From a COGWA source.
6/5/2021 Sermon Transcript. Caleb Froedge, Pastor Kansas City COGWA.I would like to start out today by talking about a riveting story introduced by Taco Bell. It is a commercial that I saw the other day on Taco Bell, and it was called chicken philosophers and it had philosophers arguing about what is the best chicken sandwich. I think maybe many of you have probably seen this commercial, but they're arguing back and forth. About pointless discussion, items that really don't make a difference about this chicken sandwich. Debating what is the best chicken sandwich? And they kept arguing chicken, mayo, pickle, bread. Bread, chicken, pickle, mayo, and every way with the same ingredients. It didn't make a difference; it was still a chicken sandwich. And then you have the wise come in with tacos. They didn't get into the debate, and I know there's things out there about those taco lovers and it's always going to be a taco over a chicken sandwich. But they stayed away from the pointless debate.
Now philosophical debating is something that we can be trained in. There are debate teams. You can learn the art of the debate. There's a political science. There's a science of debate. There's a science of philosophical studies. And one can really try to make an impact with their knowledge and wisdom and a philosophical approach. But can debate and philosophical discussions, even of the Bible, just because it's the Bible, does that mean this is what God desires from his members? Could debate and philosophical discussion on biblical matters actually cause someone in God's church to be entangled to their own demise? How much time does God want US spending quarreling, debating on speculative details in the Bible? Of course, you know, we're all going to have different opinions on speculative parts of the Bible where there's really no conclusive determination, well why was this? Or you know anybody who's been to FI, you know you're going to ask those questions and sometimes it is, “I don't know.” You know, watching the FI online with Mr. Ken Giese on the most recent one on Joshua and Judges, you know there are really good questions and thought provoking. But then sometimes the answer is well I really don't know. And so, you know it's, it's fun to sometimes talk about those things and explore. And uh, but can there be too much where we don't actually focus on the trunk of the tree and those foundational truths that are so very important?
It was funny, I saw a post the other day from a member, and it said which side of the paper clip, which side of the paper does a paper clip go? And of course, we know it's the left side, you know? So, I didn't know why that was really a question, but yeah, you know, everybody is going to have a different opinion, why? Well, I don't know why. Why is it the left side? It just seems right. It just feels right, but there's a theory for what is right and why we should do that, and it's fun to sometimes go over those different philosophies, if you will, arguments if you will. And it’s fun to kind of take silly things and get everybody's opinion. Again, another post I saw was let's end this lifelong debate. What is better, Coke or Pepsi? And then of course you have those rebels that put Dr. Pepper instead, they don't even get into the debate on that, but you know it can be fun to do at times.
You know, but to what point are we to involve ourselves in debates, quarrels? How fruitful will that become even if it's in biblical studies? Again, we are not going to all come to the exact agreement on every single thing, but those core fundamental beliefs we are to be in agreement on. We are to be in agreement as a church and that is a very positive thing. But are we to explore all of our disagreements? Is this a positive thing for the church? Is this where we should put our time?
Some have made their own religion about philosophical points in the past. They've looked for some obscure detail, and in studying a certain topic, maybe it's kind of a, it's not the trunk of the tree, it's a twig and, you know, they focus on that twig so much now it becomes, you know, “I have superior knowledge, I have superior intelligence and I've taken this idea and now it's become my baby.” Now it's become a pet doctrine and it is coddled like a little baby. You know, do some have some sort of superpower to understand speculative scripture? Is it a superintelligence or is it making one wise in their own eyes? But, you know, you can take a philosophical question in the Bible. or for anything for that matter, and you put in all this research into and come to your own conclusion, but should we really take it in and hold it tight to us? Those, you know, philosophical questions, the all-important, which came first, the chicken or the egg? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it still make a sound? Yeah, you can find little things in the Bible that we would also, uh, look into and try to figure out as well.
What should we be aware of as members in the Church of God who study the Bible? One, we want to be aware of our own actions as we study the Bible. We study the Bible to look inwardly; to look at ourselves. You know, it is, God's word is to be a mirror to our path, a light to our path. And we look at and study the Bible as inwardly first we look how does this affect my life? How does it change my life? Do we study the Bible to feel superior? Do we study the Bible to correct others around us? Is that our, is that what God wants us to do? We have the knowledge, so now we can go sharpen one another with our words and tell everybody where they're wrong.
Are we aware of false teachers of the Bible? Teachers who do not have authority from God but they’re self-proclaimed teachers. Now, they have put themselves up on a pedestal, and they've said, “I'm, I'm going to put myself in a position of superior intelligence and I'm going to judge the Church of God, and I'm going to make claims, this is the way the church should function. This is my philosophy. This is what the church should do.” Are we aware of false teachers? Really, there's nothing new under the sun, and there's those who have fought against the Church of God and the core doctrines over the ages, and many have done it in the name of theory and philosophies, superior knowledge, and philosophy. Men who have, came along with no authority to teach, but yet they claim superior knowledge and intelligence. And they, in turn, are drawing members away from the Church of God, where there are firm proven truths.
Paul had to fight against such knowledge and philosophies such as Gnosticism and different things that stem from Gnosticism: Docetism, Gnosticism. And it takes the name of the Greek word, gnosis, G-N-O-S-I-S and it means knowledge, especially spiritual truth, and there's this great spiritual knowledge. And so many of the so-called gnostic groups are characterized by mythiology [sic] and distinguishes between the inferior created world - the physical - and the more transcendent god and the order of being. But in the book of First John, he wrote to reassure and to comfort the church members who were contending with dishonorable individuals, intent of shaking the faith of the members through false and heretical teachings. 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” So, the indication was that they were once members with the church, but then they went, and they left. “For if they had been of us they would have continued with us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the holy one and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is the Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. He who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. Therefore, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning, that what you heard from the beginning abides in you. You also will abide in the Son and in the Father, and this is the promise that he has promised us – eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.” So, there is a deception. He was talking about some had come out from among them. There's sufficient internal evidence that suggests that certain people from within the church, likely former members, were expounding HERESY contrary to authentic and foundational doctrines.
The Zondervian [sic] illustrated Bible Dictionary states, “The purpose of the author was to warn the readers against false teachers who are trying to mislead them and to exhort them to hold fast to the Christian faith that they had received.” What was the heresy in this particular case? According to David and Pat Alexander, the Lion Handbook of the Bible, “John’s letter was written to counter some of the early form of ‘Gnosticism’ being propounded by men who were once church members but had now withdrawn from the group. They liked to think of themselves as intellectuals, processing [sic] a superior knowledge of God. They made a complete distinction between the SPIRITUAL (which was pure) and the material (which was evil). In practice, this often led to immortality – because nothing the body did could tarnish the purity of the spirit. It also led to the denial of Christ's human nature – which was either ‘make-believe’ or temporary [in their mind]. The Christ – being spirit – could not have died.” So, this was where that superior knowledge LED them ultimately to rejecting Jesus Christ as a Savior. And you start getting out on the limb – superior knowledge – putting oneself on a pedestal and making judgments towards the Church of God, it leads to the denial of Jesus Christ.
