The appalling actions of Hamas in Israel last week have sent the prophecy addicts in the Church of God into a frenzy. Doom, death, and damnation are virtually at our doorsteps ready to devour us. Some look with caution on events and others get down and wallow in it like pigs at a slop trough, particularly Bob Thiel and Gerald Flurry. The more awful they can make things sound the more important they think their prophetic knowledge is and how we should all be impressed.
United Church of God had a blurb up the other day about the current situation and prophecy. After the usual falderal, they end with this:
When you see armies surrounding Jerusalem moving in to conquer Israel then you will know—this is it, and the end of this age is very near.
All we can do is watch as Jesus said to do and keep spiritually alert to our own condition (Luke 21:26). We should be patiently watching and waiting. Jesus said by your patience you possess your souls, or as the Greek word hupomonÄ“means, by your endurance and constancy. Our salvation rests upon God’s grace and our endurance in obeying God’s laws and commandments just as the patriarch Abraham (Genesis 26:5). Jesus also said, “But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13).
Such bunk! God's grace and keeping the old covenant law are incompatible. But, this is the COG and the law reigns supreme over Jesus, grace, justification, and sanctification.
108 comments:
But we gotta keep the sabbath cause Ellen G White said so, and let's not forget UCG's Jelly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM2aZ2NMmNI
Very clearly and effectively presented. Dear LOrd help the COG members see.
1. Keeping the law will not save you, but if you do not keep the law you will not be saved.
2. Taking a driving test wont guarantee you a license, but if you do not take the test, you won't get a license.
People can understand 2 but not 1. Why not? Obstinacy?
True colors coming out now. If that's how you truly think then why live a double life ??????
“ 1. Keeping the law will not save you, but if you do not keep the law you will not be saved.”
Illogical Armstrongite understanding at its best. What a load of baloney.
HWA says we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Keeping the law won't save you. HWA never taught Salvation by law keeping BUT we will be rewarded with positions in the Kingdom of God. Saved by Grace but Rewards by law keeping. Got it?
1025,
It's just that you are not correct here.
Rom. 10:9 "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
Is it obstinacy on your part? Can you show a verse in the new covenant that states you cannot be saved unless you obey the law?
jim
“1. Keeping the law will not save you, but if you do not keep the law you will not be saved.”
I am not sure Armstrongists would agree with this idea at a surface level. They seem to very much tow the line on the usual formulation of faith, grace and salvation. You can find such statements of orthodox soteriology in their writings and Armstrongists who come to this blog assert such statements. Where they insinuate earned salvation by works is in the Doctrine of Qualification which does not exist in Christian orthodoxy. If an Armstrongist makes statements about grace, faith and salvation and does not factor in Qualification, the discussion is not comprehensive.
The writer of the statement quoted above uses the term “law”. We don’t know what he means by this. Is it the Torah or the Law of Christ? They are quite distinct but overlap in places. My guess is that he means the Torah because that contains the Sabbath law. Observation of the Torah at the jot and tittle level is what Jesus kept when he was on this earth. And it is an easy step to the understanding that Armstrongists declare the Torah should be kept and they are following in the footsteps of Jesus, but, in fact, they do not keep the Torah. They observe an Armstrongist rendition of the Torah – a kind of Torah Lite.
A common Armstrongist declaration is that Christianity, “so-called” as they would say, is antinomian. Grace as understood by the Christian church does away not only with the Torah but all morality, they would declare. That is an in incorrect belief about Christianity. Christians do see morality in a different role in the process of salvation. They see moral behavior as an output or product of salvation. Armstrongists see it as an input or requirement for salvation. This, of course, is consistent with the idea that Christians believe they are already saved and Armstrongists will spend the rest of their lives at work to achieve salvation.
But in both the Biblical salvation and Armstrongist “salvation”, moral behavior is inevitably present. This may lead one to believe that moral behavior is a pre-requirement for salvation. But in Christianity moral behavior is correlated to received salvation and in Armstrongism moral behavior is a requirement for salvation yet in suspense.
I have written this because the subject of law and grace can be complex and understanding the difference between Armstrongism and Christianity on this topic can be challenging. There is a stark difference, stark enough to assert that they are two very different belief systems sharing some common vocabulary.
Scout
The law was given not for some lofty theological reason, but to show people how to live in order to be happy. Failure to live by these laws has resulted in the world we see around us. Why would we NOT want to keep the law?
Dont you have some chemtrails or HAARP garbage to read about, 11:05? You really cant let go of this “double agent minister” line.
It's not so much the law. That has been the source of much happiness for the Jews for millennia. It's the way that Armstrongism administered and enforced the law, use it and prophecy in their fear-mongering to extort unreasonable amounts of money from members, and inserts themselves into members' lives as the absolute gate keepers for the place of safety and the Kingdom. To hell with them for that!
As I've remarked many times, you can actually make a very young child hate ice cream. It's all in how you present it!
7:40
As every Armstrongist must, you need to define what the law is and what it's keeping means. Salvation is at stake and you need to make certain that Armstrongism has the correct dogma on this. Rod Meredith would have said that the law is the Torah and it is written on your heart by the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, you need to ask yourself why you do not wear tassels on your garments. And if you teenaged daughter has acne, do you require her to yell "Unclean!" when she goes into public. These are not ceremonial laws but laws to "show people how to live in order to be happy."
Is the law then something less for you than what Meredith asserted? Did Meredith wear tassels on his clothing? These are nuances that you must deal with and sound bites like what you have written here will just not do - either on a blog or in life.
Scout
Perverse Thinking
Some people want to worship false gods, make idols, misuse God's name, and trample on God's Sabbath, and yet expect God to save them.
Some people would not want other people to disrespect them, slander them, covet their possessions, steal from them, murder them, or commit adultery with their wife, and yet they hate the laws of God and want to be able to do such evil things themselves to other people.
Some people want to be complete slaves to sin and utter depravity and yet imagine that they are somehow righteous.
People who break God's Law of Love, SOME of which are codified in the 10 Commandments will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God, otherwise we would have a sin ruled world like we have in this age. with death, destruction, lying, murders, adultery, thefts, idolatory, etc. etc.
1 Corinthians 9 KJV " 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
We are only justified if we try our hardest not to go back into sin. It's really quite simple. Keeping The 10 commandments doesn't save us per se, but we need to keep them as best we can, and other laws of love to be in the kingdom. Because we all sin we have a saviour who will forgive us if truly repentant. In effect then we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus but shouldn't continue in a sinning life
Somebody please show me if I am wrong!
Certainly Grace is the only thing that can save us. Yet, we can eliminate ourselves from the process if we so choose.
1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
People who keep sunday wear tin foil hats.
What do I care if people want to defy the law? Go ahead. I'll be glad when God gets rid of them once and for all.
"Illogical Armstrongite understanding at its best. What a load of baloney."
What does Armstrong have to do with it? As usual, every comment that is not from a progress liberal law-hater is assumed to be from an Armstrongite.
The challenge: reconcile Paul's statements...Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law - Rom 3:31.....with....Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster..but after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster (tutor) - Gal 3:24, 25.
Presently I conclude: two sets of laws. The Rom 3:31 law is the 10, the Gen 26:5 laws. The Galations law, the second set, is those added because of transgressions of laws in the "first set" - Gal 3:19, include various washings/fleshly ordinances/sacrifices (Heb 9:10), tithing which came and went with the Levitical priesthood, all laws associated with and given with the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11-12), wearing of tassels (but now the Holy Spirit will aid in remembering), the holy days of sabbaths of "trumpets" and "atonement" ???? (b/c Christ is now our atonement and noise/trumpets not now necessary as a memorial??). But the three festivals are still "lawful" - Ex 23:14-16; Acts 12:3; 20:6,16; Zech 14:16.
The only thing the law brings is condemnation and death. It does not bring life. By the deeds of the law there is no justification of us in God's sight.
The law actually stirs up sin making those enslaved by the law in Armstrongism grievous sinners. The law actually stirs up sin. It does not help in the fight against it. First Corinthians 15:25 says, “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.”
Amplified Bible
For through the Law I died to the Law and its demands on me [because salvation is provided through the death and resurrection of Christ], so that I might [from now on] live to God.
New Revised Standard Version
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;
"The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:20-21)
The law serves its purpose well, which is to highlight sin. To make it apparent, to show us we can never be free of it and save ourselves. Its purpose is to condemn us, period (Rom. 7:10, Gal. 3:10, 23). In spite of this, Armstrongist ministers and church leaders continue to tell their followers the submit to the law so that they can be condemned. God forbids if they ever taught freedom in Christ.
New Covenant Christians have been set free from the law: “For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” — Romans 8:2.
The way we stay out of sin, contrary to what many may think, is not by being under the law. The law is a yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1) that made sin actually come alive in us. The law was perfect — don’t get me wrong — but God didn’t give the law so people could follow it perfectly, in turn making them perfect and justified in his sight. No, rather it was to do the opposite.
The law was given to bring out the sin in people to make them see their own humanity and weaknesses; it was to break them down to a point so they could see their need for a Savior.
The only purpose for the law is to bring people to Christ, yet Armstrongism rejects Christ in favor of the law. Galatians 3:24-25 says, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
I resent that. I wear ALUMINUM foil hats and certainly do not keep Sunday!
This is off subject but c'mon Bob: please put on your propheteering mantle and warn the police in the area where a mass shooter (like in the State of Maine) is about to shoot#@%!!
Jesus said, to enter in to life, keep the commandments.
It seems that the Sunday keepers and the law-haters are one and the same. Isn't that equivalent to an admission that keeping Sunday was never commanded by God? If it were, they would hate Sunday. Yet somehow it is supposedly incumbent on Christians to keep it. It's as if they want to make their own law, and to be saved you must keep the Sunday law that they invented while rejecting the law that God invented. So then, who are you worshipping?
Did you ever wonder why Jesus, peter, James and John never taught the theology of Paul?
12:06 Excellent comment. Also, notice the number of NT verses they always leave out? Paul says the law is a spiritual law. The critics of the law always seem to label it just a moral law. That leaves them room to wiggle all they want. Moral laws are easier to change or do away with.
12:10 Paul’s mission was to a different group of people? :)
This is why I left UCG. They are not grace oriented and did not uphold the New Covenant. It gets tiring week after week being told we must keep the law and never hardly every hearing about what the New Covenant stands for and does. Leaving was the best thing my family could ever do.
Anon, Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:57:00 AM PDT, said:
"...We are only justified if we try our hardest not to go back into sin...The 10 commandments doesn't save us per se, but we need to keep them as best we can, and...we all sin we have a saviour who will forgive us if truly repentant..."
Somebody please show me if I am wrong!
******
The hirelings of the former WCG, now heading up the United Ass., are still stagnant in their thinking regarding God's law, and... even if you do/can not your hardest, and if you do not keep those 10 Commandments as best as you can, and if you are not "truly repentant," then what?
Moses had some timely advice:
"Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them." Deut 31:16
How did Moses know that the people would not be doing their best in keeping God's law? How did God know to inspire Moses with those words? And Joshua later told similar things to the Israelites.
When did you conclude that you could write what you wrote and then ask to be shown if you are wrong? Did you mean those words, especially when one knows what the carnal heart and mind is all about? You know those verses.
Here is one reason you cannot do what you suggest, and it is identical to the reason the Israelites couldn't do them 10 Commandments:
"Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Deut 29:4
Jesus Christ was given the heart, eyes and ears, but you/us?
