The Law of Moses: Cultic or Universal?
In a comment on my last post, the leader of the Church of God International stated: "My position...is that the Law of Moses contains both universal and cultic features, and that the cultic features are time-bound, covenant-specific, and served as types and shadows of a higher and infinitely greater reality. The universal features, on the other hand, are not covenant-dependent at all, but exist apart from the covenant and are, in some measure, 'written on the hearts' (Rom 1:15) of all human beings." He went on to characterize the Ten Commandments as: "The Law of God written on the heart (by the Holy Spirit--the 'finger of God') is the same Law that was written on tablets of stone. That IS the Moral Law." Is Pastor Stinson's position consistent with Scripture?
First, the Bible clearly looks at the Law of Moses as a comprehensive whole. The categories of "universal," "cultic," and "moral" do NOT appear in Scripture! In Torah, we read: "And now, Israel, listen carefully to these decrees and regulations that I am about to teach you. Obey them so that you may live, so you may enter and occupy the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add to or subtract from these commands I am giving you. Just obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you." (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, NLT) And: "Look, I now teach you these decrees and regulations just as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy. Obey them completely, and you will display your wisdom and intelligence among the surrounding nations. When they hear all these decrees, they will exclaim, ‘How wise and prudent are the people of this great nation!’ For what great nation has a god as near to them as the Lord our God is near to us whenever we call on him? And what great nation has decrees and regulations as righteous and fair as this body of instructions that I am giving you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, NLT) And: "So Moses told the people, 'You must be careful to obey all the commands of the Lord your God, following his instructions in every detail.'" (Deuteronomy 5:32, NLT) And: "These are the commands, decrees, and regulations that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you. You must obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy, 2 and you and your children and grandchildren must fear the Lord your God as long as you live. If you obey all his decrees and commands, you will enjoy a long life." (Deuteronomy 6:1-2, NLT) And: "So be careful to obey all the commands I give you. You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them." (Deuteronomy 12:32, NLT) And: "The Lord your God will be merciful only if you listen to his voice and keep all his commands that I am giving you today, doing what pleases him." (Deuteronomy 13:18, NLT) And: "Today the Lord your God has commanded you to obey all these decrees and regulations. So be careful to obey them wholeheartedly. You have declared today that the Lord is your God. And you have promised to walk in his ways, and to obey his decrees, commands, and regulations, and to do everything he tells you. The Lord has declared today that you are his people, his own special treasure, just as he promised, and that you must obey all his commands." (Deuteronomy 26:16-18, NLT) And: "So you must obey the Lord your God by keeping all these commands and decrees that I am giving you today." (Deuteronomy 27:10, NLT) And: "If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully keep all his commands that I am giving you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the world." (Deuteronomy 28:1, NLT)
Before leaving the Old Testament, I would also like to ask my readers a couple of questions for your consideration: If Mr. Stinson is correct in dividing the commandments of Torah into categories of "cultic" and "universal," which commandments belong in each category? Are clean and unclean meats cultic or universal? Are the festivals cultic or universal? Is the commandment to remember the Sabbath cultic or universal? If they are universal, then why were Gentile nations not permitted to join the Israelite's in their observance? Were both cultic and universal commandments part of God's covenant with Israel?
Like the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus referred to the "Law of Moses" as a comprehensive whole. We read in the Gospel of Matthew: "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." (Matthew 5:17, NLT) And that Jesus said: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40, NLT)
Likewise, Christ's apostles looked at the Law in the exact same way. In one of his epistles, Paul wrote: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Galatians 5:14, NLT) And, in his letter to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, James wrote: "Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law. For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws. For the same God who said, 'You must not commit adultery,' also said, 'You must not murder.' So if you murder someone but do not commit adultery, you have still broken the law." (James 2:8-11, NLT)
In other words, as we have said here many times, ALL of the different iterations of God's Law are based on the premise of love - not doing hurt or harm to anyone (Romans 13:8-10)! This (LOVE) is the foundation of God's Law in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings which we refer to as the New Testament!
81 comments:
Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins........Gal 3:19 NLT
What laws were the people transgressing (sin is the transgression of the law) before what laws were given because of those transgressions?
This is his response to some of the questions I asked:
Vance Stinson
From:
vancestinson@cgi.org
To:
'Lonnie Clayton Hendrix'
Wed, Jul 24 at 12:49 PM
Hi Lonnie,
Here is my reply to your questions. I thought it might be too long to post, so I’ll let you do with it as you wish.
VS
LH: My question is: Do you believe that God writes any of the other commandments in Torah on the heart of Christians?
The law written on the hearts is the law of love as stated in the Ten Words and summarized by the two great commandments. This is the universal law; it is consistent with the law written in human nature (Rom 2:14-16). This is the Moral Law, and, as I mentioned, this is also the position the various Christian traditions have taken for centuries.
LH: In other words, do you believe that the Ten are the only commandments of the Old Covenant which are carried forward into the new? Moreover, you seem to have acknowledged in your remarks that the Two Great Commandments (which Christ drew from Torah) encompassed the Ten - Is that your position?
I am saying that the two Great Commandments summarize the Ten. The Ten deal with our most basic duties in regards to God and man, and each of the specific commandments represents a broader moral category. That’s what Jesus was saying when he connected the Sixth Commandment with anger, name-calling, etc., and the Seventh Commandment with looking on a woman with lust in the heart.
Jesus said that the Torah and the Prophets are dependent on the two Great Commandments. Decisions on how or whether other particular laws apply to us must be made in the light of these two overarching commandments (which summarize the Ten Words) and with an understanding of the original intent/purpose of the law(s) being considered.
continued below
LH: If so, aren't the Two enough? In other words, if we should be making all of our moral decisions as Christians based on love for God and each other, is it still necessary to delineate "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?
Yes, we need an objective moral standard because the “old man” is still in there and still has some degree of influence. The Ten Commandments (Words) provide that. Paul recognized the need for specifics, too. Otherwise, why would he have provided lists of sins (with warnings) to his fellow believers? Here is an example: “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21). Paul taught love of God and neighbor, but he also saw the need for some do’s and don’ts reinforced with warnings. Further, our message is also for the unbelieving peoples of the world, and they certainly need an objective moral standard. Give them a message of “love” without the specific delineations (Thou shalt…Thou shalt not), and they’ll end up justifying immoral behaviors of all sorts.
LH: Wasn't it prophesied that Christ would magnify the Law and make it honorable? What does that mean to you? And, isn't that exactly what Christ was doing in the "Sermon on the Mount"?
Yes! Christ indeed magnified the Law and made it honorable (or “glorious”)! That’s what He’s doing in the Sermon on the Mount. He made it honorable by stripping away the erroneous interpretations and traditions that had been added to it, thus restoring and making plain its original intent. He magnified it by putting it under the magnifying glass, as it were, so as to reveal what its true intent and meaning had been all along. He was revealing what had always been, not replacing the old with something that had never been. The NCT position I was taking issue with stresses discontinuity between Moses and Christ. I believe that is a wrong approach. Christ was bringing to light what had always been true regarding various commandments in the Torah. His purpose in the Sermon on the Mount was not to change, abolish, or add new standards, but to bring to light what God’s standards always had been and forever will be. Understanding this, I believe, equips us to properly recognize both continuity and discontinuity between Moses and Christ.
continued below
LH: Are you saying that the Law hasn't changed? Are you saying that those "universal" tenets of the Old Covenant have been carried forward into the New Covenant? Are clean and unclean meats "cultic" or "universal"? Are the festivals "cultic" or "universal"? And, how do we differentiate between the "cultic" and "universal" more generally?
When I say “cultic,” I’m referring specifically to the Temple and its services. However, there are numerous other laws that do not apply directly to us. For example, laws pertaining to civil matters such as land inheritance, servitude, etc., did not pertain to nations outside Israel (though we can recognize underlying principles in most of these laws that should have universal application) and so do not pertain to us. We’re expected to abide by the civil laws of the lands in which we live, just as an ancient Israelite traveling in a far country would have been expected to do. On clean and unclean meats, I think everyone would agree that there is a “cultic” feature here. By eating “unclean” animals, or even touching their carcasses, a person was ceremonially unclean and had to be “cleansed” before full rights of worship at the Tabernacle were restored. The point that is debated is this: Are the clean-unclean dietary laws also health laws? Some of the other clean-unclean laws appear to be both ceremonial and public-health laws, so we can make the case that the laws concerning clean and unclean meats are both ceremonial and personal-health laws. Our position has always been that there is a health aspect to these laws, so we ought to avoid things that were not meant for use as food. Such laws obviously fall into an entirely different category than the laws of the Decalogue.
In discerning how or whether certain instructions from the Torah apply to us, we have to look for the purpose of any given law. The festivals were given for the purpose of helping the Israelites be perpetually mindful of God’s great redemptive act in delivering them from Egypt and to remind them of the promises of the Covenant. Even for Israel, they were never an end in themselves, but were a means to an end. They are not a part of the Ten Words, though the “time for community worship” principle of the Fourth Commandment is there, and the commandments making up the Decalogue were in force before the festivals were instituted—so they are obviously in a different category than the Decalogue (the Moral Law, or Law of Love).
continued below
So should we observe the festivals? If not, then what will we observe as memorials and celebrations of the things we believe? We WILL observe something—it’s in our nature! That’s why the liturgical calendars of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are FULL of festivals and holy days, some of which are “holy days of obligation.” There are many days of fasting, days for honoring various outstanding saints, Passover (Easter), Pentecost, the Autumn Days of Ember (among other “Ember” days), Feast of the Nativity, various Marian feasts, etc. Protestant churches observe fewer festivals, but most of them have special services for Lent, Easter, Advent, and Christmas. All of these help preserve the identities of the various churches, remind members of their spiritual duties, and encourage faith, hope, and love, among other benefits. In addition to what churches do, we find special memorials and celebrations in virtually every nation on earth. Our Independence Day, for instance, nourishes and strengthens the patriotic spirit, keeps Americans mindful of the sacrifices that gave us our freedoms, etc., etc. Days set aside in honor of outstanding leaders remind us of the good and bad things of our past, of how far we’ve come, and of what we as a nation need to do. And then there are our families. Birthday celebrations and wedding anniversaries are born of love and serve to nourish and enhance the same. All such memorials and celebrations, whether of families, churches, or nations, are important and have a positive impact in the lives of many. It is in this light that we should consider the festivals that God Himself established millennia ago, especially as they are understood from a Christocentric perspective.
