Does Matthew 13:11 support election and reprobation?

[janxharris]

He knew how to enter the kingdom, how to remain in the kingdom, and what laws were to be followed by the decree of the King of the kingdom.

Do you think he became a believer and then later fell away?

Yes, he was a believer. Even Calvinists will tell you unbelievers want nothing to do with the gospel, the kingdom, and the King Himself. If he wasn't a believer, he would have turned away from Jesus just as other disciples did. Judas fell away when Satan entered him.

Sounds about right.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, he was a believer. Even Calvinists will tell you unbelievers want nothing to do with the gospel, the kingdom, and the King Himself. If he wasn't a believer, he would have turned away from Jesus just as other disciples did. Judas fell away when Satan entered him.

Satan can enter believers? More heresy.

 

[Hammster]

Sounds about right.

Heresy sounds good?

 

[janxharris]

Heresy sounds good?

And your refutation of my point that Judas was privy to 'the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven' (which you say is election) just as the other eleven apostles were?

 

[Hammster]

And your refutation of my point that Judas was privy to 'the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven' (which you say is election) just as the other eleven apostles were?

I have my view. But if you believe that Satan can inhabit believes, then you believe a heresy.

 

[janxharris]

I have my view. But if you believe that Satan can inhabit believes, then you believe a heresy.

Please reveal your view.

 

[janxharris]

Satan can enter believers? More heresy.

Satan entered Judas, but don't forget, we are talking before the crucifixion.

 

[Hammster]

Satan entered Judas, but don't forget, we are talking before the crucifixion.

So?

 

[OzSpen]

Satan can enter believers? More heresy.

I do wish your presuppositions wouldn't blind you to the facts recorded in the Gospels. A person wrote:

Yes, he was a believer. Even Calvinists will tell you unbelievers want nothing to do with the gospel, the kingdom, and the King Himself. If he wasn't a believer, he would have turned away from Jesus just as other disciples did. Judas fell away when Satan entered him.

So what do you do but label his post as 'heresy' because he believes that 'Judas fell away when Satan entered him'

Let's check out the Gospel facts. In Matthew 10, we note these Gospel details in the authoritative Scriptures:

• 'These twelve [including Judas] Jesus sent out, instructing them' (Matt 10:5). How did Jesus describe these 12?
• 'Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves' (Matt 10:16). So Jesus regarded Judas as one of his 'sheep'.
• 'For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of of your Father speaking through you' (Matt 10:20). So all of the 12, including Judas, had the Holy Spirit of YOUR heavenly Father speaking through them. So, for Judas, God was HIS Father.

What happened later to Judas? 'Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve' (Luke 22:3).

So the biblical record provides these facts about Judas:

• He was called as one of the 12, 'whom he also named apostles', and appointed the 12 that 'he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons' (Mk 3:13-15). Are you daring to say that Jesus sent out Judas to preach and cast out demons and Judas was not a believer? You really are stretching my Gospel imagination!
• He was one of Jesus' sheep;
• The Spirit of the heavenly Father spoke through Judas;
• God the Father was Judas's God.
• Then Satan entered into Judas (and the rest is history).

It is entirely biblical to say that a believer who was chosen by Jesus, who was one of Jesus' sheep, who had the Spirit of the Father speaking through him, eventually allowed Satan to enter him.

How dare you state that a poster is promoting heresy when the Scriptures declare these facts!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I have my view. But if you believe that Satan can inhabit believes, then you believe a heresy.

That is a false claim in relation to Judas, as I've shown in #29.

Why must you impose your own presuppositions on the biblical text and make it mean what it does not say.

Judas was elected by Jesus as one of the 12, sent out to preach by Jesus and cast out demons, and the heavenly Father was Judas's Father. The Spirit of the Father spoke through Judas. Then Satan entered Judas.

These are biblical facts and not heretical facts.

Based on these facts and those I have provided in #29, you are engaging in eisegesis, but you dare to call a poster a promoter of heresy because he believes in the facts as recorded in the Gospels.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Heresy sounds good?

Eisegesis sounds good?

 

[harrisrose77]

So?

So, the 'finished' works on the cross mean that Satan has NO authority over the redeemed TRUE believer.

 

[harrisrose77]

Demonic forces and Satan can deceive and oppress, but not possess the True believer, who is in Christ, the True Righteous, and Sinless One. He is the believers covering. All who BELEIVE are transported from darkness to Light in Him, our Saviour.

Jesus has All authority, and holds the keys to life and death after the FINISHED works of Calvery. Satan has NOTHING on the True believer, except that which the believer decides to give by His continued heretical DISOBEDIENCE. Jesus equates such men as dogs returning to their own vomit after being saved.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Satan can enter believers? More heresy.

Peter says hello.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

That is a false claim in relation to Judas, as I've shown in #29.

Why must you impose your own presuppositions on the biblical text and make it mean what it does not say.

Judas was elected by Jesus as one of the 12, sent out to preach by Jesus and cast out demons, and the heavenly Father was Judas's Father. The Spirit of the Father spoke through Judas. Then Satan entered Judas.

These are biblical facts and not heretical facts.

Based on these facts and those I have provided in #29, you are engaging in eisegesis, but you dare to call a poster a promoter of heresy because he believes in the facts as recorded in the Gospels.

Oz

Don't let facts get in Hamm's way.

