Tuesday, June 5, 2018

United Church of God: Chief Pharisee Has Melt Down Over Perceived Doctrinal Teachings



A sure indication that a Church of God may be potentially heading in the right direction regarding "grace" is when you see the Official Pharisee of the Church of God get his Levitical bloomers all in a legalistic twist.

Pharisee and Zealot James Malm is all in an uproar over a paper Mark Mickelson presented to the UCG on who the God of the Old Testament was and its relationship to Jesus.  The Chief Pharisee has been screeching for many months now that UCG was changing its doctrine on grace.

Zealot Malm writes:
This article deals specifically with the UCG Doctrinal Statement claiming that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament together with the Being who became flesh as the son.  
United Church of God has specifically denied that they considered Mickelson's paper. 

Council of Elders Statement
The Doctrine Committee and its subcommittees completed review of the paper titled “The God of the Old Testament” submitted by Mark Mickelson. The conclusion reached by the Doctrine Committee was that God the Father and the Word were and are both very active in all of Scripture. The [Mickelson] paper did not receive support to move forward. The Council recommends that everyone read the UCG study paper “The Nature of God and Christ,” to gain additional background on this subject.
The Zealot writes:


All of you KNOW that I get my doctrine directly from the Holy Scriptures and that I do not blindly follow HWA, yet he did teach the same as I do on this matter; often clearly stating that Jesus revealed the Father. 
It is true that the Father’s existence is implied in the scriptures, but he was NEVER actively involved and was not active or known before the physical life of Jesus Christ who revealed the existence of the Father and the Being who became the Son as two separate God Beings.
For years Mark Mickelson has been falsely cloaking himself in the name of Christ and of Herbert Armstrong to teach the Protestant error that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament who was the Lord of Hosts.  
This is not the teaching of Herbert Armstrong, it is not my teaching and it is not scriptural;  it is gross error. 

Nothing infuriates the Chief Pharisee more than grace, particularly the accepted understanding of it.  As with all things when zealotry is involved, Pharisee Malm's grace comes with lots of conditions.  So when people say that grace trumps the law, the spittle starts flying.   Your computer screen almost gets wet from it flying!  

The Pharisee attempts to end any discussion on grace by spitting out that it is "evangelical" anytime it does not require keeping all 613 laws and HIS interpretations along side it.


Mark’s position is very evangelical, presenting the Father as the uncompromising God of the Old Testament, with Christ adding Grace later. In reality Mark has been allowed to openly teach this heresy and his paper was a “Trial Balloon” on the subject.
Many brethren would not agree with the idea and so these same folks who brought this error into the Tkach WCG  came up with a more subtle statement that accepts the evangelical position that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament, but added that Christ was also active then to pacify the brethren. 
What this statement does is to promote the evangelical heresy that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament and that he was the God of Moses and the Mosaic Covenant and the laws of Moses.
In due time the other shoe will drop that Jesus brought grace through his sacrifice thereby freeing us from any obligation to keep the laws of Moses. Then the heresy long taught in UCG at ABC and elsewhere that “We keep them because WE want to, not because we have to” will kick in and very many will decide that if they don’t have to, they will simply decide not to. 
UCG is now rapidly becoming a Protestant Sabbatarian organization.    Make no mistake, this seemingly innocuous Doctrinal Statement is earth shattering in its implications for UCG!
Pharisees, Zealot's and legalists are all about condemnation through the law. In the Church of God, condemnation has always been the driving force in all matters of the church understanding's. Divine punishment and retribution is the expectation or so many in the church today that they actively seek to see people they deem "lost" to be destroyed.


The Subtle Power Of Spiritual Abuse, 1991; David Johnson/Jeff VanVonderen 
"The legalist will always want to see another punished, or made to perform as a compensation for weakness or sin."
A perfect description of Pharisee Malm:
The New Manners And Customs Of Bible Times 1987 Ralph Gower 
"Pharisees . . . Their name means 'those who separate themselves.' . . . They wanted to be legally pure, separate from any form of defilement. They believed that the difference between being 'clean' and 'unclean' depended upon that law. What was 'clean' was obedience to the law; what was 'unclean' was disobedience to the law. This position regarding the law created problems, however, for although there are 613 commandments in the Torah (the books of Moses), they are not always specific. If the Sabbath day is to be kept 'holy,' then exactly what may be done and what may not? There were lengthy discussions on such subjects as whether or not it was lawful (or unclean) to eat an egg laid on the Sabbath. The Pharisees developed a set of regulations designed to save people from breaking the law itself . . . the Pharisees had failed to understand what the law was all about . . . The Pharisees seem to have taken the law and changed it . . . into a great burden -- 'This is what you have got to do; if you fail, God will punish you' . . . It was so out of tune with what God intended that Jesus attacked it."
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke (the law) upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled in the yoke of bondage. [the law]