I remember and honor Christ, celebrating His redemptive work in all its aspects, by observing the festivals. I advocate putting greater emphasis on the Person and work of Christ in our festival observance and less emphasis on prophetic aspects. Here is a general overview: Passover: Christ as “our Passover sacrifice.” Feast of Unleavened Bread: Christ as the Bread of Life. Pentecost: Christ as Life-giving Spirit. Trumpets: Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. Atonement: Christ as High Priest of a new and superior Covenant. Feast of Tabernacles: Christ as the Word made flesh. Eight Day (Last Great Day): Christ as New Creation. Of course, this does not mean that I think we should abandon the “seasonal plan” view, though I do think some aspects of it are speculative.
continued below
When considering the rich Christological meanings in the festivals, along with the fact that the need for memorializing and celebrating important events is wired into human nature, I conclude that the festivals are for the Church, and that there is much benefit in observing them.
Referring to the events surrounding the Exodus and Israel’s experience in the wilderness, Paul writes, “Now these things took place as examples [tupoi, “types”] for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolators as some of them were…. Now these things happened to them as an example [“came upon them typically,” Fenton], but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:6-11). God had Christ and the Church in view when He intervened to shape the events surrounding the Exodus and when He inspired the written record of these and subsequent events. And, given the rich Christological meanings of the festivals, it is evident that God also had Christ and the Church in view when He instituted them for the nation of Israel. So I believe the festivals were also instituted “for us…on whom the end of the ages has come.”
So, to summarize, the Law of Love is the law that is written in the believer’s heart. Its two parts are an indissoluble unit, and it summarizes the moral categories contained in the Ten Words. The festivals, being memorials and celebrations of Christ and His redemptive work, nourish and strengthen the love that’s written in the believer’s heart—so they’re not an end in themselves but are a means to an end.
End of Vance Stinson's response.
I generally agree with Pastor Stinson's view.
But with regard to the Ten Commandments, my main issue with him as a CGI pastor concerns the Sabbath.
To be sure, I am a firm believer in keeping the Ten Commandments -- just not the "cultic" aspects of it. We are to keep the Commandments not because it was on the tables of stone given to Moses, but because they are part of the Law of Christ (intended for everyone, not just Israelites).
There's simply nothing inside man that says, "You know, in my gut I believe I should be resting on Saturdays in order to obey God." The seventh day (Saturday) is the cultic aspect of the Commandment, just like observing the various feasts in Jerusalem was a cultic law -- not meant for the whole world.
No, the spiritual, universal principle underlying the Commandment is to have a special time out -- time set apart and dedicated to God. The Christian Church (I believe since the time of the apostles) has kept that same weekly rhythm, but on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath due to Jesus' Resurrection appearances -- Jesus being the "Light of the world" (it was the first day when God said, "Let there be light" -- Genesis 1). Christians celebrated the new day of rest in honor of the New Moses, not in obligation to the Law as proclaimed to Israel through the "old" Moses.
I don't like the false question of "Which laws apply to us and which ones don't." It is better to understand that the Law, given to Israel as such, is no longer applicable to us in the same way. It's "done away" in a sense, but only in one sense. It's done away in the same sense that circumcision and the Passover sacrifices are "done away," but I still don't like that term. It's better to use the term Jesus used: they were "fulfilled."
So we are to keep the moral Law of Christ, which, not surprisingly, is also reflected in the Law of Moses. After all, the same God gave both. We just have to remember we are not the nation of Israel; we are spiritual Israel (i.e., the Universal Church), consisting of both Jew and Gentile.
Gentiles were never, ever, ever, ever, nevereverevernever taught by Jesus or the apostles to observe the Law of Moses. That was done only by the Judahizers -- the first big heresy in the Church. It's a shame we still have a form of that first heresy alive and well in COG-land.
And just because something had rich Christological meaning, it does not logically follow that Christians should therefore be observing it as ancient Israelites were expected to.
For example, animal sacrifices had Christological significance. (Then again, I've heard from COG leaders that the only reason we don't do those is that we currently don't have Levitical priests and a Temple, which would make doing so illegal right now.)
The Temple foreshadows the Body of Christ, but that doesn't mean we are meant to have a Jewish Temple. We focus on the Substance, not the shadow.
King David and King Solomon were types of Jesus, but that doesn't mean we should look to have one of their descendants as our earthly king.
And so on, and so on.
The Sermon on the Mount is basically public relations rather than a magnifying of the law. Christ knew the evil world leaders would scrutinize the bible as to whether Christianity is a threat to them. Hence the PR. Most of what Christ said is only applicable in a narrow range of situations. Lovers of the sermon ignore this and twist its meaning.
Armstrongism didn't work for me. It was a defective product, which did not produce the advertised results when used as instructed by its manufacturer. Therefore, I no longer care about anything its current leaders have to say in support of it.
5.08, Please supply scriptures to support your claim that "King David and King Solomon were types of Jesus."
Anonymous 10:34,
Jesus is all over the OT in typology.
As King of Israel, David was promised a descendant who would establish the throne of his kingdom forever. That was Jesus, the King of the Kings over spiritual Israel -- our King. And all the Messianic psalms that David wrote -- they ultimately applied to Jesus.
As Son of David (as he is called in the Gospels), Jesus was also typified by the original son of David: Solomon, who built the Temple. Of course, Jesus said of himself that he would build his Church, where God dwells. Jesus raised the Temple of his Body in three days after his crucifixion.
There's so much in the OT that points to Jesus -- it's exciting to see how he fulfills everything.
Jesus Christ is our Sabbath. His rest is superior to that physical rest. We permanently leave our works behind us and take on the yoke of Jesus. If we attempt to say that Sunday replaces Sabbath for Christians, we give Sabbatarians the Scriptural high ground in defending their doctrine. Circumcision and Sabbath were the signs of God's covenant with the Israelites. They were the components of that agreement which most distinguished the Israelites from other nations as a people set apart.
Likewise, when we attempt to carry forward into the New Covenant the specific commandments outlined in Torah, we negate Christ's clear choice of the Two as the foundational principles of God's Law. Jesus said that the Two comprehended the whole. Was our Savior wrong? When we try to carry the more detailed commandments of Torah forward, we create all kinds of theological and philosophical contradictions and problems for ourselves. Indeed, none of the rationales for accepting parts of Torah and rejecting others are Scriptural or satisfactory in justifying our cherry picking. In Christ's Sermon on the Mount, he clearly identified two of the Ten Commandments (the prohibitions against murder and adultery) which he said failed to comprehend God's full intent and meaning. On the other hand, loving each other certainly precludes murder, adultery, lying, stealing, etc. In other words, the Two are "universal" - everything else is "cultic."
Vince Stinson wrote, “In discerning how or whether certain instructions from the Torah apply to us, we have to look for the purpose of any given law.”
This is the kiss of death. The Armstrongist leadership, like Adam in the Garden, is going to decide what applies and what does not? It does not work that way. Why would someone think that Church Administration would have the freedom to redefine the Law of Moses? Has that authority ever been formally justified and that justification published?
Armstrongists regard the keeping of the Law of Moses as an input to salvation. One must qualify through credentialed behavior for salvation. Further, the Hoeh/Meredith view is that not only the Decalogue but also the Statutes are written on the heart. The Statutes are just an expansion of the Decalogue. So, for Armstrongists, salvation pivots on observance of the Law of Moses. It is of paramount importance to define precisely what that input or pre-condition to salvation must be or all is lost.
Armstrongists do not believe they presently have salvation but it is something they receive after a life of qualifying behavior. So now they are in a state of suspense. What if Armstrongists arrive at the gate of the Kingdom and discover that Church Administration made disqualifying mistakes about various aspects of the Law of Moses? Does that mistake result in the condemnation of the ministry but a waiver for the lay membership? Does not due diligence fall on everyone?
Armstrongists must address in detail all 613 laws in the Torah and explain how each should be observed in modern circumstances. This would include the letter and the spirit of the law. And this should be systematized and published so that Armstrongists who are struggling daily for salvation can gauge their progress and know they are on the right track. Anything less would be discompassionate. I believe this systematic approach to the 613 is the foremost responsibility of the Armstrongist ministry. It is necessary for Armstrongism, across all of its denominations, to arrive at the level of commitment that the Circumcision Part achieved when it stated without qualification, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15)
As a Christian, of course, I see salvation and the Law of Moses differently.
Scout
Lonnie:
Seeing Sunday as a new day of worship is not “giving [Saturday] Sabbatarians the Scriptural high ground in defending their doctrine.”
I am not saying, “We’re under the Law with the exception that the Sabbath got changed to Sunday.”
We Christians do not keep the Sabbath because we’re not under the Law like the Jews were (before Christ). But that doesn’t mean God hates the idea of setting aside a special day for Christian worship. And it doesn’t mean we don’t follow apostolic Tradition, which includes Sunday.
