Jude 1:3 reads: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

I'm going to do something that I rarely do and go back to the Greek occasionally in this 'random thought'. It's not because I feel that the Bible translators missed anything; it's so that I have a little more authority as I tell you the true meaning behind this verse and a few others. With that being said, carefully re-read the above verse and think about it for a bit, try to grasp the author's meaning.

The word diligence here is from the Greek word 'spoude', which literally means eagerness, earnestness, forwardness, haste. The phrase it was needful is a compound word of 'anagke' and 'echo'. It means distress, of necessity, needed. Exhort (parakaleo) means to ask, desire, intreat. Should honestly contend for is from 'epagonizomai' and it literally means to struggle for, to fight for. The faith is from the Greek 'pistis' and means persuasion, moral conviction, religious truth, the truthfulness of God, reliance upon Christ for salvation, the system of religious truth (the Gospel) itself. Delivered (paradidomi) means intrusted with, transmitted to. Lastly, we have saints, from the word 'hagios', and it means pure, morally blameless. Ok, enough with the Greek.

I wrote the preceding paragraph for a couple reasons. One, I wanted to give you an idea of how Bible translation works. In order to most accurately translate God's word as it was written in the Greek, the King James translators translated the textus receptus word-by-word; not thought-for-thought as other translators did, such as the NIV version of the Bible. As you can see, some of the Greek words have extensive definitions. As such, some of the meaning may not be as readily obvious to us as we read the same word in the English. Occasionally we might not truly grasp everything. I believe this is why 2 Timothy 2:15 was written: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Secondly, as I put this verse into my own words, I want to provide a factual basis for my take on the verse. This way you can see that I'm not twisting Scripture to suit my own context. I realize that I may have done this before, unintentionally. For that, I apologize.

Lastly, I want y'all to know that all the Greek words and definitions were taken from the PC Study Bible v.4. Contrary to what many would have you believe, you do not have to be a Greek scholar to know what God said in His Word. All it takes is a Bible and some study aids. I again say that having an English Bible is sufficient unto itself; think of the study aids as the black velvet behind a diamond. It changes nothing, but it does enhance what was already there.

That being said, here is my take on what Jude said in verse 3: "Hey guys, I was wanting to write to y'all about our awesome salvation. I wanted to write about the good stuff, to uplift you. However, I feel it again necessary to beg you to fight for the Truth. There's only one unchangeable Gospel, one truth, and it's under attack. Fight for it, and don’t stop." (Ok, so I reiterated some points, lol.)

I tell you what, these days, I feel a lot like Jude did. I don't think y'all know how much I'd like to write a piece that does nothing but encourage everyone. One that leaves you feeling good, feeling like you've been strengthened in your walk with God. One that doesn’t leave me feeling like I'm beating a dead horse, lol. Unfortunately, like Jude, I cannot do that just yet. I instead feel that it's necessary to continue exposing more of the heresy and false doctrine that is rampant in our American culture today.

I want to stop for a moment and throw something out there. I am well aware that not all believers are in agreement on every issue. This saddens me, because we see all throughout the book of Acts that all of the believers were in one accord, unanimously in agreement with each other (Acts 4:24, 5:12, 15:25). In Philippians 2:2, Paul asks the believers at Philippi (as well as all believers everywhere, at all times) to "fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."

Unfortunately, this is something we don't see much of anymore. However, a lot of disagreements today are on matters that have been deemed to be 'non-essential' to the faith. In other words, the matters in dispute have no effect on the doctrine of salvation. Some of these include contemporary Christian music v. traditional conservative music, infant baptism, women pastors, predestination, speaking in tongues, and many more. These are some areas in which Christians commonly disagree with each other, both sides using (or twisting) Scripture to support their side of the argument. I say that to say this: I may occasionally talk about an issue that you disagree with. That’s fine and dandy. If we allow the Holy Spirit to lead and instruct us, I'm sure at some point we'll both see the Truth. Because of this, I typically don't go into the aforementioned issues.

Today though, I want to talk about an issue that I think is a genuine threat to the believer. Interestingly enough, it’s on the exact issue that Jude continues to speak of in verse 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Or in other words, "there are wicked, ungodly guys (written about a long time ago) that have snuck into the church unnoticed, corrupting the word of God, denying clearly taught Biblical principles, perverting Christian freedom into license to sin, and refusing to say that Jesus is Lord."

This was happening 2000 years ago, my friends. And it's happening today. More to the point, it's happening right under our noses, especially in the college arena. I know this from personal experience. I got involved with an interdenominational campus ministry last year called Intervarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF). Much like Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU), this organization was designed to further one’s relationship with God while not preaching on the parts in the Bible that tend to step on toes and cause division. Think of them both as 'we only teach the good parts' organizations. While there’s nothing wrong (so to speak) with this type of ministry, it does tend to remain shallow while failing to produce Christ-like, God-honoring lifestyles among its students. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Some of the guys I look up to spiritually are in CRU.

