Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Granddad & the Old Testament Law (Matt.5)

By Luc

The following concerns what is commonly called legalism. The brand of legalism I'm most familiar with is Herbert Armstrongs version, but what I have to say here is applicable to most other varieties, so when I say Armstrongism you can mentally replace the word with one of your own choosing or simply legalists or legalism.

If you’re not one who has ever been a follower of Armstrongism, trying to understand someone who is can be perplexing. It doesn’t matter what old covenant believing organization one gravitates to; the question is why?

I can’t speak for everyone, but my granddad (pre-HWA), my mother and others I know of, started from a singular point. And it’s the (what Armstrongites call the “worldly”) churches that created the trap these people fell into. However good an external law the Ten Commandments may be, the fact that these churches teach that they are God’s eternal law start the dominoes tumbling. And calling Sunday the Sabbath makes the trap complete.

The story goes that my Granddad looked at the list of commands and noticing that Sabbath keeping is commanded he reasoned that he should keep it as God instructed. The next domino was the perceived realization that human beings had changed the Sabbath to another day. My Granddad thought to himself,”How can I see this obvious irregularity and other Christians don’t?” At this point his entire mindset was primed, he had swallowed the bait and the next domino was about to fall.

My Granddad continued reasoning to himself that if Christians are wrong about the Sabbath, they could be wrong about everything. What he was seeing, to him was willful disobedience, and the disobedient cannot be of God. Now he questioned how he came to have the scales removed from his eyes, and virtually everyone else was still blind. “Wow,” he said to himself, only God can do this; I must be specially chosen. Feeling special, he vowed to be worthy of this unique calling, and diligently obey every detail of the law.

Granddad was so overwrought by the apparent rebellion of the church, where he was a longtime member and a deacon, that he wrote a dissertation on the need to obey God by keeping the correct day as Sabbath, and he nailed it to the front door of his church, much to my Grandmothers embarrassment.

What is obsolete & aging will soon disappear.

Armstrong doctrine has certain pillars of belief that are used to interpret everything else in the bible. One such belief is the idea that what they call the “spiritual law” the Ten Commandments, holy days etc. are separate from the “ceremonial law.” A handful of verses that appear to back up the idea that the eternal law of God is the Ten Commandments outweigh all other evidence in the eyes of followers of Armstrong theology. Never mind’ that everything preceding Ex 24:3 is referred to in the oath that Israel took upon entering into the old covenant, "Everything the LORD has said, we will do." This is repeated in v.24:7 before the covenant (contract) was sealed with animal blood. Also never mind’ that the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments (Deut 4:13), are the tablets of the covenant; Deu 4:13 “He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.” This is repeated in Deu 9:11At the end of the forty days and forty nights, the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.”

In the minds of Armstrong followers (and contrary to the above scriptures) the old covenant is embodied in the “ceremonial law.” Therefore, Hebrews 8:13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear, to them means only the rituals/ceremonies are done away. Since Hebrews focuses on the discontinuation of rituals, this is seen as proof that the remainder of the Law is still in effect. They’ll read right over Heb 9:19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.” I suppose they would prefer this to read “When Moses had proclaimed every ritual of the ceremonial law," but it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are part of the old covenant.

Armstrong needed some creative excuses for what Paul said in 2Cor 3:7; Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone (the Ten Commandments), came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! This states that the law written on stone was temporary. The Ten Commandments are part of the old covenant, the scaffolding that can be removed when the intended structure is built. Gal 3:19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. That is until Jesus came.

If the current law of God, is the law given to Israel at Sinai, then we must do all of it including the following, which Jesus calls the Law of God ; Mat 15:3 “Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother and anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'”

Every Armstrong follower will quote this (KJV) definition of sin: 1John 3:4Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. The (NIV) translates it this way: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” I looked this up in the Greek interlinear and the NIV has it right. The usual word for law is (G3551 nemo) which is always how old covenant law is referred to, but this verse uses (G458 anomia) which refer to violation of law in the ordinary sense or just general wickedness. The interlinear puts it like this, "Everyone practicing sin also anomia practices; and sin is anomia." Sin is not defined by breaking the old covenant law, because we are no longer bound by that contract. Just because a list of 10 do’s or don’ts are similar to another contract does not make them the same contract.


The old law is good (
Rom 7: 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.). Paul said It is holy and good because it fulfills a purpose (Rom 3:20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.). God gave a concrete set of external examples to reveal the state of the inner person. Armstrongites say, “If the law is good it must still be required.” Paul wrote in Gal 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law." The Armstrongites say, "Jesus kept the law, so we should too." That law remained in effect until it was finished by Jesus’ death on the cross. So yes, he did keep it, and he did so, perfectly, so we could move on to the higher law. Rom 13:8, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

Check out some of the lists of wickedness like 1Cor 6:9; "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

This covers a few things the Ten Commandments do not. But there are plenty of other pre Ex 24 scriptures that cover similar things, and there’s nothing ceremonial about them. It's funny how people who think they must keep Old Testament law pick and choose what part of the law is to be kept. James 3:10 says: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

The next ‘proof’, of the old testament law still being in effect, quoted by the Armstrong followers is: Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen; will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now those with ‘Armstrongitis’ see the phrase, "until all be fulfilled," but lose it's meaning because of the part that reads: “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom." Jesus goes on to give his commands that Armstrong follower’s mistake for the Ten Commandments. But He changes every one of them. Armstrong followers say “he amplified them,” but that would still be adding to a covenant (contract) after the blood has sealed it. Paul points out in Gal 3:15 that this can't be done; v.15 "Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside, or add to a human covenant (contract) that has been duly established, so it is in this case.”