The apostolic Church began meeting together as Christians on the first day of the week to “break bread” and to share the teachings of the apostles — the first day as opposed to the seventh. This was not to confuse the two, but to have a certain continuity. While keeping the weekly rhythm, it’s a different day with an upgraded significance.
In the same way, Easter has a certain continuity with Passover, but they are still distinct, not at all to be confused. Easter observers are in no way giving Passover observers the Scriptural high ground in defending their current practice just because they keep an annual celebration of Christ Our Passover.
"All the law and the prophets" define the Two.
Sunday is every 7th day but not THE 7th day.
2.59 am, David murdered Uriah the Hittite and King Solomon morally fell away in his old age, so please understand my difficulty in accepting that these men were "types of Christ."
Anon 8:39:
So true. It’s the “first day of the week,” or the “eighth day.” Definitely not the seventh day.
Anon 9:38
“Types” are not exact replicas.
So consider that an unblemished lamb is not the same thing as Jesus, with all his characteristics and almighty power. Lambs are just cuddly creatures that taste good when cooked right. But the Passover Lamb was still a type of Jesus.
And so was Adam, for that matter. He is responsible for the sin that cut humanity off from God, yet Jesus, who repaired that breach, is called the Last Man Adam.
Similarly, there are both likenesses and differences between King David, who ruled the kingdom of Israel, and Jesus, who rules the Kingdom of God.
As you know, I have no problem with worshipping on Sunday. The early church began meeting on that day to celebrate Christ's resurrection and to distinguish themselves from the Jews. There is also nothing wrong with celebrating the Sabbath (Christ's apostles and earliest disciples continued to do so in addition to venerating the first day). Initially, Sunday observance had nothing to do with replacing the commandment to observe the Sabbath.
I am saying that Torah was an iteration of God's Law for the ancient Israelites, and that Christ fulfilled it - ALL of it. We (Christians) depend on his righteousness, not our own. In other words, keeping the Sabbath or Sunday doesn't contribute to our salvation or earn us anything!
Christ's work and teachings pointed to the intent behind all iterations of God's Law. Going forward, the letter of the Law was no longer sufficient or necessary. By placing his love within us, we now have the ability to discern right from wrong in all circumstances. We know that anything which hurts or harms another individual is inconsistent with love. Hence, under the Spirit of the Law written in our hearts, we effectively worship God everyday of our lives going forward. I believe that this is what Scripture teaches, and it represents my view of Torah's place in a Christian's life.
All of the symbolism of the Hebrew Scriptures is imperfect. The sacrifices specified by Torah were inferior to Christ. Aaron was an inferior High Priest. David and Solomon were inferior Kings of God's people and authors of Scripture. In other words, compared to Jesus, ALL of the people/places/things which pointed to him come up short.
If Solomon & pops David were types of Christ, then the wacky movie DaVinci Code would have possibility of being true, so that cancels that one 🗑️
Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10. The Law given by Moses cannot be added to nor taken away from, not even buy a prophet demonstrating signs and wonders (e.g., Christ or his followers), and is the same
Law prophesied to be written in faithful people’s hearts (the “New Covenant”). The only question is whether certain specific laws apply to Gentiles (note Deut 14:21 as an example of differential treatment in the Law), and for Anglo-Israelists whether or not Jeremiah 3 creates some sort of distinction in the matter for northern Israelites.
Historically, Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 23 matters were, and even are today, subject to such dispute. This would fit with the call in Romans 14 for questions of commanded observance to be of individual judgment. Ex. 31/Ezek. 20’s “sign” may indicate either special significance for Israel of the Sabbath or an Israelite-only Sabbath. Note also Titus 3:9’s call to for avoidance in the Christian context of “wranglings about the Law.” Acts 15 shows the early church concluding that circumcision was not obligatory on Gentiles, and the three or four provisions mentioned allude to the universal Noachide Code (and perhaps Lev 18-19, according to Bacchiocchi). Those possibly may also be specifically mentioned based on a Jewish tradition that those three things – idolatry (including “things strangled”), murder (“blood”), and fornication – are the three universal violations that no man of any heritage or blood may ever commit, even to save his own life.
Revelation 12 and 14’s reference to the “commandments of God” are not references to the Decalogue. They refer to all 636 commandments of the Pentateuch, leaving to the same matter of personal judgment for Gentiles the question as to whether and how far any specific obligations for them would go beyond Noachide.
So there you go. OT/NT contradictions resolved without any Tkach-esque abrogations, yet denying the Armstrong-esque Law-based distinction between “true” and “false” Christians. To follow on from what was mentioned before about the “Sabbath sign,” Rev 14:11 explicitly states that the “Mark of the Beast” is the Beast’s name or its derivative number — ignore the pertinent KJV editorial conjunction in Revelation 15, and use the alternate manuscript in Revelation 13 as the only way to square everything up.
It was probably this uncertainty regarding things like Leviticus 23 that opened the way for many Didache-type ideas, including a Sunday “Lord’s Day” as a substitute for the seventh-day sabbath. It certainly would fit with the Quartidecimian Passover/Easter dispute, and explain why Christian Passover observers in the east like Polycrates and Polycarp viewed those in the west deviating from the original pattern as nonetheless being brethren.
People don’t like considering the possibility of ethnic distinctions like that described, especially nowadays. Even setting aside PC, people read the “neither Jew nor Greek”-type verses and try to deny such distinctions. Yet those same passages also mention “neither male nor female.” All being “one in Christ Jesus” does not nullify distinctions on particular matters within the one Body. Rather, it holds to a community transcending those distinctions.
This theological schematic fits the first-century context, it doesn’t nullify any Scripture, and it undercuts Armstrongist “True Church” exclusivism. To show my age and juvenile television habits, it’s “Clarissa”: It “explains it all.”
NOTE TO MODERATORS: This post has a line added to a line added to an earlier submission, clarifying what is meant by a reference to “ethnicity.” Please give the submission your consideration.
————
Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10. The Law given by Moses cannot be added to nor taken away from, not even buy a prophet demonstrating signs and wonders (e.g., Christ or his followers), and is the same
Law prophesied to be written in faithful people’s hearts (the “New Covenant”). The only question is whether certain specific laws apply to Gentiles (note Deut 14:21 as an example of differential treatment in the Law), and for Anglo-Israelists whether or not Jeremiah 3 creates some sort of distinction in the matter for northern Israelites.
Historically, Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 23 matters were, and even are today, subject to such dispute. This would fit with the call in Romans 14 for questions of commanded observance to be of individual judgment. Ex. 31/Ezek. 20’s “sign” may indicate either special significance for Israel of the Sabbath or an Israelite-only Sabbath. Note also Titus 3:9’s call to for avoidance in the Christian context of “wranglings about the Law.” Acts 15 shows the early church concluding that circumcision was not obligatory on Gentiles, and the three or four provisions mentioned allude to the universal Noachide Code (and perhaps Lev 18-19, according to Bacchiocchi). Those possibly may also be specifically mentioned based on a Jewish tradition that those three things – idolatry (including “things strangled”), murder (“blood”), and fornication – are the three universal violations that no man of any heritage or blood may ever commit, even to save his own life.
Revelation 12 and 14’s reference to the “commandments of God” are not references to the Decalogue. They refer to all 636 commandments of the Pentateuch, leaving to the same matter of personal judgment for Gentiles the question as to whether and how far any specific obligations for them would go beyond Noachide.
So there you go. OT/NT contradictions resolved without any Tkach-esque abrogations, yet denying the Armstrong-esque Law-based distinction between “true” and “false” Christians. To follow on from what was mentioned before about the “Sabbath sign,” Rev 14:11 explicitly states that the “Mark of the Beast” is the Beast’s name or its derivative number — ignore the pertinent KJV editorial conjunction in Revelation 15, and use the alternate manuscript in Revelation 13 as the only way to square everything up.
It was probably this uncertainty regarding things like Leviticus 23 that opened the way for many Didache-type ideas, including a Sunday “Lord’s Day” as a substitute for the seventh-day sabbath. It certainly would fit with the Quartidecimian Passover/Easter dispute, and explain why Christian Passover observers in the east like Polycrates and Polycarp viewed those in the west deviating from the original pattern as nonetheless being brethren.
People don’t like considering the possibility of ethnic distinctions like that described, especially nowadays. Even setting aside PC, people read the “neither Jew nor Greek”-type verses and try to deny such distinctions. Yet those same passages also mention “neither male nor female.” All being “one in Christ Jesus” does not nullify distinctions on particular matters within the one Body. Rather, it holds to a community transcending those distinctions. EDIT: It should be noted that the distinction would be based on Israel having the national Sinai Covenant relationship with God. The Jeremiah 3 reference earlier refers to a theory of some Anglo Israelists, including some of Jewish background, that the “divorce“ there terminates the Covenant relationship of the northern tribes. Some might misunderstand my reference to the “ethnic” aspect.
This theological schematic fits the first-century context, it doesn’t nullify any Scripture, and it undercuts Armstrongist “True Church” exclusivism. To show my age and juvenile television habits, it’s “Clarissa”: It “explains it all.”
Lee T. Walkerk wrote, "and is the same
Law prophesied to be written in faithful people’s hearts (the “New Covenant”)"
I take exception to this. Jer 31:31 says God will write his law on the hearts of people under the new covenant. Armstrongists assume that this is the Law of Moses. But Hebrews cites Jer 32:31 and gives it a different sense. Hebrews states that the Law of Moses is obsolete. Hence, the Law written on hearts is the law that is valid under the New Covenant which is the Law of Christ.
