Condemnation by Law or Unbelief?

Jesus said good works were lawful on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. He gave no further elaboration regarding the nature of good and evil works beyond a comparison of the two in regards to saving life versus destroying it.

Nothing Jesus did had anything to do with the destruction of life. He stated He came to give life abundantly and to save life, and His works all had this in mind.

(John 12:47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

His Gospel message then was a message of life.

(John 11:25-26) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

(John 3:14-21) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Jesus is that Light, and evil-hearted ones do not come to the Light. They do not acknowledge the Light. So they are the ones who produce false gospels based on other things besides the Light; other than Jesus. Their gospels will declare other things you must believe in order to be saved; in order to acquire eternal, everlasting life.

What do evil people do that results in their condemnation: break the law and Sabbath of Israel, or refuse to come to Christ Jesus for salvation?

To “do truth” is to come to the Light – Jesus. And the deeds, the works, of those who come to Him are made known (manifest) that they are wrought in God. Not some of their works; all of their works. Good trees, who now produce only good fruits unto God to the Glory of God.

The evil ones in this scenario produce their own gospel of salvation that substitutes faith and belief in Christ Jesus alone with other “requirements.”

Examine the rationalization put forth by Adventists. “Grace is not a license to sin, and sin is what happens when you transgress the law, and if you sin by transgressing “God’s law” you cannot be saved.”

They will cite, in support of their argument:

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Murder, for example, is addressed in the law as a sin; a transgression of the law. Therefore, doing any of these things transgresses the law in some fashion, resulting in your exclusion from the kingdom of God / Heaven where those who receive eternal, everlasting life reside.

Now, if you were paying attention, transgressing the law was not stated by Jesus as that which results in condemnation. He specifically stated rejecting Him was the cause of condemnation, not breaking / transgressing the law. Evil people are those who do not respond to, or come to, the “Truth”, which is Jesus Christ. They are evil, and according to the teachings of Jesus, the works of evil people are only evil and sin, even as the works of good people, those who “come to the Light”, are all good works.

God does NOT judge mankind like mankind does. God declared He judges according to the heart. Evil people have evil hearts, and because they have evil hearts, thoughts, intents, they act according to that heart, doing evil things. One evil thing being the refusal to come to the Light, Christ Jesus, so that they might have life eternal.

Evil people, who embrace a religion of law - works of law, righteousness by law, justification by law -such as the law that was given to the Hebrews, use the law in an attempt to build a foundation of religion that gives them the means of “looking good” as a result of keeping it, even as did the Pharisees and other religious elite that Jesus referred to as evil children of the devil, who were doing the will of their father the devil.

Let that sink in. The people who were being addressed by the Prophets, the Hebrews, were told that their hearts were deceitful and desperately wicked.

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

God knew it. Those religious elite could not, being deceived by their own hearts.

(Psalms 109:2) For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

Those versed in what all transpired between Jesus and the Pharisees, et alia, know this to be a prophesy in relation to Christ Jesus. Who spoke against Jesus? Who spoke lies about Him?

The religious elite.
Those who claimed to be religious and doing the will of God, through the law they believed they kept. They hated Him, hated Jesus, because they were evil, and evil ones do not come to the Light. They are the ones who seek to destroy life; not save it. They sought to destroy the Author of Life itself.

Was their undoing by the law, or by their unbelief?

I will leave you, the reader, with this last thought…
Which religious organization - that claims to be the true church, and claims to love "the law, the Ten Commandments" - is the one that has built hospitals around the world, conducting the destruction of life in their hospitals through elective abortions, where they destroy on a routine basis the most innocent of all lives, with absolutely no just hearing or appeal by anyone on their behalf as was required in the law they claim to keep?

(Exodus 20:7) You shall not murder.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

What Is The Root of Sin?

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

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

Jesus answers this more basic question.

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

The genesis of sin is an evil heart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Sin

Violating the law is the not the definition of sin. Sin is the fruit of an evil heart.

---

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

When properly parsed, a transgression of the law results when one sins. This does not define sin. It tells you what sin does; the result of sin.

By removing the first half of the verse, an entirely different interpretation is drawn out of the now truncated passage, so that a desired conclusion is achieved, where sin is the result of transgressing the law; the exact opposite conclusion of the verse when the whole of it is examined.

Sin becomes defined by the transgression of the law, where the very meaning of the Greek word translated into the English word “sin”, that defines sin, is ignored entirely. The definition of sin, derived from the Greek word for sin, gets lost in the legalistic shuffle.

Sin is translated from the Greek “hamartia” and refers to missing the mark in relation to the glory of God.

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

Why is this distinction important?

For one thing, it demonstrates the pervasiveness of sin in relation to a specific subset of mankind.

