Read the book of Jude: fellow fundamentalists

Jillian, you paint with too wide a brush...

I have went through 40 days of purpose, and our church grew spiritually with it.. granted all churches don't...

You need to narrow down your concerns to what really bothers you...
There are good Christians on all sides and Squire is right..

We are all fighting Satan..
But when you come on here ready to fight one another, it destroys unity... We are on the same side...
Maybe not fighting the same way... but still fighting Satan...

 

Amen, Brother Jillian -- Preach it! :thumbs:

In fact, we have been IN THE LAST DAYS
since the day of Pentacost AD0033 (some say
AD0030 or AAD0028). 2007 - 33 = 1, 974 years
and continuing as long as the Lord Tarries.

Act 2:15 -21 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For these are not drunken, as yee suppose,
since it is but the third houre of the day.
16 But this is that, which was spoken by the Prophet Ioel,
17 And it shalbe in the last daies, saith God,
I wil powre out of my Spirite vpon al flesh,
and your sonnes, and your daughters shall prophecie,
and your yong men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dreame dreames.
18 And on my seruauntes, and on mine handmaides
I will powre out of my Spirite in those daies, and they
shall prophecie.
19 And I wil shew wonders in heauen aboue, and tokens
in the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and the vapour of smoke.
20 The Sunne shalbe turned into darkenesse, and the moone
into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.
21 And it shalbe, that whosoeuer shall
call on the Name of the Lord, shalbe saued.

This clearly states that on the Day of Pentacost that
Peter says that the Last Days begin.

I have proof, if anybody is interested that
Matthew 24:4-14 describes the Last Days.
As long as these signs in Matthew 24:4-14 continue,
then The Last Days continue.

I believe The Last Days (aka: Times of the Gentiles, the Gentile age,
the Age of the Gentiles, the Age of Grace /see Acts 2:21 above/, etc.)
will end with the pretribulation rapture of the mostly Gentile,
saved, redeemed, elect saints.

 

Doesn't RW deny the necessity for the Blood to accomplish redemption>??

 

You weren't supposed to bring up that fact, Salamander!

 

I'm doing a Wednesday night study of the book of Jude---I'd be glad to share my feeble notes. :thumbs:

 

Please do.

 

Thank you Squire for these words of wisdom.

 

I believe that Jude not only urges us to contend for the faith, but he also outlines in very positive fashion the character of New Testament Christianity. I am now "tooting my own horn," but ask you to read my book Contending for the Faith (Greenville, SC, Bob Jones University Press, 2000) for a development of that theme.

Fred Moritz

 

I think at times "contending for the faith" sadly turns into "contending with those of the faith we don't agree with."


Just for clarification this statement has nothing to do with Bro Moritz' excellent book which presents a wonderfully balanced view on the subject.

 

Right on, Roger. Thanks for your comment about my book. We have to contend for the faith. So many today are using this biblical command to breed a divisiveness that must grieve the Lord. On the other side, so many are so tolerant they are drifting toward a syncretism of the Gospel and the whole counsel of God.

 

Sounds like you have it right. :thumbs:

 

1. Here are some notes from verses 8-10 (I have to get the previous offer my office computer):

Notes on Jude 8-10: Application: Three Sins Warranting Judgment

8 Yet in the same way these men—“these men” refers to the intruders who turned the grace of God into sensuality (v. 4). “These men” by “dreaming” defile the flesh, and reject authority and revile angelic majesties (2 Pet 2:9, 10)—the Greek participle enypniazomenoi—refers to dreams “as the medium of prophetic revelation” (Acts 2:17; Deut 13:4, 6)—governs all three verbs that follow, signifying that these intruders based their loose lifestyle on dreams they had received. Note also that the sins of the intruders parallel those of the OT examples in general terms (vv. 5-7).
Defile the flesh—this refers to their sexual perversion, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah—who “went after other flesh” (v. 7). The word “defile” is often used to refer to sexual sin in the OT (Gen 34:4, 13, 27; Lev 18:24, 27-28; Hos 5:6).
Reject authority—they rejected all authority, civil and spiritual—even Christ (v. 4). Schreiner thinks kyriotēs best points to the Lordship of Christ (v. 4). “Authority” is a reference to either: 1. human; 2. angels; 3. Lordship of God or Christ. Bauckham makes a solid case why kyriotēs refers to the Lord as in v. 4.
Revile angelic majesties—“angelic majesties” is the Greek word doxas, “glories.” We have the same problem as in 2 Peter 2:10—NIV renders it as “celestial bodies.” In both Peter and Jude, doxas is followed by a direct reference to angels. But why did they revile angels? Schreiner believes that these are demons and so were reviled by the intruders, because they thought the demons couldn’t hurt them. Bauckham, however, thinks these glories refer to angels, because the Law was mediated through angels (Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2).

9 But Michael the archangel (archangelos)—Michael is considered in Scripture the chief angel of God who watches over Israel (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1) and leads the holy angels (Rev 12:7).
When he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses—nowhere is this reference in Scripture (God buried the body of Moses, Deut 34:6). The only other such reference we have is in Daniel 10:13. Why did Satan want the body of Moses? Jewish belief says that because of Moses sin in killing an Egyptian.
Did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”—Jude uses this to illustrate the outrageous conduct of the intruders, who dared to revile angelic beings—not even Michael the archangel of God dare to do such, but left judgment to God (Zec 3:2). Within the scholarly community a consensus has been reached that Jude drew upon what is called the Assumption of Moses, an intertestamental work (Paul quotes philosophers in Acts 17:28; 1 Cor 15:33 and Titus 1:12).

10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand—they do not understand the angelic world; therefore, they should not revile angelic beings.
And the things which they know by instinct—their knowledge came instinctually. “Instinct” translates physikōs, with the more common meaning of “naturally.” The noun form of physikōs is physis, “nature” (Rom 2:27; Gal 2:15). Only by the Spirit of God can the natural man understand the things of God—things which God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9-16).
Like unreasoning animals—animals operate instinctually—by their natural endowment. Animals do not sit down and reason, or say, “Let me think about this for two or three days, before I make decision” (2 Pet 2:10-12).
By these things they are destroyed—these intruders, by their sensuality and blasphemous behavior, are bring destruction on themselves (2 Pet 2:12).

2. My Scripture references are primarily from the NASB and the NLTse. Works cited are from Richard Bauckham commentary on Jude and 2 Peter in the Word Biblical Commentary, and Thomas R. Schreiner commentary on 1, 2 Peter and Jude in the New American Commentary--both are excellent commentaries. I consulted Douglas Moo commentary on 2 Peter and Jude in the NIVAC, but I didn't include him in these verses.

 

Considering i didn't know nor was aware that there was a RW thread and he fits directly into the realm of which we speak, I can see that his mention is relevent to two things:

1. His books fall into the catagory of which the OP suggests as inline with the Book of Jude.

2. Since his name was mentioned in another post, I thought it best for the casual onlooker to know RW's adding to the apostacies relevent to the OP.

If I have somehow broken some hidden commandment, please inform me of that hidden commandment.raying: