The Armstrong Churches of God are fond of pointing out that most folks who profess to be Christians are deceived about most things. Unfortunately, as many of us have learned, the “plain truth” is that they wouldn’t recognize the truth if it bit them in the posterior! Where do we begin? They are wrong about so many things!
First and foremost, most Armstrongites do NOT understand or accept what Jesus of Nazareth has done for them. All true disciples of Jesus Christ understand that Jesus Christ removed our sins and imputed to us his righteousness. They understand that Jesus reconciled us to God and made it possible for God to dwell within us through the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, most Armstrongites believe that Christians must observe parts of the Law of Moses in order to be saved and that all of our sins will someday be placed on the head of Satan, NOT on Jesus.
Second, most Armstrongites fail to acknowledge that the New Covenant in Jesus has supplanted the Old Covenant between God and Israel. In keeping with their belief that salvation is accomplished in part by their own efforts to obey God’s Law, they believe that things like the observance of the Sabbath and Holy Days are essential for Christians. For them, God’s Law for Christians is still found among the provisions of the Old Covenant between God and Israel. Indeed, instead of understanding that Jesus and his love make us righteous and clean, they continue to define sin as the transgression of the terms of the Old Covenant, and they continue to believe that the physical consumption of certain animals as food can make us unclean.
Third, in clear contradiction of the writings which we refer to as the New Testament, they believe that the Gospel or “Good News” is focused on the establishment of a literal Divine Government on this planet. Unlike most Christians, their message does NOT center on the person of Jesus of Nazareth and salvation through him. Instead, they focus on end-time prophecies and how they think that they relate to today’s headlines. Likewise, instead of spiritual salvation, their message is focused on the physical fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham. And, in keeping with that message, most of them believe that the English-speaking peoples of the earth are descendants of two of the twelve tribes of Israel. In other words, inheriting God’s promises in Christ takes a backseat to the physical birthright of being Abraham’s physical descendants!
Fourth, instead of celebrating the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth with other Christians, they insist that it is only appropriate to celebrate Christ’s death! They believe that the holidays that most Christians celebrate are drawn from ancient pagan practices and reject any association of those days with Jesus Christ. Likewise, they shun meeting together with other Christians on Sunday and insist on worshipping with folks of like mind on the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, they believe that gathering on Sunday is another pagan practice and that Jesus didn’t really mean that wherever two or three are gathered together in his name he would be there in the midst of those people!
Fifth, they reject the Christian understanding of the nature of God. In fact, they deny that the Holy Spirit is God, and both believe and preach that only the Father and the Son are God! Moreover, they believe and teach that humans will one day be God – as God is God! Indeed, most of them believe that God looks like us and thinks the way that we think! Instead of things like compassion, mercy, and love, they believe in a God who is royally pissed off at humanity and is just waiting for an opportunity to zap most of us out of existence. Instead of a God who wants to save the world, they preach an authoritarian and stern God who will forcibly impose his will on a rebellious and delinquent mankind. Instead of serving and helping humanity, they see themselves as someday ruling over mankind with a rod of iron!
And, finally, instead of acknowledging that Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH, they arrogantly believe that their own little package of beliefs constitutes the truth. Likewise, instead of love as the foundation, object and goal of everything that God has done and will do, they believe that a utopian government and world is his objective. For them, what happens when we die is more important than how we treat each other in the present. In short, the Armstrong Churches of God embody the Spirit of Anti-Christ more than they embody God’s Holy Spirit. In the words of the book of Revelation, they believe that they are rich (in truth) and have everything that they need, but they do not realize that they “are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” In times past, God winked at such ignorance, but NOW it is time for them to REPENT and accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior and acknowledge the inadequacy of their own righteousness!
From Anon...
114 comments:
"Jesus Christ removed our sins and imputed to us his righteousness."
The above is misleading. God does remove sin, but He does not remove the natural consequences of sin. In the parable of the prodigal son, the "good" son gets ALL of the fathers inheritance:
Luke 15:31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and EVERYTHING I have is yours."
Christ always honored reality. He turned water into wine since wine is mostly water. He blessed the few fish and bread to feed the crowds since meat comes from breeding animals/catching fish, and bread comes from planting and processing grains. God mostly uses natural means to punish nations by using war, famine and slavery. Which is why the beast power in Revelation.
Forgiveness is not a means of cheating or negating reality.
Weird, they will only nominally praise Christ yet they will idolize every aspect of Herbert W. Armstrong to the point it approached a Stalin-like cult of personality. I think in some regards this was because some of the leadership desired his level of absolute power & the accompanying adulation
Personally, and while I understand the point, much of this is exaggerated as to what the people of the COG's believe as opposed to what they should believe. I grew up on both sides of this coin.
The scriptures, old and new, allow for the conclusions of the Jewish Christian Churches of God as well as the more emotional and somewhat mystical Gentile Church, authored by the Apostle Paul, to this day.
An honest read of Galatians 1-2 will clearly show the unsolvable conflict between Paul and "those reputed to be pillars", and "I learned nothing from them" Jerusalem Apostles, Peter, James and John. They did not agree with each other and Paul went out of his way to curse them for not believing his version of the Gospel. Nothing new under this Sun.
The reason the Churches of God, and really modern-day Christianity, can't come to a common consensus on "the Law" is because the scriptures allow for finding whatever view one leans towards.
Others opt for, "It is both", whatever that means. The whole book of James on showing one's faith with their good example and works is a rebuttal of Paul's views in Romans where even Paul seems confused about which it is as he beats around a lot of bushes over the issue.
Anyway, big topic, but I found this a bit over blown and too much judgment on what others believe or don't believe in the Churches of God. ....said the non-believer :)
Bottom line: It is the Bible itself that sets the stage for all of these views, pro and con, about the Kingdom, what to do and what not to do, which days to keep and "Just what do you mean Jesus?", "Just what do you mean James?" and "Just what do you mean Paul?"
One can't include the Book of Revelation in their theology and not conclude "it's about the Kingdom to come" and Jesus who is revealing what must shortly come to pass promising, "Behold I come quickly". That was the focus of the day and to many still is today.
It is the Bible that is the author of confusion on these issues. Theologians and "Apostles" make whole careers out of trying to figure it all out.
Otherwise, there would not be so many opposing forms of Christianity, which, of course, there are.
And too...one who posts, nor necessarily comments, needs to take responsibility and credit for the post with their actual name. IMHO
amen...
Dennis writes "..needs to take responsibility and credit for the post with their actual name." Spoken like a ACOG minister. Herb's ministers have always hidden their true character and beliefs behind a Pharisaic mask, yet reject members having any privacy.
I've had minister imposed "counseling" that amounted to the mental equivalent of a man standing under stairs and looking up women's dresses. The voyeuristic perverts want to know everything about you. And they pass the information on to their wives.
So again Dennis pushes the big people are entitled to everything, but the little people are entitled to nothing wheelborrow.
"...fail to acknowledge that the New Covenant in Jesus has supplanted the Old Covenant between God and Israel."
Spoken like a true protestant.
"... they believe that the Gospel or “Good News” is focused on the establishment of a literal Divine Government on this planet."
That IS what Jesus said, right?
"...they insist that it is only appropriate to celebrate Christ’s death! They believe that the holidays that most Christians celebrate are drawn from ancient pagan practices and reject any association of those days with Jesus Christ."
Jesus did teach His followers to commemorate His death, right? And He did say not to use pagan rites to worship Him, right?
"...they deny that the Holy Spirit is God, and both believe and preach that only the Father and the Son are God!"
That IS what the bible teaches, right?
One day you will understand this.
"The whole book of James on showing one's faith with their good example and works is a rebuttal of Paul's views in Romans where even Paul seems confused about which it is as he beats around a lot of bushes over the issue. "
James is about how one's faith leads to good works, not that those works will save. It's faith that saves. We show our faith by our actions. James and Paul are in agreement, and Paul was not confused at all. Those outside confuse Paul's point, twisting his words to reach their own desired conclusion.
Interesting how the poster picks and chooses issues like the Sabbath & clean food.
Does your faith allow you to murder?
What about stealing? Adultery?
If you think that one can commit these sins and still obtain salvation, you are sorely mistaken.
But, I'll assume you agree that murder / theft / adultery are forbidden. Why are they forbidden then? Well, because they are part of God's eternal law ... the 10 commandments. Let's not forget that Jesus himself expounded on these laws to include the spiritual component (hating is killing, lusting is adultery, etc).
So, if one agrees with those commands, they there is no excuse for not keeping the Sabbath or any other commandment. It is NOT a Jewish Sabbath, it is God's Sabbath ... HE rested after 6 days of creation.
This is just slamming COG's for that sake alone. If a Hindu taught that murder was a sin, would you conclude that murder is ok because Hinduism is not Christianity?
Many years ago, Mr. Diehl embraced Herbert Armstrong's assertion that traditional Christianity was NOT consistent with the primitive or "original" version of the faith. Over time, he became disillusioned with Armstrong's theology and came to the conclusion that he too was wrong. Hence, Mr. Diehl concluded that it's all manmade, that the Bible and its God are inventions of an ignorant and superstitious humankind. Along came James Tabor (who had also dabbled in Armstrongism), and he asserted that Paul's version of Christianity was vastly different from that espoused by Peter, James, and most of the original apostles of Christ - which Mr. Diehl swallowed hook, line, and sinker as the most plausible interpretation of the available evidence. For Mr. Diehl, Scripture is not inspired. For him, it is a jumble of contradictory views, and it is impossible for anyone to make sense of it.
As for anything in this post misrepresenting or exaggerating what Armstrongist believe, I would reference COG literature and the reader's own experiences of the original (Worldwide) or its numerous descendants. NO, an Armstrongite would not characterize their own beliefs in the way that this author has summarized them, but we all realize that Herbert took even greater liberties with his characterizations of the beliefs of traditional Christianity. According to Armstrong, traditional Christians dismissed God's Law and didn't even try to practice biblical Christianity. The fact of the matter is that there is a fairly broad consensus on the major elements of the Christian faith, but we are always going to have the folks on the fringes who will invent different ways to understand and interpret the Bible (for some folks, it's just plain fun).
In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul sets out his purpose in the opening of the letter - that he was called to be an apostle by God and Jesus Christ, not by any group of men in Jerusalem or anywhere else. Both this letter, and the book of Acts make clear that SOME of the early Christians believed and insisted that Christians should keep some or all of the provisions of Torah. I believe that the narrative of the New Testament supports the notion that the majority of Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, believed that Jesus had made them righteous, and that that could not be accomplished by observing the Law of Moses. Hence, Paul was railing against this fringe group of Jewish zealots, not the overwhelming majority of Jewish brethren.
If one posts under true name, won't that open susceptibility & opportunity for scammers and those with ill-intent to search the person's name on sites like Intellius & Spokeo? Churchmembers, a person's "brethren", scammers, & ex-churchmembers & even members of nearby "rival" splinters can take a person posting under their real name, become offended at what they post, & hound or bully the person posting. Also puts the immediate or greater family of a person posting, at risk from phishing & scams.
Intellius & Spokeo & all that tend to show all the person's family members. And shows present or past residence addresses, sometimes shows current ph. #.
It gives the scammer 1 chink in the armour of privacy, they take the name & then search obituaries. And that is where entire family privacy becomes breached because when a person posting here is shown attending someone's funeral for example, then all other family members are shown there in print along with it.
Isn't it legit to post here anon., so as to avoid becoming an involuntary internet & web "mini celebrity"? Or of becoming a target of disdain & bullying, if one posts highly controversial viewpoint? Especially if a person is still COG-friendly, & would like to offer opinion here on this site. We don't want our family (or ourselves) slammed with telemarketers, & with pro-COG or anti-COG operatives unless by choice.
For once I actually agree with the Dennis's analysis, except the point that places all this confusion on Scripture instead of carnal atheistic man.
I understand Anons need to vent, and I'm not disputing what he/she may have heard from the pulpit. But to do this right, we really need to get one's facts straight if it is to be called "truth".
1. Armstrongites teach we must observe parts of the law of Moses in order to be saved?
There is no official writing that says this, otherwise Scout would have found it by now. What the church has officially taught is found in Romans 6:1-2.
2. Sabbath and holydays are essential for Christians? Why not? To prop up Sunday observance, orthodox Christiandom has no problem pushing Pentecost do they?
Sin is the transgression of the terms of the OC? Why not quote it correctly? See 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20, 7:7.
3. You don't like the idea of a literal physical kingdom coming to this earth? You have never read the Lord's prayer or the Kingdom parables? What's the point of a literal second coming of Christ?
4. The "Jewish" sabbath? This explains a lot about your source material. It's not the Bible!
5. No need to debate the Trinity again. The church believes the holy spirit IS God, but not an individual person like the Father and Son (see 1 Cor.8:4-7).
A loving, compassionate God who wants to save the world verses an authoritarian God who will forcibly impose His will on rebellious mankind? Why would He do that?
The problem with many on this site is a refusal to believe what Scripture says regarding this "world". See for yourself (John 7:7, 3:19, 2 Cor.4:4, 1 John 5:19).
The best illustration of how corrupt this world system is, is what happened when Christ (the Way, the Truth, the Life) came preaching the Gospel of love, mercy, and compassion to this world He loved. He was REJECTED (Luke 19:14,27) and crucified for His efforts, as HE SAID. This will not happen the second time around (see Rev.19:15-16, 2:26-27). Every knee will bow!
What often happens in the attempt to flush the "plain truth" down the drain is that the ACTUAL truth goes down with it. Not good!
Anonymous said...
YOU SAY: Dennis writes "..needs to take responsibility and credit for the post with their actual name." Spoken like a ACOG minister. Herb's ministers have always hidden their true character and beliefs behind a Pharisaic mask, yet reject members having any privacy.
RESPONSE: I only note this because I have always been openly myself in everything I post over the past 30 years. Like you, that helps everyone know who they are talking to and my own experiences and views that bring me to the conclusions I have.
That "spoke like a ACOG minister" etc, is nonsense. Members can have all the privacy they wish. You know who you are talking to here. I have no idea you are which when being inaccurately labeled by you seems a bit lopsided. IMHO
YOU SAY: I had minister imposed "counseling" that amounted to the mental equivalent of a man standing under stairs and looking up women's dresses. The voyeuristic perverts want to know everything about you. And they pass the information on to their wives.
So again Dennis pushes the big people are entitled to everything, but the little people are entitled to nothing wheelborrow.
RESPONSE: Again nothing, in my own past approach to ministry and nonsense. You have obviously had bad experiences with others and now project it on to anyone that was in the WCG ministry. You would not have had that kind of experience with me personally.
Getting back to the original post. It seems painting with too wide a brush, just as you are doing here with me personally.
Dennis wrote, “The whole book of James on showing one's faith with their good example and works is a rebuttal of Paul's views in Romans where even Paul seems confused about which it is as he beats around a lot of bushes over the issue.”
I would not be so naïve as to think that I can settle this issue that Christians have been debating for centuries. I have my viewpoint, of course. The controversy seems to come about when salvation is broken into various elements – like a mechanical watch with a bunch of moving parts. Winding up the watch is clearly an input and the movement of the hour hand is clearly an output.
Paul says the believer is given the gift of justification through grace – “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”. Hence, for Paul justification is clearly an input to salvation. James says that view is incomplete – that justification requires works. James says, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” So, James sees justification as a blend of inputs and outputs.
But James acknowledges faith and Paul is not an antinomian. One cannot read Romans without concluding that Paul is a stern moralist. Both see righteous behavior as an inherent part of Christian life. James does not rebut Paul so much as he seeks to amplify Paul. Unfortunately, in a way that seems to have confused the church.
I think the problem arises from trying to break up something, that operates and makes sense as a whole, into components. That works fine with a watch but gives poor results with salvation. This is because a watch is a mechanism and salvation is a person. A watch does not have a complex psychology and a will. A watch is, rather, a product of rigorous engineering and component interfacing and accomplishes a single, narrow purpose.
Paul speaks of salvation in the holistic way. He states in Romans 5:10:
“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (ESV)
Paul explains further,
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (NRSV)
Salvation is then not caused by any particular component but by Jesus living in the believer through the Holy Spirit. And Jesus is not just faith in isolation. Or works in isolation. Or any other component in isolation. But the personal integration of all of these.
Scout
Soli Deo Gloria
Yea they frustrate the grace of God, and I agree with # 3
"Instead, they focus on end-time prophecies and how they think that they relate to today’s headlines. Likewise, instead of spiritual salvation, their message is focused on the physical fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham. And, in keeping with that message, most of them believe that the English-speaking peoples of the earth are descendants of two of the tribes......."
God's word says every, tongue, tribe and nation. Not just the English speaking. And even if one day the become right with one of their predictions, that is should still not be the focus. The whole focus should be on spiritual salvation.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
They won't change though.
Hebrews 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. (ESV)
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (ESV)
The Systematic Theology Project divided the Law into a number of categories, and then attempted to explain why some categories were not still in effect for Christians. It also stated:
The New Testament teachings presume the Old
Testament and the Judaism of that time. This is
clear to anyone who studies the historical and cul
tural background as well as the New Testament
itself. Thus, what sometimes appears to be a radical
statement about Judaism or the law or Old
Testament, is really a spiritual modification or an
amplification or both, rather than a rejection or
repudiation. In other words, the New Testament
writers—including Paul—did not reject the Old
Testament or the law or even their Jewish back
ground. They rejected a few things and modified or
changed the emphasis of many things, and they
especially taught the newly-revealed spiritual
meanings involved.
Hence, it would seem like the author of this post is on fairly solid ground when he/she characterizes the COG position on the Law.
My faith doesn't allow me to do anything that would hurt or harm another person.
Ya no kidding. Christians are better off with Torah. Which way is it after all...are Christians prohibited to kill humans, or are they allowed to kill others?
In dippy WCG I once heard lame argument supporting wartime killing of US enemies by ex-military, (pre-baptism) who joined WCG. A stuffed shirt pillar was saying there was a "difference" in the bible between "murder", & "killing". I immediately knew WCG had a problem at that point, to allow goons spouting off such.
Later, now in the far future, I have UCG friends who think Mrs. Amy Allwine's death was caused by a guy who didn't really "kill" while he was "killing" her.
Why does COG want us to not kill, but if an intentional malicious killing does occur, then they claim the bible has some kind of clause or loophole that vaguely permits it?
Isn't the Torah useful at least to forbid killings?
"... they believe that the Gospel or “Good News” is focused on the establishment of a literal Divine Government on this planet." That IS what Jesus said, right>>>
Assuming you allude to Matthew 24 Jesus said here: ''And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come''.
Armstrongites see this as referring solely to a millenial rule. They equate kingdom with 1000 years. But you are wrong as neither Jesus nor the apostles equated kingdom only with s millenium. I am not going to set the various meanings out all it takes is a bit of bible study.
When one does some basic study the Kingdom of God as taught in the Gospels and other places is multifaceted, and there are at least four different meanings. The common thread in all of these is that the Kingdom is God's rule. That is something far bigger.
Fact is Armstrong does not teach the gospel of the kingdom as he only equates it with a 1000 years and ignores in total the fact that the gospel is indeed about Christ and the salvation He brings.
I agree with most of these claims as I have recently left the church since Pentecost 2024. Attended for 12 yrs. Do not agree with the pagan holiday and sunday worship, though. I still believe sunday worship is mark of the beast while sabbath is sign of God's people.
Dennis says "You have obviously had bad experiences with others and now project it on to anyone that was in the WCG ministry."
Your answer implies that most of Herb's ministers were good guys with the odd bad apple. If that was true, this blog would not exist or would be a shadow of its present self. The body of evidence on this site says otherwise. Complaints of ministers barging into members personal lives like a bull in a China shop have been common.
Your answer is another reminder that you are mentally stuck in the 1970s with your expectation that readers will blindly believe you because "(ex)minister Mr. Diehl says so."
But, I'll assume you agree that murder / theft / adultery are forbidden. Why are they forbidden then? Well, because they are part of God's eternal law ... the 10 commandments. Let's not forget that Jesus himself expounded on these laws to include the spiritual component (hating is killing, lusting is adultery, etc).
By the law is the knowledge of sin. If a person keeps the commandments at the level Jesus elevated them they deceive themselves
Jesus did teach His followers to commemorate His death, right? And He did say not to use pagan rites to worship Him, right?
The argument pagan rites are used by believers to worship Jesus has no merit but an old argument of Armstrong and Witnesses
The whole book of James on showing one's faith with their good example and works is a rebuttal of Paul's views in Romans where even Paul seems confused about which it is as he beats around a lot of bushes over the issue''>>>
Paul was discussing at length in his various letters those who thought they would be justified by obeying the laws of Moses, which he called works of the law.
James talked of works as good deeds.
Paul recommended good deeds too which don’t need enumerating but one example is the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5 - there are good deeds/works produced being an essential part of the Holy Spirit having an influence on our Christian living
In this sense there is no contradiction at all, but some like to manufacture it for various reasons.
