Wednesday, February 19, 2020

UCG: Vic Kubik Claims UCG Members Have A Voice In Who Runs The Church



Though, in actuality, UCG members actually have NO SAY in who rules over them.  It's always the good old boys club voting in the same old boys in order to keep their power structure in place.

Vic Kubik writes about how African tribes elect their leaders.  He marvels that the women do it!  Can you imagine the UCG or any Church of God ever letting women vote the leadership in.  Oh, hell no!


The chief structure in various African cultures is very important. Chiefs took care of various local civil necessities, often resolving property issues and disputes. Chiefs also allocate land to the inhabitants. In Zambia we have a few church buildings built on land “given” to us by a chief. Chiefs also resolved minor violations—judging what we would consider in the United States a small claims court.
In one locale Bev and I asked about how a chief was chosen.
The answer was interesting. The women of the village decided who would become the next chief. “Why was that?” we asked. The answer was that many of the women were mothers of the candidates for chief. They understood best the nature and temperament of the men because they had known them since they were little boys. Their nature from childhood was an indicator of what they would be like as adults, and more importantly, as community leaders. The women would gather and discuss who would be selected. What characteristics defined this new village leader? Was he kind? Did he have a temper? Was he truthful or deceptive? Manipulative? Compassionate or cruel? Was he self-promoting or humble? Selfish or generous? Was he a bully? Negative traits could carry into adulthood and not bode well for a future leader.
Personal characteristics would be discussed among the women who knew the nature of the candidates best. The candidate who was most charming and charismatic was not always the best choice.
How do we judge who the best leaders are for the Church within our congregations? While we ask for God’s will and judgment to be evident, He delegates to us a voice in the process.
What voice do UCG members have in the process?  They never have had any since the very first days that the good old boys met in the 360 SOG apartments on the Pasadena campus to plan their escape route and money supply when they jumped ship.  They set themselves up, elected each other to positions of control, and still do it to this day. UCG members never had any voice in the process and never will, despite the words of Vic below.


How do we choose our “village chiefs?” Those who have responsibilities within our Church? Is it on outward appearance and show, or is it based on the inner person? As we look at the qualifications for an elder in I Timothy 3, we see that God is looking for those who are not hot-tempered, not greedy for money, but hospitable, self-controlled, humble, gentle, sober-minded. Sometimes charisma can mask undesirable qualities, but these are the ones that we should be aware of first.
We learned an important lesson about how the village chief was chosen in a rural Malawi community. It’s an important lesson for us as we consider our future chiefs and servants in the church. 

43 comments:

DennisCDiehl said...

Vic says: "How do we choose our “village chiefs?” Those who have responsibilities within our Church? Is it on outward appearance and show, or is it based on the inner person? As we look at the qualifications for an elder in I Timothy 3, we see that God is looking for those who are not hot-tempered, not greedy for money, but hospitable, self-controlled, humble, gentle, sober-minded. Sometimes charisma can mask undesirable qualities, but these are the ones that we should be aware of first.
We learned an important lesson about how the village chief was chosen in a rural Malawi community. It’s an important lesson for us as we consider our future chiefs and servants in the church."

And you guys are just figuring this out? It's not new truth on the kind of people, male or female one might wish to "be over" others. God and Satan both know WCG seemingly went out of its way to promote the authoritarians and marginalize the gentle, humble, hospitable and did shoot off at the mouth every time someone questioned them or disagreed with them. YEARS ago, across the table at lunch I suggested that from now on ministerial types be given legitimate personality tests before being let loose on other humans. NO WAY! End of topic.

The other bad habit the COG's have is rather than sit someone down and tell them they have a strong reputation for being anything but a helper of one's joy as pastor but are seen as arrogant, pushy, self centered and always right or else. They just moved them out of the area they were screwing up to another where they could start all over screwing up a new Church assignment.

Dave Pack is the only pastor type I can recall ever sent for rehab under the kinder and gentler pastors in NYC at the time (name withheld) because of his mess in Buffalo. He was on his last legs and chance in ministry. Dave sees that experiences as anything but rehab for his bad habits which he holds to to this day as we know. I asked (name withheld) once how Dave was doing. In his characteristic realism he said "Fine and he will return to his bad habits and ways of being when he gets out on his own again." He knew...

