Four Chinese Brothers...

 

From: sing
Sent: 30 August 2005 12:36
To: Lee, Tang, Loh (Ipoh East Church)
Subject: Re: churchmanship

Brother Lee,

I am glad that you have been chewing on the matter. I hope some progress is made from where you and I left off the discussion some distant while ago.

I don't know whether Rome was built in a day, but theologically there is nothing new under the sun. I think we agree on this.

By 'this view' in your question, I take it that you mean 'saving faith is an evidence of justification (and regeneration and adoption too - since these all are simultaneous, through logically distinct).

I don't know much history at all. In any case, the 1689 LBCoF is a historical document. So, if my understanding of the CoF is correct and consistent (he who disagrees please feel free to prove me wrong - I would be very thankful to be shown my errors), then, historically that body of men holds to that view. I believe that view was the standard view among the early particular baptists for quite a long time until it gradually became a minority view for various reasons - the rise of Arminianism which is naturally popular even with the true children of God; through misunderstanding from WITHIN and vicious and sustained caricatures from WITHOUT.

There are those who hold to this view today who have never departed from that understanding of the 1689 CoF. And there are more and more people from all places returning to the primitive (Collins: "adjective, of or belonging to the first or beginning; original") view of the early Particular Baptists. I believe I am one of them.

I was explaining the problem to brother Loh the last time I was in Ipoh, using this illustration.

There were 4 Chinese brothers in Shanghai (representing the early Particular Baptists embracing the truth summarized in the 1689 CoF- of which John Gill was the great and undisputed representative, even Mr. Spurgeon acknowledged this common fact). One went to Taiwan, another to Japan and one went to America.

After many years, the three brothers return to Shanghai, and the four brothers are together again. They began to squabble as to who among them are true Chinese in values and outlook. The one who went to America became an Arminian (still speaking the same language but a different gospel); the one to Taiwan became a 'standard reformed' (retaining old biblical language but with a different twist of the meaning); he who went to Japan became outright liberal! The one who went to Taiwan retains lots of 'chinese-ness' in him - he is the equivalent of a 'standard reformed'. When the four have come together, all of them claim to be Chinese... but only one of them remains a true original - one who stays put in Shanghai.

The 'standard reformed' brother back from Taiwan called the brother who has remained in Shanghai a 'hyper-calvinist' - and the literature of the 'standard reformed' publishing houses (whether from the Baptist or from the paedo-baptist) have INDOCTRINATED a whole generation in this falsehood! The brother who turned Arminian calls the 'standard reformed' brother back from Taiwan a 'hyper-calvinist'. The brother who has who remained in Shanghai can only sigh with grief - that his three brothers have all departed from their original beliefs.

I know this is a poor illustration, but it is sufficient to explain the confusion of various groups who claim to hold the beliefs summarized in 1689 CoF, but believe very different things in the fundamental of the faith.

But some former Arminians and some 'standard reformed' people, having realized the theological roots are abandoning the 'strange' ideas they have picked up while away from Shanghai, and have returned to the faith of their fathers.

The one who remained in Shanghai is known as Primitive Baptists today.
There are other churches that went astray, have realised their errors, and have reformed and returned to the original faith of the Particular Baptists. Some identify themselves with the Primitive Baptists. Others returned to the same truth but did not bear the name Primitive Baptists. I will give you more of these later. So, this view of justification is not held by the Primitive Baptists alone. There are other Baptist churches on both sides of the Atlantic holding to this primitive biblical teaching.

A few brief thoughts for your consideration.

Pastor Lau

Sons of God (Genesis 6) - They are not what you imagine!

 

Sons of God (Genesis 6)
They are not what you imagine!

Gen 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 

“And it came to pass…”: Adam was created on day 6 of year 1; Noah was born in the year 1056.; he lived for 950 years and died in the year 2006. The flood came when Noah was 600 years old, in 1656 since the creation week. So, when it is stated “and it came to pass” – the procreation activities of man - sons of men with daughters of men – had been going on for more than 1600 years.

Then something happened...
“the sons of God” is popularly understood as a reference to the godly Sethites. Even the venerable Dr John Gill said, “…this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Genesis 4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men…”

Matthew Henry: “The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves…” 

Remember these hard facts:
- It is said that Noah, a preacher of righteousness, preached for 120 years before the flood came; that's a long period; let's just halve it and make it 60; 60 years is not a short ministry either.
- During Noah’s long years of ministry, that WHOLE GENERATION of "the sons of God" did not believe but ALL perished in the flood.

Questions for consideration:
1. What had happened to ALL those so-called "sons of God" in Noah's day?
2. Did all the sons of God (i.e. so-called godly Sethites) end up lusting after and marrying daughters of men (i.e. ungodly Cainite women) then?
3. Why do the theologians and scholars insist that “the sons of God” are the godly Sethites even though all of them lusted after and married daughters of men (ungodly heathen women)?
4. Would the inspired Scriptures use the term “the sons of God” to describe those who neither believed nor repented during the long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness?

All those "sons of God" - whom they insist were godly men – all perished in the flood. Noah’s long ministry had no good effect on them at all.

What kind of "sons of God" have they imagined - men who bore such a grand-sounding title "the sons of God" but who lusted after ungodly heathen women because of their outward beauty; and that none repented or were converted under the ministry of a faithful preacher of righteousness for 60 over years. 

Here are two Scriptures that speak of "the sons of God” -
John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” 
Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Is there the slightest semblance between the two: those sons of God in Gen 6 and those sons of God in John 1:12 and Rom 8:14?