The church believes the holy spirit IS God, but not an individual person like the Father and Son (see 1 Cor.8:4-7).>>
The eighth chapter of Romans makes it impossible to describe the Spirit in Paul and in believers as an impersonal influence;
- through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death - (the Spirit is seen to be intimately associated with Jesus - both giving life);
- in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit;
- those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires; - (I ask - and consider - how might an ‘’it’’ desire something?);
- but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace; - (the Spirit acts to change one's mind - governing a believers mind - are such actions to be expected of an ‘’it’’);
- You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ
- the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you
- if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live
- For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father
- ‘’The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children’’ ; - (again - I ask - how does an ‘’it’’ testify? Why does a personal pronoun apply to an ‘’it’’?);
- but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies
- In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God; - (Is it too obvious to ask - how does an ‘’it’’ have a mind?; or make decisions to intercede - in the same manner we read in verse 34 of Christ Himself interceding for us?);
But it is in the Johannine writings that the Spirit as personal is most prominently displayed. This is particularly so in John 14-16.
# 2, "they continue to define sin as the transgression of the terms of the Old Covenant"
They certainly won't use James definition:
James 2:8-9 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
They do this, they show respect of persons.
These evaluations are all relative and very subjective, 9:14. We know that overall, classic Armstrongism had some very evil and heretical aspects to it, and did great harm in members' lives. If you are willing to admit that there were members who were sincerely attempting to please God by practicing Armstrongism, then it goes without saying that there would also be sincere ministers who had that same attitude. They were administrators of a corrupt and evil organization, however.
Back in 1974-75 there was a mass exodus of ministers from the church. They saw and objected to the harm. I've always considered those as equal to members who left for the same reason, just on a different level in the organizational structure.
You have to remember, Armstrongism breeds and thrives on extremism, and very similar to the Pharisees of Jesus' day. The chief Pharisees seem to hang on for dear life and can't understand why everyone else is not so gung ho. I believe they are blinded to their own psychosis, and actually think they are the elite and righteous. We know these people by name and frequently discuss their activities here.
I believe that Dennis probably was one of the good ones. But I also believe he is more tolerant of some of his past friends in the ministry, wanting them to be seen as the more forgiving of us see him. I like to say innocent until proven guilty. Most of these guys won't even come here and join in on the discussions through which we could evaluate them and know a bit more about their current character. There is a hazing period here, and some never let up on the hazing. Not everyone wants to subject themselves to that. I guess we're like a jury in many ways, and the process can be harsh.
Anonymous @ Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 5:27:00 AM PDT,
Once again, when asked by the Pharisees about the most important commandment in Torah, Jesus replied: "“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40, ESV) In addition to comprehending all of Torah, these two also nicely summarize the Ten Words. The first commandment comprehends the first four, and the second commandment comprehends the last six. Bottom line, LOVE is who God is, and it is the basis for his law. As Paul made clear in his epistle to the Romans, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Wouldn't murder, theft, adultery, etc. wrong a neighbor?
Well if that's what you truly believe author of this blog then why do you live a completely opposite life?
Why dwell amongst these 'anti christ' 'Armstrongites' who you clearly disrespect with such labels and obviously hate? If you really believe in the trinity then why deny it by your life? What life are you really living?
What are you actually achieving with this article besides exposing the huge gap between what you type and how you present your life ?
"I believe that Dennis probably was one of the good ones. But I also believe he is more tolerant of some of his past friends in the ministry, wanting them to be seen as the more forgiving of us see him."
=================
I don't believe I was tolerant of past ministerial friends. I just could do little about it and only helped out members when called and asked to and I was.
HQ did not want to hear it, in my experience.
I approached a couple personally trying to point out how perhaps their way was not the way. Got nothing but blowback.
As well, and to this day, I have few if any real friends in the ministry past or present simply because most were too negative or all the things I never wanted to be. Once I took up the non-believer stance, friends are even harder to find.
I have one friend in former ministry, Mike Feazell, who approached me first to ask if I would talk to him about his own journey. Mike, unknown to most, got a legit PhD in Theology and it made him an agnostic. He is my only real friend in former ministry because now we resonate with each other. He knows the part he played very well and has taken years to understand it as is often the case.
I had lunch with Joe Tkach Jr last year, here in Oregon, and it was amicable, but had virtually nothing in common to discuss and there were things I could tell he did not want to discuss. His growing up in WCG and me not was obvious.
950
I'm not wanting to open a can of worms here, only to clarify my statement at 652 #5 concerning the nature of God and how it relates to your opinion from Romans 8.
I agree with your assessment that the HS is not an impersonal influence (an "it"). The HS is very personable, but it needs not be a "person" to be such.
The personality of the HS is that of the Father and Son. God (Father and Son) IS SPIRIT. The HS is THEIR essence, their power, and the extension of their very being.
Look at Romans 8 again.
The HS is called the spirit OF God (vs.9, 14).
It is also the spirit OF Christ (9). It is simply called "Christ" in vs.10.
It is both the "spirit of HIM that raised Jesus from the dead" and "the spirit OF His Son" (8:11, Gal. 4:6).
It is HIS spirit, the spirit "of your Father" (8:11, 1 Cor.2:10, Matt.10:20).
Christ Himself intercedes for us by and through His spirit (8:26,27,34). The one parakletos is expressed 2 ways.
This point is made by comparing Matt.12:28 with Luke 11:20, where Christ says, "if I cast out devils by the spirit/finger of God, then the kingdom is come to you".
A finger is not a person but an extension of one's being.
Paul says, " unto us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ ", (1 Cor.8:6-7). John 17:3 puts it this way, "and this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent".
All these posts Dennis are helpful to me in my journey of COG, & helpful to assess when COG was ok & when it was not, thanks.
Mike Feazell is often mentioned in PCG literature as a major player in the dismantling of the old WWCG.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Mike Feazell is often mentioned in PCG literature as a major player in the dismantling of the old WWCG.
======================
And he was. This is what Mike and I talk over and what he has shared with me in his own sincere journey out of WCG, out of "the changes" and into agnosticism. He has said that getting his authentic PhD in theology and learning what he also was never taught growing up in WCG as he did, did that for him. Often a good education in the actual origins, meaning, politic and problems with scripture will, if they are honest, lead a man or woman out of it all. And if not out of it, at least more cautious as to how to apply it in ministry. Transitions are messy by nature but predictable. Mike and I talk several times a month. We did today.
PS Mike and I met when, on another forum, I asked a person (former minister) who does not care for me but lives close to me here in Portland to go to lunch. He never would. But Mike read that and told me he said to himself, "If Dennis is willing to talk to __________, maybe he'd be willing to talk to me?" He emailed me this and I called him immediately. Ther rest is a nice friendship with an incredible background thrown in for good measure. I said and thought badly of Mike before he got in touch. After hearing and talking through the whole story, I would never speak ill of him again ever.
"Until you walk in another man's moccasins, you can never imagine the smell"
Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God - 1Cor 4:5 RSV
Looks like the poster is making six judgments before the time.
"Armstrongism" does appear (and I was in WCG 1966 to 1979) to be the most deceptive mixture of truth and error ever.
Dennis, why didn't your friend Mike, Joe T and similar just walk away from HWA's church rather than doing a inside Trojan horse. Attending members experienced coercive pressure to go along with the changes. What happened to not lording it over members faith?
OK, so that question is rather near and dear to me, because I said something similar at the time.
Here's the best answer I can give, pending Dennis' response:
Assuming these men were devout believers, they were responsible for the eternal fate of the members. The "care of souls", as older legal terms go. That meant that they had to try to "transform" the organization instead of just walking away and abandoning the members.
Thats the good faith answer. On tbe other hand, the cynical answer is "they wanted to try to keep as much of their income as possible and not have to go get real jobs."
Both are probably true in some respects.
Herman L Hoeh had some biblical explanation for sticking around in the WCG.
I guess other splinter cog ministers simply were okay with it, or at least understood.
So, now, because Dennis is on speaking terms with Joe Jr. and is a friend of Dr. Mike Feazell, he's responsible for their activities in orchestrating the changes, or is their spokesman?
Second question. What if God called the Tkaches to make the corrections, and in so doing save as
many of the formerly deceived individuals as possible? What if the splinter dudes became as Pharoah with his hardened heart?
Or, what if Dr. Mike and Dennis are right in their conclusions that without compelling evidence to prove otherwise, it's all imaginary?
Interestingly, those who have taken various positions feel as if they have all the facts, or faith required to place their bets. Personally, I see two constructs: a group of non-Jewish Jewish Christians, and the modern descendants of Paul's gentile churches. As it was once before, so it is yet again.
At one point in my recovery, with as many remaining traditions which continue in my life and keep me out of the mainstream, (especially at Christmas time) I used to sing to myself a paraphrase of the old early Conway Twitty rock n roll song: "Remember, Lo-only, lonely Jew Boy, i-is my name!"
BP8 6:52 wrote,
"1. Armstrongites teach we must observe parts of the law of Moses in order to be saved?
There is no official writing that says this, otherwise Scout would have found it by now. What the church has officially taught is found in Romans 6:1-2."
First, I have not been following this thread and had even forgotten that I made a comment. So, I am picking you statement above up without much context. I would say that point 1. cited above is incorrect. I don't know where it came from but that is not what Armstrongists teach. They teach that the entire Mosaic legislation must be kept and that it is written on the heart - not just part of the legislation. They do exlucde the sacrifices and what they call the Ministry of Death. What they actually practice is "parts of the law of Moses" - only part of the Mosaic legislation after the sacrifices and Ministry of Death are subtracted. They do not keep the Law of Moses at all. They keep only an extract of it. In this sense they are less faithful to the Law of Moses than many Christian denominations that assert that the moral content of the Law of Moses is still in force - such as the Lutherans and Anglicans. Armstrongists mess with the letter of the law in a few ways but never engage its morality in toto. Once you get beyond the Sabbath, the holy days and tithing, they can't really tell you much about the law of Moses.
For official pronouncements read:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bootstrapping-salvation-disturbing.html
Scout
Why? Tell that to the fake names who are in real life part of the ministry they openly condemn on here. I notice the little benefits of being in ministry are NEVER condemned.
This blog is nothing more than a pet project of disgruntled ministers. An overspill of church ministry forums.
Aw, look, da widdle cwybaby is back cwying about people posting here.
Dwats! You found us out!
8.35, Dennis, Joe Jr. and Dr. Mike Feazell are peas in a pod. Joe and Mike did a Pearl Harbor on the WWCG, which Dennis followed up on with his campagne on Banned on those who still believe in God and the bible.
"Fact is Armstrong does not teach the gospel of the kingdom as he only equates it with a 1000 years and ignores in total the fact that the gospel is indeed about Christ and the salvation He brings.
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 9:07:00 AM PDT"
Not true at all. Yes there is a physical kingdom for 1000yr, and it is followed by the second resurrection in which all that have lived and were not in the first resurrection will have their opportunity for salvation, which is followed by the end of all flesh and the eternal kingdom of spirit beings.
