Eternal or kingdom Salvation Mt. 24:13

I too had to repent of the misuse of the word "lost" as applying to an unsaved person. Makes you wonder how the traditions of men got us to the point of equating "lost" with "unsaved", doesn't it?

Another one that I had to repent of was equating "hell" with "lake of fire".

Two traditions of men with no foundations whatsoever in Scriptures that have caused much confusion.

But, we can't be confusing doctrine by looking at what the Sciptures actually say, now can we? It destroys good rhetoric, not to mention helfire and damnation yelling.

 

I just gave the definition of Webster.

perdition

One entry found for perdition. Main Entry: per·di·tion
Pronunciation: p&r-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English perdicion, from Anglo-French perdiciun, Late Latin perdition-, perditio, from Latin perdere to destroy, from per- through + dare to give -- more at [SIZE=-1]PER-[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]DATE[/SIZE]
1 a archaic : utter destruction b obsolete : [SIZE=-1]LOSS[/SIZE]
2 a : eternal damnation b : [SIZE=-1]HELL[/SIZE]

This is scripture I used.

Jhn 17:12While 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.

 

Why is it common belief that Judas wasn't saved ?Could he not ?The foundation of "Judas the Hell bound disciple" seems to be 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.[/QUOTE]

 

I see you picked out the mildest. I see you added a word of your own Hope of Glory. Where did you get the word "simply". Is your Greek Lexicon different than mine?

If you use the other scriptures concerning the matter of eating unworthily then using Jesus's definition it says: "it had been good for that man if he had not been born.".

It just does not sound good to me, even using your Greek Lexicon.

It seems to me HoG; that you add or change words so your etymological source fits your theology?

I know why you did not like me using 1 Corinthians 11:29, it placed even stronger evidence against Judas of which you probably had not thought of, but if it is as you say, then it should be able to stand up to all scripture, don't you think?

Son of perdition.
perdition =
apōleia=
1) destroying, utter destruction
a) of vessels
2) a perishing, ruin, destruction
a) of money
b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell


Same word used in 2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men

 

What if????

 

Probably. I use the BDAG, which is the standard for Greek Lexicons. If I remember correctly, you use Strong's, but I could be mistaken about that.

If I didn't think you were serious, though, I would laugh. You added the word "eternal" to Scriptures, I pointed out that it is "simply" judgment, and you are accusing me of adding something.

However, I'll post the entire, long, definition of the word at the end of this post, although I doubt that you will even read it since it doesn't jibe with what you really and truly want the Scriptures to say.

Well, I do use two etymological sources, but rarely do I find a disagreement between the two. When I do, I post both. I'm honest that way. I care what the Scriptures say, even if it doesn't line up with what I already believe. I esteem the Scriptures over the teachings of men.

In what way? It shows exactly what I'm saying. He is judged, just as we will all be judged, based upon our works, which is not what our everlasting salvation is dependent upon, thank God!

And, you once again show what I'm saying, in a roundabout way. What is "hell" and what is "aionios"?

Yep.

Let's see, lots of stuff to copy and paste... What order... Oops, too much space, I'll have to make it in the next post.

 

OK, I'll post the way different translations have translated 1 Corinthians 11:29 (hmm... seems that the word "Lord's" has been added also), then the definition of "krima" and "apOleia". [Note: I had to omit much of the textual notes in order to cut down on characters used, and the NKJV even shows that "unworthily" and "Lord's" are questionable.]

ASV: For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

REV: For, he that is eating and drinking,—judgment unto himself, doth eat and drink,—if he be not setting apart the body.

WNT: For any one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgement to himself, if he fails to estimate the body aright.

ESV: For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

NASB: For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

κρίμα, ατος, τό (s. κρίνω; Aeschyl.+—On the accent s. B-D-F §13; 109, 3; W-S. §6, 3; Mlt-H. 57; κρίσμα GJs 14:1).​

① legal action taken against someone, dispute, lawsuit (Ex 18:22) κρίματα ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν you have lawsuits with one another 1 Cor 6:7.​

② content of a deliberative process, decision, decree (IGal 25, 2 [II a.d.] κατὰ τὸ κ. τῆς βουλῆς; Ps 18:10; 118:75; Jos., Ant. 14, 318; 321; ParJer 7:32 [28]; Did., Gen. 116, 24), also of the fixed purposes of divine grace Ro 11:33.​

③ action or function of a judge, judging, judgment, the κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς authority to judge was given them Rv 20:4.—Of God’s judgment: τὸ κρίμα τὸ μέλλον Ac 24:25. κ. αἰώνιον judgment whose decision is valid eternally Hb 6:2. God’s judgment begins with God’s people 1 Pt 4:17. Pl.: God is δίκαιος ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν righteous in judgments 1 Cl 27:1; 60:1.—Unauthorized use of judicial authority is subject to critique in Mt 7:2; Ro 2:1 v.l.​