Armstongists tend to bandy about these scriptures in such a way that the Armstrongist interpretation seems unquestionable when in fact it is wrong.
Scout
I respect LH's opinion and consistency on this topic, but I feel Vance's position is more consistent with scripture.
LH says, "if we are making all our moral decisions based on love, is it still necessary to delineate THOU SHALT NOT . . ."?
VS, "yes it is necessary. Why would we have specific lists of sins with warnings (Gal.5:19-21)? Paul taught love and also saw the need for some do's and don'ts".
Paul's example? He DID delineate (see Eph.6:2, Rom.7:1-3,7, 1 Cor.7:39, 9:7-14). His lists of sins clearly delineate and demonstrate the need for instruction in righteousness.
LH -"when we attempt to carry forward into the NC specific commandments outlined in Torah we negate Christ's clear choice of the 2 great commandments as the foundation principles of God's law". " Christ's apostles looked at the law in the exact same way"??
The above example of Paul's delineation proves otherwise. Also, is it really necessary to define what a "summary" is and isn't? As a summary (Gal.5:14), love is clearly the intent and outcome of the law, but not a replacement!
"The end (outcome) of the law IS LOVE" (1 Tim.1:5)!
LH- "by placing His love within us we now have the ability to discern right from wrong in all circumstances. We know that whatever hurts or harms another individual is inconsistent with love"?
If this statement is totally true in its implication that love is the only standard we need and it has these magical benefits, then how do we explain the utter failure of the church at Corinth to comprehend and practice it?
1 Corinthians contains delineations of the law (7:19,39, 9:9), lists of sins (6:9-10), and specific warnings against specific sins (10:1-12), along with 2 major examples of complete failure to understand that which "love" did not explain.
Chapter 9---the utter failure to understand the physical needs of the apostle Paul that he was entitled to based on the law of Moses. As explained, Paul is not in agreement with John Lennon. "All you need is love" is not getting the job done!
In chapter 5:1-12, we have a clear example of VS statement that "the message of love without specific delineations end up justifying immoral behaviors".
Is this clearly not the case? Is love preventing harm, and acting as a sufficient determent, or was it being used to justify the behavior Paul labels as wicked and evil?
The million dollar question is found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol.3, page 88, where it states, " as for the relation of NT law to OT law, there seems to be only a question of how much of the old is contained in the new"?
That question alone should fuel this site for years to come!
It's so.... not simple. Exodus 20-23 is the law. After Ex 20-23 is the setup of the Levitical priesthood (LP) and those laws, only ending at Christ's first coming, were a "schoolmaster" - Gal 3, Heb 7. No more tithing laws (Abraham and Jacob tithed voluntarily). Perhaps (!) no more poorly named "Feast of Trumpets" (is a sabbath of noise, for God to remember Israel?, trumpets not specified), no more Day of Atonement (Jesus is our atonement - Rom 5:11), no more "8th Day" (never was the "Last Great Day", the last day is the 7th and last day of the feast of tabernacles), BUT THE 3 FEASTS REMAIN - Ex 23:14-16 (mistranslated "feasts" in Lev 23:2 should be "fixed times").
But: other laws given after Ex 23 are deemed to be applicable today apart from the LP such as sex laws, the jubilee year b/c it changes counting of sabbatical years - Ex 23:10-11, other laws.
First, enormous respect for those who are willing to stay in the conversation. Unlike many folks who hold these views, Vance Stinson, Lee Walker, and BP8 have obviously contemplated why they believe what they believe about Torah. However, I still detect some of the biases which contributed to Armstrong's original formulation of his teachings.
Herbert Armstrong portrayed the traditional Christian as doing away with the Law - abrogating or nullifying it. This, however, does NOT reflect the actual beliefs/teachings of traditional Christianity. In other words, it's a bit of a straw man argument. As with most things, there are important differences and nuance in the way that traditional Christians view the Law. Contributing to the confusion, of course, is the way that some theologians and lay folks have chosen to talk about the Law.
I believe that Scripture teaches that Christ FULFILLED the Law (literally and figuratively). The fault isn't in Torah - The fault is found in the people to whom it was addressed. They FAILED to follow the terms of God's covenant with them (Torah). However, where they had failed, Jesus succeeded. As a consequence, he made the OLD COVENANT obsolete. Israelites (NOT Gentiles) were under the Law, Christians (Israelite and Gentile) are NOT under the Law (Torah).
As Lee Walker, Mr. Stinson and BP8 have pointed out, the real question then is: how much of the old legislation is contained in the new? In other words, the folks who hold to this position begin by admitting that they are NOT operating under all of the provisions of Torah! Mr. Walker opens with this contradiction - He admits that no one can add or subtract from that legislation, and then proceeds to state "The only question is whether certain specific laws apply to Gentiles" BUT, how can one subtract from that legislation for anyone? In other words, EVERYONE (including those who embrace Herbie's teachings) subtracts some or all of the provisions of Torah! Can we see the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a position?
Torah represents a version of God's Law for the people of ancient Israel. In other words, it was crafted to address a particular people of a particular time and place. Hence, by its very nature, it cannot be applicable to ALL of the humans who have ever (or will ever) live on this earth! Christ fulfilled the OLD version and brought a NEW version of God's Law for the people of the NEW Covenant. Both versions of God's Law are based on LOVE, because God is the epitome of Love. Nevertheless, unlike the OLD legislation, the NEW legislation (the Law of Christ which Paul and Scout referenced) is for ALL people in all times and places. Moreover, it requires discernment on the part of the believer (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to put it into practice. There is no list of dos and don'ts - Such a list is unnecessary and cannot accommodate all of the situations/circumstances a person will confront in the course of his/her lifetime. Also, we should note that the Holy Spirit did NOT dwell within most of the people of the Old Covenant.
Remember, love doesn't hurt or harm another - thus fulfilling the requirements of God's Law. Once again, a person who follows this version of God's Law will not be dishonoring God, dishonoring parents, murdering, stealing, lying, committing adultery, or coveting other folks' possessions! Why? Because doing so would hurt or harm someone! I believe that this theological schematic comprehends ALL of Scripture (both testaments) and does not include the contradictions inherent to what some here have advocated/defended.
Scout, your mistake is two-layered:
I am citing the precise original prophecy in the Pentateuch of the “New Covenant.” Those Deuteronomic passages I cited establish the Pentateuch as supreme. Anything subsequent which contradicts that would be false. You are citing a NT passage. If one is to hold it as valid, it must be read to agree with the passage I cited. If there is a contradiction, then the NT passage falls.
Also, for the record, I despise Armstrong to a degree that I cannot state here.
Lonnie at 958
I do understand where you are coming from concerning "love", but most Christian people, including the churches of God mentioned in the NT, have not reached the level of maturity your position demands. Perfection is the goal and certainly what sanctification is all about, but most are not there yet.
"Love doesn't hurt or harm another"? True statement, but where does that leave us?
Do you think the Corinthians were trying to deliberately hurt the apostle Paul by failing to supply his need? Or the 2 in 1 Corinthians 5 engaged in a illicit
relationship. Who were they harming but themselves. They probably didn't give it a second thought.
1 Timothy 1:8-10 says, " but we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. Knowing this, that the law is not made (not enacted, laid down for, intended for) a righteous (upright, just) man, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and for sinners, murderers, liars, etc., things we have been washed from (1 Cor.6:11) but still struggle with.
Until we all reach the place where our condition matches our position, we have to live with the way the NT is actually written to struggling believers.
1 Corinthians 10
6--now these things are our example to the intent WE SHOULD NOT LUST (Rom.7:7) after evil things.
7--neither BE YE idolators
8--neither let US commit fornication
9--neither let US tempt Christ
10--neither murmur
14--wherefore my dearly beloved BRETHREN, flee from idolatry.
Simply put, "instruction in righteousness".
Miller, et al, you err in trying to read my statement as involving some sort of “taking away” from the Torah when it comes to Gentiles. There is no removal. It is simply a case that certain aspects of it do not apply to Gentiles in terms of commanded obedience.
It is much like the United States Constitution in this regard. That document is the supreme law of the land. However, there are aspects that only apply to empowering or restraining the federal government, and aspects that only apply to empowering or restraining the state governments. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment specifically notes this. Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was held to NOT restrict action by the states. States could restrict speech, religious practice, RKBA, and many other practices expressly referenced as protected in that collection of amendments. Indeed, some aspects of it are still held to not restrict actions by the individual states. This did not and does not “take away from” the document. It was and is in fact PART of the document.
To use something of your perspective without necessarily endorsing it, think of it as the WHOLE LAW carrying to the “New Covenant,” but – or actually, and – for the Gentile, some (or many) aspects of it may not apply, even as was the case prior to the Christ event. A Gentile Christian carries the entire Law in his heart, even if some aspects do not apply to him, even as a given U.S. state is “subject… to the Constitution of the United States” (a line from my own state’s constitution), even though parts of the document do not apply to it as such.
It is not removing something from the Constitution to say restrictions on, say, the prerogative of an individual state in the Union to wage war (Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 3) don’t restrict that of the federal government. It’s all part of the document, and in full force.
Likewise, it does not “take away” from the Pentateuch Law for part of it to not apply to certain entities. Indeed, to take a code which has such distinctions within it and to claim that it applies now to all would be, in fact, to ADD to it. An Israelite Christian remains an Israelite (but note the Jeremiah 3 question discussed before), and the Gentile Christian remains a Gentile (even as a male Christian remains a male, and a female Christian remains a female). Until all nations are nationally under a similar covenant relationship with God – which in the Christian perspective can happen with the return of the Messiah and the establishment of his Kingship as the civil ruling authority on Earth – each Christian is to live as the Torah dictates for a person in their given situation. To hold otherwise would be a direct Deuteronomy 4:1-2 violation.
