Anonymous said in a previous thread:
"Protestantism is now visibly dying some 500 years after Luther nailed his theses to a church door. Church buildings are empty on Sunday. Some major denominations even have Pastors or "Priests" that are openly atheists! There is an increasing odour of denominational desperation with some Protestants seeking ecumenical reconciliation with Rome for moral support.But most of their practices, traditions and holidays have no scriptural basis at all. THAT is why some left them for the Churches of God."
Very good point, Anonymous. And one worthy of discussion. So today, let's delve into this, one of the biggest reasons why Armstrongism was such a draw for many who were attracted to it.
In the previous article, what was simply presented was scripture in the book of Romans which was handling a major controversy within the Church concerning a division between the brethren. There was a breakaway group within the Church (Haha, isn't that a big surprise?) that believed that they were free of the binds of shackles. They believed that they were now free to eat anything that they wished for (Meats, etc.) - while the legalists of the Church still believed that the food laws were still enforced. The arguments were understandably, apparently, pretty heated between the two segments. Heated enough that Paul had to draft a special letter to the Church to address this serious issue.
From verse one in Romans 14, we can see the very attitudes of human nature that were prevalent then, and just as prevalent at the start of the Armstrong movement, and even now. The human arguments and disputes about what is interpreted to be "right", and what is interpreted to be "wrong". Paul's basis of thought was a condemnation of the need to argue about it.
Paul went on to make the point that those who feel free to discontinue the practice of food dietary laws are not to look down on those who feel the need to do so, and for those that do practice the dietary laws not to look down on those who don't - because - and this is the big point, the point that needs to be yelled loud and clear to all of the legalists who continually try to enforce their opinions in arguments about right or wrong - that God has accepted all of them.
Paul was clear that God accepts those who do not adhere, and who do adhere. He goes on to stretch the point to not only include the food dietary regulations - but clear up to days of Worship. Paul said some believe that they must keep one specific day (obviously, the Seventh Day Sabbath), and others believe all days are alike (obviously those who accepted the new way of thinking) - and then made another "heretical" statement to legalists that said simply this: Whichever day you choose is acceptable".
Now here is a statement that is nerve-wracking to legal-minded thinkers, that both ways of doing it are acceptable to God - IF - and it's a big IF - it is done to honor and to please the Lord. Paul is making a distinction between matters of legal compliance, and matters of a heart yearning to please God and honor God. It is this attitude that seemed to float over the legalists' head because - in the minds of the legalists - they aren't doing it "right".
Now we will address the elephant in the room - Christians - (or, to Armstrong Apologists, falsely-so called Christians) who observe days and traditions that do not have scriptural basis. We are talking about those who claim a love, reverence, and belief in Christ who believe they are honoring God while attending Christmas, Easter, and Sunday services, or for that matter, Wednesday services, Tuesday night Services - you fill in the blank here. We're talking about Christians who have developed a way of doing things that is different from the Law or Traditions that have existed for thousands of years.
We know that this includes Biblical commands of food law because that is the basis of the arguments of those on the legal side who would have pointed to the Torah. We know that this basis includes the Sabbath, because that is the basis on the legal side of the arguments who would have pointed back to Deuteronomy. We know that the Old Testament commands were the basis of the disputes between those of the legalism side and those of the "freedom" side. Those of the legal side would defend vigorously with argumentation the validity and enforcement of the Mosaic Law, and those of the freedom side would defend with equal vigor their freedom in Christ. Paul's point was that God has accepted both sides based on their heart and their desire to worship God. That God was not looking at who was "obeying" this or "obeying" that - but that Christians have - (GASP) choice in what they prefer, in faith, is right to them.
This idea of freedom of choice was new then - and in Armstrongism - is new, even now. This idea of freedom of choice is spat on, frowned on, and stomped on by legalists who don't believe that God can honor those things that aren't written in iron-clad black and white print in the Scriptures. They believe that no person can choose to worship God in any other way than specifically ordained and commanded by scripture.
The argument - then - if one finally relents on the freedom of choice given to a Christian in Christ that Paul clearly states God accepts - switches to an argument of "unknown observance of pagan rituals" - citing past historical things that happened on certain days, times, seasons and years. The argument becomes exactly as stated above - the argument that "practices, traditions, and holidays that have no scriptural basis at all" can possibly be accepted by God.
The question has to be thus: What is it that causes one to be accepted by God?
