Dead To Sin; Dead To The Law

When we are crucified with Christ Jesus, we are dead to sin and dead to the law which empowers sin. How can those things hold power over us any longer?

---

The legalists among us, that includes Sabbatarian legalists, are quick to charge others who refuse their interpretation of sin with being antinomian… against law.

It would almost be funny if it were not so incredibly pathetic.

These same people who claim to be followers of the law - obedient to God through the law - sanitize the law into something unrecognizable to the law; making a new version of the law which they see as “do-able.”

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

(Romans 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Deciding to keep the law, especially the truncated versions created by modern day legalists and Sabbatarians, does not undo one’s guilt, once guilt is established. Nowhere does scripture state or indicate that just deciding to keep the law absolves you of sin. There is a price to pay for sins, and that price is your death.

(Romans 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The law requires a death due to sin. In order for God to justly give you that gift of eternal life - to rescue you from the clutches of sin, whose power to condemn you to death comes from the law - God had to transfer your guilt and your condemnation prescribed by the law to another, which happened to be God Himself in the personage of Jesus Christ who was God Incarnate. He took your death upon Himself.

(Isaiah 53:4-9) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Do not neglect to read this, even if you believe you already know it; even if you have read it a thousand times before. Make this fresh in your mind.

The penalty for sin is death. You have sinned. The power for sin to demand death comes from the law. The law demands your death. Christ Jesus stepped in to pay your debt to sin, prescribed by the law, with His own death.

Perhaps the greatest insult you can make towards God is to make light of His sacrifice for you. Consider the agony, torture, and ridicule He was put through in order to accomplish that for you while you were still an enemy of God.

For the legalist and Sabbatarian conclude they should "keep" the law which they were taught defines sin, citing 1 John 3:4 partially, in an early English translation that does not reflect the Greek it was originally written in. The law does not create sin, per se. It condemns the sinner.

Sin is not some item you can put in a small box and store away; that box to many being the Decalogue; the Ten Commandments located IN the law.

We are born sinners. We start out life the children of Adam.

(Romans 5:17-21) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Christ removes you from the condemnation of sin and the law that gave strength to sin. This is one of the great truths of Scripture that people are deceived over, so that they choose to place themselves back under the law, which can only result in coming back under its condemnation.

Christians are dead to sin (Romans 6:2).

Christians are dead to the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19).

Christians are dead to sin and the law because their debt to sin, prescribed by the law, has been  paid by another, resulting in them being LEGALLY dead to the law and sin, as though they themselves had paid the debt owed the law. If you are dead to sin, the law can no longer empower sin. The law can never require you to die, again, to the law. Sin has lost its power. The believer is forever dead to sin and dead to the law, yet now alive to God.

(Galatians 2:19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 

(Romans 7:4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

No one could bring forth fruit unto God while under the law; subject to the law. The only fruit you bring forth by and through the law is death; the fruit of the law; the just result of the law, always.

(Romans 4:15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

You could just as easily word this to say and mean the law produces wrath, like a plant produces it yield. The natural produce of plants is crops, and the natural produce of the law is wrath; a death sentence. The law “produces” nothing else. It does not produce life. If it did…

(Galatians 3:21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

I know that many will read this and conclude I am just using clever argumentation to fool them, to deceive them, when in fact you have already been fooled and deceived into believing lies because, deep down inside of their carnal souls, their heart of stone, your teachers have no real love of truth, and those with no love of truth are further condemned as a result (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). They have taught you a lie, and you believe a lie that you think is of benefit to you, and that lie which they have taught you is  that law is the answer -- that law-keeping is the obedience God wants of you, that you are still under the power of the law, and that law defeats sin rather than empowers it; that the law which you don't really keep will result in blessings and avoid the curses that come because of sin, such as the sin of unbelief where you insult God Himself, claiming He didn’t truly and completely remove believers from the law and the condemnation inherent within it.

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

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

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

The Grace Of Growing Days

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

Luke’s closing line on Jesus’ youth is quiet, yet it carries a depth that invites slow reading. It gathers years of hidden life into a single sentence, portraying growth that is steady, harmonious, and whole. Nothing here is hurried. Nothing is dramatic. Yet everything is essential. The verse suggests a life unfolding with a grace that is both deeply human and quietly radiant.

Jesus increases in wisdom, and this growth reflects more than the sharpening of thought. It is the deepening of understanding that comes from living faithfully within the world He Himself sustains. His wisdom unfolds within the quiet fabric of His earthly life, shaped by the steady rhythms of learning, observing, and inhabiting the world He once spoke into being. The mind that will one day speak with unmatched clarity grows here in silence, shaped not by urgency but by the gentle patience of a life fully aligned with the Father.

He increases in stature, and this simple phrase reminds the reader that the incarnation is not symbolic. Jesus grows as every child grows. His body strengthens, His frame expands, His hands learn the weight of tools and the texture of wood. The physical life He assumes is not a disguise but a genuine participation in human experience. The one who upholds all things by His power allows Himself to be upheld by nourishment, rest, and care. His humanity is not diminished by His divinity, nor does His divinity eclipse His humanity. Both move together in quiet harmony.

He increases in favor with God and man. This favor is not the result of public miracles or dramatic displays. It is the natural fruit of a life lived in perfect alignment with the Father’s will and expressed with gentleness among others. Jesus becomes someone whose presence draws trust, affection, and respect. His relationship with God deepens in the way a human life can deepen, through prayer, obedience, and love, and His life within the community reflects that deepening. The favor He receives from others is not accidental; it is the earthly echo of the delight the Father has always had in Him.

Luke’s summary suggests that the most profound preparation for Jesus’ ministry occurs far from public attention. Nazareth becomes the quiet workshop where wisdom, strength, and favor gather in perfect balance. The verse reminds the reader that spiritual formation often happens in seasons that appear uneventful, through the steady faithfulness of ordinary days. In Jesus’ hidden years, divinity does not bypass humanity; it fills it, dignifies it, and reveals its capacity to bear the weight of glory.

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

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

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

Paul's Use Of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

Romans 4 doesn't point only to Abraham as an example of justification by faith. Paul also turns to King David to show that God's forgiveness has always been a gift of grace rather than a reward for good works.

---

The Epistle to the Romans is Paul's literary masterpiece on the doctrine of salvation. It is the most elegant of his extant writings. The apostle begins his treatise by presenting the issue of man's depravity, the righteousness of God, and his resultant condemnation. Paul shows that both Jew and Gentile have violated God's righteous commandments, making them wholly worthy of divine condemnation. He strips away every layer of man's hubris. Everyone stands guilty before Him, without any ability to challenge that divine verdict, but with the positive side being that God has presented a means of reconciliation for us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

Paul makes an argument by example when he mentions Abraham, who lived prior to the Law being given to the people of God. He does this with the intent of showing that his teaching is compatible with the Old Testament. A system of works righteousness would result in boasting, which God takes offense at. Further, Romans 4:4 says that if someone earns wages, then it is not a gift. But justification is precisely that, so any claim to self-merit must be left out of that equation. Romans 4:5 says that God declares righteous the ungodly and counts them as such on the basis faith. Thus, the one and only thing a man can do in this scenario is set aside any dependence upon himself. 

The Law required that two or three witnesses be present to establish the validity of a charge (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30). We see the Apostle Paul adhering to this custom in arguing for justification before God by faith as opposed to meritorious works. He brings up Abraham and King David as examples of men who were justified without consideration of good works. The latter person is of special interest as we consider how Paul ties in Psalm 32 with his argument. The Psalm in question is one of a penitential nature. What is especially striking is that, the Law did not have any provision of atonement for the man who committed murder. Yet, God forgave David anyway. This divine act helps to lay the foundation for Paul's declaration of God declaring righteous the ungodly and retaining His status as righteous in so doing.

The Psalm used by the Apostle Paul concerns the blessedness of being freed from the guilt of sin that comes about as a result of God forgiving it. The misdeeds King David had repented of were sending Uriah the Hittite into battle to be killed with the intent of covering up his affair with Bathsheba. One scandalous act led him to committing another, but his scheming failed utterly in the end. Further, David uses three words to describe his conduct, showcasing the richness of Hebrew vocabulary, which are guilt, wrongdoing, and sin. His act was a distortion of decency. It was crooked, not upright. It was a violation of the Law. Three words are used in Psalm 32 to describe three different aspects of breaching the divine moral standard.

