By Rembrandt, Moses near Mt. Sinai.
Mount Sinai has yet to be positively identified.
A Meditation on God, Law and Armstrongist Torah Observance
By Cogitatio
“The facts are there is not a single text in the New Testament that teaches that any law that God ever gave was abolished and nailed to the cross . . .” – G.G. Rupert, 1915, Leader, Independent Church of God, Seventh Day.
“First, remember that God’s basic spiritual laws existed from the beginning … These Commandments existed from the beginning – since creation.” – Herman L. Hoeh, Article, “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”
“God’s eternal laws and statutes were instituted to teach us the proper use of material objects, to regulate our material relationships with other men.” Herman L. Hoeh, Good News Magazine, “What’s the Use of Working”
“…the eternal law of Almighty God – the Five Books of Moses, God’s Law (Torah) – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy." Robert L. Kuhn, Good News Magazine, “Did Moses Write the Five Books of Moses?”
“The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief — call it what you will — than any book ever written. It has emptied more churches than all the counter-attractions of cinema, motor bicycle, and golf courses.” – A.A. Milne
While God, and therefore his Nature, is eternal, the law of God exists in a number of dispensations. These various dispensations have a common thread in that they reflect the Nature of God but they differ in implementation details. The Old Testament Law exists in this legal context. The supposition that the Torah is eternal, the Armstrongist view, and cannot be replaced must be carefully considered. This article will present the viewpoint that the Old Testament Law in its complete detail is not eternal but was an instantiation of divine law for a certain people, at a certain time, and in a certain place. In that the Torah reflects the Nature of God, it possesses an eternal essence but in its full context-relevant implementation it is temporal.
First, it is useful to have a brief overview of how the Torah is viewed in Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong and Herman Hoeh nowhere provide a view on the ontology or existence of an eternal divine law prior to Creation. WCG writers state explicitly that the law was created at the time that God made the Creation. It is not explained if this is the creation of the Cosmos or the creation of humanity. And they did state it was eternal, that is, it would go on into the eternal future, apparently for the governance of sentient beings. This means that, in Armstrongism, the Ten Commandments, the spiritual nucleus of the Old Testament Law, did not exist before the creation of the Cosmos. While sometimes WCG writers identify God’s eternal law with the Ten Commandments, at other times it encompasses the entire Pentateuch. Though the eternality of the law is frequently mentioned by Armstrongist writers, Armstrongist church administration has at times modified the Torah. One example is in how God places his name for holy day observances. Apparently, the law may be forever but it is not immutable and is subservient to church needs. Finally, while I could find no direct statement about this, I believe that Armstrong and Hoeh would have accepted the foundational idea that the law, any God-given law, has its ontological origin with God’s Nature and his expectations for his creation.
There are some obvious constraints on the Old Testament Law that should be noted before going further. The Old Testament Law is full of human relevant concepts. It is about human beings and their behavior. It is full of conditions that are earthly and for this present Age. Actually, the conditions fit the Bronze Age. Outside the human temporal context, some of the laws will not have meaning. There is the commandment concerning adultery which assumes the institution of marriage. Yet, in the future, the children of God will not marry but be as angels. There are laws in the Torah about how Hebrew slaves should be treated and managed. There are laws concerning purity that are based on human beings as biological organisms and one day there will be only resurrected, spirit children of God. Just as these laws were created, they can be uncreated by the fact that the conditions that require them no longer exist. The human relevant concepts are compatible with the Armstrongist view that the Torah was made at the Creation for human beings. But the human relevant concepts are not compatible with the Armstrongist idea that the Torah will be mandated in the eternal future for both non-human sentient beings or the more advanced resurrected children of God.
The Old Testament Law may be eternal in the weak sense that it will always be a matter of record or exist in memory. What is the state of a law that can be recalled but will never be applied in the future because conditions have changed? The author of Hebrews uses the term “obsolete.” (NRSV) Armstrong and Hoeh were wrong when they designated the Torah as God’s eternal law. Certainly, it does not rise to the level of a fixed standard for all of eternity. It has already suffered erosion. The priestly functions related to the Temple are gone. Jesus claims that he is now the Temple. The ministration of death is gone. The Law of Christ in the New Testament, on the other hand, for the most part, will never age. There is no way that the following principle will fall into disuse through irrelevance, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
Yet, the Torah may also live on as culture and tradition. The Jerusalem church in the First Century had a Jewish membership. No doubt they continued to keep the Torah even though it had lost its salvific significance. The Torah does make a profound ethical document even though for Christians it is not on the critical path for salvation. How should Christians treat this body of traditional legislation? In the Christian context, some of its laws may be determined to be obsolete, like the law about what to do with a Gentile woman captured in warfare, or continued, like the commandment against stealing, or transformed, like circumcision. The fact is, the Old Testament Law is not a fixed mark in eternity for Christians now, but rather a moveable feast of ethical considerations and traditions.
One popular rejoinder to this Christian stance is to assert that the law (Torah) stands inviolable and only the agreement about the law, read “agreement” as “covenant,” has changed. Jesus brought us a new view that magnified the law. We have traded one set of regular spectacles for a different magnifying set. So, the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament has nothing to do with the law – it only involves the covenants or agreements about the law. But Paul wrote in Romans 7: “In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ…” Paul calls out the law specifically. And Paul is not referring to Christians having “died” to it by keeping it perfectly so it can no longer exact a penalty, because earlier in Romans 7, Paul speaks of the termination of the authority of the Law. (And if “dying to the law” is keeping the Old Testament Law perfectly in all its minutiae, kiss salvation goodbye. Read through the Torah sometime and remember that Hoeh wrote that not only were the Ten still in force but so were the laws, statutes, and judgments because they are based on the Ten. Who when they have a contagious disease wears disheveled clothing and shouts “Unclean!” when in public? Wearing a mask is a very modest measure in comparison.)
There is also the unsettling question: “Do we have the Old Testament Law in the form that God intended it?” Because here is what God says about the Torah in the time of Jeremiah:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the Torah of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (Jeremiah 8:8, in the ESV translation, but also nearly every other translation carries this same sense except for the Jewish Study Bible.)
This scripture plainly asserts that the curation and editing of the Torah by scribes seems to have gone awry. Jesus kept the Torah flawlessly but he knew accurately what the Torah was – he was the one who gave it to Israel. Jesus kept every jot and tittle but he knew what was a real jot and a real tittle and what was not. And Jesus did not find it necessary to echo Jeremiah’s statement in his ministry or engage in Torah reform because he knew the full arc of the Torah for his own keeping (he decreed it, after all) and knew it would not be carried forward into the New Testament era. It is the modern-day Torah-keepers who are caught in a dilemma of believing that keeping the full Torah, every jot and every tittle, is required for salvation when they don’t know for sure what the Torah really is. Maybe some scribe interjected something into the Torah that goes against the grain of what God really intended. You can claim that is a sophomoric hypothesis but what about this: “He (Jesus) saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning, it was not so.” This does seem to say that Moses wrote something into the Torah that God did not originally intend.
The assertion that the Bronze Age, human-oriented Old Testament Law, as glorious as it may be, is the eternal law of God lends momentum to the idea that the Old Testament Law must be kept by Christians at this time and must be written on the heart. Historically, a similar view was held by the Circumcision Party, which waged war against the Apostle Paul energetically, and was also held by some of the Gnostics. G.G. Rupert started a latter-day revival of the idea in the Church of God, Seventh Day. What part of the Old Testament Law should be observed and how is a constant turmoil for those who believe the Old Testament law must be kept. Would Jesus really make salvation contingent on a nerdish understanding of the celestial mechanics of the new moons? For Torah-keepers who require and declaim rigor, the complex Bronze Age standard that is obscured by translation and arcane customs is a constant risk to salvation. For Christian soteriology, the Old Testament Law is a non-issue. Christians understand that the Old Testament Law has been replaced by the Law of Christ. The New Testament implements a new charter with new standards and better promises. That is why the Christian covenant is called the New Testament rather than the Old Testament 2.0.
Ut Sciatis Misericordiam Dei
119 comments:
I'm grabbing a bag of popcorn to watch the show that will go down here over the law.
Titus 3:9
But avoid ............ strivings about the law............
It would be nice to know what was actually taught by the WCG, and the Armstrongs, before trying to tear them down with false accusations. Here is just one of MANY points that so many get wrong. Sometimes it seems this is done on purpose.
Here is the point made by GTA in a WCG publication to members and others on the mailing list, millions.
“First, what do WE believe? Perhaps some few have thought we of the WORLD TOMORROW program, and of the staff of The PLAIN TRUTH magazine, believe in salvation BY WORKS! So, at least, it has been said of us!
But we DON'T! WE BELIEVE, THOROUGHLY, EVERY LETTER of that scripture you just read!
What's more we DO NOT believe any individual can EVER be saved by keeping any law — whether Ten Commandments, or ANY OTHER law!”
So, I’m not amazed or even a little surprised at this blatant distortion by
The author of this defamatory article. Perhaps, the author should put some time in exploring what was actually published and taught.
Reread that quote from GTA again. And, stop avoiding the other quotes by the Armstrongs that also disprove what other critics use to falsely accuse them.
The Armstrongs had their human problem, so tell the truth about them, and quit making false accusations.
Now, someone please pass the popcorn….. with real butter.
Cogitatio, I would like to ask you a question, after some observations:
"Given that the Lord himself is the ultimate source of the Law, according to the Pentateuch, he can maintain justice through variable circumstances by giving somewhat different laws to a people for different situations [cp. Lev 17:3-5 (wilderness) with Deut 12:21-22 (in the land)]. Thus OT law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid" (Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, pp.34-35).
"Debating the Bible, especially Torah, and coming up with creative readings to address changing times was a mark of faithful Judaism. Jews were not "legalistic" about handling the Law, which is still a common Christian caricature. Even though scripture was God's word and binding, they understood that the Bible - including Torah - was not a rulebook to be followed to the letter at every point" (Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.174). Cp. Sabbath Day’s Journey (Ex 16:29 & Nu 35:4-5).
Cogitatio writes:
"Christians understand that the Old Testament Law has been replaced by the Law of Christ."
"... torah (nomos, law) is composed of both narrative and legal code, never exclusively the one or the other. Paul in reading the torah as a narrative has come to see Jesus as the decisive chapter in an otherwise unfinished story. He is the one to whom the torah is directed. But that does not mean a negation of the legislative dimension of the torah, only a fresh perspective on it. He can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int, p.82).
Question in regard to this comment:
"The Law of Christ in the New Testament, on the other hand, for the most part, will never age. There is no way that the following principle will fall into disuse through irrelevance, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."”
Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself [quoting from Lev 19:18b].
Paul notes:
Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Paul lists the keeping of the last five of the ten commandments in fulfilling the law towards thy neighbour.
Dt 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
Dt 5:13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
Dt 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work
So the question is, in regard to the first and great commandment, does the keeping of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, also fulfill loving the Lord your God in the Church Administration of the New Covenant?
Cogitatio:
"The priestly functions related to the Temple are gone."
Jer 33:18a And for the priests, the Levites, there will not be cut off [karat] an individual before me making whole offering rise... (John Goldingay).
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with ... the Levites the priests, my ministers.
When the Millennial Temple is built the Levitical priestly functions will be restored.
Interesting article. Certainly enjoy reading well thought out and rationized articles on banned. The facts is that it is difficult to find any type of consistent laws throughout the Torah. I believe that Acts 15 shows some fundamental points regarding the law to the new gentiles. The issue wasn't just circumcision, circumcision was nearly the final and ultimate act of becoming a jew. It certainly encompassed other points around the law (Acts 15:5). Armstrongist generally have an overly simplistic view of history and the Torah. The outcome of Acts 15 is that God is opening salvation to all nations and one does not need to become a jew in order to recieve salvation. It seems that the assumption is that the Noahtide laws were still relevant for gentiles.
Matthew 19:16 "..what must I do to obtain eternal life?"..if you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments...don't murder, don't steal, don't bear false witness.."
These OT laws are still in effect. They applied to the angels, and God the Father and Christ lived by them for all time.
A lot of words from someone with so little understanding. Jesus said to keep the commandments. What more do you need?
One thing is for sure, it takes little words to show that you do not understand the New Covenant.
The discord in this thread should help us understand why so many in WCG in the 1970s wanted the Systematic Theology Project to succeed. HWA tolerated a wide range of beliefs within his church, as long as those beliefs didn't challenge his authority or stop the money from coming in. A systematized theology would have set limits on HWA that he would have found intolerable, so he let his church become a "big tent" for views ranging from the Pharisaical to the Evangelical. By now, most former WCG members who cared about doctrine have left for less cultish mainstream churches, and most who cared about "government" have left for one of the splinters.