Previously, pretty quickly after Dave had gone out as graduate into ministry he was let go in cuts. I was a newbie working with the Regional Director who took me in from Minneapolis because he liked how I did in his classes at AC. The RD had the ability and was thinking of bringing Dave Pack back into the ministry in Chicago. There was a connection between Dave's wife's father was a close friend of the RD in Wisconsin. He asked me what I thought? I said "Sure, sounds good to me" even though I was surprised he wanted my view. Sorry about that.....lol

The Greenville congregation dodged a bullet one minister assigned was sent instead up the road and I was sent to Greenville. This legalist had his classic 24 week series of sermons that he was known for on How to Keep the Sabbath. 24 WEEKS of HOW! Shoot me.

Anonymous said...

I guess you can add another delusional idea to their brain dead thinking, Just like cogwa they keep electing the sameold has beens that have not had a new idea in 50 years, They keep electing all off the people that have been shafting tithe paying members. THme membership should be asking just what are these yahoos doing with all the money beside building up their retirement funds. I also must comment on their traveling around the world on very nice vacations when many of the elderly members have a hard time making ends meet.I think the IRS should take a long look at their tax exempt status. The worse is cogwa , no accounting to the members they have the shyster Brit Taylor as treasurer. Thats like having the fox guarding the hen house.

TLA said...

That would be interesting having our President picked by a council of their mothers.
The current method is who is the better marketing genius.

Anonymous said...

Vic is quietly acknowledging that Bev runs him, just as Barbara Flurry ran GRF and Sheryl Meredith ran RCM. Like the latter two, Vic will likely go off the deep end if he ever becomes a widower.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous at 11:13 AM said...“I guess you can add another delusional idea to their brain dead thinking, Just like cogwa they keep electing the sameold has beens that have not had a new idea in 50 years, They keep electing all off the people that have been shafting tithe paying members.”


NEW IDEAS

Why would you ever want any Church of God leaders to have any so-called “NEW IDEAS” at all? Is it not bad enough that the Church of God, a Worldwide Association has its new “Winter Family X-mass Weekend” custom and the leaders want to wear dark-colored shirts, and not wear neckties, and not do up their top shirt collar buttons? Just how bad do you want them to become? Their people already like to sit around watching movies full of all the old and new sins.

Roderick C. Meredith came up with NEW IDEAS for his Living Church of Fraud, such as the two-fold gospel, the falling away being in the world, and the marriage supper being in heaven. It marked his group as a heretical outfit that will not grow. Trying to put his own stamp on his own church with his NEW IDEAS basically stamped it out.

Gerald R. Flurry went even further with his Philadelphia Church of Satan and immediately did away with preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and replaced it with a “new commission” to “warn the Laodiceans” by acting like satanic freaks towards them. He plagiarized and revised Jules Dervaes' writings and renamed it Malachi's Message and claimed that it was delivered by a mighty angel and that it is the “little scroll” mentioned in the book of Revelation. He also claimed to be “That Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18-19, committing identity theft by stealing this title from Jesus. He claimed that his PCG cult had been “flooded” with much “new revelation.” All the NEW IDEAS that he ever came up with were totally satanic.

David C. Pack originally claimed that his Restored Church of Satan was going to restore everything that HWA had taught at the time of HWA's death in 1986. Tragically, along the way, he came up with some NEW IDEAS. He “restored” his favorite “common” theft doctrine that everyone had to send him virtually everything they had (savings, retirement plans, houses, possessions, etc.) -- “or no salvation if you don't.” He promoted himself to Apostle, Joshua the High Priest, Elijah the Prophet, That Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18-19, and now plans to become the Messiah. He came up with a lengthy series of yelling and spitting about a “First Dominion” that totally garbled everything that HWA had ever taught about prophecy. Anyone who wants him to come up with any more NEW IDEAS must be some sort of masochist.

Norman S. Edwards, the rebel with a copy of the Global Church's mailing list, wanted to come up with some NEW IDEAS about church government. He wanted people to write up their own ideas about church government and send them to him for possible inclusion in his Serpent's News newsletter. He said that he was willing to consider virtually anything and everything under the sun. He said that the only thing that he would not publish, and would not even consider, and did not even want to receive, was anything in support of what HWA had taught about hierarchical government in the church. Since all his favorite NEW IDEAS were about how to cause division, it is fitting that nobody follows him.