Contrariwise, David used three terms to describe God's mercy: forgiven, covered, and not being taken into account. To be "forgiven" of our sins means that God has taken them away from us. To have our sins "covered" means that their penalty has been met. That leads up to the forgiveness of our sins by God. In fact, Romans 4:7 is the only instance in which this word occurs in the New Testament. When sin is not taken into account, that means we do not merit for ourselves God's eschatological wrath. He does not treat us with the eternal fate that we deserve, just as David himself was spared physical death for his actions. Forgiveness is entirely a matter of grace, not an obligation owed to us. We are actually the ones indebted to God, and could never even begin to repay Him for our sin.

It is worth noting that King David did not mention any good deeds done to earn God's favor. In fact, he only brought up his sin, with its gravity being enormous. He came to God with nothing, but was still forgiven for what he had done. God is said to give a righteous status to men who are ungodly, since David was very much deserving judgment and had not one thing to offer in his defense. The non-imputation of sin to a believer's account necessarily implies an upright standing before Him. Hence, David was regarded as righteous in God's sight. Walter Roehrs, in the the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 355, writes:

"And indeed David claims no merit or worthiness, entitling him to absolution; even his penitential tears and abject remorse do not produce anything deserving consideration. Giving all glory to God, he revels in sharing the happiness which is bestowed out of pure grace on the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity (1-2)."
-Walter Roehrs, in the the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 355

The Apostle Paul uses King David as an example of a man being declared righteous in spite of his sins against God. Both he and Abraham can speak to the reality of justification apart from works. Their experiences are spoken of as equivalent to each other. Romans 4:7 and Romans 4:8 emphasize our pardon from sin. The point being made in these parallel stanzas is that we are not justified by good works. David speaks of the "blessed man" who receives full pardon from sin, which implies that he believed others could experience the same. Paul here recontextualized the meaning of forgiveness as deliverance from earthly death to being set free from its punishment in the life to come. This excerpt from the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, p. 624, is relevant here:

"...In contrast with many of the rabbinic references to Ps. 32, Paul makes no mention of the confession of sins, which is a central theme of the psalms (cf. Ps. 32:5; see Str-B 3:202-3). Confession is implicitly taken up in faith for Paul, in which sin that has overpowered our person is overcome: in faith "we give glory to God" (4:20; cf. 1:23; 3:26). As was the case with the story of Abraham, the broader context of the psalm makes clear that the "reckoning of righteousness" is no mere declaration, but rather an effective word."
-Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, p. 624

Confession is faith in Jesus Christ expressed. Repentance is the recognition of the need of redemption from sin and its penalty, involving a change of mind and heart. These things are closely associated with salvation and cannot be separated from it. The New Testament never takes into consideration the idea of a Christian either failing to do one or both. Confession and repentance are assumed of believers without exception. They are lived expressions of faith that acknowledge the gravity of sin and entrust themselves completely to the grace of God.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Sin And The Law

Anyone who has read my earlier posts know I was raised in a mixed-faith family. Being raised like this, I was always aware of systems outside Armstrongism. One of my big problems is, both systems I grew up with are quite legalistic. To me, church = laws, and God = angry. Even after leaving Armstrongism and Old Covenant law behind me and accepting a system of grace in the completed work of Jesus Christ, I struggle to this day over my upbringing. And let me tell you about what a failure that makes a person feel like inside where it really counts. Because there is this thing called "sin" in me, and any law points that out, and I am aware of it, and I hate it, but the way to solve this "sin" is far beyond me. Quite literally! Because sin is part of my nature, and nothing in this nature can solve this nature.

I am painfully aware of Paul's lament:

(ROM. 7: 21-24) 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

How I feel that right this very minute, as I type. I had a terrible past couple days. Someone did wrong by someone very close to me, and I was pretty angry about it. I confronted them, and they were belligerent and unapologetic. That absolutely filled me with anger. I am angry still.

I know my attitude is wrong. To be this angry inside is to flirt with Matthew 5: 21-26. I know I have failed to represent Jesus. I know I am failing to love. I want to do something that is wrong -- but I don't want to want to do something wrong. (Yes, I wrote that sentence correctly. Had to triple check it.) I wish I did not feel like this. I wish my instinct was not to handle things this way. I pray and I pray for God to remove this attitude from me, yet there it is. Events replay in my mind, ruminating, preventing my sleep. It makes me think about all my many failures. And I wonder to myself, how can God ever use a person for good when this is inside them?

This is the problem with the law I grew up with. It can only show us our weaknesses. It cannot ever do anything about it. It cannot change us. It cannot wish for us to do better. Try to keep it. Don't try to keep it. It's all the same. The heart remains beyond its reach. The law doesn't want to kill us. It simply has no choice. The law demands we do the very thing we cannot do. The law is not the problem; we are. The weakness of the law is the weakness in us, but the strength of sin is the law (I COR. 15: 56). We cannot solve this problem on our own.

This is what Paul was trying to tell us. We are utterly incapable in and of ourselves to solve this issue. Mankind needs something else.

(ROM. 7: 24-25)  24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

God through Jesus. That is the answer.

(I COR. 15: 56-57) The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(HEB. 7: 18-19) 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

The law is the power of death, because of us, but Jesus the power of life.

This answer requires faith, because He made this promise for the future. He isn't going to change this world right this minute. We have to trust Him in order to follow the Spirit. We have to trust Him in order to be His disciple. Have you ever tried to follow Romans 12: 19? I bet you have. I have! And let me tell you, when someone does you properly wrong, it is one of the hardest things there is. Keenly you feel your true nature in that moment. It requires faith to choose the Lord's way, knowing you may never see the benefit of this choice in this lifetime over the immediately gratifying way of nuclear wrath, knowing you may one day even come to pray for forgiveness for the very ones you long to burn utterly to the ground. It means battling over justice vs mercy - knowing that to get justice from a God of justice when you are wronged means you also receive justice for what you've have wronged. It's a humbling thing.

Does Christ crucified mean we have been fixed now? Clearly not. If by "fixed" you mean we are perfected. Paul was writing some time before his death. Was he not a Christian? Of course he was. Yet, there he was, struggling with the sin inside him, same as me. What did Paul have, then? As a Jew born in the Old Covenant period, he had the law, all of it. What was his conclusion about the law? From the law he had awareness of his sin and failures, but not righteousness. So, from the law he received only condemnation. The law forbade him from drawing close to God. From this, he had the truth that he needed someone outside himself to resolve his issue. And he had the answer: God through Jesus. What Paul needed, what we all need, is the righteousness of God in us and credited to us. We have no righteousness of our own, and following laws isn't how we get it (or rather, trying and failing to follow laws). Righteousness is in God alone and faith is how we obtain it. In this hope, we draw near to God.

The law demands we do what we cannot do. Why demand it do what it cannot do? How is that the solution? It is not.

Does not looking to the Old Covenant law mean we have no standards or requirements for righteousness? A moral free for all? Absolutely not. We do have standards and requirements. But those standards and requirements are not centered on Old Covenant law anymore, they are centered on the Holy Spirit. There is law. The law is love and faith.

And yet, here I am, still failing at it.

(ROM. 7: 19) For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.

But in my failing, I cannot let myself lose hope and give up. I look to One who can save me from myself. (Although I do not understand why He wants to.)

There is some good to come of all this. My sin testifies that God alone is righteous and His judgments just and true. I have earned judgment. As have we all. That's the riddle of forgiveness - in order to get it you have to not deserve it in the first place. His will is going to come about in the end, and my failings will prove He alone is truly worthy of honor. How can anyone accomplish anything good through a heap like me? He can do even this. I am not certain how and I am even less certain why, but I believe He is capable.

(II COR. 12: 9a) ...My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.

So, my motivation is no longer vain fearfulness in the law but thankfulness in salvation, allowing the Holy Spirit to work. Discipleship is a lifestyle.

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

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

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

Imago Dei

I have to make a confession. I am a sinner.

Yeah. That is the harsh truth for me. I'm a terrible Christian, so far as it goes. I do things I shouldn't and I don't do things that I should. I am confused on some points. I'm selfish. That's been a pattern in my life. I fail. A lot.