Unfortunately, the people who might gain the most from reading this long and dense article are the ones least likely to read it. It might be better to avoid the deluge of words and instead ask one very simple question to tease out the reasoning behind the attitudes.
"You say you keep the Law by staying in a hotel while observing the Feast of Tabernacles. You call that hotel your temporary dwelling, but you can see for yourself that it doesn't conform to what Jesus Himself practiced or what Scripture requires of a temporary dwelling (that it be a structure built of palm fronds similar to those waved at Jesus when He entered Jerusalem). How can you claim to be following the Law and Jesus' example?"
The only argument that can logically survive analysis is, "My group's leader has the authority to 'bind and loose' and overrule the details of Scripture to apply them to our modern day." But if that's the law-keeper's argument, you can logically follow with:
"So if your leader said you no longer needed to observe the laws around unclean meats because of how everything today is so polluted, he would have the authority to make that change, wouldn't he?"
Sit back and watch as the law-keeper tries to evade the logic-bomb that just went off in his mind. He will probably try to save face and not admit to you that he doesn't have a good answer, but you will have planted in his mind a seed that should eventually grow into the realization that he has been conned into putting some man's ideas in the place of God.
Thanks for a logical and respectful discourse, Cogitatio.
I understand the difficulties for Armstrongists when confronted with arguments such as this.
Quoting GTA doesn't help and we have all heard the old "we don't believe the Law can save us", but the COGs can't also claim their often stated "only Christ can do that". BECAUSE without adherence to the Old Testament Law you will not be saved according to the COGs.
For the COGs someone that professes Christ can be moved to take great efforts in showing love and service to others, but if they are missing a COG understanding of some part of the Law they are not a Christian and do not have any of the Holy Spirit.
At some point, you must realize how untenable this COG belief is. For example, Armstrong taught Pentecost should be observed on Monday rather than Sunday until around 1975 when they changed their observance to Sunday. Armstrong's wife Loma and son Richard died before they EVER observed Pentecost on Sunday. Does this indicate they were not Christians because the Holy Spirit had not revealed this truth to them?? Using the same accusation that is directed to non-Armstongist Christians for not keeping the "right" day, were Loma and Richard actually in rebellion and simply did not want to keep Pentecost on the correct day? Or, had Satan so blinded them to the truth of Pentecost that they could not or would not observe it on Sunday?
For the Armstrongist, is it okay when the deception comes from Armstrong himself?
A slight tangent there, but it does show how unyielding the Law is because if you break one point of it you are guilty of breaking it all (James 2:10).
Anonymous 10:03: I am familiar with this quote from GTA. It’s just a sound bite to deflect criticism from ideas found in basic Armstrongist booklet theology. Armstrongists did, in fact, believe in salvation by works and it went under the heading of “qualifying for the Kingdom of God.” GTA’s statement is just varnish. You will need to research this more thoroughly.
Anonymous 2:31: Can you take a recess from a law that is eternal? Revelation refers to a temple, but it is not clear that it is attended by Levites. There is tension between Jeremiah and Revelation. In any event, in the Eschaton, John envisions this, “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” Dispensations may come and go but eternal means eternal. You are seeing a temporal instantiation for humans as the eternal law of God that is inherent in God’s nature - the nature he possessed before there was a Cosmos and before there were humans.
Some of the other comments are just thoughtless and unsupported parroting of Armstrongist spin. I will not respond to those comments.
Cogitatio
Anon642,
Pointing out that those that claim they are lawkeepers and obviously are only selective law keepers should get people thinking.
Even when focused on the Law, they should recognize, "Well, I guess most Christians are also selective law keepers like we in the COGs are. They seemingly worship the Lord and don't make idols or take God's name in vain, they don't murder, commit adultery, steal, or covet any more than we do. They don't bear false witness as much as we do since each week our ministers have taught us untruths about non-Armstrong Christians and their beliefs."
"But, we do keep some additional days in the year and warm a seat on a different day of the week and don't eat pork." "Still, they keep the law of Christ about loving their neighbor better than we do and seem to provide love and support to those in their community much better than we do." "Yet, though they financed the construction of many hospitals and charitable organizations we did create a performing arts Auditorium."
"The non-Armstrongist Christians almost keep as many old covenant laws as we selectively do. And observe the New Covenant laws better."
I think these are a few of the thoughts an Armstrongist should at least have had in passing.
Anon @ 4:10. Tell us, just how did/do the angels keep the commandment to honor father and mother? How did/do they keep the commandment not to commit adultery?
Sometimes I think legalists do not want to see the transitions throughout the dispensations, preferring instead to think themselves holier due to their own vain efforts to keep what was never intended for them.
Anonymous 6:42
That is a classical argument and I like it. But it is not an immediate logical close out. Armstrongists do have arguments against it. Eventually, this argument will prevail, but it requires some sparring.
I wrote this essay with a broader purpose in mind than to focus on a single but lethal countervailing argument. I hoped to exam the roots of Armstrongist legal theory that is based on the idea that the Torah is eternal law. It is a difficult task to do in a small space. I was much hindered by the fact that Armstrongism is poor in definitions. The WCG writers did not say what they meant by such terms as "eternal" and "law." I think most Armstrongists would reject the idea that the Bible is perforce interpreted by everyone who reads it. They take the Waterhousean approach that the Bible is a clarion text to every reader and any issues can be sorted out by their ministry.
Cogitatio
@ 7:10 AM & 7:46 AM,
The ACOG people have a pat answer to your objections, which is that HWA had the authority to bind and loose law-keeping details and even Pentecost observance. That's the rationalization almost all the ACOGs offer. The church grows in grace and knowledge, but the Biblical principle is that you always have to obey the leader of the church.
The challenge to the ACOGs then becomes, "You are claiming for HWA and your splinter leader the right to change the day and manner of observing a Holy Day. How is that any different from the first-century church leader who changed Sabbath observance to Sunday?"
ACOG preaching often focuses on the evil of the Roman Catholic Church, but in practice the ACOGs simply believe that they got the correct Pope in HWA.
6.42 am. I experienced no logic bomb or seed/s in my mind. The bible is a description of what exists in reality. Do the ten commandments exist? Are they operating? My observation and experience is yes. If your experience is no, there is no point in further discussion.
This is so surreal. The ten commandments are constantly acting on people, just like the laws of physics and chemistry, yet some insist that they don't exist.
The 10 Commandments were written in stone , by the very finger of God. They were in the center of the Ark. Obviously, they are very important and transcendental across the the time of the human experience.
In regards to the rest of the torah, I think Ron Dart said it best in saying that they are worthy of study and thought for it reveals the "mind of God".
Thus when it says to "bury your excrement" , the principle of the matter is to "take care of it" and not just defecate anywhere you want and leave it there. It is incumbent upon every believer to be led by the Spirit of God, and try to capture the "spirit of the law" instead of being pharisaical literalists and perfectionists.
Again, in all of this law-keeping controversy is the never-discussed question of global geography. If law-keeping is required for salvation, two matters of global geography necessarily condemn large numbers of people on the planet, whether they try to keep the commandments or not.
Of course, the law states that the Sabbath begins at the start of the seventh day each week, when at the end of the sixth day the sun sets over the horizon. That seems simple enough. It would be if the earth were a flat surface. Sorry. The earth is a sphere.
That requires that there be, somewhere, a meridional, pole to pole line that starts each new day. It’s called the international dateline, presently located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So, tell us, where does the law instruct where the Biblical international dateline should be? It appears that for full function it would have to be either in the middle of the Atlantic or the middle of the Pacific oceans. Today, humans (without any reference to Scripture) have conveniently placed the international dateline in the Pacific. But, is that correct? Either way, whether in the Pacific or the Atlantic, the international dateline makes or made the observance of the weekly Sabbath off by a day in certain large parts of the world.
Before Europeans settled in the Americas, was the dateline in the Atlantic, or as it is today, in the Pacific? Either way, for many centuries the peoples in the Americas would have been keeping the Sabbath on the wrong day. Without scriptural instruction on where God wishes the dateline to be, historically, or presently, millions of people will have been condemned for keeping the Sabbath on the wrong day.
Then, of course, is the scriptural definition the exact start of each Sabbath; as the sun sets at the end of the sixth day. That should work across the globe, even before anyone had a calendar or time-keeping devices. Just have seven fingers to keep track of the number of days. Watch the sun set each day. Very convenient.
Except — for humans living anywhere north of the Arctic Circle, where for certain, even lengthy periods of the year the sun never sets. If law-keeping has been a pre-requirement for salvation, millions of Innuits and Sami have been condemned by their failure to keep the Sabbath, their inability to see the sun set each sixth day of each week of the year.
OR, the law-keeping described in the Torah was, indeed, for a specific period of time, in a specific region of the world, for a specific culture.
God gave the Law to the Israelite tribes. God also gave each Israelite tribe a specific territory in the Middle Eastern region of Judea.
Anon 9:55's comment demonstrates that while each tribe could keep the Law within its God-given region, it might become impossible to keep some points of the Law if those tribes left their God-given region.
HWA started his church with the idea that English-speakers were actually descended from Israelite tribes, and that as a result they should embrace their ancestors' physical law-keeping to gain God's physical blessings. This was an added layer of blessings on top of the spiritual blessings God gives every Christian.
So, just as it follows from HWA's premise that Israelites will be blessed if they keep Israelite law, it follows that only a rebellious Israelite will choose to live in a place where keeping the law isn't possible. If you aren't sure whether or not that casserole you were offered contains pork and shrimp, you aren't supposed to eat it. And if you aren't sure you can keep the proper Sabbath where you live, you shouldn't live there. Simple as that. And you don't need to worry about Eskimos above the Arctic Circle, as God didn't promise them the special physical blessings He gave to Israel.
Mr. “Cogitation”:
Why am I not surprised at your response? It’s almost verbatim to what I expected. As in: Anonymous 10:03: I am familiar with this quote from GTA. It’s just a sound bite to deflect criticism from ideas found in basic Armstrongist booklet theology. Armstrongists did, in fact, believe in salvation by works and it went under the heading of “qualifying for the Kingdom of God.” GTA’s statement is just varnish. You will need to research this more thoroughly.
Now, how do you know it was just varnish? You don’t, it’s just a very bad biased varnished human assumption to make your own mistakes look good. I have a book on logic entitled The Art of Deception. Your exposition of theological mumble words fits the book nicely.
Maybe you should give the Apostle Paul a little more credibility. He said it is better to use SIMPLE words that are EASY to understand. You know, like the Bible itself. Please show us where your theological gibberish is used in Scripture, like book, chapter and verse.
And, Ted’s quote is all that’s needed to show you don’t know what you are talking about.
I left the Worldwide decades ago for real reasons. Not because someone babbled theological buzz words who tried to impress people and make them think they knew what they were saying was correct, when they weren’t.
Sorry, but I’ve seen this rumble before. Like, HWA didn’t preach the gospel to the people in the Philippines. So, I watched the video. They lied. Etc.
Try again with something substantial based on what was really taught, not what you think was taught.
My research comes from seven years at AC, as student, graduate, part time and full time worker, dept. head, private time with HWA, GTA, DR. HOEH, DJH, AL PORTUNE, RCM, ETC. What are your credentials and experiences with those folks on a personal and private basis?
But, first, please pass the real buttered popcorn.
Wow, just read some more of the posts explaining what they THINK the Armstrongs taught. Where did you come up with these distortions? And, these are from people who attended college and church services?
I’m glad I didn’t go to the same college and church these posters went to.
Wow, you can’t make this stuff up! Oops, they just did.
Thanks Cogitatio for your reply:
My question was:
“... in regard to the first and great commandment, does the keeping of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, also fulfill loving the Lord your God in the Church Administration of the New Covenant?”
I was a little disappointed that you didn’t answer my question. But that’s life.
“Can you take a recess from a law that is eternal?”.
Please forgive me that I don’t answer your question - I don’t understand what you are asking; or is it rhetorical?
You write: “Some of the other comments are just thoughtless and unsupported parroting of Armstrongist spin.”
As I believe that Christ and the Saints will be in heaven during the Messianic Age, a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection I don’t quite fit the typical Armstrong mould.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
I don’t see a tension between Jeremiah and Revelation. In the first part of the Eschaton there will be a Temple in heaven but no Temple on the earth when God comes to dwell with men. There is no need for a temple when there is no death and uncleanness.
Just to clarify:
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
Gal 4:23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
Gal 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
It maybe argued that Hagar stands for the earthly OC Temples and Sarah for the heavenly Temple.