For another thing, it disassociates sin from what it really is - missing this mark related to the glory of God - and shifts it to something else entirely; that being strictly and solely any transgression of the law. This improper definition allows the legalist to ignore the parts of the law that required a proper, legal examination of any transgression of the law in order to determine if a transgression had any legal justification for having done so.

(John 7:51) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

The fact that there were legal justifications for breaking the law means that sin cannot simply be any violation of the law. The Sanhedrin dodged this legal requirement out of hand. Today’s legalist just redefines sin so as to exclude any trial that might exonerate the one who transgressed the law, with a legal justification for having done so, where a transgression of the law automatically results in a charge of sin, without appeal.

(Matthew 12:36-37) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Imagine the scenario playing out where those who insist sin is the result of transgressing the law standing before God who asks them why they condemned others of sin without a hearing, like they will find themselves standing before God, having a hearing they denied others? I would be interested in seeing how they “talk” their way out of that...

Who all has “missed the mark” in relation to the “glory of God?” Everyone! Whether they be under the law of the old covenant or not under the law of the old covenant.

(Romans 2:12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

In the legalistic scenario, only those who have sinned “in the law” are judged by legalists as being judged and condemned where one can perish. You have to break the law in order to sin. There is no sin without the law and its transgression.

All this effectively counters and negates what all Jesus had to say on the matter of sin, where sin is tied to the condition of the heart, mind, and soul of a person, and not exclusively to the law.

Sin has its genesis in the heart, mind, and soul of a person. There is a proclivity to sin by those described in Scripture as having an evil heart, and where having an evil heart, such a person is incapable of doing anything that “hits the mark” when it comes to the glory of God.

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

Who is speaking here? Jesus the Christ; the One you are supposed to be listening to, to the exclusion of all others; the One who is greater than the Prophets and even Moses, to whom Jesus attributes the law.

(James 1:13-15) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin lies at the core of mankind, cut off from God. They can do nothing to the glory of God. They stand in opposition to God, having what God describes as:

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

Jesus further elaborates:

(Matthew 7:17-19) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

What is evil fruit? It is sin. It is the antithesis of good fruit. What is good fruit? Works done to the glory of God, which cannot be done by those producing evil fruit. Sins are NOT done to the glory of God. These evil fruits could be works done by those led by their evil hearts of stone and unbelief to their own glory, or their self-righteousness as we see done by the Pharisees and other religious elite of Israel; the same religious elite whom Jesus referred to as evil children of the devil, doing the will of their father.

Where did they derive their works; their fruits?

From the law; keeping the law, especially the works of the law.

Jesus uses the tithing law to show how their law-keeping was but an outward show.

(Matthew 23:23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The same could be said for their dedication to the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifices, and many other commandments in the law regarding even clothing and grooming.

What then would you logically conclude if a “bad tree” happened to keep the Sabbath? Did such a person with their Sabbath-keeping refrain from sin? But if all the fruits of a bad tree are evil only, then how is keeping the Sabbath a "good fruit"?

Likewise, how would a person with an evil heart respond upon being told their Sabbath-keeping, which they believe is a good fruit, is in fact just another expression of evil coming from evil people?

They will do what evil people do, calling evil good, and good, evil.

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

But you see… that evil heart is “desperately” wicked, and will deceive the self into believing it is good, so much so, that such people who think themselves religious and righteous, will do anything to maintain the facade, even denying the undeniable.

(Luke 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

Did Jesus here equate the destruction of life with doing good or doing evil?

The answer should be obvious.

What then of those legalists, specifically Adventists, whose hospitals have been performing elective abortions in their hospitals since the early 1970’s, where they have destroyed the most innocent of all human lives? The lives of humans, said to be created in the image of God, who have never sinned, and whose lives were destroyed without any due process provided in the law they claim to keep? Where and when was their hearing to appeal their death sentence, carried out by Adventism? Who stood as advocate for them? What happened to justice, mercy, and faith when it came to them?

It could hardly be said Adventism could be guilty of any greater sin in the eyes of God, but any Adventist reading this will still deny their duplicity; their complicity when it comes to this atrocity.

Many an Adventist, when confronted with this reality, claims they had no involvement in those decisions and actions performed by their church that claims to keep the commandments of God and keep the testimony of Christ where you just read the testimony of Christ regarding the destruction of life being evil.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Jesus Intentionally Worked on the Sabbath

Jesus openly declared that He had work to do on the Sabbath. If His words are taken at face value, an important Sabbatarian argument falls apart.

---

(John 9:4)  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

It was the Sabbath. He said He had to work the works God the Father sent Him to do while it was day; even on the Sabbath day.

