Cheryl Schatz

Remember, Derek, that Jesus is comparing Judas as a person in two different situations. He is not comparing a non existent person to Judas. A non-existent person cannot be benefited.

Look at it from another angle. Look at Romans 9:11-12 Romans 9:11–12 (NASB) 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” When was this said? When the twins were not in existence, or when they were formed in their mother’s womb? Is God talking about non-existent persons?

Look also here: Luke 2:21 (NASB) 21And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. This is the term for before one exists as a man. It is translated as “before He was conceived” not before He was born. If God had wanted to tell us that a non-existent person was more advantaged, then God would have used the term for conception, not the term for born. Look at two examples: Luke 1:31 (NASB) 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. And: James 1:15 (NASB95) 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. The term for “conceive” is The term for being born is James 1:15 is a perfect example of the difference between conception and birth and God has certainly placed the inspired words into Jesus’ mouth when He used the term for birth rather than conception. In James 1:15 the term for “brings forth” is literally to give birth.

Derek, Sorry for being slow. I created a fairly long answer to you last night and then the answer was removed and I couldn’t get it back. I think it had to do with being logged into my account and timing out. Anyway it was too late to start again and today has been so busy, just no time. I will try again to work on my blog and get the new post out and respond here too as I am able. I think we are both on the same side of the fence on #1. I also think you are an unusual Calvinist, but I like that too. Talk to you later, Cheryl

Looks like I forgot one word. I will try again “tomorrow”. I am dead tired tonight and fighting a cold.

Derek, Thanks for responding! Let me see if I can summarize what I think you are saying and see if you agree with how I summarize it. 1. You believe that everyone has a sin nature that we are born with and with this sin nature we all fail to live without some kind of sin in our lives, not because we are deceived like Eve, but because we sin knowing that what we are doing is wrong. 2. You also believe that God is the ultimate Sovereign of the universe so that no one can force His hand or be outside of His ultimate control of the circumstances. Because God knows the future, He does not need to react to an event as if He was surprised that it happened, but like a master chess player He knows all the moves that are available and He knows all the moves that each player will actually play. 3. You also believe that God has ordained that for those who love Him, to them everything will work out for good. Not everything will work out for everyone for good because not everyone loves Him, but God still has ultimate Sovereign control over what events He allows and what events He prevents and what events He sets up to happen. 4, You also believe that God uses events that seem like they are evil and He plans actions and uses people for His ultimate purpose. For example God’s purpose was that Joseph would be sent to Egypt and that he would become the top ruler in Egypt so that his reliance on God would ultimately save his family from starvation and death. In order to accomplish this plan, God sent the caravan of merchants who would purchase and sell slaves so that they would arrive at just the time that Joseph’s brothers would be deciding on what they could do to get rid of Joseph. God also worked in one of Joseph’s brother’s hearts so that he stopped his brothers from killing Joseph in preparation for the arrival of the caravan that would transport Joseph into Egypt. God also used the trials that Joseph would face because of his desire to please God, to train Joseph to rely on Him even during times when it seemed like God was not in control. Joseph came out of prison to the place of rulership in Egypt because of God’s pre-ordained plan to save Israel. 5. You also believe that God’s actions with Pharaoh was passive rather than active. Instead of hardening Pharaoh in Pharaoh’s own will, God merely took away the grace that makes men reasonable and willing to do what God wants them to do. 6. You also believe that Judas was not unconditionally damned from the foundation of the world, but was created by God knowing that God did not want Judas to be saved and in order to accomplish God’s purpose for Judas, God did not actively act to damn Judas, but instead He prepare the sinful choices that Judas could do and then let Judas loose to remain in his sin without God’s grace. Reprobation then is not unconditional, but is conditional and depends on man’s own sin that will take him to hell. By the way I should clarify that although a section of Calvinists have acted in a haughty way and have sinned against their brothers and sisters in Christ, I do not believe that Calvinists are the core of the problem. If Calvinists do wrong things as Calvinists, it seems to me it is because of the system for it teaches them how to have a deep love for a set of doctrines so that they are pulled towards reading books and hearing sermons by Calvinists alone. Many become unbalanced this way preferring to see themselves as Calvinists rather than just name the name of Christ as Christians. Derek, did my summary match up with your belief in any way? I have also decided that the issue of babies and salvation deserves a post of its own. There is room for too much dialog so I am going to work on that post and get it up as soon as I can.

