Thursday, October 25, 2018

Brethren, I have no intention of trying to humiliate United Church of God but I am going to anyway because I am doing this out of "love and concern"



It is another fun day in the land of self-serving, self-appointed Church of God leaders.

The official Church of God Pharisee is hypocritically posting today that he is preempting the United Church of God's official paper on who the God of the Old Testament is and who the God of the New Testament is.  Brethren, rest assured that he is doing this out of 'love and concern." UCG has not even released anything, yet this self-serving fool knows more than they do.

We are going to need a big manure loader in order to clean up this pile of steaming hypocrisy!

Brethren, I have no interest in hurting the UCG CoE by waiting until they approve their Paper and then analyzing it.  Quite the contrary I have felt moved to compile and publish this study before the CoE approves a Paper in December.  This Paper is published in love and concern, and in the hope that they will consider these points as they produce and approve their own Position Paper. 
The end result of approving what they have been discussing is a drift into the Evangelical concept that the Mosaic Covenant was with the Father and the New Covenant is with Christ. 
This potential new position, and yes it is a radical change of existing teachings; establishes the foundation of the evangelical concept that the Father was the God of the Old Mosaic Covenant with its laws, while Jesus Christ came to establish a New, different and much better Covenant where the laws given to Moses are no longer obligatory.  
This potential heresy is the foundation of the gross error that the laws that God gave to Moses are optional and not obligatory in the New Covenant!  
Once the CoE adopts their final Position Paper they will send it to the elders instructing them to teach it.  
If they adopt anything similar to what they have discussed; over time as the heresy is accepted, it will do away with the obligatory nature of God’s instructions through Moses, just like the adoption of a similar position did for Joe Tkach. 
Brethren, please ask your elders to read this Paper and carefully consider before crafting and approving a final Position Paper on the subject.  
The following message has been sent to the UCG CoE.
For the Chairman and all Council Members
Chairman Ward
Members of the CoE
Gentlemen
Today I published a Paper on “The God of the Old Testament.” This exhaustive Paper was published in advance of your own deliberations, out of sincere love and concern, and in the hope that you will consider these points as you produce and approve your own Position Paper on the subject.

This is for Chairman Ward to use to clean up the Chief Pharisee's "love and concern"


30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ouch! I know someone who will need some haemorrhoid cream after this! I can feel his pain all the way here in Sussex!

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess! I mean you can re-engineer this by going forwards, just as HWA worked backwards looking for nebulous proof-texts to demonstrate that Jesus was actually the God of the OT. To HWA, the New Covenant ends up being the same as the Old Covenant, with the exception that mankind now has a Messiah, one who only needs to be spoken of on rare occasions.

Anonymous said...

LOL! Major butthurt!

R.L. said...

UCG has indeed released something on this issue. A video of the Council of Elders discussion on "God of the Old Testament" in August incited James Malm to start all this.

TLA said...

I believe Jesus was the God people knew in the O.T.
Trinitarians believe that too.
This Messianic Jews site has a nice explanation of their trinity belief:
https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-jun-1987/the-trinity-in-the-old-testament/

Looks like a common belief among binitarians and trinitarians is that Jesus was the God of the O.T.

Anonymous said...

To HWA, the New Covenant ends up being the same as the Old Covenant, with the exception that mankind now has a Messiah, ...

Complete nonsense. Either you never understood Herb or you forgot. The key difference has to do with the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

But it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to those who are willfully wrong and just don't care about accurate analysis. Lots of that going on. Any reasonable person has given up on most of you people a long time ago.

SHT said...

Right, rather than wait for the supposed paper to supposedly come out, Malm prematurely issues his own paper. Now, if the "paper" does not come out (if it ever was to) he can claim that they are considering his Pharisaical legalistic butt-wipe.

Malm must really think he's something to think he has any influence whatsoever. He reminds me of the dude that used to park his van at Ambassador with all the posters. A lot of words that are just a nuisance, and love and concern? Bovine Defecation. Hence....


Charmin for the Chairman.

Anonymous said...

Malm's paper does not make much sense now that his ghostwriter Constance has abandoned him. Part of me feels sad for the old guy. Abandoned twice in his life by women.

Anonymous said...

