Growth and Entropy:
Ripples, as they expand-- moving further from inception --weaken and fall apart. Unless something outside the force that set them in motion intervenes, the waters will settle and become still.
--ELAshley,
"A Book of Sevens"
Renewal | Revival:
"...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
--Genesis 1:2
Earnestly Contending for the Faith--
Six Areas of Truth Under Attack Today:
1) The Virgin Birth-- Without it there is no salvation
2) The Full Diety of Christ-- Without it there is no salvation
3) The Blood Atonement-- Without it there is no salvation
4) The Bodily Resurrection-- Without it there is no salvation
5) The Visible Return of Christ Jesus-- Without it there is no salvation
6) The Inerrancy of the Word of God-- Without it there is no salvation
Five Pictures By Which the Apostate is Recognized:
1) "These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear..." --Jude 12a
2) "...clouds they are without water, carried about of winds..." --Jude 12b
3) "...trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;" --Jude 12c
4) "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame..." --Jude 13a
5) "...wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. " --Jude 13b
----
UPDATED I: Five Pictures By Which the Apostate is Recognized
1) "...spots in your feasts of charity"
The word translated "spots" in the Greek is Spilas, which is more accurately translated as "reefs". A reef is of course a hidden danger beneath the surface that lies in wait for the careless ship to run a' ground-- pierce the hull, perhaps even sink the ship altogether. The Apostate is just such a reef to the unwary congregation.
So the first characteristic of an Apostate is that of a 'Hidden Danger' whose only purpose is to shipwreck the Church of God... to draw them down beneath the waves of sin and apostasy.
2) "...clouds they are without water, carried about of winds"
Here is a picture of promise, or rather the lack thereof. Not every cloud in the sky carries with it the promise of rain; the promise of watered fields, fat harvests, bountiful yields. Instead they are carried about "of winds". In Ephesians 4:14, the Church at Ephesus is told they have been given everything and everyone they need to perfect their faith; to cease being children, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby [the apostate]lie in wait to deceive..." [Emphasis mine]
So the second characteristic of an Apostate is the picture of an 'Empty Vessel, Devoid of Promise'
3) "...without fruit, twice dead..."
Here the Apostate is pictured as the antithesis of Psalm 1:3-4; there is no life from which their roots can nurture the growth of fruit. Once the flower is pollenated, the fruit begins to swell, then swiftly shrivels and dies-- the tree is worthless, and uprofitable; taking up space within the orchard another tree might use to better results. Over all, such trees diminish the entire orchard's yield; it does not produce as much as it could. Furthermore, whatever disease infects the 'twice dead' tree will eventually spread to the rest of the orchard. Such trees should be, as Jude 12 suggests, "plucked up by the roots". Jesus said such trees will be cast onto the fire.
The third characteristic of an Apostate, then, is 'Fruitlessness' and it carries with it the promise of weakening the congregation's own fruitfulness, and testimony.
4) "...raging waves of the sea..."
The Greek here is 'kuma agrios thalassa' which translates as 'billows field of-sea' where the word 'field' is idiomatic of 'wild'. What is a 'wild, billowing' sea if not raging? So too is the Apostate; wild and raging in his conversation with the world, AND the congregation. Any ship sailing on such waters risks sinking; losing every man aboard. The Apostate is just such a sea, well-meaning or otherwise, upon whom the congregation risks the life of it's membership in terms of fruitfulness and the devastating reefs that will wreck a congregation's testimony and effectiveness in reaching the lost for Christ.
The fourth characteristic of an Apostate is his 'Unruliness.' Being unable to get victory over his own passions he will drag the church down with him.
5. "...wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever..."
Imagine a meteor hurtling toward Earth's atmosphere. If the angle is just right, this piece of cosmic flotsam / jetsom will skip off the bubble that surrounds our planet and speed away into the blackness of space. So too is the Apostate. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 pictures the doom of the Apostate quite well...
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth... so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." These same men described in the previous verse 6, as the "sort... which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts..." But verse 9 speaks of the defenses the Lord has laid upon the Truth of God, declaring, "they shall proceed no further..." And so they skip off the atmosphere and find themselves flung into outer darkness.
There is no hint of restoration in Jude 12-13. None whatsoever. The final characteristic of the Apostate is his 'Doom'
This is not to say God cannot pull such a one toward the Light and Truth of God, only that God Himself has declared the doom of such who are Apostates. God can do anything, but the inference here is that the Apostate cannot find salvation because of his greater trust for his own intellect, rather than the simple truths of God.... too simple for many intellectuals to grasp.