Paul was very clear, in regards to the food issue, that both sides were accepted by God. He was very clear that the Church was not to argue about it. He also made it clear that it is not our business to condemn another believer. That all will stand before God and all will give account for our choices. But that does not negate the fact that we have choice. And choice is the one thing Armstrongism has robbed their members of for over 70 years.
Since Paul was clear that in regard to food, and in regard to worship, and days, that both groups are acceptable to God based on their faith and based on their heart of worship to God - is it then so difficult to conclude that God can also accept Sunday-keepers? Or that God can accept Christmas keepers? Or that God can accept those who worship God on "non-scripturally based days"? Is it possible that God has accepted all of those who worship Him and believe in Him with pure hearts? Is it possible that all in Christ have been accepted, whether they are in an Armstrong Church or whether they are in a Sunday-keeping, Christmas-keeping, Ham-eating Church?
How Many Armstrong Apologists would have stoned Paul themselves for making such a statement? How many would have accused Paul of having a demon? How many would have rejected this chapter in Romans if being told that by a person themselves? If someone in the Church walked up to a minister and said such a thing, what would happen? Would they have been kicked to the curb? Would such a declaration have raised the ire and fury of the legalistic minister? And in Armstrongism - would accepting such a declaration have harmed the Church's financial and business bottom line - by daring to state that a Christian has choice - and freedom - to choose and to honor God in whatever way is acceptable to them.
The entire construct of Paul's teachings is personal responsibility. Personal freedom. Personal choice - based on individual faith, and freedom in Christ. God has accepted both sides - and looks on a believer's heart - not on what day or what food or what legalistic command is or is not in force. This is the one thing that Armstrong stifles. Personal Choice and freedom in Christ.
The other entire construct of Paul's teaching? To not judge. To not condemn. Which is precisely what we as legalists did to all others who did not do things in the way we thought they should. "Who are you to judge another's servant"? Yet for years, that's exactly what we all did - based not on the faith and mind of the heart but on suppositions of days, times, seasons, years, and what is or is not "pagan".
What's the bottom line. The bottom line - according to New Testament teaching - is that the decisions of what is or is not acceptable in regards to worship, to meats, to food, whatever is physical - is between that person and God, and that no person has the right to interfere in that person's choice and decision. That faith is the binding glue of relationship as to what is or is not acceptable to a person - and that arguing about it does nothing but tear down and divide the Church. The biggest point of all of this? That no matter if one keeps Saturday or Sunday, or eats Pork, Ham, or Beef - that all - if their heart is right with the Lord - in faith - are acceptable to God, and are Christians as much as the other.
This is the Good News that Armstrongism staunchly rejects. This is the message of righteousness, peace and Joy in the Spirit. It is the message or a righteous heart - and the freedom of choice in faith that has been provided in Christ to the believer.
Submitted by SHT
It seems SHT's articles are a huge stretch of the imagination.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Paul speak about "meat"? As if ANYWHERE God commands humans to be vegetarians.
SHT the SUPERLEGALIST in ALL his writings, seems to require all humans to abstain from meat.
Which is not a requirement anywhere in scripture.
UNLESS Paul is speaking about a particular and specific controversy in the church regarding specially dedicated meats for ritual purposes. (Like Christmas bread or Easter chocolate bunnies).
SHT seems to stretch the meaning of the quoted passage to a meaning that it has not. Since the biblical requirements were "obvious" at the time.
Perhaps he can find a scripture that specifically adresses "unclean" meats, instead of "meat". Perhaps I am missing a point since I haven't touched a bible in 25 years, only being an expert in text interpretation.
nck
Just before the bible experts will take over I looked up the scripture on the internet.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Paul is speaking about, new members, or "the weak in faith", who come into the church with all kinds of former habits and beliefs. To me it seems Paul is speaking about not to judge such newbees (AS) legalists until they come to full understanding of that which is "obvious" for "the more mature members."
Anyhow. Looking forward to a discussion that has been settled by the catholics in about 200 AD, but doesnt necessarily need to be the right interpretation.
nck
I'm all for getting down to the facts of the matter concerning what we were taught, but we need to do it honestly and not try to twist things in an effort to prop up our point.
ReplyDeleteUsing a poor Rom. 14 translation is not honestly trying to get to the facts.
Rom. 14:5 says absolutely nothing about one day being more "holy" or sacred as some translations put it. It's merely talking about regarding days above other days. Could it be talking about the sabbath? Sure I guess, but it doesn't say that specifically.