Thanks for your comment, Derek and your question! I believe that Judas benefited from the sacrifice of Jesus because of the great love that Jesus showed him even when he was giving himself over to Satan. As far as what benefit that Judas would have eternally, the eternal benefit does not belong to him but is weighed in God’s favour. God’s judgment of Judas at the great white throne will be seen eternally as a just act because it is determined both by God’s patience and love towards Judas, but also by Judas’ rejection of that love. There is no doubt in my mind that God will receive glory through His just condemnation of Judas. Glory because Judas was not pre-ordained to his condemnation and God prepared a place for him through the cross. There is no better show of love than the sacrifice that Jesus gave even for Judas. By loving him to the end, Jesus showed the faithfulness of God. If I can clearly see the Lord’s love for Judas, even though He knew that Judas’ heart was hardened towards Him, how could I possibly doubt that God loves me and that He will not reject me when I respond to His wooing? I hope that this answers your question, and if not, please feel free to push for further clarification.

Derek sent me a question that I will post and then answer because for some reason he cannot get a comment to post. Not sure what is happening. The question is: Could Judas have repented and made Jesus out to be a liar?

Derek is thinking of great questions showing that he is thinking through what Jesus said about Judas. It is impossible for Judas to have repented once Jesus prophesied that the “son of perdition” would perish (John 17:12). Jesus perfectly knew Judas’ heart and He perfectly knew the future. Judas had given himself over to Satan and Satan had already entered him (John 13:27).

Next question from Derek: Could he (Judas) have repented at all and made the prophecies out to be lies?

My answer is “no”. It is impossible for Jesus to be a false prophet and this is what Jesus said about Judas: Matthew 26:24 (NASB) 24“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Now I am to throw a question back at Derek, or whoever would like to take the challenge from a Calvinist perspective. What does Jesus mean when He said that for Judas, the one who would betray Him, that it would have been better if he had not been born?

Hey Derek, you made it through! Great!! Okay, think this one through with me. If Judas was predetermined to be lost (not be saved from eternity past by God’s decree) then how would it have been better if he died before he was born then if he died at the time he died? Would he not have gone to hell in both instances?

I will answer godrulz37 first. Yes, many Calvinists (not all) believe very strongly that God predetermines the destiny of all humans and those whom He has not picked as His elect will go to hell. In their view all the non-elect will be in hell even if those non-elect ones died as a baby in their mother’s womb. The pastor that caused the church split that I previously mentioned in one of my pages, said that the miscarriages that his wife had, he is not sure if his unborn babies are in hell or not, but if they are they deserve to be there.

I will get back to answer Derek’s question and godrulz37 comments in a bit. Supper time.

Derek, I see you as very respectful and the fact that you are willing to have a respectful discussion on areas that you are not sure about, shows a lot of strength of character. Now, there are several issues on this discussion that can be addressed. 1. Was it possible for Judas to have repented at the time that Jesus called him the “son of perdition”? 2. Was Judas the “son of perdition” before he was created and thus a “son of perdition” in his mother’s womb? And if he would have died in his mother’s womb, where would he have gone? 3. Are babies who die in their mother’s womb or after being born but still as infants, subject to hell or does the Scripture address their state? Can we find Scriptural backing to answer these questions? I believe that the Scripture does address these questions and so there will be lots to dialog about. Since this post is about Judas let’s start with Judas and the possibility of his repentance. I am going to present what I see clearly from Jesus’ inspired words and I would love to have feedback, questions and/or challenges. I will not have much time tonight so what I start, I may have to finish later tomorrow or even the next day. I am attending a webinar this evening and preparing for a bible study that I am teaching tomorrow, so I am multi-tasking. I am also going to see if I can add a screen print into the comment section. I have not tested this out yet with my new blog software. More to come shortly.

