A stitch in time saves nine

Three varieties of weeds - all loaded with seeds to multiply themselves. 

A stitch in time saves nine;

Even so, uprooting in time saves forty-nine (7X7)

I observed a sober truth this morning while doing some weeding on a lawn. One common characteristic of these weeds (I say weeds since they don't belong to the lawn - actually they can be useful herbs) is that they multiply fast. All of them produce lots and lots of seeds to reproduce themselves rapidly. So, a little delay and they have sown a great number of seeds onto the ground...

The same is with sins in our lives. Nip it before they take deep root and multiply and RUIN us. For this reason, Christ said with utmost solemnity...  Matthew 18:8 "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."

Note a few things said here:

- The Lord is addressing His disciples, each one personally in the second person singular, i.e. thee and thine.

- Each disciple is called upon to perform the drastic measure on himself.

- Such measures to deal with sins will deliver them from being cast into everlasting fire.

These are things the text plainly says though there are questions that needed to be sorted out.

According to Christ, there are much the disciples can do to avoid everlasting fire, but there is nothing one can do about the eternal lake of fire. Read Rev 20:15

Wells 

Question: Do you understand Mt 18:8 to be literal or only a portion of the verse is literal?

Ante

Someone asked: if I my hand offends me and I cut it off, and then my other hand offends me, how do I cut it off?

Wells

Ante... I am trying to understand the author's notion that God's children can go to hell and suffer after death. If we take Jesus's statement as a word picture, then shouldn't we also understand that he is telling us that sinners go to hell so we should avoid sin at all cost?

[I'm curious; why the need to avoid sin at all cost if there is NO POSSIBILITY of God's children ending up in hell - as imagined by many? If that was the case, Jesus had indeed wasted His words warning against something fictional ~ sing]

Sing

I understand Mt 18:8 like this: even if it is a word picture, these must be admitted the matters dealt with a real:

- sins are real,

- the drastic measures needed to deal with sins are real (not the same as literal) measures.

- the consequence of sins undealt with is real.

I'm not sure which part you see as literal and which part non-literal. Share your thought.

From Christ solemn warning to His disciples - yes, He was addressing the disciples, see verse 1 - I conclude that He is warning them about something REAL that can be avoided by their actions, whatever one may think of the everlasting fire spoken of.

I disdain the thought that Christ would waste such solemn words warning the disciples against something that has no real and direct relevance to them. I may be somewhat simple.

Wells

If the warning here and elsewhere is for God's children on how to avoid hell after death, before the judgement day when we will be declared righteous because of Christ and given inheritance into heaven, please enumerate from the text what we ought to do to keep from going there. How can we be sure we won't end up there?

Charles

As I understand sheol/hades we can't avoid it after death

There we await the final judgement

Sing

1. Concerning justification, the declaration had legally taken place at the cross, then vitally applied to an elect individually when he is effectual called out of his native state of sin and condemnation, and the blessedness of his justified state is experienced through faith in Jesus Christ.

- On judgment day, it is the vindication of what had happened based solely on the righteousness of Christ. Based solely on Christ's righteousness and blood, they shall be ushered into eternal bliss.

- Christ's work of redemption redeemed the elect from eternal condemnation in the lake of fire. Eternity begins when time ends.

2. I understand from Rev 20, that the hell will be no more at the end of time. That which is everlasting lasts as long as time lasts. It ceases when there is no more time. Hell ends when it delivers up those in it. It shall deliver up all who are in it at the end of time; those among them that have been redeemed by Christ shall and be glorified enter into their eternal inheritance. The rest, whose names were not written in the book of life, to the lake of fire.

There isn't a single time Christ warns His disciples against the lake of fire, but He most solemnly warns them against hell if they don't take drastic measures to deal with their own personal sins.

- Christ's redeeming work SAVES the redeemed from the lake of fire; thus, there is no warning the disciples against the lake of fire.

- I understand that hell or everlasting fire is in the realm of time. But the lake of fire is eternal when the time has ended.

3. "please enumerate from the text what we ought to do to keep from going there. How can we be sure we won't end up there?"

