CGI’s Jeff Reed Makes the Case for Christian Sabbath Observance?
Lonnie Hendrix
In response to my posting “Do the ACOGs really obey God’s Law?” on “Fellowship – Social Media for the Church of God,” Jeff Reed posted some remarks which will be excerpted below.
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Notice that Christ said “anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands” or as the ESV renders it: “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments.” Hence, Mr. Reed makes my argument about the validity of the changes/modifications which Armstrong introduced, and his followers have imitated! Moreover, he conveniently ignores that Matthew records in this same passage that Christ said that he came here to FULFILL the Law and the prophets (5:17). And, he went on to say that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Verse 18) Did you get that “NOT AN IOTA, NOT A DOT.” Of course, we all know that Christ did accomplish all – that he did FULFILL the Law and the prophets!
Yes, Jesus observed the Sabbath. He and his first disciples were Jewish! Also, this statement ignores the elephant in the room – Jesus had to fulfill the Torah, and the Sabbath is an INTEGRAL component of Torah! And, yes, Christ expected his followers to follow HIS instructions, example, and commandments. Notice again, however, that Christ fulfilled the requirements of Torah for us and summarized it into two great universal principles for his disciples to follow as an expression of the new life which his work had given to them, and he gave them the Holy Spirit to help them accomplish that. Hence, although the foreskin of Christ’s penis was circumcised in accordance with Torah, his male followers would NOT be expected to follow his example in this regard. Paul told the Romans that Christian circumcision was of the heart – an internal, spiritual manifestation of the physical type.In an article in the CGI Atlanta newsletter, I wrote:
As a Sabbath keeper, I am usually perceived by non-Sabbath-keeping Christians as a legalist, outdated, or not fully understanding grace. They believe that the Fourth Commandment has either been done away, changed, or is kept by Jesus living in us. In this article, I don’t want to look at why those arguments are flawed. Instead, I believe it would be more constructive to focus on seven New Testament reasons Christians should keep the Sabbath.
1. Jesus kept the Sabbath. We read many accounts that Jesus was always teaching on the Sabbath. Sometimes He would explain a spiritual truth through healing. On one occasion, He explains a misunderstanding that arose concerning His disciples picking grain. He was teaching through example and focusing on a proper understanding of the Fourth Commandment. Luke 4:16 clearly states that “as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.” A custom is an established observance that brings meaning into our life. Jesus’ custom started at creation and continued in His human life. “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6). I’m pretty sure that includes His customs.
2. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. The observances we keep reflect the God we serve. Many different religions have different practices and ceremonies honoring their gods. What Christians observe should honor our God. One of Jesus’ Sabbath lessons ended with him concluding, “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). By keeping this day, we are declaring that Jesus is our Lord. It is a way we honor and worship Him.
Yes, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath – meaning it is his to do with as he sees fit. Christ said: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-20) Likewise, in the epistle to the Hebrews, we read: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” (4:10) For Christians, Christ is our Sabbath! We accept what he has done for us, and we rest from our own works.
3. The Sabbath was made for us. Also, as part of this same lesson to the Pharisees, He explains that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). We are physical creatures, and we often find ourselves tired or weary from the challenges of life. The Sabbath was created to give us rest. It gives us the opportunity to recharge so that we can function correctly the other six days of the week. It is how the Creator made us. It is a wonderful gift from God that we should rejoice at the wisdom He had in its creation. Importantly, you can only understand how great this gift is by keeping it.
Yes, the Sabbath was made for us. God sent Christ into the world to give us rest – to be our Sabbath. HE is the one who will ultimately give us all rest from the weariness and challenges of this human life. This is infinitely superior to a physical rest every seven days.
4. The Apostle Paul kept the Sabbath. “Then Paul, as his custom was, went into them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). On several occasions, we see Paul keeping the Sabbath. This is the same man who wrote 28 percent of the New Testament. In his letters, he continually emphasized the importance of keeping the law for Christians, not for the purpose of salvation but in response to our salvation through Christ. “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). He was a Sabbath keeper and understood its importance in our relationship with Jesus.
Yes, the Apostle Paul (along with the other apostles) observed the Sabbath. Like Jesus, they were observant Jews! In other words, we would expect to find them observing the Sabbath, and we do! Frankly, the suggestion that this fact proves that their Gentile followers were expected to do the same is quite a leap in logic. Indeed, the fifteenth chapter of Acts makes it very plain that Gentile Christians would NOT be required to adopt the Jewish covenant to be accepted as disciples of Jesus Christ. And, since I just invoked the Jerusalem Council, and I am very familiar with my former culture’s arguments in this regard, a preemptive word is in order. In short, it is fiction, pure and simple, to suggest that that council was just dealing with the question of Gentile circumcision. Indeed, we read in that account that: “But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them AND TO ORDER THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.” (15:5)
5. Luke directly refers to the Sabbath commandment. In the book of Luke, we learn that the women who were at the crucifixion of Jesus afterward prepared spices and fragrant oils to anoint His body. Then “they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). Luke wrote this account at least thirty years later. Notice that he does not refer to it as “the former Sabbath” or “the Jewish Sabbath” but as a commandment in the present tense. And this was after Jesus’ crucifixion, a point in time when some believed the commandment was changed.
Once again, of course, the women “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” – they were Jews, and Christ hadn’t yet been resurrected! By the way, the New Testament makes plain that Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath and Holy Days – culturally, they were still Jews! Even so, there is no indication in the New Testament that Gentiles EVER adopted this custom/tradition.
6. Jesus’ instruction shows that the Sabbath will be important in the future. In referring to the future event that will precede great tribulation, Jesus advises to “pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath” (Matthew 24:20). If there was no longer going to be a Sabbath command after His resurrection, why would He make this statement? The answer is simple. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
Christ’s remarks in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew constitute his response to a number of questions from his followers. Having just told them that the Temple complex would be destroyed, they asked: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Verses 1-3) Hence, whether Christ was referring to the destruction of the Temple or the events preceding his return, he makes clear that those widely separated events would happen in the context of the Promised Land. In other words, the immediate impact would fall on Jewish folks who observed the Sabbath. Even so, the Sabbath is mentioned in connection with Winter – Hence, in this respect, we can see that Christ intended these references as being indicative of times that would produce hardships for folks who would find themselves in the middle of those events. In other words, it is a stretch to suggest that this reference indicates that Gentile Christians in other parts of the world would still be observing the Sabbath. And, yes, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Sabbath pointed to him – a symbol of what was to follow. Thus, Jesus Christ was the reality when God gave this command to the Israelites, and he remained the reality after he had fulfilled it and paid the penalty for our sins. In fact, it would be highly inappropriate and irresponsible to characterize Hebrews 13:8 as a limitation on Christ’s role as Lord of the Sabbath.
7. Sabbath keeping remains for the people of God. “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). This verse can be easily overlooked as supporting the Sabbath because the Greek word sabbatismos is translated as rest. Some Bible translations translate it more correctly as “sabbath rest.” When this word is used in other ancient Greek literature, it usually means a “keeping of the Sabbath.” So Hebrews 4:9 essentially says that “there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God.” This emphasizes the theme found in Hebrews 4, connecting the seventh-day rest with the rest that comes as we are diligently obedient to Christ.
Once again, the rest which remains for the people of God is found in Jesus Christ. We keep that Sabbath by accepting what Christ has done on our behalf and resting from our own works – period!
According to Jeff,
These are seven New Testament reasons for Christians to keep the Sabbath.
Now, although I have just demonstrated that none of these seven reasons justify requiring Christ’s disciples to keep/observe the literal weekly Sabbath, we should note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian continuing to observe that day. That is, as long as they: acknowledge that: 1) it is not a requirement for Christians, and 2) doing so will not earn them salvation or a place in God’s Kingdom. Christians are NOT under the Law – they are not obligated to obey the dos and don’ts of Torah (the commandments and rituals outlined as part of God’s covenant with Israel – what we refer to as the OLD Covenant). Instead, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are expected to obey Christ’s condensation of the Law into two great principles. In conclusion, it is extremely misleading to characterize Christ’s work as having abolished the Law. Nevertheless, he did transform/change it, and we must never forget that he is the embodiment of it.
191 comments:
Jesus kept the Sabbath because he kept his father's commandments, like all real Christians do.
Jesus kept the Sabbath and the other commandments because he was a SPIRITUAL Jew, and all other SPIRITUAL Jews--his BROTHERS--keep the same Sabbath and other commandments that he kept.
Well of course nobody can EARN salvation. We all know that. But if one defies the commandments of God they will be disqualified.
CGI? Isn't that the ACOG that's led by Bill something who believes all the conspiracy theories and idolizes Donald Trump?
That tells me everything I need to know!
The general argument that you make, which is a common Protestant argument, is that "Jesus fulfilled the law, so I don't have to." I believe it is quite convoluted. It ignores the simplicity that is in Christ.
If Jesus fulfilled the law, does that mean it okay for a Christian to murder, commit adultery, steal, etc? Of course not. You don't believe that, and neither do Protestants or Catholics. But when it comes to the Sabbath, they believe breaking that commandment is okay or that it was shifted to Sunday. That, in my opinion, makes understanding the Gospel way too complicated.
I will explain the simplicity of Christ as I understand it.
First, Jesus is our Savior, and we receive Salvation when we put our faith in Him. It is by grace and grace alone.
Second, our response to grace allows Jesus to do a marvelous work of Salvation in our lives that eventually leads to being born again in the Kingdom of God. Now, we can always reject that Salvation later in life if we lose faith in Jesus. But why would we?
That work of Salvation is allowing Jesus, through His Spirit, to teach us how to love God and our fellow man. This comes through obedience to Him. Let me now apply this to your argument that Jesus did it all for us. If that is the case, I will not benefit from Him creating Godly character in me by helping me to overcome sin. Since, as you assert, He already did it all for us in advance. But real sin is bondage, and Jesus sets us free by teaching us to obey (which is expressed through true love.) I would hate to experience the consequences of coveting (excessive debts, bad credit, poverty, etc.) when Jesus can set me free. I would hate to experience the consequences of any other sin that can be overcome through Him. If I steal something and get caught Jesus is not going to serve my prison sentence, I will.
Even the Protestant website GotQuestions.org says this about Salvation:
"Salvation is not about certain steps we must follow to earn Salvation. Yes, Christians should be baptized. Yes, Christians should publicly confess Christ as Savior. Yes, Christians should turn from sin. Yes, Christians should commit their lives to obeying God. However, these are not steps to Salvation. They are results of Salvation. "
As our response to Salvation, Christians should keep the Sabbath.
The Sabbath offers us physical and spiritual rest through Christ. Saying that we have rest in Jesus without letting Him do just that for us is a contradiction. Think about it, Jesus did it all for me so I can experience rest in Him while I work seven days a week. I would rather experience His rest while I am at rest. I have had many jobs in which I was overworked, and was so glad to get that guaranteed weekly break. The Sabbath really isn’t a work. It is the absence of work.
Continued in the next post.
Part 2
The real work of Jesus develops the fruit of the Spirit in our character. So we, by nature, live a life of obedience. If you have the fruit, you are not going to break the law.
"...against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Galatians 5:23-25
I believe walking in the Spirit is letting Jesus mold me into his image (spiritual character). I believe that includes the Sabbath and Holy Days. If I truly love God, why would I not want to celebrate things that please him and the symbolism is all about Jesus.
Hebrews 7:12 says that "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." So under the New Covenant we no longer have temple service, Levite priests, physical sacrifices, laws of uncleanness, etc. Jesus fulfills all of that for us. So, yes we observe a modified version of the Holy Days. New Testament observances in which Jesus is High Priest. Certain laws like clean and unclean meats are independent of whatever priesthood are still in effect. Circumcision was the sign of entering the Old Covenant, now it is Baptism. We don’t wear tassels but God writes the law into our hearts. Some laws such as building a roof parapet are essentially teaching us to make our homes safe place for visitors. That is love. And real love (not the emotion but love in action) fulfills the law.
But to deny the present work of Salvation in me is not something I want to do. Neither do I want to judge those who honestly do not understand God's law as I do. I'll leave that work to Jesus as well.
Well, Lonnie, it looks like Jeff Reed just humiliated you and your anti-Christ message.
It is noted: "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. The observances we keep reflect the God we serve. Many different religions have different practices and ceremonies honoring their gods. What Christians observe should honor our God. One of Jesus’ Sabbath lessons ended with him concluding, “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). By keeping this day, we are declaring that Jesus is our Lord. It is a way we honor and worship Him.
Yes, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath – meaning it is his to do with as he sees fit."
============================
I would like to suggest a more simple explanation of "The Son of Man is also lord of the Sabbath"
In the context we find examples of people "breaking" the Sabbath or the rules when necessary though what they did would generally be unacceptable.
Mark 2: 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
In the context, "son of man" does not have to mean "Jesus" thus making him, Jesus, "Lord of the Sabbath". It can just as well be taken as the son of man meaning "humans". Humans and their welfare take precedence over the Sabbath.
"The Sabbath was made for humans and not humans for the sabbath, therefore, humans are more important than the Sabbath". It is not Jesus that gets to set the standard. Humans do when the Sabbath interferes with their welfare. This is a common rendering in some theological circles.
Jeff,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. First, your characterization of my views as "Jesus fulfilled the law, so I don't have to" is inaccurate and/or intentionally misleading. My belief is that Jesus satisfied ALL of the requirements of Torah for us and paid the penalty for our sins. Hence, if we accept his work, there is NOTHING left for us to do except to live the new life which he has made possible. You and I trying to obey some of Torah is not only redundant and unnecessary, it also inadvertently says to God that what Christ did for me is insufficient to save me!
No, my friend, it is Herbert Armstrong's theology which is hopelessly convoluted and full of erroneous propositions! The simplicity which is in Christ is exemplified by these Scriptures:
Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
John 3:16-17 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Salvation is through Jesus Christ - PERIOD!
The convoluted muddle of Armstrongist theology is exemplified by this statement from the second part of your comments:
So under the New Covenant we no longer have temple service, Levite priests, physical sacrifices, laws of uncleanness, etc. Jesus fulfills all of that for us. So, yes we observe a modified version of the Holy Days. New Testament observances in which Jesus is High Priest. Certain laws like clean and unclean meats are independent of whatever priesthood are still in effect. Circumcision was the sign of entering the Old Covenant, now it is Baptism. We don’t wear tassels but God writes the law into our hearts. Some laws such as building a roof parapet are essentially teaching us to make our homes safe place for visitors. That is love. And real love (not the emotion but love in action) fulfills the law.
Your theology requires the Christian to decide which commandments of the Torah are to be obeyed. and which ones are to be ignored. (continued below)
Christ not only fulfilled ALL of the dos and don'ts of Torah - he also summarized Torah into two great commandments (drawn from Torah and comprehending the whole): You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Hence, Christians do NOT need a commandment against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, lying, eating this or that, etc. If a Christian is applying those two principles (with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit), he/she won't be doing any of those things we just enumerated from Torah.
In the thirteenth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote: "8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Moreover, John agrees with Paul about this simplicity in Christ. In this first epistle, we read: "this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment." Indeed, Jesus said that this love for one another was the very thing which would identify his disciples! And we don't have to interpret what love means - Paul gives a very nice definition in the thirteenth chapter of his first epistle to the saints at Corinth. Finally, this behavior (loving God and each other) is a manifestation of the new man or woman which Christ's work has created - NOT something that earns us anything!
Herbert Armstrong insisted that traditional Christians were trying to do away with Torah. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Hebrew Scriptures were the ONLY Scriptures available to First Century Christians. They understood that both Torah and the prophets pointed to Jesus Christ, and that they found their fulfillment in him. They interpreted those Scriptures through Christ. They used them to preach Christ.
Salvation is found in Jesus Christ. It is NOT found in the Torah. Torah pointed to HIM. It was the shadow. He is the reality. The Sabbath also pointed to that rest we enjoy in him. If you would go on to quote that entire passage from the book of Hebrews, we would see that the very fact that Jesus is our High Priest (instead of someone from Aaron's line or a Levite) underscores that the Law has changed! We are NEW Covenant people!
So Lonnie, you are flat out admitting that Paul and other apostles,
1. years after the death and resurrection of Christ
2. years after Christ fulfilled the law (whatever that means)
3. years after Christ summarized the law into 2 great universal principles FOR HIS DISCIPLES TO FOLLOW as an expression of new life
STILL observed the sabbath as observant Jews, which had to be contrary to the theology of our Savior according to you?
That's incredible! I will let our readers be the judge of that!
And Dennis, your paraphrase might be acceptable in the theological circles of humanism, but I don't think you will get very many converts here!but
BP8,
What is contrary to the theology of our Savior is REQUIRING Gentiles to observe the dos and don'ts of Torah. I agree that our readers should evaluate ALL of the evidence and reach their own conclusions. Also, I think Dennis did a pretty good job of magnifying the meaning of Christ's statement.
Hey Lonnie, good article and response to Jeff Reed. I agree with much of what you wrote in both. However I have a little different take from what I think you and Jeff both indicated, and that is the Jesus kept the Law, or came to keep the Law for us. Not true, if that is what you meant. The Law was not put in place for a righteous man, so Jesus 'fulfilled' what was written in the Law and Prophets about Him. You are correct that so many things pointed to Jesus the Messiah. Jesus was perfect even as a human and did not need the Law to guide Him!
He came as human to be that sacrifice for mankind as was designed from creation .... not to "qualify" by keeping the Law, which would make the Law greater than HIM! Was never any question if He would sin, no matter what HWA said as he claimed we don't have a savior if Jesus couldn't have sinned. That was never a question, and again ---- that makes the Law greater.
Jeff makes familiar points, and it would have been even more profitable if Jeff had described HOW one should keep the Sabbath today in this age, and even more so by example how HE 'keeps' the Sabbath. Example is a great teacher, right?
Also Lonnie, Ernest Martin was decades ahead of what you are teaching. Took a while to grasp some of what he was sayng and he also had some really goofy stuff.
It was like he was the ONE authority, like you now are the one authority on this blog, Coulter is with his folks, and HWA used to be the most powerful authority with the office of 'apostle'. Then there is Dennis who is the non-authority as he is an agnostic, (I guess).
We need more DCP stuff ---- c'mon Marc! What happened to Weinland?
For those of you who might be tuning in for the first time, although this may be new to you, this debate has been ongoing on these Armstrong-related sites for twenty years! The "sides" have remained the same. Both sides are equally strong, neither side ever definitively vanquishes the other, and the choir from either side claims victory for their front runner. Those who agree with either of the two sides are said by their own to have arrived at their conclusion as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within them, which or who (pronoun is side-related) opened their minds to understanding the truth, and some may or may not feel sorry for those on the opposite side as they allude to the Lake of Fire.
What did "they" always tell us? Well, back in the day, there was always a disclaimer somewhere in each Plain Truth article to the effect that there is no solution until Jesus Christ returns and straightens everything out. And, I have come to believe that that same disclaimer is entirely appropriate to this discussion as well. Due to the strength of the argument of either side, I seriously doubt that God would hold anyone accountable for figuring it all out, or not. We certainly have illustrated this innate flaw in our understanding of prophecy, have we not???
That leaves us with one poignant question. The clincher! If you knew for a fact that salvation was universal, how would it affect your attitudes and behavior towards fellow man???
People can always find a way to rationalize around the law.
Lonnie will never get it because he doesn't wanna get it.
Acts 15:21: the apostles knew that those Gentiles who turn to God would observe the sabbath, would attend the synagogue on the sabbath where they would learn more about God's way of life, and so didn't send the Gentiles a missive on everything they should do except the 4 points.
I agree with the comment about example - Back in August of 2021, I listed the reasons why I personally continue to observe the Sabbath. I share them now with the understanding that I don't believe that I am (or any other Christian is) required to do so by Almighty God, and that the sincere folks who worship on Sunday ARE my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ:
Because the Sabbath is portrayed in Scripture as a memorial of the fact that God is the Creator, and that he rested from his work when he was finished.
Because the Sabbath was incorporated into the fundamental/foundational Law of God (the Ten Commandments).
Because of what the Sabbath represents: The rest in Christ from our own works, and the rest in Christ we have to look forward to in the Kingdom.
Because Jesus, his apostles and the original mother church of Christianity at Jerusalem continued to observe the Sabbath.
Because the Sabbath provides a weekly opportunity to demonstrate my love for God and fellow humans.
Because the Sabbath provides an opportunity for me to demonstrate my appreciation for the Jewish part of my heritage (DNA).
Because the Sabbath provides a weekly opportunity for physical and emotional rest/relaxation/rejuvenation and thinking about more than the daily pressures and demands of this life (that which has been a habit of over 45 years feels very comfortable – part of a now natural rhythm).
From my current perspective, I still think that those are pretty good reasons.
I appreciate Lonnie and so many others that contribute to this blog. Taking the time to expose and explain the faults in Armstrongism is a great service.
Thank you, E
Lonnie, beautiful tap dance. Who taught you to dance?
It sounds like, “we don’t need no stinkin’ law” but, then we should keep it anyway because we don’t have to.”
Hmmm. Maybe it isn’t a tap dance, more like a tango mixed with the Charleston.
An authority someone said. Not.
The book is easier to understand versus the human dance teacher avoiding the instructions by saying just tap your foot the rest will come, if only you believe.
"They are results of salvation."
Such statements and similar are rampant in contemporary Christianity. And they are wrong since they put the cart before the horse, reversing cause and effect. It's obedience that leads to salvation being granted, not the other way around. Such irrationality is an attack on basic reality. The Pharisees did the same by claiming in Matthew 23:16 that to swear by the temple is non binding, but swearing by the gold of the temple is binding. Such attacks weakens its victims sense of reality, giving church leaders undue influence over them.
There are also attacks on self responsibility in many on these posts. Again, unsurprising since the Borg members are only permitted rudimentary responsibilities.
It's wonderful to see Armstrongites, including Reed, admit that salvation is by grace alone.
However, I have never met an Armstrongite whose theology actually matches the salvation by grace truth.
I don't think that Reed or any other Armstrongite leader would say that salvation is by grace and therefore there are Christians who don't know they should be keeping the sabbath, but they too are saved by grace.
That kind of grace would negate the need for Armstrongism.
Reed wrote, as many Armstrongites argue, that sabbath-keeping is a fruit of salvation.
Armstrongites cannot separate the sabbath from salvation - not keeping the sabbath equates to no salvation.
Likewise, Armstrongites don't preach the doctrine of justification - they don't acknowledge that the righteousness of Jesus makes the believer as righteous as Jesus.
Armstrongites believe that their sabbath keeping is their righteousness, their sign that they belong to God.
Confusion on what makes the Christian righteous in the sight of God is also played out in the Armstrongites marginal acceptance, or often refusal, to accept, Jesus as the Sabbath Rest.
Yes, Christians are free to keep the Sabbath but, as Reed said, he is refreshed from his resting on that day - which is both physically and spiritually possible if resting on any day - instead of being refreshed by resting in the finished work of Jesus - which is divinely possible on every day.