He proceeded to fashion clay, which He applied to a blind man’s eyes, resulting in the one born blind to see. Jesus not only performed a miracle work on the Sabbath, He purposely worked with clay to do this; an intentional work of his hands, on the Sabbath.

Compare and contrast this to what God said about the works of the hands of those Hebrews.

(Jeremiah 32:30) For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Jesus worked on the Sabbath at the direction of the Father in Heaven whom Jesus said also worked on the Sabbath. Both the Son and the Father worked on the Sabbath.

By working on the Sabbath, fashioning clay on the Sabbath, He performed a work of His hands on the Sabbath. Jesus did this intentionally, leaving no doubt He did indeed work on the Sabbath that stated, plainly, no one was to do any work associated with labor on the Sabbath. Shaping and forming clay with one’s hands on the Sabbath was undeniably working on the Sabbath.

Because Sabbatarianism is fixated on the flawed translation / interpretation of 1 John 3:4, the only recourse they have to defend their flawed theology over sin and the Sabbath is to insist Jesus didn’t really work on the Sabbath, while accusing anyone who dares cite what Scripture actually says of accusing Jesus of sinning on the Sabbath. They refuse to admit the obvious: Jesus, God Incarnate, worked on the Sabbath, intentionally so, and did not sin. Sin is not the automatic result of transgressing the law, even if that law is the Sabbath commandment.

Jesus’ declaration that good works on the Sabbath are lawful and not a sin falls on deaf Sabbatarian ears, where the Sabbath law is viewed as a “moral” law where there is never an excuse to transgress it, especially doing so intentionally.

As pointed out so many times before, and ignored by Sabbatarians due to their ‘conditioning’: good works are indeed lawful on the Sabbath. He contrasted good works to evil works. Those are the two classifications of works of interest to God, where good works are produced by those who God deems good, and evil works are produced by those God deems as evil. For God said He judges righteous judgment, according to the heart; not the law. It is mankind who judges unrighteous judgment, according to appearance; abusing the law in order to do so, where any "work” done on the Sabbath transgresses the commandment, resulting in sin, and where Sabbatarians exempt their own works on what they believe to be the Sabbath as not resulting in sin. A hypocritical position.

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

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 Sabbath

The Pharisees condemned Jesus as a Sabbath breaker. This article argues that many Sabbatarians make the very same judgment - and for the same reason.

---

(John 9: 16) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

The consensus of both the Pharisees and “others” was that Jesus did not keep the Sabbath. The Pharisees concluded Jesus was a sinner by reason of the fact He did not keep the Sabbath. He worked on the Sabbath. They watched Him, “witnessed” Him, work on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, like Sabbatarians today, concluded that working on the Sabbath breaks or transgresses the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, resulting in sin. Even Jesus’ disciple at the time witnessed Jesus break the Sabbath, and stated so in John 5:18, right after citing Jesus’ admission that He worked on the Sabbath.

Ask a Sabbatarian to define sin and he or she will cite the second half of 1John 3:4 that states in the KJV, “… sin is the transgression of the law.”

This is not about what sin “is.” The whole verse tells you what sin does. By taking part of the verse out of context, and interpreting that according to modern English instead of how the language was used over 400 years ago when the KJV was written. A false perception results that negates a declarative statement made by Jesus: “Good works are lawful on the Sabbath” which He further contrasted to evil works.

There are good works, and there are evil works.

Sabbatarians wasted no time in redefining good works to mean something not supported by the context of what Jesus said and taught, so that “good works” morphs into “approved” works where Sabbatarians become their own authority on the matter. Jesus’ explanation of good and evil works is totally ignored, where only good people can and do produce good works, only, and more importantly, only bad/evil people can and do produce evil works (Matthew 7:17-18).

Sabbatarianism recoils at the very thought that any and all good works produced by Christians - “good trees” done on their sabbath idol - are not sinful as a result, forcing them to twist and contort even what Jesus declared in an effort to insulate their sabbath idol from destruction.

Every imaginable and conceivable excuse and rationalization is employed to build a hedge around their idol in order to make it impervious to criticism as well as “doubling down” on emphasizing its overarching importance to the world, so that even the Gospel succumbs to its influence.

Sin is any evil, any iniquity, that is based in action or thought.

Why do Sabbatarians ignore the first half of 1 John 3:4?

It is because the Greek word used for sin there actually defines sin, and it is a definition with ramifications that Sabbatarianism tacitly rejects.

The Greek word for sin at the beginning of 1 John 3:4 is “hamartia.” In Greek, it means “missing the mark” like shooting an arrow at a target and missing it. “The transgression of the law” comes from the one Greek word, “anomia” (against law) which reinforces the actual definition of sin and how sin is “against law” that, in this progression of the statement, ends up invoking the condemnation of law; a death penalty.