Paul is speaking of the covenant God made with Abraham previously, illustrating a principal which applies equally to the Old Covenant which is a contract he entered into with the Israelites and no one else. A contract is, for all practical purposes, a mutual promise. Some say that they see no reason why God can't change a covenant he makes. He can't because he can't lie or be unfaithful. God is a faithful God. God wont alter a single punctuation in the contract until it completes it's purpose which is referred to as being fulfilled. Mat 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did Jesus add to the old covenant or did he start giving a new law? Does a similarity in some requirements mean it's the same law? Am I subject to the law of England because I obey American law, and in effect, keep parts of English law such as not murdering, or not stealing?

The following is a law of God in the old covenant: Lev 24:20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.'” But Jesus clearly changed this Matt 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

This is only one example, but one example is enough. Jesus was speaking of a new law: Gal 5:14 "the entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.'" The old law is superseded by the new which, I have no doubt, is the eternal law of God. All of the old law comes to an end, replaced by the new: Ephesians 2:15 "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace. Paul wasn't saying we were free to sin, but that it’s defined differently.” Here Paul points out that he is not under the law, he was not saying that he wasn't under the obligation to perform ceremonies; there is no precedent of any Jew or Jewish Rabbi ever thinking of the 'law' as just the ceremonies and the apostle Paul was a Jewish Rabi;1Co 9:20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”

Rom 14:23 "everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

My granddad thought that human beings had arrogantly usurped the authority of God by changing the day of the sabbath, but there is no place in the New Testament commanding a sabbath as part of the new covenant. Isa 43:18 “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. 19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.”

Because my Granddad believed in Old Testament law, he was always harsh, a stickler for the rules. Unforgiving, and unbending, he grew old and bitter in his legalism. His children ended up resenting him, having grown up fearing him, and his justice. This isn’t always the case, but like Granddad, Old Testament law is harsh and unforgiving. He became like the law he believed in.

There’s a huge gulf between, not doing what is wrong, (which Old Covenant law focused on), and doing what is good, (which New Covenant focuses on).Sadly, some people never get it.

Gal 5:14 "the entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.'" I might add here that faith is believing that God is love and that his instructions are for ultimate good. When God directs us individually, what he tells us is a law that applies to us alone; Mat 4:4 "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"


************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ;-)
Acts 17:11
************


If You Are New To/Concidering Ron Weinland part 2

I used to think Ron REALLY believed all these lies he's been passing off as truths. I no longer believe that. I believe he is an OUTRIGHT con.

I would like you all to read some excerpts of e-mail exchanges between his church and a perspective member.

The original location and full letters are at Weinland Watch.

First, it's been heavy on my mind, that Ron seems to teach the Gospel of Sabbath, rather than the Gospel of Jesus. It seems to me, he talks more about sabbath than Jesus. It appears Sabbath, Tithing and Baptism play an important role in Ron's retirement plan.


In the excerpts of the following e-mail exchange, we discover that Ron's church is actually a financial endeavor/a get-rich-quick scheme, (which is working out quite well for him and his family). We learn here that Tithing is a
prerequisite to baptism!

Here is an excerpt with comments from Weinland Watch. Make note of the items that I, (As Bereans Did blog, mark in RED) :

This was the second series of exchanges the prospective member had with the church.

Hello [name]
The meetings conducted by Ronald Weinland are for a Sabbath service and for those who are in the true Church of God or who are being called by God and have responded by turning to obedience in observing the seventh day Sabbath and are committed to keeping/obeying it as God has commanded. Only those who are observing the Sabbath and tithing can be invited to attend such services. If you are one of those people then you need to let us know if you have such commitment and how you are observing the Sabbath, and if you are doing so, we would be glad to extend an invitation to you.

Read this and reply back to this e-mail so we have a record of our conversations. We need contact information such as full address and phone numbers so a minister can contact you.

Sincerely
[Name of Evangelist #2]

the Church of God-PKG

The church’s form letter on baptism follows. You will note that the prospective member is required to divulge personal contact information. Meanwhile, two different evangelists have been in contact with the same member. There was no response to further inquiries from the same member until the following came through:

Hello [name]

I am trying to schedule you for baptism. We cannot locate the cashiers check you say you sent. Reply back to this e-mail telling us what name and date it was sent. I have to verify that it was applied properly.

thanks
[name of Evangelist #2]

The prospective member did not send any such check in, nor did the person say they sent any such check in. The evangelist was informed of this in the responding email. Additionally, the member requested to attend a baptism in their area, and was not given any permission. The prospective member then went on to request a receipt or a confirmation of their membership in the church before they would start sending money (and rightfully so). This person is now seriously questioning the motives behind the church.

