[classyT]

classyT,
I believe that partake means to participate in or with such as to partake of supper (eat it) or to partake of baseball (play in the sport) and you that with others.
The dictionary says.... it is a intransitive verb 1 : to take part in or experience something along with others <partake in the revelry> <partake of the good life> 2 : to have a portion (as of food or drink) 3 : to possess or share a certain nature or attribute <the experience partakes of a mystical quality>
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't disagree with you on that Fred. I think it does mean exactly that but I believe it still doesn't mean these jews had the Holy Spirit indwelling in them. I think you can participate, to take part in, to experience and ALL of that these Jewish people were doing. I think it is the same today, people can partake of the Holy Spirit in a worship service, they can be moved by his presence. Some are even HEALED... doesn't make them sealed with the Holy Spirit doesn't make them believers.

[classyT]

Tom,

About falling away... I have been trying to find the best explanation and I came across a guy named Les Feldik. He has a TV program and I have met him several times at local bible studies. I have never met anyone who understood Grace better than Les and he NEVER mixed law with Grace. He has a ranch or a farm or something and he doesn't have a income from his teachings. I have sent him letters picking his brain and he has called me on the phone to explain. Actually I have talked to him twice on the phone. He teaches the Bible like no one I have ever met and uses the KJV and makes it very easy to read. I have no idea why I am giving you his background except to say... he is Smart and knowledgeable in the Word and very approachable. Anyway, I looked up his take on that verse and especially the "falling away" that I promised to discuss. I agree with him on this issue so I hope you take the time to read it.

Hebrews 4:6a ( Les Feldik is teaching this... )

"If (scary word isn't it?) they (these people who had this much understanding) shall fall away…"


We're going to stop right there. This word that is translated "fall away" and I put it on the board ahead of time, in the Greek is 'parapipto.' Now I'm not a Greek scholar and you don't have to be, but here's one instance where it pays to see the difference. This word is the only time it's used in the whole New Testament. Where it's translated in verse 6 that "if they shall fall away," it is a "parapipto," whereas the other word that we're most familiar with like in II Thessalonians chapter 2 that "unless there is a falling away first" – that term is "apostasia" and it, too, is translated "falling away." But it does not have the connotation that this one does.


And I'm going to show you why, because since it's the only time it's used in the Greek in our whole New Testament, even the Greek scholars have a hard time really nailing it down. But, I went through enough and found that one great linguist of days gone by said, "The only way you can understand this term – parapipto – is to realize what it means in the Hebrew." And so the Hebrew word is "mahal." M-A-H-A-L. We're going to look and see what that word "mahal" really is talking about.


Let's come all the way back to Numbers chapter 5, and let's just drop down to verse 12. Remember what we're showing - that this Hebrew word "mahal" is the best parallel with the Greek word "parapipto" which is only used in Hebrews chapter 6.


And I'm taking the time to show the difference because I want you to see that this falling away in Hebrews chapter 6 is far worse than the normal term to fall away or to be apostasia. Let's start with verse 11.


Numbers 5:11-12

"And the LORD spake unto Moses saying, 12. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a (what's the word?) trespass (that's the Hebrew word "And the LORD spake unto Moses saying, 12. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a (what's the word?) trespass (that's the Hebrew word ") against him," (her husband)


And what does she do? She commits adultery with another man. Now of course, we know that adultery was common in Israel just like it is today, but this is a unique situation from the word ") against him," It is when this woman literally "mahal." on her husband. She doesn't just get caught in a moment of temptation and weakness but she, of her own volition, with a scornful turning her back to her husband goes and commits adultery, now that's the word mahal translated 'trespass.' All right, the next one is in Ezekiel chapter 14, and we'll start with verse 14. This is the same Hebrew word.