I've spent quite a bit of time writing posts here at As Bereans Did. I write because it helps me process what I've been through and because I hope you find some chunk in it that helps you, too. One thing I keep trying to process is what we call "the Christian walk". Discipleship. Holiness. Sanctification. Repentance. Forgiveness. These words are all part of the life a Christian should lead but usually fails to. At least I fail to. Maybe I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself. I am just assuming you go through the same struggles I do.

But what is the Christian walk anyway? Repentance to what, exactly? The expectations of how a Christian should live are very different in a Sabbatarian group like Armstrongism versus a mainstream Christian group.

For an Armstrongist, the Old Covenant law plays a central role. I oversimplify here, but if you Ten Commandments - and especially Sabbath - hard enough, and tithe and observe holy days just so, then you've done your part. Probably. One can never know for sure. If you mess up, you can repent back into law-keeping. (I will briefly mention the part where, back when Armstrong was still alive, we were told our entire duty was to pay tithes and pray for the work. "Pay, pray, stay" we called it.) In a nutshell, repentance is to Old Covenant law-keeping, and the Christian walk is Old Covenant law-keeping.
You could say much the same for a Catholic (and you might as well throw Orthodox in here as well). The Ten Commandments are still central, with Sunday replacing the Sabbath, of course, and there are a bunch of other rules and regulations besides. Similar to Armstrongism, in Catholicism, following the written rules is critical. What you do and when you do it are all part of the walk. There is confession and penance to readjust a person when they've strayed. In a nutshell, repentance and the Christian walk are both in rule-keeping.
For most Protestants, on the other hand, laws play a much less central role. Their focus is more on faith and love. You'll hear me go on and on about those two words quite a lot. In this way, the walk is less about what you do and more about who you are. This concept is entirely foreign to Armstrongism, and  a difficult one to grasp. You are a Christian because of what Jesus did/does, which is credited to you by your faith and oneness with Him. But even with all this talk about solas and grace, there are still actions you must do or not do. Each denomination has their own list. Repentance and the Christian walk are, well, going back to doing those things.

Believe it or not, this isn't a post on which of these systems is the right way. If you've read this blog, you've probably noticed that I think everyone has right and wrong parts. Rather, what I want to do is share something that helps me and might possibly help you. I share this in hopes it will spark an idea in your mind to make you a better ... whichever you are.

Imago Dei is Latin for "Image of God". It refers to us. It is a lot like the saying, "spirit and image." Like, when someone says, "That boy is the spirit and image of his father." We are in the image of God. Rather, we should be.
When Jesus walked this earth, He said these words:

(JON. 14: 7-9) 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 

Jesus is the Word of God. He was the mirror image of the Father in human flesh. Such a perfect reflection that He was able to say, without any falsehood, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." It's amazing!
THAT is what we are called to do, too. That is the very reason we were created to begin with.

(GEN. 1: 26a) 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

The term Imago Dei refers to us. You might think it refers mainly to God, and yes God is there obviously, but the main focus of the phrase is us. How we image God. If Jesus is like the Father, and we are like Jesus, then we are like the Father. If A=B and B=C then A=C. Get it?

It's not your physical appearance that makes you an image of God. Herbert Armstrong would say things like, we know God looks like because He made us in His image and likeness. Perhaps. But perhaps not. What I believe this verse is referring to is what Jesus said. When Jesus said, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him,” He wasn't referring to physical appearance, or He would have said, "You've always known Him, because you look like Him. Go get a mirror." No, He was referring to the core of His being. He was referring to the nature of God. His love and mercy and patience and charity and sacrifice, etc. When we see how Jesus is, we see how the Father is.

Was He referring to Sabbathing hard enough? Doubtful. The Jews kept the Sabbath and holy days. The Pharisees kept them and Jesus called them "whitewashed tombs" (MAT. 23: 27).
         Some days I feel like a whitewashed tomb.
Jesus did not say, "He who has seen the Torah law has seen the Father."

The Catholic system has tried to map out the Christian walk in detail. Just follow the Catechism and you'll be fine. Have you ever seen a Catechism? It's huge! I get the motivation. Two thousand years of dealing with sinners will make you want to write it all down. I am not against a catechism per se. But I want to offer some constructive criticism. If I were to write down all the people who were bad to me in my life, most of the top ten very worst people on that list would be Catholics. I love the beauty of the Mass. It is beautiful! However, I find it difficult going because of some of the people. I am not the only one with this issue. I know because I have been told in confidence more than once. All those rules in the Catechism and the heart is still not changed. (I am not making a blanket statement about all Catholics.) Back in 2009, I wrote about a friend of mine who left the seminary after years of being on track to becoming a priest. He left, and I summarize, because it was so mechanical and prescribed. It had lost touch with core fundamentals. He remains Catholic but had to leave seminary to regain his humanity. That speaks volumes to me. (I am not making a blanket statement about all priests.)

I think the Protestant system affords too many people to get lost in grace. Or rather, the license they mistake for grace. "Jesus died for our sins and I can have confidence in salvation because I accept His gift." Great!! Don't stop! But, also, be the image of God on earth. There is an old saying, "so heavenly-minded you're no earthly good." There are Protestants out there who feel everything will get sorted out in Heaven. It will! But if that were God's focus, He wouldn't have planted us here on this earth. There are Protestants out there who feel they are saved and now they can do whatever they want. Jesus did not die for us so we can be Hedonists. The Old Covenant law may be gone but righteousness remains - a righteousness apart form the law. There is also an inherent contradiction in certain Protestant systems. Some Protestants say we cannot add anything to grace, meaning works. Works defiles grace, I suppose? Yet every one of them will be happy to let you know what they think sin is and who is going to Hell for their sins. Works enhance grace, I suppose? It can't be both.

Do you track with what I'm trying to get at here? Probably not, because I'm not being clear. Please, let me explain.

Which is the right way? Frankly, I feel they all have good points and bad. This isn't about systems, though, it's about individuals. Be the image of God, in your own life, as you are able. That is the right way. Be His hands and feet in this world. Repent to what? To being the image-bearer of God. Like-minded.

Why am I writing this? Is it because you have so much to learn from me? Pffft! No. Is it because I am such a good example? HA! Hardly! My hope is to point people to Jesus, not to me. If you want to use me as an example, may I suggest labeling it, "What not to do." I write this as a reminder to myself and as an accusation against myself. My own sins accuse me and they confess that God is holy and just. I have failed to be the image of God plenty of times. But there is hope for me yet. The first step is to admit your faults. If faults were money, I'd be filthy rich.

But let this world-weary sinner offer you some hard-earned advice. In whatever system you find yourself, be the image of God.

The Catholics have a prayer called the Confiteor, which means Confessor. I appreciate this prayer, even though I know one line in this will cause my readers to balk at it. (If that line bothers you so much, leave it out.) Do me this one kindness -- try to see the spirit and intent in these words:

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Is this not what James said? (JAS. 5: 16) "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."

The Orthodox have a prayer called "The Jesus Prayer", which goes like this:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

That's it. Short and sweet. Sometimes less is more.

Do you understand why I would share those prayers? It is not to get you to repeat them over and over.

Confess your sins, pray for each other, repent and go back to being the image of God on earth. Don't follow me, a sinner; follow Jesus, the very mirror image of God. I'll do the same. This is our Christian walk. In whatever system you are currently in, in whatever way you are able, be ....

Imago Dei

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

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

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

Peddlers of Paganism

Is it that time of year already? Time for another "once pagan, always pagan" post.

The number-one subject I have been asked about over the years is in regards to holidays and can people be pagan for participating. Got an email just last week about it. People out there are truly concerned if they are still a good Christian, not because they've renounced their faith but because they celebrate Jesus Christ.

When a good Armstrongist friend of mine called me after many years of no contact, he just wanted to small talk. He told me he still thought I was a faithful Christian despite leaving the church (I like to think I am). He is a quality man. It was nice of him. But there was one and only one message of importance he wanted to convey: don't start keeping Christmas. He didn't call or write or anything for several years, and hasn't since, but he made a special effort to deliver me this one critical message. He could have said so many other things, like don't stop keeping the Sabbath, but he didn't. That's how important it is within that system.

Some of the messages I get are from people who are curious, some are concerned, but some are suffering. You wouldn't believe how many people from around the world live their lives in fear. I receive messages from God fearing Christians who get crippling anxiety because they had pleasant thoughts by looking at a billboard or having a passing conversation. Do we serve a God of fear? No. But fear is what they have.

Here is from one such message:

"xhwa, I am terrorized by guilt again today. Today, I was talking to receptionist and she brought up a small sentence on the Christmas tree."

Terrorized! By a conversation.
Here is from another:

"Ever since I have been made aware of pagan origin of certain traditions, my life has been a living hell. I wish I had never been exposed to such literature because it hasn't been profitable to my life. It has only given me guilt trips, moody feelings, sadness, depression. I cannot go about life without these thoughts and people infiltrating my head."

A living hell! Afraid of plants and wreaths and lights and sweets and colors and shapes. They feel happy, then guilty for feeling happy, then anxiety hits. My heart truly goes out.

Those are extreme examples, you might think. Maybe so, but they are real none the less, they are God's all the same, and they deserve dignity and truth. They feel terrible inside like they have betrayed their God all because of what they were told by media pumped out by peddlers of paganism year after year around this time.

You might wonder what I mean by "peddlers of paganism". I am referring to leaders from systems, like Armstrongism just for one example, who create media that tries to sell faithful Christians on the idea of being pagan for participating in mundane, non-salvational activities such as holidays or birthdays or for having certain decorations. They peddle the idea that sugar and wax and plants can defeat the God who ransomed you. They peddle the idea that you are a pagan. Even when you are not.
Bearing false witness.
What happened to "the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW"? Apparently, that greatness ends at the 4th Commandment.

FORETHOUGHT AND INTENT

Let's answer the big question right up front. Are you, a God-fearing Christian, now a pagan for participating in mainstream Christian holidays? My answer is a qualified 'no'.

Merely participating in a Christian holiday, or having holiday decorations, does not - I repeat, does not - make you a pagan. Calendar dates and bits of paper and plastic and colors and shapes and flowers and candles and treats do not have the power to snatch you out of the hands of your Father in Heaven.
My "no" is qualified because it all depends on your heart and your intention. What makes you a pagan is actively, knowingly, intentionally worshipping another deity. Are you intentionally celebrating Christ? Then, no, you are not a pagan. Are you actively, knowingly, intentionally honoring some other deity, like the Gentiles of old? I am not talking about having a decoration or doing some pastime activity. I am not even talking about idols in our lives, like avarice or sex, that take your focus off your Christian walk. I am talking about actively, currently, knowingly dedicating your time and honor and hopes and worship to another deity. No? Then you have nothing to worry about. Yes? Then you are participating in something inadvisable and you really ought to rethink your path. There is no better way to utterly violate the New Covenant than that.

Notice how you would be fully aware of this. It will come as no big surprise to you. You will not need a peddler of paganism to stop by and inform you of anything because you will be well aware already. A Christian cannot accidentally or unknowingly be a pagan.

You cannot bend down to slide a gift under a tree, with thankfulness to God in your heart, and accidentally be a pagan. You cannot see an old television show, get nostalgic feelings, and suddenly be a pagan. You cannot see a display at a store, get a sense of beauty from it, and suddenly be a pagan. You cannot eat a cookie, really enjoy it, and suddenly be a pagan. That just isn't how paganism works. Did you worship the cookie or the ballet or the decoration? No. Did you replace God in your heart and intent? No. Then that was neither idolatry nor paganism.

Part of the game these peddlers of paganism play is they use such a loose definition of idolatry and paganism (when it suits them) that it goes off the deep end into superstition. Their superstition. They say a Christmas Tree is the same as child sacrifice. They say you can overpower God even by the mere presence of a candy cane. Sugar is bad for you, but not that bad! They say once a thing is pagan, it is always pagan - no matter how many millennia pass by. But is that so?

PAUL'S TAKE

What did Paul say?

(I COR. 8: 1-7) Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

An idol is nothing. How can the peddlers of paganism sell us the idea that so many things have dreadful power when Paul tells us the idol is nothing? Is Paul discounting idolatry here? No. Paul is simply saying that, to a mature Christian whose heart is solidly with God, the idol is nothing, because the idol has no power. As we saw in my post "Once and Future Kingdom - Part II", Jesus took that power away from the false gods. Idols have no power against you. How much less things that were never idols to begin with.

Then Paul continues to verse 7. He says not everyone understands that Jesus took all power away from the false gods and now those idols are nothing. For some, the idol is something, and it defiles their weak conscience. That is what the peddlers of paganism hope to get from you. They want your conscience defiled ...because their weak conscience is defiled.

(I COR. 10: 25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”

Paul, continuing the idea from chapter 8, addresses the notion that all things are lawful for us (v.24). He never denies that! But he exhorts us to remember not all things we do in our freedom are helpful or edifying for others. We should consider others in what we do. Then he gives an example.
Paul tells us we are free to go to a non-believer's house. Because we are free to! That they are pagan doesn't matter. Does their paganism make us pagan? No. We can eat whatever they set before us, asking nothing about it. Does eating and celebrating make us pagan? No. What if the meal were dedicated to pagan gods without our knowledge? Still no! That was the entire point in verse 25. Much of the meat sold in the market was openly dedicated to a pagan god within the past few days. Paul knew that. The people who asked Paul about it, prompting him to write about it, knew that. Still no. Here, Paul says that if anyone expresses concern that the food was offered to idols (he does not say the host expresses this, but anyone), then you stop and do not eat. Because it becomes pagan when someone brings it to your attention? No. You stop for their conscience, not for yours. Our conscience is clear, because our hearts belong to Jesus. But their conscience is weak.

Presumably there might be other Christians there, and those people might be put off that the food was offered to idols. Does this make the person claiming idolatry correct? No. For an idol is nothing. But it does make it a matter of good taste to treat them kindly. The question is - how far do we take this? Do we let people of weak conscience control our lives and our homes and our churches? No. Their weak conscience is not a license for manipulation. I feel this is more of a "when in Rome" sort of a thing.

Do you see how this relates to holidays and birthdays and treats and decorations?
It has to do with the notion of once pagan, always pagan. The peddlers of paganism build their entire case on it. Paul blows that up. Kindly.

Note how the dedication of the food was immediate, not thousands of years ago. And the dedication was real, not made up. Not false accusations. Paul knew that meat in the market was quite recently offered to idols within a functioning temple to a pagan god he could name by pagan priests he could see, and Paul still said to eat it. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” If that food is not once pagan, always pagan, then how much less is a Christmas cookie? Christmas decorations are dedicated to Christ, and none besides - at least by Christians anyway. Similar decorations may or may not have been used in the distant past by a defunct religious system. What does that have to do with us? Nothing. Peddlers of paganism will protest that God hates those things forever, but Paul blows that up.

Are you seriously going to tell me that I can put meat in my mouth that was dedicated to Aphrodite not 72 hours ago and it's perfectly fine, because “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness”, but if I put up a wreath-shaped cookie in my mouth that I dedicate directly to the Lord, then I am a pagan because that shape was used 2,000 years ago for a pagan purpose? Nonsense!

BIBLICALLY UNBIBLICAL

If once pagan, always pagan is a genuine issue, as the peddlers would have us believe, then we all are in big trouble, them included. If people who preach once pagan always pagan understood how many things they do which have "pagan" connections, they would be unable to function. (I am putting “pagan” in quotes because these things aren’t actually pagan. They are just falsely accused of being pagan.) There is nothing that you do that does not have a "pagan" connection except actually having faith in the Living God. You name it, if it is in our world then it has "pagan" connections.

How many times have I gone over lists of things that are used by God in the Bible or by Christian churches today that were once pagan? Many times! Here I go again:

Priesthoods, ministers, elders, sermons, temples, sacrifices, prayer, rest days (sabbaths), holidays, religious rituals like baptisms, circumcision, instructions on morality, laws and codes of behavior, parables, special decorations, sacrifices, special meals, fires, candles, incense, hymns, psalms, choruses, ritual meals, religious texts, religious schools, religious heroes, marriage, honeymoons, wedding rings ... I could go on and on.

Many of the things in the list above, which qualify as once pagan always pagan, are things the peddlers of paganism do regularly. We all do. But they excuse themselves. They excuse themselves while condemning others. "Paganism for thee, but not for me." All of these things have exactly the same "pagan" connections as jack-o-lanterns. All of these can be found in pagan religions first before they were in the Bible or in Christian practice. All of them. I thought a pagan item was the same as child sacrifice? Funny how that story changes. All of those were pagan, yet they were all adopted in worship of God.

