Lawless

(1 Timothy 1:9-10) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, °For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Notice if you will, that “righteous” is contrasted by Paul with what follows, starting with “lawless.”

The opposite; the contrast to righteous is lawless. Being opposites, lawless or lawlessness can be expressed accurately as faithlessness that expresses itself through the rest of the attributes of being “lawless” “faithless” “unrighteous” that follow in the narrative.

Lawless is not restricted to being just the transgression of the Hebrew law, further narrowed and restricted by Adventists to just the Decalogue. It is another way of expressing an attitude and mentality of rebellion against God and fellow man that manifests itself in ways mentioned there in 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

Lawless therefore is contrary to sound doctrine.

What then is sound doctrine? It begins with the Gospel; a message that commands everyone to “repent” and “believe the Gospel.”

What do the lawless do in response to these two associated commandments? They either reject them, or redefine them to fit what they want to believe.

Repentance in the context of the Gospel is to abandon the lawless state, devoid of any spiritual attributes, where one’s attributes revolve around the flesh and sating the evil desires of the flesh as partially listed above, where there is no consideration for God. They live outside the realm of any consideration of God or influence of God in their lives. Repentance is the decision to abandon that selfish, base lifestyle and seek God and His involvement in one’s life.

What happens through redefinition of repentance is a belief that repentance involves a rue or regret of sin, where sin is strictly defined as the “lawlessness” of transgressing the OC Decalogue so that the Gospel in turn is redefined to mean turning to the law that defines sin for them, and not a turning to God. They still do not want any true involvement of God in their lives and the law provides a convincing alternate solution. Keep the law; do not sin, and salvation awaits.

You will find no explicit statement in Scripture that says you are to repent of your sins. When one repents, one’s sins are “blotted out.” There is a “remission” of one’s sins. It is a “by-product” of repentance; turning to God AND believing THE Gospel that Scripture warns there would be false gospels preached.

In all examples of the Gospel being preached found in Scripture, not one makes any mention of the law or any involvement of the law in the Gospel. The Gospel is strictly a message of salvation through faith, only. Belief; trust in Christ who paid for those same sins you are forgiven of having committed.

It was Christ who died; spilled out His blood in accordance with the law to save you. The law did nothing and does nothing to save you. It was the law that demanded your death for sin, and sin is so much more than merely transgressing one of the commandments found in the law or whittled down to just the Decalogue.

Sin is the lifestyle of those who are first described as lawless above; evil people where everything they do is tainted by their evil hearts, including their very thoughts and imaginations. Nothing good comes from evil people whose fruits are seen by God as only evil; God, who judges according to the heart; not appearance. Keeping the law; even the Decalogue, is all about appearance; outward appearance that does not reflect the mind, heart, and soul of a person. The Pharisees kept the law, fastidiously, yet Jesus called them out over their hypocrisy of appearance and referred to them as the children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil. To them, salvation was to be found through the law.

Churches, with memberships in the millions, have embraced versions of false gospels, all dependent on some form of law that compromises faith. Rules that often are designed to help insure members to not leave those particular churches. They are beliefs built on behaviors established through their rules or laws, often unique distinctives of those churches, with salvation linked to them, whether expressed or implied.

Lawless becomes a label applied to those who reject those distinctives of those churches, along with any other teachings found outside the realm of faith and the “law of faith and the Spirit.”

************

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

************

Idols of Stones

In the Decalogue; the “10 Commandments” God commanded that no one make an idol out of anything found in heaven, earth, or beneath the sea, the most common thing found in all three realms being rock.

No one was to bow down to such an idol or serve such an idol.

Consider the parallel here regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” that God created in the garden of Eden, then commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it, or touch it under penalty of death.

God then presents the Hebrews with two tablets of stones; rocks that God made graven images.

What did the Hebrews do?

They served them. They dedicated themselves to them; idols of stone; graven images that the false prophit of Adventism declared sacrosanct with a special aura around the Sabbath commandment.

