Was Judas Iscariot ever 'saved'?

[sisterchristian]

Sister, God's plan of salvation by Grace was in effect throughout the OT. Hebrews goes into this. Jesus' death and resurrection was sufficient for them too. They will come to know Him as Messiah. There are hints in the OT that they did come to know Him already, in a sense. But I think you knew that already. ;-)

Yes I did, but i was responding to Heidi"s post where she says that no one was saved before Jesus death. I wanted to see what her response to this was

 

[thessalonian]

You are quite right Vic. Those in the OT looked forward in faith to the Messiah. We look back in faith (as well as forward). God's grace has always been at work in the world as God is not limited in time and space. The crusifixion simply injected in to time and space the great things that God has done for man throughout time. In his foreknowledge of that sacrifice, the Jews were saved in the OT.

 

[handy]

We know there are tares among the wheat. We are also given a statement by paul in Galations that says "you have FALLEN from grace, you have been SEVERED from Christ".

If one was not in a tree how can it be said that they fell from that tree? If a limb is severed, how can it have never been attached? We are also told that the Apostles fell away. Jesus prophesied that all of them would and we have the example of Peter falling away. He was restored as Jesus had prayed that he would be and then he restored the rest.

I agree with you on this, thessalonian. I agree that we can indeed fall from grace and yet be restored. I think of how Paul exhorted the Galatians by first forcing them to face the facts of how their return to the Law was causing them to fall from grace, but then also encouraged them with these words: "I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is." v5:10

I don't believe that Judas ever fell from grace though. I believe that he was always the son of perdition. Someone, somewhere in this thread pointed out how Judas was critical of the woman who 'wasted money that could be spent on the poor' anointing Jesus, (sorry, I just can't recall who wrote that post, and it's too far back for me to scroll to) as well as some of the other indications that there was just something wrong with Judas' outlook. And, of course, Jesus did call him a devil, long before the Last Supper.

 

[jgredline]

What do you mean by ''fall from grace''?

 

[thessalonian]

What do you mean by ''fall from grace''?

ask Paul? He was talking about the circumcision Jews of galatians. That should give you a clue.

And, of course, Jesus did call him a devil, long before the Last Supper.

It was actually 1 year before. Judas followed Jesus for two years before that. I can't be his judge and you might be right but I do see evidence that he had faith and fell from faith. He was called and followed Jesus, leaving everything behind. Surely there was some reason for that. The criticism of the woman would have been in his final year as well. I do agree that there are some that can be a part of the Church but not really have true faith so I am not completely disagreeing with you. I also hold out that it is possible though not likely that Judas may have repented in those final moments. We will not know he was in hell until we are in the hereafter I believe. God is the only qualified judge of our final end.

 

[Solo]

Judas never called Jesus Lord or Master.

Judas was never saved according to Jesus.

• 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. John 6:68-71

 

[jgredline]

ask Paul? He was talking about the circumcision Jews of galatians. That should give you a clue.

I know what it means to ''fall from Grace''. but I suspect that you and Handy ''think'' it means to loose your salvation...

 

[mondar]

What do you mean by ''fall from grace''?

jgredline,
Your question is correct, and I will express my agreement. Galatians 5:4 says that those who seek justification by the law have fallen from grace. If the doctrine of justification is misunderstood, one has fallen from the doctrinal position of grace (sola gratia), but grace (salvation) has not fallen from you. Galatians 5:4 is not a violation of OSAS.

 

[handy]

Let's look a little closer at Galatians in order to better understand if Judas fell from grace.

The Galatians were pagans who converted to Christianity via Paul's preaching of the gospel. Sometime after Paul left, someone came in and distorted the gospel message, stating that believers had to be circumcized. Paul writes to correct this teaching and to exhort the Galatians (and all who would seek to be justified via adherence to the Law) to not desert Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel. v1:6

Paul asks, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" v3:2 Hearing by faith is the only way in which to receive the Spirit and be justified before God. By elevating adherence to the Law as equally important as hearing in faith, the Galatians were then severing themselves from Christ. v5:4 Falling from grace then, is a specific issue, tied up with how we are justified.

At issue then, is not a matter of a Christian who sins, then continues on in sin and then dies in sin. What is at issue is how we are justified in the first place. And, we are justified by grace through faith alone, not by adherence to the Law.

This is why I do not believe that Judas fell from grace. It does not seem as though Judas received regeneration via faith, then sought a different means of justification. Surely, if his motivation for betraying Jesus was to be justified before God outside of Christ he would not have killed himself.