And here is one more matter to consider.
2Pet 2:9 "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

Surely these precious words apply to the “sons of God” if indeed these refer to the godly Sethites in Gen 6:2. So, if the "sons of God" were godly men indeed - as universally imagined – then a reasonable conclusion is:
- either God FAILED catastrophically in delivering the imagined "godly men" in Gen 6, (but God forbids this blasphemous thought!)
- or 2Pet 2:9 is entirely false - because all the imagined "godly men" in Gen 6:2 perished in the flood!

So, which is which – the LORD God didn't know those godly men (sons of God), or God was too weak to deliver them; or is apostle Peter making an utterly untrue statement?

So, live with the implications of your view.

Do you still believe that the "sons of God" is a reference to godly men and not something else?

Let me suggest for your consideration:
The “sons of God” are some of the fallen angels who had unlawfully taken upon themselves human nature (like the two elect angels who visited Lot did), and procreated with the daughters of men… and brought about the universal moral degeneration... calling forth the divine judgment upon the whole human race.

Now read these:

2Pe 2:4 ¶ 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;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.

Verse 4 speaks of angels that sinned; verse 5 tells of the destruction of the world in Noah’s day. See the connection yet? Verse 6 reminds us of elect angels who became real men whom the Sodomites lusted after.

Jude 1:6 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. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 obviously speak of the same matter; the nature of the angels’ sin is stated in the latter.

They keeping not their first estate and leaving their own habitation are two sides of the same coin – they left their habitation in the spirit realm and transgressed into the physical human realm and procreated, with the desired catastrophic and universal moral degeneration, calling forth the righteous divine judgment to destroy the human race... thus, circumventing the appearance of the Seed of the woman who will crush the Serpent's head.

"BUT Noah found grace"; Satan's effort to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the Woman, who would crush his head, failed spectacularly.

Saving, and justifying faith - what are they?

 

From: sing 
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:26:43 +0800
To: Loh, Tang, Lee - Ipoh East RB Church
Subject: studying "Pruning Seven Deformed Branches

Dear Brethren,
I am glad that you are gathering to discuss church matters, i.e. with regard to my teachings as expressed in the 'Pruning' book, and my future involvement with Ipoh East Church.

I pray that you will have a profitable time. I will suggest a few things for your consideration.

1. Endeavour to stick to the issues alone, and deal with the issues alone. It is so easy to be side-tracked by all sorts of things.

2. Avoid personality at all costs. Truth is not determined by personality, whether a renowned theologian or an ordinary pastor of a church.

3. Be honest and open as you study and examine the Scriptures together.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness. Be ready to be CORRECTED and REPROVED in doctrinal matters too.

4. And please don't end up quarrelling among yourself! Theological discussion can be damaging to those who can't handle disagreement.

5. Remember, the teaching of Scriptures summarised in the 1689 CoF is the Doctrinal Standard of the Ipoh East Church. Study it and know it well. Believe what you want but make sure it is consistent and in conformity to the Scriptures as summarised in the 1689. CoF

6. Feel free to ask any question you like in relation to anything I have written in the book. I am not responsible for what others say of me. I am responsible for what I have written. Speak your mind.

May the Lord bless each of you as you study together. Regardless of what you have said and thought about me, and whatever decision you would make, I will bear no grudges and shall still love and respect each of you as dear brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I remain your brother and servant of Christ,
sing

-------------

p/s I paste below a post I sent to many RB theologians, and am waiting for their reply. Perhaps you may like to consider my simple questions when you come together to study. When I receive some replies, I will forward them to you.

From: sing <singlau@myjaring.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:30:00 +0800

To: Robert Oliver.
Cc: Tom Ascol, Tim Curnow,  Sinclair B. Ferguson, Roger Fay, Richard Barcellos, Reformed Baptist Academic Press, Philip Grist, Philip Eveson, Phil Collier, Phil Arthur, Peter Law.
Subject: Saving faith, Justifying faith

Dear Dr Oliver, 
Hello, and greetings from Penang, Malaysia.,

Please let me ask something:
What do Reformed people mean when they use these terms 'saving faith' or 'justifying faith'?

Is 'saving faith' the faith that saves or the faith exercised by a saved person - i.e one having been effectually called to grace and salvation?

(Saving faith receives and rests in Christ Jesus and His righteousness.)

 Is 'justifying faith' the faith that justifies a condemned person, or the faith exercised by a justified person and thus evidences the justified state of the person?

(... 1689.11.2. "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love."

Is receiving and resting in Christ the same as being justified by God?

Or is receiving and resting in Christ (saving faith) a saving grace exercised by the person already justified?

In what sense is faith the alone instrument of justification? Is it the alone instrument to secure one's justification before God, or the alone instrument to manifest/evidence one's justification before God by His free and sovereign grace when one was ungodly and in enmity against God?

What do 'reformed' people mean when they say, justification is by faith alone? Do they mean the same thing as the framers of the 1689 LBCoF? Or have they put an entirely new unbiblical twist to it?

'Faith is not alone in the person justified.' Doesn't this mean that faith is a consequence/effect of justification, that personal justification precedes the grace of faith? Faith is one of the saving grace shown by a person already justified.

I am wondering whether the 'reformed' people are holding to the same beliefs of the Particular Baptists as summarised in the 1689 LBCoF.

I asked because you are a reputable RB theologian.
I would be pleased to hear your comments and thoughts.

Thanks.

sing

Where is it held today?

From: sing 
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:51:44 +0800
To: Ipoh East Church - Loh, Tan, Lee
Cc: Edmund
Subject: Where is it held today? Don Fortner - (US)

 Dear Brother Lee,
You asked the following (and I am mighty glad you had asked...)
<<Maybe I can ask, historically and in today's context where does this view come from and where is it held today?>> 

I wrote to find out from Don Fortner - Pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Danville, KY - a non Primitive Baptist Church. His website is <www.donfortner.com>

From: sing
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:03:44 +0800
To: Don Fortner
Subject: Where is it held today?

