Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part II

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the last of the three most common explanations and see if it can withstand scrutiny.

---

We've been deep-diving into Acts 15, stress testing some claims about what was really going on in the Jerusalem Council. In the first post, we investigated the Sabbatarian interpretation of verse 21 to see if the plan was really to send Gentile converts to synagogue to learn more law later on. We saw that the best approach is to let the context speak for itself rather than read a bunch of predetermined conclusions into it. In the previous post, we looked at what the debate was about in the first place.

Most people seem to believe the debate was between the Apostles who were 0% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who were 110% in favor of the law. That is not the case. The Apostles were in favor of letting the Jewish converts retain their Hebrew traditions, yet binding none of that on the Gentile converts. If you want an example of a Jewish convert keeping their Old Covenant traditions, I offer you --- the very Pharisee converts at the heart of this debate.
Sabbatarians, however, assert the Apostles were roughly 3% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who wanted something else entirely. But what? The three main explanations are:

A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't believe are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

In the last post, "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I", we went over the first two of these. We saw how they don't hold up. Today, we investigate the third.

Let's get crack-a-lackin.

LAW OF MOSES?

The Council was not only about the "law of Moses".

Some people realize this could not only have been about circumcision or the customs, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, therefore they redefine what the phrase "the law of Moses" means. Some redefine it as the ceremonial and national portions of the Old Covenant law. They claim there is a difference between the "law of God" (ie. the Ten Commandments plus a handful of other things like tithing, meats, and holy days) and the "law of Moses" (pretty much everything else). This has become a very popular claim.

I disagree there is such a difference in the first place. We have articles on that (see "Law of Moses - Law of God" and "Law of God - Law of Moses").

Now, I realize those two posts that I just mentioned can be very confusing. They made sense when I wrote them, but they are admittedly challenging to follow. I will distill down the best parts for you here. Let's start with Nehemiah 8.

(NEH. 8:1,8) 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law [torah] of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. ... 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law [torah] of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

Same book, same law, two descriptions. In one verse it's "law of Moses". In another verse it's "law of God". In both it's "Torah". It's all the same thing.

Joshua 8:30-35 calls the whole Torah the "book of the law" and "book of the law of Moses". Remember, in Joshua's time they only had the first five books. All of it was "the law of Moses". And what will we find more than once in this 'law of Moses'? The Ten Commandments.

It's the same in the New Testament.

(Luke 24:44) Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

That's the whole Old Testament. Jesus recognized the three divisions in the scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But He refers to the whole law as "the law of Moses".

I Kings 2 presents this even more clearly:

(I KIN. 2: 3) And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.

Oh my.
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

My conclusion, that there is no difference between "law of God" and "law of Moses", is precisely what was written in the Worldwide Church of God's "Systematic Theology" document, 1978 version, page 3 paragraph 2. They wrote:

"It is also important to note that the term 'law of Moses' is itself used interchangeably with the term 'law of God.'"

Except, the Systematic Theology was a bit controversial and contradicted other things that were written by the same church both before and afterward. (Armstrongism always has liked to have its cake and eat it too.) Still, I find it interesting that the Worldwide Church of God in its heyday, for brief and shining moment, officially recognized what I am telling you now.

Referring back to Josephus - read his works and you will see he consistently treats the laws, the Torah, the books of Moses, and Moses' legislation, as one body of material. So, now we have biblical and extra-biblical reasons to believe it's all the same thing.

You see, when the Bible says "of Moses" or "of [insert name here]", it doesn't necessarily mean those things belong to that person or were invented by that person. It means those things were either primarily about that person or they were given through that person. For example, "Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't mean Jesus belongs to Nazareth. Likewise, "the book of Isaiah" was not really about Isaiah so much as it was about the prophecies that God gave through Isaiah. They were God's prophecies, but called Isaiah's because he was the conduit. "The Gospel of Mark" doesn't mean there is a gospel about Mark or a gospel that belongs to Mark, separate from “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1). That's all "the law of Moses" means. Those laws didn't belong to him; they were given through him.

(JON. 1: 17a) For the law was given through Moses...

There is no "law of Moses" with a separate and distinct "law of God". They were all the law of God. They were all the law of Moses. The whole third claim is artificial and based on a predetermined commitment; a commitment to take the singular body of law and break it up into chunks, keeping a few and discarding the rest.