Don't get me wrong here. God is no fan of actual, genuine idolatry. But the peddlers use a definition of idolatry that they themselves don't meet, and that changes to suit their situation.
They will tell you that God is a believer in once pagan, always pagan. That is not what we see in reality. Almost every aspect of what God commanded Israel to do, right down to the Ark of the Covenant, had some counterpart in a pagan religion. You didn't know the Ark of the Covenant was patterned directly after an Egyptian box used in religious worship? It was! God used it anyway. (Biblical Archaeology Society blog has an article on it, titled "The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context") 
God did that?? YES!
God adopted "pagan" things into His worship. It's not just Paul that blows up once pagan, always pagan. God does, too!

I have been told, "Well, those things were used by God, so that makes them OK." Fine. Let's go with that. That is the standard now. If God did it, then it's OK.

In addition to novel holidays (EST. 9: 20-28; JON. 10: 22-23), and gift-giving (EST. 9: 22), God also lists the use of statues in His worship (EXO. 25: 17-19), garland, bells and fruit (EXO. 28: 33-34; 39: 25-26; II COR. 3: 16), lights, flowers and ornamentation (EXO. 25: 31-37), greenery (LEV. 23: 40; NEH. 8: 13-15), and evergreens and pine trees (ISA. 60: 13), to name a few. Miller Jones over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog reminds us the very crown God will place on our heads, "...is indicative of the wreath, garland, coronet which was worn by the Roman emperor or given as a prize to the victor in the public games of that time..." God is going to award us a pagan wreath to wear?! Scandal!
All of these "pagan" items are used in the Bible in the proper worship of God. All of them used at Christmas. All of them condemned by peddlers of paganism.

What happened to if God did it, then it's OK? That didn't age well. Do you see how their standards change?

What's more, they will claim if God did not directly command it then we shouldn't be doing it. In other words, God never commanded Christmas, so we shouldn't do it. But is that what the Bible says?

In the Bible, God never commanded most of the Old Covenant law to Gentiles. That doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing what God didn't command. In the Bible, God sanctioned the creation of novel holidays. The Jews made up Purim and Hanukkah - and God honored both. Matha wrote one of the best articles in the ABD catalogue, "Established and Imposed". It is biblical and acceptable to create a new holiday that honors God.
So, what God does not command, that they do. They do things God did not command and then they condemn those who do not follow them. And what God allows, that they do not do. They abstain from things God allows and then they condemn those who do not follow them. If it was never pagan, then it's pagan anyway, and if it is biblical, then it's still pagan. Unless it's something they like, then it's OK. Nonsense!

(ACT. 10: 15b) "What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

They tell you December 25 was an ancient pagan holiday. It wasn't. They tell you early Christians ignored Jesus' birth. They didn't. They tell you Christmas was Nimrod's birthday. It wasn't. They tell you Christmas Trees were pagan. They weren't. They tell you Jeremiah 10 condemns Christmas trees. It doesn't. They tell you all trees are pagan. They're not. They tell you Santa is an anagram for Satan. It's not. They tell you gift-giving is wrong. It's not. They tell you Easter was an ancient pagan day. It wasn't. They tell you Easter means Ishtar. It doesn't. They tell you Jesus wasn't resurrected on Sunday. He was. They tell you it's wrong to have a holiday God didn't command. It's not. They tell you birthdays are pagan. They aren't.
I could keep going and going like this, but I don't need to. We have articles for that. Go to our Categories page and look for Christmas or Easter or whatever. There it all is! I recommend starting at the Easter FAQ and the Christmas FAQ. All of the questions you have will be addressed there. If not, write me.

We can see the real story is quite the opposite of the one they peddle.

When God does it, it is redeemed and becomes clean. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to condemn those things as unredeemed and unclean. When God does it, it points to Him and is contrasted with paganism. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to condemn those things as idolatry and paganism. When God does it, the items find their proper use, as all things should be used to glorify God. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to say those items are abominations.

RIDICULOUSNESS

Does it surprise you to learn the peddlers of paganism have not been straight with you about holidays and what their history is? Their source material is garbage. They will quote anything that says what they want to hear. It doesn't matter how low the quality of the source. And if their source doesn't say what they want, they selectively quote it so it comes out how they want, or they just misrepresent it altogether. Or else they just make things up out of thin air. I can show you examples of this. I have a whole section on the Categories page just for false history, but check out these three articles, just for example. As you read them, pay attention to their sloppy research methods.

A Pattern of Dishonest Documentation
Review of COGWA's Origins of Easter
Quartodecimens - Were They Law Keepers?

Over the years , the authors at As Bereans Did have dedicated countless hours to studying the truth, and sometimes we study holidays. We have dug down deep into the dusty annals of history to bring you the facts about the origins of holidays and dates and traditions. Because we hate ourselves? It might seem that way, but no. Because they lied to us, too! Now we want the truth. And we want you to have it, too. We have investigated if holidays make us pagan. They don't. We have investigated whether or not attempting to keep "biblical" holy days is a better option. It isn't. We have deeply investigated this notion of once pagan, always pagan. It's bunk.

Debate with the peddlers all you like. It won't help. Read Dillon's article "A Dialogue on Jeremiah 10". Research and write blog posts for decades. It won't do any good. The peddlers of paganism do not change when exposed to facts and reason. There is nothing you can tell them they haven't already been exposed to. They just don't care. Do you think the people who write the books and make the videos misunderstood? Maybe they didn't read the same things as the authors here at ABD? Of course they have! I started reading the things I read because I read about them in Herman Hoeh's material. (Herman Hoeh was once the top official Armstrongist historian. "The most accurately informed man in the world.") I thought he was trustworthy. To my surprise, Hoeh selectively quoted, misrepresented, outright changed parts he didn't like, and even made things up as he went along. I know this because I went to his sources and read them (if he bothered to cite sources). I was shocked! So, I wrote blog posts (plural) about this. I quoted Hoeh, I quoted his sources, I pointed out how they were not the same, I even gave links so the reader could verify on their own ... and for my efforts I was called a liar. No, seriously. They called me the liar. Hoeh said he accurately quoted a source, I demonstrated he did not, and I am the liar for it.

You want another example? They condemn birthdays. Show me the place in the Bible where birthdays are condemned. You can't. It's not there! They condemn you based on their own opinions, not commands from the Bible. What happened to not doing things that aren't commanded? Oh, they say, "The only birthdays recorded in the Bible were celebrated by pagans," but 1) birthdays aren't religious celebrations. 2) Job's children were not pagans and neither was Herod Antipas. He was a practicing Jew, just not a good one. So, it is not true that only pagans had birthdays. And 3) there is one more birthday in the Bible they prefer to leave out: Jesus' own birthday.

(LUK. 2: 9-14) 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” 

If that isn't celebrating, I don't know what is. I've heard of cowboys and I've heard of princesses, but I have never heard of any other time when a multitude of angels showed up and shouted for joy at a birthday.
Let us not forget that the angels, shepherds, Magi, Anna the prophetess, John the Baptist, Zecharias and Elizabeth the parents of John the Baptist, and Mary and Joseph all rejoiced to see His first coming. All of the angels and heroes of old eagerly awaited that time. Abraham rejoiced and was glad to know He was coming. There is nothing wrong with being overjoyed that the Lord was born. It remains the second-greatest miracle in the history of mankind. He couldn't die if He wasn't born.

Alas. Once again, if God does it it's still wrong, and they aren't above leaving things out they don't like.

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON

They peddle paganism, not because the things actually are pagan, but because they need them to be pagan. They need to differentiate their product from the mainstream, or why would you send your money to them? Think about it. If church 1 is exactly like church 2, why do we even need church 2? But if church 2 can scare you into believing church 1 is pagan, then you might send them your money. That's the real game, ladies and gentlemen: money. The peddlers aren't here to help you. They are only here to help themselves ...to you and your cash. (We don't take donations here. Only prayers. Our services are completely free. You couldn't pay us even if you wanted to. Praise God!) The very same people who tell you it does not honor God to give gifts to your loved ones and the poor (like the Bible says in Esther 9: 22), will tell you it honors God to give your money to them. That's the reason why I am calling them "peddlers". They are selling a product. The product is fear.