Dear Brother Don,
Please permit me to make an inquiry. I visited your website and noted the churches listed in the Links. Do they all hold to the same view on justification and faith as expressed in your article 'What Does It Mean To Be Reformed?' - i.e. Faith in Christ is the result, not the condition of justification. I believe this is the teaching of the Scriptures, but I am facing great opposition in this corner of the Lord's vineyard.

I asked because a brother inquired what churches and groups of churches are there - historically, and at present - that hold to that view of justification. At least I know that Grace Baptist Church of Danville does.

Are there other groups of churches that hold to this biblical view of justification?

I would be very grateful for some information on this.

sing
far east.
---------

From: Don Fortner
Reply-To: "Don Fortner"
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:30:46 -0400
To: "sing" 
Subject: Where is it held today?

Bro. Sing,
It is difficult to say what a "group" believes, because various individuals
within the group may differ greatly, though holding to the same creed. But the English Strict and  Particular Baptist (and others)  historically understood and taught that faith is the result (not the instrumental cause) of justification in Christ.

So, too, did...
John Gill
John Brine
John Owen
Thomas Manton
Augustus Toplady
John Bunyan
C. H. Spurgeon
J. P. Boyce
Jonathan Edwards
George Whitefield
William Gadsby
William Huntington
John L. Dagg

And a host of others.

Where is the church you pastor? Tell me a little about yourself.

Don
Reply to don@donfortner.com

--------

From: sing 
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:12:46 +0800
To: Don & Shelby  Fortner
Subject: Where is it held today?

Brother Don,
Thank you for affirming that part of my inquiry. I did read in your tract this statement, 'When you lay this tract down, I want you to know precisely why we refuse to practice these things, believe them, or participate in any way with those who do.' So, I expected the answer, but just want to make sure.

Are there other baptist churches or groups of baptist churches that hold to the same biblical doctrine of justification - historically, and today?

I know you are very busy, but please spare a few moments to help me with my inquiry.

sing
Sungai Dua Church (1689 Free Grace Baptist)
Penang, Malaysia

--------------

 on 30.08.05 7:57 AM, Don Fortner at don@donfortner.com wrote:

Bro. Sing, 
So far as I know (and I think I do) all the churches and pastors linked to
www.donfortner.com fully believe and teach the doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning justification.

Don

Some grandest gospel truths stated in Romans 8:29-30

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10215197106496473
December 9, 2019

#Some_grandest_gospel_truths_stated

Romans 8
28 ¶And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 ¶What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Verses 28-30 form a paragraph. It states some of the grandest gospel truths. You may like to list them one by one, and ponder over each one. The exercise will enrich you.

But let's consider the questions in verse 31.

31 ¶What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

1. What do "these things" refer to?
2.  What shall we say concerning "these things"?
3. "If God be for us" - in what sense God be for us? Note the context
4. The second question is rhetorical, demanding a firm negative answer, "none."
- None can be against us in what sense?
- What does that mean to you?

Do some mental exercise... and rejoice in your blessedness of being the object of God's immutable grace.

Hebrews 5:14 KJV — But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

Gift from without; faith from within

A gift comes to one from WITHOUT;
Salvation by the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ
is a gift that is applied to us
individually and personally from WITHOUT.
Faith is a grace, among many others,
worked WITHIN the heart by the indwelling Spirit.

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/289799684264
January 29, 2010 

This may sound very insulting, but that's because so many are confused and deluded.

Which is first:
- the bestowal of the free gift, and believing it, or
- the believing in the good news of the free gift, and receiving it.

Are the bestowal of that free gift, and the believing & receiving of that free gift separate and distinct activities, both logically as well as chronologically?

Let us reason together. Gird up the loins of your mind.

Here is the context of the inquiry:
"Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,(1) not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;(2) not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;(3) not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness,(4) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.(5)

(LBCoF chapter 11 on Justification)

Which is first, logically as well as chronologically...

1. God freely justified you when you were in your dead and condemned state, and made you alive based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, by which you were made able to believe and receive that FREE justification by faith?

OR

You, FIRST by faith, receive and rest in Jesus Christ, THEN God freely justifies you - i.e. God freely set you free from your condemnation of death. (Justification is the reversal of the condemnation of death). Huh? Did God work faith in you when you were still in your un-justified condemned state????? Is that even possible? Are you thinking or not?

If the former, then why do so many still believe the OBVIOUS LIE that they are justified by their faith alone before God?

If the latter, then what? Madness and delusion?

Did God give the gift of faith [actually faith is a grace worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit!] to an un-justified condemned man, so that he may exercise that gift to believe and receive and rest in Jesus Christ IN ORDER THAT God will justify him, i.e. in order that he may receive justification from God?

But if God had not freely justified him first, what is there for him (still condemned, since not justified yet) to receive? Do you mean to say, you believe and receive first, and then God freely gives you, i.e. justify you?

ALAS, that's what the Arminians and EVEN the Reformed people INSIST on believing!

Can a condemned man, i.e. unjustified, exercise faith IN ORDER to be justified by God? Very many insist 'yes'.

Does the Spirit of God indwell a man STILL under condemnation, i.e. not yet justified by God, to work the grace of faith in him? Very many insist 'yes'.

A gift comes to one from WITHOUT.

Salvation by the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ is a gift that is applied to us individually and personally from WITHOUT.

Faith is a grace, among many others, worked WITHIN the heart by the indwelling Spirit.

That's my poor sandy understanding.

