The view of the Father - and Jesus - in many Armstrongism circles - is one of a prosecutor. God is sitting in heaven, with the Books of the Commands spread out and opened - judging how well that his servants are doing in their obedience to the Law. In Armstrongism circles, this is primarily: Obedience to the Ten Commandments, Obedience to the Sabbath and Holy Days, Obedience to the Dietary Food Laws, Obedience to the laws of Morality, Observance of Holy Convocations, and Tithing. Anything else that is "questionable" is decided on by the Church Authorities (that is, whoever has decided to take that claim, and convinces followers of their legitimacy) on the Law of Binding and Loosing. This not only absolves the lay member of any personal responsibility (the decision is always up to the Church Authorities), but takes the "protestant" concept about "Freedom in Christ" and buries it under the rug. In Armstrongism, the only "Freedom" one has is whatever is approved by whoever's in charge. Personal responsibility and decisions always fall under the rug of the Authorities.
The focus that made Armstrongism so appealing to so many in the 20th Century was on a "revival" of the neglected laws that a "great, false Church" buried away. The claim that many adopted so enthusiastically is that the "great, false church" traded in God's appointed times and seasons for man-made traditions and festivals, with the charge that they were not licensed or authorized to do so. The charge has been that paganism had infiltrated the Church, and those that think they are worshiping Jesus Christ in "Protestantism" have been hoodwinked into pagan and even "satanic" rituals and observances - and aren't really worshipping Christ at all. The claim that Armstrong Apologists make is that they have absolutely no freedom of worship or observance, regardless of what and how their heart is.
In fact, "the heart" has historically in Armstrongism been the most mocked and - for lack of a better term - sissified - emotional aspect of Christianity in it's dogmatic history. "the heart" - the true intent and purpose of a person's actions and thoughts - was the one aspect of spirituality that was continuously dogged and beaten out in favor of militaristic obedience. One could even say that the "heart" was beaten out of a person in favor of chains and shackles. And those who - in protestant and in "Worldly" circles had their hearts in the "right place" - that is, worship of Jesus Christ and the obedience of the commands of Jesus Christ - were simply "Deceived", could not get it, and would not get it - they'd get their chance "later". For those in the Church who "knew better"? Everyone else in the "world" was simply uncalled, unsaved, cut-off, pagan, heathen, un-Christian charlatans with absolutely no knowledge of what Christ - and freedom in Christ - was all about.
The reality is that the greater sin was not on those in what we termed "the world". The greater sin was that of judgment by the adherents of Armstrongism to every member and denomination of mainstream Christianity. Every catholic, every protestant, every man, woman, and child who faithfully and, with full belief in Jesus Christ, went to Church on Sunday mornings, on Easter, and on Christmas, who lived lives of love and exhibited the fruits of the Spirit in their walk of life, who lived lives according to the Code of Morality - judged as lost and deceived and "2nd Res" people because they didn't subscribe to the "Faith once delivered". Every one of these people were judged as "the world" to be avoided. Every person who loved God and loved neighbor was judged, and judged severely, while at the same time all of the carnality, deception, lies, and evils within Armstrongism were somehow not as bad because Armstrong Adherents were keeping the Sabbath, the Holy Days, and had the name "the Church of God". The stench of hypocrisy was stronger than the stench of a year-old tuna salad sandwich. Their hearts were not considered. Their hearts were judged and trampled on.
Freedom in Christ is a level and a standard of maturity for those who have grown in wisdom, and in mind, and in actions. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the mind and in the hearts of a true Christian, there is freedom. (2 Cor. 3:17). But for those in Armstrongism," for to this day, the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away."
That freedom allows choice. That freedom allows responsibility. That freedom allows options. That freedom allows thought and thinking. That freedom allows opportunity. That freedom allows ways and methods - whatever is needed or necessary as an Ambassador of Jesus Christ to show Christ and to be the hands and the feet of Jesus Christ. It is that freedom that allows interaction with others - to show and even for many - introduce - what love is and who Christ is through the power of the Spirit.
You cannot show and introduce what love is and who Christ is through the Spirit by avoidance. You miss opportunities by holding on to the obsolete writings of stone of the old Covenant. You miss opportunities to share Christ when, in self-righteous arrogance, one in great pious conviction stays away from "worldly people" in "worldly celebrations". When you are filled with the spirit, when your heart is in the right place, the spirit will transcend the physical every time. You are enacting and using the freedom of Christ in you and through God's spirit to do God's will whether you are attending The Feast, or Trumpets, or Atonement, or stretching your freedom to Christmas, to Easter, or Sunday, or any other day. Your heart - their heart - your fruits - can make a difference, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, no matter where you are or what you are doing so long as you are doing it in Christ and in the Lord - for his glory.