You're a pagan Nimrod worshipper, and Jesus can't save you if you sing those carols and find joy in colored lights. But if you take up Old Covenant legalism and send them your money, they might put in a good word with God for you.

They accuse you. That makes you feel bad, doesn't it?

Let me ask you this. In centuries past, when the fundamentalists Protestants were - in the name of God - accusing people of witchcraft and burning them at the stake (or various other tortures), do you think those accused people were real witches? No, they weren't. Those weren't witches at all. Those were Christians! Do you think those accusing them were correct? No, they weren't. Do you think those accusations were based in truth and well-researched fact? They did have the handbook "Malleus Malifecarum", after all! No, not really. Do you think those who accused their fellows in order to avoid torture were being honest and altruistic? No, they weren't. Fear makes people do strange things. Oh, how they professed they were doing God's good justice, up to an including murdering people, yet they were wrong all the same. Their victims were innocent of the charges, yet they did what they did all the same. They were killing their own brothers and sisters in the faith, all the while saying they were honoring God. Did that honor God? Even the fundamentalists themselves later admitted it did not.
How are these modern peddlers any different than those past fundamentalists? Only in that they do not burn people at the stake. Otherwise, it's the same. They still falsely accuse you. They still condemn you. They just can't kill you. No, they say God is going to do that. You are judged and condemned on false witness by people who are making up fake histories and who believe God cannot overcome a candy cane.

It reminds me of what Jesus said to the Apostles:

(JON. 16: 2) They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

Of all people on earth, the Apostles were put out of the synagogues and killed. How are these modern peddlers any different than those past Jews? Only in that they don't have letters from the Sanhedrin permitting them to stone you. Otherwise, it's the same. Remember, Jesus Himself was - in the name of God - falsely accused and tried and sentenced for blasphemy.

Look. Let's get something straight.
If you really feel that badly about a holiday or a decoration, don't do it!! There is freedom in Christ. Do, or do not - it's the same. So long as it is to Christ that you do or do not do. I am not here to convince you to keep holidays. I am merely telling you that you are being falsely accused and there is no valid reason for you to feel like a pagan. Yet, if you do feel badly about something, then don't violate your conscience.
But ask yourself - do you feel badly because it is bad, or because peddlers of paganism made you think it is bad, falsely? Our articles are here to help you decide that. Test the spirits.

In absolutely no way should this article be understood as excusing actual idolatry or paganism. The message at ABD has been consistent over the years - there are many false gods but only one true God, our New Covenant duty is faith in and loyalty to God through Jesus Christ, our Christian calling is to follow the Holy Spirit into service and charitable works, our freedom in Christ is not a license to sin. Pretty standard, really. If something is genuinely pagan or idolatrous, we highly recommend having nothing to do with it. Knowingly, willfully, intentionally turning away from God to idolatry is a salvational issue and it is genuinely dangerous. Again, we just disagree with the peddlers of paganism on what real idolatry is. They use a shifting definition and shifting standards, and we call them out for it.

CONCLUSION

If you knowingly and intentionally devote your worship and honor to Jesus Christ, trusting in Him for your salvation, then an idol is nothing. He has taken all power and authority, and you are a citizen in His Kingdom now. Believe that. Rejoice in it! "Once pagan, always pagan" is an unbiblical and broken line of reasoning that no one really follows. Paul didn't preach it. God didn't heed it. Neither should you. How much less pagan is an item that was never an idol in the first place?
And no, you cannot accidentally or unknowingly become a pagan. As the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you cannot accidentally be a pagan while worshipping Jesus Christ. The peddlers' accusations have no power over you.

You just want to be a good Christian. Your heart is in the right place. It's the peddlers that are the problem, not you. They have taken your eyes off the righteousness that comes from faith (ROM. 3: 21) and put your eyes on efforts that can never bring righteousness. Not even the law could bring righteousness (GAL. 2: 21), how much less can avoiding poinsettias? Mundane things do not overpower God. Avoiding them cannot bring you righteousness. So, stop looking there.

The peddlers want to be good Christians, too, but they have terrible information and were trained by people with less than honorable motives. Don't listen to them. Don't give them power over your life. Have faith and follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Look at the fruits! Do the peddlers bring you peace and truth? Or, do the peddlers bring you torment and fear, based on false claims? (You will know the claims are false when you read our articles and pray about it.) You know it's torment and fear. Do they bring you the Gospel of Jesus Christ or accusations? You know it's accusations. So don't heed them. Just walk away.

At what point do we look ourselves in the mirror and in all seriousness tell ourselves, "I will, from this moment forward, stop believing in once pagan, always pagan, because it is a thoroughly un-biblical notion, and I will stop listening to these peddlers of paganism who lie to me and themselves, and who only seek to enrich themselves at my expense" ?

I am bashing people pretty hard in this article. I don't usually do that. It is normally my way to go light and try to build bridges. I prefer to ease people toward the truth. The issue is, a light touch isn't always called for. Sometimes Paul writes Titus, and sometimes Paul withstands Peter to his face. When I get letters from good, God-fearing Christians who doubt themselves and their families and their faith - over demonstrably false nonsense peddled by fundamentalists - I get upset. I believe I am justified in getting upset. That's why I'm in a snit today and ranting on.

I would like to give you a short list of some recommended articles to get you going in the right direction. If you still have questions in your mind, like may we celebrate birthdays, or may we celebrate holidays God did not command, or should I be keeping "biblical" holy days, or even questions about "learn not the way of the heathen" - we hope we can be of some help.

• Established and Imposed
• Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees
  
• Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees and Germanic Paganism
• Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
• On Nimrod and Christmas Trees Part I
• Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?
• Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28
• Easter History Part I
• Three Days and Three Nights

Keep in mind we have a Categories page with abundantly more than just this. Scroll on down to the Holidays section.

May the Living God, in whose hands you are held, guide you and teach you, strengthen your faith, uplift you, assure you, bring you to a better understanding of who you are in His eyes, and keep you safe in the sure salvation obtained for you by our Lord Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?

In my last post, "A Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", we looked at the general timeline of events in the Quartodeciman Controversy at a macro level. I didn't address things in detail. As I said in that post, the topic is far larger than I ever imagined. Take that as a word of warning should you get the same ridiculous idea I had, to go looking into this topic. It is maddening.

Today, I want to look more closely at one point in particular - were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?

In the Church of God movement founded by Herbert Armstrong (which I call Armstrongism) certain points of Old Covenant law are required - like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats. Armstrong knew the Quartodecimans were observing a day called Passover on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan. Well, so did he. He concluded, if they were doing what he was doing then they must be doing it for the same reason: law-keeping. He adopted the Quartodecimans as theological ancestors, saying they were early members of "Christ’s true Christianity" that kept the Old Covenant laws.

While reading about Quartodecimanism, I noticed something odd. If you read the writings of a group who believes in law-keeping, you are going to read about Quartodeciman law-keeping. If you read the writings of a group who believes in Hebrew roots, you are going to read about Quartodeciman Hebrew roots. And so it goes. That doesn't sit well with me. How odd the Quartodecimans were so exactly like all of these dissimilar groups. Something about that sounds uncomfortably like spin. It seems the conclusion is based on certain assumptions.

And so we ask - is that really so? Were they law-keepers? Can history give us enough detail to verify this?

BE A QUARTODECIMAN?

During my own time in Armstrongism, I was told the Quartodecimans were preserving a true observance of Old Covenant law. Meaning, the law in the way I, a Sabbatarian, would understand it, of course. We understood that to mean, take up Old Covenant law and follow the Hebrew calendar. They were just like us, we thought. "If you aren't a Quartodeciman, you should be," we are told by the Living Church of God.

Armstrongism starts from certain assumptions and works its way out from there. (We didn't see them as assumptions, we saw them as God's truth.) One assumption is that the Old Covenant Passover must be kept by Christians, and therefore it was being kept. Now we just needed to find out by whom. The Quartodecimans were the target. They were keeping Passover and doing it on the 14th. How can that be anything other than law-keeping?

