PDA

View Full Version : What is Jesus referring to in John 15:16, and 16:3



Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 06:15 PM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only to Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers? Are we chosen first or do we have to first choose? It reads like we're chosen first.

"They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (16:3)

I thought everyone knew God so there are no excuses, right? Is Jesus not suggesting here that there are those who don't know God?

LandShark
Mar 26th 2013, 06:19 PM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers? Are we chosen first or do we have to first choose? It reads like we're chosen first.

"They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (16:3)

I thought everyone knew God so there are no excuses, right? Is Jesus not suggesting here that there are those who don't know God?









John 6:44 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Add that into the mix Nick... but after that I am out of this one. It will become another free will/predestination debate which in the end is fruitless. Obviously both positions exists in Scripture, the goal is through prayer to wait on God to reconcile them. I believe I understand it now, but I think each has to come to their own conclusion. Blessings!

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 06:29 PM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers? Are we chosen first or do we have to first choose? It reads like we're chosen first.

"They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (16:3)

I thought everyone knew God so there are no excuses, right? Is Jesus not suggesting here that there are those who don't know God?









Jewish students of that day selected their rabbis or teachers. In this instance, the order was reversed, the teacher selected the students!

There is no support here for the Calvinistic doctrine of arbitrary election. All that is taught here is that the apostles were called and chosen by the Lord. Also, we learn that the calling of disciples is by the gospel, the gospel is to be preached to all, all are called, those who respond are chosen, those who reject the gospel are lost. (2 Thess. 2:13; Mark 16:15, 16; Matt. 28:18-20.)

The factor which determined the perpetuation of their election was their faithfulness. So it is today, all are called (Mark 16:15, 16); not all are chosen, because not all obey the gospel (Rom. 10:16). Some, like Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), forsake the Lord after they become followers. Only those who are faithful to the end of life are assured of the reward. "Behold then the goodness and severity of God, toward them that fell, severity, but toward thee, God's goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." (Rom. 11:22.) Also, refer to verse 19.

They were chosen for the purpose of bearing fruit. What ever they asked in his name, they would receive. To ask in his name is to ask by his authority and in harmony with his will. Here the conditions are implied. (1 John 3:22; 4:6.)

And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
John 16:3 (KJV)

Why men, who regarded themselves as highly religious and the guardians of the faith could possibly find it in their hearts to do that opposed to the most basic principles of religion and morality is because they knew neither the Father nor the Son, and had fallen into fatal error because of wilful blindness.

(John 15:21) It is not meant that the Jews were not aware of the existence of God or, that they were not acquainted with Jesus. They Both knew in this, they were without a knowledge of the true nature of the Father and the Son, and they refused to consider the mission of Jesus. Here, as in John 15:22, their condemnation did not result from any want of information as to the identity of the Father and the Son, but to a wilful rejection of the true knowledge of them when it was offered to them. They had chosen darkness instead of light and their ignorance was deliberate and wilful.

TheDivineWatermark
Mar 26th 2013, 06:30 PM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only to Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers?

I believe it was a statement made to His disciples (at that time), because verse 27 says, "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning." Not that we should not take principles from it (the context; of which we can then apply, in some measure, to ourselves). John 6:70 is one place where it shows He had "chosen you twelve..." (to be His disciples).

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 06:31 PM
John 6:44 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Add that into the mix Nick... but after that I am out of this one. It will become another free will/predestination debate which in the end is fruitless. Obviously both positions exists in Scripture, the goal is through prayer to wait on God to reconcile them. I believe I understand it now, but I think each has to come to their own conclusion. Blessings!

Believe it or not, that has been my objective in addressing this issue. I think there are merits to both positions. They are not mutually exclusive as some would suggest. It doesn't have to be "this way or that" but there seems to be such overwhelming opposition to the predestination position.

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 07:15 PM
There is no support here for the Calvinistic doctrine of arbitrary election. All that is taught here is that the apostles were called and chosen by the Lord.

We should then assume ALL of what Jesus told or taught the disciples only applied to them or just parts of it? How do we know which teachings and statements were meant for them and not the masses? To Landshark's point (verse) above, if a man can't choose God until or unless God has first chosen him, and drawn him in grace to Himself (John 6:44), and if God does not draw all men equally, or offer the exact same opportunity to all men to be saved, then it would certainly seem that He is being partial, no? Why is it so easy to dismiss the alternative viewpoint? Rom 2:11 says "God does not show favoritism" or partiality. Can grace and partiality co-exist in the same sphere or it is impossible? Just because God extends His grace to some, does it require that He do it for everyone else?

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 07:19 PM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only to Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers? Are we chosen first or do we have to first choose? It reads like we're chosen first.This doesn't have anything to do with Him choosing us to believe and become saved while we have no choice in the matter. He was specifically speaking to the disciples there and talking about how they should go and bear fruit by way of preaching the gospel. They were chosen to be His closest disciples and to do the important work of preaching the gospel to the masses, starting in Israel, and making other disciples along the way. It was His choice to make those twelve His closest disciples, not theirs. Even Judas Iscariot was chosen, so Jesus didn't speak of being chosen in the sense of being chosen to believe and be saved.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

He chose them twelve in particular to be His closest followers. Has nothing to do with choosing them to be saved or else Judas Iscariot would've been saved.

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 07:23 PM
To Landshark's point (verse) above, if a man can't choose God until or unless God has first chosen him, and drawn him in grace to Himself (John 6:44), and if God does not draw all men equally, or offer the exact same opportunity to all men to be saved, then it would certainly seem that He is being partial, no? Why is it so easy to dismiss the alternative viewpoint? Rom 2:11 says "God does not show favoritism" or partiality. Can grace and partiality co-exist in the same sphere or it is impossible? Just because God extends His grace to some, does it require that He do it for everyone else?