Regarding Matthew 26:24 the words that Jesus said about Judas. Jesus said “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!…” Here the term “is betrayed” is present indicative. Present tense means that it is happening right then. The indicative means that the action is described by the writer as real. It is the mood of assertion where the writer portrays something as actual as opposed to possible or contingent on intention. Because of the grammar that Jesus used, and which Matthew faithfully preserved in the written Word, Judas was already betraying Jesus and the act was already begun. Judas was committed. Satan had already entered Judas once and he would do so again after Judas left the meal. I see nothing in the text that allows for an “out” for Judas once he made the step to go this far. Jesus confirms this by His statement that the act was in motion in the present tense and that there was already a “woe” for Judas. I believe that any turning back from the betrayal would have had to happen before this point. At this point it was too late. Secondly Jesus’ words that it would be “good” or “better” for that man (Judas) if he had not been born. Consider the Greek term. It means an advantage, yes a greater advantage to the person.

What Jesus is saying is that being still born, dead before their birth, is a greater advantage for Judas than the place that he is presently in. This isn’t a future happening of betrayal, but the present. What already was. By the way, the screen print is from the BDAG lexicon, a standard go-to lexicon for those studying the Greek. So would Judas as a pre-born baby have been considered innocent? That will come next. But if Judas had died in the womb, I agree with godrulz37 that Jesus would have chosen someone else who also had a choice to walk in the path of betrayal, rather than in the path of obedience. We do know from the Greek grammar that Satan asked to sift all of the disciples. Luke 22:31–32 (NASB) 31“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” In Luke 22:31 the “you” is plural, but in verse 32 the “you” is singular. Any thoughts before I add the Scriptures about the position of babies in God’s eyes?

Thanks for your comments, Derek, because this helps me to see where I need to clarify. I am not saying “if Jesus, John the Baptist, or anyone else prophesied died in the womb”. Jesus was the Son of God so He could not have died in the womb as He had been Sovereignly chosen to come to be the Savior. John the Baptist could not have died in the womb, since he had been Sovereignly chosen to be the forerunner of Jesus. He had the Holy Spirit and a name given to him by an angel in preparation for the work that he would do. It was not possible for any man or any foe of God to have stopped God’s Sovereign plan. But as for Judas. Was he Sovereignly named as the “one” who would betray Jesus? Would God have been a false prophet if Judas would have died in the womb and another would have been Jesus’ pick? That is a huge question. Was Judas predestined and determined by God to be the betrayer? Apparently Satan did not know who the betrayer would be since he asked God for all of the disciples to sift them all. Judas showed no determination to be the betrayer in the beginning of his ministry within the twelve. Let’s take another look at the prediction of the betrayer. Is there anything that would force the name Judas into the Scripture as determined by God before his birth? Thank you again, Derek for being so sensitive. I am not taking offence at all by what you say, but I really appreciate that you are trying hard to give me the benefit of the doubt allowing me to agree or to explain what I mean.

Derek, You said: I have trouble thinking that God just waited to see whom would become the one he prophesied about. That is not what I am saying. In my view of the Sovereignty of God, I believe that God knows the end from the beginning. It was not a surprise to God who would end up as the betrayer. However I am saying that God did not predestine Judas so that Judas became the betrayer because he was set up from the womb in a role that he could do nothing else but fulfill. It is truth that one of the close disciples would betray Jesus. But although God knew who would walk away from all that God had given him, God cannot give a man into the hands of the evil one without the man’s decision to walk in the way of evil. You also asked: Also, just because Satan wanted to sift them all doesn’t have anything to do with God knowing who the betrayer would be, right? Yes, that is correct. While Satan was left guessing who he would be allowed to have, God was not ignorant of the future. You said: God would not be considered a false prophet had it not been Judas but it was and so I have to think God not only knew who it would be but passively made it so. There is nothing in the Old Testament that pre-determined that the close friend of Jesus would be Judas. God did not prophesy this before Judas’ birth. Jesus did prophesy the truth when Judas had already taken the step that had no turning back. Jesus also knew who the betrayer would be in the future years before, as He predicted that one was a devil years before, but He never gave any indication which one it was. John 6:70 (NASB) 70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Can you please explain what you mean when you said “God…passively made it so”. It seems to me that passively would be a reference to His foreknowledge, but how does God’s foreknowledge make a man the most cursed human sinner who ever lived? If I have time tonight I will explain about God’s view of babies. Still have to finish my bible study.

