.


June 1998 - Updated 02/01/12


Membership
.
"Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor"

A bit long this one.  But pleaze bear with me as it is very important to get the gist of knowing the difference between nominal membership as opposed to being a true partaker and joint-heir with Christ.  Bearing in mind this is also in conjunction with taking a serious look at "discerning the body" and understanding spiritual things are only spiritually discerned after all.  What's more, understanding why a believer needs to know the importance of spiritual separation and (while staying on the subject) what God say in regards to unholy matrimony ...  who you align yourself with as a Christian.  In the words of an apostle:

"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.  What?  know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

The Lord has got some very serious words against spiritually joining ourselves with something, or someone, outside his word.  Spiritually, it is the same as becoming bedfellows with infidels.  But worse, it is to do with being unfaithful to a jealous and very fair God who will not tolerate His people having other lovers.  In other words, it is the severity of how someone can substitute our relationship with Jesus as our one and only (first) love.  Let's just call it spiritual harlotry in a nutshell, which creates no clear distinction between apparent Bible believers, apostates and reprobates.  Psalms 106:28 says, in regards to God's unfaithful people in the OT,  "They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor (a false god - my emphasis), and ate the sacrifices of the dead."

Firstly, religion (in all forms and varieties) is dead, even though it may try and artificially rejuvenate itself and masquerade itself as life.  Secondly, Baal (in all forms and varieties) represents idolatry, and anything joined to anything to do with false worship or being unfaithful to God's word, is the same as eating (or participating) at that table.  Understanding, there is only one table of the Lord.  The other (according to Paul) is the table of devils.  This also relates to the table of "the sacrifices of the dead" in the OT.  It also corresponds with religion, as just mentioned, which too is dead my friend, and the reason life has nothing in common with death.  Here it is (1 Cor. 10:21):

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

Very clear really ...  there is 'the cup of the Lord' (the Lord's cup) and 'the table of the Lord' (the Lord's table) as well as there also being 'the cup of devils' (the devils cup) and 'the table of devils' (the devils table) at the same time and in the same context.  How about that?  Whatz more, there is no way in the eyes of God can the true believer eat from both just as Adam and Eve were not "free" to eat from both trees (the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) at the very beginning.  Nothing has changed!

Isn't it rather uncanny (contradictory is probably a more accurate word) how nominalists can teach the Lord's cup or the Lord's table is literal.  Just like a fancy piece of church furniture or ceremonial ornamentation, with literal emblems of bread and wine, and cup and plate (whether containing literal booze or juice - whatever makes you wheels smoke), but refuse to see the table or cup of devils as literal.  This is because nominalists always rely on palpable experiences or tangible objects to justify their theology.  Simply coz this does not take faith or the inconvenience of following an invisible God.  Nor does it come with conviction power, exposing falsehood and sin.

However, at the same time, nominalists see the cup of devils or table of devils conveniently in the metaphoric sense.  When in actual fact, as you have just seen with your own eyes from the word of God, Paul presents both cups and both tables in the same (although opposite) context, when you examine the above verse.  This way there is the literal act of immorality of someone espoused or married, jumping into bed with someone else other than there one and only beloved. Just as there is spiritual immorality if the Lord's espoused virgin (His church) is being unfaithful to Him, our one and only beloved.

You simply can't have one without the other.  Unless you are joined to Christendom that iz!  This way you can be the bride of Christ and the religious invention of man at the same time.  How convenient and accommodating!  Defiantly not rightly dividing the word of truth, nor staying true to one life time lover!  Thatz why these two spiritual conditions do exist and are represented in scripture as two women, a chaste and faithful bride as opposed to an unfaithful whore.

However, according to scripture, the non discerning and indiscreet woman (supposed to be the bride representing the church but an imposter nevertheless) is not a chaste virgin at all, but a slut, void of spiritual scruples and fidelity.  John in the book of Revelations calls her (note: capitalized with great emphasis) "MYSTERY (one word - not Mystery Babylon - but a mystery until enlightenment and discernment kick in), BABYLON THE GREAT (is there anything greater on the earth?), THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH (note: the Mother of harlots and the cause of abominations)."  And goes onto say, "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus".

Can you not see?  This means she (this Mother of harlots) hates the true church in other words ...  the real faithful bride of Christ!  John talks about her "which did corrupt the earth with her fornication" and "She has committed fornication with the Kings of the earth (even gets on the political band wagon using every opportunity for power, while riding the beast to strut and promote her cause like a 'religious Lady Godiva'), and the inhabitants of earth have been made drunk (been stupefied against reality and consequences) with the wine (religion) of her fornication (frolicking, flirting and playing the religious/political field)".

