Something I posted in a thread over in the Apologetics forum (not realizing I was posting it in the wrong forum, oops) and so I’m bringing it over here in hopes of getting a bit of input from the proper forum :o.

I’m glad to see a topic regarding Judas Iscariot because i’ve been working on some ideas regarding him for the purpose of discussing OSAS with my Baptist family members. Maybe some of you here could help me firm it up a bit :slight_smile:

Now, when i discuss this with them i’m not going to be doing it necessarily in the sense of trying to show Catholic belief, but rather bring it to them from their own standards … i.e. OSAS, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fides and KJV Bible. So if you have any advice, please try to form it in such a way that it goes along with that, rather than appearing as the Catholic viewpoint on it.

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.”

So, from the KJV Bible and applying the principle of Sola Scriptura, it would seem that Jesus himself declares that Judas Iscariot must not have been saved. If he had been saved it would have been good for him to have been born, regardless of any other difficulties in life. For a protestant who holds to SS and KJV I can really see no other option from this verse.

Mt 27:3 “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,”

Here, again from the KJV and applied with a Sola Scriptura viewpoint it clearly says that Judas repented! This is at the heart of Sola Fides, he believed and repented therefore he was saved! Regardless of what comes later in his life, OSAS demands that he is saved and therefore must go to Heaven.

So it seems that we have Scripture saying that Judas was saved (based on Sola Fides and OSAS) but Jesus himself declaring that Judas was not (based on Sola Scriptura).

The arguments I expect are these:

  1. Judas was not truly saved. He did not actually “accept Jesus into his heart”.

Response1) Sola Scriptura! The Bible does not say he did not “accept” Jesus, it does say he repented. You can’t put words into the Bible that are not there (SS) and you cannot judge what was in his heart. From SS, you can only accept that the Bible says he repented and that is the only necessary thing for salvation (SF).

  1. Jesus only meant that it was better for him not to be born because he would kill himself.

Response2) Killing yourself is worse than going to hell? If by this you mean that Judas is in Heaven then killing himself is irrelevant, Heaven is the Ultimate Reward!

Now, please help me out! I’ve only been working on this mentally so far and I know i’ve left out a few things that crossed my mind (such as “When did the New Covenant actually begin? With Jesus ministry or with his death?”). If you can think of any other possible arguments and possible responses I would appreciate this. And again, remember, this is to be strictly from the viewpoint of a Baptist who holds the 3 beliefs listed and uses the KJV. My goal is to show that in the case of Judas Iscariot, those 3 beliefs can not be in agreement with each other. If I can get any of those family members to see that point, then perhaps I can present to them a more Catholic viewpoint on the subject :smiley:

Poor Judas, I often pray for his soul and I hope others do to.

I often use him as an example of how Sola Fida is false. But Judas had something all of us with Faith do not have. What could Judas have that we do not posses? Easy, Judas not only had Faith in Jesus, Judas KNEW Jesus, Judas knew Jesus was God. Judas killed himself because he could not live with his own sin. We have Faith but Judas knew. (See Cor. Faith and Hope are temporary, Love is the only eternal gift since we no longer need Faith when we know Jesus.)

Was Jesus chosen to betray Jesus? Was he set up? Scripture says he was cursed before he was born? So much for free choice? Is predestination correct?

Jesus asks us to forgive others as we expect to be forgiven. I have forgiven Judas, I pray Jesus does too. Jesus came to save the unsaved (I guess that means the OSAS people too;) ).

Good topic.

i don’t know what this would have to do with “KJV only” and since very, very few protestants out there adhere to that, i don’t think it’s really worth it to focus in on that issue. just my :twocents:

[quote=bengal_fan]i don’t know what this would have to do with “KJV only” and since very, very few protestants out there adhere to that, i don’t think it’s really worth it to focus in on that issue. just my :twocents:

I think that KWilliam is wanting to use the Bible that his protestant family uses, not a catholic Bible so that the discussion doesn’t digress into a war of words with both sides pulling out their Bibles and comparing translations and in effect leading away from the topic. This is very smart, because every time I show my protestant family some verse from my Bible, that is exactly what happens. My family thinks there are huge differences in the two Bibles (incorrectly), and maybe his does too.

KWilliam…thanks for this topic! I will be watching your thead for ideas…and I will use the Judas connection during my next discussion about OASAS with my family!!

[quote=Malachi4U]…Was Jesus chosen to betray Jesus? …

Whoops, typo. It should read: “Was Judas chosen to betray Jesus?”

Late night typo?

Most of the Baptist sects I went to were officially KJV only. However, members often got whatever Bible version they liked and supported their theology. Yes it’s true, Bibles are subtly different and some major. The churches all had KJV in the chairs and pews. People used whatever they liked.

I do know many Protestants that won’t use any version but the KJV. It’s seems ironic though. The KJV has several versions with various books and verses and meanings. Even the KJV only movement is illogical since most modern KJV Bibles differ from the older ones in major ways. Besides, each publisher can whatever they feel like in their version of it. Can an Islamic publishing house write and publish their version? Joe Smith did for the Mormons. The Watchtower does for the JW’s. Need I give more proof of thier errors?

The first Protestants hated the KJV too. They liked the Geneva Bible of 1560. Only because the homosexual king James forced his version of the Bible on his English speaking kingdom did it survive.

Thanks for the input so far all! And Lillith, you did indeed hit the nail quite rightly on the head :slight_smile:

My Baptist family members that I am talking about do indeed use only the KJV (as do most of the Baptist churches in my area) and so I try to use it as much as possible when speaking with them so as to avoid any unnecessary argument over which Bible is most accurate.

In particular, on the topic of Judas, it would be important to note that many Bibles use the word regretted rather than repented in Mt. 27:3. When you consider that not only do they hold to Sola Scriptura, but also that the KJV is (in their opinion) the only correct translation, it becomes vitally important that I use their translation to make the point. If I used an NAB Bible they would not only point to the fact that they don’t agree with the translation, but that it does in fact use the word regret there. So what I am doing is effectively witnessing to them in their own language, as it were :smiley:

BTW, I ran this across a few co-workers last night. A Pentecostal had no problem accepting this since he dismissed OSAS. A Church of Christ friend also had no problem for the same reason. She also pointed against ‘faith alone’ as she agrees that Baptism is necessary also (even though Judas was certainly Baptized).

I did also bring this up with a Baptist co-worker. We’re all very good at work at discussing religion and theology peaceably so there were no difficult parts, but the Baptist definitely had difficulty with this. He did eventually concede that it left her with a thorny problem and finally had to appeal to the idea that Judas would have been subject to Mosaic Law and not salvation through Jesus, though he was entirely unsure of that. Over the next few days we hope to examine that more closely but he was very uneasy with the idea of saying that salvation through Jesus only becomes effective after the death of Jesus.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.