Was Judas ever saved

[Hope of Glory]

Please Change this blog. I don't believe it was intentional but you have severly misquoted me. I never said much of what you have in the qouted area.

Around here, you have to get used to being misquoted, as that is the only way that some have to "defend" their opinion.

However, I think that Les was actually giving his take on it here, by denying the literal Kingdom, and not quoting you.

 

[Amy.G]

Here's a novel idea. How about we stick to the OP and stop all these rabbit trails?

Was Judas saved?

 

[Accountable]

How was David a king without a kingdom?

But Hope of Glory, That is in the Old Testament! We can't use that to understand the New Testament!

Sounds like we might have some Cambelites undercover!:laugh: :laugh:

I'm definitely not a Cambelite, I don't smoke at all!:laugh:

 

[Accountable]

Around here, you have to get used to being misquoted, as that is the only way that some have to "defend" their opinion.

However, I think that Les was actually giving his take on it here, by denying the literal Kingdom, and not quoting you.

I agree. I would like him to change it though. Before you know it there will be one of them trying to say I said it and using it against me.
Still no "defense."

 

[Accountable]

Here's a novel idea. How about we stick to the OP and stop all these rabbit trails?

Was Judas saved?

Okay, YES he was!

 

[Amy.G]

Okay, YES he was!

No he wasn't.

Ok, debate over. :laugh:

 

[lbaker]

Please Change this blog. I don't believe it was intentional but you have severly misquoted me. I never said much of what you have in the qouted area.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about the parts that say "Les here?

I thought that was enough to set off my responses to what you said. My apologies if I have transgressed.

I edited it so that now hopefully it will be more evident as to who is saying what. Please let me know if you're still uncomfortable with it.

Les

 

[lbaker]

How was David a king without a kingdom?

He was a king because God said he was, and had him annointed king, same as Jesus Christ (the annointed one). David had a kingdom, by the way.

 

[skypair]

And if the wayward son perished in the pig pen?

Ah, alas. The parable doesn't provide that option. See, all sons come home to the Father. There is no doubt that a son will always be a son.

skypair

 

[Accountable]

Ah, alas. The parable doesn't provide that option. See, all sons come home to the Father. There is no doubt that a son will always be a son.

skypair

Why weren't the sons equal in the end? Nobody seems to want to answer this.

 

[TCGreek]

Why weren't the sons equal in the end? Nobody seems to want to answer this.

1. I applaud those who chose not to answer that question.

2. The setting of the parable is vv.1-2, Jesus, God in the flesh, welcoming sinners and the objection of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The parables were used to illustrate that ONE point.

3. The setting is not one of a preconceived doctrine that wants to find its support in every parable.

 

[skypair]

THIS wayward son came home after repentance. YET

I don't mean to make things awkward.... but...... The father did not give all unto the son.

Of course he didn't -- the older son was faithful.

1. The son repented still he was not equal with his elder brother who remained faithful throughout.

Yes, but did you notice that the prodigal had already gotten his inheritance so that all that the father did give him was from the faithful sons inheritance!?

2. His repentance brought forth celebration, just like with the lost sheep.
Luke 15:7 .......joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,.....
both are part of the family in backslidden states.

Uh...? Don't know exactly what you are saying there. In fact, I'll give you some additional insight in a minute.

3. NOTICE LUKE 15:31 Though the prodigal had come home, the elder son never wandered and the father said unto him: Son, Thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

If the two sons are now equal, how do you get around verse 31?

You would obviously agree, wouldn't you, that the older son deserved the reward, right? And the prodigal burned up his reward "in the earth" so to speak.

Accountable -- I believe the parable "works" perfectly. The prodigal was a son -- he squandered his inheritance in sin on the earth -- when he came back (say, like the fornicator in 1Cor 5), there was rejoicing among in heaven. If he had come back only in heaven at his death, there would be rejoicing as well. Neither man was "saved again."

There is another way I have viewed this parable -- as Lot/Gentiles getting a portion of Abraham's inheritance. See that when the prodigal went in to the feast, the older son stayed out (re: the rapture) and the father had to go out (meet him in the tribulation) and convince him that he still loved him as well. It works well for me in that regard also. But as being 3 parables together and saying "Why did Jesus tell these successively, I prefer the "backslider" application. And you?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Many who try to prove you can lose your spiritual salvation use Judas to "prove" it, btw. Many people, besides those who espouse the doctrine of the Kingdom that Jesus and John preached, see the truth that Judas was saved. I even know some OSAS proponents who are KDer's and EIREITADer's, who "show" that Judas was so bad that God made an exception.

That is so true. There's a lot of sophomoric interpretation out there. To the devil, any "truth" but THE Truth is good "truth."

But, on to the question that no one seems to want to answer:

What is a "sinner"?

IMO, as God looks on the soul, there are no sinners. His Son paid for everyone. God looks on the soul and sees 1) believers or 2) unbelievers. God either sees Jesus or a stranger. The soul has either been oriented toward the Father by belief or still turned away unto self.

