Where is God's True Church Today?
Many years ago, the now defunct Worldwide Church of God (through its Ambassador College) published a booklet titled Where is God's True Church Today? The booklet opens with a brief survey of the "vast religious supermarket" that is modern Christianity. Indeed, the author noted that there is something out there to suit almost anyone's tastes, and the clear implication is that that is exactly how most folks choose which church to attend. Nevertheless, he went on to assert that they all can't be right, and that "If anyone of them is right - and remember, they all differ - then that one being right automatically renders all others wrong."
Now, on the surface, that logic seems reasonable. However, if we dig a little deeper, we can see that the author has presented us with a false dilemma. No, God is NOT the author of confusion, but humankind churns it out like butter! Our present reality reflects the fact that HUMANS have divided themselves into these groupings (Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.). These groupings arose down through the centuries as Christians separated themselves from each other over differences in doctrines, rituals, governance, personalities, and a host of other things. And, although the members of each group would be quick to insist that their doctrines, rituals, governance, etc. are superior to all others, the members of other groups would just as quickly point out problems in those areas.
We'll have more to say about those differences in a moment, but it is imperative that we first understand exactly what the Church is in the context of the Greek New Testament. The English word "Church" is a translation of the Greek word ekklesia - which indicates a group of people called out of their homes into a public assembly. In other words, the "Church" is made up of all of the individual people whom God has called out of the world to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. According to the Apostle Paul, this assembly of believers represents the "Body of Christ" (Ephesians 1:22-23 and Colossians 1:18). Paul also told the Church at Corinth that "God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose." (I Corinthians 12:18). Hence, our personal decision to join some manmade organization does NOT put us into the ekklesia - the Body of Christ. Paul also told the saints at Rome that a person cannot be a Christian in their natural state (Romans 8:8). He continued: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." (Romans 8:9) So, the individual members of the body MUST accept Christ as their Savior, and they MUST experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, we see that God's ekklesia is NOT a manmade organization or building. It is all of the people around the world who have accepted Christ and currently have his Spirit within them. We have already seen that belief in Christ is essential. Even so, if we dig a little deeper, we see that there are a few other beliefs which are foundational to "TRUE" Christianity. In the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are given a list of elementary or foundational principles: repentance, faith, baptism, consecration, resurrection, and judgment (verses 1-2). There is also an early catechism of the faith known as The Didache which mentions the two great commandments, living a life of righteousness and giving, baptism, fasting, the Lord's Prayer, Eucharist, Church offices, and the Lord's second coming. We also have The Apostles' Creed and The Nicene Creed (summaries and affirmations of belief in the narrative of the New Testament canon). Also, full disclosure, in 2017, I wrote a post titled The Essentials of Christianity. In that post, I identified eleven teachings which most Christian groups have in some form in common. In other words, I would not personally want to be associated with any group that didn't embrace these basic beliefs in some shape, form, or fashion.
Nevertheless, Christ said that the thing that would identify his followers would be their love for each other (John 13:35). In similar fashion, Paul wrote to the saints of Galatia that God's Spirit would produce identifiable fruits in their lives (Galatians 5:22-23). He also told Timothy that everyone who claims to be a Christian should distance themselves from sinful behaviors (II Timothy 2:19). Likewise, in the book of Revelation, the saints are identified as those who keep God's commandments (love for God and neighbor) and have the testimony or faith of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:17 and 14:12). Hence, I would say that any person or group who did not exhibit these characteristics might not be part of the ekklesia! In conclusion, the scriptural references in this post identify God's Church, and having your name on the rolls of some organization is inconsequential to that reality. To be clear, Christians should gather together in fellowship and worship (Hebrews 10:25), and there is certainly nothing wrong with belonging to a group which shares your theological views and sustains you spiritually (whether that is Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jews for Jesus).
Posted by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
61 comments:
Lonnie wrote:
"These groupings arose down through the centuries as Christians separated themselves from each other over differences in doctrines, rituals, governance, personalities, and a host of other things. And, although the members of each group would be quick to insist that their doctrines, rituals, governance, etc. are superior to all others, the members of other groups would just as quickly point out problems in those areas."
COG groups love to say this in derision against those Christians outside of the Armstrongite groups. However, every single COG group today did this exact same thing. They all separated from the mother church and from each other in hundreds and hundreds of splints all over "doctrines, rituals, governance, personalities, and a host of other things".
Each group insists that their group is the one true faith and that they have the true teachings and practice them much better than any other Church of God. Self-righteous superiority reigns supreme in the COG movement.
Each and every COG group out there formed in direct rebellion against "government" that they all deem as necessary - as long as it is practiced exclusively in their group.
Every new upstart group gets dumber than the last group they split off from. Instead of the Church of God actually reinventing itself into something good, they just sink deeper into the mire that they have themselves created. Happy and content like pigs wallowing in barnyard slop.
" It is all of the people around the world who have accepted Christ and currently have his Spirit within them."
Nice sleight of hand there, Lonnie.
Actually, the Church is all of the people around the world that have responded to God's calling and repented, been baptized, and live according to His law. This excludes the vast majority of "christians" as they do not try to live according to the law, but, like those on this site, actively preach against it.
