Predestination/Judas Iscariot

[Luke_K]

It cannot be stressed enough that God does not predestine anyone to do evil. He merely permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. He permitted Judas to do the incredible evil of betraying Jesus to his death, but only because He could use that action to save us from our sins through Jesus’ sacrifice.

It also cannot be stressed enough that God is eternal. He did not sit back at the beginning of time laying out a plan of what each human was going to do and binding us to that plan. What he does (present tense) is create and sustain all of creation, and merely is present at each moment of time, at the same time. You cannot say that someone is predestining you to do something simply because he is present while you are doing it. What we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to God in just the same way as we call ‘today’.

God has allowed us to sin or not sin. We have free will, but God’s will is just so perfect and overreaching that whatever act of free will we do, while it is still free for us, fits into God’s eternal plan. Whatever sin we commit, God has made sure from all eternity that something good will come of it, and He decided to use Judas’ sin to bring about the greatest good of all.

Judas is regarded as wicked sinner and Peter as a saint not so much because Peter’s denial was a lesser sin, but because Peter chose to hope in Jesus’ mercy and forgiveness, unlike Judas who despaired.

 

[miguel]

There is another possibility we haven’t considered - that Judas was possessed. In the Gospels there are suggestions that the devil gave him the idea of betraying his Master.

So would he be culpable for the possession if he was possessed or did the devil make him do it?

 

[tonyrey]

So would he be culpable for the possession if he was possessed or did the devil make him do it?

How do I know?! How does anyone else know - apart from God? The one thing we do know is that it is not for us to judge others or decide whether they are in hell…

 

[miguel]

How do I know?! How does anyone else know - apart from God? The one thing we do know is that it is not for us to judge others or decide whether they are in hell…

I agree. Only God knows the full culpability of specific individuals relative to sins committed by them. But some people who’ve studied possession suggest that it involves a surrender of the will, and that suggests a certain amout of culpability. It’s not like the devil takes over a person without their cooperation. I know Malachi Martin had that view. And it makes sense to me.

 

[Oreoracle]

It’s not like the devil takes over a person without their cooperation. I know Malachi Martin had that view. And it makes sense to me.

Even if possession were possible, you would have no idea how it happens, so why are you trying to make a science out of something you’re completely ignorant of? It’s like hearing about a man capable of shooting fireballs from his palms that can travel up to one hundred feet and then saying, “Well, I can see how he might be able to shoot them fifty feet, but one hundred feet?! Pssshhh…that’s impossible.”

I mean, once magic is introduced, the sky’s pretty much the limit when it comes to uncertainties. We might as well give up trying to understand the world if magic is involved.

 

[miguel]

…In any case, I find the idea of broadening perspectives to be not only innocuous, but beneficial. When I talk with someone, I want to learn something, to experience something new, to see things differently, etc., so that when I eventually return to my original perspective, which may or may not change due to incoming knowledge, I can come back to it wiser than before…

OK. The challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to read the article at this link.
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1209-euteneur

 

[PAboy57]

PJM,

that was a great and intelligent reply. thanks for wrapping that up so nicely.

 

[momor]

Judas is regarded as wicked sinner and Peter as a saint not so much because Peter’s denial was a lesser sin, but because Peter chose to hope in Jesus’ mercy and forgiveness, unlike Judas who despaired.

I think this is the message that Our Lord’s Scripture is trying to convey.

 

[Benadam]

So would he be culpable for the possession if he was possessed or did the devil make him do it?

Got me thinking.

John 13

*2 And when supper was done, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him,) *

The two quotes from John indicate that Judas permitted a progressive state of surrender to Satan’s will. After the institution ( And when supper was done) of the Eucharist and Judas recieving Him unworthily, he lost his heart to Satan’s will.

27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.

Judas, at this point could work a deception and still look Jesus in the eye without disturbing his conscience. He could ,for a long time by then, cheat Jesus and the twelve out of their own funds and not be disturbed in conscience. Verse 28 implies this.

So Judeas’ own evil desires gave birth to such grave sin that satan was able to seduce him into greater and greater submission to his will. It seems at the first mass the sacrilidge of recieving Christ with that depth of sin permitted him to give his heart to satan and recieving from the hand of Jesus the second time allowed satan to possess him. . When Jesus said “*That which thou dost, do quickly.” *I think Jesus was speaking to Satan and Judas as one. I believe Judas’ relationship with satan is as an accomplice as the quote below indicates

Mat 26
8 And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

*14 Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, 15 And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. *

Judas remember was in charge of the money and perhaps had been fomenting this sentiment in the diciples.

John 6
*71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? *

Jesus called Judas a devil. Could this indicate that Judas is not just giving in to temptation but serving as an accomplice?

