Is That You Antichrist?

 

One of the most frustrating things that evangelicals, especially those influenced by modern American and end times evangelicalism (which is many modern Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, independent churches, etc, etc) do is whenever there is a new technology revealed, they instantly start arguing that this is the beast’s tool to build the beasts system and the beast will use this technology to control us all.

I have been around long enough to see this thinking applied to everything from things like barcodes, to credit-cards, to mobile phones, to bitcoin and more. The big one that this thinking is now being applied to is AI.

But now that it is becoming increasingly clear that AI is going to turn out to fall far short of the Big Tech Bro predictions, as it always was, again the evangelical church is going to have egg on its face. The tech bros were always simply trying to upsell their product, which is why they sold it to people in the apocalyptic world changing terms they did. Many of the predictions, made by evangelicals, about AI being the final key to the antichrist system will again make the evangelical church look ridiculous. We have to be better guys, much better.

AI is becoming slightly more useful with every update. But every big tech company is also haemorrhaging money quickly, because achieving that rise of utility is being outweighed by the cost of the infrastructure needed to get those gains, and not enough revenue to offset those costs. In other words, the AI tech companies are increasing their debt, to outcompete each other, but they are not able to bring in enough money to cover those debts. On top of this the tech base they are relying on to produce the computing power is quickly perishing. Graphics cards in data centres don't last as long as people think, only a few years. You might still be able to use your 1080 TI to run Steam games on medium settings in a rig you bought 10 years ago, but AI data centres run 24/7 at a high output, that chews through the technology they rely on. Hence, the costs of improving AI are increasing and the returns are not increasing fast enough. AI investment is heading for a big downturn.

This does not mean AI won’t have its uses. Look at how Castalia House is using it to produce new translations of books on a daily basis. There are other ways it can be used as a research assistant, to speed up code writing, to increase the writing output for talented writers, and in many other ways. But it also gets things wrong often, and needs a lot of oversight, correction and direction.  

In other words, AI will just turn out to be a very useful personal assistance tool, that people will only trust with certain tasks, because we have all seen how unreliable it can be in a host of circumstances. Even the ways it is being used in law enforcement are coming under scrutiny and causing legal cases because AI is shown often to be unreliable, resulting in many fines being overturned in reviews.

Already we see a lot of people mock AI content as inferior. Who here even bothers to read a post on social media, or in a blog, once you work out that the person wrote it with AI? You skip it, don’t you. I do. Most people who use AI also won't pay for it, and so the companies are building liabilities they cannot cover, on a technology that many people are having bad experiences with. It will improve over time, but it is not going to be the omniscient danger many have predicted it to be.  

Don't get me wrong, I agree with people who are concerned with how modern governments are using technology to strip away our rights, freedoms and privacy. Be ever vigilant and vocal about that.

But the key to the antichrist system is not a technology, it is a spirit which, 1) seeks to take the place of the Lord Jesus, 2) seeks to deny the true Lord Jesus, 3) convinces people to worship it and offer their lives to it. Tech is not required for that. Versions of this antichrist spirit and system existed in the 1st century, and have in every century since.

Christians have to stop automatically assuming every new technology is the beast’s technology. Technology is basically morally neutral. It is the heart of man that can direct it towards evil or towards good. You can use AI to create an incredible worship song for the Lord or you can use it for nefarious purposes. It is the heart of mankind that is the real issue, along with the spiritual realm of darkness.

There are antichrists everywhere. By that I mean that there are people everywhere who deny Christ and proclaim false religions in the place of his true religion. Be more on guard for that. In fact, that is our bigger concern, and that kind of evil has always been pervasive in our world.