Here was the church’s response to the prospective member’s request for information on tithing (they asked if it was 10% per annum or 10% per pay period).

Hello [name]

A tithe is that which involves a person’s obedience to God in giving God His tithe (10 percent) of income. This is a tithe of one’s net income (after taxes). The taxes are not in our control, but belong to the government to which we are all subject. We have no power over that portion of our income that is taken as taxes, and Jesus Christ said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. We are responsible for what is under our control and management. God’s tithes are sent to Church of God-PKG, P.O. Box 14447, Cincinnati, OH 45250 U.S.A.

You can find more information in sermons on our website
www.cog-pkg.org relating to the topic of Tithing. Feb 19th 2005 titled “A Relationship with God and Tithing”

Sincerely [name of Evangelist #2]
the Church of God-PKG

As the prospective member noted, they were initially requesting information on baptism, and then got manipulated into requesting information on tithing. This was the exchange that occurred after the prospective member requested the exact details of the baptismal location planned in their area for March 22:

This was the church’s response:

Hello [name]

A tithe is that which involves a person’s obedience to God in giving God His tithe (10 percent) of income. This is a tithe of one’s net income (after taxes). The taxes are not in our control, but belong to the government to which we are all subject. We have no power over that portion of our income that is taken as taxes, and Jesus Christ said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. We are responsible for what is under our control and management. God’s tithes are sent to Church of God-PKG, P.O. Box 14447, Cincinnati, OH 45250 U.S.A.

You can find more information in sermons on our website
www.cog-pkg.org relating to the topic of Tithing. Feb 19th 2005 titled “A Relationship with God and Tithing”
Sincerely [name of Evangelist #2]
the Church of God-PKG

A further request by the prospective member on whether or not they could attend the March 22 baptismal drive met with this response:

Hello [name]

Thank you for your e-mail. Can you help with this matter, as we cannot find a tithe record. I see you expected to mail the tithe in our past e-mails. Reply back to this e-mail as this is a prerequisite to baptism.
Sincerely
[name of Evangelist #2]

The prospective member then replied with an apology that they did not realize tithing was a prerequisite to baptism. The prospective member did not receive a reply to that email, and has not heard from the church since.


As we see from this exchange, the only thing that appears to be on the minds of church staff; is your money. So...if you wish to purchase a membership in Ron's church, (yes, Ron's church, NOT God's), you know what to do.
Fortunately, God does not require you to purchase baptism!!

Saturday, April 26, 2008

If You Are New To Ron Weinland, & Even If You're Not! It's Urgent You Read This! (Edited)

Reader...It is so very important that you read this and the other posts on this blog. What I'm asking of you is a big Job because I don't recommend you just read, but, if you are truly looking to please God, Pull out your Bible, a notebook devoted to your studies, or better yet, a 3 ring binder with dividers for varying subject matter. Find more scriptures of your OWN. Not just mine or Ron's!

I will compare those who pull out their Bibles and get the 3 ring binder with dividers with the virgins of Matthew 25 who were prepared with plenty of oil for their lamps, and those who read this post but do not
pull out their Bibles or get 3 ring binders with dividers with the virgins who were not prepared with plenty of oil for their lamps.

Jeremiah 30:21 For who is he who will devote himself to be close to me?

This is so important! Don't just read these words, hear them.
Those of you who are not new to Ron, I must tell you frankly, no soft-soaping;
You have not been paying attention. Have you read his book? If so, then why have you not realized that he is not a prophet? Look at the top right of this page. See what it says?

Deut. 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

What is a prophet? A prophet is an Oracle of God. A Prophet is the messenger of God, passing on the words of God, words that God gave to be told to the people. A prophet is not a "guesser" of God's will. God TELLS the prophet. And what God says, happens EXACTLY as God says.

What Ron has said has NOT taken place or come true, because his message is NOT a message the LORD has spoken. He has spoken presumptuously! Do NOT be AFRAID of him.

Open the book, (2008 GFW). Turn to page 90. Look at what Ron says in the 1st paragraph, about half way down;



"Before we cover those events, which are the subject of another chapter, we need to look more closely at the events that precede the last seal, events which are pronounced by Seven Thunders during the time of the Sixth Seal."

According to Ron's 'prophesies', we are now in the 7TH SEAL!
The 6TH is OVER!!!
What did Ron say was the FIRST SEAL!?
Page 91, about half way down, under

"The First Thunder;


'September 11, 2001 was a day that thundered so loudly that the
very mention of it is recognized all over this world. Mention that
day anywhere on earth and people know what happened.
However, people do not yet recognize the real meaning behind
why this day is so vastly important."