James D. Malm, the rebel who left the WCG in 1985 while HWA was still alive, wanted to “think for himself” and come up with NEW IDEAS to cause confusion, especially calendar confusion. Any NEW IDEAS that he comes up with always involve confusion. He even has a Blog for Shining Blight. It is strangely appropriate that he ended up totally confused.

The Painful Truth said...

A African culture that I recommend is a cannibalistic one.
They should know better to ask stupid questions.

Stupid in = stupid out.

EX-PCG said...

I don't believe that Barbara Flurry ran GRF. He is ALL about government and a total control freak!!! He did get increasingly nuttier after she died.

Are some of the UCG leaders "Village Idiots or "Village People"?

Anonymous said...

EX-PCG, I was in PCG for a couple of years at the very beginning, and at least in my circle of friends it was well known that if you had a problem or concern, the way to be sure it was handled well was to have one of the ladies around you bring that concern to Barbara Flurry. She was at the very least a moderating influence on her husband, and more than once she played the role of peacemaker after her husband flew off the handle and alienated a well-meaning member. Obviously her influence on her husband was quiet and behind closed doors, but it sure seemed to be real, from what I saw. PCG would be a very different church today if both she and John Amos were still alive.

Anonymous said...

"How do we choose our “village chiefs?” Those who have responsibilities within our Church? Is it on outward appearance and show, or is it based on the inner person?"


COG leaders love to "ask questions" like these for the sake of outward appearance, meanwhile never lifting a finger to do anything but the opposite.

And remember all the "questions" Hypocritical Vic "asked" in his Ode To Indianapolis back in 1995?

For the last 25 years Vic and his cohorts have been answering these questions THROUGH THEIR BEHAVIOR! The answer is resoundingly, that it is based on appearance and showmanship. If it is based on the inner person at all, then it is based on the prerequisite that the inner person be totally corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:14
I have never been to a COGWA service. Thanks for enlightening us on how far they have fallen into debauchery. I am blown away to realize some men would wear a dark shirt. And to go even farther without a tie, wow. It’s hard to believe some would go so far as to leave their top button undone. Such a godless group.
Jim-AZ

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:49, we know from Scripture that at Jesus' final Passover there were people showing up with DIRTY FEET. I don't think they would be welcome at a COGWA service.

Anonymous said...

5:49 said... “Obviously [Barbara’s] influence on her husband was quiet and behind closed doors, but it sure seemed to be real, from what I saw. PCG would be a very different church today if both she and John Amos were still alive”

Sounds like déjà vu. Simply insert Loma for Barbara. HWA for Gerald. Even Richard D. Armstrong for John Amos since if both his first wife and son outlived HWA the WCG would’ve been a very different church in its final years.

Byker Bob said...

For many years, I've believed and actually suggested that these churches would learn much from a time honored practice of major companies around the globe, the exit interview. If administered by a neutral party (not a minister), absenting fear of reprisal or recrimination, much could be learned about what a splinter is doing right, and what they are doing wrong.

It makes no sense for one of the leaders of an ACOG, a setter of the corporate culture, to repeat the mantra that members have a voice. And then, for all of those who fancy themselves as "having a good attitude" to join in and repeat after him. That does not present an accurate reflection of the realities of the culture. The fact is, Vic Kubik most likely honestly believes that UCG members have a voice in who runs the church. But, that is meaningless, because it is based on how those churches were taught to redefine nearly everything, establishing their own meanings, by their master, HWA. They have been programmed to raise their voices in support of everything the leaders tell them, and that is how they have a voice!

Actually, exit interviews will most likely not be accurate in the cases where members leave one group to splinter surf amongst the others. Splinter surfers have a firm grasp of the corporate culture, and would most likely retain the redefined criteria with which they had been ingrained.

I was once at a mainstream church service on the weekend that candidates for the board of elders were being considered. Names were published, in fact the couples involved were introduced to the congregation, and were on stage. There was to be a trial period during which commentary was solicited from the lay members of the church. Anyone who had any information which would disqualify a candidate from this position was encouraged to make the pastors of the church aware of it. If the candidates were truly above reproach, they would be approved and installed on the board. Now, that is a true version of having a voice in who runs the church!

BB

Tonto said...

UCG at least took the step to let the elders have a vote. Sort of like how England gave the Nobles (and them alone) a right to vote and petition.

However, the idea of "enfranchisement" and letting the so called brethren having a vote, will never happen. UCG stays stuck in the Feudal Lords stage, while other COGS stay stuck in monarchies.

