The reason you cant lose your salvation is?.....

[dadof10]

Wow, he was a busy man.

Yep, like all the other 11 Apostles.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure that common sense would indicate to me that a man walkin around the region for years with the Creator of the universe, incarnate on Earth would be stealing from Him. But maybe that makes sense to you. Personally, I'd be scared to steal from God.

Personally, I'd be scared to deny God three times too, but a SAVED BELIEVER did it. Is the fact that Judas didn't recognize the second Person of the Blessed Trinity evidence to you that he didn't believe in Him? That's what you seem to be saying here. I don't think anyone fully grasped exactly Who He was until after the resurrection, yet people are saved anyway (the woman who anointed Jesus' feet comes to mind).

But maybe he was saved. I just don't know when or for how long cause the Bible doesn't say. That's my point.

As for your question to me, I don't know that Judas either was or was not saved. It wouldn't surprise me either way.

But Jesus does, and always did. Nothing surprises Jesus, in my opinion.

Ok, let me see if I have this right, then.

1) A man is called by Christ to be a disciple.
2) The man accepts this calling.
3) The man "leaves his family" and follows Jesus.
4) Jesus elevates this man to the office of Apostle (Acts 1).
5) Jesus gives this man the power to cast out demons and heal the sick.
6) It's possible that this man is not a believer in Jesus.

Is this about right?

I submit that if this man's name was not Judas, you would have no problem considering him a believer before he soured on Jesus' mission, or at least would have no problem admitting that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the "believer" side.

 

[DRS81]

Correct. Apostates who used to be Christians.

How do we know? Because the text says they were sanctified by the blood of the Covenant.

29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (Hebrews 10:29-30 NASB)

There's a difference between a religious christian and a born again christian.
When the Bible describes apostates they're not referring to born again christians.
This is a mistake that many people encounter.
This scripture is speaking about religious ceremonies and the unbelief in the heart of the apostate..

..and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it , "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so:

 

[Deborah13]

There's a difference between a religious christian and a born again christian.
When the Bible describes apostates they're not referring to born again christians.
This is a mistake that many people encounter.
This scripture is speaking about religious ceremonies and the unbelief in the heart of the apostate..

..and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it , "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so:

Where is this quote taken from, please post the link.
It sounds familiar, maybe Matthew Henry?

 

[chessman]

I don't think anyone fully grasped exactly Who He was until after the resurrection, yet people are saved anyway (the woman who anointed Jesus' feet comes to mind).

Bingo. I wish I'd said that.
I highly doubt James, Peter, Paul, etc. was convinced Jesus was going to resurrect himself prior to Him doing it either. Yet, did Jesus know that he would do it and they would believe it? I think He did.

6) It's possible that this man is not a believer in Jesus.

Is this about right?

yes. Or that He was. IDK. The Bible doesn't say. Does it?

I submit that if this man's name was not Judas, you would have no problem considering him a believer before he soured on Jesus' mission, or at least would have no problem admitting that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the "believer" side.

K. I agree.

 

[chessman]

When the Bible describes apostates they're not referring to born again christians.
This is a mistake that many people encounter.

Where is this quote taken from, please post the link.
It sounds familiar, maybe Matthew Henry?

I've been meaning to get around to making the following point:

Irenaeus, for example, speaking in the 1st Century Greek doesn't use the word for Apostate as we do today. When he used it, he didn't mean someone that has once held a salvific belief and stopped believing (as most people understand it today). He meant that the apostate person was simply an unbeliever. Period. Not really that the person had once believed then stopped. Or more precisely, that the person had been given enough natural and/or supernatural evidence in order that they should believe in God, but just didn't, for whatever reason. I hope that makes sense. I don't have enough time to put the whole argument together, though. I think it's one of those words that's evolved in it's meaning over the years. These are all examples from his Book II, but there are many more. And I've not done an exhaustive search to even know if he at times he does use the word as we do today. Maybe. IDK. But I do know that as I read through the ECF, the word "apostate" doesn't really have the same precise meaning as we give it today.

Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other;
otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would
receive a richly-deserved punishment.​

But they are altogether full of deceit of every kind, apostate inspiration, demoniacal working, and the phantasms of
idolatry, and are in reality the predecessors of that dragon who, by means of a deception
of the same kind, will with his tail cause a third part of the stars to fall from their place,
and will cast them down to the earth.​

 

[DRS81]

Where is this quote taken from, please post the link.
It sounds familiar, maybe Matthew Henry?

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - http://biblehub.com/hebrews/10-29.htm

 

[Deborah13]

Yep, like all the other 11 Apostles.
Personally, I'd be scared to deny God three times too, but a SAVED BELIEVER did it. Is the fact that Judas didn't recognize the second Person of the Blessed Trinity evidence to you that he didn't believe in Him? That's what you seem to be saying here. I don't think anyone fully grasped exactly Who He was until after the resurrection, yet people are saved anyway (the woman who anointed Jesus' feet comes to mind).
Ok, let me see if I have this right, then.

