If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

Thanks, Ian. Another way of illustrating this must be true is at the transfiguration:

Luke 3:30 And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Moses and Elijah appeared in glory. Now, if we know by scripture that NOBODY is justified by the law, and we also know by scripture that those He foreknew, He predestined, those He predesitned He called, those He called He justified, and those He justified He also glorified, then it would seem logical that Moses and Elijah have already been foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.

Yet here they are, glorified, talking to Jesus ABOUT His coming crucifixion, not about what Jesus had already accomplished.

 

If names were to be scrutinized, and these names were written in the book of life, and the owner of the book is the Lamb, and the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, then, it follows the blood of that Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, covered sufficiently the sins of the owners of the names written in the Lamb's book of life, and the writing was done before the foundation of the world.

I think this is how God was able to translate Enoch to heaven without him going thru physical death, the same with Elijah, before the cross.

This is why I personally believe that none of the elect will perish because their names are on the Lamb's Book of life, the same way that the unelect will perish, because their names are not in the Book of Life.

 

I'd be careful using scriptures analogies of "the book of life" as support texts for Calvinism because Rev. 3:5 seems to imply that names could be erased from that book of life and Rev. 20:12 seems to indicate that one is placed in the book based upon their good deeds. I recognize the symbolism of these passages in Revelation can seem contradictory, so it's definitely not something you want to rest to much weight on. Plus the debate is, how does the name get in the book in the first place?
Are people's name added as they place their faith in God? Or as their deeds prove their faith to be true?

Is everyone's name written the book before the world began as an act of His divine foreknowledge of the future or His unchanging Sovereign decrees? Whose names are written before the foundation of the world and whose are added or blotted out at later times?
None of these questions are clearly answered in the pages of scripture, so our search for truth must continue elsewhere.

 

Hi Nepetreley;

This is true. but Abraham's Faith at the time didn't save Him. It did give him the opportunity to accept Christ when Christ descended into hell to free the Captives. Only then was he saved because Christ's Blood hadn't been shed. Believing that Christ blood would pay your penalty for sin in the future didn't save you because there is no remission until that blood is shed.
Show me where man can be saved by a future atonement. A price that hasn't been paid yet.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hi Ian;

I agree he was in paradise, but he was not saved as yet.He was held captive there. You tell me that it was God that justified Him. Would you care to show some scripture that says so.

I have one question was he regenerated first?.So that he could believe.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Bob said In this all can agree. God is the one who measures the debt owed (in judgment) and then executes that judgment to insure that price in torment and suffering is "paid" and the "dissincentive" is exactly as the law demands.

This is nothing like the Calvinist "reimbursement" where SOMEONE is getting "paid".


God does not "torment Himself until He FEELS better about the sins of the saints". This is pretty basic and obvious - but Calvinism needs to ignore it.

Wrong.

Paying "attention" to the details - all this is to show exactly why God is able to PAY THE DEBT and also sinners who REFUSE that gift STILL have a DEBT to pay - since it is NOT the monetary "reimbursement" problem that Calvinist so like to imagine here.

Your idea that showing the RIGHT model is a way NOT to address the question - is quite an amazing leap.

It does your view not good to pretend you don't see the point made. Better to refute or debate it rather than pretend you don't get it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

*note* I'm throwing out stuff for the purpose of debate, what I say in this thread may or may not accurately represent my beliefs*

It seems that people are mistaking universal atonement with universal salvation, and they are worlds apart.
The cross is of no effect to a person who does not believe in it.
Yes, the sins of all were atoned for, but the responsibility is still man's if Jesus does not claim that person to the Father, and he cannot claim those that refuse to accept what was done on the cross. If one does not do that he, of his own free will, makes the blood of Jesus ineffectual as pertains to his own sin.
There is nothing in the bible that says "stay".
We are INVITED to come. That is a theme throughout the bible. Come to Jesus. Believe in him. Trust him. Come. Ask for forgiveness. Once you come you're told to GO, go and tell others and persuade them to come to Jesus too.

There are a few seeming exceptions in the bible to man's freewill. However, they are just that. Exceptions that show that God is all powerful. They do not serve to support the doctrine that we do not have freewill, they serve as a reminder that He is all powerful and will and can use any means neccessary to bring about his will. If anything these exceptions should serve as reinforcements that show the grace of God in allowing his own creation to come to him, to choose him the creator, of his own free will despite the fact that he is obviously able to make that choice for us.
Gina

 

Good morning,

Can we really discuss Judas without looking at Peter as well?

(James 1:23,24,NIV) "For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

(MT 16:21) From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

(MT 16:22,23) Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."(NIV)

John 13:26 - Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. 28"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

(MT 27:3-10) Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, [4] saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" [5] And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Did you notice that the text does not say of Peter that "Satan entered him" as with Judas. Jesus directly called him "Satan," which means adversary. Peter was unwilling for the dark side of the Word to be fulfilled. Peter was not "mindful of the things of God." Trying to be the nice guy and saving Jesus' life was not the will of the Father. Jesus being betrayed, becoming the Lamb slain, being valued at 30 pieces of silver, and the purchase of the "field of blood" was "being mindful of the things of God." Judas was predestined just as Jesus being born at this time was predestined. Jesus chose Judas knowing his purpose; that prior to Satan entering Judas, his sins were really not much different than the other apostles.