No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

Those who the Father draws to Christ are those who are influenced by Him to come. The means is the gospel which is intended to be preached to all. (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16.) All are invited to come and those who do come to the Lord are those willing to respond to the gospel. (Matt. 11:28.) Some, like these unbelieving Jews, are not drawn, because they do not will to do so.

It has been said that a magnet draws iron, but not all objects are drawn by magnets, because all are not iron. One must be of the right disposition and have the proper response to the drawing power of the Father which he exercises through the gospel. This is shown to be true in the verse following which Jesus supported by teaching from the prophets. (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33, 34; Joel 3:16, 17; Micah 4:1.)

For there is no respect of persons with God.
Romans 2:11 (KJV)

God does not deal with men by partiality, for one against another. "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:35.) To respect a person is to be partial to him on account of his family relationship, wealth, learning, social or political standing. As God does not respect persons, the Jew stands before Him on the same ground as the Greek. Without some new means of approach, he is lost. If he can be made to see the hopelessness of his trust in his being a son of Abraham, his circumcision, his legal religion, and the partiality of God, he will be prepared for the message of "justification through faith in Christ."

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 07:25 PM
To Landshark's point (verse) above, if a man can't choose God until or unless God has first chosen him,That isn't what Jesus was teaching in John 15:16 when it comes to choosing whether or not to believe in Christ, so do you have any other scriptural support for this?


and drawn him in grace to Himself (John 6:44), and if God does not draw all men equally,Jesus said He would draw all men to Himself. Where does this concept of all not being drawn equally come from? You're either drawn or you're not and Jesus said He would draw all people to Himself (John 12:32).


or offer the exact same opportunity to all men to be saved, then it would certainly seem that He is being partial, no?Scripture repeatedly says that He is not partial so why are you trying to find a way to make Him out to be partial?


Why is it so easy to dismiss the alternative viewpoint?Because it doesn't line up with scripture.


Rom 2:11 says "God does not show favoritism" or partiality. Can grace and partiality co-exist in the same sphere or it is impossible?Impossible, IMO.


Just because God extends His grace to some, does it require that He do it for everyone else?I believe it is required in a sense because of who He is, which is a loving, impartial God. Also, scripture teaches that He extends His grace to all people.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 07:28 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with Him choosing us to believe and become saved while we have no choice in the matter. He was specifically speaking to the disciples there and talking about how they should go and bear fruit by way of preaching the gospel. They were chosen to be His closest disciples and to do the important work of preaching the gospel to the masses, starting in Israel, and making other disciples along the way. It was His choice to make those twelve His closest disciples, not theirs. Even Judas Iscariot was chosen, so Jesus didn't speak of being chosen in the sense of being chosen to believe and be saved.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

He chose them twelve in particular to be His closest followers. Has nothing to do with choosing them to be saved or else Judas Iscariot would've been saved.

How do you know Judas wasn't saved? If you study the story about Judas he hung himself after the resurrection. Many scholars believe that Judas had a major part to play with the events recorded in the Gospels. Judas was forgiven. The problem was he couldn't forgive himself. Did Judas repent? You tell me.

Matthew 27:3-5

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 07:33 PM
How do you know Judas wasn't saved?Because scripture says so.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

The son of perdition that Jesus mentioned here is widely understood to be Judas Iscariot because He was speaking of not losing any of the disciples except one. Well, obviously Judas Iscariot is the one who stopped following Him so it's obvious that Jesus was speaking of him.


If you study the story about Judas he hung himself after the resurrection. Many scholars believe that Judas had a major part to play with the events recorded in the Gospels. Judas was forgiven. The problem was he couldn't forgive himself.Where does it indicate that He asked God for forgiveness? It doesn't. And, again, Jesus said he was lost.

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 07:43 PM
Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
Matt 26:25 (KJV)

The record is clear that Jesus sat at meat "with the twelve disciples." This included Judas. Judas could not be absent, Judas went from this sacred feast to the enemies of Christ. (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18.)

When Jesus announced that one of the twelve would betray him, they were sorrowful and began "to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?" They were amazed, grieved, and doubtful. They did not understand His statement, so they asked "Is it I?" Jesus gave an answer by saying, "He that dipped his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me."

Jesus saw the disciples were grieving and agitated by what He said and gave a sign as to who would be the traitor. He makes a sign by which the traitor shall be known by fulfilling to the letter a prophecy. (Psalm 41:9.)

It may be that Judas dipped his hand with Jesus into this dish. Jesus then quoted a prophecy to be fulfilled and said, "woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed!" He then said that "good were it for that man if he had not been born."

After all the others had asked Jesus if they would betray him, Judas then asked, "Is it I, Rabbi?" The innocent disciples say "Lord," but the guilty one said "Rabbi." By this change Judas denied the claim that Jesus was his "Lord." Jesus answered mildly the insulting hypocritical question and said, "Thou hast said." This confirmed how gently Jesus deals with the bold insult of the hardened wretch that should betray him. And he shall be saved?

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 07:50 PM
Judas acknowledged his sin before man and God. He confessed - “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 07:54 PM
Judas acknowledged his sin before man and God. He confessed - “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

Luke 22:22 (KJV)
22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

The woe upon the traitor points him out as an object both of pity and of wrath. God's purpose was foretold by the prophet, yet the murderers and betrayer were without excuse. (Acts 2:22-24.)

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:23-24 (KJV)


This shows that Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Roman authorities according to a plan that had been outlined by the prophets. Jesus willingly, when His hour came, gave Himself into the hands of His enemy, and let them do what they would with Him. God had willed the death of Jesus (John 3:16 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+3%3A16)) and the death of Judas (Acts 1:16 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Ac+1%3A16)), but that fact did not clear Judas of the responsibility and guilt (Luke 22:22 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Lk+22%3A22)).

