Why is it that COG ministers, particularly self-appointed ones who have no real theological education, always try and keep their members burdened down with impossible laws and expectations instead of teaching their followers to revel in grace with unabandoned joy?
Church of God members are in a constant state of turmoil trying to do things to impress their god so that at some point in the future they might be forgiven and loved.
Because these men have placed their entire focus on shadows and laws that were designed to make the children of Israel a separate unique people at that time, they continue to live in the past burdened down by laws they can never fully keep and thus live in a constant state of wondering if God has going to abandon them. Under the New Covenant, those expectations were accomplished by the works of the One who is greater than those laws, the very One Christians have been following for centuries in faith and absolute confidence.
This kind of theological depravity results in Bob Thiel saying things like he has written below.
Are You Qualifying or Disqualifying?
This message is a 21st century update of a message given at the Feast of Tabernacles in 1982 by the late Pastor General of the old Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong. In this sermon, Dr. Thiel goes over scriptures about the role of Christians as kings and priests in the kingdom of God, the influence and flaws of Satan, and humanities choices. He goes over promises that Jesus gave Christians as well as warnings from Jesus and the Apostle Paul about disqualifying. Dr. Thiel also gives some clues about when Jesus may return. He also discusses what humanity will do to the world and how much better the millennial kingdom of God will be.
A 17th Century theologian sums up the confidence Christians live with:
- Therefore, in this Covenant, we do not only receive Light, but the Fullness of Light.
- Not only Life, but the Fullness of Life, because Christ is our Life whom we receive in this Covenant.
- Not only Strength, but the Fullness of Strength; The Lord is the Strength of my heart, and my Portion forever.
- Not only Pardon of Sin, but Fullness of Pardon; or, the Fullest Pardon, complete Pardon.
- Not only Righteousness, but the Fullness of Righteousness; perfect and complete Righteousness, and you are complete in him.
- Not only Peace, but the Fullness of Peace; Peace that passes all understanding.
- Not only Beauty, but the Fullness of Beauty; for it was perfect, * thro’ my Comeliness which I put upon thee, saith the Lord God.
- Not only knowledge, but the Fullness of knowledge; And ye also are Full of all goodness, filled with all knowledge. The parts may be weak, yet where Christ dwells or hath taken possession of the heart, there the Soul hath a Fullness of Spiritual knowledge: Our Vessels may be full though’ but small.
- And Not only Joy, but the Fullness of Joy; These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. Again, he saith, Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full; ’tis called, unspeakable joy, and full of Glory.
- Lastly, And not only Glory, but the Fullness of Glory; for the Fullness of the Glory of Heaven is contained in this Covenant, or the perfect and full enjoyment of God, even the Beatifical Vision. Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)
Leave the lies of Bob Thiel and live a life free! Stop worrying about whether or not you are qualified or disqualified.
Perfect love casts out all fear.
ReplyDeleteWe are saved, forever and Jesus Christ has paid the price once and for all time, for us all.
Come to Me for My burden and yoke is light and easy…..
A far cry from the gospel of ‘works’ that so many teach within Armstrongism.
John 3:16 was looked upon with a slight distain as a verse ‘Christianity’ had watered down to a syrupy version of salvation when I was in attendance at wwcog.
Yet it’s message alone is that of the gospel captured in a single verse.
I doubt the quotation posted or similar will ever be read in a cog publication or preached from the pulpit in Armstrongism.
For it exposes gravely their lack of appreciation of the simplicity of the message of Jesus Christ.
We are certainly not justified by our works but we are rewarded according to them (Rom. 2:6). The following is just a brief summary of New Testament requirements for Christians:
ReplyDeleteActs 2:38 Repent and be baptized...
Acts 26:20 ...do works fitting for repentance
1 Cor. 5:8 Let us keep the Feast
1 Cor. 6:9-10 Forbidden: fornication, adultery, drunkenness, effiminancy, stealing, coveting
1 Cor 7:19 keeping the commandments of God
1 Cor. 11:28 Let a man examine himself
Eph. 4:25 Put away lying and speak the truth (9th commandment)
Eph. 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more (8th commandment)
Eph 5:3 Let fornication, all uncleaness, and covetousness not once be named among you (7th and 10th commandments)
James 1:22 Be doers of the word, not hearers only (verse 24 says that we must change the kind of person we had been)
James 5:12 swear not
1 Peter 2:11 abstain from fleshly lusts
Rom. 13:9 specifically forbids: killing, stealing, lying, coveting
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to show yourself approved to God.