Knowing Jesus as the Sabbath Rest is the ultimate rest for the Christian.
Anonymous Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 5:57:00 PM PDT,
You're obviously flying closer to the middle than I am, but I appreciate the direction in which you're flying. Though I disagree with them on this and many other issues, I think that Jeff Reed, Mike James, Wynn Skelton, and Vance Stinson are brothers in Christ. We should all never forget that the Jewish portion of the Church kept the Sabbath and co-existed with the Sunday-keeping Gentiles. Sure, there were some pretty rough patches and hurt feelings (as evidenced by Paul's letter to the saints of Galatia), but there is no indication that they ever ended up excommunicating each other. I think that the Legalists are wrong, but I don't believe that our erroneous notions will necessarily keep us out of God's Kingdom. I've said it before - it's not based on what we know or don't know, and God's reality (whatever that is) will stand regardless of what you and I think/believe!
Even so, don't expect any reciprocal grace from most of the folks within the ACOGs. There's an old joke that can be applied to this situation. The Apostle Peter is showing folks around God's Kingdom, and the group arrives at the edge of a great valley. "Quick, get down and hide behind these bushes!" Peter warns them. In the valley below, they can see a large crowd of people milling about. "Who are they?" one of the group asks. "Those are the folks from the Armstrong Churches of God," Peter answers. "They think that they're the only ones here!"
Dennis said: “…It is not Jesus that gets to set the standard.”
With respect I have to disagree. My understanding and belief is that Jesus is THE divine standard by which we all shall be measured. He is the eternal Word, Law, Gospel (etc) of God.
Lonnie is a she.
10.42
Exactly. Christ is the embodiment of every virtue. A reason for worshipping God is to prize these virtues and strive to develop them within ourselves.
Dennis's statement is a confession of his real character. And he has asked readers here to phone him up so that he can play minister and set them straight. What a joke.
Jeff Reed writes:
“So under the New Covenant we no longer have temple service, Levite priests, physical sacrifices, laws of uncleanness, etc. Jesus fulfills all of that for us... New Testament observances in which Jesus is High Priest.”
Under the New Covenant with Israel there will be temple services, Levitical priests and physical sacrifices, etc.
When the Jews went into the Babylonian captivity there was no temple, sacrificing Levitical priests. etc; but when the Jews returned the sacrifices were resumed and a temple built.
Having no Temple, after AD 70, during the Church Dispensation of the New Covenant may have been fortuitous for the operation of this dispensation.
But when Christ returns and restores Israel then a Temple will be built and animal sacrifices will be resumed.
The destruction of the Temple by the Romans should be paralleled with the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. The present hiatus should be paralleled with the hiatus after 586 BC.
But the highlight of the future Temple, as opposed to the Second Temple, is that Jesus Christ will have a dwelling presence in the Holy of Holies; there was no divine dwelling presence, for a couple of reasons, in the Second Temple.
Animal sacrifices will be required to maintain Christ’s dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple; the annual decontamination of the Temple will occur in the first month of the sacred year instead of the seventh under the OC.
The first url below has the three sancta cleansed under the OC; and the second the three under the NC.
https://members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/20a23170.png
https://members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/3760a100.png
To maintain Christ's presence in the Millennial Temple it will require Levitical priests as these are the only personnel authorized to enter the inner court and turn [offerings] into smoke [cp. Lev 1:9b, wehiqtir] on the altar; and to apply blood to absorb the impurities that will be generated by certain types of sin which will have been attached ‘to certain sancta during the year - as in the second url.
Heb 8:4 If he [Christ] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
Heb 8:5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.
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.
Christ serves as high-priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and in the future the saints will also serve as priests in heaven during the Messianic Age.
That Christ is high priest in heaven does not mean that there is a change of ‘priesthood’ on earth - that is, the levitical priesthood has not been made ‘obsolete’ as one ACOG described it.
Typology suggest that Christ and the Saints are the ‘change’ in heaven. That is after the sin of Satan and the demons the heavenly priesthood was terminated, with Satan and the Demons disqualified and no longer admitted to the heavenly holy of holies.
2Ch 3:10 And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold.
2Ch 3:13 The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.
It is suggested that this is pictured in the two huge cherubim in Solomon’s Temple (cp, also Ge 3:23a, 24)
While this was the end of demons priesthood they still regained their kingship that operates from the heavenlies, aka the heavenly garden in Eden (cp. Eze 28:13).
When Satan and the Demons are rejected from the heavenlies, it will be cleansed (cp. Heb 9:22-23; that part of the Day of Atonement ritual that was not fulfilled after Christ’s first advent) and the heavenly priesthood of Christ and the Saints can begin.
There needs to be two priesthoods in the Kingdom Dispensation of the New Covenant - one on earth and one in heaven - for the success of the Messianic Age.
Well, Lonnie, there is one law for all mankind. It applies to all whether they understand it or not. God has a plan that ensures all will understand it before judgement.
Besides, how much "jewish blood" is in you? How much does it take to make you obligated to keep the Sabbath? Your argument that the Sabbath is for the Jews only is beyond ridiculous and contradicts scripture.
1042, you are absolutely correct! Yet Lonnie, who is the champion of everything "Jesus" seems to disagree! Go figure.
Jesus fulfilled the law so that He could qualify as the sacrifice for all mankind. NOT so that the law would be done away with. Had He not fulfilled the requirements of the law He would have been just like the rest of us and His death would have been eternal.
Yes, I truly believe we are justified fully by the sacrifice of Jesus. But there is the "go and sin no more" command from our Savior. Real faith means I believe in what Jesus stands for and what he taught. Believing in Jesus and not doing what he says puts one is a very dangerous category:
“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” James 2:19
The law is summed up in love for God and love for our fellow man. The New Testament tells us that those who practice the works of the flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Such as fornication. How do we know what that is? We are supplied a detailed list of what that is in Leviticus 18. These laws not only govern human behavior, but when followed, we are showing love toward our fellow humans. If we are not obeying these laws, we are not showing love but selfishness.
It is not hard to know what laws apply to Christians. Most Christians of any denomination would most likely agree that Leviticus 18 defines sexual sin. Christ gives us the ability to overcome these sins. And when we do, we are learning how to show love to our neighbor. The same concept applies to all categories of sin.
I choose not be a judge of Sunday keeing Christians. I leave that to Jesus. I do personally expect to eventually see most of them in God’s Kingsom as well. As for me I must live what the Holy Spirit teaches me.
@Lonnie, 5:57 ~ Yes. I am trying to find middle ground. However, these are the basic questions which broke up Armstrongism in the first place, so I can understand the constant debate. As I see it, 1995 repolarized factions so that we now have the original groups which were present in the first century, namely the modern equivalent of the Jewish Christians, and the Gentile Christians. And, some left religion entirely, like the Hellenized Jews of the 160s BCE.
Complicating matters, traditional Armstrongists do not understand the history of the early centuries of the Christian Church. They believe that there was no distinction in the rules and practices of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians with the exception that the Gentiles were exempted from circumcision. There is abundant secular history, and the book of Romans to refute this misconception, but most of the stalwarts still believe that Simon Magus started the Catholic Church, and wildly spin Romans.
It's going to be a hot mess untill all the boomers doe off.
The Armstrongist position on this issue is simply unsustainable! They simply cannot understand that Christians are NOT obligated to obey the dos and don'ts of Torah. Yes, we are commanded to believe in Jesus Christ and what he has done for us. Yes, those who come to God MUST believe that God exists and will reward those who relentlessly pursue "Him." And, when we put on that new man or woman, our behavior will reflect the righteousness with which Christ has clothed us. We will love God with our whole heart and soul by loving each other as we love ourselves. THAT is what God and Jesus Christ command/expect of New Testament Christians.
The dos and don't of Torah were specifically addressed to the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL - The Torah outlines the terms of God's Covenant with THOSE people. Christians are operating under a NEW Covenant, and its terms are NOT synonymous with the terms of the OLD Covenant - PERIOD! The Armstrongist simply does not understand or accept the fact that the Council at Jerusalem decided (I believe rightly so) that Gentiles would NOT have to adopt the various provisions of God's covenant with the Israelites.
Why? Why can't many Armstrongites acknowledge this truth? Because it goes to the very heart of their raison d'etre (reason for their existence). If Christians aren't required to observe Sabbaths, Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, tithing, etc., what is the justification for their existence? This is what sets them apart from those "so-called" Christians! For them, their beliefs and practices are preeminent - the things that make them "God's people" and sets them apart from the world. Nevertheless, the message of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ fulfilled the obligations of the Old Covenant and replaced them with a New Covenant with commandments and principles which could be applied to all people, everywhere, and in all times!
In the final analysis, for the Armstrongite, Jesus is just not enough. They need something more to set them apart - to make them better than the rest - more qualified than those millions of pretenders. They have the truth, and you don't! They understand, and you don't! They obey God, and you don't. They have God's Holy Spirit, and you follow the spirit of Satan and his world. They're God's people, and you aren't. I continue to pray for my brothers and sisters who are still enthralled by this delusion.
I believe Miller Jones has responded effectively and substantively to the Armstrongist objections. I am always surprised at how many off-the-wall ideas that Armstrongists nurture in their hearts. You would expect that little booklet theology would at least bring about a more uniform view.
An argument used repeatedly is that the holy days and Temple worship will be instituted in the future. This is not without complications. The Book of Revelation does not mention a physical future Temple. The idea of the Temple seems to be spiritual in the NT. John of Patmos is unequivocal in stating that in the Eschaton God and the Lamb will be the Temple. Where then are they Temple laws? They certainly do not seem to be eternal. Armstrongists understand that the sacrifices and the ministration of death have been set aside but some of them long for it to come back so their partial Torah practice can be validated. This is an odd anti-Christ attitude.
If there is an interlude when physical sacrifices will be restored, it will be under much different circumstances than found in ancient Israel because such sacrifices will have to ideologically co-reside with the superior sacrifice of Christ. And, of course, there is no reason to believe that any future sacrifices will reflect the Colossian Heresy of making Torah keeping the adjunct cause of salvation.
I wrote something about this in an earlier thread. I think it is still relevant:
The oft cited scripture concerning the FoT: “Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.”
This is frequently cited by Armstrongists as if it were a massive clobber scripture that demonstrates that the holy days, and by extension the Sabbath, are to be kept now. It is typically cited pre-emptively with no accompanying exegesis as if it were the unassailable “nuclear option”. And what is left unsaid is hugely significant. So, let me give it some due consideration.
First, it does not say in Zechariah that the Feast of Tabernacles at this future date is being kept in the same way that Armstrongists keep it today. Physically, the ersatz Armstrongist version of the Feast is a nice hotel by the beach, lots of food, lots of booze as a dress rehearsal for the putative inordinate indulgence of the Millennium. (This does not remotely resemble the ancient FoT.) Zechariah is talking about a serious international, geopolitical recognition on the part of the nations of Jesus as Lord of Lords.
Second, the scripture does not imply, as Armstrongists presume, that because the FoT is kept in the future, that it must be kept now. This remains an un-exegeted principle. In fact, sacrifices were at one time kept and they are not now required. In the Sermon on the Mount, the statement Jesus made about the jot and tittle of the Law included the sacrifices and the ministration of death – it was the whole works. But after his death, both the sacrifices and the ministration of death were dropped (along with the rest of the Torah, but that is another topic. Armstrongists at least recognize that the sacrifices and the ministration of death are no longer requirements.) There are scriptures, if they are not allegorical, that seem to imply sacrifices will return. Sacrifices were kept, then went away, and may come back. What happens during one Age may not happen during another Age. The fact that the FoT may be observed in the future does not mean that it should be observed now.
(continued)
Scout
(continuation)
Third, Armstrongists make the FoT a requirement for salvation in contravention to the scriptures that say it is only a shadow of Christ. There is no reason to assume that the FoT of Zechariah supports this mistaken, Pelagianistic idea. There is no problem with observing the FoT if you are a New Covenant Christian. There is a big problem if you proclaim it to be required for salvation.
Fourth, the FoT of Zechariah is being held in Jerusalem, the only place where God has placed his name for the observance of the three principle holy observances. If Armstrongists wish to be compliant with scripture, both Leviticus and Zechariah, they would be keeping the FoT in Jerusalem as well.
Zechariah 14:16-19 is not a pre-emptive clobber scripture that discomfits Christianity. It is a scripture that is open to midrash. And Armstrongists have never exhaustively considered it anywhere in their booklet theology.
Scout
The writers of the New Testament knew exactly what they were saying with their inspired words. Paul was a scholar. When he writes something that begs the question (current usage), he intended the question to be begged. So when he uses the terms like "the law of Christ" or "the law of faith", he knows the effect is that the listener will question how this affects "Sinai Law" or the "law of moses". Paul omits using "Sinai Law" or the "law of Moses" or "the Law" as the governing law. This is not an accident. In WCG we were taught word games when drawing doctrines from a collection of plucked verses rather than getting the full context and meaning.
Paul and others could have said "the spiritualized Law" or the "spiritualized Sinai Law" or the "Christ modified law of moses". but he didn't... and not just because each of those would be cumbersome to use. Paul knew that the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith is based on better terms and better promises. As Galatians 3:12 says, "the law is not based in faith." BUT, for a Christian faith is the foundation! So, the Law, with Christ added, simply does not work. Different foundations. Different wines and wineskins.
And, the Law of Christ does not allow for accusations of antinomianism by Judaizers and others.
The Law of Moses existed for around 1500 years, but Christ’s coming removed the need for the tutor (the law). What other point would Paul have in writing that except that the Law was no longer needed?
Christians in the epistles are directed back to Abraham and faith not moses and law. WHY, if the Law is so critical?
The Sinai Law is simply not in effect. A greater and different covenant with greater terms and promises is in effect. Galatians 4:21-31 spells this out and tells us to “put away the handmaid Hagar (sinai law)” so we can receive the covenant represented by Sarah (new covenant).
These are entirely different and represented by completely distinct types:
Sarah vs Hagar,
Son of promise vs son of the flesh,
Freedom vs slavery,
Jerusalem Above vs Mt. Sinai
Spirit vs Flesh
Inherit with the son of the Free woman vs Cast out the slave woman and her son
These are stark and distinct dichotomies. People can try to explain it away with word games, but that won’t answer WHY Paul addressed it in this manner and for making the differences so severe. WHY did Paul even say the law was a pedagog except to show it served a limited temporary purpose. WHY did Paul bring the whole issue up time and again? To muddy the waters? No, to show that a new covenant with better terms and promises was present rather than the sinai law.
WHY does Paul say there is no further need of the pedagog (the law)?
WHY does he say we should cast out the handmaid and her son (the Law)?
This is not just unfortunate wording. He meant what he was saying.
And yes, the law can be holy just and good while at the same time being obsolete.
Thankfully, Something greater, holier, and more just than the Law is now here (Our Lord Jesus Christ).
E.
Scout,
Good points regarding the FoT in Zechariah. Whatever the teaching and/or future manifestation of Zech. 14 is, I know that the COGs are not doing it. E.
I very much appreciate the recent contributions of Scout and E. Well-articulated arguments in support of the thesis of this post. Thank you.
Sunday goers I have found are more sincere than any armstrongist can be.
It is not man, in and of himself, to keep the Sabbath. We can not do so. It is Christ's Spirit inside of the believer which compels one to keep the Sabbath. Christ is actually keeping the Sabbath for us. We are evidencing the fact that we are followers of Christ by allowing Him to do this within us. Thus, shaping us to be more Christ like.
By their fruits will you know if one is a follower of Christ or not. He will be keeping the law within us.
E, 1.30pm
You're confused. When Enron collapsed, the government passed many laws to plug the excuses given by the management who claimed to be innocent of any wrong doing. Which is why there has been an explosion of new laws as the nation morally declines. If people understood and applied the spirit of the law, eg, love your neighbor, this phenomena would not be necessary. Likewise children are taught simple rules since they cannot understand moral concepts. As they mature, these rule following 'laws' are replaced with moral understanding
But non of this means that Christ's sacrifice has done away with moral laws as you strongly imply.
Anonymous 4:40 wrote, "Well, Lonnie, there is one law for all mankind. It applies to all whether they understand it or not."
My guess is that you are referring to the mistaken notion that Armstrongists advocate that the Torah is the eternal moral law of God. Hoeh identifies this law as having been made at the creation of the Cosmos, elaborated to Moses as the Torah, was not abolished by Christ, will be written on the hearts of the followers of God and will be binding in perpetuity. He unfortunately neglects to discuss the origination of the legislation. (q.v., “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”, by Herman L. Hoeh.)
God is a law unto himself. There is an eternal moral law and it is a reflection of God's character. It is eternal because it is actually God's behavior and God is eternal. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are both instantiations of this eternal moral law. Both legislations are designed for a certain group of people at a certain time.
The mistake that Armstrongism made was to designate the Torah as the eternal moral law. But the Torah is about human behavior and, by contrast, the eternal moral law existed before the creation of the Cosmos and humans. And the eternal moral law will exist after humans are transformed into resurrected children of God. A Law that says 'thou shalt not commit adultery' doesn't mean anything if there are no humans around.
And as one might expect, God's eternal moral law, I believe, in a word, is love. It is droll to witness chesty little legalists enter into the fray over the law and not evince love or mention anything about love. For them it is all about torts forbidden by the Torah. Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.
So before Sinai, before Abraham, before Noah, before the Cosmos, before the Angelic Host, there was the eternal moral law of love. Because God is love. That is the law you should be referring to instead of the transient Torah.
Scout
Paul, in Rome for 2 years, in chains, watched by a soldier, observed the FoT by.......
How would the apostle Paul sum this all up in just a handful os simple verses, easy to understand?
Well, let’s try his summary:
The Inquisitorists here constantly put down Paul's writing in the epistles about the law and other Torah topics. However, in Acts he simply states the facts about what he believed and practiced.
As always it is so simply put, for as Paul taught, he always made the effort to use words simply understood. Not words based on human philosophy about the Bible which could never be understood in a lifetime. Yet, today the modern Inqusitionists strive with every breath to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Maybe an elephant would be more accurate.
So, try reading Paul's statement in its simplicity for a change.
"But this I admit to you, that I serve the Elohim of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect (heresy), believing all [the] things that are in accordance with the law and the things [that are] written in the prophets, Acts 24:14
having a hope in Elohim that these [men] also themselves look for: that there is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. Acts 24:15
In view of this, I myself always strive to have a conscience [that is] without offense toward Elohim and man. Acts 24:16"
One of my Bible programs is InWORD. It covers every verse with multiple translations and references. All are basic Christian writings. So, one cannot label THEM as Armstrongists. So, one would have to create or concoct another excuse to overturn Paul here.
Of course, Inquisitionists here are quite creative. Let's see how they distort this with theophananititiltiessesses.
Oh, here is just one translation of many, of verse 14.
"“Yet this I now speak in agreement (or: confess) to you, that according to the Way (or: corresponding to the Path) — which they are normally calling a sect (or: maintaining [to be] a party; or: terming heresy) — in this way am I habitually performing sacred service to the God of (or: pertaining to) the fathers (or: the ancestral God), constantly trusting, believing and being loyal to all the things corresponding to the Law (= the Torah) and having been written within the Prophets — (Acts 24:14, JM)
Finally, I am NOT a member of ANY group from the former WCG. However, the injustice and biases displayed here need to be challenged. So, I am responding to that.
Honest factual criticism is fine, even from over excited Inquisionists. But herd mentality and language is not facts, just ways to show the level of the critic more than the character of those being lambasted based on hearsay.
Have a wonderful day.
The other day, Jeff Reed acknowledged the salvation is by grace alone – which is biblically accurate.
However, I need to know if Reed and other Armstrongites really believe grace – or are they trying to dress up their underlaying insistence that only those who keep the law will be saved?
Reed’s response at 6:39 AM today was a typical COG-sugar-coated excuse for law over grace that is expected from a minister.
Speaking of Sunday-keeping Christians, Reed wrote: “I do personally expect to eventually see most of them in God’s Kingsom as well.”
The words “most” and “eventually” caught my eye.
I acknowledge that referring to “Sunday-keepers” as Christian is a gracious and evolved move for an Armstrongite, but in addition to the COG-odd belief that people “keep” Sunday, like Armstrongites keep the Sabbath, I read that statement to mean something like:
“When we true Christians, ruling with Christ, teach the Sunday-keepers they must observer the Sabbath, and how to do so according to the law, then they too will be allowed to be in the Kingdom we are ruling over. We may have to deny the Sunday-keepers rain a time or two, but eventually, most will succumb to our superior example and learn to finally obey the law.”
I’m hoping that Reed and any Armstrongites brave enough to share their truth will tell me if a person who expresses belief in Jesus as their Savior, but does not know about the Sabbath, is saved by grace?
Or, will only those who keep the Sabbath, be saved by grace?
This morning, Jeff Reed wrote:
“Yes, I truly believe we are justified fully by the sacrifice of Jesus. But there is the "go and sin no more" command from our Savior. Real faith means I believe in what Jesus stands for and what he taught. Believing in Jesus and not doing what he says puts one is a very dangerous category”
I acknowledge that it’s an extremely rare treat to see an Armstrongite address the topic of Justification.
However, I don’t see from what Reed wrote that he understands what Justification means.
Justification means that Jesus gives his righteousness to be the righteousness of the believer.
Conditionally, the believer is still a sinner – will sin for the rest of their human life.
However, positionally, the justified sinner is as righteous as Jesus – because Jesus’ righteousness is given to the believer.
Reed’s comment seems as though he believes he does keep the Sabbath perfectly and that is what puts him in the “not a demon” category – as opposed to those other demonic “believers” who don’t keep the Sabbath, whom he was referring to in his reference to James 2:19.
Reed seems to be saying that although he believes Jesus justifies – it’s a temporary thing – a thing that needs the believer to make a permanent thing, through works.
Either Jesus justifies you or you remain a hopeless sinner.
Maybe Armstrongites can convince themselves that they keep the law on the Sabbath – but those observing their efforts are aware they fail miserably, even with their best pharisaical efforts.
Regardless of what one believes about the Sabbath – our only hope is in Jesus justifying us – making us righteous – because only the righteous will enter the Kingdom.
I would like to hear more about what Reed or other Armstrongites believe about Justification.
315,
I'm surprised anyone having read the last month or two of this blog would still say anyone is implying "that Christ's sacrifice has done away with moral laws"? The WCG told us that anyone who argued against Sinai Law thought anything goes. Well, we were brainwashed as the reality is that "mainstream Christians" didn't think that and their behavior was every bit as good as ours and their works were generally superior.
Armstrong hung on to Sinai Law; well, at least his interpretation of selected portions of Sinai law. Anyway, long before the Law was given at Sinai, moral and/or natural laws were in effect. And, faith in God was counted as righteousness.