- The text states it plain enough what each disciple must do to deal with personal sins in powerful vivid pictures to depict the drastic measures to deal with personal sins.

How can we be sure we won't end up there? Perhaps taking drastic measures dealing with one's personal sins will give a child of God hope of not ending up there. Christ did not waste words warning the disciples.

Just my feeble understanding, it's not popular but makes sense to me. I have been called a heretic by some (PBs) for holding such understanding. So, having another call me so makes little difference! That's how I have understood the relevant Scriptures at the moment. If others have a more consistent view, I'm open to listen and consider.

Charles

at death all that is hidden is revealed, goats and sheep, to the right and to the left.

Am I goat or am I sheep? The earthly shepherds should help each one of us through spiritual discernment and at appropriate times discern and divide us.

There are times (as I know very little about husbandry) that the goats will rule the fold through devouring everything and leaving little for the sheep.

The salvation that comes from calling upon the Lord, what is it?

Rom 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The salvation that comes from calling upon the Lord, what is it?
How does calling upon the name of the Lord save?

Context:
In Romans 9-11 the Apostle Paul is dealing with the mystery why God's children among the Jews are unbelieving.

One basic on salvation:
Only those whom the Lord has saved - i.e. justified, regenerated, and adopted and given the Spirit of adoption to dwell in them - are able to call upon, and believe the Lord.
"Except a man be born again, he CANNOT..." Period. So, before a natural man is capable of performing any spiritual activity, like calling upon the name of the Lord, he must first be saved by God, freely and sovereignly, effectually called out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation in Jesus Christ. Then and only then he is capable of calling upon the name of the Lord.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Cor 2:14.

Believing the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, the promised Messiah from God, will save them from lies, falsehood, superstitions, fables, unrighteousness, old covenant laws, etc, and the horrid destruction in AD 70 when the unbelieving ones were either slaughtered and roasted, or captured and sold as slaves by the Romans.

The salvation which the Lord wrought for us is the eternal salvation from the lake of fire. It is distinct from the temporal salvation which God's children have to work out for themselves with fear and trembling through their obedience to their Father's will for them.

God's children among the Jews in the apostolic times were in a unique situation, they were caught within the transition period between the passing of the old covenant and the establishment of the new covenant, between AD 30 and AD 70, the 40 years of reformation of the old covenant. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb 9:10

Many of them found it hard to move out of the old dilapidated crumbling house built through Moses (old covenant, to which there had been so accustomed) into the brand-new mansion built by the Lord Jesus Christ (new covenant which has been established by Him). Those unbelieving ones who persisted to dwell in the old house were burned and roasted when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD70, just as the Lord Himself had prophesied, and His Apostles taught and warned. Many scoffed and mocked at the prophesied coming judgment in AD 70. See 2Pet 3:1-4.

The book of Hebrews deals with that subject in details in great length; the Apostle Paul demonstrating the superiority of the new covenant over the geriatric old covenant. The Hebrew believers were tempted to revert back to the old covenant. Paul warned, "You turn back, you will perish!"

The believing ones who had taken heed of the warning saved themselves (see Mt 24:15f) from that horrendous destruction in AD 70, see Mt 24:21.

Calling upon the name of the Lord will save God's children from temporal destruction, and secure temporal salvation, i.e. blessings their spiritual well being and usefulness in this present life.

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere.

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere.

Out of the pink, a Mr Tan, whom I have met a few times, whatsapped me.
(At th time I was finishing up the notes for the 8pm bible study later...)

at [6:29 PM, 1/17/2018] Wednesday evening
Tan: Hello, pastor lau ! 😄

me: Join us for bible study this evening. We are covering the first few verses of Titus 2. Your smile is wonderful. 

Tan: Love d stories, especially d old part. d new part more confusing, if u cross reference between them

me: If you say the Bible is confusing, you are saying something about the author of the Bible. I know where the difficulty lies. Have a good day.

Tan: Nobody know for sure who wrote d bible, except maybe for Paul's part. Maybe confusing not very accurate, but sure is conflicting details among gospels

me: Have you read the Bible? Give examples of conflicting details? I would like to learn.