Miller,
I appreciate your close examination of what constitutes the Ecclesia that Jesus originated. Well done. An issue I would raise is with your Essentials of Christianity. What I see lacking in your eleven statements is some reference to the doctrine of grace. I am reminded of something I read about C.S. Lewis. There was a conference of religious leaders in Britain and they were discussing what made Christianity different from other religious. The discussion had gone on for some time and Lewis walked into the meeting late. He was given the question and he immediately responded that the answer was simple: it is grace.
It is in the doctrine of grace that the Armstrongist denominations fail to rise to the level of Christianity. The doctrine of grace is also what binds Christian denominations together. While Armstrongist theology pays lip service to the idea that salvation cannot be earned by works, they have a stealth doctrine of Qualification which is a full-bore doctrine of salvation by works. This doctrine of Qualification places them well outside the Christian pale. And, of course, we have all witnessed the misrepresentation of the doctrine of grace coming from the Armstrongist pulpit. For decades they have spoken calumny against the doctrine of grace. One would think in the course of that time, someone in the Armstrongist denominations would have actually looked into what the main Christians churches (not some fringe sect or one-off preacher) believe about grace. Instead, they choose to wallow in misunderstanding.
With the addition of a statement about grace, your eleven statements could be made twelve and a sharp distinction could be drawn between Armstrongism and Christianity.
Scout
For more on Qualification:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bootstrapping-salvation-disturbing.html
This is how much of written advertising (which includes op-eds) works. You establish a presumption or given and then embroider the thread from there.
The key is that said presumption/given/axiom is not necessarily true just because you were persuaded into believing it or want to believe it.
No it is not important as there never was one true one to begin with. The Apostle Paul vs the Jerusalem Apostles in Galatians1-2 explain that very well. There were always two: Jewish Christian of the First Century and Paul's Gentile version of the Gospel that ultimately won for the last 2000 years. It was all downhill from there.
Scout,
I agree with you that the doctrine of grace is essential to Christianity. In my view, that is encompassed by my 4th point in the post you referenced: "a belief that salvation is available to Christians via the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." Salvation is through Jesus Christ - period. I purposely did not wade into the weeds of the grace vs law debate, because (as Dennis pointed out) the reality is that there are many shades of opinion extant within the Christian community on that subject.
Dennis,
From the perspective of people of faith, the Christian and Gentile versions of Christianity were both legitimate manifestations of the faith, although there were certainly folks on both sides who tried to cancel the other (that's not a new development). Dr. Tabor's contribution to our understanding of First Century Christianity is valuable, but I do not believe that the available evidence supports the notion that there was ever an irreconcilable breach between the two.
Well, it's not any group I know of. None teach and obey Ex 23:14-16.
Anonymous Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 8:26:00 AM PST,
The festivals given to Israel find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. However, for those who believe that Christians are obligated to observe them, you are absolutely correct to point out that the ACOGs are NOT following the instructions in Torah (there were 3 pilgrimage festivals, not one).
Dennis,
From the perspective of people of faith, the Christian and Gentile versions of Christianity were both legitimate manifestations of the faith, although there were certainly folks on both sides who tried to cancel the other (that's not a new development). Dr. Tabor's contribution to our understanding of First Century Christianity is valuable, but I do not believe that the available evidence supports the notion that there was ever an irreconcilable breach between the two.
===============================
This quote from "The Religion of the Occident" always resonated with me as to how it unfolded.
"Revelation was the swan song of the Militant Jewish Christianity. When Jerusalem was destroyed, when Rome waxed greater and ore powerful, when the False Prophet gained more and more followers, when the book itself was proved totally false within two years, when it became evident that the Jewish Messiah-Christ would not come, the Hebrew Christians lost their virility and their cult faded under the combined assault of orthodox Judaism and of Gentile Christianity".
In this interpretation, Paul was, by the Jewish Christians, to be the False Prophet of Revelation who the Jesus of Revelation praised the Ephesian Church say " ‘I know your works, and your labor and patient endurance, and that you are not able to tolerate evil, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles and are not, and you found them to be false."
Even Paul said that "All those in Asia have forsaken me..." This would fit the Ephesian Jewish Church rejection of Paul. Of course, this is speculation but I like speculation on Paul. He is worthy of it! :)
Vespasian, to the Jewish Christians of Revelation was "The Beast".
The Apostle Paul's version of the Gospel, given to him in vision and the only one he would accept was not the same as that of Peter, James and John of the Jerusalem Church. They were never compatible since Paul even said that he learned nothing from them which is about as arrogant a non-team player as one can get. Paul was all of that. Paul called down God's curse on those that did not abide by the version of Gospel Paul came up with on his very own.
And PS yet again, we have to understand that Paul NEVER met any physical Jesus in life. The Gospel story of Jesus came after Paul lived, taught and died. This is why he tells no stories of Jesus nor ever quotes Jesus when it clearly would have been to his advantage to do so. Paul's Jesus was hallucinatory as was his gentile take on it all.
