Laodicea Had A Warning

[rrford]

Tucked away, and almost overlooked in the book of Colossians, are four verses that reference the church of Laodicea. When most folks hear that church mentioned they immediately think of the admonition given to them in the book of Revelation. In fact, the church of Laodicea is mentioned more in Colossians than in Revelation.

It makes one wonder if there is not some import in the Colossians references. Looking into those specific verses indeed shows us a strong intent by the Apostle Paul in mentioning this church in an Epistle to the Colossians.

A brief overview of the book of Colossians is very telling in the intent that Paul had. It was written by Paul somewhere between 60 and 64 AD. The purpose of the writing was to counteract doctrinal errors in the church that were arising from Judaistic, oriental, and philosophic influences in the church. When these components begin to enter into the church they have the tendency to overshadow the person and work of Jesus Christ. When that is overshadowed then it is an easy digression into weak doctrine. That in turn leads to worldliness in the body which will diminish the level of spirituality present in the body.

Paul re-affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the proper understanding of who He is. He then moves on and lets them know that he is anxious for them. His purpose is to make them realize that they are united in love as they understand the mysteries of God. The writer then quickly moves onto warnings against allowing false doctrine to infiltrate the church. Worldly philosophies and legalism are soundly condemned and the liberty of the Cross and Christ are exalted. He even goes so far as to warn them about being consumed with ceremonialism.

In chapter 3, he admonishes them to mortify the flesh, put on the spiritual adornments, practice Christian graces, spiritual love, and to live up to their responsibilities.

But most interesting to note is that in the last few verses of chapter 4 he mentions Laodicea 3 times. Once as a point of interest, second as a greeting, and thirdly as a directive to cause the Epistle to the Colossians to be read in the church at Laodicea. Colossians 4:16 “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans;”

That arrested my attention. Could it be that Paul was doing his best to forewarn the church of Laodicea that they were heading in a wrong direction? Could it be that approximately 32 years before the rebuke in Revelation was given that the Apostle sent a heads up that should have made them examine their practices and mindsets? I have often wondered how different Laodicea could have been had she heeded the words of the Epistle to the Colossians.

It makes on wonder what “Epistle” has the church not heeded from days gone by? As we see worldly philosophies and legalism both creep into the church can we honestly expect any other response from the Lord than what Laodicea did? When the church endeavors to be relevant to the world and loses its identity of, and in, Jesus Christ she has become a modern day Laodicea. The church of today, just like the church of Laodicea, will never be able to say that God judged without warning. Heaven help us to read the message to the Colossians and examine where we are that we may remain faithful until that day.

[StMark]

What connection are you seeing to today's church if any??

[mizpeh]

Do you have specifics in mind when it comes to "worldly philosophies and legalism" as well as "endeavors to be relevant" that you think the apostle Paul was warning against that would apply to us today?

[Ron]

Ahhh, writings such as this have been sore lacking around here!
Thank you rrford!

I will take another look at Colossians once again.

[rrford]

Do you have specifics in mind when it comes to "worldly philosophies and legalism" as well as "endeavors to be relevant" that you think the apostle Paul was warning against that would apply to us today?

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

[Cindy]

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

I agree that the message gets lost sometimes, because we don't want to offend anyone or scare anyone away.

[Theophil]

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

Do you have specifics in mind when it comes to "worldly philosophies and legalism" as well as "endeavors to be relevant" that you think the apostle Paul was warning against that would apply to us today?

What is "legalism" relevant to today's church?

[rrford]

What is "legalism" relevant to today's church?

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.

[Digging4Truth]

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

How do you define the emergent church movement?

[rrford]

How do you define the emergent church movement?

Honestly, that is another temr that is hard to define with any finality. The term has taken on a lif eof it's own in the religious world. Basically, it is a post modern, post Christianity view of religion.

[Pastor Keith]

Tucked away, and almost overlooked in the book of Colossians, are four verses that reference the church of Laodicea. When most folks hear that church mentioned they immediately think of the admonition given to them in the book of Revelation. In fact, the church of Laodicea is mentioned more in Colossians than in Revelation.