In any case, I gradually began to think that something wasn't quite right with one of the key leaders of IVCF. For starters, he cussed out loud frequently during our Bible studies, he had no qualms against drinking or smoking weed, and his personal lifestyle was hardly that of an ideal Bible-study leader. Now don't get me wrong. I know that no one is perfect, and I am well aware that Christians can frequently stray from the will of God and become backslidden. But then began the social activism, preached mainly out of The Message, a new-age paraphrase of the Bible. I began to get the idea that 'Christianity' was about helping the poor and fighting injustice, more so than it was about preaching the Gospel. Now listen to me carefully; I know that the second greatest commandment given to the New Testament church is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). We should help each other, feed the poor, etc... but not at the expense of forsaking the Gospel. I believe that we can feed and house a million people, but if we don't tie it into the Gospel message in any way, we're wasting our time. Wanna really help someone? Tell them the Truth.

Further conversations with this guy brought forth even more questions. He said that not everyone can have a relationship with God like I do; some people find it easier to just model the life of Christ. He had a big problem with my objections to his lifestyle. I told him that I thought that a leader should be held to a higher standard, and I showed him clearly in the Bible where some of his opinions on abortion and homosexuality were misguided. I knew that something was really wrong when he recommended that I read a book entitled The Irresistible Revolution.

The writer of the book said that he had to travel all the way to Calcutta to meet a 'real' Christian... Mother Teresa. I hate to break it to the writer, but if Mother Teresa followed her own life philosophy, than she's probably in Hell. She is remembered by other nuns with her as believing that as long as a person is sincere in their faith (Hindu, in this case), then they'll still go to Heaven. I'm sorry, but this is a direct contradiction to the words of Christ in John 14:6 when He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Anyways, since then the leader of this group has denied the authority of the Bible, the truthfulness of it. He's sworn at me, and he has made no attempts whatsoever to bring his life into alignment with God's word. Alright, whatever floats his boat. See, I thought he was a misguided individual. I thought maybe he was maybe a new Christian that didn't have a strong foundation in the Word of God. I thought with time that things might change. I didn't realize at the time that this guy's actions mirrors the actions of thousands of supposed Christians that are part of a quickly growing movement in America: that of the Emerging Church.

No doubt by this point I've raised some eyebrows, maybe made one or two people mad. "Why the personal attack?", some of you might be asking. Well let me just say, this isn't personal. If it were, I would be giving names and tagging them to draw attention to it. I'm not trying to do this. What I am trying to do is follow Paul's instructions to the believer in Romans 16:17-18: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Jesus talked also of these people in Matthew 7:15 with "beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." 2 Peter 2:1 reads "but there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring up themselves swift destruction." 1 Timothy 4:1 says "Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."

We see more warnings from Paul in Acts 20:29-30: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears."

The New Testament is saturated with the warnings about false prophets, and Paul did not hesitate to label them and even call them by name. And that is the point of this post. It's not to bad-mouth anyone for the sake of bad-mouthing them. It's not to point fingers at a movement because I don't personally like it. No, it's about to provide ample warning about the group here at school and the larger movement that this group seems to draw its ideals from.

The Emerging Church is hard to define, as it has multiple facets, each with different doctrinal positions. It would be nearly impossible to accurately paint them all with the same brush. Books have been written about the movement, and much smarter men than I have spent much more time doing the research into this movement. For that reason, all I plan to do is outline some key philosophies to this overall movement that are radically heretical and doctrinally unsound. If you care to learn more, links to outside sources will be provided.

I want to focus on the words and philosophies of two particular men in this movement: Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell. Mclaren is the most prominent figurehead in this movement and a prolific writer. Bell pastors the country's fastest growing church in the movement, Mars Hill Bible Church.

Mclaren would have you believe that we can know no truths at all, that the Word of God isn't true. In his words: "When we talk about the word 'faith' and the word 'certainty,' we've got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by 'certainty? ... Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that's always seeking the truth and that's seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion." He is also quoted as saying "The problem with the critics [conservative Evangelicals] here is that they think they have a superior, timeless gospel that floats above any culture...". Well, yes. We do believe that, mainly because we believe the Bible. Psalm 119:160 says "Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever." In John 17:17, Jesus asks God to: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Then again, using the Bible to refute Mclaren doesn't work, being as how he doesn't think we have the ability to accurately derive its meaning. According to him: "As in so many issues these days, the problem isn’t the Bible; it's the assumptions we bring to the Bible about how it is supposed to be interpreted. We make demands of the Biblical writers that we don't make of any other writers, and I'm not sure our demands are sensible or fair at all. As an analogy, I often refer to the Wizard of Oz in my teaching. Does this mean that I believe Dorothy was a historical figure? No. It means that I accept the story of Oz as being part of our culture, and that I can use it to illustrate truth or provide analogies to truth."

In other words, he casts doubt on 2 Timothy 3:16, which says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Seems to me that Paul is saying that not only can we understand and interpret scripture, but God Himself inspired the very words penned by the various writers of the Bible.

Mclaren's lack of faith makes itself evident with the following statement: "Our faith has too often become for us just another rigid belief system instead of a unique, joyful way of living loving and serving." Well, if you consider believing that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven a rigid belief system, would that not make it a correct belief system? Oh wait... according to Mclaren: "For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus' statement 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me' actually means, 'I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won't let anyone get to God unless he comes through me.'"

