If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;
Well think about it this way. If he wasn't saved then this proves that the elect can reject Christ and the offer of Salvation. Not only this but, how many more have fallen since then?.
I know Calvinist don't believe you can fall from grace. They believe that Salvation is permanent, That you can't loose it. Didn't Peter betray Christ when he said he never knew Him? Didn't they all betray Him when they hid themselves for fear of loosing there own lives. There are more than one way to betray someone.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

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 [/QUOTE]

Hi Bob -
The NIV is an unfortunate choice in this instance - I Jn.2:2 is one of those instances of that version's fuzzy inaccuracies that aggravate me so much (And no, I am not spoiling for a fight over Bible translations!) The traditional rendering of "hilasmos" as Propitiation (or even more sharply, Expiation - RSV) is far more accurate and necessary to the understanding of the statement (IE: That Christ is the One who appeases God's anger because of our sins, and not just concerning our sins, buit also for the whole world.)

Did Christ actually take away God's anger over the sins of Judas? Is God no longer angry with wicked men, in which case Psalm 7:11 has somehow been abrogated? This would surely be the case if Christ had finished the work of expiation for Judas.

Indeed, Lev.16 is beautiful in it's representation of Christ's work, but if there's one thing we see in Lev.16, it is the principle of substitutionary atonement. (This is more in line with the NIV's mis-placed "atoning sacrifice") If Christ the scapegoat had indeed finished the work of bearing Judas' sins away, then we will undoubtedly meet Judas in Heaven.

- Paul

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
Well think about it this way. If he wasn't saved then this proves that the elect can reject Christ and the offer of Salvation.

What makes you think Judas was one of the elect? Do you not know that his profession was only a mask - that he was a thief from the beginning?

Didn't Peter betray Christ when he said he never knew Him? Didn't they all betray Him when they hid themselves for fear of loosing there own lives. There are more than one way to betray someone.

They denied Him; they showed cowardice - but they did not betray Him. We cannot redefine betrayal and then say all are guilty of it. Christ singled out the one who was the betrayer. Note also the meaning of the word - the 'hander-over'.

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:


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.

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
The NIV is an unfortunate choice in this instance - I Jn.2:2 is one of those instances of that version's fuzzy inaccuracies that aggravate me so much (And no, I am not spoiling for a fight over Bible translations!)

Seems like I saw this argument against the NKJV in 2Peter 3 saying "They got it wrong" when they tell us "God is not willing for any to perish".

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Paul said
The traditional rendering of "hilasmos" as Propitiation (or even more sharply, Expiation - RSV) is far more accurate

I beg to differ. "Atoning Sacrifice" here as in Romans 3 is the more accurate term as it fits perfectly with Paul's "claim" that He is preaching "NOTHING but what is spoken of in the Law and the Prophets".

It is the role of the Christ (the Messiah) to be the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 just as He is the Passover lamb of Lev 23's passover.

The use of propitiation is simply clouding the point rather than providing the reference point for the promised act as would have been understood by the NT reader of scripture.

Paul said --
and necessary to the understanding of the statement (IE: That Christ is the One who appeases God's anger because of our sins, and not just concerning our sins, buit also for the whole world.)

It can hardly be argued that the model that God Himself provides for the great judgment act on mankind (the Lev 16 model) is not showing IN the atoning sacrifce - that debt-paid that Atonement is arguing for.

I fail to see the substance in your argument that gets away from the Atonement model that 1John 2 is so explicit in arguing for.

NIV seems to be correct here.

Paul said --
Did Christ actually take away God's anger over the sins of Judas? Is God no longer angry with wicked men, in which case Psalm 7:11 has somehow been abrogated?

That confusion is only possible if you choose to get away from the Atoning 'Sacrifice' as the actual definition.

This is no problem at all in the Atoning Sacrifice model of Lev 16 being used in 1John 2.

The atonement process does not end with the Atoning Sacrifice according to the Model that God gives.

Then God shows us in Heb 8 where Christ continues that Lev 16 work type meeting antitype.

Paul said --
Indeed, Lev.16 is beautiful in it's representation of Christ's work, but if there's one thing we see in Lev.16, it is the principle of substitutionary atonement.

True enough.

Paul said --
If Christ the scapegoat had indeed finished the work of bearing Judas' sins away, then we will undoubtedly meet Judas in Heaven.

Christ is not the scapegoat of Lev 16 - He is the Lord's goat. The one and only goat that is called the "sin offering".

The scapegoat is not sacrificed in the Lev 16 directives.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;

What makes you think Judas was one of the elect? Do you not know that his profession was only a mask - that he was a thief from the beginning?