Behold, oh Adventists, thy gods.

(Exodus 32:4b) “… These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”

You will surely say that related to the gilded calf they made, but not the plural, “gods” in the text. It was prophetic. Two tables of stone… not one.

************

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

************

Polluting the Sabbath

(Isaiah 56:2) Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

I have witnessed Sabbath keepers cite this passage, while eliminating the last part of it that follows the comma in English. They believe “any” work pollutes the Sabbath, and not just evil works, seeing as Jesus made a distinction in this regard, where good works are lawful on the Sabbath. It is evil works that polluted the Sabbath; not good works. Evil works that are already evil works. Evil works are sinful works, and this brings us to another verse of Scripture Sabbath keepers treat like Isaiah 56:2, truncating it also:

(1 John 3:4b) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sabbath keepers routinely omit the first half of the verse. Sin; an event that is already evil, transgresses ALSO the law, where the English second half, poorly translated, is redundant but with a twist when you excise the first half so that it appears to say something else entirely. Instead of sin also transgressing the law, transgressing the law now labels whatever transgresses the law as sin, thereby reversing the order and meaning of the passage.

This is how desperate Sabbath keepers are in order to negate any good works on the Sabbath as lawful on the Sabbath; their fake sabbath, where they reserve the right to dictate what works are acceptable on their fake sabbath, and what works are not, thereby negating a basic teaching and truth conveyed by Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; not the Sabbath.

************

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

************

Jesus Declared Good Works Lawful on the Sabbath

It sounds reasonable enough, until you factor in the rest of what He said, where He contrasted good works with evil works, with these two classifications being the only standard to judge by in relation to the Sabbath.

The implications of this declaration in its totality is unacceptable to Sabbatarianism, where the Sabbath is perceived to be a nearly complete temporary cessation of work over a 24 hour period of time, where the Sabbath commandment goes so far as to include “ALL” work, regardless of categorization.

Now, there exists this descriptive of Jesus between good and evil works in relation to the Sabbath, where good works are lawful; not a sin, and evil works that are a sin, on the Sabbath, and always a sin, regardless.

Adventism treats this disparity with hypocrisy.

Note that they created two categorizations of law; “moral” and “ceremonial” – a classification that finds absolutely no biblical support. But now, with the Sabbath and the classification of two kinds of works; one lawful and the other unlawful on the Sabbath, made by God Incarnate Himself, and they balk!

Point out to them when they talk about the law; the “whole” law as stated by James and they insist the “whole” law is just the Decalogue. Then they flip when it comes to two categories of works related to the Sabbath. There is only one classification of work on their sabbath where any work is an evil work, due to the day, unless a particular work meets their criteria for exempt work, ironically in some cases being based also on the one working, such as doctors and nurses working in hospitals.

Adventism has their own categorization of works, unspoken and unwritten, where an otherwise good work done any other day of the week becomes evil and sin on their sabbath. Same work, different classification based on what day it is. Work is not judged according to its own merit, or the one working if they are non-Adventist.

The hypocrisy is so rife, you can almost smell it.

According to Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” there are these two categories of work because there are two categories of people working; good people, and evil people. He uses analogy and typology to explain; an explanation also ignored by Adventism and Adventists; rejected by them in favor of their own definitions and classifications.

There are good trees (people) and bad trees (people) where the good produce good fruits/works and the bad produce bad (evil) fruits/works.

Pretty simple and strait-forward. But simple doesn’t compute with Adventists and Adventism, especially when trying to retain a theology that contradicts the teachings of Christ Jesus; God Incarnate.

Good is always good, and evil is always evil. However, some people will teach and believe good can be evil, and evil can be good when it comes to works; like working on the Sabbath.

So a “simple” question in response to the Adventist take on sin being an otherwise good work done on the Sabbath — who calls good, evil? A good person? Or an evil person?

************

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

************

Jesus' Ultimatum

Jesus confronted the Pharisees with an ultimatum. He gave commandments and decrees that were contrary to the law. How people responded demonstrated whether they viewed the law greater than God who stood before them, or that He was the ultimate source of truth.

