Did Judas drink damnation?

NO. Judas did not eat and drink damnation to himself. Some suggest that he was absent when the Lord’s supper was instituted, having already exited the room (John 13:27). In any case, Judas was already damned, being an unbeliever and referred to by Jesus as “a devil” (John 3:18; 6:70).

Further, the damnation spoken of in 1Cor 11 is JUDGEMENT for believers, not damnation for unbelievers. It is a mistake to assume that ANY English version gives a perfect equivalent of the original languages. From the context of 1Cor, we can clearly see that the “damnation” of 11:29 refers to the temporal judgment of being sick, or even dead – “weak, sickly, asleep” (v. 30). AND, this “damnation” is said to be a result of being “judged” (v. 31). The words “damnation” and “judged” are from the same Greek root, krima/krinw and refer to judgement in this life, not eternal judgement and separation from God.

Here are the key verses for my argument in context...
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

The words “damnation” and “judged” are simply krima/krinw a less intense judgement than indicated by the “condemned with the world” in verse 32. There is a clear contrast between the treatment of believers who sin, even unto death, and the eternal condemnation of the unbelievers. Jesus chastens His children because they are His. This chastening marks them as separate from the world and secure from the intensified eternal judgment indicated by “condemned”. The word translated as “condemned” is an intensified katakrinw in contrast to the simple krima/krinw of verses 29 and 31.

Judas is the man who kissed “the door of heaven” and turned away and went to hell (Matt 26:48; John 10:7,9; Acts 1:25).

Judas did not eat and drink damnation to himself, even if he was present. Judas was already condemned, not having believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God!

 

I think you pretty much handled it rjprince.

 

God only chastises "HIS OWN".

That's the "key" to understanding what is being said.

 

If what he drank was Boone's Farm Apple Wine, maybe he did.

[Apologies to the Boone's Farm people. This was only a joke.]

 

I love the variety and depth of the non-sequiturs used by free willers. It provides a ceaseless source of entertainment.

Judas had no chance to be saved -> therefore God is playing with men's lives for His own entertainment.

That was one of the most entertaining non-sequiturs I've seen in a while.

 

Let me ask a question Salamander. How could Judas not be predestined to betray Jesus and yet the Scripture be fulfilled by his betrayal?

John 17:12 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.


How is it that Jesus, before the event happened, said that Judas would betray Him if he had a free-will choice at the moment that hadn't been made yet?

John 6:70-71 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.

Pay attention to the words of Jesus in the first verse and last verse of the next passage.

John 13:18-21 "I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.' 19 "Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. 20 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." 21 When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me."

Even though the 12 were there, Jesus was not talking about all of them because He knew who He had CHOSEN. Then He goes on to talk about the betrayer. Judas is accountable for his sin. But Jesus hadn't chosen him, which is why he wasn't clean (see beginning of chapter).

You seem to be having trouble understanding that the Bible presents both the absolute sovereignty of God in relation to even the small things like a bird falling to the ground, the results of the lot cast in the lap, the turning of a king's heart like a river, etc. and the teaching that man is responsible for the decisions he makes.[/QUOTE]

 

Calvibaptist (quote)

and the teaching that man is responsible for the decisions he makes .

How can the above quote be true according to your belief.

 

Sal,

That is right. Judas did not have a chance to be saved. No more than you or I have a chance to be saved. We have no chance at all, apart from the grace of God. We all deserve eternity in the lake of fire, separated from God for all eternity. Do you think that we are better than Judas because God has manifested His grace more directly in our lives? Do you think you are better than ANY unbeliever? I do not. I am a child of God because in His grace He saw fit to draw me to Himself. That I came did involve my will, but had He not changed my will from one of rebellion, I would never have come. He gets the glory, not me.

God was not unfair to Judas. Judas made a willful choice to betray the Lord Jesus. Judas made a willful choice to reject the message of salvation by faith in Jesus. My only point regarding this is that the doctrine of sovereign grace does not send anyone to hell, it only guarantees that some will go to heaven. Apart from His sovereign grace, we would all spend eternity in the lake of fire. That is what we deserve.

God is not playing with men’s lives. Satan is. That God calls some of us out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His Dear Son is a tribute to His grace and mercy, not our own goodness or self-righteousness. Why can people not interact with doctrine of sovereign grace without redefining it to be something it is not?

Was Judas present in the upper room? Without question. Did he leave before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper? John’s account would seem to indicate that he did. Jesus gave him the “sop” and he went out “immediately” (John 13:30). A great deal of teaching (doctrine) followed his departure. Matthew’s account suggests that immediately following the breaking of the bread and the giving of the cup that they sang a hymn and left the upper room (Matt 26:30). Luke’s order of presentation seems to indicate that Judas was there when the Lord’s Supper was instituted (Luke 22:20-21) and Luke’s gospel is generally recognized as the most precise and Luke himself tells us that he labored to record the event “in order” (Luke 1:3). SO if Luke said that Judas was present, he was. HOWEVER, Luke seems to give a clue about the timing of the Lord’s Supper in 22:20 when he tells us that the special significance imparted to the cup, “my blood which is shed for you”, took place “AFTER SUPPER”. Which certainly leaves room for the departure of Judas before the institution of the ordinance.