The Law never turned people into righteous people. Only Christ does that and He doesn't need tablets of stone to do it.
E
The HWA/WCG eisegesis ices Jesus!
So does this blog. All doom and bitter gloom.
None know Jesus like these blog writers, no none, nope noone else on this earth knows Jesus like these secret writers on here, tearing everything apart with complaining, misery and mockery.....
Jesus isn't allowed to know anyone else, nope, none on earth. Only who these blog writers allow.
Everyone stand over there in the corner for these blog writers are holier than thou.
E, 1:30 writes:
“These are stark and distinct dichotomies. People can try to explain it away with word games, but that won’t answer WHY Paul addressed it in this manner making the differences so severe.”
"It is characteristic of Hebrew literary style to state a preference of one thing over another in terms that sound like an absolute dichotomy to our Western ears" (Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, NIBC, p.192).
E draws attention to an aspect of Hebraic argument - often referred to as ‘rhetorical' or ‘relative' negation.
I don’t want to address 1:30's argument - I don’t accept it and he would not except my counter.
But would like to highlight rhetorical/relative negation, not quite in the sense presented by E, so as to be aware of this ancient near-eastern thoughtform; or as a reminded of it.
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).
Hos 6:6a For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.
In regard to theodicy, it is only through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that God can extend mercy.
Psalm 51 is helpful for understanding this apparent dichotomy
Ps 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Ps 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Ps 51:18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Ps 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sunday goers I have found are more sincere than any armstrongist can be.
Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:23:00 PM PDT"
Well, God did marvel at how much more devout the pagans were towards their false gods.
Trooista wrote:
"I acknowledge that it’s an extremely rare treat to see an Armstrongite address the topic of Justification.
However, I don’t see from what Reed wrote that he understands what Justification means.
Justification means that Jesus gives his righteousness to be the righteousness of the believer.
Conditionally, the believer is still a sinner – will sin for the rest of their human life.
However, positionally, the justified sinner is as righteous as Jesus – because Jesus’ righteousness is given to the believer."
Yes, I believe exactly that. I am still a sinner, saved by grace. Fully justified by Jesus. But what I don't believe in is cheap grace or laziness.
Cheap grace is “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship)
The process of learning from Jesus, being obedient to Jesus, and growing in grace and knowledge is lifelong for the Christian. These are all very biblical things. This is the process of Christian sanctification. This is separate from our justification which we already have through Jesus.
I once heard the equation for Salvation to be this:
Salvation = Jesus + Nothing
It is actually more like this:
Salvation = Jesus + Jesus + Jesus + Jesus + Jesus + Jesus (continuing infinitely until I die)
When I keep the Sabbath, I'm just getting more Jesus in my life.
BTW, I am not an Armstrongite. He was wrong on a number of things. In the CGI we base our teachings solely on scripture as best we understand it. No one is perfect except for Jesus. I am here responding because the article was critical of something I wrote.
Have a wonderful day,
You asked: "How would the apostle Paul sum this all up in just a handful of simple verses, easy to understand?" Then you went on to quote Acts 24:14-16 and used it in the capacity of a proof-text to demonstrate that Paul observed the Law. You went on to say that we should "try reading Paul's statement in its simplicity for a change."
This beautifully illustrates the problem with proof-texting. You lift a passage out of context and use its isolation to distort its meaning. You completely ignore Acts 21, 22, 23, and the first thirteen verses of chapter 24! This is part of the larger narrative about Paul's journey to Jerusalem, and the events which led up to his imprisonment and hearing before Felix at Caesarea.
After a prophet had predicted that Paul would be arrested by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles. Indeed, when he finally arrived at Jerusalem, we read that the Jewish Christians explained the situation there to him. They said: "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." (21:20-25, ESV) Moreover, Paul, wanting to avoid trouble, followed their advice.
Nevertheless, as predicted, Paul was arrested at the Temple and was rescued by Roman soldiers just as the mob was about to kill him. He then received permission to address the crowd and attempted to diffuse the tension by addressing them in Hebrew and explaining how he became a follower of "the Way." However, when he recounted the story of Stephen's stoning, the crowd had had enough and demanded his death. The Roman tribune, however, intervened and had him brought into their fortress to be flogged. Before that could happen, however, Paul revealed his status as a Roman citizen. This, in turn, led the Romans to present Paul to the High Priest and Jewish Council for their evaluation of his guilt.
Realizing the perilous nature of his circumstances, we read: "Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, 'We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?' And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks." (23:6-10) In other words, there was a whole lot of posturing and stagecraft going on here. Paul understood his audience, and that he was literally fighting for his life.
(continued below)
Once again, Paul's remarks caused such an uproar that the Romans again had to intervene and remove him. Next, we are informed that a group of Jews conspired to murder Paul when he would again appear before the Council. Even so, Paul's nephew heard about the plot and informed the Roman tribune about what the Jews were planning to do to his uncle. This led the tribune to designate a contingent of Roman soldiers to transport Paul to the custody to Felix, the governor. Moreover, the account goes on to inform us that Felix agreed to give Paul a hearing.
In that hearing, the High Priest was invited by the governor to present his case against Paul. Then the High Priest's spokesman presented the Jews' charges. He said: "we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him." (24:5-8)
Next, Felix allowed Paul to speak. He said: "Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia— they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’" (24:10-21)
Hence, we see that Paul carefully navigated a complex set of circumstances and skillfully divided the folks who were opposed to him and his message. A simple statement? I don't think so! Paul said that he worshipped the Jewish God according to "the Way," and that he believed EVERYTHING contained in the Law and Prophets. Now that is an interesting statement in light of the fact that Christ said that he came to this earth to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. As we have already said, EVERYTHING in Torah pointed to Jesus Christ. I contend that Paul knew this, and that is exactly what he was saying here in very diplomatic language. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unfortunately, we all know how these events turned out. Paul remained in custody until the new governor arrived. And, after Festus and King Agrippa had heard his defense, Paul finally appealed his case to Caesar and was sent to Rome. This is the context of Paul's "statement in its simplicity."
Trooisto,
Since you asked for comments, I will give my 2 cents worth.
Concerning justification, I think you summed it up just fine. And let me say before I generate an argument that when one is justified, they have been saved!
Then comes sanctification, the phase where God starts bringing our condition up to our position, the phase the new covenant describes as "I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds I will write them", Hebrews 10:16. This results in our desire to " walk in His statutes, and judgements, to do them", Ezekiel 36.27.
This sanctification process is described in other places as "Christ living in us", Galatians 2:20, " the obtaining of the glory of Christ through the sanctification of the spirit and belief in the truth", 2 These 2:13-14, and "Christ being formed in us", Galatians 4:19.
As you pointed out, this, like justification, is ALL the work of God and Jesus Christ, NOT US!!! And this is the difference in the 2 covenants!
The NC says, " I (God) will write . . .which requires our belief and faith that He will indeed do that.
The OC says, "WE will do (Exodus 19:8)", which places the emphasis on self effort, which doesn't work.
The problem is not the law here people! The problem is MAN TRYING TO WORK OUT THE PLAN of GOD himself, which is a trap we all at times fall into.
Abraham tried it and it resulted in the Hagar fiasco (Galatians 4:22-30). Ancient Israel tried and failed. The NT and modern Pharisees are both guilty of this. It doesn't work, never has, never will!
This whole process is summarized by a Scripture we are all familiar with, Ephesians 2:8-10:
For by His grace we are saved by believing and trusting what God has said He will do. This is God's gift and comes by our faith in His plan, not by our works or self effort to bring it about, lest anyone should boast! For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained, that we should walk in them (emphasis mine)!!!
So Trooistsa, I have a question for you?
Do you believe in Christian Sanctification, ie, these scriptures?
Hebrews 9:14
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
1 Peter 1:2
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
1 Thessalonians 4:3
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;
1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
John 17:17
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
Romans 6:1-15
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.
14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!
Jeff Reed wrote, "First, Jesus is our Savior, and we receive Salvation when we put our faith in Him. It is by grace and grace alone."
Then he had the temerity to say this, "Even the Protestant website GotQuestions.org says this about Salvation.”
The staging here is ironic. Protestants have believed salvation is by grace through faith for centuries and Armstrongists apparently only discovered this recently. Classical Armstrongism taught that salvation is achieved by works. This is inserted into their theology not under the heading of “Salvation” but under the heading of “Qualification.”
Further, HWA defines salvation in this way (all caps theirs): “Salvation, then, actually is the receiving of something you don't now have — ETERNAL LIFE. (Just What Do You Mean. . . Salvation?”). And the Correspondence Course says this: “Jesus tells us that our OBEDIENCE to the Ten Commandments is an absolute PREREQUISITE to receiving God's gift of eternal life (Mat. 19:16-17).” (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 17, 1966).
So, if you are an Armstrongist, chugging away at trying to keep the commandments (and the Torahic statutes and judgements which Hoeh classes as just an elaboration on and application of the Ten Commandments), you do not yet have salvation. Your salvation is pending and is contingent on your performance. Perhaps, HWA’s essential framework of Armstrongist soteriology has now been renounced. I do not keep up with the evolution of the Splinters.
Christians believe that obedience to the NC Law of Christ is an important output or behavioral result for everyone who receives salvation in Christ. It is not a pre-condition to salvation but is correlated with salvation and will always be present among those who are saved. It is a matter of the children of God seeking to be like their Father out of love for him. It is not about fearing a yet more demanding, stringent, punitive schoolmaster. Salvation is not a combination of God’s grace and our personal keeping of the Armstrongist rendition of the Torah.
Scout
The simplicity in Christ is actually simple! Sin has always been wrong. Unrighteousness has always been wrong. Sin was in the world before the Law was given through Moses, and sin is still wrong after the OC has passed on. Paul stated that the purpose of the Law for us today is to show what sin is in order that we avoid those things that are detrimental to us and others, and which comes short of the glory of God.
The Law has not been done away with, because it is holy and good. Keeping the Law cannot make one righteous, except in a physical sense as it was for Israel. "Blessed is he to whom sin is not imputed" .... that is how righteousness is attained, by the sacrifice of of Jesus to cover those sins. To chose to live in sin negates that covering sacrifice. For the church, those called out ones, there is a different system in place and that is faith in Christ and His grace extended. According to millennial prophecies, the system of blood sacrifices will be again instituted, but that does who not apply now to the called out ones or others not.
Lonnie, again I must compliment your dancing skills.
On the other hand Paul only needed two or three verses that are understandable alone, or even in three “chapters” and your long drawn out explanation trying to debunk Paul.
Thanks for the expected routine. Inquisitionist teaching always needs pages to describe, versus Paul only needing a small paragraph or two. I’ll stick with Paul, thank you vury much, Elvis has left the building.
Scout writes:
"The staging here is ironic. Protestants have believed salvation is by grace through faith for centuries and Armstrongists apparently only discovered this recently. Classical Armstrongism taught that salvation is achieved by works. This is inserted into their theology not under the heading of “Salvation” but under the heading of “Qualification.”
Further, HWA defines salvation in this way (all caps theirs): “Salvation, then, actually is the receiving of something you don't now have — ETERNAL LIFE. (Just What Do You Mean. . . Salvation?”). And the Correspondence Course says this: “Jesus tells us that our OBEDIENCE to the Ten Commandments is an absolute PREREQUISITE to receiving God's gift of eternal life (Mat. 19:16-17).” (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 17, 1966). "
I'm not an Armstrongist, so I am not familiar with His particular teaching about grace. CGI has been around for 45 years, and this is not what we teach.
Here is our 45-year-old Statement of Belief:
Salvation is the means by which God, through Christ, saves man from the penalty of sin and gives him eternal life. This process includes one’s calling, repentance, baptism, justification, receiving of the Holy Spirit, life of faith and obedience, and final birth into God’s Kingdom as a spirit being. Salvation is a freely given gift from God through grace, with our ultimate reward given according to our works.
Matthew 16:27; John 3:16–17; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8–9; Hebrews 6:1–2
From our book Assurance of Salvation:
"The concept that salvation must be “achieved” through character building only leads to frustration. In spite of efforts to prepare themselves for the return of Christ, many who hold this view feel they are never quite “ready” to face Christ. They realize they still have faults, that they still succumb to temptation on occasion, and that they still experience the occasional reemergence of old habits and weaknesses. Upon examining their lives, they feel they have overcome very little since receiving the Holy Spirit, and are left feeling that they are not “ready” for Christ’s return."
"When a person is saved—when his sins are blotted off the record and he receives the Holy Spirit—he can be absolutely certain that the “captain of [his] salvation” (Hebrews 2:10, KJV) will take him safely to the desired destination, provided the rescued person doesn’t take foolish risks or decide to abandon the ship. As long as he remains in the faith, though he may encounter the stormy seas of trial and temptation along the way, he can rest assured that he is “sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). Having been saved through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, he does not then have to “qualify” before he is fit for the Kingdom of God. He has been declared fit, not through personal achievement or an impressive record of good deeds, but by the grace of God, which he receives through faith."
"Abraham did not “qualify” for the Kingdom of God through a lifetime of building character. God declared him “qualified” on the basis of faith. As Paul wrote, “For if Abraham was justified [declared righteous] by works [by his deeds, his actions], he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (Romans 4:2–3).
Had God dealt with Abraham according to strict justice, his hope in the “city which has foundations” would have been in vain. But because God reckoned Abraham’s faith as righteousness, Abraham died with full assurance of God’s promises."
Dancing skills,
I completely understand. ALL of those chapters in the book of Acts ARE Scripture, but most Armstrongites like the soundbites of proof-texting. I takes more dedication and effort to fully explore a topic. You like it quick and easy; I get it!
Jeff,
As I have related here and elsewhere, I consider you to be a brother-in-Christ. However, I must say that I find your repeated assertions that you are not an Armstrongist to be a little disingenuous. Thank you for drawing a distinction between CGI's statement of beliefs and classical Armstrongism as promulgated by the founder, Herbert Armstrong. However, knowing the history of the movement and the circumstances surrounding the founding of the Church of God International (Garner Ted Armstrong, Ronald Dart, etc.), it stretches credulity to disclaim any association with Armstrongism. Most of us would be willing to acknowledge that CGI has evolved and is an improvement over the original, but the DNA is still Herbert Armstrong's.
If God just dumped a book on us and went on with His other actvities throughout the universe, do you think he expected all of the confusion which has attached to that book over all the centuries it has existed? He surely left incredible latitude for interpretation!
Jeff,
Jeff you state:
"Yes, I believe exactly that. I am still a sinner, saved by grace. Fully justified by Jesus. But what I don't believe in is cheap grace or laziness.
Cheap grace is “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship)"
This is a red herring. No one here is advancing a grace that would be considered cheap. The behavior of those in the WCG and Splinters is not better than that of the "mainstream" Christians I know. And, the COGs neglect the good works within the community that is frequently performed and financially supported by many you would likely claim believe in "cheap grace".
As an aside, Bonhoeffer lived his faith. He is quoted by Jeff, but Bonhoeffer did not believe what Jeff does. I see that a favorite of the COGs to quote is Stott and several others, yet these men are believing Christians who do not believe the Sabbath and holy days are required of a new covenant Christian and yet they are cited as an authority even when their conclusions are different from the COGs.
In the WCG, cheap grace meant not adhering to Armstrong's brand of Sinai Law. The WCG told us that people were in rebellion against the sabbath or that Satan had deceived all the mainstream "so called Christians" about the Sabbath.
The Law never really worked for the Jews. They kept breaking it and they were constantly condemned within it. Armstrongists keep breaking the Law too. They also can't keep the Armstrong selected laws from the LAW. Is it this continually broken partial law keeping what will "qualify" a cog member as a candidate for receiving grace? It sounds absurd. Why would imperfectly keeping a partial list of laws from the Law qualify someone for anything?
(cont)
(cont. from above)
And the reality today is that the splinter COGs practice Easy Religion. For many it consists of a week doing your job and some recreation and then getting together with fellow COG believers for a Friday night dinner with alcohol. Sleep a little late on Saturday. Have your big coffee and nice breakfast and head out to church.
Then talk to your cog friends if the church area is big enough. Listen to a sermon you've heard many times before. Talk with your friends and cut some jokes afterward. Maybe have snacks afterward or get together with fellow cog members for lunch and an alcoholic beverage. Then either have an evening in or get together with fellow COG members for a dinner and more alcohol. Sometimes the conversation turns "spiritual", but it mainly consists of just saying how thankful you are to have this sabbath rest (that is often busier than other days) and opine why others can't see why they should be keeping it the way you are while concluding that it is just not their time.
Often the conversation turns to Feast of tabernacle plans where you get together with fellow cog friends for a week of the highlife in a top tier condo and drinking and a daily sermon you've heard many times before.
Because the Cogs believe only COG members are actually called there is little actionable concern for those who are outside the COGs (save for the "warning message" found in lame magazines and lamer TV programs, at least that is how they appear to me). So, all you have to do to be the elect in the COGs is this easy religion of a sermon on saturday and meeting with friends and kinda congratulate one another that you are the elect. It's always good form to mention how bad the world is and how it will be much better when Christ returns.
That is the Gospel in the Cogs.
The Epicurean church of God seems fitting for many of the COGs. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow the Tribulation may begin."
As another aside, occasionally I get together with very fine baptist friends with the highest moral standards I know who further do not believe the consumption of alcohol is right, but they recognize other people may think differently and still believe those that accept Christ as their Savior and do choose to drink are still Christian brothers. Now, they not only have integrity, but they also act to help others in their community, cheerfully. Are these some of those that you would think practice Cheap Grace?
I appreciate several of the things you have said here, but I've been associated with the WCG and Cogs long enough to recognize language with a lot of wiggle room.
The main problem with the COGs is their exclusivism and belief that they alone are the elect. In your eyes, can my non-sabbath attending baptist friends currently be part of the elect without ever observing the sabbath in this physical life?
I'm still looking for the verse where apostle so and so admonished the early church to keep the Sabbath- I'll bet Dr Bob knows where it's at!
Hello Jeff: you are my new, favorite COG minister!
Thank you for addressing the topic of justification!
I’m surprised and very happy that we agree on the meaning of justification!
Jeff, please provide links to your sermons, podcasts, booklets on the topic of justification – I’d like to hear more!
I have been striving to get Armstrongites to provide such information and links for quite a while – with absolutely zero success.
Perhaps the ability to discuss the topics of grace and justification is your best evidence to your claim that you are not an Armstrongite – despite the origin of your church and the shared cherry-picking of law favorites, as well as the rejection of the same laws found to be less desirable as was originated in the Armstrong family’s Worldwide Church of God.
I’m generally in favor of letting people define themselves – but your history really tests that conviction; however, with deference to your bold efforts to openly share, I will try to accommodate your preferred identity as a non-Armstrongite.
Jeff: I will do my best to answer every question you ask, even while I’m disappointed that you did not answer some of my questions.
I am truly grateful for the responses you did give, even while suspecting the rationale for not responding to some questions is due to the traditional Armstrongite obfuscation of their belief that they are the elect while others who profess faith in Jesus as their Savior are not true Christians, because they do not keep the Sabbath.
Today, you asked: “Do you believe in Christian Sanctification, ie, these scriptures?”
My answer is yes!
I believe that sanctification of the believer is the ministry of the Holy Spirit – as evidenced by a few scriptures (1 Peter 1:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 6:11, and Romans 15:16) that I noted you left out of your list – but at least you did include Hebrews 9:14!
And, the topic of sanctification brings me back to these questions I posed yesterday, and you did not respond to:
I’m hoping that Reed and any Armstrongites brave enough to share their truth will tell me if a person who expresses belief in Jesus as their Savior, but does not know about the Sabbath, is saved by grace?
Or, will only those who keep the Sabbath, be saved by grace?
Since you are aware that the process of sanctification involves the believer growing in understanding and conviction of what God wants them to do, how to live their life in a way that increasingly shows more love toward God and neighbor, then you know that when a believer accepts Jesus as their Savior, they certainly do not start with knowing everything that God expects from them.
Therefore, I again aske you the same two questions from yesterday plus an array of the same question, asked in the same way:
I’m hoping that Reed and any Armstrongites brave enough to share their truth will tell me if a person who expresses belief in Jesus as their Savior, but does not know about the Sabbath, is saved by grace?
Or, will only those who keep the Sabbath, be saved by grace?
I also ask if you can cite any scriptures that depict being saved by grace as doing anything (anything includes Sabbath keeping) but believing/accepting Jesus as Savior?
Are those multitudes of Christians who are trusting in Jesus as their Savior, believing that Jesus has justified them, and feel they are witnessing their own sanctification, yet are not convicted by a belief in Sabbath observance, now saved by grace?
Or, do we need to await the ruling COG re-education camp in the Kingdom, before saving grace can be applied to us?
Can we non-Sabbatarians understand the God-things of grace, justification, and sanctification with the same definitions you believe, and yet not be current partakers of that grace?
As you claim you are not an Armstrongite, I am trying to determine if your statement of salvation by grace alone is not a whitewash of the Armstrongite belief that only Sabbath keepers have proximity to saving grace – ultimately, is salvation by grace alone or does it require works, like Sabbath keeping?
Hello BP8: I truly appreciated and enjoyed your comment at 7:14 this morning.
I'm honored that you remembered, and repeated this:
"As you pointed out, this, like justification, is ALL the work of God and Jesus Christ, NOT US!"
Hallelujah, we can rest in the finished work of Jesus!
I have never met an Armstrongite who will admit that he is one, or embrace that term. This is because even though they still live the package of doctrines, theories, and prophecies, they identify those things not as being HWA's teachings, hooks, or spins, but as having been revealed to them by God, through "Mr. Armstrong", aka the quasi-Biblical character, "God's Apostle". Calling this Armstrongism is perhaps the strongest pejorative, because it is an assertion that their religious faith has come to them instead from a man. To the Armstrongite, the term "Armstrongism" is practically tantamount to blasphemy.
Jeff Reed, 11:24
I found the booklet statements you cited to be a departure from classical Armstrongism. They were compatible with orthodox Christianity - as it has been believed for centuries. This intrigued me so I scanned some of the booklets on the CGI website. It was difficult to tease out some of the concepts. Like Armstrongist booklet theology, the CGI booklets were designed for outreach and recruitment rather than systemtic theology.
After giving it some thought, I believe that CGI is an amalgam of Armstrongism and Pauline theology. For instance, the GCI writers use the "jot and tittle" scripture to assert that the Law of Moses is still in force and must be kept with the ministry interpreting the Law. But elsewhere, the Law is characterized as being spiritual under the NC rather than by the letter as in the OT. This latter is a Pauline shift. You also believe that salvation happens immediately after certain conditions are met rather than at the end of the believer's life self-battery. So, it is like Armstrongism with a Pauline varnish but not really New Covenant.
Initially, I felt that what GCI believed must be similar to what the Jeruasalem Church in the First Century might have believed, but as I read further the non-Pauline slant became more obvious. I believe a good limtmus paper question is: Do you believe that Sabbath observance of some sort is required for salvation? I did not have time to run this down.