Only if God gives those things, and even in our case, sin will still raise its ugly head in your/our live like it did with the Apostle Paul. Romans 7:17, 20. And yes, evil will be present: verse 21. We're learning about good and evil and learning to hate evil
Yes, even receiving God's Spirit! Jesus was, and so far is, the only exception, because God made Him that way. Remember, Jesus said of Himself He could do nothing, so how is it possible that you can profess to do so much more with trying the hardest, etc.?
It's very simple, because you cannot will to choose to stop sin in your life, and choose to make your words and thoughts stick and never sin again, unless you are Jesus' twin brother, and He has no such thing.
Oh, thank God for all that He does in our lives: His grace and reconciling (2 Cor 5:19), huh? And not only for you, and me, but for this entire world...
Time will tell...
John
If people are going to call be "Bob" every time I say something they don't like, perhaps I should just sign my posts "Bob Thiel"
Bob Thiel (avatar).
Meredith wore the COG uniform of suit/tie/& all-important-briefcase
such costume in COG is similar importance as tassels & tsit-tsit & tallit
“UCG Says God's Grace and Keeping The Law Will Save You”
The disUnited Church of Godlessness, an International Abomination (UCG-aIA) is where unrepentant, unconverted unbelievers go to behave very badly while playing church. They do not keep God's laws, so their only hope is to try to slip into the Kingdom of God by Grease alone without any good works at all.
Hello Anonymous at 8:57: you posted the same thing in two threads, so I will repeat my earlier response to you.
You wrote: “Somebody please show me if I am wrong!”
I’m happy to do so!
First, you appear to have been indoctrinated by a religion that does not teach the Doctrine of Justification.
So, when you cited a wonderfully inspiring passage from 1 Corinthians 6 you are likely to be compelled to re-write verse 11 to fit within the theology of Armstrongism.
Notice the present tense of I Corinthians 6:11, which actually says: “…. but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Justification means “made right” and “made righteous”.
Jesus makes us righteous – not what we do.
Your re-tooling of that verse was stated as: “We are only justified if we try our hardest not to go back into sin.”
Verse 11 does not say that – it says that you are justified in the name of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit – what we do is not in the equation.
No verses in the Bible say what you stated about only being justified by our trying our hardest – or even trying a little bit. Justification is solely the work of Jesus – we should not advocate for the possibility of taking the work of salvation or justification from Jesus.
Your statement is contrary to many verses, such as Galatians 2:16:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The Bible contains several verses that explain justification – Christianity derives its Doctrine of Justification from these verses. Armstrongism ignores these verses and seeks to convince people that salvation is their own work achieved by their own striving to be righteous – not the work of the Savior.
Conditionally, you and I are the sinners described in verses 9 -10 of I Corinthians 6.
Positionally, in Jesus, you and I are completely righteous – made righteous by his righteousness (Romans 3:26).
Many people in Armstrongism become exhausted trying to make themselves righteous –they fail miserably – they can never obtain by their own efforts the righteousness that brings them to be at peace with God.
Please try studying all the verses that contain the words justification, justify, and justified – you can soon become an expert on the topic!
Once you understand the biblical Doctrine of Justification, you will praise God for his love and mercy – and enjoy being at peace with him.
Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
May that righteousness and peace be with you!
Please show me if I am wrong!
Tonto: You cited I Corinthians 6: 9-10 as the context for your thoughts expressed as "Certainly Grace is the only thing that can save us. Yet, we can eliminate ourselves from the process if we so choose."
You and I are the exact same sinners mentioned in this passage - if we deny it, we are also liars.
Conditionally, we are vile sinners.
Positionally, we are the righteousness of Jesus - his righteousness has been imputed to us.
By our own efforts, we have no hope of not being the sinners you cited.
No matter how hard we try to be good - or how well we delude ourselves that we are better than those sinners - we are those sinners.
Hallelujah however, - despite us, Jesus has made us righteous!
Romans 5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
"Law or Grace--- you can't have both"??
A few weeks ago Banned presented a post on critical thinking. Now we have statements like this completely lacking context.
Someone didn't get the point!
The law will set you free!
To Trooisto @ 5:41:00 PM PDT and John @ 12:59:00 PM PDT
Excellent comments from you both which I am sure will help many.
Truely we are saved by grace and that through faith and that not of ourselves…..
In the Armstrong movement we knew everything but nothing at the same time.
The truth sets free indeed.
Now if only those pesky JWs who come knocking at the door could see the grace of God.
Good post at ‘Banned’……
Gal 3:24-25, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (law)"
My questions:
1. Do you mean we start off in our Christian life by keeping the law (10 Commandment) as a babe in Christ but as the years go by, we mature and learn that the law is not necessary for Salvation? Is this the path taken by WCG, from law keeping to freedom from it, now as GCI?
2. Does this process happen to normal Christians in other traditional churches?
Grow in grace - 2Peter 3:18.
I strongly suspect that many ACOG members, including ministering, are trying to get into the kingdom by rigging the rules. They say to God in effect, "If you want a spiritual family, You'll have to lower your standards." This is an extension of the way they relate to those around them. This also explains why the truly converted among them are viciously persecuted.
Don't and Can't.
Double life living is symbolic of why this blog exists in the first place. Hypocrite. Keep the false accusations to yourself.
Where did 11:05 type 'minister' 7:49 ????
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
“The issue is not salvation by works but works as the irrefutable evidence of a person’s actual relationship with God. Salvation is by faith, but faith is inevitably revealed by the works it produces” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised, NICNT, p.376).
“Man is expected to respond to God’s grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. The NT insists that the law is not a means to salvation, but a response to salvation. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. His righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
“Like all Jews, Paul made certain affirmations of the law. The law as given by God and was thus “holy, righteous, and good” (7:12). It was the definitive expression of God’s will for the ordering of human Life 2:1ff), and as such it was worthy of endorsement (3:31)... Justification by faith restored law to its rightful place in the drama of redemption. It retains its function naturally as a straightedge of sin, thus revealing our need of a savior, and after salvation it remains the norm for righteous behavior. But it is no longer - indeed never was - a means of salvation...” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.177).
Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Ro 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
“It is true that in the absence of law people still sinned, but they did not fully recognize their sin. The law stands in a similar relationship to sin as a physician does to illness. The patient may sense a loss of vitality, but not until the disease is diagnosed does the patient know the full extent of the problem. The diagnosis, of course, is not the illness, nor did it cause the illness - but neither can it cure it” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.183).
“The law results in death, but death is not due to the law. It is due to sin which the law both illuminates and inflames” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.189).
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
“Because the law is of God it is not abrogated (3:31), for it reveals the moral will of God and humanity’s obligation to it” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.189).
Ro 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
“Verse 13 compresses the train of thought in verse 7-12 into a single verse. Is the law which is “holy, righteous and good in reality a curse? Paul again thunders a denial, By no means! (see 3:6; 6;2, 15; 7:7). The culprit is sin, not law. The law plays a divine role in relation to sin for its reveals sin (3:20), and by arousing the slumbering demon to life makes sin’s true character the more apparent. But sin abuses the law, producing the opposite of the what the law intended. The law, however, cannot be blamed for death any more than a detective who discovers a corpse can be said to be the killer” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, pp.189-90).
Ro 7:14a For we know that the law is spiritual:
“The law is spiritual because it is given by inspiration and reflects God’s righteous will” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.190).
Part 2
Ro 8:4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (NIV).
“... the Spirit salvages the law as a moral standard, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit (v.4). Paul does not say “righteousness of the law,” for he has argued that righteousness comes by faith. Rather he speaks of the righteous requirements of the law (see 2:26), meaning that which the law demands, even if the law cannot provide it. Those who live in the Spirit are for the first time enabled to acknowledge the true intent of the law, and they are empowered to begin fulfilling it. This is the first positive role of the law in Romans so far. The Spirit is the supernatural reinforcement of God grace who empowers Christians to fulfill the intent and requirements of the law. Paul does not say that one must keep the law in order to be saved but one must be saved in order to keep the law! Augustine understood Paul correctly, “The law is given that grace might be sought; grace is given that the law might be fulfilled” (quoted by J. Stewart, A Man in Christ, p.109).
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts...
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
“The reader familiar with the OT cannot resist the allusion here [Romans 8:4] to Jeremiah 31:31ff. and Ezekiel 36:26ff. Both prophets agonized over the fatal flaw in Israel which thwarted Israel from fulfilling the law and pleasing God. Both foresaw the need for a new covenant and a new spirit, not coercing Israel by external dictates but moving Israel from within to fulfill God's righteous will. And the longing and anticipation of both are fulfilled in Christ...
“According to verse 4, the Spirit reveals the essence of the law and enables Christians to conform to its fundamental intent, even if not to its every detail. The Christian is like a man who has the right tune in his head but cannot remember all the words..." (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.203).
Sex
Drinking alcohol
The law
3 concepts that taken out of God's proper context and use are wrong. But all 3 are "good if a man use them lawfully", 1 Timothy 1:8.
Salvation is a gift from God. You are saved through grace and faith in Jesus Christ. So at baptism you are guaranteed eternal life. However you are still physically alive, and have to carry on living.
During that life the individual should want to follow the way that Christ lived, and live by the principles of God as the person understands them. Unlike Jesus, an imperfect human will fall short from time to time. Gods forgiveness is available for that, and God will freely forgive if the person desires it.
However, it is possible for a person to turn their back on God completely, so they don't even want forgiveness. Its in that situation, where the person no longer desires salvation, that God, in His mercy, will not force salvation on that person.
Seems very straightforward to me. Am I missing something?
A Christian is one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. The Holy Spirit will not lead you to violate God's law, therefore one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells will follow God's law.
For some reason, the Protestant mind cannot comprehend that. Maybe it's because the Holy Spirit dwells not in them?
Trooisto, Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:41:00 PM PDT, said:
"...No verses in the Bible say what you stated about only being justified by our trying our hardest – or even trying a little bit. Justification is solely the work of Jesus – we should not advocate for the possibility of taking the work of salvation or justification from Jesus...Please show me if I am wrong!..."
******
Trooisto, I appreciated virtually all you presented; however, I'd like to provide a little constructive criticism regarding your statement of "...Justification is solely the work of Jesus..." found within the above words.
You left Jesus' God, His Father, out of the picture with that statement. God the Father is the initiator of justification. It's not my opinion; God's Word says this.
First, God the Father:
Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
It is the God who foreknows, predestinates, calls (John 6:44), and justifies, and glorifies.
Now, how is all of that accomplished? It is not solely done by God's works, nor solely done by Jesus' works.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I Corinthians 8:6
Praise, honor and glory to Jesus' Father: our Father, who initiates such a good work in us
That is a lot of "good news," and a great day, pictured by God's seventh annual Holyday: the Eighth Day when all will acknowledge this Father as Isaiah told us of:
"But now, O LORD, thou [art] our father; we [are] the clay, and thou our potter; and we all [are] the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8
Does this Father know best?
Time will tell...
John
When Christians and Armstrongists engage on the topic of the law, there is always a communication problem. Because there are two views of what the law is, both sides can talk past eachother. Here is the data:
1. The law as Torah: mentioned in a few contexts in the New Testament.
2. The Law of Christ: generally referred to in the New Testament.
And the whole matter is complicated by the fact that Paul does not always tell us explicitly which of the two above he is talking about. To understand that, the scripture must be parsed carefully, case by case. And we always have the Jerusalem Conference and the Book of Hebrews as over-arching principle.
It is the case, in these discussions that these general principles hold:
1. When Armstrongists refer to the law, they are talking about neither the Torah nor the Law of Christ. They are talking about the rendition of the Torah that is found uniquely within Armstrongism. Their law retains some parts of the Torah but neglects others.
