There Should Be Mockers In the Last Time - Jude 1: `18
Jude 1: 17-19 says "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19.These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
Jeremiah 15: 17 says "I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation."
Definition of mock: to treat with contempt or ridicule
It might be expected that those who oppose the Gospel of Christ with another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6) making them false prophets, would, in their opposition and use of the dialectic game, mock those defending the Gospel in some way.
Jude
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jude
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
There Should Be Mockers In the Last Time - Jude 1: `18
Jude 1: 17-19 says "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19.These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
Jeremiah 15: 17 says "I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation."
Definition of mock: to treat with contempt or ridicule
It might be expected that those who oppose the Gospel of Christ with another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6) making them false prophets, would, in their opposition and use of the dialectic game, mock those defending the Gospel in some way.
Nang ... "Saint Nang says the Canons of Dort are the Gospel and none but Calvin are the Gospel... and I mock you for denying LA and the invalidity of National Israel... despite God's creation and scriptural election of it!."
Nang ... "Saint Nang says the Canons of Dort are the Gospel and none but Calvin are the Gospel... and I mock you for denying LA and the invalidity of National Israel... despite God's creation and scriptural election of it!."
No hatred at all. it's about Christ. Anything fulfilled in Christ is the period that is the fulness of times. That's why Hebrews speaks of Christ being here at the end of the times, in ch 2 and 9. The only other period Paul was concerned about was the one leading up to Christ.
"Saint Nang says the Canons of Dort are the Gospel and none but Calvin are the Gospel... and I mock you for denying LA and the invalidity of National Israel... despite God's creation and scriptural election of it!."
It is not to be unexpected that there will be some polemics from both sides in these discussions. Nevertheless, my hope and prayer is that in the quiet of one's room when no one is watching, some plain things from the history of the church militant are actually understood.
Neither John Calvin nor James Arminius originated the basic concepts which undergird the two systems that bear their names. The fundamental principles of each system can be traced back many centuries prior to the time when these two men lived. For example, the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.
No person in either camp worships Calvin or Arminius. These sort of rhetorical flourishes may play well with the crowd, but in the interest of extending the greatest amount of charity—per the ninth commandment—to those who would level these charges I always assume no one seriously thinks what they assert about their opponent as to the proper object of one's faith: God. This is one of the main reasons it is a rarity to find a Calvinist laying the claim "You worship {Arminius, Pelagius, Cassian, Boyd, Pinnock, etc.}" against an interlocutor. My kingdom for those that would grant us the same simple ninth commandment courtesies.
As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers, in the fifth century, were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine.
Pelagius denied that human nature had been corrupted by sin. He maintained that the only ill effects which the race had suffered as the result of Adam's transgression was the bad example which he had set for mankind. According to Pelagius, every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam was before the fall. His leading principle was that man's will is absolutely free. Hence every one has the power, within himself, to believe the gospel as well as to perfectly keep the law of God.
Augustine, on the other hand, maintained that human nature had been so completely corrupted by Adam's fall that no one, in himself, has the ability to obey either the law or the gospel. Divine grace is essential if sinners are to believe and be saved, and this grace is extended only to those whom God predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world. The act of faith, therefore, results, not from the sinner's free will (as Pelagius taught) but from God's free grace which is bestowed on the elect only.
Augustine's unanswerable polemic had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. Pelagianism collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance.
Cassian was the founder of this middle way, which came to be called semi-Pelagianism, because it occupied intermediate ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and took in elements from both. Cassian acknowledged that Adam's sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But on the other hand Cassian held a system of universal grace for all men alike making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent on the exercise of free will.
In other words, those who followed Cassian held that the first movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. Their maxim was: 'it is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist.' They asserted the sufficiency of Christ's grace for all, and that every one, according to his own will, obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved. The entire system thus formed is a half-way house containing elements of error and elements of truth, and not at all differing from the Arminianism which, after the resuscitation of the doctrines of grace by the Reformers, diffused itself in the very same way through the different Churches.
The leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century rejected Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism on the ground that both systems were unscriptural. Like Augustine, the Reformers held to the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, and of unconditional election. They stood together in their view of predestination. It was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon (although Melancthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of predestination and taught it with emphasis. Luther's chief work, 'The Bondage of the Will,' shows that he went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself.
To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue: whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self reliance and self-effort.
The difference between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view [Calvinism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view [Arminianism] gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them.
These two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing, operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the 'five points,' as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.
While recognizing the permanent value of the five points as a summary of Calvinism, a warning should be sounded against simply equating Calvinism with the five points. The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject.
The five Arminian points:
Spoiler
The five Arminian points, given by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt held fifty-four years after the death of Calvin, were the following:
I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief. II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved. III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed. IV. This grace may be resisted. V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.
Each of these points were responded to by the state of Holland to at the Synod, wherein the Remonstrants sought to have the Church of Holland revise its official standards. The response given to each of these Arminian five points later became what is known as the five points of Calvinism or the doctrines of grace. Hundreds of years later (1900s) a pastor formed a memory aid (an acrostic) to remember these responses, TULIP, basically along the following lines of reasoning:
Spoiler
1. T - Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)
2. U - Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)
3. L - What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.
4. I - Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.
5. P - Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.
In summary, had there not been five points raised by the Remonstrants following Arminius there would not have been five points of Calvinism. In a very real sense we Calvinists owe the non-Calvinists a great deal of gratitude.
The five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all. To Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God, the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people: the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves: does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners: men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot.
God saves sinners and the force of this one main point may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Savior. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the 'five points' are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms or descendents (open theism) to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever.