Tan: Find a day & lets sit down, it will b a long discussion... 😜

me: Why bother with a long discussion. State what you consider conflicting details.... they have been answered. There have been multitudes of skeptics like you who have raised the same issues. Just google what you consider as conflicting details if you wish to learn more.

Long discussion is a waste of time.

Tan: E.g. The women reported the resurrection to the men (Matt. 28:8). The women did not report the resurrection to the men (Mark 16:8).

me: You can either assume that there are contradictions in God's word, or you can assume that you have not understood the two passages in context.

Tan: U ask for contradiction, so i gave one out of d many lor 😁 God's word or not: all d evidence there is says otherwise lor. If it really is true, then somewhere down d line somebody copied or printed wrongly over d last 2 millenniums lor

me: Mt 28:8 ¶And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Mark 16:8¶ And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Read them again. They didn't speak to ANY MAN they met on the way but they did report the resurrection to the DISCIPLES. That is simple enough.
To Christ's DISCIPLES, to ANY MAN; you can't distinguish the two!
I'm off to my meeting.

Tan: Told u di, can't resolve in short time one.

me: So, where is the contradiction in the two passages you have quoted? [It is such a simple plain matter, doesn't take more than 5 seconds to resolve what before you.]

Tan: Neither said anything to any man

me: How does that contradict Mt 28:8? Kindly enlighten.

Tan: Run to bring word

me: When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere. 😢 Have a good day, Tan.

Tan: Which statement from me let u make such observation?

me: [Your statement that] the Bible is filled with contradictions. Thanks. I will end here.

Tan: Guess u have a change of mind after a good night sleep, or receive divine revelation after praying b4 sleep... 😜  Its ok, no worries

me: I feel sorry for you. The two passages are so plain and simple but you have made up your mind that there are contradictions. If you can't or refuse to see the harmony between the two, what's the point of I wasting time?

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere. 😢 Have a good day, Tan.

Tan: so “Neither said anything to any man” equals to “run to bring word” ? 😲 I may have failed all my previous English teachers... 😓

me: To say you are obtuse is mild. Let me explain and finish with the matter.

The women were at the tomb. They were told to report the resurrection news to the disciples in the city. So they did. Mark 16:8 says that the women did not speak to any man ON THE WAY to the city to bring the news to the disciples.

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere. 😢 Have a good day, Tan.

Tan: Did mark said d women manage to reach & inform d disciples? Didn't see mark wrote “on d way” either...

me: You decide, sir. Matthew said they did. You don't like the answer.

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere. 😢 Have a good day, C C.

Tan: So y didn't mark say they did ? Wats d reason for mark not doing so ?

me: You expect Mark to say everything to meet your fancy? What's the reason for Mark not saying do? Ask Mark if you do meet him in heaven. Matthew informed me they did. 😢

Tan: Tat means mark is incomplete

me: Not to your satisfaction of course. Mark didn't mention your name either. I hope you don't feel sore.  😢

When a mind has decided to see ghosts, it will see ghosts everywhere. 😢 Have a good day, C C.

Tan: & u try to interpret tat by adding words to Mark...

me: Thanks. Have a good day.

Tan: Funny, y u need to resort to personal attack when having simple discussion. Obtuse... My name not mentioned...etc. Tan: R all pastors like tat ?

or maybe all Christian r like tat...

me: What personal attack? I say you are obtuse because you refuse to see what is so simple. You have your arbitrary standard, expecting Mark to say what you want him to say, and then accuse him of being incomplete.

You impudently charged me of adding words to Mark when I helped you to understand Mark with Matthew's testimony.

me: Sir, I don't wish to waste further time with you. So, thank you for the brief exchanges.

Tan: When did i refuse? I merely answer ur question with quotation from excerpt tat u sent me, than without explaining u oledi decided i refused?

Even if i did refuse, tat give u d right to call me obtuse? If u didn't add words to mark y u type them in CAPITAL LETTERS ?

[1:40 PM, 1/18/2018] Tan: I can't see no “ON D WAY” from wat u sent me. 

The purpose of God according to election

The elder shall serve the younger.
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The purpose of God according to the election

Rom 9

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here is the historical event referred to in Gen 25

21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

What was the election about?