So today, I want to look at philosophies, a little bit about false philosophies that are out there, and philosophies that we should be aware of as the church. We need to understand what ideas are out there and what are being promoted so that we aren't straying from the church. And now, there ARE teachings that are just wrong, they're not biblically supported: Heaven and hell theory, Trinity, Sabbath is on a Sunday, that’s just strong philosophy, you cannot back them up biblically. But then there are those that may have an understanding of the truth but yet they have put themselves in a position to be a teacher, not by God's authority, but they put themselves in a position to make judgments on the church, “This is the way the church should function. This is the way this is the way the overall culture of the Church of God should be.” And they're teaching this is what should happen within the church. And it's based on philosophical wisdom and not biblical instruction, and it's very dangerous, and it's very hard to recognize sometimes that it's actually a false teacher.
00:13:57
So, let's look at some of the false philosophies that are floating around. I'm not saying this is from any particular individual, but these are philosophies that are out there and they're philosophies that are going. Some have put themselves into a position of quote unquote superior intelligence and it's a theory, and it's a philosophy and basically ADVISING and putting themselves in a position of being a church auditor, basically, and going to ADVISE the WHAT the church should be doing. That's called division, that's called discord. One is NOT going through the church to do this – away from the church putting themselves in this position, and now this is what the church should be doing out of discontentment – so, something we must be aware of.
But one of the philosophical ideas that are out there is that the church needs to learn to disagree, the church needs to learn to disagree. We need to WELCOME disagreements, be brutally honest, speak your opinion, welcome criticism. Is this what we should be doing as a church culture? Would this help create unity? In the name of unity, we all need to have more emotional intelligence, if you will, to handle disagreements, to handle to handle conflict, to PROMOTE disagreements. Is this what our focus should be? As members, is it going to help create unity? Is this the right philosophy that should be applied to the Church of God?
First Corinthians 1 and verse 10. What is it that brings unity? Does God want us to explore our differences? “Let's all focus on our differences.” Or are we to be in agreement? What is it that creates unity in the church? First Corinthians 1 and verse 10. If we look hard enough, we can find where we don't agree on certain details, but shouldn't we focus on what we do agree, and focus on edifying, and focus on encouraging one another as was brought out in the sermonette? First Corinthians 1 and verse 10? Is it disagreement that brings unity or is it agreement? 1 Corinthians 1:10,
“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be NO divisions among you, and that you be perfectly joined together in the SAME mind in the same judgment.”
Teach as we've been taught. This was also brought out in the sermonette. God does not want divisions; God does not want there to be disagreements among the brethren. That doesn't mean that we all don't have different backgrounds, different ideas, different thoughts about certain subjects. If that was the case where we're all yellow pencils and we all are exactly the same, you know, it's just not the way it is. There are disagreements in particular areas, but if we're all to be in agreement in that way, we all walk alone, but we know that, “can two be together unless they are agreed?” We are to WALK in agreement. That's a part of what brings us to the truth in unity. There is ONE Spirit, ONE body of Christ. There is a unity, one Father, there is a oneness. And we are to speak the same thing in love, there (are to) be NO divisions. You know, even though this was not a doctrinal issue, as you can kind of continue on, the contentions among them, “I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos,” there's an issue there, and it was a people issue. But the same point in this is, “I plead that you be an agreement.” There needs to be an agreement here. There should not be the contentions. Can two walk together unless agreed?
As the body of Christ, we are not of the world, we are not of the world’s philosophies. There is a world philosophy out there which does say, you know, we are to kind of be everybody’s auditor and everybody needs to buck up buttercup, and, you know, listen to the tunes. But if you if you want honest opinion you need to hear honesty and I'm going to tell you all your faults and this is going to be honesty. If you don't WELCOME that then there's problem, you’re not going to really have unity as you want, and that's a worldly philosophy that's found in worldly workplaces, it's found in corporate America. This is the body of Christ. This is not corporate America. It does not function the same way. You don't take the handbook of Google or Amazon and try to apply that to he Church of God. We are to be in agreement, it's the spiritual matters, and Bill Gates is not the head of the church, it is Jesus Christ. It isn't to function as corporate America where, you know, everybody needs to have a little more, a little thicker skin. You know, yes, we are not to be easily offended, that is what love is, but we are also not to provoke. We are also not to seek our own. Let's go ahead and turn here, of course I didn't have this in my notes, but it is worth looking at. Because you can have knowledge, you can have a certain amount of knowledge and understanding, it's nothing if you don't have the right attitude behind it. 1 Corinthians 13:1, this is what love is. So, are we to disagree in love? Is that our focus?
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, if I have not love, I have become a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy (there's knowledge), and understanding all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, if I have not love, I am nothing.” What's the point if we can't have love, and what is love?
“And though I bestow all goods and feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love is (patient) suffers long.” You know, if the first time we hear, see something we don't like about somebody, maybe we should just go up quickly and tell him about it, “Hey, you got a problem here.”
“It suffers long, it is kind; it does not envy; does not parade itself, it is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, it thinks no evil; does not rejoice in sin, but it rejoices in the truth; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” We are to be patient with one another. Our aim is not to see where we can disagree in love. We are to be in agreement. Our focus is not to go at each other and to stir up contentions. Could you imagine if that was our focus, and this is what we have prodded to do every week? We should come in here and we look at each other and we start telling people where they're wrong. That would really build a lot of unity within the body of Christ, wouldn't it?
The apostle Paul had something to say about this too. Colossians 2 and verse 4. Colossians 2:4.
“Now this I say lest anyone should DECEIVE you with *persuasive* *words*. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I'm with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the STEADFASTNESS of your faith in Christ. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, ROOTED and built up in him and established in the faith, as you have been taught (again from the beginning, they've been taught these things) abounding in it with thanksgiving.” You know, our approach should be with THANKSGIVING and a content heart, very thankful for what we've been given, that we have been set apart and called into the body of Christ. What a wonderful gift.