Ge 25:1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
Ge 25:2 She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah.
It is also written that Abraham had six sons by one woman; which would suggest that Keturah also represents a covenant, and may then stand for the earthly NC temple.
So that during the Messianic Age, Christ and the Saints will perform their priestly function in the heavenly Temple (Rev 7:14-15) while the descendants of Zadok will perform their priestly function in the earthly Ezekielian Temple (Eze 44:15).
"Origen, having argued that some mystery must be hid under this union of Abraham with Keturah - first, from the fact, that he who was "as good as dead" in his hundredth year, now at a hundred and thirty-seven begets many sons; secondly, from the analogy of the other two wives, both of whom, according to St. Paul, where certain principles..."
"Keturah cannot be known, for she only comes when Sarah as an outward form has passed away. But if this is done, then Keturah will come in thousands who are faithful by her spirit.
"... Keturah [comes] ... when the truth which Sarah represents has passed from an outward form into a higher state...
"Keturah ... is, as her name imports, "a savour of a sweet smell"..." (Types in Genesis, pp.279-80).
There is some debate on whether Keturah was a wife/concubine while Sarah was alive or after her death - the text does not say.
“The tradition that Abraham married Keturah had to be mentioned somewhere... Now it is slipped in here to complete the picture and to show how Abraham did indeed become a father of a multitude of nations (17:6)” (Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC, p.158).
Yes, Tonto, God wrote the commandments with His own finger on tablets of stone. However, consider the following:
That very same stone, upon which God carved the 10 commandments, the Apostle Paul called a "ministry of death carved in stone"! 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7-11, "If the ministry of death, carved in stone, was inaugurated with such glory that the Israelites could not look on Moses' face because of the glory that shone on it, (even though it was a fading glory), how much greater will be the glory of the ministry of the Spirit? If the ministry of the covenant that condemned had glory, greater by far is the glory of the ministry that justifies. Indeed, when you compare that limited glory with this surpassing glory, the former should be declared no glory at all."
That says it all.
Anonymous 11:24
"So the question is, in regard to the first and great commandment, does the keeping of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, also fulfill loving the Lord your God in the Church Administration of the New Covenant?"
Sorry I overlooked your question. You might put the questions at the end so I can pick them out. I do not think we are on common ground - a requirement for having an intelligible exchange. Here is the issue: I am going to explain my viewpoint and it is going to sound totally unlike what you have been indoctrinated with. Here goes. I keep the sabbath but I do not observe the physical seventh day, a shadow of Jesus. Jesus is my sabbath and I seek to rest from sin in him at all times. And I do believe that this New Covenant sabbath observance is a viable part of the first four commandments which are concerned most directly loving God. The physical observance of the seventh day is something that one might do as optional. It has pedagogical, traditional, cultural value. My guess is that my reply here is not in line with the argument you are developing. If you want to engage this further, explain where you are going with this.
Cogitatio
11.24 AM
That the saints will be exclusively in heaven during the Messianic Age is ridiculous.
The reason that God calls the weak of the world is so that there will be teachers in the millennium who have personal experience with every manner of human weakness. Based upon personal circumstances, it's obvious to many church members whom they will be primarily dealing with in the millennium, eg old people.
God is not training people so that they can spend their time staring at Him during the millennium. How awkward and embarrassing would that be? If it was me, I would put a paper bag over my face.
Anonymous 10:56
I am interested in your viewpoint. Regarding you defense of GTA's statement, can you provide
a persuasive case that "qualifying for the Kingdom" is not the same as "salvation by works?" And if it turns out that there is equivalency between these two concepts, can you find evidence in Armstrongist literature that GTA rejected the concept of "qualifying for the Kingdom?" This would be of great interest to me, and I might even have to recant what I stated.
Cogitatio
Hebrews 8:7-11 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my LAWS into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
Paul's comment of the "ministry of death" has been misunderstood. He was referring to the letter that kills - 2Cor 3:6 - but the spirit gives life and that is the difference between the old covenant: no spirit, and the new covenant: with spirit, and with laws - Heb 8:7-11.
Anon836,
Yes, the loosening and binding is their only answer, but it is becoming harder to accept as more has become known of Herbert Armstrong.
Also, people have had decades to see the sins and faults and splits of the COGs. It further requires them to face the fact that their religion requires accepting that Christianity basically died from the world scene around 100 AD and would not reappear for almost 1850 years. And it reappears in a man as corrupted as Herbert Armstrong and somehow he has loosening and binding authority.
If someone is fine with that, there is little more to say.
Okay 1124,
What do you think about the time after the Messianic Age? Will you be wearing a bag during that time?
Some excerpts from “What do you mean... SALVATION?” by HWA:
It is plain and simple. Here it is: "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23)...
Right here let me make very plain one thing the Bible teaches. A few persecutors have accused us of teaching "a salvation by works" — that is, that our "works" earn salvation. Let it be made clear and plain right here that your "works" — your evil works — do earn something — but it is not salvation — what they earn — the wages they earn — is death, and not salvation!
Further, let's get this point straight and plain right here — eternal life is not something you can earn, it is God's gift through Christ! That is the plain teaching of your Bible! You earn wages. The only wages you can earn is death. Your Bible says that. We say that. But our accusers actually teach the very thing they accuse us of teaching! — they teach that eternal life is the wages you earn by your works — even though it is eternal life in hell fire!
LAW-KEEPING Won't Justify!...
God so loved this world of sinners, cut off from Him, that He gave His only begotten Son! Remember, God gives eternal life through Christ!
Notice Romans 5:6, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly"...
Therefore the life He gave on the cross was greater than the sum-total of all other human lives! That is the life that died for you — that paid your penalty for you!
Now, continue in Romans 5:8-10: "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood ...."
NOTICE! "Being now justified." How? By your works — by your required obedience to God's Law? No! By the blood of CHRIST! If you have repented, and accepted Jesus Christ as personal Saviour you are already now justified!...
The law stood over you. It claimed your life — you were under it. It took Christ's life in payment instead of yours. The penalty stands paid! YOU ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW. It no longer has claim over your life! You are now under grace — undeserved pardon. You are pardoned from paying the penalty, since Jesus Christ paid it for you! This is not your works. It is Christ's sacrifice. You are now acquitted — justified — the slate is wiped clean of a guilty past!
In other words — the barrier between you and God has now been removed! You are now, by Christ's sacrifice, given contact with GOD — reconciled to Him!...
You deserved only death. You didn't earn forgiveness — pardon from the death penalty. You received it by grace through Jesus Christ.
This is not a topic of particular interest to me, but I will recite what I remember reading in one of Flurry's books in the mid to late 90s because its a little amusing:
In the middle of a set of paragraphs about the Sabbath, he suddenly wrote "Of course, salvation can't be obtained by works." But the next line? In Armstrongist caps, he screamed "BUT YOU DONT EVEN BECOME A CANDIDATE WITHOUT WORKS!" and went on to say "...but without proper Sabbath keeping, you'll never be saved!"
A very twisted rationale in my view, but I was never convinced of the man's sanity in the first place.
1:44 writes:
“That the saints will be exclusively in heaven during the Messianic Age is ridiculous.
The reason that God calls the weak of the world is so that there will be teachers in the millennium...”
Obviously, I don’t think it is ridiculous. My argument:
Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
The Levitical Zadok priests will “teach” Israel in the Messianic Age.
Eze 10:18 Then the glory of the LORD departed from over the threshold of the temple and stopped above the cherubim.
Eze 11:23 The glory of the LORD went up from within the city and stopped above the mountain east of it.
Eze 43:4 The glory of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...
From the UCG’s “Bible Commentary”, Ezekiel 43, Posted on Feb 20, 2004:
“Christ's Arrival at the Temple
“Returning to the east gate, Ezekiel is now given a glimpse of the awesome and thrilling arrival of Jesus Christ (identified by Ezekiel as the coming of the "glory of the Lord") to this newly completed temple, a scene that reminded him of the visions he had recorded earlier in his book (verses 1-5; see Ezekiel 1; 10). Ezekiel 10:18-19 had specifically mentioned God leaving the temple, after which it was destroyed. Here we have God returning again.”
1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
1Ki 8:30 And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwellingplace...
God through Jesus Christ had a dwelling presence in the Holy of Holies in the Solomon’s Temple under the OC, while in heaven, and He will have a dwelling presence in the Holy of Holies of Ezekiel’s Temple under the NC, while in heaven.
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Just as God and Christ delegated the kingship to David and his descendants under the OC, They will delegate the rulership once again to Davidic descendants, most likely descended from one of Christ’s half-brothers.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the HEAVENLY REALMS.
Eph 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the HEAVENLY REALMS in Christ Jesus. (A prolepsis).
Changed to ‘spirit’ the saints, along with Jesus Christ, will replace Satan and the demons in the heavenly realms - this pictures the kingly role of the Saints.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
7:15 pictures the heavenly ‘priestly’ role of the saints.
Anonymous 2:32
Jewish interpretation would align with you on this. The word for law that is quoted in Hebrews is Torah. Jewish interpreters believe that this indicates continuity with the Torah of Moses. But Torah also means teaching" in Hebrew. So, we have a dilemma, does it mean Torah or "teaching"? We can't tell from this one scripture, so we need some context. Our good fortune is that we do not have to rustle through many pages. The book of Hebrews contains the answer.
That is the theological/exegetical approach. There is something more directly impacting that you need to be concerned about. If the law that says your wife or daughter is unclean during her period and everything she touches becomes unclean, how do you handle that? Do you have a special hut for her somewhere so as to confine the contamination. Some Torah-keepers do. If the Torah (Books of Moses) contains anything you are not carefully observing, then you are sinning. And if your testimony is that you know that the Torah is being written on your heart, which your comment here indicates, then you are sinning willfully. Essentially, the requirement to keep the Torah, because of the rigor and difficulty of compliance, cancels your salvation. You might try to join an Orthodox Jewish commune in Israel. That might give you a chance. You might abandon Torahism and become a Christian. Otherwise plan on living in a state of sin until the judgment.
Cogitatio
Interesting Post and Comments. Buttered popcorn is definitely needed.
My recollection of the R/WCG teaching on this subject matter is exactly the same as stated by Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 10:03:00 PM PST. And it wasn't just "window dressing". It was often accompanied in oral sermons by reference to Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord".
And 1 John 3:4 defined what sin is: "Whosoever committeth sin transgressed also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law".
I sometimes read comments here on Banned of people stating that the Church did not teach the New Testament. This is not a true and balanced statement. I have kept my Sabbath notebooks (1968 - 1976) all these many decades and they are full of notes from sermons and Bible Studies with many New Testament references and teachings. For example, in 1969, Ken Westby Pastor of the Washington, D.C. WCG congregation did a verse-by-verse in-depth Bible Study of the Book of Galatians encompassing 4 2-hour Bible studies.
With reference to the STP, much of R/WCG teachings and practices is an oral history recorded on notebooks from people in attendance at the time taking notes on what was preached from the pulpit.
Richard
Cogitatio stated, "I keep the sabbath but I do not observe the physical seventh day, a shadow of Jesus. Jesus is my sabbath and I seek to rest from sin in him at all times."
If you seek to "rest from sin" how is this done, if the law is something you no longer value or apply, and sin as defined in the New Testament is the transgression the law, or lawlessness? 1John 3:4
If I were to say that I don't hate someone, so therefore I'm not guilty of murder, even if I "physically" take that person's life, would that not still be murder? If I bear false witness or tell a lie about someone, but convince myself I haven't, or that it doesn't matter, because the "law" no longer applies in a "physical" sense, am I not still guilty of lying? While it's true that the sacrifice of Jesus would cover my "sin" if I repent and accept that covering, does that give me license to continue sinning?
While accepting the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus is integral to entering His rest, and some aspects of the law are symbolic of spiritual truths, what do the scriptures say concerning those who wish to enter the rest of Jesus? "For whoever enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same pattern of disobedience." Hebrews 4:9-10 Can you then claim to enter the rest of Jesus without resting from your own work, or would this be considered "disobedience?"
While I agree that the COGs' interpretation and application of various aspects of Old Testament statutes or law is inconsistent and not evenly applied across the board, that would also be true of virtually all others who consider themselves to be Christians, because few if any here, would be so bold as to spiritualize the concept of murder away to the point that I would be able to physically commit the act of killing someone, while saying I don't hate them, so therefore I'm not guilty of sin, even if my actions don't match my words.
It's true that the "law" doesn't save us, and we don't "earn" salvation through it, because the law defines sin, which we are all guilty of, and sin leads to death. In that way the law became a ministry of death, because it is the law which defines sin. Jesus conquered death by His sacrifice, and saved us from the death all of us deserve. Only that selfless act and the extension of His grace, resulting in our justification or moving us from our state of guilt to a state of being held innocent or guiltless by means of that sacrifice can result in our salvation, or being saved.