Interestingly, the tech moguls kind of are treated by many people like modern deities, or at least demi-gods, who will lead us into the promise land of the future tech utopia. Many of them have obviously believed their own hype, and so the massive fall of much of their industry is exactly what we should expect. And that tech depression is coming. In fact, it is likely already here. Pride comes before a massive fall. They thought the key to creating intelligence was ram and ever increasing CPU power. But that is just the key to burning through electricity fast and churning out slop videos and photos. Intelligence is created by a Higher Intelligence, and he looks at the pride of man and laughs (cf. Psalm 2).

This does not mean that AI won't be of use. It will be very useful for some applications. It does not mean it won't take away some jobs, it will, as all disruptive technologies do. But like all other tech it will not achieve all of what was promised, it will fall short of its makers claims, and it will turn out to be a pretty mundane thing in a few years, that many people have incorporated into their everyday life.

Beware the constant “is this the antichrist tech” thinking. Be more concerned about how sinful politicians and sinful tech barons can use any technology to push autocratic ends. That is something to be vigilant of. But then that issue has existed long before silicone was transformed in such a way that helped the rocks cry out.

The Only Equal Representation We Need

 

 

The only place where we actually need equal representation by men and women is in the home: 1 husband and 1 wife, 1 father and 1 mother.

There is nowhere else it is necessary.

In fact, the pursuit of trying to achieve this equal representation everywhere else leads to the decline of this representation in the home. It has this precise and direct impact. It does not just correlate it is the primary cause of this issue. When the home is gutted of this foundation, society is gutted, and everyone else suffers as a result.

One of the saddest realities of our modern age is that husbands and wives have become ships that pass in the night. They stop to refuel and restore at the same port of call, but in many homes there is no central homemaker who makes the home a desirable place to be, there are only passing ships that occasionally float the same way.

We tend to think of the wife staying at home and the man at work as a thing of history past, but the reality is much different. The truth is that in many ages of history both husband and wife were required to work. The husband may have been a farm labourer for the local lord or master, and the wife was a house maiden for the master’s wife. In fact, this was essentially the plight of many people in the same era that Paul wrote in Titus that older women should maintain the home.

The truth is that women being able to keep the home was always the result of a society becoming successful. As Helen Kendrick Johnson notes in her book, Woman and the Republic,

“If women were of political importance in earlier times, and if a republic is more favorable to the exercise by them of the elective franchise, we should expect to find women reaching their highest power under the Areopagus. Exactly the contrary appears to be true. Native and honorable Greek women retired to domestic life as the liberty of their people grew. Grote, in his "History of Greece," referring to the legendary period, says: "We find the wife occupying a station of great dignity and influence, though it was the practice of the husband to purchase her by valuable presents to her parents. She even seems to live less secluded, and to enjoy a wider sphere of action, than was allotted to her in historic Greece."[1]

As the Greek society became more successful more women were at liberty to keep the home. In fact, Johnson notes that in earlier, cruder periods, women had far more political and social involvement than people might expect. Why? Because life was harder and more brutal and more people were needed to take part physically. Also men would die quicker and more often.

In other words, have you noticed that everyone is feeling poorer precisely at the same time that more people, men and women, are working and household incomes are higher than in previous periods? This is not a coincidence. When prosperity is receding liberty recedes with it. Feminism has not progressed society, it has caused a regress.

The home needs one man and woman to fulfil their roles.

Much of our social ills could be overcome by restoring that foundation in the home.

List of References

---

[1] Johnson, Helen Kendrick. Woman and the Republic — a Survey of the Woman-Suffrage Movement in the United States and a Discussion of the Claims and Arguments of Its Foremost Advocates (p. 9). Kindle Edition.

The Original Patriarch

"Our father who art in heaven..."

The Heavenly Father who started it all.

Who gave his son that we may all be saved.

The Eternal Patriarch

Long live the patriarchy, as it reflects the divine image. It originates with our God, the great Father of all.

Live as he would have you live, fathers.

Happy Father's Day.

One Good Man

 

I know many people want to blame Lindsay Clancy nearly getting off on the women on the jury. But historically men were less likely to find women guilty as well.