"Professing themselves to wise, they became fools."
Romans 1:22
32 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is to say, nowhere in the Bible does it say one must believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved, or that one must believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (whatever that means) to be saved.
Or is that what you're even saying? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It may certainly be wise for us to be on the look out for apostasy, among those who claim to be part of the church as well as within our own lives. Jude's pictures are fine, as far as they go, but for my money, here is the best biblical test for who is and isn't following God (I acknowledge there are many such tests one could glean from the Bible):
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love...
...Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us of his Spirit.
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
1 John 4
Similarly, James tells us the sign of "true religion":
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
If we're going to fail, let us always fail on the side of love, seems to me.
As to your test, it's all well and good, but it doesn't address Apostasy at all. A better test would be 1 John 4:1-3. The first three books of Hebrews, as well, point to the REAL faith in Christ Jesus alone.
The fact remains, If Jesus was not WHO He claimed to be, then no one is saved. And the prophesies that pointed to His birth, His ministry, His Blood shed for the sins of the world... Without these fulfilled to the letter, there is no salvation.
This world, and this nation, is steeped in apostasy...
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." --Matthew 7:14
"A better test would be 1 John 4:1-3"
is okay, as far as it goes - with those verses saying "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."
But what does it MEAN to believe that Jesus is the Christ in flesh from God? I mean, the Bible tells us that even the demons believe that much.
What it MEANS is what John goes on to tell us it means:
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
It means little and costs less to say that "I believe Jesus is God in the flesh." But it means (and costs) significantly more to truly SHOW that we love our brothers and sisters. And THAT is the more easily discerned test for followers, seems to me.
For wide is the road of those who say that they "believe" in Jesus, but narrow is the path of those who show it in love.
Dan's use of 1 John 4's 'Beloved, let us love one another' should be taken in context. The Bible does say that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. But it also says to do good ESPECIALLY to those 'of the household of faith', namely, to fellow believers first. Jesus told His disciples to love one another because in this manner the unsaved world would know them as His disciples. 'Love one another'then, of a necessity, means 'fellow believers.'
The book of Jude is a letter of urgent warning to the Church... to earnestly contend for the faith, because there are certain [evil] men crept into the church, posing as Chistians, and perverting the faith once delivered unto the saints. While we are commanded to love one another, and our neighbor, we are also commanded to 'believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God...' In other words, as matthew 10:16 says... "be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
The congregation of faith to which Dan belongs is, in Dan's own words, "Progressive"; accepting of many things on which more conservative churches refuse to compromise. It is a good thing to love our neighbor, I do not argue against this. Yet I do argue that to compromise our faith for the sake of loving our neighbor is a corruption of the truth of God, and part and parcel with the Six Areas of Truth under attack today.
I *think* that EL is saying that those six planks are eseential to the validity of the whole works. That without any one of them the whole Chritianity-faith-God complex collapses. Those are most of the fundamentals of fundamentalist Chistianity. I can see where, from EL's perspective, they seem to be under attack.
He is not saying explicitly, although he may very well believe, that one must *believe* all of those six planks.
If he *is* saying that -- that not only are they bedrock truths, as he sees them, but that every Christian must believe every one of them to be a Christian -- then I believe he's wrong.
(Resume radio silence)
Also, I think "apostasy" is being misused here. In this context, it means "abandonment of one's religious faith." While I have abandoned the believe that adherence to all six of those planks are necessary for a salvific relationship with God, that does not mean that I, personally, have abandoned belief in all six of those planks ("abandoned" is overstating it, except for No. 6), and I have not, at all, abandoned my own faith in God to save me through Christ.
And Jude creeps me out. Sounds like Black Sabbath lyrics or something, if you'll pardon the comparison.
(Resuming radio silence.)
And, Dan...I suppose youo believe you "love one another" better than anyone who could ever agree with EL Ashley's post, right?
Your perception of what "loving one another" is perfect and completely flawless, right?
I remember something in the Word of God that goes something like..." He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes".
As a matter of fact...it's EXACTLY what the Bible says!
But your hope is in a society that lets everyone fall through the cracks while you pretend to render aid then insist you are doing making progress it is obvious you are not...right?