As well, I could lean towards a Roman creation of the Jesus story as the gentle, turn the other cheek, obey the Romans and pay them their taxes etc to pacify the militant Jesus of some Jewish Christians and anti-Roman zealot Jews. In 70 AD, Rome had enough of them disrupting the empire and scrapped Jerusalem off the map because of it.
The pacified Messiah for the Christians in the form of Jesus soon followed in the Gospels as well as Orthodox Judaism. Problem solved...
I find it interesting that the early followers of Jesus seem to have been rather avid in their desire to baptize people. Paul converted a family in one night and baptized them. Phillip baptized the eunuch within just a short time of meeting him. The WCG we knew would been horrified at that notion.
"As well, I could lean towards a Roman creation of the Jesus story as the gentle, turn the other cheek, obey the Romans and pay them their taxes etc to pacify the militant Jesus of some Jewish Christians and anti-Roman zealot Jews. In 70 AD, Rome had enough of them disrupting the empire and scrapped Jerusalem off the map because of it."
Well, Dennis, after seeing what our own society has done with some of its own figures (Martin Luther King, for example), it's not that hard to believe that Roman society could have seriously sanitized a Jesus for their own purposes.
RSK said...
"As well, I could lean towards a Roman creation of the Jesus story as the gentle, turn the other cheek, obey the Romans and pay them their taxes etc to pacify the militant Jesus of some Jewish Christians and anti-Roman zealot Jews. In 70 AD, Rome had enough of them disrupting the empire and scrapped Jerusalem off the map because of it."
Well, Dennis, after seeing what our own society has done with some of its own figures (Martin Luther King, for example), it's not that hard to believe that Roman society could have seriously sanitized a Jesus for their own purposes.
======================
"sanitized". I like that word! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0
Seems possible...
The "true church" myth has been a core belief of the church and is totally erroneous. It is not relevant when Christ is working through our redeemed lives. There is no COG today that even comes close to that.
The true church tells the truth.
Stop scaring people with lies about how Nazis are out to get "God's people."
There is no evidence that 6 million Jews went missing. Count them and you get them all. All are accounted for. The so-called holocaust is a lie.
I'm just speculating here, 1:36, but I suspect Armstrong would have approved of the implied focus on organization over individual.
There is no evidence that 6 million Jews went missing. Count them and you get them all. All are accounted for.
Indeed, that's true. Yad Vashem has counted more than 4.5 million Jews by name, found to have died under Nazi persecutions of various kinds. Argue about numbers of millions if you must, but the Holocaust is well-documented.
Anonymous Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 2:52:00 PM PST,
One of my cousins helped liberate one of the concentration camps. He spoke to me about it forty years later, and the emotion in his voice was palpable. He was an old man by that time, but he was a man's man (the Greatest Generation). He said: "You let anybody try to tell me that it didn't happen, and I'll knock their block off!"
Would God "spank" His True Church by ripping the roof off of its Headquarters?
SquareBob's February 8 Letter
Much of the roof of our building at 1036 W. Grand Avenue in Grover Beach was blown off. A lot of rain came in and there was a lot of water on the ground throughout the entire building when I left last evening. Prior to leaving, a roofing firm came to try to prevent more rain from entering the building. Today, I plan to try to figure out how to remove the water and how to best function after this. It was difficult to make a full assessment with the power out, etc. when I left yesterday. We had to shut off all possible power as a safety precaution as rain was filling up the light fixtures in the ceiling. Today, after it is light (it is still dark outside here) we will see if there is power to the building and if it is safe to turn the lights back on.
Who among us will dare to argue against God's judgement?
The true church is in the same place as the Israelites can be found! Christians have been assimilated and are present in all of the Christian churches. There is no one single group. That's just a bunch of hype designed to command loyalty, income, and control.
Dennis
Jesus has his detractors. Quoting them does not alter the substance of Christianity. You say Paul suffered hallucinations. I believe Paul saw a vision that led to a coherent theology though it has some rough spots. You say that Jesus was a device of the Romans to placate the Empire's hot spots in Palestine. I see Jesus as a peacemaker without political attachments.
I don't think it is an issue of the data but rather an issue of interpretation. It is a subjective inclination rather than exegetical. I don't think there is any resolution. Just point and counterpoint.
Scout
The holocaust is NOT A LIE.
I worked with survivors in Israel.
My own family perished in Auschwitz, Mauthausen and Sobibor.
This is documented. I have their names and times of death.
I have their photographs, most are from the early 1940s. One survived Auschwitz.
Some escaped through to safety in Spain being escorted by SS officers to the border, because they managed to have visas to Cuba and then onto the US. They are living witnesses to this time.
It is not a myth like British Israelism.
It is sobering as I think about this, even today. And profoundly disturbing that some will deny the obvious evidence available of this catastrophe. But that is human nature at play, at its disfunctional best.
Paul said by question he saw Jesus - 1 Cor 9:1. Presumably in Arabia? I cannot believe Paul was lying.
True church... Has anyone heard of Wadsworth, Ohio?
https://rcg.org/books/thogtc.html
Our holocaust denier is simply a part of a greater political movement. Since 2017, government through false narrative and conspiracy theory has become very trendy. One might describe it as being almost pervasive. These people know that they're talking shit. But, they'll do anything to seize power.