- The preeminence of the younger over the older. The elder was bypassed, the younger chosen.

 When did this election take place?

- When the twins were still in the womb; between their conception and birth.

The Scriptures speak of different elections. For example:

Mat 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

- Here, many are called to labour in the vineyard, but only a few chosen to the special office of Apostles.

Mat 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

- Here, many of God's children among the Jews were called out by the gospel, but few chosen to enjoy its blessings. Many were blinded. Read Rom 12:32.

==============

A related discussion here:

Esau and Jacob, "godly line" and their election.

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10201255109035250

An interesting thought crosses my mind as a result of a good question asked by a Brother.

What do you think?

A brother inquired:

"But then I ponder aloud. Esau is born under the roof of Issac, the seed of the godly line (is the doctrine of the godly line still applicable here now?), and my question, "is Esau saved unto eternity?..... "

======
Brother, when I say that I love good questions, it is not because I have all the answers. It is because it makes me study the Scriptures again.

Your question about the godly line is very interesting - "is the doctrine of the godly line still applicable here now?"

I understand "godly line" as a strict reference to that very narrow genealogical line that connects Jesus the Son of God back to Adam the son of God, Luke 3:38. [I believe the "godly line", strictly speaking, terminated at the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.] In that "godly line," each link (each individual, like Jacob in that "godly line) may have many sons and daughters but only one specific male offspring of God's OWN SOVEREIGN and GRACIOUS CHOICE carried on the line until it terminated at Jesus the Christ. The rest of the offsprings (whether they were among God's elect or not, are not the focus of the biblical account, except for the descendants of the chosen nation of Israel.

In human tradition, it is the eldest male seed that carries on the line. In Divine providence, it is the one by God's sovereign choice - the human choice is by-passed to emphasize the free and sovereign grace of God.

Perhaps we should see the case of Esau and Jacob from that light... in the CONTEXT of election to be the NEXT LINK in the "godly line", and NOT in the context of election unto eternal salvation. As far as Esau's right to be the link that continued the "godly line" he was rejected by God. That much is clear. However, we so often see the matter from the perspective of eternal salvation. Seeing the case from the latter perspective CHANGE the whole issue completely.

Is Esau saved unto eternity? I don't know. Some are cocksure! From what I read from the biblical account, Esau is no worse than Jacob; in fact, he was put in much favourable light. Jacob was a schemer and deceiver nearly all his life!!! Esau has his grievous faults.

Esau's EXCLUSION from being a link in that "godly line" is OFTEN CARELESSLY equated as Esau's EXCLUSION from the election unto eternal salvation. Those who advocate the latter need to prove it from the Scriptures.

Well, I thank you for asking the question and making me think about this matter this morning. THANKS.

Adam

Bro Sing, if we view Rom 9 and the exclusion of Esau as a non-eternal matter, then consistency would demand that we also view the election mentioned there as a non-eternal matter. There are those who do teach it that way and see it only as the election of nations (from which the redeemer would come) and not of individuals. Is this what you are trying to say?

Charles

Esau's EXCLUSION from being a link in that "godly line" is OFTEN CARELESSLY equated as Esau's EXCLUSION from the election unto eternal salvation.

The only thing that God states about Esau before they were born is that the older will serve the younger. There is no reprobation of Esau in that only a prophetic statement. It has nothing to do with God saying he hates Esau and loves Jacob.

This is clearly eternal salvation and temporal salvation demonstrated in this Genesis account. The statement of God loving Jacob and hating Esau is the response of God to their respective "lifestyle conversions"

In fact, as you have stated Sing, this love for Jacob is perhaps a tongue-in-cheek statement from God saying "I could just as well love Esau and hate Jacob!"

It has nothing to do with election as is so popularly promoted. Praise the Lord, they both are elect! Isn't that good news?

Hosea says Jacob wept to get his way with angels and God had a controversy with him over that!