Something important to note here (as just pointed out) ...  old wine represents religion in scripture and religion and spiritual harlotry (or fornication) always go together.  Also, can you not see here that this woman (the Mother of harlots - of unfaithful fornicating daughters) does not represent the world here?  Nor itz political or civil leaders or systems!  No, she represents a different and separate entity commenting acts of spiritual immorality with them nevertheless (see Rev. 17:7)?

Therefore, this woman is not the faithful bride being the salt and light of the earth, being sold to the salvation of others. But an immoral woman, being sold for her own gratification, using religion to entice and corrupt everyone (from the political/secular spectrum, to the sacred), under the guise of appearing as God's very representative on earth.

Paul says being aligned with her is the same as being "unequally yoked together with unbelievers" and says "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"  He also says to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" (why would God's people want to be linked or joined in with those aligned with idolatry?).  Whereas John endorses the same call in Revelations by saying "Come out of her, my people".  We've got no excuse really!

Therefore, Paul is not just teaching against sexual immorality in Corinthians, is he?  No, but against spiritual immorality as well.  Take note pleaze ...  to actually make ourselves 'members' of something is just the same as partaking or eating the rewards or punishments of that particular thing, according to scripture (remember - there is only two tables and two cups for that matter.  One of Christ and the other of devils):

"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

In other words, there is only one table we should be gathered around eating from, and one cup we should be drinking from.  By being partakers of the other table and cup, is the same as drinking the wine of her fornication and being partakers of her sins.  Therefore, by doing so, you also make yourself partakers of her plagues.

Still don't believe me?  Then read Acts 4:26-28 and see who were joined "together against the Lord, and against his Christ".  Remember, when Jesus prophesied to the Pharisees, he collectively held them responsible for all the murders committed against God's prophets in the olden times (throughout history) to that present time (Matt. 23:34-35).

"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you (to the astute religionists and "spiritual" "role models") prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."

Notice that this verse is actually saying all they that joined together in league against God's servants throughout time, were actually all guilty of shedding all the righteous blood upon the earth from Abel to Zacharias (thatz the A's to the Z's, and everything in between), which in turn would come upon them, where they would specifically be punished, as co-workers and co-rebels together.

Isn't it amazing that the only time 'do good' religionists use this scriptural principle is when they take it outta context to condemn anyone outside of their thinking or refusing to drink from their cup?  Here they use guilt as a method in making the ones they condemn to apologize and renounce their Christian heritage, as if the ones they condemn were the ones (not them) linked to all the atrocities committed over the last 2,000 years by the "official impostor church" acting as God's representative on earth, letting them off the hook at the same time?

Isn't it equally amazing how these religionists turn it around to whitewash their guilt ridden history in order to make the innocent recant or feel bad about their faith in itz true pure sense, which has only served as a vessel in conveying the gospel?  They get annoyed at the fact that God would hold people responsible for acts in which they had not actively participated in themselves, but are spiritually and traditionally aligned with at the same time, with those that are guilty of implicating it.  This is the bond woman (who has adulterated herself) always persecuting the free woman (the purified innocent) in scripture.  Or, in other words ...  the apostated religionists of the flesh, unified together, in one common cause, brandishing this spin, while coming down on true believers who happen to be walking in the Spirit, and only minding the business of the Saviour who both saved and sent them.

Therefore, why be aligned with them?  Why be participating at their table?  Thatz the bond woman and her children!  Why not do as the word says (instead of justifying yourself as "faithful" and "caring") and come out and be separate?  Who do you care more for ...  the Lord or those that are opposed to Him, hiding behind the pretence of "being Christian" while compromising the faith for the sake of avoiding persecution and gaining popularity, as well as being jointly responsible for all the butchery against dissenters and non conformists throughout history?  To be later played down in political and religious trickery, through the vessel of ecumenicism and the false assumption we are all his children if we use Jesus' name and talk about, as well as promote, unity and reconciliation.

Did not Jesus say that you can do mighty things in his name (people even pillage, rape, plunder and kill in his name) but it means nothing if you don't know him (Matt. 7:22) and don't abide in the truth?  Apart from using God and unleashing His judgement on yourself, after discrediting biblical Christianity by your hypocrisy and contradiction.  Anyone can use Jesus name from a cheap cuss word, to a superstitious formulae, or acting as a guise for another agenda.  However, they are only proving who they are aligned with ...  those going down with joined hands as co-rebels together, as opposed to those ascending as one body with Jesus into glory.