In his undisputed epistles (Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon), Paul revealed that Jesus was a descendant of David, the Son of God, had a brother named James, lived a sinless life, instituted the symbols of the Eucharist, fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures (was the promised Messiah), was crucified and died as a sacrifice for our sins, was later resurrected, appeared to many of his disciples after he was resurrected, ascended into heaven, and will return someday. Paul also echoed Christ's teachings about love fulfilling the requirements of the Law and being the central obligation of Christ's disciples. Hence, it is misleading to suggest/claim that Paul ignored the details of Christ's life or his teachings. Indeed, Paul's Gospel was focused on Jesus Christ. Don't believe me? Type Jesus Christ into Strong's online and see for yourself how many times Paul refers to him in those undisputed epistles.
Now, it is accurate to point out that Paul didn't always see eye to eye with Jewish Christians. Indeed, there were times when he was openly hostile to them, and that they were overtly hostile to his ministry (see Galatians). Even so, Paul's epistles and the book of Acts make clear that Paul simply did not want Torah imposed on Gentile Christians. We must not forget that Paul himself was a Jew and a scholar of the Jewish religion. In other words, Paul himself was a Jewish Christian. Finally, Paul claimed that he met the resurrected Christ. Atheists are certainly free to characterize that as a hallucination, but people of faith believe Paul's claim.
I feel nervous with the often quoted "accept Christ" definition. I remember in my high school days how it was common to see guys imitating their favorite movie action hero. "Accepting Christ" also means striving to develop Christ's noble traits via imitation and other techniques. This was basically ignored during my attendance at WWCG. On the contrary, the ministers never wanted their members to truly grow up since this reduced their control over members.
There are some excellent articles on the web about the titles of God and the traits that they encapsulate. I've never heard one sermon on this. I'm not surprised since I eventually realized that it's bully morality that's the true religion of the WWCG ministers.
Yes, it is important to know the who's, what's, and where's concerning the true church. I think the list on the "essentials of Christianity" is very good and valid providing one has the REAL DEAL!
Concerning the point raised in the post about those "who might not be part of the ekklesia", the scriptures reveal:
1) There exists the true gospel and "another gospel", (Gal.1:6, 2 Cor.11:4).
2). There are true brethren and "false brethren", (Gal.2:4).
3) We have the true, living Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, and there is "another Jesus", false Christs and anti-christs, (2 Cor.11:4, Matt.24, 1 John 2:18).
4) There exists those who are patient, apt to teach, and false teachers "bringing in damnable heresies", (2 Tim.2:24, 2 Peter 2:1).
5). There are true ministers of Christ and those false, "transformed as ministers of righteousness", (2 Cor.11:15).
6). There is the spirit of Christ, the spirit of truth which is of and from God, and there is "another spirit", the spirit of error, of the world, (2 Cor.11:4,
1 Cor.2:12, 1 John 4:5-6).
7). Christ emphatically says, "not everyone that says Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom. MANY will be saying, Lord didn't we prophesy in the name and do wonderful works"? (Matt.7:21-23).
These truths may not be very helpful in evaluating a given situation, but they do show how the "real deal" is important in being part of the ekklesia.
One thing we know for sure, the Lord "knows" those that are His, and the Good Shepherd "knows" His sheep (2 Tim.2:19, John 10:14).
Even if WE don't know, Christ "knows" our works, faith, patience, charity, and service, and we will be rewarded accordingly, (Rev.2:2,13,19). The parable of the tares (Matt.13:24-30) illustrates this.
Miller 10:51
Good point. I have only one semantic issue. It is your use of the term "Jewish Christians". My guess is that Paul probably had some words with actual Jewish Christians - the brothers and sisters in the Jerusalem Church under James. They were all undergoing a major shift from one form of Late Second Temple Judaism to another form of Late Second Temple Judaism later referred to as Christianity. There had to be some controversy at first.
Paul's conflict with Jews associated with Christianity and documented in the New Testament involved the Circumcision Party and the Jewish Gnostics. The Circumcision Party seemed to be a collection of Pharisees "who believed." But Paul said of them in Galatians 5, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace (ESV)." I think their Christianity was suspect.
And the Jewish Gnostics of the Colossian Heresy likewise claimed that the Torah was still in force but added to it Gnostic concepts. Paul said of them, "Watch out that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental principles of the world, and not according to Christ." So Paul did not see them as Christians even though they were Jews and Torah advocates and apparently spoke of Christ but did not believe his sacrifice was really adequate for salvation. One needed special, hidden knowledge in addition. They exalted the law and depreciated Christ.
I think your statement about Jewish Christians lumps them in with others and loses the nuances reflected in the NT. I should add that I am sensitive to this issue because Armstrongists (Hoeh in particular) have claimed that they are the heirs to the Jerusalem Church. This is not accurate. There is greater theological underpinning for the case that Armstrongism is a latter day form of the Circumcision Party.