Ezekiel 14:12-13

"turns her back with scorn"


Is that the term that was used with backsliding that we looked at in the last program? No. Backsliding would bring in God's mercy and grace but this "The word of the LORD came again to me, saying, 13. Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing (mahal) grievously, then will I stretch out my hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it and will cut off man and beast from it:" is an apostasy or a "scornfully turning the back" that is so scornful in it's act that God has nothing left but judgment. He can't deal with it in mercy and grace. Now see, that's what makes the difference then.


Aright, flip all the way back to Hebrews chapter 6 and this is what makes the difference, I think, in these verses in Hebrews that so many people have got all confused and are shook up about. This is not the common ordinary believer who has suddenly fallen into sin and he's not lost. He hasn't scornfully rejected the things of God, but rather he's just simply been human and he's been caught in a moment of weakness and he falls, like we saw in our last program. The man in Corinth that was restored, and forgiven. Can you see that?


But these people made a scornful turning of the back on these things that God had revealed to them. Now then, since this is a much different situation of an apostatizing, look what the result will be.


Hebrews 6:6

"parapipto"


What are we dealing with? We're dealing with people who have claimed to be believers. Now, I'm going to keep it in the Hebrew element first. And then we'll jump up to where we are today. Even these Hebrews to whom Paul is now writing, have made a semblance of believing. They have gone along with all these things, but then when they really were pressed to make a decision to move on forward, what did they scornfully do? They went back under the Law and there was no more of God dealing with them.


Now I know I have taught, and I will continue to teach, that God never gives up on a lost person. But, it would seem to indicate that someone who has made a profession of faith without really becoming a believer and then at one point in time, they scornfully, like the ones we've looked at in King Saul, what did he do? He just scornfully went his own way. What was his end? Suicide.


Judas. Three years he trafficked along with Jesus and the eleven, playing the perfect hypocrite. But in the final analysis, when it was time to really show his colors, what did he do? He scorned the Lord and went and sold Him for thirty pieces of silver. And ends up committing suicide.
Ok, that ends what Les Feldik had to say. What do you think?

I hope you read all that because he explain I better than I could.

But when push comes to shove I really do not believe that these jews were NOT believers at all... they were tasting, the were partaking.. Paul could have easily used the terms like believers that were filled with the Holy Spirit.. but he didn't. He used surface words. Because that is as far as the Jews got... he was constantly encouraging them to move on in their walk. Ok, I think I have given you all I can on the subject. I doubt you will change your mind but perhaps you can consider it for a least a second or two. ;)

[arcura]

Tj3,
The Lord God knows for sure.
No one else knows for sure about Judas or Pilate, but there has been a lot of speculation and some out right statements that they were hell bound.
Also which version in the bible about the death of Judas do you think is the correct one?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Also which version in the bible about the death of Judas do you think is the correct one?

Both are correct.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Please explain how they both can be correct.
Thanks,
'Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Please explain how they both can be correct.
Thanks,
'Fred

There are a couple of plausible explanations. First, he hung himself. Not a public hanging so it is likely the body was hanging a while and in a warmer climate like that, it takes very little time before decomposition starts. The body would eventually swell up with the decomposition process and the rope would fail and the body would split open.

The Greek term used in scripture for "falling headlong" can mean that, or can also mean to become swollen, so both are valid understandings.

[Tj3]

Tom,

About falling away...

That is a long post. I did not have a chance to get to this earlier and I am too tired to try to tackle this right now, but I will try to get to it tomorrow night.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Thanks Tom.
I've heard that before but I thought you might have more on that.
I believe the bible is correct so the full explanation on the death of Judas remains a mystery.
Fred

[sndbay]

“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou has given Me; and I guarded them, and no one of them perished but (or except) the son of perdition, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled John 17:12

From the beginning of the Word, with all that is written, we profit by what was and continues to establish godilness. The righteousness of who Christ Jesus ensampled.

Christ Jesus justifies, and we are not to condemn our enemies. We are to love our enemies. (Luke 6:36 Be ye merciful, as your Father also is mericful) We therefore can be thankful and in hope of always being guarded, within Christ. And we should not cease to pray for the strength and guarded guidance to remain in HIS righteousness. Because it is God's chosen choice, and it is said that all may come, and not to call any unclean...

