The Unpopular Biblical Doctrine of Reprobation

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." 

-Proverbs 16:4 

I think that the least-popular doctrine of Calvinism is that of reprobation, the biblical teaching that God has not only elected some to salvation, but has also chosen the rest for damnation. In biblical language, it is said that God has made the reprobate from the same lump of clay, but as "vessels for dishonorable use" (Romans 9:21; see same phrase in II Timothy 2:20). Both Peter (I Peter 2:8) and Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:4), tell us that false teachers were anciently purposed for condemnation. 

Yet, though Scripture is explicit on the matter, Christians hate it, deny it, and turn a blind eye to such verses. Even Reformed Christians soften the teaching by saying that it is merely God's passive passing by those whom He has not decided to elect unto salvation. In other words, God, they say, did not decree that the reprobate would die in unbelief; rather, He simply decided not to ordain their salvation. Yet Scripture tells us, "He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). Paul certainly showed no hesitancy in declaring that unbelief is as much the decree of God as is belief. 

So, why are Christians of today hesitant, where our forefathers showed no hesitation to speak plainly? 

I think that it is because of the infiltration of the worldview of autonomy into the Christian mentality that has created this backpedaling. American evangelicals have adopted the American cultural view of autonomy, of personal sovereignty, against which the sovereignty of God is a distasteful atavism. Yes, the Puritans held to God's absolute kingship over the creature, but we have outgrown that. 

We have? 

Not really. Rather, that absolute personal autonomy falls back to a time far earlier than that of Paul, Peter, or Jude. It hearkens back to the words of Satan in Genesis 3:5, when he deceitfully tempted Adam and Eve with the myth of independence of the creature from the Creator. 

The Fullness of the Revelation of the Faith

In his epistle, Jude, the brother of Jesus, made an interesting comment: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, 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). "Delivered once for all" can mean nothing except that the content of the Christian faith, that is, all of her doctrine, had been fully revealed by the time Jude was forced to warn against false teachers who were striving to corrupt that faith. Paul made the same point to his young protégé in II Timothy 3:15-17). 

The importance of Jude's words here is to shut the door in the faces of pseudo-Christian sects who seek to claim that they have revelations of additional doctrines beyond those given by Jesus and His Apostles. The Mormons have their Book of Mormon and other "scriptures," while Rome makes lofty claims for her "sacred tradition." Both claims are their efforts to cover the manmade doctrines that they confess cannot be found in the Bible. 

Yet, according to Jude, that exclusion is sufficient proof that the doctrinal claims of Rome and the Mormons are precluded from true Christianity exactly because they were not revealed in the New testament once for all. 

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Archangel Michael

One of the doctrines that distinguishes Jehovah's Witnesses from Christians is the Witness claim that Jesus is not God, but is, rather, an incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They base their argument, in part, on Jude 1:9: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses..." They claim that "archangel" means "chief angel," which is true, and that the use of the article means that he is the only one, which is not true. 

The funny thing about their use of that passage is what it goes on to say: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said [instead], 'The Lord rebuke you'" (Jude 1:9, in full). Michael did not pronounce a judgment on Satan, but rather left it to the Lord to do so. 

Is this what we see from Jesus? 

At the end of His temptation, Jesus said, "Be gone, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10). And again in Matthew 16:23, he says, "Get away from Me, Satan!" So Jesus had no hesitation in rebuking Satan, and He did so by His own authority, not by referring the rebuke to another party. Jesus acted not at all like Jude's description of Michael. 

Look further at Daniel 10:13, which is also mentioned (but not quoted) by the Witnesses: "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me [i. e., the angel in Daniel's vision] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia..." So this angel has come from a three-week conflict with a prince of Persia. Whether this is a term for a literal prince or for a demonic spirit behind the power of Persia, cannot be determined. Either way, the angel required assistance, which is given by Michael, who is called "one of the chief princes." "Chief" there is of the same significance as "arch-" in "archangel." But notice the article and the plural. We are here explicitly told that the office of Michael is not his alone, but one that he shares with unnamed others. The article does not imply singularity. Every claim made by the Witnesses regarding Michael is here overturned. 

The office of Jesus is, indeed, singular, because He alone is the only-begotten God, described explicitly so throughout the New Testament, not in one obscure verse that must be elided in order to make it appear what the Witnesses claim from it. 