If you are going to criticize "Armstrongism" you should at least find out what is taught. But then, if you understood the bible you wouldn't be criticizing the Church to start with.
@Lonnie Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 11:00:00 AM PDT
Wow Lonnie, that is very good. You are in agreement that the Church teaches to obey the Commandments? That seems contrary to the general feeling of your posts here.
Whats my name, 11:35?
Dennis wrote, “The reason the Churches of God, and really modern-day Christianity, can't come to a common consensus on "the Law" is because the scriptures allow for finding whatever view one leans towards.”
I do not find this to be the case. The Armstrongist churches of God have a definite position on The Law. Hoeh and Meredith in particular enunciated this. And the churches in the Christian movement have a definite viewpoint and the areas of disagreement are small. And, of course, the two positions differ. In the Christian movement, salvation is the work of God. In the Armstrongist movement, salvation has some involvement from God but it is DIY – do it yourself.
A point that must always be mentioned in any examination of Armstrongist soteriology, is that they have two different published positions on the process of salvation. You can find statements in their literature that sound very much like orthodox Christianity. Very quotable but not an accurate or comprehensive picture of what they believe. And co-residing with the orthodox view, you will find another view. This alternate view is the soteriology of Qualification for the Kingdom and is, upon closer examination, nothing more or less than salvation by works.
This is why Christians believe that they have salvation now and Armstrongist do not believe they have salvation now. Scripture supports the Christian view. But Armstrongists live in a state of suspense. They are busy working to produce their salvation and they are never sure if they are going to make it. Armstrongists do not know if HWA received salvation. That will have to wait until he is resurrected and judged.
I can speak of Armstrongism and Christianity as two separate views because the two viewpoints are each relatively coherent. They are both “a thing.” Dennis sees only confusion. My guess is that Feazell, after a Ph.D., knows that this coherence exists. It would be hard to avoid. I would readily admit that the Bible has suffered from human curation. But this is an influence mostly at the detail level. At the macro level the principles are consistent. I am not pastoral in the least but I find that people who believe that the Bible is all in disarray, live in the benthic zone of inconsistent detail and usually have some motivation other than issues about God for being there.
Scout
Gosh, 3:18. At least Dennis, Joe, and Mike aren't telling people that Jesus will return tomorrow every single day. Or claiming to do a great work in Africa through politicians and witch doctors. Or preaching an Irish version of the gospel based on Lord of the Dance.
"Wow Lonnie, that is very good. You are in agreement that the Church teaches to obey the Commandments? That seems contrary to the general feeling of your posts here." Glad you enjoyed the post, but I do NOT agree with the ACOG's that Christians are obligated to obey the 613 commandments of Torah (that iteration of the Law - including the ten - was part of the Old Covenant between God and Israel).
OK, all New Covenant people: please refer to Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 in your discussions. Law is not going away. But parts of the Torah are already gone, i.e. the laws associated with the Levitical Priesthood.
It's all 613 or none? Bogus argument.
1055,
The law we will have written on our hearts are these: Law of Christ, Law of the Spirit, Law of Love, Law of Faith, Law of Liberty. These are the ones spoken of in the New Covenant. Why would you want anything different?
Yes, the version of God's Law which Christians obey is internalized. It is in the Spirit - as in God's Spirit - whose presence produces fruit in humans and inspires us to love God and each other (it is a manifestation of salvation - it doesn't cause it.
As for how Scripture views Torah (Law of Moses), you obviously haven't read Deuteronomy 15:5, 28:15, James 2:10, Matthew 22:37-40, Galatians 5:3, 14, etc. Scripture views the Law as an inseparable whole. In other words, the ACOG's categories of different kinds of Laws is artificial and inconsistent with how Scripture regards that body of legislation.
Jim, it’s simple. If they accept the law has changed, they can’t set arbitrary measures of righteousness. You are declared guilty under the law. Only Jesus Christ removes your curse from you. It’s uncomfortable. It’s the gospel.
It makes you live in gratitude. It makes you see others as more important than yourself. You suddenly realize you’re dead apart from your only savior, Jesus. You can’t do anything on your own and your dependence becomes on His mercy alone.
No unjust scales. No arbitrary obedience. Just you’re dead. He makes you alive and you live in obedience to your only Master. Jesus.
7.54, Ah, the what-about-ism pseudo logic fallacy. In fact Dave is right there with Joe, Mike, and Dennis. All four are motivated by the same spirit and goal.
Concerning the law written on our heart, Jim @ 1055 asks, "why would you want anything different"?
Why would we want anything different from what God has actually said?
Jeremiah 31:33
"My law"
Ezekiel 11:19-20
"My statutes, My ordinances"
Ezekiel 36:27
"My statutes, My judgements"
Hebrews 8:10, 10:16
"My lawS"
Works for me!
Yes, in the past should obey all 613 laws. Except Paul wrote some were added because of transgressions: transgressions of law as in Abraham's time-Gen 26:5. Ah, there's the rub: which laws were in Abraham's time and which were added by Moses 430 years later - Galatians 3? The laws added were removed after Jesus, and faith, and the Holy Spirit came. But the laws not added are still here, to be wholly obeyed, and they're not all 613.
Which probably is why Paul wrote not to strive about the law (as I am doing-naughty, naughty!) - Titus 3:9, b/c the laws in Abraham's time are not listed, fully detailed in scripture separately from the "law of Moses". But they, laws in Abraham's time, are included in the law of Moses to define how to obey God now. And they include the 7th day sabbath b/c it was established at creation (not Jewish).
6.58 pm, How do you know that the 7th day Sabbath was't kept by the angels before its established for man at creation?
Since the purpose of the Sabbath is to draw close to God, wouldn't this be a good idea for the spirit realm as well?
Hey, 6:58, you need to study the 5 basic covenants between God and mankind. They are all expounded upon in scripture. Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenant.
HWA had a huge misunderstanding. He oversimplified, backwriting the Mosaic to the Garden of Eden, and forward writing it into the millennium and Kingdom. This affected his entire work and ministry in ways that cannot be understood unless one knows the provisions of each covenant.
A brief look at some changes in the application of the Law of Christ for the renewed covenant with a focus on the purification offering [hatta't]. But first a qualifier for the first sentence:
“The message of the New Testament is that Yahweh, the One who spoke directly at Sinai and indirectly through Moses, is none other than Jesus Christ, Yahweh incarnate in human form, and that Moses was his prophet” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.38).
1Ch 29:23a Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king
1Ki 2:12a Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father
Just as “the throne of Yahweh” is known as the “the throne of David” - named after Yahweh’s vice-regent so the law of Yahweh is known as the “law of Moses” - named after Yahweh’s giver of the law (Neh 10:29).
With the NT revelation that the ‘dynamic’ Yahweh who interacted with Israel was Jesus Christ, the law of Moses is actually “the law of Christ”.
Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's [nasi’] part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering [hatta't], and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel.
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
In the renewed covenant the successive Davidic kings, who are priests after the order of Melchizedek, will be over the temple and temple cult — “worship in ritual procedures” — following along from Solomon (1 Kgs 11:34 refers to Solomon as a nasi’), Hezekiah and Josiah.
Eze 45:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:
Eze 45:19a And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering [hatta't],
Eze 45:20 And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye make atonement for the Temple.
"... vv 18-20, announces an annual ritual of decontaminating the inner sanctuary area... it is a counterpart of P's [read Moses'] great day of Atonement ceremony in Lev 16, but here the rite takes place in the spring, at the start of the year. As there, the blood of the sin offering has the function of bringing about the regular decontamination of the sanctuary from the accumulation of past sins that had a polluting effect upon it (cf. Lev 16:19 "... sanctify it from the impurities of the people of Israel")..." (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, p.266).
In the renewed covenant the temple will be cleansed from the impunities generated by sin in the first month as opposed to the seventh month in the old covenant.
Eze 45:21a In the first month, in the fourteenth day [yom] of the month, ye shall have the passover
Eze 45:22 And upon that day [yom] shall the prince prepare ... a bullock for a sin offering [hatta't].
"Ezekiel's unique requirement that a purification bull be offered by the ruler (nasi') "on his behalf and on behalf of the people" (v.22) can only be understood as part of a total scheme to purge the temple for the Passover (for a vivid example of the concern for the temple's purity for the paschal sacrifice, see 2 Chr 30:15-20)..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.282).
“... the focus of the celebration has changed. On the day of the Passover, the prince is to provide for himself and the people a bull for a purification offering (hatta't).This shift parallels the change in the nature of the sacrificial victims. Whereas the function of the original Passover was apotropaic, to ward off Yahweh's lethal actions, and subsequent celebrations provided annual reminders of the original event, in the Ezekielian ordinance the memorial purposes of the Passover are overshadowed by the purgative concern.
Part 2
“Thus, while the Passover, the most fundamental of all Israelite celebrations, is retained in Ezekiel's new religions order, its nature and significance has been changed...” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-28, NICOT, p.666).
Eze 45:21b a feast [hag] lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast.
Eze 45:23 Every day during the seven days of the Feast [hag] he is to provide seven bulls and seven rams without defect as a burnt offering to the LORD, and a male goat for a sin offering [hatta’ti].
Eze 45:25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast [hag] of the seven days, according to the SIN OFFERING [HATTA'T], according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.
“Ezekiel’s special interest in purification remains clear in the prominent place given to the sin offering [hatta’t] of 45:25. Both festivals thereby come to share the same interests in atonement for sin, which is a recurrent theme of Ezekiel’s cult” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.519).
Under the OC 70 (7 x 10) bulls were offered over the seven days of the FOT, over and above the regular burnt offerings; but in the renewed covenant there will be 49 (7 x 7) bulls offered over the FOT as will as in UB.
Eze 46:4 And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.
Nu 28:9a And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot
Nu 28:10a This is the burnt offering of every sabbath
“Ezekiel 46:4-5 mandates a sizable increase in Israel’s Sabbath offerings (see Num 28:9). It adds a ram, an extra four lambs... Rather than “contradicting” Mosaic Torah, Ezekiel 46 aims at intensification. The Sabbath ... has a central place in the ... understanding of God’s program to sanctify and ennoble Israel (Exod 31:13 HS; Ezek 20:12, 44:24)” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.249).
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. (AV).
"The Sabbath and the observance of the new moon would be part of the worship ritual during the Millennium" (Ralph H. Alexander, Ezekiel, EBC, Vol.6, p.986).
"To whom are the promises given? Just to the people of Israel? Hardly. They are given to those of all flesh who worship from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath. This is the ultimate end of Israel religion, that everyone should have the opportunity of joining Israel in worshiping the one God (cf. Zech. 14:16-21)" (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT, p.691).