Armstrongism was, and is, shackles and chains on the freedom of Christ available to a believer. It is a hindrance to the power of the Spirit. It is a quencher of the works of God, and a disabler of the heart. It is a doorstop on opportunity to serve and to honor God and love to man. God is not confined by time, nor by the calendar, nor by the cycles of the sun, moon, and stars. God's spirit transcends these things, as a servant of Christ is focused not on the physical, or on times and seasons, but on the permanence and timelessness of the spiritual. Once one looks beyond denominations and earthly religious and non-religious empires and begins to see the transcendence of the spiritual, and the omnipresence of the new Covenant, and the width and height and depth of the grace of God in all his people - then the veil is lifted, and freedom - true freedom in Christ, can set a person free - at last.
Submitted by SHT
50 comments:
"The view of the Father - and Jesus - in many Armstrongism circles - is one of a prosecutor."
And it should be noted that 'prosecutors' are in the class of psychopaths, without a conscience and uncaring for those whom are innocent. Like armstrongism they always seek a conviction and not a acquittal. Condemnation is the key theme of armstrongism. It invokes 'fear' which is the controlling factor that keeps Herbism in motion.
"The view of the Father - and Jesus - in many Armstrongism circles - is one of a prosecutor."
And it should be noted that 'prosecutors' are in the class of psychopaths, without a conscience and uncaring for those whom are innocent. Like armstrongism they always seek a conviction and not a acquittal. Condemnation is the key theme of armstrongism. It invokes 'fear' which is the controlling factor that keeps Herbism in motion.
"The view of the Father - and Jesus - in many Armstrongism circles - is one of a prosecutor."
And it should be noted that 'prosecutors' are in the class of psychopaths, without a conscience and uncaring for those whom are innocent. Like armstrongism they always seek a conviction and not a acquittal. Condemnation is the key theme of armstrongism. It invokes 'fear' which is the controlling factor that keeps Herbism in motion.
SHT, You do realize that what you've presented here are merely the two ditches don't you? The legalism of Armstrongism and the anti-nomianism of Protestantism. There is a middle ground and so few find it.
In case the author missed it, gardening involves religiously following no end of do's and do nots. The "freedon in Christ" thingy will not plant or nuture a garden.
I suggest the author watch some gardening TV programs if he believes that rule following is for the birds and the bees.
Does he change his car engine oil regualarly and check his tyre pressure?
The rules are the notes on the music sheet.
The music however is what happens in between or variations thereof or a bit of free association in jazz jam session. But the rules are clear.
nck
Great posting. The COGs do shackle (perhaps not entirely) the freedom of their members and it goes unrecognized because most of the members in the COGs think to themselves,"Christ died for me and now I can have eternal life after I die; so I have freedom in Christ." So, their freedom in Christ is freedom from some eternal death; but that isn't the glory of the "life" that Christ offers which flows to us and through us. And, the life He offers is now and Freedom in Him. I and multiple others I've spoken to have wondered that as "CHristians" in the COGs we really never got Christ and what He offers during all those COG years (the locust years I sometimes call them). But, the Lord will restore those years. Cog members that thought the same way I did about Christ for years will perhaps claim that they got Christ, but it is hard for me to believe that, as I knew them and still do. The difference is stark and I don't want to ever think as I did while devoted to the COGs.
Are the Gentiles here in Rom. 2 anti-nomian or non-rule followers?
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
The Gentiles were following a natural law (given by God within His creation).
They attained righteousness by having faith.
Rom. 9:30-31
"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law."
Paul never says that the Law is the standard of conduct.
7:23 It would be inappropriate to bring up krst as meaning the blessing of horus and Osiris since there are serious responses I see.
Nevertheless I am triggered by the use of the word Christ by Jim and the original posting.
The interpretation of our former association of being heirs and Co heirs as Kings and Priests for whom the annointing was specifically reserved does not sound farfetched as a possible interpretation.
In defense of elitism or meritocracy here as opposed to the so called modern Twitter democracy where everything goes.