2. When Christians speak of the law, it depends on the surrounding context. It may be the Torah or it may be the Law of Christ.
Without this clarity, the debate can only be confusing.
Scout
🎱 cannot predict now
reply hazy...try again later
As a person who would be considered an Armstrongite I would like to concur with John:
Jn 3:16 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.
Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
“The adumbration of “salvation” through the first half of Acts will clearly indicate that at the epicenter of Luke’s theological conception of Israel’s restoration is a God who forgives every person who names Jesus as their Lord and confesses him as God’s Messiah (see 2:38; cf. 4:12; 7:25; 13:23, 26, 47; 15:11)” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.65).
1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
"The assignment came to him "by the command of God our Savior"... "God our Savior" is not used by Paul outside the pastoral Epistles... In the Pastorals the term is applied to both the Father (1Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and the Son (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3;6). As the ultimate source of all salvation, the designation is appropriately applied to the Father" (Titus, EBC, Vol.11, p.428).
According to the principal of agency, a concept prevalent in the ancient Near-east, God is the principal and Jesus is His agent.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
God is The God of both the Old and New Testament.
Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
Isa 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Through the lens of the NT, in which Jesus was the God-being that interacted with human beings, it can be seen that Jesus was also the God-being - the angel of his face - that interacted with human beings in the OT.
In my previous post, I was focusing on God as Savior. But should have included, to be more on topic, this observation:
Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
“3:24 justified. Paul uses this verb 22 times, mostly in 2:13-5:1; Gal 2-3. It is translated "justify" in all cases except two (2:13; 3:20, where it is translated "declared righteous"). The term describes what happens when someone believes in Christ as his Savior: From the negative viewpoint, God declares the person to be not guilty; from the positive viewpoint, he declares him to be righteous. He cancels the guilt of the person's sin and credits righteousness to him. Paul emphasizes two points in this regard: 1. No one lives a perfectly good, holy, righteous life. On the contrary, "there is no one righteous" (v. 10), and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (v. 23). "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his [God's] sight by observing the law" (v. 20). 2. But even though all are sinners and not sons, God will declare everyone who puts his trust in Jesus not guilty but righteous. This legal declaration is valid because Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin and lived a life of perfect righteousness that can in turn be imputed to us. This is the central theme of Romans and is stated in the theme verse, 1:17 ("a righteousness from God"). Christ's righteousness (his obedience to God's law and his sacrificial death) will be credited to believers as their own. Paul uses the word "credited" nine times in ch. 4 alone. freely by his grace. The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly and totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv. 9-19), because of his trust in Christ God declares him righteous. This is stated in several ways here: (1) "freely" (as a gift, for nothing), (2) "by his grace," (3) "through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" and (4) "through faith" (v. 25)...” (Walter W. Wessel, Romans, NIV Study Bible, p.1710).
Law of God = Law of Christ; the ‘heart’ of the matter
Ne 10:29 ... to follow the Law of God given through His servant Moses and to carefully obey all the commandments, ordinances, and statutes of the LORD our Lord. (BSB).
"... it is important to recognize that laws are expressions of the values of the lawgiver... This connection between the Lord's laws and his values is important... his values flow from his character, and his character is perfect and constant (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17)... these laws give us a window into the Lord's heart..." (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, p.57).
"... the Old Testament contains ethical precepts, or the moral law of God. Yet they were often misunderstood and even more disobeyed. Jesus ‘fulfilled' them in the first instance by obeying them... He does more than obey them himself; he explains what obedience will involve for his disciples. He rejects the superficial interpretation of the law given by the scribes; he himself supplies the true interpretation. His purpose is not to change the law, still less annul it, but ‘to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold' [A.H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St Matthew, p.58]...” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, p.72).
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD
"The law is instructive for the Christian community as it lives out its life in the world... It is of course the law now fulfilled in Christ... Paul in READING THE TORAH AS A NARRATIVE has come to see Jesus as the decisive chapter in an otherwise unfinished story. He is the one to whom the torah is directed. But that does not mean a negation of the legislative dimensions of the torah, only a fresh perspective on it.
1Co 9:21b being not without law to God,
1 Cor 9:21c but under the law to Christ,
"He can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Interpretation, p.82).
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
"This preliminary look at the antheses has shown us that Jesus did not contradict the law of Moses. On the contrary, this is in effect what the Pharisees were doing. What Jesus did was rather to explain the true meaning of the moral law with all its uncomfortable implications. He extended the commands which they were restricting and restricted the permissions which they were extending. To him Moses' law was God's law, whose validity was permanent and whose authority must be accepted. In the Sermon of the Mount, as Calvin correctly expressed it, we see Jesus not ‘as a new legislator, but as the faithful expounder of a law which had already been given' (Commentary on the harmony of the evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, I, p.282), p.290)...” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, p.80).
Dt 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always...
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
"It was a new heart-righteousness which the prophets foresaw as one of the blessings of the Messianic age, ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts,' God promised Jeremiah (31:33). How would he do it? He told Ezekiel: ‘I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes' (36:27). Thus God's two promises to put his law within us and to put his Spirit within us coincide. We must not image (as some do today) that when we have the Spirit we can dispense with the law, for what the Spirit does in our hearts, is precisely, to write God's law there. So ‘Spirit', ‘law', ‘righteousness' and ‘heart' all belong together” (John R.W. Stott, ibid., BST, p.75).
I've decided that my next wife is going to be a fundamentalist lady named Grace. Hopefully, Grace keeping the law will give me a pass into the Kingdom!
God must be very confused. He changed the law from Saturday to Sunday at the same time that he did away with the law. Why change it if you are doing away with it anyway?
where is my Jethro Bodine cast iron double-naught spy hat shaped like Billy Jack's
be careful if you are on a date & either of you flip to Ezekiel 23:20
no podium Prefect corral boss ever expounds that one often, maybe it's off limits
you mean like Dave Pack's idea of dashing babies on rocks?
were you being like Timothy McVeigh collateral damage 9:24 or just being sarcastic
Judging by the above, looks like you law-haters lost.
Satan has deceived so many of you into hating the law, and not only that, into believing that Paul was against the law in Romans, when in fact he was presenting a dichotomy between law and grace to make sure that no one gets too far right or left of center.
Most of you not only don't know His law, you don't have much of His grace.
Christ (possessing both grace and the law) is indeed the aim of the law to construct the perfect person but your righteousness isn't just about the believing (faith) part, it's also in the doing (the law) part, for "all thy commandments (of the law) are righteousness" (Ps 119:172). Everyone quotes Paul but they don't quote James very often who wrote that "by WORKS (expressing FAITH in God as Abraham and Rahab did) a man is justified also". (Ja 2:24) This is because he is pleasing God by keeping His word contained in His law, yet you people keep judging the law-keeper's motives here. Would you dare question James and ask him what law he was talking about? We are not talking about tassels, circumcision, crop offerings or fabrics to wear. Yet some of you keep provoking God with these questions while presuming to know what the NC legal constitution entails.
Your grace, if you have it, reigns THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS (Rom 5:21), meaning, you better be doing what is right, and righteousness is encoded in a law of some sort (Rom 2:14-15), both in the old and new testaments, but for our purposes we are interested in the righteousness of the law of Christ (Rom 2:26), since He always was and is the final aim of the law. (Rom 10:4), not just for righteousness but for wisdom, sanctification and redemption also. (1 Cor 1:30)
Well written and oh my you guess them well. They hate everyone and everything, even themselves at times. Causing hatred between brethren is a demonic skill and they flourish in it. Even verbal talking about peace they hate for they want churches to have war, hate and confusion. And then when everyone hates each other they will secretly snigger and be happy.
9:07,
You sum it very well. I would like to add Luke 6:46, “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?"; 1 John 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."; 1John3:5, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
Law-haters just do not want to obey what our Lord Jesus Christ says. They are the modern Israelites - stubborn and stiff necked.
Hello John: I will adjust my messaging on Justification, as a result of your constructive criticism – thank you!
However, as you know, we do not see eye to eye on the nature of God.
As a Trinitarian, I can agree that Justification is the work of God – as Jesus is God. I can also agree that Justification is part of God’s saving activity in Christ.
Furthermore, I can see God’s role in Justification starting with the fact that all humans (even the best of the Armstrongites) are hopeless sinners before the Divine Judge. Regardless of what works we have produced, we can only receive a guilty verdict – our own righteousness does not come close to God’s requirement and God requires a payment for our sin.
Jesus then steps into Justification by performing the work of living a sinless life as a man and paying the price for our sins. Jesus takes our sins and he gives us his righteousness (Romans 4:5). This is what I was referring to as Jesus’ work of Justification.
Jesus is God’s answer to the human predicament of being hopeless sinners.
Jesus paid the full penalty that God requires, for every Believer’s sins.
God considers our sin as belonging to Jesus - God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Finally, God’s work of Justification is done all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 1:30–31).
This is the message I would like all Armstrongite visitors to this blog to consider, and praise God for his saving work.
Good comments, 4:27, but believers should seek to go beyond justification once they come to Christ, for Rom 8:30 says that the next step is toward glory. As Paul said in Rom 2:7 and Peter in 2 Pet 1:3, we seek for glory, honour and immortality. And this righteousness which is imputed to us is ONLY ours because of having faith in Christ, acknowledging our sins and recognizing Him as Lord (whose law is to be obeyed if our justification will hold true). We don't stop and feel sorry for ourselves after we have received this power to keep the law of Christ. Christ expects you to go on in faith. Look at the letters to the churches of Revelation. We're under scrutiny all the time, whether we do good or evil.
What kind of glory are we talking about here? One example is in regard to the law of the righteous commandments of Christ (since the topic here is about the compatibility between law and grace), which He cited personally in Mt 5:19. If we teach them, our names will be glorified in heaven. We won't be condemned as some on this website are doing, who think that the law was fulfilled at His death (so that we're free to do as we please), because many more are going to be saved by this preaching.
So UCG, for all of its past and current failings, hits the nail on the head when they say that we are saved by grace yet are obligated to keep the commandments of the law of Christ. This is one of the things that distinguished WCG from the rest who held little tolerance for a law that seemed to be in conflict with grace.
Well put 12:02.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do AND teach [didasko] them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“The word ‘therefore’ introduces the deduction which Jesus now draws for his disciples from the enduring validity of the law and his own attitude with respect to it. It reveals a vital connection between the law of God and the kingdom of God. Because he has come not to abolish but to fulfil, and because not an iota or dot will pass from the law until all has been fulfilled, therefore greatness in the kingdom of God will be measured by conformity to it. Nor is personal obedience enough; Christian disciples must also teach to others the permanently binding nature of the law’s commandments” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, p.74).
["iwra ("iota") is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet but translates an underlying reference to the smallest Hebrew letter , the yod... We have here thus a deliberate hyperbole -an overstatement that is designed to drive home the main point that the law be fully preserved..." (Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, p.106)].
Teaching God’s way and law is a ‘fruit’ of repentance:
"While Paul documents many separate images of repentance, the single most prominent biblical source of images of repentance is Psalm 51... [It] catalogs four facets of genuine repentance echoed by Paul: comprehension of wrong doing, earnest desire for justice, desire for the presence of God, and changed action...
Ps 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Ps 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Ps 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Ps 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Ps 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Ps 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Ps 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
Ps 51:13 Then will I teach [didasko, LXX]] transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Ps 51:14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
Ps 51:15 O Lord, open thou my lips: and my mouth shall show forth thy praise.