It is self evident that all these churches have a profound lack of trust and faith that the "lowly church member" has the Holy Spirit, or is guided by it in any way. If they did, then they would certainly welcome a collective and collaborative voting and empowerment decision making ability of such a group.

UCG needs to quit viewing their membership as little children and "wards of the state". The organization is in severe decline, and would probably even be ran better If they just put everyones name in a bag, and drew out names (after prayerful petition for Gods will) randomly.

TLA said...

I watched a few minutes of the Democrats debate last night
Maybe all the cogs should get together and let the leaders debate and make their case for being the leader
Then each state will vote and candidates will win delegates with a final meeting where they pick the winner

Anonymous said...

1:14,

Are you writing satire?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous at 6:37 AM said...“1:14, Are you writing satire?”


I am writing THE PLAIN TRUTH.


Anonymous said...

Dennis said "
This legalist had his classic 24 week series of sermons that he was known for on How to Keep the Sabbath. 24 WEEKS of HOW! Shoot me.

After 50 years in the COG's I'm tired of pointing out how the COG's in general still worship the Sabbath and Holy Days just like the Pharisees. Before Christ was to be crucified He asked his disciples to love one another as I have loved you. The religious authorities of Christ time were also obsessed with how "holy" and special they were by the strict keep of the Sabbath, and saw Jesus as rebellious law breaker. It's so blatantly obvious that the real "Truth" we should have followed was Christ's examples. Jesus is not owned by the Protestants, but COG has always considered "preaching Jesus" as weak or a Protestant diversion. Big Mistake!

The Painful Truth said...

Not one acog will allow the idiot members to decide who leads. The decision of the membership would effect the retirement prospective's of the entire cultic leadership. That would never come about.

I suggest this model:
https://hwarmstrong.com/blog/2020/02/07/saving-armstrongism-on-a-institutional-level/

Anonymous said...


Tonto at 4:03 AM said...“It is self evident that all these churches have a profound lack of trust and faith that the 'lowly church member' has the Holy Spirit, or is guided by it in any way.”


It is extremely dangerous to carelessly assume that the people, including the leaders, in the various different, disagreeing, so-called COGs are true Christians with the Holy Spirit. It is very important to “test the spirits” rather than carelessly trust them or have faith in them without thinking.

Some so-called COG leaders, like Gerald Flurry and David Pack, are Satan's own false prophets who were sent to destroy former WCG members in the cruellest ways imaginable.

Too many of the so-called COG members are actually perverts and predators with evil spirits.

Most so-called COGs are not the sort of places where you would want to take anyone that you really care about.

Anonymous said...

Tonto
I recently watched a YouTube video which stated that a gang trait is viewing their members as children that need to be looked after. The same as your complaint about UCG. All the ACOGs are like this. Which is why I've mentioned that despite all their bible quoting, it's bully morality that rules in these churches. Christ's 'will I find faith (in my laws) when I return,' is a direct reference to this. It looks like the answer is no.

Anonymous said...

Tonto,

Well if that's how you feel why don't you let them know in person at the UCG GCE 25th Anniversary.

Why waste your time lurking on the dark side of the street. Let your light shine.

UCG has been very good to you overall.

Anonymous said...

When the church had to decide whether or not the Church had to observe the Law of Moses (Acts 15), was he discussion and voting done only by a few elite leaders of the church or was it wide open for all to participate? Also, did James or other leaders give their views first to influence what others had to say or did he have his say only after the discussion? If your commanding officer gave his views first, then asked you, a lowly captain, for your opinion, what would you say? Since the commander is the one who writes your Officer Evaluation Report (OER), you are going to say what the commander wants to hear. Either that, or plan for a new career in the civilian sector.

Unknown said...

11.51 AM
I suggest you re read Acts 15. It was about circumcision, rather than your law of Moses. Peter (not James) spoke after much discussion. Acts 15.6 'Now when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said..' If you read Peters summation, he used persuasion. He did not use your military model of ordering others to believe his point of view. Christ never used the military model, neither did any of his apostles. This is because it conflicts with the natural workings of the human mind.

carl said...

Well, unknown, I know we've been told it was only about circumcision, but when you look at it, it explicitly includes "circumcision and the law". Also, "our fathers" were unable to keep it-- that is obviously the law as all the Jews were circumcised thus this was not something they were unable to do.