Scout
Scout,
Thanks for the nuance, and I agree that there were several different shades of both Gentile and Jewish Christians. As BP8 suggested, there is the real deal, and there are folks who aren't in this for the right reasons. Also, I think he was right about God knowing who belongs to him (we can't determine what's in someone else's heart). I think that Paul's epistles demonstrate that he sometimes had problems with discerning the nuances. For instance, I believe that the epistles attributed to Peter and James are NOT hostile to Paul's theology and demonstrate that they both understood that their continued adherence to Jewish traditions was NOT earning them salvation or procuring for them and their followers a greater reward. This discussion underscores the dangers inherent in us trying to evaluate each other's faith (judge each other).
I don't think you will be able to distinguish a mature "Jewish" Christian from a "Gentile" Christian in the future by the way they conduct their lives.
If you want to find out what the historical, true Church was really like, study Post Apostolic Church history. Read the Apostolic Father's who actually had contact with the Apostles or their first generation disciples. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Their writings can be found in libraries, on the net, or purchased on CD's. If you're hoping for proof of some kind of Proto-Protestant or Sabbatarian church, prepare to be disappointed. The actual historical records show a church that is Catholic or Orthodox in its theology and worship.
In addition to what I've already mentioned, Rabbi Louis I Newman's Jewish Influence On Christian Reform Movements is also a valuable historical resource. The ACOG's are always trying to sell us on the idea of a true Church being sabbatarian. Well, Rabbi Newman book shows that Judaizing and sabbatarian movements cropped up from time to time in church history, but it was always rejected by the clergy and laity. And the reform movements mentioned in his book's title were the various heresies that emerged every once in a while. Newman's book may be found in libraries or purchased from lulu.com. I hope some Banned readers will take up the challenge and start reading some of these books.
Well, before our usual illiterate types start screaming about the "fathers" being part of the Whore of Babylon, the "Apostolic Fathers" grouping includes the COG-lauded Polycarp. They were all men who were believed to be disciples of the apostles. Doctrinally, though, they vary a little amongst themselves, and some we really don't know enough about.
Yes, there was some variance among them, but the various church councils were convened to iron out those differances.
What I find interesting is that the letters to the churches that were located in Asia Minor occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They were scattered, and most of them were Gentile churches.
And yes Anon 10:34, The WCG we knew would been horrified at that notion of baptizing an Ethiopian eunuch. It would have been because he was Ethiopian and not an Israelite.
A true church of God doesn't start its religion with racism. It doesn't start with segregation. Armstrong did.
Of course! A pick and choose religion would also want to pick and choose its "real" apostolic fathers from those it had branded as "Catholic". Is that much different from branding COG-7 as "Sardis"? Or, ruling out select data which contradicts Armstrongian doctrine and theories? How can we entrust our beliefs and salvation to an organization which employs such disingenuous methodology???
10:34 said: “I find it interesting that the early followers of Jesus seem to have been rather avid in their desire to baptize people. Paul converted a family in one night and baptized them. Phillip baptized the eunuch within just a short time of meeting him. The WCG we knew would been horrified at that notion.”
So true! And nothing about the “laying on of hands” ritual either!
The deconstruction of the near monolithic WCG was a watershed event. The belief or the strategy, I am not sure which, that the WCG was the one true church was astute. It meant that the denomination and the Invisible Body of Christ were one and the same. If you wanted salvation, there was only one denomination where you could receive it. When WCG preachers spoke of “the church”, they were naturally speaking of not only the denomination but the entirety of the Body of Christ. And it you were not a part of the denomination you were then not a Christian.
This is pretty heady for a small denomination meeting in rented halls, obviously derived from the Millerite movement and with a theology that was developed by a man with an imposing beard (later the WCG would deplore such facial hair) named G.G. Rupert. But “the one true church” shtick made practical sense not only as a dogma but as a political position. It is an extreme form of the us-them relationship. The walls were raised and the WCG became a fortress. The WCG was the Elect and everyone else was non-Elect. And, of course, having a contrarian theology abetted this carefully cultivated division. And the rest of the history of the WCG is a cliché that can be found in sociological works on cultism. (The Branch Davidians, though similar in history and theology to the WCG, had an unfortunate flair that brought them much more notoriety than the WCG would ever achieve. Almost everyone has heard about Waco. Almost nobody knows about Big Sandy.)
But when the WCG went micronova, scattering it spare substance across space, observers were left wondering which odd fragment was the one and only true church. The question, in spite of many claims, has yet to be resolved. The evidence is mostly unconvincing. There is no stand-out derivative denomination. Working backwards, this makes the deduction that the WCG was never the one and only true church inevitable because the WCG has no single stellar descendant for us to even examine. So, an axiom that we can agree on up front, is that we need to look for the church somewhere else than the WCG and its many similar offspring.
Optimator
7.25 am. Christ was with His disciples for three years, and they then went "solo." Just like students doing a college course and then getting a job. The WWCG going micronova has given its members an opportunity to cut their apron strings and start functioning as Christian adults rather than eternal ten year olds, which was the HWA church culture.
Those looking for a replica of the old WWCG might be taking a step backwards and squandering a wonderful God given opportunity.