I realize this is a critical point for Sabbatarians, so they will disagree with me. They must. So, let's look at some of the top arguments in favor of there being a "law of God" and a separate "law of Moses". 

Perhaps the foremost argument is:
The Ten Commandments were written by God's own finger and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, while the book of laws that Moses wrote was placed beside the Ark.

The point of this is to make the Ten separate and superior. This has some serious problems.

The first problem is: It was the second set of tablets that were put into the Ark, but it's not clear who wrote the second set of tablets.

God wrote the first set of the Ten Commandments with His own finger, but then Moses broke those tablets. As for the second set:

(EXO. 34:1) And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(EXO. 34:27) Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Who wrote the second set? Scholars have debated for a very long time whether it was God or Moses. It isn't clear. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine. But...

The second problem is: the Ten Commandments were written in the book Moses wrote, too.

It's in both places. How can the Ten Commandments be superior to the Ten Commandments? If "the law of Moses" was that book, then it was all "the law of Moses". In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never read the Ten Commandments straight from the tablets. You got "God's law" from descendants of that book that was placed beside the Ark, same as the rest of us.

The third problem is: no Sabbatarian church that I've ever heard of believes only the Ten Commandments are required.

A little law always leads to more. What about tithes? What about meats laws? What about holy days? None of those are in the Ten, or the "moral law" for that matter (another artificial term). So, if those aren't "Law of God" then why must anyone bother with them? And what about the four laws the Apostles said were necessary for Gentiles to observe in Acts 15? They were not in the "Law of God". And what about circumcision, which got this ball rolling in the first place? All of these are solidly in what Sabbatarians call "the law of Moses".

So, were the tablets placed in the Ark with the Aaron's staff and a pot of mana because:
A) Those three things were creating a special category of law,
or
B) Because they were special physical items that represented God's relationship with Israel?

I am going with B.

I do not find this argument convincing at all. And it's arguably the best one.

There is another claim which is very similar to the first.

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed historian in the world", had a slight variation. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Are In Force Today?", he claimed:
The Ten are special because they are the only laws God spoke directly to Israel, while Moses merely delivered the statutes and judgments.

While those base facts may be true, the conclusion he is attempting to reach does not hold. The way they were delivered does not make them a separate class of law. God spoke many of the laws to Moses, who them wrote down in his book. The issue is not whether God spoke these words directly vs. indirectly through Moses. The issue is that they came from God. I am not convinced by the claim, "All mankind must keep these laws because these are the ones God spoke to Israel."

In Israel's view:

"All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important."
-Judaism 101, “Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments”.

I am not saying the Ten aren't special. They are! But even the Jews don't believe their delivery or where they were placed makes them a separate and particularly binding class of law.

There are more arguments than these, of course, but I am not going to get into them here. They get more and more ridiculous as you go along. I will simply suggest reading "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

This whole section boils down to this: modern Sabbatarians say "law of Moses" refers to a particular subset of the law, but if we cannot prove that's what the people at the Jerusalem Council thought then it all falls apart. And we have no good reason to believe that's what the Apostles and Pharisees thought.

The initial trouble was not only about some portion of the law called "the Law of Moses".

CONCLUSION

The three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." Circumcision was not about merely being circumcised.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was not called the law of Moses.
C) The "law of Moses". It cannot be this because there is no separate "law of Moses" distinct from "law of God". They are the same thing.

We have reviewed each and shown how each of these has insurmountable weaknesses. Each one collapses under its own weight.
These three aren't reasonable explanations so much as they are rescue attempts.

I was an Armstrongist. I know the motivation - there must be a Sabbath day, and that means there must be the Ten Commandments, and that means the Apostles must be for some of the law, and that means the Pharisees must be arguing something other than what Acts 15 actually says. These three explanations are the result.
And that means the "Early Church Fathers" were all liars, and this is all Constantine's fault, and mainstream Christians are all deceived, and so on and so forth. I get it.