Maam, try reading that verse this way:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith(fulness); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

The gift refers to the ETERNAL salvation by God's free grace through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Since the subject is eternal salvation, our faith (act of believing) CAN'T possibly play any role in it.

Eternal salvation is BASED on the FAITHFULNESS of Christ in discharging the work of redemption - Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." His faithfulness in keeping the laws of God perfectly and completely, thus securing the righteousness of life for us; His faithfulness in laying down His life as a perfect sacrifice for sins secured our complete forgiveness...

That faithfulness is not of ourselves, it is of Christ and it accounted to us as a gift.

[It is a strange phenomenon that the KJ translators didn't use the word 'faithfulness' in the entire NT. But I think if 'faith' here is rendered 'faithfulness' so much error would have been avoided.

Please read a short article here, and tell me what you think: https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/01/saved-by-grace-through-faith-whose.html

May our Lord bless us to understand His word more

Giving, and Seeking Counsel

Hear counsel, and receive instruction,
that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.
Proverbs 19:20 

Giving Counsel

From: singlau <singlau@pd.jaring.my>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:25:38 -0800

Dear Pastor A
I have been very troubled ever since last Tuesday's fraternal; especially by your public statement concerning Pastor B’s fitness to remain in the ministerial office. It came to me like a thunderbolt out of the blue sky. All sorts of questions have been going through my mind.

For the moment your statement has not cast any doubt in my mind about B's fitness to remain in office, for he is, in my mind, innocent until proven guilty. And even if proven guilty of the act (what it is, I really do not know and don't have the slightest clue) which you deem so serious as to disqualify a man from ministerial office, we still have to consider whether that act itself, in the light of Scriptures, disqualifies a man from office.

I hope you have not yet made up your mind on the matter because under the disturbing circumstances you are in, it is most unwise to come to a conviction on such a serious matter. I fear that your poor judgments have been manifested through the various matters you have handled lately, notably Gun's speedy admission into membership. I may be entirely wrong, but I fear that your actions show that you are reacting to the situation, instead of acting on principles and constitutional requirements. I am just trying to say that it would be unwise to have your mind made up on such a serious matter because it may be a conviction clouded by prejudice because of the circumstances you are in.

Do you consider that act a private offence? If it is a private offence, then it is best to settle it at the private level. Is it a personal offence against you? or against someone under your charge?

All these years, we are given the impression that you and B have settled the matter, which means, for one thing, you have forgiven him the wrong done to you, and that time will heal the wound. And what you have forgiven is to be remembered no more - that's how I understand forgiveness. But obviously, things are not so; the case was never biblically settled. If it was, then it will be raised NO more. But now you are raising it, and this time even in public!

I really don't know why you are doing so. Is it for anyone's good or to restore someone's reputation? for the good of the Fraternal [pastors’ fellowship] or the churches'? Is it for God's honour and His truth? Is it out of love for the guilty party, in order to restore a ministerial brother, who in your eyes, has fallen? I can't help but wonder about your reason and motive for doing so. Is there no way to settle it privately? Is there no repentance forthcoming from the guilty party? Is there no forgiveness from the offended party? Is there no reconciliation? Is there a genuine loving desire to restore a brother? What would you consider a satisfactory resolution to the issue - B leaving the ministry? B admitting his wrong publicly? Have you ever proposed to B how the matter may be resolved satisfactorily or acceptably to you? 

PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT I AM ASKING ALL THESE IN THE MOST BROTHERLY SPIRIT, DESIRING ABOVE ALL ELSE TO SEE THE A-B ISSUE RESOLVED FOR THE OVERALL GOOD OF THE CHURCHES. PLEASE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT ANY OTHER WAY!!!

Or do you consider B's wrong a public offence, and such as must be dealt with publicly? This can't possibly be since you both have kept the matter for so long! And the sad thing is that it looks like it is going to spill out beyond both of you into the churches.

I suggest that you consider VERY CAREFULLY before you proceed with the next move on the matter. I urge restraint and sobriety. Even if B is wrong, I would urge sympathy. If I am in the guilty party, I would plead that my ministerial brethren show sympathy. And if I am the wronged party, I would remember apostle Paul's words, "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."

I am heartbroken that the situation has come to this stage. May the Lord of grace and mercy spare us from our folly, and help us to be circumspect.

Kept by His grace and mercy alone,
sing.

========

Seeking Counsel

From: singlau
To: GeneDad
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2002, 11:35 PM

Dear brother Gene,

I need your wisdom and advice. Here is a complicated matter. Pastor A knows of something concerning Pastor B that he is convinced should disqualify him from the ministerial office. What that is, we don't have a clue. All we know is that it happened years back in 97. The relationship between A and B has been somewhat tumultuous all these years and is affecting all of us and churches here.

But now A is calling for a panel (consisting of Pastor C, Pastor D, and myself) to hear his case against Pastor B in the presence of Pastor B. 

I need your advice. Should I attend the hearing? If you were in my position, will you attend? What can be accomplished?

What is your view on what will disqualify a man from continuing in the ministerial office?

Your advice is much needed.
sing

The sons of God, and the Son of God

 

November 13, 2019
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/pfbid02TkKhJ1ftGdPrF3XjLpMXvQUbRi1wT7uGcjpp1xxdSrxra2Ma7sz5nPzAWjkJJ54tl

When the sons of God took on flesh, contrary to God's will, they brought destruction; when the eternal Word was made flesh, according to God's will, He secured redemption.

36 Comments
-----------

Reggie Lee
That is an amazing concept

Sing
Reggie Lee, go to this post "angels that sinned" and answer the questions posed.
The study exercise itself will do you good.
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10214998439569924

Joe Chin
Good one! I didn't think of that connection before.