Judas acted as a free moral agent. Peter could say that "ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay." This places guilt upon those who took part in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews cried, "Crucify, crucify him" (Luke 23:21 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Lk+23%3A21)), and Pilate attempted to constrain them, but finally gave sentence against Jesus. Peter here made a bold charge against his hearers. They charged Peter and the other apostles with being drunk, but he charged them with the crucifixion of their Messiah.

RabbiKnife
Mar 26th 2013, 08:01 PM
I am not convinced that "none except the son of perdition has been lost" means lost spiritually. He certainly went to a quick destruction.

I find the actions of Judas in subsequent rejection of the money to be an act of repentance.

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, as there is too much of Judas in me.

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 08:04 PM
I am not convinced that "none except the son of perdition has been lost" means lost spiritually. He certainly went to a quick destruction.

I find the actions of Judas in subsequent rejection of the money to be an act of repentance.

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, as there is too much of Judas in me.

I am a sinner, too. But, when you read the scripture I posted it is hard to give Judas the "benefit of the doubt."

Would you want to be the recipient of God's wrath as quoted?

RabbiKnife
Mar 26th 2013, 08:20 PM
But for Jesus, I AM the recipient of God's wrath. Just like Judas.

I just don't see any need to interpret "lost" or the opposing of "kept" as to be a spiritual determination, especially in light of Judas' obvious remorse and act of repentance and restitution in returning the money.

Judas is not any different that I am.

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 08:26 PM
But for Jesus, I AM the recipient of God's wrath. Just like Judas.

I just don't see any need to interpret "lost" or the opposing of "kept" as to be a spiritual determination, especially in light of Judas' obvious remorse and act of repentance and restitution in returning the money.

Judas is not any different that I am.

Matthew 26:24 (KJV)
24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born.

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 08:27 PM
Judas acknowledged his sin before man and God. He confessed - “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”Why would He kill himself if he was saved? Would he not have been a changed man if he was saved? I don't see anywhere that says he put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ to be His Lord and Savior, do you? Jesus said he was lost. What do you think that means?

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 08:29 PM
I am not convinced that "none except the son of perdition has been lost" means lost spiritually. He certainly went to a quick destruction.I disagree. Diligence quoted another verse that I believe strongly indicates that he was not saved (Matt 26:24). What do you think it means for Jesus to have said he was lost?


I find the actions of Judas in subsequent rejection of the money to be an act of repentance.

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, as there is too much of Judas in me.I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, too, if I didn't see scripture telling me that he was lost and that it would be better if he had not been born. I see no indication that he put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savior at any point. Was that not required for him to be saved?

RabbiKnife
Mar 26th 2013, 09:31 PM
Precrucifixion.

How did people both before the crucifixion get saved.

Faith. Once can certainly make an inference that he repented just as Peter repented. Scripture never says "And Peter accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior."

I just don't find the word "lost" sufficiently clear as for me to consign him to hell. I can read lost to mean "not one of the twelve any longer."

Christians are not immune from despair and doubt, and the act of suicide itself is not damning that I know of.

You didn't name your kid "Judas" did you? Didn't think so. I'd say that a suicide that everyone loaths would have been better if he had not been born, which I take to be a figure of speech and not literal as well.

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 09:40 PM
Why would He kill himself if he was saved? Would he not have been a changed man if he was saved? I don't see anywhere that says he put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ to be His Lord and Savior, do you? Jesus said he was lost. What do you think that means?

Guilt, shame, remorse. He just betrayed God. How would you feel? The Bible doesn't say a man is condemned for taking his own life. I can repent and be forgiven, but still feel shame and remorse for the things I've done. I regret a lot of hurtful things I've done to people. Does that mean I'm not saved?

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 09:51 PM
Precrucifixion.

How did people both before the crucifixion get saved.

Faith. Once can certainly make an inference that he repented just as Peter repented. Scripture never says "And Peter accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior."

I just don't find the word "lost" sufficiently clear as for me to consign him to hell. I can read lost to mean "not one of the twelve any longer."

Christians are not immune from despair and doubt, and the act of suicide itself is not damning that I know of.

You didn't name your kid "Judas" did you? Didn't think so. I'd say that a suicide that everyone loaths would have been better if he had not been born, which I take to be a figure of speech and not literal as well.

Under the OT law, suicide is murder. It should be taken literal according to the scripture.

Matthew 26:24 (KJV)

hank1952
Mar 26th 2013, 10:01 PM
Under the OT law, suicide is murder. It should be taken literal according to the scripture.

Matthew 26:24 (KJV)

Could you give scripture for this statement please? I wasn't aware of this. Thanks

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 10:05 PM
Under the OT law, suicide is murder. It should be taken literal according to the scripture.

Matthew 26:24 (KJV)

I thought we were under the New Covenant - The Age of Grace? Under OT law you could have your disobedient children stoned. Under OT law, animal sacrifices were to atone for sin. Under OT law, adulteresses were stoned. Under OT law, God didn't mess around with idolatry.

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 10:39 PM
Could you give scripture for this statement please? I wasn't aware of this. Thanks

Matthew 15:19 (KJV)
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Thought, deliberation, reasoning, purposes, all precede every responsible act of word and deed. "The heart" means the inward man. (Mark 7:21; Luke 11:39; Rom. 2:29; 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:4.) Notice that the list of sins here follows closely the second list of commandments in the Decalogue, beginning with the sixth commandment. Jesus concludes that "these are the things which defile the man" and not merely the eating "with unwashen hands." The Pharisees had failed to make this distinction.