It could just as easily mean birthdays, anniversaries, days that relatives died, etc.
While the WCG and Armstrongism has been dishonest with some scriptures, so does mainstream Christianity.
Rom. 14 says absolutely nothing about whether one should or shouldn't keep the sabbath or eat clean or unclean meats.
Actually trying to use Rom. 14 to prove one can eat unclean meats is more dishonest than using it against the Sabbath since the context is clearly about vegetarianism, probably because of meat offered to pagan gods.
I have no problem acknowledging that we used to proof text or neglect the context of certain scriptures, but the fact is anti sabbath and anti clean meat arguments use the same methods.
SHT, nothing personal for I haven't read the whole article yet, it's just that piss poor translation of Rom. 14 is one of my many pet peeves. 😁
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
SHT asked: "What is it that causes one to be accepted by God?"
ReplyDeleteAnd SHT's answer is: "...That no matter if one keeps Saturday or Sunday, or eats Pork, Ham, or Beef - that all - if their heart is right with the Lord - in faith - are acceptable to God, and are Christians as much as the other."
If that is the answer, then that is confusion...and there is author of confusion!
Isn't a Christian Christ-like, having God’s Spirit?
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9
Would one having the Spirit of Christ keep Christmas, Sunday, eat pork?
A Christian also has God the Father in him, but how?
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
SHT wrote: "...if their heart is right with the Lord - in faith - are acceptable to God, and are Christians as much as the other."
How does one make their heart right? Do you mean like having a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees? Is your heart like that? Or, is your heart like as was mentioned in Jeremiah 17:9? Romans 8:7?
Earlier in your post you mention human nature: "...From verse one in Romans 14, we can see the very attitudes of human nature that were prevalent then, and just as prevalent at the start of the Armstrong movement, and even now..."
But human nature, something God created, is very good: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31
To say otherwise, would be like saying God lied to us. Now, carnal nature is another story; that is something Satan had a lot to do with. Perhaps you meant carnal nature?
Back to answering your question. You believe that: "...if their heart is right with the Lord - in faith - are acceptable to God..."
How about that faith? Is that something you work up? I find if one has the faith of God, that that faith came from God as a fruit of His Spirit (Galatians 5:22). If God does not give that fruit out and/or develop that fruit in you, like you were the workmanship of His hands, how do you GET that faith? What faith do you have in mind?
To be continued…
John
Continuing…
ReplyDeleteNow, I agree with you that there is no need for us to be judging/condemning one another for thinking differently, but to answer that question at the top of the post of "What is it that causes one to be accepted by God?", it is very simple.
Now, since you are so much into that "free choice" you probably won't like what I am about to say, but here is Paul's answer:
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath MADE us ACCEPTED in the beloved.
It is God, not SELF and one's "free choices," who makes one accepted! And how might God have MADE Paul and other Christians, sealed Firstfruits, ACCEPTED? By keeping Christmas? Sunday? Obviously, not, but no need to judge anyone.
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…them he also called…them he also justified...he also glorified.
God does that, and if God starts something within the workmanship of His hands: guess what?
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" Phil 1:6
He will perform, or finish, it!
Once upon a time, Jesus Christ said this: "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man." John 8:15
For what it is worth, most of the works and fruits we see amongst ourselves are those of Satan, but God's Plan of Salvation will solve that such that we all will finally recognize the following words as true...true at last:
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, NOT imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor 5:19
And we will all, and yes me included, be so thankful that God is not a respecter of persons, but...
Time will tell!
John
The passage in Romans you refer to is about meat vs vegetarianism in Roman society which had religious implications. The "day" mentioned is about what day was appropriate for eating meat or vegetables according to local tradition. Those were issues of local culture that had no basis in the commandments, statutes or judgements of God. The early church had to deal with similar issues constantly - especially with Gentile converts. No where in that passage are the Sabbath days mentioned - weekly or annual. The entire chapter deals with eating meat or not on certain days and not judging each other for such things.
ReplyDeleteThe bible absolutely teaches that Christ alone justifies us. But freedom in Christ is not freedom to sin (lawlessness). It is freedom to live in the law of liberty by which the church is being judged (James 2:12). That can only be done through the Father and Christ dwelling in our minds through the Holy Spirit.
