The gift of eternal salvation...

I read the statement, captured above from Facebook and it stirred my drowsy mind.

"Christ’s Crucifixion, burial, and Resurrection is the only means by which people can be forgiven of their sins and our only hope for eternal life."

-----------

The life of perfect obedience (thus securing righteousness for His people) and the atoning death (thus bearing the curse of the sins in the stead of His people) of Christ Jesus are the only GROUND by which God saves His elect, bestowing them eternal life. The life and death of Christ ALONE SECURED the eternal redemption of His people, those whom God had given to Him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4)

The eternal redemption secured by Christ is FREELY and sovereignly applied, (NOT OFFERED as imagined by many) by God to each elect (who is in his native state of sin and condemnation and death) at His appointed and accepted time. In applying the eternal redemption to each elect freely and sovereignly God deals with the issues of sin, condemnation and spiritual deadness of man; He applies Christ's righteousness to him, and declares him righteous and forgiving all his sins, and regenerates him; and He gives His Spirit of adoption to dwell in the elect whom He has born again by His Spirit and adopted into His family.

That's the ONLY MEANS a man is saved from his NATIVE state of sin and condemnation and death. There are no other means.

Those whom God has thus saved are called upon by the gospel ministry to believe the gospel, the truth of their eternal redemption in Christ Jesus, applied to them freely and sovereignly by God.

They are called to believe what is already true; they are not called to believe in order that something may become true. Faith in Jesus Christ manifests that Jesus Christ is already their the Lord and Saviour.

Believing the gospel of Christ saves a child of God from lies, fables, superstitions; the gospel of grace teaches him to deny ungodliness and unrighteousness, to live soberly, godly and righteously, enabling him to experience the manifold blessings of God in this present and brief life.

Just some drowsy thoughts.

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)