Be Your Own Harshest Critic

It is easy to believe that the things we want to be true are true. These are but assumptions. Unless you are genuinely after the truth, you take a huge risk. Here is some advice for telling the difference: treat the things you want to be true as if they are things you don't.

---

The same things that ruin a marriage ruin a Bible study: cheating, lies, jumping to conclusions, secrets, assumptions, carelessness, complacency, shortcuts, taking things for granted.
The problem is, these tools can be found in many people's bible study toolbox, especially when they want a particular outcome.

I was an Armstrongist ...until I couldn't be anymore. Why? Because I gave myself permission to ask questions and then I threw away those tools. I decided I wanted the truth - God's truth. God is truth. If I had to use devices such as those, then perhaps my "truths" weren't so true after all. If finding what really is true means sacrificing things I very much wanted to believe - things I'd built my entire life on - then that is just how it had to be.

I am going to warn you, though - following this advice to pursue truth will not make you popular.

I've been insulted over the years, let me tell ya, but usually it's because I dare to ask questions people haven't considered, and they don't like this. But I don't just do this to Armstrongism; I do it to everything. Especially my own beliefs! The whole point of this article, the whole idea I want to convey to you, is not to pick apart other people's claims but your own.

Isn't that what we all should do? I say yes. Yes it is.
Please allow me to give you an example from a recent experience of mine.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING

I met a man online who was adamant that he had figured out the book of Revelation. Yeah, one of those guys. So many people have prophecy all figured out, and no two are the same. Trying to get prophecy all figured out is pretty much what started Adventism in the first place. Trying to figure out prophecy is what started me into Armstrongism.

So, I asked this guy some simple questions (as I do), and he called me some names (as they do), then he pointed me to his "study". I figured why not read it? If he genuinely has it all figured out, then I want to know. Guess what his study was - jumping to conclusions, assumptions, carelessness, complacency, shortcuts, taking things for granted, etc.

It read like he had a goal in mind and was just filling in spots. Wild leaps of logic in places. The majority of the claims consisted of making blanket statements paired with proof-texts that didn't legitimately support his claims at all. Nothing in his study was proved. It was all confirmation bias through and through. When I came by and asked simple questions about it, he felt personally threatened. Hence the name calling. But isn't that response a dead giveaway that he isn't after the truth? Is the truth ever so fragile that it cannot withstand being verified? No. The truth can take care of itself. But he was not after the truth. He was after a predetermined conclusion that he had already declared to be the truth before he even started.

I selected one part, a negative part about Catholics (apparently Catholic-bashing is mandatory in Sabbatarian prophecy studies), and I said this was just an assumption, not proof. He protested. In his mind, the Pope is the Beast, so all he needs to do is post a verse about the Beast and that's "proof".
I disagree. I reject the predetermined conclusion in the first place. To me, it's not a valid conclusion until after it's proven out.

Experience told me he would take me on a goose chase and layer on his other assumptions, but no! Instead, he responded, "I never mentioned Catholics."

???   *sigh*
So, I pointed out the page and quoted his mention of Catholics. Guy didn't know what his own study said! Was it even his??

That's when I asked if he would mind a little constructive criticism. I told him, "Look. If you haven't tried to prove yourself wrong, then you haven't proved anything at all."

PROVE ALL THINGS, TEST THE SPIRITS

That advice is some of the best I can ever offer you.
And, no, today's article is not about prophecy. It's good advice for everything.

Stress test your own claims. I mean really think them through. Pay attention to what you are saying, and where it comes from, and what your motivation is. Investigate the start and pursue all logical conclusions to it. Pick at each little detail. If you don't do that, then you aren't proving anything.

Predetermined conclusions, misquotes, logical fallacies, confirmation bias, false history, assumptions, group think - none of these are proof. There is a world of difference between "I need it to be such and such" and "it definitely is such and such".

I GOT NOTHIN'

I will give you a second example.

I was on social media the other day. Bill posted a comment that said, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." Bill is right. This led to a typical discussion.

