If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
No. My point is that Heb 11 shows a truly converted person - the real new birth - the real "new creation". This is the "ONE GOSPEL" of Gal 1:6-11 fully functioning in the OT.

Then I fully agree.

But GOD IS ABLE to ENABLE that choice that TD disables --- to ENABLE choice - where that choice is to CHOOSE LIFE. "With the mouth we confess and with the heart we believe and the RESULT" is salvation - eternal life - the born again experience.

That is an excellent description of salvation. Just the last bit we differ on. You are equating being born again with the whole process, whereas I say it is the first part of the process. God changes the heart (we are born again), then we believe and confess and are saved.

In Calvinism it is insisted that EVEN GOD can not ENABLE choice for a totally depraved sinner WITHOUT FIRST also making them entirely born again Christians PRE-faith, PRE-belief.

We are talking at cross-purposes, then. For Calvinists, the enabling IS the giving of a new heart (regeneration). They are not complete Christians until they repent and believe. It is our different useage of 'born again' that has led you to think Calvinists believe men are Christians before they believe. We do not.

This is not a method/belief/teaching of arminians -- or the Word of God.

Nor of Calvinists, I'm happy to say.

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said


But GOD IS ABLE to ENABLE that choice that TD disables --- to ENABLE choice - where that choice is to CHOOSE LIFE. "With the mouth we confess and with the heart we believe and the RESULT" is salvation - eternal life - the born again experience.



Ian said

That is an excellent description of salvation. Just the last bit we differ on. You are equating being born again with the whole process, whereas I say it is the first part of the process. God changes the heart (we are born again), then we believe and confess and are saved.

So then you are saying that a born-again Christian - born in the image of God - where all things have become new - old things are passed away - the new creation where we have "become the righteousness of God in Christ", a new nature a new creation in harmony with God having God's Law written on the heart 2Cor 5 (and 2Cor 3) --- is the "LOST" soul that the Calvinist preaches to.

You would claim that this poor LOST soul in such a condition as described above -- is the one that Calvinist evangelists so desperately need to reach??

This born-again, new creation, Law written on the heart, IN harmony with Christ -- soul is the needy one that they long to have "someday accept the Gospel" of Good News - of being saved from our lost sinful state - apart from God????

I think the point is now obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ian Major]

Eric B said
Still, the exceptions are significant enough, because it WAS a picture. When you say "saves the world"/"saves His people", this is true, but not preordained states of the people, and even those "exceptions" (as well as any in the "people" who didn't follow the rule and were slaughered) show this.

Eric, OT Israel was a picture of the spiritual Israel, the Jerusalem that is above. God chose the true Israel just as He chose natural Israel - not for anything in them, not for their choice of Him, but simply because He loved them. Natural Israel was subject to apostasy, except the spiritual members of it, but the true Israel is soley composed of spiritual Israelites and cannot fail.


[infinity]/[infinity] is not necessarily infinity; any finite number will fit; once again, the eternity (infinity) of the duration would then equal the debt, and it would be paid, and then in some infinitely far time (conceivable, considering time may be different in the new Heavens, which we often call "eternity"), they would be saved. This idea would be better for a concept of purgatory.

Are there no Arminians left who believe in ETERNAL punishment? I'm amazed and troubled that this Evangelical doctrine is disappearing amongst folk who call themselves Evangelical. To change the meaning of eternal and infinity to mean merely a long time, well, I'm at a loss to account for it . Except, it is what I warned about at the start of my 'God, That's Not Fair' thread - Free-willism leads one further and further from the Truth. Universalism or Open Theology beckon.

Ask yourself, if 'forever and ever', 'to the ages of the ages' can be reduced to a certain time for the punishment of the wicked, why must it not also apply to the blessedness of the righteous? The same terms are used for both. Are we all going to be snuffed out at some future date?

I'm running out of time, so I will end with a more significant issue:
No, you're confusing either someone who was a person of God who backslides, or those back then who were already pretty much following Christ, but were not yet "of the fold". Clearly, the definition of sheep is one who "hears His voice", currently, that is, not "all who will in the future". If they are not following His voice now, they do not fit the description of a sheep.

