toml
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by toml on Feb 26, 2023 2:47:47 GMT -8
Calvinism holds Christ shed his blood only for the elect - those unconditionally chosen for Salvation.
The doctrine is known as limited atonement.
It is a false doctrine as scripture shows Christ shed his blood even for Judas.
Luke 22:14–23 (KJV) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
Judas was included among the twelve.
He partook of the bread - the symbol of Christ's body which was broken even for him.
He partook of the cup - The symbol of Christ's blood which was shed even for him
refuting limited atonement
|
|
|
|
Post by PeanutGallery on Feb 26, 2023 7:07:19 GMT -8
Judas, one of the twelve, was also an unbeliever from the beginning:
Luke 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
|
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 26, 2023 13:25:36 GMT -8
Calvinism holds Christ shed his blood only for the elect - those unconditionally chosen for Salvation. The doctrine is known as limited atonement. It is a false doctrine as scripture shows Christ shed his blood even for Judas. Luke 22:14–23 (KJV) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Judas was included among the twelve. He partook of the bread - the symbol of Christ's body which was broken even for him. He partook of the cup - The symbol of Christ's blood which was shed even for him refuting limited atonement I believe the Blood of Jesus Christ is efficient for all of humanity. However, I don't know how these verses establish your argument. Notice..... But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Feb 27, 2023 6:10:14 GMT -8
Judas, one of the twelve, was also an unbeliever from the beginning: Luke 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. Good point he was a disciple but not a believer. He was elect but not a believer, he was chosen but not a believer. This is where Calvinism fails. |
|
toml
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by toml on Feb 28, 2023 3:49:48 GMT -8
Calvinism holds Christ shed his blood only for the elect - those unconditionally chosen for Salvation. The doctrine is known as limited atonement. It is a false doctrine as scripture shows Christ shed his blood even for Judas. Luke 22:14–23 (KJV) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Judas was included among the twelve. He partook of the bread - the symbol of Christ's body which was broken even for him. He partook of the cup - The symbol of Christ's blood which was shed even for him refuting limited atonement I believe the Blood of Jesus Christ is efficient for all of humanity. However, I don't know how these verses establish your argument. Notice..... But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! At issue is the extent of the atonement. That is who Christ died for. It is not the making of the atonement which saves but faith in it that saves Hear the words of the Calvinist theologian WGT Shedd It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain. William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 28, 2023 5:50:47 GMT -8
I believe the Blood of Jesus Christ is efficient for all of humanity. However, I don't know how these verses establish your argument. Notice..... But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! At issue is the extent of the atonement. That is who Christ died for. It is not the making of the atonement which saves but faith in it that saves Hear the words of the Calvinist theologian WGT Shedd It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain. William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726. Agreed. Also, there are many Calvinists that are divided on this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Feb 28, 2023 8:01:31 GMT -8
I believe the Blood of Jesus Christ is efficient for all of humanity. However, I don't know how these verses establish your argument. Notice..... But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! At issue is the extent of the atonement. That is who Christ died for. It is not the making of the atonement which saves but faith in it that saves Hear the words of the Calvinist theologian WGT Shedd It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain. William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726. ditto |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Feb 28, 2023 19:00:03 GMT -8
Judas, one of the twelve, was also an unbeliever from the beginning: Luke 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. Good point he was a disciple but not a believer. He was elect but not a believer, he was chosen but not a believer. This is where Calvinism fails. Even if I was not Reformed in my theology and thinking, I think I would consider that poor logic. He was chosen unto a certain use, but not unto salvation. He never was 'saved'. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Mar 1, 2023 5:17:28 GMT -8
Good point he was a disciple but not a believer. He was elect but not a believer, he was chosen but not a believer. This is where Calvinism fails. Even if I was not Reformed in my theology and thinking, I think I would consider that poor logic. He was chosen unto a certain use, but not unto salvation. He never was 'saved'. Are my statements true ? |
|
|
|
Post by Unmerited on Mar 10, 2023 12:02:16 GMT -8
Did Jesus die for Judas? If Jesus died for Judas, then he died for someone who died unsaved. Judas betrayed the Lord for thirty silver coins (Matthew 26:14-16). After seeing that Jesus was condemned, regret filled his heart, and he returned to the chief priests and elders to give them back the silver coins. They did not accept his apology, so he threw the money into the temple, ran away, and hanged himself (Matthew 27:1-5). Clearly, Judas had forsaken Christ, but did Christ die for Judas?
