A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
| June 02, 2009 And He said Unto THEM.... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 22 2009, 08:48 PM (200 Views) | |
| lightninboy | Jun 22 2009, 08:48 PM Post #1 |
|
by Rose 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. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22:14-22) He sat down with his TWELVE disciples and He said unto THEM: This is my body which is given for you... and this is my blood shed for you. Most all people who are familiar with the gospel accounts -even vaguely- would assume that Judas went to Hell. If I were a Calvinist, I would say that Judas was not among the elect, those chosen to be saved. I wonder: if I were a Calvinist, how could I read this... where we are told that Jesus HIMSELF said to the TWELVE that He was about to shed His blood for them... how could I read that... and then still hold that Christ did not die for saved and unsaved alike - all mankind? A conundrum. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
 |
 
|
| lightninboy | Jun 22 2009, 08:53 PM Post #2 |
|
Comments: 1. Kansas Bob said... Good thought Rose.. maybe salvation is not a formula? Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:45:00 PM 2. Colin Maxwell said... Hi Rose, A good post. Here are a few thoughts from our side of the fence. 1) Obviously this all hinges on whether or not Judas was saved i.e. among the elect of God. If he was, then the passage holds no difficulties in and of itself although it would be difficult to reconcile with the words of Christ in John 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. Coupled with John 6:70 where he was called a devil, it is extremely hard to conclude that he was indeed a child of God. As far as I know (not much!) only the strict Arminian commentators believe that he was saved and then lost. 2) If we conclude that Judas was not saved – giving words like lost and perdition their natural force – then all Evangelicals i.e. Calvinists and non Calvinists have a problem with the event in the Upper Room. In Matthew’s account, Jesus said, But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (26:29) Is unsaved Judas, this lost, son of perdition going to sit down in the Kingdom of God? I think the secret is to let the words which were spoken indiscriminately to them all be applied to those who at the last will sit down in the Kingdom of God with him. If Christ really did shed His blood as an atonement for the sins of the reprobate Judas, then Judas has no legal guilt because atonement removes the guilt. At least, that’s what I’m trusting in for my salvation. No other hope No other plea He took my place and died for me O Blessed Lamb of Calvary He took my place and died for me (Eliza Hewitt) Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:51:00 AM 3. Rose~ said... Hi Bob, Thanks for visiting and for sharing your thought. Colin, Your #2 begs the question as to how we define the purpose of the Christ shedding His blood. I think you and I see that a little differently.  Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:14:00 AM 4. Colin Maxwell said... Hi Rose, In light of your comments on our differences on #2, can I assume that we are in agreement on #1 i.e. that Judas was a reprobate and never converted in the first place? Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:26:00 AM 5. Rose~ said... It sure seems that way, but I am not positive. The Bible doesn't directly say that he was never a believer so why should I? Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:42:00 AM 6. Colin Maxwell said... Rose: Do words like lost and son of perdition not denote unbelief since they are the result of unbelief? Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:58:00 AM 7. Rose~ said... Colin, are you referring to John 17:12? Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:13:00 AM 8. Colin Maxwell said... I am! Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:28:00 AM 9. Rose~ said... bad spelling/typing. sorry. Let me re-post that: I have always taken that to be about the larger "humanity" rather than just about the twelve apostles... and that the 'son of perdition' there is the antichrist, as he is referred to the same way in 2 Thess. 2:3 (antichrist). Are you familiar with that reading of John 17 or is this a classic dispensational ONLY view? Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:32:00 AM 10. Colin Maxwell said... I must confess that I never heard that interpretation before :o) I see HAI doesn't make mention of it in his commentary, but takes the natural interpretation and refers it to Judas. As does James Gray (another CD) JN Darby mentions only Judas in his notes on this chapter. Does JVM link it to any one other than Judas? (I don't have his Gospel to Acts volume) The context demands that we keep the Apostles in mind - they are the "these" etc., right up to v20 - then we switch to those who would later believe through their word. Do you not think that this "classic D" interpretation (as you put it) is a wee bit forced? Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:50:00 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 22 2009, 08:54 PM Post #3 |
|
Comments: 11. Rose~ said... As far as John 17 I actually would think that a Calvinist would be more apt to view the phraseology "I have kept them all that you gave me and have not lost one" as referring to all the elect, not just a dozen or less souls. Do you think that 2 Thess. 2:3 is referring to the antichrist? Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:55:00 AM 12. Rose~ said... Colin, maybe it isn't a CD interpretation but just a "Rose" interpretation. ;~) McGee says the passage is about election. He also says that Judas is the son of perdition there. I think that is a little corn-fusing. Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:07:00 AM 13. Colin Maxwell said... Whilst the immediate context of v12links it to the 12 Apostles, yet (as said) the Lord speaks of all who will believe on his name in relation to v20 and every last one of them will b epresent with Him (and therefore not lost in perdition.) I think we would both agree that Christians ought to (and can) take things from the Upper Room ministry for their own instruction and edification. Surely we do not read (say) the Ephesian epistle and say, "That's only for the Ephesians"? Does JVM bring in the Son/Perdition from 2 Thess 3 angle in his comments? (Go on - have a wee peek for me) If Or "since") John 17:12 is relating to Judas, then they would indicate that he was an unbeliever in that he is lost in perdition. Yes - I see the Son/Perdition as being the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2:3 Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:19:00 AM 14. Colin Maxwell said... Oops, we have crossed replies here. I got a 10 minute phone call during my reply. Maybe your interpretation will some day become the Classic FG interpretation. It must be exciting days being a pioneer interpreter for a new movement. Ouch :o) Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:23:00 AM 15. Rose~ said... Be nice, Colin. Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:15:00 AM 16. Rose~ said... Perhaps the common "son of perdition" between this passage and the Thess one is why I got that idea that it was talking about the selfsame being. The point of the post is that if we assume Judas is not possibly in heaven, then isn't it strange the way these words of Christ are phrased? Especially if we look at it as he was foreordained to be reprobate. Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:17:00 AM 17. Colin Maxwell said... OK Rose. Just for you. :o) (P/s Points still stand though) Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:18:00 AM 18. Colin Maxwell said... One delicious BBQ later ... The way out of the conundrum (as you put it) is, as said: Accept that the Lord was using indiscriminate language (nothing new there) but with application to those to whom it was applicable. BTW: Don't let the doctrine of reprobation frighten you. It simply means that those who show that they never wanted to be saved and who loved darkness rather than light and their sins rather than God were passed by and given their heart's desire. It really is as simple as that. Regards, Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:32:00 AM 19. mark pierson said... Colin, I done swiped one of your comments and turned it into a post at BlueCollar blog. Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:49:00 PM 20. Colin Maxwell said... Hi Rose/Mark, Mark: Swipe away! :o) "John 5:40 And you will not come to me. He again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own malice that hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in the Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the cause of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy. And, indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must have been wilfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the light, and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity. (John Calvin on John 5:40) Regards, Monday, June 08, 2009 1:02:00 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Unashamed of Grace Blogspot · Next Topic » |
1:26 AM May 25