Ps 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
"Changed action is the most tangible demonstration of repentance... Having requested the presence of God, David immediately describes his plan of action: to "teach transgressors your ways," leading to repentance, and "to declare your praises" (Ps 51:13-15)" (Leland Ryken, General Editor, et. al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, pp.704-705).
"It seems likely, therefore, that verse 19 was aimed by Matthew at radical Christians who challenged the authority of Scripture. If this is the case, however, it is significant that these radicals are not denied a place in the age to come but are simply assigned the lowest rank in the kingdom. Why? Because, for Matthew, the truest test of belonging to Jesus (and thus having a place in the kingdom) is ethical behavior (see 7:21-28). To reject the inspiration of certain passage of Scripture was, for Matthew, a serious theological error but not a mortal sin" (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, Int, pp.48-49).
Even demons can quote scripture in order to keep people enslaved to the law which brings death. The law cannot and will not bring life everlasting. It is only there for condemnation and not edification. The tutor is no longer needed.
8:27
And yet you most likely happily obey man's laws wherever you go even though they just might break God's laws.
Hello Anonymous of October at 12:02: we both agree that obedience to God is important to Christians.
You mentioned, without citing a scriptural reference: “whose law is to be obeyed if our justification will hold true”.
In all the passages discussing Justification, I don’t see any that indicate that justification is temporal or conditional. What scriptures can you offer to support your point?
Your statement about Justification “holding true”, conditioned on law, brings to mind Galatians 5:4 - “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”
You did cite Matthew 5:19, which Armstrongites use to support their instance on the Ten Commandments. However, this passage does not infer that justification is conditioned on keeping the law. Please notice how Jesus said that those who break the least commandment and teach others to do likewise would be “called least in the Kingdom of Heaven” - only those who are made righteous by the righteousness of Jesus will be in the Kingdom – the “law breaker” people Jesus is referring to, are in the Kingdom.
In Matthew 5, Jesus then goes on to magnify the law – so while the Ten Commandments are good, if you are just keeping the ten (which you are definitely failing to do), you are falling way short of what Jesus expects from us – and are in danger of being the “least” in the Kingdom.
To make matters worse for Armstrongites, Matthew 5 concludes with verse 48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The only way I know of to obey this COMMAND of Jesus is to trust in his Justification – his righteousness being substituted for my lack of righteousness.
Please tell me what is the Armstrongite version of obeying the perfection command of Jesus found in Matthew 5:48?
Bonus points to be awarded if you can also provide a supporting reference from Armstrongite literature.
(end of part 1 - part 2 to follow)
hello again 12:02: Here's part 2 of my reply to you.
The command to be as perfect as God is perfect dovetails nicely with another passage Armstrongites use to insist that keeping the Ten Commandments are required of Christians – while completely missing the point that Jesus is telling us that we must go farther than the ten.
In Mathew 19, the young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to receive salvation; Jesus (then living perfectly under the Law, the Law that had not yet ended in him - Romans 10:4) cited the Ten Commandments. The ruler said he had kept the commandments all his life. Jesus then told him he must sell all his possessions and give that money to the poor.
In Mathew 19:25, the Disciples of Jesus were amazed by how Jesus depicted how difficult it was to enter the Kingdom and then asked how one could be saved. In verse 26, Jesus answered that it was impossible for man to be saved – except – by God, salvation is possible. Thereby, Jesus supported the doctrines of Grace and Justification as the means by which we are saved – salvation is an act of God not something men can accomplish.
In your post you cited “the Law of Christ”, so I will cite Galatians 6:2 - “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ”.
Galatians 6:2 dovetails with the command of Jesus to sell all you have and give to the needy.
Please confirm that in your keeping the law, you have followed the command of Jesus to sell all your possessions and give that money to the poor.
A few months ago, a person of your persuasion asked me how I knew that God’s commands were written on my heart. I thought that was a truly important question for me to answer for myself – in so doing, I also answered it to him. I did enjoy and appreciate the dialogue with this individual, so I hope that I’m not reading him wrong – and I’m not trying to disparage him – but I don’t think that he accepted what I presented as my evidence of God’s law being written on my heart. He did refer to my evidence as “outreach”.
So, I ask you the same question; how do you know that God’s law is written on your heart?
My experience with Armstrongism is that there is much pride over their belief that they keep God’s law.
However, Armstrongism proclaims a proprietary law blend that is not specified in the Bible; Armstrongites have selected just a few laws from the Torah to be obeyed and have retooled them to suite their needs. As an example, please tell me if you just celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles according to all the commands specified in Nehemiah 8. If not, what is your rationale for keeping the Feast your way?
I’m also hoping you can provide insight into how Jesus magnified the command to keep the Sabbath holy. I can never get my Armstrongite associates to respond to that topic, as they share their pride in keeping their version of the Sabbath.
Keeping the law is only in the salvation equation because of Jesus perfectly keeping the Law. After his victory, nothing we do can add to the saving work of the Savior.
I see only two possibilities: one is that salvation is completely the work of God – the other is salvation depends on the individual to save themselves, or at least co-save. Which of these two best fits your understanding of salvation?
A few Holy Scriptures that instruct that our works or law keeping are not in the salvation equation, to close with:
Ephesians 2:7-9
that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Trooisto, you asked: "In all the passages discussing Justification, I don’t see any that indicate that justification is temporal or conditional. What scriptures can you offer to support your point?"
••••••
Good question!
Regarding justification, I like Paul's comments:
Romans 8:28-33 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."
John
Hello John: thanks for sharing that great passage! It's very encouraging; however, it's sad to see how our Armstrongite friends have no interest in justification, as they prefer working for their own righteous.
For several years, I tried to get my LCG associates interested in topics like grace and justification by citing verses, They were completely disinterested.
However, now that LCG produced a video about grace and will soon be releasing a book about grace and law, the associates will discuss grace, as long as I don't go any deeper on the subject than the teachings of their church.
These associates will not discuss justification though - because it has not been taught in their church. It seems like it's not a thoughtful decision to purposefully refuse to discuss justification; it is more of a subconscious, group-think reaction. If their church doesn't teach it, they have no use for it.
Trying to discuss the subject in this thread seems to have killed the conversation with the Armstrongites who advocated for works of law being needed to make justification "hold true ". If they re-visit this thread, I hope they will consider the passage you quoted!
For those who hate “law”…
But one who has looked intently at the perfect law, the law of freedom, and has continued in it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an active doer, this person will be blessed in what he does.
James 1:25
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Romans 7:12
707,
I'm not sure why you want to characterize people in a way that none have said, but that is your choice.
Regarding James 1, it is obvious that the "perfect law" is not Sinai law here. It is a different law, "the law of liberty".
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
The whole point of Romans 7 is to say that we are no longer under "the dominion" of the law. Read the whole chapter (and book for that matter). Still this does not change the fact the Law is described as holy, righteous, and good.
I've compared this to the Articles of the Confederation that were written for the U.S. Colonies as our governing document as we claimed our independence from England. The Articles served their purpose and were good, but we later needed more and the U.S. Constitution became our governing document.
Still the Articles were good, but they hold no dominion over us as the Constitution became the pertinent governing rules.
The Law and the Sinai covenant were used for a time...and were holy, just, good. But, something better took its place "The New Covenant" It has better terms and promises. In Romans 7 we are told that we are no longer under the law. We become dead to the Law through the body of Christ. Christ is the basis of the New (and greater) Covenant. The old covenant is not the governing law.
The new covenant is a renewed covenant. The laws are the same but the people’s hearts change from anti law to loving the law. Messiah was/is the “end” of the law, meaning the result of the law. He is our example. He loved His Father and His law. Law doesn’t replace grace and grace doesn’t replace law.
Sure doesn't sound like that from Galatians. Old Covenant is Hagar the handmaid. New Covenant is Sarah.
Completely distinct. Galatians says if you take the handmaid you can't have Sarah or the new covenant or the Jerusalem above.
I've heard all the arguments for the "difficult scriptures". Maybe they mean what they say and are not difficult.
The Sinai Law is no longer in effect. Many jots and tittles are explicitly no longer followed such as circumcision, sacrifices, levitical priesthood, tithing, etc. Paul calls it a tutor that is no longer needed. He considered the Jews who had so much of their identity in those things that he went at great lengths to dampen the pain by drawing analogies to the old covenant. But, to the "foolish" Galatians Paul wanted to make sure that they understood that the handmaid is to be thoroughly put out.
Galatians 4 is explicit (read it several times):
Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[e]
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[f] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Hello Anonymous of October 31 at 10:37: I noticed that you didn’t provide any scriptures to support your beliefs, although you do seem to be making a COG-odd reference to Romans 10:4, which doesn’t sound anything what you are suggesting; that verse actually says:
Romans 10:4
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
This is a justification verse and if you read the entirety of chapter 10 you find the “Just believe and you are saved’ verses that the COGs ridicule, such as:
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There’s no reliance on keeping the law in Romans 10, so Armstrongites tend to stay away from this chapter.
Without scriptural support, you also implied that the New Covenant is like the Old Covenant, which is not biblical, as evidenced by Hebrews 8:6-7
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
I'm interested in learning about how Armstrongites interpret verses about justification - but I can never get them to discuss the topic. Please tell me how you interpret this verse:
Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Do people understand what “under the law” means? I don’t think they do. It seems people like to use words that link believers to Armstrong or some organization when there are actually bible believers out here who read what it says. Do people read what the prophets told the people, how they lived (example Noah), how Christ lived, what Ezekiel and other prophets were warning people about … curses for disobedience? Messiah wanted to gather them under His wings but they wouldn’t have it. None of the prophets were teaching against Yehovah’s law. The Pharisees relied on their misguided truths for salvation. Works don’t save but works (law observance) certainly follows and is evident in a converted life.
@ 7:14, to clear up your confusion you might find helpful Avi Ben Mordechai’s book, “Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context,” to understand what actually is taking place at that time in history. His research and understanding and clear explanation of the meaning of the book of Galatians is phenomenal.
Hello Anonymous of October 31, 2023 at 8:15:00 PM: do you see what I mean about not getting Armstrongites to discuss justification?
I asked for an Armstrongite interpretation in an attempt to get them to discuss a topic that they avoid, even though it's in the Bible.
I assume you are the same Anonymous from 10:37 - which reminds me that I forgot to point out another COG-odd concept from your post at that time.
You, like Armstrongites often do, referred to Jesus as your example.
Armstrongites are comfortable with Jesus as their example - but don't like to refer to Jesus as their Savior.
Savior is much more important than example.
During the time Jesus was serving as the "example" he was doing something you cannot emulate - Jesus was living perfectly according to the law in effect at that time - so that he could become your Savior.
So, the perfect example of Jesus was not intended for you to copy - humans cannot.
Yet, Jesus commanded us to be perfect in Matthew 5:48 - which cannot be achieved by your law-keeping.
We are invited to enjoy the perfect righteousness of Jesus through justification - and now we're back to that term Armstrongites will not discuss.
Why?
teleios as telos
1Ti 1:5a The goal [telos] of this command is love,
Mt 5:48 Be ye THEREFORE perfect [teleios], even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Lk 6:36 Be Ye THEREFORE merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
“... “perfection” (understood in relation to the nature of God) remains a goal, not an achievement” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.228).
“The qualitites that are seen in the Father are the qualities the children should make their aim” (Leon Morris, Luke, TNTC, p.151).
Lev 19:2b Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
“... man is still called to imitate God (Matt 5:48, 1 Cor 11:1), to “be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 19:2; cf. 1 Pet 1:16). The detailed application of these imperatives may change from age to age, but the fundamental principles of holy living remain unaltered” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.275).