Your defination of what constitutes a sheep falls when we look at Christ's comment, John 10: 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. They were already His sheep - but this refers to Gentiles not yet saved.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
So then you are saying that a born-again Christian - born in the image of God - where all things have become new - old things are passed away - the new creation where we have "become the righteousness of God in Christ", a new nature a new creation in harmony with God having God's Law written on the heart 2Cor 5 (and 2Cor 3) --- is the "LOST" soul that the Calvinist preaches to.

No, Bob, that is the opposite of what I'm saying. When the moment comes for God to save a man, He regenerates him (gives him a new heart), and the man then believes and repents.

All one continuous sequence. At the end of that sequence we can properly say the man is saved. Not after regeneration only. Not after believing only. But after regeneration, believing and repenting. But one cannot occur without the other, so we must be careful not to separate them.

So the picture you paint of Calvinists preaching to saved lost men is not valid. Just like me accusing an Arminian of preaching to a saved lost soul if I single out repentance from faith. Are you preaching to a lost soul if you do so at the moment he has believed but before he has repented? Of course the picture is invalid - the sequence of salvation CANNOT be broken into. We are talking of ONE event.


I hope this makes the Calvinist position clear.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Gina L said
If you refuse to come then it doesn't mean I didn't pay your bill or earn the money to do so, it means you didn't accept it and that piece of paper is worthless TO YOU. Your whole bill will still be your own responsibility.

The bottom line is this: for universal atonement to be true, Christ was punished for the sins the wicked dead will also be punished for. It doesn't matter how you explain the mechanism, I just want universalists to own up to the fact. They may very well see no problem with that double payment. I do, but I've found few who want to face up to what their system entails.

"Do this and live" is still a choice. I seriously doubt thatn any free willer on this forum believes that man is not utterly incapable of saving himself. The belief is that under the influence of the Holy Ghost, man is capable of obeying the holy call to ask Jesus to plead for him to the Father, and that the Son will never deny any that come to him for that purpose.

Calvinists believe man chooses. But just like the 'do this and live', all he will choose is to go his own way, not God's. ONLY when God changes his heart will he choose God's way. All who come will be saved - but only those to whom He has given a new heart will come.

The covenanat you quoted is a promise of what will be fulfilled in the end. That hasn't happened yet, obviously, if you read the end of the chapter that states the land will be in that state from that point on forevermore.

The New Covenant is already in operation - see Hebrews. It is the one we celebrate at the Lord's Table. It is THE Eternal Covenant; every child of God was saved under it, either in prospect of it (OT saints) or in light of it (NT saints).

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

So then you are saying the that Calvinist preaches to the lost person God has NOT regenerated. The Calvinist evangelist is telling the un-regenerate - lost person to CHOOSE Christ???

Sounds like an Arminian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
So then you are saying the that Calvinist preaches to the lost person God has NOT regenerated. The Calvinist evangelist is telling the un-regenerate - lost person to CHOOSE Christ???

Yes. The gospel is to be preached to all men without exception. They are commanded to repent and believe, to choose christ rather than 'the treasures of Egypt'.

Sounds like an Arminian.

Yes. In this basic message, Calvinism and Arminianism agree. The disagreements arise when we start to expound the details: how this salvation is accomplished. For whom did Christ die? What had to happen before they could believe? Can they be lost again? Etc.

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks Ian. A lot of time when the point is made that Calvinism must use Arminian methods to evangelize - because preaching Calvinism won't work in evangelism -- I get a lot more resistance from Calvinists.

So lets look at this. The Calvinist evangelist is preaching to a group that "can not hear him" because they are not born-again saints - they are the lost. Not only can they not choose to accept his message - they can't even understand it - it is foolishness to them.

But he preaches anyway and does not tell them about the impossibility of the situation.

However it "should not matter" if he tells them that he believes "it is impossible for them to hear about their problem - until their problem is already solved" -- because nothing he says or they do makes any difference anyway - according to Calvinism (at least 4 and 5 pt Calvinism).