The First and Greatest commandment in the law was that a person have a total love and devotion for God. This then was their test of that, where no man can serve two masters, and where one is loved, and the other hated.

The Pharisees served and obeyed the law. Jesus said they hated Him and the Father in Heaven, for they chose the law and a love and dedication to the law; not God.

We witness today the same scenario play out. Jesus decreed good works lawful, on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. The decree could not have been plainer: Two categories of works, performed by two categories of people; those with good hearts, and those with evil hearts (hearts, minds, souls).

Evil hearted people will opt for what they believe benefits them, looking at things from a strictly physical perspective; not a spiritual one. They in turn choose the Sabbath over the Lord of the Sabbath, thinking God is more interested in blind obedience; a blind faith, instead of a living faith that expresses itself through action, and not the inaction of doing nothing one day a week.

(Matthew 25:41-46) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Jesus came to the Jews. He walked among them; the ‘people of the law’ who boasted in the law and Sabbath… the same ones who passed by the wounded man on the road to Jericho.

Who does the will of God here? The Sabbath keeper who is too busy doing nothing to stop and help another in need? Or one not under the law; not keeping the Sabbath who is quick to help others in their distress and need? It is a simple thing to stop and give a thirsty person water.

The criteria here Jesus cites about who goes into the kingdom of God, eternally, and those who do not, and the law has nothing to do with it. It is those who express their love and compassion for others. Love and compassion; expressions of the Spirit, due to the presence of the Holy Spirit, given to those who repent and believe the Gospel.. of Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, due to having a love of Him to the exclusion of all else, especially the law; the law people were kept under UNTIL the revelation of faith, in God — not the law.

************

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

************

Answering Douglas Beaumont On New Testament Canon Formation

Discussion:

This piece examines flaws in (Catholic) Douglas Beaumont’s reasoning in critiquing a book by (Protestant) Michael J. Kruger about the formation of the New Testament canon, highlighting how rhetorical maneuvering and imprecise distinctions repeatedly substitute for substantive engagement with the issues at hand.

"It [the book Canon Revisited] is well written, accessible, and is probably the best hope Protestants have for grounding the canon outside the authoritative Church that defined it.”

"Best hope" is a funny label for an argument that only looks weak after one has already handed Rome the trophy. And no, Kruger's book is not the Protestants’ "best hope’"; he is simply one voice in a long line of coherent Protestant accounts that never needed the premise Beaumont smuggled in. See here and here for evidence.

“Kruger begins his survey of the Community‑Determined model by looking at the Historical‑Critical approach… He then turns to the Catholic view which he says shares a common methodology. This smacks of well‑poisoning.”

False. If the Roman Catholic view itself depends on the church's shared, long-time reception of certain books as canonical, then Kruger's comparison is not "well-poisoning" at all. He is simply describing what Rome's model already admits.

“Nor is the Catholic view that canonicity is ‘imposed’ upon the writings.” 

This is Beaumont trying to dodge the obvious. If the church declares which books belong in Scripture, then it is imposing canonical status in the straightforward sense of the term. His attempt to redefine “imposed” so that it excludes the very act he is defending is a transparent evasion.

“A book can be one without the other.” 

This line is part of his long, unnecessary lecture on canon versus inspiration. He treats this elementary distinction as if he discovered it yesterday. Worse, he never shows a single place where Kruger confuses the two. It is a lecture delivered to no one who needed it, padding out an argument that lacks substance.

“Kruger believes there is a second model within Catholicism that is often ‘bundled together without distinction.’” 

Beaumont tries to refute this by saying “the church that produced the biblical writings are not the same [members of] the church who determined the canon.” This is not a refutation. It is an admission that Kruger’s observation is correct. Beaumont agrees with Kruger while pretending to disagree, which is one of his recurring habits.

“The different affirmations Kruger lists, however, do not necessarily constitute a second model.” 