 

[hedrick]

If Matthew 13:11 does not demonstrate election unto salvation and reprobation unto damnation, but rather some other undefined kind of election, why doesn't that then imperil the very doctrine itself? Why should we think the other verses used to uphold unconditional election actually do so? I'm thinking of Matthew 11:27, 1 John 2:27, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Would you explain please?

Your argument seems to assume that election is true and demand that I interpret Mat 13:11 as supporting it. I find this an odd way to proceed. I thought we did exegesis first and doctrine follows from it. If we insist that our exegesis follow our current doctrinal ideas, we're effectively rejecting the authority of Scripture.

But one hopes election is based on more than Mat 13:11. Realizing that one passage doesn't actually support it isn't an attack on the doctrine. The fact that there are other passages which support election doesn't mean that Mat 13:11 has to.

Mat 11:27: This is consistent with election but doesn't mandate it, because it doesn't tell us to whom the Son chooses to reveal himself, or on what basis he makes that decision. It could well mean that he reveals himself only to those who are humble enough to be willing to hear, as suggested by 11:25. It is followed by 11:30, which seems to me like quite a broad call.

1 John 2:27: Is this a typo?

Rom 9:16: This would require a full exposition of Romans. There's no question that God elected Israel. But not everyone within Israel was faithful, so this verse can't be about individual election. 9:17 shows that Pharaoh carries out God's plan even in rejecting God. But that doesn't in itself dictate TULIP-style election. The idea that God uses even evil to further his goals is accepted by all soteriological approaches.

1 Cor 2:14: This says that only those who have a certain attitude pay attention to God. This is similar to Mat 11:27, but like it, doesn't establish election in the sense you seem to mean it. Even Arminians would agree that only people who are receptive to God receive his gifts.

It's my hope that election rests on a better foundation than these passages.

 

[OzSpen]

Peter says hello.

To which Scriptures do you refer?

Oz

 

[janxharris]

Your argument seems to assume that election is true and demand that I interpret Mat 13:11 as supporting it. I find this an odd way to proceed. I thought we did exegesis first and doctrine follows from it. If we insist that our exegesis follow our current doctrinal ideas, we're effectively rejecting the authority of Scripture.

But one hopes election is based on more than Mat 13:11. Realizing that one passage doesn't actually support it isn't an attack on the doctrine. The fact that there are other passages which support election doesn't mean that Mat 13:11 has to.

Mat 11:27: This is consistent with election but doesn't mandate it, because it doesn't tell us to whom the Son chooses to reveal himself, or on what basis he makes that decision. It could well mean that he reveals himself only to those who are humble enough to be willing to hear, as suggested by 11:25. It is followed by 11:30, which seems to me like quite a broad call.

1 John 2:27: Is this a typo?

Rom 9:16: This would require a full exposition of Romans. There's no question that God elected Israel. But not everyone within Israel was faithful, so this verse can't be about individual election. 9:17 shows that Pharaoh carries out God's plan even in rejecting God. But that doesn't in itself dictate TULIP-style election. The idea that God uses even evil to further his goals is accepted by all soteriological approaches.

1 Cor 2:14: This says that only those who have a certain attitude pay attention to God. This is similar to Mat 11:27, but like it, doesn't establish election in the sense you seem to mean it. Even Arminians would agree that only people who are receptive to God receive his gifts.

It's my hope that election rests on a better foundation than these passages.

What is your position on unconditional election?

1 John 2:27 wasn't a typo, but I take your point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by janxharris

Satan entered Judas, but don't forget, we are talking before the crucifixion.
​

After the crucifixion, Paul had messenger of satan to his flesh.
What is that all about?

Acts 23:14 Who-any coming toward to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathemtize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till we may be kill Paul."

2Corinthians 12:7 And to the over-cast of the un-covernings, that no I may be being exalted, was given to me a thorn to the flesh, a messenger of Satan, that me he may be chastening me, that no I may be being exalted.




.

 

[Hammster]

I do wish your presuppositions wouldn't blind you to the facts recorded in the Gospels. A person wrote:
So what do you do but label his post as 'heresy' because he believes that 'Judas fell away when Satan entered him'

Let's check out the Gospel facts. In Matthew 10, we note these Gospel details in the authoritative Scriptures:

• 'These twelve [including Judas] Jesus sent out, instructing them' (Matt 10:5). How did Jesus describe these 12?
• 'Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves' (Matt 10:16). So Jesus regarded Judas as one of his 'sheep'.
• 'For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of of your Father speaking through you' (Matt 10:20). So all of the 12, including Judas, had the Holy Spirit of YOUR heavenly Father speaking through them. So, for Judas, God was HIS Father.

What happened later to Judas? 'Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve' (Luke 22:3).

So the biblical record provides these facts about Judas:

• He was called as one of the 12, 'whom he also named apostles', and appointed the 12 that 'he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons' (Mk 3:13-15). Are you daring to say that Jesus sent out Judas to preach and cast out demons and Judas was not a believer? You really are stretching my Gospel imagination!
• He was one of Jesus' sheep;
• The Spirit of the heavenly Father spoke through Judas;
• God the Father was Judas's God.
• Then Satan entered into Judas (and the rest is history).

It is entirely biblical to say that a believer who was chosen by Jesus, who was one of Jesus' sheep, who had the Spirit of the Father speaking through him, eventually allowed Satan to enter him.

How dare you state that a poster is promoting heresy when the Scriptures declare these facts!

Oz

Where does it say that Judas allowed Satan to enter him? Let's start with that.