Pr 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Pr 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: (cp. 2Ki 6:21-23).
"Never does the OT command, "Hate your enemy," as the oral tradition of Jesus' day enjoined (Matt 5:43)" (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Exodus, EBC, Vol.2, p.443).
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
“While this verse [5:48] appropriately rounds off the final example in vv. 43-47, picking up from v.45 the theme of the children’s imitation of their heavenly Father (see on 5:16 for this Matthean phrase), its comprehensive phrasing also sums up the whole new way of living which the six examples have together illustrated, and thus to put into a neat epigram the essential nature of the “greater righteousness” introduced in v.20. This saying thus fulfills a more climatic function than the parallel in Luke 6:36, which has “merciful” instead of “perfect” and serves to underscore only Luke’s parallel to Matthew’s two last antitheses. The disciples lifestyle is to be different from other people’s in that it draws inspiration not from the norms of society but from the character of God. Even the God-given law had been accommodated to a practical ethical code with which Jewish society had come to feel comfortable, but Jesus is demanding a different approach, not via laws read as simple rules of conduct but rather by looking behind those laws to the mind and character of God himself. Whereas any definable set of rules could, in principle, be fully kept, the demand of the kingdom of heaven has no such limit — or rather its limit is perfection, the perfection of God himself.
Part 2
Deu 18:13 You shall be perfect [blameless, EV; teleios, LXX] before the LORD your God,
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect [teleios], even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
“The wording of this summary recalls the repeated formula of Leviticus, “You are to be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2; cf. 11:44, 45; 20:26). God’s people were to reflect his character, and the same is now true for those who are subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The use of teleois (perfect) instead of “holy” may derive from the requirements of total loyalty to God in Deu 18:13, where the Hebrew tamim (complete, unblemished, blameless, perfect) is rendered by teleios in LXX.
Phil 3:15a All of us who are mature [teleios] should take such a view of things...
Heb 6:1a Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity teleiotes],
“It is a wider term than moral flawlessness, and is used for spiritual “maturity,” for example in 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Phil 3:15, and frequently in Hebrews.
Mt 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect [teleios], go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me
“Matthew will use teleios again in 19:21 to denote the higher level of commitment represented by the rich man’s selling his possessions in contrast with his merely keeping the commandments (including again in Lev 19:18). It is thus a suitable term to sum up the “greater righteousness” of v.20, a righteousness which is demanded not only from an upper echelon of spiritual elites but from all who belong to the kingdom of God. It is the promotion of this standard of perfection, going far beyond the literal requirements of the OT law, that Jesus “fulfills” it” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.228).
Annon 201
Once again you nailed it. Another home run!
So, Anon201, from these writings of R.T. France are you making the point that as Christians we are to strive to do well, that we are not to be lascivious? The majority of Christians I know strive to do well and ask for God's guidance. Is that your experience?.
R.T. France points out that those who are subjects of the KINGDOM of Heaven should be reflecting God's character...at least as best we can. I would say that displaying the Fruit of the Spirit goes a long way for we Christians subject to the Kingdom of Heaven.
It seems that those who reject being subject to the KINGDOM of Heaven also reject the idea of striving to reflect God's character and of bearing Fruit of the Spirit. Do you think those that rebel against being a subject of the Kingdom of Heaven look to some other standard of behavior or no standard at all?
Mike
Hello Leviticus Lover: You wrote all that and still ignored Justification.
I find the COG response to receiving his righteousness of the Savior to be troubling (I’m trying to tone done my meanness, as you encouraged me to do a few months ago).
The Armstrongite avoidance of justification proves the veracity of Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
The Doctrine of Justification is in the Bible – so why must Armstrongites ignore it and refuse to respond to the topic?
Do you have any reaction to any of these verses?
Acts 13:39
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
Romans 3:24
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:26
he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 8:33
Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
1 Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
Galatians 3:24
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
Titus 3:7
so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
The comments on here remind me of a dog chasing its tail. They go around and around. Of course Messiah is our Savior. Of course He is our example. The Father also is our Savior. He gave His Son. Is anyone here really thinking that others on here believe we are justified by the law? I don’t think anyone has implied that. It’s been stated over and over again even in the COGs that we aren’t saved by keeping the law. To me it appears it’s an attempt to do away with the law by repeatedly stating we aren’t justified or saved by keeping the law. The law is holy righteous and good. “Oh how love I the law.” And yes, Yehovah and Messiah, too.
Thanks BP8 - but too generous :)
A while back I put together a combo on the Law which had these topics:
Jesus and the Law - John R. W. Stott
Defining Righteousness - F. F. Bruce, Walter W. Wessel, David Brown
Life through the Spirit - John R. W. Stott, James R. Edwards
Law in Romans - F. F. Bruce
Law as Paidagogos - Charles B. Cousar
Ministry of the Spirit - Scott J. Haffemann
I posted part of “Defining Righteousness” earlier on this thread but I have included it again as the whole of “Defining Righteousness” is below. I want to develop Romans 3:21-31 at a later date, but not a priority at the moment, I like this comment:
“... Romans 3:21-31 may at first deceive the reader because of its compactness. Here is a veritable glossary of the Christian faith, and surely the most succinct and profound expression of the gospel in the Bible... Paul employs a wide variety of vocabulary in developing the theme of righteousness by faith. One set of terms comes from the law courts, consisting of “righteousness,” “law,” and “reckoning” (NIV, “maintain,” 3:28). The first two terms are heavyweights; in this passage of some 150 words, “righteousness” recurs nine times and “law” seven times. A second set of terms, deriving from the institution of slavery, includes “redemption” and perhaps “grace.” A final set comes from the ritual of animal sacrifice and includes “expiation” (NIV “sacrifice of atonement:), “sin,” and “blood.” THE MOST COMMON WORD IN THE ENTIRE SECTION, “FAITH,” RECURS TEN TIMES. It is the key to the vocabulary of the whole, and the means by which these momentous truths are appropriated by the believer...” (James R. Edwards. Romans, NIBC, pp.97-98).
Defining Righteousness
Hab 2:4 Behold, his [“Collective for the Babylonians, but with special reference to their king,” NIVSB] soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness [dikaiosune] of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just [dikaios] shall live by faith.
“To understand the sense in which the gospel is said to reveal God’s righteousness it is necessary to bear in mind some facts about the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament, which forms the chief background of Paul’s thought and language.
Ex 9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous [saddiq], and I and my people are wicked [rasha’].
Ex 9:27b the Lord is righteous [dikaios] and I and my people are wicked [asebes] (LXX).
‘The ideas of right and wrong among the Hebrews are forensic ideas, that is, the Hebrew always thinks of the right and wrong as if they were to be settled before a judge. Righteousness is to the Hebrew not so much a moral quality as a legal status. The word “righteous” (saddiq) means simply “in the right”, and the word “wicked” (rasha’) means “in the wrong”. I have sinned this time”, says Pharoah, “Jehovah is in the right (AV. righteous), and I and my people are in the wrong (A.V. wicked)”, Exod ix.27). Jehovah is always in the right, for He is not only sovereign but self-consistent. He is the fountain of righteousness ... the consistent will of Jehovah is the law of Israel’ (W.R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel (1882), pp.77f.
Ex 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Part 2
“God is himself righteous, and those men and women are righteous who are in the right in relation to God and his law. [Or to use a modern expression, ‘in the clear’ - with which may be compared God’s insistence in the Old Testament that he ‘will by no means clear the guilty (Ex 34:7]. When, therefore the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, it is revealed in a twofold manner. The gospel tells us first how men and women, sinners as they are, can come to be ‘in the right’ with God and second how God’s personal righteousness is vindicated in the very act of declaring sinful men and women ‘righteous...
Hab 2:4b but the just [saddiq] shall live by his faith (‘emuna). (AV).
Hab 2:4b but the just [dikaios] shall live by my faith (pistis). (LXX, Brenton).
Ro 1:17b The just dikaios] shall live by faith (pitis). (AV).
Hab 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
“These words from Habakkuk 2:4b have already been quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:11 to prove that it is not by the law that people are justified before God... Hebrew ‘emuna translated ‘faith’ in Habakkuk 2:4 (LXX pistis) means ‘steadfastness’ or ‘fidelity’; in the Habakkuk passage this steadfastness or fidelity is based on a firm belief in God and his word, and it is this firm belief that Paul understands by the term.
“Habakkuk, crying out to God against the oppression under which his people groaned (late in the seventh century BC), received the divine assurance that wickedness would not triumph indefinitely, that righteousness would ultimately be vindicated, and the earth would ‘be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea’ (Hab 2:14). The vision might be slow in being realized, but it would certainly be fulfilled. Meanwhile, the righteous would endure to the end, directing their lives by a loyalty to God inspired by faith in his promise.
“When Paul takes up Habakkuk’s words and sees in them the foundation truth of the gospel, he gives them the sense, ‘it is he who is righteous (justified) through faith that will live.’ The terms of Habakkuk’s oracle are sufficiently general to make room for Paul’s application of them - an application which, far from doing violence to the prophet’s intention, expresses the abiding validity of his message” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, pp.73-76).
Part 3
Ps 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. (AV).
Ps 143:2 Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you. (NIV).
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (AV).
Ro 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous [dikaioo] in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (NIV).
Ro 3:24 Being justified [dikaioo] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
“3:24 justified. Paul uses this verb 22 times, mostly in 2:13-5:1; Gal 2-3. It is translated "justify" in all cases except two (2:13; 3:20, where it is translated "declared righteous"). The term describes what happens when someone believes in Christ as his Savior: From the negative viewpoint, God declares the person to be not guilty; from the positive viewpoint, he declares him to be righteous. He cancels the guilt of the person's sin and credits righteousness to him. Paul emphasizes two points in this regard: 1. No one lives a perfectly good, holy, righteous life. On the contrary, "there is no one righteous" (v. 10), and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (v. 23). "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his [God's] sight by observing the law" (v. 20). 2. But even though all are sinners and not sons, God will declare everyone who puts his trust in Jesus not guilty but righteous. This legal declaration is valid because Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin and lived a life of perfect righteousness that can in turn be imputed to us. This is the central theme of Romans and is stated in the theme verse, 1:17 ("a righteousness from God"). Christ's righteousness (his obedience to God's law and his sacrificial death) will be credited to believers as their own. Paul uses the word "credited" nine times in ch. 4 alone. freely by his grace. The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly and totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv. 9-19), because of his trust in Christ God declares him righteous. This is stated in several ways here: (1) "freely" (as a gift, for nothing), (2) "by his grace," (3) "through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" and (4) "through faith" (v. 25)...” (Walter W. Wessel, Romans, NIV Study Bible, p.1710).
Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
“being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets - being attested by the Old Testament Scriptures themselves. Thus this justifying righteousness is at once new, as only now fully disclosed, and old, as predicted and foreshadowed in the ancient Scriptures” (David Brown, Romans, JFB Vol.3, Part 2, p.207).
Trooisto, likes to address me as “Leviticus Lover” - so here is how I came to ‘love’ Leviticus:
Part 1
Go on to maturity
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection [teleiotes]; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
“The basics of salvation are so simple that a little child can grasp them. But God has revealed much more for those who want to "go on to maturity" (Heb 6:1; RSV). The details are for our benefit. They not only show us more clearly how we are saved, they teach what God is like. If we want to spend eternity with God, it is a good idea to get acquainted with Him now as much as possible.