I wonder how many really get it to be a King or a leader. So few are familiar or have access to the worldly variety except through the glossy. Armstrongism perhaps was an impossibility to bring kingship concepts to the greatest democracy in the world. I liked Armstrongism for its concepts, perhaps not in its application of those concepts. And I like it here amongst the serves who never got it for real or perceived abuse. But hey as a kid I got to sit in castles and eat out at the holidays where some of you got but hurt at the folding chairs and received verbal abuse.... I get it.
Although according to Jim, even at best I really never got it.
Nck
Jim, Maybe, or you're completely misunderstanding Paul.
Thank you SHT for finally explaining what I have heard thrown about, bantered about, proclaimed as the cornerstone and what has been held as preeminence for those Christian named.
Yes the WCG wrongly castigated EVERYONE who was in "worldly" Christianity and certainly there was a shackling upon the member to fully express what indwelled in them towards the world.
What the WCG did wrong was to compress the "freedom of Christ" way too tightly. What the WCG did right was to teach that although there is a freedom, it does absolutely have contraints.
What you and I most assuredly heard proclaimed in the WCG was: Christ's first word to the world, REPENT.
Most people didn't have any qualms for the requirement to repent, or the requirement to be baptized, or the requirement to have hands laid upon them for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. So if the Christian life has to start with requirements, are there any more requirements then left for the Christian to adhere to?
Peter thought so when he beseeched the brethren by asking them what manner of conduct they should have considering the heavens and earth would someday be disappearing. Paul addressed the Corithians conduct on a particular Passover as so bad that he said some were weak spiritually, some were sick spiritually and some were dead spiritually.
I see all kinds of requirements recorded in the New Testament and it is assured that HWA did as well. What HWA did wrong was what you correctly identified. He took away the essence of what the actual freedom in Christ is by putting in front of the member another priest and priesthood. Add to that not understanding the gospel completely, and pulling the member into doing something that wasn't supposed to be done at the time concerning the Matt. 24:14 witness and the Ezekial warning, the relevance of the freedom of Christ was lost.
Is the freedom of Christ then without restraints or requirements that allows a believer to walk however and wherever?
I think it is defined adequately by the one who had the freedom and is the freedom. In the temptation the tempter put before the very Christ a chance to exercise His freedom three times. In all three occasions, Jesus refrained from using that freedom and answered by saying that man (not him) shall live by every word of God and thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God and thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thy serve.
So Jesus Christ would obviously give the Christian this example to understand that if He was going to dwell directly in them, should the believer take as a liberty and take what is offered from the world what he himself wouldn't take because the the Lord thy God required it not to be taken.
The WCG did shackle and chain the believer by orientating them that they were saving themselves by obeying the Sabbath and Holy Days. The orientation should have been wholly you are worshiping the Lord thy God only by physically keeping these days. Just as the orientation should have been that you are physically keeping the law of God by taking care of the widow, the fatherless, the poor and those imprisoned within and without the church. The physical aspect or works is what it is all about. The Spirit is what gives the person the desire and want to do it all.
Freedom in Christ, all yea. Freedom to go forth without restraints and take of and participate in all the world has to offer?
What does Paul mean when he uses the word law in Rom. 2?
Does he mean the same law that Abraham kept?
Gen 26:5 - Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Rom 2:12 - For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
How does one sin "without law"? I thought that sin by definition is transgression of the law.
1Jo 3:4 - Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Obviously Paul's usage of the word law here means the Mt. Sinai covenant.
Anyone who tries to make Paul's writings in Romans 2 into a prooftext against Sabbath keeping is being dishonest with the bible.
Without the law is nothing more than not being under the old Mt. Sinai covenant.
Instead of trying to get around Sabbath keeping maybe one should worry more about what Jesus meant when he said that to know to do good and do it not it is a sin. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for anthropos, all of mankind. Striving to argue with that "good" is not beneficial to the struggler.
Personally I don't care what any of you do or don't do.
I meant that James said to know to do good and do it not is a sin.
It is self evident that there are limits to human behavior and conduct. The 10 Commandments are a good guide, and were, after all, written with the finger of God.
The idea of " sheriffing", managing or supervising the lives of converts was "on steroids" under Armstrongism. Which is why it fell apart. Righteousness cannot be created by submission, but rather must be generated from within the heart with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There is a place for pastoral oversight within a congregation. There are predators, and evil people that must be managed and overseen. However, conforming people and creating "yellow pencils" and "bots" is a whole different matter, and using fear, threat, and guilt to produce those conformities is downright evil.