HE should be more than happy just to say "I am here with my Bible in hand IN CASE some of you turn into saints while sitting there - and then are enabled to hear and choose life - and want to know more about the details of the Gospel. I will remain seated here at the front in case this should so happen to happen to anyone today while we are gathered. IF it happens to you - just raise your hand and come forward so we can share the gospel with those who are enabled to hear and choose."

The idea that "this does not work" should not ever come up in a Calvinist model - because according to Calvinism --- nothing that is said to the lost - would make any difference at all until they become born-again saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Are there no Arminians left who believe in ETERNAL punishment? I'm amazed and troubled that this Evangelical doctrine is disappearing amongst folk who call themselves Evangelical. To change the meaning of eternal and infinity to mean merely a long time, well, I'm at a loss to account for it . Except, it is what I warned about at the start of my 'God, That's Not Fair' thread - Free-willism leads one further and further from the Truth. Universalism or Open Theology beckon.

Ask yourself, if 'forever and ever', 'to the ages of the ages' can be reduced to a certain time for the punishment of the wicked, why must it not also apply to the blessedness of the righteous? The same terms are used for both. Are we all going to be snuffed out at some future date?

I didn't say I didn't believe in eternal punishment. What I said was it's your position that the sinner actually "pays" God for his sins through eternal punishment that would lead one to think that it should end sometime. Not that eternity has an end, in our time line, but perhaps in some other time dimension or something. (For instance, Hugh Ross if Reasons to Believe has suggested that Christ actually suffers eternal Hell in perpendicular time dimensions for every believer. That is unsettling to me, but who knows.)
This also carries over to your discussion with Gina over "double payment". Christ paid for the sin, but they rejected this (just like rejecting Gina's hypothetical bill payment, or not applying the blood on the doorpost), so the benefit of the payment (salvation) is not realized, and they are separated eternally. No "double payment" that proves they must not have been payed for at all. The cutting off of the credit card of the debtor not receiving the payment of the bill is not a double payment of it (else it would automatically be reactivated with no further action from him, and with a one month credit at that!).

Your defination of what constitutes a sheep falls when we look at Christ's comment, John 10: 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. They were already His sheep - but this refers to Gentiles not yet saved.

No, this is precisely what I said you had misunderstood. These were other believers in Christ who had not yet joined His following (as in Luke 9:49,50), and perhaps also those Jews who believed from the reports that Christ had come but had not yet seen that Jesus was that Christ. It says nothing about "all who will ever believe in the future". It was talking about people who were out there to be gathered then.

 

[BobRyan]

Ian said
Are there no Arminians left who believe in ETERNAL punishment? I'm amazed and troubled that this Evangelical doctrine is disappearing amongst folk who call themselves Evangelical. To change the meaning of eternal and infinity to mean merely a long time, well, I'm at a loss to account for it . Except, it is what I warned about at the start of my 'God, That's Not Fair' thread - Free-willism leads one further and further from the Truth. Universalism or Open Theology beckon.

Rev 14 tells us that the fire and brimstone torment is day and night.. AND that the SMOKE of their torment goes up forever and ever AND that the torment is "IN the presence of the Lamb and of his holy ones". We will all be there -- for every second of it.

So - those Arminians in my camp see that this has "an end" but the SMOKE -- the memory of it continues for all eternity.

However - I would think that MOST Arminians think the torment goes on forever.

Back to my group: We also believe that the debt of sin IS PAID by the lost sinner in full - and then they are completely consumed.

"Do NOT fear those who kill the body but can not kill the soul - rather fear Him who destroys BOTH body AND soul in hell" Matt 10.

Indeed- BOTH body and soul are destroyed in hell - believe it or not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
Thanks Ian. A lot of time when the point is made that Calvinism must use Arminian methods to evangelize - because preaching Calvinism won't work in evangelism -- I get a lot more resistance from Calvinists.