"Details are important to relationships. When I was dating Connie, the young woman who later became my wife, I wanted to know everything about her. I was interested in her childhood, family, friends, values, plans, habits, talents, and the way she treated people. Nothing was unimportant. Everything was fascinating. I find the same to be true of what I learn from God" (Roy Gane, Altar Call, p.31).
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
“If we take the New Testament seriously, it is worth while to pause and consider our attitude towards Leviticus. For one thing, in 2 Timothy 3:16 the apostles writes: :”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (emphasis supplied). For Paul “all Scripture” certainly included Leviticus. More specifically, THE FACT THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT REFERS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT RITUAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN WHAT CHRIST HAS ACCOMPLISHED AND IS CONTINUING TO ACCOMPLISH INDICATES THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THE RITUALS SHOULD BE HELPFUL, AND MAY EVEN BE INDISPENSABLE, FOR COMPREHENDING THE RICHNESS OF SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST (e.g., Luke 24:27; 1 Cor 5:17; 15;20; Heb 7-10; Rev 4-5)” (Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC, p.24).
“... Leviticus is primarily about the Presence and character of God in relation to his people and only secondarily concerned with sin, which interferes with the divine-human relationship” (Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC, p.24).
“.... it must also be noted that the laws of Leviticus are an expression of the Lord’s values in a specific historical-cultural context that is often very different from our own” (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, p.58).
“... after an intensive summer course in modern Hebrew at the University of Jerusalem, I [Roy Gane] enrolled in undergraduate and graduate study of biblical Hebrew at the University of California, Berkeley.
"The professor of biblical Hebrew at that university was Jacob Milgrom, whose preoccupation with Leviticus and Numbers plunged me into what I had regarded as a deserted realm of blood and guts, far from the aesthetics of Psalms. Over a number of years, our progress through the Hebrew text of Leviticus and Numbers and their many interpretations was slow and thorough, generally only a chapter or two per semester. As an extreme example, we spent an entire session of two and a half hours on one Hebrew letter: a preposition b in Leviticus 17:11. [That is, the preposition "for" used in the phrase "for the soul", AV; in Hebrew, this preposition is prefixed to nouns].
Part 2
"As Milgrom guided his students in unfolding the text, I progressively came to grasp his main point. The dynamic worship system of ancient Israel encapsulates profound theological meaning. Furthermore, although relationships with the New Testament were not under discussion, A NEW WORLD OF UNDERSTANDING OPENED UP TO VASTLY ENRICH AND NUANCE MY CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GOD'S CHARACTER AND THE WAY HE INTERACTS WITH AND RESTORES FAULTY HUMAN BEINGS LIKE ME. So driving home late at night from Milgrom's seminar along Highway 80 in my ancient 1962 Ford Falcon, I found myself pounding on the steering wheel and yelling with excitement" (Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC, p.15).
O how I love your sacrificial system - apology to the Psalmist.
"One evening in the 1980s, Prof Jacob Milgrom relaxed with his students during a break in the "Advanced Biblical Hebrew Texts" seminar that he conducted in his Berkeley home. To explain his preoccupation with Leviticus, he told us a story about a yeshiva student who noticed that his teacher was studying a certain page of Talmud. On a subsequent day, the student was surprised to find the rabbi perusing the same page. When he inquired why, the teacher simply responded: "I like it here."
"Since that evening in Berkeley, Milgrom has moved through the sacrificial and purity instruction of Leviticus 1-16 and on to the legislation of chapters 17-27. But now its is the student who lingers. I am still pondering the sacrifices, especially the hatta't (purification offering) and the ceremonies of Yom Kippur. Why? I like it here."
"Before participating in Milgom's seminar, I had no interest in Leviticus whatsoever..." (Roy Gane, Cult and Character, Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy".
When I purchased the NIV Application Commentary Series, in which Roy Gane authored "Leviticus/Numbers" I had no idea what I was getting into. Now it also I that "lingers".
While Leviticus is one of my favourite books, Ezekiel 40-48 is my favourite nine chapters in the Bible. My favourite verse for understanding the principal of agency is by a woman, not only a woman but a Gentile as well:
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
My favourite half verse as regards to the Keturah Administration of the New Covenant reads:
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...
I suggest that if one can grasp the import of 2Ch 9:8 and Eze 43:7a, one will realize that Jesus Christ will not be literally ruling on the throne of David during the Messianic Age.
This comment maybe more for those who "linger" and "like it here." I. It is probably more for those of the inner court (Revelation 11:2) :) - only priests are allowed in the inner court.
("yeshiva, yeshivah... n. a school for the study of the Jewish Scriptures, the Talmud: a seminary for the training of rabbis: an orthodox elementary school:... [Heb. yeshibhah, a sitting]" - Chambers English Dictionary).
Trooisto
My feelings are similar to 815 in that we are going in circles on this topic. Let me say that I think you have nailed down justification very well and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the texts you quote. But you are giving the law a bad rap by putting it in a context where it doesn't belong.
You are using Galatians 5:4 like a baseball bat, beating into submission the idea that the law has no place in the Christian life. Is that what this verse is telling us?
"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ, you have fallen away from grace".
Is the law the bad guy here or is Paul condemning something else?
" YOU" who are trying to be justified by the law . .
by doing this, "YOU" have been alienated . .
"YOU" have fallen away!!
The law is just the instrument here, not the problem. "YOU" is the problem.
People also have been guilty of using certain Christian disciplines to make themselves right with God. Some think fasting makes them right, some think prayer, Bible study, going to Church, makes them right. They don't, but no-one is going to suggest we abolish those disciplines because of their misuse.
The law in the wrong context (self justification, self righteousness, trying to work out God's plan yourself) is a problem. But the law is good if used lawfully, 1 Timothy 1:8.
I scarcely get your point in all this citing of commentaries. Why don't YOU say something? You seem to merely cherry pick and insinuate conclusions, conclusions that these writers you cite would disagree with and find appalling.
Mike
Hello BP8: You wrote: “I don't see anyone disagreeing with the texts you quote.” Armstrongism expresses disagreement with these verses by not teaching anything about justification while teaching that one must “qualify” for the Kingdom by keeping the law.
Armstrongite apologists may claim that Armstrongite splinters do teach about salvation by grace and that may be true to a very small extent – with merely a stray comment on rare occasions. However, COGs confuse grace with their teachings on law – this was the point of the article we are posting comments to.
The recorded history of the COGs demonstrates an inordinate love for the law compared to love for the Savior. COG sermons, literature, media, and conversations prove this fact – there is much more material on the law than there is about Jesus as Savior and nothing about justification. This inordinate affection is also seen in the Armstrongite posts to this thread.
Law is a god above Jesus in the COGs. Even with the stray comments about grace, COGs teach that one’s one works are super important, while ignoring the gift of righteousness offered by Jesus; thereby elevating the importance of human works above the saving work of the Savior is, at best, disrespectful to Jesus. Also, the COGs totally miss the context in which Jesus kept the law perfectly, as well as his purpose. Yes, I can see Jesus as the example – but his works according to the law produce something that humans cannot copy – salvation. In that manner, the Savior is so much greater than an example to the COGs.
You wrote: “You are using Galatians 5:4 like a baseball bat, beating into submission the idea that the law has no place in the Christian life.”
I do not see anywhere in this thread where I said the law has no place in Christian life – but, if I’m mistaken, please cite the date and time I wrote that and I will address what I wrote.
More to follow...
Continued note to BP8:
I have agreed with others and written much about Armstrongites not keeping the law despite their prideful instance that they do keep the law. Armstrongites are Armstrongites because the attempt to observe the proprietary law blend developed by Herbert Armstrong. The Law is holy, as it was breathed by God – the COGs have no right to carve it up, to keep what they like, change some law to suit their interest, while ignoring the rest.
Armstrongites, despite the stray nod to grace, largely don’t believe that salvation is available to people who don’t “keep” the FOT – thereby law trumps grace in COG theology. An example of Armstrongites re-writing the law to suit their interests can be found in how they keep the FOT. “Keeping” the FOT is a huge point of pride for the COGs, yet they refuse to keep the FOT in accordance with the commands found in Nehemiah 8.
I have agreed with others and written much about how the entire law is encapsulated into love for God and love for neighbor. Along with verses on justification, I cannot get my COG associates to comment on verses such as Galatians 6:2 - “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ”. I think this is because they prefer their home-brew law over the law Jesus delivered.
It seems that some people find laws like don’t murder to be much easier to keep than the deeper law concerning caring for the needs of another – as in it’s easy, due to the mess, not to kill someone, but too bothersome to consider how disregarding someone’s needs can indicate hatred (opposite of love) and be akin to murder. There are certain groups we know who are puffed up with keeping the law prohibiting murder while being notorious for ignoring the needy.
BP8, I do agree with this statement you made: “My feelings are similar to 815 in that we are going in circles on this topic”.
It’s nearly impossible for either side to make progress impressing their point on those of the opposite opinion. However, since the Armstrongites will not encounter from their splinters the verses on Justification that I cited, perhaps the best I can hope for is that the Word of God will impact these people when they encounter these verses on this blog.
I find these Justification verses immensely inspiring and I like to share – in so doing, I may fulfill the law of Christ.
Trooisto,
I was going to respond to your comments above at 4:32 and 4:38 but, being delayed, and after reading more of your comments above, there is a major gulf between your understanding and the rest of us, so I don't think you can bear it.
You keep talking about the doctrine of justification, as if we don't know anything about it. That may be true for some but not for all of us. We know that we were justified by faith in Christ, otherwise WCG would not have grown as much as it did over 60 years. What's more, many of us received the Spirit of God so God approved of our faith and law-keeping. But the justified status is taken away from you when you sin (pending repentance), as we did in WCG when JWT devalued the Sabbath commandment in the law. It wasn't a coincidence that the church was destroyed when we broke the law, which always goes hand-in-hand with a breakdown in faith. (If indeed you believe, you obey)
We received our just due but don't think you are in the clear when you claim to possess the righteousness of faith while reducing the law to a kind of shadowy guide. At 4:32 above you yourself advocated obedience but obedience to what? If it is the NT, there is a lot in it that you neglect such as Rom 2:13 and Ja 2:22. If it is in there it is in there, so don't let Satan make you angry at us.
Someone quoted 2 Tim 3:16 above where it says that ALL SCRIPTURE (including the law and the prophets) is profitable for DOCTRINE... and for INSTRUCTION (paideia; tutoring, educating, training) IN RIGHTEOUSNESS." Someone on this site keeps saying that the law was just a tutor and to be left behind but Paul says that it still instructs us IN RIGHTEOUS COURSES OF ACTION. Righteousness isn't just about having the faith of Christ, it is also about doing right deeds. What?? Do you think God will misunderstand your motives (or our motives) if you seek to do righteous deeds?
This brings us to righteous deeds, the subject that we have always stressed because we want to go beyond faith and the letter of the law. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, Christ expects it. But over the past 30 years Satan has stirred up people with an intense jealousy, spite and contempt against us to view this as an attempt to be justified by works. For some it may be true but not for all.
Take heed where you stand instead of being angry at us. You seek to condemn us of breaking the law (re the poor) while you minimize the law yourself (re the feasts), even though you say you have "grace". Which way will you have it?
I haven't even touched on what the righteousness of the law (2:26) is that we ought to keep once we are declared just in God's eyes. There is more to righteousness than just believing in Christ but it is the starting point. This subject troubles you, I see, when you question why we keep certain commands from the OT, such as the FOT, yet you fail to see that the church was keeping the holydays even after the Lord's death.
So you don't think it's necessary to keep Passover or the footwashing service ("if you do not wash feet, you have no part with Me", Jesus said). What about Easter? Is that tradition better than what is in the law?