④ legal decision rendered by a judge, judicial verdict​

ⓐ gener. (Polyb. 23, 1, 12) τὸ κ. ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα the verdict came as the result of one violation, and led to punishment Ro 5:16.​

ⓑ mostly in an unfavorable sense, of the condemnatory verdict and sometimes the subsequent punishment itself 2 Pt 2:3; Jd 4. τὸ κ. τοῦ θεοῦ the condemnation of God (i.e. pronounced by God) Ro 2:2f. ὧν τὸ κ. ἔνδικόν ἐστιν their condemnation is just 3:8 (but WFitch, ET 59, ’47/48, 26 ‘verdict’). πρόδηλον ἐγενήθη their condemnation has been made plain 1 Cl 51:3. τὸ κ. τῆς πόρνης the condemnation and punishment of the prostitute Rv 17:1. εἰς κ. συνέρχεσθαι 1 Cor 11:34. κ. ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίειν eat condemnation upon oneself vs. 29; λαμβάνεσθαι κ. be condemned Mt 23:13 v.l.; Mk 12:40; Lk 20:47; Ro 13:2; Js 3:1. ἔχουσαι κ., ὅτι they are subject to condemnation because 1 Ti 5:12; βαστάζειν τὸ κ. Gal 5:10. εἰς κ. γίνεσθαι incur condemnation 1 Cl 11:2. εἰς κ. γίνεσθαί τινι turn out to be condemnation for someone 21:1; IEph 11:1 (cp. TestJob 43:6 ἀποβήσετα εἰς κ.). ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κ. εἶναι be under the same condemnation Lk 23:40. εἰς κ. ἐμπίπτειν τοῦ διαβόλου 1 Ti 3:6. κ. θανάτου (cp. Dt 21:22; Sir 41:3) death sentence Lk 24:20; GJs 14:1 (τοῦ θανάτου pap [?], s. deStrycker p. 236).—Pl. (cp. BGU 471, 9 [II a.d.]) τὰ μέλλοντα κρίματα the impending punishments 1 Cl 28:1. On 1 Cl 20:5 s. ἀνεκδιήγητος.—GWetter, Der Vergeltungsgedanke bei Pls 1912, 1ff.—The OT is the source of the expr. κρίνειν τὸ κ. (cp. Zech 7:9; 8:16; Ezk 44:24) ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς God has pronounced judgment for you against her or God has pronounced on her the judgment she wished to impose on you (HHoltzmann, Hdb. 1893 ad loc.) Rv 18:20.​

⑤ proper recognition of someone’s rights, justice. The OT is the source of the close relation betw. κ. and δικαιοσύνη, and the expr. ποιεῖν κ. καὶ δικαιοσύνην (Jer 23:5; Ezk 33:14) do justice and righteousness 1 Cl 13:1.​

⑥ In J κ. shows the same two-sidedness as the other members of the κρίνω family (‘judgment’ and ‘separation’; s. Hdb. on J 3:17), and means the judicial decision which consists in the separation of those who are willing to believe fr. those who are unwilling to do so J 9:39.—B. 1422. DELG s.v. κρίνω. M-M. EDNT ​

 

ἀπώλεια, ας, ἡ (s. ἀπόλλυμι; Demades [IV b.c.]: Or. Att. II 52 p. 313 in the sense ‘loss’; later writers; ins, pap, oft. LXX, pseudepigr., Philo, Jos., Ar., Just.; Mel., P.).​

① the destruction that one causes, destruction, waste trans. (Aristot., EN 4, 1, 1120a 2; Polyb. 6, 11a, 10 opp. τήρησις; PTebt 276, 34) εἰς τί ἡ ἀ. αὕτη τ. μύρου; why this waste of ointment? Mk 14:4; cp. Mt 26:8.​