Sabbatarianism bypasses the first condition of missing the mark and reconstructs the whole concept of sin into just transgressing the law, so that transgression of the Sabbath commandment results in evil / iniquity / lawlessness in one fell swoop, which is what the Pharisees did with Christ Jesus. They too circumvented the progression so as to make something “sin” that wasn’t sin, and that circumvention was in itself a sin.

Missing the mark / hamartia provides us with only part of the picture. It doesn’t tell us specifically what the “target” or “goal” was that was being missed.

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

This reveals the target: the Glory of God. The perfection of God. This is what sin falls short of.

When it comes to a person defined by God as evil / sinful / iniquitous, there is nothing they can do to “hit that target” or even come close to it. An evil person cannot by any measure achieve unto the Glory of God. The absolute “best” they could do was to refrain from their otherwise evil works and even their evil imagination. This brings up an interesting point.

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

They could “honor” God by NOT doing those things they normally did - seeking their own “pleasure”, their own desires, even their own lusts. God wanted them to be focused in on Him when it came to the Sabbath, where this passage states what they were really thinking about on the Sabbath:

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

Now, an important observation.

I would simply point out at this setting that Christians do every day what the Hebrews were called to do on the Sabbath.

What did Jesus do, on the Sabbath, that we would agree was to the Glory of God and that we can contrast to the works of mankind who were incapable of doing anything to the Glory of God?

Everything.

Everything He did, whether on the Sabbath or otherwise, were works to the Glory of God. He healed people of diseases and afflictions and the people gave praise to the Glory of God ...but not the Pharisees. They remained adamant, hard-hearted, refusing to give Glory to God for the miracles wrought by Christ Jesus, thereby showing their contempt and hatred for both He and the Father in Heaven. They attributed His works to the ‘glory of the devil.’

Compare this now to the works of Christians, wrought in and through the Holy Spirit now dwelling in them, where all their works are now a reflection of God who now dwells in them, so that all their works, all the fruits of these “good trees”, are to the Glory of God.

There is no “missing the mark.”

Evil people not only cannot produce good fruits/works, they also deny the good fruits/works of those called of God and given the Holy Spirit, whose fruits are now wrought in God to the Glory of God. They call the good works of Christians "evil" and "sin", using the Sabbath as justification for doing so.

Sabbatarians, like their predecessors the Pharisees, call good, evil, and evil, good. The works of a Christian, now motivated by the Holy Spirit in them - with the “new heart” and “new law of God” in them - are viewed by Sabbatarians as works of the devil, performed by the servants of the devil, for the faithful Christians trod on the sabbath idol of Sabbatarianism where they do all to the glory of their sabbath.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

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

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

Lawlessness and I John 3

You may have heard, "Sin is the transgression of the law." A favorite Sabbatarian proof-text. You may have also heard "lawlessness" means being without the Old Covenant law". If so, the Pharisees should have been the least lawless people in Israel. Yet Jesus accused them of lawlessness. There is more to lawlessness than the law.

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.

The Bible was not written in KJV English

When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? 

I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?

If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law. 
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?

This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.

As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?

My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.

How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?

Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.

Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.

KJV ONLY

In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one: 

(I JON. 3: 4) [KJV] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.

But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.

hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]

Sin is lawlessness.

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports. 

The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.

With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.

In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.

SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND

I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.

This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.

(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.

(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.

Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?

If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.

But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.

To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:

Septuagint (moral) → transgression, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion

Qumran (covenantal) → covenant betrayal, impurity, corruption, rebellion

Josephus (historical/political) → wickedness, disorder, rebellion

Wider Greek usage (social/civic) → disorder, social chaos, impiety, rebellion

This shows us what a broad range of meanings these words had. The idea is nowhere near as simple as "without law" let alone "without Old Covenant law".

Now, notice something strange in Matthew:

(MAT. 7: 23) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)!’

A popular verse. You've probably read it a thousand times. But, practice lawlessness? How odd. Jesus says much the same in MAT. 13:41. Which definition of lawlessness makes more sense here?
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]

I'm going with B!

Consider how odd it is to accuse someone of actively doing "without the law". As if "without the law" is something you can do. Using a noun like an action is not unusual. People "commit murder" or "show mercy". But how does one commit "no law"? It's like saying, "I'm going to insufficient funds tonight." It makes no sense.

But practicing wickedness or corruption or iniquity makes complete sense.

Given this, it is not advisable to jump to the conclusion that "lawlessness" means "being without the Old Covenant law." Taking the word at face value actually misses the point.

Let's compare these two very different definitions of lawless to see which works better for the Pharisees.

ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION

Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.

What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.

Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.

Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑

When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:

(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.

(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.

LAWLESS AT HEART

(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!

So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.

But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.

We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. As a good friend of mine said, "Sin is acting like you don't have any obligation to anybody but your own needs and wants." Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?

So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.

In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith. 
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.

John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?

CONCLUSION

Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture say sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”

Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. That is not what it meant in the original Greek. If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 2-3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
The obvious reading is misleading.

As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.

It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.

It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, yet behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then we humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.

That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.

The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.

I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.

Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.

Here are some posts to help you move forward:

Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God

This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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

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

Who Then Can Be Saved?

Rod Meredith's terminal cancer diagnosis has been one of the biggest Church of God news items this year. Meredith, 86, long headed the Living Church of God and has declined extensive treatment due to his age and stage of cancer.

Terminal diagnoses are nothing to celebrate, no matter who the patient is. Our prayers go out to the Meredith family as well as those who have been impacted by Meredith's life, both positively and negatively.

End-of-life discussions are often a cause for introspection among the living (no pun intended). Lately, many current and former Church of God members have been engaged in discussions of Meredith's accomplishments and conduct. The main question seems to be, has Rod Meredith qualified for God's Kingdom?

I'd like to know, how is this question even possible among "true Christians" in the LCG and other COG groups? Rod Meredith worked directly with Herbert Armstrong. He was an early evangelist for the Worldwide Church of God and frequent writer for the Plain Truth magazine. He has headed two(!) Church of God groups. He has advocated for the Sabbath and Holy Days - major marks that set "true Christians" apart from the deceived - for years! I mean, Meredith has stated multiple times, before thousands of LCG brethren, that he has not committed a "major sin" since his baptism.

Oh right. Now I remember. THAT'S the problem.

Now, I don't know about you, but I know I made a huge blunder before I even had my first cup of coffee this morning. That's not me trying to make a sardonic point. That's the ugly truth. So I have a hard time believing Meredith hasn't committed a "major sin" since the 1950s. Plus, the last time I checked, the Bible really didn't differentiate between "minor" and "major" sins.

(James 2:10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

Actually, now that I think about it, there ARE some sins that God describes as detestable:

(Proverbs 6:16) Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Haughty eyes. Maybe windows to a soul proud enough to claim not to have committed any major sins since the 1950s? So, the reasons why Herbert Armstrong removed him from his ministerial responsibilities and "banished" him to Hawaii weren't sins? How about a $750,000 civil libel payout against Meredith in favor of Leona McNair?  The power struggles and tearing apart of the Global Church of God over large sum of cash, and refusing to pay back those who loaned him money wasn't a sin? No heart devising wicked schemes there? No stirring up conflict? Perpetuating division among the COGs isn't sin?

No, nothing to see here, folks. Definitely not any major sins since the 1950s. It doesn't remind me of this parable at all:

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself - 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men - extortioners, unjust adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.                                

(Luke 18:10-14)

The Pharisee checked all the boxes. He clearly wasn't an extortioner or an adulterer. He tithed meticulously. He probably kept the Sabbath better than anyone alive today. And yet these things did not win him favor in God's sight. Only one of these men left the temple right with God, and it wasn't the one who boasted about his personal righteousness or wore a bunch of legalistic acts on his sleeve.

Yet, some leaders in other COG splinters are probably preparing tributes to Meredith - on the basis of his religious works - at this very moment. They'll state that they had their differences with him, but they'll still proclaim him a good and faithful servant because he, like them, kept the Sabbath and Holy Days. I'll allow this indulgence to Jim Franks, since COGWA is reported to be making peace with LCG, but the rest of you need to stop now. You parted ways with Meredith decades ago, ripping apart churches, families and friends. You decided these issues were important enough to divide fellowship. You've made cold, judgmental pronouncements against him. You've pronounced that he's not a leader and his church should be following you instead. It's incredibly hypocritical to wax sentimental now. Either these issues were worth dividing over and you are the one true church; or you were wrong and Meredith headed God's true church. Or, alternatively, you both were mistaken, perpetuating known falsehoods and dividing up congregations and families for your own personal gain.

But most of these issues happened years ago, Martha! What's the matter? Don't you think people can change? Why would you attack a dying man?

Of course I think people can change! But we can't change without realizing that we have made a mistake. One who claims not to have committed a "major sin" since baptism does not sound like someone who has recognized and repented of his mistakes. This isn't an attack on a dying man, it's an appeal!