Douglas Beaumont’s defense here is simply hand‑waving. He never explains why the distinctions he admits do not amount to separate conceptual models. He just asserts it. His argument is little more than “I don’t like the conclusion, therefore it’s wrong.”

“The fact that a 28th book “would never satisfy Catholic concerns” is not a Catholic problem though, because it is not Catholics who require the canon to be revealed in Scripture."

Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. Kruger did not say that it was a Catholic problem. Beaumont is arguing with a phantom because he cannot land a punch on the actual argument. His response is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

“Either way, the canon is never just a ‘given’ as a starting point.” 

This is one of Douglas Beaumont’s more ironic lines. He states a truth that undermines his own attempt to portray the Catholic position as immune to the very difficulty he admits. If the canon is never “just a given,” then the Catholic model faces the same epistemic question Kruger raises. Beaumont simply refuses to acknowledge it.

“Paul says the church was built on the foundation of apostolic people – not apostolic teachings.” 

This is semantic gymnastics. Apostolic people taught apostolic teaching. The distinction is so thin it collapses under its own weight. Beaumont’s argument here is the kind of thing one writes when one has run out of substantive points and begins slicing theological hairs to avoid conceding anything.

“The fact remains, then, that the New Testament… was dependent on the church, but not vice‑versa.” 

This is Douglas Beaumont’s attempt to turn chronology into authority. The New Testament being written within the church does not magically grant the church epistemic primacy. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise.

“First, we see from the New Testament itself that at the time of Christ, there was no single, authoritative canon.” 

 This is historically selective. It only shows that canon formation can be messy. Beaumont’s conclusion does not follow from his own evidence.

“Presumably, had the OT canon been seen as a big issue, one of [the prophets] could have spoken up about it.” 

This is one of the weakest lines in the entire piece. Beaumont imagines prophets as if they were modern bloggers who would “speak up” if something mattered. It is theology by presumption, not argument, and it betrays a shallow grasp of Second Temple Judaism.

“Thus, Israel’s relation to the Old Testament is much like the church’s relation to the New Testament for the first 1,500 years of its existence.”

This analogy is strained. Israel’s canon debates were not structurally identical to Christian canon debates, and Beaumont provides no evidence that they were. He simply asserts the parallel and hopes the reader will not notice the lack of support.

“Kruger asks whether the church had a canon for the 1,500 years prior… He then states… that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before Trent.” 

Douglas Beaumont tries to refute this by saying Trent was the first dogmatic definition. Kruger never claimed otherwise. Beaumont even admits, “no one disputes that the church had ‘functional’ (if unsettled) lists.” He is refuting a claim Kruger did not make.

“Statements marshaled to prove the contrary are being misread – probably due to the ‘canon / inspired’ confusion noted above.” 

This is Beaumont’s fallback explanation for everything: accuse the other side of confusion. Yet he never demonstrates the confusion. He simply repeats the accusation until he hopes it sticks.

“The Catholic church recognizes these distinctions and often uses them in its explication of doctrine.” 

This is Beaumont congratulating Rome for being nuanced while ignoring the fact that his own argumentation is not. He invokes scholastic categories without actually applying them rigorously. It is the intellectual equivalent of name‑dropping.

“The church does not ground its infallibility on the Bible… nor does the church tell people to believe it is infallible based on its own infallible authority.” 

This is Douglas Beaumont trying to dodge the circularity problem by asserting that the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are not circular. But his own explanation of infallibility is circular: the church is infallible because Christ made it infallible, and we know Christ made it infallible because the church teaches that Christ made it infallible. He has not escaped the circle; he has simply drawn it more gently.

“There cannot actually be a conflict between them.” 

This is Beaumont’s claim about Scripture and creation. It is a charming sentiment, but demonstrably false. His analogy is wishful thinking masquerading as argument, and it does nothing to support his claim that the church and Scripture share authority in a way that avoids Kruger’s dilemma.

************

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

************