Evidently those of us that believe John 14:6 are wrong. I'm curious to know what other methods of reaching Heaven are available. According to the Bible, Jesus is the only way to God, and that was exactly what He meant in that verse. Mclaren also says: "We must be continually aware that the 'old, old story' may not be the 'true, true story'".

What kind of nonsense is this? The past 2000 years of orthodox Christianity have been wrong? I think not. What is his basis for this? Then again, I expect no less from a man that even denies the existence of Hell. He said: "We should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus' hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell ... I hope people can understand that some of us show our love for God by seeking better answers when our current answers seem unworthy of God."

Mr. Mclaren, does the destruction of the temple sound like a place of eternal torment? (Revelation 20:10) Does it sound like a like a fire? Does the temple destruction sound like eternal darkness, as is taught in Jude 1:13? How about a place of eternal restlessness like that described in Revelation 14:11? How to you compare the destruction of the temple with "a lake of fire burning with brimstone"? And let's not forget Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

In my opinion, it is near impossible to make a connection between Christ's teachings on Hell and the destruction of the temple. To deny the existence of a literal Hell is nothing short of heresy.

Brian Mclaren even goes as far to say that you don't have to be a Christian to go to Heaven. In his words: "It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts." Well, buddy, 2 John 1:9 says otherwise: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

I think an adequate response to Mclaren's philosophy may be found in Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Others in the emergent movement have denounced the Trinity, or the concept of God being three parts: Father, Son, and Spirit. 1 John 5:7 says "For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse is conveniently left out of most modern translations, but it's there.

The virgin birth is attacked by the emergents, as is the idea of a blood atonement. Those of us that believe that Christ's blood was necessary for salvation are referred to as "vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else". Hate to break it to you, my emergent friends, but without the shedding of Christ's blood, forgiveness of our sins would have been impossible. Hebrews 9:22b teaches us that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Remission there is forgiveness. The entire point of Christ's dwelling here on Earth was to become the perfect, unblemished sacrifice for our sins. Verse 28 of the same chapter tells us that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." This is the Gospel. Christ died in our place. Without the blood, there is nothing!

I can overlook the disbelief of the Bible’s inerrancy and infallibility. I can get over the emergent's disbelief of the virgin birth, of the existence of Hell. I cannot, however, think that true salvation is possible for someone that denies the need for the blood atonement. Without believing that Christ had to die to appease our Holy God, how can one accept the free gift of salvation? I say without apology: Brian Mclaren is at best a heretic and at worst, a disciple of Satan. His message is one that takes you away from the Truth; it does absolutely nothing to bring you closer to it.

Rob Bell is hardly better. On the virgin birth he says: "What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?"

On the authority of the Scriptures as a teaching tool, he says: "When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means." Bell joins the movement in the idea that there can be no absolute known truths. Furthermore he says: "This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that 'Scripture alone' is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true... When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true." So what else is there? And what is his scriptural basis for delving outside of the word of God for guidance?

I could continue, but I think y'all get the idea. The emerging church is being led by heretics who have no faith, and the movement is growing. Bell's church already boasts some 10,000 members, sad to say. There are so many people today that gobble up the idea of never being wrong, having no moral absolutes, and viewing their salvation as a 'journey'. They want to be known as 'beautiful children of God' while remaining clueless as to the need for Christ's death or their own need for repentance. They want to save the whales and hug the trees without giving one thought to what a godly lifestyle is. They want to push for social reform and feed the poor without ever having to share the Gospel message. It is a dangerous movement.

The best way to address this movement? Some would say debate, some would say assimilate, some would say tolerate... but I say evacuate. I have talked with several members of this movement, and there seems to be no reasoning with them. When you start Biblically showing them the error of their thinking, they shift gears and talk about something else, or they question the accuracy of the Bible. It's kind of like pinning jello on the wall.

The apostle Paul gave us advice for dealing with heretics. It's simple: rebuke them and leave them. Ephesians 5:11 says "and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Titus 3:10 says: "A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject." 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says: "now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 1 Timothy 6:3-5 says: "if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

I don't think there's any reasoning with the emerging church. I know from past experience that there is no reasoning with the movement's faction here at Radford University. I encourage all of you to take stock of the movement's philosophy, learn it, and avoid the teachings of its proponents. This means IVCF here at school, guys. The teaching there is dangerous; be wary.

I do apologize for the length of this 'thought'. For those of you making it to the end, I applaud you, lol. Seriously though, I appreciate your time, and I hope you learned something from it. Further resources on the emerging church can be found at the websites below. Hope y'all have a good one.

Sources to check out:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/rob_bell/index.html
http://www.gender-news.com/article.php?id=37
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_jan06_v56_n01.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/beware-newkind-christian.html

Previous editions of this series:
* - Edition 8--Jan. 28
* - Edition 7--Jan. 19
* - Edition 6--Dec. 8
* - Edition 5--Nov. 15
* - Edition 4--Nov. 2
* - Edition 3--Oct. 24
* - Edition 2--Oct. 13
* - Edition 1--Oct. 4

Photo Credit: Blake Fought