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of men….” There's always been, from the very beginning, there's been philosophies, there's been man’s ideas of what will work, and we should be aware of that. There is a philosophy of the world that does say, you know, it's your due diligence to go after your brother and they should, they should uh, they should just be more willing to accept that. Is that, is that really emotional intelligence? And if we could all come to this certain emotional intelligence, then we would be able to disagree more in love and have more unity. Well, that's foolishness. We would not… you know, emotional intelligence that is something that is taught in the workplace, and we need God's Spirit working in us, we need that we don't need this physical self-help book, emotional intelligence, that…YES, it is a great tool, we should respond to each other in a positive way, we should have tolerance, but we need to bear the fruit of God's Spirit that is love, and joy, and peace. Peace, not being full of contention or disagreement.
“For in him dwells all fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in him, who is the head over all principality and power.” So, don't let someone cheat you with philosophies. Be thankful. Be thankful. Who was it that wasn't UN thankful? Who was it that were discontent? Who was it that was critiquing Jesus Christ all the time? Nitpicking Jesus Christ, critiquing, who was it? Who was constantly challenging through philosophical debate? It was the Pharisees. They were some of the most argumentative debating, contentious, quarrelsome people mentioned in the Bible, and God referred to them as a brood of Vipers and of their father the devil.
What does a servant of God look like? What is the mindset that God leaders are to have? Second Timothy 2 and verse 23. 2 Timothy 2:23, “But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate STRIFE.” This is something we avoid. We don't generate strife; we don't look for disagreement. We look to be IN agreement. Where do we share the unity through God’s Spirit? And a servant of the Lord MUST NOT QUARREL, but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition…” I don't find… well, I won't go there, “If God perhaps will grant them repentance so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” Satan is very crafty. He wants God, people to disagree MORE, criticize MORE. Constructive criticism is… if that's… if there's a time and a place, you know, I do understand, there are the scriptures, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend,” as was also mentioned in the sermonette, basically, you know, that we will. But if you're talking about sin here, you're talking about there's a sin that is noticed and you go to your brother and you let him know, out of love, is it would be better to let him know, “Hey, you're getting close to the cliff!” As a friend, you know, you're going to let him know in that way where there is SIN involved. That is where we should go to our brother in that way. But we aren't too… it's not going to bring a healthy unity to look for where we are in disagreement. But he's crafty, you know, he wants us to disagree to get into POINTLESS disputes, idle babblings. Foolish and ignorant disputes is a tactic of Satan the devil.
Philippians 2 and verse 2. Philippians 2:2 (reads verse 3), “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in loneliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.” As when we come to church services, our goal and our aim is to lift each other up to edify. That's what edification means it is to build up; we’re to strengthen one another. We are looking to encourage one another. “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which is also in Christ Jesus….” We are to be of the same mind, the same mind, a lowliness of mind, encouraging one another. You know, *swift* *to* *hear,* slow to speak. We are to be slow to speak and swift to hear. God wants us to encourage one another, edify one another. That is what a friend is for. That is what friendship is about.
What about iron sharpening iron? Aren't we to go after one another? “I need to sharpen my friend.” Isn't that what a friend is for? (Mocking) We need to hash out some disagreements, open criticism. We have this emotional intelligence because of it. We're really becoming better by doing this. What? “Iron sharpening iron.” Let's turn to Proverbs, I think it's 27. Proverbs 27 and verse 17. Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the COUNTENANCE of his friend.” It’s encouraging the countenance of a friend. And that's the other thing, they're already friends, they're in agreement, iron, sharpening, IRON. Not iron sharpening clay, not iron sharpening something else. It's talking about they're in agreement, they're the same, that we need to have that, there needs to be that unity. And that is what will sharpen one another, and build the friendships, and edify one another. Again, we do understand that “Open rebuke is better than love, carefully concealed,” there's a balance, but that is, we're talking about sin, we're talking about, we notice a sin and it's a friend and we go to them and let them know is better than love that is concealed. But it isn't talking about our, focus is to go after each other and to sharpen one another, that our due diligence is to stir up disagreement, discontentment, discord. Playing devil's advocate, we've heard that before, there's always the flip of the coin. You know, you can say something: this water is half empty, you know, “Oh, I think it's half full.” OK, so that really accomplishes a lot, you know. We can be a devil's advocate. Who wants to be a devil's advocate? Doesn't sound like that's a good friend. It's called contention. In the Church of God, he has called us to be in agreement so we can be of the same mind so we can build each other up so we can speak the same things and love. We are to edify one another.
I think we're all thinking about Larry Williamson and, I too, you know, didn't get with Mr. Anderson before, and we didn't talk about we were speaking on, but I thought about friendship with Larry Williamson. He was a good friend. When I think about the friendship that I had with him, I think about at services, you know, you come with him, you talk to him, and you walk away edified, you walked away encouraged. He would share stories of faith and how God's word was true in his life. And those words of encouragement, you know, he used God's word as a way to edify, to build up. He would offer advice, but it was how it worked in his life. And I remember, you know, there are certain things I’d talk to him about he said, you know, “This is what I would do; this is how it helped me in my life,” and it was really edifying. He used God's word to edify, to encourage, to build up. He esteemed others better than himself. He was a friend. You know, he did not… he was not one that sparked debate or dug up disagreements, he was not one that did that. He was very… he had a strong foundation, he was strong in the faith, and he sharpened the countenance. I would go over there wanting to talk to him and encourage him and I'd walk away encouraged. That was Larry Williamson. His focus, you heard it all the time, his focus was the Kingdom of God; it was always pointing to the Kingdom of God. You would talk to him about things, and it was when God's Kingdom comes it's going to be like this. He was focused on that future. He wasn't focused on the here and now. But we want to use God's word as a tool to edify one another, to encourage one another.
Proverbs 13 and verse 12, you know, thinking about, you know, iron sharpening iron in agreement of the same mind as a friendship there, that's a part of that unity that's already there, which builds on the friendship. Proverbs 13 and verse 20. Proverbs 13:20. “He who walks with the wise man will be wise (you know, your wise? Walk with the wise), but the companion of fools will be destroyed.” We don't want to associate with foolish discussion, quarrels, foolish debate. What does it bring about; what's the fruit of it? That's not the sharpening that will help. It's not going to sharpen our countenance. Now, there's a safety, as we see here, a safety of being with the wise. We want to be in agreement from the beginning.
Proverbs 11:14, “Without wise leadership, a nation is in trouble, but with good counselors their safety.” We want to associate where there is safety. There's not safety with wrong philosophies and self-proclaimed teachers.