It makes one wonder if there is not some import in the Colossians references. Looking into those specific verses indeed shows us a strong intent by the Apostle Paul in mentioning this church in an Epistle to the Colossians.

A brief overview of the book of Colossians is very telling in the intent that Paul had. It was written by Paul somewhere between 60 and 64 AD. The purpose of the writing was to counteract doctrinal errors in the church that were arising from Judaistic, oriental, and philosophic influences in the church. When these components begin to enter into the church they have the tendency to overshadow the person and work of Jesus Christ. When that is overshadowed then it is an easy digression into weak doctrine. That in turn leads to worldliness in the body which will diminish the level of spirituality present in the body.

Paul re-affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the proper understanding of who He is. He then moves on and lets them know that he is anxious for them. His purpose is to make them realize that they are united in love as they understand the mysteries of God. The writer then quickly moves onto warnings against allowing false doctrine to infiltrate the church. Worldly philosophies and legalism are soundly condemned and the liberty of the Cross and Christ are exalted. He even goes so far as to warn them about being consumed with ceremonialism.

In chapter 3, he admonishes them to mortify the flesh, put on the spiritual adornments, practice Christian graces, spiritual love, and to live up to their responsibilities.

But most interesting to note is that in the last few verses of chapter 4 he mentions Laodicea 3 times. Once as a point of interest, second as a greeting, and thirdly as a directive to cause the Epistle to the Colossians to be read in the church at Laodicea. Colossians 4:16 “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans;”

That arrested my attention. Could it be that Paul was doing his best to forewarn the church of Laodicea that they were heading in a wrong direction? Could it be that approximately 32 years before the rebuke in Revelation was given that the Apostle sent a heads up that should have made them examine their practices and mindsets? I have often wondered how different Laodicea could have been had she heeded the words of the Epistle to the Colossians.

It makes on wonder what “Epistle” has the church not heeded from days gone by? As we see worldly philosophies and legalism both creep into the church can we honestly expect any other response from the Lord than what Laodicea did? When the church endeavors to be relevant to the world and loses its identity of, and in, Jesus Christ she has become a modern day Laodicea. The church of today, just like the church of Laodicea, will never be able to say that God judged without warning. Heaven help us to read the message to the Colossians and examine where we are that we may remain faithful until that day.


Looks like RRford is doing some outreach, J/K.

Good to see you post.

[Pastor Keith]

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.


Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that when satan told Eve, don't eat or touch that there was nothing wrong with that?

[mizpeh]

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

I agree with your assessment for the most part and especially in regards to "the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive and the progressive doctrine of inclusion", but .....here's a simple for instance having to do with the emergent church movement: UPC Pastor A wants to be relevant to today's culture and decides to go against the accepted norm and not enforce suits and ties by men who are on the platform ministering in some way. He is taking a laid back, casual in dress approach to the gathering of the saints together. Pastor B is offended that a young whippersnapper is going against tradition.

Or Pastor A doesn't see the need in the saints addressing each other as brother and sister so and so because it's not strictly taught in the Bible and it doesn't see relevant.

Is Pastor A wrong in trying to be more relevant to today's culture?

[mizpeh]

Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that when satan told Eve, don't eat or touch that there was nothing wrong with that?
HUH?

[freeatlast]

Your remider that the Colosian letter should be read also in the church of Laodicea brougt to my mind the fact hat there was also an Epistle written by Paul specifally to the Laodicean church.

It apparently reamains a lost letter. I have wondered what Paul may have had to say to this church.

Paul refences this letter also in Colosians 4:16 ...."and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea"

[Pastor Keith]

HUH?

I was addressing his point about those who are zealous to go beyond the scriptural requirements in the area of Standards, and his statement that there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

[rrford]

Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that when satan told Eve, don't eat or touch that there was nothing wrong with that?

You'll have to help me here as I am not totally sure exactly what you are asking. Can you clarify?