King David and the Doctrine of Perseverance

 According to the superscription, David wrote this when he was taken prisoner by the Philistines: "You [God] have delivered my soul from death, yes, my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of life" (Psalm 56:13). It may be this verse which inspired Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, to write centuries later, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25). 

Both men exult not in some belief that they must sustain their own faith, as the Pelagian claims, but rather in the knowledge that it is God's power that will sustain them to the end. 

Jesus also talked about this: "My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). 

David and Jude write from their experiences of the faithfulness of God. Jesus, however, writes as the God who is faithful. It is on that faithfulness that the perseverance of the true believer depends and is guaranteed. 

I have been told by both Catholics and Mormons that it is arrogant to be sure now of my eternal life. They both claim that no one can be sure until he arrives at his eternal destination. They consistently refer to Matthew 24:13: "The one who endures to the end will be saved." But neither one ever considers how the believer endures. As cited above, the Bible tells us that it is God's action that gives endurance, not the willpower of the believer. And God can never fail. Therefore, the believer has a sound foundation for his assurance, just as the Apostle John tells us: "I write these things to you [Christians] who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" (I John 5:13). The possession of eternal life is something that the true believer has now, not something for which he merely hopes.

Justification by Faith Can Never Be Justification for Sin

As an orthodox Protestant, I advocate and defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the standard against all false expressions of Christianity. And the consistent response from advocates of works righteousness is almost always that it means that a person can believe, and then live however wickedly he wants, and still be saved. They usually cite James 2:24 (an objection which I address here). I get this supposed trump-card most consistently from Mormons and Catholics.

Their claim is a caricature. Worse, it is a slogan, repeated from some apologetics book or class, not something thought through by the person making the accusation.

It is easy to refute. I have provided one such refutation in the link above. Another is found in the little epistle of Jude, especially verse 4: "Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude here describes people who profess to be Christians, but are then involved in some unspecified sin. But notice what else he tells us about them, that they are "condemned" as "ungodly." So, they do not have faith; they have a label. And that is a denial of Jesus, not faith.

This should be an indication to anyone who has been taught this as an argument against justification by faith that it is an accusation based on something that the Scriptures say is impossible. That means that the argument is false.

Then a far more important question should come to mind: If my religious teachers have taught me this falsehood, what are they trying to keep me from seeing as truth? They want to keep you from understanding justification by faith alone because that makes you dependent on Jesus alone, instead of them.

"The Man of Sin" in Preterist Perspective

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
- II Thessalonians 2:1-4

Let me say up front that this is a difficult passage to interpret. I immediately grant that sincere brethren will disagree with the interpretation that I will give it here. And I am OK with that. I merely present some thoughts as possible, in the hope that it will provoke thought, not conflict.

The passage above is popular among dispensationalists, who equate "the man of lawlessness" (or "man of sin," KJV) with the so-called anti-Christ. I think that equation is unjustified, even apart from my denial of a personal anti-Christ. They do so simply on the presuppositions of their hermeneutic, not because of solid exegesis.

Let's go point by point. "The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is not the second coming. Rather, it is the next historical element in the salvation of God's people, His coming in judgment against their enemies, the apostate Jews, by means of the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the sacrificial system in 70AD. "Our being gathered to Him," not in any supposed "Rapture," but in death or at His Second Advent. Paul is addressing an error here, in which some people were claiming that the resurrection and return of Jesus had already occurred, and the people to whom Paul wrote were left behind (pun intended). In other words, they had their own version of the full-preterist heresy, and Paul felt compelled to refute it. "For that will not come," Paul assures them (and us), "unless the rebellion comes first." What rebellion? While this is often explained as a general apostasy among professing Christians, there is no biblical support for such a thing. Can Jesus fail to keep His people (see Jude 1:24-25)? Rather, this is a rebellion, an apostasy, of the general population of Jews, which began with their rejection and murder of Jesus, and continued in their persecution, and even murder, of the Christians among them. God would judge them for that apostasy, removing their legal protections in the Empire, and bringing down the wrath of Rome upon their heads.

Therefore, it was Judaism that would be removed, allowing the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Under Roman law, the Jews had had certain legal privileges, privileges that extended to Christians, as long as they were considered a sect within Judaism. However, with the reversal of those privileges, the Christians no longer had that protective covering, and were thus exposed to the persecuting power of the Roman emperors, who were, successively, the Man of Lawlessness.