Sola Scriptura is important because the the bible alone is truth - not the ideas or imaginations of men. God's word is truth. Not the Pope's words. Not a minister's words (if his own). Not anyone else's words or our own. Man cannot produce "truth". As William Tyndale (who is largely responsible for translating scripture into English) said, "I will one day make the plowboy know more scripture than the Pope".
Obviously, we have no space here for a debate that I'm not really interested in. We are all free to read the bible and conclude what it says. The bible was not widely available in centuries past and certainly not with all the translations and original language explanations extant today.
But in simple terms - your argument (common in the Protestant world) is incoherent. Christ justifies us apart from any works they say - and that's right. But then they acknowledge no responsibility (once justified) to permit Christ to produce actual works in them. "He's done it all for us" they claim. But the bible says the exact opposite in many places. Read what Christ repeatedly says about anyone who does not show "fruits" which are produced by Christ himself.
Not conforming to scripture was the most common reason people left Orthodox "Christianity" for the Churches of God.
The above disputes are especially hilarious in light of other posts on this board which insist that you don't need anything but the Bible itself in order to understand the Bible. Both sides here are relying on supposed "context" that isn't part of sola scriptura.
ReplyDeleteThe mistake we all make, because at its heart WCG was both racist and anti-Semitic, is the entire Bible with the exception of 1 chapter attributed to Nebuchadnezzar and the gospel of Luke (Greek proselyte) was written by Jews.
ReplyDeleteIn Romans, Paul as a Jew was writing to Jewish and Gentile converts after the Acts 15 meeting had happened. Gentiles were now part of the Church without all the Jewish requirements.
WCG convinced us on things the Bible did not say, plus on things that really are unclear.
It was a comforting feeling "knowing" that we had the "Truth".
nck wrote: "SHT the SUPERLEGALIST in ALL his writings"
ReplyDeleteThat has to be the dumbest thing you have written in a while, and you write some doozies! SHT is as far from being a legalist as David C Pack is a Christian.
Wishing you all a Happy Whatever Doesn't Offend You 😂👍
ReplyDeleteA social dilemma: You happen upon the scene of a bus accident in your local town. The bus has gone off the side of a bridge, and into a river. You know some of these people, you are a good swimmer, but you realize that you can only save one. Of the people close by, one of them is a sabbatarian Christian, another is a Sunday-keeping Christian, and a third is an atheist. Who do you rescue?
ReplyDeleteBB
11:06
ReplyDeleteIt is not dumb at all.
Think of it. The past few months these "evangelical types" have been insisting in no uncertain terms that cog peoples SHOULD be observing wave sheafs and other shit in wordings that I consider christian nazi.
Please visit Yad Vashem and find out how the jews reslly feel about christians wording their phrases as in the original posting. No intent of honesty but lying persecution.
Nck
11:06
ReplyDeleteI wasn t going to use the world "lie" for someone who cannot interpret a kindergarten text. But I missed my transport and was upset.
Nck
Bob @ 1:35 PM,
ReplyDeleteThe proper ACOG answer should be: "save the atheist." The Sabbath-keeping Christian will be fine when he dies; God will raise him in the first resurrection, and if he dies now he won't be at risk of apostatizing later. The Sunday-keeper is obviously deceived and has bought deeply into Satan's false religion, so he is unlikely to become a Sabbath-keeper in this lifetime, so it's OK to let him die and have his salvation at the White Throne Judgment.
The atheist, however, has recognized half of the truth already, that the world's religious establishment is bogus. Save him, and he may even credit God with the miracle, and may let God open his mind to the truth and join God's Church.
Therefore, save the atheist. That would be the truly Christian, merciful response from an ACOG perspective. Unfortunately, the average ACOG minister will tell members to save "their own, of the household of faith" and let the dead bury their dead.
nck - you wrote "The past few months these "evangelical types" have been insisting in no uncertain terms that cog peoples SHOULD be observing wave sheafs and other shit in wordings that I consider christian nazi."
ReplyDeleteI was not telling people they had to observe the wave sheaf, just pointing out there was no good scriptural reason not to observe Easter Sunday because it was pagan. The only pagan thing about it is the use of a pagan origin word - much like the names for all the days of the week.
I have attended a Messianic congregation, and they are not dogmatic like the Armstrongites. They get along just fine with other Jewish and non-Jewish Christian groups, and recognize that they offer one of several ways of worshipping Jesus - Yeshua.
They even have joint get togethers with another traditional Christian group.