We as human beings however, even with the grace of God applied, need boundaries and standards in order to maintain godly lives, and in the absence of God's guidelines, whether you consider those to be the Ten Commandments, the Torah taken as a whole, or the Law of Christ, we set about making up our own rules, and that becomes much more subjective and arbitrary. And while there might be certain statutes given to Israel which wouldn't apply to our own situations today, as pointed out in another comment, the principle of many of those statutes if studied and understood, could be applied. What is the lesson we are to learn? What is God trying to teach?
As an aside, concerning GTA, it is the hypocrisy of his adulteress lifestyle that most of us find completely revolting, and without excuse. But, if the law no longer applies, why does it bother us, if adultery which is prohibited by the law, no longer matters, and we can rest from sin in Jesus while ignoring His guidelines? It was He who told the adulteress to "Go and sin no more." He extended grace, while avoiding the other ditch, which would give license to sin.
Concerned Sister
Cogitatio's position on the Sabbath and law seems very similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They regard Sabbath keeping and the ten commandment keeping as optional.
"Jesus is my Sabbath" is a cut and paste from their writings.
Cogitatio,
When this was posted, I made the decision to hang back and see what the comment thread would produce - I knew that it would provoke a great deal of commentary. I have to say that I really enjoyed your meditations on this subject, and that I share your conclusion that Christians are NOT obligated to observe all of the dos and don'ts outlined in the Pentateuch. Unfortunately, your treatise is theologically dense and is much too thoughtful for most Armstrongists. They prefer the simplistic, and most of them have always resisted a systematic presentation of their theology (they like wiggle room). Anyway, thank you for your very thoughtful and well-articulated treatise.
1106 said:
Unfortunately, your treatise is theologically dense and is much too thoughtful for most Armstrongists.
Yes, it is not only too dense, but also inaccurate.
And, it is absolutely not too thoughtful for those who believe the Bible is clear and means what it says. Please stop the total nonsense of using the false self-aggrandizing “Armstrongism/Armstrongism” label. It shows your disdain of a group of fellow humans who are following the Bible, NOT A MAN.
And, what makes those who use the term think they are so much better and more knowledgeable? Show us you are with some real criticism, not lies, rumors, so and so said, and personal opinions, etc.
I suspect most who use the term think it puts themselves on a higher level, it doesn’t. And, instead of actually studying the material from the Worldwide, you read and follow what men theorize about what the material is supposed to say to make the childish criticism look “official.”
As more than one secular author has put it, people who label others with names of men, like Millerites, etc. are insecure and must put down others so their egos can be puffed up.
This goes along with very weak rebuttals against those being disdained.
So much for human nature. Other authors have pointed out how the non achievers always waste their time putting down, and complaining about those who are big achievers.
Have a nice day!
Concerned Sister
First, you must understand that the author of Hebrews is using "rest" and "works" in an allegorical sense. Reading the larger context, you will find that he uses "rest" as an allegory of entering into the Promised Land, for instance. He said that Joshua did not give the Israelites rest. There is much more. This issue is well addressed in Christian writing.
I have noticed that among those who advocate Torah-keeping, there is a kind of blindness to the laws that are a part of the NT. For instance, in interpreting the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts, they seem to believe that Paul preached to the Gentiles an antinomian gospel – that the only ethical code around was the Law of Moses, therefore, that is what the Gentile Christians were observing. And that the Council’s decision assumed the Law of Moses as binding on both Jewish and Gentile Christians. In fact, the NT contains a large package of laws and it is this package that Paul had already preached to the Gentiles. Paul is a moralist and the ethical package is described in his Epistles. In fact it is this same package that led to the conflict with the Circumcision Party which was advocating circumcision and the continuation of the whole Law of Moses for Gentile Christians. It is a long well documented story. But to cut to the chase, one enters into God’s rest by ceasing sin, sin which is the transgression of the law – of God-prescribed human behavior. And the relevant law is the Law of Christ described in the NT. Some sources of the law that I can think of (this is not a comprehensive list, just what I can think of as I write this):
The over-arching Matthew 22:37-40, all its implications and ramifications
The Sermon on the Mount (parallel to Sinai)
The actions of Jesus
The sayings of Jesus
The parables of Jesus
The reaffirmation of the Ten Commandments with the Sabbath transformed
The ethical and moral guidance given in Luke and the Epistolary Books of the NT
The conclusions of the Jerusalem Council
The futurist moralism contained in the Book of Revelation
Paul describes himself as not being “under the law” in one place and yet “under the law of Christ” in another. From context, he is saying that he is not under the Torah but under the Law of Christ which is sketched out in the list above. A major difference between the Ten and the Law of Christ is that the latter six laws of the Ten, describing your relationship with your neighbor, are apophatic. It only tells you what not to do. One can be superficially in compliance with the Ten and fully compliant with the latter six and never lift a hand to help the little elderly neighbor woman next door bring in her groceries. On balance, the Law of Christ is cataphatic. (Sorry if this seems partisan but there is an excellent article on The Rest in Hebrews in Michael Morrisons book “Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing.” Chapter 15. It has been there for over twenty years.)
Cogitatio
Anonymous 4:47
"Please stop the total nonsense of using the false self-aggrandizing “Armstrongism/Armstrongism” label. It shows your disdain of a group of fellow humans who are following the Bible, NOT A MAN."
You need a clarification. What you are objecting to is what this blog is about. I don't think you can expect this to happen. Many people who follow this blog believe you are, in fact, following a man and there can be no doubt about it.
Further, I would prefer the term Rupertist-Armstrongist rather than Armstrongist because it
points to a more accurate etiology of Armstrongism. I find your objection a little much coming from people who have long referred to Christians as "pagans."
Cogitatio
Cogitatio at 8:10 AM writes:
A major difference between the Ten and the Law of Christ is that the latter six laws of the Ten, describing your relationship with your neighbor, are apophatic. It only tells you what not to do.
Please explain how "Honor your father and mother" is apophatic. Thank you in advance!
Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:47:00 AM PST,
My comments are informed by my life experiences and education. Among those life experiences, were a number of years spent in first the Worldwide Church of God and later the Church of God International. So, I am thoroughly versed in the teachings of Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong and do not have to depend on what others have written about them. As with many other sects and cults of Christianity, it is common practice to refer to them as an "ism" of the person who founded the group (or is responsible for formulating its teachings). Personally, I am also in the habit of using the designation "ACOGs" (Armstrong Churches of God). Unfortunately, these designations are necessary because the culture has splintered into so many different church organizations. Hence, unless one is discussing a particular group (when that happens, I employ the name which they have designated for themselves)), it is necessary to use some sort of moniker to characterize the whole.
Like you, I believe that the Judeo-Christians Scriptures were inspired by Almighty God (although, my understanding of what that means is probably very different from yours), and those writings continue to inform many of my beliefs about God and things spiritual. As for the quality of the piece under discussion here, I think that is self-evident. Even so, for your sake, I will attempt to explain my reaction in more detail. When I was younger, I tended to engage in a great deal of black-and-white or two-dimensional thinking (I have found that this is not uncommon). As I've gotten older, I find that I am aware of more of the subtleties and nuances involved in the study and understanding of most issues. In short, one begins to see more grey and color. As it pertains to the Bible, I also think that this is a natural part of growing in grace and knowledge as a consequence of being led by the Holy Spirit.
The reality is that the Bible is a very dense and complex book. It is, also, very often NOT clear. These facts are not meant as criticisms - they simply reflect the reality of the book. By the way, I would think that one would expect depth and complexity if one really believed that the Creator of the universe had any part in the formulation of those writings! The Bible was composed over a very long span of time, and many people contributed to the writing, editing, and compiling of the book. Hence, I believe that it does both God and the book an injustice to characterize it as clear and literal. Indeed, for a book which employs so much symbolism, metaphor, and poetic license, I believe it is absurd to characterize it as such!
Finally, evaluating success in life is a very subjective endeavor. I consider myself to have had a very successful life. However, I can see where others, employing a different standard, could characterize my achievements as unworthy of such a designation. Oh well, each to his own - I suppose. Of course, I believe that all of our evaluations will pale in comparison to the one we must all face one day.
All of that said, I wish you a wonderful Sabbath (and I mean it).
anonymous 8:35
Mistake on my part. One cataphatic and the rest apophatic. On balance, cataphatic.
Cogitatio
I also like Rupertism-Armstrongism because it contains a lingering, unanswered question. If HWA received his teachings by special revelation in the public library in Des Moines, Iowa, why did Rupert teach these ideas first? Is there some clarification that Armstrongists should make about this? I'm serious. I'm not just being caustic.
Cogitatio
Interesting notion. Do you have the same reaction to Arianism Montanism, Calvinism? How about modified forms, like Lutheran, Nicolaitian, Wesleyan? Or is it only deprecating when applied to HWA?
Miller Lonnie said "the Bible is very dense and complex...composed over a very long span of time"
This is true: the Sabbath, for instance, has evolved over 4000 years since it emerged from Babylon where it was calculated differently re-syncing to New Moons (some Rupertist-Armstrongist sects have returned to this method emphasizing New Moons)
An important whistle-stop in the punctuated-equilibrium of sabbath evolution are the first Christian documents, the Pauline epistles, where Saul of Tarsus throws out sabbaths, holy days & new moons all together.
Laws added because of transgressions of law - Gal 3:19 - are the ones now removed and it is a challenge to determine which specified law is now removed, done away, and which law is not.
Interestingly, any euphemism which is coined to identify or describe Herbert W. Armstrong's religion, or his followers, eventually resonates as a pejorative with those followers. Nothing can be done about that, no matter how sensitive those who develop the language attempt to be in their descriptions.
Why is that? The answer is simple. The people who birth these expressions believe HWA's work was "of man". Those who follow HWA, believe that he was a quasi-Biblical figure, (God's Apostle), who was chosen to restore truths to mankind, to prepare and warn mankind about the impending end times, leading to the return of Jesus Christ who will then impliment Armstrongism as God's government on earth forever and ever. As such, any critiques, any descriptives which the followers perceive as not acknowledging this, are going to be seen not only as slights, but also as even blasphemous, in some cases the alleged blasphemies not even being forgiveable. For them, it's the ACOG version of portraying Mohammed in a bad light in the presence of Muslims. Clothing will be rent, and dirt thrown into the air!
Any words which do not acknowledge HWA as being "of God" are not acceptible to participants in the Armstrong scam. It doesn't matter to them if we call them Armstrongites, Armstrongists, or insane mofos, they are going to take umbrage. Why use the euphemisms, or blunt the criticisms? The only good reason I can think of is to express sensitivity as fellow humans that will help in opening the doors of their minds as to how they have been conned and deceived into following a man, equating that man with God and Jesus, and allowing him to have subverted, ruled, and exploited their lives in ways God never intended.
The fact that like Lake Mead, these ACOGs are shrinking with time, demonstrates that truth can totally set these folks free. We've observed this as happening over decades now. What factors can educate people away from a harmful mindset? It varies greatly from person to person, and sometimes appears nebulous. It defies description such that I'm almost inclined to invoke the words of Wolfman Jack, who once quipped, "It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand!"
The usage of euphemisms to denigrate others, as in Armstrongism, is well documented in books on the working of the mind. It has nothing to do with those being labeled as such. It has to do with the psychological mindset of the labeled.
Read more, learn more, change for the better, except for the cultish critics. It’s an addiction, don’t cha’ know!
Some always take their own assumptions as fact. And, to them thusly, they are “always” correct.
One such diatribe is HWA claims that only God taught him the truth during the six month study in the Portland library. Yet, Rupert had some truths before HWA. My, my, a glorious put down, don’t you think.
By adding one’s own assumption to the story HWA is now debunked.
Ok, let’s remove the critic’s assumption.
As explained many times by HWA, he was taught by the Creator because He inspired HWA to “find” the writings of others which were the correct teachings, and so he could put them together.
Armstrong did not believe or mean or imply that Yahweh spoke to him, etc.
The reason I use Yahweh is the fact that HWA finally admitted what he already knew. In an update of the book Missing Dimension in Sex, he admitted YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh. Later after his death the name in the text was returned to the original, but the Creator, who evidently has a humor, caused them to forget the index. :)
Now, a short side commercial. I at times defend the Armstrongs here when I see blatant distortions that are not accurate, especially those I know about from being there in person. I DO NOT, defend them because I follow men, and, I am NOT an Armstrongite, in spite of some false childish labeling. I, as an outsider of 30-40 years looking in, can see the false, fabricated, nonsense claimed by too many, who weren’t there, and easily see the INJUSTICE done by critics still working to destroy.