Well said anon 8:16. I totally agree. If only the hypocrites who run this blog followed even one of those scriptures.
DeleteIf only the hypocrites who run this blog followed even one of those scriptures."
ReplyDeleteBut, you're the biggest hypocrite here, you don't follow these scriptures!
11:02
ReplyDeleteWell at least this blog allows comments and so people can debate whether the scriptures are so (Acts 17:11) unlike Bob's site and a lot of other Armstrongist COG sites that forbid discussion and debate. It's like they're all for free speech, but not if it might disprove their Armstrongist interpretations and doctrines as false.
Anon 11:02:00 PM PDT
ReplyDelete‘If only the hypocrites….’
Can you elaborate on the term you used to describe those who ran this blog please.
Set out in very clear terms what you find objectionable in a sound reasonable manner that we may be able to understand your use of ‘hypocrites’ in your terminology.
Perhaps your terminology is well founded. But to throw out this term so causally without support is highly suspect.
Let’s hear your arguments.
As an aside I do agree with the post @ 8:16:00 PM PDT.
But these scriptures are most certainly not a ‘rebuttal’ to these blog, but are in my opinion a dire warning to the the appalling documented abuse carried out by the ministry of the Armstrong movement. And their deeply flawed theology under the ‘new covenant’, let alone BI etc etc……..
If Bob believes in qualifying or not qualifying, why then is he lying by claiming to be a prophet that God talks to in his dreams? Would a future king or priest in the kingdom have a history of being a pathological liar?
ReplyDeleteThis double standard is the norm with the HWA ministry.
Some people have somehow become caught up in a root of bitterness towards Banned. They are a bunch of unhappy naysayers who want to wreck and destroy the work we do here in holding the splinter groups accountable, and providing fact-checking of the teachings of the COG movement. There never is any substance to their accusations or name-calling. They do not anger me. I just feel really sorry for them, and hope that they receive healing at some point in time, unless it's too late for them. Perhaps the tribulation will straighten out their attitudes.
ReplyDeletePoor Bob, a "prophet and a one-man band (Banned)". He extensively draws on old sermons, old Plain Truth and Good News articles to supplement his own rambling rhetoric. I suppose the idea of training a team of ministers is still but a dream...
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteComment was made regarding Bob Thiel said: "...Are You Qualifying or Disqualifying?...Dr. Thiel goes over scriptures about ...humanities choices...warnings from Jesus and the Apostle Paul about disqualifying.... discusses ...how much better the millennial kingdom of God will be...."
******
But, Bob Thiel's millennial kingdom is like that of hirelings who fled the former WCG, in order to maintain a $paycheck$, possibly $retirement$, and not work with their hands ...well, except possibly to lay hands on someone... and that kingdom is the Mickey Mouse Millennium (MMM) with "another Jesus" reigning on earth 1,000 years...in lieu of being at the Father's right hand until all enemies are put down. How can Bob Thiel figure out any of Christ's comings when a blind eye is turned to the Biblical fact that Jesus Christ had a second coming after His murder, being resurrected, visiting His Father, then returning to earth a second time for a 40-day period? Where is that Jesus? Is there "another Jesus" around?
Putting that aside, where is the warnings from the Apostle Paul about disqualifying in the following verse????????????
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor 5:19
And notice that God is doing something nice for this world, and He can't fail.
And isn't it God that calls one, that draws one: that drags one to Jesus?
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44
How does one become disqualified there? Is God stupid? Would He really call someone who would be disqualified?
It appears to me that God, if nothing else, does not call the qualified, but instead qualifies the called (John 1:12-13), but...
Time will tell...
John
P.S. God will not establish a MMM on earth, but there will be a human utopia with His Kingdom established on earth after the second resurrection, but again...
Time will tell...
John
Nah, youse guyz who "run" this blog ain't hippocritters, but yas all a bit ingorint regarden the Noo Covnint!!
ReplyDeleteThat is true. Both Bob and Banned and other what Bob calls "Anti-COG" websites get around parts of the law that they want to ignore by claiming some "New Covenant" does away with them! But none of the parties involved ever, ever, ever answer the simple question, Where in Scripture is this stated?
In Galatians Paul writes that even in human terms people don't simply substitute an old agreement with a new one without both parties agreeing.
We have covenants, in particular, the Sinai Covenant in Exodus, which is reconfirmed in Deuteronomy, so where do we have the same with the "New" Covenant? Who is it with, "the Church" or Israel?
