The Traditionalist's Interpretation of Judas: Faith Alone into Christ Not Enough to Save!

1) No text explicitly states that Judas believed or had some form of "spurious" belief.

2) If one is to conclude (however illegitimately) that Judas "believed" from a general text that has one person speaking for the rest either a declaration of who Jesus is or a declaration of belief, we must also conclude one of the following:

A) All had spurious belief for there is no distinction in the texts to whether it is a real "belief" or a "false" one (whatever that can mean). There are no modifiers, and the whole group is addressed (rather generally) and the language would then apply to all equally.

B) They all had a real belief and Judas, none-the-less, was saved but later lost his salvation.

There are no modifiers attached to any of the cognates of "faith" to indicate that the faith exercised by anyone was anything but genuine faith. Therefore, if the Traditionalist must use one of these verses to propose that Judas had some kind of assent to a saving proposition (which they will not define), they must also recognize that these verses include those who were saved, using the same language for them, and including Judas with them. There are no distinctions and the wording would equally apply to all.

Therefore, they would have to say that Judas lost his salvation OR that FAITH INTO JESUS is NOT ENOUGH TO SAVE SOMEONE. Something in addition to faith in Christ is necessary: fruit (works).

These are the only two legitimate choices that the Traditionalist can honestly hold to if they are going to use these general verses to "prove" that Judas believed.

But it is just easier to see that a general statement of one speaking for the whole does not guarantee that he is indeed speaking for the whole! I have spoken for my family before with my wife not in consent (where I did not even find out till later that she wasn't).

Often times also, the Bible does not always attempt to be precise with what it is saying, but is being general, and if need be, we could all find examples, as Dyspraxic Fundamentalist has already shown.

I see that the Traditionalists have placed themselves in quite a dilemma here.

For they are in the un-enviable position of having to defend a position that faith is not enough to save. There must be something in addition to faith in order for salvation to occur. There must be works.

Let me repeat. This is where the rubber meets the road. Faith alone is not enough for the Traditionalist. Their gospel preaches that "faith not apart from works" will save. The Free Grace gospel, which is the TRUE GRACE gospel, states that it is a free gift and it is by FAITH ALONE APART FROM ANY WORKS.

The interesting thing that no Traditionalist wishes to answer to is John's usage of the cognates of "pisteuw" with the preposition "eis" and the objects "him", "me", "Son", "Son of God", "His name", etc. This is the technical expression for saving faith in the Gospel of John, and if anyone would take an impartial look at each occurrence of this phrase, they would be hard pressed to conclude that John knows of a spurious faith in His gospel that is for EVANGELISTIC PURPOSES.

He uses this phrase in the construction of Jesus' promise to guarantee eternal life to the believer time and time again.

In the two instances given by the Traditionalist in the book of John that they say is a spurious faith, this technical phrase is used! Furthermore, in these texts, there lies no modifier to this expression that would indicate that John is thinking of a-less-than-genuine faith. NO! He uses the exact same phrases to indicate saving faith time and time again.

Matt Weyemeyer says that it is Bob Wilkin reading into the text. No. It is here that the Traditionalist reads his doctrine of works salvation (perseverance theology) into the text, rather than seeing John's clear peculiar usage of the faith + "eis" + object expression.

Rather than see the clear implication that, to the Apostle John, a believer into Christ (IOW a regenerate person) is not necessarily a disciple of Christ, they would rather import theology alien to the Apostle John, even in the face of the overwhelming testimony of the gospel of John itself.

And it is rather funny to watch the Traditionalists agree with "Pastor Jim" who is an outspoken and open advocate of works-salvation (just ask him). He is not saying that Judas had a spurious faith, he is saying that he had a genuine one, but that Judas did not fulfill his part and obligation to work and serve Jesus til death.

At every turn of argument that the Traditionalist offers in this exercise, I see him blindly hitting a brick wall.

In John 8:30, John is being frank, and using an indicative, declarative, and editorial statement:

"As He spoke these words, many believed in Him (episteusan eis Auton)"

Nothing but an editorial, declarative, and indicative statement, without a SINGLE modifier or indicator that this was anything but what he says it is: People believing into Jesus, the technical phrase for soteriological faith in the only explicitly evangelistic treatise in the Bible, the gospel of John.

This verse is the Apostle John's OWN editorial remark! He had every chance to distinguish the faith of these people from a "true" faith, but does not. Not only that, he uses the peculiar and TECHNICAL phrase that he elsewhere solidly equates and peculiarly links with saving faith!

The superficiality of the study, exegesis and comments of the Traditionalist does not cease to truly amaze me. They consider themselves the bastion of truth and objective biblical interpretation.

But they seem rather to be the advocates of the proof-text without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.

Antonio