The Scriptures give plenty of evidence we should stand up to lies and injustice, deliberate or unknowingly. I wish more of the others who also see it would speak up.
Real facts will ultimately prevail. Yep.
"Ut Sciatis Misericordiam Dei"
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Anonymous 10:17
The sacrifices were not added to the Torah 430 years after Sinai. This is a mistake made by Herman Hoeh. All interpreters I know, other than Hoeh, interpret this passage in Galatians 3:19 to refer to the Law of Moses being added 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant. There are some problems with Hoeh’s view:
First, in the article titled “Which Old Testament LAWS Should We Keep Today?” Hoeh states that the only sacrifice mentioned in the Book of the Law is the Passover. It may be true that this was the only specific sacrifice written down but there were references to sacrifices. In fact, right after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God speaks of how sacrifices are to be made (Ex. 20:24) and he refers to both peace offerings and burnt offerings.
Hoeh further cites Jeremiah 7:22-23 as evidence that God did not “speak to” or “command” them concerning sacrifices. This is a figure of speech in which God was saying that the sacrifices were less important by comparison than obedience. Hoeh’s interpretation that this language indicates that there were no sacrifices spoken of at the time of the Exodus has to be incorrect or God is a liar because God did speak of sacrifices at Sinai (Ex. 20:24 again).
Further, sacrifices are scattered throughout the text of the Law. There Is no one single block of text that suggests that sacrificial law was appended as a unit to an existing text 430 years later.
Hoeh also asserted that the sacrificial law was added because of transgression of the Law of Moses. While this fits his model of the Law of Moses given at Sinai and the sacrificial law added 430 years later, it is not an unassailable proof. This is because it also fits the broadly accepted model that the Abrahamic covenant came first, and the Law of Moses came 430 years later because there were laws in force, hence transgressions, before Moses at Sinai. Hoeh himself wrote the article about this fact. What Paul tell us is that the addition of the law of Moses does not impede the Promise made to Abraham and that the Law of Moses would be revoked at the coming of Jesus (Gal. 3:19)
Cogitatio
At least I can agree with Cogitatio on something
Relative/Rhetorical Negation
Eze 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
“God, then, moves to clear his name. The exile had been a moral necessity. But paradoxically it had also produced an intolerable situation. Israel had been created in order to bring glory to Yahweh and to be the agent of the knowledge and blessing of God among the nations. Now they were scattered among the nations, but the effect was the precise opposite. Yet Yahweh's ultimate purpose remained - to be glorified among the nations. As the God and Lord of all the earth, all people must eventually come to recognize him for who he truly is. Accordingly, he must act to reverse the dishonour being caused to his name by the outworking of his own just judgment. He would indeed restore his people.
“But what would be the primary motivation of the restoration? Other prophets would make the point, movingly and often, that this restoration would indeed be for Israel's benefit, and out of God's loving care and compassion. But through Ezekiel, Yahweh corrects any expectation that his action would be based on mere sentiment. ‘It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name' (22).
“Thus Ezekiel here does not literally deny that the restoration was for Israel sake, but affirms that it was much more important to realize that it was primarily for the sake of Yahweh's name.
Hos 6:6a For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and
Hos 6:6b the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
“Probably we should take the form of this sentence as an example of what is sometimes called Hebrew ‘relative negation'. In order to indicate the relative priority of one thing over another, you would affirm one and deny the other: e.g., ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hos. 6:6; the second line indicates the comparison)” (Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, BST, p.291).
Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
"The most controversy centers around this verse because it appears to invalidate the whole sacrificial system. Certain critics have understood it to mean that the law of sacrifices was not given by Moses but was introduced centuries later - a position that is part of the elaborate system that denies the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In order to treat the question adequately, one must understand the sense of the Hebrew text. In it a rhetorical negation is used to point up anthesis of v.22 and v.23 more emphatically (cf. Deut 5:3). Moreover, the negation in Hebrew often supplies the lack of a comparative - i.e., without excluding the thing denied, the statement implies only the importance of the thing set in contrast to it (Hos 6:6). In short, the Hebrew idiom permits denial of one thing in order to emphasize another (cf. for a NT parallel Luke 14:26). The idiom does not intend to deny the statement but only to set it in a secondary place (so Frost).
"That the OT sacrifices were non-Mosaic cannot be valid... Here Isaiah 1:11-15; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-25, and Micah 6:6-8 should be carefully considered. Judah had left out the main element: obedience to God. In view of the passages just cited, and in view of the Pentateuchal legislation, sacrifices were always meant to be of secondary importance to obedience and godliness. Neither Jeremiah nor any other prophet decried sacrifices as such. They meant that moral law is always paramount to the ritual law" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol. 6, p.431).
#1
Some of it began in the mid 1950s. It really ramped up in the 1980s. What, you ask. This:
"...and another (an atheist book) from Australia titled The Bible Contradicts Itself by John Bowden. The latter was assembled by the author to attack one particular church (Herbert Armstrong's World Wide Church of God) which is now about defunct." P. V, The Bible Handbook, American Atheist Press- Austin, Texas, 1986
Atheists are so nice, don't you think?
#2
American Atheist Ed -- Included in this compiled Bible Handbook is a short offering first published in Australia in 1968. At the time the World Wide Church of God was a phenomenon proliferating via radio throughout the world. At the time of the current publication that church has been rent with ideological schism and is fast disappearing from the world scene. Ibid. p. 307
#3 is too long to include now. So, find a copy and read starting at page 309.
Critics here never check or research like they should. If they did their complaining would cover the attackers and not those being attacked.
Live and learn, IF you can.
Oh, and they’re still here and still attacking. Nice.
A check with the Hebrew indicates a better translation of Jer 7:22 is...For I spoke not unto your fathers, NOT commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices....meaning God did not command burnt offerings or sacrifices but only an earthen altar in Ex 20:24.
I was surprised to learn of the quote above attributed to GTA and the excerpt from HWA’s booklet on Salvation – I was not aware of that the Armstrongs ever acknowledge salvation by grace.
However, salvation by grace is not what they indoctrinated their believers with and it has never been the way their churches have operated.
The Armstrongs, and their descendants, descriptively known as Armstrongites, have always limited salvation to be only available to baptized members of their churches.
To become a baptized member, one was/is required to observe the Armstrong version of the Sabbath and Holy Days, shun pork, donate at least ten percent of their income, and on and on.
The list of law requirements one must demonstrate allegiance to in order qualify for baptism even includes non-biblical rules like kicking all forms of tobacco and reading and agreeing with church literature.
Once baptized, the member is then instructed to continually qualify, by law keeping, for entry into the Kingdom – which is the Armstrongite equivalent of salvation.
The Armstrongite churches have always kept the people on a treadmill of striving to keep the law well enough to qualify for salvation and the leaders would threaten to yank away the possibility of salvation for sins such as not giving enough to the church or disobeying leaders of the church.
A couple of quotes acknowledging salvation by grace cannot erase the Armstrongite collective, historic record of teaching an odd mix of law requirements and arbitrating salvation by their whims, while ignoring grace and Jesus as the all-sufficient Savior.
For those who believe in keeping a version of the Old Covenant Sabbath, I believe that the New Covenant affords you that opportunity.
However, to add to your knowledge and worship, I encourage you to study how the Sabbath was a shadow pointing to Jesus and how Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, is our Sabbath Rest.
I think we all agree that Jesus is our only hope for righteousness, our only source of freedom from sin, sin as defined by the Law of Christ – so exploring Jesus, as our Sabbath Rest, cannot be a bad thing.
In HWAs autobiography, he mentioned how advertising encouraged the consolidation of businesses, giving rise to economy of scale, and hence lower prices for the consumer. His training was in a market economy, but instead he embraced collectivism. His 1975 teaching was an attempt to coerce God to bring down the curtain prematurely in order to hide the failure of communism in the Warsaw pact nations at that time. Which is why God regards him as a traitor, and to this day his churches are run as dictatorships. Members lives are regarded as communal property. Rights don't exist.
Armstrongism is a blend of some truth and monster lies. Those who accept the package deal are following men rather than God.
Some more thoughts on the Armstrongist approach to the Law:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2022/08/armstrongisms-systematic-theology.html
It is also inaccurate to say that Christ abolished the Law - He fulfilled it:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/09/christ-didnt-abolish-law-he-fulfilled-it.html
Sometimes the NT outdoes the OT for law such as 'avoid alcohol during pregnancy'; the Torah could have used that one.
Anonymous 5:22
The full scripture of Exodus 20:24
"An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee."
Note that God says "thou ... shalt sacrifice ..." He says this in the same breath with "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me." Notice also that he makes blessing contingent on offering these sacrifices. The leverage in this is overwhelming. I doubt that the Israelites looked at each other and said, "I guess we can ignore it."
Hoeh's argument was wrong. The Law of Moses is gone. Just like Paul said in Galatians 3.
Cogitatio
HWA said he got his six months of intensive training and research in the public library in Portland, Oregon not in Des Moines, Iowa.
the bible is full of contradictions which is why you can prove salvation by either grace or works
Salvation by grace alone means that God will let psychopaths into His kingdom. Really?
Isn't God going to destroy Satan and the demons at the end of the millennium? So why let new demons into His kingdom?
Salvation by grace alone means that God will let psychopaths into His kingdom. Really?
Isn't God going to destroy Satan and the demons at the end of the millennium? So why let new demons into His kingdom?
There are two possible scenarios within the ACOG framework:
1. God will allow imperfect humans to become God. This means God will have human imperfections, which basically means the God Family will become the Satan Family.
2. God will purify imperfect humans before they become God. This means human efforts to "be perfect as God is perfect" are futile and undermines the entire ACOG idea of "qualifying" to become God.
Either way, there are big problems with HWA's idea that this lifetime is preparing mankind to become Godkind.
Matthew 13:42 "..then there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
7.40 am, Your mumbo jumbo won't work before God's throne, so you might want to practice your wailing and gnashing of teeth.
11:20 can't handle the truth! Typical Armstrongist who does not understand the new covenant or the plan of salvation. Herbert's "becoming god" crap is just that, CRAP!
There's really not much to say to Anon 11:20 AM other than to repeat the words of Matthew 7:2.
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Imagine a universe in which Anon 11:20 AM has qualified to be God. That's not the universe GTA and others taught, as some of you reading this recognize. As has been established earlier in this thread, the actual WCG teaching was that grace got you into the God Family, but your faith and your works together qualified you for whatever your position in the Family would be.
You are gods because you are children of the Most High - Ps 82:6; John 10:34 - but I agree: don't think we will ever be AS the Most High or as great. Jesus Himself said His Father, the Most High, was greater than Himself. How much greater? 1.5, 2, 5 times??
Hello Anonymous of January 22 at 12:02: Don’t worry, God will not let psychopaths or demons into his Kingdom.
And yes, salvation is by grace alone, not works – you can trust verses such as Ephesians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 1:9.
The only people who will be permitted into the Kingdom are those who will be one hundred percent righteous – those people who Jesus has justified by giving them his righteousness (Galatians 2:16).
Perhaps your church doesn’t teach much about grace and justification; but it’s an easy study to look up all the verses on both concepts and learn what your ministers don’t care to preach.
In the COGs, grace is merely defined as unmerited pardon – which is correct, but grace is more multi-dimensional than that brief description.
By grace, Jesus the Redeemer, pursues, rescues, sustains, and purifies his people.
St. Paul, before his encounter with Jesus, may have been a murderous psychopath – the early Christians surely thought he was the worst of the worse.
Jesus pursued and redeemed Paul – Paul gave all the credit for his change to Jesus and wrote much of what the Bible teaches about grace and justification.
St. Paul knew he was a wretched man, yet he was confident he would be in the Kingdom, by the grace of God.
Give the study of grace and justification a try and then share with us what you’ve learned.
12.36 PM "Then there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is repeated shortly after wards in Matthew 13:50. Repetition in bible speak means that the matter is final in God's view. Your "truth" is only valid if you white out many verses and rip out many pages out of the bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INTERMISSION~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We pause here for the lurkers to refill their popcorn
This thread seems to have shifted to salvation. It is not that far off from the original subject. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that the way to salvation is not through the law. Salvation is found in the Promise made to Abraham and the way to it is through faith. For many Christians the way to salvation is a composite of faith and grace. For Armstrongists salvation is a composite of faith and works. This is a rather odd pairing, but it means that you must trust in Jesus but if you don't have works prior to salvation you will not saved. You must appropriate salvation through trust in Jesus but then you must qualify through works for the Kingdom of God. This used to be called at one time Jesus Plus salvation - Jesus plus other adjuncts, liturgical or legal, are required for salvation. Jesus Plus is regarded as cultic and seems to go hand in hand with Phariseeism and Gnosticism.