I think it has been determined that Derek will speak for himself 😉 As for me I see nothing in the Scriptures that tell me I should believe that Judas was to be unconditionally given over to Satan, which would make this an act determined by God from eternity past. I really only want to follow what the Scriptures say, rather than to let men’s determinism influence me. However I would not say that God’s foreknowledge is simple. God’s foreknowledge does not unconditionally determine human sin, but He does see every choice that can and will be made by humans who are created in His image. When I was studying the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine years ago to reach them for Christ, I came face to face with their doctrine that God cannot know the future without that knowledge actively determining mankind’s choice. They seem to believe, without saying it this way that God would not be fair to anyone should He know in advance that particular person’s destiny. But what I actually see in the story of Jesus is not only a fairness to Judas, but an attitude so loving it is mind boggling. I know that I would struggle with patience and kindness towards a person that I would know would kill my children, because I know that I am not free from bias nor have I attained full unconditional love for all. In Jesus I see the Father’s love and it makes me love Him so much for the price He paid. No one deserved the Father’s love less than Judas did, but He received no less love than did Peter. And because Jesus did not predestine Judas to betray Him, Jesus is free from the blood of Judas.

It seems to me that I am the one who is simplistic. I just believe that when Jesus said about the past “I am”, rather than “I was” He meant what He said. I do believe that He is the eternal I AM and that somehow God felt it important for us to know that the present tense belongs to Him. I honestly just accept that even though it is way above my own human brain capacity. Years ago I told a Jehovah’s Witness who could not get his head around Jesus being God in the flesh, that when his God is big enough, he won’t have any problems accepting that. He told me that it gave him a jolt. when he came out of the Witnesses, he told me how much that had affected him to think that he was seeing God as far less then God is. I want to push myself to catch wherever I might be limiting God by my own understanding. I may not ever fully be able to understand Him because of my own limitations, but I can believe Him whenever He tells me He is what He is.

godrulz37 I think that “I AM” supports more than the eternality of Christ. After all He could have said “I have been” or “I was” and perfectly support His eternal nature with past terms. Could you explain what you mean by God voluntarily self-limiting Himself? I am a little unsure of how you are defining that. Thanks!

godrulz37, You said: Being able to snuff Satan, but not doing so, is a limitation of His exercise of His all-power….which is still subject to His will and mind…He can do many things that He does not do. I would not see this as a self-limitation, but an exercise of God’s nature where His patience and long-suffering are being set out as fore-front for the time. If it was true self-limiting then God would not judge at all. But God’s justice is withheld for a time so that God’s long-suffering with mankind can be seen and He will receive praise if not now, then in the future. Perhaps we are both saying the say things in different ways. I guess that is why all of us are needed. None of us are cookie cutter knock outs of each other. We are have our own gifts and our own weaknesses so that we need each other. I have also had much energy used in the focus on the kingdom of the cults, but I also am very keen on this area that is a troubling divide between brothers in Christ. I have a friend whose brother became a Calvinist and he was persuaded that God was like what his Calvinist brother said He was–unconditionally electing some to life and others to eternal damnation. That young man has now turned away from God because of the Calvinist view of God’s determination. I have had opportunity to share with him and explain God’s love, but it is difficult right now for him to see God for who He is. He has been seriously hurt by seeing God as one who is more like a devil, then the all-merciful and loving God. My heart goes out to my friend who have been turned off of a God that they see as unjust and unloving. If I can help in one little way, then my efforts to bring disenfranchised people back to the Lord will have paid off by God’s grace. I am trying hard to balance my passions. Right now my passion for my Calvinist brothers and for those turned off of Christianity because of Calvinism overwhelms me. I really long to see the body of Christ healed. By the way, my other friend, the brother of the young man who felt despair because of determinism, has left his Calvinism aside. He has been able to see the other side that he was not fully aware of before he became a Calvinist.

If anyone is having trouble getting a comment to post on my blog, please email me at info@thegivingdvd.com and advise me. Thanks!

Thank you godrulz37 for the kind words! Your question is a very good question. I am not going to answer here in the comment section because I believe this issue is too important to be buried in a comment. I will mark this one as deserving a post in the future. Thanks for bringing it up!