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne ... where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
One of the major revelations of the last nine chapters of Ezekiel is that Christ will not be literally ruling on the throne of David during the Messianic Age. But He will have a dwelling presence in Ezekiel’s Temple.
Lk 1:32b and the Lord God shall give [didomi] unto him [autos] the throne of his father David:
Lk 1:33a And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave [didomi] him [autos]... He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, (ESV).
2Ch 9:8a Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God
After God gave Jesus the revelation, Jesus delegated the making known of it to his angel. So God will give the throne of David to Jesus and he will place Davidic kings on his throne to rule for him. With the death and ascension of Christ to heaven, James, the Lord’s brother was now heir apparent to the throne of David. Will a descendant of one of the Lord’s brother provide the line of Davidic kings to rule during the Messianic Age?
"...that Christians are obligated to obey the 613 commandments of Torah..."
The idea that there are 613 laws is a Jewish idea. It fits with their mechanical way of thinking. It is not biblical.
@Lonnie Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 7:57:00 AM PDT
So, we obey the law, but we don't have to obey the law? Does that mean we do it only because we want to, on our terms?
Anonymous Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 5:25:00 AM PDT,
Your questions reflect the understanding of the Armstrong Churches of God. As I and other commentators have pointed out, there have been numerous versions/iterations of God's Law down through the history of humankind's existence on this planet. Yes, Torah is God's Law, but it was his law for the Israelites - the terms/expectations of his covenant with THEM. All of those versions/iterations of God's law were/are based on love - reflecting God's persona/character/will/objective.
Christians, as a consequence of their salvation through Jesus of Nazareth and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, operate under the purest expression/version/iteration of God's Law: The Law of Love (which Christ expressed as the Two Great Commandments). Under this iteration of God's Law, the Christian understands that love seeks the good of everyone, and that there is no better way of demonstrating our love for God than by treating each other with love. This happens in the mind/heart - internally. It requires thought and application. It is not contained or fulfilled in a list of dos and don'ts.
Hence, if you are truly a Christian, the thought of hurting or harming another becomes abhorrent to you. Indeed, even being angry enough to hurt someone becomes uncomfortable. In other words, there is NO need for a written commandment "Thou shalt not murder." That is, if you are truly following the guidance of the Spirit given to you by God.
Ya no kidding. Jesus was not reported to be wearing any yarmulke/"kippah", nor any tsit-tsit or tassels on garment. Nor did Jesus reportedly string up a rope surrounding a few blocks of the neighbourhood as a visual "border" for members to not walk beyond during sabbath time.
There, 613 minus 3, only 610 more to go.
But we know it is safe for society to follow the 10, such as do not kill...won't the nuclear buttons be pushed quicker if the ones like do not kill are discarded along with the flitty, flimsy 613?
"Hence, if you are truly a Christian, the thought of hurting or harming another becomes abhorrent to you."
Does that include God? You wouldn't want to cause Him any heartache so you'll keep the 10 commandments since they are all based on love. Is that what you are saying?
Anonymous Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 10:10:00 AM PDT,
Nothing that I will say will change your mind or make you understand what I am saying, but I will answer for those who have been following the debate and are actively questioning the Scriptural veracity of the Armstrongist position (that Christians are obligated to obey parts of Torah - like the Ten Commandments, Holy Days, and clean and unclean meats).
God is love. Hence, everything he has ever done (or will do) was(is) motivated by love. Under the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, a literal commandment about Sabbath keeping or against adultery, stealing, or murder is redundant and unnecessary. Jesus Christ FULFILLED the commandments of the Old Covenant to establish the New.
In short, the other narratives which Armstrongists and some other Christians have created to justify carrying certain provisions of the Old Covenant forward into the New Covenant is unnecessary and inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The fact that ALL of the iterations of God's Law are based on love does NOT constitute a "proof" that they all continue to be in full force within the New Covenant in Christ.
"...there is NO need for a written commandment..."
But a written commandment would not at all be offensive to those who love God and fellow man.
written commandments are inferior to the ones written on our hearts
Lonnie at 11:03,
The Armstrongist position (that Christians are obligated to obey parts of Torah - like the Ten Commandments, Holy Days, and clean and unclean meats).
Why should these things during B.C eras changed with the the dawning of A.D.? Let's take the physical (dietary) law of clean and unclean meats. If God is our Creator who determined what is good for human consumption during Old Testament times, why should He nullify this physical law during New Testament times? Have our bodies undergone a physical change to tolerate unclean meats? Or have the unclean animals become clean? Aren't we physical humans just like the physical Israelites? What is good for them is good for us non-Israelites.
8:59 said “Jesus was not reported to be wearing any…tsit-tsit or tassels on garment.”
On the contrary our Lord did wear tassels or fringes on the end of His garments in obedience to God’s Law (Nu 15:37-41; Dt 22:12). It was these that some sick people touched and were cured (Mt 9:20; 14:36; cf 23:5; Mk 6:56; Lk 8:44).
@ Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 11:03:00 AM PDT
All I'm doing is asking questions to clarify your position. You keep tripping over your own answers. The commandments must be followed but they don't have to be followed, which makes no sense.
You say " Jesus Christ FULFILLED the commandments of the Old Covenant to establish the New." which is a red herring. Fulfilled does not mean abolished. He fulfilled the requirements of the law so that His sacrifice would be for all mankind. Had He not kept the law perfectly He would still be dead and we would be doomed. He said Himself that He did not come to abolish the law, but to keep (fulfill) it. You seem to be accusing Him of doing what He did not do.
You keep contradicting yourself with your answers yet think you are helping those that are following the "debate". The one take-away from this is you seem to have such a bias against "Armstrongism" that you can't admit your own position aligns somewhat with what HWA taught.
Commandments 1 - 5 define love of God, and Commandments 5 - 10 define love for fellow man.
Do we agree on that? or not?
Anonymous @ Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 11:07:00 PM PDT,
Things changed because Jesus Christ came into the world and fulfilled them. He then proceeded to stress the basis and intent of God's Law for the Christian era and made the Holy Spirit available to his followers to help them discern the way of love. The laws outlining clean and unclean were given to the Israelites as part of a formula to distinguish between that which was ceremonially clean and unclean. There is no indication in Scripture that this had anything to do with health. Jesus told his disciples that it isn't that which is consumed that defiles us, but that which proceeds out of our mouths. In fulfillment of those ceremonial provisions, Christ has made that which was unclean clean.
Anonymous 11:07 wrote, “Have our bodies undergone a physical change to tolerate unclean meats? “
I know this is directed towards Miller Jones, so pardon me for inserting my opinion. Let me point out that you have a mistaken black and white view on this issue. It is the idea that clean foods are all good and unclean foods are all bad. Whereas it is more a matter of degree rather than category. Leviticus asserts category.
Humans are a product of evolution. We function best on the diet on which we evolved. This would be lots of fruits and greens with small amounts of protein and almost no grains. That is what our biological ancestors ate for hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture and animal domestication ever came about. With the advent of the advanced human type represented by Adam, humans developed agriculture. Leviticus is a statement within that agricultural context not within the evolutionary context.
The result is, for example, that humans are not designed to eat large amounts of beef. All kinds of health problems for humans attend that kind of consumption. Beef may be clean but it should not be consumed prodigiously as Americans do. So, you can have the paradox of Armstrongists carefully avoiding pork but then ruining their health eating lots of beef all the while thinking they are being healthy and scriptural. Unclean foods eaten moderately may be much better for you than inordinate consumption of clean food. So, it is a matter of degree rather than category. So, the hunter-gatherer model and the agricultural model are not a good fit. Archaeology tells us that when Native Americans began raising corn they underwent a large increase in birthrate and a proliferation of all kinds of diseases.
The dietary laws in Leviticus are about separating the chosen Israelites from the rest of the world. They ate different food that had the endorsement of God. I think it had a health dimension but I do not think that was the principal idea. I follow the dietary laws of Leviticus as much as I am able. I believe there is a biological issue, though secondary and physical, reflected in the dietary laws. The other side of the coin is that I do not drink alcohol except as a part of the Eucharist. Alcohol is a neurotoxin. The fact that alcohol consumption is everywhere in the Bible does not mean that alcohol is good for you. In fact, modern research has shown that it is not good for you. But how many times have you seen people become sotted at the Feast of Tabernacles because they are part of a “drinking church.” Further, carbohydrates cooked at high-temperature produce a carcinogen called acrylamide. So, the matzoh that you eat at Passover is cancer causing. Hunter-gatherers did not drink alcohol and eat grains.
As you see, once the categorical Leviticus model became obsolete (see the Book of Hebrews), the complexity of the food issue emerges.
Scout
Aren't most of the unclean animals scavengers? From a health standpoint today, that distinction may be passe, due to the clean animals' regimen of processed foods and pharmaceuticals, and the proliferation of parasites. Tuna is awesome, as an example, but there is the mercury one must consider.
The reason meat is said to be beneficial to one's health is that it is highly concentrated protein. We had learned decades ago that poisons are stored in fatty tissues of animals, which is why I meticulously trim all of the fats from cuts of beef purchased at the supermarket. Unfortunately, unless one purchases meat from a Kosher market, it is difficult to find meats from an animal which has been properly bled. Kosher chicken is available at Trader Joe's and it tastes so much better than the chicken one might find at a Kroger based market that it's amazing.
I've been out of Armstrongism since 1975. I experimented with shrimp and lobster, and smoked about 1/2 pack of cigarettes per day for maybe ten years, but returned to the clean meats and quit smoking because it just felt like the right thing to do. Good heredity., regular exercise, vitamin supplements, and healthy living are responsible for my longevity.
Since God has a bazillion bazillion bazillion times more knowledge data than Scout or Miller I think I'll not eat unclean meat, observe the 7th day sabbath and the 3 feasts.
Let it be said that I have the highest regard for both Lonnie and Scout. They are 2 of the best scholars and prolific writers on this site. But there are times I just can't reconcile their viewpoint with Scripture.
Lonnie says, "Christ has made the unclean clean". True, when it comes to the ceremonial provisions. In old times, people could do certain things that made them unclean, then do certain things that made them clean again. Such is not the case with the pig. It was created unclean and there was nothing it could do to change that.
Peter's vision? No. Purely symbolic. I know this because certain animals were still considered to be unclean when John wrote the book of Revelation (see Rev.18:2).
Romans 14? No. "unclean" in that passage is translated from the same Greek word as "common" in Peter's vision, Acts 10.
Lonnie also says, "it isn't what goes in that defiles us but what comes out".