Finally they decide to just tell them to not do a few things that pointed to their having been pagan.

So, the law was viewed too hard for "our fathers" and the gentiles were told to just observe a few things while ignoring the law.

Anonymous said...

Why do I think of David Pack watching this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VCe3BzJJZk

Yes, I was in a cult once.






LXX

Anonymous said...

10:08 said... “...Christ's 'will I find faith (in my laws) when I return,' is a direct reference to this. It looks like the answer is no.”

I understand that the Greek actually has the definite article before “faith” ie “the faith” so it’s possible Christ was asking whether He would even find “The Faith” still existent by His return since as we all know it’s been corrupted so much over the centuries.

Anonymous said...

"When the church had to decide whether or not the Church had to observe the Law of Moses (Acts 15),"


No wonder there's so much confusion today. People are wilfully ignorant of facts. Acts 15 was not about "whether or not the Church had to observe the Law of Moses". It was about whether or not "the church" (males) had to be CIRCUMCISED and keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15 was totally about whether gentiles had to come under the Mt. Sinai covenant. It was not about whether one was to keep God's law or not.

Anonymous said...

"Also, "our fathers" were unable to keep it-- that is obviously the law as all the Jews were circumcised thus this was not something they were unable to do."


Wow, the ignorance is palpable. The unbearable thing that the fathers couldn't (wouldn't) "do" was keeping the Mt. Sinai covenant.

Carl said...

322,

Aaannnddd, keeping the covenant was keeping the law.

The COGs have said Acts 15 was about circumcision and only circumcision. Well, it is obvious that it is more than that because the fathers and Pharisees were circumcised and able to keep that. There was something else they could not do. See, it can't just be circumcision because the fathers were able to do that. What couldn't they do?? The Law.

How do you separate the covenant from the Law btw?

And, then it is decided in Acts that the gentile believers simply:
"abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood." Why not do the Law without Circumcision??

BTW, you spout about palpable ignorance and there you sit also saying it was THE Mt. Sinai COVENANT they could not keep when the explicit terms used are "circumcision and the law of Moses".

Anonymous said...

8:20am Yep, palpable ignorance. Read, read and re-read Gal. 3 and maybe you'll learn something!

Anonymous said...

Vic Kubik asked w questions: "...How do we choose our “village chiefs?” Those who have responsibilities within our Church?..."

Well, Vic finally got it right, by admitting he was not part of God's Church, but is really associated with something called an association called "our church." Joey Tkach Junior, when in charge, called the former wcg organization the same thing: "our church."

Could Vic and Joey actually be a part of the same "church?"

Time will tell...

John

Carl said...

Perhaps you could answer my questions? I've more than read, read, and reread Gal. 3.

Anonymous said...

6:42 I did answer your questions in my 3:14 am and 3:22am posts. Your inability to understand isn't my problem.

As I said the fathers couldn't, or more likely wouldn't if you understand Hebrews 4, obey the Mt. Sinai covenant. What was the covenant? The Ten Commandments were the words of the covenant. I've never said that the covenant wasn't the law.

Gal. 3 says that the law/covenant was given because of transgressions. It is also revealed in the bible that where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore God's law existed long before Sinai and God added it, in covenant form, at Mt. Sinai.

If you think that the only things that gentiles are expected to obey is to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. Then you don't understand the basics of the bible. Therefore you are incapable of understanding Gal. 3 no matter how many times you've read it!

Why, according to Gal. 3, would God ever add laws that were never being transgressed prior to Sinai?

Anonymous said...

You ask:

"Why not do the Law without Circumcision??"

I answer:

Act 15:21 - For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anonymous said...

Also, if you don't understand my reference to Heb. 4, and why I say that it was stubborn refusal and not inability was the reason Israel didn't obey God's law and covenant, then let me explain.

Heb 4:6 - Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

The Greek word for unbelief is transliterated "apeitheia" and it means:

Strong’s Definitions
ἀπείθεια apeítheia, ap-i'-thi-ah; from G545; disbelief (obstinate and rebellious):—disobedience, unbelief.


It was an obstinate and rebellious disobedience that kept Israel from obeying God's laws, not inability!

Much like Christianity today!

Anonymous said...

Another thing, anyone who thinks that Israel "could not" obey God's laws don't know their bible very well.

If any of the Mt. Sinai covenant's laws were broken there was a way for the law breaker to be forgiven. That was where the animal sacrifices came into play.

