The book focuses on a select group of people. Jude tells his readers, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). That's the focus -- "contend for the faith" -- because of this select group of people. Jude's first description is ... well ... unnerving.
Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 1:4).It's unnerving to most because it speaks of "designated for condemnation" and includes the descriptive "long ago". Literally, in fact, it says "from before time". The suggestion is that these people about whom Jude is warning his readers were ... well ... predestined for condemnation. Okay, unpleasant, but that's what it says.
Moving on from that unpleasantness, Jude has much to say about these folks. We've already seen that they "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality" and "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." But there is more -- a lot more. It's a short read. Look at some of the other descriptions. "In like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones" (Jude 1:8). "In like manner" to what? Just like the children of Israel who came out of Egypt but were destroyed because they failed to believe (Jude 1:5). Just like the angels who fell (Jude 1:6). Just like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). (On a side note, if Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of their lack of hospitality, what in the world is Jude talking about?) He says more. "These people blaspheme all that they do not understand" (Jude 1:10). He uses some colorful language: These are "shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted" (Jude 1:12). Then he lapses into less colorful, more blatant language: "These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage" (Jude 1:16), and "It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit" (Jude 1:19).
I am quite sure that most God-fearing Christians, people who read the Bible and believe it, can recognize folks who fall in this category. It seems that today we are inundated with them. They enjoy popular positions in well-known churches and public podiums from which to share their message with the world. Like the description says, they present themselves as one of us (like the Israelites who didn't believe). They appear to be "clouds" offering refreshment or "trees" offering nourishment although they are, in fact, waterless clouds and fruitless trees. They are marked by deviation from orthodoxy rather than affirmation of the faith. They assault the faithful and applaud the sinful.
About these Jude says they are "devoid of the Spirit", "long ago designated for condemnation", "perverting grace into sensuality". Because of these Jude warns we must "contend for the faith." What does Jude say to do?
Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh (Jude 1:21-23).First, look to yourselves. Love is the command, predicated on the recognition that we, too, are sinners in need of mercy. Then, have mercy on doubters. Not all who struggle fall in this category of evil. Work to turn others from sin, even if it means "snatching them out of the fire". In some cases, show mercy but, frankly, be afraid. Some are so stained that their very "clothing" is stained. Don't even pick up their trappings.
I could name names and I could call to action about individuals, but I don't think I need to do more than Jude already did. You who do have the Spirit, contend for the faith. Ground yourselves in love. Show mercy. Save who you can. Recognize that God has determined that some will never repent. And be careful about picking up the terms and trappings of those who "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." To these, show mercy with fear. Ultimately, trust in Him "who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy" (Jude 1:24). This is Jude's calling on "those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:1).
10 comments:
". . . God has determined that some will never repent."
Where does He say that?
"... those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4).
Why were they "marked out"? Because in its sovereignty, the Calvinist god chose to predestine them to Hell, or because -- as the rest of Scripture states, including Jude 1 -- of their sin and unbelief?
You're making God the reason for their lack of repentance, but He doesn't say that He is.
Where does God say that He makes them never repent?
Isn't it a shame that two Christians can't discuss differences in perspective without one of them being unkind? (You know that if I referred to your god this way it would be an insult.)
Okay, look, here's what it says. "... those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). Nothing in that phrase references cause. I didn't say anything about cause. I said "God has determined" and you understood that to mean "God has caused." Look, let's say that you give me a math problem. "Start with one and then add 2 and then subtract 3 and then add 4. What is it?" I could say, "I've determined that the result is 4." I didn't cause it. I didn't make it. I simply determined it. "Determine" may mean "to settle or decide by an authoritative or conclusive decision" or "to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc." You determined that I meant "cause" when it wasn't necessary.
Your unnecessarily unkind conclusion that I meant the worst possible thing and the unkind phrase "the Calvinist god" is a result of a complete misunderstanding of the concept of Predestination. I believe that the Bible teaches that God decides to save some and does all that is necessary to accomplish that. The rest (as indicated in this Jude 1:4 reference) are "marked out". They're not forced not to believe. They're not rejected because God does something. They're not even ignored. They are called ("Many are called"). They are told. They are convicted. They choose not to change. The ones that choose not to change were known in advance by God and "marked out for condemnation" -- not caused.
I never said "caused". I don't believe "caused". I never intended "caused". And I hope that further dialog can be on a friendlier plane.
I was amused when you said I had a problem. I was amused because I was thinking about your position and thinking, "You've got a problem."