Go ahead and read it all, and notice also on the next page;


#1: The First Thunder is the beginning terror of war for the
end-time. This is war that is prophetic for the end-time.

Again, according to Ron, we are now in the 7TH Seal!
According to Ron, EVERYONE knows what 9/11 is!
According to Ron, on page 91;

"All Seven Thunders will increase in intensity...but at
certain times one will be much louder than all the others. Each
time that one of the Seven Thunders is much louder (far more
pronounced) than all the others..."


Which Thunders were LOUDER, or even AS LOUD AS 9/11?!
Which Thunders had the entire world glued to their televisions as 9/11 did?!
NONE! Because there was nothing. There were NO thunders at all!
Ron is a FALSE prophet. He is NO prophet of God's.

Okay, I've covered the facts and it just so happens that Ron has spoken, in his sermon today (4/26/08), on the very subjects I cover in my posts here. I highly recommend you look very closely at these.

Pray before you start. Tell God you want to know the truth, that you want to please Him. Ask Him to guide you and reveal His truth to you.

May God bless you in your search for His truth.

You should also check out Shadows Of WCG's post of transcriptions from todays sermon, and read what you heard today, followed by "J's" comments which point out Ron's backpedaling, and pushing forward of the time-line. [Sorry, the Shadows blog is no longer available]

Also follow the link "J" provides for Weinland Watch's take. Both MUST reads.

And my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE: Be sure to BOOKMARK it! Ron, declaring in an embedded file on the Weinland Watch page, that he will step down if...

In it, Ron says;

If by Pentecost it is not powerfully and abundantly clear that there has been a great deal of destruction that will clearly encompass a third of all plant life in the US and at least the clear results of this mingled with blood the death of very much animal life and the beginning of large numbers of human life then I will stop preaching. Just so all the critics and everyone out there will understand. I am true to my word in these things. OK? And for all the critics if by the end of July and most likely around Pentecost if nothing has clearly caused great destruction and death I will make it very clear that I was a false prophet. I will do exactly what I said I would do on aaaaall those interviews that I have held. To do less. Well. Would be quite insane.”


Thanks to Weinland Watch, you can download the sermon here, Three More Weeks.

Ron Weinlands Imperfect Law

By CW (Contributing Writer)


So all the Mockers are worked up, you say, and you know the reason why; because we all hate God, his laws and his gospel. Gospel, oh actually he didn’t mention that one. Gospel means good news. And Weinland condemns “worldly churches" for not telling people the gospel Jesus commanded his followers to spread.

The "worldly churches" are speaking of the torn curtain in the Holy of Holies; the reconciliation of man to God through Jesus. Ron’s “true gospel” is about the death, death, death, and destruction of all those who rebel against keeping a covenant that they or their ancestors never entered into. But we must keep the law because we now are spiritual Israel, you say. Funny thing is, there is no record of Israel (the man) keeping this law which was given 430 years after Abraham.

Ron and his teachers have claimed Abraham kept this law (Given by God to Moses for Israel), but that is pure presumption. Abraham kept the law of faith. He obeyed the judgments and statutes God gave him. If we all must do what God told some one else to do, then maybe we should lay on one side while we cook our meals with dung for fuel, and burn hair, and whack away at some of it with a sword.

We are all worked up because what? We just hate the Sabbath? Or maybe it’s the way you distort scriptures, apply your own meaning to them. Yes the Ten Commandments must have been what Lucifer disobeyed to become Satan. Satan must have violated the Sabbath. No, he committed adultery.

But I shouldn’t get worked up about keeping the law if it consists of only the Ten Commandments and holy days, (WOW! Look at all the loopholes!) because they only cover 10 sins. The commands don’t mention fornication, unless you include the part of the Law you reject. These loopholes open the door for all kinds of things that would otherwise be sin. This could be the freedom one has in Christ, if you follow this line of thinking to it's conclusion; one can fornicate, and molest children, there is no command against them. By your way of picking and choosing what parts you want to keep, I could make this case.
God's New Covenant Law, however, covers
every sin under His Law of LOVE.
You, Ron Weinland, because you don’t keep “all the law,” are in violation. And you are judged by this Law.

I have to say, if I had played the Ronald Weinland Drinking Game during the Sabbath service, I’d be so drunk I couldn’t see straight. I’d be free to do this because it’s not mentioned in the Ten Commandments.



You may also want to read: Granddand & Old Testament Law and God's Law...A Must Read!

Friday, April 25, 2008

Where Is the Prophet?

Well, everyone is asking the same question: Where is Ron? Hey, come to think of it, where is Laura? Avoiding scrutinizing questions maybe? Are they in hiding? Perhaps it's been a busy week scrambling for a convincing sermon, to tell everyone that everything is going as prophesied.

And as I mentioned in Ron Weinland & The Emperors New Clothes, will you, the believer be nodding your head in agreement, although, truly, you've seen nothing?

The 7 thunders were to take place in the 6th Seal. Right? Anyone disagree?