But, just because he sinned isn't proof that he fell from grace. Sinning, which is breaking the Law in some way or another is common to all Christians. However, we need to keep in mind what Paul said, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." v2:21

thessalonian, I do agree with you in that God is the only qualified judge of our final end. How joyful it would be to see Judas Iscariot in eternity and what a testimony to the grace of God if he is. Again, I don't want to discuss Judas as a matter of judging him, but rather as an example to work out some of these important issues that the church divides over.

 

[jgredline]

This is why I do not believe that Judas fell from grace.

Mondar... Thanks...I would really like to hear what Thess and Handy believe ''Grace'' to mean....

 

[thessalonian]

jgredline,
Your question is correct, and I will express my agreement. Galatians 5:4 says that those who seek justification by the law have fallen from grace. If the doctrine of justification is misunderstood, one has fallen from the doctrinal position of grace (sola gratia), but grace (salvation) has not fallen from you. Galatians 5:4 is not a violation of OSAS.

The spin doctors stike again. Looking at the passage though the lens of OSAS and a misguided view that sins can be justified before they occur.

 

[thessalonian]

Mondar... Thanks...I would really like to hear what Thess and Handy believe ''Grace'' to mean....

No, you wouldn't really, as if your actually interested but as if you can find an angle.

I agree with his definition that one who is in grace is in salvation. But grace is not just God being nice but cleansing us from our sin. You can no longer be justified from since committed after initial justification if your begin to deny the resurrection, therefore you can really fall from grace and no longer be in grace. This idea of mondies that we fall but never really fall is one of the biggest cluges of the passage in galations I have ever seen. But I thank him for it because it is about the 5th different answer that I have had to my question from protestants. My guess is that you or others on this board may well have given a bravo to one of the other ones that conflict with it at some time in the past.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Handy,

Perhaps you can show me where we are justified by faith ALONE.

But, just because he sinned isn't proof that he fell from grace. Sinning, which is breaking the Law in some way or another is common to all Christians. However, we need to keep in mind what Paul said, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." v2:21

I know of 273 passages in the nt that speak of faith. Not one of them pairs the word faith with alone. Oh wait, one does. James 2:24. Look it up and see if it helps you. We are justified by faith for sure.

Believing in the resurrection allows us to be justified from current sin. We are initially justified for all past and present sin when we become saved. It is ludicris to think we can be justified for future sins. When those sins occur they need justification and we know we have an advocate in Jesus Christ unless we begin to deny him in whom we are justified. That is how I see the passages in galations. Again I don't know that Judas was ever "saved" or not but I disagree that he could not have been. It is interesting to compare Peter's sin and Judas sin and how the followed up. Peter repented to Jesus, while Judas repented to someone who could do nothing for him. He could have gone to Christ but choose not to exaclty because he had now turned his back on Christ who alone could justify him from his current sin.

 

[mondar]

The spin doctors stike again. Looking at the passage though the lens of OSAS and a misguided view that sins can be justified before they occur.

The main essence of such argumentation is name calling. In any case, I am amazed at the sophistry of the Roman Catholic church. If you talk about Roman Catholics worshipping idols they deny that their veneration of Mary and the saints is worship. Yet, they bow before Mary the same way the bow before Jesus. Roman Catholics use ad hominims all the time like the one above, yet if you present scriptural arguments against them you are "anti-Catholic." Heh, talk about spin!

 

[thessalonian]

The main essence of such argumentation is name calling.

No, that is not the main essence. The main essence is false doctrines of which I named. The passage was in fact spun.

I do think I could go back and look for some name calling from you if you want to piont fingers at hypocrysy.

 

[mondar]

No, that is not the main essence. The main essence is false doctrines of which I named. The passage was in fact spun.

I do think I could go back and look for some name calling from you if you want to piont fingers at hypocrysy.

Get a load of this! This is the guy that called the Reformers "deformers." Now suddenly calling me a "spin doctor" is not an adhominim, but it is lofty academic argumentation. Har har, ya right.

 

[thessalonian]

Get a load of this! This is the guy that called the Reformers "deformers." Now suddenly calling me a "spin doctor" is not an adhominim, but it is lofty academic argumentation. Har har, ya right.

Where did I say it was not adhominum. It was a bit. Where did I say it was an academic arguement. Seems your doing some more spinning and could use some practice in reading and comprehension. Is saying someone is a spin doctrine a doctrine such that it can be false or were there a couple of doctrines listed as being the essence of my post? :

 

[mondar]

Where did I say it was not adhominum. It was a bit. Where did I say it was an academic arguement. Seems your doing some more spinning and could use some practice in reading and comprehension. Is saying someone is a spin doctrine a doctrine such that it can be false or were there a couple of doctrines listed as being the essence of my post? :

Your original ad-hominim was "The spin doctors stike again." As your posts proceeded, you began saying that my comments are "spin doctrine." Seems you could use some practice in remembering your own comments.