The Pharisees joined together with the Scribes acting as the members of the institutional church (Judaism) of their day, in league against Jesus of Nazareth.  From Matt. 23:34-35 we can see clearly by their insistence, had they been alive in the days of their fathers, they too would have gone along with the atrocities which were perpetrated against God's prophets and servants by these same people.  Moreover, by their acts against Jesus, they were actually making admittance to being sons to these fathers who were guilty of the bloodshed back then.  Furthermore, by doing so, and carrying out the same methods of their fathers, they were deemed as being as equally as guilty by Jesus.  In other words, they were acting co-workers together, in cohorts with the same conspiracy against God Himself.  As the Psalmist put it in regards to a similar unrighteous confederacy:

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed (His coming Son/Messiah)".  Therefore, like Elijah in the OT declaring to the apostates of his time "how long can ye stand between two opinions", Paul in the NT is telling the Corinthians plainly that they were either one or the other.  Thatz ...

Or ..

The Protestant churches have organized themselves along a hierarchical structure similar to itz Mother, the Roman Catholic system, which begins at the top from popes, cardinals, and bishops; to senior pastors, pastors, and ministers etc., where itz teachings filter downwards towards the laity.  This Nicolaitan concept (ecclesiastical "specialists" lording it over the common people) can be clearly seen in the structure of all Christendom today.  Even on a more subtle and lighter basis at times, as in the "church restoration movement" or the "home cell movement".

This is all happened mainly because splinter groups broke away from Mother Rome in order to share a bit more antimony as reformers and rebel priests, the likes of Martin Luther, said they were entitled to.  All because there were far more political and social benefits in doing so.  Even though the initial intention may have been through a good motive, it was also due to a backlash against the injustices abounding all around, through papal monopoly at the time.

As the Bible came more into the fore and was made more readily available, due to the invention of the printing press and the call for more openness, this justified other splinter groups dissembling from the main core, as they too could see that self-management fitted in with the Reformation occurring at the time.  However, because the majority of these break away groups took some of the creeds and traditions of Mother with them, they found a greater freedom in setting up in opposition to the papacy, with their own form of 'clergy over laity' and ruthless systems of dealing with dissenters and non conformists alike.


However, as time marched on and people become "better" educated and enlightened about history, as well as made aware of the destruction caused by religion and wars, and with the free New World offering better alternatives as a major world player, Rome changed itz tactics.  By changing itz cloak and giving itself the modern appearance that it too was moderating and accommodating more tolerance towards itz "separated brethren" (the wayward Protestants), a new ecumenical climate appeared on the horizon, where it now looked more beneficial and appealing for those break away 'daughter churches' to return home to Mum and become one with her again.  Or a least embrace her as no longer a disguised pagan enterprise, but a worthy partner also desiring to uphold her so-called Christian roots.

Oh, and just how was all this going to be achieved?  Simply by flooding the religious supermarket (mass production was well under way now, in the field of literature) with a flurry of different watered down bibles each "proving" to be a little bit more "relevant" and "up to date" than the other.  Coz none can be guaranteed (so the notion goes), except that it had the approval and the supposition of the system's professionals.  This way it would be in everyone's interest to belong to an "official" church, because outside, without the camp, there would be no security, assurance or guarantee that you would not end up in a weird cult or be out in the cold, and miss out on the blessing.  A "fantastic", "beautiful" and rather clever way of making you into a spiritual flirt or aligning yourself with a harlot, let alone becoming a clone of your "Christian" guru.

Now am I being a'lil hard here?  Not at all!  The Holy Bible (which is still totally reliable by the way, while always being the believers final authority) uses the term harlot or whore usually every time associated with spiritual harlotry or spiritual whoredom (or a least always in the metaphorical sense).  In the first few chapters of the book of wisdom (Proverbs) two different types of women are presented and contrasted.  In this passage, seeking one woman (wisdom and understanding) is encouraged, while seeking the other woman (a harlot) is discouraged.  Look at Proverbs Seven f'instance, where a parable is unfolded to describe exactly what a harlot is.  From Mark 13:34 (in parallel with this parable) Jesus gives a story about himself as a man taking a far journey.  He tells us about him leaving his house and returning on a certain day appointed.

Moreover, while we are still looking at Proverbs Seven, here is a prophecy about the end times :  A young man, devoid of understanding (rejecting or excusing God's word) is going his way to visit a harlot.  Note this is happening, "In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night."