Scout
From CGI's Systematic Theology Project section on "Which OT Laws Apply"
The law of God as revealed in the Bible is a good,
right, and perfect system of eternal directives and
principles that reflects God’s character and serves
as a means of expressing His love toward man.
God’s law teaches man how to properly worship
God, how to love his fellowman, how to live life
abundantly, and, at the same time, how to prepare
for an eternal spiritual life in the family of God. The
law of God is represented in both the Old and the
New Testaments and is expressed by both physical
actions and spiritual motivations.
That document goes on to divide Old Testament laws into the following categories:
1) Broad spiritual principles
2) Civil regulations
3) Laws of cleanliness and ritual purity
4) Laws relating to the sacrificial system
These categories, of course, serve to justify Christians observing some laws and ignoring others.
Trooista wrote,
"And, the topic of sanctification brings me back to these questions I posed yesterday, and you did not respond to:
I’m hoping that Reed and any Armstrongites brave enough to share their truth will tell me if a person who expresses belief in Jesus as their Savior, but does not know about the Sabbath, is saved by grace?
Or, will only those who keep the Sabbath, be saved by grace?"
Our statement of belief of who is a Christian:
"29. THE CHRISTIAN
A true Christian is one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.
Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13"
If one has the Holy Spirit, they are a Christian and are justified by grace. Keeping the Sabbath does not in any way earn salvation.
There are different beliefs I have encountered in the ministry about non-Sabbath-keeping Christians. Many believe that Sunday Keepers are Christians also by evidence of their fruits.
I personally consider many Sunday Christians my brothers in faith, although I vehemently disagree with them about the Christian Sabbath and Holy Days. Many Sunday keepers are just as legalistic as some in the Church of God.
I just focus on teaching what the Bible reveals about Salvation. And that includes that Christians should keep the Sabbath as our response to grace and as the process of Jesus sanctifying his Church.
I think of James 4:17
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."
I also remember this. I am not qualified to say who God chooses to give His Spirit:
"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." Romans 14:4
But I am qualified to teach someone how to be saved, and that is this:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:37-38)
A podcast I recently did about Christians who believe differently:
https://www.proveallthings.net/replays?sapurl=LytxNWdtL2xiL21pLytuMnFjMmpzP2VtYmVkPXRydWUmcmVjZW50Um91dGU9YXBwLndlYi1hcHAubGlicmFyeS5tZWRpYS1zZXJpZXMmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQmgzdDZ2Mnk=
Jeff,
Like trooista, you are fast becoming a favorite cog minister. Nevertheless, I think you recognize you are avoiding the real question. Do you believe someone CAN be a firstfruit without observing the sabbath in this physical life? This does not require your evaluating an individual person, so this should be answerable.
HWA on Salvation/Sabbath (from 'US,BC in Prophecy' - 1967)
" - almost no one knows what that salvation is -" (page 20)
Oh really Herbert? How about Paul, Luther, Calvin..??
"[Sabbath is] The Real Test Commandment" (page 160)
"WE Are Israel" (page 164)
Oh Really Herbert?? got proof??
"To work on the Sabbath, to defile it by your own pleasure - seeking, doing business, etc., is A MAJOR SIN, punishable by ETERNAL DEATH!" (page 168)
then please Herbert, how do we time this day? do you agree with the very arbitrary International-Date-Line?
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
Concerning the judgment in Acts 15 regarding things found in the law. Specifically, it is what information to give to new Gentile converts from the Law of Moses. What parts of their culture urgently needed to be addressed in the law.
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood."
Notice these laws are the same under the Levitical Priesthood and the New Covenant. And these are not laws that are part of their Justification but part of their Sanctification process. Notice verse 21:
"For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The Gentiles can learn more about the law as they kept the Sabbath weekly. The law is to inform them in their walk, just like us.
These four things were never meant to be the only things gentiles should grow in grace with. So let's add this as the number 8 reason to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament.
It is a common misunderstanding to think that God had a different plan of salvation for the Israelites in the Old Covenant. That they earned their salvation by works. No, Salvation has ALWAYS been about faith and grace. The law was meant to identify sin.
The law shows our need for a Savior, revealed to be Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:
"16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise."
The inheritance (Salvation) by faith was never changed by God giving the law.
"What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made, and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)
This law was given to show Israel and now US what SIN is. Added to show Israel and now us our transgressions.
"21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law"
The law was NEVER meant to give life, only identify SIN. So before we have FAITH in Jesus, the law condemns our SIN. It serves as a schoolmaster to show us we are sinners!
But after we have FAITH, the law now teaches us how to love God and love others.
To say only Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath in the early church kind of denies this next point Paul makes:
Galatians 3:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Anonymous said:
"Nevertheless, I think you recognize you are avoiding the real question. Do you believe someone CAN be a firstfruit without observing the sabbath in this physical life? This does not require your evaluating an individual person, so this should be answerable."
Yes. Luke 23:39-43
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
Another thing to consider about the Sabbath is that it is a moral law, not a ceremonial law. It existed before the Old Covenant.
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God."
This applies to God giving us rest but also being productive the rest of the week. Interestingly not only observing shows our love to God, but it shows His love to us, His creation.
And here is a truly moral aspect of the law:
"In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
Not only we are to rest but we are to provide rest for our family, animals, guests, and if we are an employer, our employees. That is showing LOVE to others.
And when was it blessed and hallowed (made holy)? At creation, before the promises made to Abraham.
It is a gift of God to us and a gift we can give others.
The owners of Chik-Fil-A follow that command and look at the blessings they receive. I believe it is the wrong day (setting aside the International Date Line as mentioned earlier) but they set a good moral example.
When all is said and done we do the best with what understanding we are given. We serve a loving and very reasonable God. He loves diversity. He wants all to be His children. He has a plan that will accomplish just that, whether you believe it or not.
There have been hundreds of years when most people had no access to the Bible. Some of the churches perpetuated this in an effort to control. There are tales of murder and torture of the people who first translated it into modern languages.
Jesus only meant (?) that the thief's spirit and His spirit will be in heaven after death, and later resurrected, in Christ's case, after "3 days and 3 nights" but much later for the thief.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" indicates time. Someone not observing the sabbath for various reasons including not knowing about it and dies, will be resurrected to life later and judged. They haven't died a second death, yet.
Jeff,
I believe that the evidence found in the fifteenth chapter of Acts is overwhelming that the issue of Gentile obedience to the commands of Torah was comprehensively addressed. We read: "5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” Continuing in the account, we also read: "6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
A little later, we read that James stood up and said: "19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Finally, in the letter which the council sent to the Gentile Christians, we read: "28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
You are certainly entitled to your own interpretation of those passages. For me, however, it is very clear that this was meant to be a very comprehensive treatment/settlement of the question of a Gentile Christian's obligation to Torah.
Jeff,
With regards to your second recent comment to me, I believe that all of the authors of the New Testament looked at the Law/Torah as a comprehensive whole. See Matthew 5:17-20, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:10 for a few examples which demonstrate this.
"When “the law” is mentioned in the Bible, it harks back to the days of the Old Testament. There are hundreds of commands given to the Israelites, but the phrase “the law” refers specifically to the compilation of decrees found in the first five books of the Bible. This whole body of law was given the name Torah."
--https://www.biblica.com
I believe that dividing Torah into different categories may help us to study the Law, but, in the final analysis, they are artificial distinctions of our own creation. I do not believe that Torah is severable - it stands or falls together.
Torah repeatedly states that it is addressed to the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL - it outlines the terms of God's covenant with those people. Moreover, the basic gist of that covenant was that God would provide a homeplace and security for the Israelites if they would obey the provisions of Torah and be an example to the rest of the world. The New Covenant is open to ALL people everywhere and is premised on acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. The promise is spiritual, NOT physical. In other words, the end of that covenant is NOT a physical homeland or safety - it is spiritual salvation - eternal life with Christ and God!
Hello Jeff, full of grace and most favored among COG Ministers: I was delighted to see you acknowledge that people can be called to salvation by grace without Sabbath observance!
That belief would be heretical in Herbie’s church and publicly stating that would have gotten you kicked out of the ministry and into the Lake O’ Fire – so maybe you are not an Armstrongite after all.
You are the only COG personality that I’ve encountered that will openly and honestly engage in these types of debates – I appreciate that immensely – thank you!
I’m glad you follow the biblical instruction to give an answer for your beliefs.
Other COG ministers will turn their backs on that instruction and will not engage at all – instead, they would consider discussion with “Christians falsely so-called” as casting pearls before swine.
As you have a calling for evangelism, you know that you must go to where the people are and gently guide them to where they need to be (while also resting in the fact that it’s really all God’s work).
However, I was disappointed that you did not provide links to your sermons, podcasts, and writings about the topics of justification or grace, as I had asked.
On this heathen blog, you wrote eloquently on these related subjects (though I think you need to participate in more debates here, to hone your knowledge and skill) – where is your eloquent blessing to your people, on these essential Christian subjects?
Please post links to all materials that you have because I just visited your church’s website and was appalled that I could not find any resources when searching for the word justification.
At the CGI site, a search for the word grace produced results – but after reviewing them for a few minutes, I concluded that those materials must have been mislabeled.
I was perplexed and dismayed, yet not surprised, that your church’s website had a booklet titled “UFOs Exist” and one titled “Demon Possession” – but no resource all about justification, redemption, and grace!
Where are your priorities? Is this silence, this lack of preaching on the most important topics of God’s gift to humanity what God has called you to?
Again, if you have material, please provide the links – if you do not have any, it’s not too late to correct that huge problem.
Your church members are starving and the world needs to know all about salvation by grace – feed them!
Sincere prayer for your ministry:
Holy God: please captivate Jeff with your grace to the point that he gushes about your loving gift in every message he preaches. Let him be so moved by the kindness and righteousness of Jesus that he shares Jesus’ gift of forgiveness, redemption, and justification in all his communications. Let the measure of his ministry be preaching Jesus, his sacrifice, redemption, justification, and the Spirit’s sanctification and glorification – as frequently and beautifully as you have done through St. Paul, in the writings that bear his name. Please help him to lay aside the peripheral matters that distract from your truth and commit him to redeeming every opportunity, every moment, to teach about your holiness, your beauty, and this gift of grace you offer to humanity.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with Jeff every day of his ministry (2 Corinthians 13:14)!
Amen, amen, amen!
Jeff Reed 9:13
The problem is that Sabbatarians believe the Sabbath is a moral law and non-Sabbatarians believe it is a ceremonial law. Both have talking points. I tend to see it as a liturigcal law - a direction to worship. And for the ancient Israelites the liturgy was required. Yet, it does not involve an inherent moral principle of the type I am accustomed to such as in the prohibition of killing other humans. The Sabbath is not a part of God's eternal moral disposition. It is glib to say it was in force before Moses, but that glibness evaporates when one realizes that Sabbath was not created until the Cosmos was created. God lived at one time without the Sabbath.
The challenge to Sabbatarians, a challenge that I think has never been answered is this:
How is the Sabbath different from circumcison? Christians believe circumcision still exists but it is of the heart. Christians believe that the Sabbath rest still exists but Christ is now our rest - our rest from sin. Circumcision was just as important as the Sabbath. Circumcison was directly linked to appropriating the promises made to Abraham -
still the basis of Christian soteriology. Yet circumcision was transformed. Armstrongists recognize the transformation of circumcision but grow sullen and refractory at the transformation of the Sabbath. The Sabbath has the earmarks of personal distinctive rather than a moral mandate.
Scout
Scout @ 8:13,
You made some good points about Sabbath observance in your remarks, but you seem to be danger close to conceding the Armstrongist position that some categories of the Law are carried forward into the New Covenant - that is a slippery slope. It should be immaterial to us whether we put the Sabbath commandment in the "moral, ceremonial, or liturgical" category of law. While those designations may be helpful to us in understanding Torah, they are still OUR creations.
Once again, Scripture views Torah as a whole that is NOT severable. Christ's summary of the Law (which embodies the spiritual intent of the whole Law) is the standard for the New Covenant. The individual commandments/statutes/judgments of Torah, whether it be one about wearing blended clothing, committing murder, or remembering the Sabbath are redundant and unnecessary for the Christian. Sure, many of those written commandments which we might characterize as "moral" are comprehended in loving God and our neighbor as ourselves (like the prohibitions against stealing, murdering, adultery, lying, coveting, disrespecting parents, rape, etc.), but they remain redundant expressions of the broader principles which govern Christian behavior.
Arguing that the artificial "moral" category of Law/Torah is carried forward into the New Covenant opens us up to arguments over which individual commandments should be included in that category (and that is a wide-open argument which is subject to many different interpretations). The Armstrongist view is a hopeless muddle of justifications for cherry-picking Torah. Better to stick with distinguishing between the spirit and the letter of the Law - which I believe represents the Scriptural approach.
Scout writes:
“Christians believe circumcision still exists but it is of the heart.... circumcision was transformed.
Moses and Jeremiah were/are proponents of circumcision of the heart.
Dt 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
Dt 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
"Here, Moses also makes it clear that it [lasting contentment] is not to be found simply in religious ceremonies either. The Lord is specially concerned about those things which cultivate the inner life of the individual believer and the covenant community to which he belongs. The covenant's first obligation, clearly stated in this passage (10:12), is not that they obey the rules but that they fear the Lord. Moses' reference to the Lord's electing-love for their forefathers (10:15) naturally recalls the story of how the covenant-sign of circumcision was given to the patriarchs. Here, however, as the people are about to enter the land promised to the patriarchs, Moses tells them that it is far more important to circumcise their hearts (10:16; 30:6) than their bodies. In the teaching of this book, attitudes and motives are of greater spiritual value that correct ceremonial observances. R.E. Clements has pointed out that the ‘personalising and spiritualising of worship is a very marked feature' of Deuteronomy. ‘Loving' God (11:22) is infinitely preferable to performed rituals. Love for the Lord is to be genuine and earnest: with all your heart and with all your soul - a recurrent phrase in Moses' teaching (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10)" (Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, BST, p.139).
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem...
Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter
"circumcise yourselves (4). To which the answer might well have been, ‘We are already circumcised'. But Jeremiah insists like Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, that this must be circumcision of the heart (an idea that was not invented by Paul, though he gladly used it)...
"Repentance involves a radical new beginning with God, with a fresh surrender of heart, mind and will, of worship and life, to him as covenant Lord..." (Christopher J. Wright, The Message of Jeremiah, BST, pp.89-90).
"Paul's observation in Rom 2:28f is not some new spiritual insight but an authentic articulation of the ethos of the Torah itself" (Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC, pp.151-52).
Dt 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
"God would transform the inner mind and spirit of Israel by "circumcising" the hearts of the people in order to implant the will to obey the commandments. The theology is virtually identical to that expressed in Jer 31:33-34 and Ezek 36:25-27. By a spiritual transformation the power of God would create a new spirit of obedience within every Israelite. God would give the power and the willingness to obey" (Ronald E. Clements, The Book of Deuteronomy, NIB, Vol. 2, p.513).
Part 2
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] person shall eat thereof.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in heart, nor uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary [miqdash], of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
(A stranger circumcised in heart and circumcised in the flesh is not allowed into the inner court, which implies the sanctuary refers to the temple complex, in practice the outer court).
"... Yahweh takes the first step to safeguard the holiness of the temple and its cult: he bars all who are outside the covenant community from the sacred precinct (v.9). Obviously answering to the offenses described in vv.7-8, Ezekiel reaffirms the Mosaic restrictions (Exod 12:43-51) on access to the sanctuary. Resident foreigners who had not identified with Israel physically and spiritually were prohibited entry" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel - Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p.626).
Under the OC the ideal of being circumcised in both flesh and heart was unrealized; in the NC the ideal of being circumcised in both flesh and heart will be realized.
Eze 46:9 "When the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, he who enters by the north gate to WORSHIP shall go out by the south gate, and he who enters by the south gate shall go out by the north gate: no one shall return by way of the gate by which he entered, but each shall go out straight ahead. (ESV).
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to WORSHIP the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
An uncircumcised person in the flesh, either Israelite or Gentile, will not be able to worship God in His temple during the New Covenant Kingdom of God.
This thread is going to 200
Paul's theology is absolutely consistent with the theology of Torah and the Prophets, but anyone who suggests that physical circumcision is still required of Christians does NOT understand Scripture! Acts 15 makes very clear that Gentile males are NOT required to be circumcised.
Romans 2:25 The Jewish ceremony of circumcision has value only if you obey God’s law. But if you don’t obey God’s law, you are no better off than an uncircumcised Gentile. 26 And if the Gentiles obey God’s law, won’t God declare them to be his own people? 27 In fact, uncircumcised Gentiles who keep God’s law will condemn you Jews who are circumcised and possess God’s law but don’t obey it.
28 For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. 29 No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by the Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people.
Trooista wrote:
"However, I was disappointed that you did not provide links to your sermons, podcasts, and writings about the topics of justification or grace, as I had asked. "
Justification and Sanctification are terms not used much in the Church of God as distinct ideas. The concepts are there, but justification and sanctification are often used interchangeably in scripture. I used those terms because I am addressing people who should be familiar with that language on this forum.
I don't really like to promote my own sermons. There are many more interesting things you could watch. Here are all the messages tagged with my name:
https://www.cgi.org/searchmedia?sapurl=LytxNWdtL3RhZy9zcGVha2VyL3Jlc3VsdHMvSmVmZiUyMFJlZWQ/YnJhbmRpbmc9dHJ1ZSZlbWJlZD10cnVlJnJlY2VudFJvdXRlPWFwcC53ZWItYXBwLmxpYnJhcnkubGlzdCZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZVNsdWc9JTJCOHF4Y3Fwbg==
Here are items with Grace in the title:
https://www.cgi.org/searchmedia?sapurl=LytxNWdtL2xiL2xpLys4cXhjcXBuP2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQjhxeGNxcG4=
Here is a sermon by CGI Board Chairman Vance Stinson that explains these concepts from the CGI point of view better than I can:
https://www.cgi.org/searchmedia?sapurl=LytxNWdtL21lZGlhL21pLyszd2gycW5rP2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQjhxeGNxcG4=
Thanks for the prayer.
Miller 10:11
Since it seems like I may be on a slippery slope, let me clarify. I believe the Law expressed in the Pentateuch (AKA Law of Moses or Torah) has been set aside as a unit. And it has been replaced by the Law of Christ. The term "transformation" can be misleading and can imply a carrying forward. We might more accurately say that there is a New Circumcision and it is of the heart. And there is a New Sabbath and it is rest in Christ.
The Old Circumcision had to do with an identifying mark that connected a people to salvific promises made to Abraham. The New Circumcision is related to new ideologies including the rejection of the flesh. (I am not a dualist - I am referring to Paul's dissertation on the carnal man.) We may elide the term "transformation" and just assert that there is a New Sabbath that wholly replaces the old one.
The "jot and tittle" scripture is often invoked to suggest a continuity between the Old Testament expression of the Law and the New Testament expression. There is a similarity present because both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are expressions of the eternal moral law of God that is a reflection of God's character. But Jesus did add the clause, "until all is acccomplished", foreshadowing the fact that it would become obsolete. The syntactical structure of the "jot and tittle" scripture indicates that Jesus anticipated a fulfilling that meant a termination, not a carrying foward, expansion or a doubling down on stringency. The clause does refer back to "passing" rather than retention of some sort.
I do believe there is a Law of Christ, as Paul states, that is comprised of the sayings and actions of Jesus, himself the summation of the Law and the Prophets, and the principles asserted by the NT authors. I also believe that there is no harm in modeling a system of ethics on the Torah as long as its keeping is not seen as the cause of salvation or something that builds a wall between Jews and Gentiles. I believe this is what James and the brothers in the Jerusalem Church did although some former Pharisees did not see it that way. Another account having to do with The Colossian Heresy.
Scout
What does Jesus save us from?
Our sins.
What is sin?
"...sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4
Did Paul think the law defined sin?
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24)
If the law is not in effect, how can it act as a schoolmaster to show us we are sinners?
"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law,"
How can we be kept under the law if it is not in effect? This is specifically for people who do not have faith in Jesus.
"In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet.” (Romans 7:7) So how can the law show you your sin if it is longer in effect?
Paul believed the law defined sin. The problem was never with the law; it was with us.
"So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin." (Romans 7:14)
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix says:
"Scout @ 8:13,
You made some good points about Sabbath observance in your remarks, but you seem to be danger close to conceding the Armstrongist position that some categories of the Law are carried forward into the New Covenant - that is a slippery slope. "
So by your definition, is it a slippery slope for Paul to use the law to define sin?
I believe these simple truths. The Law defines sin. I can repent and put my faith in Jesus. He will save me from my sin and live in me as I live a life of overcoming. This is the Christain life.
Yes, that includes love for fellow man and love for God. But that is exactly what the law shows us to do. It is not something we have instantly after we are baptized. We have to learn it. We have to let God speak to us through His Word. All of it.
"We Christians are all still learning and growing in grace and knowledge. We don’t have all of the truth yet. God reveals things to His servants through His Holy Spirit. King David had God’s Holy Spirit, but he committed adultery, lied to cover it up, and murdered the woman’s husband when that did not work (2 Samuel 11:1–27)! How long did he remain deceived about his own sins? It usually takes nine months for a baby to be born. In fact, the truth of what he had done did not dawn on him until God sent the prophet Nathan to tell him a parable and use it to show him his sin (2 Samuel 12:1–14). Moreover, David’s experience was not unique in this regard. John proclaimed that, “If we [Christians] say that we have no sin, WE DECEIVE ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8)." (Lonnie Hendrix, Could You Be Deceived?, Int News Vol 33. No. 1)
Jeff,
I seriously thought about copying and pasting most of the seventh and some of the eighth chapter of Romans, but I know that you are familiar with those Scriptures. The truth is that we hold to very different interpretations of what Paul wrote to the saints at Rome. Yes, the problem is with us humans and the Law underscores that problem: Humans are unable to observe all of those dos and don'ts. In the eighth chapter of that epistle, Paul wrote: "8 So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. 2 And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death. 3 The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. 4 He did this so that the just requirement of the law would be fully satisfied for us, who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit." Paul repeatedly says that Christ is the solution to the dilemma - that HE is the one who liberates us from our slavery to sin.
What I wrote all of those years ago is entirely consistent with what I am saying today. Applying the spirit of the Law is a much more comprehensive and honest effort than trying to observe the letter of the law. And, yes, Christ promised us the help of the Holy Spirit to do just that. I am sinner who has been made righteous by Christ's obedience to the Law. Nevertheless, the human part of me still struggles against that old nature, but now I have the Holy Spirit to help me to grow in both the grace which God and Christ have made available, and my individual understanding of all that that entails.