If you really believe everything you posted, 8:18, then I would recommend that you ignore this site, and what we discuss here. Over time, our words will have a cumulative effect on your thinking. Slowly, over the weeks and months, the stuff that we say will stick in your memory, and we will warp your thinking. Of course, perhaps something much better will happen for you, a nice surprise.

Since you mentioned the spirit of the law, you should know that Armstrongism never fully addressed that. HWA's followers are stuck in selfish legalism, whereas the spirit of the law is embodied by the two great commandments of the Lord, love for God, and love for fellow man. Others have called this the Royal Law of Love, or the law behind the law. It is the point or objective of the school teacher, and flows in such a way that it doesn't hurt others. You can be perfectly obedient to your system of legalism, and not even realize that the ways in which you practice it hurts others. Most Armstrongites think that they are practicing love for God, but they practice it to the exclusion of love for fellow man. All fellow man, not just "the brethren". The two great commandments are complimentary to each other. Practicing one exclusively, or with more weight breaks the other.

Earl said...

Anon 8:18, there are plenty who come here with a desire to simply prove if that which they were taught in their early ignorance is true (he who only hears one side of a matter...). Dismissing people and these questions in anger is a testament to a cultish embrace of doctrine as taught by a flawed man rather than following Christ. I understand some handle wcg/hwa roughly but you have to expect this when the question is whether you were deceived and manipulated perhaps intentionally (I know some ministry of wcg were disingenuous but not sure of the extent). It is a question: spirit of the law vs physical law. How does one spiritually keep a physical law? Some claim new understanding each time they deleaven. Is this somewhat silly or is it simply that they are taking the time to think while cleaning? In the absence of any other contemplation I suppose contemplation during cleaning creates a good, but does that place too much importance on a physical activity? Questions I have. I get what is taught about the holy days but the only reason I do them is the command not their taught meaning. I get the meaning I don’t need holy days to teach that. When instituted the Israelites didn’t understand, they were obeying a command. But, is that command still part of the new covenant. These are important questions that perhaps you have never fully answered by looking into strong arguments counter to your own. Yes, I have great issue with wcg/hwa as there simply were many wrongs associated with them, but which teachings were correct, which false?

SHT said...

Earl,

The answer to your questions, in my opinion, wholly has to do with what we believe Christ did, or didn't do. What he accomplished, or did not accomplish. What He fulfilled, or did not fulfill. Context is extremely important. "Seek you first the Kingdom and HIS Righteousness."

I would wholeheartedly suggest that anyone seeking to answer these questions do a thorough study of Christ, His Mission, and His accomplishments, as well as the letters to the Ephesians, Collosians, Philippians, and I and II Corinthians. I'd also suggest a deep study into Acts, especially Acts 15. I would look into the relationship between Jew and Gentile. I would also study to see if the claims are true as to if the Law and the Prophets pointed totally to Jesus Christ, or if they had some other purpose altogether.

I'm not typing this to try to influence your point of view with this comment one way or the other. This is personal to you. I'm simply suggesting some in-depth exegesis of scripture. However you decide to do it, I hope you come to the personal answers you are looking to resolve.



Unknown said...

For UCG, with a friend like Malm, who needs enemies??

Anonymous said...

SHT
If I don't replace my car engine oil every so often, it will begin to grind away my engine. What Christ accomplished on the cross doesn't change this. Do's and don't are there for a reason, ie the preservation of life and achievement of success, No in depth exegesis of scripture is neccesary. All I need do is observe everyday life.

SHT said...

12:40

Absolutely agree. That's true! If you don't change your oil, it's going to get ugly for you and the car!

Do's and donts are there for a reason. This is why God sent a Counselor. This is what Christ's accomplishments gave to us through reconciliation to the Father - the Holy Spirit. Without Christ in us, and the leading of the Spirit - the only oil we put in our "car" is obsolete oil, aged, worn, and worthless, bound to send the car to the junkyard, because that oil cannot accomplish what the Anointed Oil can.

Anonymous said...

SHT
You seem to be doing a straw man argument on me with your 1.57 PM post. Basic reality says that everything has certain characteristics. For instance, different metals have a certain melting point, malleability, tensile strength etc. To achieve success in life, these traits need to be honored. Hence, glass needs to be treated with care since it's brittle. Car tyres need a certain air pressure to maintain their optimum shape. Seeds need to be planted at a certain depth and a certain temperature to germinate. Once something is made, it has certain traits. It's this law of characteristics that is the source of a moral code. Not even God is above this law. It is this law that has "hemmed in" a loving God, forcing Him to allow horrific human suffering.