Control does not produce self actualization. God wants people who are self managed, self controlled, and free of hierarchy and human accountability. He does however, expect accountability to him and his ways. The Veil being ripped in the Temple at the crucifixion was a testament to those concepts, that many christian religions including many in the COG do not fully grasp.
Jim, I think maybe you should read all of Rom. 7 to learn about God's spiritual law. No it's not the Mt. Sinai covenant but it is described by Paul as good. The same word that James uses for good when he said he who knows to do good. The Sabbath and feasts aren't merely old covenant. They are good and they ARE, present tense, shadows of things to come, future tense. You don't have to be a legalist to keep the Sabbath and feasts.
8:38,
I just wish that if Paul was such a Law keeper that he didn't seemingly diminish or ignore it most of the time. I can't ignore these things.
When some are saying be a vegan or don't eat this or that meat, he doesn't ever say "the Law says these are the foods you can and cannot eat..."
One puts one day over another, one says all days are the same...Again Paul does not say, "As given in the LAw, there are sabbaths and holy days given, why are you arguing about pagan days (which is the COG explanation)"
Regarding receiving financial help while going forth as an Apostle with the Gospel, he goes to simply a principle in Isaiah instead of saying, "The Law says pay me a tithe, you law breakers."
I simply cannot ignore instance after instance.
Nigel Cajun Kariokos, maybe you were one of the exceptions that understood and truly experienced the Life offered to us now. Maybe my general assumptions on this aren't acceptable and I should better learn to describe this Life Christ offers now, so others can determine if that is their experience and make their own determination.
The meritocracy aspect does not bother me in the least, it is just that I believe we were wrong. I don't think we are capable or have the right to judge a given individual as a fake Christian if they claim to be Christian and have fruits of repentance. I'm surprised we felt so comfortable doing so.
Paul never diminished the law, he diminished the Mt. Sinai covenant, and he diminished the false beliefs that the law could save! There's a big difference.
Jim, Romans 14 never once alludes to the Sabbath or feasts, the days mentioned in Rom. 14 had to do with sentamentalism, just look up the Greek word translated regardeth. They were arguing over whether or not to observe such things as birthdays, anniversaries, days of a loved ones death etc. If anyone thinks that I'm reading too much into it then please show me where the word Sabbath days or feast days are mentioned in Rom. 14.
WCG completely got Gal. 4:10 wrong. The Galatians weren't going back to pagan days, they were legalistically keeping the Sabbath and feasts, following Jewish traditions. The Greek word for observeth in that verse means to scrupulously watch.
The problem with your "instance after instance" that you state is that you haven't considered everything that may have been occurring then, you're just believing what others are saying.
I'm not believing what others are saying because the two explanations that I just gave you were never WCG explanations.
This argument has often been framed in terms of law vs grace - I think that it is more instructive to look at this through the lens of examining the terms of the Old and New Covenants. Check this out:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-two-covenants.html
Anonymous at 12:13 - could you explain the big difference? Where does Paul distinguish the law from the Mt. Sinai covenant? Where do you make the distinction? It’s an interesting statement that would provide a good answer for those who argue what Paul meant. But, I haven’t read in his writings where he distinguishes the law from the Mt. Sinai covenant.
Why did Paul go to the Temple when he was told that people were saying that he was teaching against the law? To prove to the Jews that he was still a law keeper, and not just a spiritual law keeper but an old Mt. Sinai covenant law keeper.
Paul was anti gentile having to come under the Mt. Sinai covenant and anti "lawkeeping can save". He still kept the law.
Tonto
Great 9.14 AM post. But you are being too kind in claiming that Christianity and the COGs do not fully grasp your point. Rather, they willfully reject it. They hear endless complaints from their victims, and know from personal experience that it's oppressive to be lorded over. They know it's wrong.
"When some are saying be a vegan or don't eat this or that meat, he doesn't ever say "the Law says these are the foods you can and cannot eat...""
Really? He didn't? What is this?
1Ti 4:4 - For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 - For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Where in the bible (the word of God) are certain animals set apart? That is what sanctified means you know?
If we can eat all creatures why does Paul even use the word that means set apart?
12:30pm If you can read all of Romans 2 and not come to that conclusion then it's pointless for me to explain it to you.
Miller, the only reason for the old covenant per Paul in Gal. 3 was to tutor the children of Abraham until the Seed, the one who brings the New Covenant, came.