Rightly Dividing The Word 1920 Clarence Larkin 
"THE LAW demands holiness" 
"GRACE gives holiness" 
"THE LAW says--Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" 
"GRACE says--Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity." 
"THE LAW declares--That as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the law." 
"GRACE declares--That there is no condemnation (Judgment for Sin) for those who are in Christ Jesus for they have passed from death unto life."


Living Victoriously 1987 Victor Paul Wierwille
"A believer's peace is lost when he allows sincere, religious people to put him under the covenant of works of the Old Testament [legalism]. And when a believer loses sight of the truth of his standing in Christ then he loses sight of grace, mercy, love and the power of God. Then he gets into confusion as to the truth, and his peace evaporates, and it is gone."
Legalism destroys your peace, and it leads to confusion as to your state and standing with God. The sincere religious legalists love to tell people that they are unworthy and that God is displeased with them, or that God doesn't love them, or that God wants to punish them.
See more here:  

Legalism vs Grace

Legalism vs Grace: They Lying Truth

Lesson 57: Why Jesus Hates Legalism (Luke 11:37-54)

A LOGICAL LOOK AT LEGALISM/Bad Christian

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

The emphasis on grace is an excuse to spit in the face good deeds, which is what law keeping is all about.

Anonymous said...

Grace, grace, praise grace! Blessed is the murderer who is forgiven! Forget the victim and his widow!

Anonymous said...

Acts 3:13
"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus."

Combine with Ex. 3:6,16, Ex. 4:5, Matt. 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 7:32, and it's a tough one to get around...

Anonymous said...

Legalism destroys your peace, and it leads to confusion as to your state and standing with God. The sincere religious legalists love to tell people that they are unworthy and that God is displeased with them, or that God doesn't love them, or that God wants to punish them.

Like it or not, the main, critical reason that Legalists feel they have to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days (and the rest of the OT Law) is actually extremely simple.

1) They feel God Commands it to THEM, therefore, they should do it unquestionably.
2) They feel if they do NOT do it, they are out of God's grace and protection.
3) They feel if they do NOT do it, that they will be duly punished, in this life and in the next life.
4) Therefore, the Sabbath and Holy Days become THE focus of their life.
5) Everything else comes second.
9) They fear God's wrath, not embrace God's grace.

Here's what I have learned happens to many when you take this focus:

1) The focus becomes on how well they are doing in "keeping" things.
2) The focus of spiritual maturity on the fruits of the spirit gets lost.
3) They leave their "keeping" of the days feeling "prideful" they "did it".
4) They feel they are doing a better job of "Christianity" than others who claim to be Christian.
5) An attitude of pride, arrogance, haughtiness, and caste becomes dominant.
6) They justify their standing with God based on their "keeping" works, not Jesus' grace and His own saving worthiness.
7) They become judgemental, looking at how others "keep" days.
8) They begin debating points of legalism as major issues of contention.
9) They become stone-cold, emotionless lawyers, abandoning any emotion for code and regulation.
10) Debating any point of law takes a higher focus than living a good, holy life.
11) Their focus is on obedience of code, not holiness in life.
12) They become angry, defiant, and hostile at those who disagree with their view.
13) They block any other view other than the view of black and white law as "lawlessness", believing law is only defined in strict, judgemental code.
14) Many of these types despise and hate emotion and love, some actually are incapable of displaying such emotion.
15) They hate this post.





DennisCDiehl said...

Deut 28:8-9 is one of those scriptures theologians marvel made the cut. It indicates that the Canaanite god, "El" was hijacked by the Hebrews along with some of the original story. El is the supreme god. YHVH is the subordinate to El and on the council of the gods. The "Satan" (Adversary) was also on the Council as indicated in the opening chapters of Job. (I don't personally believe any of this you understand. It is made up speculation on the part of Priests writing the Pentateuch, as if they knew, and a source of endless debate by others ad nauseum, as if they knew. "

The also real god "Chemosh" of the Moabites was put over them. as we see in later tales.


""Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities:

Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.

"When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

There are two points to take away from this passage.

First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received.

Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet “the Most High.” In other words, the passage depicts two gods: one, the Most High (El), is seen as assigning nations to the divine beings or gods (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”) in his council; the other, Yahweh, is depicted as receiving from the first god, the Most High, his particular allotment, namely the people of Israel.

Similarly, in another older tradition now preserved in Numbers 21:29, the god Chemosh is assigned to the people of Moab""

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god

No matter how you cut it, the OT is not exclusively monotheistic by any means and the NT gets stuck with explaining how three gods can be one in twisted apologetics.

Sadly, and the fool that I am, none of them are really real gods and for anyone to think they have it all figured out in any form is simply delusional thinking about illusionary ideas that cannot be proven and never will be laid to rest .

I still believe if there is a God of any religious persuasion it would be best for it/she/him to simply cut out the middlemen, go on tour and remove all doubt.

DennisCDiehl said...

And too, the Churches of God and their Old Testament haunted Leadership have NEVER gotten the message of the NT correct. It is a message of grace and forgiveness. The COG's then add law keeping as a follow up way to keep on the straight an narrow path. The laws you have to obey depend on the opinions of the denomination you serve.

Another genuine problem in the NT is that it is a mix of lawkeeping admonitions and grace. Within the pages are still argument and disagreement between the authors, James/Paul, Paul/Peter, Paul/everyone else. Paul even seems both for and against law depending on what you read. The topic in the NT is not crystal clear and reflect the ages long argument of which is it.

If you have to pick, go with grace. Go with "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" rather than all the bluster of what will happen to you if you don't obey the law, whichever ones get highlighted by whom at the time.

While God may not be the author of confusion, his middlemen always have been and always will be..

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
Grace, grace, praise grace! Blessed is the murderer who is forgiven! Forget the victim and his widow!

Those aren't really the issues most would contend or debate as part of Law vs Grace. We're talking religious belief and practice. Days, Times, tithing, giving, doctrine and such. No one thinks murderers should be "forgiven" willy nilly because of theological Grace.

The Pope "Forgave" his assassination attempter but "for God's sake, he's the Pope! What else is he supposed to do!" :)

The Book of James, written by a James but perhaps not THE James is all about refuting Paul's Grace without works found in Romans. "Show me grace without your works (Romans) and I"ll show you my Grace by my works (James)" A very old argument and you see it waged even in this posting. It will never end.

Anonymous said...

The emphasis on grace amounts to keep the commandments (don't commit adultery, don't steal etc) but don't grow as a person.

Byker Bob said...

Does James Malm even publish a Maguszine?

BB

Anonymous said...

I think the question 3:52 is trying to pose is the boundaries between Grace and Justice - and where forgiveness and justice's boundaries lie.

Scripture is pretty clear that God is a God of Justice AND Grace. I think 3:52 is trying to say that those who focus on forgiveness and grace are shortsighted on justice, in his opinion, i'd guess.

Perhaps it would be a benefit to 3:52 to examine what grace means, what forgiveness means, and how Godly Justice is administered as threefold in the ministry of grace. I think it might be an eye-opening study.



Anonymous said...

The emphasis on grace and distortion of what it means is all about pissing on the law so that hippies can smoke pot, take LSD, and screw somebody else's wife, ruin their families, and still get to heaven.

Byker Bob said...

What ever happened to the hippies? Where are they today? They seem to have disappeared right about the time Ronald Reagan became president.

BB

Anonymous said...

Whatever you think of Malm and whatever you think of this website, the upshot is UCG's reputation lays in ruins.
On one spectrum you have Malm beating the jungle drums drawing attention that UCG has changed, and giving his reasons why. Then on the other end you have this website drawing attention as well by comments saying UCG is moving in the right direction.
Both extremes are in agreement that changes are happening in UCG.

Anonymous said...

BB
What happened to the hippies? They went mainstream. Today they wear business suits and are in charge of the press and in control of the government. And they are eating alive Donald Trump because he is not one of them. After all, he has built stuff, unlike the pot smoking Obama and pathological liar and thief Hillary with her and Bills Clinton foundation.