This (Mark 7:18-23) is not even talking about the dietary laws! We know this because some 20 years after Christ uttered this statement and then carefully explained it to the disciples, Peter was STILL observing the dietary laws, Acts 10. Either he was too stupid to get the point or Lonnie is wrong.
Think of the consequences if Mark 7 is allowing one to put into his mouth whatever he wishes. He could take dope, eat human flesh, poisoned mushrooms, and the restrictions against the Gentiles in Acts 15:20 (Leviticus 17:10-14) would have never been necessary.
Scout says, "the dietary laws in Leviticus are about separating the Israelites from the rest of the world". Maybe to some degree, but there is more to it than that. Where were the Israelites when Noah was loading the ark (Genesis 7:2)? Clean and unclean animals clearly predate Leviticus, the Israelites and the old covenant, and are clearly still designated as such in New testament times (Acts 10, Rev.18:2).
Another interesting observation. In spite of everything they say, Scout still follows the dietary laws and Lonnie still observes the sabbath. Just covering all the bases?
BP8,
Thank you, the respect is mutual. I was answering the illustration given in a comment - I do NOT propose any of the Scriptures you cited in your remarks as prooftexts. As you know, I believe that the designation of clean and unclean in Torah (Leviticus 7:19, 10:10, 11:47, etc.) was an integral part of the Old Covenant. You are absolutely correct that clean and unclean and Sabbath existed prior to the institution of that covenant. That, however, does not change the fact that both were made features of the Old Covenant. Hence, I share the view of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews that Christ's New Covenant makes that one obsolete. Once again, Peter, James, John, and Paul were all observant Jews. Hence, it is not remarkable that we would find them observing Sabbath, clean and unclean, and Holy Days. Nevertheless, the fifteenth chapter of Acts makes very clear (imho) that those provisions of the Old Covenant were never imposed on Gentile Christians.
One more thing, yes, I continue to observe the Sabbath, and I have NO problems with those who do. I do not, however, believe that my observance of it is required by God or contributes to my salvation.
"Lonnie also says, "it isn't what goes in that defiles us but what comes out"."
A convenient argument for those that wish to consume the unclean things. Yes, accidentally/unknowingly eating some unclean meat once in a great while won't hurt you, it will pass through and out. Deliberately eating the unclean is rebellion, and rebellion is from the heart, and that does defile you.
Oh, and Scout says humans are the product of evolution. That immediately disqualifies his argument on anything.
" Nevertheless, the fifteenth chapter of Acts makes very clear (imho) that those provisions of the Old Covenant were never imposed on Gentile Christians."
Well, there is one law for all. Not one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles.
If you want to hold to your position then you better be sure of your lineage. What if you are Israelite and don't know it? And how much Israelite blood is necessary for you to be considered Israelite?
BP8 12:43 wrote, “Clean and unclean animals clearly predate Leviticus”
Scholar? I regard myself as a Christian lay member who actually reads theology and tries to understand it.
I believe you are suggesting that at creation some animals were designed for food and some were not. And on this basis, God labelled some clean and others unclean. This view would not permit the New Testament view of clean and unclean animals expressed by Jesus when he said, "What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean.” Yahweh gave Israel the laws of clean and unclean animals. Yet, Yahweh in the New Testament changes the concept of uncleanness and makes it not physical but spiritual, just as he changed circumcision and the seventh-day, physical Sabbath. Only Yahweh can do this. And who among us is going to tap him on the shoulder and say, “You can’t do that because I have a little booklet written by a neo-Millerite preacher that assumes that you can’t.” I needn’t tell you that is a losing strategy.
The concept of clean and unclean is an ancient Israelite distinctive, given by God, that marks them as a separate people with a special relationship with God. The subtext of the words of Jesus is that even then the Israelites should have realized that it is not the input nutrients that make someone clean or unclean but the output behaviors. The entire Law of Moses is about separating Israel from the Goyim. Paul expounds this in Ephesians 2 from verse 11 to the end of the chapter.
Llamas are herd animals that are herbivores. They were hunted and eaten by South American Amerindians. Yet according to Leviticus, they are unclean. There may be a physical reason for this and there may not be. I worked on my uncle’s dairy farm when I was a kid and I know how filthy clean animals can be. I avoid such animals as llamas because there just might be a physical reason why they are a less desirable food source. A large part of my inclination is based on the fact that I have avoided these foods for so long that I cannot now bring myself to eat them. But I don’t stress over it and I do not see dietary restrictions as having any spiritual gravitas at all. I am not covering any bases. These are just my personal conclusions. And God can use these concepts when and where he will. Even though clean/unclean distinctions may have been around a long time, he can still use these ideas to underscore the distinctiveness of the ancient Israelite people.
Scout
Archaeologically, it was believed that a near-absence of pig bones on a site suggested that it had been an "Israelite" dwelling. But it turns out that earlier Canaanite sites often have relatively few pig scraps to be found as well. It is only.later in the Iron Age that we find more evidence of the domestic pig throughout Palestine. One suggestion is that domestic pigs may have been rare in the area in general until the Philistines imported them from the Aegean.
Scout's argument doesn't make sense. I've read of a group of people dying because the host served mushrooms from the local forest that proved poisonous. This is an example that "the concept of uncleanness and makes it not physical but spiritual" is utter nonsense.
That happened in the Bible too, but there are no laws about clean and unclean plants!
Leonie writes:
“I share the view of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews that Christ's New Covenant makes that one obsolete.”
I would suggest that it is not the view of the author of Hebrews as your view misses the nuance of Hebraic argument.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
and it is complicated, at least for me, in that you are not distinguishing between the Church Administration of the New Covenant and the Kingdom Administration of the New Covenant.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Do you believe that Christ, after his return, will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah?
I do; and the Ezekielian Torah is for the Messianic Age and therefore “is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch [for the new era]..." (Moshe Greenberg, "The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration," pp.233-35). It is more but it points in the right direction.
Ezekiel’s Temple “had a wall around it, five hundred cubits long and five hundred cubits wide, to separate the holy [qodesh] from the common [chol]” (Eze 42:20b, NIV).)
Eze 45:1b ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an holy [qodesh] of the land
Eze 48:15 The remaining area ... will be for the common [chol] use of the city, for houses and for pastureland.
Lev 10:10 You must distinguish between the holy [qodesh] and the common [chol], between the unclean [tame] and the clean [tahor],
Lev 10:11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD... (NIV).
Eze 44:23 They are to teach my people the difference between the holy [qodesh] and the common [chol] and show them how to distinguish between the unclean [tame] and the clean [tahor]. (NIV),
"The dependence of Ezekiel 44 on Lev 10:6-11 (HS) continues in v.23, where the vocabulary comes almost verbatim from Lev 10:10 (HS) (also Lev 20:25). The Zadokites [Leviticial priests descended from Zadok the first high priest of Solomon’s temple] held as fundamental to the role of the priesthood the task of teaching the people to distinguish between the holy and the common, between the ceremonially pure and the impure” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, p.221).
(Christ and the Saints will not be teaching on the earth in the Messianic Age; the Levitcial priests and Israel will be doing this).
Lev 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.
Eze 44:31 The priests shall not eat of any thing that is dead of itself, or torn, whether it be fowl or beast.
“The final verse, v.31, is straight from HS at Lev 22:8 (cf. Lev 7:24). Priests must shun meat from carcasses found dead on roads or in fields, which would taint them with death” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, p.223).
Part 2
Jeremiah 31:31-34
“When the items of continuity found in the New covenant are tabulated in this passage, they are: (1) the same covenant making God, “My covenant”; (2) the same law, My torah (note, not a different one than Sinai); (3) the same divine fellowship promised in the ancient tripartite formula, “I will be your God; the same “seed” and “people,” “You shall be my people”;...
“Thus the word “new” in this context would mean the “renewed” or “restored” covenant (cf. Akkadian edesu “to restore” ruined temples, altars or cities; Hebrew hds connected with the new moon and Ugaritic hdt, “to renew the moon”). We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged.
“... the New covenant transcends all previous announcements of the blessings of God. Thus the New is more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and more glorious than the old - if fact, so much so that IN COMPARISON it would appear as it were totally unlike the old at all. Yet, in truth, it was nothing less than the progress of revelation” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards on Old Testament Theology, pp.233-34).
Mark 7
Mk 7:18 and he saith to them, 'So also ye are without understanding! Do ye not perceive that nothing from without entering into the man is able to defile him?
Mk 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.' (YLT).
Mk 7:18 And he said to them, “Are you also lacking in understanding? Do you not know that nothing entering into a person from outside can defile
Mk 7:19 because it does not enter into one’s heart but into the stomach and comes out into the latrine?” (Thus he cleansed all foods). (Robert A. Guelich).
""(Thus he cleansed all foods)"... This comment raises two issues: to what does it refer and from whom does it come? Grammatically, this participle construction hangs awkwardly without obvious syntactical connection. Several, exemplified by Black ... have sought to link it more directly to what immediately precedes as done by the Sinaitic Syriac. By taking "foods" ... as singular and the particle as a passive, the sentence read, "... for it enters not his heart but his belly, all the food being cast out and purged away... Others view this as a possible anacoluthon ["want of syntactical sequence, when the latter part of a sentence does not grammatically fit the earlier" (Chambers English Dictionary)] drawing an obvious, if sarcastic, conclusion that the digestive process "cleanses all foods"...
"The awkward construction has led some to suggest that its presence might reflect a later incorporation into the text of a scribal gloss... But most attribute it to the evangelist.
"... But did Mark add it?
"... Mark's interest in 7:1-23 appears to focus more on what defiles than on the narrower concern about food laws. Furthermore, this awkward participial construction not only uses a hapax legmenon ["a word or phrase that is found only once" (Chambers English Dictionary)] for "foods" but it fails to follow the normal pattern of the evangelist's parenthetical comments, generally a statement introduced by a conjunction..." (Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC, pp.378-79).
Part 3
"Jesus does not disown his dense disciples but follows his pattern of providing them with a further explanation when they do not understand. He illustrates his point by reminding them of what happens to food when it is consumed. It passes through the digestive tract and winds up in the latrine.
"Many take 7:19b as the narrator's aside that crowns the argument. The NIV reflects this interpretation: "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.'" The phrase "In saying this, Jesus declared," however, is not to be found in the text. Literally the words used here translate, "cleansing all foods." The masculine nominative participle,"cleansing" (katharizon, with an omega), would modify the verb "he says" in 7:18. A well-attested variant reading, however, has a nominative neuter participle (katharizon, with an omicron).
“["The distinction in the pronunciation of the long o and short o has disappeared in modern Greek, and it is likely that the two words would have been pronounced the same when the texts of the Bible were being copied. Scribes could have easily made an accidental mistake if they were copying texts as someone read aloud from the master copy].