The Sabbatarian understanding of Acts 15 comes out of prior commitments to the Sabbath day. In short, eisegesis.
But, in case you haven't noticed, this blog has been systematically going through each individual point in the universe of Sabbatarian proof texts, and we've been pointing out the issues in each and showing other ways to understand them. What we've been driving at is - what if there is no prior commitment to the Sabbath day? What if the Apostles really did decide against requiring the law for Gentile converts? What if the New Covenant really is different from the Old, as the prophecies of Jeremiah predicted? What if these three explanations we saw today fall apart because the prior commitment itself is not valid in the first place? If these three points really are the explanation, then why are they completely incompatible with one another? It sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. None of them do!

So what were the Pharisees really debating in Acts 15? I believe they were debating how to join the Covenant.

The fourth explanation is that Pharisees meant exactly what Luke wrote: The Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law.
That's what the text says.
And the decision of the Apostles was exactly what Luke wrote, and several years later reiterated when he quoted James: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing."

But the Gentiles were not joining Israel. The Gentiles already received the Holy Spirit. They were accepted into the New Covenant without joining Israel first. Instead, both Jew and Gentile were joining the body of Christ, and all the Gentile converts had to do to keep the peace with the Jewish converts were those points of the law required of all Gentiles in Israel from Leviticus 17 & 18.

Or, to put this entire thing another way:

Christ is sufficient.

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

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

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

What Is The Root of Sin?

Sabbatarianism asks, then answers, “what is sin?”

A better question is: What is the root of sin? What is sin’s foundation?

Jesus answers this more basic question.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

The genesis of sin is an evil heart.

(Jeremiah 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Sabbatarianism attempts to deal with sin from the wrong perspective, seeing the law as the solution, and not by addressing the heart and the condition of the heart. It is like a doctor treating the symptom of a disease, and not the root cause that produces the symptoms.

Sabbatarianism therefore shifts the problem to the result of sin, ignoring the causative factor of sin, that being a bad heart; an evil heart.

Sabbatarianism also distracts themselves and others by further claiming that it is through the law God judges mankind so as to make it appear that the solution is found in keeping the law and not keeping the law brings about God’s judgment and wrath.

But what did God have to say on this matter? That He does not judge like a man judges and as a man concludes; rather He judges what He refers to as 'righteous judgment', according to the heart of man.

(1 Samuel 16:7) But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

(Romans 2:5) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Mankind has a heart problem, where the solution proffered by God is a new heart.

(Ezekiel 18:31) Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

(Ezekiel 36:26 A) new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Whenever Sabbatarians are confronted with an alternate explanation and solution for sin, they reject it due to the investment they have made with the law, thereby resisting the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is that “new heart” God speaks of as well as that law placed within the believer. However, with an emphasis on the law, people are driven further away from God as a result.

(Matthew 23:15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

What is the proselyte taught? What is he indoctrinated into?

The law. And the result of being focused exclusively on the law is to exclude all else and where the real problem lays; that being a heart problem; a ‘diseased’ wicked heart… an evil heart of unbelief in regards here to what God says is the problem; how He judges mankind, and His solution being the thing those bound up in the law reject out of hand, even as did the Pharisees who put Stephen the martyr to death.

(Acts 7:52)Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

They cloaked their evil hearts with the law. They insulated their evil hearts against the Holy Spirit with the law.

“Keep the law, and do not sin. Sin is the problem, and keeping the law is the solution, for sin is the result of transgressing the law.”

God’s solution is more elegant, and more anathema to Sabbatarianism. Replace the heart, and the sin problem goes away for the motive to sin also goes away. And because God Himself took the wrath of the law upon Himself, the law was thus satisfied and God’ s justice was thus satisfied, which results in the one with the new heart; the Holy Spirit and spiritual law of God that leads the believer into life eternal, and not a law that led the evil hearted into their just condemnation, meted out by the law of sin and death; the ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.

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

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

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

Evil Uses the Sabbath

There is a category of evil people that refuse to believe they are evil. They believe they are good in that they do not do some of the more egregious things “evil” people do, like commit murder. They will admittedly do some minor things that are wrong, chalking it up to human nature, but having embraced religion, they confess those discretions, and carry on.

They will embrace variations of Old Covenant law in order to validate their perception of themselves. This is where the Sabbath comes into play. Part of this equation is wanting to prove they are good. Part of this proof is found through comparing themselves with those perceived by them to be evil. They are "evil' people because they do not do those things that "good" people do, like keeping the law “of God”.