There is a philosophy out there that, you know, in judging the church, they've kind of taken a step back, put themselves in a position to judge and say, “We don't like the way the Church of God is doing dot-dot-dot, and as a result we are going to get it done ourselves.” Is this wisdom that is of meekness [that it’s] talking about in James? Is that a meekness and a wisdom that started with meekness? And there's also a philosophy you need everyone else’s opinion. Everybody has an opinion and that has to be… there needs to be an open opinion, everybody's opinion is needed. What if a family worked like this? “OK kids, we're gonna go out to eat today. What do you want? Every opinion matters. What do you want to eat?? Pizza! Hamburger. Tacos. Say, “OK, we're gonna do Italian.” Now you have a car load full of very happy content. Individuals, don't you? “I'm glad I got everybody's opinion. Thank you for sharing. Now we're going to Olive Garden.” Should we get everybody's opinion on everything? Is not being honest, you know, as the Church of God, not being honest unless you get everybody's opinion? You're not, you know, not gonna have the right unity unless everybody’s opinion is involved.
Romans 12 and verse 9. Romans 12:9, “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another, not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind with one another (we are to be in agreement). Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be WISE in your own opinion.”
Not every opinion matters – just the way it is, and we should not be, you know, love does not seek its own. If we have an opinion, again, slow to speak, quick to hear. This is what God's word tells us. So, if there's other teachings out there saying otherwise, and this is the way the Church of God should function, we should disregard that opinion. That opinion is only an opinion. Are we to prove all things? So is opinions, is welcoming everybody opinion – open opinion; everybody needs us put in their opinion – is that the way we should prove all things? If we don't do that, we're not proving all things. Is that what it is talking about in proving all things? When you look at the context of proving all things and testing the spirit it is basically before you even acknowledge someone's opinion you're testing, “Is it true?” Now, of course we study God's word, and we prove all things, Mr. Armstrong always said, uh, you know, “Don't believe me, believe the Bible.” And that goes both ways: if somebody is out there preaching a philosophy that the church should have, don't just take their word for it, prove it in the Bible, what does the Bible say? We have to test the spirits.
First Thessalonians 5 and verse 12. 1 Thessalonians 5:12, “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly. Well, this is advice for brethren; this is vice for you and I. “Now we exhort you, brethren warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourself and for all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecy. Test all things; hold fast to what is good. Abstain from evil.”
There is a testing of what is good and what is evil; what is of the spirit and what is not. And we are told in a variety of scripture what God’s Spirit, and the fruit of God’s Spirit looks like, and it's not the promotion of contention, discord, disagreement. We must test the spirit.
James, three and verse 13. James 3:13, “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.” So the action, you know, if someone is to take it upon themselves, build their own platform and say, “I'm going to judge the church. I'm a self-proclaimed teacher,” is that done in the meekness of wisdom? “But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but it is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.”
It's very clear. Those actions that we are to acknowledge as wisdom or not. There are certain actions that we must reject. If someone has stepped aside and said, “I'm going to be a chief auditor of the Church of God, and this is what the Church of God needs to do. This is what the members need to do,” I would be very aware. If someone is saying, “Be critical, speak up! Let your opinion be known. Don't keep quiet, form your own opinion. Every voice needs to be heard. Learn to disagree in love,” that's not of God. This promotes foolishness. Satan is very crafty, and he is going to welcome disagreements, criticism, debate, contention in the name of philosophy.
Proverbs 29 and verse 22. Proverbs 29 and verse 22. What type of individual stirs up strife, stirs up contention, stirs up conflict? Proverbs 29:22, “An angry man stirs up strife and a furious man abounds in transgression.” An angry man doesn't have to just be outwardly angry in all his speech and actions. He can have a pinned up, frustration and anger, that's deep inside. And this willingness to divide; a willingness to stir up disunity, one can come across very charming – nice outwardly – but they're stirring up conflict as it says, it is a man of sin, it’s a man of anger and full of sin.
The Bible is very clear in how we should. Be towards one another. Philippians 2 and verse 14. Philippians 2:14. “Do ALL things (so this doesn't leave anything out), do ALL things without complaining and disputing, that you become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in whom you shine as lights in the world….” Everything without complaining, and other translations say without complaining, without arguments.
Titus, three and verse one. And Paul is giving instruction to Titus on how he should admonish the church himself. And he was to warn the church, Titus 3:1,
“Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey (you know, be willing to yield to the authorities that God is put in place), be ready for every good work and to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior towards men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing and regeneration of the renewing of God’s Spirit, of the Holy Spirit.” You know, God has given us his Spirit so we can be peaceable, so we can have and share in the same love, not deceived, “Whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.”
Second Corinthians 11 and verse one, 2 Corinthians 11:1,
“Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly – and indeed you do bear with me. For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” So here is this example of future bride of Christ, and God is a jealous God, and there's a jealousy there. But what is it that is going to provoke God? “But I fear lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you have received a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted – you may well put up with it!”
False ideas; deceptions. Christ is looking for a bride that is going to be in disagreement with him or agreement with him? Is he looking for a bride that is going to criticize MORE, always object? Is that what Christ is looking for from the church?
What is the closest friendship that you can have in this life, as was also mentioned in the sermonette? Our spouses, a physical relationship with our spouses. Should we be in disagreement all the time, so we look for fights? Should we look for disagreement? Would that be a very positive thing in a marriage?
What does God want? Now, First Timothy 3 and verse 3, and we have some advice towards a spouse, towards a wife, and you think if this parallels a wife and husband relationship in the physical, what is Christ looking for with the church, with the spiritual Church? What will it be like? And also, to think about here too, you know, this does not just to apply, this this attitude, only applied to a wife. You know, a husband needs to also adhere as well, (so) we don't want to be contentious as well.
First Timothy 3 and verse 3. (I'm in Thessalonians, excuse me, that didn't look right). 1 Timothy 3:3, qualifications of an overseer here, and goes into the detail, “Not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence….” I had the wrong verse here, so I apologize. OK, here we go. (I Timothy 3:11), “Likewise, (and talking about qualifications of deacon) likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all issues….” And I'm looking for a different verse, but I don't have it in front of me, so I apologize, but it is basically, you know, a contentious wife, that's not what God desires in a wife.
Titus, two and verse one. We can turn there. Again, I apologize, I did not have this in my notes, “But As for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound, in faith, love and patience. The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, or given too much wine, teachers of good things – that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”
But there are other scriptures in talking about, you know, not being a quarrelsome or contentious wife, you know, but a husband is not to be contentious towards their spouse either. It's not going to edify, it's not going to encourage one another. You know, “Hey, would you mind buying some towels for the bathroom?” And they buy towels, they go to the store, go shopping, “But you didn't get my favorite color, take ‘em back!” You know,
“I made you this dinner, I hope you like it.” “Well, I didn't know you hated me this bad, why would you do that? I don't like this stuff. Take it back!”