It's okay if no one answers in an intelligible manner - I'm still waiting for Bob to answer as well - and I told him, not that I agree, that HWA said "we" were "between" covenants, to be "signed and sealed" when Christ returns. Now when is that, Dave?
10:01, this has been covered here so many dozens of times, but maybe you haven't heard it before.
ReplyDeleteBasic covenant law: A covenant remains in effect until one of the parties dies. One of them did! God! (Jesus Christ).
In the transfiguration vision, Moses appeared, symbolizing the law, and Elijah appeared symbolizing the prophets. God's voice boomed out instructing those who heard it to give deference to His Son, Jesus.
Jesus outlined the terms of the New Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and the Two Great Commandments of the Lord. These were His commandments.
As Jesus died for mankind's past, present and future sins, His final words were, "It is finished!" As He died, the curtain in the Temple was rent from top to bottom, indicating the validation from Father God.
Paul enumerated the superior values and benefits of the New Covenant in the epistles to the Galatians and Romans.
James, speaking for the first Jerusalem Council declared that circumcision, the identifying sign of those participating in the Old Covenant was not necessary for the Gentiles, and basically recited Noahide law as being the guiding laws for gentile Christians.
Jesus was described as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, whose priest hood had no part in administering the Old Covenant Levitical laws. That had been the designated responsibility of the Levites. So, the followers of Jesus Christ are under a non-Levitical priesthood.
That's the Cliff's Notes. I would encourage other knowledgeable readers to provide more detail.
Why would I want to qualify if it means I'll be in the same kingdom as the abusive lying false accusing ministers I was under before, and if it means they will be ruling over me?
ReplyDeletePerfect love casts out all fear.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why a lot of people I knew in the COGs were shamefully lame. They lived in fear of speaking truth to power.
Heb 8:8b I will make a new covenant [diatheke] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
ReplyDeleteHeb 9:16 In the case of a will [diatheke], it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it,
Heb 9:17 because a will [diatheke] is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
“16-17. But why was the Mediator’s death necessary for the ratification of the covenant? It is not easy to follow the argument in an English version, because we are almost bound to use two different words to represent two different aspects of the meaning of one Greek word, whereas our author’s argument depends on his use of the same Greek word throughout. The Greek words is diatheke, which has the comprehensive sense of “settlement”.
Exo 6:4b And I established my covenant [diatheke] with them (LXX).
“As used elsewhere in the epistle, the particular kind of settlement which diatheke denotes is a covenant graciously bestowed by God upon his people, by which he brings them into a special relationship with himself; in other words, it is used, as it had been used by the Greek translators of the Old Testament, as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith. But in vv. 16 and 17 of our present chapter it is used of another kind of settlement, a last will and testament, in which property is bequeathed by the owner to various other persons on the understanding that they have no title to it until he dies... it simply is not true that “where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it” - nor of necessity of death of anyone else... it is not always true that the maker of the covenant is identified with the covenant victim so that “in the death of the victim his death is presented symbolically”. In the covenant made with Abraham in Gen 15:1-18, and in that made with Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai in Ex 24:3-8, covenant victims were slaughtered, but there is no suggestion that God, the covenant maker on both occasions, was represented by them; neither do they represent Abraham and Israel, the respective recipients of those divine covenants. “The death of him that made it” is, as the AV/KJV and the NEB simply and rightly put it, “the death of the testator”; a testament is the only kind of diatheke which depends for its ratification on the death of the person who makes it...
Heb 9:15a Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant [diatheke], so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance (ESV)
“It is quite likely that the testamentary idea suggested itself to our author’s mind because of his reference to the “eternal inheritance” at the end of v.15... Christ, says our author, is the Mediator of the new diatheke, and there is one kind of diatheke which serves particularly well to illustrate this aspect of his ministry - namely, the testamentary diatheke which does not come into effect before the death of the person who made it. It is well known that this kind of settlement cannot be ratified as long as its author lives. And so it is with the diatheke; its validity depends upon the fact that its author has died” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to theHhebrews, NICNT, Revised, pp.221-24).
"... Jesus by His death renewed the covenant, but He did not institute an entirely "new" covenant.
"... Why call this covenant a "New covenant" especially since most of the content adduced in the "New" is but a repetition of those promises already known from the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant already in existence?...
"... the New is more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and more glorious than the old - in fact, so much so that IN COMPARISON it would appear as it were totally unlike the old at all...
"We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged..." (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, pp.268, 231-234).