Know you not that we are under the higher order of the Melchizedekian priesthood? With it came the new covenant as well as changes in the law. (Heb 7:12) This is why the NT ministry has the authority to pick and choose through the law to see what is viable, as the apostles did in Acts 15:28-29, and as HWA did in WCG (which you call his own "proprietary law blend") and as Jesus did in Mt 5:21,27,31,33,38 & 43, changing some things and cancelling others. As high priest and head of the NT ministry He has the right from God. And the heads of the church have this responsibility. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. So don't be too angry at them because they are accountable to the Lord for their interpretation of the law.
Trooisto,
All of your contentions are easily explainable when you understand that Paul was making a specific argument between being justified by faith as opposed to being justified strictly by keeping the law. He wasn't trashing the law (for it is holy) but just showing that you need faith in Christ to be declared righteous in God's eyes, a pure truism. Yes, we did not emphasize this enough in WCG which eventually led to our fall from grace.
Now if Paul was so dead set against the law why was he keeping the law in Acts 21 by undergoing a purification ritual, contrary to his doctrine in Romans? What?? This wasn't for righteousness but just for "show" (just as Christ did it for "show")? If you hate us for trying to keep the law, how can you trust Paul when he does that (around the time when he wrote the Romans epistle, no less)? If a WCGer had done that, you would have excoriated him.
Just wanted to correct 1:59 above who wrote that the Lord will NOT be "literally ruling on the throne of David during the Messianic age".
How can you say that while quoting Ezek 43:7?
You haven't read that the Son of man shall "sit on the throne of His glory" in the temple? (Mt 25:31)
I show you a mystery, readers:
Just as the Lord sits at the right hand of the Father, so will David sit at the right hand of Christ in the holy temple, will he not? (Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24-25)
11:47 wrote:
“Just wanted to correct 1:59”.
I would suggest that if you want to do so you need to start reading the Bible as ancient Near Eastern literature — relying too much on modern western categories of thought in understanding it is going to lead to misunderstandings.
Part 1
There are two thrones in Israel - one in the temple and one in the palace:
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever,
1Ki 2:12 Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly.
Ezekiel 43:7 refers to the throne in the temple; and 1 Ki 2:12 refers to the throne in the Palace - when David sat on his throne it was in the City of David.
During the Messianic Age Christ will have a dwelling presence on the Temple throne, just as he did in Solomon’s Temple; and He will delegate his family members consecutively to rule for him on the Palace throne.
Eze 34:23a And I will set up ONE SHEPHERD over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David;
The Jewish Soncino Commentary notes:
“Israel will enjoy peace and prosperity under the sway of an ideal shepherd, of whom David is the PROTOTYPE (Rashi)” p.233).
Eze 37:24a And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd:
The Jewish Soncino Commentary notes:
“While king signifies a political ruler, shepherd denotes a spiritual leader. The Messiah will combine both offices” (p.251).
David = Messiah is a figure of speech.
Mark Lee on a forum explained, but see Archetypal Name:
"... The father inspires Malachi to write in Mal 4:5 Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. This is a figure of speech called an antonomasia, which Webster defines as the use of the name of some office, instead of the true name of the person. It is common in languages that when you want to show that one person is like another you call him by that name. You might see a kid jumping on a bed and say stop acting like tarzan or a basketball player makes a great shot and you say nice shot Michael. The Messiah is called David in Ezekiel 37:24. The kingdom of Judah is called Sodom and Gomorrah, not literally but it is acting like [them]. God said he would sent Elijah before the great day of the Lord. Not the Elijah who lived and died, but someone with his fiery spirit, like John the Baptist in Christ's day..."
John Gill agrees:
"even my servant David [Eze 34:23]; not David himself literally; who though a shepherd, and the servant of the Lord...; nor Zerubbabel, who was of his seed; for though a servant of the Lord, and a prince or governor of Judah, yet not a king, and much less a king or prince for ever; as this person is said to be, Eze 37:24, but the Messiah, as is expressly owned by Kimchi; who says, this is the Messiah that shall arise from his seed in the time of salvation: he is called David because his name agrees with him, which signifies "beloved", he being beloved of God and man; and because the son of David, of his seed according to the flesh; and because David was an eminent type of him, in his person, offices, afflictions, wars, victories, and exaltation; and because he was David's Lord and representative, and in whom his everlasting kingdom is established” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible).
Part 2
Eze 34:11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.
Eze 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep...
Eze 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
“34:23-24. The Messianic Shepherd. Every new paragraph of the chapter opens out the analogy still further. If the chapter is taken as a whole it will appear full of inconsistences, but if each section is taken separately it will be obvious that new ideas are being added all along. These verses seem to abandon the concept of God as the one good Shepherd, as he plans to install his own chosen nominee as act as shepherd of his people. The context is the consummation of the present age and the opening of a new age. The scattered flock have been gathered to their own land in an eschatological act of deliverance, not without its element of judgment. United and purified, they now enter upon the supernatural golden age of peace and prosperity. Over them is set the Messianic figure who is variously described as my servant, prince and David. Who is this person? He is not, as some would believe, the historical David resurrected, nor is he a human king of the Davidic line... He is the servant of the Lord, represented as an idealized David: for David was the man whom God chose and in whom he delighted; the king who triumphed against all his foes and who extended the kingdom in all directions; the man of Judah under whose genius the whole nation was for a time united. These feature of the Messianic leader’s person and kingdom are more significant to Ezekiel than the physical succession of the line of Davidic kings... this Messianic figure is described not as king, but as prince (nasi’), and in this capacity he will be the righteous ruler of the saved community of Israel. Christian see can see the fulfilment of this expectations in the character of Christ’s future Messianic rule of which the present Christian era is a mere foreshadowing...” (John B. Taylor, Ezekiel, TOTC, pp.217-18).
Jn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Jn 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice;
Jn 10:29 My Father ... has given them to me,
“At this point, “one Shepherd” appears to be a self-reference, for Jesus has been the “Shepherd” all along (especially so in vv.11 and 14). Yet in light of what follows in the chapter the “one Shepherd” could just as easily be God (as consistently in the Old Testament), for Jesus and the Father share in the common work of protecting the sheep and keeping them safe (see vv. 28-30)” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, p.589).
Lk 1:9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
Eze 46:2 And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate:..
The high priest went into the Holy of Holies once a year and a priest went into the holy place twice a day. If then Jesus and David are going to sit in the Most Holy Place and rule from there it would be indeed be difficult to communication.
Part 3
Only Zadokite priests are allowed to enter the inner court. The closest the prince can come is to “the post of the gate” of the inner east gate building. Will he pass messages to the priest to take into the holy place and when the priest has left will David or Jesus come out to read them and respond to the messages and the next time the priest comes into the holy place he will take the response back to the prince? I don’t want to be too much factious but have you thought through the implications of what you are arguing? Would you like to explain how you think it may work?
"... the identification of the prince as a descendant of David is lacking... although it is hard to imagine that Ezekiel had a different dynasty in mind. Why is that? Because in Ezekiel's vision there is another central royal figure, the Lord himself reigning in the temple. The past abuses of the monarchy will be done away with, legislated out of existence by a rearrangement of the land and by specific commands to the future monarch; but the monarch himself remains as a representative of the people. He remains in place, but only as the vassal of the Great King, God himself" (Ian M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.523).
Eze 10:18 Then the glory of the LORD departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims.
Eze 11:23 And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.
Eze 43:1 Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the east:
Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
From the UCG Bible Commentary:
“Christ's Arrival at the Temple; Altar of Burnt Offering (Ezekiel 43) February 19-20:
“Returning to the east gate, Ezekiel is now given a glimpse of the awesome and thrilling arrival of Jesus Christ (identified by Ezekiel as the coming of the "glory of the LORD") to this newly completed temple, a scene that reminded him of the visions he had recorded earlier in his book (verses 1-5; see Ezekiel 1; 10). Ezekiel 10:18-19 had specifically mentioned God leaving the temple, after which it was destroyed. Here we have God returning again.”
In regard to Matthew 25:31-46, NIVSB has this:
25:31-46 The two most widely accepted interpretations of this judgment are:
“1. It will occur at the beginning of an earthly millennial kingdom (vv. 31,34). Its purpose will be to determine who will be allowed to enter the kingdom (v. 34). The criterion for judgment will be the kind of treatment shown to the Jewish people ("these brothers of mine," v. 40) during the preceding great tribulation period (vv. 35-40,42-45). Ultimately, how a person treats the Jewish people will reveal whether or not he is saved (vv. 41,46).
“2. The judgment referred to occurs at the great white throne at the end of the age (Rev 20:11-15). Its purpose will be to determine who will be allowed to enter the eternal kingdom of the saved and who will be consigned to eternal punishment in hell (vv. 34,46). The basis for judgment will be whether love is shown to God's people (see 1Jn 3:14-15).”
For me the earthly millennial kingdom, or alternatively, the Kingdom Age, will not officially begin until the glory of the Lord fills the house (Eze 43:5) just as the Church Age did not begin until the spirit of the Lord filled all the house on Pentecost (Acts 2:2).
So if Mt 25:34-46 is solely restricted to 1, this is no problem, as this will occur during the last half of Christ’s prophetic week see the “Seventy Weeks telescopic Prophecy” at members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/375ecc60.png. During the first half of His week Jesus raised up Israel the church and in the second half of the week he raises up Israel the kingdom.
Hello Anonymous of 9:09 & 9:17: Thank you for the responses; I found them to be fascinating!
I don’t think I’m responding to Leviticus Lover this time because your style seems different – but let me know if I’m wrong. It would aid communication if everyone chose a nom de plume. For now, I’ll call you Foot-washing WCGer – since those are two refences you made in your post. Just like I’ve said that calling the other guy Leviticus Lover is not intended to be an insult, neither is naming you Foot-washing WCGer – but please chose another name if you have a preference.
Your posts were so rich with content – I’d like to respond to everything. Unfortunately, an engagement leaves but a few scattered minutes to get away – so it may take several posts, spread out over time, to respond to all.
Since I’ve named you Foot-washing WCGer, I’ll start there.
You wrote:
“So you don't think it's necessary to keep Passover or the footwashing service ("if you do not wash feet, you have no part with Me", Jesus said). What about Easter? Is that tradition better than what is in the law?”
My family celebrates Pascua – which is the Spanish word for both Easter and Passover. Despite your comment, I have no problem with anyone celebrating Passover or Easter – or, you can be like us and have it all in one! Furthermore, it’s my opinion that all Christians celebrate the Passover, though you’d probably disagree. And yes, you would probably think that our Pascua is just a pagan Easter celebration. And no, I don’t think that you’d be swayed by my obligation to point out that the Resurrection of the Savior is one of the most joyous events in the Bible, so it’s good to celebrate it on Earth, just like it’s celebrated in Heaven.
If I can’t impact you with the biblical significance of Easter, I can at least share a fact that you seem to be unaware of, given your comment that I quoted above. That fact is that many Christian groups participate in foot washing. There’s a group in my town that offers foot-washing to the homeless. It’s fun to imagine HWA, GTA, or Rod Meredith washing the feet of the homeless! Can you see it too?
I provide various types of assistance to homeless individuals and families – but I’d strongly prefer to pass on the foot-washing – but, I would if that is what someone truly needed. Likewise, anyone can wash the feet of another in a Passover service, regardless of what level of genuine concern for the other one has in their heart.
I believe that Jesus was providing insight into what he requires of us – foot-washing is a metaphor for loving your neighbor – faith to be put into action every day, not just in an annual service.