The thunders were to get progressively louder. But...I hear crickets...and frogs too, come to think of it. Who knows maybe he'll surprise everyone & step down.

Ron claims the 1st Trumpet was 9/11. Everyone saw that on the news, but if they were to increase in intensity, why were the others not on the news? Why have we seen nothing?
We all know the answer. 

The 6th seal came and went.

The "All Convincing" Earthquakes

Have you decided that the earthquake Ron mentioned is "proof" that he is a prophet?

If you have, I don't understand. Has it been on the news? Are they talking about an anomalous earthquake that has the experts confused and concerned? Interestingly, no.

But I have something interesting for you.

Do you have the Firefox internet browser? Might I suggest you download it?

Once you have installed and opened it up, go to Firefox Add-Ons and instal the eQuake Alert. What this will do, is place an alert at the bottom of your browser that will alert you every time there is an earthquake somewhere in the world, and let you know where. You can also right click on it for more info.

Yes folks, they go on all the time. I've had this since '06, and my browser is regularly shaking, (an option you can disable if you prefer yours not to), the quakes run around Magnitude 2.*-5.* and the occasional 6.*. There is nothing new going on as Ron would have you believe.

If anything, I guess you could use it to watch for "The Big One."

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

God' Law ...Some Points from jdposey

I thought this was worth reading. From jdposey; a member of AboveTopSecret.com:

Ronald Weinland Predict Large Attack On US & Opening of the Seventh Seal of Revelation
page 11

jdposey
posted on 12-1-2008 @ 08:09 AM


Originally posted by WeAreOne: "Hi all, tis only I again, It really staggers me when people try to say that we don’t have to obey Gods law anymore because people somehow have come to believe that Jesus did away with Gods law?? Matthew Chapter 5 and Verse 17 and on and on it goes, there are too many scriptures to post they tell us to obey Gods law; where have they got this idea?? Even Jesus himself observed Gods laws and annual holy days??"


jdposey: "Even Jesus himself observed God's laws and annual holy days??? You are not getting it, listen to what you said. "Even"...can you do better than Jesus? Can you do as well as Jesus? It took a while for Paul, but it finally clicked with him. Why do think Paul went to the trouble expounding himself in Romans 7:14-25. Why do you think God took the time to send Jesus, made of a woman (Flesh) and made under the Law? So everyone could go right on living under the law? All I have to say is this, I commend you, that you are able to observe every aspect of the law to the tee in its entirety, without any transgression. I have been where you are now, BUT now, I am content resting in the finished work of Christ, who lived the law perfectly, in every aspect of the shadows that the law contains and would rather trust in His righteousness which has been imputed to me. You see, when you realize that it is Christ who lives in you, the fulfillment of all that is righteous and perfect, no law, no person, not even the Devil himself can condemn you concerning anything, after all, I am dead, but Christ, it is He who dwells within and it is not my righteousness that is in question when I do fail, slip up and fall short of God's glory. How can anything or anyone condemn Jesus? What you are doing is taking the complete finished work of Jesus and saying it was not enough....now I will tag the law on to it. In essence, you are counting the death, the blood of Christ as having fallen short in its work and insulting God by saying or thinking that you can do more than what was necessary for God to send His son to address. The Law appeals to the flesh and I suppose, it will continue to do so. The very thing you are expounding, is the very thing Paul spent his time addressing."

What I would like to add, to what jdposey says here is, of course Jesus kept those Old Covenant laws. The O.C. was STILL in effect...He hadn't died on the cross yet. The New Covenant didn’t go into effect until His death, which is why He said, ‘It is finished.’
(JOH. 19: 30) When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Salvation was no longer our burden at that point, (Meaning, under the Old Covenant salvation is your responsibility in that you must keep it in it's entirety, perfectly, in order to be found righteous). He had paid our debt, died our death, freed us. (In short: Salvation is now a gift given by grace; we must accept the gift and we must love one another).
(GAL. 5: 1) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I strongly suggest reading GAL. 4:8-31 and understand v.21-31. It's very clear what Paul is saying here; No one under the Old Covenant inherits the kingdom. And I am quite aware that many of you who practice Old Covenant ways think your practicing the New Covenant, but you are not!

I believe the reason so many have trouble with this is because you don't understand what a covenant is. It is a contract. Just because there may be similarities in two different covenants, doesn't mean one was modified. It merely means there are similarities.

Let me share with you, if I may, the example I gave someone recently freed from O.C. Maybe this will help you with the Herbert W Armstrong/Worldwide Church of God misinformation:
'Oh! Then it's okay to steal, and murder, and lie...?'
They say this, because they DON'T UNDERSTAND it either.

Let’s look first at the word covenant. What exactly is a covenant?