Make no mistake, Judas had opened the gate of eternal sin right here on earth. Did he enter it or did the terror of seeing Christ’s face at the moment of death coupled with a first hand experience of His Sorrowfull Passion able to melt his stony heart and make it human?

As already stated by another poster, only God knows.

 

[tonyrey]

Even if possession were possible, you would have no idea how it happens, so why are you trying to make a science out of something you’re completely ignorant of? It’s like hearing about a man capable of shooting fireballs from his palms that can travel up to one hundred feet and then saying, “Well, I can see how he might be able to shoot them fifty feet, but one hundred feet?! Pssshhh…that’s impossible.”

I mean, once magic is introduced, the sky’s pretty much the limit when it comes to uncertainties. We might as well give up trying to understand the world if magic is involved.

You are evading the reality of evil. Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

 

[Oreoracle]

OK. The challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to read the article at this link.

Yeah, this pretty much reaffirms what I already believe. No evidence is offered of Satan, no biblical verses expound on this “science” of possession that you’ve been talking about, etc. And why? Because there is no evidence. People don’t “sin” because a demon is encouraging them to, but because sinning is usually pleasurable. And it’s not pleasurable just because people get a kick out of disobeying God, but because most of Christian morality is centered around sex and various forms of entertainment.

Anyway, assuming the truth of the Bible, God is already going to damn a good deal of us, so why bother using Satan to test us? If we’re only going to be responsible insofar as we comply with him, Satan and his “forces” play no essential part in this testing of our souls. In Christianity, Satan is a superfluous entity who is used only as a common enemy to unite Christians. Satanic possession is to the Church Militant as war is to national unity: everyone sticks together when they have a common enemy to fight.

I did find a paragraph that hit on what we were discussing:

Every exorcist will tell you that the Sacrament of Penance is much more powerful than exorcism because it blots out the precondition for demonic control over us, which is sin. How fortunate we are that we have not been deprived of weapons to fight our interior battle!

How exactly does one come across the information that sin is a precondition of demonic control? Outside of blindly believing what the Church tells you, I mean? If a magical being can control minds, I hardly think it would matter what state our mortal, non-magical minds are in.

You are evading the reality of evil. Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

“Responsiblity” has nothing to do with it. You’re still talking about determinism. Keep to the topic, please.

In any case, I don’t think I need to invoke magic to explain how someone could convince themselves to kill another. You might as well say that we need magic to decide which cereal we’ll eat in the morning.

 

[tonyrey]

You are evading the reality of evil. Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

The topic is Predestination - which is a form of determinism. You have replaced it with physical determinism. In both cases an individual cannot be responsible for his decisions and actions because they are beyond his control. “Ought implies can” - Kant.

In any case, I don’t think I need to invoke magic to explain how someone could convince themselves to kill another. You might as well say that we need magic to decide which cereal we’ll eat in the morning.

You are still evading the reality of evil! You have not answered my question. Can the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their children, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response? Do you believe the Nazis were responsible for what they did? Was what the Nazis did evil? If so why? (You can substitute Judas for Nazis if you prefer - although there are significant differences…)

 

[PJM]

=tonyrey;6100025]How do I know?! How does anyone else know - apart from God? The one thing we do know is that it is not for us to judge others or decide whether they are in hell…

EVERONE can and should know because Judas like all of mankind had a freewill, intelect and mind, provided by God PRECISLY so he could decide for himself. This does not preclude INFLUENCE and suggestions by Satan, BUT nevertheless, JUDAS by HIMSELF MADE THE FINAL Decision:thumbsup:

 

[miguel]

Yeah, this pretty much reaffirms what I already believe. No evidence is offered of Satan, no biblical verses expound on this “science” of possession that you’ve been talking about, etc. And why? Because there is no evidence.

Hey, I’m glad you read it anyway. I realize this particular article isn’t a thorough treatise on the subject. It really is more of spiritual article reminding the reader what the Church has always believed about these things. It didn’t discuss things like the possessed exhibiting unnatural strength, or speaking languages (unknown to the possessed), or the possessed knowing things about the exorcist’s background that no one could possibly know. These are some of the indications. Mark’s Gospel (Chapter 5) discusses Jesus expelling a legion of demons from a possessed boy who had exhibited unnatural strength. The demons went from the boy into a swineherd which then proceeded over a cliff. The local townsfolk who witnessed this were blown away.

The person who wrote the article has high credibility at least among Catholics for his untiring pro-life work. He also claims to be an exorcist himself (which was news to me after reading this same article yesterday.) The point is, he’s not speaking from ignorance. You may not find any of this evidence compelling, but it is evidence.

People don’t “sin” because a demon is encouraging them to, but because sinning is usually pleasurable. And it’s not pleasurable just because people get a kick out of disobeying God, but because most of Christian morality is centered around sex and various forms of entertainment.