11.56 PM
This site has a diversity of opinions so no, not every one here believes that UGC is moving in the right direction.

Allen Dexter said...

Life got simplified tremendously when I cast off ancient tribal taboos and decrees and adopted humanist ethics in their place. Superstition out the window along with self-righteous ministerial control. No tithes to eke out. No watching to see when the sun was going to set on Friday or any other day. No worrying about what I chose to put in my mouth. Just what is considerate and loving toward others to think about. No sitting interminable hours listening to bombastic sermons about pure nonsense. No constant feeling or fear of not measuring up and being "lost." What a relief!

Anonymous said...

I think I have made this comment more then once before but will say it again. Because the UCG has a more open structure and are more open to doctrinal debate they will be criticized by hard line Armstrongites as watering down the truth. On the other hand because they still hold on to Armstrongism mainstream Christianity will also not be attracted to the UCG. Because of what the UCG is they will not attract very many hard line Armstrongites or many mainstream Christians.

Claire Voighent (Helen Wheels) said...

If one goes to the Grace Communion International website they have online sermons & articles that explain grace and the difference in old covenant/new covenant teachings. It explains everything in crystal clear understanding.

nck said...

"What ever happened to the hippies?"


The original hippies just grew older and can be found in neat slacks, short hair, on golf courses in gated communities after they found a job after college.


The modern hippies are mainstream now. Recycling, eco friendly, prius driving and perhaps supporting Bernie Sanders. But they don't call themselves hippies anymore.

Just like Armstrongism is mainstream today and soon developing into a dystopian World Tomorrow where every of our needs is known by mr google and facebook, translated into artificial intelligence and serving all our medical and psychological needs in the coming moment of technological singularity. (Techno dictatorship as the answer to the pursuit of happiness.) Just as HWA predicted. The entire world agriculturally fed by Bayer Monsanto.

Centrally organized (or steered capitalism as dr kuhn advised to the chinese government)

Did you read my article on the chinese testing of "social ranking points" per individual. Based on social media behavior. Or crossing the street with a red light will get your "face recognized", substraction of social ranking points and lesser chance to acquire a mortage and live in that city. Lesser points also means lesser friends who will be hesitant to be friends with one who speak out against the government.

Reality already for over a billion people. The world tomorrow is coming and it is going to be centrally organized.

nck

Anonymous said...

Anon June 5, 2018 at 3:52 PM said...

"...Acts 3:13
"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus."

Combine with Ex. 3:6,16, Ex. 4:5, Matt. 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 7:32, and it's a tough one to get around..."



Yes, Acts 3:13 et al are tough to get around, but people still strive to do so.

To elaborate further, Matt. 22:32 says:

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Can the Word claim to be that God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: The God of the living? No.

Can Jesus Christ claim to be that God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: The God of the living? No.

And that is true when one thinks about Deuteronomy 32:39-40, which states:

39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

Those are all using personal pronouns: I...I this and I that.

Did the Word, which was MADE flesh, say "I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever?" No.

If that Word was made flesh, is the Word alive today? Yes, Christ has that title: the Word of God, so what about Jesus Christ?

Did Jesus Christ say "I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever?" No.

Then, who in Deut 32:40, is the ONE claiming "For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever?"

Again, Jesus Christ knew He would die. He was murdered and ceased existence for several days, and that is not living forever!

Then, what is all that discussion about some active God? Active Gods? Where does "active" come from? Who made that phrase "active god" up?

If there is some "active God" in the NT, who might that be? Jesus Christ tells us:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

I think Jesus is referring to the Living God, an active God, that draws, and drags, one to Jesus. Does this Living God forknow and predestinate too? Could He be that active?

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

How active is Jesus Christ there in John 6:44 and Romans 8:

We know God accomplishes things through Jesus Christ, and God consistently accomplished things through the Word, but who really is the active ONE?

Time will tell...

Anonymous said...

P.S.

Who is the active ONE in the following verses?

Proverbs 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Jesus Christ had a beginning. Is it possible that the Word also had a beginning?

Time will tell...

John

DennisCDiehl said...

BB What ever happened to the hippies? Where are they today? They seem to have disappeared right about the time Ronald Reagan became president."