Well, 9:18, it would seem that these members have squandered their micronova, wouldn't it? I see a lot of dropouts, so many getting "Ds" and "Fs", and others qualifying for mental care facilities. I'm seeing a higher attrition and failure rate than you might observe in the poorest inner city school district! None of them have made it to Harvard yet.
It seems that HWA was more correct in his metaphor. You know, "dumb sheep"?
9:46, agreed.
He does not believe that though. He cannot even definitively state that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are in effect as laws of the Creator until heaven and earth pass (Matt. 5:16-20 on the tail end of the beatitudes). He can only state that he has given his views on that. Thus, he should recant any condemnation of Herbie the lovebug's daughter fun given the beliefs he holds now. It's interesting how committing of incest is not a part of loving one's neighbor.
Scripture lays out what the Creator says is the right way to act and it is for everyone that is a believer. Jews, more accurately Israel, have the same directions a gentile does.
The false teacher can argue about temple sacrifices, but the Acts 15 council instructed everyone on how to live , noted that teaching about how to do that would be in the seventh day synagogue assemblies, and obviously did not require gentiles to worship in the temple. In fact, the actions to avoid noted are warnings against things that would be involved in the worship (temples, shrines, etc.) of those who are not gods.
Neither scripture nor the Creator agrees with what the author MJ/LCH says which we all know. Even the lovebug knew some things that are correct according to scripture, but ignored a number of them and also chose to interpret the way he wanted. Seems like MJ/LCH is a lot like the Herbster and his dumb sheep and shepherds.
For now, it's the MJ/LCH doctrine and pick which one of the directions of the Creator you want to ignore via the love commandment like gentile believers not allowing gentile employees the full day off every seventh day because that is not for them (Yes, that is what this guy believes. You can read it on this site). It is only for Jews who might want to do that.
Then join in and everybody sing:
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need
Then, ask dd to explain how he loves his neighbor, but does not pay back all that tithe money he stole.
11.11 am. Are you comparing ACOG members to poor inner city high school students?
If so, I don't see it as a fair comparison. When I started attending services, I was immediately treated as a psychopath or having psychopathic traits by my ministers. It was nothing more than narcissistic devaluation and used as an excuse to lord it over me. You appear to be pushing that line. The WWCG put a glass ceiling in their church, limiting members growth. All for the sake of power and control. God removed this ceiling on HWAs death.
To learn how to ride a bike, one must get on a bike, to learn a sport, one must participate. Likewise to mature, members need freedom. There is basic reality with no getting around it. But the ministers fancied that they could via their tyranny. They are simply mistaken.
Btw, let's not forget the case of the big, wise people telling the silly little people what to believe when they were commanded to worship the giant golden statue in Daniel. You know, "dumb sheep."
Anonymous Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 4:25:00 PM PST,
I believe that Jesus Christ FULFILLED ALL of the requirements of Torah (including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). Do you believe that Leviticus 23:37-43 is in effect as laws? If so, are you obeying them? Do you construct a booth out of branches and dwell in it during the FOT? If they are not in effect, what is your rationale for excluding them? What about Leviticus 16:1-34? What is the rationale for keeping the Day of Atonement and ignoring the instructions in this part of Torah? Is Deuteronomy 16:1-16 still in effect? If so, why don't the ACOGs follow those instructions? If not, how do you justify their cherry-picking? What about the instructions about skin diseases and mildew?
You also desperately need to take a closer look at that passage from the Gospel of Matthew that you like to quote. Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, NOT AN IOTA, NOT A DOT, will pass from the Law UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Notice that? NOTHING (not even the stroke of a pen or punctuation mark) would pass from the Law until Christ accomplished it. Scripture views the Law (Torah) as an inseparable whole. Christ fulfilled/accomplished ALL of Torah!
In the Gospels, we are informed that Christ singled out TWO Great Commandments from Torah which comprehended the whole: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:35-40) The Apostle Paul said that LOVE fulfills the requirements of God's Law (Romans 13:10). You, however, choose to ridicule and make fun of these scriptural instructions - go figure! And you have the nerve to ask which of the Creator's instructions I want to ignore - YOU are a hypocrite!
"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" - Mat 7:12.
Jesus defined what He was talking about when He mentioned the law and the prophets in Mat 5:17. He wasn't talking about, for example, the law not to make an altar of hewn stone.
Ah, Leviticus 20:13. So we should be executing them, eh?
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot [iota] or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"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).
"It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations..." (Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
Hey, it’s time to do whatever you want because Jesus did it all so it doesn’t matter what you do anymore. Just say you believe in him and you’re good.
Anonymous Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 3:21:00 PM PST,
That is NOT what we are saying. As Christ pointed out in that same fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the standard for Christians (the Law of Love) is much more comprehensive than the narrowly prescribed dos and don'ts of Torah.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/02/grace.html
See how we can't do all of what is commanded because there is not temple, so we can do whatever. Totally like Daniel did in Babylonian captivity and Paul had not problem observing feast days when he was not in Israel.
Notice how this guy still cannot make a comment about a gentile who would not allow the sabbath day (weekly or yearly) respite for his employee and describe how not allowing that is love for one's neighbor.