"Among the Gentiles the churches in Asia remained the most faithful to the word of God. We pick up the story of the true Church in the lives of such men as Polycarp and - Polycrates. They were called 'Quartodecimani' because they kept the true Passover celebration instead of Easter."
-Herbert Armstrong, "True History of the True Church", 1959, p.15 

How are they a "true church"? Because they kept the Gospel, or because they had faith? No. Just an observance on the 14th of Nissan. That's good enough.

This should come as no surprise to those who have been following along here at ABD. Herbert Armstrong also claimed the Waldensians as doctrinal ancestors (as well as other groups like the Henricians, Paulicians, etc). He told a story of how the Waldensians were Old Covenant law-keepers. They were also an era of God's true church. He didn't come up with this idea on his own. Armstrong plagiarized the idea from A. N. Duggar and C. O. Dodd of the Church of God (Seventh Day).

The Waldensians were Sabbatarian law-keepers, right? No.

It turns out the assumptions made about the Waldensians weren't even close to reality. You can find the truth about the Waldensians quite easily. Ask the Waldensians what their history was. They have the receipts. We have several articles of our own to demonstrate this. We recommend starting with "True History of the True Church??"

Having a terrible track record of historical fantasy, can we know if the Quartodecimans were law-keepers?

The Quartodecimans, unlike the Waldensians and other more modern groups, are not so easily discerned. These things happened long ago. Most of the documents that could clear this up completely are lost. What we have remaining is a cloud of scholars and commentators with almost every opinion possible. We are going to have to work for this. Are we going to have better luck with than we did with the Waldensians?

QUARTODECIMAN PURITANISM

There are some clear points of similarity between the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pesach: the relative date, the name Passover, the reading of Exodus, a fast in advance, and the involvement of some kind of meal.
The Quartodecimans had all these. And more!

There was once a Persian named Aphraphat. He was a fourth century Syriac Christian and a Quartodeciman. Several of his works were discovered in the 20th century. Just read what Apraphat has to say:

If the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday, so that the whole week with his passion and with his unleavened bread is observed."
-Aphrahat, Demonstration XII "On the Passover" XII [bold mine]

Unleavened bread? Yes. Seven days! And not just that. Here is an example from Aphraphat's demonstration on the Sabbath:

"But let us observe the Sabbath of God, in a manner which pleases His will. Let us enter into the Sabbath of rest in which the heaven and the earth take Sabbath rest, all creatures will dwell in peace and take rest."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

Looks like they were Sabbatarians keeping the law. Game over. Thank you for reading my blog. Go send away for some Armstrongist literature. God be with you 'til we meet again.

BUT!
Before you go, there's one tiny detail you are going to want to know -
None of what I just quoted means the Quartodecimans were Sabbatarians keeping the Old Covenant law. It only looks that way on the surface.

To understand why not, let's start by looking at the law.

HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES

Or rather, the impossibility of keeping it all.

Armstrongism is considered by many outside the system to be a "legalist" church. There is a heavy emphasis on law. It is assumed the early church also had this influence. But, as I said, it only seems that way. Armstrongism teaches the mandatory observance of Passover annually on the 14th of Nissan. This is particularly central to the Quartodeciman issue. That is the law, we said.

Did you know Gentiles were forbidden by law from participating in the Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? The Gentile converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised, join the nation of Israel, and become Jews in order to keep the Passover according to the law. What's more, the law forbids practicing Passover outside of Jerusalem. The Passover was a pilgrimage festival (EXO. 23: 15) - along with Pentecost and Tabernacles - and could only be observed in the area of Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7).

That is the law!

The Traditionalists and Quartodecimans were both well aware of these laws about Passover. You can read about it yourself.

On the traditional side, none other than Athanasius (famous for his role in the Council of Nicaea) mentions these things in his "Festal Letters".
On the Quartodeciman side, Aphraphat mentions it several times in his "Demonstration on the Passover" section 2, and Ephram the Syrian mentions it in his "Hymn 21".

How could anyone keep law under those conditions? They could not. If you don't keep all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all (JAS. 2: 10). Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And the law could not be kept as written. That was the entire point of those ancient writers. Not even the Jews could keep the law anymore. How could they? They could not. But if even the Jews could not then how could the Gentiles, whom the law expressly excludes? (I suppose, if you think about it, the Gentiles kept the law better because the law excluded them, so by not keeping it they were doing what it said. But let's not go there right now.)

Since that is the case, it is fair to ask, if they weren't keeping the law then why did they mention the law? And why insist on the 14th?

LOST IN TRANSLATION

I just got done telling you how the Quartodecimans knew the law couldn't be kept. Yet, some of the things they wrote make it look like they kept it anyway. How? If you really want to know how the Quartodecimans can use words like Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, yet did not keep the Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, then you have to read all of their writings. Not just enough of their writings to see the words Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread and that's where you stop.

Sometimes, it can be a simple misunderstanding.

In my post "Refusing To Understand" I reviewed an article from the United Church of God that was claiming the weekly Sabbath was being kept in Asia Minor (Quartodeciman home turf). They quoted from a Quartodeciman named Socrates of Constantinople, who lived just after Aphraphat and Ephram. They saw the word Sabbath, then they stopped. But on further inspection, it turns out "Sabbath" in this context cannot mean Saturday.

“In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath [this would be the Quartodecimans disregarding the Sabbath] ... While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed, but differed as regards the month.”
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Ecclesiastical History" chapter XXII

There were two groups observing a thing they called Pascha, yet no one observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday. Well, not unless the 14th of Nissan happened to be a Saturday in that year. No one on any side regularly observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday.
Can you see that 'Sabbath' here cannot refer to Saturday? Socrates uses the phrase "sabbath of the Passover" earlier. Sabbath can mean annual holy day. In later years, Sabbath eventually became interchangeable with Sunday. Haven't you read articles that ask, "Is Sunday the Sabbath?" We cannot just assume Sabbath always means Saturday.

But sometimes it's not a simple misunderstanding. Context is key!

That quote from Aphraphat earlier, the one about "let us observe the Sabbath", came from his demonstration written against the Jewish keeping of the Sabbath. That makes it a polemic against how the Armstrongists understand Sabbath. Context is key! How can you get Sabbath observance from a treatise against Sabbath observance? You can't.

The entirety of his demonstration shows there is no salvation value at all to a Sabbath rest, nor does it convey any righteousness, nor any justification, nor any purity, nor profit for sinners. If it could do any of those things, then it would have been given to the patriarchs, but it was not. The physical Sabbath was given for a physical rest only, to the Jews and their animals.

Immediately prior to that quote, he says this:

"He [God] took and threw them [the Jews] out of His land, and scattered them among all the peoples because they did not observe the rest of God, but observed Sabbath according to the flesh. But let us observe the Sabbath of God in a manner which pleases His will..."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

So, the Sabbath was good for physical rest only, and the Jews were doing that, and it had no other value, but something about it displeased God. It seems those two words 'of God' makes a world of difference. We need to figure out what a 'Sabbath of God' is.

From other areas in his demonstrations, we can reasonably conclude Aphraphat sees the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba rebellion as the point the Jews were expelled. It was in the Christian era. The Christian era changed things. God was displeased because they kept the Sabbath physically, as the Armstrongists understand it, but not according to the true Sabbath rest. The true rest had come, but they rejected it for the physical rest.

(MAT. 11: 28) Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

To a Syriac Christian, everything in the Old Testament pointed to Christ. Everything that came before Him was a type or a symbol or a mystery that, when properly understood, points to Jesus - Passover, bread, and Sabbath included. They read the Torah every Passover, but they didn't see it for Israel being freed from Egypt. They saw Jesus in every word. They read about Moses and saw Jesus. They read about lambs and saw Jesus. They read about unleavened bread and saw Jesus. They read about Sabbath and saw Jesus.

"I do that, too," an Armstrongist might say. Perhaps. But not like they did.
Let's see an example from the Quartodeciman author Ephram the Syrian:

1. The lamb of Truth arose and broke his body for the innocent ones who ate the lamb of Passover.
2. The paschal lamb he slaughtered and ate, and he broke his body. He caused the shadow to pass over and he provided the Truth.
3. He had eaten the unleavened bread. Within the unleavened bread his body became for us the unleavened bread of Truth.
4. The symbol that ran from the days of Moses until there, was ended there.
-Ephram the Syrian, Hymn 19 on unleavened bread [bold mine]

Physically unleavened bread ended there. The unleavened bread they wanted was Jesus. Can it get more plain? I think maybe it could.