Interesting, Walter, and thank you for coming here. However, I have a couple questions to ask you. Are you available for discussion?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anon 4:12
ReplyDeleteThis will go straight over the heads of the law keepers as irrelevant. They will list loads of scriptures thinking they are proving they are right.
Have any LCG-watchers (or members) here seen LCG's Behind the Work video for 2022?
ReplyDeleteLCG BTW 2022
I was surprised to see it mentioning A.N. Dugger more than it mentioned Gerald Weston. In fact, there's no mention of Weston in the main video. All Weston does is give a minute-long closing taped separately from the rest of the very nicely produced video. But during the video there is much more mention of A.N. Dugger than of Rod Meredith, and more mention HWA than of RCM.
Do any insiders know whether this hints anything about Weston's power and influence in today's LCG? The video is mostly through the voice and eyes of Peter Nathan, who takes care of English-speaking Africa for LCG. But when we aren't seeing Nathan and his travels and local African ministers, we are seeing Rees Ellis or Doug Winnail, or hearing about Dugger or RCM, with nothing at all mentioning Weston as their leader. It looks very strange that Nathan made sure to include Doug Winnail and Richard Ames briefly in the production, while Weston's brief mention came only in a tacked-on bit at the end, as if his participation was an afterthought.
On a positive note, whatever it tells us about LCG's internal workings, the video showing LCG's vibrant and extensive activity in Africa must be leaving Bwana Bob even more butthurt than usual.
Thanks 11:44 and 4:12.
ReplyDeleteWhen I asked the question before, I got no replies generally. One I got was a half-hearted guess at a couple of scriptures that made me think he didn't know.
11:44 in my first read I thought you were as clear as mud and your argument leaked like a sieve, but it was still useful. 4:12 something seemed correct about that. I heard Hebrews translation is very biased to make it look like the old way versus the new way.
Ok youse guyz, here's another one: did Jesus come to start a new religion or to add the final touches to what I'll call "Judaism less the traditions"?
Was it clear as mud and leaked like a sieve because I paraphrased the scriptures instead of machine-gunning them at you, or is it just the normal bias confirmation because you're one of the COGlodytes?
ReplyDeletePoor Prophet Bob – you’ve disqualified yourself.
ReplyDeleteAll your commandment keeping is just filthy rags in the sight of God.
The only qualification, standing before God, that will afford you entry into the Kingdom is the righteousness of Jesus (Romans 5:1).
Your dirty teaching on “qualifying” via works of the law has disqualified you, alienated you from Jesus; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:4).
Bob, you are way short of the glory of God; turn from your attempts to “qualify” and seek the redemption of Jesus – be justified freely by his grace Romans 3:323-24.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
ReplyDelete“The issue is not salvation by works but works as the irrefutable evidence of a person’s actual relationship with God. Salvation is by faith, but faith is inevitably revealed by the works it produces” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised, NICNT, p.376).
"Man is expected to respond to God's grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. The NT insists that the law is not a means to salvation, but a response to salvation. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. His righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
"Paul argued that KEEPING THE LAW IS THE FRUIT OF JUSTIFICATION rather than the means of justification... The law was given to the covenant people after their redemption from Egypt..., not as a moral hurdle they had to clear if they wished to be saved" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.261).
"The order of the central events of the book of Exodus is theologically important. First comes the redemptive work of God on behalf of the people. This serves to ground their precarious existence in the deliverance from both historical and cosmic enemies that God accomplishes on their behalf. The elect people is now a redeemed people. Only then is the law given at Sinai. The law is a gift to an already redeemed community. The law is not the means by which the relationship with God is established; God redeems quite apart from human obedience. But then the concern for the law suddenly fills the scene, not only in Exodus, but in the remainder of the Pentateuch. Central to the law is the issue of faithfulness to God alone, particularly in proper worship..." (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, IBCTP, p.22).
Anon, Friday, October 14, 2022 at 7:41:00 PM PDT, wrote:
ReplyDelete"...The law explains how men are to imitate God. ..."
******
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:9
The law expresses a way of life, a life worth living, but salvation is a gift of God via reconciliation to the world, such that:
"...God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor 5:19
Time will tell...
John
As Christ Himself said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Hence like Paul put it “we establish the law.”
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteThis thread has being dealing with the "educative" function of the law. With John introducing 1 Timothy 1:9 he has added another function of the law; it would have been helpful to have included the previous verse. This post is in response to this function, as it relates to the context in which it is used.
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law [nomodidaskaloi]; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9a Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane...