You see, repentance is a major factor in qualifying for salvation, according to Meredith and other COG teachers. Sure, the Bible clearly requires Christians to repent. Mainstream Christianity, however, teaches this repentance flows from the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit through a supernaturally-changed heart. The result of which is the fruit of our salvation. But in the COGs, repentance and change is a fearful and legalistic affair, from the law and to the law, and mostly by our own effort. Our own effort is what ensures our salvation after accepting Christ's sacrifice. And if there is not enough repentance and change, well,  then... in the words of COG founder Herbert W Armstrong, God aborts you. That is the COG viewpoint. The COGs accept Biblical teaching that man cannot save himself. But they also teach a murky, un-quantifiable tipping point of unrighteousness where one fails to qualify for God's Kingdom.

Maybe that's precisely what's wrong here. Meredith doesn't see himself as needing to repent anymore because the bulk of COG repentance is observing days and tithing. He's done that, in his own eyes. Jesus' death, in the COG view, only forgives for sins up to baptism. It's each man for himself from there. Well, he's Sabbathed and not-Christmassed since then, so he's golden.

And that's the problem. The COG plan of salvation recognizes that Jesus died to forgive our sins, but only those up until baptism. And then, after that, we must keep the law in order to maintain that salvation. But no, not the whole law, just cherry-picked portions our leaders endorse. This circumvents the whole point of the law - to show us our human weakness and continual need for a Savior - and simultaneously reduces what we must "do" to a checklist that seems almost attainable, especially when we're young. Our foolish pride leads us to believe we can "make it." But as we grow older, we can see that salvation is always just out of reach. There's always some sin that comes back, some sin we haven't fully overcome, always one more thing to do. We never outrun the knowledge that we've sinned, again, and fallen short, again, and now we wonder whether God has finally had enough of us.

So, I wonder, how many Sabbaths kept by the letter of the law make up for slandering a brother's wife? How many Holy Days offset a prideful heart? How much leaven must we avoid to sponge away our sins? What does the balance sheet look like, according to Meredith? How about according to God?

This, my friends, is how we get to the point where members of a religious movement can question the eternal destiny of its long-time leaders.

(Hebrews 13:7) Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.

I don't make these points to kick Rod Meredith while he's down. I make these points because Rod is no different from me, or from you. I make these points because I hope that he will see the depth of his pride and repent. That he will understand that it is the blood of Christ alone and placing full faith in His sacrifice that makes him righteous. As long as Rod Meredith has breath, the Lord may still be found. Rod may not believe in deathbed confessions, but luckily for him, it's not his opinion that matters.

And not just Rod, but this appeal is for us all.

Rod Meredith is the poster child for the COG way of life. If the COGs are right about salvation, then Meredith has nothing to fear. And neither do you. Maybe. But if you're concerned for him right now, perhaps you should consider another path.

(Matthew 7:15-18) Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

************
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 is the Transgression of the Law! (?)

The Pharisees and religious leaders had a dilemma to solve. On the one hand, they had a miracle to contend with that arguably could only have been performed by and through God, where a man born blind was made to see. On the other hand, they had an interpretation of Scripture that told them that the One performing the miracle was a sinner, having broken the law, and that God does not "hear" sinners, performing miracles through them. Sin was, to them, transgressing that law, and they had all the evidence they needed to establish the fact that He had indeed broken the law.

A number of rationalizations were used in an attempt to resolve the problem.

He performed miracles, such as casting out demons, by the power of the devil.

The miracle was somehow faked.

The solution they settled on just happened to satisfy their own prejudices and hatred for the man in question, not unlike the Medieval practice of tossing one suspected of being a witch into a body of water. Witches floated, and others did not. If you were not a witch, you sank and drowned, but at least the people knew you were not a witch! Comforting thought...

They therefore condemned the man to death, figuring that if He truly was of God, God would rescue Him. In the back of their minds though, they KNEW He was not of God, and that God had let the prophets of old be put to death by the people of those times without God's intervention. But they did not dwell on that. They had a hatred of Him, and hatred blinds a man from certain realities he does not want to deal with. Hatred corrupts the mind and thinking process.

So the miracles were rejected in favor of the law, specifically the belief that sin resulted from breaking the law, despite the evidence used by Jesus to show that this was not necessarily so, citing the examples of pulling an animal out of a pit on the Sabbath, and how the priests "profaned" the Sabbath by working at the temple on Sabbaths, and how David and those with him ate the showbread that was specifically unlawful for David and company to do so.

But these religious leaders did not want to give Jesus His just exemption for working on the Sabbath. They were the administrators of the Law, and their hatred and prejudices prevented them from wielding the Law in a just manner, being consistent with the Law.

Often, the worst violators of law are the administrators of law, for who else is going to judge them according to the law?

Fast forward roughly 2000 years. Some churches have developed and adopted a legal code derived from that old covenant law. They in turn used law as a means of ruling and controlling those within their churches, wielding it in similar fashion as those religious leaders did in Jesus' time.

