Eternal or kingdom Salvation Mt. 24:13

I suppose you send out missionaries to preach the gospel and make disciples of all men.
If you do, then following your logic, why should you send out missionaries when you were not part of the group that Christ was addressing before His ascension ?
I would say that command was given only to the apostles. Would you say Matthias was never considered by the Lord at that point ?

 

What does Matthias have to do with Judas having a throne or not?

Again, why do you and others refuse to reply directly to the Scripture proof given?

I also ask, do you and the others not believe in repentance? Or is repentance only good enough for cerain people?

I ask again, will you write a blog stating Biblicaly why we shouldn't take the verse in Luke literaly?

 

Your twisting question is illogical in itself. Do you believe that only the 12 will rule and reign?

Just to name a few that will reign in His Kingdom:

The 12 Jesus promised a throne to in Luke.

The faithful saved who love His appearing. (The Bride)

The martyrs from Great Tribulation. (Revelation)

 

14: And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15: And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20: Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
21: But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Jesus made it plain He was not addressing Judas!

Judas was there alright, but the Lord knowing what he was, called him a betrayer among the twelve. I not sure if this answers or not.

It had been prophesied in OT that Judas would be a betrayer.

 

The probem is that MacArthur and most Lordship advocates believe conditions for salavtion are found in the Sermon on the Mount.


LM

 

Never-the-less, there is no gospel message in the Sermon on the Mount that would be suffiicent for a lost man to believe in and receive Jesus Christ as Savior.


LM

 

Thank you for your honesty Brother Bob. I know that when reading it is hard to determine what attitude the writer has. Let me assure you my words are kind and without sarcasm. Your last blog helps to prove what I have said. Jesus was speaking to the twelve. If you discredit Judas from having a throne because Jesus singled him out then you must also discredit Peter for he too was singled out as one who would deny the Lord. Which is worse, betraying or denying? Truth be known, either is as bad as the other. So then there were ten since with this view we have now discredited Peter.
(I believe Peter AND Judas will have what Jesus said they would have, a throne.)

 

Accountable you are entitled to your belief. The difference I see is that scripture says that Judas was the "son of perdition", and no where does it say that about Peter.

Scripture also says, if all that Jesus had said and done had been written down, I suppose the world would not contain the books. We can only go on what Jesus felt we needed, and He told us that Judas was the son of perdition. I am sure the Lord knew much more than we could possible know. I will just have to accept what He said, that Judas was the son of Hell, or eternal damnation, to which there is not end.

 

Peter was called Satan. Is this any better?

 

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Oh, I don't think the Lord was calling Peter satan at all. He was telling him what Peter was saying was not of Him but contradicting His words.

You can't seriously consider what Judas did and what Peter did the same can you?

 

BELEE-DAT!

 

To state that the handful were his only disciples is not correct.

Jesus had many, many disciples.

In the Garden, when the soldiers came to take Jesus, they brought a tenth of a legion. A legion generally contained 5000-6000 soldiers (although some of them contained as few as 2000, and some as many as 10,000) so, there were probably between 500 and 600 military men.

Do you think that many would have come for a dozen or so fishermen who had a couple of swords?

A disciple is someone who embraces the teachings of someone else. A disciple of Jesus is a person who believes. A disciple of Jesus is saved, but not all saved people are disciples. But, there were more than just a handful of disciples.

 

Other than how it ended up, yes pretty much the exact same thing.

What if Judas had fallen on his face and begged Christ's forgiveness, then lived a life of self-denial and service from that point on? And what if Peter had allowed himself to be overwhelmed by despondency and committed suicide? Would you be asking, "You can't seriously consider what Judas did and what Peter did the same can you?"

Would Peter have lost his salvation? Would he have proved he was "never saved in the first place" (since a really-really-truely-really-true Christian would never do something so bad).

Perhaps Judas was saved, didn't lose his salvation, but still committed a despicable act (like his buddy Peter), and then died in his sin. (Even if he repented of betraying Christ, he certainly had no time to repent of murdering himself!)