[rrford]

I agree with your assessment for the most part and especially in regards to "the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive and the progressive doctrine of inclusion", but .....here's a simple for instance having to do with the emergent church movement: UPC Pastor A wants to be relevant to today's culture and decides to go against the accepted norm and not enforce suits and ties by men who are on the platform ministering in some way. He is taking a laid back, casual in dress approach to the gathering of the saints together. Pastor B is offended that a young whippersnapper is going against tradition.

Or Pastor A doesn't see the need in the saints addressing each other as brother and sister so and so because it's not strictly taught in the Bible and it doesn't see relevant.

Is Pastor A wrong in trying to be more relevant to today's culture?

Relevant and emergent are two totally different things.

[rrford]

Your remider that the Colosian letter should be read also in the church of Laodicea brougt to my mind the fact hat there was also an Epistle written by Paul specifally to the Laodicean church.

It apparently reamains a lost letter. I have wondered what Paul may have had to say to this church.

Paul refences this letter also in Colosians 4:16 ...."and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea"

I have often wondered the same thing.

[freeatlast]

I have often wondered the same thing.

I was thinking if we had to lose a letter, maybe 1 Corinthians would have been the better one to lose ;-)

[rrford]

I was thinking if we had to lose a letter, maybe 1 Corinthians would have been the better one to lose ;-)

I imagine there are several that some folks would like to lose. :christmoose

In perspective, I am not sure any of us would have wanted to read the contents of the epistle to the Laodiceans.

[freeatlast]

I imagine there are several that some folks would like to lose. :christmoose

In perspective, I am not sure any of us would have wanted to read the contents of the epistle to the Laodiceans.

There could have been one more rule in the book of Laodiceans RRFord.

Possibly Lao. 2:3 would read, " men that call youselves holy shant wear sandles that have been blackened by the shoesmith"

With this being lost to the church, it's possible, that all us men who wear black shoes are in danger of the judgment. :irule

[Pastor Keith]

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.


You don't see this as being somewhat promblemtic in that the deciever added to the requirements regarding the standard of not eating the tree in the Garden.

He seemed to improved/ exceeded God's standard by adding the don't touch portion.

I highlighted your comment as that was what I was addressing.

[rrford]

You don't see this as being somewhat promblemtic in that the deciever added to the requirements regarding the standard of not eating the tree in the Garden.

He seemed to improved/ exceeded God's standard by adding the don't touch portion.

I highlighted your comment as that was what I was addressing.

Ahh, but the difference is he was attempting to get her to disobey the original. He was not merely adding to the original. Had she obeyed the origianl she would not have fallen. After all, you can't eat unless you touch.

IMO, if one takes a Biblical stand of modesty to mean to properly clothe the body and then goes further and wears only long sleeved shurts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a stand in and of itself.

[TRFrance]

I was addressing his point about those who are zealous to go beyond the scriptural requirements in the area of Standards, and his statement that there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

[Pastor Keith]

Ahh, but the difference is he was attempting to get her to disobey the original. He was not merely adding to the original. Had she obeyed the origianl she would not have fallen. After all, you can't eat unless you touch.

IMO, if one takes a Biblical stand of modesty to mean to properly clothe the body and then goes further and wears only long sleeved shurts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a stand in and of itself.

True, but the problem is when that same person views, responds and treat others in regard to his addition or his interpretation.

[Pastor Keith]

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

See above post.

[rrford]

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

[rrford]

True, but the problem is when that same person views, responds and treat others in regard to his addition or his interpretation.

If you read my posts I think you will see I addressed that.

[rrford]

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.

BUMP for Keith. I think this answers what you are asking.

[freeatlast]

See above post.

......and I think you all 3 are right. :santathumb

[Pastor Keith]

BUMP for Keith. I think this answers what you are asking.

I guess we are in agreement then, amazing what kinds of great ideas/interactions are lost in this medium.

[Digging4Truth]

Honestly, that is another temr that is hard to define with any finality. The term has taken on a lif eof it's own in the religious world. Basically, it is a post modern, post Christianity view of religion.