Personally, I feel the controversy in the Christian movement over the tension between the view of Paul and the view of James is overwrought. I agree with Torrance, that salvation cannot be broken up into components (faith, grace, works) but is a whole. And it is best described as Jesus living in you through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Cogitatio
Originally I used to be a Russellite[JW] siding with the JW's Antinomian Paulinist dogmatic version of early-christianity, then I became an Armstrongite siding with the Adventist/Rupertist/Armstrongist theory of early-christianity. Interestingly both branches emerge from the Millerist movement! What happened? My Karma ran over their Dogma, now I've gone Chopin for new theories, but I'll be Bach in a Minuet.
What do you call a liberal Jehovah's Witness?...A Russell-lite!
I was taught blackboard English in elementary school, and according to my training the "it is a gift of God" refers to grace and not to faith in Eph 2:8-9.
GTA was a moral scoundrel. In his child rearing booklet he taught members to unleash psychopathic violence at their children if they did the slightest thing wrong. This was done to condition children to be likewise abused by the ministry. The church wasn't accused of being Borg for no reason. Another example of him being a scoundrel is his public assertion that "relationships shouldn't be 50 - 50 but rather 100% -100 % with both parties giving their everything." Relationship being 50 - 50 means that relationships are two way rather than one way. Ted does a straw man argument on this, then claims victory. Notice that he gave no definition of example of relationships being 100% - 100%. He said this because he is a crook, which is to be expected from a pathological fornicator.
Anonymous 10:32
The question that we are confronted with is this one: "Did GTA see this as a part of Armstrongist theology or was he proclaiming nothing more than a slogan to get critics off his back?
I believe it was the latter. I think your quote may have come from the Sixties. Here is another quote from GTA in 1972:
"If you are really following Christ — LIVING as He lived, DOING as He did — keeping God's LAW as He did…" (Garner Ted Armstrong,” What Is REAL REPENTANCE?”, The Plain Truth Magazine, December, 1972.)
Salvation entails repentance. Repentance we see above entails "...keeping God's Law as He (Jesus) did ..." So, we see that GTA solidly believed that works of keeping the law, in perfection like Jesus by the way, was on the critical path to salvation. This comports to the Armstrongist hallmark doctrine of qualification for the Kingdom of God, which has never ceased to be preached.
What GTA gave use was a defensive slogan not a doctrine that had any broad support within Armstrongism. There are too many countervailing statements in Armstrongist literature. I do not think you have a right to be incensed. You see, most of the people who read this blog have big time experience with Armstrongism. That is why GTA's statement rings like a wooden nickel. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
Cogitatio
Cogitatio,
Now I know you absolutely do not know what you are talking about. You don’t seem to know any of the scriptures covering this subject. And only partially quoting the comments from WCG.
You leave out so many verses….
Oh well, someday you might want to slow down and read the scriptures before posting biased assumptions and false interpretations. Most scholars say don’t read into the Bible your OWN interpretations.
I doubt if you could handle a full in depth study on the verses that apply. By the way, do you even know what the “curse of the law is?”
Please explain what you think it is. After that I have several more questions for you, if you can handle them. By the way, there are other posts here giving other distortions too.
Hmmm, let’s see, who was it that said follow me as I follow Messiah? Oh, and I’ll show you my faith by my works, who was that? And, I live, yet not I but Messiah lives in me….? A good concordance might help.
Ted’s quotes could not be clearer, and succinct, and complete. So, why do you have to try and avoid them with childish “a sound bite” etc.??? That kind of diversion doesn’t carry any weight. You are just reading into them what YOU want them to say or mean. He meant and believed what he wrote, no demeaning interpretation needed.
As Elvis said, Thank you vurry much…
Anonymous said...
GTA was a moral scoundrel. In his child rearing booklet he taught members to unleash psychopathic violence at their children if they did the slightest thing wrong. This was done to condition children to be likewise abused by the ministry. The church wasn't accused of being Borg for no reason. Another example of him being a scoundrel is his public assertion that "relationships shouldn't be 50 - 50 but rather 100% -100 % with both parties giving their everything." Relationship being 50 - 50 means that relationships are two way rather than one way. Ted does a straw man argument on this, then claims victory. Notice that he gave no definition of example of relationships being 100% - 100%. He said this because he is a crook, which is to be expected from a pathological fornicator.
Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:00:00 AM PST
Wow, a total untrue distortion of what Ted wrote. Boy, if that’s what blackboards do to reading they should be eliminated. None of the above is true.
He was correct about child training, and 100-100. We conducted are marriage by it, and taught our children with the proper usage of what Ted wrote. Those who misused what he wrote has themselves to blame.
Our marriage— almost 60 years. My dad told me, son I don’t like your religion, but I sure like how you trained your children. They aren’t brats, and don’t tear up and break things like your cousins children do.
By the way a man’s human frailties have NOTHING to do with Bible truth. Why, you must be outraged at David, Solomon, Paul and others. I doubt if you even read their writings in the Bible. Especially Paul, he had people killed and imprisoned don’t cha know?
Ah, reading the truth is so difficult, eh?
Having no popcorn but a non-alcoholic beer here are a few observations: "faith alone" phrase is NOT in Eph 2:8. Faith without works.....IS dead. The apostle James referred to the 10. It is possible to observe the law; Zacharias and Elizabeth did - Luke 1:6.
9.41 am
"Ah, reading the truth is so difficult, eh?"
What truth? You mostly invalidate my post. I still recall Ted writing in the child rearing booklet that babies need to be spanked for crying, no matter that it's natural. Gotta start inserting the Borg implants as soon as they are born. They depicted this in the first encounter with the Borg in Star Trek the next generation TV show.
Did you train or terrorize your children?
The words "one another" such as love one another, have compassion on one another, forgive one another etc, appears over 50 times in the new testament. One another means that relationships are two way rather than one way. So would you like to define your 100-100?
David and loser Solomon didn't teach lies to their citizens, and they weren't priests. Paul did not believe he was sinning in arresting Christians, and did not have people killed as you claim. When God opened his eyes, Paul did not give himself the perk of hanging on to certain sins like sex orgies.
Btw, British prime ministers often resign after certain scandals. This is because they lose the moral authority to sway undecided members of Parliament and the public. Like wise, Ted's sins did and still do affect his influence over the church he established. It's the way the world works.
Cogitatio: "Did GTA see this as a part of Armstrongist theology or was he proclaiming nothing more than a slogan to get critics off his back?"
Well put Cogitatio, GTA's screed is typically shallow and lacks any systematic theological depth, just like HWA, neither of them theologians, just glib salesmen - and in error to boot - both of them pushing 'Jesus-plus' Adventist-Perfectionism, so ably refuted by, an ex Adventist perfectionist himself, Robert Brinsmead.
Anonymous 9:14
I will admit that Armstrongist soteriology is confusing. They have no systematic theology - just booklet and magazine theology. But let me give you my take on it. HWA defined salvation as the resurrection. It is an end-of-life event. It is the outcome of struggling to accomplish in a lifetime of works. This struggle is referred to as “qualifying.” At times in Armstrongist writing, qualification is a separate but parallel track next to salvation. Salvation is considered a gift and qualification is considered training for a vocational position or role in the Kingdom of God. At other times qualification is focused on salvation itself. You can find a Good News article titled “Qualifying for Eternal Life” written by Charles Hunting. Salvation is essentially eternal life. More explicitly, in another place HWA writes that if you do not undergo spiritual development in this life (aka qualifying) you will lose salvation. The implication of this is the following formula:
Salvation = grace plus faith plus works
The "works" term is present because works represent a condition in Armstrongist theology for achieving salvation along with grace and faith. Armstrongism asserts that generating works is one of the inputs into the process of salvation - a condition that must be met prior to salvation.
Christianity, for the most part, uses this formula:
Salvation = grace plus faith
And works certainly present but are an outcome of being saved, a part of the process of sanctification. Salvation is seen as something that happens in this lifetime – already but not yet. The earnest of eternal life is already in place. If you have faith this means that you have beliefs and these beliefs will result in actions – the beliefs are the motivation behind the actions. The faith of Christ in you is also the causation for salvation. Good works are the result of salvation not the cause of salvation.
If you want scriptures, you can look them up in any Christian systematic theology. As to qualification, I will give you one scripture. The concept of qualification is in the New Testament but it is lost in the KJV translation. It stands out in the ESV:
“… giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.”
Qualification is a done deal. Past tense. It is not a life of struggling against impossible odds only to fail in the end to be perfect.
Cogitatio
I like this equation:
Jesus + Nothing = Everything
Jesus gives grace, repentance, faith, righteous, security, peace - and yes, the desire and ability to do good works,
I’ve long been aware that HWA and GTA were bad characters.
However, the evidence presented above that demonstrates that the two were aware that salvation is by grace, not works - and then yet they cruelly subjected their people to the burdens of their personal law dictates, harsh “qualifying”, and threats to deny salvation - is evidence of a very deep, dark level of evil.
You assume much without any evidence. Who are prone to do such ? Why corrupt ministry.
A major influence on heretical Armstrongic-soteriology:
- Ellen G White on perfectionism -
wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Sinless_perfection
Trooisto 3:45
I agree.
Cogitatio
For those new Armstrongic sub sects that have recently taken to observing New Moons the Apostle Paul would say "that's okay as long as you don't judge others who choose not to"(Colossians 2:16-17)
Actually, it could be quite intriguing observing New Moons, as long as it doesn't involve driving hundreds of miles...that would take the fun away.
This view that Christ and God the Father qualities you for the kingdom is one example of the welfare state being projected into the bible. In recent times, governments have been wrestling away responsibilities that rightfully belong to the individual, and in a big way. People have come to regard government as a big tee that will provide them with everything they desire. Contemporary Christianity has jumped on board, projecting this into the bible. Many times while I attended services, members would parrot to me scriptures that in isolation painted this picture. But looking at all the scriptures says otherwise. So the argument boils down to big government versus personal responsibility.
Hey Anonymous at 6:28: seems like you are saying that salvation is one of those "responsibilities that rightfully belong to the individual".
I understand that this is part of the in-grained Armstronite theology, even if some argue it's not the official doctrine; however, good luck with trying to be your own savior.
While taking salvation into your own hands, being your own savior, you are making yourself a god before God.
The more you try to save yourself, the more you break the first commandment.
I think it best to leave salvation in God's hands and thank him for being fully capable of getting the job done.
"- Ellen G White on perfectionism -
wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Sinless_perfection"
..of course when starting one's own religion, it pays to claim inerrant-divine-inspiration: Pope, Joseph Smith, EG White, HWA, R Thiel, G Flurry, DCP...
Trooisto, I know where you are coming from, but I don't think this is what 628 is talking about.
Question: Is the sacrifice of Christ all sufficient for atonement and salvation? If so, then why isn't everyone saved and at-one with God?
An individual response is required!! Bread is of no value if it's not eaten (John 6).
I think that, for a while, Cogitatio's fine article should be reposted weekly. This is perhaps the most important topic.
Anon628,
At the very least, how do you think your sins may be washed away? Something you did or something Christ did?
Without Christ's sacrifice you are still in your sin and only He can change that. Not you.
Armstrong claims a proclamation by an angel launched his ministry: Not only that, but there was two-way conversation with this "angel" and his longsuffering wife Loma (imagine being married to "can't-hold-a-job Herbert!)
Previously Herb had been provoked by a challenge on sabbath observance by Loma's friend.
So, high school dropout Herbert, now supercharged with alleged "divine inspiration" undertook a study at the local library to "prove" this Adventist thesis:
-- never mind that neither uneducated Herbert or the local library's very limited resources were equipped for such a challenge!
6.28 here. Have posters watched movies like Brewster's millions or The bachelor? In the 1999 movie The Bachelor, a young man has to marry by a certain date in order to inherit 100 million dollars. Salvation is similar. Eternal life is a free gift from God, but there are conditions. A minimum level of character must be built through personal effort, or no eternal life.
Btw, The Bachelor is a good movie for those who haven't seen it.
628/816,
I'm not sure exactly what the implication you are making is.
Please answer:
Which conditions are you SPECIFICALLY referring to? I presume the conditions are beyond believing Jesus is our personal Savior Who we follow (though this is repeatedly the means to salvation in the Bible).
Do you believe those Christians outside the COGs have not put forth personal effort?
Do you believe those Christians outside the COGs have not built a minimum level of character?