Perhaps he is saved like the Galation Christians. But perhaps he forfeited his Kingdom entrance like the same Galation Christians were warned would happen to them in Gal 5:21 if they committed murder.

Perhaps he was a born again son of God with and an heir to the Kingdom. But perhaps like Esau, he sold his birthright (not his sonship) for 30 pieces of silver or a bowl of red soup!

 

Brother Bob, I'm not sure of your etymological source, but it falls a little short. It leaves out a very important part of it before we changed it to what you posted: Latin word evolved a legal meaning of "pronounce judgment upon."

You also need to get a good Greek Lexicon, such as the BDAG. Don't dump the concordance, as it's a handy tool to find where a word is used, but it's pretty useless to see how a word is used.

The word used here is 1 Corinthians 11:29 is "krima". It's simply judgment.

Also, "unworthily" was added into the text at some point. (It is implied, because you do need to do a personal introspection and make sure you're not partaking unworthily, but whether worthily or unworthily, you're drinking unto judgment, either positive or negative.)

So, there is confusion caused by adding "unworthily" to the text, and "damnation" being interpreted in the way that it is (which is debatable about the meaning of the word at the time of translation, because of the evolution of the English language), and then forget that the warning is given to everyone, not simply one person.

All have sinned and fallen short. Peter denied Jesus, and what does he say about denying him now? He will deny them in the future.

Sin is sin. Some are more serious than others, and punishment is given accordingly, but can that punishment include forfeiture of being in the family?

 

Not necessarily. A disciple is plainly a follower. There were many disciples that abandoned Christ and His teachings, but you can't state they were never disciples.

 

The point is, they were disciples, then they abandoned his teachings.

They embraced his teachings.

So, unless a person can become unsaved, they are saved individuals.

He wasn't teaching them "what must I do to be saved?" He was teaching them how to live by faith. That comes after "what must I do to be saved?"

 

So, if I do all this then "eternal damnation" would not mean eternal damnation and Judas would be saved.

I think I will stick with what I got. Ever time it does not fit your theology, you say get a Greek Lexicon or look up the Greek word or anything so it will not be what it is. I don't know what you need a Bible for if you not going to take what it says.

I did not say Judas was the son of perdition, Jesus did. Do you think that Jesus needs a Greek Lexicon? I didn't say his habitation would be desolute, God did!

I didn't say, it would of been good for that man ,if Judas had not been born, Jesus did.

Mat 26:24The 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.

I think you said that Judas was saved eternally.

Jesus said, it would of been good for that man ,if Judas had not been born, Jesus did.

And you say, I need a Greek Lexicon.

 

Why is it common belief that Judas wasn't saved ?Could he not ?The foundation of "Judas the Hell bound disciple" is built off
John17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
but mostly believed because of tradition, of which I myself have had to repent from.Looking at the word "lost" as defined by the Greek will be helpful for anyone who desires to know what the scripture teaches.If you feel that lost means bound for hell,would you not have to conclude that Judas was saved but then Jesus lost him?Though I can't think of any Baptist that teach loss of eternal salvation.Maybe this passage is not the major stumbling block for someone to seeing Judas as saved rather the comment in
Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
It would be very simple to say if Judas was saved Satan would have never been able to enter him.My question to that person would be what did Christ mean when he said"Get behind me Satan !Does this make you question Peters salvation?Did not Christ call out all 12 of the disciple to do his work,didn't all 12 have the God given power over unclean spirits (Matt 10) .With that in mind look at

Matt 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
I hope I won't cause you to get angrey with me brother but if Judas did thoughs works through Satan are we not blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit?If I have over looked or miss represented the scriptures I apologize but I cannot conclude Judas wasn't saved.

 

Thought I would highlight the word that you, Brother Bob, personally saw fit to add to the text.

'Nuf said.

For the moment.

 

Why did Jesus say: