Did & is Judas Iscariot fulfilling his "chief end" (WSC Q1) for which God created him

Did and is Judas Iscariot fulfilling his "chief end" (WSC Q1) for which God created h

  • Yes, Judas did and is fulfilling the chief end for which God created him.

    Votes: 34 65.4%
  • No, Judas did not and is not fulfilling the chief end for which God created him.

    Votes: 15 28.8%
  • I am uncertain.

    Votes: 3 5.8%

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
I am working on a paper that will address the teaching of the Shorter Catechism Q1: "What is the chief end of man?" Answer: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." Do you believe Judas Iscariot is fulfilling the ultimate end for which God created him? If so, how does your belief cohere with the teaching of the Catechism?

Your servant,
 
Last edited:

ww

Puritan Board Senior
Even with the Wicked God is glorified as His Justice is exacted and His Holiness upheld.

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..." (Rom. 9:22-23).
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
They are two different questions!

"chief end" means "goal", or "What is the highest level you as a human can attain". If the question was speaking of ultimate outcome, the word "enjoy" wouldn't be in there. So the question isn't for the Judases of this world.

So no, Judas didn't focus on mankind's chief end, and didn't attain this state.

The other question has naturally to do with the difference between God's revealed will and His secret will.
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
They are two different questions!

"chief end" means "goal", or "What is the highest level you as a human can attain". If the question was speaking of ultimate outcome, the word "enjoy" wouldn't be in there. So the question isn't for the Judases of this world.

So no, Judas didn't focus on mankind's chief end, and didn't attain this state.

The other question has naturally to do with the difference between God's revealed will and His secret will.

Tim,

I'm not sure I agree with part of your answer. I don't believe chief end can be reduced to an either present or future status. It's both. It has both an eschatological and present referent. It refers to motivation, design, and destiny.

I do agree, however, with the point you make that the question has naturally to do with God's secret and revealed will. The question, then, is what did the framers of the Catechism have in view when speaking of man's chief end? God's Secret or Revealed Will.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 10:06:48 EST-----

Even with the Wicked God is glorified as His Justice is exacted and His Holiness upheld.

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..." (Rom. 9:22-23).

Hey, Wayne. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I'm curious how you would harmonize your reply with the answer of the WSC? Judas is certainly not "enjoying" God present. Indeed, he didn't enjoy God while on earth. So how can it be said that he's fulfilling his "chief end" as circumscribed by the Catechism?
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
Do you believe Judas Iscariot is fulfilling the ultimate end for which God created him?
Of course he is. Can God be eternally disappointed, frustrated, or unfulfilled? No. Can God fail? No. Is Judas fulfilling God's purpose? Absolutely.

Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.

Thanks,
 

ww

Puritan Board Senior
They are two different questions!

"chief end" means "goal", or "What is the highest level you as a human can attain". If the question was speaking of ultimate outcome, the word "enjoy" wouldn't be in there. So the question isn't for the Judases of this world.

So no, Judas didn't focus on mankind's chief end, and didn't attain this state.

The other question has naturally to do with the difference between God's revealed will and His secret will.

Tim,

I'm not sure I agree with part of your answer. I don't believe chief end can be reduced to an either present or future status. It's both. It has both an eschatological and present referent. It refers to motivation, design, and destiny.

I do agree, however, with the point you make that the question has naturally to do with God's secret and revealed will. The question, then, is what did the framers of the Catechism have in view when speaking of man's chief end? God's Secret or Revealed Will.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 10:06:48 EST-----

Even with the Wicked God is glorified as His Justice is exacted and His Holiness upheld.

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..." (Rom. 9:22-23).

Hey, Wayne. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I'm curious how you would harmonize your reply with the answer of the WSC? Judas is certainly not "enjoying" God present. Indeed, he didn't enjoy God while on earth. So how can it be said that he's fulfilling his "chief end" as circumscribed by the Catechism?

Good question Bob! I don't believe he enjoyed God in that sense so although God is glorified in his destruction ultimately as referenced this goes into God's secret Will and the WSC is seemingly speaking of His revealed Will. Hope that makes sense as I tackle this aloud here. So Judas did not fulfill his chief end in that sense.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
A good theological question, that requires care to understand.

In the sense that God allows whatever to happen, He ordains whatsoever comes to pass. This includes the actions man does that come from man's evil intentions.

But God uses the secondary causes of man's free will actions to cause His will (God's will) to be done. This is sometimes called the theology of concurrence.

[Remember, man has free will. God has free will. God's will is more free than man's and is in no way limited by man's will.]

Judas Iscariot got what he wanted when he betrayed the Son of Man.

God got what He wanted in that Judas' free will act of betrayal was used to accomplish God's plan for redemption for His people. It led to Christ, having lived a perfect, sinless life, to die as the once-and-forever perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross.

Judas' evil actions could never have even possibly thwarted God's will or plan. Not even possible. What God wants to happen, will come to pass in His universe.

So, was Judas "glorifying God and enjoy Him forever"? Not at all in terms of his (Judas') intentions.

Also since you are dealing with a conjunctive 'and' here, it would be pretty easy to say "no" to your question because Judas was not 'enjoying' God. Judas was never saved, never elect so it was not even possible for Judas to 'enjoy' God.

But God still glorified Himself, despite Judas' intentions.

Bob, if you keep asking questions like this and you will wake up some night, a blinding light will go on in your head, and you will realize...

you really need to be Presbyterian!
 

ww

Puritan Board Senior
Bob, if you keep asking questions like this and you will wake up some night, a blinding light will go on in your head, and you will realize...

you really need to be Presbyterian!

:agree:
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
Of course he is. Can God be eternally disappointed, frustrated, or unfulfilled? No. Can God fail? No. Is Judas fulfilling God's purpose? Absolutely.

Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.

Thanks,
The reason I didn't add an answer is because I think Mr. TimV made a fine allusion to end meaning goal. Whatever the Framers fully meant, they obviously didn't believe that every man (or any man for that matter, apart from grace and imputed righteousness!) as going to enjoy God forever (although they will glorify him). Point being that Judas, while not meeting Man's chief end, certainly is meeting God's chief end for him (Judas).

What the framers meant is essential to this discussion. The question is about "man's chief end" as revealed by God. Judas was and is, after all, a man. So did Judas and is Judas fulfilling his chief end in the sense intended by the Shorter Catechism?

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 10:37:46 EST-----

A good theological question, that requires care to understand.

In the sense that God allows whatever to happen, He ordains whatsoever comes to pass. This includes the actions man does that come from man's evil intentions.

But God uses the secondary causes of man's free will actions to cause His will (God's will) to be done. This is sometimes called the theology of concurrence.

[Remember, man has free will. God has free will. God's will is more free than man's and is in no way limited by man's will.]

Judas Iscariot got what he wanted when he betrayed the Son of Man.

God got what He wanted in that Judas' free will act of betrayal was used to accomplish God's plan for redemption for His people. It led to Christ, having lived a perfect, sinless life, to die as the once-and-forever perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross.

Judas' evil actions could never have even possibly thwarted God's will or plan. Not even possible. What God wants to happen, will come to pass in His universe.

So, was Judas "glorifying God and enjoy Him forever"? Not at all in terms of his (Judas' intentions).

Also since you are dealing with a conjunctive 'and' here, it would be pretty easy to say "no" to your question because Judas was not 'enjoying' God. Judas was never saved, never elect so it was not even possible for Judas to 'enjoy' God.

But God still glorified Himself, despite Judas' intentions.

Bob, if you keep asking questions like this and you will wake up some night, a blinding light will go on in your head, and you will realize...

you really need to be Presbyterian!

Scott,

I affirm ex animo the doctrine of God's decree and absolute sovereignty. One need not be a Presbyterian to affirm that. :) The fact that the framers of the catechism used the conjunctive and spoke only of one end is essential to interpreting their intent. Moreover, the second question removes any ambiguity. Consequently, the correct answer, in keeping with the intent of the WSC Q1 is clearly "no."

But in interacting with many Calvinists, I've found that they haven't always thought through the precise intention of the WSC Q1. Because of their commitment to the decree of God and the fact that God even turns the wrath and sin of men to his praise, they tend to answer the question "yes." I find this curious.

I tried to figure out how to slightly revise the poll question to make its connection with the WSC Q1 more clear but could not find a way. I've sent a letter to the administrators to see if they can help.

Your servant,
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
What the framers meant is essential to this discussion. The question is about "man's chief end" as revealed by God. Judas was and is, after all, a man. So did Judas and is Judas fulfilling his chief end in the sense intended by the Shorter Catechism?
As I noted before, No, he did not fulfill his chief end. Regardless, that does not relate to his definite fulfilling of God's chief end for Judas.

Joshua,

I think we're speaking past each other. When the framer's of the Catechism spoke of "man's chief end," they obviously intended "the chief end (motive, design, destiny) for which God created man as revealed by God's word (see Q2). So, in light of the intent of the WSC, God's chief end for Judas Iscariot, as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, was that Judas glorify and enjoy God forever. Hence, the distinction between "God's chief end" and "man's chief end" is not helpful here.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
comments below

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott,

I affirm ex animo
Yes, and you are understanding the animus imponentis as well.

the doctrine of God's decree and absolute sovereignty. One need not be a Presbyterian to affirm that.
Quite right :)

The fact that the framers of the catechism used the conjunctive and spoke only of one end is essential to interpreting their intent.
Yes, and it is a marvel to this day how careful the Divines were in choosing their words to reflect the doctrine of Scripture.

Moreover, the second question removes any ambiguity.
Yes and a lesson for us all, by analogy from the way we read Scripture- letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

To some extent, it is helpful in understanding the Westminster Confession to do the same, allowing the less clear to be interpreted in light of the clear.

This is even true of our Book of Church Order, which also reflects some doctrine!

Consequently, the correct answer, in keeping with the intent of the WSC Q1 is clearly "no."

You've got it.

But in interacting with many Calvinists, I've found that they haven't always thought through the precise intention of the WSC Q1. Because of their commitment to the decree of God and the fact that God even turns the wrath and sin of men to his praise, they tend to answer the question "yes." I find this curious.

This may be more a matter of growth for the particular 'Calvinist'- this is an enormously profound system and its implications can take a long time to become clear.

But the systematic biblical theology necessary leads to the conclusion you have made here (somewhat like the "T" in tulip, rightly understood will lead to the "L").


I tried to figure out how to slightly revise the poll question to make its connection with the WSC Q1 more clear but could not find a way. I've sent a letter to the administrators to see if they can help.

This level of care also leads me to believe that indeed, Bob, you will one day be Presbyterian!:graduate:
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
We're not speaking past one another, Friend. I think we just disagree on the matter. I don't find it unhelpful to make such distinctions because I believe that Judas, as well as Joseph's brothers, as well as those who crucified Jesus, all served the perfect end and purpose for which God created them. They did not do what God requires (i.e. His revealed will), but they all certainly did what He intended for them to do (i.e. His secret will, His purpose, His good pleasure).

Look, Joshua, had you read my opening statement, you would have seen that my question was in reference to the WSC Q1. Hence, IN CONNECTION WITH THAT THEOLOGICAL FORMULA, I don't find your distinction between "God's chief end" and "man's chief end" helpful. What I find more helpful is the distinction between God's decretive will and his revealed will. It may be said that God has a "chief end" and man has a "chief end" in relation to each of these aspect of God's will. Certainly, God decreed that Adam sin, that Israel apostatize, and that Judas Isariot betray Christ and fulfill the role of the "son of perdition." That chief end of God and of Judas is NOT in view in Q1 of the WSC. What is in view is God's creative intention, as revealed in the creation mandate, the conscience (and 10 words), and the innate eschatological drive for fulness (Eccl. 3:11). Accordingly, the chief end of man spoken of in the WSC Q1 is indeed both "man's chief end" and "God's chief end for man."
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
John Piper "improves" upon this question by saying that "we glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." If we allow for this "improvement", then the answer is a BIG FAT NO, all sinners do not glorify God (at least by enjoying Him forever), however God goes glorify His justice even in the wicked.