Even so, the Holy Spirit does not make us infallible as many Armstrongites seem to believe. That is the point I was making in that article from the International News. THE TRUTH isn't a tidy little package of doctrinal positions which are made clear to us by reading a series of booklets. Learning spiritual truth is a lifelong process, and Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that TRUTH. Too many folks are preoccupied with protecting what they've learned in the past at the knees of a flawed ideology - that is not growth! Although Torah and the Prophets point to our Savior, salvation is NOT found in them. Salvation is found in Jesus Christ - PERIOD.
Jeff, full of grace and most favored among COG Ministers: thank you for providing links to the requested material – no representative of a COG has ever been so kind in sharing with me!
I’m excited about evaluating every word – but I have a very busy, long weekend planned, so I may not get to them until next week.
However, I cannot let a comment you made today pass with out expressing how disappointed I am with the state of teaching and comprehending the concepts of New Covenant that evidently exist in your Church – as evidenced by this paragraph you wrote:
“Justification and Sanctification are terms not used much in the Church of God as distinct ideas. The concepts are there, but justification and sanctification are often used interchangeably in scripture. I used those terms because I am addressing people who should be familiar with that language on this forum.”
If you are not preaching the concepts of justification and sanctification as much as is found in the New Testament writings, then you have these multiple problems:
1. You reduce your claim to have beliefs based on the Bible and to be practitioners of original Christianity.
2. Your people cannot relate to God if they do not have a thorough understanding of what makes them righteous, be at peace with God, and how they are saved.
3. Sanctification is impeded if your people are not exposed to every word of God.
4. Your people cannot relate to Christians who are well versed and ecstatic about the concepts of the New Covenant.
5. Your people cannot relate to the hurting people of the world who are in desperate need of exposure to the concepts of the New Covenant – especially a loving Savior who does everything necessary to save those who are powerless to save themselves.
6. Your people will place more attention on working the works that cannot save them then they place on the Savior who offers the gift of salvation – regardless of your assertion that you preach salvation is by grace alone (perusing the topics of your Church’s literature seems to lend evidence to my claim).
As far as your statement that justification and sanctification are used interchangeably in Scripture – what?
I cannot think of one example; the two are distinct works of God; justification is an instantaneous work of Jesus while sanctification is a long-term ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Most adherents of COGs who are aware of this forum consider this blog atheistic or heathen; why should those who frequent this site be more familiar with key biblical concepts than the people of your Church – what does that say about the biblical-education level of your people?
What concepts are more important for your people to know about than grace, justification, redemption, and sanctification?
When your members are experts on all things concerning the law, they then they also have the capacity to learn there is so much more to the love of God.
I bet the members of CGI spend a good deal of time studying the Word of God and fully devote themselves to studying all officially sanctioned material produced by their church – give them ample opportunities to go deeper.
CGI members are eager to know God; they're hungry, devoted, and capable - you have the ability to lead them to a full understanding of the concepts of the New Covenant – or lead them away from knowing what Christians around the globe, and evened on Banned by HWA, know – there’s no middle ground!
Which direction are you called by God to teach?
Trooista said:
"As far as your statement that justification and sanctification are used interchangeably in Scripture – what?
I cannot think of one example; the two are distinct works of God; justification is an instantaneous work of Jesus while sanctification is a long-term ministry of the Holy Spirit"
Let me clarify. My wording may have been confusing. When I say interchangeably, I mean to describe the process of Salvation. They are both something that has been done and is being done in the life of a Christian and describe many of the same aspects.
For example:
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:11
Notice it is the past tense. So we are essentially sanctified, which means set apart. So we are set apart by Jesus at the same time we are justified, made righteous. It is described as something already done. We are already set apart for God's service.
But elsewhere, it is used as an ongoing process. Because as we are already set apart, we grow in grace and knowledge and learn obedience to Christ.
But notice how James uses the word justified:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24). So even justification can be seen as an ongoing process where the Christians produce fruit through Jesus living in them.
So that is probably why you don't see many in the COG use the terms Justification and Sanctification in the simple strict sense that Protestants might. And other than CGI, I can't speak about how other COGs understand Grace.
But Salvation is a process. In one aspect, it is complete at our Baptism because we can only be made righteous through Christ. But it is also an ongoing process of Jesus refining us and doing good works through us.
Do you believe that we can lose Salvation? The Bible surely says so.
Hebrew 10:29:
"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"
Notice that one who was already sanctified (set apart) by the Blood can willfully stop having faith in Jesus and turn back to a life of sin. I can't imagine why anyone would do that. But Jesus respects our free will to follow him or not.
When discussing issues with others, I try to use the best language they can understand. Paul set the example.
"19For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might, by all means, save some." (1 Corinthians 9: 19-22)
Trooisto said...
"Which direction are you called by God to teach?"
On this forum, I want to teach those who despise God's Sabbath and Holy Days that they should be an essential part of your walk with Christ. Keeping them doesn't make you legalistic; it makes you more like Christ if you will let Him.
I feel that so many people who visit here have been abused by Cults masquerading as the Church of God that their bad experiences turn them sour on all of God's truth.
If we allow ourselves to be pulled too far into the weeds of the theology of all of this, the simplicity we have in Christ is destroyed and the door to discord swings wide open. We are justified by Jesus Christ. This happens IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY when we accept him and his sacrifice. We are also sanctified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and Christ's advocacy for us - this is a lifelong process. Someday, those who have been justified and sanctified will be glorified. I believe that this is what Scripture teaches.
As for losing our salvation, I believe that this is a subject in which the available evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. For me, the only way that this could happen would be for someone to make a conscious decision to renounce Christ, reject the Holy Spirit, and turn his/her back on God. How often does that happen? I would say that it has to be rare. It would be like pulling someone out of the water into a boat who was drowning. At that moment, they are rescued - saved. But, yes, theoretically, they could stand up and jump back into the water and drown. I don't see too many folks making such a decision, and I have to believe that there won't be too many folks who do that and end up in the Lake of Fire.
Finally, from the perspective of the original post and the commentary which has followed, I don't think that there are many folks here who despise the Sabbath and Holy Days. Indeed, I believe that ALL Christians would benefit from a greater familiarity with them and the other tenets of Torah. Some of us simply disagree that Christians are obligated to observe them. And, yes, some of us have had very bad experiences with the Armstrong Churches of God, but most of us are still pursuing God and his truth. Sorry, but we simply do NOT believe that Herbert Armstrong's doctrines = God's truth. For us, those are two very different things.
Jeff Reed said:
When discussing issues with others, I try to use the best language they can understand. Paul set the example.
"19For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might, by all means, save some." (1 Corinthians 9: 19-22)
=====================================
I hope people see that this is often what Paul did in his writing, particularly to soften the New Covenant for those coming out of Judaism whose identity had been the Law.
E
Paul sounds deceptive in his evangelism. I understand relating to different personality types, but you can still do that by being your real self!
Jeff Reed wrote, "On this forum, I want to teach those who despise God's Sabbath and Holy Days that they should be an essential part of your walk with Christ. Keeping them doesn't make you legalistic; it makes you more like Christ if you will let Him."
The expression "they should be an essential part of your walk with Christ" needs to be unpacked. There is nothing wrong with keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days. There is something very wrong with teaching that they are a requirement for salvation. Being an "essential part of your walk with Christ" may be a variant on making the days pre-requisites to salvation. Doing so is equivalent to requiring circumcision for salvation. I have written that principle to Armstrongists so many times without it drawing a response that I am getting a little uneasy.
Scout
As an aside:
Jesus Christ did not work on the Sabbath during the Wilderness years :)
Ex 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
“What do the “commands” and “decrees” mentioned in verse 26 refer to?... What makes this comment more startling is the fact that the law does not become an issue until chapter 19, when the Israelites arrive at Sinai. Is it not then that the law is finally given to Israel?
“The reference to commands and decrees at this stage in the journey is admittedly vague, but consider two approaches. (1) We should not presume that Israel had no law until Sinai. This seems especially true in 16:23, where the Sabbath day is mentioned explicitly for the first time in the Old Testament. Although the command to keep the Sabbath is explicitly given only in 20:8-11 (the fourth commandment), this does not mean that God’s will for his people to keep the Sabbath was unheard of until them.
“It is reasonable to assume that the Ten Commandments as they are given on Mount Sinai are not new but a reiteration of things that the Israelites (and probably other ancient Near Eastern peoples) already knew. After all, are we to think that the command to honor one’s parents or the prohibition against stealing, murder, or adultery are unheard of before Sinai? The Israelites most likely have known something of God’s law before Sinai, even though we are not told what they know or how they came to know it. Exodus 15:26 should be similarly understood.
“(2) Another approach sees in this reference to commands and decrees a foreshadowing of Sinai...
Ex 16:5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.
Ex 16:23a And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD:
Ex 16:27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
Ex 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
“Verse 5 and 24-30 refer to the Sabbath as the motivating factor for gathering twice as much bread on the sixth day. As mentioned above, this is the first reference to the Sabbath in the Old Testament, an indication that it is already known before its official promulgation in 20:8-11. This, too, is another indication that the narrative, at least in part, is preparing us for the events at Sinai. Note also the nature of this command.
Ex 16:27b AND THEY FOUND NONE.
“It is not simply that the Sabbath is “observed” by the Israelites in that THEY refrain from gathering food. Rather, it is God who refrains from supplying the food. It is HE who ceases working, so that no manna or quail is to be found... Keeping he Sabbath is something God does and the Israelites are expected to follow suit. This pattern is rooted in creation itself: The Israelites rest because God did” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, pp.323 & 325).
Anonymous Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:39:00 PM PDT,
You have left out the key passage in understanding what happened with the manna with regards to harvesting it in relation to the Sabbath:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, THAT I MAY TEST THEM, whether they will walk in my law or not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.” (verses 4-5, ESV)
This exercise was designed to test whether or not the Israelites would obey the Law which was shortly to be given to them.
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...
“You have left out the key passage in understanding what happened with the manna with regards to harvesting it in relation to the Sabbath”.
No, I haven’t. I was not addressing that point.
My point from the post was:
“Keeping the Sabbath is something God does and the Israelites are expected to follow suit” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.325).
Ex 16:23a And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD:
Ex 16:26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
“... the Sabbath command hinted at in 16:4-5 is reiterated and expanded. Moses spells out for them that because the seventh day is the Sabbath, there will be no manner or quail for them to gather; God is “resting.” They are to follow suit by not going out to gather any food...” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.325).
I hope we can agree to disagree.
I won’t convince you that God expects Christians to keep the seventh day Sabbath as a response to salvation; and you won’t convince me otherwise.
(I believe that Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and this according to the shadow of the firstfruits (Lev 23:10-11; 1 Cor 15:20).
Under the OC, Jews and sojourning strangers were expected to keep the Sabbath.
Gentile proselytes and God-fearers were keeping the Sabbath in the synagogues of the holy land and the diaspora.
Christ and the Apostles kept the Sabbath; Paul, Luke, etc, kept the Sabbath.
Jews and Gentiles in the NC Kingdom of God will keep the Sabbath.
"In the Pauline letters, Paul is opposed by "Judaizers" - Jewish Christians who stipulated that all Gentile converts must also be catechized and circumcised according to the traditions of the Judaizers' ancestral religion... When Luke wrote Acts, however, the principal internal threat to the church's faith were "Gentilizers" who threatened to erase anything Jewish from the church's core identity” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol. p.11).
But when the Church has become “Gentalized” they don’t have to is a big disconnect for me.
I also believe that Israel was to be a blessing both physically and religiously under the OC and will be a blessing both physically and spiritually under the NC.
I consider Sunday-keepers as God people, (my best and longest friend is a trinity believing Sunday keeper), just as the more populous northern kingdom of Israel were still God’s people after the split of the kingdom; even though they kept the feast in the eighth month, and set up calf idols in Dan and Bethel.
(Just as both the northern and southern kingdoms went into captivity; both Sunday and Sabbath keepers will go into the Great Tribulation).
As I am not an intelligent or articulate person I like to use commentaries for my posts. I don’t read COG literature as I would starve spiritually - I want to read the best in Biblical scholarship and this is dominated by Sunday-keepers.
CGI:
"Sabbath and Holy Days..essential"
oops, the GTA-splinter still teaches
Salvation-by-works-of-the-law
"Ex 16:27b AND THEY FOUND NONE.
“It is not simply that the Sabbath is “observed” by the Israelites in that THEY refrain from gathering food. Rather, it is God who refrains from supplying the food. It is HE who ceases working, so that no manna or quail is to be found... Keeping he Sabbath is something God does and the Israelites are expected to follow suit. This pattern is rooted in creation itself: The Israelites rest because God did” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, pp.323 & 325).
Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:39:00 PM PDT"
Ok, so God does not supply food on the Sabbath. Why do so many COGers rush out searching for food at restaurants right after services on the Sabbath? And why do ministers get their boxers in a bunch when asked about this?
Good point. If the law was already extant, God would already know whether they would keep it and would not need the manna test.
Many failed the manna test, why then did the Lord go ahead and give the Sinai Law? Probably because He knew they would break it. God so loved the world…that even after choosing a people from which the Savior would come, He gave them Laws they would not keep which results in most of the Jews having to wait till after the age of the gentiles and their “jealousy” of the converted Gentiles for the Jews themselves to accept the Sacrifice of Christ (Romans 10) So, I’m beginning to suspect that the salvation of the Jews is a large aspect of the eschatology of the Prophets referenced on this thread. Upon Christ’s return, believers will in changed incorruptible bodies rise to meet Him. Mostly gentiles (billions?) and this will undoubtedly create “jealousy” in the previously “chosen people”, the Jews. They too will want to follow the Lord and the branch that was broken off will be regrafted into its Natural Vine and the glorious uniting of Jew and Gentile that overwhelms Paul in Rom. 10 will finally arrive. And, as Paul recognizes, only a glorious God could create and plan this unification through what appears to us as the most unfathomable historical collection of twists and turns.
John 5:17 indicates that God is continually working.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.
Note that Jesus says this during the sabbath. And, uses the Greek word "apti" which means now and the present. Take that for what you will.
https://youtu.be/Ce-VeBZk4BA
Sermon by CGIs Vance Stinson this past Sabbath. In this week's new sermon, Sabbath Theories, Vance Stinson discusses 3 theories that are used to explain why people keep Sunday in place of the Sabbath
I have a great deal of respect for Vance Stinson, but he is clearly wrong about the Law. Again, the two great commandments comprehend the ENTIRE Law - especially the Decalogue, but those individual commandments are NOT binding on the people of the New Covenant - they were the basis of the OLD Covenant. He even also admits that his different categories of the Law are NOT actually mentioned in Scripture. Scripture ALWAYS portrays the Law as a WHOLE - Old and New Testaments.
Hello Jeff, full of grace and most favored among COG Ministers: Remember that you are full of grace and that grace is too good to keep to yourself; you must share it with your people.
I asked you which direction are you called by God to teach – law or grace? Your reply was to teach law to the readers of Banned by HWA.
I was inquiring about the nature of your mandate to teach your members.
It is mathematical, scientific, and biblical – the more the focus on the law, the less attention is paid to grace (Galatians 5:4).
Your members are already experts on law – that law that cannot justify them (Galatians 2:16). Your people dutifully heed the first part of Matthew 6:33 by desperately seeking the Kingdom and then fall flat in knowing very little about the second half of the verse … seeking His righteousness (as evidenced by your claim that the concept of justification is not used much in your church).
Only the righteousness of Jesus can make your people right with God – the righteousness they need to enter the Kingdom that they are desperately seeking. Don’t waste their time; don’t withhold the salvation concepts from them.
Your responsibility is first to your members; however, since you desire to teach readers of this blog about keeping the Sabbath, your best path forward is the same strategy that best plays to the needs of your members – teach first Salvation by Grace – justification and sanctification by the righteousness of Jesus. Then, let matters like the Sabbath flow as acts of devotion offered by those who feel that Sabbath-keeping honors God.
As much as your people want to please God by keeping the law, deep down, they are tragically conflicted by knowing that they are failing to keep the Sabbath and the rest of the law that you preach.
You said: “Keeping them doesn't make you legalistic" However, you have failed to make that connection on this site, or with your people.
Until your church is well versed in all New Covenant concepts, Sabbath keeping is revered as a requirement for salvation by your members and is certainly the de facto doctrine of your church.
COG leaders can claim that official church doctrine is salvation by grace – while in the beliefs of the members and in the practical teaching of the Church, only law-keepers will be saved.
That false COG-reality is clearly demonstrated mathematically by the resource materials available on COG websites, scientifically provable by discussions with members – the amount of media, messaging, and member understanding is heavily skewed toward law and away from a functioning understanding of grace.
The biblical evidence of the preeminence of grace over law is provable – again, if you are not preaching the New Covenant concepts as much as Paul did, you have no claim to original Christianity. From scanning your website, you are failing in this area.
You wrote: “I feel that so many people who visit here have been abused by Cults masquerading as the Church of God that their bad experiences turn them sour on all of God's truth.” Failing to ensure that your people have a sound understanding of all New Covenant concepts, while pumping them full of law requirements, which they’re failing to keep, is cultic abuse.
If you don’t do your part to teach your people about grace, justification, redemption, and sanctification, they are likely to face a fate worse than being soured readers of Banned by HWA.
Jeff, full of grace and most favored among COG Ministers: you asked if I believe that one can “lose” salvation.
My answer is no – one cannot “lose” salvation; from beginning to end, salvation is all the work of God.
However, I see some scriptural evidence indicating one can renounce salvation, in the manner described above by Lonnie.
COGs have always believed that God calls people to repentance – which I believe too.
After that, the de facto teaching/belief of the COGs is that the remainder is up to the individual.
However, Holy Scripture assures us that God initiates and completes all aspects of salvation – God will see the good work he starts in each of us through to completion (Philippians 1:6).
On the CGI website, I saw a booklet about the assurance of salvation; yet I wonder if your people, who are all failing to keep the law, truly know that their salvation is assured by Jesus?
At the risk of being labeled a heathen with repetitive prayers, I think some prayers are worth repeating:
Holy God: captivate Jeff with your grace to the point that he gushes about your loving gift in every message he preaches. Let him be so moved by the kindness and righteousness of Jesus that he shares Jesus’ gift of forgiveness, redemption, and justification in all his communications. Let the measure of his ministry be preaching Jesus, his sacrifice, redemption, justification, and the Spirit’s sanctification and glorification – as frequently and beautifully as you have done through St. Paul. Please help him to lay aside the peripheral matters that distract from your truth and commit him to redeeming every opportunity, every moment, to teach about your holiness, your beauty, and this gift of grace you offer to humanity.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with Jeff every day of his ministry (2 Corinthians 13:14 )!
Amen, amen, amen!
"....the two great commandments comprehend the ENTIRE Law - especially the Decalogue, but those individual commandments are NOT binding on the people of the New Covenant - they were the basis of the OLD Covenant......."
************
I cannot follow this reasoning. The two great commandments are the new covenant. And they do include the Decalogue.
Trooista wrote
"I asked you which direction are you called by God to teach – law or grace? Your reply was to teach law to the readers of Banned by HWA."
"If you don’t do your part to teach your people about grace, justification, redemption, and sanctification, they are likely to face a fate worse than being soured readers of Banned by HWA."
The members and ministry in the Church of God that I encounter understand these concepts very well. They live lives full of the Grace of God. I don't know of a single person in the ones I have encountered who believe that Salvation depends on their Sabbath keeping. You and others here present a straw man argument (one we do not hold) that scripture can easily refute.
But please understand that Sabbath-keeping allows the fullness of God's grace in a Christian's life. The Law of God is a privilege of God's Grace. It shows Christians where we fall short so that we can repent and let Jesus live in us. Having the Spirit of God does not make you lazy. God's Spirit makes you obedient.
Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
Living by faith is present tense. Christians live by faith.
'But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:18
Jesus living in us also produces the fruit of helping others, serving the community, and giving to the poor. Outgoing love for their neighbor. The Christians I know in the church do these things and much more.
Trooista also wrote:
"On the CGI website, I saw a booklet about the assurance of salvation; yet I wonder if your people, who are all failing to keep the law, truly know that their salvation is assured by Jesus?"
Yes, our people, your people, and all people fail to keep the law. Good thing we don't rely on our efforts to keep the law! We allow Jesus, through His Spirit, to keep the law in us. If we have His Spirit, we are assured salvation.
You mention Philippians 1:6. That describes the process perfectly.
"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ."
Jesus will continue to work with us and through us until we die. He will complete it.
If you don't want to keep the Sabbath or think it unnecessary, that's between you and God. But please don't patronize God's children.
Jeff,
The problem as I see it is that the COGs generally do not believe repentance leads to grace if one does not believe the sabbath is required. Paul apparently had a problem with coveting, but I believe that Paul received grace nevertheless (Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death? Jesus)
So, it seems strange to put so much unique importance on the sabbath when it is purely a difference in understanding; I believe the arguments against required law keeping and the sabbath are strong. The sabbath is not a natural outgrowth of a repentant heart; it is a mental decision or one never considered. It is not obvious in light of the two great commandments. A mental decision, even if wrong, made humbly should not carry the weight you give it.
Comparatively, murder/adultery/stealing/coveting/etc. does not show love to neighbor (coveting includes an element of deprive someone else of something they have...it's not just jealousy). All of these commandments from the decalogue naturally follow when one is trying to love their neighbor as themself. The same applies to the first 3 commandments when striving to love God with all your heart and soul and mind in that they are obviously necessary in loving your Creator.
I've experienced the WCG and COGs enough to know that their behavior is not even as good as that of the Christians I know outside the COGs. Is sabbath observance really the linchpin that allows for grace to be given despite having worse behavior than non-cog Christians? FOR THE SAKE of argument, I'll only point to the behavior and love shown of the top 1% of non-cog Christians so people don't point to some scoundrel that claims Christianity. Still, that single percent constitutes close to a hundred times more people than those in the COGs.
The sabbath is not an everlasting principle as are the two great commandments. The spinning of a physical ball within a solar system within a galaxy is not something that will guide spirit beings. I cannot see grace hinging on that. Even in its own solar system, the sun will be superfluous as in the New Jerusalem (which is half the volume of the moon) there is no need for the sun for God's glory will light all. E
Hello Jeff, full of grace and most favored among COG Ministers:
On July 17, you closed with:
“If you don't want to keep the Sabbath or think it unnecessary, that's between you and God. But please don't patronize God's children.”
It’s that COG-odd way of relating to others that makes me concerned that you are committed to law above grace.
How, in your belief system, can encouragement to teach the concepts of the New Testament, at least as much as St. Paul, be construed as patronizing?
In your world, how much is too much preaching about grace or justification; when is preaching the concepts of the New Covenant a bad thing?
The only context I have for what I perceive as a bias for law over grace is Armstrongism – a system that claims that they believe that salvation is by grace but has contrary practices.
Those contrary practices have hurt a lot of people; many escapees of Armstrongism tell of the joy of experiencing grace once they’re free from that system.
I understand that you don’t want to be considered an Armstrongite, while I cannot help seeing the parallels.