There are 10 Commandments (moral laws). 2 of them deal with sex. It’s not always easy to discern the source of temptation. The Church teaches that it comes from the world, the flesh, and the devil. As an example, a disordered attraction to pleasure (whatever form that takes…sex, drugs) is a temptation of the flesh. The devil may or may not be playing a role here as well. That part’s kind of mysterious obviously.

How exactly does one come across the information that sin is a precondition of demonic control?

It’s a good question. I’ll attempt a short answer. I’m not a theologian. Bear in mind the Church has been around for 2000 years. These issues have come up before this conversation we’re having. Catholics believe in a thing called sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. A person in a state of sanctifying grace has the Holy Trinity dwelling within. All he’s saying is the devil can’t dwell where God is. A person first receives sanctifying grace at the sacrament of Baptism (and the sooner after birth the better). He can lose it by serious sin (i.e., God won’t dwell where serious sin is). He can restore it by the sacrament of Confession. He maintains it (i.e., the strength to resist serious sin) by the sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

[Cristian_B]

…]
A person first receives sanctifying grace at the sacrament of Baptism (and the sooner after birth the better).
…]

I agree with what you posted. But, if you believe what I assume you believe, then I disagree. What I say would apply just in the case that you believe what I assume to believe.

Baptism must be spiritual as well; the rebirth of the spirit and I believe you agree. But, the rebirth doesn’t occur automatically when you are immersed into water, but before. The immersion is just an physical testimony of your rebirth. Those who had been regenerated from spiritual death unto life, who had placed their faith in Christ and His atoning work at the cross and who were willing to repent of their sins were the ones who should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by immersion, as a sign of being united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 8:12, 8:36-39). This is known as believer’s baptism. Since the baby cannot understand all this when he was recently born, I do not believe that it is a valid baptism. When should the baby get baptized? I can’t tell you an age, because it would be arbitrary; when the baby understands everything he needs to know, that’s when, with his consent, he should get baptized. At 4 years old, at 12, 42, 80,… it doesn’t matter, as long as he understands.

Of course, all this is just in the case you think what I think you think. Whether you’ll believe me or not… I dunno, I just felt like telling you.

 

[PJM]

Cristian B;

Baptism must be spiritual as well; the rebirth of the spirit and I believe you agree. But, the rebirth doesn’t occur automatically when you are immersed into water, but before. The immersion is just an physical testimony of your rebirth. Those who had been regenerated from spiritual death unto life, who had placed their faith in Christ and His atoning work at the cross and who were willing to repent of their sins were the ones who should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by immersion, as a sign of being united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 8:12, 8:36-39). This is known as believer’s baptism. Since the baby cannot understand all this when he was recently born, I do not believe that it is a valid baptism. When should the baby get baptized? I can’t tell you an age, because it would be arbitrary; when the baby understands everything he needs to know, that’s when, with his consent, he should get baptized. At 4 years old, at 12, 42, 80,… it doesn’t matter, as long as he understands.

Of course, all this is just in the case you think what I think you think. Whether you’ll believe me or not… I dunno, I just felt like telling you.

***Dear friend in Christ,

I offer a friendly chalange that you can’t prove your stated position from the
Bible

John 3:5* ***Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I [Jesus] say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

So your saying “babies should be kept at Risk because they are"too young?” WWJD?

Mk. 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned”

HERE IS [PROTESTANT] MATTHEW Henrey’s take on this verse:

“We must assent to gospel-truths, and consent to gospel-terms. (2.) “If they believe not, if they receive not the record God gives concerning his Son, they cannot expect any other way of salvation, but must inevitably perish; they shall be damned, by the sentence of a despised gospel, added to that of a broken law.”*** And even this is gospel, it is good news, that nothing else but unbelief shall damn men, which is a sin against the remedy.” [This statement is blantely FALSE, and ignores 1 John 5:16-17… PJM].

Careful reading both, presumes and assumes that one “must be” of the age of reason and having had opportunity to know the truth. to deny and thus be condemed.

SUCH QUALIFICATIONS, exclude, NOT PRECLUDE infants and young children, who through Baptism, become heirs to the Kingdom, by virtue of the grace an powerful effects of forgiveness of all sin as well as the latent effects of sin, which are the natural effects of baptism, UNTIL they have reached an age where they can choose to sin and choose to deny God.

God who is and MUST BE Just, simply cannot condem those who have neither sinned, or chosen to deny God. Thus the parents stand in there stead, and it is the Good faith of the parents that permit infant and child Baptism and desire entry into God’s community of believers until such time as the youth are able to do so for themselves.