Jesus called directly called Peter "Satan." Whereas, Satan had to enter Judas in order for him to fulfill the Scriptures. Could it be that Judas was not capable of betraying Jesus by himself! He had to be taken over. Peter did not need the help of Satan to not be mindful of the things of God. It was perfectly natural for him. When Satan wanted to "sift" Peter, Jesus prayed for "Satan" Peter. Why didn't Jesus just pray for Judas? Judas had to do what he did to fulfill Scripture that the redemption of the whole world from its bondage to sin might be accomplished! Judas was not a hearer only, as Peter was, but a "doer of the word." Not only was he a doer, but Jesus hastened Judas along to get it done. "What you are doing, do more quickly." (John 13:27) Judas fulfilled his purpose for being born, and when we get to that grand banquet, he will have "returned to his own place." (Acts 1:25)

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no, not one, including Judas, you, or myself. We have all fallen short, and we will all be redeemed by the saving work of the Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, the savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

The Lord created Adam placed him in a place where a Serpent, which the Creator also created, could deceive him. Adam and all his offspring fell into a pit and all died - in Adam all died, including you and I.

Judas did the will of the Father and fulfilled the Scriptures. Peter, who we all love, tried to prevent Jesus' crucifixion and was called "Satan" by our Lord. Peter, who was not mindful of the will of God, was restored. Is there more room in your heart for mercy for yourself? If there is, then there is also more room for you to have mercy on others, especially those vessels of less honor in our eyes. Lift up the Judases of the world to our wonderful Father who freely forgives, Who bestows mercy upon the undeserving.

2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

GH

 

'...Christ's payment will not have been applied to them, because they were not covered by the blood. In the original Passover, God had warned that the blood of a lamb must be applied to the doorpost in order for the death angel to pass over them. The blood was not effective if it was not applied. Many non-Calvinists fall into a trap of trying to argue that no one will be condemned for their sin, but only for rejecting Christ. But the Bible is clear that those who reject Christ are still "in their sins" (John 8:24), (condemned for the acts, not just the condition). Christ's blood (like the original Passover blood) must be applied for those sins to be forgiven. Calvinists can go into their argument that this blood then did not "actually" save anyone. But this was the very shadow of Christ's work, from which the whole concept of Him as "the Lamb" who sheds His blood for sin comes from, and the principle is the same. (In the Calvinist scheme, God would only provide lambs for certain people, yet still hold the others "responsible"). Now instead of a physical work (applying blood), the blood is spiritually applied when one simply believes. And instead of every person sacrificing their own lamb, one Lamb was sacrificed once for all. But each person's application of that blood is still in their own time.

And as for the argument about "payment", Bob is right. The one owed the "debt" (the victim, survivors or "society") does not "receive" anything in cases like murder. Like the warning "you'll pay" if one does something. Payment in that case simply indicates a negative consequence for the violator, not a positive reward for the victim. I guess in such cases the bastract ideal of "justice" is what "receives" the payment. Like with God, we say it is His justice that is paid by either Christ's death or the sinner's punishment; not that He personally "receives" anything Himself. (Of course, Calvinism does often justify its doctrine of reprobation on God "receiving" "glory" by preordaining individuals to wrath {perhaps this is the whole problem in this question}, but then is God really exacting justice for being "violated" in that scenario, or is it all His script anyway?)

The purpose of Hell is not for God to get enjoyment out of it, but because the person has rejected Him all his life, so where is he going to go for eternity? Not in God's presence. So out from God's presence, away from all that is good, he suffers eternally. He "pays" for both his sins, and rejecting the only way of escape. The suffering actually isn't payment TO God, because one of the things all sides agree is that the reason He is there is because he CAN'T "pay" God back. Else, you could conceive of a timeless region beyone even "eternity" (which we generaly understand as an unending sequence of time), where it is "paid" and he gets out. (Perhaps Me2 believes something like this?). It is a state of eternal DEBT, moreso than eternal "payment".

 

But the problem with them making 'the blood of Jesus ineffectual' is that the debt was already paid.

Wrong. They debt was taken upon Christ, but our debt is to the Father. Jesus must present us pure to the Father. The Son cannot present us to the Father until we accept the Son's atonement.
I can hand you a money order for you to pay your credit card bill with, made out directly to the company. I have put my work into earning that money and now stand here and hold it out for you, saying "come, believe this and it will be sent in to pay your bill".
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.
We can go on and attempt to continue making analogies that never quite match up to what the bible says, capable of all twists and turns to keep it from being a true analogy, but it doesn't change the fact that Jesus said "Come unto me".
Judas was called, but he didn't come.
He kissed the face of God and then continued on his self-destructive way.
Peter was called. He came. He made a mistake in attempting to look back, but he still stepped out in faith and Jesus bore him up.

I suggest it is the other way around, Gina. All the free-will stuff is relates either to man having a choice - which Calvinists believe - or to the 'do this and live' challenge God brought to man to prove his utter inability to save himself.

"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.

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.
(or something like that, it's not in front of me but same meaning)

Gina

 

Since we are speaking of Covenants, here is an extract about the Eternal Covenant of Grace from an article written by Elder Vernon Johnson and found at THE BIBLE TRUTH FORUM at THIS URL :

 

sorry, folks, part of the article was not copied when I did the copy/paste. Here is what is missing on the first paragraph:

 

Apparently, the Everlasting Covenant of Grace was between the Three in One, the Eternal God, and man is nowhere even considered.

Salvation is ALL of the Lord. Independent of preachers, teachers, or man choosing Him.

 

According to Paul in Romans 1 the Gentiles are responsible because of the revelation they were given. Jews were given the Law and prophets and Gentiles were given natural revelation and their conscience. Both groups therefore stand without excuse because both were given everything they need for faith, by which they would be credited righteousness.