② the destruction that one experiences, annihilation both complete and in process, ruin intr. (so usu. LXX; EpArist 167; Philo, Aet. M. 20; 74; Jos., Ant. 15, 62, Vi. 272; TestDan 4:5; Ar. 13, 8; Just., D. 56, 5; Mel.; but also in Aristot., Prob. 29, 14, 952b 26; Polyb., Plut., Epict. et al. [Nägeli 35]; Diod S 15, 48, 1 with φθορά; Herm. Wr. 12, 16; PGM 4, 1247f παραδίδωμι σε εἰς τὸ μέλαν χάος ἐν τ. ἀπωλείαις) Ac 25:16 v.l.; AcPl Ha 4, 16. (w. ὄλεθρον) βυθίζειν εἰς ὄ. καὶ ἀ. plunge into utter destruction 1 Ti 6:9; πρὸς τ. ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀ. to their own ruin 2 Pt 3:16; (w. πλάνη) 2 Cl 1:7 (Ar. 13:8). Esp. of eternal destruction as punishment for the wicked: Mt 7:13; εἰς ἀ. ὑπάγειν go to destr. Rv 17:8, 11. (Opp. περιποίησις ψυχῆς) Hb 10:39. (Opp. σωτηρία) Phil 1:28. ἡμέρα κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας (Job 21:30) τ. ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων day of judgment and (consequent) destruction of wicked men 2 Pt 3:7. Hence the end of the wicked is described as ἀ.: τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν to hell with you and your money (Phillips) Ac 8:20 (for the phrasing cp. Da 2:5 and 3:96 Theod.); ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀ. Phil 3:19. σκεύη ὀργῆς, κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀ. objects of (God’s) anger, ready for destruction Ro 9:22 (Is 54:16). It will come quickly 2 Pt 2:1; is not sleeping vs. 3 (on the topic cp. Od. 2, 281–84). Appears as a consequence of death (cp. Job 28, 22): ὁ θάνατος ἀ. ἔχει αἰώνιον Hs 6, 2, 4; God laughs at it 1 Cl 57:4 (Pr 1:26). Those destined to destruction are υἱοὶ τῆς ἀ. J 17:12; ApcPt 1:2. The Lawless One is also υἱὸς τῆς ἀ. 2 Th 2:3. αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας heresies that lead to destr. 2 Pt 2:1; δόγματα τῆς ἀ. ApcPt 1:1.—DELG s.v. ὄλλυμι. M-M. TW.​

 

I never added to scripture, I only gave the definition of perdition. You complained so I went and got the Greek definition and also gave that Jeus Himself said, it would of been good if he had not been born. What we were discussing is Judas eternal saved.
Well, he can't be eternally saved, if he is eternally damned.

Keeping in mind what we started with about Judas and him the son of perdition;

I wasn't going to do this but seeing you posted so much, so be it.

As you can see almost ever translation uses the word "perdition". which is defined by stongs to be eternal misery in hell. Please do not forget that hell itself is going into the Lake of Fire.

NASB:
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. (NASB ©1995)
GWT:
While I was with them, I kept them safe by the power of your name, the name that you gave me. I watched over them, and none of them, except one person, became lost. So Scripture came true.(GOD'S WORD®)
KJV:
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.
ASV:
While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
BBE:
While I was with them I kept them safe in your name which you have given to me: I took care of them and not one of them has come to destruction, but only the son of destruction, so that the Writings might come true.
DBY:
When I was with them I kept them in thy name; those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.
ERV:
While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
WEY:
While I was with them, I kept them true to Thy name--the name Thou hast given me to bear--and I kept watch over them, and not one of them is lost but only he who is doomed to destruction--that the Scripture may be fulfilled.
WBS:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest to me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
WEB:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name. Those whom you have given me I have kept. None of them is lost, except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
YLT:
when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled.

I guess this one you posted is nearer to the truth than all the rest. I notice there are others.

perdition is used as strongs 864 too many times for me to list on here. All meaning the same, it ain't good. None of them seem to give Judas any hope.

 

I asked you first!:tonofbricks:

 

Have a good 4th, all of you............:wavey:

 

Welcome to BB, fotL!

This reply is as much for HoG and Lacy as it is for you. Judas is damned. His spirit sits right now in 'the bottomless pit' (with all the other demons who left their first estate) waiting to be released in the 5th trumpet to indwell AC, Rev 11:7, 17:8! This is NOT tradition but scripture. He is the one who "was, and is not, and is to come," Rev 17:8. Zech 11:12-15 alludes to the same one during the tribulation as cutting asunder" the peace treaty and of him taking the "instruments of a foolish shepherd."

Also note that Jesus called Judas the "son of perdition" and Paul said that is who will come to rule in the tribulation, 2Thes 2:3. Pretty specific, eh?

My understanding is that the devil entered into Judas the night of the Last Supper. Prior to that, the disciples -- all of them -- healed by the power of the presence but not indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit, the "Seal," wasn't given until after the cross.

Under that arrangement, Christ was using fleshly men to direct the Spirit of healing as a manifestation of His kingdom among men.

skypair

 

Lacy;

1. Perhaps and most likely Jesus was saying to Peter, being it was Peter who Christ said to "upon this Rock, I build my church", Jesus was saying to Peter:

Satanas
1) adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act)

Satanas came from the Hebrew word of "sä·tän'" which also means= 1) adversary, one who withstands

Being that Peter didn't want to believe or couldn't accept, that the Lord would suffer as Jesus had just told him. Peter couldn't believe that Jesus would suffer at the hands of men in Jerusalem, as he was just told, so he reacted as.