NOUN
A signed written agreement between two or more parties [nations] to perform some action- a formal agreement between countries, organizations, or people / A pact or binding agreement between two or more parties to engage in or refrain from something.
A formal agreement of legal validity, esp. one under seal, [Like lambs blood?]
(Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return
VERB
Enter into a covenant or formal agreement
Quest Study Bible dictionary, page 174
A mutually binding agreement between two parties…

So, then a covenant is a contract. So what would a new agreement between parties mean? Example:
A homeowner, being a party of an agreement may say, “I’ve made a new contract. You will notice there are some similarities. In the old contract, you were responsible for the cost of repairs to the house. In the new contract, I am responsible for the cost of repairs to the house. As in the old contract, you must continue to do your best to not cause damage to the house.”
If the old contract was done away with, does it mean the renters can now be careless in the care of the house, unlike in the old contract? Of course not! That contract helped the renters to become aware of how to care properly for a home, even though they could never come up with the money for repairs. Therefore, the old contract was good. However, the new contract is better because the owner now graciously pays for repairs. All the renter has to do is accept the money from him by presenting him with the receipt. Of course, they will not get the money reimbursed if they do not give him the receipt.
In the same way, Jesus gave us a new contract. Of course, we are not to blatantly sin ROM. 6:15. The old contract made us aware of sin, ROM. 3:20, 7:7 so it was good! However, in the new contract, we are no longer responsible for our own salvation. Jesus died on the cross to pay that debt for us! In other words, The Owner has said he would cover the cost of home repairs.

You see, there are similarities, but the two contracts are very different!
Under the first contract, we were responsible for our salvation because it is up to us to us to keep every single aspect of it, flawlessly! It was also an external law! It was all about going through motions, regardless of what was really going on in the heart.
Remember Jesus talking to the Pharisees about cleaning the outside but being full of dead mens bones and everything unclean inside?
But the N.C. is an internal law! It's not about going through motions, rather what's going on in our mind/heart. Because, it's what's there that makes us who we really are.

Why was the Old Covenant law given in the first place? Because the Israelites were so rebellious. Everyone clings so tightly to the 10 commandments. But people, those are only 10 examples of how to love. How many other atrocities can humans act upon others that aren't even listed in the 10? I can think of a few horrendous ones!
External. Internal.

Another example:
Sixteen year old Lisa is always coming home at 2 or 3 A.M. Seventeen year old Terry is always coming home around 8 P.M.Mom and Dad sit down with Lisa and tell her she now has a 7 P.M. curfew to follow or she will suffer the consequences. She wants to know, 'why doesn't Terry have to be home by 7 too?' Her parents reply, 'Because Terry always comes home at a decent hour without having to be told to do so.'
Why would these parents make Terry subject to this external law (curfew) when she has an internal law (comes home around 8 PM without being told to do so)?

One more thing. Some of you say that the mark of God's people is the keeping of the Sabbath. Again, that was true under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant God's people are known because they love one another.
John 13:34-35

Monday, April 21, 2008

Works Vs Faith

I'd like to address an important issue.
This is a big one that has trapped many, causing alienation from Christ and a falling from grace! No. I'm not making that up. It is scriptural;

Gal. 5: 4 You who are trying to be justified by law, have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

I was once trapped by the Old Covenant. I have family members who are still trapped.
When I began to discuss, with one family membere, the issue of being free from the Old Covenant laws, she couldn't buy it, "It's
TOO easy!” she said. That's the aspect we're going to look at in this post.  One of my siblings has recently broken free from that yoke.

You may think it’s too easy to receive salvation by faith rather than by works (Sabbath keeping, Holy Days, et al.), but consider Naaman who had leprosy; 2Ki 5:10-14. When he was told to simply dunk himself seven times in the Jordan to receive healing, he was angry. He expected some great thing, a big show.” Why dunk in the Jordan when there are better rivers?” He wanted to know. But when he did as he was told, he was healed with youthful skin. –Yes, that easy!

This story is similar to Gideon; remember how the enemy was so numerous they looked like an infestation of locusts covering miles of land? (Jdg 7:12). And how God sent him against them with an army of only 300 men? (Jdg 7:7). God wanted Gideon and Naaman, (all of us), to clearly understand that what was accomplished, (winning the battle, healing), was done so, by God, not by the individual, by their own doing, not the number of men, nor the quality of a river.

Again, consider the Israelites in the desert; (Nu 21:4-9), when the Israelites began to grumble and complain against God and Moses, God sent venomous snakes in among them and those bitten died. They got a clue real quick-like and asked Moses to pray for them because they were sorry for their sin. So God told Moses to make a bronze snake and put it on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten, they could look up at it and be healed. –Yes, that easy!
Jesus said 
Jn3:14, Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.


Let’s think about this. There is a powerful parallel here.
In the desert, God didn’t remove the snakes. Did you notice that? Why did he have Moses make the bronze snake, rather than remove the snakes? It’s symbolic!
The snakes are ‘sin’. Once bitten, infected by the venom, you die! We can’t remove sin. The penalty for sin is death. Once infected by sin, you die. See the parallel? But, what God DID do, was to offer up an escape from death – just look up at the bronze snake on the pole and you won’t die! Just look to Christ Jesus on the cross and you won’t die! See the parallel?