I can only evaluate the evidence I have available to me.
To your credit, the best thing you have on the record - and it is HUGE - is the admission that non-Sabbatarians can be saved by grace.
On the other hand, your record is missing evidence of acknowledging Jesus magnifying the Sabbath command to forever be our Sabbath Rest – but, you are always welcome to set me and the record straight on this point.
Although I am really not familiar with the CGI, you have a manner, similar to the Armstrongites I’m more familiar with, of demonizing those who don’t understand law-keeping as you do, as evidence by this comment you dropped on July 1O:
“Believing in Jesus and not doing what he says puts one is a very dangerous category: You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” James 2:19”
That statement conflicts with the with the acknowledgement that we who are looking to Jesus as our all-sufficient Savior could be saved by grace; which is it, are we demons or the Righteousness of Christ?
My thinking is resolution of that conflict can be achieved by encouraging you to preach more grace; the preacher needs to preach to himself as well as those in his sphere of influence – you do not seem to agree.
Also on the record is the testimonies of the few former members of your church who’ve shared on this site how they’ve discovered grace after departing CGI – that’s not conclusive, but it is also supported by the looming imbalance of resources on the CGI website, skewed heavily toward teachings on the law.
Based on my knowledge of Armstrongism, I stand behind my belief of wherever the law of the obsolete Old Covenant is trumpeted, the concepts of the New Covenant are neglected.
You framing my encouragement to preach grace to your people as “patronizing” further supports that belief.
At least I did not ask you to do anything destructive or against the God.
Thank you for participating in this conversation.
As wonderful as the grace of God is, it is much more than a warm, fuzzy feeling. It places demands and responsibilities on the believer!
"for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared. TEACHING US that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts (Romans 7:7), we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world", Titus 2:11-12.
" let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity ", 2 Tim.2:19.
Don't believe in law and order? Be careful, "lest any man FAIL the grace of God", Hebrews 12:14-17.
Trooista said:
"How, in your belief system, can encouragement to teach the concepts of the New Testament, at least as much as St. Paul, be construed as patronizing?"
Because you conclude, we need to understand and teach the New Covenant. We understand it very well. We teach it all the time. I have to surmise your heart is in the right place, but assuming we don't understand God's Word is very condescending.
You also said:
"Although I am really not familiar with the CGI, you have a manner, similar to the Armstrongites I’m more familiar with, of demonizing those who don’t understand law-keeping as you do, as evidence by this comment you dropped on July 1O:
“Believing in Jesus and not doing what he says puts one is a very dangerous category: You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” James 2:19”
James tells us that mere belief is not enough for Christians. Real faith is a conviction that produces action. Demons do not have faith.
I am genuinely trying to understand what you are trying to say. But it appears to be very duplicitous. At least that is my perception.
So Trooista, do you believe that a Christian should do what Jesus says to do?
BP8 and Jeff,
It is shocking that you both continue to misrepresent grace among Christians. It makes me believe you really do not understand grace. You both apparently think that without adhering to your preferred portions of Sinai Law they have a grace that is an actionless fuzzy feeling. Christianity has been a mighty force for good in this world, not just in great movements but in the lives of each individual that vows to serve the Lord. The Armstrong fiction of a tiny thread of a remnant church through history obviously cannot have had that great effect.
Jeff, you talk about a conviction that creates action; are you discounting the billions of actions that Christians have taken individually and as groups? What are the great actions you and the COGs have taken? Christianity has had more actionable outgoing concern for others than the COGs have ever considered. I believe you think that your warming a seat or speaking on a saturday rather than sunday, not eating pork, and getting together with friends for a week in the Fall is some great action, some great devotion.
But, what it is is the easiest of religions: do your easy gatherings with COG friends, don't eat pork, and then fold your hands and acquiesce "Oh Shame!" regarding the troubles in the world and take no responsibility. HOW easy! But, rather than just say "well, it isn't the world's time right now.", maybe the COGsshould consider that the world is made up of individuals that can use the Gospel that Christ is redeeming us NOW. That is what real Christianity does. It is outgoing. It takes action. It has changed the world for the better. And, that is not a description of the COGs.
E
Jeff:
You asked:
"So Trooista, do you believe that a Christian should do what Jesus says to do?"
My answer is yes.
Obviously, Christians believe they must and do follow and obey their Savior.
I agree with all of what E wrote above; COG-odd mischaracterization of Christian belief on grace and responsibility is shocking!
Earlier, you also claimed that your church teaches the New Covenant concepts and that members understands the concepts well.
I again took a look at the CGI Statement of Beliefs and found no categories/descriptions for the words Grace, Justification, Redemption, or Sanctification.
The words grace and justification are mentioned under the heading of Salvation but there are no definitions or details included with those words.
There were several categories about law - even a category for "Biblical Dietary Laws"!
That is a strong indicator of how much more important law is to CGI than grace or justification.
Under the category of Judgement, I found the COG-odd phrase of "qualifying for the Kingdom" - indicating that salvation is dependent on the candidate, not the Savior who initiates and completes all that's need for salvation.
That is shocking and not at all like the writings of the Apostles!
I just took a brief look at the CGI Systematic Theology Project and found a heading for Salvation - none of the subheadings included grace or justification.
So, where do your people get their understanding of the New Covenant terms that are so important to other Christians?
I recall you citing the website "Got Questions" (you referred to it as a Protestant site) - since you are familiar with that site, would you agree that CGI members can find more biblically accurate information on the topics of grace and justification at that site than they can find on the CGI website?
Perchance you do agree, are you comfortable with that?
E is right! The COGs really are the easiest religion. It’s selfish to not help people outside your group. I’d like to hear Jeff’s response to that. What actions does his group take.
At the Council of Jerusalem (~50AD) Why didn't Peter bombard Paul with a bunch of pro-law Matthean "Jesus-sayings"? That's because the pro-Jewish Matthean-gospel wasn't created (by we don't know who) until ~40 years later!
Trooista wrote:
"My answer is yes.
Obviously, Christians believe they must and do follow and obey their Savior."
Ok, so what about this:
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath." - Jesus
Jesus never said he was the Sabbath; no, He said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath! Your concept that Christians find Sabbath rest in Jesus is confusing the creation with the Creator. The Sabbath was made for man. Your innacurate concept demotes Jesus to the role of creation rather than Creator.
"If you want to enter into life, obey the commandments." - Jesus
"Go and sin no more." - Jesus
"You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Jesus
Jesus said the law and prophets hang on love for God and others in the present tense! He did not say love would replace them.
The law is the very expression of love. And you cannot separate keeping the Sabbath from loving God.
Trooista asked:
"So, where do your people get their understanding of the New Covenant terms that are so important to other Christians?"
I don't think you understand that the "terms" are not that important. Our understanding of the New Covenant comes from the Holy Spirit in us. It is written on our hearts. If I have the Holy Spirit do I really need someone to explain the work that Jesus is doing in me in religious jargon? No, it is now part of my nature.
Anonymous wrote:
"E is right! The COGs really are the easiest religion. It’s selfish to not help people outside your group. I’d like to hear Jeff’s response to that. What actions does his group take."
E Wrote:
"What are the great actions you and the COGs have taken? Christianity has had more actionable outgoing concern for others than the COGs have ever considered. I believe you think that your warming a seat or speaking on a saturday rather than sunday, not eating pork, and getting together with friends for a week in the Fall is some great action, some great devotion.
But, what it is is the easiest of religions: do your easy gatherings with COG friends, don't eat pork, and then fold your hands and acquiesce "Oh Shame!" regarding the troubles in the world and take no responsibility. HOW easy! But, rather than just say "well, it isn't the world's time right now.", maybe the COGsshould consider that the world is made up of individuals that can use the Gospel that Christ is redeeming us NOW."
Most in the Church of God probably follow Christ's instruction:
"When you give to the poor, don't let anyone know about it. Then your gift will be given in secret. Your Father knows what is done in secret and will reward you." (Matthew 6:3-4)
But since you asked. Here are a few things that I personally know members in the Church (including my immediate family) have recently done and are currently doing:
Providing food and water to disaster victims.
Renovating houses, landscaping, and providing essential maintenance at no cost to senior citizens, fatherless individuals, and the economically disadvantaged.
Providing education for poor and orphaned children in a developing country.
Providing job training to widows in a developing country.
Fostering and adopting disadvantaged children from those locally and abroad.
Volunteering at foster support agencies.
Visiting and singing at assisted care facilities.
Conducting twelve step programs for recovering drug addicts.
And during the Feast of Tabernacles we always have a service project that serves the local community. I am coordinating one for the FOT I will be attending.
And all of these are done for those outside of our organization. These are just the ones I can immediatley think of.
E, where did you develop your skewed view about the Christians in the COG? I know there are a few cults out there, but most of us are letting Jesus live in us.
Jeff,
I grew up in WCG and attended a couple of splinters. I confess it seems disingenuous to me for you to act like giving to the community outside of the COGs is a common thing in the COGs. I remember Joe Tkach Sr. feeling the need to explain why the WCG gave money for an earthquake. It was not what was done before then. The splinter cogs for all intents and purposes don't do this for those outside the congregation except when they go to the FOT; and that is not done in secret and it is a new practice as 5 cans of food per family at a Feast site can add up. Perhaps your organization does more than other COGs, but anyone having associated with the COGs and now associating with non-cog congregations well know the difference. Additionally, it was even said from the pulpit why we don't get involved in charitable giving in the community.
You said: "And you cannot separate keeping the Sabbath from loving God." I'm sorry you believe that. I believe one of the Apostles would have mentioned that if it were true.
Isaiah 60:20 tells us that "the sun will not set and the moon will not wane, for the Lord will be our Everlasting Light".
The sabbath and holy days require the setting of the sun and the waning of the moon. I hope you can love God without the sabbath.
Btw, you quote Jesus before He was crucified and risen and even in that verse the term "commandments" is entole which is more of a generic term for command, order, precept. When referring to the Law the term is generally nomos. Yet, here, Jesus conspicuously does not mention the Sabbath as one of those commandments. It would be helpful to your position if Jesus or the Apostles focused on sabbath keeping.
You asked me: "where did you develop your skewed view about the Christians in the COG?"
My answer: From multiple decades in the COGs. And, I had a good time in the COGs and loved many in them, but they are still wrong and they did not have an outgoing concern to immediately help those in the community. The belief is that it is not their time right now and we're better off sending money to headquarters to spread the COG warning message.
I'll ask you a similar question: where did you develop your skewed view about the non-cog Christians not loving God?
I'm sure it is not after decades of getting to know them.
E
E asked:
"I'll ask you a similar question: where did you develop your skewed view about the non-cog Christians not loving God?"
I have never expressed that view. I am pretty sure there are many non-cog Christians who love God. I believe that the Sabbath could certatinly enhance their walk with God. There is wide spectrum of Christianity with a wide array of views. I am just making the case for the Sabbath as a part of the Christian life. I see it and the other commandments as a given. Jesus said "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." These are pretty easy. But Jesus want's us to now grow in "the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness."
Jeff: Your last post was shocking! Thank you for being so honest with sharing information.
You wrote:
“I don't think you understand that the "terms" are not that important. Our understanding of the New Covenant comes from the Holy Spirit in us. It is written on our hearts. If I have the Holy Spirit do I really need someone to explain the work that Jesus is doing in me in religious jargon? No, it is now part of my nature.”
Wow, your theology is that terms like grace and justification are not that important!
Silly St. Paul, wasting all that valuable Bible space discussing these unimportant terms – guess his writings were not inspired by the Holy Spirit - and thank God we have the CGI to tell us we can skip over that mere religious jargon wherever it's found throughout the New Testament.
Yet, the comparatively huge amount of text devoted to law in the CGI statement of beliefs – obviously your church’s understanding of the law does not “come from the Holy Spirit in us”, since it must be explained over and over in most COG sermons and writings.
Your people cannot keep the law you preach, they fail at “qualifying for the Kingdom”, but they don’t suffer because grace and justification are written on their hearts – but that’s not the horror story escapees from the COGs tell.
God explains grace, justification, and redemption in the New Testament foremost to display his glory and then to educate and comfort his people.
It’s very sad that CGI is not interested in displaying God’s glory and comforting their people with his terms of love.
I will again state that if you are not teaching the concepts of the New Covenant as much as the Apostles, then you have no claim to original Christianity.
I’m out of time for tonight but I will get back to responding, in depth, to the comments you made about the Sabbath in the context of obedience to Jesus’ commands – but the short version is:
• that the law of Christ is written on our hearts
• we are motivated by the Holy Spirit to obey that law
• the law is not the “easy” version that E referred to
• like don’t murder is easy but the magnification of don’t murder to don’t hate, or don’t
say cruel things about another, is harder to accomplish
• there is a magnification of the command to keep the Sabbath Holy.
Jeff, please return to what you wrote and evaluate whether it is biblical, glorifying God, helpful to your members, reflective of your calling and what you want to be your legacy.
I’m largely in agreement with this response. You had earlier written that “you cannot separate keeping the sabbath from loving God.” This sounded to me that yoo were saying you can’t love God without sabbath keeping. It seems maybe this was not your intended meaning.
I appreciate your responding on this thread and having a relatively congenial presence which is difficult for both cog members and ex-members.
E
This spirited Christians vs Armstrongists debate is heading for 200 posts!
Trooista wrote:
"Wow, your theology is that terms like grace and justification are not that important!
Silly St. Paul, wasting all that valuable Bible space discussing these unimportant terms – guess his writings were not inspired by the Holy Spirit - and thank God we have the CGI to tell us we can skip over that mere religious jargon wherever it's found throughout the New Testament."
We may be communicating past each other. I already wrote that CGI talks about these concepts all the time. Everything Paul wrote is taught endlessly in CGI. Most of our speakers predominately use the New Testament. We just don't classify the process merely as justification or merely as sanctification. The salvation process is much more dynamic.
You also wrote:
"but the short version is:
• that the law of Christ is written on our hearts
• we are motivated by the Holy Spirit to obey that law
• the law is not the “easy” version that E referred to
• like don’t murder is easy but the magnification of don’t murder to don’t hate, or don’t
say cruel things about another, is harder to accomplish
• there is a magnification of the command to keep the Sabbath Holy."
I agree with that 100 percent. I just believe that Jesus also gave us the Ten Commandments. So that the law of Christ is the law that he already gave that He now magnifies.
But the salvation process is internalized if you are Christian:
Romans 8:26-27:
"In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God."
Grace, Justicification, Sanctification, Glorification, etc. - Jesus takes care of all that for me. And that motivates me to study the scriptures, pray, help others, and overcome sin, etc.
Did the apostles, post Council of Jerusalem, require slaves to get Saturdays off and conform to a HWA-spec Sabbath observance?(disfellowshipment for non Sabbath observance)
Armstrongists would have You believe so, but this would have caused an emormous brouhaha which is absent in scripture & history! To the contrary, we see the permissive Colossians 2:16-17
Why doesn't Jeff Reed and other Armstrongists want to talk about Colossians 2:16-17?
9:43 asks:
“Why doesn't Jeff Reed and other Armstrongists want to talk about Colossians 2:16-17?”
We do talk about Colossians 2:16-17, not as a proof-text separated from its context, but specifically, in the context of Col 2:6-23.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and WORSHIPPING OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
Col 2:23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Here is a quote from a recent comment:
"... the writer can now exhort the readers not to allow anyone to judge them negatively for failing to comply with the philosophy's regulation. The regulations singled out are requirements about food and drink and calendar observance. These are clearly parts of the philosophy taken over from Judaism, but now apparently they are put to use in its proponents' program for dealing with cosmic powers. The issue of food and drink, however, is likely not to be not so much one of purity laws as of absence as part of a strict asceticism. In the OT, there are prohibitions against certain foods, but stipulations about drink are found only in regard to particular cases of priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev 10:9) and those under Nazarite vows (see Num 6:3), though Jews in the diaspora were also cautious about wine in case if had been offered to idols. But there is no indication here that the motivation for abstinence from food and drink were due to observance of Torah. Rather, the requirement of abstinence should be linked with the mention of fasting in preparation for visions in v.18, of ascetic regulations in vv. 21-22, and of severity of the body in v.23.
"The writer describes the calendar observance required by the philosophy in terms of feasts or festivals, new moons, and sabbaths. These three calendrical features are listed together in the OT (see LXX 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:3; 31:3; Ezek 45:17; Hos 2:13), where they were days on which special sacrifices were to be made to God. Again there is no hint that such special days are being observed because of the desire to obey Torah as such or because keeping them was a special mark of Jewish identity. Instead, it is probable that in the philosophy they were linked to a desire to please cosmic powers, the "elemental spirits of the universe" (vv. 8, 20), held to be associated with the heavenly bodies and, therefore, in control of the calendar..." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Letter to the Colossians, NIB, Vol. 11, p.631).
The Armstrongist-splinter-cults' "explanation" of Colossians 2:16-17 is convoluted, confounding, contradictory and deviates dangerously from scholarly consensus: It's damage-control they have evolved over decades that doesn't even agree with other neosabbatarian-cults' readings! (compare Seventh-day Adventists' own highly evolved, peculiar, contradicting, convoluted commentary for example)
Why don't Armstrongist apologists want to answer the question posed @ 12:19 ??
Armstrongism traces its (highly unlikely) "lineage" back to St Peter: Back then there were slaves who joined Christianity (mentioned in James for instance)
Were these slave converts required to get Saturdays off and conform to a HWA-specification Sabbath observance (disfellowshipment for non Sabbath observance) ?
Careful how you answer, you can't have 1st century policy deviating from 20th century policy under Armstrongist folklore!
What is the body of Christ? The church (of God)! - Col 1:24. So Paul is saying only let the church judge you, not others: .....are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ - the church - Col 2:17. The italicized word "is" is (is is? - reminds me of, oh never mind) not necessary in the KJV. The big huge problem today is determining, identifying, the whereabouts of "God's church", a spiritual organism.
Jeff: We certainly are not “communicating past each other.”
You are contradicting yourself.
You wrote that CGI talks about these concepts all the time.
You also wrote that the terms are not that important and referred to them as religious jargon that don’t need to be explained.
What is written in the CGI Statement of Beliefs settles the contradiction and proves that CGI does not preach the entire Word of God.
However, you have the ability to correct that egregious problem; hopefully you see how doing so would honor God.
Failing to make necessary changes to the CGI Statement of Belief, literature offerings, and preaching would be rebellious and a rejection of the God’s gifts of love, which he expects you to elaborate on to your members and to the world.
@ 9:23
This Armstrongist apologist is mindlessly parroting the "early" wcg explanation of Colossians 2:16-17. You will note that the wcg later came out with a radically revised "explanation" that shifted toward orthodoxy under their Greek scholar Dr Stavrinides: this was just before Tkach threw in the towel on sabbatarianism.
If you want more colorful "explanations" of Colossians 2:16-17 look no further than the granddaddy neosabbatarian cult, the Seventh-day Adventists, where you can take your pick from the following versions: "prophet"-Ellen G White, post-Ellen G White, post-1920's, their contemporary gobbledygook, early Bacchiocchi, later Bacchiocchi (he changes at least 3 times)...
Honestly, when I read Colossians 2, it provides another definitive proof that the early Gentile church was keeping the holy days. Why else would Paul tells them not to let anyone judge them on how they were keeping them? Pretty common sense, at least to me.
My friend Kelly McDonald Jr wrote this about the subject if you need a more detailed explanation:
"In Colossians 2:15-17, Paul wrote “15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (NKJV) There are those who use these verses to say that Paul was teaching against keeping the Feasts of the Lord. One of the chief things to understand about the church in Colossae is that they were dealing with the false teaching of asceticism. Asceticism is a man-made philosophy that views enjoyment such as rejoicing, feasting, or anything that brings about happiness as morally wrong or incorrect. To give an example of this, Paul says a little later in verses 20-23 that: “20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’ 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” (NKJV)
These ascetic teachers were teaching the Colossians not to participate in anything physically enjoyable because they viewed such things as sensual or indulgent. Paul rebukes this false teaching and says that it is merely a man-made teaching that cannot restrain sensual indulgence at all. Understanding this ascetic heresy is the key to understanding Colossians 2:15-17. Paul begins verse 15 by explaining Christ’s victory over the powers and authorities of this world through His crucifixion. He then continues in verse 16 by saying “So let no one judge you in food or in drink…” The Greek word he uses for food in this verse is the word brosis. This word refers to that which God made to eat in Leviticus 11 (see the section on I Timothy 4:1-6). He is actually pointing us to the dietary laws in this passage!
In the second half of verse 16, Paul says to let no one judge you “regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.” The Greek words he uses for festival (heorte), New Moon Celebrations (noumenia), and Sabbath (sabbaton) are words used only to refer to the Feast Days in Leviticus 23, the New Moon Celebrations in Numbers 28:11-15, and the seventh day Sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3. Heorte is used 27 times in the New Testament, and it is only used in reference to the Feasts of the Lord. The Feast Days, New Moon Celebrations, and the Sabbath are often lumped together in the Bible (I Chron. 23:31, Neh. 10:33, Ez. 45:17). In the Bible, they are the most joyous times of celebrations and feasting. This is why the ascetic teachers began to judge the Colossian believers for keeping these things.
Paul concludes verses 15-17 by saying that these things “…are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” He tells the Colossians to let no one judge them for keeping the dietary laws or celebrating the Sabbath and Feast Days. Christ is the substance or reality of each one of these things. He is saying that the real meaning of the dietary laws, Feast Days, New Moons, and Sabbath is Christ. For instance, the dietary laws foreshadow that Christ would make our body the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Sabbath and Feast Days depict the plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. He made each of these things, so they all reflect Him! Since the real meaning of these things is found in Christ, Christians have yet another reason why we should obey them!"
Paul was educated in the teaching of Greek philosophy and while he warned against some manifestations of greek thought and gnosticism, he referenced some Platonic tools. In Col. 2:16-17 it is obvious that he was referring back to the famous Cave Allegory of Plato which illustrated reality and altered images found in the shadows of the reality. The "shadow" was integral to Platonic thought that Paul fully understood.
In the Cave Allegory (which you should just read), people are within the cave, bound and forced to look in only one direction wherein the "reality" is behind them and is not seen, but a light creates the shadowy images of that "reality" which is viewed as reality by the people. But, the goal is to actually leave the Cave and see things in full light reality.
Those stuck watching the shadow are called prisoners and missing the reality while stuck watching those shadows which are said to have "no substance".
Again, Paul knows the Cave Allegory backwards and forwards. So, in light of this, Col. 2:16-17 becomes clearer. He calls the sabbaths, festivals, and foods "shadows" of the Reality/Substance that is Christ. In the Cave allegory shadows are a false reality in light of the Reality and Substance. Those raised in Judaism were largely unable to see anything but the shadows. And, so one will remain unless called and the reality of Christ is seen.