Melito of Sardis, contemporary of Polycrates and mentioned in Polycrates' letter to Victor of Rome, says this:

"35) Nothing, beloved, is spoken or made without an analogy and a sketch; for everything which is made and spoken has its analogy, what is spoken an analogy, what is made a prototype, so that whatever is made may be perceived through the prototype and whatever is spoken clarified by the illustration. 
...
37) When the thing comes about of which the sketch was a type, that which was to be, of which the type bore the likeness, then the type is destroyed, it has become useless, it yields up the image to what is truly real. What was once valuable becomes worthless, when what is of true value appears.
...
41) So the type was valuable in advance of the reality, and the illustration was wonderful before its elucidation. So the people were valuable before the church arose, and the law was wonderful before the illumination of the Gospel.
42) But when the church arose and the Gospel came to be, the type, depleted, gave up meaning to the truth: and the law, fulfilled, gave up meaning to the Gospel.
43) In the same way that the type is depleted, conceding the image to what is intrinsically real, and the analogy is brought to completion through the elucidation of interpretation, so the law is fulfilled by the elucidation of the Gospel, and the people is depleted by the arising of the church, and the model is dissolved by the appearance of the Lord. And today those things of value are worthless, since the things of true worth have been revealed."
-Melito of Sardis, "On Passover" [bold mine]

Now that is plain!
And it's just like Colossians.

(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Armstrongism is aware of this verse, and a shadow and a fulfillment. We read this verse all the time. Only, we read it to support law-keeping. The shadow (law) was even more important than before. That is clearly not how the Quartodecimans saw things. As you can see from Ephram and from Melito, the law was completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ then discarded. The Torah did not point them to law, nor to some "fulfilled" and harder law-keeping, but only to Christ! They didn't see the law as God's tool for our righteousness or necessary for His plan. The law had done it's job, it guided Israel until the Messiah could come, and was now fulfilled, depleted, worthless.

But maybe not completely worthless. The law still holds many lessons for us, even if it doesn't apply directly to us. You might even find it unusual to learn that Anatolius of Alexandria in his "Paschal Canon" used the law in Exodus to better determine when to observe Easter. The law helped bring the timing of Easter in Rome and Alexandria together in unity. All while not feeling bound to the law.

When an Armstrongist sees "unleavened bread" or "Passover" or "Sabbath" written by a Quartodeciman, they naturally draw from their own worldview and think, "I know those words. Those speak of the law."
But that is not what the Quartodeciman mind thought. The law is not why they insisted on keeping Passover on the 14th. The 14th had value only in Christ, not Moses. They did not follow the Hebrew calendar as sacred. They only needed that one day, and only because it was the day Jesus was betrayed. It had nothing to do with law-keeping.

(Matthew 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

He fulfilled it all. All of it. Then, the Old Covenant being satisfied, was replaced. Those words now have very different meanings.

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, Christ is the Sabbath. Christ is the Passover. Christ is the unleavened bread.

Hippolytus was a Bishop of Portus near Rome. This is the same Hippolytus that I wrote about in my article "The Plain Truth About December 25". A fragment remains in which he quotes some unnamed person who is likely a Quartodeciman. Here are the words of the alleged Quartodeciman: 

"Christ kept the supper, then, on that day, and then suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it in the same manner as the Lord did. But he has fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when Christ suffered He did not eat the Passover of the law. For He was the Passover that had been of old proclaimed, and that was fulfilled on that determinate day."
-Hippolytus, "On the Passover"

Regardless of whether you believe Jesus ate the Passover according to the law or not, it was not because of the law that the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, but because of Christ. That is not some kind of back door into the law. The law doesn't only say to eat at a certain time. It says other things, too. Those things weren't being done, which is why I included the last section "horseshoes and hand grenades" first.

And so it is when Aphraphat says "his unleavened bread" it doesn't mean physically unleavened bread, it means participating in Jesus. And when he says "Sabbath of God" it doesn't mean Saturday, it refers to a new life in Jesus. This is exactly what Paul was trying to say.

(I COR. 5: 7-8) "7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

In the Church of God splinters, this verse is read annually, used as a proof-text in support of law-keeping. "It says 'let us keep the feast'," we would point out. But no, law-keeping is not what any of these people had in mind. Jesus Christ was in mind.

They couldn't keep the law as written. If you cannot keep it as written then you cannot keep it period. They didn't see themselves as obligated to try. It wasn't that they abandoned the law, per se, but that in Christ the law was fulfilled. If you have Christ, and they did, then you have faith and love, and if you have faith and love then you have fulfilled the whole law (ROM. 13: 10; I JON. 3: 23). A righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees is in you (MAT. 5: 20). So, in this way they were able to talk about points of the law but not keep to the letter of the law, because these words and the fulfillment meant something quite different to them.

If you want to know a little more about what Quartodeciman belief really was, apart from Passover, read "Early Syriac Theology" by Seely Joseph Beggiani. You aren't going to find very much in common with Herbert Armstrong. Remember how the Waldensians are still here and can refute claims about their law-keeping? Same is true about the Syrian Church. Go ask them what their history is. They have the receipts. Aphraphat, Melito, Socrates, and Ephram were Syriac Christian. Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito are venerated as Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a Doctor of the Catholic Church! Didn't you know that?

Still think you should be a Quartodeciman?

I am sure the protest will be, "The pagans had already infiltrated and perverted the truth by the time of Melito and Ephram and Aphraphat etc."
But that's not what Herbert Armstrong said. He called Polycrates "another disciple of Christ’s true Christianity" ("Mystery of the Ages", p.53). Go to "Life, Hope, and Truth" ministries, a media outlet for the Church of God, A Worldwide Association, and see how they call these men true followers of God.
Polycrates outlived Saint Melito. Mystery of the Ages is the grandest book Herbert Armstrong ever wrote. It was called 'another book of the Bible'. If Polycrates was a "disciple of Christ's true Christianity", and Polycrates agreed for the most part with all of these people I've quoted here, then they are also disciples of "Christ's true Christianity". What does that say? It can't be "Christ's true" and pagan, both. So, which is it?

If you choose pagan, then the words of any Quartodeciman author no longer hold any benefit. Stop reading them. All that talk about why we should all be Quartodeciman just went right out the window. But if you don't choose Christ's true, then welcome to mainstream Christianity, my friend. You can cancel that subscription to Armstrongist literature now.

And what shall we say about the blessed Polycarp, disciple of John, who lived well before the other examples I've given so far. He says:

"...it is by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
-Polycarp, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians"

CONCLUSION

At the start of this post, I asked, "were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?" Confidently, we can answer no.

Were there some we could describe as Judaizes? I'm sure. Socrates of Constantinople records some instances of this sort (e.g., Sabbatius in "Church History", book V, chapter XXI). It was a problem enough in Galatians 2 for Paul to mention both Peter and Barnabas struggled with it. But for the most part that does not describe the Quartodecimans.

Some see Pascha on the 14th and think, the law! But that is not the case here. They read words like Passover, unleavened bread, and Sabbath and think, our ancestors! But that is not the case here. How can the Living Church of God say, "be Quartodeciman," when they don't have the slightest idea what that means? They cannot. As it turns out "be Quartodeciman" actually means "be our version of Quartodeciman". But their version is a fake.

Just like the Waldensians, the Quartodecimans are not at all Armstrongist theological ancestors. It's all a fraud. Again and again and again, a pattern of dishonest documentation. Do you see the emptiness of these fabrications now that you know the Quartodecimans never kept the law to begin with?

We absolutely must read more than just a quote here and a paragraph there to understand any topic. If we are going to read, we must understand what we read in the context the Quartodecimans intended. Or what's the point? Are we reading at all? In order to get that context, we need to read as many of their works we can. We see the people who create content for the Church of God splinter groups do not understand them. They clearly didn't read to understand. They have no interest in context. They read many things, but only to find what they think will support predetermined conclusions. Is that reading at all? If what they find doesn't match what they hoped for, we either never hear about it at all or they make something up whole cloth to explain it away. Wouldn't it be better just to tell the truth? Oh, but they've already said too much to go back now.

In my next post, I will further explore the similarities between Quartodecimans and Traditionalists. You think their views on the law are unexpected? I think you might be quite surprised indeed to peek behind this curtain.

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

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

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