Matthew 19:18 (KJV)
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

As Jesus had finished blessing the children this young man came to him. In both Mark and Luke this scene follows right after that of blessing little children. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23.) Mark adds that he came running "and kneeled to him." This was the custom of those who would do honor to a king. He was young and blessed with those things which pertained to youthful life, he was a "ruler," and enjoyed honor among his people. He was anxious to know the answer that Jesus would give to the question, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"

This was an important question,we are not able to determine if he was sincere in asking it. "And Jesus looking upon him loved him." This Jesus could not have said had the young man been a hypocrite. This young ruler was self-deceived and self-righteous, but he was not a wicked person, a hypocrite. The whole story teaches us that even the very best among us must give up one's self in order to be saved. This young man understood that there was something for him to do in order to "have eternal life."

Jesus asked him, "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" He had asked "what good thing" he should do, and Jesus now tells him, "One there is who is good." Jesus told him if he would "enter into life" he should "keep the commandments." Jesus' also gave instruction and showed what commandments he should keep. The young man asked, "Which?" He wanted to know which one of the commandments had greatest weight in inheriting eternal life. Jesus said the ten commandments recorded on the second table of stone, beginning with the second, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13), and recited five of them. He then added, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This was a summary of the rest and was of equal authority with them.

The young man replied that he had done "all these things" and asked, "What lack I yet?" He hoped to receive other instructions that would assure him of his safety and give him peace, or he hoped to get instructions. This was also an important question. He has asked Jesus two questions also that pertain today, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" and "What lack I yet?"

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 10:44 PM
I thought we were under the New Covenant - The Age of Grace? Under OT law you could have your disobedient children stoned. Under OT law, animal sacrifices were to atone for sin. Under OT law, adulteresses were stoned. Under OT law, God did mess around with idolatry.

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

Yes, we know we are under the New Covenant. I was responding to Rabbi regarding the OT.

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 11:05 PM
Yes, we know we are under the New Covenant. I was responding to Rabbi regarding the OT.

Ok. He also made another very pertinent point in that there is a little 'Judas' in all of us. The minute we think there isn't our pride stands in the way of God's grace and we become just like the Pharisees. The takeaway point is we can't assume to know God's will. We can pray for the knowledge of His will and the power to carry it out, but we don't know God's plan or timing. Back to the predestined argument...how do you know Judas wasn't part of God's plan from the very beginning? Jesus knew Judas would be the one to betray him yet he chose him anyway to be one of the 12. What message and/or lesson do you see in that? He also knew Judas was a thief yet gave him the moneybag. Why? Think about that in terms of predestination. Why did the 'betrayer' have to be one of the 12? What golden nugget of truth do we takeaway from this?

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 11:07 PM
Ok. He also made another very pertinent point in that there is a little 'Judas' in all of us. The minute we think there isn't our pride stands in the way of God's grace and we become just like the Pharisees. The takeaway point is we can't assume to know God's will. We can pray for the knowledge of His will and the power to carry it out, but we don't know God's plan or timing. Back to the predestined argument...how do you know Judas wasn't part of God's plan from the very beginning? Jesus knew Judas would be the one to betray him yet he chose him anyway to be one of the 12. What message and/or lesson do you see in that? He also knew Judas was a thief yet gave him the moneybag. Why? Think about that in terms of predestination.

In post #14 & #16 I have explained that. We all are sinners.

Nick
Mar 26th 2013, 11:20 PM
In post #14 & #16 I have explained that. We all are sinners.

And fall short of the glory of God. Is Judas any different?

Dilligence
Mar 26th 2013, 11:58 PM
And fall short of the glory of God. Is Judas any different?

We are guilty of driving the nails in Jesus' hands because of our sins. We are on this side of the cross and we can repent and Jesus will forgive us those sins.

Judas was different because he lived and died under the OT and killed himself. What good was his repentance if he hung himself if he repented? If he did repent, he committed a sin by killing himself and what good was his repentance?

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 01:37 AM
We are guilty of driving the nails in Jesus' hands because of our sins. We are on this side of the cross and we can repent and Jesus will forgive us those sins.

Judas was different because he lived and died under the OT and killed himself. What good was his repentance if he hung himself if he repented? If he did repent, he committed a sin by killing himself and what good was his repentance?

You sure he hung himself? Are you sure he killed himself under the OT?

Two opposing viewpoints: Which one is right?

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Who bought the field, the priests or Judas? If the Acts accounts is correct then Judas died after Jesus. Matthew doesn't say when he killed himself, it just says "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 08:37 PM
Precrucifixion.

How did people both before the crucifixion get saved.

Faith. Once can certainly make an inference that he repented just as Peter repented. Scripture never says "And Peter accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior."Where is the evidence that Judas Iscariot ever put his faith and trust in Jesus? There is evidence that Peter did so, but I'd like to see the evidence that Judas did so. Does all one have to do is feel bad about something they did to be saved? Aren't there plenty of unsaved people out there who have felt guilty about something and acknowledged bad things they had done? Isn't a person required to humble themselves before God and acknowledge their sins to Him? Where is there any indication that Judas did that?


I just don't find the word "lost" sufficiently clear as for me to consign him to hell. I can read lost to mean "not one of the twelve any longer."If he was saved at that point then why wouldn't he have still been one of the twelve? If he was saved then what made the other 11 disciples more worthy of remaining among the 12 than him?


Christians are not immune from despair and doubt, and the act of suicide itself is not damning that I know of.I'm not saying that it is necessarily the case, but it can be an indication that someone has lost all hope, even in God.


You didn't name your kid "Judas" did you? Didn't think so.Why would you ask me a question like that?


I'd say that a suicide that everyone loaths would have been better if he had not been born, which I take to be a figure of speech and not literal as well.I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I don't see any indication at all that he wasn't being literal there. If Judas is in heaven now then I don't see any reason why Jesus would have said that it would have been better if he had not been born. Being in heaven, even taking into account what Judas did, is obviously much better than not being born.