I think Saul/Paul came out of the Cave while on the road to Damascus. He was blinded on the road. The Cave allegory includes being blinded by the light when you come out of the cave. Paul was blinded by the Light and revelation of Christ on the road to Damascus.
I think some when looking at Col. 2:16-17 make the mistake that the shadow is proximate and almost a future foreshadow of Christ or a pseudo-reality of Christ. But, that is not the meaning that Paul intends because the Cave analogy does not intend or teach that. It teaches that the shadows within the Cave are a false reality and that it is best to leave the cave.
Once Christ came the Reality and Substance were here. The Law became the shadows. Now, while this is a harsh analogy Paul makes regarding the Law, this does not mean the Law was bad because we know it was holy righteous and good. But, it is obsolete as the basis of a covenant. Paul repeatedly goes to the Greek analogies of education and philosophy (this is not to say he accepted greek thought just that he used the analogies for the greek/gentiles).
Paul means it when he says in Galatians 3:20-24 that the Law was to remain as a "pedagogue"(greek for "guardian") that brought the schoolboy to school...till the coming of Christ that we might now be justified by faith. The law is not of faith (Gal. 3:12). The Seed came through Abraham, and again in Gal. 3 the Law did not and could not change that Promise which was given by FAITH. The Law is inferior to the Promise. We are sons of Abraham (by faith) not sons of Moses (by Law). This shows the Law was temporary. It was not of Abraham and it was not of the New Covenant.
Just as we are to leave the cave and our focus on the shadows, we are to leave the pedagogue/guardian/schoolmaster now that Christ has come to justify us by faith. We are to leave the handmaid and her son (Sinai Law) that we might be heirs of the New covenant (Gal. 4).
And, so too, the Colossians must recognize that the sabbaths, festivals, etc are shadows that should be viewed NOW as a false reality NOW that Christ has come Who is the Substance. (ref. Col. 2:16-17).
Paul, who knew the cave allegory, would not haphazardly call them shadows in the Colossian society.
E
Jeff,
I see you commented before I did. I believe Col. 2 is first addressing greek philosophical intellectualism 2:1-10,
then "Judaizers" in 2:11-17 as he talks about the handwriting of laws that were nailed to the Cross
finally, ascetic gnostics in 2:18-21 (at least)
Last two verses could be including all 3 in its conclusion or still just the ascetic teachings.
E
Wow E 10:57, a groundbreaking paradigm!
Trooista wrote:
"Failing to make necessary changes to the CGI Statement of Belief, literature offerings, and preaching would be rebellious and a rejection of the God’s gifts of love, which he expects you to elaborate on to your members and to the world."
That kind of judgmental condemnation and shaming sounds something like Pack, Thiel, Flurry, etc. might decree.
The late Ian Boyne of CGI described his understanding as Reformed Amstrongism. I believe the CGI has moved past any association with that former theology. We are closer to the theology of the Church of God, Seventh Day, where the WWCG separated initially. We try our best to be as close to the early New Testament Church as possible.
Herbert Armstrong formed his beliefs from various eclectic sources. None of them were original. His system of beliefs collectively are known as Armstrongism. The doctrines we keep predate HWA. There is nothing new He added that we find of value.
How does CGI differ:
We celebrate birthdays.
We don't believe in church eras.
We don't have a hierarchy.
The ministry practices servant leadership.
From the Wikipedia:
The WWCG gradually came to teach that the Kingdom of God included the ruler-ship of the ministry in the lives of the congregation. CGI believes that the Kingdom of God is the ruler-ship of Jesus Christ in the individual lives of its members and that it will include the future ruler-ship of Christ on Earth during the Millennial period. The ministry is considered the servant of the people towards that goal.
We don't interfere in the lives of our members. The ministry are servants.
We don't teach place of safety.
We teach against Headline Theology and setting or implying prophetic dates.
We don't shun former members or their families.
We allow freedom of thought and expression among our ministry and members.
We don't believe that Herbert Armstrong was a prophet, Elijah, one of the two witnesses, an Apostle, etc. We don't believe in idolizing former church leaders.
We don't waste members' tithes on expensive art, homes, planes, horses, buildings, etc., for a church leader's benefit.
We teach salvation by grace.
We don't teach that we are the only true church.
Members can serve in the military.
Members can vote.
We have an open-door policy.
We teach that interracial marriage is biblical.
We allow marriage to Christians, not in the CGI. (Yes, even Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholics)
And there is much more.
In searching for Armstrong on our large website, I found 4 articles. One criticized the label of Armstrongism. One criticizing false predictions made in "The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy." One criticizes his beliefs about "Elijah." And one discusses a change made in the WWCG after His death.
The first article interestingly says this:
"salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned by works, and keeping God’s Sabbaths aren’t going to earn you a place in His kingdom."
I was never part of WWCG. I'm sure I would have been banned pretty quickly.
@ 12:43
The so called CGI "reforms" are just window dressing.
How about some REAL reform:
Has CGI dropped Herbie's hopelessly bankrupt BI nonsense for instance?
E wrote:
"In Col. 2:16-17 it is obvious that he was referring back to the famous Cave Allegory of Plato which illustrated reality and altered images found in the shadows of the reality."
Wow, you are making a huge assumption about the Cave Allegory.
Shadows are a universal concept. No need to understand this in relation to Platonic philospy. A shadow shows a dark area or shape of what is casting it. Everyone know that. The Sabbath and Holy Days are being cast by Jesus. They are all about His work in this world.
E wrote:
"then "Judaizers" in 2:11-17 as he talks about the handwriting of laws that were nailed to the Cross"
There is nothing to indicate the context is about "Judaizers." The word for Judaizers is only used once in the New Testament to refer to those promoting Jewish customs in Galatians.
This "Judaizer" theory is something that emerged in later centuries because of antisemitism. There is a history of hatred and hostility toward Jews in early Christian history. We cannot deny this history of racism. This racism introduced this retcon on the writings of Paul. The Sabbath and Holy Days were wrongly associated as being only Jewish. And it is shameful that this racist theory still is being taught in some Christian circles.
There were no "handwriting of laws" nailed to the cross. It was our "Record of Offences or Certificate of Debt", our sins that were nailed to the cross. Any translator who translated "cheirographon dogma" as "handwriting of laws" was influenced by an antisemitic worldview.
REAL reform?: The 14th is the first day of unleavened bread - Eze 45:21. Laws based on, given with, including tithing laws since there's no tithing law record before Moses, the Levitical priesthood are now removed - Heb 7:11, compare Heb 7:12 "change" with Heb 12:27 KJV "removing" translated from same Greek word.
BI started before HWA. He was a plagiarist. It is a religious belief system that emerged in the 19th century, primarily in Britain. It holds the belief that the British people, along with other European nations, are the descendants of the ancient Israelites. This theory suggests that the "lost tribes" of Israel migrated to Europe and eventually became the ancestors of the British and other Western European nations.
The origins of British Israelism can be traced back to the work of John Wilson, a British army surgeon who published a book in 1840 titled "Our Israelitish Origin." However, the theory gained significant popularity through the works of Edward Hine and John Wilson's nephew, Edward H. Hine, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The theory lacks substantial historical and archaeological evidence to support its claims. The belief system is considered by most scholars to be a form of pseudohistory or fringe interpretation of biblical texts.
I'm still looking for that verse where Apostle Whatchacallit admonished gentiles in the early church to keep the sabbath ;)
Jeff: Throughout this thread, you have not been pleased with all of my encouragement to take a stand for preaching God’s great gifts under the New Covenant; sorry to offend you with the purpose of a minister of Jesus Christ.
Then you seemed seriously displeased when I wrote that failing to make necessary changes to the CGI website would be rebellious and a rejection of the God’s gifts of love, which he expects you to elaborate on to your members and to the world.
Clearly, you think that preaching the concepts of the New Covenant is a bad thing – a sentiment that is echoed by the CGI Statement of Beliefs.
You even wrote: “That kind of judgmental condemnation and shaming sounds something like Pack, Thiel, Flurry, etc. might decree.”
Nope, the false prophets you mentioned would not condemn you for turning your back to the New Covenant; they wholeheartedly applaud you in your rebellion – their websites also display a strong preference for law over grace, just like CGI!
And why do you get to disparage your brothers in law while resenting me for calling you out on your measurable failure to preach the whole Word of God?
By their fruit they are known; hypocrisy has always been a hallmark of Armstrongite ministers, as much as they are known for shunning the teaching of grace.
I’m glad you let children of all ages celebrate birthdays; why not allow them to also relish the joy of grace?
Certainly, people should perform their civic duty by voting; why not encourage them to praise Jesus for making them at peace with God?
Even why you are bragging how CGI is not like Armstrongism, you are condemning yourself for being the same as the other cultic Armstrongite splinters.
The CGI Statement of Beliefs speaks for itself – a lot of law and no explanation of the concepts of the New Covenant.
You cannot refute what the Statement of Belief says, and does not say – and preaching that odd mix of laws, the same laws hand-picked by HWA – while also failing to teach grace and justification in the same Statement of beliefs is the same cultic practice displayed by CGI’s spiritual father.
As your people suffer from their failure to keep the law your Statement of Belief demands, the same official doctrine does not point them to the hope of grace or the reality of justification – this is the same abuse as is perpetrated in the Armstrongite cults headlined by the false prophets you mentioned.
Jeff, please return to what you wrote and evaluate whether it is biblical, glorifying God, helpful to your members, reflective of your calling, and what you want to be your legacy.
Your current Statement of Belief does not come close to reflecting what is preached in the New Testament regarding the New Covenant – I don’t even see you attempting to refute that fact.
You personally know more about grace, justification, and sanctification than is displayed on the CGI website; sharing that knowledge is your responsibility – me pointing that out is my responsibility, not an attempt to shame you.
If you see room to change – your church wins and God is glorified.
If you fail to change, you are in rebellion against the blessings of the New Covenant and there remains only negligible differences between CGI and other cultic Armstrongite splinters.
It's whatchamacallit.
Trooisto said...
"Your current Statement of Belief does not come close to reflecting what is preached in the New Testament regarding the New Covenant – I don’t even see you attempting to refute that fact."
I just reread our Statement of Beliefs. It is all New Covenant. I really don't think we agree on what the term "New Covenant" means. In the New Covenant, Jesus writes the laws into our hearts.
Some excerpts:
"Salvation is the means by which God, through Christ, saves man from the penalty of sin and gives him eternal life. This process includes one’s calling, repentance, baptism, justification, receiving of the Holy Spirit, life of faith and obedience, and final birth into God’s Kingdom as a spirit being. Salvation is a freely given gift from God through grace, with our ultimate reward given according to our works.
Baptism symbolizes the renunciation of the past sinful way of life, the burial of the old man in a watery grave, and the emergence of a new, Spirit-led man living with Christ’s mind and following in His footsteps.
The law of God as revealed in the Bible is a good, right, and perfect system of eternal directives and principles that reflects God’s character and serves as a means of expressing His love toward man. God’s law teaches man how to properly worship God, how to love his fellowman, how to live life abundantly, and, at the same time, how to prepare for an eternal spiritual life in the family of God. The law of God is represented in both the Old and the New Testament and is expressed by both physical actions and spiritual motivations."
Does your brand of Christianity demand that everyone understand things according to your philosophy? Do you think because we teach that a Christian should grow in Grace (be obedient to Christ) that, we are not Christians? Do you think that teaching the Sabbath Day that Jesus created, commanded, and kept doesn't make us Christians? Do you think the writer of Hebrews was mistaken when He wrote that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" or that "there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God"?
Our teachings are derived by taking all of the New Testament in the context of our Saviour. We strive not to cherry-pick passages to fit preconceived notions and explain away the clear statements from Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John. If we cannot accept them at their word, I don't know what else to do.
"It's whatchamacallit."
Thank you for clearing that up!
"there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God"
What translation of Hebrews 4:9 has 'keeping of' in it?
Just asking...
Does CGI still have BI
Cannot find it in statement of beliefs
Are they hiding it
Ronco wrote:
"I'm still looking for that verse where Apostle Whatchacallit admonished gentiles in the early church to keep the sabbath ;)"
"What translation of Hebrews 4:9 has 'keeping of' in it?"
The word Greek "sabbatismos" literally means "A keeping of the Sabbath" It is used that way in all the other Greek literature in which it appears.
Some modern translations:
Smith's Literal Translation
Therefore a celebration of a sabbath remains to the people of God.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
So then, it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath.
Lamsa Bible
It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath.
Worrell New Testament
Consequently, there remains a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
New International Version
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
Worrell New Testament
Consequently, there remains a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
Bible in Basic English
So that there is still a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
Complete Jewish Bible
So there remains a Shabbat-keeping for God's people.
So the Apostle Whatchacallit you are looking for is the writer of Hebrews.
Also, the overall context of Hebrews 4 compares the rest in the coming Kingdom of God to Israel's opportunity to enter the promised land. The rest that the Sabbath represents is still future for the people of God. It is something that the writer encourages obedience to enter.
I'll admit I am not an etymologist, so I have to seek expert advice on the word sabbatismos. This is what an etymologist has to say:
"Sabbat-ismos "sabbathism, sabbathisation, sabbathising" is indeed a deverbal noun, arising from the verb sabbatizo "to act in a way associated with the/a Sabbath", i.e. "to observe the Sabbath".
The "ideology" meaning is already around in ancient Greek (because the underlying verb suffix means "act in a matter associated with", and can mean "be a partisan of"). But the point of the noun suffix is to make the verb into an action noun."
- Nick Nicholas (PhD Linguistics - Modern Greek dialectology)
I prefer to think of myself as a Christian Skeptic. I try my best to base my beliefs only on the available evidence. I am always willing to change my understanding if it is wrong. Taking into consideration the best available evidence of Hebrews 4:9, it tells me to keep the Sabbath.
Anon 7/25 152
No, CGI is not hiding BI.
When their statement of beliefs originally came out, Ron Dart said that because of the speculative nature of prophecy, it didn't belong. It was a belief, not doctrine. Of course, in the original WCG, if you didn't believe it, you could get kicked out!
Jeff said:
"Also, the overall context of Hebrews 4 compares the rest in the coming Kingdom of God to Israel's opportunity to enter the promised land. The rest that the Sabbath represents is still future for the people of God. It is something that the writer encourages obedience to enter."
So you're saying the sabbath rest that remains spoken of in Hebrews is future and not the ordinary seventh day- you can't have it both ways. The obedience part would be to the gospel that was preached (Heb 4:2-3).
Within the CGI, there is a division regarding the belief in BI, with some members in favor and others opposed. The topic is occasionally brought up on CGIs Armor of God program and given brief attention in the Systematic Theology Project. Bill Watson is a prominent proponent of this theory, asserting its relevance to all individuals in the US, irrespective of race. However, elders like Vance Stinson, Wynn Skelton, and Jeff Reed do not advocate for it.
Ronco wrote:
"So you're saying the sabbath rest that remains spoken of in Hebrews is future and not the ordinary seventh day- you can't have it both ways. The obedience part would be to the gospel that was preached (Heb 4:2-3)."
Yes you can. The Sabbath we keep weekly is a reminder of the Kingdom of God that Christ will bring to the earth. IE The Gospel that was preached.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." - Matthew 6:33
The book of Hebrews is called that for a reason- it was addressed to 7th day keeping Jews as a way to point them using the Hebrew scriptures toward a true and lasting rest in the gospel of Christ, and not be hard hearted like their forefathers.
To take the message of this book and bend it as a means to admonish gentile Christians to keep the 7th day is a bit of a reach, to say the least.
BTW, the gospel of Christ that was preached is made clear in I Cor 15:1-11 & Gal 1 and there's no mention of a 7th day.
I've never understood why sabbath keepers think Heb. 4:9 supports sabbath keeping. It seems simple questions are not asked. What is the purpose of chapter 4? Are they talking about sabbath keeping? The answer to that is obviously "no". The language is about "entering that rest". Joshua did not provide that rest though he and the house of israel observed the sabbath at that time. Yet, we who believe have entered that rest. It is the Rest we have in Christ. And the day to enter that rest is "today".
Now, if you took it as the COGs take it, you pull Heb. 4:9 out of this context and you point to an obscure and questionably defined "sabbatismos". Then you apply a single translated meaning and think this shows that the sabbath command is taught within the new covenant.
But, I ask, why is there a conclusion drawn here: "So then, there remains..."? How does that follow what preceded it in the COG explanation?
I mean, if your congregation is currently keeping the sabbath why do you have to then conclude that you keep the sabbath? Why would that even come into question? What in the chapter would draw sabbath keeping into question to require a conclusion that sabbath keeping remains?
The COG explanation does not make sense in the context. The context is a climactic or ultimate rest in the Lord. It indicates the rest was not achieved with Joshua in the Promised Land. We also have a promised land in Christ that does provide the desired rest.
That is the context, not sabbath keeping.
In fact, it may well teach the opposite. Put another way, if sabbath keeping was currently being taught, why do you then need to conclude sabbath keeping "remains"? It could well be that he is saying that there is a form of sabbath rest in the future and for future believers that yet remains despite not currently teaching the sabbath. I believe that even fits the context better than the COG explanation.
Bartleby
So CGI has deleted Anglo-Israelism from its beliefs list!
The first major ACOG to do so!
Their Beliefs-List is listing!
This is HEADLINE NEWS!
Jeff,
Look at the structure of Col. 2 AND the language.
He addresses the particular philosophy or teaching of each of the 3 groups:
1) greek philosophical intellectualism 2:1-10,
2) then "Judaizers" in 2:11-17 as he talks about the handwriting of ordinances that were nailed to the Cross
3) ascetic gnostics in 2:18-21
For each Paul teaches against the false or superfluous doctrine and then brings it all back to Christ.
In verses 1-10 we see Paul is concerned for the believers. He tells them what they have in Christ and as an affront to the Greek philosophers who love their "mysteries", Paul tells them that Christ Himself is the answer to the "mystery of God". A little later, he challenges their philosophy that the material and the spiritual cannot occupy the same space when he states in verse 9 "For in Him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily". Here, he is stating that the spiritual and the material are occupying the same space.
This is not accidental language.
Then in verses 11-17 Paul moves to circumcision (which is of course a Jewish practice) and how our circumcision is a spiritual one. And then he talks about the baptism we have in Christ and being forgiven of our trespasses. In verse 14 Paul writes:
"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
This is language obviously directed to the Law, and there are those that pass judgment on these Colossian believers, but Paul says:
"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." v.16
Why must they not pass judgment? Paul says because those things are "shadows". BUT, the substance is Christ. Here again, Paul shows that Christ is what matters, not the shadows.
Jeff, you believe that "shadow" is a universal concept and that the Cave Allegory doesn't need to be applied. But "shadow" and "substance" as used here signify types/forms. Plato uses “shadow” and “substance” in his allegory. It would be one thing if Paul said “the sabbaths/festivals/foods foreshadow Christ” But, he didn’t. He wanted to show that these days and foods were shadows, not the reality, that they were a false reality for our faith to focus on. Our focus should be on the substance and that Substance is Christ.
Again, Paul makes the entire answer Christ. Just as he told the Greek philosophers that the answer to the mystery of God is Christ and that the one space where the physical and spiritual share the same space IS CHRIST. He’s showing that the answer to all of these things IS CHRIST.
Then what does he say is the solution for the ascetic gnostics in verses 18-22? The solution IS CHRIST. Specifically in verse 19 Paul says they did not hold fast to the HEAD. And, again we know THE HEAD IS CHRIST.
So, the answer to all these false judgments and teachings IS CHRIST. Paul makes the same structure and language in refuting all three incorrect teachings.
E
Jeff: I feel like you are obfuscating and aware of it. My comments about the deficiencies of the CGI Statement of Beliefs are related to the behavior you’ve displayed throughout this thread when I’ve encouraged you to more actively preach biblical concepts such as grace and justification.
You’ve referred to those biblical concepts as not important and religious jargon (July 20, 2023 at 12:05 PM) and you’ve referred to me as patronizing, duplicitous, judgmental, and shaming, in my efforts to encourage you to preach more about grace and justification – as if I’m asking you to do something evil.
Thinking about the pastors I know, none of whom are Armstrongites, and how I imagine they’d respond to the suggestion to preach more grace – I believe they’d respond positively and jump to action.
I’m rather certain that one pastor would say “Preach more grace and justification – YES! I preach Christ our sacrifice and righteousness in every sermon but there’s always room for more!”
I cannot imagine one pastor I know being defensive or resistant to the encouragement to go deeper into the terms of the New Covenant.
There’s nothing wrong with the excerpt from the CGI Statement of Beliefs that you quoted late yesterday. However, I’ve stated a few times above that your Statement of Beliefs and body of teachings are very detailed about law, yet they give no definitions or details about grace, justification, and other New Covenant concepts.
The COGs are resistant to terms like grace and justification, while they are big on their cherry-picked law favorites – as is displayed on the CGI website.
Of course, those of us who observe the COGs surmise that their law confusion is related to their uncomfortableness with Jesus, grace, and justification. We can also guess that some COG leaders fear that exposing their people to teaching on grace and justification will cause them to lose their following.
Yesterday, you portrayed growing in grace as being obedient to Christ – which does have biblical support – however, it’s interesting that is your chosen definition of growing in grace when the Bible provides many more examples of what growing in grace means.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread that there is a correlation between predominately preaching law and underplaying grace in a manner that is not congruous with the writings of the Apostles – a glaring problem that is showcased on the CGI website.
One question I asked earlier, which you did not respond to is, does a website like www.gotquestions.org provide more information about grace and justification than the CGI website? The answer is yes – it is a simple counting exercise. I also asked are you comfortable with that? I hope your people will seek information about New Covenant concepts wherever they can find it – but I don’t think that it’s a bad thing to ask that you make that information available to them on your website, a site they pay you to develop to their spiritual benefit.
Jeff, please re-read all the posts you addressed to me and please provide reason for your defensiveness and resistance to giving as much attention to New Covenant concepts as God has displayed in the writings of St. Paul.
Jeff, if you desire to glorify God, be open and responsive to the call to preach about his loving gifts of grace and justification!
Jeff: you asked these GOG-odd questions:
“Does your brand of Christianity demand that everyone understand things according to your philosophy? Do you think because we teach that a Christian should grow in Grace (be obedient to Christ) that, we are not Christians? Do you think that teaching the Sabbath Day that Jesus created, commanded, and kept doesn't make us Christians? Do you think the writer of Hebrews was mistaken when He wrote that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" or that "there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God"?
My answer to all of your questions is No – but I have to wonder why you are asking these questions – seems like another COG strawman argument tactic.
Also, I don’t agree with your rendering of Hebrews 4.
My brand of Christianity is big about praising God, continuously, for all of his loving gifts, such as grace and justification.
Jeff, is that your brand of Christianity too?
Jeff said:
"The Sabbath we keep weekly is a reminder of the Kingdom of God that Christ will bring to the earth. IE The Gospel that was preached."
Perhaps CGI should publish a booklet entitled 'Just What Do You Mean, Gospel of Christ?'