Sing F Lau

Bro Adam, I believe in Rom 9-11, Apostle Paul is dealing with a deep mystery WHY many of God's children (therefore regenerated elect) among the Jews were unbelieving concerning the gospel, THAT IS, why only a remnant among them was chosen to enter into the gospel rest. It was in that context, that Paul marshaled in the appropriate example of Esau and Jacob. Paul was not dealing with the non-elect among the Jews.

Dellis

From Jacob came the Godly line of Judah?

Because Esau was hated, did this mean, he and the continuing line after him were hated? Because Esau was hated, does this mean, he couldn't be saved?

Sing F Lau

Bro Peter, if "saved by grace through faith" you mean eternal salvation freely bestowed upon us, based solely upon the faithfulness/fidelity of Christ work of redemption, when we were dead in trespasses and sins, then I concur with you.

What were the promises implied, and of what did he disqualify himself? Thanks.

(Peter deleted his post later.)

Adam

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. 5And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. - Mal 1:2-5

Sing F Lau

Brother Dellis, Jacob and Judah (both being not firstborn of their fathers!) - were both individual links IN the ONE godly line that ran from Adam to Jesus.

Esau was "hated" only in the sense that his birth right as the first born was bypassed by God's sovereign purpose.

"I hated Esau" is often mistakenly understood as him being consigned to eternal damnation.

Sing F Lau

Bro Adam, that's a good passage. The intent and focus of the passage are to point out, how DESPITE being not the firstborn, Jacob the younger brother was so loved by God... a fact that greatly aggravates the ungratefulness of Jacob.

Isaac blessed Jacob in this manner:

28 Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:

29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

Isaac blessed Esau in this manner:

39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

Bryan

Brother Sing, I see from your post above that you are not sure if Esau is elect or not... But I say unto you does the Lord hate his elect? It is clear from Paul in Romans and from Malachi that Esau was not saved. I do not believe that being born into a family is any assurance of salvation ever. (Sorry, using speech to text on my tablet... Didn't notice the misspellings)

Sing F Lau

Brother Bryant, you asked, Does the Lord hate His elect?

That's an interesting rhetorical question, worthy of careful consideration.

It depends on what you mean by that.

Is God's sovereignly PREVENTING some of His children from seeing the gospel truth in Jesus Christ an instant of hating the elect? I inquire to understand what you are saying.

Rom 11:

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Is depriving the firstborn of his birthright an instant of God "hating" Esau?

Or did the hating of Esau lie in God's election of Jacob to eternal salvation, and bypassing of Esau unto eternal damnation?

I'm asking to learn.

Adam

One can easily get confused in all the twists and turns of a conversation. I agree that Rom 11 deals with the unbelief of the elect Jews which you quoted above, not chapter 10. Let me ask a plain question so as to understand more clearly what you have written. Does Rom 9 teach that the man Jacob was elected for eternal salvation? (Predestination) or Does it teach that God's election of Jacob merely signified that the Chosen One would be born from his body?

Sing F Lau

Thanks, I've edited the mistake.

You asked, "Does Rom 9 teach that the man Jacob was elected for eternal salvation? (Predestination) or Does it teach that God's election of Jacob merely signified that the Chosen One would be born from his body?

I believe it is the LATTER - Jacob was elected to be the NEXT LINK in the "godly line" that would eventually lead to the promised Messiah. So, the election is not unto eternal salvation, but that is the most common and popular idea).

Each election has its own specific end, depending on the context. One of them is election unto eternal salvation.

Romans 9

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Note a few things:

- children not yet born, BUT ALREADY conceived in the womb when the said election took place... the preeminence of the younger over the elder!

- the purpose of God according to THAT election might stand, superseding the purpose of man where the 1st born has the preeminence.

- the implication of that election is specifically this: the elder shall serve the younger, and NOT the elder shall be bypassed in eternal salvation but the younger chosen unto eternal salvation.

- There is no unrighteousness with God in electing the younger to have preeminence over the firstborn!!!

Sing F Lau

Bro Eng, concerning Judas Iscariot... you asked "Is the son of perdition, Judas Iscariot seated amongst the godly cloud of witnesses that cheer every step we take on earth? " Your question is obviously rhetorical, requiring a negative answer.