“Made” (keitai) has a legal sense here. The word can also be rendered “given, exit, be valid” (BAGD, 426" (Walter L. Liedfeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, NIVAC, p.63).
“Paul’s preoccupation in this first chapter is with the importance of maintaining true or ‘sound’ doctrine, and of refuting ‘false’ doctrine...
Paul’s prediction some five years previously that ‘savage wolves’ would enter and devastate Christ’s flock in Ephesus had come true. But who were they? And what were they teaching?
“Paul writes that they want to be teachers of the law (7). Thus the heterodidaskaloi (false-teachers) are now identified as nomodidaskaloi (law-teachers). This later word can denote a perfectly legitimate activity, however. Luke uses it of the scribes who taught the Mosaic law (Luke 5:17) and of the even of the illustrious Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). So what is wrong with wrong with teaching the law? There is actually a great need in our day for Christian teachers of the moral law (the Ten Commandments as expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount), for it is through the teaching of the law that we both come to a consciousness of our sin and learn the implications of loving our neighbour. Indeed, we know the law is good if one uses it properly (8). Evidently, then, there is both a right and a wrong, a legitimate and illegitimate, use of the law. First, we ask what were the false teaches doing with the law which was wrong?
“a. The wrong use of the law ...
“b. The right use of the law
“We turn now from the wrong use of the law to its right use. The false teachers, who want to be teachers of the law .. do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm (7, ‘about which they are so dogmatic’, REB). In contrast to their ignorance, however, Paul sets his knowledge. We know that law is good if one uses it properly (8, nominos, ‘lawfully’). We also know that the law is made ... for lawbreakers (9, anomois, ‘for the lawless’). Putting together these two truths which, Paul says, we know, we reach the striking statement that the lawful use of the law is for the lawless. All law is designed for those whose natural tendency is not to keep it but to break it. ‘Not the saint but the sinner is the law’s target”.
“... the law’s three functions according to Calvin are punitive (to condemn sinners and drive them to Christ, deterrent (to restrain evil doers) and specially educative (to teach and exhort believers).
“To which of these three purposes was Paul referring in his first letter to Timothy?... Paul’s words seem to apply to the first and third purposes of the law as well, since the law exposes and condemns the lawless, and then, after they have fled to Christ for forgiveness, it directs them into a law-abiding life. In other words, all three functions of the law relate to lawless people, unmasking and judging them, restraining then, and correcting and directing them” (John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, pp.42-48).
“By saying that the Law was not intended for “the righteous,” Paul reflects a point made earlier in Galatians, that those who have the Spirit and bear its fruit have enters a sphere of existence in which the Law no longer performs its legal functions (Gal 5:22-23)” (Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC, p.45).
Part 2
ReplyDelete1Ti 1:9a the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient
Mk 2:17b I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
"A self-righteous man does not realize his need for salvation, but an admitted sinner does" (NIVSB on Mark).
“It is only because as fallen human beings, we have a natural tendency to lawlessness (for ‘sin is lawlessness’) that we need the law at all. The key antithesis, that the law is not for the righteous but for lawbreakers (9), cannot refer to those who are righteous in the sense of ‘justified’, since Paul insists elsewhere that the righteous do still need the law for their sanctification. Nor can it be taken to mean that some people exist who are so righteous that they do need the law to guide them, but only that some people think they are. Similarly, when Jesus said, ‘I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’, he did not mean that there are some righteous people who do not need to be called to repentance, but only that some think they are. In a word, ‘the righteous’ in these contexts mean the ‘self-righteous’...” (John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, pp.48).
Instead of either or there may be a double sense. Fee being primary and Stott secondary. In the latter the false-teachers parallel the scribes and Pharisees. A subtle dig at the self-righteousness of the false teachers in Ephesus.
“The fundamental principle that the law is for the lawless applies to every kind of law. For example, the reason we need speed limits is that there are so many reckless drivers on the roads. The reason we need boundaries and fences is that it is the only way to prevent unlawful trespass. And the reason we need civil rights and race relations legislation is in order to protect citizens from insult, discrimination and exploitation. If everybody could be trusted to respect everybody’s rights, laws to safeguard them would not be necessary.
“The same is true of God’s law. Its prohibitions and sanction relate to the lawless. And Paul proceeds at once to illustrate the principle of ‘law for the lawless’ with eleven examples of law-breaking...” (John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, pp.48).