A good question is whether God is JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven. And which one does God enjoy more.
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks, Dr. Gonzales. I did read your opening statement. It does not follow, though, because I read it, that I must agree with you that one may not make the distinctions I made. I apologize if I'm frustrating you, as it is not my intention (neither revealed, nor secret ;)).

Joshua,

Thanks for the kind reply. I didn't mean to come across disrespectful. My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.

I believe it's referring to God's (revealed) chief end for men. However, I've found that many Reformed folk want to import God's decretive will into the Q/A. I find that curious in light of the fact that Q2 circumscribes the intention of Q1 to the sphere of God's revealed will, not decretive will.

So far, 9 have voted "yes," 1 "no," and 1 "uncertain." I would have expected that the "yes" voters at least would have asked for clarification before responding to the question. Of course, it's possible that I could have rephrased the question to make a more clear link with the WSC. I tried to do that in my opening post, but some may have answered the question without reading the opening post.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 11:46:02 EST-----

John Piper "improves" upon this question by saying that "we glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." If we allow for this "improvement", then the answer is a BIG FAT NO, all sinners do not glorify God (at least by enjoying Him forever), however God goes glorify His justice even in the wicked.

A good question is whether God is JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven. And which one does God enjoy more.

Hey, Perg, good to hear from you. Whether one thinks Piper's subordination of the second clause to the first clause (i.e., the making of the enjoyment of God a subordinate means by which he glorify God) captures the full intention of the original framers, I do think Piper's rephrasing of the proposition helps place the issue within the proper sphere of God's revealed will. And in that case, you are correct: "the answer is a BIG FAT NO." Indeed, according to Scripture Judas Iscariot did and currently is FALLING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD (Rom. 3:23). WAY SHORT!

So, to respond to your follow up question, "Is God JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven? And which one does God enjoy more?" The answer to these questions vis-a-vis the WSC Q1 and Romans 3:23 is (1) God MORE glorified by those who love him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength than by those who hate him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and (2) God feels the love of complacence (delight, pleasure) for those who believe in his Son, love his Son, and keep his Son's commandments (John 14:21, 23; 16:27). True lovers and worshipers of Jesus Christ are, I would submit, what God enjoys most.

Your servant,
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Romans 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

It appears that God does endure one party and delights in the other, such that it might seem that God is MORE glorified in one party than the other.

However, to say that sinners may rob God of some of His full pleasure is a distateful thing to say.

.....But again, it also seems distateful to say that God gets just as much pleasure as those in hell as He does with those in heaven.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Notwithstanding the fact that Judas was used of God to fulfill His plan precisely as He intended, I answered No because the question in the WSC doesn't necessarily ask about whether or not God works all things together for the good but for the end that man is created.

Man's end (or purpose) is to obey his Creator and was created to live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Judas disobeyed God even as he fulfilled God's larger purpose.
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
Romans 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

It appears that God does endure one party and delights in the other, such that it might seem that God is MORE glorified in one party than the other.

However, to say that sinners may rob God of some of His full pleasure is a distateful thing to say.

.....But again, it also seems distateful to say that God gets just as much pleasure as those in hell as He does with those in heaven.

Perg,

Helpful observations. In my humble opinion, these questions bring us to the realm of paradox and mystery. "The secret things belong to the Lord ...." (Deut. 29:29). When I preach to sinners, I tell them that God will be glorified in the end whether or not they respond positively to the gospel. Nevertheless, I also tell them that according to Scripture God wants them to return (via Christ) to the purpose for which they were created--to glorify and enjoy God forever.
ESV Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.[litotes, i.e., literary device of understatement meaning, "O God, you are pleased with such"]

ESV Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Conversely,
ESV 1 Corinthians 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:10:27 EST-----

Notwithstanding the fact that Judas was used of God to fulfill His plan precisely as He intended, I answered No because the question in the WSC doesn't necessarily ask about whether or not God works all things together for the good but for the end that man is created.