Is there room for disagreement here? Certainly. Is there room to call me “mad” by my “much speaking”? Not really, unless you just like to pointlessly slander those with whom you disagree...

I have no idea what you are talking about with this? However, since I am “mad”, it is not that big of a jump to portray me as dishonest as well...

Where did I say anything even remotely close to any of this? Apparently with all the emoticons you think something is funny here. The only thing I find amusing are your musings which do not even remotely bear upon what I wrote.

KJVO is another issue, and from what I can tell about to become a NON-ISSUE on this board at least. As far as translation, anytime you go from one language to another, you cannot help but convey the ideas in a less than perfect manner. If you want to really get the sense of Japanese Haiku poetry, you cannot read it in an English translation!

Yep. If you cannot respond to the substance of the argument, might as well slander the source with pejorative language...

Reading the posts in between, this seems to be a pattern...

 

Well, several more got in there between all this.

Man, apart from the Grace of God will ALWAYS choose to rebel against God. NNE has an inclination to do righteousness. Whenever it may seem that someone has done righteousness, it is only self-righteousness -- apart from the Grace of God.

That was the problem with the Jews. They were righteous -- self-righteous, and in God's book that = unrighteous. The problem was, they thought they were OK.

No surpise. Many people today seem to think that they are OK, and can choose God in and of themselves on the basis of some internal righteousness that they have above others.

 

Because the Bible teaches it. You have to understand that we don't just make up our beliefs. We take statements of Scripture and try to figure them out.

For instance, we take these statement:

Ephesians 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will

Romans 9:15-18 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

And from those verses we see that God is absolutely sovereign and has chosen, before the foundation of the world, who He would save. It is perfectly within His right to do so.

We also see verses like this:

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

John 3:18-21 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

That's just a few, but should be plenty to get my point across. We see in these verses that the choice is held out to man to believe or reject and he is held responsible for that choice.

That is why we believe that God is absolutely sovereign and man is responsible for his choices. It has nothing to do with a theological system and everything to do with declaring the whole counsel of God.

 

Judas did not drink damnation on himself. Scripture said he was already damned centuries before he was born (John 17:12).

 

non-sequiturs appear rather often on these boards.... I guess.

 

Calvibaptist (quote)
And from those verses we see that God is absolutely sovereign and has chosen, before the foundation of the world, who He would save . It is perfectly within His right to do so.


That's just a few, but should be plenty to get my point across. We see in these verses that the choice is held out to man to believe or reject and he is held responsible for that choice.

Why can't you see the above statements are contrary to one another. You can't have it both ways.

 

Sal,

Apart from the acting of God's grace upon a person, that person will not come to God. No man can come “except it were given Him of the father” (John 6:65). Jesus told the Jews, “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (John 10:26). Could they have believed? Sure, on the one hand, He was not preventing them from believing. Could they have come? Yes, except that it was never in their nature to come to Him.

Tie a buzzard to a stake in a grain field and he will starve to death. Could he eat? Sure. But he wont. It is not his nature to eat grain.

Could the Jews have come? Yes, but their nature kept them from doing so. The only ones who came were those given Him of the Father (John 6:65). Is that God’s fault? No. Every person is born with a sin nature and they confirm it by their own repeated sinful choices. Any time someone comes to God, it is because He has drawn them, not because they thought of it themselves.

Abraham and Nicodemus? What, are you suggesting that they were righteous on their own? Abraham was justified by faith and he has nothing of which to glory (Rom 4:1-5). Nicodemus had to be born again, by the Spirit of God on the basis of his faith in the Lord Jesus (John 3:16). Was that not a result of the Grace of God? He was graced to see the miracles of Jesus and to respond to the light of the Lord.

Jesus called Judas "a devil" in John 6:70. The fact that Satan did not enter him till later does not change the fact that Judas was always lost. Did he have a chance to accept Jesus as His Savior? Of course. God did not hold him back. His own sin held him back.

NNE WILL STAND IN GOD’S PRESENCE AND ACCUSE GOD OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. IT WILL BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT THEY ARE BEING RIGHTEOUSLY CONDEMNED FOR THEIR OWN WILLFUL SIN. (and yes I am yelling, here).

(OK, done yelling) Isn’t it funny that while men are not in His immediate presence they do accuse God of being unrighteous in sovereignly ordained some to eternal life?

Rom 9:18-32 –
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

“Rightly dividing... limiting to one edge?” Yep. If I had a double-edged sword, like you, maybe I could understand the word? Maybe there is hope for me yet!

OH BUT WAIT! My Sword does have two edges! Both the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of man. I do not make the sovereignty of God subject to the free will of man. God did not chose after He already knew what man would do! God chose according to His own sovereignty! How does that fit with the free will of man? I do not know. BUT, I do not try to explain it by grinding off one side of MY sword. Maybe I am not the one with only one edge? And sorry if I sound a bit edgy here. I have succumbed and allowed myself to be drawn into the rhetoric and mood of the moment...

 

BBob,

At least YOU recognize that it is a double-edged argument -- the sovereignty of God and the will of man. Again, I cannot explain it, I am only called to declare it, as written.