They grew up and became the adults over 30 we were not to trust! :)

Anonymous said...

People who yabber about "grace" never seem to be serious about morality. They are always trying to get out of something, usually one or more of the ten commandments.

Connie Schmidt said...

I think Herman Hoeh was a closet hippie!

Anonymous said...

Law and Grace is not that difficult to explain. We are to keep the Law but you will always fall short. We need Christ's sacrifice, His mercy and grace to forgive our daily failures, unable to keep it perfectly.

We are saved by Grace and can gain eternal life because of Christ's resurrection.
The carnal man can not please God and we need to be transformed into spirit.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, John, for addressing my 3:52 comment; I always appreciate your perspective on things.

Anonymous said...

"Law and Grace is not that difficult to explain. We are to keep the Law but you will always fall short"

This makes no sense. It is almost like saying "You are to grab the food but you will never be able to reach it."

Another analogy would be "You are to pull on the parachute cord but the cord is too short."

There is no sense, no reason, nor no purpose for "keeping the law, but always falling short". This is why Galatians was written. This is the reason why as Paul said, those who live by the law are under a curse. There is no way to "keep" the Law if you always fall short. Because by always falling short, you are never "keeping the Law". One of the tenets of the law is that you must keep it perfectly, or you are not keeping it at all.

The mercy and grace of Jesus does not just forgive our DAILY failures - when we put our faith and trust in Jesus, we acknowledge he is our Savior in all of our life circumstances. This is why there is NO Condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

There is no purpose, no reason, and no rhyme to "keep the Law" when you will always fall short. For New Testament Christians, the "Law" is transformed from the code of black and white to a LIFESTYLE OF LOVE - written on the heart. Those who attempt to "keep the Law" - referring to OT Law - and "always fall short" always fall short because they are looking to what was broken instead of what is available - the ministering of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of God's people to do what's right, good, and holy all the time.

When people realize that keep trying to pull a parachute cord that is too short and will never be reached will only lead to a hard landing on the cement ground, maybe they'll extend they're hands up and grab onto Jesus and look into HIS FACE instead of continually trying to save themselves by pulling a cord they'll never be able to reach. Think and pray about it. It'll make sense.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you've already answered this, but what does an atheist care about what the bible teaches on grace? Surely whether or not a being you don't believe in forgives you doesn't matter to you.

NO2HWA said...

11:15 Who are you addressing this to?

Anonymous said...

"People who yabber about "grace" never seem to be serious about morality. They are always trying to get out of something, usually one or more of the ten commandments. "

There is a subset of people who think like this. There has ALWAYS been a subset who think like this. This does NOT invalidate grace, or it's importance.

It is this subset of people that Paul specifically addressed in the scriptures - explaining that people who intentionally live like this do not understand Jesus nor the gospel. Grace is not an excuse. Grace is what enables us to know God and to live righteously. Grace grants us access to the Throne of God. Grace is what Jesus died to bring us - to allow God's Spirit to be in us so we can live a life of love.

You will always encounter people who use grace as an excuse to sin. It is not. Those who know Jesus want to do right and want to flee from sin, not live in it. This is where discernment is invaluable.

Byker Bob said...

Thanks for all the answers about the lost tribe of “the hippies”. I’ve been told that the name was coined by someone in the press, that it wasn’t something one called oneself, and that you never even realized that you were one until someone else called you a hippie. Basically, it was a pejorative term.

BB

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:29 If UCG has a more open structure and are more open to doctrinal debate then why do they have fundemental beliefs ?
Your explanation makes UCG look like a free for all. Have a missed something ?

Anonymous said...

June 6, 6:30 wrote: "People who yabber about "grace" never seem to be serious about morality. They are always trying to get out of something, usually one or more of the ten commandments. "

In Armstrongism and most of the Church of God, those that claim demand the law is to be enforced are the serial adulterers, rapists, and all around commandment breakers. The most legalistic church members I know happen to be the vilest people I have ever met. They are bitter angry people and will backstab friends and church members in the back without a second thought.

Anonymous said...


In Armstrongism and most of the Church of God, those that claim demand the law is to be enforced...