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 08:41 PM
Guilt, shame, remorse. He just betrayed God. How would you feel? The Bible doesn't say a man is condemned for taking his own life. I can repent and be forgiven, but still feel shame and remorse for the things I've done. I regret a lot of hurtful things I've done to people. Does that mean I'm not saved?I'm not interested in talking about suicide in detail here. We can create a new thread about that if you want. Here's the bottom line regarding Judas Iscariot, which is the one we were talking about. Jesus said Judas was lost (John 17:12). And He said that it would have been better if Judas had not been born (Matt 26:24). So, my view is based on scripture. Is yours? The onus is now on you to show that "lost" doesn't mean unsaved and that he could somehow have been saved despite it being better if he had not been born. Please explain how you can reconcile your understanding of Judas Iscariot with John 17:12 and Matt 26:24.

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 08:50 PM
I'm not interested in talking about suicide in detail here. We can create a new thread about that if you want. Here's the bottom line regarding Judas Iscariot, which is the one we were talking about. Jesus said Judas was lost (John 17:12). And He said that it would have been better if Judas had not been born (Matt 26:24). So, my view is based on scripture. Is yours? The onus is now on you to show that "lost" doesn't mean unsaved and that he could somehow have been saved despite it being better if he had not been born. Please explain how you can reconcile your understanding of Judas Iscariot with John 17:12 and Matt 26:24.

I'm saying we don't know whether Judas repented to God or not. His actions would indicate a deep remorse for what he did. Returning the money in the manner he did (threw it on the floor), saying he betrayed innocent blood, and being so stricken by grief that he killed himself. We also don't know when Judas killed himself (before or after the resurrection) or exactly how, as Scripture seems to have opposing viewpoints on that. I never stated definitively that Judas was saved. I said "how do you know Judas wasn't saved?" Only God knows, and neither one of us is God.

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 09:05 PM
You sure he hung himself? Are you sure he killed himself under the OT?

Two opposing viewpoints: Which one is right?

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Who bought the field, the priests or Judas? If the Acts accounts is correct then Judas died after Jesus. Matthew doesn't say when he killed himself, it just says "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."Nick, after seeing you express doubts about Peter in Acts 10:34-35 and now seeing this, I'm getting the impression that you have doubts about the authenticity of some scripture. Is that true? If so, that concerns me. Do you believe that there are no contradictions in scripture? You seem to think that one of the passages you quoted is true and one is not. Am I understanding you correctly? I want to let you know that all scripture is inspired by God and is fully trustworthy, including Matt 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19.

First of all, Matt 27:3-8 is very clear in saying that Judas hanged himself. So, he either really did hang himself or that scripture is false and should be removed from our Bibles. Another thing I'd like to point out is that Acts 1:18-19 does not say that Judas did not hang himself. The question we need to answer then is whether it's possible for him to have hanged himself and for him to have fallen headlong with his bowels gushing out as well. The answer is yes. If he hanged himself in such a way that the rope he used eventually broke then it should be easy to see how he could have fallen. If he had hung himself near a big hill or mountain then it shouldn't be hard to imagine how his bowels gushed out if he fell down the hill or mountain or off a cliff. I know what I said here is speculation, but it is a reasonable explanation that would preserve the authenticity of both passages without creating a contradiction.

As far as the supposed contradiction regarding who purchased the field, it was the priests who bought it, but it was with the money Judas gave them. So, there was a sense in which both Judas and the priests bought the field since they bought it with his money. There are no contradictions in scripture. I can't emphasize that enough.

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 09:09 PM
I'm saying we don't know whether Judas repented to God or not. His actions would indicate a deep remorse for what he did. Returning the money in the manner he did (threw it on the floor), saying he betrayed innocent blood, and being so stricken by grief that he killed himself. We also don't know when Judas killed himself (before or after the resurrection) or exactly how, as Scripture seems to have opposing viewpoints on that. I never stated definitively that Judas was saved. I said "how do you know Judas wasn't saved?" Only God knows, and neither one of us is God.My view that he wasn't saved is based on scripture, as I've shown. You're welcome to disagree, but you would need to explain to me how he could have been lost but still saved in order to refute my view. Also, you'd need to explain why Jesus would have said it would've been better for Judas to not have been born if Judas was saved. I'm backing up my view with scripture, so I'm asking you to do the same.

RabbiKnife
Mar 27th 2013, 09:13 PM
You are backing your opinion up with your interpretation of Scripture.

As are we.

And we disagree.

You believe that your interpretation of "lost" trumps our interpretation of "remorse" and his actions of repentance.

We disagree.

Both opinions are based on our individual interpretations of Scripture.

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 09:28 PM
You are backing your opinion up with your interpretation of Scripture.

As are we.

And we disagree.

You believe that your interpretation of "lost" trumps our interpretation of "remorse" and his actions of repentance.

We disagree.

Both opinions are based on our individual interpretations of Scripture.Rabbi, I was talking to Nick, not you. I did not say you are not backing up your interpretation with scripture. Nick did not give his understanding of Matt 26:24, so I would like him to tell me how his view lines up with Matt 26:24. He also hasn't explained his understanding of the term "lost" in relation to Judas. I'm simply asking him to tell me how his view can be reconciled with John 17:12 and Matt 26:24. You've done that but I still have questions regarding your understanding, which I asked in post #33. It's okay for me to ask you to clarify your view, isn't it? As for Nick, I don't see that he has really explained his view in relation to Matt 26:24 at all yet and I don't recall him giving his understanding of the term "lost" in John 17:12 yet.

RabbiKnife
Mar 27th 2013, 09:38 PM
I don't see where you asked me to clarify anything in post 33. I think I have already answered those questions, admittedly, not to your liking.