What was the reason for the New Covenant? Was it to give a new and better system of laws? Not according to Jesus. He said the New Covenant was for the remission of sins.
If there were no sins there'd be no need for the New Covenant. If there were no law there'd be no sin. Again that is according to Paul.
Rom 4:15 - Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
The very idea that the New Covenant in Jesus' blood requires any kind of law keeping is just ridiculous. It's sole purpose is to forgive law breaking.
Anonymous 1:05 - It is just lazy thinking to say there is a distinction between “the law” and “the Mt. Sinai covenant” when you can’t point out any distinction Paul makes between them and you can’t point out your own distinction that you make between them. It would benefit everyone if they knew this mysterious sub-set of laws that constituted “the law” in your mind. Is it Mt. Sinai minus the sacrifices? What about Mt. Sinai minus circumcision? Or Mt. Sinai minus the things you don’t think need to be followed anymore?
Anonymous 11/4 @ 1:17,
You are arguing from the old perspective of law vs grace. Please reread the post. And good luck making your arguments based on Paul's writings. If Paul's writings made this as simple and clear as you propose, folks wouldn't have been arguing over it for two thousand years! Forget Paul for a second, forget law vs grace for a moment, and focus on the nature of the covenants and what the author of the epistle to the Hebrews had to say about them. God has and will fulfill/ed the terms of the New Covenant - whether or not you or I understand it! And, as promised in the terms of that covenant, God is able to write "His" law on our hearts.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Miller, the only reason for the old covenant per Paul in Gal. 3 was to tutor the children of Abraham until the Seed, the one who brings the New Covenant, came.
What was the reason for the New Covenant? Was it to give a new and better system of laws? Not according to Jesus. He said the New Covenant was for the remission of sins.
If there were no sins there'd be no need for the New Covenant. If there were no law there'd be no sin. Again that is according to Paul.
Rom 4:15 - Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
The very idea that the New Covenant in Jesus' blood requires any kind of law keeping is just ridiculous. It's sole purpose is to forgive law breaking.
November 4, 2019 at 1:17 PM
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. It's obvious by your post.
Obviously you do not understand the OC, and you clearly have no idea what the NC is.
But thanks for playing along!
Well now, I think we are now all getting the meaning of "2 Peter 3:16 The arguments for what Paul meant or did not mean, taught or did not teach, practiced or did not practice are ENDLESS and have been for 2000 years.
"He (PAUL) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
At least here is an admission by the author of Peter, (not Peter) that Paul was a bit hard to understand at times and was not clear in making his case for his gospel views. Sometimes he appears for something and at others times against it. Paul is obviously walking a thin line being all things to all people and all that.
Paul was also notorious for making the Old Testament scriptures mean what they never met and turning some of them on their heads to make his point they originally were not making but I spare you.
Typical of this author as well is the idea that to find some things of Paul hard to understand puts one in danger of being ignorant and unstable and then distorting scripture to one's own destruction. That seems a bit of an unfair label as the problem is not ignorance on anyone's part, but Paul being simply hard to understand at times. Classic blame the hearer and not the speaker for not getting it.
This is the same author, just a few verses before this in :4, that called those who noticed that the coming of Jesus was going very long, scoffers. . Rather than admit that it was and while hopeful "we are mistaken", the author calls the noticer of this reality a scoffer and then reminds them of things they should have known but were never told up front until they started to notice or scoff as the author puts it. No one told anyone that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. The concept of God does not see time as humans do did not come up until time ran long. I am sure no one was thinking this was a trait of God until their idea of when went long and they groped for an explanation that did not include the words, "I was wrong" or "We were mistaken"
And so it is unto this day...
Miller, no I'm not. I'm clearly stating the purpose of the Mt. Sinai covenant and the purpose of the New Covenant in Jesus' blood.
The New Covenant in Jesus' blood was ordained from before the foundation of the world as the only way that law breaking could be forgiven. Jesus, the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Jesus was the original Passover because he was chosen to be such before Adam was even created.
The old Mt. Sinai covenant was merely a necessary tutor to guide Abraham's kids along the way, since it was from them that the Seed would come. There's a reason why Jesus didn't come until the fourth millennia after creation. The midst of the symbolic week.
Not difficult to understand.