Love and prayers,

Pat**

 

[Oreoracle]

Hey, I’m glad you read it anyway. I realize this particular article isn’t a thorough treatise on the subject. It really is more of spiritual article reminding the reader what the Church has always believed about these things. It didn’t discuss things like the possessed exhibiting unnatural strength, or speaking languages (unknown to the possessed), or the possessed knowing things about the exorcist’s background that no one could possibly know. These are some of the indications. Mark’s Gospel (Chapter 5) discusses Jesus expelling a legion of demons from a possessed boy who had exhibited unnatural strength. The demons went from the boy into a swineherd which then proceeded over a cliff. The local townsfolk who witnessed this were blown away.

What I was asking for was evidence for these “indications” outside of the testimonies in the Bible. Frankly, I don’t trust it.

The person who wrote the article has high credibility at least among Catholics for his untiring pro-life work.

Then he should be regarded as a pro-life advocate, not a professional on exorcism.

He also claims to be an exorcist himself (which was news to me after reading this same article yesterday.) The point is, he’s not speaking from ignorance. You may not find any of this evidence compelling, but it is evidence.

Not really. I mean, the whole idea of exorcism isn’t supported by evidence, just as alchemy and astrology aren’t supported by evidence. If someone walked up to you and told you they were an alchemist, would you call that “evidence” of alchemy or their proficience in the art? No, that is mere assertion. The idea that elements can be converted spontaneously by muttering incantations is still just as unsubstantiated as the idea that you can expell demons. I would like some hard evidence, not just assertions.

There are 10 Commandments (moral laws). 2 of them deal with sex.

Actually, I was talking about the Catechism and other comprehensive moral codes, not the Ten Commandments. The Commandments themselves are antiquated, and churches typically use versions they’ve contrived for their own convenience. For example, the prohibition of fornication originally didn’t apply to men, even married men, so long as they had sex with women who weren’t married (so the actual rule was “don’t sleep with another man’s woman”) The Commandment was used to reduce the sexual freedom of women. Also, the prohibition against stealing was different; “steal” actually meant “kidnap.”

If you haven’t realized it yet, the Church has warped these rules over time according to the dominating culture. It’s all a hoax. The Church is not the unchanging beacon it makes itself out to be. It has changed quite a lot in fact.

The devil may or may not be playing a role here as well. That part’s kind of mysterious obviously.

Certainly, because the evidence is nonexistent.

It’s a good question. I’ll attempt a short answer. I’m not a theologian. Bear in mind the Church has been around for 2000 years. These issues have come up before this conversation we’re having. Catholics believe in a thing called sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. A person in a state of sanctifying grace has the Holy Trinity dwelling within. All he’s saying is the devil can’t dwell where God is. A person first receives sanctifying grace at the sacrament of Baptism (and the sooner after birth the better). He can lose it by serious sin (i.e., God won’t dwell where serious sin is). He can restore it by the sacrament of Confession. He maintains it (i.e., the strength to resist serious sin) by the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Hold up a moment. Are you saying that our default nature without God is sinful? What if someone can retain a respectable moral status without God’s aid, even if it’s only for a short time? Can they be possessed during that time, even without being in a sinful state? Perhaps it would be more accurate with your beliefs if you were to say that the only prerequisite for possession is the absence of God, not necessarily sin. But again, where’s the hard evidence for any of this?

 

[tonyrey]

But again, where’s the hard evidence for any of this?

One simple question. Do you believe in the reality of evil? If so, what is it?

 

[Oreoracle]

One simple question. Do you believe in the reality of evil? If so, what is it?

Define “evil.” There are no simple questions where vague terms are involved.

 

[miguel]

What I was asking for was evidence for these “indications” outside of the testimonies in the Bible. Frankly, I don’t trust it.

I don’t blame you. The Church is always very cautious in making this type of diagnosis. The best short article I’ve read personally was written by a psychiatrist (for the same magazine). The process involved the logical ruling out of possible medical and psychiatric explanations along with the observation of certain indications that had no other scientific explanation. This is a link to the article. Note that they occasionally make full-length articles available to non-subscribers from current and past issues. The full length of this one is not currently available to non-subscribers. But it has the type of discussion you’re asking for:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0308-gallagher

Hold up a moment. Are you saying that our default nature without God is sinful? What if someone can retain a respectable moral status without God’s aid, even if it’s only for a short time? Can they be possessed during that time, even without being in a sinful state? Perhaps it would be more accurate with your beliefs if you were to say that the only prerequisite for possession is the absence of God, not necessarily sin. But again, where’s the hard evidence for any of this?

Another good question. It needs to be pointed out that just because the precondition for demonic control (i.e., not babtized and or in a state of serious sin) is in effect for a particular person doesn’t mean demonic control is underway. It just means it’s possible. But you are correct. An unbaptized newborn baby is without personal sin but also the indwelling of the Holy Trinity does not occur until Baptism. That is the Catholic view. And it is a consequence of original sin.