People who will not answer a point / question directly are easy to figure out. May as well keep it up, He's just like Herbie.
Also, It's interesting how dd leaves the thread when he is called out for stealing. Maybe someday, he'll jump back in after he's called out. Will he ignore it like it never happened like usual or wait until another thread and ignore it until he gets called out again?
Oh, those who think they are smarter than the herbster who was an idiot, but who are not.
"People who will not answer a point / question directly are easy to figure out." - SO TRUE! Once again, a Christian would respect his brother's or sister's conscience and set a good example for those outside of the Church. By the way, Dennis Diehl has exhibited more graciousness and common sense in his commentary than you have in your comments here. Finally, if the Herbster was such an idiot, why do you continue to defend his teachings?
Does that standard for Christians/law of love allow for damn NFL to crunch each other's spine
I am not 7:04.
"Finally, if the Herbster was such an idiot, why do you continue to defend his teachings?"
Just enough binary thinking to comment. It's all of the Torah or none of the Torah. It's all of Herb's teachings or none of Herb's teaching. Someone who thus thinks cannot be helped, dissuaded, persuaded, taught, communicable.
Anonymous Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:44:00 PM PST
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
Is this binary thinking you are referring too? Are you wanting to persuade against the teaching of James 2:10? Shame.
Torah is fulfilled in Christ. Hence, Torah teaches us about Jesus. That is how Jesus and his apostles used Torah. We are, however, NOT obligated to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel. I loved the comment about James 2:10. It is clearly the Armstrongist who indulges in binary thinking!
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 [pleroo].
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled [pleroo] which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
“It is therefore improbable that when he contrasts “abolish” with “fulfill” he is speaking simply about obeying the requirements of the law and the prophets. “Fulfill” (rather than “obey,” “do,” or “keep”) would not be the natural way to say that, and such a sense would not answer the charge of aiming to “abolish.” In Matthew’s gospel the verb pleroo, “fulfill,” plays a prominent role, most notably in its ten occurrences in the formula quotations ... where it denotes the coming into being of that to which Scripture pointed forward (whether by direct prediction or understood typologically). The same sense appears in 26:54, 56, where Jesus’ suffering is seen as “fulfilling the Scriptures,” and in 13:44, where a compound form of the verb (anapleroo) again speaks of an OT prophecy coming true in contemporary experience. In 3:15 to “fulfill all righteousness” appears to denote the action which will bring about God’s redemptive purpose through Jesus..., its only other use in Matthew is in 23:32 of the hostile actions of the scribes and Pharisees “filling up the measure” of their ancestors, where again the sense of reaching a destined conclusion seems to be dominant. In light of Matthew’s use of this verb elsewhere, and the evident importance it has for his understanding of the relationship between the authoritative words of the OT and their contemporary outworking, the sense here is not likely to be concerned either with Jesus’ actions in relationship to the law or even teaching about it, but rather the way in which he “fulfills” the pattern laid down in the law and the prophets. It is important to note that this verse does not speak of Jesus “fulfilling the law,” but rather of his “fulfilling the law and the prophets.” His fulfilling of the prophets is amply illustrated in the formula-quotations: his life and ministry has brought that which they pointed forward. Is it possible to understand his fulfilling of the law in the same light?
“There is an intriguing little saying of Jesus recorded in 11:13 which throws light on this issue. In speaking of the pivotal role of John the Baptist as the point at which the time of fulfillment has dawned. Jesus is recorded as commenting that “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” The law is thus linked with the prophets as looking forward to the time of fulfillment which has now arrived. The Torah, then, is not God’s last word to his people, but in a sense provisional, looking forward to a time of fulfillment through the Messiah.
“In light of that concept, and of the general sense of “fulfill” in Matthew, we might then paraphrase Jesus’ words here as follows: “Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that which they have pointed forward, to carry them into a new era of fulfillment.” On this understanding the authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished. They remain the authoritative word of God. But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus’ followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created. From now on it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his disciples understanding and practical application of the law. Verse 21-48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely as the level of the literal observance of regulation, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah...” (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp.182-183).
Anon Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 12:10:00 AM PST,
Apparently, R.T France (whom you quote) believed that there was no requirement to observe the Saturday sabbath or holy days or food laws.
After reading this quote, the pertinent part was at the end where he says, " Verse 21-48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely as the level of the literal observance of regulation, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah..."
His discernment concludes that the Sinai Law is not a list of regulations we are to keep. He obviously concluded that Christ is our Sabbath as he was not a physical sabbath observer.
The COGs often quoted Christian scholars (perhaps out of context) to draw conclusions that those they are quoting did not draw.
Great point 7:36. Yes, Christ fulfilled Torah in the same way that he fulfilled the prophets - that is entirely consistent with what I've been saying. He embodied Torah and the prophets. They pointed to him. He accomplished what they had predicted.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished..." (ESV)
I noticed that you cited the Greek verb "pleroo," which was used in verse 17, but you failed to mention "ginomai" which ESV translated as "accomplished." You keep using the term abolished, but Christ didn't abolish or destroy Torah - He fulfilled and transformed it. As has already been noted, his followers would follow the original intent of God's Law, NOT the iteration of dos and don'ts contained in Torah. This was all part of Christ's mission.