You know, “I think the fastest route would be this way, this is what the GPS says, maybe we can do that.” “Ahh, I know it's going to be bad; I'll do my own way.” Everything, you know, it could be, you could drive somebody INSANE. At every step of the way there's a contentious, or there's something on the flip side, “Well, we need to look at this and over analyze it. You know. Now, we apply this within a physical relationship in marriage, but what is it that God is looking for from his future BRIDE the Church of God? Is it always, you know, my opinion matters the most all the time, and my voice needs to be heard?
As we conclude, I'd like to just give one final thought, and, you know, if we accept these damaging philosophies and we don't acknowledge what God's word says, not only will we have more strife among ourselves and our relationships; not only will we not have unity, but we’ll also and it will lead to rejecting Christ’s supreme authority. It will lead to quarreling, debating, criticizing and putting themselves in a position to judge the church, which is led, and the head is, Jesus Christ. So (if) we ever get to a point where we think, “I can do it better, and I'm not going to wait around for anybody else. I don't (basically you're saying) I don't trust God. I don't trust the Christ. I'm going to fix it myself,” then we should reconsider.
Remember Job, he did not understand what was going on when he was facing, you know, the trial beyond any comprehension. He did not understand, but he got to a point, he didn't understand it, and so he wanted to debate with God. “I'm ready to debate you and your intent, and I'm ready to quarrel. You don't know what's going on. You don't have it right, and I question you.” And then God responds to Job with 72 questions of his own, that he has no answer for. God’s thoughts are above our thoughts, his ways are above our ways and we have to remember that. Job 40 to conclude. God’s intelligence is the supreme intelligence. Job 14 verse one, Job 40:1,
“Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said (you know, this is after he's already asked him quite a few questions), ‘Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it.’ Then Job answered the Lord and said: ‘Behold, I am vile; What shall I answer you? (‘I have no answer,’ he was seeing himself clearly. ‘I should not have tried to debate with you. I should not have, uh, I should not have done this’). Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.’” And then God challenges him more and goes on with more questions.
Drop down to verse 42 [sic], and Job responds again after those 72 questions. (Job 42:1), “Then Job answered the Lord and said: ‘I know that you can do everything, and that no purpose of yours can be withheld from you. You asked, “who is this, who hides counsel without knowledge?” Therefore I have uttered what I do not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I do not know. Listen, please, and let me speak; You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
And at that point God poured out the blessings on Job. Job contended, he wanted to quarrel, he wanted to debate. He disagreed and he went after God; he questioned him. And God helped him to see that his thoughts are much higher than Job's.
There have been many arguments, debates, philosophical ideas out there that have attacked the Church of God over the years. Gnosticism, whatever it may be, you go back, there's always a philosophy, there's always an idea. There's always a, “We can do it better ourselves.” But maybe before one takes the time to introduce criticisms, opinions, quarrels, debate, criticism towards the Church of God, they should first answer those questions that God questioned Job with. And until one has those answered, maybe they should stop questioning, themselves. Job repented, Job responded, and God blessed. Until we can answer those questions, maybe we should do the same and be quick to hear and slow to speak.
37 comments:
He throws in the odd hedging remark, but the message is that members should be seen and not heard. Scientific organisations have a peer review process, and is a natural part of every day social intercourse. For instance, when a woman touched Christ to be healed and all denied it, Peter in Luke 8: 45 responded with "(but) the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you." Challenging beliefs that seem odd to us in the context of a friendship is normal, yet such behavior is stomped on in the COGs with accusations of spiritually undermining others, causing division, etc.
Many times I was threatened by ministers for disagreeing with others pets beliefs. And that was me just replying to their assertions rather than initiating a conversation. The place was a nut house. Normal human behavior was banned with every manner of railing accusation. My mental health went through the roof when I stopped attending. You pay through the nose being a members of these churches.
Now the person who posted this is pulling at anything to put down the Church. There is nothing in the sermon that is wrong, that is not Biblical. This is where the climate in the world is influencing the authors of this website, by thinking that there should not be unity or harmony. Quit trying to cancel truth. There is right truths and Godly ministers out there, and then there are some who are not. But this sermon does nothing but show right truth. We should not be arguing in the Church, nothing wrong with saying that.
What is the point this post ?
"How much time does God want US spending quarreling, debating on speculative details in the Bible?"
That is an excellent point. Of course, some things are considered speculative by one person, but to another it's quite clear. The person that understands the point has a duty to not press the issue with those who haven't quite figured it out yet. These types of things come up in casual conversation after services and there is no way to avoid it. We can, however, avoid making mountains out of molehills.
The bigger problem is the "government" teaching in the Church. The idea that if something doesn't come from the ministry it isn't valid does a lot of damage. Not all ministers are on board with that, yet.
It can be like walking a tight-wire, for sure, trying to maintain a sense of unity and harmony without being heavy handed. Some groups are better at it than others.
Well said anon 4:12.
I consider this to be half a sermon. While the focus is on respect for doctrine and the chiding of anyone who challenges doctrine, there is no discussion of the other half. And that is how then does the church reform its doctrine. When members see inconsistencies or incompleteness in doctrine how does the church rationally process this?
The deficient solution set forth in this sermon is that members with questions should find their solace in trusting silence. The issues should be set aside and ignored in the interest of the unity of fellowship. Doctrinal review is just not going to happen. Every denomination defends its dogma. Denominations maintain a stable collection of beliefs. Challenging those beliefs is not easy. The view is that if you are in strong and irreconilable disagreement, you walk. 95 theses tacked to the door. If you are in a Calvinist church it really is not going to work for you to try to introduce a free will theology. Time to walk. But prior to that extreme development, there should be some means of formal doctrinal review. It is not a sin to have a question.
But picking up your feet is not easy if you believe that you are part of the "one and only true church." That belief is the tightly fitting cork that causes all controversy to remain within the church where it builds destructive pressure. Then the only solution for those so inclined is to start a brand new "one and only true church." The lack of a mechanism for midrash and doctrinal reform is the invitation to schism. This is the great and lasting, maybe only, legacy of Splinterdom.
Armstrongism especially needs a forum for doctrinal review. They have no systematic theology. If you have strong well defined beliefs creating a documented systematic theology is a piece of cake. But it does reveal weaknesses. Instead, Armstrongists have an unintegrated collection of articles and booklets written by HWA and others. They need to have a constitutional convention so they can decide what inchoate Armstrongism actually is.
Otherwise, sermons like this just dubiously defend a chimera.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Was HWA guilty of violating many of the concepts of that post??
The classic sermon with all the cobbled and mined scriptures one could find to plead for the concept of "“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be NO divisions among you, and that you be perfectly joined together in the SAME mind in the same judgment.”
Here Paul is begging for unity of thought because there obviously was none nor could there be.