'Arminian methods'? You are mistaken if you think Calvinism does not believe in urging/commanding sinners to repent and believe. That is fully consistent with our theology, just as it is with yours.

ALL sinners are to be so challenged, and they owe that debt of obedience to God. That none of them CAN obey, except those to whom it is granted, is no problem for Calvinists. We preach with the certainty that God is going to save sinners. Maybe not here, maybe not now - but His elect will be called out of the mass of sinners, by the preaching of the gospel, and will certainly be saved.

Arminian methods are the use of psychological techniques, eg. mood music, weepy stories. Calvinists do not (ought not, anyway) seek to short-circuit the work of the Spirit. We preach the Truth, pleading with men, but only a clear thoughtful decision is looked for. Luke 14: 25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it-- 29lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30saying, "This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

So lets look at this. The Calvinist evangelist is preaching to a group that "can not hear him" because they are not born-again saints - they are the lost. Not only can they not choose to accept his message - they can't even understand it - it is foolishness to them.

Fine.

But he preaches anyway and does not tell them about the impossibility of the situation.

He might tell them - depends on how the Spirit leads him. Look at what our Lord said, John 6: 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 66From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

However it "should not matter" if he tells them that he believes "it is impossible for them to hear about their problem - until their problem is already solved" -- because nothing he says or they do makes any difference anyway - according to Calvinism (at least 4 and 5 pt Calvinism).

You misunderstand Calvinism then. The elect are CALLED IRRESISTIBLY by the gospel. Our preaching is the vehicle for that call; our words bring to the ear the message the Spirit drives home to convert the soul.

HE should be more than happy just to say "I am here with my Bible in hand IN CASE some of you turn into saints while sitting there - and then are enabled to hear and choose life - and want to know more about the details of the Gospel. I will remain seated here at the front in case this should so happen to happen to anyone today while we are gathered. IF it happens to you - just raise your hand and come forward so we can share the gospel with those who are enabled to hear and choose."

Calvinism teaches that men are saved by the hearing of the gospel. Men do not become saints and then hear the gospel. Just the reverse. Can you show me any statement where Calvinism says otherwise? No, it is a foolish caricature. Some one has fed you that lie, Bob, but I can assure you it is not Calvinistic doctrine.

The idea that "this does not work" should not ever come up in a Calvinist model - because according to Calvinism --- nothing that is said to the lost - would make any difference at all until they become born-again saints.

This is where one must be careful about terms. 'Born-again saints' means one who is saved, justified by faith. But in the salvation event, one is born again, then believes and repents, and is justified. So when Calvinists speak of the necessity of being born again before one can believe, they do not mean one is a saint before one can believe.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric B said
I didn't say I didn't believe in eternal punishment. What I said was it's your position that the sinner actually "pays" God for his sins through eternal punishment that would lead one to think that it should end sometime. Not that eternity has an end, in our time line, but perhaps in some other time dimension or something. (For instance, Hugh Ross if Reasons to Believe has suggested that Christ actually suffers eternal Hell in perpendicular time dimensions for every believer. That is unsettling to me, but who knows.)

Conceding any end to eternity makes it finite. And I wouldn't give much thought to Hugh Ross, since he also denies a six-day creation.

But payment does not imply a finite timescale; not when the debt is infinite. It is infinite because it is an offence against an infinitely holy God.

No "double payment" that proves they must not have been payed for at all. The cutting off of the credit card of the debtor not receiving the payment of the bill is not a double payment of it (else it would automatically be reactivated with no further action from him, and with a one month credit at that!).

Your analogy is flawed, Eric. If the sinner used the credit card, he would be using Christ's sufferings to pay for his debt. Since he does not use that, he pays the debt himself. Christ paid for it (according to you) and now he pays for it. Double payment.

Where you slip up in logic is in thinking the unused card means no payment has been made by the one funding the card. But Christ paid on the cross - a one time event, non-reversible. He cannot un-suffer. The debt was paid.