As a result, sin is defined as transgressing their law, derived from the old covenant law, specifically in some cases the 10 Commandments, making it easier to enforce it, pointing out that it originated with God, ergo it is "God's Law."

The ironic turn of events is that now, Jesus is embraced with the claim He actually kept that law that He was put to death for breaking. Yet both the religious leaders of Jesus time, and the religious leaders afterwards embrace the belief that sin results from transgressing the Law.

Both groups of religious leaders reject Jesus' appeal to His Sabbath exemption.

Both groups resort to what I like to call, "flipping the legal coin" in determining their verdict.

The religious leaders of Jesus' time declared Him guilty, having rejected His legal claim of exemption.

The religious leaders of today declare Him innocent of breaking the law, despite His own admission for having broken the law, thereby rendering His claim to exemption irrelevant and immaterial.

Both groups have a vested interest in maintaining the belief that sin results when one breaks or transgresses their law.

If you embrace the understanding that Jesus conveyed regarding "righteous judgment" then the power base derived through the administration of "law" slips out through the fingers of those in a position of power. The individual becomes empowered to now determine what is appropriate for himself, and what is not. His conscience as led and influenced by the Holy Spirit becomes his Law.

Can't have that now, can we...

The understanding that sin originates in the mind, and thus condemns the person then and there does not serve the administrators of law whose power and control is derived through controlling the actions of others.

Sin must be the transgression of the law.

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

Focus and Distractions - Sin

One of my constant endeavors of study is the twofold relationship between proper methods of biblical interpretation and understanding and the methods employed resulting in deceptions and falsehoods. If you want to truly tax your intellectual capabilities, this is a good place to do it. There are so many things influencing people in this regard on so many levels. Trying to compile a list for both categories becomes quite a challenge, especially when it comes to the methods of deception.

The “rules” of proper biblical interpretation are, for the most part, strait forward. The methods used in deceptions and falsehoods can be incredibly subtle and easily glossed over, or given credibility especially when they come across as rational and reasonable.

I have found very little available out there in the cyber-world on the proper methods of biblical interpretation. The common catch-word here is hermeneutics, which has a fairly broad interpretation, which I find lacking when it comes to specifics. It would appear that the vast majority of what I call “church corporates” have resisted attempts to produce a truly comprehensive “Systematic Theology”. Back in the late 1970's, a group of ministers in the then WCG were working on just such a project called, appropriately, the “STP” aka Systematic Theology Project, in an attempt to better define the doctrines of the church and the Scriptural backing for those beliefs. Herbert Armstrong wasted no time scrubbing the project, and demanded that all copies of the STP be destroyed. The truth be known, he was the authority for doctrine, and not Scripture, and he was not about to let much of that doctrine be exposed to the scrutiny of Scripture in a “systematic” way, designed to examine the beliefs of the WCG in a manner based on any proper hermeneutic.

The Bible itself gives a number of proper methods of keeping to the truth of Scripture. One of the most basic is:

(Proverbs 30:6) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

(Deuteronomy 4:2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

(Deuteronomy 12:32) What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

In Deuteronomy 12, tithing is mentioned, and later in chapter 14, tithing is covered in greater detail. I find it interesting that v. 32 of Deut 12 is stated in this context, for my studies of the tithing law suggest that there was some wholesale alterations of this law by the scribes at some time prior to the diaspora, due to some conflicts within the Scriptures. If, for example, a Scripture has been purposefully altered, it is bound to conflict with the rest of Scripture that deals with the same subject. We also have a statement where God refers to the lying scribes in what they wrote/copied when it came to preserving the oracles of God. What is someone most likely to alter? Something that affects them personally. Who were the scribes? Levites. Could it be they altered the tithing laws in order to better situate themselves? How is it they ended up getting part of the tithe earmarked for the Levites/Priests, and “double-dip” the part earmarked for the poor, such as widows? How is it the widows and poor only receive assistance once every three years, when the Levites, who also had their own lands to till and livestock, receive “assistance” from the tithes every year, and three times a year at that? How did “the” tithe end up being “three tithes” which idea in itself is an oxymoron?

If Herbert Amstrong's tithing system were held up to the scrutiny of this one rule of biblical interpretation alone, members would have fled in droves. But, by applying some of the methods of deception to the tithing law and command not to add to, or take away from the words of Scripture, members complied with his interpretation that was in plain violation of the tithing law as stated.

I have written on this topic before, regarding discerning truth and discerning error, and in this regard want to expose what I have found to be another method of deception that has come into greater focus to me now.