Faith! It’s all about faith – trust in God. – Yes, it’s that easy.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Do We Need To Be Taught By Others?

Ron Weinland has does an excellent job of isolating his congregation from the truth of the bible.

1) He has told them it's useless to talk to family or friends if they don't believe what he teaches because they will only try to sway their beliefs.
2) He has told them that they can't study at home and expect to grow spiritually.
3) He has told them that they can only grow spiritually on Saturday/Sabbath.
4) And, he has been saying things like; We
know the truth when we hear it! We don't need to look it up in the bible! (This he has said multiple times in various ways, and that's walking dangerous ground).

I'm going to address #2.

In the announcements preceding his '
Press Forward Spiritually', Pt.3 sermon (2/4/06)

He said, & I quote,
"People think they can do things on their own. We have to be taught. That's why God gave us Sabbaths, to be taught by God. We're not on our own, and where two or three are gathered together doesn't mean we can be on our own to study our bibles and SOOOMMMEHOOOOWW grow spiritually!"
Yes, he got loud and drug out that word.


Ron says how much he loves John, so why is he not familiar with, or maybe he just ignores, these verses:

Jn. 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jn. 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever17 the Spirit of truth.

1Jn.2:26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Paul says, in
1 co. 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

And finally,

Mt. 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Jesus said He is there with you, but Ron says you're on your own? Jesus said He is there with you, but Ron says you can't grow spiritually? RED FLAGS! So, what... Jesus is so powerless that in His presence we are alone and cannot grow spiritually!? And what... God sent Ron to do what Jesus cannot!?


More from Ron:

"...seeing ourself better than what we are. That we can study our own bibles at home by ourselves. Without God feeding us, and we can come through all this. 'It's just God and me and Jesus Christ.' And that goes against what God says. That's disobeying God's law of obedience to the Sabbath. You know just that one thing alone ought to scream out to us. But it hasn't in peoples lives. It's a marvel to me things like this can just continue on."

Just... me & God & Jesus Christ?! The Father & the Son are incapable? Only Ron is qualified?! How is it Ron can do something that the Father & the Son cannot? Am I so ignorant to think, of ALL things, that I could get anywhere, to learn anything, just God and me and Jesus Christ? Have I have misjudged God? If I expect to get anywhere or learn anything, I must listen to Ron? ...since the Father and The Son are so incapable as Ron implies by these statements!

These are outright blatant lies, completely opposite of what Jesus said.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Ron Weinland & The Emperor's New Clothes

You may ask; why are you posting this story? I'll tell you.

Because it's the Story of Ron Weinland and those who believe he is 'wearing new clothes'.

He shifts things forward, holds his head high and pretends everything is according to schedule, and his followers continue to hold on to a train that isn't there, proclaiming; 'You have to be called to see his train! God hasn't opened your eyes!' Ignoring the shouts from the children; 'He's naked! He's naked!'

1 John 2

24 See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

25 And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.


You don't need Ron. All you need is the Holy Spirit; that anointing that God gave you, and it will teach you about all things!
Trust God. Trust His Holy Spirit.



and now...



The Emperor's New Clothes

by Hans Christian Andersen (1805-75)
adapted by Stephen Corrin in Stories for Seven-Year-Olds. London 1964


Many years ago there lived an Emperor who was so exceedingly fond of fine new clothes that he spent vast sums of money on dress. To him clothes meant more than anything else in the world. He took no interest in his army, nor did he care to go to the theatre, or to drive about in his state coach, unless it was to display his new clothes. He had different robes for every single hour of the day.

In the great city where he lived life was gay and strangers were always coming and going. Everyone knew about the Emperor's passion for clothes.

Now one fine day two swindlers, calling themselves weavers, arrived. They declared that they could make the most magnificent cloth that one could imagine; cloth of most beautiful colours and elaborate patterns. Not only was the material so beautiful, but the clothes made from it had the special power of being invisible to everyone who was stupid or not fit for his post.

"What a splendid idea," thought the Emperor. "What useful clothes to have. If I had such a suit of clothes I could know at once which of my people is stupid or unfit for his post."

So the Emperor gave the swindlers large sums of money and the two weavers set up their looms in the palace. They demanded the finest thread of the best silk and the finest gold and they pretended to work at their looms. But they put nothing on the looms. The frames stood empty. The silk and gold thread they stuffed into their bags. So they sat pretending to weave, and continued to work at the empty loom till late into the night. Night after night they went home with their money and their bags full of the finest silk and gold thread. Day after day they pretended to work.

Now the Emperor was eager to know how much of the cloth was finished, and would have loved to see for himself. He was, however, somewhat uneasy. "Suppose," he thought secretly, "suppose I am unable to see the cloth. That would mean I am either stupid or unfit for my post. That cannot be," he thought, but all the same he decided to send for his faithful old minister to go and see. "He will best be able to see how the cloth looks. He is far from stupid and splendid at his work."