Later in 2 Timothy, Paul, or whoever wrote in his name, said that "ALL those in Asia have forsaken me..." So much for the fruits of begging people not do that. At minimum that would mean all the 7 Churches in Asia mentioned in Revelation. And of course in the context of those churches in Revelation, false apostles claiming to be true Apostles was an issue They were rejected and congratulated by Revelation Jesus for doing so. Paul was probably one of them or even THE one the Jewish Christian Book of Revelation was referring to.
While Paul said "when cursed we bless" (I Cor 4:12), in this topic he cursed those, or at least put the actual cursing off on God who sided with any other teachings/beliefs but his own. (Galatians 1:8)
Paul simply can't stand that others questioned him. Especially the "Super Apostles" which were probably Peter, James and John in the Jerusalem Jewish Church.
In Galatians he shows his hand as to his actual relationship with Peter, James and John. Galatians 2:6 "As for those who were held in high esteem- (other translations say "reputed to be" ) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message."
That's an amazing attitude for Paul come lately to have about the main players in the Gospel story of Jesus and Jerusalem Church. Of course, the Gospels were not written about Peter, James, John or Jesus until after Paul was dead and gone so he'd not know them in that context at all. It's why Paul never quotes the Gospel characters to back his own Apostleship. The quotes or story did not exist in his lifetime.
...continue
...continued
And so it still is and always will be. Every church leader, because they have the true way, truth and life, and can't possibly be mistaken ends up pulling these kinds of rants out to keep the ship afloat even though it obviously has breaches in the hull.
In this modern day sermon addressing the eternal problem of unity of thought there is a concept for everyone to agree with, "but please brethren, just settle down". From "it can be fun to look at these things" to the demands of scripture that you do not do so and leave such things up to the Church and ministry, it covers all possible options in such matters. The ultimate crush being "If there is a problem in the Church, God will correct it or me, not you." This is Dave Pack's approach which of course means "shut up".
"Where two or three are gathered together in Jesus name" usually means one controls the beliefs which are his, one listens attentively in outward agreement and one cleans up or brings the watermelon to the Church picnic. If the scripture said "Where three or four are gathered together, in my name..." the forth person would be the one who disagrees or causes division and needs to be reigned in or else.
Unless one is in Dave Pack's brain dead church, there is nothing a church can do to prevent disagreements or those who dig a little or a lot deeper than their Apostle, Priest or Presiding Evangelist ever did, would or could. Like this sermon, you throw every scripture, concept, analogy and plea you find at the congregation and hope some of it sticks.
Forget "Come let us and reason together" which also is a dead end and a standoff. Demanding any group, however, "all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among you", is naĂŻve and a formula for the perpetuation of ignore-ance. Discipline for dissenters will follow. It is the final plea of a desperate church administration, ministry or theological guru running out of ideas and time. Next step is just getting totally pissed off about it all and handing one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that it all works out for the good and makes those who go along to get along feel safe again.
IMHO
The "COGWA" message: Not a new concept but Just another example of the old saying, "A man's position is determined by where he sits"! Such is the history of the COG.
HWA's split with CG 7th day and the famous 1939 anti-organization article. Soon replaced by the COGWA message in the 50's and onward.
When Ted got the boot and started over, the outcry to the faithful was THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE!!!
" Search the scriptures, prove all things, try them which say they are apostles, YOU are responsible " and so on. But things changed and the COGWA message soon set in. Sermons such as "A New Beginning" 1978, and "The Primacy of the Individual" 1980, became "Your Very Own Preacher" and "Experimental Church" in 1985.
I never followed COGWA's split with United but I bet a lot of these same shenanigans went back and forth. Now apparently we have come full circle. Power and authority has been secured. It's time to clamp down before things get out of hand. It's time once again for the COGWA message!
Dennis:
I believe you (or Bart Ehrman) are creating a gratuitous rift between Pauline theology and Jamesian theology where there is none. Instead there were two streams of Christianity that met in amicable confluence at the Jerusalem Council. There was no falling out. There was no schism. Paul and James both have a place in the NT. A difference in cultural perspective, yes. A difference in faith in Christ, no. The lesson is that there were some issues and they sorted them out.
"His actual relationship with Peter, James and John" can be hyped into a lethal discord but this spin is just not supported by the events of the Christian movement. Just as we cannot say that a Christian ministry to the Jews diverged in substance from a Christian ministry to the Gentiles - mutually destructive like matter and anti-matter.
Jesus was a Jew who preached a form a Late Second Temple Judaism to other Jews. During the life of Christ, belief in Jesus was a Jewish movement. Through Paul, Jesus expanded this Late Second Temple Judaism to the Gentiles. This was possible because the message was not fiercely bound to race, land and Temple. But this is not a contradiction of the historical direction of Judaism. The Jews always believed that the Messiah would liberate the Jews from Gentile oppression but would also bring the Gentiles into the fold. James and company would have understood this. It might have even been expected. And it was only a question of what requirements were necessary for Gentiles to join. For a while circumcision seemed to be a ceremonial credential supported by some. Decisively, Paul said being a Jew was spiritual - no ceremony required. So today all Christians are spiritual Jews and Christianity remains a Jewish movement.
Finding a train wreck in this, as you and Ehrman have done, is tendentious. You have a right to interpret, of course, but so do others.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
There are three, not seven, annual festivals of God. There has never been a commandment to tithe to the Melchisedec Priesthood. Oh, oh, my opinion.
How can you not have arguing in a church when rights are taboo and bullies run riot? People have a right and responsibility to defend themselves. 'Don't argue' is just a code word for demanding that people don't stand up for themselves.
NEO whines..."Finding a train wreck in this, as you and Ehrman have done, is tendentious. You have a right to interpret, of course, but so do others."
=========================
Let's not forget our own Dr James Tabor , who started at AC and went on to get a genuine theological education.
Dr Tabor has a best selling book "Paul and Jesus-How the Apostle Transformed Christianity"
Summary: Book Overview
"This fascinating examination of the earliest years of Christianity reveals sharply competing ideas about the significance of Jesus and his teachings and shows how the man we call St. Paul shaped Christianity as we know it today. Historians know almost nothing about the two decades following the crucifixion of Jesus, when his followers regrouped and began to spread his message. During this time the apostle Paul joined the movement and began to preach to the gentiles. Using the oldest Christian documents that we have--the letters of Paul--as well as other early Christian sources, historian and scholar James Tabor reconstructs the origins of Christianity. Tabor reveals that the familiar figures of James, Peter, and Paul sometimes disagreed fiercely over everything from the meaning of Jesus' message to the question of whether converts must first become Jews. Tabor shows how Paul separated himself from Peter and James to introduce his own version of Christianity, which would continue to develop independently of the message that Jesus, James, and Peter preached. Paul and Jesus gives us a new and deeper understanding of Paul as it illuminates the fascinating period of history when Christianity was born out of Judaism and became the religion we recognize today."