Spiritual Freedom through Absolute Dependency

In discussions with Mormons over the doctrine of perseverance, more than one has cited Matthew 10:22 in response: "The one who endures to the end will be saved." And those are, indeed, the words of Jesus. But these Mormons never stop to ask, How does he endure to the end? As a hardcore Pelagian religion. Mormonism presupposes that it is their temple ceremonies and obeying the commandments that will enable them to endure. And that presupposition is based on their denial of total depravity. If I cite Isaiah 64:6 or Jeremiah 17:9, for example, they claim that my understanding of those verses is erroneous. Of course, when they make that assertion, they never show how my understanding is wrong. I guess that to assert is to prove.

However, the Bible tells us that man is helpless to sustain himself. As demonstrated by the fall of Adam and Eve, man, left to his own power will fall. And they were without the corruption of the sin nature!

Thank God that the Bible tells us differently! My heart responds, not to Mormon Pelagianism, but to the faithful God to whom Jude addressed this doxology: "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25).

This is the biblical truth, the proof, not just assertion: "You are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 1:7-8). The biblical Christian is sustained by Jesus, not by church ceremonies or obeying commandments or any other human effort. He cannot be! Rather, he is sustained only by the hand of Jesus Christ, like the toddler who is enabled to walk by Mommy's sustaining grip.

I understand why Mormonism hates the doctrine of perseverance, as do all Pelagian religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism, Pentecostalism, etc.). When the believer receives the biblical truth of his security in Christ, he can eschew any dependence on ceremonies or priests or edifices. Those organizations (I do not call them churches) lose their power over that man forever. He is rescued from their spiritual bondage, and they are deprived of his money and adoration. 

So my answer to those Mormons is, The one who endures is the one whom Jesus sustains!

What Is Faith?

We have a lot of common sayings on the issue of faith. Two that I sincerely hate are "a leap of faith" and "you just gotta have faith." The first means that we should go through life making hazardous decisions with insufficient information. The second is what we say to people dealing with personal or general catastrophes. Faith in what? Or whom? Well, faith in faith, i. e., the New Age concept that insistent belief creates reality.

In contrast, Theologian John Frame, in his "Apologetics," p. 53, says, "Faith is not mere rational thought, but it is not irrational either. It is not 'belief in the absence of evidence'; rather, it is a trust that rests on sufficient evidence... So faith does not believe despite the absence of evidence; rather, faith honors God's Word as sufficient evidence." In other words, "faith" is not a mental insistence without regard to objective circumstances. Rather, it is a belief in the power of God on the basis of His Word, the Bible. Faith isn't the vacuous stubbornness of popular psychology and New Age religion, but rather has a particular foundation and explicit content.

We see that for example, in Jude 1:3: "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Here the brother of Jesus is referring to faith as a body of belief, of doctrine, which was held in common by believers. He is telling us that the content of our faith matters! That is the opposite of what we say in the phrase I quoted above. Paul referred to the same thing in Titus 1:4: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith..." The emphasis here is on content, too, but a content held in common among believers, equivalent to Jude's "that was once for all delivered to the saints." Both inspired writers reject faith as a feeling or as an individual insistence, but rather as something held in common among all true believers, with a specific content of truth.

Luke describes that content in Acts 6:7: "The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith." The content of the faith is the word of God, i. e., the Bible, and to believe it is to be obedient. Or, to express the converse, not to believe it is to be disobedient.

Therein lies the problem with faith in faith, without content. it assumes, contrary to Scripture, that God honors disobedience as if it were obedience. Again quoting Paul (Ephesians 5:6): "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for ... the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Not doing things God's way cannot be the source of assurance that our common encouragements assume, because they bring, not His blessings, but His wrath.

Here is a definition of biblical faith (Westminster Larger Catechism 72): "Question 72: What is justifying faith? Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

The Mercy of Christ Means Opposition to All False Teachers

In addition to what I write on this website, I work in informal cults ministry. I won't list here whom I consider to be a cult. My inspiration to perform that ministry is twofold: first, I hate that false and destructive doctrines are promulgated in the name of Christ; and second, I sorrow that people have been brought into spiritual bondage by the false use of the name of Jesus. thus, there are both a righteous wrath side and a compassion side.

And I believe that dual inspiration is biblical.

In II John 1:10-11, that Apostle warned us, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

Even more telling is the comment of Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:3), "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." What I find especially striking is that he tells us that it was not his original intention to talk about false teachers. However, some situation required that he shift gears and address this subject.