A man responded, "Those who keep it, follow His custom." To which I responded, "So, manmade traditions are fine after all." (Going to synagogue on Sabbath is a manmade tradition, but manmade traditions are absolutely verboten in Sabbatarianism. The implications of this are broad.)
The man responded to me, "The commandments are from God and not man-made." Except there is no commandment from God to go to synagogue on Sabbath; that was Bill's point to begin with. And now, his "follow custom" statement has become "follow command". He reversed himself mid-stride.
This went on for a while. He went to "you don't need a command" (a second reversal), then to "God commanded the 4th Commandment" (third reversal), and when I posted the actual 4th Commandment, he responded, "you can't rely on one verse." Then he brought up the phrase "holy convocation," which I explained doesn't mean 'go to church'. After that, he posted one verse (I thought he wasn't going to do that). Next, he said that I am being biased. Rriiiiiighht. Then he went back to 'holy convocation' again, which I reminded him we had already covered. In the end, he would do nothing but put down laugh emojis. A grown man.

Do you see what he was doing? Saying anything in the moment, anything at all, that he felt would get what he wanted. He didn't expect anyone to pay attention and remind him of what he'd said earlier. All of that work just to dodge the inevitable: Bill's observation is true.

This person shouldn't have needed Bill or me to tell him anything. There was no need for him to be surprised or to reverse himself so often. He could have been absolutely prepared had he but followed my simple advice that I give you today. He could have put his own assumptions to the test.
But he won't. He loves his assumptions too much. He has accepted so deeply that going to church is how one 'keeps' the Sabbath day - without biblical proof - that he cannot grasp how it could be any other way. He could not prove it was this way, but he needs it to be this way. Now he feels Bill is a threat for making a true statement.

(GAL. 4:16) Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Be your own harshest critic or someone else will be. Worse yet, the truth will be.

Look, people will criticize you anyway. They criticize me all the time. Sometimes I even deserve it! But that's really beside the point. Be your own harshest critic so that nobody else has to.

HARD TO UNDERSTAND

I will give you a final example. Here is a favored proof-text, used in times of genuine desperation:

(2 PET. 3:15b-16) as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

In case you are unfamiliar with how this proof-text is used, I will explain.
Both Sabbatarians and Mainstream Christians accuse one another of not understanding the scriptures. (Can we ever get to the point where we understand it all?) So, after a person takes a good thrashing and needs to reassure their bruised ego, they get together with a group of like-minded people and pull out this proof-text. "The other side just doesn't understand scripture. Peter said this would happen."

First and foremost, Peter is saying Paul was right. Some Hebrew Roots groups want Paul "ripped from your Bible" (that's a quote) because he doesn't say what they want to hear. Peter calls Paul a 'beloved brother' and insinuates his writing is Scripture. Is ripping him out of your Bible truly the wise thing to do?

Second, read verses 14 & 15: 

(II PET. 3:14b-15) be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation

This is what Peter is on about. Peter says Paul wrote about these same things. He didn't expound on every topic you lost a debate about on social media. Peter didn't really side with any group. He didn't mention prophecy. He didn't talk about the Sabbath day. He talked about these things and then said some people twist Paul's meaning. And that is exactly what this proof-text is frequently used for. Oh the irony! To employ Peter's warning in the exact way he warned against.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?
The person abusing Paul and Scripture, and Peter for that matter, might be you! How do you know if you have the truth or a beloved lie? You put yourself to the test! You try to disprove your own sacred cows and you accept the results.

(2 PET. 3:17-18) 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand [that Paul is being misused], beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Heed Peter's advice to grow in Sabbath and knowledge of prophecy.
No. He doesn't tell us that.
Heed Peter's advice to double-down on something you cannot prove.
No. He doesn't tell us that, either.
Heed Peter's advice to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus.

You want the truth? Pursue the Truth. His name is Jesus.

(JON. 18:37) 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

JESUS DEALT WITH IT TOO

Belief and truth are not synonymous. Jesus dealt with this from everyone around Him, Pharisee and Apostle alike. No one had a clue what was really going on ...at least in part because they were too busy thinking they already knew exactly what was going on.