With what has been recorded...i am scratching my head wondering how you could NOT believe that Judas was a unbeliever.

Judas did repent... why would he turn to repent ? Why would he elect to end his own life of sin? How many others denied Christ? Why is there hope for any? Is the wage of sin death?

There were many who denied Christ within the crowd that were asked who they would choose. Christ's heart of mercy was spoken (Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.)

It is written (Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. )

ClassyT, we both learn from what is written, and we have much more profit in love.

[sndbay]

But was he saved?

Tom, we can go by what is written, in a discerning heart for what is right and wrong. And pray for the spirit of Christ to guide.

Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

[classyT]

Snd,

Yes Judas DID repent.. but who to? Not the Lord. I think there is enough evidence in scripture to say that Judas had NO faith. He knew he had betrayed innocent blood and he felt sorry but there is no biblical evidence that Judas believed that Jesus was who he said he was. Peter denied the Lord but he was the one that proclaimed that Jesus WAS the Christ the son of the living God. Peter had faith and besides all of that Listen to what JESUS said about Judas... ( he didn't say it about Peter or anyone else.) Like I pointed out earlier.. the only other person called the son of perdition is the antichrist. Now that HAS to make you stop and think...

Therefore, I don't believe Judas went to heaven and I don't know how many scripture you need but when the Lord said he was a devil, it would be better if he hadn't been born.. he even goes so far as to say the only one of the 12 that was lost is HIM... I'm thinking... hmmm? What is Jesus trying to SAY here? OH.. I see what he saying TRYING TO SAY... Judas is a devil and it would be better if he hadn't been born and he was lost.. Now I'm NO einstein but it really doesn't sound like Judas is sitting in heavenly places with the Father and the Son right now... call me crazy. Call me judgmental... but don't call me someone who makes up my own truth. I didn't write it all I did was read it. :)

[classyT]

That is a long post. I did not have a chance to get to this earlier and I am too tired to try to tackle this right now, but I will try to get to it tomorrow night.

I know it was long and I apologize, I never do that but I didn't know how else to explain so I used Les Feldiks word... sorry. I have a sneaking suspension you aren't going to concede but that's OK. You've challenged me to go deeper into the word and to understand verses that I couldn't explain before.

[sndbay]

Now i'm NO einstein but it really doesn't sound like Judas is sitting in heavenly places with the Father and the Son right now...call me crazy. Call me judgmental...but don't call me someone who makes up my own truth. I didn't write it all i did was read it. :)

ClassyT, The mercy in love of Our Father, and the forgiveness sent in Christ and given in HIS glory is where we can rest.

You have said yourself that you sin. Is there a degree in sin? Would you say HIS mercy for you and your sins are the exception from others? To grant yourself HIS justificationt by your fatih in HIM, and yet turn from a brother to say his sins are greater, is that right? I understand all that was written of Judas, and the dark side of what held him. But sin is the dark side, and to repent is important.

I recognize your heart by discernment in love for Christ. But I don't feel we are suppose to discern Judas other then his actions were wrong.

The scripture said he saw his comdemned, and repented himself...

And in love for Christ and HIS glory for all mankind,we should all rest in HIS justification and HIS intercession.

Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


Matthew 27:5 referance:

and hange himself is the interpretation of the single word "apogcho" that means (throttle, strangle, in order to put out of the way or kill) From where I stand in awareness to this single word apogcho, I don't put the word (himself) in this as evident.

It would appear he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed (anachoreo = withdrew as to of those who through fear seek some other place)
and went (aperchomai = of departing evils and sufferings)
and hanged himself (apogcho = was hanged or strangled) instead of hanged himself.

We do not know for sure the heart of Judas, nor do we want to pass judgement upon him.