Then I have this warning, not to the false teachers, but rather to me: "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). God is serious about this! If I sit passively by, and say nothing to the cults about the eternal consequences of their false teachings, then I am a murderer, with their blood on my hands. He doesn't hold me responsible for their reaction, but He does for giving warning.

As one might guess, my compassion is hardly received as such. The consistent reaction is a tearful protest: How dare you say that my chosen theology is false! And then someone will always quote, "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), as if it trumps everything else in Scripture. They never go on to cite the next verse: "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." Jesus's emphasis isn't verse 1, but verse 2. Compare His words to what He says in John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." He never intended an absolute ban on judgment, but rather on manmade judgment. We are only to pronounce and apply His judgments from Scripture.

Jude also describes the other motivation (Jude 1:22-23): "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."

God gives us an invitation to come to Him, not to be brought under bondage, but to free us from our bondages: " Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to Me; hear, that your soul may live" (Isaiah 55:1-3). And Jesus gave the same invitation: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Anyone who brings a convert into bondage, makes him heavy-laden, is no servant of Christ, but rather an enemy: "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters" (Matthew 12:30. Such a person must expect only opposition from me, no matter what crocodile tears he may shed about judgment!

Does Having the Bible Allow Continuing Revelation?

The question in the title of this post should have brought immediate images to mind, such as the Book of Mormon. And that is certainly one of the things that I have in mind. However, we should also think of Pentecostal "prophets," the Pope, and a lot of common Christians who claim that "God told me."

I am opposed to all of these claims of revelation because they undermine the sufficiency of the true Scriptures, the Bible, in both the Old and the New testaments.

First, what does the Bible say about itself? Paul, writing to his apprentice Timothy, said (II Timothy 3:14-17): "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Notice what he tells us about the Scriptures. First, they are "breathed out by God," i. e., their authority derives from their ultimate authorship by God. Second, they make us wise for salvation. And third, they equip the believer, so that he is complete, equipped for every good work.

The desire for additional revelation indicates that the person does not believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and would leave a believer incomplete, ill-equipped for every good work. That is, that they fail to achieve their intended purpose (see Isaiah 55:11).

Notice, secondly, what Jude 1:3 also says: "Beloved, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." While it may be true that the full explanation was not yet complete when Jude wrote, he clearly indicates that the content was delivered once for all. This brother of the Lord saw no need for the revelation of any new doctrines, as both Rome and the Mormons have done. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said the same thing (Hebrews 1:1-2): "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." There is progressive revelation from the creation to the Gospels to the founding of the church, because all revelation was to point to Jesus Christ. Once He came, there was some apostolic explanation necessary, but no additional content was necessary or possible. That rules out the new dogmas decreed by Rome, such as papal infallibility, or the ascension of Mary, as well as "another testimony of Jesus Christ" pretended by the Mormons.

When Liberal Clergy Add Feticide to Apostasy

"The Lord gave full vent to His wrath;
     He poured out His hot anger,
and He kindled a fire in Zion
     that consumed its foundations...

This was for the sins of her prophets
     and the iniquities of her priests,
who shed in the midst of her

     the blood of the righteous."

- Lamentations 4:11,13

The picture above is of clergy of the Episcopal Church USA participating in a march for legal abortion. Notice the slogan printed on their t-shirts: "Pro-Faith, pro-family, pro-choice." That's right. These professed men and women of the cloth, clergy of the supposed Church of Christ, are marching for the right to rip apart unborn children. 

As I wrote here, abortion is the modern version of child-sacrifice in the Old Testament, part of the rituals for the pagan deity Molech. It was one of the syncretistic practices in Israel, at the lowest point of her apostasy from Jehovah, her redeemer from slave labor in Egypt.

This is what supposed Christian clergy are advocating in our own time. With clergy like this, it is no wonder that the Episcopal Church has lost over half of its parishioners since the 1960's. But what does it say of the half that remain in the church? What does it say of them that their names and money are being used for a form of human sacrifice?

What it says is that they have no concept of Who Christ is or what Christianity is. Both the clergy and the parishioners are described in Jude 1:4: "[they are] ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." I cannot accept the profession of either that they are Christians.

For a contrast, look here.