“Those who resist doing what is right need to be confronted by a standard that clarifies what they are doing is wrong. Paul wrote, “I felt fine when I did not understand what the law demanded. But when I learned the truth, I realized that I had broken the law and was a sinner doomed to die (Rom 7:9, NLT). If Paul, who was already committed to the law, needed to be confronted in that manner, how much more those whose sins are listed in the following section” (Walter L. Liedfeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, NIVAC, pp.63-64).
“It is particularly noteworthy that sins which contravene the law (as breaches of the Ten Commandments) are also contrary to the sound doctrine of the gospel. So the moral standards of the gospel do not differ from the moral standards of the law. We must not therefore imagine that, because we have embraced the gospel, we now repudiate the law! To be sure, the law is impotent to save us, and we have been released from the law’s condemnation, so that we are no longer ‘under’ it in that sense. But God sent his Son to die for us, and now puts his Spirit within us, in order that the righteous requirements of the law may be fulfilled in us. There is no antithesis between law and gospel in the moral standards which they teach; the antithesis is in the way of salvation, since the law condemns, while the gospel justifies” (John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, pp. 50).
Part 3
ReplyDelete1Ti 1:10b and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
“The term sound doctrine ... is a medical metaphor referring to the “healthiness” of teaching “found in the gospel” (v.11) and stands in opposition to the “sickly craving” (6:4; NIV, “unhealthy interest”) of the errorists, whose ‘teaching will spread like gangrene” (2 Tim 2:17)... the metaphor of healthy teaching becomes a thoroughgoing polemic against the diseased false teachers. But the concern of the metaphor is not with the content of doctrine; rather, it is with behavior. Healthy teaching leads to proper Christian behavior, love and good works; the diseased teaching of the heretics leads to controversies, arrogance, abusiveness, and strife (6:4)” (Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC, p.46).
Anon, Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 1:30:00 PM PDT, wrote:
ReplyDelete"...Part 1
This thread has being dealing with the "educative" function of the law. With John introducing 1 Timothy 1:9 he has added another function of the law; it would have been helpful to have included the previous verse...
...1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;..."
******
I assumed that most, if not all readers to this blog site, are aware that the law is good, spiritual, etc. Hence my reason for simply saying:
"...The law expresses a way of life, a life worth living..."
If the law wasn't good, we would not have a life worth living, would we?
Similarly, human nature is "very good;" isn't it?
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good..." Genesis 1:31
Carnal nature is something else, is it not?
One other comment you made:
...1Ti 1:9a Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane...
...“... the law’s three functions according to Calvin are punitive (to condemn sinners and drive them to Christ, deterrent (to restrain evil doers) and specially educative (to teach and exhort believers).
“To which of these three purposes was Paul referring in his first letter to Timothy?... Paul’s words seem to apply to the first and third purposes of the law as well, since the law exposes and condemns the lawless, and then, after they have fled to Christ for forgiveness, it directs them into a law-abiding life. In other words, all three functions of the law relate to lawless people, unmasking and judging them, restraining then, and correcting and directing them” (John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, pp.42-48)..."
******
Why apply such comments solely to "lawless people?"
Aren't Satan and his evil angels "the lawless and disobedient, ...the ungodly ... sinners, ...unholy and profane?
Satan causes sin in peeps (peoples): "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning..." I John 3:8
Wasn't wicked Satan responsible for the peep Abel's death? "Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one,..." I John 3:12
God is perfect and it has been appointed for all peeps to die once, but who experiences that second death? The lawless and disobedient, ...the ungodly ... sinners, ...unholy and profane: Satan and his angels! How do we know? Matthew 25:41, 46.
Yes, they were made brute beasts: "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,..." 2 Peter 2:12
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Heb 2:14
But why? Among other things, read Heb 2:15
Satan and his evil angels have no sacrifice for them: no shed blood of Christ our Passover sacrificed for us: not for them! Well, Satan did murder Christ; did he not do that through peeps?
Anon, quoting somebody said: "...according to Calvin are punitive (to condemn sinners and drive them to Christ..."
Satan and his angels, thanks to God established law, are condemned, but it is they, the brute beasts that they are, who will not be driven (John 6:44; 12:32) to Christ.
We are learning to hate evil. Don't hate Satan and his angels; hate evil.
Will you, Anon, learn to hate evil?
Ps 97:10 "Ye that love the LORD, hate evil:..."
Pr 8:13 "The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil:..."
Without that law of God, those lawless ones, Satan and his angels, not granted/given repentance, would never experience the second death.
Yes, you will learn to hate evil, but/and...
Time will tell...
John