The Apostles weren't catching on to the plan, even though they accepted Jesus as Messiah, and were with Him all the time, and even though they learned the Scriptures since they were kids, because what Jesus did and how He did them wasn't in line with their expectations.
Judas Iscariot betrayed the Messiah he followed because the Messiah wasn't behaving as Judas desperately wanted Him to behave.
The Pharisees murdered the giver of their beloved law because the Lawgiver wasn't behaving as they thought He absolutely must behave.
You could say the same for Simon the Zealot, the Rich Young Ruler, Nicodemus, Saul, the believing Pharisees at the Council of Jerusalem, and all the rest. No one knew what was going on, but they all thought they did. Every single one needed to rethink their core assumptions. Some of these would rather kill someone than reassess themselves.

To be fair, Jesus did need to open our eyes to it. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if He had to do that because of something outside of man's control, or if He had to do that because of stubbornness and hardness of heart. Good thing many of them eventually did eventually reassess.

I will pay the Pharisees a backhanded compliment: at least they tried to verify.
Now, that said, what they did was the equivalent of an Armstrongist saying, "I looked all through church material but there wasn't anything there to support your claim that Armstrongism is wrong."
It's a 'backhanded compliment' because it's really a criticism, you see. Of course the Pharisees didn't find anything in their own material that disproves their own material. Of course Armstrong never wrote to expose his own church. By necessity, to challenge means to think outside that box.

Here a vital key to it: Mind your sources!!

WATCHMEN

I remember something from my Armstrongist days that was actually solid advice. We were told that we had to be watchmen. We were told a good watchman doesn't stare in one direction all night. What if something comes from the other direction? If the watchman stares at the corner of the tower through the night, has he really been watching?
Think about that.

That's what confirmation bias does to Bible study. We can become so convinced that we know where the "enemy" is coming from that we never bother to look anywhere else. We examine arguments, but only the arguments we have already decided are wrong. We do not truly search for evidence, but we look in the approved places for confirmation of the approved conclusions. We think verses mean what they don't mean because we refuse to challenge those conclusions. We test everyone else's beliefs, but never turn the gaze around and ask whether our own position is the thing that needs testing.

That could be us, left with absolutely nothing but laughy emojis, if we do not challenge ourselves. In a world of Caiphases, be a Nicodemus.

DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

Do you see what a human mind can do to justify itself and get what it wants if it tries hard enough? Stress testing your own beliefs is harder than I make it sound.

The catch here is ... everyone thinks they have the truth. No one truly believes a thing that they know to be a lie, but plenty of people believe a lie they "know" to be the truth.
Like that Mr. Laughy Emoji up there who thought he had the truth ...until he was challenged and learned he had based his life on thin air. Those laugh emojis were his way of refusing to accept reality.

How on earth do you follow my advice when you think you're already right? On ancillary things, it's simpler. But how do you do this to a core belief? How do you do this when you think you already have done this (using approved church material)? How do you criticize your proofs on the Sabbath day when the Sabbath day is at the very core of your entire church and personal identity? How do you do this when you've been told your eternal life depends on never challenging your church? How do you do this when you are afraid any answer besides the one you already have will get you the second death? How do you do this when your answer might mean your enemy was right all along and those laughy emojis are really laughing at you?

Ya just do. 

Throw those faulty tools away from your toolbox, put your own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny as you do other people's beliefs, then accept the outcome. The truth will take care of itself.

CONCLUSION

To quote a successful author, "This is the frailty of religious identity. All reason and logic magically evaporate when one's religion is scrutinized even in the most tame of manners."
But scrutinize we must.

Sometimes this has real consequences.

Am I holding myself up as some great example for you to follow? No. I lived most of my life doing the very things I'm now criticizing. There's a difference between wisdom and experience. I am experienced. I'm that kid. The one who sticks something in the electrical outlet because I just have to know. I make mistakes. I miss details. I learn the hard way. But I've learned something through experience. I've learned to bust my backside to make sure I have at least tried...

     to be my own harshest critic.

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

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

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

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

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