Judas Iscariot is, humanly speaking, one of the most tragic cases... an APOSTLE who betrayed his Lord. Why? Because of disillusionment based on some preconceived, ignorant and erroneous ideas... that is, Jesus came to usher in an earthly kingdom of which Judas would become the Finance Minister!!! Judas may be a traitor ... I fear that there are worse traitors than Judas AMONG God's children... who betray Jesus in more sophisticated ways... for example, those who are so learned and enlightened (like many theologians and doctors of divinity) but teaching errors that are injurious the Person and Name of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

"The son of perdition" is a very strong term... Joh 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."

So, look at this verse where the term is found. Just some plain observations...

- Judas was one among "them", the pronoun indicating the 12 Apostles.

- Christ has kept THEM in God's name, them including Judas Iscariot, until the appointed time.

- Judas was ONE AMONG the twelve Apostles whom God has given to Christ, and he kept them by the Father's power and authority.

- None of the 12 apostles was lost EXCEPT Judas, the son of perdition.

- And Judas fell from his HIGH and UNIQUE office of apostleship... thus the strong term "THE son of perdition."

- Judas' fall from the high and unique office of apostleship was not because Jesus could not keep him, but was necessary so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Jesus, the all-knowing Son of God Himself picked Judas to be one of His 12 disciples. God gave Judas to be one of Jesus' 12 Apostles.

Did Jesus make the horrid mistake of choosing a non-elect to be his special disciple... an Apostle?

Or did He know all along, and picked Judas, that what had been prophesied would be fulfilled?

Properly understanding pure grace, and the distinction between eternal salvation and temporal salvation enables a man to see things from another perspective. I'm just studying.

Hulan

Was Judas Iscariot a child of God? Jesus stated in Matt. 26:24 that it would have been good if he had not been born.

Sing F Lau

Thanks, Elder Hulan Bass.

Lots of questions can be asked!

Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Please tell, with your great mind for analysis -

- in what sense it would have been good for Judas if he had not been born?

- it would have been good with respect to who, himself, or others?

Is Jesus saying that it would have been good if Judas never existed, not even conceived, or conceived but never born to commit such heinous and treasonous acts?

But isn't the birth of Judas, and his acts NECESSARY for the fulfillment of the prophecy? (John 17:12)

Now the serpent was more subtil

A satanic leaf-tailed gecko - how very subtle and cunning!

Have you been wondering...

Gen 3

1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made....

The LORD looks upon this serpent, who was once a great and lofty angelic being, as a beast of the field; how great was his fall. One distinct characteristic of this beast is its subtlety and cunning.

This beast deceived the woman and brought the fall of Adam and the human race, the crown jewel of the LORD'S creation.

As a result, this judgment was declared upon the serpent.

14 ¶And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Seed of the Woman shall appear at the appointed time, to crush the head of the beast! Did the beast take note of that divine judgment?

My question:

- Did that most subtle and cunning beast sit passively, waiting for his head to be crushed,

- Or did he plot with all his subtlety and cunning to save his head, to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the Woman who would mean his doooooooom?

What do you think the most subtle and cunning beast had been doing right up to the time when his head was crushed by the Son of Mary at the cross?

What man, with a fraction of that subtlety and cunning, wouldn't have done all he can to avert in a similar doom?

Just asking to learn.

Now you see the devil?

Sing

Is it not the zenith of sublime subtlety and cunning when the serpent's direct and active involvement in causing the world to be fit for divine judgment and universal destruction BUT yet his evil hands are completely hidden and unnoticed; and sincere men attribute the cause of such catastrophic and monstrous phenomenon to the natural activity of human procreation?

(I left the above comment to the Facebook post above, and the following conversation took place.    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210722203346691&set=a.10204411521703594.1073742711.1097484914&type=3&theater

Adam

"and sincere men attribute the cause of such catastrophic and monstrous phenomenon to the natural activity of human procreation?"

Are you referring to Gen 6:5? And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If so, mixed marriage is certainly not the chief cause of the flood, but would help prove "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth."

Sing

When we come to Gen 6:1, sons of men and daughters of men had been marrying and daughters and sons were born to them for more than a 1500 years.

How would mixed marriage help prove that?

