Could Judas have done otherwise, than to betray Christ? (LUKE 24:44, LUKE 18:31)

Concerning Judas, not only does God's Word say that the Scriptures WOULD BE FULFILLED, but that the Scriptures also HAD TO BE FULFILLED, and according to Christ Himself; the Scriptures WILL BE FULFILLED!

Judas actions, were BOUND by Scripture (God's Decree, Eternal Word) not by his "free will" - he could have NOT DONE otherwise NOR did God MERELY foreknew what Judas would do BUT all of Judas actions were by the decree and plan of God. Besides the fact, Scripture CANNOT be broken (john 10:35).

The DECREE of God - Is not so much as a command but rather a previous determination of God before the Creation of the world of what would come to pass as of certainty resulting from his divine council and will relating to His eternal purposes that will glorify Himself in all things.

Predetermined purposes are based upon a predetermined plan. Both, the eternal purposes and plan of God are on both sides of the same coin; they cannot be separated. Both are DELIBERATE commitments of God in reaching the same end goal. Furthermore, they both come to pass, not only by the desire/intentions of God's heart but more importantly by the will/determination of God which reverts back to what He has BEFOREHAND eternally PURPOSED TO FULFILL; all that He has pre-planned - deriving from His perfect council.

LET US CONSIDER SOME SCRIPTURE VERSES:

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost EXCEPT THE SON OF DESTRUCTION [Judas], that the SCRIPTURE WOULD BE FULFILLED. - John 17:12

“Brothers, the SCRIPTURE HAD TO BE FULFILLED, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David CONCERNING JUDAS, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office. - Acts 1:16-25

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. BUT THE SCRIPTURES WILL BE FULFILLED, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I AM TELLING YOU NOW, BEFORE IT TAKES PLACE, THAT WHEN IT DOES TAKE PLACE YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT I AM. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, ONE OF YOU WILL BETRAY ME.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. - John 13:18-26

So, I ask again - what say you? Could Judas have done otherwise, as to betray Christ? Could Judas have done otherwise based on his "free will?"

If you say yes, then how do you reconcile what Scripture has plainly stated concerning Judas' predetermined fate?

(1) that Scripture HAD TO BE FULFILLED concerning Judas - Acts 1:16-25

(2) that Scripture WILL BE FULFILLED concerning Judas - John 13:18-26 (be careful not to make Christ out to be a liar, a false prophet and a god other than Yahweh)

And if you say no:

(1) then you are acknowledging along with me that Judas actions were inevitable and certain to come to pass according to what Scripture has declared concerning him

(2) and also that his actions was not based upon his "free will" or MERELY God's foreknowledge (for God 'foreknew' that Judas could have not done otherwise as to fulfill scripture) BUT RATHER upon the Decree of God - seeing that what God has decreed would come to pass in spite of Judas's 'will' having been free or not..

Question for those who insist Judas was "free" to do otherwise:

So if God foreknew according to Judas 'free will' that it was possibly for him to do otherwise - could Judas as an actual fact still do otherwise than what Scripture has already declared concerning him by way of prophecy? If yes, then how is that possible without contradicting the scriptures? Chapter and Verse please.

Nonetheless, the eternal purposes of God are NOT dependant on any future so called free will choices of man; on the contrary; just the opposite, man's will is SOLELY dependant upon the Decree of God which consist of His purposes and plan to which no man can or will thwart!

---------------------------------

Many plans (according to his desire/will) are in a man's heart, But the purpose of the LORD will [ALWAYS] prevail. - Proverbs 19:21

The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (according to their desire/will). The counsel of the LORD [ALWAYS] stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation. - Psalm 33:10-11

By Aaron Fisher

Babies born sinful according to scripture? What does God's Word actually teach?

 

Scripture states that God sent His Son in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH (romans 8:3). Question. Is this "flesh" spoken of in (romans 8:3) a reference to newly born babies as well? YES! Jesus has declared (john 3:6) that which is born of flesh (same Greek word regarding romans 8:3) is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit. Therefore, since newborn babies are born to the same "sinful" flesh that Jesus was sent into the world in the likeness of - infants along with every other class of people are born with a sinful nature just the same - for you cannot separate ones nature (innate natural desires) and ones flesh (sinful desires and works of sinful flesh) from one another; the two are inseparable. For example, if ones flesh is sinful; then ones nature is as well. Babies are born in sin; with a sin nature - deserving of God's wrath along with the rest of mankind simply because of their nature alone to which we are all born to. Mere flesh cannot enter the Kingdom of God; one must be born again - including infants if they are indeed to enter into the Kingdom at all. This is why Ephesians 2:3 speaks of the very nature of which man is born to as deserving of God's wrath because we are born sinful or as sinners in spite of having not done any evil deeds as of yet because our default disposition as a sinner when born is considered to be a slave to sin as to only obey unrighteousness. The very nature to which we are born can ONLY bear fruit which leads to death (romans 7:5). Therefore, the only fruit that any human being can bear according to their sinful nature would lead to condemnation apart from becoming born again. Man's very nature alone to which he was born is enough to send that person to the Lake of Fire. Sure, the scriptures state that mankind will be judged according to our works; however if one is not able to bear good fruit from any works according to their sinful nature; regardless of whatever defining characteristic you may put forth or assign to the individual - that person will still be condemned because that person while in his flesh apart from any works could NEVER bear fruit to please God nonetheless because of his nature. The unclean or impure according to sinful flesh to which we are born can't inherit the Kingdom of God; including newborn babies. The "nature" of the sinful baby must be changed in order for that baby to enter the Kingdom - and if the baby's nature must be changed; then prior to the change of that baby's nature; that baby by default could not enter the Kingdom but rather perish as to enter the Lake of Fire along with the rest of wicked sinners.