The rationale is logical in one respect...it convinces those of weak minds that perpetuating social woes will preserve the faux aid-rendering they do which will in turn ensure they remain relevant.
Smoke dreams
Your perception of what "loving one another" is perfect and completely flawless, right? >
Daddio, that is a good description of the impression that Dan gives me. It seems to me that he has more trouble loving a brother or sister in Christ than he has with the world. If we can't love those within the family, how genuine can the love for others be?
Just as well.
And who did Jesus save his strongest criticisms for? The religious?
I'm not critical of all Christians, but I will remind those who've forgotten the primacy of love and justice in the Christian life that these are what defines us, what separates us.
They'll know we are Christians by our love, right?
If I have a loved one who is being rude and mean-spirited - concentrating on minor points and forgetting the weightier matters of life and faith, then I will let them know, as my loved ones do for me.
Peace.
Presumptuous, yes? Elitist, of course!
"Peace"? Right! Division is more like it considering your record, Danielsan.
I do, however, think Dan may be somewhat incorrect in his interpretation of Love.
Daddio says, "The congregation of faith to which Dan belongs is, in Dan's own words, "Progressive"; accepting of many things on which more conservative churches refuse to compromise."
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Dan's congregation seems(and ER's definitly) to believe that love encompasses a myriad of definitions, including homosexual love, which of course, is not real love at all, but only lust.
It has always been my contention that homosexuals confuse love with sex. That is a concept that Hollywood, and Liberals in general propogate. It is no wonder that, in our hedonistic society, that has been partially created by these un-biblical ideas, that there is so much tolerance for apostate ideas, and so little tolerance for Christian concepts.
The love that the Bible refers to is "agape" love, not "eros" love as ER appears to believe.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
I believe there is only one requirement for salvation. The dying thief on the cross knew nothing (we are to surmise) of a virgin birth, diety of Christ, etc. nevertheless, Jesus told him, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise."
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. and your house."
Belief, in this context, is not simply a "head knowledge" of Christ, as Dr. Hank Hanigraff (sp?) has repeatedly pointed out, but a "heart knowledge". As another commentator pointed out, even the demons believe in Christ, and at his name, "tremble". Belief of Christ in one's own heart is the qualifier.
Therein lies salvation.
No one but God can determine what is in every man's heart, therefore it is not up to us to judge (in both the colloquial sense, and the Biblical sense). We can, however, observe what fruits emerge from a man's heart, and by that, we can make a fairly accurate judgement of whether a man is following the Lord of the Bible or some apostate doctrine.
Here is a question for you:
I once had an apple tree that bore no apples. If an apple tree bears no apples, is it still an apple tree? And if so, is it still worth keeping?
ELAshley.
Not Daddio.
A simple enough error, no harm done.
---
Your "Penitant Thief" qualification for salvation is the simplest expression of truth in this regard.
Thank you for that. I'm adding another update to explain my reasoning behind the Six Areas of Truth, and why there can be no salvation without them.
Oh, and for being so proud of your own igfnorance and so dismissive of education.
Oh, and for believing that we should just shoot down illegals like dogs when they come across the border.
Oh, and for not condemning evil in your midst, while actually, in fact, condemning Grace when others bring it close to you.
I'm trying to be kinder. What is that you're trying to do, you know, Jesus-wise?
??
www.fixedearth.com
REAL biblical inerrantists. Makes y'all look like amateurs. :-)
What do you think of that site? It is based on a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, is it not?
This is the very reason that the Catholic Church came up withe Immaculate Conception! Because without *that* Jesus, as the son of Mary, did, in fact, have the sin of Adam "in his blood."
I've never understood why a belief in the Virgin birth is necesarry to believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God. It's a misuse of theology and biology that just isn't necessary.
"I'm trying to be kinder."
Your highness...you are NOT succeeding.
#1 As you are well aware, a leftist like ER should always be approached with this fact in mind: He is unaware of his unkind abrasiveness.
On the other hand, leftists like Dan should be approached with this fact in mind (this also addresses your own comment from above): He is well aware of his deciet.
Sincerely aware! He's on a mission, Dude! We are his mission. He'll use any means necessary - especially ignoring our valid points.
Because of grace...the law means nothing...is that what I'm getting from you, preacher?
And you, Dan?
We become gods when we believe on Christ...is that what you believe?
Our flesh is miraculously terminated so that we need only our own intellect as a guideline, right y'all?