Here's what the book says:

Actually there are so many verses that say that if Israel performed certain temple rites that their sins will be forgiven that I can't post them all. Just do Blueletterbible search for the word forgiven. I will give a couple:

Lev 4:26 - And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Lev 5:13 - And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

Lev 6:7 - And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.


Here's one from the Psalms talking about people being forgiven of their sins:


Psa 32:1 - [[A Psalm of David, Maschil.]] Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.


So please don't give me the ill informed idea that the Mt. Sinai covenant "coukdn't" be kept. It could be kept easily. Once one sinned, if they went to the temple and the correct offering was given, they'd be forgiven.


It was wilfull, obstinate refusal to obey the covenant, including not being willing to do what they needed to be forgiven that was their downfall. Just as Hebrews says.

Carl said...

Anon,
Not only couldn't it be kept it was the lesser covenant. Look at Gal. 4. It states there were two covenants. One through Hagar that was of "Mount Sinai" and leads to bondage that Jerusalem at that time was also under. The covenant of the Jerusalem above is based on belief. This yields the covenant of freedom and promise. I do not want the Mount Sinai covenant. I want the covenant of great promise that comes from belief in the Son.
So, of course there is more for a Christian than avoiding the pagan practices. The "more" is believing and accepting the Son sacrifice and salvation and then being sanctified through the God's Holy Spirit to be in the image of the Son.
This is the commands given to Abraham-- come out of Ur and leave your false God's and believe the Lord. He did so and his belief was counted as righteousness and these great promises that come from belief in the Son allow us to also be children of God and receive the promises.
Gal. 4 makes no mistake about it "get rid of the slave woman (Hagar) and her son." The promise is not through Mt Sinai, but through the free woman. Those promises come from belief in the salvation found in the Son, not from the Law. We can learn principles from the law.
It is not anger at the Law that results in this conclusion, it is the plain reading of the Bible. Even Gal. 3 points out that the Law was not given until 430 years after Abraham. No anger here, but desire for the covenant of the Jerusalem above.

Carl said...

Anon 810,

You asked:
Why, according to Gal. 3, would God ever add laws that were never being transgressed prior to Sinai?

Because the Law was the tutor. For instance, they had been slaves in a pagan culture, the Lord was teaching them to come out of that culture with the first 3 commandments and by the 4th to accept the rest that slaves need. Sinai seems to be the substitute for belief in some ways just as Hagar was the substitute for Abraham and Sarah's lack of belief. But the Law was the vehicle that provided a society for the promised Seed to come through and to then largely deny Him. The Law came due to unbelief, as Gal. 3 says the Law is not based in faith.

Regarding Heb. 4. the stubborn portion is par for the course with the stiff necked Hebrews. Undoubtedly they did not believe enough to follow the tutor. As an aside and as I suspect you know, the COG argument in heb. 4:6-8 here for sabbath keeping is awful. First Paul looks to the "today" of a promised rest rather than a day of the week and then ties that true rest in Him as a "sabbath keeping" just as Christ did in saying He is our rest-- thus, seemingly supplanting the weekly sabbath. In other words, Sabbath keeping is now entering the Rest in Christ that comes with belief.

That's at least my thoughts on it.

Anonymous said...

Why the diatribe about Mt. Sinai being the lesser covenant? I never said it wasn't! Your problem is that you refuse (stubbornly?) to understand that the law and the Mt. Sinai covenant are two separate things. Just as a contract to build a house is not the same thing as the house itself. You said, "seemingly supplanting" and therein lies your problem, you take assumptions and turn them into facts. There's no point continuing this, you have been assimilated.

Carl said...

My assimilation has come through my own reading of scripture. I doubt what I've written about Hagar and unbelief has not been written many times over, but I have never read it elsewhere. I get that laws and covenants can be different, but Gal. 3 says the laws came 430 years after Abraham which was when the Sinai covenant was made. You believe the Law existed before Sinai, but you must be assuming what those laws are as there is scarce little beyond belief, following the Lord, Noahide laws, treating people fairly, and circumcision before Sinai. Seemingly supplanting is used as the Sabbath is the only real question I have about law keeping.



Anonymous said...

"Seemingly supplanting is used as the Sabbath is the only real question I have about law keeping."


?

Anonymous said...



Filthy old stalkers run the UCG. They tell the ministers which of their victims to kick out for complaining about their perverse behavior.