So we do disagree, I pray we both can find our guidance and help unto the Spirit

Off thread and I don't mean to go further in doing so.. Sorry

[jakester]

Tom,

About falling away...I have been trying to find the best explanation and I came across a guy named Les Feldik. He has a TV program and I have met him several times at local bible studies. I have never met anyone who understood Grace better than Les and he NEVER mixed law with Grace. He has a ranch or a farm or something and he doesn't have a income from his teachings. I have sent him letters picking his brain and he has called me on the phone to explain. Actually I have talked to him twice on the phone. He teaches the Bible like no one I have ever met and uses the KJV and makes it very easy to read. I have no idea why I am giving you his background except to say...he is Smart and knowledgeable in the Word and very approachable. Anyway, I looked up his take on that verse and especially the "falling away" that i promised to discuss. I agree with him on this issue so I hope you take the time to read it.

Hebrews 4:6a ( Les Feldik is teaching this...)

"If (scary word isn't it?) they (these people who had this much understanding) shall fall away…"


We're going to stop right there. This word that is translated "fall away" and I put it on the board ahead of time, in the Greek is 'parapipto.' Now I'm not a Greek scholar and you don't have to be, but here's one instance where it pays to see the difference. This word is the only time it's used in the whole New Testament. Where it's translated in verse 6 that "if they shall fall away," it is a "parapipto," whereas the other word that we're most familiar with like in II Thessalonians chapter 2 that "unless there is a falling away first" – that term is "apostasia" and it, too, is translated "falling away." But it does not have the connotation that this one does.


And I'm going to show you why, because since it's the only time it's used in the Greek in our whole New Testament, even the Greek scholars have a hard time really nailing it down. But, I went through enough and found that one great linguist of days gone by said, "The only way you can understand this term – parapipto – is to realize what it means in the Hebrew." And so the Hebrew word is "mahal." M-A-H-A-L. We're going to look and see what that word "mahal" really is talking about.


Let's come all the way back to Numbers chapter 5, and let's just drop down to verse 12. Remember what we're showing - that this Hebrew word "mahal" is the best parallel with the Greek word "parapipto" which is only used in Hebrews chapter 6.


And I'm taking the time to show the difference because I want you to see that this falling away in Hebrews chapter 6 is far worse than the normal term to fall away or to be apostasia. Let's start with verse 11.


Numbers 5:11-12

"And the LORD spake unto Moses saying, 12. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a (what's the word?) trespass (that's the Hebrew word "mahal") against him," (her husband)


And what does she do? She commits adultery with another man. Now of course, we know that adultery was common in Israel just like it is today, but this is a unique situation from the word "mahal." It is when this woman literally "turns her back with scorn" on her husband. She doesn't just get caught in a moment of temptation and weakness but she, of her own volition, with a scornful turning her back to her husband goes and commits adultery, now that's the word mahal translated 'trespass.' Alright, the next one is in Ezekiel chapter 14, and we'll start with verse 14. This is the same Hebrew word.


Ezekiel 14:12-13

"The word of the LORD came again to me, saying, 13. Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing (mahal) grievously, then will I stretch out my hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it and will cut off man and beast from it:"


Is that the term that was used with backsliding that we looked at in the last program? No. Backsliding would bring in God's mercy and grace but this "scornfully turning the back" is an apostasy or a "parapipto" that is so scornful in it's act that God has nothing left but judgment. He can't deal with it in mercy and grace. Now see, that's what makes the difference then.


Aright, flip all the way back to Hebrews chapter 6 and this is what makes the difference, I think, in these verses in Hebrews that so many people have got all confused and are shook up about. This is not the common ordinary believer who has suddenly fallen into sin and he's not lost. He hasn't scornfully rejected the things of God, but rather he's just simply been human and he's been caught in a moment of weakness and he falls, like we saw in our last program. The man in Corinth that was restored, and forgiven. Can you see that?


But these people made a scornful turning of the back on these things that God had revealed to them. Now then, since this is a much different situation of an apostatizing, look what the result will be.