Adam Wells
Joe Chin, does the scriptures say that the sons of God took on flesh? Please read here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/.../nephilim-sons-of-god-word...

Sing
Adam, thanks for the link. We have gone through it. Didn't convince me.
Do the Scriptures say that godly Sethites marry ungodly women?
If you are interested, consider the questions posed in the post here:
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10214998439569924
The exercise itself will do you good.

Sonny Bonner
That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit.

Sing F Lau
Sonny Bonner That which is spirit can take on the flesh is a HARD biblical fact harder to ignore.

Some elect angels took on flesh throughout the Bible to run divine errands.

What prevents the fallen angels from doing the same, in transgression against God, with the intention to thwart/circumvent the curse in Gen 3:15?

Adam Wells
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/pdf/second-peter-two.pdf

Sing
I have studied through it. There are a few things I can't agree with, unfortunately.
I'm preaching through 2Pet 2 now. That's why the subject of the "angels that sinned" came to mind.

Sing
Adam, have you tried answering the simple questions on the angels that sinned?

Adam Wells
Are you referring to the questions in the link you sent?

Sing
Adam Wells, I assume you have read Brother Jonathan's note in 2Pet 2, please help me with this question: what was the sin of the angels and when did it happen? He indicated that it was something that occurred before Gen 1:1.. "God and Peter gave you a glimpse of a great event occurring before Gen 1:1." What was that sin then?

He also said, "God saved the rest of the angels from sin and judgment." What was that sin that God saved the rest of the angels from?
(notes in verse 4)

Please say hello to Ma'am Fawn and the boys for me.

Thanks.

Adam Wells
John 8:44 says that the devil "abode not in the truth" which equals Jude 1:6 "kept not their first estate." Other than these 2 references, I can't find a sin which is ascribed directly to fallen angels and makes sense before creation. ("He was a murderer from the beginning" refers to creation.) It is a great stretch to try to read Gen 6 into being the sin spoken of in Peter. The argument is not only weak but simply nonsensical as there is no evidence that angels can take on flesh.

Thanks for the greetings!

Sing
Let me understand you correctly first. So the angels that sinned refers to that initial rebellion against God that got them cast out of heaven? Was that the sin and occasion?

Sing
So you are equating the DEVIL not abiding in the truth the same as the ANGELS not keeping their first estate? Do I understand you right?

Adam Wells
Sing F Lau ... Yes. Angels leaving their first estate does not mean that they were no more angels in the same way that Adam leaving his first estate doesn't mean he became an ape but rather a sinner.

Sing 
Does your "yes" affirm that for Jude 1:6 and 2Pet 2:4 "the angels that sinned" refer to the initial rebellion that got them thrown out of heaven,
OR
Does your "yes" affirm that the DEVIL not abiding in the truth is the same thing as the ANGELS not keeping their first estate? 

Sing
Adam @ "John 8:44 says that the devil "abode not in the truth" which equals Jude 1:6 "kept not their first estate." Other than these 2 references, I can't find a sin which is ascribed directly to fallen angels and makes sense before creation. ("He was a murderer from the beginning" refers to creation.) It is a great stretch to try to read Gen 6 into being the sin spoken of in Peter. The argument is not only weak but simply nonsensical as there is no evidence that angels can take on flesh."

==========
" I can't find a sin which is ascribed directly to fallen angels and makes sense before creation" - of course, you can't, there isn't such a thing to be found in the Scriptures. But who is saying that?

Angels (I supposed NOT fallen yet) that sinned BEFORE CREATION are mentioned by Brother Jonathan in his explanation on 2Pet 2:4.

Let's assume that unfallen angels did sin BEFORE CREATION, what was that sin? What was the consequence of that sin?

In 2Pet 2:4, it is some of the fallen angels that sinned in that they took upon themselves human nature and propagated themselves with the daughters of men. This explains the catastrophic and universal moral degeneration. 

Your statement "there is no evidence that angels can take on flesh" befits someone who has never read the Bible, or a Bible reader who is WILFULLY ignorant; this is said with all due respect.

Sing
Reposting a comment from above:
----------------
I assume you have read Brother Jonathan's note in 2Pet 2, please help me with this question: what was the sin of the angels and when did it happen? He indicated that it was something that occurred before Gen 1:1. "God and Peter gave you a glimpse of a great event occurring before Gen 1:1."
QUESTION: What was that sin then?

He also said, "God saved the rest of the angels from sin and judgment."
QUESTION: What was that sin God saved the rest of the angels from?
(notes in verse 4)

Sing
Adam @ "Yes. Angels leaving their first estate does not mean that they were no more angels in the same way that Adam leaving his first estate doesn't mean he became an ape but rather a sinner."
======
Nice try, Adam.
Adam Wells who left the estate of singlehood for the estate of matrimony is still human but is now joined to a woman.
That's one way to use the word estate.
The eternal Word was made flesh, united with flesh and became God-man, the Son of God. He became what he wasn't BUT He did not cease to be what He has always been, Divine.

2Pet 2:4
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.

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.

Do you see the connection between their first estate and their own habitation? Their own habitation is their NATIVE God-ordained spirit realm.

Those angels that sinned joined themselves to human flesh; they kept not their first estate, i.e. they forsook their first and native estate; they left their OWN HABITATION, their own habitation is in the realm of spirit. They left their own habitation and trespassed into the habitation of man.

They left it and entered the physical realm, with sinister intentions and devastating effects, the details are recorded in Gen 6.

BUT grace intervened.

Adam Wells
The problem with eisegesis is the person doing it doesn't think they are. You want it to say that so you have read it into the text.

Sing
Adam Wells, that applies to you and every student of God's word too. Don't tell me you are incapable of eisegesis.
So, tell us exactly what is your interpretation, and then we can discuss its merit. 🙂

Sing
Adam Wells, have you tried answering those questions posed on 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6?