It is also the ministry - many of whom are apologetically extreme on pride, arrogance, and spiritual/emotional abuse, causing much harm to members and attenders in the name of the Law - thinking it's Godly, and leading people into an abyss of mental and even physical illness, while they get paid by YOUR hard-earned dollars, and YOU struggle to get by.



Anonymous said...

12.57 PM
It's certainly discernable that vile people demand that "the law is to be enforced," but you seem to miss the point. The reason they do this (in a exaggerated manner) is to vicariously fulfill a emotional need. Being made in Gods image, people have a need to feel righteous. When they reject Gods law, they fulfill this emotional hunger through others. This is proof of the need to live by the ten commandments, rather than the opposite, which you imply.

Anonymous said...

When they reject Gods law, they fulfill this emotional hunger through others. This is proof of the need to live by the ten commandments, rather than the opposite, which you imply.

Sure you can live by the letter of the commandments. 10 commands seems pretty basic and easy, doesn't it? But this - according to Jesus - was not enough.

Jesus told the one who questioned what else he must do that he was lacking. Pressed on what he was lacking, the instruction of Jesus was clear - sell everything he had, give to the poor, and then come back and see Jesus. Of course, the questioning person hung his head, and left. Jesus of course, said how hard it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.

The legalistic person would see this and say "A-ha. Here's the 11th commandment. Thou shalt sell all your belongings and give them to the poor! THEN I'll have the Kingdom!" and that person would miss it even though they think they have not.

The spiritual person would understand that what the person was missing the Spirit - showing the spiritual starvation when one does not "live by the spirit" and also does not exhibit the "fruits" of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit - Christ in you - living in a person - is what changes a person from legalism-based to spirit-LED.

You can live by the Ten Commandments all you want to - including keeping "THE LAW" - and still miss the boat. The only way one can "see" and "know" and "live" the Kingdom of God is if Christ is IN YOU through the Holy Spirit Who brings righteousness, peace and joy. (That's scriptural - look it up!). THIS is why legalism's effects are so often so disastrously wicked that those who practice it do not know it. Because their attempts to "make it" are of their own power, not of the power of God's Spirit - which most in Armstrongism, thanks to HWA heresy, do not even believe is a real, logical, emotional, thinking Person - to their own shame and detriment. In fact.... they'll read this and won't even understand it.


Claire Voighent said...

[fake] "Claire Voighent (Helen Wheels)" said...

"If one goes to the Grace Communion International website they have online sermons & articles that explain grace and the difference in old covenant/new covenant teachings. It explains everything in crystal clear understanding."

This is a apocryphal comment. I didn't write it. It needs to be deleted.

Anonymous said...

9:10 AM

That is probably the dumbest comparison I have ever seen on this website.

Anonymous said...

5:50 PM, I bet you didn't. lol

Anonymous said...

Claire, your comments have been deleted from another article. Maybe if you would choose your words more carefully instead of coming across as an a** ....

RSK said...

Sounds like our troll is at it again...

Anonymous said...

That is probably the dumbest comparison I have ever seen on this website.

What is truly "dumb", using your verbiage, is when a point of view is labeled negatively without any comment as to the reasons why they are considered to be "dumb". It is making a comment without supporting evidence as to the opinion. That, technically, is the obvious definition of what is "dumb" - commenting without substance or context.

The context of the opinion was very focused based on the original comment. The comment was:

"Law and Grace is not that difficult to explain. We are to keep the Law but you will always fall short."

I read this as "We are to keep the Law but you will always fall short of keeping the Law."

Huh?!!! So Jesus came to grade us on a curb of how well we do with our law keeping??? I don't get that at all from the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. That's a different gospel altogether.

The comparison was exactly in line with this way of thinking. Especially, when you know, without any doubt, that one of the main, uncompromising rules of the law is that you are not allowed to add to it, or subtract from it. Absolute perfection is required to observe the law, or you have not successfully observed it at all.

To make the statement that you have to keep the law, but you will always fall short is ignorant - because you can NOT keep the Law if you are always falling short. To say that grace is simply there to "cover" your inability to "keep" the Law, but God will give you an "A for effort" and a pass to the kingdom because you are trying is grossly ignorant and theologically ridiculous.