That has not been my experience at all among my fellow Christians outside the COGs.
Faith without works is dead. I see mighty/devoted works among my non-COG Christian friends which makes plain their faith. From what I have seen it is apparent that they are being inspired by the Holy Spirit to do these works. The COGs and their members don't seem to have these inspired works.
I'll leave it at that for now, but why do the COGs talk about works and yet their works do not match the works of non-COG Christians?
Hello BP8: Your first question is:
Is the sacrifice of Christ all sufficient for atonement and salvation?
My answer is yes, Jesus is our all sufficient for attornment and salvation – that’s exactly what the term Savior means.
Hebrews 7:25 - Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him
Because of corruption of this concept, we often add the term “all sufficient” to the term Savior.
Your second question was:
If so, then why isn't everyone saved and at-one with God?
Christians who have Jesus as their Savior are saved and positionally are at one with God – through the righteousness of Jesus substituted for them (Romans 5:1).
Conditionally, we are yet sinners, while positionally we are the righteousness of God through Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
Jesus is a perfect, all sufficient Savior who sacrificed himself once, for all:
Hebrews 7:26-27
Such a high priest truly meets our need — one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
Hello again 6.28: You wrote:
“Eternal life is a free gift from God, but there are conditions.”
I find that to be a contradiction, is the gift offered by God free – or – conditional?
I often offer conditional gifts to my kids – they know that these are not free gifts; the strings trip up their preferences.
This is such a wonderful verse, I have to offer it again, for the third time tonight:
Hebrews 7:25 - Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him
Your conditional salvation theology makes Jesus a partial savior who leaves the ultimate push to salvation in your hands.
You also wrote:
“A minimum level of character must be built through personal effort, or no eternal life.”
What is your biblical definition of that minimum level of self-built character required for salvation?
Surely, if God put conditions on a free gift, it’s no longer a free gift, and surely God would tell us how to meet his minimal conditions.
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.
7.27pm
"It is the gift of God" refers to grace and not faith. Faith, the confidence in God's law, is acquired by living by the ten commandments. That is, people learn that God's way "works." By contrast there are many members and even ministers in ACOG-land who revert to bully morality as soon as a problem arises. They lack confidence in God's way. God might intially give a small measure of faith to a baby Christian, but it needs to be expanded by living by His laws.
Faith is earned.
Trooisto, you are pontificating, you didn't bother reading everything I wrote. Nobody is suggesting Christ is not the Saviour! My point is there IS individual responsibility involved which is accepting and believing the Gospel (John 3:16 and multiple scriptures). Without that, there is no salvation! (Mark 16:15-16 and multiple scriptures). I could be wrong but I don't think 628 in his original post was suggesting otherwise!
Trooisto said @ 3:53 AM: "I’ve long been aware that HWA and GTA were bad characters.
However, the evidence presented above that demonstrates that the two were aware that salvation is by grace, not works - and then yet they cruelly subjected their people to the burdens of their personal law dictates, harsh “qualifying”, and threats to deny salvation - is evidence of a very deep, dark level of evil"
This is chilling if true, and I think is.
BP8,
Trooista probably agrees with that. But, according to 628, the conditions required are more than believing and accepting Jesus as Savior. Above, Anon628/250 defines faith as: "Confidence in God's Law." This is a very sad definition.
I'll stick with Heb. 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Further,
Romans 10:17 says Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the Word of God.
Heb. 12:2 says we should "fix our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith."
Jesus creates it and finishes it. He tells us to ask for more of it. I don't read anything about faith being confidence in the Law.
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
“What has made Matthew so precious to generation after generation of Christians is thus its fusion of gospel and ethics, of faith and morality. The dominant characteristic of the First Gospel is its moral earnestness. The Evangelist sets himself severely over against those who claim that accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is all that is required of them. The concluding warning of the Sermon on the Mount thus sounds the note that will dominate this Gospel: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (7:21, NRSV). We can hear the echo of this clarion call in the Great Commission which which the Gospel ends: “Go, enlist all the Gentiles as disciples ..., teaching them to observe everything that I commanded you” (28:19-20). It is remarkable that in this commission scene there is no reference to preaching the gospel and no demand for faith as a precondition for baptism. Matthew can assume that the gospel will be proclaimed and that converts who undergo baptism will confess faith in Jesus, but he cannot take for granted that they will take seriously Jesus’ moral imperatives. The “mixed state of the church” causes him great concern; there are too many in the church whose lives do not conform with their confession. The purpose of his writing is to convince Christians that a genuine faith in Christ must be demonstrated in daily obedience to the way of life he proclaimed. Faith and ethics, Matthew insists, are two sides of the same coin, or the coin is counterfeit” (Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew, Int., pp.1-2).
4:47AM 1/21/23 said: “Please stop the total nonsense of using the false self-aggrandizing ‘Armstrongism/Armstrongism’ label. It shows your disdain of a group of fellow humans who are following the Bible, NOT A MAN.”
I agree with the response of RSK 9:21AM 21/1/23 and I’d like to add followers of HWA’s teachings think they are “following the Bible” like every other Xian. But, the problem is they don’t usually see until they’ve come out of their religious group (cult) that they’ve actually been following “A MAN” (or woman) all this time by believing his/her interpretations of the Bible! Whether you’re a Papist, Lutheran, White-ist, Smithite, Russellite, Armstrongist, etc. So here’s 3 words for you: Get Over It!
Cogitatio 906AM 21/1/23
HWA didn’t get “his teachings by special revelation in the public library in Des Moines, Iowa.” He did like what a lot of people seemingly do prior to their joining WCG ie He read various literature from various Xian groups —especially COG (7th Day) — before converting to that particular interpretation and then teaching it to others as if he was given that teaching directly by God Himself. Problem is the many Catholics and Protestants who did convert to HWA/WCG’s beliefs once part of the WCG cult would prohibit themselves and others from reading any other Xian literature especially if the authors were non-Sabbath keepers, which I feel is so ironic since that’s how most usually would’ve come across HWA’s literature ie having an open mind to alternative Xian views but then once inside HWA’s cult they close their minds and shut out any differing opinion to HWA’s.
Hello BP8: Truly, Christians have great responsibilities far beyond the old ten commandments – but – salvation is entirely a God thing – not at all a human thing.
Even Armstrongists believe that it is God who opens the eyes and heart of the believer.
Armstongists also correctly believe that God calls us to repentance and grants repentance.
Our faith also comes from God:
Romans 12:3
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the FAITH GOD HAS DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF YOU.
Meditating on chapter of Ephesians 1 may be helpful.
God chose us first, to be holy – before we could have faith or works or anything else:
Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
God determined to adopt us before we had the ability to make a move:
Ephesians 1:5
In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will
Salvation, being a God thing, is evidence of his glorious grace – all about him/his love – nothing we did or deserve:
Ephesians 1:6
to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
We could question when redemption, through his blood, occurs.
Since Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world and this passage in Ephesians is about predestination, I assume that we were redeemed before time, as well as at the point we first believed, and are continually redeemed:
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us.
Although we were predestined for salvation by grace at creation, God caused inklings of this mystery to dawn on us at a time that is according to his pleasure and purpose
Ephesians 1: 9
With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
God predestined for a plan and purpose before we had self-will and God worked that plan out:
Ephesians 1:11
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
For his glory, God’s plan was to bring us to put our hope in Jesus:
Ephesians 1:12
in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
When God brought us to belief, we were sealed by the Holy Spirit:
Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
God guarantees that he will bring us fully into salvation:
Ephesians 1:14
who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
By and for the glory of God, his grace, the blood and righteousness of Jesus, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit we are saved – salvation is ALL the work of God!
Most Christians say that all we have to do is believe and accept Jesus and you will be saved – I can agree with that and see that it is backed by Holy Scripture.
Yet at the same time, I believe fully that it is God who causes our belief and ability to profess faith in Jesus.
I’m glad Occam mentioned, one of my favorite verses from Hebrews:
Heb. 12:2 "fix your eyes on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith."
As evident as our inability to save should be, our human nature has a terribly difficult time giving salvation entirely over to God.
We don’t like to give up our own power (imagined power) and accept that God has a will greater than ours.
Some, like our Armstongite friends, have greater difficulty in leaving salvation in the hands of the Savior – they insist that salvation depends on what they do.
These people are working, even on this Friday evening, to earn their salvation – be their own co-savoir.
Meanwhile, others have entered the Sabbath Rest and are resting comfortably in the blessed assurance that God’s gift of salvation is his finished work.
Leave salvation to God – if salvation was up to us, we’d surely blow it.
6:28AM
Agree! Early Americans were guided by the Christian principle of self-government. What we have today is increasingly individuals who lack self-government leading to the expansion of Big Government, overregulation and diminishing of God given liberty and rights.
Anon628/615,
Yes, Christians abide the teachings and commands of God. Note the word commandments is from the Greek "entole" (which means teaching, instruction, command), not the greek "nomos" that refers to the Law.
This does not mean what you want to act like it means. It does not mean law keeping. As I've said many times before, non-cog Christians take great effort to follow the teachings of God and let God lead them. I do not see this as readily in the cogs because they think the commands that Armstrong selected as important are what they focus on.
Yes, non-Cog Christians have a Christian ethic and changed lives. They Believe and have faith and "faith without works is dead". Christians believe this and would generally have no issue with the theologian, Douglas R.A. Hare, you quote.
BUT, Douglas R.A. Hare does not agree with you. You know this. He did not believe Christians are under the old covenant (Armstrong abridged) Law you believe in. He conducted services on Sunday and did not abide the food laws.
You know you are trying to act as if he is saying something that he is not. He disagrees with YOU, not me or most on this thread.
I wish I had been able to address the issue of faith versus works in my essay. But had I done so, I think the essay would have lost focus - too many topics in a few paragraphs. As a rule, I do not think it is beneficial to break the salvific process down into its moving parts - like dis-assembling a watch. The Circumcision Party controversy forced Paul to do this and "by grace through faith not of works" emerged. Paul also wrote about this topic extensively in his other epistles - once again, I think in response to the trouble caused by the Circumcision Party. His writing on grace later became the foundation for the Reformation. I have an intuitive feeling that if it had not been for the harrying of the Circumcision Party, Paul might have projected a wholistic view of salvation.
And the wholistic view I believe would be based on scriptures like the following:
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom 5:10, KJV.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal 2:20, KJV.
Saved by his life. These two scriptures taken together state that we are saved by Jesus living in us. All that comprises Jesus' life: faith, works, grace, love, joy - everything, is what saves us. Paul had to deal unavoidably with the big divide between faith and grace on one side and works on the other. But I think it is difficult and not useful to decompose the process of salvation otherwise. It is wholly Jesus.
Solo Christo!
Cogitatio
Who remembers reading Brinsmead's series on the Reformation back in 1972?
In it he called the book of Romans the "..inspired thesis on salvation"
Hi occam,
I agree with what Douglas Hare said (the principle); but would disagree on certain applications of what he said. Some observations before noting one of my applications.
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments [entolon] of God.
“Paul tends to use this word ordinarily to refer to the individual commandments (e.g., Rom 7:8-13, where the individual commandment is distinguished from the whole law; cf. Rom 13:9). In 1 Cor 14:37 he uses it to refer to his own instructions... One’s proper response to grace is obedience to the will of God... On the other hand, of course, one must not turn the ethical imperative of the gospel, which is our grateful response to God’s mercy, into a new form of law (= obedience in order to gain favor). This becomes Christian legalism, at which Paul would be equally horrified” (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, re, NICNT, p.347).
Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law [nomos] sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment [entole], produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For without the law [nomos] sin was dead.
Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law [nomos] once: but when the commandment [entole] came, sin revived, and I died.
“Paul uses “commandment” [v.8] instead of “law” (nomos; see v.7) because he is referring to the single commandment he cited in v.7, but the commandment represents the Mosaic law as a whole. Paradoxically, what sin produced by taking advantage of the commandment is just what the commandment prohibited: “all kinds of coveting”...
Apart from the law [nomos] “When the commandment [entole] came”
“sin is dead” (v.8c) “sin sprang to life again (v.9b)
“I was alive” (v.9a) “I died” (v.10a).
“Paul describes the giving of the Mosaic law with the word “commandment” under the influence of the paradigmatic significance of the tenth commandment cited in v.7. “When this commandment came” “sin sprang to life again”...” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2e, NICNT, pp.459-62).
Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law [nomos].
Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment [entole], it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
“Paul now supports his contention that loving others fulfills the law by arguing that the commandments of the law are “summed up” in the “word” found in Lev 19:18: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Paul cites as illustrations of the commandments he has in mind abbreviated references to five commandments of the Decalogue” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2e, NICNT, p.832).