Matt 16:22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

I does not even come close to what Judas did, as I have already posted about Judas being the "son of perdition" which in Greek means "son of eternal hell", and what Peter said was that he just couldn't believe that Jesus would suffer that way, Peter really was trying to protect the Lord, hence:
(Satanas= adversary one who opposes another in purpose or act)

I don't see how an educated man, such as yourself, could even compare the two?

 

Bro. Bob,

I think he is meaning to compare Peter's thrice denial of Jesus with Judas betrayal.

But they are NOT the same on this account --- Judas was possessed of the devil and would be till death. Peter, in all his rash behavior, simply "got in over his head" every time!!

But there is a purpose to that, too. Peter, in the gospel of John "the Revelator," is a "type" of Catholic -- left behind at the rapture "foolish virgin"/Thyatira -- who will be "sifted by the leaven of Satan 3 times during the tribulation, Mt 13:33. Notice in John 18:15-27, if you are up for the study of this, that Peter follows Christ and Judas to Caiaphas house (which by type is the tribulation). Notice is was before entering that he was first challenged, "Are you one of His disciples." Of course, with the true church gone, this will be the "question of the day," won't it?

Two more times Peter is tested on deeper levels --- one by those standing by the fire (as if one test will be the mark of the beast commercial test and the other where Peter is caused to commit an act of overt behavioral denial, cursing (Mk 14:71).

skypair

 

Skypair; He was talking about when Jesus said get behind me satan, for this is how we started: I agree with you about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit coming after the cross.

 

OK, I think you're serious, but it's still hilarious!

"Perdition" means no such thing, except in the wild imagination of someone who...

Never mind!

 

HoG; unless you can read Greek and in some cases Hebrew, then you totally depend on tools such as Strong's and others. In

depending on them, you copy and paste the answer given to you by them, as I do. Now your supplier or tool, may say

something different than Strong's says, but I doubt it. As I have noticed, Greek definitions to words are several different

meanings. I see you alway pick out the one that supports your theology as I do. But I also, found other scriptures to support

that Judas is eternally lost and in Hell, with no way to ever be redeemed. Now if you for some unknown reason hunt out these

crazy questions such as "can Judas be saved", want to believe that Judas will sit on a throne and be in Heaven, go for it. As

for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.


Perdition

Pronunciation

ä-pō'-lā-ä
Strongs 684 1) destroying, utter destruction
a) of vessels
2) a perishing, ruin, destruction
a) of money
b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell

Judas was the son of the above:

All I have to go on is the tools provided to us by Strong's and others. Maybe you have a better answer and would like to enlighten us, without two pages of nothing, in your wild imagination of someone who... is hilarious!

hilarious! when they run to the Greek until it don't fit their theology.

684
apwleia
apoleia
ap-o'-li-a
from a presumed derivative of apollumi - apollumi 622; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal):--damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.

2 Peter 2:

1: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2: And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.


Mat 7:13
¶Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Jhn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Judas was the son of all of the above!!

If you can't see the truth from this post, there is no help for you. IMO

 

Then you haven't been paying attention. Generally, unless the context says otherwise, the primary definition is the one to go with. The context must be the context, and not the pretext of preconceived ideas.

However, the definitions that I posted, which took up quite a bit of space if you noticed, were the complete and entire definition, minus the footnotes to save on characters.

Then, you picked out one definition (that was a definition for use with another word, if I remember correctly) that was a secondary definition, then you posted Scriptures to "prove" your point, based on an assumption based on Strong's Concordance.

Strong's is weak. (Hey, I like that!) It is good for numbering and organizing, but it's a concordance that is based on a translation. Strong's puts some definitions in there that are based on the KJV translation that have not other sources, and some of those word usages are different meanings than the English words used at the time. (That's why a good etymology dictionary with a history of words is also handy, but they're as expensive as the BDAG, if not more so.)

The BDAG is the standard for translating the Greek language, outside of any particular translation of the Bible. (Although, some scholars do contend with a few of the definitions based upon other documents, those are few and far between.)

For an affordable lexicon, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon" is OK. It's not the best, but it's pretty good.

But, "apoleia" is destruction. It can be argued that it's destruction in "hell", in some contexts. But, "hell" and the "lake of fire" are not synonymous, and to equate "destruction" with "burning in the lake of fire forever and ever" is adding quite a bit to the text.

To "prove" that's what it means, you cannot take a text that is in question, then use it as "proof". That's circular logic.

 

2 Peter 2:1 is talking about "heresies of destruction".

What does it mean to be "destroyed"?

The verse itself says that they are denying the "Lord who bought them". They're his. They're redeemed.

Can you become unsaved?