It’s really very simple. Everything stays the same. Don’t mess it up playing theology.
(Sorry to be a bit redundant times here. Shortage of time prevented a more precise response.)
Both perspectives have been represented in this thread, I trust our readers to decide which one makes more sense - which one is more consistent with Scripture. I hope that I've made clear how I feel about it.
Yes Jesus fulfilled the law, by magnifying it, showing its spiritual intent, being the perfect example of living the law. But He did not end it. He did not abolish, destroy it. It's still there/here.
(The law of Christ aka the law of Moses).
Lee T Walker writes:
“I am citing the precise original prophecy in the Pentateuch of the “New Covenant.” Those Deuteronomic passages I cited establish the Pentateuch as supreme. Anything subsequent which contradicts that would be false. You are citing a NT passage. If one is to hold it as valid, it must be read to agree with the passage I cited. If there is a contradiction, then the NT passage falls.”
I agree with your statement. I was reading this the other day:
"(2) In trying to reconcile Paul and Moses we need to recognize also that from a hermeneutical and theological perspective, later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise and more nuanced, it cannot be more true. Accordingly, Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if Moses' teachings were erroneous. If Moses attributed a life-giving/sustaining function to the law (cf. Lev 18:5), and Paul appears to have declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion, then he would have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet: agreement with Moses (cf. Deut 18:15-22). Paul's statements must be interpreted not only in the light of Moses, but also as rhetorical assertions made in the context of particular arguments.
"In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is responding to those who insist that salvation comes by the works of the law, as represented by circumcision. To those who represent this view, he replies that if one looks to the law as a way of salvation, it will lead to death, but if one looks to the law as a guide for those already saved, it yields life (cf. Gal 5:13-25). Indeed, Paul himself recognizes that although believers enjoy the status of righteous persons through the work of Christ, he still anticipates a future time when, based on faith demonstrated in acts of love (covenant commitment), believers will stand before God and hear his words of approval: "You are righteous" (cf. Gal 5:5-6). On this matter Moses and Paul agrees. In fact, Paul himself says, "It is not those who hear the law who will be declared righteous in God's sight, but those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Rom 2:13). The notion of "the obedience of faith" (Rom 1:5 NASB) — that is, a faith demonstrated through act of obedience — is common to Old and New Testaments. The same paradigm applies:
Yahweh's gracious (i.e., unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people
A redeemed people produces the fruit of righteous deeds.
Righteous deeds yield the fruit of diving approval and blessing
(Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.199).
Anonymous Friday, July 26, 2024 at 2:25:00 PM PDT,
I thought that everyone would immediately discern the problems with the citation you cited and endorsed. I was obviously wrong!
Leviticus 18:5 states: You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. Did you notice that very big "IF" in the middle of that verse? That was the problem. "If a person does them" - The Israelites didn't DO them. Indeed, everyone who tried to do so failed - except for ONE Israelite: Jesus of Nazareth. It is his righteousness which makes LIFE possible for us!
Moreover, that passage from the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 18:15-22) was about Jesus of Nazareth, and the instruction was to hear/listen to him. Christ taught what the Father told him to teach, and it does NOT contradict anything in the Old Testament. Once again, he FULFILLED ALL OF THAT.
Lonnie writes:
“Moreover, that passage from the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 18:15-22) was about Jesus of Nazareth, and the instruction was to hear/listen to him.”
But was it?
Dt 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up for you A PROPHET like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. (NIV).
Dt 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set A KING over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
“The singular (a prophet) is a collective form indicating a succession of prophets: see also the collective use of king (17:14)” (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, p.262).
Dt 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Dt 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
“Undoubtedly many in Moses’ audience worried about their future after he was gone... What would happen when Joshua was gone as well? Since 16:18 Moses has been answering this question, challenging the people to pursue righteousness, but also assuring them that they would not be leaderless. He has charged them to appoint judges (16:18), highlighted the role of the priests (17:9-12; 18:1-8), and approved the people’s impulse to set a king over themselves (17:14-20) in order to maintain righteousness. Although Moses served to a greater or lesser degree in all these capacities, none represented his primary role — as a conduit for continued divine revelation to the people. To whom should the people turn for a word from God once Moses was gone. In 18:9-22 he answers this question...
Dt 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Dt 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Dt 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
“Because Yahweh promises to provide Israel with prophets, there is no need to resort to divination, magic, and necromancy to determine his will. Moses contrasts the multiplicity of techniques the nations use with the singular provision of Yahweh by frontloading the subject in verse 15. “[Instead] a prophet from your midst from among your brothers like me Yahweh your God will raise up for you; to him you must listen” (pers. trans.). Impulses that drive others to abhorrent magical practices will be satisfied in Yahweh’s provision of the prophetic institution.
Part 2
“Verse 15 introduces several important features of Israelite prophecy in general and of true prophets in particular...
Dt 18:15a The LORD your God will raise up [yaqim] for you a prophet...
Jg 2:18 Whenever the LORD raised up [heqim] judges for them, the LORD was with the judge,
“(2) As the designation implies, a true prophet of Yahweh is raised up by Yahweh himself. Here the verb heqim (“to raise up”) bears a distribution sense, referring not to a single appointment but to a series, from time to time as needed (cf. Judg, 2:18)...
Eze 13:1 The word of the LORD came to me:
Eze 13:2a Hear [shama] ye the word of the LORD;
“David recognized the oracle of Nathan as “this Torah for all humanity” (2 Sam 7:19, per trans.); Yahweh sent Elijah back to Horeb for a fresh revelation of himself and a recommissioning to the prophetic service (1 Kings 19:1-21); Yahweh placed his words in Jeremiah’s mouth (Jer 1:9); and Yahweh called on Ezekiel to stand so he could speak with him (Eze 1:28-2-1).
“Common to these and many more prophetic appearances is the notion that the Mosaic Torah was not the final revelation from God. Mercifully it seems that every generation was visited by “his servants the prophets.” These prophets did not come with radically new messages; their mission was to call people back to Yahweh and to apply the Torah to new and ever-changing situations. If the people rejected their messages, the prophets pronounced judgment on them, but these pronouncements were rooted in the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I CALLED MY SON.
Hos 11:2 THE MORE THEY WERE CALLED, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.
Mt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
“I have suggested above that in this context “a prophet like Moses” refers to a succession of prophets whom Yahweh would raise up, keeping open the lines of communication with every generation. However, this did not prevent later interpreters from seeing in this “prophet like Moses” an eschatological messianic figure. Although neither this text nor the rest of the Old Testament provides warrant for or evidence of this interpretation, its roots can be traced to the intertestamental period.
Second Temple Exegesis
Ge 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
“Associations of Deuteronomy 18:15-18 with an eschatological prophetic Messiah is attested in the apocryphal writings, the Qumran texts, the New Testament, and Samaritan writings. However, this interpretation required a twofold adjustment to the original meaning: the replacement of the distributive meaning of “a prophet like me” with an individual meaning, and the transformation of a text with historical significance into an eschatological statement. This reading does not arise naturally from the text; rather it imposes on the text a meaning one hopes to find or one needs to have in order to buttress questionable doctrine. On the other hand, Jesus is to be identified with Yahweh (incarnate in flesh) who raises up the prophets; on the other, he is the subject of the prophets’ proclamation” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, pp.434- 46).
To AnonymousFriday, July 26, 2024 at 9:15:00 AM PDT
Galatians 3, esp v19, pertains to the pedagogic function of the Law, not what you laid out. This was actually WCG teaching starting in the early 1980s, but it never got put into the literature, including the correspondence course you’re using. And by the time of the 1995 fight, many Armstrongist ministers had to be reminded of it.
Your own usages of laws outside of that section of Exodus and the Deuteronomy passages I cited debunk it as well. Cf Matt 5:17-20, et al, for NT counter.
Lonnie writes:
“I thought that everyone would immediately discern the problems with the citation you cited and endorsed. I was obviously wrong!”
Dt 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Heb 8:8a For finding fault with them,
Sorry Lonnie I do not understand how your comments relate to the necessity of agreement between the OT and NT.
Ro 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
“The commandment need not refer only to the one commandment given Adam in the garden but can represent the whole law. The Scriptures attest that the law was given as a way of life that leads to life (Lev 18:5; Deut 6:24); Prov 6:23; cf. Sir. 7:11; 45:5). In providing a moral standard for what is right and wrong, the commandment dispels moral indifference. Knowing what to do and what not to do, however, does not enable one to obey. Sin is so powerful that it manipulates the law, and, like a parasite, sucks the air out of the life-giving function so that it yields only a suffocating death... After their expulsion from the garden, life east of Eden turned into a train wreck as sin and death pervaded all human existence (5:12)” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p.241).
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
“He will enjoy life through them (v.5). Literally “he will live through them.” For the OT writers life means primarily physical life. But is clear that in this and similar passages more than mere existence is being promised. What is envisaged is a happy life in which a man enjoys God’s bounty of health, children friends, and prosperity. Keeping the law is the path to divine blessing, to a happy and fulfilled life in the present (Lev 26:3-123; Deut 28:1-14)” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.253).
Ex 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations;
Lev 18:28 That the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Elohim], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord [Yahweh] Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Jn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commands.
“Life through obedience? The Lord [Jesus Christ] commanded the Israelites: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them” (Lev 18:5). Does this mean that the ancient Israelites were saved by doing works of the law? The answer depends on whether “will live” refers to the present life or to eternal life. In this context, exile is opposite life in the Promised Land during the present era (18:24-28; cf. v.3).