(Isaiah 1:13-20) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

(Isaiah 1:13) [JPS] Bring no more vain oblations; It is an offering of abomination unto Me; New moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

These "good" things had morphed into useless and vain rituals without substance which became iniquitous in the sight of God. There were much more important things to attend to.

They were going through the motions of keeping those things commanded in the law. Their hands they raised to God in worship in their religious assemblies were full of blood. Their worship was in vain; even iniquitous – an ‘aggravated’ sinful act. These were outward expressions of piety that were fraudulent; deceptive; misleading.

Such actions and behaviors, like keeping the Sabbath, came down to being theater; an outward show and appearance. What was to be the worship of God was nothing other than self-aggrandizement; an act of glory to one’s self, and not an act of glory to God. It was a display designed to gather attention to the self, not unlike this example:

(Matthew 6:5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

A truly Godly person has God as the focus and reason for all they do, done out of love and gratitude to God who pulled them out of the mire of the world and their own sins, now dedicated to God and producing fruits unto God to the glory of God.

But when a sinful man who is in denial practices a religion of outward show, such as keeping the Sabbath, he does it for the glory of himself. “I keep the law and Sabbath, unlike these sinners who do not keep the law and Sabbath.” When you break it down, keeping the Sabbath, the focus is on the self in relation to a day they refrain from doing any work, including any fruits born to the glory of God. The focus is on the day and the self.

(Isaiah 58:13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

They were not doing these things mentioned by God on the Sabbath. They were not honoring God. They were focused on the day, even as are modern Sabbatarians, as well as themselves, honoring themselves for keeping the Sabbath, while denigrating those who do not, believing they are the ones dishonoring God by not keeping the day; observing the day itself for the day’s sake.

Consider though the works and fruits of a Christian whose fruits are to the glory and honor of God EVERY DAY, following a lifestyle of dedication to God EVERY DAY; every waking hour.

The Sabbatarian defines himself with the Sabbath. The true Christian defines himself as a forgiven sinner who loves the God who saved him from sin and the consequences of sin who now dedicates himself totally to God and praising His glory for His mercy and compassion shown him.

But the Sabbatarian views himself as having overcome sin through his own efforts, and only needs God to come on the scene for those rare occasions he “sins” and requires forgiveness, then it’s back to business as usual…

Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? — Amos 8:5

God foretold He would do away with the Sabbath, it having become unproductive. The day had become more important to the people than what the day was to represent.

(Luke 13:14-17) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

What Jesus did was what God does, being God – acts of compassion; acts of love, to the glory of the Father.

(Hosea 2:11) Sabbatarians idolize the Sabbath and idolize the law “engraven in stones” not unlike how the children of Israel ended up idolizing the serpent set up on a pole by Moses called Nehushtan they were to look upon should any of them be bitten by vipers, burning incense to it where incense represented prayers. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ time, who administered the law, focused on those works of the law that could be manipulated to present them to the people as righteous and where Jesus chastised them for neglecting the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters of the law did not serve them. They were not interested in administering true justice, mercy, and faith. They were there to uphold the works of the law, especially the Sabbath, with a ruthless zeal if necessary, ‘defending the faith.’ Their dedication was to the law and Sabbath that served them and their agenda; not God; not the “Lord of the Sabbath” who declared good works lawful; not a sin; works done to the glory of God by those who follow God and whose works are always to the glory of God; good trees, producing only good fruits (works) wrought in God that could only be carried out because of God, due to His presence through the Holy Spirit in them.

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

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

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

Good Works — Evil Works

Adventists claim and believe that they would sin if they worked on the Sabbath, and claim that anyone who works on the Sabbath sins.

Jesus said good works are lawful on the Sabbath, not sin, and He contrasted good works with evil works.

So to reiterate, Adventists admit that were they to work on the Sabbath they would sin. So they refrain from working on the Sabbath so as to not sin. They admit their works are sin; sinful works, on the Sabbath.

Sin, from the Greek “hamartia” – ‘missing the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, ALSO is the Greek, “anomia” which is translated into three different English words: lawlessness, evil, and iniquity. This is what 1John 3:4 relates, so that sin; missing the mark, is also lawlessness, evil, and sin.

Adventism further defines “lawlessness” so that it is only in the context of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, to the exclusion of any other lawlessness, iniquity, or sin. To them, "the law" is the Ten Commandments.