NEO, I'm going to guess you attend one of the splinters. If so, which if I might ask? If not, where?
Dennis:
Hardly a "whine" - that's your invention - rather, a simple statement of fact. I have corresponded with Tabor and I have read/scanned one of his books. I class him as a secularist - someone who selects among many interpretations the one that supports a secular, non-numinous view, like yourself. For instance, Tabor sees Jesus and Paul at odds because he does not permit the idea that Jesus inspired Paul. Hence, he has no motivation to see the similarities or the integration. He seems to want to play up the divergence. I do not know for sure but my guess is that he does not believe in God.
I was an Armstrongist until 1995 and then I became a mainstream Christian. To answer your question, no, I do not attend a splinter group. Neither am I a part of the evangelical movement. Considering the views I have expressed on this blog, I am surprised that you would ask.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Well, I hope Dr Tabor is not reconstructing to his own destruction; I assume he has commented on 2 PETER 3:15-16 NASB: ...and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Anon 10:10 am Tithing has always been, is now and always will be the means by which God finances His Work and His Church. It's God's money, not yours, when you get money from a job you're borrowing from him when you don't pay tithing to God, you stole from God God says people can steal from him and when people don't pay tithes to God - don't even give Him His offerings - He considers that they are robbing Him.
My recollection when I was at AC and in the church for only 4 years, was that there was pressure to agree with what was taught, that the church had all the truth. You couldn't disagree or you were labeled to have a "bad attitude." The problem is not in disagreeing, but doing so in a way that caused divisions. The church considered any disagreement with divisiveness. Paul said that some esteem one day more than another, so be it. Paul didn't require uniformity, but he did promote unity. The church of God insisted on uniformity as the only way of having unity. That, I think was part of the problem that led to heavy handed leadership. I couldn't imagine Roderick Meredith allowing an open discussion in first year Bible without him becoming overbearing, dominating the conversation and shutting down the expression of other views or doubts. Can you imagine HWA sitting down in a forum with real theologians and historians to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of some of his teachings? He would only lecture in a setting where he had complete control of the situation.
NEO I mentioned Dr Tabor because you made it sound like Bart Ehrman and myself were the only two who promoted the idea that Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles were at odds with each other. The fact is that this is indeed a fact of NT theology and Church history is a very mainstream understanding among higher critics and historical theologians.
The "problem with Paul" perspective is well known and goes back a long way. It is not something new to our times. It is well described in Hyam Maccoby's "Paul the Mythmaker" and in the "The Religion of the Occident/ The Origin and Development of the Essene-Christian Faith By Martin A. Larson. 1959.
He ends chapter 6 on "Revelation" with the following and it is simply the truth about this division in the NT between Paul and the Jewish Christian Apostles.
Revelation was the swan song of Militant Jewish Christianity. When Jerusalem was destroyed, when Rome waxed greater and more powerful, when the False Prophet (Paul) gained more and more followers, when the book itself was proved totally false within two years, when it became evident that the Jewish Messiah-Christ would not come, the Hebrew Christians lost their virility and their cult faded under the combined assault of orthodox Judaism and of Gentile (i.e. Pauline) Christianity."
That Paul and not Jesus was the originator of NT Christianity is well understood and accepted. That Paul's competition, the Jewish Christian Apostles and Church and against whom he railed and they against him, is also well established.
It is the one question I have asked every outside WCG Episcopal and Catholic Priest friends and well schooled pastors about, and who unanimously agreed and studied that reality in seminary. It was to that question most said that "every trained theologian knows they are 50 years ahead of any congregation in what they actually understand and know to be historically so." The problem is not the knowing but in the transition from comfortable Sunday School stories to the reality of the origins and history of the Church and how we got from back then to now here.
And too NEO. One might ask who ordained Paul an Apostle? Who would ordain one who was a known persecutor of the Jewish Christians and Apostle and skip just about every known step in between? Persecutor to Apostle in one easy stop.
The answer is most likely the same as asking who ordained Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland Apostles and Bob Thiel a Prophet. They pronounced it upon themselves. The general answer to who ordained Paul an Apostle among apologists is either "God" or "Jesus". Paul, in Galatians, 1 vehemently states that he did not learn his version of the Gospel from anyone on Earth. He learned it by revelation. We have to understand that when Paul said he learned anything by "revelation" he means through the voices in his head.
Paul Called by God Galatians 1:
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. '
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace... 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."
I assume he said he wasn't lying because he was being accused of it.
Dennis, you wrote "That Paul and not Jesus was the originator of NT Christianity is well understood and accepted."
There is no doubt that you can find many secularists who will affirm that Pauline theology is the foundation of Christianity to the exclusion of Jesus. Jesus wrote nothing. His words were captured by witnesses who passed this along to others who wrote down his words but did not witness his presence or hear his words directly.
And the secularists expect us to believe that God could not deal with this transmission of information. This is because they reject the idea of the numinous. If you believe there is no God, then there is no integration of the NT. It is just a piecework of diverse and unrelated ideas. The number of secularists who adopt this viewpoint is immaterial. The inspiration of the Bible is not democratically determined.
Paul said of his message "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." You can collect together, perhaps, thousands of Tabor-like scholars who would be happy to say this statement by Paul is horse apples. In so doing, you have not demonstrated anything about the truth of the statement. And it should be well understood and accepted that all you have demonstrated is that there people who are non-believers - something we already knew.
And, further, the messages of Jesus and Paul are certainly not mutually exclusive. Paul is famous for salvation by grace through faith. Jesus stated "But turning and seeing her, Jesus said, Daughter, be comforted; your faith has saved you. And the woman was saved from that hour (Matthew 9:22)." Jesus states this in a number of places. Yet secularists like to foment a faux conflict between James and Paul over the issue of faith. If there were such a conflict, why would not James accept the words of his own brother Jesus?
Since you are an atheistic materialist, I would expect you naturally to sing the song of the secularists. That's your viewpoint. But it is only a viewpoint.
Note: I have not idea if James Tabor is a believer or non-believer. But certain statements lead me to believe it may be the latter.
******* Click on my icon to view Disclaimer
Correction: "Who would ordain one who was a known persecutor of the Jewish Christians an Apostle... Persecutor to Apostle in easy step"
Also, Paul claimed he was called "from my mother's womb." Very nice move. Only Jeremiah and Jesus could claim this astounding fact before he came along. As a Pharisee of the Pharisees, it does great persecutor Jesus, he seems to escape notice in any of the Gospels and, after all, it was the Pharisees in the Gospels who get all the blame for harassing Jesus. You'd think Paul as Saul would have least made a cameo appearance or two in the Gospels. Alas....