No, this is precisely what I said you had misunderstood. These were other believers in Christ who had not yet joined His following (as in Luke 9:49,50), and perhaps also those Jews who believed from the reports that Christ had come but had not yet seen that Jesus was that Christ. It says nothing about "all who will ever believe in the future". It was talking about people who were out there to be gathered then.

Right! So He was merely referring to other Jews who were not amongst His immediate disciples. Their being 'not of this fold' merely refers to them being a mile or so away. I think I'll stick with the big picture, that the other sheep refered to the Gentiles who would come to faith, even though they were not of Israel. That Christ spoke of the breaking down of the wall of partition, the bringing in of the Gentiles to the commonwealth of Israel. Note the future tense of the verse, John 10: 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. They are already His sheep - the elect - but they have yet to hear His voice.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
Back to my group: We also believe that the debt of sin IS PAID by the lost sinner in full - and then they are completely consumed.

Wow! I did not know annihilationism was the common position of Arminianism. Are you sure? I mean, I would be grateful if you or others would document it for me.

Thanks

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

Conceding any end to eternity makes it finite. But payment does not imply a finite timescale; not when the debt is infinite. It is infinite because it is an offence against an infinitely holy God.

Your analogy is flawed, Eric. If the sinner used the credit card, he would be using Christ's sufferings to pay for his debt. Since he does not use that, he pays the debt himself. Christ paid for it (according to you) and now he pays for it. Double payment.

Where you slip up in logic is in thinking the unused card means no payment has been made by the one funding the card. But Christ paid on the cross - a one time event, non-reversible. He cannot un-suffer. The debt was paid.

OK, let's step back a bit. A person gets into credit card debt. Now he owes cash and let's say he's totally broke and can't pay. Someone oeffers to pay it for him, but this person is proud and refuses to accept that payment. He thinks ignore it and it will go away. To make the analogy a bit more true, lets say the friend does give the creditor the money, and it is a matter of the debtor claiming it in his own name. A payment is made, but it must be applied to his account.
The credit card is not Christ's payment. The cash offered by the other person is. Of course, the analogy is not exact, but the point is, a payment must be applied (just like the blood on the doorpost) in order to be of any effect, and in this case, the application of it would be acceptance by the debtor. If he doesn't accept it and pay with it, then he gets his card cancelled, or what other penalty. Eventually, of course, they will get a collection agency and garnish his chack or whatever, and get the actual payment back. But in this analogy, we are focusing on the initial consequence of losing the card. (immagine for this sake that there was no way of clooecting). So he "pays" a consequence, but the creditor is not "paid". Even with the money they did receive, which they do not credit to anyone's account, there is no "double" payment anywhere. Not even really a single payment for that particular debt, since the person did not claim it.

As for time and eternity, in either case, you end up with a contradiction. An eternal debt is "paid" in eternal time. But then the person shouldn't be in hell. Of course, they can't both be in hell, and not be in hell at the sametime. Unless different time dimensions are involved. But then that basically becomes a type of universalism. Just like if a person having his card revoked were true "payment", then the debt would be eliminated. Then he shouldn't have the card revoked.

All of this roundabout logic is to show that hell is a state of eternal debt, not eternal payment. "Consequences" are payed by the debtor, but the creditor does not receive anything in the way of restoration of what was owed. "Justice" is an abstract concept, not (in itself) a tangible item that restores or replaces lost items (though, hopefully, it may include such).

I think I'll stick with the big picture, that the other sheep refered to the Gentiles who would come to faith, even though they were not of Israel. That Christ spoke of the breaking down of the wall of partition, the bringing in of the Gentiles to the commonwealth of Israel. Note the future tense of the verse, John 10: 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. They are already His sheep - the elect - but they have yet to hear His voice.

Note, "there will be one flock and one shepherd".This is obviously referring to the other bands of "disciples" traveling around at the time, who yes, were ALREADY following the truth (thus, were "sheep"), but did not hear the call from Him yet. We must not try to bend contexts like this to fit our idea of a "big picture". (The big picture would be that when He was lifted up, then He would draw all).

 

[npetreley]

I've got to stop reading this thread. Pretty soon you guys are going to start getting into mutual funds and 401Ks, after which I'll be totally lost.