It also would have to mean that if a Greek speaking person in Greece were to use “anomia” it would be lawlessness also in relation to the Decalogue of the Hebrews, which is quite a stretch way beyond credibility. They had their own laws and would have had no interest or even knowledge of the laws of other countries, let along the law of Israel and the Hebrews.

Getting back to what God Incarnate said publicly, certain things can be done on the Sabbath without lawlessness. Good works were lawful on the Sabbath. He contrasted lawful works with lawlessness, evil, and iniquitous works. But those things are never lawful to do. If you worked on the Sabbath and God charged you with sin, it would be because the works themselves were evil, lawless and iniquitous, as contrasted to good, lawful works.

But Adventism insists that some otherwise good works, if performed on the Sabbath, result in those same works becoming lawless, sinful, and iniquitous.

(Isaiah 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Now for a question that shouldn’t be difficult to answer: who would call good works evil, and evil works good? A good person, or an evil person?

An evil person, who will in turn attempt to define evil and good works in relation to the Sabbath, instead of the merits of the works themselves and those performing the works based upon their motive of heart for doing so.

Good Works 

The evil person’s perception is based on appearance. They “see” someone working on the Sabbath works that they themselves have not concluded to be exempt from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. Their perception is that it is the law that makes the determination, and not them, when in fact it is really them and their lawless use and abuse of the law.

If you are not an Adventist, then you are the target of charges of sins against the “law of God” which they wield unlawfully in order to accuse and persecute those God has declared righteous, and whose works now, wrought in the Spirit, are seen by God who judges according to the heart and not the law, as good works, ONLY — Christians who are now “good trees” producing ONLY good fruits to the glory and honor of God.

When Jesus performed miracles, there were times the people who witnessed them gave glory to God for the miracles they witnessed. But the Pharisees who taught the law, only, did not celebrate and give glory to God. They attributed the miracles to the devil and the works of the devil, with Jesus being a spawn of the devil. Good works, even miraculous works, which He performed intentionally on the Sabbath, exposed their evil hearts for all to see when they declared good works evil, sinful, lawless and iniquitous.

A good heart, provided by God Himself, results in good works done to the glory of the God who gives us the good heart; aka His Holy Spirit that converts a person into a new creation, led now by the Spirit, and no longer the flesh, where those led by their stony, carnal, evil heart, could only produce evil works or fruits.

And this, according to Adventism, is twisting Scripture, which is much easier to do than trying to refute good works themselves, which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit in those led by the Holy Spirit. Good words are accused in an attempt to defend how an otherwise good work one day is a sin if performed between the hours between sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Good works are always good works. Evil works are always evil works. Good hearted people with the new heart from God produce only good works. Evil hearted people who lack God’s Holy Spirit produce only evil works. It was the evil-hearted Hebrews with a deceitful heart of stone, an evil heart of unbelief, who were given the law with the Sabbath commandment where they were to refrain from their evil works of the flesh, born of an evil heart.

Wherever you read "Adventist" feel free to plug in your flavor of Sabbatarianism

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

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

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

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

"Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

These passages communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity.

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.

 

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

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

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

Physical vs Spiritual

Deceptions rarely stand alone in a religious environment. A deception usually breeds more deceptions in order to build a structure of interwoven deceptions that appear to all be supporting one another as truths.

One of the tell-tale indicators is how the language is used, with deceptions often being referred to as “obviously true” despite a lack of biblical evidence to support them.

The concept of “moral” law is a good example. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that any law constitutes being “moral” law, let alone the entire Decalogue. Yet the concept is accepted as true despite this, and the requirement stated in Scripture is to prove all things, not to accept all things should they appear to be “obviously” or “apparently” true.”

(Proverbs 3:5) Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Ask those who believe in “moral” law to define it. And ask how it contrasts to “ceremonial” law and how that is defined. It’s like watching a deer illuminated in the headlights, because the organization they belong to that proffers the concept has not defined the terms outside of circular reasoning. Most members are reluctant to answer, knowing that any answer they proffer may well not meet the criteria of any ‘official position’ of the organization. They are satisfied to simply parrot the belief/claim and leave it at that.

I proffer the concept that if there truly were such a thing as “moral” law, they would be laws where there is NEVER an excuse or justification for violating them. Murder is always wrong when properly defining ‘murder.’ Same with adultery, bearing false witness, and idolatry, to mention a few.