"It is the hardest reading and may be the best. It would affirm that the food has somehow become clean in the process of its elimination. This reading has two things to commend it. It would help explain why such a dramatic pronouncement from Jesus that declared all foods to be clean was not cited to settle the later debate over this issue in the churches.
“["An appeal to Jesus' authoritative word would have been a knock-down argument in Acts 15; Gal. 2:11-14, and Rom. 14-15. Heikki Raisanen, “Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflection on Mark 7:15,” JSNT 16 (1982): 79-100), argues from the absence of the “effective history” of Jesus’ remarks on food that he never uttered them. He claims that these words were added to the tradition to provide “a theological justification for the practical step taken in the Gentile mission long before” (89). The supposed silence, however, may have been attributable to the ambiguity and arcane nature of Jesus’ argument].
"Jesus' explanation does not explicitly declare that all foods are clean, only that they somehow come out clean.
"Furthermore, the statement fits the rabbinic perspective on defected food. According to the Mishnah, excrement it not ritually impure though it may be offensive. This surprising judgment may be the key to Jesus' argument. With a droll twist Jesus argued that if food defiles a person, why is it not regarded as impure when it winds up in the latrine - at least according to the tradition of the Pharisees? Defilement must come from some other source than food. Jesus' logic derives from the Pharisees' own rules regarding clean and unclean, which sets up his concluding words on the real source of defilement. The only defilement that the disciples need worry about has to do with the heart, not the hands, with evil thoughts that leak out from within a person, not food that ends up in the latrine. What does not enter the heart does not make a person unclean. The heart is the core of motivation, deliberation, and intention. How one handles food, therefore, does not make the heart clean or unclean. it has nothing to do with the internal purity (what is “inside,” 7:21:23) that matters to God" (David E. Garland, Mark, NIVAC, pp.275-76).
anonymous 10:51 wrote, " I've read of a group of people dying because the host served mushrooms from the local forest that proved poisonous. "
Cleaness or Uncleaness has nothing to do with what is safe to eat. You can eat something unclean like pork and you will not die. Instead, you body will be nourished by all the proteins. You need to think a little more before you label something that is the truth to be "utter nonsense." Make sure you understand the issue.
Scout
Anonymous 5:08 wrote, "Oh, and Scout says humans are the product of evolution. That immediately disqualifies his argument on anything."
Armstrongists have a penchant for making up rules that restrict God in capability. They are disturbed by the idea that God is Absolute. They prefer a God who resembles HWA - pretty much an authoritarian human.
So, the statement above is unsurprising but at the same time seems so bizarre. Armstongists believe that God could not use a biological mechanism such as evolution to develop life on earth. He is confined to creating by fiat because that conforms to what they have decided to believe.
The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. And any theology that does not take it into consideration ignores God's Book of Works in favor of an off-the-wall interpretation from God's Book of Words. But the Book of Works and the Book of Words are in harmony with eachother. Those who would deny God's works seek to pit science against Christianity but God is the owner of both.
Scout
In my experience, those who embrace evolution, do so because they can't buck the crowd. The evidence is neigher here nor there. The warmth of the group trumps truth.
Scout's day when Adam was created on the sixth day which was an evening and a morning, must have been 1000 years.
Anonymous 7:14, 8:24 - "The evidence is neigher (sic) here nor there."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence of evolution is incontestable to those who are capable of rational thought. What is contestable is the framework of debate in which the data related to evolution is presented.
The typical framework is to sharply divide evolution from the existence of God. Evolution gratuitiously becomes an argument against the existence of God. I believe in theistic evolution. I regard evolution as just another tool that God may use to create biological life in its myriad forms. Evolution as a methodology is not a replacement for God. It is naive for evolutionists to believe that it is. Evolution does not address the existential issues. It is naive for evolutionists to think that it does.
Even the terminology is muddied in traditional debate. Evolutionism is counterposed against Creationism when evolution is just another form of creationism. There is creation by fiat and creation by evolution and either is, of course, within the bounds of an absolute God. Creation by fiat could be called Creationism 1 and creation by evolution could be called Creationism 2.
I am not going to debate evolution with you. That ship has sailed. And my guess is that you do not have much motivation to know anything more about this topic. If I have misjudged you, you can read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins or read some articles on the Biologos website. Otherwise, you can continue to listen to the glib pulpit in whatever denomination of the Sound Bite Church of God that you belong to.
Scout
Scout the scholar? Perhaps the better way to phrase would be, I appreciate your scholarly presentations, except when you ignore my prooftexts.
Genesis 7:2, Acts 10, and Rev.18:2 do prove that clean and unclean animals predate Leviticus and constitute a uniformity across the entire spectrum of Scripture.
Of course, Mark 7 is spiritual in nature, so why do.people use it to knock the dietary laws? Multi part man thoroughly covers this in his typical scholarly fashion.
I remember a situation when I was performing a function for a "religious" type in his home, and he offered me a ham sandwich while I was working. We had been discussing religion so, when I declined, he pressed me on whether it was for religious reasons. When I told him I observed the dietary laws, he countered with good old Mark 7, "it's not which goes in that defiles"! So I ask him whether he drank alcohol, knowing in advance his convictions against it. He replied, "absolutely not!! Our bodies are the temple of the HS that should not be DEFILED by worldly habits" !?!?
Whatever!
I do agree with you that meat designated as "clean" does not make it "healthy". Col. Sanders might disagree.
BP8 wrote, "Of course, Mark 7 is spiritual in nature, so why do.people use it to knock the dietary laws? Multi part man thoroughly covers this in his typical scholarly fashion."
I am not going to re-litigate this issue in this venue. The position of the Christian church on this topic is clear and makes sense. The position of the Armstrongists is clear and does not make sense. But to confront people who cannot understand from NT scripture that the Law of Moses is obsolete with arguments about clean/unclean foods is going nowhere. Clean/Unclean foods is just a sub-part of the Law of Moses. If you confront multi part man with an explicit and unequivocal statement from John of Patmos out of the Book of Revelation and he cannot receive it, I would not expect him to receive anything that I might write.
If you want to avoid eating unclean foods as described in Leviticus, knock yourself out. It does not affect your Christianity to eat or not to eat. The show-stopper is if you believe that not eating unclean foods is one of the works you must produce to "qualify for the Kingdom of God" (in orthodox Christian terminology, this is a reference to salvation by works).
Paul, a solid Pharisee in the past, recognizes that nothing is "koinon" intrinsically because God pronounces all things good in Genesis. It is just koinon (or its synonym akathartos) by convention, either personal or community. In Romans 14:14, Paul is making a halakhic application for the Christian goyim. And the principle in v. 14 is that the goyim should not be concerned about the concept of koinon. In Antioch, Paul observed that Peter lived as a Gentile and did not upbraid him for this. So, it is rational that Paul's application of clean/unclean to Christian Jews would be the same as for the Christian goyim. This is compatible with Paul's writing elsewhere in the NT concerning the discontinuance of the Law of Moses after the crucifixion of Jesus.
I will not argue this further. This train left the station a long time ago. Sometimes when I interact with Armstrongists, I get a feeling like I am talking to a Japanese soldier who after many years of hiding in the jungle does not recognize that WW 2 is over.
Scout
My thoughts on the subject of sacrifices and Sabbaths in the Millenium:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/07/will-there-be-sacrifices-offerings.html
Those are good odds. And a good ratio.
If you want to avoid eating unclean foods as described in Leviticus,... It does not affect your Christianity to eat or not to eat.
I just read a comment on another blog how of his high school class of 1972, half have already died, most from heart disease. The food one eats, exercise, etc, certainly affects one's life span and hence Christianity. Christian living is about being a wise steward of one's life, both physically and spiritually. Scout has divorced Christian living from reality under the fig leaf of the new testament.
Without regarding reality as the ultimate reference point, ie, the 'you shall know them by their fruits' thingy, nothing can be debated or resolved since all cards are wild.
Excellent point 850.
Imagine for a moment, if 1 Corinthians 9:5-14 was not in the NT but was something pinned by HWA to the church. How would it meet Scout's typical 3 fold opposition?
1. It's Armstrong heresy! Since he said it, it can't be right.
2. It's the law of Moses, which makes it a part of the old covenant and obsolete. Christ fulfilled it!
3. It's calling for salvation by works, obviously another pathway to salvation.
Concerning food and "defilement". One thing WE DO KNOW. The position of the Christian church (you know, the one with 41,000 denominations) IS NOT CLEAR. In this age of spirituality, eating ham does not defile but drinking a beer does? Give me a break.
Thanks again 850 for the timely post and clarification.
"The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible"
That's why it's called a theory?
"Thus he cleansed all foods" is not in the Bible. Check all of the manuscripts, it's not there. It was added by the translators pushing their own theology.
Anonymous 8:50 wrote, "Scout has divorced Christian living from reality under the fig leaf of the New Testament."
The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who considers it unclean.” Would you level this same accusation against the Apostle Paul? He is saying that if you want to consider something unclean, then its unclean for you. Apparently, he does not see Leviticus as having much gravitas in this matter – either in regard to ceremony or health issues. I will stand with the Apostle Paul and you can stand with Preacher Herbert.
The Armstrongist counterpoint to v. 14 is that this refers only to ceremonial uncleanness. A mouse ran out of the haystack and ran across the hoof of one of you beef cattle so the steer is now temporarily unclean until a cleansing ceremony can be performed. So, this is a separate category from the dietary laws of Leviticus. That kind of thing. But Paul does not qualify his statement so that it means this. There is no exegesis here for Armstrongists – just their eisegesis.
Whether the uncleanness is common or kosher, ceremonial or biological, doesn’t make any difference spiritually. Paul makes settles the issue with this all-inclusive statement:
”For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
This refers to every category of food you can think of. (And some nerd will say “does that include arsenic”. No, it doesn’t include arsenic. Get lost. God expects you to have at least a modicum of natural wisdom.)
The dietary laws in Leviticus are not portrayed as being health based. I am not divorcing “Christian living from reality” on this. You have to make the health decision. If you stuff your face daily with buttered whole wheat toast and beef bacon the “cleanness” of this does not offset its damaging health effects. Ask a cardiologist.
Personally, I believe that there must be a reason why some animals are prohibited in Leviticus and others are not. I once heard Joel Osteen make this same statement. So, it is not something owned by Armstrongism. So, I don’t eat stuff that is prohibited by Leviticus. This is my own personal decision and has nothing to do with any spiritual principle. And it is certainly not a “work” that qualifies me for the Kingdom of God and is one thing among others that results in my salvation.
Scout
if evolution were true there would be aliens
whether closeby or too far but if a glob can develop here, than another could develop there
aaauughh Area 51
Lonnie writes on his blog:
"In other words, this writer does NOT see a return to the shadows and symbols of the Old Covenant. Christ's work makes that both unnecessary and untenable!"