That might make for some interesting discussion.
Eschatological Rest
“The logic of the book [of Hebrews] is based on ANCIENT RHETORICAL PATTERNS AND PRE-MODERN EXEGETICAL PRINCIPLES that makes the reader’s task exceptionally difficult” (Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest - Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology, p.141).
When interpreting the NT it is needful to keep in mind ‘Second Temple’ exegesis in which OT texts were given a new life of their own; see quote from William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.98, below as an example.
As a Sabbath-keeper I would not use Heb 4:9 as a proof-text for the validity of ‘keeping’ the seventh day today, as “sabbatismos” is not the fourth Commandment in the author of Hebrews’ argument.
An overview:
Ps 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
Ps 95:11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest [katapausis].
Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest [katapausis], but to them that believed not?
“In 3:7-19 the quotation from Ps 95 furnishes the basis for the exhortation to remain sensitive to the promise of eschatological salvation. In his own remarks the writer introduces salient words and thoughts from the text and relates them to the situation of his readers. His interpretation of the text was heavily influenced by Num 14. According to Num 13-14 Israel was camped at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran, on the verge of entering Canaan. Entrance into the land was the goal of the Exodus and was necessary for the fulfillment of the promise. When those who had been sent into Canaan to explore the land brought back a bad report, however, the Israelites refused to enter. They rejected the promise through unbelief. Ps 95 recalls that their disposition incurred the wrath of God; Israel was refused entry into God’s promised rest because of their rebellion. The Christian community finds itself in the comparable situation standing immediately before the fulfillment of God’s promise. The solemn review of the divine response to the Exodus generation served to warn the community not to emulate the unbelief of the Israel at Kadesh” William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.84).
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest [katapausis], any of you should seem to come short of it.
“In 4:1-11 the writer advances the interpretation of Ps 95 to a new stage. The focus of 3:12-19 was upon the exclusion of the desert generation from God’s rest because of blatant unbelief and rebellion. The tragic aftermath of death in the desert as the result of failure to believe God constituted the basis of warning for the hearers. In 4:1-11 the accent falls on the Christian community as heir to the promise of entrance into God’s rest. The writer’s task in this section is to pose in sharp terms the alternatives of rest and peril that now confront the new people of God. In the course of the hortatory argument he defines more precisely the character of the rest envisioned and the concomitant responsibility of a community constituted by the voice of God in Scripture” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.97).
Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest [katapauo], God would not have spoken later about another day.
“The concept of katapausis, “rest,” in the context of the promise to the Exodus generation had the local connotation of entrance into Canaan, where Israel would experience relief from turmoil and security from their enemies (cf. Deut 12:9-10). BUT OVER THE COURSE OF TIME a distinctive eschatological concept of rest, developed, presumably through the synagogue preaching and school debate...
Part 2
“An eschatological understanding of “my rest” in Ps 95:11, is presupposed in v1. And is fundamental to the exhortation of diligence to enter God’s rest in 4:1-11... The principle that unbelief invited exclusion from God’s rest (3:19) remains valid in the present and assumes profound significance when rest is understood in this eschatological sense” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.98).
Heb 4:6 Seeing THEREFORE [oun] it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:9 There remaineth THEREFORE [ara] a rest [sabbatismos] to the people of God.
“The preceding lines of argument are summed up in the conclusions drawn in v.9. The statement is structurally parallel in form to v6a...
v.6a: “The fact remains that some are to enter it [= the rest]”
v.9: “There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God”
“In v9 the writer repeats the conclusion of v.6a, but the term sabbatismos is substituted for the characteristic term katapausis. The formal parallelism suggests that the substitution is meant to define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God (Hofius, Katapausis, 106). If it had been the writer’s intention to say only “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (cf. RSV, NEB, NIV), he could have retained the word katapausis. In v4 he had associated katapausis with God’s rest on the seventh day, and he undoubtedly knew that the word was used for the Sabbath rest in the LXX (Exod 35:2; 2 Macc 15:1). The deliberate choice of sabbatismos, which finds its earliest occurrence in extant Greek literature here, must have been dictated by the fact that it contains a nuance not found in katapausis.
2 Macc 8:27 So when they had gathered their armour together, and spoiled their enemies, they occupied themselves about the sabbath, yielding exceeding praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them unto that day, which was the beginning of mercy distilling upon them
“The term sabbatismos appears to have been coined from the cognate verb sabbatizein, “to observe/celebrate the Sabbath.” In its only occurrence in non-Christian literature ... the term signifies Sabbath observance. In four other documents from the patristic period that are independent of Heb 4:9, the term denotes the celebration of the Sabbath. The term received its particular nuance from the Sabbath instruction that developed in Judaism on the basis of Exod 20:8-10, where it was emphasized that rest and praise belong together (cf. 2 Macc 8:27...). The term sabbatismos stresses the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God... In v9 this nuance defines the character of the promised rest awaiting the people of God in the consummation” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, pp.101-02)
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest [katapausis], he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest [katapausis], lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
“The assertion in v10 stands in a casual relationship to v9 and clarifies why in the eschatological rest a sabbatismos will be possible. Whoever has entered the consummation-rest will experience the completion of his work, as did God after the creation (cvv3c-4), and will enjoy the rest that is necessary for the festival of praise of a Sabbath celebration. In conjunction, vv 9-10 anticipate the festival of the priestly people of God in the heavenly sanctuary, celebrating in the presence of God the eternal Sabbath with unceasing praise and adoration (Hofius, Katapausis, 109-10)" (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.102).
Trooista wrote:
"One question I asked earlier, which you did not respond to is, does a website like www.gotquestions.org provide more information about grace and justification than the CGI website?"
I am not sure since I am not familiar with everything on that site. I do believe we provide more accurate Biblical information overall. But I am biased in that respect. I quoted gotquestions.org because their description agrees with our understanding. I believe it is good to give additional sources when trying to make a point.
Trooista wrote:
"Jeff, please re-read all the posts you addressed to me and please provide reason for your defensiveness and resistance to giving as much attention to New Covenant concepts as God has displayed in the writings of St. Paul."
Most everything we teach is New Covenant concepts. Maybe not in your opinion. But we don't answer to you; we answer to Jesus, who leads us through His Spirit.
"You’ve referred to those biblical concepts as not important and religious jargon (July 20, 2023 at 12:05 PM) and you’ve referred to me as patronizing, duplicitous, judgmental, and shaming, in my efforts to encourage you to preach more about grace and justification – as if I’m asking you to do something evil."
The concepts of grace and Jesus dying for our sins are most certainly throughout everything I do. Other speakers in CGI speak about these all the time.
The largest category of sermons that address these types of subjects is tagged as Christian Living. (212 total)
Trooista wrote:
"Of course, those of us who observe the COGs surmise that their law confusion is related to their uncomfortableness with Jesus, grace, and justification. We can also guess that some COG leaders fear that exposing their people to teaching on grace and justification will cause them to lose their following."
I can't speak for other COGs, but I can for CGI. We are very comfortable with Jesus, grace, and justification. I live that every day. The members that I know do as well.
Trooista wrote:
"My brand of Christianity is big about praising God, continuously, for all of his loving gifts, such as grace and justification.
Jeff, is that your brand of Christianity too?"
Yes it is. But we also understand that God's law and His Sabbaths are expressions of His Grace.
Trooista wrote
"My answer to all of your questions is No – but I have to wonder why you are asking these questions – seems like another COG strawman argument tactic.
Also, I don’t agree with your rendering of Hebrews 4."
Thanks, I am just trying to understand your worldview. Regarding Hebrews 4 and specifically regarding the command in verse 9 for Christians to keep the Sabbath, I genuinely believe that is what it says after over 40 years of studying the scriptures and researching the subject. I subscribe to a Skeptical worldview that is evidence-based. The only thing that separates me from an atheist is that I accept the overwhelming evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus and what that now implies for my life. I believe the scientific method is Christian. I also respect your right to have different viewpoints. I also admit that I may be wrong.
But because I genuinely understand Hebrew 4:9 to be a New Covenant Sabbath-keeping command and many more examples in the New Testament, I cannot separate this from the law of Christ.
Jeff: I can’t tell if you are brainwashed by your organization or whether you’re purposefully being deceitful, or both.
You had referred to www.gotquestions.org as a “Protestant” site – the inference being that it was not “original” Christianity like you believe CGI is.
I asked if www.gotquestions.org had more information about grace and justification than the CGI website.
You eventually responded:
“I am not sure since I am not familiar with everything on that site. I do believe we provide more accurate Biblical information overall. But I am biased in that respect. I quoted gotquestions.org because their description agrees with our understanding. I believe it is good to give additional sources when trying to make a point.”
My focus was on your Statement of Beliefs and Systematic Theology Project, as the most important, official teachings that represent CGI.
It’s easy to count the references to New Covenant concepts such as grace and justification in the CGI Statement of Beliefs and Systematic Theology Project – and weigh them – because the references are minimal and without details. There are no headings covering these essential topics in these two CGI documents.
You appear to be trying to obfuscate that truth.
Your obfuscation also included stating the concepts were not that important and referring to them as religious jargon.
Regardless of your claims about how cozy your church is with New Covenant, your official documents do not support your claims.
At best, your action and the CGI documents are a rebellious discounting of God’s loving gifts to humanity – regardless of how you try to spin it.
Conversely, www.gotquestions.org has an abundance of sound biblical information on the New Covenant concepts.
Therefore, a “Protestant” site such as www.gotquestions.org is obviously much more like the New Testament writings covering grace and justification than CGI’s website, as proven by simple counting.
That fact should embarrass you.
Instead of trying to convince people that CGI is not Armstrongism, or is evolved Armstrongism – the only acceptable response is to upgrade your church’s representative documents to include the essential Christian doctrines.
You act like I’m chasing you around with a pork chop on a Friday night – when it would be more honorable to just initiate changes to your website to praise God for his loving gifts and share that information with your church.
A selective quote from Albert Barnes on Heb 4:9. But first an introduction:
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.
Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
The prospective part of the retro-prospective prophecy of Revelation 7 pictures the priestly role of Christ and the Saints in the Messianic Age, in heaven. In 7:15 “the throne of God” is mentioned; it is also mentioned at the end of Albert Barnes’ quote.
“The word “rest” in this verse - sabbatismos - “Sabbatism,” in the margin is rendered “keeping of a Sabbath.” It is a different word from sabbaton - “the Sabbath;” and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is not found in the Septuagint. It properly means “a keeping Sabbath” from sabbatizo - “to keep Sabbath.” This word, not used in the New Testament, occurs frequently in the Septuagint; Exo 16:30; Lev 23:32; Lev 26:35; 2Ch 36:21; and in 3 Esdr. 1:58; 2 Macc. 6:6. It differs from the word “Sabbath.” That denotes “the time - the day;” this, “the keeping,” or “observance” of it; “the festival.” It means here “a resting,” or an observance of sacred repose - and refers undoubtedly to heaven, as a place of eternal rest with God. It cannot mean the rest in the land of Canaan - for the drift of the writer is to prove that that is “not” intended. It cannot mean the “Sabbath,” properly so called - for then the writer would have employed the usual word sabbaton - “Sabbath”... the object is not to prove that there is such a day to be observed, and his reasoning about being excluded from it by unbelief and by hardening the heart would be irrelevant. It must mean, therefore, “heaven” - the world of spiritual and eternal rest; and the assertion is, that there “is” such a “resting,” or “keeping of a Sabbath” in heaven for the people of God. Hence, learn:
(1) That heaven is a place of cessation from wearisome toil. It is to be like the “rest” which God had after the work of creation (Heb 4:4, note), and of which that was the type and emblem. There will be “employment” there, but it will be without fatigue; there will be the occupation of the mind, and of whatever powers we may possess, but without weariness. Here we are often worn down and exhausted. The body sinks under continued toil, and fails into the grave. There the slave will rest from his toil; the man here oppressed and broken down by anxious care will cease from his labors. We know but little of heaven; but we know that a large part of what now oppresses and crushes the frame will not exist there. Slavery will be unknown; the anxious care for support will be unknown, and all the exhaustion which proceeds from the love of gain, and from ambition, will be unknown. In the wearisome toils of life, then, let us look forward to the “rest” that remains in heaven, and as the laborer looks to the shades of the evening, or to the Sabbath as a period of rest, so let us look to heaven as the place of eternal repose.
Part 2
(2) Heaven will be like a Sabbath. The best description of it is to say it is “an eternal Sabbath.” Take the Sabbath on earth when best observed, and extend the idea to eternity, and let there be separated all idea of imperfection from its observance, and that would be heaven. The Sabbath is holy; so is heaven. It is a period of worship; so is heaven. It is for praise and for the contemplation of heavenly truth; so is heaven. The Sabbath is appointed that we may lay aside worldly cares and anxieties for a little season here; heaven that we may lay them aside forever.
(3) The Sabbath here should be like heaven. It is designed to be its type and emblem. So far as the circumstances of the case will allow, it should be just like heaven... One day in seven at least should remind us of what heaven is to be; and that day may be, and should be, the most happy of the seven.
(4) They who do not love the Sabbath on earth, are not prepared for heaven...
(6) Let those who love the Sabbath rejoice in the prospect of eternal rest in heaven. In our labor let us look to that world where wearisome toil is unknown; in our afflictions, let us look to that world where tears never fall; and when our hearts are pained by the violation of the Sabbath all around us, let us look to that blessed world where such violation will cease forever. It is not far distant. A few steps will bring us there. Of any Christian it may be said that perhaps his next Sabbath will be spent in heaven - near the throne of God.
Christians are right to be concerned over the CGI statement of beliefs: Their soteriology is nothing more than warmed-over mid-century Armstrongist Grace+works.
Great progress being made here:
The dilemma of inclusive Pauline Christianity for pan-Mediterranean slavery vs hardline Armstrongic-sabbatarianism goes unanswered by Armstrongist-apologists! (they can't answer it)
Also enjoying the enlightening in-depth scholarship on Hebrews-4 which should end its unwise use as a proof-text by Armstrongists.
Also enlightening insights on Colossians-2 (Armstrongism's nemesis)
There are 41000 denominations in this world calling themselves "Christian", which tells me there is plenty of room to express oneself in terms they think best without worrying about what someone else thinks!
I'm sure there are many, even on this site, that are not in full agreement with the church of " trooisto "! That's just the way it is.
Personally, I think Jeff has done a good job representing himself and his church organization.
Trooista wrote:
"Jeff: I can’t tell if you are brainwashed by your organization or whether you’re purposefully being deceitful, or both."
I am indeed not brainwashed. I apply critical thinking to form my beliefs, and CGI's statement of beliefs fits within my framework of beliefs. I am not trying to be deceitful. My purpose is to explain my beliefs and CGI's beliefs.
Also, be aware that if I have personal disagreements with some of our teachings, that we have an internal method of resolving those disagreements. As an elder, I believe it to be unprofessional to comment on those items publicly.
Also, the content on our website is a group effort from all of our ministry. The statement of beliefs is a document that has long been agreed upon to represent CGI.
Trooista also wrote:
"Your obfuscation also included stating the concepts were not that important and referring to them as religious jargon."
I said that "terms" were not that important. The concept of justification (being redeemed by the blood of Christ) is taught throughout CGI. The concept of sanctification (obedience to Christ, living a life of overcoming) is taught as well. But the term "justification" is not as important as what Jesus is actually doing for me. This is my personal opinion.
Trooista also wrote:
"At best, your action and the CGI documents are a rebellious discounting of God’s loving gifts to humanity – regardless of how you try to spin it. "
That is your opinion. This statement appears to be very judgemental to me. I will assume you have a genuine concern for our immortal souls if we keep teaching about God's Commandments, His Sabbath, etc.
BP8 wrote:
"Personally, I think Jeff has done a good job representing himself and his church organization."
Thanks, I am here to discuss these things because the blog post was directed at something I wrote on a CGI-developed website/app. I know a lot of COG people visit this site frequently. I have been visiting here since 2012 as part of my ongoing effort to enhance CGI's online presence.
Jeff: Truth without grace is not truth; same goes for doctrines without justification.
CGI boasts of having the truth, yet both the CGI Statement of Beliefs and Systematic Theology Project do not contain details about grace, justification, redemption, or sanctification – therefore, these documents cannot be considered as “truth”.
CGI is egregiously lacking in truth and has cemented its status as an Armstrongite cult.
Both the CGI Statement of Beliefs and Systematic Theology Project are heavily laden with instruction pertaining to law; in the absence of instruction about grace and justification, CGI does not present a New Covenant theology in its official, public-facing documents.
Claims that your church teaches New Covenant concepts ring hollow when your most important documents lack essential Christian doctrines.
CGI’s body of work is abundant with teachings on law requirements for Christians while that same body of work convicts CGI for not keeping the entire law.
CGI’s doctrinal statements do not reflect the details of the New Covenant as found in the writings of the New Testament. Downplaying grace while pontificating on law in official documents obviously skews the beliefs, practices, and peace of the members.
Stubborn refusal to display growth in grace and knowledge in official documents, in light of articulating some understanding of New Covenant concepts, is rebellion.
If the CGI leadership should ever consider improving their official doctrinal documents, God has lovingly provided wildly inspirational verses, a few of which are displayed below and are recommended to enrich your texts and bring them more soundly into the superior covenant.
Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 3:24
All are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:1
Since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:4-6
Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
@ 8:12
I see, like HWA, Reed deftly jumps from Rom-3 to Rom-5--yet Rom-4 was what the Reformation/CounterReformation was fought over!
Also the CGI cunningly hides its Anglo-Israelism
When is Reed going to come-out-of-the-closet on his view of CGI-wacko-Armstrongic-Anglo/Israel-dogma?? ("Enquirin' minds wanna know") (the public deserves to know!)
HWA: "..God does not impute something you don't have"
ROM: ".. God imputes righteousness without works"
I have been away on a family vacation and preoccupied with grandchildren. My thanks to Trooisto and E for countering Jeff's apologetics - though he does have my respect for being willing to enter the arena and face his critics. What a thread!
No wonder Paul advised to avoid contentions, strivings about the law - Titus 3:9.
CONTEXT: Paul's epistle to Titus was addressed to a minister (whom he had mentored in the faith) and advised him about how to deal with someone who was stirring up dissension within the congregation. In the light of Paul's other epistles (especially Galatians), we know that Paul had experienced a great deal of hostility and problems from Jewish Christians who wanted to impose Torah on his Gentile congregations. In other words, it was Paul's modus operandi to confront the Legalists who were causing such dissension. Hence, his advice to Titus to avoid trying to reason with such folks - Paul said to warn them once or twice and then "have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
“Also the CGI cunningly hides its Anglo-Israelism
When is Reed going to come-out-of-the-closet on his view of CGI-wacko-Armstrongic-Anglo/Israel-dogma?? ("Enquirin' minds wanna know") (the public deserves to know!)”
We just had a brand new Armor of God about the Throne of David and there is video in our webpage’s footer right now titled “Is the USA in the Bible?” So we do not try to hide anything.
I have never been in the closet about my view on this subject. I just choose to not discuss it publicly. If we have a doctrinal debate we handle it within our Church, not in the public.
'HWA: "..God does not impute something you don't have" (WdymS 1961)
vs
'ROM: ".. God imputes [present continuous tense] righteousness without works" (Rom 4:6)'
-----------------------------------------------------
High-living-HWA's reckless contradiction shows the contempt he had for his Galley-Slaves!
To think CGI founder 'Playboy'Garner Ted carried his heresies forward!
HWA: "..God does not impute something you don't have"
ROM: ".. God imputes righteousness without works"
HWA would leave it to staff at his fake university to (attempt to) tidy up his blunders like the one above.
Remember when CGI founder 'Playboy'Garner Ted Armstrong had his own 'Falcon' business-jet & pilots'-license while his dad's poor titheslaves were living in trailer-parks struggling to make ends meet?
Do new recruits know the history of 'Playboy'Garner Ted's CGI cult?
@ 9:43
"Why doesn't Jeff Reed and other Armstrongists want to talk about Colossians 2:16-17"
For that matter, why didn't HWA pen a paper on Col-2
Why did he leave it to hacks at his fake 'college' to 'explain' this?
There's a way CGI could really help preach/publish founder 'Playboy'Garner Ted'Gospel: go on Wikipedia and edit British-Israelism to conform to the 'truth' of CGI "gospel"
"Blogger Jeff Reed said...
Ronco wrote:
"I'm still looking for that verse where Apostle Whatchacallit admonished gentiles in the early church to keep the sabbath ;)"
"What translation of Hebrews 4:9 has 'keeping of' in it?"
The word Greek "sabbatismos" literally means "A keeping of the Sabbath" It is used that way in all the other Greek literature in which it appears.
Some modern translations:
Smith's Literal Translation
Therefore a celebration of a sabbath remains to the people of God.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
So then, it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath.
Lamsa Bible
It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath.
Worrell New Testament
Consequently, there remains a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
New International Version
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
Worrell New Testament
Consequently, there remains a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
Bible in Basic English
So that there is still a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.
Complete Jewish Bible
So there remains a Shabbat-keeping for God's people.
So the Apostle Whatchacallit you are looking for is the writer of Hebrews.
Also, the overall context of Hebrews 4 compares the rest in the coming Kingdom of God to Israel's opportunity to enter the promised land. The rest that the Sabbath represents is still future for the people of God. It is something that the writer encourages obedience to enter.
I'll admit I am not an etymologist, so I have to seek expert advice on the word sabbatismos. This is what an etymologist has to say:
"Sabbat-ismos "sabbathism, sabbathisation, sabbathising" is indeed a deverbal noun, arising from the verb sabbatizo "to act in a way associated with the/a Sabbath", i.e. "to observe the Sabbath".
The "ideology" meaning is already around in ancient Greek (because the underlying verb suffix means "act in a matter associated with", and can mean "be a partisan of"). But the point of the noun suffix is to make the verb into an action noun."
- Nick Nicholas (PhD Linguistics - Modern Greek dialectology)
I prefer to think of myself as a Christian Skeptic. I try my best to base my beliefs only on the available evidence. I am always willing to change my understanding if it is wrong. Taking into consideration the best available evidence of Hebrews 4:9, it tells me to keep the Sabbath.
Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 6:37:00 AM PDT"
Well, Jeff, you see that even when you provide proof the unbeliever will find some way to wriggle around it.
Sabbath is a contentious subject and not easy.
One of the best books I've read on sabbath and recommend is 'SABBATH IN CHRIST', by DALE RATZLAFF.
Some 400 pages and a thorough examination starting from Genesis. HE was a former SDA minister. If one wants to know more its worth the read.
https://uoeldcu.org/site/uploads/docs/Sabbath_in_Christ_by_Dale_Ratzlaff_Richard_Fredericks_Don_Muth_Richard.pdf
You can find an e version above - far superior to what one reads in the Armstrong offshoots.
He refers to Colossians 2 v 16 in an appendix.
Post a Comment