Except in the case of a physical disability, no one needs their feet washed. However, every human needs a loving touch. I’m sure that you’re not surprised that I think Armstrongites completely misunderstand what Jesus asks from us – and their foot-washing service, in addition to their entire recorded example mis-leads people from fulfilling the law of Christ.
Hello Foot-washing WCGer: I realize that you are just parroting what your church taught you, so I hope you won’t be offended by me sharing my opinions. I’m always intrigued by how the “true church” mis-represents (or lies) about Christians. Most of us expect that if WCG, or whatever splinter you represent, were indeed the “true church” then the “true church” would at least be able to truthfully frame the beliefs and practices of those whom the “true church” refers to as “So-called Christians”.
You wrote:
“So you don't think it's necessary to keep Passover or the footwashing service ("if you do not wash feet, you have no part with Me", Jesus said).”
Wikipedia is not the best source to quote and you can search for other references, if you’d like to, but here’s an entry form Wikipedia: Maundy (foot washing) - Wikipedia
Maundy (from Old French mandé, from Latin mandatum meaning "command"),[1] or Washing of the Saints' Feet, Washing of the Feet, or Pedelavium or Pedilavium,[2] is a religious rite observed by various Christian denominations. The word mandatum is the first word of the Latin Biblical quotation sung at the ceremony of the washing of the feet: "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos", from the text of John 13:34 in the Vulgate ("I give you a new commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you", John 13:34). The ceremony commemorates the commandment of Christ that his disciples should emulate his loving humility in the washing of the feet (John 13:14–17).
Many denominations (including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and Catholics) therefore observe the liturgical washing of the feet on Maundy Thursday of Holy Week.[1] Moreover, for some denominations, foot-washing was an example, a pattern.
End of Wikipedia citation.
Did you read that? Even those Catholics have a foot washing ceremony! Oh, the horror!
Among the foot-washing Christian groups named above, I’m guessing there’s a fair amount of people who get the deeper meaning of the foot-washing command and a fair amount who participate in it with a going-through the motions spirit, and don’t think of it again until the next year.
Can you cite any examples from Armstrongism that indicate the “true church” understands the real intention behind the foot-washing command – like links to sermons, articles, or booklets? To the best of my recollection, Armstrongism is mostly silent on the command to love your neighbor, but please show me if I’m wrong.
Hello Foot-washing WCGer: One of the fascinating comments you made was, “You keep talking about the doctrine of justification, as if we don't know anything about it. That may be true for some but not for all of us. We know that we were justified by faith in Christ, otherwise WCG would not have grown as much as it did over 60 years. What's more, many of us received the Spirit of God so God approved of our faith and law-keeping.”
Essentially, you said that if God approves of your law-keeping, he then will give you the Holy Spirit!
Thereby, you are saying that law-keeping is a pre-requisite for justification – as in you are justified by keeping the law.
You claimed to know about the Doctrine of Justification and inferred that WCG was also in the know. However, I believe you proved my point about Armstrongism not knowing of, and believing in, biblical justification.
Consider this verse:
Acts 10:44-45
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
In this chapter, it is explained that these Gentiles who heard Peter preach about Jesus immediately believed – and immediately had the gift of the Holy Spirit – all while Peter was still speaking!
These were Gentiles; they were not keeping the law. How did God approve of their law-keeping before they (supposedly) kept the law?
This is one example of Armstrongite teaching running against biblical instruction on how we are saved.
Therefore, I again feel justified in citing this scripture as a depiction of the current Armstrongite state:
Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Hello Foot-washing WCGer: with such rich content you provided, I was eager to comment on this statement you made, “But the justified status is taken away from you when you sin (pending repentance) …”
What? Justification is dependent on not sinning? Are you just trying to get me to quote Galatians 5:4 again?
I realize that your comment is standard Armstrongite theology – but you did not even offer a scriptural reference to back-up this COG-odd belief. You’ve got a second chance to do so – I hope you go for it.
So, within COG-odd theology, how would Armstrongism re-write or “explain” or “add context” to this verse:
Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
God does what he does. We don’t have a say in being predestined, called, justified, or glorified – that’s all God’s work.
Justification is given to all Believers. The entirety of Galations 2 is a good read on the topic of Justification, so I’ll close with:
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Hello Foot-washing WCGer: Perhaps you are more direct and/or honest than most Armstrongites.
I found this statements of yours enlightening of Armstrongite theology and refreshingly honest:
“This is why the NT ministry has the authority to pick and choose through the law to see what is viable, as the apostles did in Acts 15:28-29 , and as HWA did in WCG (which you call his own "proprietary law blend") and as Jesus did in Mt 5:21 ,27 ,31 ,33 ,38 & 43 , changing some things and cancelling others. As high priest and head of the NT ministry He has the right from God. And the heads of the church have this responsibility.”
Essentially, you are saying that Armstrongites don’t keep the law God delivered to the Israelites; rather Armstrongites keep the law delivered by Herbert W. Armstrong to the Armstronites!
Agreed!
Hello Foot-washing WCGer: I’m glad you notice my reference to HWA’s "proprietary law blend" and verified its existence.
Referring to HWA putting his spin on the law, you stated: “As high priest and head of the NT ministry He has the right from God. And the heads of the church have this responsibility.”
As narcissistic as HWA, and greedy for bestowing titles upon himself, I don’t recall Herbie ever crowning himself High Priest of the New Testament Ministry!
However, that title does seem to jibe with the way he acted.
Your admissions help my pursuit of understanding Armstrongites and Armstrongism.
However, given Herbie’s thousands of failed prophesies, stated by HWA to be given by the authority of God, HWA has no authority, or claim to being a valid high priest of anything but his home-made religion, with his home-brew law.
What proof can you provide that Herbie was a high priest or had any authority to demand that his propriety law blend was THE law?
Making HWA your high priest adds new depth to Galatians 5:4, as those who are trying to be justified by the law of Herbie are certainly in dire need of prayers.
Trooisto, Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 9:15:00 PM PDT, said:
"...Justification is given to all Believers. The entirety of Galations 2 is a good read on the topic of Justification, so I’ll close with:
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified..."
******
You cited Gal 2:16, but you provided a translation that differs from what I am familiar with. What means that phrase to "put our faith in Christ Jesus?" Our faith?
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Gal 2:16 AKJV
You left Jesus' God, His Father, out of the picture with that statement and put the focus on an individual's faith (saying "our faith"). God the Father is the initiator of justification. It's not my opinion; God's Word says this, as explained in a post earlier in this thread (and also cited by your mentioning Romans 8:30).
Our faith isn't worth much of anything. The faith of Jesus Christ, which is the faith from Jesus' Father, Jesus' God, is worth much, and the glory honor praise all goes to the One who deserves it: God the Father, the initiator.
That faith, a fruit of God's Spirit, comes by measure/proportion (Romans 12:3, 6) from God and is determined by God the Father: and is nothing of SELF. There really is no place for "our faith" in justification by God the Father.
I recommend you not use that translation you cited, but whether you do or not,...
Time will tell...
John
Subjective or Objective Genitive?
Gal 2:16b but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
Gal 2:16c even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
Gal 2:16d that we might be justified by the faith of Christ (AV).
Gal 2:16b but by faith in Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:16c So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus
Gal 2:16d that we may be justified by faith in Christ (NIV).
dia pisteos Iesou Christou
“Paul’s prepositional phrase is semantically ambiguous. The genitive case (Iesou Christou) could be either objective or subjective — i.e., grammatically speaking. Jesus could be either the object or the subject of the action implied in the noun ... pistis, “faith”... It is impossible to reproduce the ambiguity exactly in an English translation of the phrase, but we can illustrate the point by constructing a parallel expression: “We are rectified by the love of Jesus.” Does this mean that we are rectified because we love Jesus (objective genitive) or because Jesus loves us (subjective genitive)? The ambiguity can be resolved only by situating the sentence in a larger discourse or structure of thought.
“Furthermore, the noun pistis offers a range of semantic possibilities for English translators. It can be rendered as “faith,” “faithfulness,” “fidelity,” or “trust.” It probably does not, however, mean “belief” in the sense of cognitive assent to a doctrine; rather is refers to placing trust or confidence in a person. The cognate verb ... pisteuo ... can be translated as “believe” or “trust.” English, regrettably, lacks a verb form from the same root as the noun “faith.” All of this contributes to the uncertainty over how to interpret Paul’s statement in v.16.
“Paul’s uses similar expressions about the faith of/in Jesus Christ in Gal 2:20 and 3:22 and again in Rom 3:22, 26, as well as in Phil 3:9. The interpretation of all these passages has been extensively debated in recent critical literature, and recent English-language commentators on Galatians have lined up rather evenly divided on both side of the question” (Richard B. Hays, The Letter to the Galatians, NIB, Vol.11, p.240).
“If “faith of Christ” is the translation, the effect it to highlight the christological focus of justification, yet without eliminating the need for a human response of faith (since the verbal form, “we have believed,” is unambiguous... On the other hand, of “faith in Christ” is the translation, the effect is to stress the element of human response, yet without eliminating the christological dimension (which otherwise comes in 2:17, 19-21).
“Whichever translation is chosen, we still need to examine more closely the nature of faith as the human response to God’s gracious deed...” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int., pp.53-54).
“It is probably important to bear in mind that neither solution removes the essential content conveyed by the alternative solution from Pauline discourse. That is to say, if the proponents of the subjective genitive reading (“Christ’s faithfulness”) are correct, the place of a human response of trusting and moving forward in trust is not diminished. Paul testifies that he and his fellow Jewish Christians have still “trusted in Christ Jesus” as a prerequisite to being “made right on the basis of Jesus’s faithfulness” (Gal 2:16; cf. Rom 3:22). If the proponents of the objective genitive reading (“trusting Jesus”) are correct, the place of Jesus’s own faithfulness and obedience is similarly not diminished. Paul’s trust is in the one “who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20), whose death redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, the power of the flesh, and the fundamental principles of this world’s order (3:10-14; 4:4-5, 8-11; 5:24; 6:14), and won for us adoption into God’s family and the gift of God’s transforming Spirit.
“Reading the phrase as “trusting Jesus” or “faith in Christ,” however, what does Paul mean by such faith or trust?...” (David A. DeSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT, pp.236-237).
Trooisto,
If you think I am trying to be justified by keeping the law, why are you trying so hard with your words to be justified by grace? Isn't your grace sufficient to keep your words few?
When I make reference to the law, you accuse me of seeking to be justified by it. When you briefly admit that there is a law to be kept, you become sheepish and call it the "law of Christ". Which way will you have it? Can you read a man's mind well enough to know which law he is keeping and why he is keeping it? Can I keep the "law of liberty" without being accused by you of seeking self-justification? If you want to stand in judgment of HWA and "Armstrongites" (who are disciples of Christ and not disciples of HWA), you make yourself a judge and a target for judgment too. If you think you are justified by faith, good for you, but we also believe and are justified in the same way. If you think I am wrong, let us see if it will stand in the Day of Judgment when the fire comes. The fire is already burning and has separated the COGs as we speak.
You erred in supposing that I was referring to HWA as "High priest and Head of the NT ministry". What? You don't know who the Head is? I should have capitalized it for you in order to give you a better hint.
Why do you ask for scriptural proof when you repel all scriptural proof?
The footwashing is a commandment. That's why people do it. If you disagree with this, then are you not seeking to be justified by works?
Have you read what the Lord said in Mt 7:23 to those who don't know Him or keep His law (iniquity is anomia or lawlessness)? This warning is for all, even for those who prophesy, cast out demons and do many good works.
Post a Comment