Frankly, I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity. Consider this. "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified" (Rom. 8:29-30). When Scofield (who was not a Calvinist) wrote on this passage, he said that predestination may cause problems in our thinking, but it is undeniably in Scripture. Whether you ascribe to "Middle Knowledge" -- "God knew in advance who would believe Him and chose them" -- or the Reformed view -- "God chose who He would save and carried it out" -- you still have an omniscient, omnipotent God who 1) knows who will be saved and 2) has the capacity to carry it out. One side of predestination (or, rather, one aspect -- Election) says that God chooses to save some (chooses by whatever means you wish) and carries it out. Look in a concordance for the repeated references to "the chosen", "the elect", and the like. It is all over the New Testament (and the Old). It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved."
So, here we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination". Now you have ... the rest. It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved. Assuming that your God (like mine) is omnipotent, if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved, it is the same thing as saying "God has determined that some will never repent." He didn't change their known outcome. They were not going to repent. He didn't make them. Therefore, He determined (without causing) that they wouldn't be saved.
If you argue that God didn't know who would or wouldn't be saved, then you reject an omniscient God. If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject? (Now, I intend that as a rhetorical question because I don't believe that you would actually reject either.) I don't see how you ("you" as in "you and I -- all Christians") can have an omniscient, omnipotent God who either didn't know who would be saved or couldn't act to change the outcome for those who wouldn't.
Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?
By the way, on "Limited Atonement" and "Irresistible Grace", you are a little confused. No offense intended. The terms, admittedly, are quite confusing. It's the curse of making a pretty little acronym (TULIP), a nice memory tool that ends up obscuring the actual meaning. "Limited Atonement" isn't about paying only for the sins of those who believe. The question of Limited Atonement is "When Christ went to the cross, what did He intend to accomplish? Did He intend to accomplish the salvation of everyone, or did He intend to accomplish the salvation of some?" You see, if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe? And on "Irresistible Grace", the claim is not that God's grace can never be resisted. No thinking person could believe such nonsense. The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?
One other thing. There is, underlying your disagreement, a belief that is quite common but ultimately unsupportable. "If God's grace is 'irresistible,' how does anyone end up in Hell?" THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will or all would come to repentance. If this statement is not true, there is another serious problem. It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur. If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?
Last point. You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible. Now, you can claim that my understanding of the Bible is incorrect, but it is not right to claim that I follow the teachings of Calvin since I've never read the teachings of Calvin. It would be wise to drop the "Calvin" accusation and stick with Scriptural discussions. Truth requires that you defend the truth. Scripture requires that you do so "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). We can do that -- you and I -- can't we?
Found a typo. Here's the revised version:
I understood your use of "determined" in a way consistent with Calvin's Double Predestination.
Double Predestination does not teach that those in Hell end up there because the God of the Bible foresaw their unbelief. It claims that God pre-"determined" them for destruction.
Calvinism also teaches Limited Atonement (that Christ paid for the sins of only those who would believe when, in fact, He died for all) and that His saving word goes to only some.
If God's grace is "irresistible," how does anyone end up in Hell?
You've got a problem here:
"I believe that the Bible teaches that God decides to save some and does all that is necessary to accomplish that."
I intend you no offense; Truth requires that I distinguish between Calvin's heresies and the Word of Christ.
Stan: "I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity."
Does not God "foreknow" all people? Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?
There is no problem "understanding" Double Predestination. The problem is accepting the idea since it is not found in Scripture.
Worse than that (that's bad enough!), it makes God out to be a capricious monster, which He is not.
Stan: "it is undeniably in Scripture."
No, only the statement that God predestines believers to eternal life is in the Bible.
If you want to say that God predestines people for Hell, you'll have to produce something from the Bible saying that . . . God predestines people to Hell.
And Arminianism doesn't cut it, either.
Stan: "It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved . . . we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination"
You are confusing knowing the future for determining unalterably who will end up where.
Stan: "It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved."
Again, knowing all things is not the same thing as causing them to occur.
Using your logic, Mohammed's slaughter is Calvin's god's will.
Stan: "if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved"
YHWH did intervene. God did act. He has done EVERYTHING necessary for all to be saved, or is the death of His Son a small matter?
Stan: "If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject?"
False dichotomy.
Instead, I prefer to say what God says:
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).
Stan: "Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?"
Condemned for their sin, not created by God for condemnation.
Stan: "The question of Limited Atonement . . . if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe?
So, you're saying that Jesus only intended to save some but died for everyone? That makes sense?
I believe what God says:
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2).
"on "Irresistible Grace" . . . The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?"
So, your god can "call irresistibly," but chooses not to?
Are these clarifications really helping your argument?
You've got a god that chooses to save only a few based on a whim and calls only a few to faith.
I believe in the God of Scripture. He loves all. He desires that all should live. He calls all to salvation. He died for all people's sins. He has reconciled us all to Himself.
Many, however, choose to reject that gift, which means they've got to pay for their sins out of their own pocket.
Stan: "THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will . . . ."
That makes Calvin's god a sick monster and the Bible's God a liar.