2:02 LOL, really? Paul doesn't make any distinction? Obviously you didn't take my advice and read all of Rom. 2, if you had you'd realize that he's talking about God's law on one hand and the Mt. Sinai covenant (which he also calls the law) on the other. Unless you seriously think that only the doers of the Mt. Sinai covenant will be justified!
Rom 2:13 - (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Tell me, is Paul making a distinction here or not?
Rom 2:17 - Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
Is he not talking about the Mt. Sinai covenant there?
Now tell me which law he's talking about here:
Rom 2:26 - Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
It's not the Mt. Sinai covenant.
Why am I wasting my time?
A simple way to cut through this confuson is to observe the way the world works. The 'you shall know them by their fruits' thingy. It's a common dishonest ploy for bible manipulators to quote the bible while expecting their victims to look away from reality. It's a favorite of HWA ministers.
Anonymous 11/4 @ 3:58,
Always happy to play along, and I'm glad you know what you're talking about:)
anon 12, 26: I'm not believing what others are saying; I've simply read and considered and have ceased trying to explain issues away with poor COG arguments to fit COG teaching. I'm glad you have studied these things yourself as well; I believe you have brought up good issues that I generally take time to look into. I think there could be a missing the forest because of the trees element with too much word parsing though which is why I will step back on a broad level and ask such things as why such and such is missing from Paul's writing if he was such a lawkeeper.
I have no desire to eat pork or traditionally unclean food. I remember the sabbath and don't do my customary work on it. I attend holy days. There, now I am a COG lawkeeper at least to the degree they are. But,somehow this does not make me feel more obedient, it doesn't make me feel more reverent. I do not believe God believes such is the missing ingredients in my life as a Christian. I don't believe Satan has blinded the world of Christianity by making them repent, and turn to the Lord, and bear fruits of the Spirit, lift the fallen in their trouble, and perhaps even be martyred ...but they are fake because they don't go to a church on Saturday.
So, my first argument is against the COGs' awful teachings that leads to absurd conclusions. People shouldn't throw terms like Antinomian out and apply it to Christians that observe the laws of God, but perhaps not the Sabbath, yet still seemingly obey Christ's commands more fully than these that claim such great commandment keeping.
BTW, I Tim 4 doesn't seem to work regarding unclean animals as why are they set apart "also through prayer"? Prayer wasn't part of the formula. Further, again, Paul didn't say "the Law". But, unclean animals has a history in Genesis, so there is a Biblical argument to not eat pork and such. But, again, I have no intention to.
My point on the Sabbaths and whichever days Paul writes about is that he never mentions the Law as a reference about such things. Couldn't he have used referencing the Law to say,"Worry about these commanded sabbaths and don't worry about non-sabbaths.". To never (as I recall) use it as a definitive authority speaks volumes to me. Maybe not to others.
4:45 You are so predictable. When you can't prove your point or anytime someone disagrees with you, you whine, "why am I wasting my time".
Your condescending attitude translates into:
"why am I wasting my time = you are too stupid to understand my incredible brain which has the answer to everything"
which essentially translates to most of us as booooooooring!
OK, got it Anon 4:45. So in Romans 2, there is God’s law (which Paul describes as “the law”) which we should keep the righteousness of as v. 26 says and that we will be justified by doing as v.13 says and then there is the Mt. Sinai covenant (which Paul also describes as “the law”) that the Jews rest in thinking it will save them as v. 13 says. And the easily distinguishable difference between them is that one should be kept (“God’s law” called “the law” here) while the other is not necessary for salvation (“Mt. SInai covenant” called “the law” here as well). Thanks!
Here we are pondering the meaning of scriptures again. You would think that if there is a God that inspired scriptures that he would have written scriptures in a way that is so crystal clear that the true meaning of the scriptures would be utterly undebatable and clearly understandable by all who read them. Isn't it highly important that we know the true meaning of scripture in order us to have salvation? So why is the meaning so unclear?
Jim November 4, 2019 at 5:47 PM said:
I have no desire to eat pork or traditionally unclean food. I remember the sabbath and don't do my customary work on it. I attend holy days. There, now I am a COG lawkeeper at least to the degree they are. But,somehow this does not make me feel more obedient, it doesn't make me feel more reverent. I do not believe God believes such is the missing ingredients in my life as a Christian. I don't believe Satan has blinded the world of Christianity by making them repent, and turn to the Lord, and bear fruits of the Spirit, lift the fallen in their trouble, and perhaps even be martyred ...but they are fake because they don't go to a church on Saturday.
