hesitation, because they would not: because God foresaw their evil will, and he announced it beforehand by the prophet."

As you can see, scholars agree that the reason these particular men could not believe is because they "would not", not because they lacked the ability to believe. They chose not to believe because of their hatred and envy of Jesus, not because they were unable.

Calvinists often compare the unregenerate to a corpse. A corpse cannot make a choice whatsoever. It can neither "accept" or "reject" anything.

 

[Winman]

And if God cannot be wrong, then this "choice" is a silly concept since it was predetermined by God's infallible knowledge. That is how your argument seems to defeat itself.

This is a silly argument. We often know things that will surely occur before they happen. Astronomers can predict eclipses hundreds of years before they occur, this does not mean they determined them.

It is true that if God prophesies that a certain event will happen, then it will infallibly happen, but this does not prove God caused it, just an an astronomer predicting an eclipse does not cause the eclipse.

If God can only know what he has determined, then God is the author of sin, as God infallibly knew that Judas would betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. But we know from James 1:13 that God never tempts any man to sin. Therefore we know that God can foresee the actions of men though they were not determined by him.