 

[Tumbleweed]

This thread has become of such length I don't have time to read every post, but I'm interested to know if any Arminian has come close to a head-on reply. It comes down unavoidably to the following options:
1) Did Christ actually accomplish ANYTHING definite for Judas at Calvary? (Yes or No - "He made such & such possible" is logically a No.)
2) If He had not accomplished anything definite for Judas when He said, "It is finished," exactly what was the "It" that was finished? (Again, a potential redemption is logically inadmissable as something finished.)

Or am I just an unspiritual slave to logic?

- Paul

 

[Me2]

Tumbleweed,

the question is the same old one as the original introduced to Peter. Who do they say I am?

so...Who is this Jesus?
did he die for only some, or for all?

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

2Co 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

be careful.. thou shalt not bear "false" witness..

so there are some speaking truth here and others bearing false witness.
some saying Christ died for only some, while others saying Christ died for all.

now is universal atonement worth debating?
expect this to occur in reality someday. for each sin comes with pain in both the agressor and victim. all pain will be adressed and forgiven in heaven.
this is what heaven is. this is who Jesus is. This is who the bride is. it is forgiving sin by re-adressing the issue sin by sin. in the agressor life as well as the victims. it is covering over the pain that unrighteouesness entails with the oil of gladness. with the anointing oil of Christ.

Me2

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Tumbleweed;

1) Did Christ actually accomplish ANYTHING definite for Judas at Calvary? (Yes or No - "He made such & such possible" is logically a No.)

I believe the Bible says Judas was dead before Christ could make the atonement. However Judas did repent. Christ had been condemned but not crucified.
Mat 27:3 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,
These are the acts of one who was trully sorry for his sins. He not only confessed but repented as well. The Bible doesn't say so but there is the possibility that Judas was forgiven and saved. Wouldn't that be a surprize?

2) If He had not accomplished anything definite for Judas when He said, "It is finished," exactly what was the "It" that was finished? (Again, a potential redemption is logically inadmissable as something finished.)

I believe Judas knew that Christ was who he said He was. He received the same explanations as did the rest of the disciples for the parables Christ spoke in. So he had to know. Then we have proof that he did repent and returned the 30 pieces of silver.
Was betraying Christ unforgivable? I don't think so. Did'nt Peter deny Him three times? Isn't denying Him a betrayal as well. I have not read of one disciples who stood up for our Lord at His trial. I believe they were all guilty of denying Him.

Or am I just an unspiritual slave to logic?

The Logic of God and man are worlds apart. What may appear logical to us may be illogical to God.
I believe we must depend on Him for answers not our selves.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
These are the acts of one who was trully sorry for his sins. He not only confessed but repented as well. The Bible doesn't say so but there is the possibility that Judas was forgiven and saved. Wouldn't that be a surprize?

It would indeed be a surprise, for Scripture shows us a very different picture of Judas' spiritual state and end. Jesus refers to him as the son of perdition, John 17: 12While 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 apostles pointed to his destination, Acts 1: 25to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Jesus said, 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 never been born." Mark 14:21.

All prove Judas died a sinner and awaits the judgement.

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said --
It comes down unavoidably to the following options:
1) Did Christ actually accomplish ANYTHING definite for Judas at Calvary? (Yes or No - "He made such & such possible" is logically a No.)

2) If He had not accomplished anything definite for Judas when He said, "It is finished," exactly what was the "It" that was finished? (Again, a potential redemption is logically inadmissable as something finished.)

As it turns out - God answered this.
1John 2:2 "HE is the Atoning SACRIFICE for Our sins and NOT for our sins ONLY but for those of the Whole World"

It is "possible" that in the defense of Calvinism you might argue that simply accomplishing "The Atoning Sacrifice" is not really "doing anything" specific for Judas.

But I would not. (Of course I am not Calvinist.)

In Lev 16 God "Gives His own explanation" of the entire process of atonment and shows where in that process the Atoning Sacrifice is made.

IN Christ,

Bob