Adam Wells
Sing F Lau, I agree with the interpretation given in the links from letgodbetrue. I've no need to restate it as it is clear and precise.

Sing F Lau
Since you do agree with the interpretation, I assume that you have understood what's stated there. That's a reasonable assumption, I hope.

Then help me answer the two questions I have posed on what's stated there. I reposted my two questions but they were ignored or maybe just overlooked.
Let me re-repost it here; this is the third time.

----------------

I assume you have read Brother Jonathan's note in 2Pet 2, please help me with this question: what was the sin of the angels and when did it happen? He indicated that it was something that occurred before Gen 1:1. " God and Peter gave you a glimpse of a great event occurring before Gen 1:1."
QUESTION: What was that sin then?

He also said, "God saved the rest of the angels from sin and judgment."
QUESTION: What was that sin God saved the rest of the angels from?
(His notes in verse 4)
---------
Thanks.

Sing
Adam Wells, This is Brother Jonathan's note on "The angels that sinned."

A. If God judged angels so hard, He will surely judge men defying Him (Job 4:18).
B. Compare Jude’s version of fallen angels and their judgment by God (Jude 1:6).
C. God saved the rest of the angels from sin and judgment (Mat 25:31; I Ti 5:21).
D. God and Peter gave you a glimpse of a great event occurring before Gen 1:1.
Questions: What was that great event occurring before Gen 1:1?
What sin and judgement did God save the rest of the angels from?

Tell us, please.

Adam Wells
Sing F Lau You and I both know that the scriptures do not irrefutably tell us what Satan's "original" sin was. The great event then is referring to Satan's sin, however, we are not told specifically what that sin is. The rest of the angels referred to are elect angels, hence the reason they didn't fall from their estate.

Sing
Thank you for responding to my question somewhat.
"You and I both know that the scriptures ...." - you should speak for yourself; you know not what I don't know.

Would 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 be references to that original sin committed before Gen 1:1? Please answer this question. Thanks.

Was it Satan's original sin (before Gen 1:1) that caused him and his host to be cast out of heaven or was that the result of another sin?

Thanks. Keeping talking. You are helping me learn a few things.

Adam Wells
Sing F Lau we have already said that these references the Fall of Satan which was due to his original sin. If you know what that sin was say it plainly.
(sing: What is Satan's origin sin?)

Sing
Thanks for affirming that. I want to know what exactly you believe by stating them.
What was the consequence (to Satan and his host) of the original sin of Satan (before Gen 1:1)?

Adam Wells
Sing F Lau - the aforementioned scriptures answer that... We do not read those passages as referencing Gen 6, which has nothing to do with angels.

Sing
I'll demonstrate to you that that view is much worse than weak and nonsensical; it is self-contradictory and inconsistent in many ways. I will do that when I have access to my laptop. (Typing this from my toilet seat!)

Adam Wells
Please also name the "original" sin of Satan along with the scripture which states it. (No further explanation required just one sentence/word.) I would like to hear this.

Sing F Lau
You have said a few things about the "original sin" of Satan; let me quote from above.
1. " Sing F Lau You and I both know that the scriptures do not irrefutably tell us what Satan's "original" sin was. The great event then is referring to Satan's sin, however, we are not told specifically what that sin is."

2. "Sing F Lau we have already said that these references the Fall of Satan which was due to his original sin. If you know what that sin was say it plainly."

Adam, I may not know what the original sin was since you have stated that "the scriptures do not irrefutably tell us what Satan's "original" sin was."

But I can show you that to 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 CAN'T POSSIBLY be what you termed as Satan's original sins. To insist that they are, you have to commit many contradictions and inconsistencies.

Sing
Adam Wells, here is a statement on that "original" sin in today's proverb commentary.
The first sin in the universe was pride – Satan’s pride (I Tim 3:6). His arrogant ambition was to be like the most high God (Is 14:12-14). And he was punished for it. How severely? He and his angels are reserved for eternal torment in hell forever (Is 14:15; Matt 25:41; II Pet 2:4; Rev 20:10). The devil’s great abilities cannot save him at all.

The first sin in the universe, therefore, that sin must be AFTER Gen 1:1, unless you insist that there was a universe BEFORE Gen 1:1, and that angels were created before the creation week.

You said you agreed to all that. That's why I'm asking.

You asserted: "Sing F Lau I agree with the interpretation given in the links from letgodbetrue. I've no need to restate it as it is clear and precise"

Sing F Lau
The first sin in the universe was pride - Satan's pride. What was the consequence? Satan and his lackeys were expelled from heaven and cast down to the earth.

The specific sin mentioned in 2Pet and Jude was committed by some fallen angels.

What was the sin? Was it pride?
Go and reread the two passages.

What was the consequence for those angels involved? Cast down to the earth?
Go and reread the two passages.

Are the two sins - i.e. the 'original sin of Satan and the sin committed by some fallen angels mentioned in 2Pet and Jude - the same?
Go and reread the two passages.
Compare them with the "original sin" of Satan.

Any more questions?
======

postscript

Scriptures say the original sin of Satan was pride; the consequence of that sin was that God expelled Satan and his hosts out of heaven and cast them down to the earth. (Since they were cast down to the earth, it has to be AFTER Genesis 1:1; there was no earth before Genesis 1:1.)

Scriptures say the sin committed by some fallen angels recorded in 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 was not keeping their first estate, but departing from their own habitation; the consequence of that sin: God has reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. These angels are in complete captivity.

They are two completely different sins with two completely different consequences. 
Yet many theologians and their followers insist they are the same! Whatever has happened to common sense? 
Only the wilfully blind fail to see the differences. 