So the faithful old minister went into the hall where the two weavers sat beside the empty looms pretending to work with all their might.

The Emperor's minister opened his eyes wide. "Upon my life!" he thought. "I see nothing at all, nothing." But he did not say so.

The two swindlers begged him to come nearer and asked him how he liked it. "Are not the colors exquisite, and see how intricate are the patterns," they said. The poor old minister stared and stared. Still he could see nothing, for there was nothing. But he did not dare to say he saw nothing. "Nobody must find out,"' thought he. "I must never confess that I could not see the stuff."

"Well," said one of the rascals. "You do not say whether it pleases you."

"Oh, it is beautiful-most excellent, to be sure. Such a beautiful design, such exquisite colors. I shall tell the Emperor how enchanted I am with the cloth."

"We are very glad to hear that," said the weavers, and they started to describe the colors and patterns in great detail. The old minister listened very carefully so that he could repeat the description to the Emperor. They also demanded more money and more gold thread, saying that they needed it to finish the cloth. But, of course, they put all they were given into their bags and pockets and kept on working at their empty looms.

Soon after this the Emperor sent another official to see how the men were getting on and to ask whether the cloth would soon be ready. Exactly the same happened with him as with the minister. He stood and stared, but as there was nothing to be seen, he could see nothing.

"Is not the material beautiful?" said the swindlers, and again they talked of 'the patterns and the exquisite colors. "Stupid I certainly am not," thought the official. "Then I must be unfit for my post. But nobody shall know that I could not see the material." Then he praised the material he did not see and declared that he was delighted with the colors and the marvelous patterns.

To the Emperor he said when he returned, "The cloth the weavers are preparing is truly magnificent."

Everybody in the city had heard of the secret cloth and were talking about the splendid material.

And now the Emperor was curious to see the costly stuff for himself while it was still upon the looms. Accompanied by a number of selected ministers, among whom were the two poor ministers who had already been before, the Emperor went to the weavers. There they sat in front of the empty looms, weaving more diligently than ever, yet without a single thread upon the looms.

"Is not the cloth magnificent?" said the two ministers. "See here, the splendid pattern, the glorious colors." Each pointed to the empty loom. Each thought that the other could see the material.

"What can this mean?" said the Emperor to himself. "This is terrible. Am I so stupid? Am I not fit to be Emperor? This is disastrous," he thought. But aloud he said, "Oh, the cloth is perfectly wonderful. It has a splendid pattern and such charming colors." And he nodded his approval and smiled appreciatively and stared at the empty looms. He would not, he could not, admit he saw nothing, when his two ministers had praised the material so highly. And all his men looked and looked at the empty looms. Not one of them saw anything there at all. Nevertheless, they all said, "Oh, the cloth is magnificent."

They advised the Emperor to have some new clothes made from this splendid material to wear in the great procession the following day.

"Magnificent." "Excellent." "Exquisite," went from mouth to mouth and everyone was pleased. Each of the swindlers was given a decoration to wear in his button-hole and the title of "Knight of the Loom".

The rascals sat up all that night and worked, burning more than sixteen candles, so that everyone could see how busy they were making the suit of clothes ready for the procession. Each of them had a great big pair of scissors and they cut in the air, pretending to cut the cloth with them, and sewed with needles without any thread.

There was great excitement in the palace and the Emperor's clothes were the talk of the town. At last the weavers declared that the clothes were ready. Then the Emperor, with the most distinguished gentlemen of the court, came to the weavers. Each of the swindlers lifted up an arm as if he were holding something. "Here are Your Majesty's trousers," said one. "This is Your Majesty's mantle," said the other. "The whole suit is as light as a spider's web. Why, you might almost feel as if you had nothing on, but that is just the beauty of it."

"Magnificent," cried the ministers, but they could see nothing at all. Indeed there was nothing to be seen.

"Now if Your Imperial Majesty would graciously consent to take off your clothes," said the weavers, "we could fit on the new ones." So the Emperor laid aside his clothes and the swindlers pretended to help him piece by piece into the new ones they were supposed to have made.

The Emperor turned from side to side in front of the long glass as if admiring himself.
"How well they fit. How splendid Your Majesty's robes look: What gorgeous colors!" they all said.

"The canopy which is to be held over Your Majesty in the procession is waiting," announced the Lord High Chamberlain.

"I am quite ready," announced the Emperor, and he looked at himself again in the mirror, turning from side to side as if carefully examining his handsome attire.

The courtiers who were to carry the train felt about on the ground pretending to lift it: they walked on solemnly pretending to be carrying it. Nothing would have persuaded them to admit they could not see the clothes, for fear they would be thought stupid or unfit for their posts.

And so the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession. It was a great success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, "Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!" No one dared to admit that he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post?

None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.

But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, "But he hasn't got anything on." And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. "He hasn't got anything on." "There's a little child saying he hasn't got anything on." Till everyone was saying, "But he hasn't got anything on." The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. "But I will have to go through with the procession," he said to himself.

So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn't there at all.