Part 2
Eze 20:21a “ ‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws—although the man who obeys them will live by them (NIV).
“When exile did come, Ezekiel repeatedly quoted Leviticus 18:5 to explain what had gone wrong (Eze 20:11, 13, 21; cf. Neh 9:29).
“Leviticus 18:5 expresses the same idea as Deuteronomy 5:33: “Walk in all the ways that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will posses” (cf. Deut 8:1; 32:46-47). The fifth of the Ten Commandments promises long life in the land for those who honor their fathers and mothers (Ex 20:12). Since respect for parents and other family members, which is essential for healthy society, is the topic of Leviticus 18, it is not surprising to find the stakes of obedience verse disobedience in terms of the land.
“Thus, Leviticus 18:5 has to do with life in the Promised Land rather than eternal salvation. The Israelites did not save themselves by doing works of the law as an alternative route to eternal life that God gives by grace through faith. Obedience was predicated on preexsiting grace. The Lord had already saved his people from slavery in Egypt (Ex 20:2) and was about to give them the land of Canaan (Lev 18:3, 24; 23:10; 25:2, 38). They could not earn it. However, he could not bless his people with life and prosperity in that land if they violated laws of cause and effect and severed their covenant connection with him by acting abominably.
God’s laws are not theological abstractions that are separate from dynamics of cause and effect operating in real life. For example:
“Suppose the Lord says, “I have a gift for you — a beautiful, wonderful expression of what love is. I will provide you with a spouse — a husband or a wife. Your relationship with this person will bring about the very best in you...
“But then He says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Mat 5:27). Is that command to limit or restrict you? No! It is to protect and free you to experience love as its human best. What happens if you break the command and commit adultery? The love relationship is ruptured between husband and wife. Trust is gone. Hurt set in. Guilt and bitterness creep in. Even the children begin to respond differently. Scars may severely limit the future dimensions of love you could have experienced.
“When the Israelites repeatedly apostatized, it was God’s compassion that saved them from their enemies (Judg 2:15-16, 18; 3:9, 15). While their return to obedience demonstrated their sincerity (10:15-16), it did not pay for past sins so that they could merit deliverance. No amount of law-keeping can make up for past failure. Even today, a murderer can behave well on death row but then be put to death for a crime he committed in the past. The only thing that can save a sinner is unmerited mercy. While keeping God’s law is beneficial to those who are obedient (Lev 18:5), it cannot help those who are disobedient (Gal 3:11-13, quoting Lev 18:5)” (Roy Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, pp.322-23).
Posting numerous scriptures without any comment for you as to why you are using them is a waste of time. Most stop reading when you are unable to make your reasons known. In the COG, those who boast by quoting scriptures usually are the ones who never follow them. Tell us your personal convictions without hte use of endless scriptures.
I personally skip over any posts which are loaded up with scriptures. Most of the people who post them post Armstrong's perverted usage of the scriptures. They don't realize that Armstrong's eisegesis ices Jesus.
Miller/Lonnie, your most basic mistake in your use of Deuteronomy 18 is that you
PRESUME Jesus in that. You start with the conviction that Jesus was indeed Messiah (and that’s the one spoken of there), and then use that passage to mean we have to listen to everything he says, even if it functionally edits the Torah. Problem is, Deuteronomy 12:32-ch13 lays out a scenario wherein a “prophet” or such pulls off of stunt - like, say, rising from the dead — but in the context of that preaches a different God. Note the intro to that involves editing the Law. It’s a warning that simply because a person has a glib tongue and seems to have something supernatural around him, it does not mean that he is legit.
Jesus must be judged in this context. If he edits the law in such a functional manner, even if he crafts the delivery of the message as some sort of “fulfillment,” then he is false. His line about “revealing the Father” suddenly takes on a totally different meaning.
You and I grew up in an environment where the messiahship of the historic Jesus of Nazareth was a given. So for us, we come into the Bible thinking that, and then read everything anchored around that. Sounds very Christian, doesn’t it? Problem is, Deuteronomy 12:32ff flips that script.
Start with Torah, since that is what your God did. Then examine the claim of this Jesus fellow. If you buy his claim, fine. However, if at any time you find that his statements run afoul of the Law or anything else in the preexistent Scriptures, you must drop him, as he will prove himself to be a fraud. Ditto with any teacher coming and his name.
Now, you can quote the entire NT to challenge this. It means nothing, because doing so presumes Jesus. You would be saying to believe him because you believe him. That’s a circular reasoning.
Deuteronomy 12:32ff is a protection. The God of the Bible put that in there to protect worshipers from very convincing imposters. If Jesus taught what you claim he was teaching, then he was an imposter.
Lee T. Walker,
Yes, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and the one referred to in several of the prophecies of Torah (including that one in the eighteenth chapter). As you know, Christianity is a faith-based phenomenon. In other words, being a Christian begins with believing in Christ - that he was who he claimed to be. Moreover, when you do that, he becomes the lens through which the Hebrew Scriptures are interpreted. Most Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Hence, they interpret the Hebrew Scriptures through a very different lens.
The error of your argument is in the absence of faith. According to your view, your understanding/interpretation/view of Deuteronomy 12:32 is controlling. From the perspective that you are advocating, the Hebrew Scriptures are superior to Jesus. I believe that the Spokesman of Almighty God is superior to the written word. If, however, one believes that God (as the one who inspired those Scriptures to be written) can interpret them in whatever way seems best to him, your point becomes moot. Once again, it is very dangerous to have one's theology dependent on one passage of Scripture - it can pervert/twist the understanding of the whole.
Your view of Scripture also seems to echo that of Herbie - the Fundamentalist view. Unfortunately, this view puts God in a box. It makes Scripture superior to God, and it ignores the fact that humans were given a role in the authorship of Scripture (God's decision, not mine). God is perfect, but humans are NOT. While it is logical to assume that God's part in that joint venture is error free and free of contradictions, it is illogical to assume that the human part meets the same standard. Even acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we (humans) are prone to make mistakes (and we do). From my perspective, your argument engages in circular reasoning - nothing can contradict your understanding of Torah because your understanding of Deuteronomy 12:32 is correct! This lack of humility where Scripture is concerned has always been the Achilles' heel of the ACOGs. If you really believe in Christ, you believe that he is the most perfect reflection of the Father that has ever existed on this planet - superior to anything we have in writing. I believe that Christ fulfilled his Father's will and instructions - ALL OF IT!
Gal 3:19-24: Laws were added to other laws b/c people were transgressing those other laws, but were removed after Christ came. Yet Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law.
It looks like the law Jesus was referring to were laws that define love, and the added laws were those primarily given under and supporting the Levitical Priesthood - Hebrews 7:11-12 and others added because of transgressions.
The Torah includes laws, and added laws now removed. The Torah is not all or nothing to obey today.
Jesus recognized in the NT record the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s the problem with your entire perception. You call him, “Lord, Lord,” but do not believe what he says. And you affectively knowledge he fails the test of those Scriptures.
Understand: My only reason for coming here is help destroy Armstrongism. My chiming in on this topic was primarily to show how one need not reject the Law in order to reject that perverted old… Well, I have to watch my language here. I have no personal skin in the game. I long ago moved far beyond any sort of doctrinal or dogmatic approaches in my faith toward the Creator and Judge of the universe. I am simply here to help destroy a particular cult that hurt me and people close to me.
I don’t care how any of you Christians practice your faith. I don’t even care how Armstrongists practice. I only wish to break them of their adherence to that false apostle and their deception regarding the supposed “True Church.” (Oh, and I would like them to reevaluate their disregard of civic duty, but to each his own.)
I do hope, though, you will think about this: Which way as a Christian would you rather face God if you’re wrong? Would you rather be able to say, “I based my understanding on scriptural statements which YOU inspired and which were acknowledged by the One in whom I was to have faith,” or be forced to say, “I based my approach on a ’faith’ I somehow had, and so discarded statements in the Scriptures acknowledged by the One in whom I claimed to have faith.”
Attention everybody:
Read last paragraph of Miller/Lonnie’s post of July 27, 10:38 AM. He effectively denies the infallibility of the Bible. Therefore anything he says using scripture as proof is hypocritical. He cannot rely on scripture for proof because he does not believe it. His faith is based on something that is flawed in his mind. He can only make things up.
Like Torah, the Bible points to the One who is infallible. Your faith appears to be in a book, not in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit!
As for the points which you've made about this post, I have posted something on my own blog that I believe addresses your very skewed view of the Hebrew Bible:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/07/do-you-see-jesus-in-torah.html
Lonnie 1038
"Putting God in a box", making the holy scriptures superior to Jesus? superior to God? Christ is superior to anything we have in writing? Christ fulfilled His Father's will and instructions? Faith in a book, not in God, Christ or the spirit?
I have to admit. My first reaction to reading those statements was the same as Lee's 1015. I was wondering WHERE Lonnie was now getting his information, or whether he had discovered a new pipeline to God. I'm sure he meant something else, but I think even a superficial suggestion that the scriptures are inferior to God is a mistake.
Would we even know about God, Jesus Christ, the Father's will and instruction, apart from the holy scriptures? Even with the human element, are not the scriptures what they claim to be?
Since we all have the tendency to fly off the rails with our human reasoning, would it not be better said that our various interpretations of the written word can often be flawed versus the word itself being inferior to God and Christ?
I can live with that!
Lee T. Walker wrote, “I am citing the precise original prophecy in the Pentateuch of the “New Covenant.”