So, my first argument is against the COGs' awful teachings that leads to absurd conclusions. People shouldn't throw terms like Antinomian out and apply it to Christians that observe the laws of God, but perhaps not the Sabbath, yet still seemingly obey Christ's commands more fully than these that claim such great commandment keeping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am in complete agreement with you Jim and I couldn't have said it better myself! I'm glad that someone has seen and put in words what I haven't been able to what I've been seeing all around me in the various COGs for so long now. So thank you Jim!
What else would a tyrannical, despotic religion do, except to shackle? This shackling grieves the Holy Spirit, robs you of the opportunities to fully develop your talents, and ultimately results in crown-stealing. So much for spiritual "guidance"!
BB
Anon 6:34,
I don't think we need to make Paul's writings trouble us too much. What if it is just that the Law is not required on us and he when writing to multiple groups at various times is trying to emphasize that we are under a new covenant (perhaps the Law of Christ as in Gal. 6) and also tells us the Law is holy and good because God gave it as a covenant to the C of Israel?
This really is not troubling to me. He is going to the gentiles and also trying to not devalue the background of those raised as Jews.
I grew in some areas while devoted to the COGs, but I recognize that much of the teachings was incorrect. Thankfully the Lord finds a Way.
It's amusing how you all insist that God should have made it easier to understand, rather than the obvious conclusion that you're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong.
Jesus spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand, lest they be converted, but you expect him to make it easy for you to understand.
So funny!
Paul wrote against gnosticism, paganism, lasciviousness, judaizer tendencies; and he wrote for following our Savior and accepting that sacrifice that He might live in us.
So, don't be part of what he writes against and be for our Savior living in us. Maybe that is trite and naive sounding, but I think it works.
Some background on the ongoing discussion.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ftrUdKFKZg
For fun
www.nationalgeographic.com.au/tv/the-first-jesus/
• Hezekiah/Ezekias, defeated by Herod in 47 BCE (Jewish War 1.204-205)
• Judas (aka Theudas) son of Ezekias, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2.56; Acts 5:36)
• Simon of Perea, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2.57-59)
• Athronges the Shepherd, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2:60-65)
• Judas the Galilean, 6 CE/Archaelaus removed (Jewish War 2.118)
• Theudas, c. 44 CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.97; Acts 5:36?)
• James and Simon, c. 46 CE, sons of Judas the Galilean, crucified by Tiberius Alexander, nephew of Philo, who was Procurator 46-48 CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.102)
• “The Egyptian” c. 50s CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171; Jewish War 2.261-263; Acts 21:38)
• Eleazar son of Dineus/Deinaeus, c. 52 CE under Felix (Jewish War 2.253; Jewish Antiquities 20:161)
• Menachem, son of Judas the Galilean, 66 CE (Jewish War 2:433-448)
• Eleazar son of Jairus (ben Yair), commander of Masada, was of the family (ÎłÎνος) of Menachem (Jewish War 2.447)
nck
And still on topic.
The gospels in their order increasingly diminish the person of John the Baptist.
Do not forget that the KING of Judah had this POLITICAL THREAT beheaded.
nck
I appreciate the thoughtful, faithful, and genuine comments from Jim and others. It is the better ground. As one western author said:
“To disbelieve is easy, to scoff is simple; to have faith is harder.”
Unless you understand the Pagan origins of the gospels you cannot understand many things in them. Sorry, but they do NOT interpret themselves. There is missing information. You don't understand why there were exactly 153 fish caught, why Jesus had 12 disciples, why they were fishermen, why the young man ran away naked in the gospel of mark (and why the heck that was put there in the first place), etc.
The Mystery Religions preceded Jesus by 2,500 years. The the Jews plagiarize the Egyptians or did the Egyptians plagiarize the Jews. Duh.
7:36pm You are so gullible. While we do know from stone writings that the mystery religions did indeed exist before Jesus. We don't have any writings from then explaining exactly what they believed. You and others are basing your positions on how those stone images are interpreted. You rely on post Jesus writings to explain what pagans believed. If this isn't the case, you've been asked time and time again to give proof from before Jesus on exactly what was taught. You can't do it. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
Great point KMac 8:41
Who is KMac BB?
I don't know why you are asking me that, other than the fact that I frequently use hip language, 1:34, but my guess is that some other hipster has given Kevin McMillen a new nickname. Kinda cool, but it wasn't me.
BB
Post a Comment