Christ's sacrifice does not negate the fact that everything in creation has specific characteristics. Or do you drive around with flat car tyres?

Anonymous said...

12:40- I use New Covenant oil (Mobil 1 full Synthetic) in my car. It is much more forgiving than dinosaur oil. It was developed for extreme conditions by aircraft engineers, and is much more forgiving. I go 20,000 miles in between oil changes, I sell my cars at about 200,000 miles, and they still last for years for the next owner. Not a single one has ever blown up, and I've racked up millions of miles in my career.
You could literally drain all the Mobil 1 from one of my cars, and drive it hundreds of miles before it would blow up.

Prior to that, I used Frantz toilet paper oil filters, and almost never changed my oil. Cars are like religion. There's a lot of stuff that isn't known by your average participant.

Sam said...

Well said.

SHT said...

" For instance, different metals have a certain melting point, malleability, tensile strength etc. To achieve success in life, these traits need to be honored. Hence, glass needs to be treated with care since it's brittle. Car tyres need a certain air pressure to maintain their optimum shape. Seeds need to be planted at a certain depth and a certain temperature to germinate. Once something is made, it has certain traits. It's this law of characteristics that is the source of a moral code. Not even God is above this law. It is this law that has "hemmed in" a loving God, forcing Him to allow horrific human suffering."

There's one problem with your reasoning.

That born in the flesh is flesh. That born of the spirit is spirit.

Everything that you have said is physical. Metal, glass, seeds, tires - even physical success. It's all physical (material, matter) in our dimension - in our realm. You state that a spiritual God is hemmed in with a physical law. Absolutely incorrect. God's ways are higher than our ways, and God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. You cannot bring a spiritual God down to be hemmed in by physical laws. The moral code of God is love, because God IS love. Love is the fulfillment of the Law, and the embodiment of perfection in the spiritual realms.

No physical law "hems" God in to be forced to allow physical suffering. The Spiritual Law of Love - or, the Royal Law of Love - is the ultimate goal that is eternal - while human suffering is but a moment - here today, gone tomorrow.

God is above the physical laws because God is spirit. The laws of the New Covenant, ahd of the Holy Spirit realms - are spiritual.

FFS said...

You cannot put God in a box. Space, time, dimensions...means nothing to Him. He is Spirit, non-physical.

Anonymous said...

And God is the ultimate Lawgiver, and thus, is above all law and the One who can change it. For instance, God originally instructed Adam and Eve’s children to marry and have sex to procreate. Hence, the children of our first parents would’ve committed incest. Yet, this was sanctioned by God until thousands of years later when the Mosaic Law was introduced stipulating incest was now forbidden. So if God can change law then He is above it isn’t He?

Anonymous said...

SHT
Your "Gods ways are higher than our ways ..." is often mis-used to demand that people ignore everything that they know. It's implied that they should instead blindly believe another person. It's a dishonest way to win a debate. Not forgetting, asking people to ditch their minds is murder. If the context of that verse is considered (asking the wicked to repent) it's obvious that Gods higher ways and higher thoughts are the 10 commandments.
No matter what an item is made from, physical matter or spirit, it still has traits. The bible mentions horses in heaven. Again these animals need to be treated in conformity to their nature. A universe where time, space, dimensions don't exist is a mess. In fact it has a name, it's called death. I do recall in a episode of Star Trek NG, where they made verbal mention of living in a state free from time, space, dimensions, but no concrete example of this was ever given in any episode. Even with the aid of todays fancy computer graphics, they could not portray this state. No movie ever has either. A limited amount of 'magic,' but nothing more. For the same reason, even God limits His miracles.

Anonymous said...

9.05 PM
Adam and Eves children committed incest by today's definition. This was unavoidable for the first several generations, but God would have accounted for this when He engineered Adam and Eve. This avoided genetic damage to the off spring. But sanctioned by God for thousands of years? Not really.

I remind you that Christ never sinned. There is no unrighteousness in God the Father. So no, they are not above the law.

Feastgoer said...

What Mr. Malm did here reminds me of a "Jeff Flake moment". He's trying to corner the COE to change its mind and see things his way, like those women did in the Capitol elevator a few weeks ago.