They do not like replacement or supercessional theology which the church of Armstrong practices - that white Americans and British replaced the Jews. They believe they have their place among all the Gentile Christian groups, and want to see all Jews accept Christ - whether with a Messianic group or a regular Christian group.
BB
ReplyDeleteWho would I save? I would go on merit by saving the person with the best character. It's called justice, The atheist, Sabbath/Sunday keeper means little today because of rampant deception/moral confusion. And we all know of the existence of Pharisee types, so a religious label means little.
Two excellent responses, displaying different schools of logic on the social dilemma.
DeleteOne additional factor to consider might be whether one or more had families, or performed irreplaceable functions for the community. It’s a tougher call than most would imagine.
BB
Nck, @2:00 ~ these “Christian Nazis” as you call them are reacting to the uber-legalists from our past. They are very logically applying the obsessive-compulsive standards (by which we were scammed) back to the inflexible legalists, and demonstrating that these legalists had themselves fallen short.
ReplyDeleteHerbert W. Armstrong was the Rachel Dolezal of his day! He was a cultural appropriator, misappropriating the culture and history of the Jewish people, taking them on for himself and insisting that all his followers “qualify” by doing the same. Not being from that ethnicity, and not being properly schooled in the history and traditions, he committed many laughable blunders, faux pas, and errors. He is a tragic and pathetic figure, just as Ms Dolezal.
BB
BB said: "A social dilemma: You happen upon the scene of a bus accident in your local town. The bus has gone off the side of a bridge, and into a river. You know some of these people, you are a good swimmer, but you realize that you can only save one. Of the people close by, one of them is a sabbatarian Christian, another is a Sunday-keeping Christian, and a third is an atheist. Who do you rescue?"
ReplyDeletePersonally I'd go for the closest person whoever that person might be. And then go back to try to save a second. And then go back for a third. And then go back for a fourth...
Problem is in real life I'm not a strong swimmer. I'm not even a weak swimmer. I can't swim period. So unfortunately if I'd be the only one able to help they'd all probably die! And if I would even attempt to go in and save someone, anyone, I'd probably drown and die too! So God help us all!
Interesting TLA
ReplyDeleteMy responses are not ignited by what people believe. I have seen all. I danced around a pole in a rainy shack as to not offend or perhaps even join the local religious people in their observance. I didn't even know what that religion was, but they claimed some sort of christianity.
My response was prompted by the tone, the pharasaic self rightenousness, the twisting of meaning and on some topics insisting that people SHOULD be doing even more legalistic stuff that they themselves not even consider. And of course the fact that I missed my transport which frustrated me even more.
My point.
This posting went beyond "intelectual debate and questioning" and did not display signs of satire, which I do apreciate.
btw I do not really know in what way armstrongism is supercessional. I do know that they believed abrahams physical blessings were going to bestowed on his "descendants". That the jews still hold the oracles. And that the current inhabitants of Israel consisted of a mix of only three tribes. Oh and that the church was "a type" of israel. Don;t know if that is supercessional.
I remember a big row ensued in 1977 when the jews of Beverly Hills decided that Rader and Kuhn were pushing a christian agenda by inviting them to sponsor the Auditorium "good works" music series. Pushing ticket prices to new heights.
In Jerusalem I almost drove my rental into the Palestinian valley, still shaken by the thought of a rock through the windshield I almost drove into the conservative (big fur hat) jewish area on a sabbath. That would have been a mistake too. It was time to descend for Eilat.
nck
Interesting question in how far people should go in tolerating different views though.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Paul adresses concern that the practice of some groups believing that they are closer to God through certain behavior or abstention would result in TODAYS declared State of Emergency in some parts of New York.
So to answer BB's question:
I would not rescue or touch the person with measles. Nor would I come near the one who had garlic and cereals for breakfast even if it might help us float.
nck
Dennis, you've been away for a while I was beginning to think you were raptured. 😇
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that your above post could be used against you and others who write OP's? You write on subjects that apparently offended in the past. Or currently offend. At least they can be interpreted that way.
I realize that often I get passionate in my posts, so passionate that someone might think that I really give a shit, when in reality it would be easy to leave and not come back. I stay because I enjoy the back and forth occasionally.
Being a construction worker, I don't get the opportunity very often to express myself with the written word.
While far from a great writer, I have improved a lot over the years.
So this forum is one of many over the years that I have used for hopefully some personal growth and one of the things that I've grown in is to not be easily offended.