You appear to be a follower of the Gerald Waterhouse approach to the Bible, “There it is – all you have to do is read it – it doesn’t need any interpretation.” You have created your own little hermeneutic that you follow that also seems to have a number of flaws. As a result, it is more of an opinion than theology. I could respond to the flaws but I have a feeling from the exchange you have had with Miller that it would avail little. Miller has more patience than I do.
So that you understand the issue that I am pointing out, you wrote:
“Anything subsequent which contradicts that would be false.”
How do you know that this little rule is true? This is a direct contradiction of what Paul wrote in the NT. If you follow this rule, you will reject the New Covenant.
I can appreciate that fact that you have your own personal, deep theology. But you should not be surprised that other people find it unpersuasive.
Scout
BP8,
I have written extensively on this subject, and I am NOT a Fundamentalist. Like the Apostle Paul, I believe that "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." Paul didn't say that Scripture was inerrant or infallible. Some of us say that! I agree with Paul that Scripture is a useful tool for all of the things he listed in his letter to Timothy for folks who have God's Holy Spirit.
The Bible is a book of spiritual truth, and it points to the source of truth and "his" will and plans for us. It was NOT meant to be employed/used as a science, mathematics, geography, psychology, or history textbook! As the One who designed the human brain and our ability to communicate, God completely understands how those two things work. He chose to involve some of us in the process of writing Scripture (and, even with our own limited understanding of our own brains and communication, I'm sure that we can all think of a couple of good reasons why he chose to do that - like the way we send and receive messages, the way that our brains process the information that comes to us through our five senses, etc.). Hopefully we can all agree that our minds are inferior to the mind of Almighty God, and that all human languages are imperfect conveyors of our thoughts and emotions.
Roman Catholics claim that the Pope (one man) is infallible when he is speaking from the chair. Many Protestants claim that ALL of the human authors of Scripture were infallible when they were writing their various books. I don't believe either one of those notions is credible - that's NOT the way that Divine inspiration works! The Holy Spirit leads, guides, and even pushes us in the direction that we should go. It does NOT take control or force us to do anything. It is NOT the opposite of demon possession! Moreover, the notion of Divine dictation of Scripture contradicts what the authors of those writings have to say about the way/manner/reasons that they were given their messages by God Almighty. Think about that for just a moment: voices, dreams, visions, stone tablets written by God, consuming scrolls, inspiring someone to write down what they've witnessed or gathered from witnesses, etc.
I can see the Divine breath all over Scripture, but I can also see human fingerprints all over them too! No book is able to completely capture or reflect the mind of God. I believe that we have been given what our minds can absorb, process, and understand (and a great many of us have problems with what has been entrusted to us). In short, God is a much greater entity than ANY book can adequately contain or reflect. If you're interested, my views are more fully explained in this post on my own blog: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/02/soli-deo-gloria-glory-to-god-alone.html
Scout:
Those Deuteronomic passages I’ve cited expressly lock in the Torah. It is simply what they say. If you believe something like that can change, then anything can change. A Joseph Smith or a Herbert Armstrong (or a Lee T. Walker 😁 ) can come along and present something new, and you have no place to reject it on the basis of any pre-existing scripture or conjured-up idea. You have just demonstrated that you believe a command not to add or take away can be itself be taken away. This Jesus idea is no different.
Hey, it’s a free country. I served eight years, including two years overseas bearing arms in a country filled with people one religious experience away from wanting to put a bullet in me, in part so that people of a certain religion could not force their religion on you. So worship the way you want. Just don’t use the Bible for authority.
You quoted this on your blog:“[S]ince you don’t believe what [Moses] wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:47).
Well, you don’t believe those Deuteronomic passages of Moses, so you obviously cannot believe what Jesus says. And indeed, you have deprecated the record of what he said.
Oh, the irony.
If one part of a document of supposedly divine origin or authority can be duplicated or denied, then the whole thing can be.
Lee T. Walker,
Your remarks drip with self-righteousness and lack humility. I have not disparaged Christ's statement or what is written in Torah - I just interpret them very differently from the way that you do. I revere the Bible - I just don't worship it - that is reserved for God.
BP8 wrote, “…I think even a superficial suggestion that the scriptures are inferior to God is a mistake.”
God intended the scripture to play the role that it plays. The scripture meets his purposes and perfectly so. But that does not mean that the scripture is perfect in textual content. It is not. It can be imperfect and yet fulfill God’s intents. This drives fundamentalists and atheists crazy. As Peter Enns said, “God let his children tell the story.”
For example, the killer of Goliath at one place in the Bible is David. In another place it is Elhanan who killed Goliath. Further, the scribes who curated the Hebrew scriptures knew this contradiction was in the scripture and they did not fix it but left it to the readers to deal with. This is not the only oddity in the account of David. For a discussion of this, see:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-elhanan-hermeneutic-jesus-goliath.html
Scout
I appreciate your comment at
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 2:36:00 PM PDT
regarding a Bible discrepancy very much. If such discrepancies appear in the Bible, then it is NOT A DIVINE WORD. At the very least, certain parts of the traditional canon are false, thereby justifying the discarding of the entire collection – at least everything that follows the discrepancy, but frankly the whole thing. If the God of the Bible cannot preserve his word substantively pure, then we cannot be held to worshipping him or his alleged Messiah. My own talk here should be understood as being within the context of it being a divine word, because that is what Christians, and specifically Armstrongists, hold.
Thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight.
LTW 6:39
You realize that you made all of that up. You have asserted your own criteria. There is a difference between naked assertion and exegsis and you need to become acquainted with this distinction. The record you set straight is that you are not familiar with midrash and nothing further got set straight.
Unsupported opinion quickly cloys.
Scout
Lee T. Walker you present us with a FALSE dilemma. That was Herbie's position: Either/OR - It's either all right or it's all wrong. That's the epitome of a logical fallacy.
To both Scout and Miller/Lonnie:
That is the very nature of something being held as a divine word. You are literally staking your eternal judgment on it. If any part of it is wrong, then any part of it can be wrong, and it cannot be held up as divine authority. And God cannot hold you to it. It is his job to make sure his word is pure.
If a recipe or a legal work or a constitution or any other work of humans is flawed, those problems do not extend beyond this life for a person. They do not have to be perfect to serve their purposes. That is the difference.
Some things really are binary. You two have so deprecated the Bible, and so qualified it in your faith that it doesn’t matter in your case. That is why you’re having trouble seeing this.
LTW 10:15 wrote, "That is the very nature of something being held as a divine word."
And that is an idea that you made up and for which you provide no supporting argument. You need to respond at length to the following:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-elhanan-hermeneutic-jesus-goliath.html
Scout
Lee T. Walker,
I can see that you are a binary thinker. You see things in black and white. There is abundant evidence of this on your own blog and in your posts on Truth Social. I'm content to let our readers here evaluate our conversation and decide for themselves. After all, we will all be evaluated based on the purity of our own consciences in matters of this nature. Fortunately, we don't get to decide - that's God's prerogative. We'd probably all consign each other to Hell if we held that power in our own hands! In the end, "his" reality is all that really matters anyway.
Lee @7/28/1015
I perceive that on this site, this is an argument you will not be allowed to win. You have already been framed for defeat.
You have been linked with Herbie.
The "exegesis / midrash" card has been played (your simplicity has been rejected and labeled as "unsupported".)
They know the subject matter (sola scriptura, inerrancy, infallibility) contain too many variations to address and thoroughly argue here.
A real debate would prove nothing. Anything you might say would not suffice. "Exegesis " is just a scare tactic. Most that are presented here are not addressed but met with unwarranted criticism, "too long, too many scriptures, doesn't get to the point" etc.
There is no need to repeat history. Battle lines have been drawn on these topics for centuries. The message here is --it's time to give up and go home.
One thing you can consider a positive. You are not alone in your opinion and criteria. A large percentage of "orthodox Christianity" (A favorite ally on this site) believe like you! That should be argument enough for those here who often use the same argument.
There's no need to condemn each other to hell, but I do find the accusation of idolatry for those believing a certain way (worshiping a book instead of the Creator, Romans 1:25) to be a stretch!!
M/L:
I am binary where things are binary. Indeed, if you look at some of my posts on my world-renounCed blog😄, you’ll find a seek a pragmatic approach to things. Aside from that quibble, I basically agree with your last post here. If you can’t trust “the Word of God” to be perfectly accurate, how can you trust him to accomplish anything?
Thank you for checking out my social media.
Lee...if you want people to see your blog then post the link. What you posted goes to nothing. What are you hiding?
BP8 10:06 wrote, ""Exegesis " is just a scare tactic. "
That statement is just a dodge. Anybody can bring a bunch of unsupported declarations to this blog They just should not expect Armstrongist-style sound bites to be accorded the same status as well thought out and supported arguments.
Scout
Scout:
I don’t NEED to respond to anything. If God gives his “word,” and you cannot trust it to be perfectly accurate, then, how can you trust him to do anything?
No need to continue with this conversation. I had hoped it would go one more step, but I’m going to just jump straight there: You said that by my logic, I would have to renounce the New Covenant. Basically, you were saying that if consistency in the Bible is an issue, then Christianity falls. It cannot survive the test of Deut 12:32ff.
That’s fine, because I gave up the whole thing over 20 years ago. The truth is, there is no way to 100% be sure of the understanding of any written document. That includes the Bible. Therefore, no written document like that can be given sufficient, credibility and authority to be the religious operation in one’s life. People have made nonsensical life-destroying decisions based on their understandings, which later turned out to be an error. Therefore, I rejected it all.