Hebrews 6:6

"If they shall fall away, (or if they shall turn their backs scornfully on these things that are now revealed to them, it is impossible) to renew them again unto repentance; (it's impossible) seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."


What are we dealing with? We're dealing with people who have claimed to be believers. Now, I'm going to keep it in the Hebrew element first. And then we'll jump up to where we are today. Even these Hebrews to whom Paul is now writing, have made a semblance of believing. They have gone along with all these things, but then when they really were pressed to make a decision to move on forward, what did they scornfully do? They went back under the Law and there was no more of God dealing with them.


Now I know I have taught, and I will continue to teach, that God never gives up on a lost person. But, it would seem to indicate that someone who has made a profession of faith without really becoming a believer and then at one point in time, they scornfully, like the ones we've looked at in King Saul, what did he do? He just scornfully went his own way. What was his end? Suicide.


Judas. Three years he trafficked along with Jesus and the eleven, playing the perfect hypocrite. But in the final analysis, when it was time to really show his colors, what did he do? He scorned the Lord and went and sold Him for thirty pieces of silver. And ends up committing suicide.
Ok, that ends what Les Feldik had to say. What do you think?

I hope you read all that because he explain i better than I could.

But when push comes to shove i really do not believe that these jews were NOT believers at all...they were tasting, the were partaking..Paul could have easily used the terms like believers that were filled with the Holy Spirit..but he didn't. He used surface words. because that is as far as the Jews got....he was constantly encouraging them to move on in their walk. Ok, i think I have given you all i can on the subject. I doubt you will change your mind but perhaps you can consider it for a least a second or two. ;)

Tess - I like your treatment of this subject. Actually, since you did paraphrase Les Feldik's perspective, I guess I like his treatment of it :) At any rate, for what it's worth, I'd like to offer my two cents on what you have already covered.

It seems to me, Tess, that in our modern Christian culture whenever we try to delineate belief from unbelief in an individual we will quickly judge that someone who prays the sinner's prayer or asks Jesus into his heart is a Christian... unequivocally. Our thinking is that someone who rejects our message is definitely not a Christian so anyone who does must be a Christian. But this understanding of belief is a superficial one in my opinion because it doesn't address something the bible refers to as inwardness. The bible says that man looks at the outward appearance but God searches the heart of a man. Well, we cannot search the heart of a man but if God looks beyond the appearance of people and considers their heart, why should we revert back to examining the outward appearance of people (by this I mean man's outward verbal commitment to the truth)? Jesus said that we will know whether a tree is good or not by its fruit (and in that context he was speaking of false prophets but I think it is a useful paradigm for understanding people too). What I am saying is that just because Judas said he was a disciple of Jesus outwardly didn't mean that he was a committed disciple of Jesus inwardly. What I have observed on this Christian forum—on a few occasions now—is people's surprise at the notion that Judas was not a believer. Some people will say "Judas sat at the feet of Jesus and walked in his shadow; how could he not be a believer?" But what's striking is that his life seemed to consistently stand in contrast to what we would think was real faith.

The argument I use for why I think this is true is the commentary of Jesus as well as John on Judas. Consider the following scenario from the Upper Room:

“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

What is going on here? I think some would see this section this way. Jesus was describing Judas as being positionally unclean. He was walking in disobedience to God as this time but he was a believer. The problem I see with this interpretation is that it doesn't get at the meaning of the term clean, as Jesus is using it. I believe it is a reference to the term “washed” that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Paul is pointing out that people who habitually practice sin are not washed by the Spirit of God. Believers will still struggle with sin but struggling with it is not the issue. The issue is those who as a manner of practice, are given over to practicing sin of all kinds. In the case of Judas, he was murderous and a thief. Jesus said this of Judas: 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' Judas knew that by going to the Sanhedrin, he was guaranteeing a death sentence for Jesus. His heart was completely against Jesus. Secondly, Judas was a thief. He was entrusted with the money the disciples collected for their welfare. This is John's take on Judas (John Ch 12):