Also note, a woman who has been lying in wait, comes to greet him.  She also has got her speech off pat to appeal more pleasing and charming.  Furthermore, please take note there is a harlot on every street corner selling her indulgences and pleasures (verse 12).  This speaks of the temptations Satan has set-up for any journeyman (pilgrim) who happens to be passing along the way.  A bit like all the attractive churches advertising weekly, prior to Sunday, while competing with each other for their stake in the religious market.  Remember, prostitution is a form of business, and 'church growth' has got nothing to do with maturity but how big and fat the congregation expands numerically, in order to bring in more dollars through the tithes and offerings.  The 'numbers game (more clients/members = more dough)', (spiritual) prostitution, and money all go together here.  Selling the truth in order to be acceptable and appear as an attractive investment for and by society.

Getting back to this harlot:  She tells the ignorant simpleton to come into her, and says, "let us take our fill of loves until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.  For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed."  In other words, and in the meantime, until Jesus comes back," let us rise up and play, and celebrate our new found freedom by indulging in all the attractions made available!"  I am reminding you of the five foolish virgins here. Or should I forget to mention the back slidden children of Israel rising up to play and becoming idolaters, when Moses was absent.

Yes, dear reader, it is our Lord Jesus that has gone on this long journey and is absent for awhile!  It is him that will return on the day appointed!  Also, please take care to understand that in the evening of days, right before he returns, there will be a harlot on every street corner (looking attractive, trendy, relevant, and marketable of course) enticing those who have no understanding or discernment to avoid not going in.  She only desires that the ignorant man will stay until morning and doesn't care about him missing out on the Goodman returning.   Nor does she (or the simpleton) have a clue about the significance of the clock striking midnight, bringing its own ramifications.

This is also the reason Paul clearly tells us not to join ourselves to a harlot.  Thiz'iz coz we become partakers in the deeds of anything we join ourselves to.  Church membership is NEVER mentioned in scripture. Believers are NEVER authorized to join themselves to anything ... a church, a fraternity, a denomination, a sect, or a cult; but the Lord.  By doing so one is joining themselves to a harlot and becoming one with her.  This is the reason Paul exalts young Christians to remain or "abide in the same calling wherein he was called", upon conversion.

Letz examine what the Bible says about membership:

When we become members of the Body of Christ, we are automatically breaking all allegiances with the traditions and organizations of men.  Our membership is a spiritual union the unregenerate cannot be partakers of.  Therefore, when religionists promote and support "church membership" they are actually admitting there are other members of the "church" who are not really Christians in the true 'born again' biblical sense.  With this admission, they are actually admitting that they are aligned with other co-members of unrighteousness and religious people who need saving, while fellowshipping with darkness and worldly compromise at the same time.  In other words, their words and doctrine are an indictment against themselves as true Bible believers.  Because they have joined themselves in league with unbelievers masquerading as believers (fakes), and as the Lord prophesied, they will be held responsible for all the works committed by the religious machinery back throughout history, as earlier mentioned.  Yes, serious stuff, with serious consequences!

Look at Romans 6:13:

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."

In the next verse Paul says we are servants to whomever we yield our members to.  Throughout the NT Paul consistently compares us to the body, by calling us the body of Christ.  Moreover, with our now sanctified body, we are not to yield our members to sin and unrighteousness, just as the body of Christ should not yield itz members to whoredom.  We are either members of the Body of Christ or we are members of another functioning body which is foreign to Christ and separated from him.  This body is a man initiated body, substitutionary called "the church", replacing Christ's body on earth.  Therefore, we are either members of each other in Christ through rebirth or we are members of a foreign entity ...  the counterfeit church run by man for man, full of unregenerate people who claim to be Christian.

As in the words of Paul again, "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."  Certainly, nothing to do with being members of an organisation or a denomination.

Furthermore, the feeble argument that official 'church membership' denotes membership in the Body of Christ is a lie.  You are the church (the temple of God), a member of Christ, through spiritual rebirth and abiding in Him, and nothing else.  Read Galatians 5:20 and see what the fruit of the flesh is.  Words like variance, emulations, seditions, and heresies etc. abound here.  Basically schisms (1 Cor. 12:25), fraternities, sects, cults, cliques, clubs, and parties are of man.  Who is your brother and sister in Christ?  Those who are in Christ (baptised into His one body) and not a man-made substitute run by religious professionals or imported specialists.

Hence, as the warning from John, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."


home
subjects
guestbook
sign
whosoever
search
links
comments

Feel free to down load, or make copies of any article on The Radical Pilgrim, on the request that its contents are not changed, or sold; along with a link to its Home Page.