Think of it as applying the “best evidence rule.” You don’t use a deposition from a witness in a trial when the witness himself is sitting out in the hallway eating a sandwich. The judge will say, “Get that guy in here, and let’s hear his testimony.” God is capable of appearing to every person on the planet, at any time, and do so without compromising any other responsibility. I will not accept depositions by fallible agents – depositions which you say are actually flawed – when the True Witness can appear, and give his testimony. That would be the only way to be sure it is properly understood. And given the importance of this matter, nothing less is appropriate.
That God does not do so thus leads to the conclusion that he does not require a dogma. So I go with what is known:
The existence of God is proven by our intelligence. We have intelligence, and we cannot be greater than who/what created us. I must presume God is benevolent, because if he is ambivalent or malevolent, then the whole thing doesn’t matter. We are probably… I can’t come up with a good totally clean word to substitute for the F-bomb there. Thus we are to be benevolent – affirmatively beneficial – in whatever context or community we find ourselves. Hence, my devotion to my people, nation, state, and country.
If there is a Devil, then by the very nature of such an operator, he will keep himself generally hidden. Some obviously question his existence because of this, but evidence for his existence is sufficient for me to believe he does exist, and to be thusly wary. (Hey, if I am wrong on this point, I’m wrong. I’m not giving it down anybody’s throat.)
As I have occasionally mentioned, my comments here are generally in the perspective of the religion of Jehovah being correct. my target is active Armstrongists, and so I work to undermine their cold as much within their theological context as possible.
Think of it as how a discussion of Star Trek lore spoken of in-universe, even though most Trek aficionados know enough to “get a life” (some of you remember Shatner from SNL).
Thank you both for the conversation. May any Armstrongists reading it benefit from our exchange of different ideas and have it function to help them see the fallacy of their evil false apostle.
M/L, please see my response to your friend Scout for a full explanation of matters here. I am bowing out of the whole conversation now, because we have nearly reached the ultimate impasse. Read that post and you’ll understand.
LTW, I echo the sentiment expressed in your remarks about our conversation on these subjects. I hope that this will provoke thought and further investigation into these matters. Likewise, I pray that it will help those who are still enthralled by Armstrongism to leave those chains behind and begin a more personal and sincere relationship with God.
To AnonymousMonday, July 29, 2024 at 11:01:00 AM PDT
That’s hilarious. I post on here over a dozen times with the link in bedded in my name, and once or twice I get lazy or in a hurry and don’t embed it, and you accuse me of hiding. Well, I wasn’t going to post on this topic anymore, because I felt it run its course, but I’m posting here just for you, with the link embedded. Don’t you feel special?
A lot to that, BP8. It has run its course here.
LTW wrote,
"I don’t NEED to respond to anything. If God gives his “word,” and you cannot trust it to be perfectly accurate, then, how can you trust him to do anything?"
If you want to engage in debate and progressive understanding in interacting with other interested people, you do need to do this. If you want to simply pontificate, like a WCG minister and have nobody question your word, then write what you want and it will just be noise.
I just heard an interesting analysis of why Donald Trump blatantly and unashamedly lies in his campaign speeches. It is a demonstration of his personal power. There are two autocratic moments to this:
1. He demonstrates that he decides what the truth is.
2. He demonstrates that nobody has the guts to contradict him.
I am not at all suggesting that you are lying but maybe you are looking for a different kind of audience. Just my two cents. I don't run this show.
If you are going to assert that the Bible is perfect, Bart Ehrman, Dennis Diehl and others are going to eat your lunch. Atheists have read the Bible closely and in detail and know where the discrepancies are.
Sometime in your journey you may be ready to read a book titled "The Sin of Certainty" by Peter Enns.
Scout
Scout
The fact that you are recommending books by Peter Enns offers us an insight into your current perspective. I say this, not as condemnation but observation. Psychology 101 tells us that beliefs are personally adapted to accommodate the psychological needs within us, which helps us make the best sense of things around us. This partially explains why some have liberal leanings and some conservative.
Beliefs can also be reactionary, the result of a good or bad experience. It's not a secret that many here have had disastrous experiences with Armstrongism, and now have transitioned to a faith needed to see them through the storms of life (Enns). My case is no different, but in some ways, it is.
Many here have come out of structure (HWA) to freedom. I came from "nothing" to something. I came from a satanic, communistic, radical atheist of a man, Jim Jones,to structure, Armstrongism. I'm my case, the COG was a saviour. As a child, to attend a church where the leader would curse God, carry a Bible but never open it, to a place where the Bible was read and practiced was a blessing. Also, had my dad not rescued me from the grips Jones had on my mother, I probably would have ended up in Jonestown along with other relatives who drank the kool aid.
(As a side note, look into Kamala Harris's mentor, Willie Brown, and his dealings with Jim Jones in 1970's San Francisco. It's very interesting and a fact of history, and NO I'm not a Trumper.)
I'm also no longer an Armsstrongite and haven't been for 35 years, but I do retain the conservative bent and a systematic approach to theology. It is what it is and I don't view this as being shackled in chains.
Is it for everyone? No, but what is? In this country we are equally divided between liberals and conservatives. For every Peter Enns there is a Norman Geisler.
I too highly recommend Enns' books, but as a rebuttal to those who would have me for lunch, I recommend another book for consideration:
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", by Geisler, Turek, Limbaugh.
For some of us, faith to move through the storms of life (Enns) may not require systematic theology, but for others it may be just what the doctor ordered!
BP8
Sorry that you were involved with Jim Jones. Even sorrier that you next moved to a COG. I hope you will next find your way to an orthodox Christian church.
Scout
I confess. I got curious about that link you wanted me to respond to. The truth is very simple: If there are irreconcilable contradictions in the canon, then the canon dies. The Bible dies. In some way it dies.
Honestly, building on what I’ve said before in terms of my actual beliefs, that “scripture cannot be broken” line strikes me more as the Essene Jesus, being facetious toward the Bible-thumping Pharisees. Essenes believed and believe that the OT was edited to cover up an earlier a covenant attempt from God, a covenant that would’ve been much more hippy-ish, but which the Israelites rejected. Jesus said something crazy sounding, and so he pointed where is scripture said something crazy sounding. Then he locked in the Pharisees with that line. But that’s just a theory of mine.
Again, if it’s errant, it doesn’t have the divine authority to guide lives. All you do is offer more evidence of my conclusion over 20 years ago NOT to trust any document on messenger, only God himself.
Scout
At the time it wasn't my choice for either (5-10 years old). I will say that one was much better than the other.
An orthodox Christian church? Which one would you recommend? There are plenty out there.
Actually, I'm content being a part of the spiritual organism. That narrows it down!
LTW 3:16 wrote, “The truth is very simple: If there are irreconcilable contradictions in the canon, then the canon dies. The Bible dies. In some way it dies.”
If the Bible were given by God via a mechanism that insured perfection, it would be perfect in all its aspects. Perhaps, he could have used “automatic writing” where Moses simply sat down and his hand wrote automatically without his will in the picture to disturb anything. But that is not what God did. He instead turned the curation of the original pericopes to the scribes of Israel. The editorial influences of the scribes are seen in the Pentateuch. Moses is supposed to have been the author of these books but in some places Moses is spoken of in Third Person grammar. And you read the article titled “The Elhanan Hermeneutic.”
The argument that atheists make is that the Bible is demonstrably discrepant in places and is therefore not perfect. Therefore, there is no God. If there is one error, the show is off. So, they comfortably believe that God does not exist because they have found the discrepancies. But that is a manufactured criterion. It goes like this. If the Bible does not have the precision and integrity of an engineering document, then there is no God. A perfect God will produce a perfect document.
Your “simple truth” is logical. Only that is not what God did. And the fact that he did not do it in that way, is a direct message to all readers of the Bible. It is a part of the Bible message itself. That trust is more important than content. That the action of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life is more important than words on a page. That Jesus is the Word of God in his thought and action not a book on a shelf that has been awkwardly translated because the exact meaning of the original Hebrew vocabulary has been lost.
God spoke of how the scribes of Israel handled the curation process in Jeremiah 8:8:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.”
I am not sure what the scribes did. But it was not in accord with the will of God. But I do know that the Law and the Prophets were effective at the principle level. Maybe the details were wrong. Maybe there were some political influences. When Jesus came he did not start a movement to correct the scripture if all of that was so important. He instead gave us a new instantiation of the Word of God.
Scout
I will keep this short.
Congratulations, you have invalidated the Bible as divine scripture. (Yes, you have.) Now accept what that means.
I have been challenging the ideas of you and your friend in part because I hate hypocrisy in religion, but more because I feared it would interfere with my efforts to provide factual and academic challenges to Armstrongism from actual history and Armstrongists’ own professed Scriptures. But I was off in that. I’ve been a bit idealistic to go after hypocrisy so much, and my academic information still gets out regardless.
So again, congratulations on demonstrating what I’ve known for over 20 years – that the Bible is invalid as divine.
All the best in life.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Like making available the truth in a translated book with errors and with study aids with errors but nevertheless with the Holy Spirit. (Hard to believe but I think I agree with Scout at 6:47).
LTW 6:58
I am glad you confessed that you do not believe in the Bible. It is not a big leap to then deduce that you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, the explanation must be really novel. I began to notice a while back that you were using the same arguments that atheists use to attack the Bible.
It is good to be transparent. Dennis Diehl is a known atheist and makes useful contributions to discussions between Christians and Armstrongists that happen on this blog. He arouses ire but our consideration of issues would be less complete if brother Dennis did not participate.
Scout
Scout:
Not an atheist, just not a believer in the traditional Judeo Christian Scriptures.
LTW
Which religion and which god do you represent and why are you reluctant to speak about it?
Scout
Post a Comment