Anyway, good to see you posting again,
Kevin
@ John7:01, 7:01 & 7:04
ReplyDeleteYou Armstrongites are dreaming with your tired old discredited HWA/Adventist prooftexting!
Paul's virulent antisabbatarianism is crystal clear: Combine Gal 4 + Rom 14 + Col 2
Isn't that what Perbvert himself taught you: "Let the Bible interpret the Bible"
RE 9:40 -
ReplyDeleteThe point you make concerning context is critical to understanding Paul's writings.
If Romans 14 was a text whose opinion was solely in itself - then that would be one story. But Romans 14 is not an opinion solely in itself. As you have pointed out, other chapters, in other books of the New Testament only lend confirmation and support to the interpretation of Freedom In Christ regarding worship/ceremony/ritual. Time after time Paul has affirmed the Believer's right to personal choice, responsibility, and freedom in Christ when it comes to the very things legalists demand are necessary to salvation.
Why was this such a big deal back then? Because of the inclusion of Gentiles to the Church - which was a huge blow to the legalists' way of life in the Church. The feud between how the Jews and the Gentiles were to worship was front and center when it was realized that God accepted the Gentiles too without the adherence of the Mosaic Law that was so rigorously observed by the Jews. This was the point that Paul was making to the Church - that God has accepted both Jew and Gentile, and each should be convinced in their own minds and not to be a detriment to another person's faith. God had accepted both, and his Spirit was made available to both. This was a heretical viewpoint to the legalists, and a very divisive decision.
Armstrongites take the side of the Legalists' position in the argument, and scriptures are very clear that Paul would have been in their face with a rebuke just as he got in Peter's face. It is the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church - and the acceptance by God of the Gentiles without strict compliance with the mosaic Law - that had been ignored by Armstrongism in favor of the legalist opinion.
Armstrong was successful in attempting to convince Gentiles that they were Jews and had to act in the manner of the Jews to be saved. Paul was clear over and over again that this was not necessary.
Re Rachel Dolezal.
ReplyDeleteI see. That is why the hymns of the protestant (colonizing) nations reflect complete identification with the Istaelites. ......".through this barren land". , The Welsh hymns. The Voortrekker stories, the nations liberating themselves from the Habsburg Pharao and all theit princes likened to Moses the liberator prince. Its in al the 16th century war propaganda.
Hwa was a protestant fundamentalist.
Nck
O.k. 9:49, I'll bite. Please tell me exactly how nailing the Ten Commandments to the cross forgave the gentile Colossians?
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me that Paul was talking to the Jewish Christians in Colosse because verse 13 clearly says they were dead in the uncircumcision of their flesh.
Col 2:13 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Talk about taking scriptures out of context, that's exactly what mainstream does with this.
Kevin McMillen
I also suggest that the these one does this and one does that and it's all good was only seen through the filter of a soon coming of Jesus as promised by these same Apostles. No one foresaw the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians, each having their own set of rules or no rules having to consider living in unity and harmony. Romans 14 is a formula for chaos and confusion galore if intended to be an organizational creed. In the same way that All things Common and it being better not to marry etc as Paul said, these considerations were all very short term. No one was thinking of an organized, coherent Church nor would one be necessary with Jesus coming so soon and "we who alive and remain....shall be changed."
ReplyDeleteOnce Jesus non-return went long, then the problems of unity, belief, not forsaking assembling and all speaking the same thing so there be no division among them became necessary admonitions and practices. Otherwise, the church would simply crack in chaos in confusion of practice and belief. Well actually it did over the next 2000 years.
In regards to Col. 2, not only does it not make sense to claim that by the nailing of the Ten Commandments/law to the cross the gentiles trespasses were forgiven, neither does it make sense that anyone was judging gentiles for NOT keeping the Sabbath.
ReplyDeleteAs has been said before, Jews believed that the gentiles only had to obey the Noahide laws. They did not have to keep the Sabbath. Only if gentiles became circumcised were they expected to keep the Sabbath.
Since verse 13 of Col. 2 specifically states that the gentiles of Colossae were uncircumcised, they were not expected to keep the Sabbath.
Even the Judaizers would not have judged them for not keeping the Sabbath if they weren't circumcised. The Judaizers wanted them to get circumcised but until they did they wouldn't have been expected to keep the Sabbath.
So just who was it that was judging the uncircumcised gentiles in regards to the Sabbath?