He was hand chosen by God Him self in the flesh, can you deny that?. Being chosen is what being part of the elect is all about according to Calvinist. All calvinist believe the elect will be saved no matter what. Well here you go Judas was one who wasn't. How many more? If it's possible for one to fall it's possible for anyone to fall. Matthew was a tax collector what a shame we all sin. Because Judas was a sinner doesn't mean he wasn't elect.
The elect are those who belong to God according to Calvinism because God has chosen them and given them to Christ. You quoted this verse to me remember;
Joh 17:12 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.
You will notice that in the words of Christ He admits he lost one that was given to Him. That one was Judas the son of perdition.
How is it you can say he wasn't elect?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[npetreley]

Seems like I saw this argument against the NKJV in 2 Peter 3 saying "They got it wrong" when they tell us "God is not willing for any to perish".

Translators have to make a choice in this regard. It is always possible to choose the wrong word based on the translator's pre-conceived notions. Do you not conceded that possibility? It works both ways, you know.

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

I hope you will see the correct pattern - and that is that all our translations are flawed in some places. Some people do reinterpret passages to fit their doctrine, but some people simply see and acknowledge that the translators got it wrong.

No translation is perfect. I wish they all were - it would save us a lot of time and trouble. But that is why many of them differ. One says "chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" and another says, "Gog, prince of Meshech and Tubal". And which is right?

Or here's a better one - does anyone know of a translation that describes Joseph's "coat of many colors" as something other than "coat of many colors"? While it is impossible to "prove" that this description is incorrect, at least one translation (I forget which) has finally put in the footnotes that this could simply be a garment with long pointed sleeves.

Why is this significant? Because such a garment was given to the heir of the family. Naming the young Joseph the heir by giving him this garment explains with much more credibility why his brothers were so resentful and angry than if he received a "prettier coat" than they did as a gift.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

I beg to differ. "Atoning Sacrifice" here as in Romans 3 is the more accurate term as it fits perfectly with Paul's "claim" that He is preaching "NOTHING but what is spoken of in the Law and the Prophets".

It is the role of the Christ (the Messiah) to be the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 just as He is the Passover lamb of Lev 23's passover.

The use of propitiation is simply clouding the point rather than providing the reference point for the promised act as would have been understood by the NT reader of scripture.[/QUOTE]


Clouding the point? Bob, surely you must see that if we wish to define a Greek word in I Jn.2:2, our first stop must be a Greek lexicon, not the Hebrew scriptures! If words are not allowed to retain the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit, then the Bible is lost as an authoritative document. If He had intended us to understand "atoning sacrifice" here, then the Greek language is perfectly adequate to express that. But instead of using that broader terminology, John used a word which speaks of that particular aspect of Christ's atonement which appeases the anger of a Holy God against sinners. Many modern versions and paraphrases, in their efforts to make the Bible understandable to a 4 year-old sacrifice precision in the process, and this is an instance of that.

Of course, if you still insist on substituting "atonement", the problem doesn't go away, for propitiating God's anger against sinners remains an integral part of what atonement is. If Christ's atoning work was indeed finished on Judas' behalf, then he is not presently suffering the anger of God in Hell.

- Paul

 

[BobRyan]

It is a Hebrew writing! The fact that he is using greek so his audience can read HIS writing as they read the septuagint is not as confusing as it may seem.

The "atoning sacrifice" model is exactly the one that God provides of the sacrifice - in His Own model of atonement (not the greek's model of course).

I do not insist on substituting "Atonement" here.

I insist on translating this as "Atoning sacrifice" - the adjective (not another noun) is applied to the sacrifice.

The NIV has "the Sacrifice" right in this case showing that it is in fact "the Atoning Sacrifice" and makes a perfect link to God's own model explanation for the atoning sacrifice that He gives in Lev 16.

It is God's view of it - not classic greek mythology -- but still useful.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
He was hand chosen by God Him self in the flesh, can you deny that?. Being chosen is what being part of the elect is all about according to Calvinist.

Mike, being chosen is not the same as being elect. Here's someone else specially chosen: Rom.9: 17For the Scripture says to the 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."

All calvinist believe the elect will be saved no matter what.

Not so. We believe the elect will be saved - but God will use means to that end. They will not be saved and remain in sin, 1 John 3:9, Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. Judas practiced sin, did not merely fall into it. He wilfully practiced it.

You will notice that in the words of Christ He admits he lost one that was given to Him.

Given to Him is not the same as elect. The Twelve were given to Him in one sense, but in the spiritual sense, only eleven were elect. One was chosen to be reprobate. They all were in His sovereign care, but one was not the object of His sovereign grace.

In Him

Ian

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

I do not insist on substituting "Atonement" here.

I insist on translating this as "Atoning sacrifice" - the adjective (not another noun) is applied to the sacrifice.