And no, I'm not aware that a person has to "acknowledge their sins before God" to be saved.

I think that Judas' post-betrayal actions speak louder than any sinners prayer I have ever heard.

But of course, that is, after all, just my opinion.

hank1952
Mar 27th 2013, 09:53 PM
Matthew 15:19 (KJV)
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Thought, deliberation, reasoning, purposes, all precede every responsible act of word and deed. "The heart" means the inward man. (Mark 7:21; Luke 11:39; Rom. 2:29; 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:4.) Notice that the list of sins here follows closely the second list of commandments in the Decalogue, beginning with the sixth commandment. Jesus concludes that "these are the things which defile the man" and not merely the eating "with unwashen hands." The Pharisees had failed to make this distinction.

Matthew 19:18 (KJV)
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

As Jesus had finished blessing the children this young man came to him. In both Mark and Luke this scene follows right after that of blessing little children. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23.) Mark adds that he came running "and kneeled to him." This was the custom of those who would do honor to a king. He was young and blessed with those things which pertained to youthful life, he was a "ruler," and enjoyed honor among his people. He was anxious to know the answer that Jesus would give to the question, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"

So you are saying that Judas murdered himself?

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 09:54 PM
Rabbi, I was talking to Nick, not you. I did not say you are not backing up your interpretation with scripture. Nick did not give his understanding of Matt 26:24, so I would like him to tell me how his view lines up with Matt 26:24. He also hasn't explained his understanding of the term "lost" in relation to Judas. I'm simply asking him to tell me how his view can be reconciled with John 17:12 and Matt 26:24. You've done that but I still have questions regarding your understanding, which I asked in post #33. It's okay for me to ask you to clarify your view, isn't it? As for Nick, I don't see that he has really explained his view in relation to Matt 26:24 at all yet and I don't recall him giving his understanding of the term "lost" in John 17:12 yet.

It could refer to his suffering after he betrayed him (feeling "lost"). I don't imagine Judas was in a very good spot - emotionally, mentally and psychologically. Does that mean he is spending eternity in hell? The height of disloyalty and betrayal is sharing a meal with a friend before turning on him. Judas knew that and I'm sure he felt lower than life after Jesus was condemned to death. How do you know Judas wasn't deceived by the Pharisees's as far as their intention? Maybe God had pity on Judas and showed him mercy. As we learn in Exodus 33:19 and again Rom 9:15, God has mercy on whomever he chooses to have to mercy.

Dilligence
Mar 27th 2013, 10:04 PM
So you are saying that Judas murdered himself?

If he hung himself, which he did...then yes he murdered himself.

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 10:10 PM
If he hung himself, which he did...then yes he murdered himself.

Did he? "...and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out" sounds to me like he might have fallen off a cliff. How do you fall 'headlong' (i.e. I dove headlong to the floor), and then have your intestines gush out by hanging yourself from a fig tree??? Help me with that one.

RabbiKnife
Mar 27th 2013, 10:11 PM
If he hung himself, which he did...then yes he murdered himself.

So?.......................................

Dilligence
Mar 27th 2013, 10:33 PM
Did he? "...and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out" sounds to me like he might have fallen off a cliff. How do you fall 'headlong' (i.e. I dove headlong to the floor), and then have your intestines gush out by hanging yourself from a fig tree??? Help me with that one.

Certainly, the remorse of Judas, which Matthew relates in this place, may be supposed to have occurred after the final condemnation of Jesus. Matthew does not mean by placing his record of the event at this place to say that it occurred just at this time, but as a consequence of the condemnation. It is not likely that any of the chief priests and elders would have been found in the temple until after the sentence of Pilate.

When Judas saw that Jesus had been condemned, he "repented himself." It is impossible to analyze and follow the his dark mind in its unspeakable progress of crime and despair.

In the New Testament he is termed a thief (John 12:6) and a devil (John 6:70), meaning that his prevailing passions were of malice. Also, Satan entered into him, and gave a supernatural awareness these ideas. His repentance was only horror and remorse at the effect of his anger and covetousness. It was not that deep repentance which seeks God's mercy and forgiveness.

He confessed, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." He had broken the law of God. (Ex. 23:7.) Humble confession and restitution, toward true repentance, do not always prove that one is penitent. He had betrayed "innocent blood", that he had given the life of an innocent person into the hands of those who would put him to death. He became an agent in the crucifixion of Jesus.

Judas is an unwilling, yet a very valuable witness to the innocence of Jesus. He had been his disciple and had known him in all situations for about three years, he had heard all His teachings, public and private. If it were possible to have found a fault with Jesus, Judas would have urged it now as an excuse for his betrayal.

The sin of Judas was from a lack of moral principle, a true regard for truth and justice. From this sin there seemed to be no recovery. Under a sense of shame and disgrace, he confessed his sin, returned the bribe, hanged himself, and went to "his own place." (Acts 1:25.)

What is that to us? Judas had brought the thirty pieces of silver back to "the chief priests and elders" and had confessed that he had betrayed "innocent blood", but these men refused to give Judas any encouragement in correcting the wrong that he had done. They did not care for his feelings. Judas had done what they wished and they had paid him for it, as to the rest they did not care what became of Judas.

This reply to Judas was in harmony with their conduct all along. They should have examined the cause of Judas' conduct, or, at least, they should have tried to satisfy him that they had done right in condemning Jesus. Notice that Judas "repented" only when his sin was completed. When the chief priests and elders refused to take the thirty pieces of silver back, Judas "cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed." This was the end of all his dreams. The thirty pieces of silver which he had received burned into his soul with a guilt of remorse that he could not drive away. It was the price of blood and his ingratitude to Jesus rose up before him until his whole soul was in agony which he could not endure, "and he went away and hanged himself."