I added this to the article to add Luke 7:29 as an added support: God’s Justice After Jesus said His hard saying that the least “in the kingdom” (present tense) is greater than John, verse 29 shows the reaction of the crowd that had just witnessed the public declaration of John’s astonishing doubt. The public words of doubt coming after John had experienced a successful public life as a witness to Jesus as the Messiah. Luke 7:29 (NASB) When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. The fact that Luke includes the “tax collectors” as part of the crowd of people is quite telling as it was the tax collectors and prostitutes who would be in the kingdom ahead of the religious leaders. Jesus gave a parable to show that what one says is not as important as what one does when it comes to doing the will of the Father: Matthew 21:28–31 (NASB) 28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 “The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. The tax collectors were in the kingdom because of what they did with what they heard. They listened to the message of God through John and they repented, believed and were baptized. In contrast the Pharisees who looked outwardly righteous and had all the right “words” did not believe. Matthew 21:32 (NASB) “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him. John the Baptist had to be judged by the same standard. Even though he had the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, he too needed to repent, believe and be baptized. The tax collectors went through the baptism of repentance, but John the Baptist did not. The tax collectors were following Jesus and putting their faith in Him, but John did not follow Jesus. The words he brought and God’s message that he spoke were not good enough for his own salvation. He had to act on what he spoke in order to do the will of the Father. So after Jesus’ hard saying, the tax collectors acknowledged God’s justice. They had done the will of the Father and had repented and believed. They were following Jesus. The actions of John that resulted in the words of unbelief showed that John had not followed through with the will of the Father. He had not personally taken the step to be a disciple of Jesus. He was not exempt from needing forgiveness just because he was God’s messenger. Although John was used by God to bring repentance to the nation of Israel, he himself did not do the will of the Father to repent and be a disciple of Jesus for his own salvation. John’s public ministry as a witness for Jesus ended with a public statement of unbelief.

godrulz37 Sorry I had a typo on the reference. It should have been 1 Sam 23:9-13. I have corrected the reference. You spoke of “available knowledge”. Unless God is just like us, only He is able to define what is “available” to Him. In 1 Samuel 23:9-13 David, the man after God’s own heart, asks of God believing that the answer is “available” to God. David does not phrase his request in such a way as to ask God what “is” but what will be. It is also a conditional “will be” since David intends to make his decision to go or stay depending on what God reveals to him. God’s answer gives no opportunity for any “unknowable” things that would make Him a false prophet. If God can perfectly know what does not happen because it is conditional on future events then God has revealed in His Word a definition of God’s knowledge that is beyond the present and the past. It only take one event to get the message that God’s knowledge is beyond ours. Only God can infallibility have knowledge of conditional events concerning men who have free will to chose. Anyway, I think we will leave this for now as it take us off the topic at hand. We will revisit at another time, God willing.

Someone on twitter gave an example of a commentary that said the reason that the least in the kingdom is greater than John is because we as believers know more than John did. This cannot be right for a few reasons. 1. The grammar is present tense. Jesus said that the least (present tense) who were in the kingdom at that time were greater than John the Baptist. They did not know more than John who had the witness of God’s Spirit that Jesus existed before John. 2. The term greater according to BDAG lexicon for Luke 7:28 means superior in importance. Importance does not have to do with a comparison of knowledge but of a “high position” (BDAG). 3. If John the Baptist was in the Kingdom and all others were “greater” then he, then he would be the least in the kingdom. Yet Jesus said presently there is the “least” (who is greater than John). If the “least” is still the “least” but is also greater than John, John cannot (at that time) be in the Kingdom. 4. Knowledge is not given as a reason that John is not in the Kingdom. The only means of comparison is the repentance of the crowd (having followed John’s baptism) and their following and hearing Christ, while John’s words are unbelief and his actions never followed Christ. I sympathize with those who find this hard saying of Jesus to be extremely hard. John is a likeable character. But Jesus is the One who knows the truth and if we disregard His words, we may be misled into thinking that one may enter the kingdom unconditionally. Jesus’ words about John are sobering. We must take heed to the One who is the Truth and whose words are Truth no matter how much emotion we have that war against Jesus’ words.

Good comments Derek. Jesus was and is elect. The word is also used of angels.

I would agree with Derek about Jesus being the elect and so our doctrine would use Jesus as the foundation. Build upon Jesus and you are headed in the right direction. I would have a problem with things being unknown to God. How would an all knowing God not know something? These are things that I can bring out articles in the future. Thanks for your comments dogrulz37 as it appears that you have done quite a bit of thinking on this subject.