Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1896-09-03

Ahs ILOlIOBs--~
In the last issue of your paper,
Mr.. J. 4. Byrum endeavors to prove
that Judas was not lost. His object
in doing so was, ! suppose, the estab-
hShment Of the theory that there is
no eternal punishment. Although |
fail to see how Judas salvation will
do this, yet his arguments are so pal
pably false that | cannot deny N.Y.
self the pleasure of answering them.
He founds his first argument on a
false assumption He asks this ques-
tion, "Ought Judas to be made ever
miserable for fulfilling the Script
ure?' leaving us to infer that Judas
was created to fulfill the Scriptures.
/ ask Mr.. Byrum, in return, were
the prOphesies of the Bible written
and their characters created to fulfill
them, or were the prophecies inspired
and written because it was fOreseen
that they would come to pass? To
assume that God inspired his servants
to foretell that Christ would be be-
trayed and then created Judas to
fulfill this prophecy, would be to as
sert that Judas was merely an ire
sponsible instrument without the
will and ability to choose good or e.
vii. 1t would make him no better
than stone or any other inanimate
thing. Judas was damned, not for
fulfilling the Scriptures, but for be-
ing sinful and evil.
Mr.. Byrum says Judas could not
j have been lost on the principles of
Calvnism for he was one of the e.
leot. This is very remarkable
statement, for never heard it claim
ed by any Calvinist that Judas was
he of Gods chosen. So far from
this being true. it appears that they
have very decisively and emphatlcal-
ly denied that he was, asserting that
the elect of God are a much more
reputable class. There is as much
reason to hold that Saul or Benedict
Arnold were elected from all eternity
into life eternal as there is to hold
that Judas was one of what Calvin
lists term, the elect.
TIE next statement of Mr.. Byrum
can only be attributed to Ignorance
or a deliberate purpose to deceive
lie says, "On the principles Of Ar.
minianism Judas was saved for he
repented." This statement is very
extraordinary, to say the least, IN
view Of the fact that 1T comes from
one who seems to pride himself on
the thOroughness with which lie
knov 6she Scriptures. Mr.. Byrum
and all men of his sect are fond OF
boasting that they never assert any
thing that is not sustained by Script
ure. But when he states that Judas
truly repented, he states something
that the Scriptures do not in any
form of manner whatever justify
Judas did not repent, in no portion
of the Bible does 1t so much as init
mate or are we lett to infer that Ju-
das was ever sorry for, or turnei a
way from his sins. True it is said
that Judas "repented himself, !" but
can we rightly understand this tC
mean true repentance If it be ad-
mitted that this is the right meaning
,,o must all confess that he acted
very strangely for a man who has
been filed with a deep hatred fOI
and a firm resolve to turn away from
sin-for that is what repentance
means. Instead of deserting sin as
the true repentant should and would
he pluuges. still deeper aud adds tC
the crime of betraying his Master
that of committing direct and absol-
ute murder by taking his own life
Surely one who is sorry for his sins