Women have always been treated with less criminal responsibility than men, even in cases involving killing their own children. Martin Van Creveld’s notes how this favouritism before the law goes back to ancient times,

“Some six centuries later, Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, rebelled against Rome. Defeated and taken prisoner, she begged Emperor Aurelian for her life as “a mere woman.” Instead of being executed in one of the many unpleasant ways reserved for enemies of Rome, she was spared. Zenobia’s male adviser, the philosopher Cassius Longinus, took the blame and suffered the consequences. She herself ended as a grande dame in a villa near Rome. This good fortune was almost certainly connected to the fact that she was said to possess a beautiful voice and “incredible sex appeal.”[ 584] That is not necessarily to say that the emperor, a tough soldier and capable statesman, fell for her charms. Like many other rulers before and since, he must have realized that executing a woman, especially a good-looking one, makes for bad publicity. Conversely, one reason why early Christian propaganda abounds with stories, real or invented, of women being tortured and put to death[ 585] is to put the pagans in the worst possible light. From the point of view of the propagandist, whether or not the stories were true was immaterial.

The tradition of treating women better than men was continued under Salic law. Originally issued by Frankish King Clovis between 507 and 511, it was later developed byhis successors. For example, for merely touching “the hand or the finger of a freewoman or any other woman” a man could be fined 15 solidi. The more intimate the touch, the higher the penalty.[ 586] Cutting off the hair of a boy “without the consent of his relatives” cost he who was found guilty of it 1,800 solidi. Doing the same to a girl cost 4,000. Though minors of both sexes were under the control of their adult relatives, obviously a woman’s person was considered more precious. The fine for blocking the road of a free woman or striking her was also three times the sum due for the same offense committed against a man. The penalty for killing a freeman was 600 solidi; for killing a freewoman, 1,800. Another clause says that the penalty for killing a freewoman was the same as the one for killing a male count. Other traditional societies maintained similar distinctions. For example, in Yemen the blood money demanded for the death of a woman was 11 times that demanded for a man. In the eyes of one modern female writer, this rule was part of a “chauvinistic code of chivalry.”[ 587]

To oblige women, many medieval rulers were even prepared to forego the usual penalty reserved for rebels, namely the confiscation of property.[ 588] In 1333-1347 Joan, countess of March, was able to keep her Irish estates even though her husband, Robert Mortimer, had been executed for not only committing treason against King Edward III, but also for being the queen’s lover. In 1399-1402, Elizabeth Fitzalan, widow of the duke of Norfolk, persuaded King Henry IV to allow her to keep her property. Three years later, Constance Holland, the widow of another duke of Norfolk who had ended his life on the scaffold  it was a time of civil war, unhealthy for dukes  persuaded the same Henry, who was her uncle, to allow her to retainher dower. Each of these cases marked a conflict between the desire to uphold the law and enrich the treasury and the political imperative to avoid treating women too harshly. In each of these cases, it was politics that won out.  

Conversely, when a woman bit into the proverbial unripe fruit, it was the teeth of her husband or other male relatives that broke. A good example of the way things worked, this time at the bottom of the social ladder, is provided by the English village of Alweras in Staffordshire.[ 589] In Alweras, and presumably in many other villages as well, most of those active in illegal brewing were women. But in Alweras, and presumably in other villages as well, most of those fined for illegally selling ale were men. The explanation is simple: Those who committed the offense were actually female. Most females, however, were either the daughters of males or married to them, and consequently it was they who were made to bear the consequences.