He seems to have done this in such haste and confusion of mind that the rope gave way and he was precipitated down a steep place, and disemboweled on the sharp rocks. (Acts 1:18.) Everyone who was hanged on a tree was pronounced accursed by the law of Moses. (Deut. 21:22, 23.)
There is no conflict between Matt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18. In Acts it is said, "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." He hanged himself, the rope broke, he fell, his belly burst, and his bowels gushed out. Instead of there being a contradiction between the statement in Matthew and in Acts, the two accounts harmonize with each other.

And the chief priests took the pieces of silver. They gathered up the silver and said that "it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood." Money which had been made abominable by certain crimes was in no case to be offered to Jehovah. (Deut. 23:18.) The treasury here meant the "alms chest" which was kept in the court of the women, and all that was placed in it was solemnly devoted to the service of Jehovah.

Judas confessed to having betrayed "innocent blood," and the priests to having bought it.They condemned themselves. They took "counsel" as to what they would do with the money and finally decided to buy "the potter's field, to bury strangers in." This was after the death of Jesus. The "potter's field" was a field which the potters had used. It is said in Acts 1:18 of Judas that he purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and was the first to mark it as a field of blood by his own death.

Judas did not make this purchase only in the sense of furnishing the means to purchase it. The priests also put his name in the purchase. They wanted this field to bury the Jews who came to Jerusalem from foreign places and died while there attending the feasts. The field bought by the money toward the memory of the bargain both of Judas and the Sanhedrin. This field "was called, The field of blood, unto this day." It was called in the native tongue "Akeldama" (Acts 1:19), which means the field of blood.

The facts of this account of the death of Jesus were perpetuated by the existence of this field as a burying place. Matthew, in referring to it shows that he challenges investigation into the truth of his record. At the time that Matthew wrote it was still familiar to the Jews, it was some years after the crucifixion before Matthew wrote this record. Matthew was not afraid for anyone to check his record with the facts. This is a proof of his sincerity and accuracy.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 03:13 PM
I don't see where you asked me to clarify anything in post 33. I think I have already answered those questions, admittedly, not to your liking.I don't have a problem with it if you answer my question and I disagree. I can agree to disagree. But you had said this:


"I can read lost to mean "not one of the twelve any longer."

Then I asked "If he was saved at that point then why wouldn't he have still been one of the twelve?". I don't see where you answered that question.


And no, I'm not aware that a person has to "acknowledge their sins before God" to be saved.You don't believe repentance is required for salvation? What exactly do you believe people are required to do to be saved?

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 03:21 PM
It could refer to his suffering after he betrayed him (feeling "lost").Can you explain how that matches up with what Jesus said here:

John 17:2 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

You believe Jesus was saying none of them was "feeling lost" except the son of perdition? I don't see how that matches the context. Jesus said He kept all the disciples (the twelve) who the Father gave Him except for the son of perdition, which was Judas. What did it mean for Jesus not to have kept Judas? I'm not sure how Judas could be saved without Jesus keeping him.


I don't imagine Judas was in a very good spot - emotionally, mentally and psychologically. Does that mean he is spending eternity in hell? The height of disloyalty and betrayal is sharing a meal with a friend before turning on him. Judas knew that and I'm sure he felt lower than life after Jesus was condemned to death. How do you know Judas wasn't deceived by the Pharisees's as far as their intention? Maybe God had pity on Judas and showed him mercy. As we learn in Exodus 33:19 and again Rom 9:15, God has mercy on whomever he chooses to have to mercy.Nick, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but you still didn't tell me your understanding of what Jesus meant here:

Matt 26:24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

If Judas is in heaven now then how could it be better if he had not been born? Heaven is much better than not being born, right?

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 03:31 PM
Did he? "...and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out" sounds to me like he might have fallen off a cliff. How do you fall 'headlong' (i.e. I dove headlong to the floor), and then have your intestines gush out by hanging yourself from a fig tree??? Help me with that one.Where did you get the idea that he hung himself from a fig tree? Scripture doesn't specify what kind of tree it was (it doesn't even specify that he hanged himself from a tree, though I realize that is highly likely). As I mentioned before, it's quite possible that the rope he hung himself with broke or the tree limb broke and then he fell down a hill or mountain or off a cliff. Don't you find that to be a viable possibility?

Nick
Mar 28th 2013, 03:37 PM
Where did you get the idea that he hung himself from a fig tree? Scripture doesn't specify what kind of tree it was (it doesn't even specify that he hanged himself from a tree, though I realize that is highly likely). As I mentioned before, it's quite possible that the rope he hung himself with broke or the tree limb broke and then he fell down a hill or mountain or off a cliff. Don't you find that to be a viable possibility?

It was an educated guess much like the position that Scripture says he was condemned to eternal damnation.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 04:04 PM
It was an educated guess much like the position that Scripture says he was condemned to eternal damnation.It's more than just an educated guess. Scripture specifically says he was lost and that it would have been better if he had not been born. Those are things you'd expect to be said of an unsaved person.

RabbiKnife
Mar 28th 2013, 07:06 PM
I don't have a problem with it if you answer my question and I disagree. I can agree to disagree. But you had said this:



Then I asked "If he was saved at that point then why wouldn't he have still been one of the twelve?". I don't see where you answered that question.

You don't believe repentance is required for salvation? What exactly do you believe people are required to do to be saved?

Leaving dinner, selling out Jesus, abandoning his apostolic position....all of those are certainly indicative of someone that is no longer a part of the group, and as he committed suicide, it was a bit tough to get that relationship restored.