Post Christianity?

Wow... that is quite a statement about something that is hard to define with any finality.

Deeming a church type as post Christian seems to be defining it with quite a bit of finality.

What makes the emergent church "Post Christian"

[rrford]

Post Christianity?

Wow... that is quite a statement about something that is hard to define with any finality.

Deeming a church type as post Christian seems to be defining it with quite a bit of finality.

What makes the emergent church "Post Christian"

That they have moved beyond the atypical, historical view of Christianity and have become more of a "relevant" church that is more about the individual than about Christ. A convenient Chrsistianity, if you will.

[Cindy]

That they have moved beyond the atypical, historical view of Christianity and have become more of a "relevant" church that is more about the individual than about Christ. A convenient Chrsitinaity, if you will.

Wow.

[Ron]

That they have moved beyond the atypical, historical view of Christianity and have become more of a "relevant" church that is more about the individual than about Christ. A convenient Chrsistianity, if you will.

That says a lot in a nutshell.

No where does Christ say our walk with him will necessarily be convenient, quite the opposite is the truth of the matter!

[RevDWW]

Christianity and things convenient would seem to be, at the least, incompatible. Taking up one's cross and dying daily sure is not convenient.

[crakjak]

A plethora. Whenever we allow the mindsets of the world to influence the progress of the church; whenever humanistic thinking becomes more apparent than spiritual thinking; the emergent church movement; the watering down of Biblical truths so as not to be offensive; the progressive doctrine of Inclusion that is being more and more embraced, etc. etc.

Hello, rrford, glad to see that you are still around, you are missed.:christmoose

[James Griffin]

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.




:shockamoo:shockamoo:shockamoo

[rrford]

Hello, rrford, glad to see that you are still around, you are missed.:christmoose

Thanks. I appreciate the kind sentiments. Being the holidays and all I thought I would drop in and see if I can cause some trouble. :christmasjig

[Rhoni]

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.


:santathumbPOTD

Happy Thanksgiving!

Blessings, Rhoni

[ChTatum]

Elder,
thanks for taking the time to share this with us. You have been missed.

[meBNme]

Your remider that the Colosian letter should be read also in the church of Laodicea brougt to my mind the fact hat there was also an Epistle written by Paul specifally to the Laodicean church.

It apparently reamains a lost letter. I have wondered what Paul may have had to say to this church.

Paul refences this letter also in Colosians 4:16 ...."and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea"

Umm... doesn't that say "letter from" and not letter to?

Wouldnt that mean the church wrote to Paul, (probably informing him of their present state and actions) and he was saying to read that letter so the person he was addressing would be aware as well.

I don't think it was a "lost" letter from Paul to the church.

[meBNme]

Ahh, but the difference is he was attempting to get her to disobey the original. He was not merely adding to the original. Had she obeyed the origianl she would not have fallen. After all, you can't eat unless you touch.

IMO, if one takes a Biblical stand of modesty to mean to properly clothe the body and then goes further and wears only long sleeved shurts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a stand in and of itself.

Actually, God didnt tell Eve not to eat.
He told Adam right? Adam should have told Eve.
Eve should have obeyed, but then adam should not have eaten either.

[meBNme]

..............some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.


So, if someone sincerely believes that God does indeed desire his people to have standards, and that by not doing so one runs the risk of displeasing God, living to close to the world and "playing next to the cliff" if you will.

Then you believe that is fine right? (I happen to agree if so)

However, if that person is a pastor, and is responsible for the souls of the people he pastors. Then wouldn't it be wrong, and neglect for him NOT to preach what he believes is the will of God for his people, what pleases God, and the dangers and traps that could cause someone to fall?

I agree that one should not go around telling other churches and people that they are going to hell for wearing makeup. (even though I strongly support the no makeup standard)
But if one truly believes that something is the desire of God and a danger to do otherwise, then I believe it would be gravely wrong for them NOT to share/teach that belief.