In this connection and in the light of your thoughtful comment, I would be very interested to know what you think that Christ meant when he said "It is finished (teleo)" (John 19:30)? For me, this was a statement of "mission accomplished/completed/finished."
Three feasts will be observed in the future: Zech 14:16; Acts 12:3; 20:16. They exist still, after Christ's resurrection. He didn't do away with them. But now they're not necessarily pilgrimage because of no temple, and Jerusalem may be far away in a distant land from where you are. Paul observed the feasts when confined in Rome, in spirit.
Hi 7:36
You write:
“Apparently, R.T France (whom you quote) believed that there was no requirement to observe the Saturday sabbath or holy days or food laws...
“The COGs often quoted Christian scholars (perhaps out of context) to draw conclusions that those they are quoting did not draw.”
I only quote “accurate insights” which agree with my understanding; obviously, I don’t quote interpretations and conclusions I don’t agree with.
I could point out when quoting where I disagree with the author I am quoting, as with the examples below, but I choose not to.
I have used the quotes below as I am presently rereading this well worth reading book:
“Otto’s dynamic interpretation of the Kingdom of God has led to many accurate insights... However, Otto interprets the Gospels too much in terms of religionsgeschichtliche presuppositions and not sufficiently in terms of themselves” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, rev.ed., p.155).
"While this interpretation [by T. W. Manson, The Teachings of Jesus (1935), p.170] embodies a substantial truth, it fails to do justice to the particular biblical revelational significance of mysterion and..." (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, rev.ed., p.233).
“However, Jeremias goes too far in taking as his main presupposition that the original meaning...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, rev.ed., p.233).
“Julicher’s method was defective at this point because...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, rev.ed., p.220).
Jn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished [teleioo] the work which thou gavest me to do.
Jn 17:6 I have manifested THY name unto the men which THOU gavest me out of the world: THINE they were, and THOU gavest them me; and they have kept THY word.
“The nature of that “work” he will spell out ... [in] (vv.6-8)...” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John. NICNT, p.860).
Jn 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all THINGS were now accomplished/fulfilled [teleo], that the scripture might be fulfilled [teleioo], saith, I thirst.
“As such, it brings to “completion” not a particular passage of Scripture about “thirst,” but Scripture as a whole, for it triggers that to which all Scripture points, the death and resurrection of the Messiah. The accent is on the whole testimony that (as Luke puts it), “The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead the third day” (Lk 24:46; in John’s Gospel see 2:17, 22; 12:16; 20:9)” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John. NICNT, pp.961-62).
Jn 19:30a When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished [teleo]:
Jn 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish [teleioo] his work.
“His acceptance of the “cup” [18:11] prompts him to say, “It is finished,” putting into words what he knew in advance to be true (see v.28, “that all THINGS are already finished”). He stated almost from the beginning his intention to “do the will of the One who sent me and complete his work” (4:34), and reported to the Father that he had “finished the work you have given me that I should do” (17:4).
“Now the pronouncement, “It is finished,” encompasses all that and more, embracing as well “everything that was happening to him” (18:4) from the moment of the arrest in the garden up to the present” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, pp.963-64).
Jn 19:30b It is finished [teleestai]:
“It is finished”... “In the Greek this is one word, teleestai, which is another of John’s ambiguous terms. It could mean that Jesus’ life was finished (i.e., that he was at the point of death). This is part of the meaning, but it is highly improbable that it was the whole meaning. More important is the truth that Jesus’ work was finished. He came to do God’s work, and this meant dying on the cross for the world’s salvation. This mighty work of redemption has now reached its consummation. It is finished. The same word was used in v.28 (NIV, “was completed”); the repetition gives emphasis” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev., NICNT, p.720).
Lk 2:39a And when they finished [teleo] all things, according to the Law of the Lord,
Romans 2:27a And the uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling [teleo] the Law
“The rendering, It is finished!” conveys only half the meaning. For the verb teleo fundamentally denotes “to carry out” the will of somebody, whether of oneself or another, and so to fulfill obligations or carry out religious acts. “It is accomplished!” renders that aspect of the word. Doubtless both meanings of the term, the temporal and the theological, are intended here. “So the last word of Jesus interprets his suffering and dying as the crowning conclusion of the work that he had performed in obedience...” (Dauer, Passionsgeschichte, 20)” (George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Second ed. WBC, p.352).
“When ... Jesus said It is finished, he was referring not only to the work of revelation through word and sign, but also to the great work of redemption. Jesus had finished the work he came to do. He had given his flesh for the life of the world (6:51); as good shepherd, he had laid down his life for the sheep (10:11, 14); he had become the one man who died for the nation (11:50); he was the ‘seed’ that would fall into ground and produce many seeds (12:24); and he showed the love that was greater than any other — laying down his life for his friends (15:13)” (Colin G. Kruse, John Rev. ed., TNTC, pp.431-432).
Post a Comment