If those women had succeeded, some would see them now as historic and even heroic. In this case, I suspect the COE will do the same thing Sen. Flake finally did - NOT change its mind, and leave Mr. Malm as a footnote.

Retired Prof said...

Anonymous 11:06 informs Sht, "even God limits his miracles."

Right you are, Anon. The major boundary beyond which miracles cannot go is the law of averages. God has to keep careful count of the distribution of miracles to make sure that good ones don't consistently outnumber evil ones, or vice versa. He has to make sure that the universe looks exactly the way it would if he did not exist.

Anonymous said...

Retired Prof
What do you define as a evil miracle? God does say that He hides Himself, but that it looks "exactly the way it would if He did not exist" is debatable. One example, after the dust has settled at the end of WW 2, half of Europe ended in communist hands. This gave the ideology an opportunity to prove/disprove itself. No?

Another analogy is a computer language. They are defined by software engineers, but once established, they must religiously be complied with in order to be useful. Likewise God has defined reality, but He too submits to it. Otherwise it would be self defeating. So He doesn't put himself above the law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:25 said: "Adam and Eves children committed incest by today's definition. This was unavoidable for the first several generations, but God would have accounted for this when He engineered Adam and Eve. This avoided genetic damage to the off spring. But sanctioned by God for thousands of years? Not really."

I have to differ with you concerning the timespan since I believe God allowed sexual relationships with close relatives i.e. incest for mankind for thousands of years prior to the Mosaic Law. For instance, Adam and Eve's children would've have had to have incest to procreate. But, besides them we have instances of incestuous relationships even after Noah's Flood like Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah or his brother Nahor marrying his niece Milcah or Moses' father Amram marrying his aunt Jochebed. Such marriages were subsequently forbidden by the Mosaic Law. So to Abraham's lifetime we have roughly about 2008 years (according to Masoretic Text) and 3388 years (according to Septuagint Text). I probably would side with the LXX, but regardless of which chronology you accept, thousands of years would be accurate imho.

Anonymous said...

5.34 PM
Yes, God allowed incest for thousands of years. He also allowed the breaking of all of the ten commandments for thousands of years. Allowing sin and approving of sin is not one and the same, as you imply.
The infinite freedom thingy does not mean that it's OK to sin.

Anonymous said...

7:57 PM said: "Yes, God allowed incest for thousands of years. He also allowed the breaking of all of the ten commandments for thousands of years. Allowing sin and approving of sin is not one and the same, as you imply. The infinite freedom thingy does not mean that it's OK to sin."

To clarify, I'm not equating incest prior to the Mosaic Law as sin.

I'm simply stating that God can create or remove rules as He sees fit if the situation or circumstances dictate it. He is, of course, God Almighty and the ultimate Rule or Law maker. He isn't bound by any supposed rule book of man's. He does whatever He wants and gets whatever He wants and no one can stop Him (2 Chr. 20:6).

So prior to the Mosaic Law He did not legislate against incestuous relationships and thus such marriages were not sin.

With the advent of the Mosaic Law, however, God outlawed such sexual relationships with close relatives (except first cousins) and they are now classified as sin.

I understand that Egyptian royalty practiced inbreeding following the notion that gods could only marry goddesses (not "commoners") to preserve the "divine bloodline." And Moses surely would've witnessed this first hand growing up in the royal household. Even King Tutankhamen was supposedly a product of incest, his parents being siblings.

Incidentally I think that some within the ACOGs have speculated about the possibility of, or believe similarly to Mormonism that, the sinless sons and daughters of God will have sex and populate an ever-growing universe (similar to how animals procreate now without sin).

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a lot of focus on incest, however, Adam and Eve weren't the only humanoids on the planet. They were the only ones mentioned. Archaeology proves that there were other humanoid species also in existence and DNA traces today show that some people have up to 2% neanderthal in their background. So, yes there was a cross breeding going on. That would help explain where the spouses originated from. No where does it say others didn't exist.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:18 AM said: “...Adam and Eve weren't the only humanoids on the planet. They were the only ones mentioned...”

That’s a doctrine of the pre-Adamic theory, which is totally unscriptural and disproven by many passages in the Old and New Testaments.
It is a lie and a “doctrine of devils” imho.

See eg:
https://creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human-beings-on-earth-before-adam
https://youtu.be/9rIYHbvQS10