If you wish to discuss the context of Galatians 5:6 then please advance some arguments why my reading is wrong. Merely calling it spin is not an argument, but it is an undefended proposition.

 

[thessalonian]

Your original ad-hominim was "The spin doctors stike again." As your posts proceeded, you began saying that my comments are "spin doctrine." Seems you could use some practice in remembering your own comments.

If you wish to discuss the context of Galatians 5:6 then please advance some arguments why my reading is wrong. Merely calling it spin is not an argument, but it is an undefended proposition.

You might want to try some reading glasses as well.
"spin doctors" != spin doctrine. I said you were a spin doctor but the main essence of my post was the superimposing of OSAS and present forgiveness of future sins. The mistake is yours.

 

[handy]

I would really like to hear what Thess and Handy believe ''Grace'' to mean....

I won't speak for thess, but I believe that grace is God's choosing to allow for salvation for sinners. We didn't deserve it and cannot earn it, so He paid the price and offers it to us. If it were not for grace no one, not even one person from Adam until now would be saved.

but grace (salvation) has not fallen from you

Mondar, I disagree that grace and salvation are the same thing. Grace is the means by which salvation is opened to us. "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of your own, it is the gift of God; not as a result of any works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
Salvation is eternal life with God.

Grace is His purchase and offering to us of that eternal life.

Faith is the means by which we receive the gift.

What is the Faith by which we receive this gift?

Perhaps you can show me where we are justified by faith ALONE.

thess, I am not Catholic, and therefore do not know or understand RCC doctrine regarding faith and works. I do know that several times in the past when I've been discussing deep theological issues with my some of my RCC friends, they pull out James 2:24 as if that verse and that verse alone is the end of all discussion as to whether or not we are saved by grace alone. (I'm not saying this is what you are doing, dear thess, bear with me a bit.) In the same manner, when I'm having deep theological discussions with some of my Protestant friends, they'll pull Ephesians 2:9 out of the hat as if that verse is the end of all discussion as to whether works play a part in our salvation.

Currently, Solo and I are engaged in a debate over the OSAS issue. Right now, Solo is posting a very in depth look at how we receive salvation and what it means to be justified, sanctified and glorified. He's on the right track, for it's impossible to understand whether or not one can lose salvation, if one doesn't understand exactly how we are saved in the first place.

In that debate, I've posted my own view on the OSAS issue. I do not like OSAS as a theological view-point. I believe that OSAS ignores too many key passages in which God warns us and exhorts us to work out our salvation. Philippians 2:12-13

I believe that the Bible works together as a whole. So, I believe that we must combine James 2 with Ephesians 2 along with Philippians 2 in order to more perfectly understand what God is telling us regarding our salvation.

It is by faith that we do receive the gift of eternal life. No matter how many works we do, we cannot and will not enter into life unless we have the faith that comes to us via God's grace. However, we cannot ignore the lesson James teaches us, namely what is faith? I don't believe for a moment, (and thess, I don't think you do either) that James is telling us that we need two different things for salvation, faith AND works. Some teach this, and one pastor that I know drew a cute cartoon on a white-board in which he had a horse and cart, faith being the horse, works being the cart.

Rather, I believe that James was teaching just what kind of faith it is that is a saving faith.

Too many in the early church as well as today believe that faith is believing in God, in Christ's death and resurrection and in the Holy Spirit. As James points out in this very same chapter, so what? So do the demons. v2:19

Our faith is not a simple belief, go to church, recite the Apostle's Creed and mean it and you're in. Our faith is a much more active thing and the evidence that we hold this kind of faith is by our works. Jesus said that the nature of one can be known by the fruit they bear. Matthew 7:16 We also are known by our fruit and we bear fruit in every good work that we do. Colossians 1:10

So, rather than a horse and cart image, if I were to draw an illustration of what saving faith is, I would draw a seed planted, growing into stems and bearing fruit. The seed is the faith, and the stems are the works which then bear the fruit. Should the seed not produce a stem and fruit, then it is, as James so succinctly put it, dead.

Believing in the resurrection allows us to be justified from current sin. We are initially justified for all past and present sin when we become saved. It is ludicris to think we can be justified for future sins.

An interesting viewpoint, I'm not sure that I agree with it. What scriptural basis do you have for this idea that Christ's death only covers our sin up to the point we are saved, but not any further sins after that and how do you reconcile those scriptures with Hebrews 10:19-27 ?