As to repentance, the only thing that an unbeliever can "repent" of at the time of salvation is their attitude and acknowledgement of the work and person of Jesus. I do not believe that Scripture says anything about repenting of individual sins in order to be saved.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 08:01 PM
Leaving dinner, selling out Jesus, abandoning his apostolic position....all of those are certainly indicative of someone that is no longer a part of the group, and as he committed suicide, it was a bit tough to get that relationship restored.Seems like that would mean he was not forgiven then if he was being tossed out of the group. Peter wasn't removed from the group when he denied Jesus 3 times. Why would Judas be removed but not Peter if both were saved?

Also, is it your position that Judas was saved all along? If so then is Satan able to possess a saved person the way he possessed Judas (John 13:27)? I'd like to know how that could be possible.


As to repentance, the only thing that an unbeliever can "repent" of at the time of salvation is their attitude and acknowledgement of the work and person of Jesus. I do not believe that Scripture says anything about repenting of individual sins in order to be saved.Yes, I agree that people must repent of their attitude towards Jesus but also of their attitude towards sin.

Luke 18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Notice how the tax collector humbled himself and repented of his sinfulness. Jesus taught that is required in order to be justified (verse 14). That doesn't mean he had to list every sin and repent of each one, but it does mean he had to change his mind regarding sin and acknowledge that he was a sinner in need of God's mercy and forgiveness.

Nick
Mar 31st 2013, 01:07 AM
Some good points made here in support of Judas being saved:


His Calling and Election:

Luke 6:12-16
12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Jesus goes up to a mountain to pray to His Father. He spends all night in communion with God and returns when it is day. Jesus calls unto Him His disciples. And of them He chose twelve men whom He also named apostles.

Twelve apostles. Not eleven apostles and one false apostle. Twelve apostles. And Jesus named them apostles. Here is the calling and the election of twelve men that will be with Jesus until His arrest and crucifixion. Peter was called and elect in the same capacity as John. Judas was called and elect in the same capacity as James. There is no distinction in the calling and election of these twelve men. And if Jesus named them all apostles, then they are His apostles, and the gifts and calling of God is without repentance (Rom. 11:29).

Here, Jesus calls and elects Judas to "be with Him" (Mk. 3:14), and for three years Judas, and the other eleven, are with Jesus. I know Judas was a thief. Peter was a blasphemer. He cussed and cursed. Peter had a big mouth. Judas had big eyes and a big desire for monetary gain. Twelve men, all sinners, and in need of a Savior.
I don't second-guess Jesus. He called twelve men and the Scripture says Jesus named them apostles. I believe in calling and election. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. If there's no drawing, there's no coming. And there is nothing man can do to entice or influence God to call them, nor is there anything a man can do to escape the call of God on their life, even if it lasts on earth only three years.

I believe Judas is saved because Jesus called and elect him to be with Him (implies intimacy - Mk. 3:14), and by the mere fact that Jesus named Judas an apostle. A true apostle. An apostle of the Lamb (Jn. 1:29).

Judas is elect of God. Judas is a saved man. I can stop right here and this is enough for me. But in my study I have found more compelling evidence as to the redemption and salvation of Judas Iscariot by God. And if you have your doctrine in the right place, then building upon that foundation with the Word of God will be easy for the faith-ful.

fewarechosen
Mar 31st 2013, 01:12 AM
one thing to remember about judas when pondering

is this, he never had his knowledge unlocked, and he NEVER recieved the promise. He didnt make it to this scripture below.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Gadgeteer
Apr 1st 2013, 04:38 AM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." (15:16)

Is this is statement made only to Jesus's disciples (at that time) or the rest of the us who are believers? Are we chosen first or do we have to first choose? It reads like we're chosen first.

"They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (16:3)

I thought everyone knew God so there are no excuses, right? Is Jesus not suggesting here that there are those who don't know God?

It was about the twelve Disciples.

But --- it also connects to Jn6:67-70, where Jesus chose ALL TWELVE.

Was Judas chosen, same as the rest, and ordained to "bear fruit that remains"?

Gadgeteer
Apr 1st 2013, 04:43 AM
John 6:44 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Add that into the mix Nick...Where in Scripture is anyone not drawn?
but after that I am out of this one. It will become another free will/predestination debate which in the end is fruitless.Only because those who hold "predestined-salvation" refuse to engage the Scriptures.
Obviously both positions exists in Scripture,Not as stated, "sovereign predestined salvation".

Romans2:4-8 alone should ruin the whole idea of "sovereign predestined salvation".

Gadgeteer
Apr 1st 2013, 04:46 AM
This doesn't have anything to do with Him choosing us to believe and become saved while we have no choice in the matter. He was specifically speaking to the disciples there and talking about how they should go and bear fruit by way of preaching the gospel. They were chosen to be His closest disciples and to do the important work of preaching the gospel to the masses, starting in Israel, and making other disciples along the way. It was His choice to make those twelve His closest disciples, not theirs. Even Judas Iscariot was chosen, so Jesus didn't speak of being chosen in the sense of being chosen to believe and be saved.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

He chose them twelve in particular to be His closest followers. Has nothing to do with choosing them to be saved or else Judas Iscariot would've been saved.

Not ONLY was Judas chosen exactly the same as the other eleven (and ordained to bear good fruit!) --- explain how Jesus' words in Jn6:67-70 is NOT opposing Peter's protest of loyalty?

(Paraphrased)
Jesus: "YOU aren't leaving too, ARE you!"
Peter: "We can't leave You; we know You're the Messiah."
Jesus: "ONE of you already IS leaving; do you think it's not possible for YOU?"

Gadgeteer
Apr 1st 2013, 04:50 AM
Could you give scripture for this statement please? I wasn't aware of this. Thanks

Welcome to the forums, Hank. :-)

Is there something more going on here? Do you know someone who is a victim of suicide, or will be?

Is there someone we need to pray for, or counsel?