The concept of ‘moral’ law also raises another, associated issue. Are we discussing “moral” law in the context of a person being justified and declared morally upright because they keep or comply with “moral” law? And if so, then what of those who, say, never commit a murder, yet have a deep seated hatred of another, which Scripture identifies as the “spirit of murder”?

This would also be hard to embrace, given the statements by Paul that no one will be justified by the works of the law. What ties this all together is Jesus’ declaration about the Pharisees, who we could argue at least kept the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) yet Jesus referred to them as children of the devil and that they hated Him without a just cause.

(John 15:25) But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

No matter what Jesus did before them, in their sight, even raising the dead, was rejected in favor of the law. To them, the Messiah to come would be validating both them and the law they administered, so that, they charged even the followers of Christ Jesus for being ignorant of the law and thus cursed as a result.

(John 7:48-49) Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Dare I point it out? The law was more important than God Incarnate. And if you put something, anything, above and greater than God, then what is that ‘thing’ to you? It is the ‘god’ you serve and obey. It is your idol; whether made of stone, or the product of your imagination, or both.

(John 4:23-24) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Can we agree then that the Pharisees, whose focus was about the law and the works of the law that were physically oriented, were not worshiping God in spirit and in truth? They were rejecting truth by rejecting He who was the personification of Truth, and where spirit is about things non-corporeal; outside the realm of physical things and outside the realm of the heart, mind, and soul, where their focus was in relation to the physical body and outward appearances.

A believing Christian then sees themselves in relation to Christ in association with the heart, mind, and soul. False Christians, unbelievers, not being led by the Holy Spirit, will focus then on the physical things, such as the works of the law that have no bearing, no impact, on the heart, mind, and soul, even as was the case with those Pharisees.

The works of the law, and most everything in the law, pointed forwards to the Messiah to come; the Christ we know to be the Son of God, who is also God. It is a concept impossible for those focused on the physical to fully grasp, being a spiritual concept. For God exists in a spiritual realm and not a physical one where physically-, carnally-minded people try to understand the nature of God through a physical filter.

The physical sacrifices were typology of Him. Circumcision was typology of conversion, performed by the Holy Spirit, where under the law, a Jew was not complete unless and until he was circumcised. And in this spiritual reality, a “man” becomes complete in Christ through this spiritual “circumcision” “performed without hands”.

(Colossians 2:11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

As an aside, note carefully the wording and reference to sin, being sins of the flesh… not sins of the law. For the Gentiles were never required to come under the law, through a physical circumcision according to the law. This spiritual circumcision of the heart brings one into the New Covenant “law” of the Spirit and not the old covenant law of the physical letter… that kills.

Where Sabbatarianism, such as Armstrongism and Adventism, expose themselves as non-spiritual is their embrace of the old covenant Sabbath rest for the physical body that followed six days of physical work; ignoring the typology which they vaguely comprehend in regards to the sacrifices and circumcision. There is a spiritual “rest” found in Christ; a rest for the non-physical component of mankind associated with the heart, mind, and soul. The author of Hebrews points out this spiritual rest as a cessation of a former work, even as God ceased from the work of the physical universe where that typology meets its completion in the spiritual creation of a new man; a new creature / creation where all things have become new; different than the old.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What were the “old things” that passed away? Everything associated with the old man, including his previous works of the flesh and sins of the flesh. A man in Christ enters into God’s rest. The rest God entered into millennia ago and still resides in is a permanent rest or “cessation” from the act of physical creation. This is a typology of our rest/cessation of our former works of the physical flesh, leading to eventual death, and in contrast our conversion/transformation places us within God’s rest, that is life ETERNAL. We now reside in this condition for the rest of eternity; having entered into God’s rest with Him that will never end. Death has been swallowed up by life.

This is all spiritually discerned, and as such, rejected by those still held by the flesh; still under the bonds and chains of sin. All they know and understand are physical things, along with physical rites and rituals that were typology of what was to come. People reject the concept due to having evil hearts of unbelief; held captive to sin by their very nature; their hearts, minds, and souls that have not undergone any spiritual awakening through conversion via the Holy Spirit, to the end that they end up actively resisting the Holy Spirit in favor of their own efforts under a physical law that condemns physical, carnal people led by the flesh.

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

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

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