I will give you a good hearing.

I wrote a little note on Gen 6:1 here. Take a look.

https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/.../and-it-came-to...

Adam
Why do you insist that the flood was brought about by mixed marriages or union between fallen angels (devils) & women? My position is that God destroyed the earth because "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5

To consider devils sleeping with women, one must first believe that angels can copulate and that their seed is able to bring about conception in the woman. Your answer is obviously yes, so I consider everything after that as erroneous. If I wrote a long interesting dissertation about math equations and principles but used 1+1=3, wouldn't that taint the whole equation?

The Bible says that angels are spirits. The roman catholic apocryphal work of "Enoch" speaks of angels sleeping with women. I reject it. First prove from scripture that angels can procreate and I'll listen further otherwise, I will not budge.

Sing
Did you read what I have actually said? Or are you expressing your own idea and disagreeing with it?

I will respond when you can state exactly what I have actually stated.

"Devil sleeping with women" is your idea, not mine. So, please don't impute your idea as mine.

My late father taught me one simple rule: "If you can't represent the opposing view, you have not earned your right to disagree." I observe that rule.

Adam 

Did you not say that fallen angels is what is meant by "sons of God?"

Sing

Go read again, if you had. Thanks.

https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/.../they-saw-that...

Read the first paragraph of the above article on Gen 6:2

Adam

Bro Sing, I have no interest to debate. I'm here to try to help you to see an obvious mistake. I have read what you wrote. Not sure why you feel I've misrepresented you by saying devils slept with women. You used the words "fallen angelic beings." Are not devils, "fallen angelic beings?" How can "fallen angelic beings" take on flesh? We see cases where men (flesh) are filled with devils, but the flesh is still man's. Is this what you mean?

Sing

I have the least desire to debate. I do have a desire to tell people who are interested to search the Scriptures and rightly divide it. I take it that that is your desire and intention.

1 Your "the devil slept with women" and the fallen angels that had unlawfully taken upon themselves humanity and appeared as real men as can be, and attracted the daughters of men ARE WORLD OF DIFFERENT, are they not. So, you have not represented me correctly. Do you see the point now?

2. You asked, how can "fallen angelic beings" take on flesh?

- That angels can take on flesh, were perceived as men, entertained as real men, and lusted after as real men by real men... is an indisputable fact.

- I said this in the note on Gen 6:2.

"When it is suggested that the sons of God are angelic beings, everyone knows enough to rightly retort, "but angels neither marry nor are given in marriage." But they fail, or refuse to acknowledge the simple biblical fact that angelic beings are capable of becoming real men, taking upon themselves human flesh, and have real interaction with sons and daughters of men. Take a look at the angels/men in Gen 19.

When elect angels took flesh and became men, they did so temporarily, and at the will of God, running divine errands. But when the fallen angels did the same, it was against God's will, and left their own habitation, and intruded into the human habitation. They SINNED for doing so. They kept not their first estate - the estate ordained for them in the spirit realm. Read 2Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 - do they make some sense to you now?

2Pet 2:4-5

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Jude 6.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Peter informed us of the fact that those angels sinned; Jude disclosed the nature of the sin committed by those angels. Both spelt out the divine judgment that came upon those angels that sinned in the manner stated.

Please note also that verses 4 and 5 are mentioned in the same breath by Apostle Peter. They are related."

Adam

Your "the devil slept with women" and the fallen angels that had unlawfully taken upon themselves humanity and appeared as real men as can be, and attracted the daughters of men ARE WORLD OF DIFFERENT, are they not.”

You have invented this sub-species that the Bible does not describe. That angels can look like flesh is a no doubter! The angel that appeared to Manaoh and his wife appeared as a man as recorded in Judges 13. But can a man in flesh do this? "For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground." vs 20

In order to try to maintain consistency with your error, you have also invented 2 different classes of fallen angels in order to use Jude and 2nd Peter to prove your point.

Angels can not transform themselves into men as this would be to change nature. (Scripture says they fell from their first "estate.") Can men become horses and mate with mares? This is a silly proposition which I am surprised you hold fast to it.

Acknowledge the truth of this first and light will come to you to understand the other points.