In 1634 another English court spelled out the reasoning behind this arrangement. The case in question was that of one Thomas Hellyard. He and his wife Elizabeth were brought before the dreaded Star Chamber to answer for having sold saltpeter — an ingredient of gunpowder — without a license. The charges were serious indeed, comparable in today’s terms to a crime like assisting terrorists. Convicted, Hellyard was sentenced to pay the enormous sum of 1,000 pounds sterling, and was subjected to pillory, whipping and imprisonment. Not so his wife and partner, who had sold over 1,000 pounds of saltpeter. Though “the courte was fully satisfyed with sufficient matter whereupon to ground a sentence against the defendant... shee being a wyfe and subject to obey her husband theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentence her…

… In both Britain and the United States, people were prepared to see women as a priori less culpable. In both countries, the prevailing view was that “women are more often the accomplices of crime, its aiders and abettors.”[ 630] Whereas men were held “strictly accountable,” women were assumed to be endowed with an “almost paralytic passivity”[ 631] and were judged accordingly. To the extent that they participated in crime at all, it was believed at the time, was not on their own initiative, but because of the corrupting influence of vicious men. Whether by making false promises of marriage or by other means, those men had somehow succeeded in robbing women of their independent will. However flawed the logic, the privileges to which it led were very real. In the words of one British journalist, “very properly the law makes merciful allowance in dealing with the female offender when it can be apparent that she has been impelled to commit breaches of the law under masculine influence.” [1]

And regarding killing children in particular he notes,

“Like Medea, some women were literally able to get away with murder. In late 19th-century Britain, less than one-quarter of those tried for the crime were women. On the other hand, then as now women made up almost all of those tried for infanticide. British juries regarded these women as victims of “puerperal mania.” The latter was a fashionable disease that was also believed to cause “extraordinary obscenity in thought and language.” Very often, juries would simply refuse to convict. Parliament responded by changing the law so as to separate infanticide from murder and place it in a category of its own. Yet even so prosecutors still found it all but impossible to obtain convictions. Normally they could do so, if at all, only if they agreed that light sentences should be imposed. Even so, rarely did infanticidal women serve out their complete term. This was because, among all those declared to be criminally insane, it was they who stood the greatest chance of being granted an early release.”[2]

How much does what van Creveld say here match with the Lindsay Clancy trial? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is historically why women were also not allowed certain roles of authority in society. Authority must be matched with accountability. Those who cannot be held as accountable, cannot by any reasonable society be given larger responsibilities over others. Our society is slowly, and painfully, learning old lessons again.

[3]

This case, with Clancy, has done more to tarnish the demonic ideologies of egalitarianism and feminism than anything in modern history. Which is important.

But also it needs to be noted that one man on the jury did something most men and women have struggled to do in history: hold a woman accountable. Most people struggle to do this.

It is a fascinating social phenomenon when you think about it. A woman can do the worst possible crime, turn on the waterworks, and manipulate most people. I have observed this sort of action, in lesser circumstances of course, so many times in my life, and it is recorded by historians as well, as I have demonstrated in this piece. This man showed an ability many people, men and women, do not have: under powerful social pressure he refused to let a woman not be held accountable. Men like that are rare.

Praise God one was on the jury. Good job brother, good job.

List of References

---

[1] van Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 140-142, 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

[2] van Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

[3] From Not The Bee.

Bullit – I finally watched it.

 

I finally watched Bullit for the first time last night. I have owned the movie for a while now, but only just got around to watching it.

Most of the movie is dead boring, to be honest. With moments of real intensity breaking up the monotonous story.

I know McQueen meant to play the strong quiet type, that was his thing, but in this movie he was too quiet, way too quiet. Surely about half the movie is just him staring at the screen brooding. He was much better in The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven. And I don't just say this because the movie is old, some of my favourite movies come from that era. The aforementioned movies, Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, Commancheros, Chisum, and many, many movies as well. No, I just think he did not have a good enough cast to play of, and the movie was longer than the story required, really.

The car chase was still worth watching. It deserves to have its iconic status. To me the most remarkable thing about the car chase is not just how well they chose the cars, but it is also the fact that so few modern cars could even do that car chase today. The hills of San Francisco would kill most performance cars made since about 1990, except for a few exceptions. You need a powerful car with live axles, very strong suspension preferably lead sprung, and older cars were massively over built, which is why you pay a premium for them today. They will outlast many of their modern rivals for that very reason, their frames were just so sturdy. You have to keep on top of the rust in the body and you need to be able to continue sourcing led for their engines, of course, but with the right maintenance, they are hard to break.