1Co 7:19b the keeping of the commandments [entolon] of God.
Mt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment [entole] in the law [nomos]?
I suggest that if the keeping of the second great commandment (Mt 22:39) is ‘illustrated’ by the last five entolon of the Decalogue, then keeping the “great commandment” is ‘illustrated’ by keeping, at least, the Sabbath, the fourth entole of the Decalogue.
Whereas Douglas Hare keeps the ‘sabbath’ on the first day of the week, the day of Christ’s resurrection, I keep the ‘Sabbath’ on the seventh day of the week, the day Christ rested from creating.
Some of the apostles were not as consistent with their use of entole and nomos. But they tended to use nomos for the law and entole for other commands.
However, the Apostle John was completely consistent which carries through in John, John I, II, III, and Revelation. When he said nomos he meant the Old Testament law and entole was new commands.
One such example is John 14:15 "If you love me keep my commands". The COGs, of course, say that these are the old testament commandments. But, of course they are not. They are Jesus's commands (entole).
John 1:17 For the law (nomos) was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Below are the uses of entole and nomos that John used. John is much more positive when using "entole" than "nomos". I think it will reveal much on the nature of the old covenant and the new covenant simply by a reading of how JOHN described entole and nomos:
“ἐντολή (“entole”)– the New Covenant precepts, teachings and instructions of Jesus.
Of the nine occurrences of the noun ἐντολή (“entole”) in John’s Gospel, four refer to a “command” (John 10:18; 12:49–50) or “commands” (John 15:10b) given to Jesus by God the Father (cf. the use of the verb entellomai in 14:31). Five occurrences refer to a “command” (John 13:34; 15:12) or “commands” (John 14:15, 21; 15:10a) given by Jesus to his disciples (cf. the use of the verb in 15:14, 17). One occurrence refers to “orders” given by the Pharisees to inform them of Jesus’ whereabouts (John 11:57). Nowhere in John is “entole” used to refer to the “commandments” of the Hebrew Scriptures. The term commandments in this sense is always called νόμος (“nomos”)
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge (“entole”) I have received from my Father.” (John 10:18 ESV)
“Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders (“entole”) that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.”(John 11:57 ESV).
“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment (“entole”) —what to say and what to speak.” (John 12:49 ESV)
“And I know that his commandment (“entole”) is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:50 ESV)
“A new commandment (“entole”) I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” (John 13:34 ESV)
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments (“entole”).” (John 14:15 ESV)
“Whoever has my commandments (“entole”) and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21 ESV)
“If you keep my commandments (“entole”), you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments (“entole”) and abide in his love.” (John 15:10 ESV)
“This is my commandment (“entole”), that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command (“entole”) you.” (John 15:12-14 ESV)
“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments (“entole”). Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments (“entole”) is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:3-5 ESV)
CONTINUED IN NEXT POSTING
Continued...
“Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment (“entole”), but an old commandment (“entole”) that you had from the beginning. The old commandment (“entole”) is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment (“entole”) that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” (1 John 2:7-8 ESV)
“Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments (“entole”) and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, (“entole”) that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded (“entole”) us. Whoever keeps his commandments (“entole”) abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.” (1 John 3:21-24 ESV)
“And this commandment (“entole”) we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:21 ESV)
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments (“entole”). For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments (“entole”). And his commandments (“entole”) are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:2-3 ESV)
“I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded (“entole”) by the Father. And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment (“entole”), but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments (“entole”); this is the commandment (“entole”), just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.” (2 John 1:4-6 ESV).
“Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments (“entole”) of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.” (Revelation 12:17 ESV)
“Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments (“entole”) of God and their faith in Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12 ESV)”
Νόμους (“nomos”) – the Old Covenant law.
John makes a clear distinction between the two words. For example, “For the law (“nomos”) was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17 ESV). “Has not Moses given you the law (“nomos”)? Yet none of you keeps the law (“nomos”). Why do you seek to kill me?” (John 7:19 ESV). When John writes of the New Testament laws he uses “entole”. For example, “A new commandment (“entole”) I give you, that you love one another, even as I loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34) “A new commandment (“entole”) I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” (John 13:34 ESV). So when John says, “commandments” he never means the Ten Commandments, but always means the teachings of Jesus especially faith (John 14:1 & 1 John 3:23a) or love (John 13:34; 14:15; 15:12-17 & 1 John 3:23b). Further John underlines this by writing that we are to obey “his commandments” not just “the commandments” which shows that John was not referring to the Ten Commandments, but to the New Covenant teachings of Jesus, “his commandments”.
CONTINUED AGAIN in next post just to include all the verses
Continued from above...It really is worth going through these verses of John.
John also records for us that we will be judged not by laws written on stone, but by the words of Jesus. “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” (John 12:47-48 ESV). Jesus never commanded Christians to keep the Sabbath and for good reason. He is our Sabbath rest. “Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. Your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
“For the law (“nomos”) was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17 ESV)
“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the Law (“nomos”) and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’” (John 1:45 ESV)
“Has not Moses given you the law (“nomos”)? Yet none of you keeps the law (“nomos”). Why do you seek to kill me?” (John 7:19 ESV)
“But this crowd that does not know the law (“nomos”) is accursed.” (John 7:49 ESV)
“Does our law (“nomos”) judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51 ESV)
Now in the Law (“nomos”) Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” (John 8:5 ESV)
“In your Law (“nomos”) it is written that the testimony of two people is true.” (John 8:17 ESV)
“Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law (“nomos”), ‘I said, you are gods’?” (John 10:34 ESV)
“So the crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the Law (“nomos”) that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?’” (John 12:34 ESV)
“But the word that is written in their Law (“nomos”) must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’” (John 15:25 ESV)
“Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law (“nomos”).’ The Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.’” (John 18:31 ESV)
“The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law(“nomos”), and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.’” (John 19:7 ESV)
Neither I John, II John, III John or the Book of Revelation use the term “nomos.”
It looks like we will have to agree to disagree. Just some points.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment [entolle] of the law [nomos] had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” (ESV).
Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law [nomos] is holy, and the commandment [entolle] holy, and just, and good.
“Paul brings together as essentially parallel terms “law” and “commandment”; both refer to the Mosaic law, the former as a body, the latter in terms of the specific commandment that Paul has cited in v.7 as representative of the whole” (Douglas Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, pp.464-65).
“But what Paul says of that commandment refers equally to the law as a whole. The commandment is “holy” because it comes from a holy God...” (Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, Romans, EBC, Rev. ed., EBC, Vol.11, p.120).
Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Ex 20:11b and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I keep the Sabbath entolle as a day of “rest” in the spirt of Ex 20; for me resting from work on the sabbath is a “delight” (Isa 58:13). Israel and the Gentiles will be keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant of the Messianic Age.
Lk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Lk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Moses. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Lk 4:18 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Lk 4:19 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Lk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Lk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, You must keep the Sabbath! (apologies to Luke).
You write:
“Jesus never commanded Christians to keep the Sabbath and for good reason. He is our Sabbath rest. “Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. Your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
You use Matt 11:28-30 as a proof text for not keeping the Sabbath. I would argue that the context, in which 11:28-30 is used, actually supports the keeping of the Sabbath as a day of rest.
Mt 11:25 AT THAT TIME JESUS answered and said,
Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest [anapauo].
Mt 11:29 TAKE MY YOKE UPON YOU, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest [anapauo] unto your souls.
Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Mt 12:1 AT THAT TIME JESUS went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mt 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mt 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mt 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Mt 12:12b it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Part 2
“The chapter division is unfortunate, since 12:1 does not begin a new section. The opening words ... binds this unit to the preceding text. The theme of conflict, which dominates 11:20-12:14, continues in this section, as well as the themes of rest/sabbath...” (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, NIB, Vol.8, p.276
“At that time” need not mean the same day as the events of chapter 11 but “at about that time”... Here it introduces an EXAMPLE of burdensome Pharisaic regulation (arising out of 11:28-30)...” (D.A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol.8, p.279).
“Matthew here refers to the sabbath for the first time, gathering all his sabbath material into this one story.
“... the two scenes in 12:1-14, as rewritten by Matthew, should be seen as picturing Jesus’ participation in this Jewish debate as to the proper observance of the sabbath, not as a Christian rejection of “Jewish legalism.” Matthew has taken care to rewrite the stories to emphasize that his position is not a rejection of the Law or the sabbath as such. He does not dismiss the issue, but enters into a debate still going on in Judaism. It is clear that Matthew does not pit the ceremonial law against the moral law (see 5:17-48) and that there is no polemic against the sabbath or the Law as such, nor is the sabbath denigrated as mere ceremonial ritual” (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, NIB, Vol.8, pp.277-278).
Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest [anapauo].
Deu 5:14 but on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do in it no work ... that thy man-servant may rest [anapauo], and thy maid, and thine ox, as well as thou. (Brenton, LXX).
“These two stories are both concerned with the keeping of the sabbath... It is probably not accidental that it follows the offer of “rest” in 11:28-30, since “rest” was the declared aim of the sabbath law (Exod 23:12; Dt 5:14). Jesus’ arguments attempt to restore the “rest” to what was in danger of becoming, under the weight of scribal elaborations of the law, more a burden than a blessing...
“At that time” links these stories... Both the theme of rest ... and that of Jesus’ “kind yoke” in contrast with the burdens of scribal demands (23:4) will be illustrated as Jesus’ understanding of the sabbath is contrasted with that of the Pharisees - note especially “the mercy” of v.7” (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp.454-455 & 457).
Jn 13:34 A new commandment [entolle] I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Mt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment [entolle] in the law?
Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment [entolle].
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mt 22:40 On these two commandments [entolle] hang all the law and the prophets.
“What makes this command “new”? Is it a new command replacing one or more older commands? Or a new command in addition to commands already familiar? Surely the latter.
Jn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My teaching [didache] is not mine, but his that sent me.
Jn 7:17 If any man will do HIS WILL, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
“As we have seen, Jesus’ reference earlier to “doing the truth” (3:21), “doing good things” (5:29), or “doing his will” (7:17; see also 9:31; 1 Jn 2:17), imply an understanding of right conduct based on the Hebrew Scriptures and commandments handed down from Moses. Jesus’ assumption all along has been that “if you had believed Moses, you would believe me” (5:16).
Part 3
“The acceptance of Jesus as God’s unique messenger and agent has been the evidence of faithfulness to the “will of God” revealed in those ancient commandments (see especially 7:17), where those who “choose to do his will” are the ones who “will know about the teachings, whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own”). Moreover, Jesus from here on will speak of his “commands” (plural) three times (14:15, 21; 15:10), and of the love “command” (singular) only once (15:12). So we may not assume that the love command is the only command to be obeyed, much less that it replaces (for example) the two great commands in the other three Gospels, love of God and love of neighbor (see Mk 12:28-34//Mt 22:34-40//Luke 10:25-28). If John’s Gospel knows of that tradition (as 14:15, 21, 23, and 31 may well suggest), this “new” love commandment is an additional one placed alongside the “great, and first” command and the second, like it” (Mt 22:38-39), “new” in two ways. First, it focuses attention not on the “neighbor” (defined in the Synoptics so broadly to include the enemy), but rather on the fellow believer or disciple, thus accenting love’s mutuality. Second, and perhaps more important, it bases the command very explicitly on Jesus’ love for “his own” disciples (v.1), based in turn on the Father’s love for his Son (see 3:35; 5:20; 15:9)” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, p.759).
1Jn 5:3a For this is the love of GOD [theos], that we keep [tereo] HIS COMMANDMENTS [entolle].
1Co 7:19 the keeping [teresis] of the commandments [entolle] of God [theos]
Ps 119:115b for I will search out the commandments [entolle] of my God [theos]. (LXX).
1Jn 5:4a For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:
“The commands of God today, whether found in the Old Testament or the New, appear intolerably burdensome to the world” (John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, TNTC, p.173).
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love GOD, and keep HIS commandments.
“It asks us, ‘Do you love God? Are you seeking to obey HIS commands?’ For if these qualitites are present, we can know that our love for other Christians is genuine, whatever feelings we may or may not have.
“Let us take the concrete example contained in the commandment ‘You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour’ (Ex 20:16). We show our love to God by recognizing that this command reflects his truthful, loving character, and by keeping it. In so doing, we also love our neighbour by preserving him or her from lies which would destroy his or her character or reputation. All three belong together - love for God, love for our brother or sister and obedience - as the outworking of the faith that says, ‘God is truth and his way is best’...” (David Jackman, The Message of John’s Letters, BST p.139).
Post a Comment