The Jews weren't! It wouldn't have been the Judaizing Christians unless the gentiles became circumcised.
And it makes no sense for non-Christian gentiles to judge Christian gentiles for NOT keeping the Sabbath.
The only logical conclusion is that the uncircumcised gentiles of Colossae were indeed keeping the Sabbath. The Jews, and the Judaizing Christians were judging them for doing so because they weren't circumcised.
There might have even been non-Christian gentiles judging them for keeping the "Jewish" Sabbath.
If one wants to talk about context, the context of Col. 2 will not allow uncircumcised gentile Christians to be judged for not keeping the Sabbath.
Only by reading that concept into the context, to fit an erroneous belief, will such a claim work.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
@ Kevin McMillen
ReplyDeleteO.k. 9:49, I'll bite. Please tell me exactly how nailing the Ten Commandments to the cross forgave the gentile Colossians?
First off, don't blame me: It was your friend the Apostle Paul who said it!
By the early 1990s, both WCG & SDA* scholars were persuaded to align with what Orthodox scholarship had always understood: Col 2 refers to the Sabbath!
Which raises the question:
When are you going to 'get with the program'?
You're like that lone Japanese soldier found roaming Philippine jungle thinking WWII not over!
It's over!
*Brinsmead, Bacchiocchi...
Now let's go to Gal. 4:10. The WCG, using both cog7thday and SDA explanations had this one completely wrong. Why would gentiles, who were trying to be justified by law keeping, go back to pagan days? They wouldn't! Many of the acogs still use the old worn out explanation of Gal. 4:10, proving that they're unable to think for themselves. They need HWA to steal the thoughts from others for them!
ReplyDeleteOne must go into the Greek a little to understand what Paul was saying because of very poor translations. The word translated observeth in the KJV is Greek paraterio and it means to meticulously observe to closely watch.
The same word is used about four other times and it's translated watch. It is used when the Jews closely watched Jesus to see if he would sin.
The gentile Galatians were meticulously keeping Jewish law, both written and oral.
This was not a condemnation of keeping the Sabbath or Feasts, but a condemnation of how they kept them. How they were legalistically keeping them.
It is possible to keep the Sabbath and Feasts without being legalistic.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
One more thing lest someone thinks that I disagree with the basic premise of SHT's post, I don't.
ReplyDeleteThe bible says many are called but few are chosen. It also says that no one can come to Jesus lest the Father calls them.
Meaning if anyone thinks they're part of the chosen, then it's the Father and Jesus who made that decision and it was nothing that you did.
They chose some and didn't choose others. Jesus also clearly said that many will call him Lord, Lord, but he never knew them. (I'm not going to get into just what constitutes iniquity for others. Let's let God determine that and each one of us determine what iniquity is for us individually)
So if you think you're chosen by God and don't have to keep the Sabbath and Feasts, that is between you and God.
Likewise if you think you're chosen by God and it is a sin to not keep the Sabbath and Feasts, that is between you and God.
It's not our job to judge others.
I'll admit that I believe that to not keep the Sabbath and Feasts is a sin, and I'm free to determine in my mind that another who says he's Christian but doesn't keep the Sabbath and Feasts is sinning but what I'm not free to do is to judge and condemn them. That is my personal belief and God is the judge. I must be willing to admit that I could be wrong and the other person correct. Therefore we should show respect towards other's beliefs even when we disagree.
I know you're saying, "Is this the same guy who'se been arguing on the forum every day?", yes it is, but if you can't see that I'm arguing with those who aren't following the above principles then I most likely have been arguing with you.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
TLA @ 10:39, you don't know how much I wanted to say "All Jews are Israelite but all Israelites aren't Jews". 😇
ReplyDeleteWhile an accurate statement, some take it to anal extremes.
Kevin McMillen
6:28am Sadly when one reads motive into anothers comment then that person is usually wrong.
ReplyDeleteJust what made you assume that I don't think that Col. 2:16 is talking about the Sabbath? It is most definately talking about the Sabbath and Feasts.
Also, I believe 100% that the Ten Commandments as part of the Mt. Sinai covenant, and the entire Mt. Sinai covenant ended at the cross. But none of that answers my original question.
Just how does the "nailing of the Ten Commandments" or the Mt. Sinai covenant blot out an uncircumcised gentiles transgressions?