Bob -
This is my last shot at this. No one is saying that John does not have the atoning sacrifice of Christ in view here - Of course he does.

However, the atonement accomplishes many things (it cleanses, reconciles, procures etc.) The issue is that John is not speaking of the atonement in the all-encompassing sense, but of the specific fact that it propitiates an angry God. The word Thusia - sacrifice - does not even appear in the text, but rather Hilasmos - something which appeases.

Words have meanings which we have no right to modify in translation.
(BTW, If you are as old as me, you will remember that this was one of the instances of translation that gave rise to considerable controversy when the NIV was first published.)

- Paul

 

[BobRyan]

Actually he speaking of the fact that it expiates as would the atoning sacrifice model that God gives in Lev 16. The Calvinist "claim" is that this is MORE than expiation and MORE than "the Atoning Sacrifice".

The Arminian claim is that it is truly the Hebrew context/concept of Atoning Sacrifice -- that would have been clear to the NT saints using the scriptures of the NT saints (the OT). It is truly full and complete expiation, full and complete sacrifice, full and complete Atoning Sacrifice -- not propitiation in the sense of the greek world of mythology and angry gods.

It is like the supertitious "wishing" that some insert into 2Peter 3:9. A good greek concept - in their mythology - but not really appropriate for the context of God and the scriptures used by the NT saints.

It is in fact the same word we see used in Ezek 44:27 in the septuagint and clearly translated -- "sin offering".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

not propitiation in the sense of the greek world of mythology and angry gods.
. . . .A good greek concept - in their mythology - but not really appropriate for the context of God and the scriptures used by the NT saints.

Bob -
I can't resist this. If you mean to say that the idea that God has an anger against sinners that needs to be propitiated is some sort of foreign import from greek mythology, then I suggest you get back to me after you have read Nahum! (Assuming that you are not Dispensational, and that we are still dealing with the same God in the NT.)

- Paul

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;

Mike, being chosen is not the same as being elect. Here's someone else specially chosen: Rom.9: 17For the Scripture says to the 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."

The clear difference here is that Judas was a Jew and was elect because of that fact. However I realize you're going to tell me that he wasn't. You're wrong on this my friend. To say Judas wasn't elect is nonsense. All who are Jews are from the line of Jacob and all Jews are elect as a people unto God. Oh I know there are many who claim to be Jews and aren't. Why they would make a claim that could get them Killed at any moment is beyond me. It's just that Judas was a Jew and was elected by God because of his relatives.Then hand chosen by Christ Himself. I would say with out a doubt that he was not only elected but elected twice. God doesn't elect individuals but whole nations.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
The clear difference here is that Judas was a Jew and was elect because of that fact. However I realize you're going to tell me that he wasn't. You're wrong on this my friend. To say Judas wasn't elect is nonsense. All who are Jews are from the line of Jacob and all Jews are elect as a people unto God. Oh I know there are many who claim to be Jews and aren't. Why they would make a claim that could get them Killed at any moment is beyond me. It's just that Judas was a Jew and was elected by God because of his relatives.Then hand chosen by Christ Himself. I would say with out a doubt that he was not only elected but elected twice. God doesn't elect individuals but whole nations.

You say Judas was elect because he was a Jew, referring to the nation's election. I agree with that. He was a member of the elect nation.

My use of elect, however, was in the sense of chosen of God for eternal life, salvation. You seemed to be using it in that sense before, when you argued that Judas was not eternally damned because he was elect.

Are you saying every Jew is saved, because the nation was elect? Or what?

In Him

Ian

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

not propitiation in the sense of the greek world of mythology and angry gods.
. . . .A good greek concept - in their mythology - but not really appropriate for the context of God and the scriptures used by the NT saints.

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Bob -
I can't resist this. If you mean to say that the idea that God has an anger against sinners that needs to be propitiated is some sort of foreign import from greek mythology, then I suggest you get back to me after you have read Nahum! (Assuming that you are not Dispensational, and that we are still dealing with the same God in the NT.)

"God so LOVED the World that He gave..."

"God is not willing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance".

Even the Caananites were given a time of probation such that Abraham and his children were not allowed to displace them.

Both OT and NT models are the same - no arbitrary hating and no arbitrary selecting saints.

God is unchanging - the same yesterday today and forever.

"God so Loved the World that He gave..."

So it is no wonder that it is GOD that gives us the Lev 16 model of atonement - where the atoning sacrifice of 1John 2:2 is NOT what "ends the service".

Rather the entire Hebrews 8-10 ministry of Christ followed it. So expiation and "Atoning Sacrifice" is the correct translation in 1John 2:2.

In Christ,

Bob