Man's end (or purpose) is to obey his Creator and was created to live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Judas disobeyed God even as he fulfilled God's larger purpose.

Rich, very well articulated. Thanks!
 

jandrusk

Puritan Board Sophomore
I would agree that God was, is, and shall be glorified through the reprobation of Judas. However, I do not think that Judas is "enjoying" being cast under the wrath of God. I think also that the WSC is directed towards the elect and not to the reprobate although certain portions of the WSC could and would apply to them as far as double-predestination goes.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
The son of perdition was lost fulfilling scripture. John 17:12/Psalm 109:8
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
The son of perdition was lost fulfilling scripture. John 17:12/Psalm 109:8

JM,

I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:46:33 EST-----

I voted, then read the thread. Now I wish I could change my vote. :(

Jonathan,

Which way would you vote having read the thread?

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:48:31 EST-----

Yes I think so, he was a tool in glorifying God

Yes, this is undoubtedly true. I was also a tool in glorifying God when I was yet a "child of wrath even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3). But when I was a "child of wrath," was I really fulfilling the "chief end" for which God created me?
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.

I do understand there is a distinction made but I do not understand why.
 

Dr. Bob Gonzales

Puritan Board Junior
I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.
I do understand there is a distinction made but I do not understand why.

I believe the reason Reformed theologians have commonly made a distinction between God's decretive will and his revealed will is because the Scriptures make such a distinction:
The secret things [i.e., that which has, is, or will happen in accordance with God's decree] belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed [i.e., that which God reveals 'should be' vis-a-vis his moral creation, the rule to which He wants all men to conform] belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut 29:29, ESV).
Hope this helps.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Hope this helps.

Sure, but I guess I've always understood John 17:12, Christ keeping the saints and Judas being lost, as having fulfilled a purpose. Judas being created with a purpose that was realized.

But I've been wrong before... :book2:

I didn't recall the "and enjoy him forever" part until I read the rest of the thread.

I didn't recall until I read the above. :eek:
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I think Fisher's catechism is helpful: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I will post just a highlight:

Q. 44. Why is the glorifying God made the leading part of man's chief end, and set before the enjoyment of him?

A. Because, as God's design in glorifying himself was the reason and foundation of his design in making man happy in the enjoyment of him, Rom. 11:26; so he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23.

Q. 45. Is our happiness, in the enjoyment of God, to be our chief end?

A. No; but the glory of God itself, Isa. 42:8; in our aiming at which chiefly, we cannot miss the enjoyment of him, Psalm 91:14, 15.

Q. 46. Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end?

A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isa. 2:11. Our subjective delighting in the glory of God belongs to the enjoyment of him, whose glory is above the heavens, and infinitely above our delight therein, Psalm 113:4.

Q. 47. Whom does God dignify with the enjoyment of himself, in time and for ever?

A. Those whom he helps actively to glorify and honour him; for he has said, "Them that honour me, I will honour," 1 Sam. 2:30.

Q. 48. Does any thing so much secure our happy enjoyment of God, as the concern that the glory of God has in it?

A. No; for as God cannot but reach the great end of his own glory, so, when he has promised us eternal life, in Christ, before the world began, Tit. 1:2, we cannot come short of it; because it stands upon the honour of his faithfulness to make it good, Heb. 10:23 -- "He is faithful that promised."
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.

Thanks,

I am not sure I agree that the Puritans meant that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end. As Fisher states above, "he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23"

In other words,, the essential part of our chief end is the glorification of God. The enjoyment is an inevitable byproduct.

In the case of Judas, he was without Christ and therefore could neither glorify or enjoy God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top