So the real "sinner" resides in the spirit -- in the mind, emotions, and will. And this is why there are lists galore of sins that won't get into heaven. It's not whether you have committed them or not -- it's whether you are "hell bent" on committing them. Most believers 1) have faith too shallow to stop sinning or b) are too focused on this world to change their minds and attitudes. Don't worry -- every believer's spirit is going to be "tried by fire" at the Bema (1Cor 3:13). There will be no sinful thoughts, wisdom or glory thereafter.

Sound familiar? These are the "seeds" sown in Mt 13 that sprang forth to life but had no root or were choked out by the cares of this world. There absolutely is such a thing as a believer who sins but realize, with what they are working with, they may be powerless to change. You're right -- they're not feeding on the Spirit. Isn't that exactly when you fall into sin?

They need help, not condemnation ME-ers! Putting more pressure on them with false doctrine will not help the situation! Paul said, and Jesus before him, to exclude such an one from the kingdom HERE letting them know that they are welcome back if they repent but that they will be treated like "outsiders" until then. But condemning them, as Paul goes on to say, is a "device of the devil!"

Actually, the application of ME is good IF you acknowledge its application in the correct kingdom. Bro Bob is over on another thread trying to deny what you say and yet say that these won't go to heaven at all! NO, get your application right! In heaven, I'm gonna welcome every backslidden believer who comes home because I been there! Haven't you? It's gonna be the ultimate victory over the flesh to be home with the Father together!

Love those who have made a profession back to the fold just as you would woo a lost person into the kingdom! Find that "lost" sheep that belongs with you --- help them find the "lost" coin that once they were so thankful for. This 1000 years purgatory is WRONG and you know it if the Spirit speaks to you at all!

skypair

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Ah, alas. The parable doesn't provide that option. See, all sons come home to the Father. There is no doubt that a son will always be a son.

skypair

Amen!

And I've yet to see a godly son in the Bible being cast away by the Father.

The prodigal was not cast away btw, he left on his own. Nor was he cast away when he returned on his own to the Father.

 

[skypair]

No He preached "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Jesus Himself warned the disciples that He had not come but for the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel."

Yes it was prophesied of His death and praise the Lord it was!
But you forget the propesies that spoke of Him coming to His people, the House of Isreal.

Interesting thing is, He came as King spiritually and physically, as John preached --- but He was rejected as a physical by Israel -- but His "spiritual" kingdom, the one you speak of, was established in the church!

Do you see that? He cast out demons how? By His spiritual authority!

Healed how? Physical authority! Calmed the storm how? Physical authority!

He had both but gave up the latter in order to save us and enthrone Himself in our lives.

skypair

 

[Hope of Glory]

David had a kingdom, by the way.

Hmm... and was he sitting on that throne, ruling and reigning?

(BTW, "had" implies possession of. I can own a car that is located in Japan, without having it.)

 

[Hope of Glory]

That is so true. There's a lot of sophomoric interpretation out there. To the devil, any "truth" but THE Truth is good "truth."

Sophomoric interpretation answered with sophomoric debating by implication.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Ah, alas. The parable doesn't provide that option. See, all sons come home to the Father. There is no doubt that a son will always be a son.

skypair

So, in this parable then, Jesus presents a lie, because the son is perishing, and he apparently was incapable of perishing.

 

[Accountable]

1. I applaud those who chose not to answer that question.

2. The setting of the parable is vv.1-2, Jesus, God in the flesh, welcoming sinners and the objection of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The parables were used to illustrate that ONE point.

3. The setting is not one of a preconceived doctrine that wants to find its support in every parable.

Actually, I believe the main thought from the parable of the two sons is on the elder son. I do not take away from the truths of the prodigal but I personally believe that every Word is inspired by God. Jesus could have stopped the parable while they were having their party. To your idea, this was all that matter in the Parable anyway. Yet Christ is not finished. He finishes strongly with an emphisis on the elder son. He is in God's Holy Word, is his story not relevant though Jesus pointed it out?

I personally think it is a copout because all here know the truth but are know that by the admittance that it contradicts the previous sayings, silence has become the answer.

 

[TCGreek]

Actually, I believe the main thought from the parable of the two sons is on the elder son. I do not take away from the truths of the prodigal but I personally believe that every Word is inspired by God. Jesus could have stopped the parable while they were having their party. To your idea, this was all that matter in the Parable anyway. Yet Christ is not finished. He finishes strongly with an emphisis on the elder son. He is in God's Holy Word, is his story not relevant though Jesus pointed it out?

I personally think it is a copout because all here know the truth but are know that by the admittance that it contradicts the previous sayings, silence has become the answer.

1. I'm in no position to tell you what to look for in a parable.

2. But I propose to you that the younger and his return is the focal point of this parable, for it fits with the others that focused on retrieving or reclaiming.

3. In Jesus' own words, "It was necessary to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (v.32). This verse ends the story on the son who was lost, not the elder brother.