I suspect he was overstating his credentials, as do others, which is another story and more a temple "thug", a policeman of sorts for the Sadducees. The Pharisees weren't the demons the Gospels made them out to be. And they certainly had no interest in chasing "Jesus people" all over the country and outside of it. Also, Paul arguments for Jesus are taken from the Greek and not the Hebrew OT texts. He often slaughters the OT to make it mean what he wants to in the NT. Nuther story but he did not argue as a Pharisee.
Galatians 3:16
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ", where Paul says the "seed" was Christ because it does not say "seeds" in the OT is a classic example of this poor reasoning. Of course "to Abraham's his seed" means many descendants in context. Kinda like "Sheep" We don't say "sheeps" to mean many. Evidently to Paul you would.
It was the Pharisee ideals that evolved into the Orthodox Judaism of today.
The Satanic Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday Jewish Christians who wanted people to obey the laws of God as Jesus Christ himself instructed himself to do so, it is correct that the Gentile Catholic church who persecuted God's church is not of God, The Roman Catholic Church is the whore of the book of Revelation.
I thought the improperly named Continuing Church of God was the Whore of Babylon? Or is the Whore of Fatima?
Dennis:
Once again you have adopted a secularist view. That is fine. But understand that it is only a view - a view credentialed by yourself and other secularists. If you believe pretextually that Paul heard voices in his head why am I even having this exchange with you. What psychiatrist, contemporary to Paul, is your authority. I could say that you hear voices and it would have as much weight as your statement.
Who ordained Paul? Are you asking for a description of a ceremony in the Bible someplace? What would that ceremony look like back in the formative days of the church? Paul explained the origin of his ordination: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)." No doubt you would regard this as nothing but a shrewd move by Paul. You selectively believe that the Bible contains evidence that Jesus and Paul are at odds and then you selectively disbelieve Paul's words in the same Bible. Nobody in the Ekklesia challenged Paul's Apostleship.
What this all amounts to is just special pleading. The Bible is accurate when it fits your agenda and a fabrication when it fits your agenda. Absent any mechanism that I can detect for discerning truth except the special pleading of other secularists. The fact is you have a nurtured view point, as do I. That's as far as it goes.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
"The Roman Catholic Church is the whore of the book of Revelation."
Revelation was written long before a Catholic Church existed. Most likely between January and September of 70 AD just before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not predicting Catholicism. The Whore is Rome of the first century invading Israel to put an end to Jewish zealotry and rebellion. The Beast is Vespasian. Jerusalem fell in 8 months and Revelation failed by 73 CE with the fall of Masada three and half years later. It's not for us and has been misused for 2000 years. Stars don't really fall to earth and hyperbole was the writing style of the day.
Anon 5:54 PM The laws of God are in the Bible follow since Jesus followed them we must too if we do not then we aren't Christians. The majority of people who call themselves Christian aren't really Christian since they do not follow Jesus Christ.
Climb the ladder to the kingdom:
To enter the kingdom of God, you have to start small, when God gives you some knowledge, then you must obey what you learn, the more you obey, the more God will open your mind to understand, so you must obey that understand life it's about building moral and spiritual character, you work your way up by your obedience to enter the kingdom of God, start small and work your way up, then we must climb the ladder to the kingdom of God and if you sin willfully , choose the path of the catholic church and Satan's world you will fall down the ladder completely, no matter how high you climbed and there will be no more sacrifice for your sin, but if you stay the course and strive to keep God's commandments so much as much as possible, you will get as much reward as you rule in the kingdom of God and replace Satan and his demons.
Yeah sure, the 200 million army in Revelation killing a third of mankind is just hyperbole.
You are to Banned what the serpent was in the garden of Eden.
"Climb the ladder to the kingdom:
To enter the kingdom of God, you have to start small, ..."
What a load of Armstrongite crap! There is no ladder to climb unless you are a Masonic Lodge member. Gods free gift of grace and justification is INSTANT access to salvation. No need to worry about not qualifying or any of that other useless crap Armstrong teaches members to fear over. Salvation is not a merit award where you get better salvation according to accumulating points by doing certain things right. Pure crap. No wonder Armstrongism is dying a miserable death if this is what the current state of mind is in church members.
“Stars don't really fall to earth…”
What if those stars are actually satellites that will fulfil Revelation in falling to the earth in the future?
NEO 6:19PM,
NEO has my vote in this debate.
"What this all amounts to is just special pleading. The Bible is accurate when it fits your agenda and a fabrication when it fits your agenda. Absent any mechanism that I can detect for discerning truth except the special pleading of other secularists. The fact is you have a nurtured view point, as do I. That's as far as it goes.".
That nails it. "The twain shall never meet". It is best to agree to disagree.
Dennis isn't just guilty of special pleading, but he'd also guilty of concept stealing. If a person believes that theory A or doctrine A is all wrong, it's illogical to use parts of A to prove ones own theory/doctrine. When I pointed this out to Dennis some time back, his reply that other authors are doing it, so why can't he? So if others are getting drunk, that makes it OK for Dennis to get drunk as well.
All beliefs are eventually challenged, and is part of every day life. But a military campaign against others Christian beliefs is another matter, and is not the purpose of this blog.
Cogwa's upper ranks have learned that the best way to maintain unity is to avoid many of their incorrect beliefs by lumping them all together without definition or description as "the Truth". Members remember these Truths and are sure they proved them to themselves when they were in their teens or early 20s reading WCG booklets.
To protect the conformity of thought required to maintain their social network, the Truth is often the casualty.
A.E. Housman said it best: "The faintest of all human passions is the love of truth."
Anyone DUMB enough to follow THIS group DESERVES what they get!!!!!!!!
That's a familiar tactic to undermine sincere study, growth and discussion, to mention someone's faulty thinking they have "superior intelligence," bring in a reference to the Pharisees with a spattering of gnosticism and false teachers. There ARE a number of brethren with differing opinions, study papers and open discussions of changes needing to be made where we've been wrong, and guess what. There's no arguing, anger, fear but instead love and respect of what each person was considering. The "church" is sadly resembling a corporate structure, almost a business. That was never how it was supposed to be. Brethren can know and understand things that the ministry can't see. There are elders and ministers that will acknowledge this. If they won't acknowledge that, then one must ask who really has placed themselves on a pedestal.This isn't to discourage anyone but to realize we don't know it all yet and if we think we did then that's something else we had wrong.
Post a Comment