A FURTHER ARGUMENTATION

There is no condemnation for all those who are "in Christ" - ROMANS 8:1. Therefore, God has the right to judge everyone who is not "in Christ" but are yet still "in Adam" - including babies. Apart from any works; that being good or evil - that baby is still considered to be a sinner (ROMANS 5:19). Newborn babies are born into the world as a "sons of disobedience" (EPHESIANS 2:2) for this is his or her standing or status in the world; as a sinner. Furthermore, scripture declares God has a right to fashion some individuals as vessels of dishonor having been prepared beforehand (before they are born) for destruction; even though ALL OF MANKIND indeed stands condemned already. Consider Esau; his fate was sealed before he was born. If God sealed Esau's fate before he was born; then what's the difference between a baby that's already condemned prior to having been born and the condemnation beforehand for example of an unbelieving elderly individual having been born as well but who lived a long life but who's deeds are still considered evil nonetheless? There is no difference! They both are still considered to be sinners and they both will be condemned as sinners - one having been condemned without works as a sinner (newborn baby) and the other being condemned according to their works as a sinner (elderly individual); and rightfully so. There is no injustice with God; he has the right to fashion each vessel as He sees fit. If a baby is to be condemned; then that baby will be condemned as one who is a sinner without works having not been chosen beforehand prior to it's birth unto salvation. In order for you to argue against my position; then you would have to explain biblically - how is it possible for a baby who is found not to be "in Christ" when born be something other than as to not stand condemned before God as not "in Christ" but still "in Adam" upon their death on judgement day?

By Aaron Fisher 

Doomed from the Womb? (A short response to Leighton Flowers, Warren McGrew, and Jordan Hatfield).

 

The issue is not whether the "non elect" are "doomed from the womb" as the scriptures essentially claim (romans 9:22) but more importantly; the main question at hand should be - would God be 'just' in sending the soul of a newborn infant into Hell? The answer to this question is YES. God is not obligated to save anyone. Although, scripture has revealed that He has indeed determined to obligate Himself to save a particular people for His own glory in order to display His mercy and glorious grace. Therefore, if every newborn who dies at birth has somehow escaped condemnation as a sinner; then ultimately, every newborn who dies at birth must be considered among God's elect in order for this to be true. 

And even though, scripture teaches that apart from God's election beforehand, no one can be saved; at the same time; the scripture nonetheless nowhere claims that every newborn infant who dies at birth must be considered saved; for everyone that shall be saved has been given to the Son from the Father as God's elect before creation. 

Therefore, and in conclusion - the only thing we know to be true according to scripture is that if a newborn infant should die prematurely and would be considered saved upon their death; then that infant would likewise be also considered as one of God's elect; having been destined or prepared for glory beforehand (prior to their birth) just like Jacob and Isaac was. However, the scriptures nowhere claims that every newborn who may die prematurely has been given to the Son for redemption leading to salvation.

Furthermore , the condemnation of any sinner; in particular a newborn infant would be a just condemnation because the very sinful nature as a son of disobedience to which the newborn infant was born to is rightfully deserving of God's wrath. Every sinner (including infants) found not to be in Christ but still in Adam upon their death can rightly be judged by God in spite of any decree set beforehand for God's honor is of more value and importance not only in the salvation of every man but also in the salvation of every newborn infant who may die in their infancy. If there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (romans 8:1), then how is it possible for one to argue that a newborn who may die in their infancy is somehow automatically saved who is not found to be in Christ at the time of their death? In order for those who may argue that newborn infants who die prematurely must be granted immunity from the affects of the fall of our first parents and the penalty of sin must also successfully argue from scripture that God's grace can be demanded apart from His sovereign choice to save whom He wills. To God be the glory!

See video here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HblO1ex4tJw&t=6657s

By Aaron Fisher