The movie was worth watching. But, personally, I think the creators of many cop movies looked at this movie and thought, "We can do way better." And they would be right. I think Clint Eastwoods movies are examples of that.

I would like to see an Aussie remake of the movie, set in the 70's. I would swap the Dodge and Mustang with a 1971 XYGTHO and 74 Monaro GTS. That could work. In fact, I think that movie would do really well. Australia has a legacy of great fast car movies, it is time to bring it back.

History Does Not Repeat, Cause and Effect Does

 

You've all heard the saying, History repeats. You also likely heard the saying, History does not repeat but it does rhymes. Both these statements are pointing to a true phenomenon, but they both fall short of describing what is really happening.  

The real lesson of history is actually an observation of science and wisdom. It is this: cause and effect. The same things happen because certain causes have predictable effects. It really is that simple.

The Romans opened their borders to mass immigration, therefore they lost their kingdom. Cause and effect.

The Carthaginians sacrificed their children in the fires, they could not, therefore, raise the manpower to continue to fight the Romans. Rome won. Cause and effect.

Nations which seek to rule over peoples, we call it empire or colonialism, always attract the very foreigners they seek to rule to the centre of their power structures, and they lose their own authority in their own nations. Cause and effect.

Nations that offer overwhelmingly generous welfare to their native citizens, as Rome did, end up hollowing out their own strength and being ruled by others who do not rely on that welfare. Cause and effect.

If you want to understand where the world is going, you have to study history, because history documents for us what has happened and what was the result of those things happening. And we see a lot of consistent patterns as we study history. And you have to have a basic understanding of the principles of the scientific method, which help us to quantify the observations of cause and effect.

Interestingly, the vast majority of the Bible is not prophecy, it is actually history. In fact, even the vast majority of prophetic utterances are the prophets themselves reflecting on what will happen to their people if they reject their historical law and origins, and chase new-fangled philosophies that undermine established principles of wisdom. Cause and effect.

It has been obvious to see how our nation has been heading towards disaster for some time now. I find it encouraging how many more people are starting to see this, as well.

Only an arrogant people believe they can ignore cause and effect. The laws of nature apply to us all, no matter how special we think we are. The laws of history are simply man's attempt to wrestle with how these laws bear out in the story of our civilisations. There is nothing exceptional about any nation on earth, there is just wisdom applied and wisdom ignored. Each has their effect.

 

Jude – Contend for the Faith – Online Bible Study

 

You can watch the online version of this study on my channel, Based Christian History at 8pm AEST

In this study you will find the passage, some analysis of the passage, and 10 study questions with cross references for a Bible study setting.

Jude

New King James Version

Greeting to the Called

¹ Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,

To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

² Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.

Contend for the Faith

³ Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ⁴ For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Old and New Apostates

⁵ But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ⁶ And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; ⁷ as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

⁸ Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. ⁹ Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” ¹⁰ But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. ¹¹ Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Apostates Depraved and Doomed

¹² These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; ¹³ raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

¹⁴ Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, ¹⁵ to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Apostates Predicted

¹⁶ These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. ¹⁷ But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: ¹⁸ how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. ¹⁹ These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Maintain Your Life with God

²⁰ But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, ²¹ keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

²² And on some have compassion, making a distinction; ²³ but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Glory to God

²⁴ Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
²⁵ To God our Savior,Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.

Introduction and Evaluation of Jude

If we were to summarize Jude we could say his big idea would be:

Because false teachers have infiltrated the church and perverted God’s grace, Christians must contend for the apostolic faith, persevere in holiness, and lovingly rescue those being led astray, trusting the Lord God who is able to keep them from falling.