Jude, That Obscure Little Epistle, and the Doctrines of Grace

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you that ye fall not, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with joy, that is, to God only wise, our Savior, be glory and majesty and dominion and power, both now and forever, amen."
- Jude 1:24-25, Geneva Bible

I use the Geneva Bible here instead of my usual ESV for two reasons. One is that it simply has a loftier rhythm to it, to my ear, though there is no material difference between the two translations of these verses. And the other is because of the archaic use of pronouns that shows the use of the plural here. Jude isn't addressing a particular person, but rather the church as a whole.

Of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, the most maligned is probably Limited Atonement, while the most accepted is the Perseverance of the Saints or, as many Baptists phrase it, "once saved, always saved." Given the pride of fallen men, that should hardly be surprising.

One doesn't hear much about the Epistle of Jude. Not only is it painfully brief overall, but it also addresses a string of eschatological concerns, so it just doesn't get talked about as much as, for example, Paul's epistles. But here it explicitly touches on a doctrine that can be misused as a justification for spiritual complacency, but should, rather, serve as a great comfort to the struggling believer.

Notice how it combines major themes from other books of the Bible. Where Jude reminds us that God is able to keep us, we are reminded of the words on Jesus in John 10:28, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand." And "to present us blameless before Him" recalls the words of Paul in Ephesians 1:4, "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him." Thus, contrary to the view of most Baptists, our perseverance is grounded in His predestination of us. Then Jude justifies this perseverance as, not for our sakes, even as profitable as it is, but rather because of the glory it brings to God.

This is where I believe that the Calvinist rises above the Arminian: while the Arminian is concerned to preserve his own pride and supposed native righteousness, the Calvinist is concerned only with the glory of God and establishing His righteousness.

The Doctrine of Reprobation: Laying the Ax to the Pride of Men

"For certain people have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
-Jude 1:4

Of the distinctive doctrines associated with the nickname "Calvinism", two are particularly anathematized by devotees of free-willism: reprobation, the doctrine that God has actively preordained some for unbelief, hardening, and judgment; and particular atonement, the doctrine that Christ died for a certain number, eternally decreed by God, rather than for men universally. I want here to address the first.

Jude here describes certain people who have been designated for condemnation. Those individuals are contrasted with others in verse 3 who hold to the faith of the saints. Paul addresses the same preordination in Romans 9:11-13, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call - she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" God declared in advance that He chose Jacob by name, but rejected Esau by name, out of His sovereign decree of election, explicitly not because of the qualities of the brothers.

Even among some Reformed folks, the doctrine of reprobation is misrepresented as a passive act of God, in which He merely refrains from electing a person to salvation, the view of Lutherans. They are still too attached to human worthiness to accept that God actively devotes some to eternal destruction. But the Scriptures do not bend to their squeamishness. Paul continues in Romans 9:20-24, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have You made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory?" Notice that Paul doesn't explain God's decree of reprobation. Rather, he condemns our presumption in questioning it. After all, as creatures, we rebel when we demand explanations from our Creator. Do we not claim the same right when we tell our children, "because I said so"?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (III:7) summarizes these biblical statements this way: "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." Notice that the confession does not describe reprobation as a passive allowing, but rather as an active ordaining.

Our fallen hearts naturally rise up and demand that God explain His actions. After all, who does He think He is? "I think I am God, and that you aren't," is His answer. And that should bring Paul's question to mind again: Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

Revelation 12:7-9, the Binding of Satan

"Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

Where were they thrown? Jude 1:6, "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day."

There is a common error in our day that teaches that Satan has great power, and that his judgment is something that will be in the future. Indeed, the Bible does teach the threat of Satan. For example, I Peter 5:8 says, "Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." But, do you recall the multitude of demon possessions described in the Gospels, such as the Gerasene demoniac (Mark5:1-20)? Some have cast aspersions on the New Testament because we do not see such possessions in our time. Yet, Jude reveals that we shouldn't expect them, because Satan has been bound. Others see a demon behind every bush.

Satan was definitively judged in the resurrection of Christ. His judgment is progressively applied during the New Testament era, through the Gospel (Rev. 12:10-11). Yet, his death throes are hazardous (v. 12, and I Pet. 5:8). And his judgment will be finalized, after a brief rebellion, in the great judgment (Rev. 20:7-10). Imagine a rabid dog: he is captured, and put in a cage, so that his ability to cause harm has been constrained; however, if you put your hand into the cage, the dog will attack you, so there is still danger from him, but only to the careless; and finally, the dog is destroyed, such that the danger is eliminated permanently and completely. Such is the condition of Satan.