“But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Lastly, in Matthew's account, this is how Jesus describes Judas: “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” This I ask, if Judas Iscariot were simply a wayward believer, why would Jesus say that it would have been better if he had never been born. My take is that because Judas was enlightened to the truth and observed miracles in ways that many men had never before, he beyond so many others, knew that Jesus was the Christ. He could not deny that. But ultimately, his response to Jesus was to have him killed for money. He cheated Jesus and the disciples out of money while he was in charge of the money bag. At no time do the biblical authors ever evaluate Judas as one of the twelve in heart, but only in fact. Jesus said that he had chosen all of the disciples but Judas. He didn't mean that he did not make him part of his cohort; he meant that he was the only one whom he did not choose for eternal life:

“When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

So, for me it is not hard to see Judas as an unbeliever. He was probably one who received a far greater punishment from God than most unbelievers ever will…and I don't have any idea what that looks like or means but the idea of it alone is sobering. After all, Jesus said it would have been better for him if he had never been born.

[Wondergirl]

But wasn't Judas part of God's plan for salvation? How could God then damn him?

Which takes us back to the original predestination question that was posed--"Was Judas' betrayal of Jesus a necessary, foreordained part of God's plan, or an unplanned act of free will on the part of Judas?"

[classyT]

Jakester,

Wow. YES exactly. It isn't a matter of me JUDGING him... the Lord is the one that revealed him to us. It doesn't take much to put two and two together. This man was NOT real and I don't know how many ways the Lord could say it.

WG,
Judas had free will and every opportunity to believe in the Lord Jesus. In fact he had MORE than most people because he sat at the Lord's feet and listened to him teach and watched every miracle. He is without excuse.

Well, I believe in predestination and free will and that God is sovereign so to answer your questions yes and yes. And no I don't understand it either.

[Wondergirl]

Well, i believe in predestination and free will and that God is sovereign so to answer your questions yes and yes. and no i don't understand it either.

If Judas was a vital link in God's plan for salvation, would God damn him?

[classyT]

WG,

Did Judas have free will? What is the difference if we are talking about Judas or any one else that rejected Christ. The man had NO FAITH, it was HIS choice. I'm not going to defend God, I don't have to. I believe Paul wrote HE will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. WG, God is sovereign and if it is ONE THING that man hates about God it is his sovereignty. I don't understand it, I believe it, I accept it and most importantly I TRUST HIM. I don't have to figure it all out with my little mind. Aren't you the one telling me not to put God in a box. I suppose one day I will understand everything but for now I will let God be God.

[jakester]

If Judas was a vital link in God's plan for salvation, would God damn him?

Wondergirl - I believe the answer is yes, even though he was a "vital" link in God's plan for salvation. I suppose we bristle at that because we, especially as Americans, think we are really hot stuff. But when you read Romans 9, many commentators understand this section to be about God's sovereign choice for election and I do as well:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, [1] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel [3] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

Paul asks the question, is God being unjust by sovereignly choosing who he will save? No, because he can have mercy upon whoever he wants to. Where we get tripped up in this is when we fail to bring into the equation our own moral unworthiness as we consider this. We expect that God should be doling out eternal life to us because we are special; or at least we would like to believe that. But isn't the issue that we have with God our evil and unrighteousness? He doesn't have to be merciful to us but he does because he chooses to, not because he is obligated to. Moreover, Paul even argues that with Pharaoah, God raised him up (for the very purpose) of freeing Israel from captivity. Basically, as I understand it, Pharaoahs hardness of heart against God and Israel was part of God's plan because God ordained it so. And God was not at fault but Pharaoah was and is such judged by God.

My two cents.

[Wondergirl]

WG,

Did Judas have free will? What is the difference if we are talking about Judas or any one else that rejected Christ.

Good question--did Judas have free will? Or did God cause Judas to choose evil in order to make God's plan of salvation work out? Has God tweaked your free will to make you choose Him? Does predestination put God in a box?