This would fall into the methodology of deception and falsehoods as a sort of sub-set, and I have noted that even mainstream Christianity has fallen for it. I call this sub-set “Distractions” and what they do is to take one's focus off of what is important, and puts one's focus onto something else that appears to be important, but is not, and is actually counter-productive to true Christianity.

Specifically I am referring to the focus so many people and groups/churches have on “sin” and its avoidance.

Given that statement, I know a number of people would respond that I have truly lost it here, but like so many other distractions or questionable beliefs, they get their association with what are known as “conditioned responses” so as to close out anyone who dares go against the status quo regarding said questionable beliefs. Is sin a serious matter? Absolutely. Sin is so serious that Christ came and died a most horrible, painful, and degrading death in order to counter the effects of sin. That's what makes this topic so pervasive in the cults, and even in mainstream. Sin, and its avoidance becomes a powerful tool in the hands of deceivers and wolves in sheep's clothing. But here's the real problem. By being such a pervasive focus among many in Christianity, true, spiritual growth is curtailed, and another form of spiritual egotism (self-righteousness) grows in prevalence.

How is someone's attempt to “overcome sin” any different than the efforts of some to “keep the law”? Can you see the connection here? In mainstream, it is pretty well understood that one cannot keep the old covenant law. It would be a vain pursuit, and to those of us who have escaped the clutches of legalism, we understand that it is an insult to the sacrifice of Christ to try and enhance our salvation or salvation status with Christ by keeping the law. Even Paul weighs in on this in Galatians 3. There is nothing to be spiritually gained by trying to keep the law. If anything, it is counter-productive to Christianity. And as has been brought out so often, even in Scripture, even those who advocate keeping the law don't keep the law.

Sin was likened to leaven when we were told to de-leaven our homes when under Armstrongism. When I was a student, living on campus, it was comical to see how students would find a leavened item during the middle of the Days of Unleavened Bread, or even right after. The same scenario played out in people's homes. But all this begs we make some observations and draw the obvious conclusions. If you got all the leaven out of your house, did you feel more righteous? If you found some leaven in your house after cleaning it, did you feel unrighteous? Wasn't the whole purpose designed by God to show the futility of trying to remove sin from your life? Didn't some of the things Jesus said and taught designed to show the futility of trying to keep the law? Have you whacked off your hands and plucked out your eyes yet?

A ministry gains power over their members through the concept of sin and its avoidance. The members look to the ministry as their source of information in order to accomplish this. A dependency evolves, not on God, but a substitute; a false god, if you will. “Dancing is a sin. It leads to thoughts of lust, followed by fornication. Do not dance.” “Drinking is a sin, for drinking leads to drunkenness. Do not drink.” Need I continue? Has not the individual traded off one form of legalism for another?

Ultimately, if your focus is on avoiding sin, you would have to avoid, as much as possible, your contact with other people. You might as well move into a monastery where they take a vow of silence as another means of avoiding sin.

Where then is Christian, spiritual growth in this mix? Is this not a case of taking your God-given talent and burying it in the ground?

How is a Christian a light to others, if all they do is go about trying to avoid sin?

I submit to you that trying to live a life of avoiding sin is a life where one goes about trying to do nothing. You accomplish nothing positive. You have no interactions with others in a positive light. Jesus said to do undo others as you would have them do unto you; this being the law and prophets. Sin in this regard would be not treating others as you would want to be treated. How do you demonstrate Christian love and charity if you have no meaningful interactions with them?

James wrote that faith without works is dead. Again, those who have thrown off the shackles of legalism know James is not speaking about works of the law, but rather works of love and compassion that follow faith.

The thing then to focus on is faith and your works that follow faith, thus “fulfilling” the law, and accomplishing that which is also the opposite of sin. In other words, you truly avoid sin by “doing” the opposite, and not by avoiding doing things that “potentially” lead to sin. Sin is ultimately in the mind, and not in the actions of a man. The people who died in the flood were condemned over what they were, and not so much as a result of what they did. Their thoughts and imaginations were “evil continually”.

Your focus should be on Christ and Him crucified. He died in order to free you from sin. You are dead to sin. Armstrong and even mainstream churches spin this away. You are dead to sin. Dead, dead, dead. What does this mean, dead to sin? What does it mean to be freed from sin? Sin no longer has any power over you. You are “under grace”. You are seen by God as He sees His Son. When you repented; when you turned to God, He gave you remission from sin. He placed you into a new category, from that of a slave to that of a son or daughter. The believer is in a condition free of or from condemnation.

Focusing on sin and its avoidance is an act of faithlessness. It is indicative of not truly believing God and what His written Word reveals regarding our status in relation to sin.

The lifestyle of a sinful person is one of self-gratification and without the influence of God in their lives. God's Spirit has solved the sin problem and issue. Let more important things occupy your mind.

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