You two preach letist principles and call Jesus a liberal when, IN FACT, Jesus lived by the law (He never broke a single code).
You call yourselves Christians and do not want to follow Jesus' example?
You, in my humble (cough, cough) opinion, arte both preachers of the message of anti-christ.
You don't know what justice is.
As Mark said...."professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
And they tend to debate along with the most ungodly among humankind.
Bivouacked with the enemies of God, America, and truth.
From Wiki:
"The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic dogma that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception.
Specifically, the dogma says she was not afflicted by the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the incarnation and virgin birth, though the two deal with separate subjects.
A ridiculous notion this, because it carries with it the idea that God could not place himself in a sin-tainted woman who would then give birth to the Son of God. I say 'ridiculous' because God resides even now in every believer, who, despite being saved from the just recompense of their sin, still carry with them the Sin Nature passed down, from generation to generation.
If God can resides in us despite our sin, He can 'over-shadow' a young virgin and cause her to conceive the Son of God.
You just don't realize how much of a jerk you are, Rev, as you attempt to be "kind".
Because, my friend (and I do mean that), you do come across as one.
You mean evil, like in not condemning the sin of homosexuality in your midst without trying to lead the homosexual to repentence? Like in Agreeing with them that God created them to be an abomination unto Himself?
Or do you mean evil like not condemning people who think it is Godlike to murder babies in the womb?
I'm sorry, ER, I don't understand where I have ever failed to condemn evil in my midst, but I can certainly point to many times when you haven't.
And I am not ignorant, just not formally educated. Is it twisting your words to point out that you seem to equate lack of ignorance with a formal education, just by what you said above?
Whatever you say I twisted, it is nonetheless the impression you leave with your own words, maybe not a literal translation, but you are the master of words, I'm not.
And if the ONLY way to prevent illegals from entering our country is to shoot them down like dogs, Yep, I mean it. How would you do it after all other methods have been tried and failed?
Do you advocate just opening the borders to everyone who wants to come over here, regardless of who they are and why they want to come over? Do you realize that would cause massive security problems? Do you care?
ER, if he wants, can address Mark's latest comment, and I'll allow THAT line of debate to reach its natural conclusion.
For the rest: Call me a coward, a Kool-Aid drinker... I don't care anymore.
I will not allow this blog to used as a garbage can by anyone, nor will I further entertain ridiculous or specious arguments. Frankly, I've had quite enough of it.
Feel free to continue commenting otherwise. All I ask is that you refrain from personal attacks on other's character... ER may have a legitimate beef in this regard, hence this comment (I say 'may have' because I'm too bored to go back over everything to examine the comments more closely. I'll leave that to the rest of you). It's all too obvious to anyone who happens by that the bevy of commenters here bitterly disagree on specific and general principle. Pardon me if I choose to change the tone.
That speaks for itself.
The other points I could make, I've made many times with Mark. No need to chew that fat again.
I stand accused, because of my position on homosexuality and the Church, of being accepting, or blind, to sin -- I deny it. I utterly deny it.
I write the word "homosexuality" and people turn it into "homosexual acts." There is a major difference. The Bible addresses the latter, and not the former, as sure as it mentions Ezekiel's wheel yet shows no cognizance of the science of flight. (That's not the best example, but I hope you get what I mean).
To accuse a sincere believer, as I am, whether any of you believe it or not, of promoting evil in the Church, is dangerous. Where I have done so in anger toward Mark, or anyone, I ask forgiveness. To make such assertions is to skirt blasphemy, if that is understood to be attributing acts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil.
For I assert that it *is* the Holy Spirit, working through my reading of the sacred texts, and my own observations and experiences, that has led me where I am regarding homosexuality. If you see me as in error, well, then, I expect nothing less than prayer, not attacks. Again, I have unloaded on Mark several times because I was appalled -- and remain appalled -- at his notions of justice. Enough. We each see through a glass darkly.
Here is the link. I invite all to see that whether or not we agree, I do not take this issue lightly, I do not look askance at sin, and I believe, as surely as Luther and Zwingli did in their times and for their purposes, that there is a New Reformation under way in Christendom regarding what science, psychology and theology have to say about homosexuality and the church specifically, and what the Bible *is* exactly in general. By my reckoning, it's the equivalent of about 1530, which means there is a long ways to go.
http://www.cathedralofhope.com
/NetCommunity/Page.
aspx?&pid=225&srcid=206
Peace.