1) A man is called by Christ to be a disciple.
2) The man accepts this calling.
3) The man "leaves his family" and follows Jesus.
4) Jesus elevates this man to the office of Apostle (Acts 1).
5) Jesus gives this man the power to cast out demons and heal the sick.
6) It's possible that this man is not a believer in Jesus.

Is this about right?

I submit that if this man's name was not Judas, you would have no problem considering him a believer before he soured on Jesus' mission, or at least would have no problem admitting that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the "believer" side.

1) A man is called by Christ to be a disciple. - Where is the scripture that says Jesus met Judas let alone called him. - John 6:64 says there were disciples that did not believe.

2) The man accepts this calling. - obviously he was a disciple but it appears that didn't always mean belief

3) The man "leaves his family" and follows Jesus. - What do we know of Judas leaving a family?

4) Jesus elevates this man to the office of Apostle (Acts 1). - Acts 1, see Acts 1:3, does not apply to Judas, he was dead before the resurrection, he never saw the risen Jesus. Hmm....does that cancel his Apostleship? Don't think so, there were other apostles later, that I don't think saw the risen Lord?

5) Jesus gives this man the power to cast out demons and heal the sick. - There was at least one man casting out demons in Jesus name, whom Jesus had never even met. What about the ones in Rev. who did many things in Jesus name and the Lord says, "I never knew you"?

6) It's possible that this man is not a believer in Jesus. - Yes

How many people, do you think profess Christianity because it is advantageous for them to do so?

 

[Deborah13]

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - http://biblehub.com/hebrews/10-29.htm

Thanks, I read him as well.

 

[Butch5]

Joh 6:64 but there are certain of you who do not believe;' for Jesus had known from the beginning who they are who are not believing, and who is he who will deliver him up,

He did not believe and because he didn't he delivered up Jesus.

So what I see, is that Jesus said, Judas didn't believe and then he says Judas was lost.
If you see something different please explain.

I don't see anything that said Judas didn't believe.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
(Joh 6:64-1 KJV)

It seems to me that John put Judas in a different category, "who should betray him." John said they went back and followed Jesus no more. He says Jesus turned to the 12 and asked if they were going to leave and Peter said they believed and are sure that Jesus is the Christ. One could argue that Peter was wrong and Judas really didn't believe but I find that hard to believe. You see, this is where I believe the difference between belief and faith comes into play. I find it hard to believe that Judas didn't believe that Jesus is the Christ. After being with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and seeing all of the miracle He did, it's hard for me the think Judas didn't believe. I think the problem with Judas was that he didn't put faith in Christ, he didn't obey. You see this is, in my opinion, the difference between belief and faith, or what I think you would call head knowledge and heart knowledge. The difference is that I believe works are necessary, which is obedience. I believe the heart knowledge you speak of is a term devised to separate those who believe from those who don't obey. I believe this term come into being to give Christians a way to hold the no works doctrine and the belief doctrine.

To sum it up, I believe that Judas believed that Jesus was the Christ, which is what one needs to believe for salvation, yet he didn't obey and betrayed Christ and was lost. One thing we have to keep in mind is that Judas was one of those who was given to God and Jesus did say that those that God gave Him were God's.

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (Joh 17:6 KJV)

These were God's men.

 

[Butch5]

Sorry Butch, I think I missed this post?

I not assuming OSAS, I'm not convinced of it myself.
I was only answering as to why someone might believe that Judas was lost whether they be OSAS or non-OSAS.

Ok, my point was that if one posts this passage to prove Judas was lost that argument would assume OSAS in its premise

 

[chessman]

I believe that Judas believed that Jesus was the Christ, which is what one needs to believe for salvation,

not to be interruptive or argumentative, but in your opinion do you think Satan believes Jesus was the Christ?

 

[dadof10]

I did not mean that it was an office, just that it is a position, like an elder/disciple has a position in the Body of Christ. Actually a disciple would be more like a student, one who follows someone's teaching.
What is your position in Christ, is it not as a disciple.

Yes, I think I would consider myself a disciple or follower of Christ. Inherent in the word "disciple" is my faith. The reason I'm following is because I believe. Faith comes before action. It's the same with all people, which is why I think ALL disciples of Christ are believer's first, including Judas.

He had prayed all night long and then came down from the mountain, and chose (selected) them. Did He do that all on His own or had He asked the Father?

Obviously both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. What is not stated is that Judas (or anyone else) just decided on their own to join the Apostles. Jesus (and/or the Father) appointed them from among the disciples.

Were any of them were saved when they were chosen?

Yes, because faith comes before discipleship. The fact they were chosen from among the disciples means they were already believers.