The notion that Jesus said that you have to keep the Law - but you can't keep the Law - but as long as you are seen as trying to keep the Law, then all is well, is not the point of the Law, the Worlds of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the lessons of Jesus, and is actually a massive slap in the face of why Jesus came and what He stood for. NO ONE who tries to keep the Law, and points to their Law Keeping (which failed miserably, and always will) as justification to enter the Kingdom of God, will get very far with that way of thinking with Jesus.

The CONTEXT of the analogies as displayed in the post you label as dumb is exactly in line with the premise of the original comment. I don't see anything "dumb" about that. It is perfectly in order with what the original writer was saying. Your silence on "what" was dumb is not only deafening - it's telling. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your assumption as to "why" and "WHAT" you are referring to as "dumb".

Anonymous said...

This has to be the dumbest response to a post here yet! So totally off base and completely ignorant about grace.

Anonymous said...

Just wondering about obtaining a copy of Mark's paper? Curious.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yes and No to HWA said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


The UCG seemed to produce some fairly decent, though mild, literature in the past. Its desire not to “attack” anyone, or offend anyone, or upset anyone, or get sued, made sure that half the story did not get told in the UCG literature.

The big problem with the UCG was all the weirdos, liars, gossips, adulterers, stalkers, and newly credentialed demoniacs who showed up at the meetings for their own wrong reasons. They liked to preach their own crazy pet theories to the other people there. Strangely, the UCG could not get rid of any of the bad people, only their victims.

The 2010 split of the UCG when many ministers left to form COGWA left some UCG congregations loaded up with a lot of really rotten characters.

Anonymous said...

Yes and No to HWA, June 9, 2018 at 9:14, wrote: "...While the Father is the Lord of hosts in Zec 13:7 it does not follow that He is the Lord of hosts in 2 Sam 6:2 as there are two Lord of hosts:

Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me [selaphani] unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

“While many think “me” refers to Zechariah, other maintain that, in the light of the language and the full scope of these verse, it looks towards the messianic Servant Messenger, the Angel of the Lord (so Baron, Feinberg, Leupold, Unger). If the latter view is correct as seems likely, the speaker, identified as the Lord Almighty “[LORD of hosts,” AV] at the beginning of the verse, is the Messiah himself, the Angel of the Lord” (Kenneth L. Barker, Zechariah, EBC, Vol.7, p.618)..."



Interesting thoughts, Yes and No to HWA, but when "many think" one thing and "other[s] maintain" another thing, well, which one is it?

If you know that "me" is referring to Zechariah, then that "LORD of hosts" is a reference to the One God we know today as the Father. Currently, I prefer this particular view for the LORD of hosts.

Earlier you wrote: “…So God and Jesus Christ was/were “God” in both OT and NT. …”

In the NT, absolutely yes, but in the OT where do/did you find the phrase “Jesus Christ?”

Also, how would you explain the following verse?

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Can you find 2 Gods in that verse? You did write that God and Jesus Christ was/were “God” in the OT. There are other similar such verses as Isaiah 44:6 in the OT saying the same thing.

Jesus Christ today is called "God," but He still is not "The God." Even Jesus Christ knew who was greater than Himself.

You said that Rick Railston makes reference to such words as: "...the messianic Servant Messenger, the Angel of the Lord...the Messiah himself," what happened to "the Word?"

But, wasn’t the Word made flesh? Has "the Word" been swept under some "carpet," sort of speak? What happened to the phrase of “the Word?”

As an aside, say the Bible speaks about Christ’s “second coming,” while He came back to earth a “second time” after He was murdered, ceased living for 3 days and 3 nights, was resurrected by The God, and visited that God in Heaven. Someone added the phrase “second coming” like it came right out of the Bible, while, it appears, others subtract phrases. Is “the Word” one of those phrases? What happened to “the Word?” Just curious!

John 1:1 says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Did you see “the God” in that verse? The answer could be yes and no, but no; however, we should have seen it!. A definite article was subtracted.

John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [[the definite article "the" should have been inserted here in the AKJV b/c the Greek (ton theon) for "the God" is τὸν θεόν 63 times in NT and as τὸν θεὸν 51 times in the NT for a total of 114 times.]] God, and the Word was God."

Jesus Christ had a beginning, and so did the Word, but there is only One who is the Highest and that is the One who said "For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever." Deuteronomy 32:40

There is no room in Deut 32:40 for the word "we."

Anyway, does Rick still talk about "the Word?"

John