Sing

Have I invented?

Read the two angels that came visiting Lot.

The Scriptures tell us they were angels, BUT they were perceived as real men by men. Read the account again. No one invented it. The serpent was more subtle than we imagine...

There is only one class of fallen angels; some fallen angels committed the sin stated in 2Pet and Jude.

Perhaps you may try to tell us what those passages are saying. I have put a link below to facilitate it.

Angels that rebelled and were kicked out of heaven to the earth, and the fallen angels that sinned in the manner stated in 2Pet and Jude 6 and the judgment they suffered are different and distinct. Did you notice the difference? In the former, they were KICKED out of heaven and cast down to the earth, in the latter some of them sinned by leaving their own habitation in the spirit realm (and entered the physical realm) on earth and were reserved in everlasting chains under darkness.

A man can believe only what he can understand and choose to believe. So, stay where you are unless the good Lord give you more light. I have no interest to change your mind or anybody's mind for that matter. What I have understood makes simple sense to me.

Adam
Can you reason with a man on the meaning of John 3:16 if he believes that God loves everyone and desires all to be in heaven? Nay, you first try to get him to understand election, if he doesn't get that point, isn't futile to try to explain further? 

We have the same situation here. Why should we discuss various other facets of the subject text when you think that angels can mate with mankind? Letgodbetrue has excellent and detailed material available on their website on this topic which you have no doubt read through. Haven't you?

You have built this up in your own mind (invented) and thus see the other scriptures through this lens. It is the same as when a man believes that God wants everyone in heaven and thus wrongly views other passages. Correct the foundational point and the others will come together also.

Sing

Adam, angels, and spirit-beings CANNOT mate with the flesh and blood human being. Is that clear and simple? Does that register with you?

Perhaps, if you will move beyond that wilful misrepresentation, you may not see devils copulating with fair daughters of men.

Angels who had taken upon themselves human flesh and blood, are perceived and received by human beings as real men. If you wish to deny the Scriptures, like the two "men" who visited Sodom, that describes such a phenomenon, it is your liberty. A similar thing happened earlier, except by the scheming of crafty Satan, to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman.

If this doesn't make plain sense to you now, don't bang your head against the wall. Stay where you are. If you wish to pursue the issue, I suggest answering the questions posed in the 2Pet and Jude 6 passages. 

If I have invented something extra-biblical, it would be easy enough for a man like you to dismantle it, wouldn't it?

Adam

That angels appear as men is no problem, but they are not men nor can they become men. Can a human flesh do this? "Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name... For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD... For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground." Judges 13

Would you agree that the angel which visited Manaoh and his wife looked like a man? Was he a man... no. Are you trying to say that the angel could have rebelled against God and thus get downgraded to a mortal man which will die and return to dust?

Sing

Adam, look at the two angels who came to Sodom.

I read that the two angels were completely men to Lot and all the other people. What do you see? Why can't you agree that the angels who visited Lot were REAL men at the same time? Why run to Judges 13 to deny what is stated plainly in Genesis 19?

Gen 19:1 "And there came two ANGELS.."

Gen 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are THE MEN which came in to thee this night?"

Gen 19:8 "... only unto to THESE MEN do nothing..."

Gen 19:10 "But THE MEN put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house..."

Gen 19:12 "And THE MEN said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides?..."

Gen 19:15 "And when the morning arose, then ANGELS hastened Lot.."

Gen 19:16 "And while he lingered, THE MEN laid hold upon his hand..."

The angels mentioned in Gen 19 is the earliest in the Bible.

Prior to this, "the angel of the LORD" is mentioned 4 times in Gen 16.

I conclude, in my simple mind, that angels are capable to take on blood and flesh, conducting themselves as real men, and performing all the activities of real men. If you read the account differently, it is fine with me - but don't falsely accuse me of inventing what's plainly written in the Scriptures. Just say you don't believe what is stated there! ;-) 

Have you tried those questions on the passages in 2Pet and Jude 6 yet?

Sing

I asked some questions about the two passages here.
Perhaps after you have tried answering them, we can continue. 
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-angels-that-sinned.html