What did they believe. They were Jews, they believed there was a Messiah coming and that He would be a King over their nation and free them from the oppression of other nations. But they really didn't know the Jesus was the Messiah and that He was the Redeemer, at the point they were chosen.

Agreed.

I really don't know if they could be called saved. But it wasn't until later that they came to know who He was.

The woman who anointed Jesus' feet with oil in Luke couldn't possibly have grasped Who He was, but He said to her "your faith has saved you". The Thief on the cross couldn't have known much about Him either, yet Jesus said he was saved. It seems logical to believe that His disciples, who followed Him, knew much more about Who He was than the Annointer or the Theif, so it's also logical to believe they at least were capable of salvation.

Which scripture are you referring to that says He was giving them a share in His Kingdom?

My mistake. Not "kingdom", ministry. Acts 1.

What does the scripture tell us about Judas?
What does the scripture say about why he was selected?

I don't question people's salvation, it's not for me to do. I just try to understand what God is telling us in the scriptures.
Why do you think the scripture mentions Judas when it says Jesus knew which ones of the disciples didn't believe? John 6:64 Maybe it doesn't mean anything other than what Jesus knew.

Or it means there was a time when Judas would lose his faith. The Scripture doesn't say he was an unbeliever from the beginning, only that he didn't believe.

 

[dadof10]

1) A man is called by Christ to be a disciple. - Where is the scripture that says Jesus met Judas let alone called him. - John 6:64 says there were disciples that did not believe.

2) The man accepts this calling. - obviously he was a disciple but it appears that didn't always mean belief

There is some doubt in your mind that Judas and Jesus actually met? Why did He appoint a person he'd never met to be His Apostle?

Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles;

He "chose" Judas, I assume he had met him previously.

Also, you bring up John 6:64. The context is not about belief in general, it's about believing in the Eucharist. After telling His followers to "eat my body", some of them left due to unbelief of that doctrine. They didn't stop believing IN Jesus, but in what He had just said. "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?"

3) The man "leaves his family" and follows Jesus. - What do we know of Judas leaving a family?

No, not specifically, but he did leave behind some kind of life to follow Jesus. That speaks to the topic of belief. Who would leave behind a life for something they didn't believe in?

4) Jesus elevates this man to the office of Apostle (Acts 1). - Acts 1, see Acts 1:3, does not apply to Judas, he was dead before the resurrection, he never saw the risen Jesus. Hmm....does that cancel his Apostleship? Don't think so, there were other apostles later, that I don't think saw the risen Lord?

Judas' "office" was left vacant at his death.

Act 1:17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.'

5) Jesus gives this man the power to cast out demons and heal the sick. - There was at least one man casting out demons in Jesus name, whom Jesus had never even met. What about the ones in Rev. who did many things in Jesus name and the Lord says, "I never knew you"?

Do you think the man casting out demons in Jesus' name had faith in Him?

6) It's possible that this man is not a believer in Jesus. - Yes

How many people, do you think profess Christianity because it is advantageous for them to do so?

Not very many in America anymore. It's getting less and less advantageous. If someone really wants to gain advantage in America nowadays, they would need to convert to Islam. The media and the left (same thing) have found a new pet issue, the poor mistreated Muslim. They cry for "tolerance" for the Muslim while Christians are slaughtered in Muslim countries and they are silent....but I digress...OK off my soapbox now.

 

[turnorburn]

No Deborah Judas was with Jesus for one reason to fulfill scripture.. devils can't be saved neither can a son of perdition

tob

 

[dadof10]

not to be interruptive or argumentative, but in your opinion do you think Satan believes Jesus was the Christ?

Then believing that Jesus is the Christ is moot?

 

[chessman]

Then believing that Jesus is the Christ is moot?

No. Which is why I didn't say so. But does it equate to salvation? No. Satan knows full well that Jesus was (and is) the Christ, is my point.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There's a difference between a religious christian and a born again christian.
When the Bible describes apostates they're not referring to born again christians.
This is a mistake that many people encounter.
This scripture is speaking about religious ceremonies and the unbelief in the heart of the apostate..

..and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it , "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so:

Oh, I see...

Sanctified by the blood of Christ, but not really sanctified by the blood of Christ.

Typical OSAS reasoning: The Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

 

[dadof10]

No. Which is why I didn't say so. But does it equate to salvation? No. Satan knows full well that Jesus was (and is) the Christ, is my point.

True. Just checking

 

[DRS81]

Oh, I see...

Sanctified by the blood of Christ, but not really sanctified by the blood of Christ.

Typical OSAS reasoning: The Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

It must be tiring for you Jethro to wake up every day not sure if you've lost your salvation. How does one sleep at night.

 

[dadof10]

No Deborah Judas was with Jesus for one reason to fulfill scripture.. devils can't be saved neither can a son of perdition

tob

Which Scripture says the one who was to betray the Messiah had to be an Apostle, or even a disciple?