I disagree, as you would.
What I would like to know, as asked earlier:
Do you believe that Christ, after his return, will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah?
Scout writes:
"If you confront multi part man with an explicit and unequivocal statement from John of Patmos out of the Book of Revelation and he cannot receive it".
What I can't receive is your timeline of Revelation - Ezekiel's Temple occurs before the New Jerusalem of Rev 21-22; Christ and the Saints rule the earth (from heaven) as per Rev 5:10 & Rev 20:6 (Eph 2:6, a prolepsis); they also exercise their priesthood in heaven (Rev 7:15) while the Levitical priests exercise their priesthood on the earth. God is in the heavenly temple until Rev 21:1-3.
The rare times that I agree with Scout is with evolution and the flood being local, though in regard to the latter, I don't regard the King James translators being at vault; also I believed it before Scout mentioned it on this blog - see John Walton’s commentary on “Genesis” and also “The Lost World of the Flood”.
As an aside: Christ as "mercyseat?
Heb 9:5a And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat [hilasterion];
Lev 16:14a And he shall take of the blood of the calf, and sprinkle with his finger on the mercy-seat [hilasterion] eastward: (LXX, Brenton).
Rom 3:25a whom God did set forth a mercy seat [hilasterion], through the faith in his blood, (YLT).
"What Paul means by designating Christ a hilasterion has been the subject of considerable debate...
"To be sure, there are objections to taking hilasterion as a reference to the "mercy seat." Some claim, that the imagery would have been foreign to the Gentile Christian church in Rome; and Paul would hardly have used imagery that he knew they would fail to understand. However, arguments based on what the Gentile congregation in Rome would, or would not, have been familiar with are precarious. Paul's letters furnish abundant proof that he expected his Gentile readers to be fully conversant with the OT. Surely he could expect his Gentile readers in Rome to have some knowledge of the Day of Atonement ritual and the significance within it of hilasterion...
Rom 3:25a Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [hilasterion] through faith in his blood, (AV).
Rom 3:25a whom God set forth as an expiation [hilasterion], through faith, by his blood, (NAB).
"However, even if we accept that hilasterion refers to the OT "mercy seat," we still must pin down the meaning of the word. Here the main options are "expiation" or "propitiation"..." (Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, pp.253-54).
1 Jn 2:2 He is expiation [hilasmos] for our sins, (NAB).
1 Jn 2:2 and He is [the] propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins, (LSV).
"The two concepts are really very different. Propitiation means the turning away of anger; expiation is rather the making of amends for a wrong. Propitiation is a personal word; one propitiates a person. Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a son or crime" (Leon Morris, The Atonement - Its meaning and significance, p.151).
Gal 6:14a But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
"In choosing this word rich with atonement associations in the Septuagint, Paul employs metonym to describe something associated with a particular thing or concept as if they were synonyms, but each retains its distinct area of meaning. For example, when Paul says, ‘May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Gal 4:14), he is not talking about a literal cross but the historical reality of Jesus' crucifixion and its manifold theological message.
Part 2
“The cross is an inanimate object, as is the mercy seat, but with associations with God and the forgiveness of sins, both words convey so much more. By using metonymy, writers intend to capture reader' attention with vivid imagery that suggests those broader and deeper meanings. It also expresses these meanings more succinctly, and its poetic effect can stir deep emotions. One can imagine that for many Jews a reference to ‘the mercy-seat' could arouse the same deep emotions that a reference to ‘the old rugged cross' might awaken in some today. Philo described the hilasterion which he translates as ‘the mercy seat', as ‘a symbol in a theological sense of the gracious power of God' (Mos. 2:95-96 [Colson, LCL]; cf. Fug. 100).
Rom 3:25a Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [hilasterion] through faith in his blood, (AV).
Rom 3:25a whom God set forth as an expiation [hilasterion], through faith, by his blood, (NAB).
Ro 3:25a God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement [hilasterion], through faith in his blood. (NIV).
Rom 3:25a whom God did set forth a mercy seat [hilasterion], through the faith in his blood, (YLT).
"Translations such as ‘propitiation', ‘expiation' and sacrifice of atonement muffle the imagery of the mercy seat and partially capture its meaning, in the same way that the full impact of Jesus' parables is abridged when the are reduced to one point. ‘Mercy seat' might have been a foreign to Gentiles in the audience who were not familiar with the LXX. Others more familiar with the Scriptures could elucidate its meaning for them by pointing to its connection to the accounts of God's mercy in the Scriptures. Given the Old Testament background of this word, Paul conveys that the place were our sins are atoned for has shifted from what is hidden behind the curtain in the temple to the cross where Jesus' blood was poured out for all to see. The cross of Christ is ‘the mercy seat' where we see the gracious power of God displayed" (David E. Garland, Romans, TOTC, pp.145-146).
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Lev 4:35b The priest will make expiation [kipper] for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven [aphiémi, LXX] (John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC).
Lev 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse [katharizó, LXX] you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. (AV).
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive [aphiémi] us our sins, and to cleanse [katharizó] us from all unrighteousness.
"The verb to make atonement (kipper) ... communicates two ideas: ransoming and purifying. On the one hand, sin or impurity puts the offeror at risk of the Lord's judgment. As a result, the offeror needs ransoming. On the other hand, sin and impurity are defiling. As a result, the offeror also needs purifying. The verb kipper refers to both of these: it is a "ransoming purification', taking place by means of the animal's lifeblood.
Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom [lutron, noun] for many.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might ransom [lutroo, verb] us from all lawlessness, and might purify [katharizo] to Himself a special people, zealous of good works. (LSV).
"At times the emphasis might be more on ransoming, and at other times on purifying (just as Jesus' death is at times described as ‘ransoming' sinners and at other times as ‘purifying' them' cf. Matt 20:28; Titus 2:14). But in both instances, making atonement results in ransoming the Lord's judgment, as well as purification from sin and impurity" (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, pp.90-91).
This is from the Wikipedia article on Kashrut. It quotes Lester Grabbe himself:
"Although the reason for kashrut is that it is a decree from the Torah, there have been attempts to provide scientific support for the view that Jewish food laws have an incidental health benefit. One of the earliest is that of Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed.
In 1953, David Macht, an Orthodox Jew and proponent of the theory of biblical scientific foresight, conducted toxicity experiments on many kinds of animals and fish.[17] His experiment involved lupin seedlings being supplied with extracts from the meat of various animals; Macht reported that in 100% of cases, extracts from ritually 'unclean' meat inhibited the seedling's growth more than that from ritually 'clean' meats.[18]
"At the same time, these explanations are controversial. Scholar Lester L. Grabbe, writing in the Oxford Bible Commentary on Leviticus, says "[a]n explanation now almost universally rejected is that the laws in this section have hygiene as their basis. Although some of the laws of ritual purity roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical cleanliness, many of them have little to do with hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that the 'unclean' animals are intrinsically bad to eat or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as is sometimes asserted."
Scout
Part 1,2,3 wrote: "What I can't receive is your timeline of Revelation - Ezekiel's Temple occurs before the New Jerusalem of Rev 21-22; Christ and the Saints rule the earth (from heaven) as per Rev 5:10 & Rev 20:6 (Eph 2:6, a prolepsis); they also exercise their priesthood in heaven (Rev 7:15) while the Levitical priests exercise their priesthood on the earth. God is in the heavenly temple until Rev 21:1-3."
I cannot supply a timeline for something that does not exist and will not exist, that is, Ezekiel's Temple. Your train of thought above seems to say that if there are priests there must be a temple building somewhere. But Peter wrote:
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
We know from Revelation that this same kingdom of priests will be reigning with Jesus on earth. In the statement above, Peter uses the present tense. It says "you are" and not "you will be". So the church is a present priesthood of the same type that will reign with Christ yet there is now no temple. The existence of a priesthood does not force a temple into existence. Peter above tells us what these priests will be doing, what their purpose is, and it is a teaching mission not a ceremonial mission involving the offering sacrifices. This priesthood will instead involve the offering of spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5, example - Heb 13:15).
Scout
BP8 wrote, "Imagine for a moment, if 1 Corinthians 9:5-14 was not in the NT but was something pinned by HWA to the church. How would it meet Scout's typical 3 fold opposition?"
I am assuming that you are referring to the "Not Muzzling the Ox" principle contained in the Law of Moses. As a Christian, I would actually see this passage as more significant than most Armstrongists. Based on what I know of their praxis, they would examine the passage in the OT and regard it literally. And since they do not own an ox for grinding out their grain, they would simply ignore it.
Most Christians would see in its subtext the principle that Paul refers to. The major Christian denominations believe that the moral meaning of the Law of Moses is still valid. It is the Armstrongists that are imprisoned by the letter of the Law of Moses. After all it is Armstrongists who cannot understand that the Sabbath is now our rest in Christ, who cannot understand that what is unclean is the evil behavior that comes out of man, who cannot understand that God is not an anthropomorphic being and cannot understand that love transcends the letter of the law.
Scout
Scout
No imprisonment here.
I understand the "love" principle, and our spiritual rest in Christ (which I don't believe cancels out the need for the physical sabbath rest), but an animal that is designated by God as "unclean" for reasons you admit you don't understand, has nothing to do with the unclean behavior that comes out of a man.
Good try though.
BP8 4:35 "No imprisonment here."
Your imprisonment has to do with whether or not you believe any of the conformance to law that you maintian is a cause of salvation. You be the judge. As Paul said, "You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
I do not know the biological reasons why one animal may be clean and another not. You don't understand it either. The Bible is not a book on molecular biochemistry. And if Jesus has transformed the principle of clean/unclean to a spiritual concept, as he did with the Sabbath and circumcision, then there is a connection between the OT and NT on this topic - just as there is a connection between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. The connection may be symbolic or literal as compared to spiritual but it is nevertheless a significant connection.
Scout
Scout
After all our previous exchanges, I believe we have finally arrived at a breakthrough.
I.have grown weary of being categorized as an Armsstrongite and defending myself of using my beliefs as a pathway to salvation. Such is not the case.
You are right, I do not know the mind and workings of Almighty God fully, which is why I tend to accept the word as written, unless it is obvious otherwise.
When God designates certain animals as clean, unclean (Gen. 7:2), I accept this at face value and do not attempt to explain it away. Is it also symbolic? Absolutely, but that doesn't dismiss the previous revelation but adds to.it.
We all call the "law" by various designations, but like you, I believe it to be a monolith, very symbolic, with spiritual overtones. 613 does not cut it. The law of God I accept reaches into infinity. I think we are on the same page.
Finally, the Rock has come back to reality!
Post a Comment