Someone inquired about Judas Iscariot?

"As a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."
Sheep and goats belong to one flock of the shepherd;
that's the most obvious, plain and common sense.
Some insist that the goats are not part of the flock!
Then why does the shepherd need to separate them?
Of course, some think the wild GOATS strayed into the flock 
and got mixed up with the flock of sheep that belongs to Christ;
What an insolent insult against Christ as the Shepherd!

Laban had flocks made up of sheep and goats (and cattle). Gen 30:31.

  

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10203026549440153
October 20, 2014

It is common and popular to see the sheep and goats (Mt 25:31-46) as representing the elect and non-elect, respectively.

Let me suggest these for your consideration:

1. All three parables in Mt 25 are all about the same theme...
- the wise and foolish virgins of the One Bridegroom
- the faithful and unfaithful servants of the One Master
- the sheep and goats of the One Shepherd

Does this suggestion help to direct your thought on the sheep and the goats a bit?

"Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Matthew 13…
============

21 Comments

eSun
Poultry farmers always have this particular problem. Rats or rodents are uninvited guests in the barns or poultry houses. They, not only bite or nibble the chicks when these poultry are young but they continue unashamedly steal from the feeders. These rodents eat from the same feeders, drink from the same drinkers and take shelters in the barns. The question is: are they owned by the good husbandry man? Absolutely no! As a simpleton farmer, I cannot think beyond this line. I raised my chickens since they are chicks and these belong to me...surely I cannot and do not want to have ownership for rats and rodents!

Sing F Lau
LOL... if I'm a shepherd, I would most certainly love the problem of having goats joining my flock of sheep... if there are such goats around to do that! Chickens and rats/rodents are poor comparisons.

Maybe chickens and turkeys would be a comparable comparison with sheep and goats. If I were a poultry farmer, I would love to see uninvited guests of turkeys joining my chickens! I fatt datt loh! <lol>

In real life in the 1st century, shepherds keeping sheep and goats in their flock was normal and common!

In the parable, the Lord Jesus uses the sheep to represent those who are believing and minister to His people, and the goats those that are unbelieving, thus failing to minister to His people.

Sheep and goats are in the same contrast between the wise and the foolish virgins, and the faithful and unfaithful servants.

eSun
Just wonder if Judas Iscariot was a goat when he decided to betray the Lord?

Sing F Lau
Judas' betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ is wicked and despicable indeed.
While many believe Judas' act to be the most despicable, I don't. I fear there are so many pastors and teachers who are FAR WORSE than Judas in their betrayal of Jesus Christ. Judas sold Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver because he was disillusioned and disappointed that Jesus was not going to be a political messiah to set up a political kingdom, and have Judas himself be the Finance Mini$ter!

Others sell Him for filthy lucre of a far greater amount for preaching their own lies and fables, thus betraying their Lord in a far worse sense.

Judas' betrayal is far less serious, comparatively. He had too little light. There are many Judas in Christ's kingdom!!!

Charles Page
Paul was the chief of sinners!

Charles Page
Judas can't hold a candle to Paul!!!

Sing F Lau
Judas did hold the money bag! <lol>

eSun
So was Judas Iscariot a goat whilst he lived? Is he found amongst the elders encircled the great & mighty throne of God praising Him?

eSun
If there is an answer to the above then we can expect the same destiny for those earlier described as filthy pastors and teachers.

[They are not filthy pastors and teachers, they are polished pastors and teachers who betrayed Christ because of their love of filthy lucre!  How words are so easily twisted by woolliness. It's frightening indeed! sing]

Charles Page
the question is was Judas an elect? If he is of the elect He will be in Heaven!

Charles Page
Being a goat or sheep has nothing to do with the election.
[AMEN. It has to do with discipleship among Christ's flock. sing]

Sing F Lau
Good questions; and they always help towards getting closer to the truth. Questions that can expose the inconsistencies and contradictions in an interpretation will save us from errors.

Your question "So was Judas Iscariot a goat whilst he lived?" turned my mind to what Apostle Paul so solemnly declared in his epistle to the Galatians... --- "8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I'm not aware if Apostle Paul was as solemn as this in another matter. Preaching another gospel other than that which has been preached by the Apostle Paul is a betrayal of Jesus Christ FAR WORSE than the despicable betrayal committed by Judas Iscariot!

Judas' love and hope for an earthly messianic kingdom most certainly caused him to behave like a goat - unbelieving in the kingdom of heaven, and thus failing to minister to those who belong to it. Instead, in his misguided zeal, he betrayed the King of the kingdom of heaven!

eSun
Two questions:
Question 1. Beg my ignorance, where is the text specifically mentioning Judas Iscariot was disillusioned that there was no earthly messianic kingdom of which he desired to be a finance minister of this earthly kingdom?
Question 2: According to your understanding goats are elected people of God who lived miserably with much disbelief and when they repented whilst still living then they become sheep. Apostle Peter was a goat when he denied the Lord thrice but later became a sheep. Right? But he repented and the Lord reinstated him because he was a chosen people of God. As we know our earthly body still have the remnant of sins; and I fear to depart from this world as a believing goat. I beg to God to be merciful so that I breathe my last breath as an elected sheep and not as an elected goat. But my sinful dwelling self is at war daily. How? Can anyone help me to be an assured elected sheep of Christ rather than an elected goat? But then James 2:14-26 stated clearly in gist faith without work is dead faith. So then do goats have good works to illustrate faith? If these goats already have works to shine forth faith in the Lord Jesus Christ then why call these creatures as goats? They are sheep!!

Sing F Lau
"... where is the text specifically mentioning Judas Iscariot was disillusioned that there was no earthly messianic kingdom of which he desired to be a finance minister of this earthly kingdom?"