That captures the movement of the whole letter particularly well. It is a call to action to defend the truth for the sake of God’s people.

Jude himself identifies his purpose in 1:3. He notes that he had intended to write about their “common salvation,” but found it necessary to exhort them “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” He has to do this because certain people have secretly entered the church and were turning God's grace into sensuality and denying Christ's lordship.

Aim and structure

Jude has an unusually clear overall structure:

1. Greeting and identity — vv. 1–2
2. The reason for the letter: contend for the faith — vv. 3–4
3. The warning: examples and characteristics of apostasy — vv. 5–16
4. The response: remember, build, pray, keep, rescue — vv. 17–23
5. The confidence: God is able to keep his people — vv. 24–25

The transition at verse 17 is particularly important. Jude moves from describing the false teachers to addressing his readers directly: “But you, beloved…” That contrast occurs again in verses 20 and 21. The letter therefore isn't merely a denunciation of heresy; it is pastoral instruction about how faithful Christians are to respond when error threatens the church.

As I already noted; Jude wants believers to contend for the faith for the sake of the body of Christ.

Interpretation

Jude's argument is theological as well as moral. The false teachers do not merely have some incorrect opinions. Their distorted understanding of grace produces distorted behaviour. They turn grace into an excuse for sensuality and simultaneously deny Christ's authority.

That is why Jude repeatedly connects belief and behaviour. Cain, Balaam and Korah in verse 11 are not random examples: each represents rebellion against God's revealed order. The images Jude uses in verses 12–13, imagery like waterless clouds, fruitless trees, raging waves and wandering stars, communicate spiritual barrenness and instability.

The second half of this small letter gives the positive alternative. Believers are to build themselves up in the faith, pray in the Holy Spirit, keep themselves in God's love and look forward to Christ's mercy. They are also to show differentiated pastoral care toward those affected by error.

There is a beautiful tension between human perseverance and divine preservation. Verse 21 says, “keep yourselves,” while verse 24 declares that God is able to “keep you from stumbling.” God's preserving work does not make Christian perseverance unnecessary; rather, persevering in the faith is one of the ways God's preserving grace is evidenced. The believer is responsible to keep their faith in God, while relying on God to sustain them.  Jude would laugh at those who complain too much about tone. His letter is rhetorically forceful. His language becomes increasingly vivid as he describes the false teachers. This is appropriate because the tone of the letter is one of urgent pastoral warning, not detached academic analysis. Jude cares enough about people’s souls to use strong language to warn them about dangerous teachers.

Jude Bible study Questions

Bible Study: Jude — Contending for the Faith

1. Who are the people Jude is writing to, and what does he say God has already done for them? Vv. 1-2

Cross-reference: 1 Peter 1:3–5

2. Why did Jude feel compelled to change what he originally intended to write about? Vv. 3–4.

Cross-reference: Galatians 1:6–9

3. What exactly was wrong with the false teachers? Vv. 4, 8–13 and 16.

Cross-reference: Titus 1:16

4. Why does Jude spend so much time reminding his readers about examples from the past? Vv. 5–11.

Cross-reference: 1 Corinthians 10:1–12

5. What do Jude's vivid descriptions in verses 12–16 tell us about the character and destiny of false teachers? Vv. 12–16.

Cross-reference: Matthew 7:15–20

6. What is the positive alternative to following false teachers? Vv. 17–21.

Cross-reference: Acts 20:28–32

7. What does it mean to “keep yourselves in the love of God”? Vv. Jude 20–21.

Cross-reference: John 15:9–10

8. How should Christians respond to people who are doubting or being drawn toward error? Vv. 22–23.

Cross-reference: Galatians 6:1–2

9. What does Jude mean by saying that God is able to “keep you from stumbling”? V. 24.

Cross-reference: Philippians 1:3–6

10. How should Jude change the way we live as Christians and as a church? Vv. 24–25.

Cross-reference: Romans 16:25–27