Stan: "It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur."
That is false, for He says not only that He is not willing that anyone should perish, but that many will.
That means also that your god wills genocide, slavery, and child rape.
Stan: "If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?"
Neither. I believe God.
Stan: "You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible."
Clearly not.
Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are Calvin's heresies.
To attribute them to God only heaps blasphemy upon blasphemy.
At some point your "stand for the truth" stops being a stand for the truth and mere abrasiveness. When you get to that point, your "stand" gets lost in the noise of your unkindness, and no one will hear your version of "the truth". I only point that out so that you can perhaps express your opinion in a way that doesn't turn people off before hearing it.
Now, to substance. First, God's omniscience. There is something you appear to miss. If God knows something, it is certain. It cannot not happen. If He knows that "Tom" will reject Christ for his entire life, he will. So, if God knows something, it is already determined to happen. Nothing can change it. That doesn't require "cause and effect". Still, it is certain to happen. So when you admit that God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, both are certain. Therefore, it is determined. Look, if God determines (predestines) who will be saved as you admit, then those who are not in that predestination are certain not to be saved ... and that is "double predestination". (Please note that it is not symmetrical. Salvation takes effort on God's part. Damnation does not.)
Next, I need to point out a serious difference of opinion between you and me. "Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?" These are rhetorical questions from you that assume a "Yes" answer from me ... but I don't agree with them. Here's why. If God intended Life for all people, then all people would have Life. God always does what He intends (Psa. 135:6, etc.). If He does not, then He is not sovereign. Does God desire Life for all? Sure, but that isn't the same as "intend". (And you are seriously misreading 2 Peter 3:9.)That isn't the same as "His will". We know this because on one hand we have the certainty that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Eze. 33:11), but we also know that He certainly does damn them. That is, He has a desire to save them, but His will is to damn them. The second question is "Did not Christ ... justify all people?" No, He did not. I know you would like to say that He did, but doing so will simply make God unjust. The best you can say is that He potentially justified all people, not actually. If you argue that He actually justified all people and then you agree that some people go to Hell, you have an unjust God who has received proper payment for sin and still exacts further payment for sin. That is, you have a God who damns justified people. That is not just, and that is not God.
You are quite certain that there is no statement that God predestines who will not be saved. You are not satisfied with the undeniable fact that choosing who will be saved is also a choice of who will not. (Think about it like this for a moment. You arrive on a scene of a boat that capsized. Five people are in the water, drowning. You jump in to save them. You can only save so many before some of them drown. You choose, by whatever means you choose, to save as many as you can. It is unavoidable that by choosing to save some, the ones you didn't save were also chosen not to be saved.) Even when I hand you the Bible and point at Jude 1:4, you close your eyes and say, "Nope! That Scripture isn't in there!" You argue, "It doesn't say 'created by God for condemnation'." That doesn't solve your problem. It says they were already marked for condemnation before time. No one argues that God creates people for the sole purpose of condemnation. He creates people for His glory. Some of them display His glory in His salvation. Some of them display His glory in His power and wrath. None of them are made "for condemnation". But there are unavoidably some who were "marked out before time for this condemnation".
Look, it is your belief that I don't read my Bible. Fine. You can remain in your ignorance. It is your belief that I take my beliefs from a guy named Calvin, one whom I've never met or read. Fine. You can remain in your ignorance. It is your belief that I malign the God of the Bible. Fine. You can remain in your ignorance. I don't know "Calvin's god". Never even heard of him. But I don't know your god either. This one is a strange breed. He apparently has the capability to save all but chooses not to save all while choosing to save all but won't actually ... I don't know ... very strange. Maybe it's that in His sovereignty He is subservient to His creation -- they decide whether or not He will save them. He does all that He chooses to do and wills that all be saved but doesn't ... do ... that. Hmmm? He wills to pay for all sin at the cross and actually accomplishes this task but refuses to accept the payment His Son made on their behalf and damns some anyway. What??!! He knows who will come to Him and who will not and does nothing at all to change the list of who will not because He is either unable or unwilling while being both able and willing. All of this is perfectly reasonable to you, but perfectly schizophrenic to me. So feel free to despise me while I read my Bible and see an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord who always accomplishes what He intends. Feel free to hate Calvin for whatever reasons you choose. (I have no dog in that hunt.) But please, please, stop insulting the God that I love, the God that I find in the pages of my Bible, the God you blaspheme intentionally. If you cannot discuss the God of the Bible that I know with some respect, charity, and courtesy -- you know ... like the Bible commands (1 Peter 3:15), then I will have to stop giving you access to comment (you know ... like the Bible commands - 2 Thess. 3:14).)
Hi, Stan,
My reply is available here: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/09/calvinist-by-any-other-name-would-offer.html
Peace,
Amillennialist
Post a Comment