That is how most interpret verse 14, the Ten Commandments and the Mt. Sinai law are the thing supposedly nailed to the cross. Wrong. It was Jesus who was nailed to the cross and by his death everyones sin is blotted out if they accept that sacrifice.
Verses 13 and 14 are not talking about the Sabbath, they are talking about Jesus' death which paid our death penalty.
Verses 16 and 17 are talking about the Sabbath and Feasts because the Sabbath and Feasts pointed to this. Shadows.
The problem is that those shadows still point to future events. That's why Paul says that they "are" (present tense) shadows of things to "come" (future tense). He said this 25 odd years after the crucifixion.
Just as Jesus said that he wouldn't eat the Passover again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom, the Passover hasn't even been completely fulfilled yet. It won't be completely fulfilled until the end of the Great White Throne Judgement when every person who has ever lived gets a chance to accept that Passover sacrifice for himself.
None of the Feasts have been completely fulfilled. The Sabbath, pointing to the millennium hasn't been completely fulfilled. This is why Paul told gentiles not to let anyone judge them (only logical conclusion is they were keeping them) because they "are" shadows of things to "come".
They weren't meant just for the Jews/Israelites, they were meant for all of mankind because as shadows they reveal God's plan of salvation for every single person who's ever lived, "whomesoever will"!
As I said in my previous post, the only logical conclusion for Col. 2:16 is that the Colossians were keeping these days while uncircumcised and the Jews were condemning them for keeping "THEIR" days.
Paul is clearly showing them that the days aren't just the Jews' days, but are shadows of events leading up to the salvation of all mankind. These days are God's and are meant for all of mankind.
Earning salvation hasn't a damn thing to do with these days!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
6:28 I'm not sure but I think that you might be confusing Col. 2 with Gal. 3.
ReplyDeleteThe cog7th day, WCG and the SDA's historically incorrectly taught that the added law of Gal. 3 was the sacrificial system. That was dead wrong. It referred to God's entire law which was added as a separate side covenant because of transgressions, until the Seed came.
That covenant being the Mt. Sinai covenant ended at the cross, but that doesn't mean that God's law which has existed from creation ended.
Kevin
My friend the apostle Paul?
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me that you're one of the forum's atheists afraid to give your name.😇
Kevin
@ Kevin McMillen who said: ..Col. 2 specifically states that the gentiles of Colossae ... were not expected to keep the Sabbath...I'll admit that I believe that to not keep the Sabbath and Feasts is a sin..[but]...I must be willing to admit that I could be wrong..
ReplyDeleteSo the Sabbath is kind of optional is what you're now saying??
5:11pm, It's my personal opinion that tge Sabbath has been optional for almost 6,000 years. God hasn't forced anyone to keep it, one always had tge option.
ReplyDeleteEven under the Mt. Sinai covenant they had the option, keep the Sabbath or get stoned.
Kind of makes me wonder though, what is the greater sin, breaking the Sabbath or editing someones comments making them say something that was never said?
To top it off you do it without the gonads to give your name. Coward!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Can anyone decipher Kevin McMillen's Soteriology?
ReplyDeleteIt is neither Orthodox or Armstrongist!
Is this what 50 years of Armstrongism does to your Mind?
5:19pm, It takes more than your 90 IQ to understand me.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, you unknowingly answered your own question, my beliefs on salvation are a balance between Orthodoxy and Armstrongism. Actually, to gain the understanding that I have one needs not look to Orthodoxy nor Armstrongism it's all available in your bible. Blow the dust off.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Come on 5:19pm, give your name so that we can discuss this like adults rather than using anonymous/cowardly jabs.
ReplyDeleteKevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
@ Kevin McMillen who says: "Col. 2 specifically states that the gentiles of Colossae .. were not expected to keep the Sabbath"
ReplyDeleteWhich begs the question Does Kevin McMillen consider himself Gentile or Israelite?
- especially considering his Hero - Amateur-Bible-Sleuth/High-School-Dropout HWA - who used Pyramidology & Anglo-Israelism to interpret the Bible and so thus reckoned "we are actually Israelites anyway!"
5:19pm said, "It is neither Orthodox or Armstrongist!"
ReplyDelete*********
Thanks for the compliment. 😉
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Kevin McMillen still accepts Perbvert w Harmstrong's Anglo-Israelism
ReplyDeleteI suggest he reads Mr Confusion. It's a short read (like a Perbvert booklet.)
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/p/mr-confusion-1971.html