There is much evidence that the greater part of the Jewish people was looking forward to an earthly messianic kingdom... and this carnal expectation was very alive with the apostles for a long time. Their minds were still on it when they asked, "When they, therefore, were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" It was an error that took a long time to dislodge from their mind.

In Mt 20:
20 ¶ Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

She too was expecting an earthly kingdom to be established by Jesus the Messiah, and wanted her sons to have positions of great power and honour in the earthly kingdom.

In Luke 24 we hear the words of two very downcast and disillusioned disciples... for their trust in an earthly theocratic kingdom was completely crushed and busted by the events that had happened...

20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

That's the general background on the popular expectation of an earthly kingdom to be established by the promised Messiah!

It was very likely that the truth of the spiritual nature of the messianic kingdom Christ has established, and its implications, were early understood and grasped by Judas. Such a Messiah and the messianic kingdom were repugnant and contrary to all his expectations, and benefits.

Judas was one of the 12, and was the one who had the money bag (Joh 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein) - naturally he would think of himself as the finance minister in the earthly messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ.

And the betrayal requires a motive... maybe others can offer a more credible motive!

I don't know whether this answers your question.

Sing F Lau
I gather that the gist of Q2 lies in this sentence... "Can anyone help me to be an assured elected sheep of Christ rather than an elected goat?"

God elected, and save a people through His Son Jesus Christ alone, thus fitting them for eternal glory.

1 Pet 1:
3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

We shall enter that inheritance at the general resurrection to glory.

God elected a people... not sheep and goats. Sheep and goats are pictures used in the parable to describe believing obedient and the unbelieving disobedient among His redeemed people.

Sheep don't turn into goats, and goats don't turn into sheep - but God's children can most certainly behave like sheep, and goats... as presented to us in Mt 25.

Apostle Peter gave an excellent answer to your inquiry: "give all diligence to make your calling and election sure..."

2 Pet 1
5 ¶ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

There are likely other things in Q2 that I have not answered.

Sing F Lau
got to go... Wed evening Bible study at 8pm.

eSun
As you have said God's children do not turn into goats or sheep but rather their behaviour viz a viz their obedience to Christ. In the case of Judas Iscariot can you conclude Judas was an elect with a 'goatly' demeanour when he turned against the Lord? Today despite being a 'goatly' elect, Judas Iscariot is in heaven with our sovereign God! Can you be certain Judas Iscariot's resting place? So also the many misguided teachers and pastors who taught wrongly. They are wrong doctrinally but we cannot judge them for at the present moment of time as they are 'goatly' but surely in due time they shall become 'sheeply'. Many of us in the past behaved 'goatly' but God opened our eyes and we become as 'sheeply' and we are certain our rest is in heaven. So generally speaking let no one speak ill anyone who 'sin' by way action (teaching wrong doctrine) or practice. We cannot for sure by the reasoning speak against our God's elects, right?
[A child of God DOES NOT revert back and forth as "sheep-goat...sheep-goat" throughout his life. They are terms describing his overall life.]

Sing F Lau
Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Amen!

We are given a wonderful glimpse of the glorious heaven prepared for us!

Sing F Lau
You have gone a lot further. I'm only dealing with the text in Mt 25:31-46 where the sheep and goats are mentioned.
I have no interest to speak ill of anyone, or desiring to decide who are sheep and goats among the Lord's flock. I sincerely pray that all are like the people represented by the sheep in Mt 25:31-46! I do want to be numbered and counted among such, I sure do!

I do however want to rightly divide the word of truth in that passage, and I am convinced the goats represent NOT the non-elect (as is so popularly understood) but the unbelieving elect; and were judged, like the foolish virgins, and the unfaithful servants.

You inquired about Judas... and the hideousness of his act of betraying his Lord, and I suggested that given the little light that he had, his betrayal is relatively minor compared to the betrayal committed by others who had so much light, with the complete Scriptures in their hand.

eSun
However, I have yet to be guided to whether Judas Iscariot was an elected goat and now worshipping God in the Celestial City or not. Wonder aloud - I know where is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I know where is Paul our dear brother. However, can I lovingly call Judas Iscariot a dear brother though he was 'goat'? Is he also numbered with the above-mentioned saints in Heaven?

[If you can accept the Bible's teaching on the intermediate state - the temporal state between death and resurrection - your most profound and difficult question is solved.]

Sing F Lau
Understanding the sheep and goats in Mt 25:31-46 as speaking of God's children among the Jews who are believing and unbelieving in the Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ makes me, I and myself to be sober in all things and walk circumspectly.

Since you are interested in Judas Iscariot's case, I will answer your questions in light of my understanding of Mt 25:31-46.

Judas Iscariot is one of the elect of God. [This is an issue much debated... my understanding of free grace has made it less difficult for me to acknowledge that he is one among the elect of God, but unbelieving, like many among God's children! ] He wasn't an elected goat. The elect is NOT SPOKEN of in terms of goat. His unbelief in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah caused him to be described as a goat.]

His unbelief and betrayal are no worse than those to whom Apostle Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and was converted...

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

They by their wicked hands have crucified and slain Jesus Christ! Judas' betrayal is relatively minor compared with what Apostle Peter charged his hearers with. Judas was so filled with remorse for what he did... but people just write off his REPENTANCE as cheapskate remorse... "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, REPENTED himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders."

Believing Judas to be among the goat, he would be where Mt 25:31-46 tell us where goats are... UNTIL the day of resurrection, when he must be delivered up, and be glorified, and enter the eternal inheritance that Christ, His and mine Redeemer had secured for him.

Keep asking Brother. I like your questions!!!