Luke’s account of the Last Supper indicates that Jesus shed his blood for Judas: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke 22:20,21). Jesus says that his blood is “shed for you” and then informs his postles that the one who would betray him was at the table. A further indication that Judas was at the table comes earlier in this same chapter: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him” (Luke 22:14).
Without a doubt, Judas was sitting at the table during the Last Supper when Jesus said that his blood was poured out for “you.”
In summary, here is the evidence that Jesus died for Judas:
1.Jesus tells his twelve apostles, including Judas, that he would shed his blood for them.
2.Judas betrays Jesus, hangs himself, and is thus consigned to eternal damnation.
3.Therefore, Jesus died for someone (Judas) who would not be saved.
Tackling Tulip: Exposing the Biblical, Theological, and Practical Errors of Calvinism by Grant Ralston (Author), Edward Ralston (Author)
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Mar 11, 2023 4:25:45 GMT -8
Did Jesus die for Judas? If Jesus died for Judas, then he died for someone who died unsaved. Judas betrayed the Lord for thirty silver coins (Matthew 26:14-16). After seeing that Jesus was condemned, regret filled his heart, and he returned to the chief priests and elders to give them back the silver coins. They did not accept his apology, so he threw the money into the temple, ran away, and hanged himself (Matthew 27:1-5). Clearly, Judas had forsaken Christ, but did Christ die for Judas? Luke’s account of the Last Supper indicates that Jesus shed his blood for Judas: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke 22:20,21). Jesus says that his blood is “shed for you” and then informs his postles that the one who would betray him was at the table. A further indication that Judas was at the table comes earlier in this same chapter: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him” (Luke 22:14). Without a doubt, Judas was sitting at the table during the Last Supper when Jesus said that his blood was poured out for “you.” In summary, here is the evidence that Jesus died for Judas: 1.Jesus tells his twelve apostles, including Judas, that he would shed his blood for them. 2.Judas betrays Jesus, hangs himself, and is thus consigned to eternal damnation. 3.Therefore, Jesus died for someone (Judas) who would not be saved. Tackling Tulip: Exposing the Biblical, Theological, and Practical Errors of Calvinism by Grant Ralston (Author), Edward Ralston (Author) Jesus chose him, he was elect, a disciple, one of the 12 who Jesus sent out and performed many miracles and even cast out demons. So being chosen or elect does not equal salvation which they often conflate. I would just quote the scriptures and defend them using the lexicons to define words and all the personal attacks on me would be the result. Judas is a very interesting study and one that becomes a real eye opener. |
|
|
|
Post by Parker on Mar 11, 2023 5:55:10 GMT -8
civicYou're right that is interesting I'm going to have to start a study on Judas.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Mar 11, 2023 10:11:47 GMT -8
civic You're right that is interesting I'm going to have to start a study on Judas. Keep us updated on your study brother. |
|
|
|
Post by Unmerited on Mar 11, 2023 15:55:05 GMT -8
I found this little tidbit that seemed to fit in here.
Jesus Chose Judas in Order to Relate to You Personally
Maybe you have been hurt by someone who has betrayed your trust, broken your heart, misunderstood your motive, and “lifted his heel against you” to kick you in the teeth. Jesus Christ knows exactly how you feel. He was tempted in all points like as we are (Hebrews 4:15). There’s not a single temptation or hurt you’ll ever face that Jesus didn’t feel. No matter what your pain is, no matter what your vulnerability might be, Jesus can sympathize because He’s gone through the very same trials.
Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary
|
|
|
|
Post by Parker on Mar 11, 2023 16:00:43 GMT -8
I found this little tidbit that seemed to fit in here. Jesus Chose Judas in Order to Relate to You PersonallyMaybe you have been hurt by someone who has betrayed your trust, broken your heart, misunderstood your motive, and “lifted his heel against you” to kick you in the teeth. Jesus Christ knows exactly how you feel. He was tempted in all points like as we are (Hebrews 4:15). There’s not a single temptation or hurt you’ll ever face that Jesus didn’t feel. No matter what your pain is, no matter what your vulnerability might be, Jesus can sympathize because He’s gone through the very same trials. Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary That's a good one. The one I found is humongous so I asked Admin to put it on the blog. He said he'll put it up there tomorrow. I thought that was pretty cool. |
|
