One of the very many reasons why people don’t want to accept Mr. Weinland as being one of God’s prophets is the fact that the 2nd Trumpet of Revelation was not blown within the time-frame that he had originally spoken to us. One part of this is that Mr. Weinland stated that he was in no way being presumptuous in his thinking, and so thus was not sinfull. The very heart and soul of prophethood and false-prophethood can be found in this following verse:
Deuteronomy 18:22 “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
I bolded a very important part of this verse, because without this, every prophet that would ever claim to be a prophet of God would otherwise have to be discounted, but however, God will indeed allow for His prophet to speak something that He did not command for Him to speak, but under the condition that the prophet is not speaking presumptuously. This verse states that if the thing which was prophecied does not happen BUT he spoke the prophecy presumptuously, then thou shall not be afraid of him (in other words, he would have to be deemed a false prophet).
Now, what does speaking presumptuously really actually mean ? Well, there is a very stark difference between speaking presumptuously and assumptuously. When somebody speaks presumptuously, that person is presuming (speculating) certain conditions or other thoughts in order to arrive at their final conclusion on something, and their speculations might involve believing in things which are OTHER than what was previously taught to them . When somebody speaks assumptuously, that person is speaking things that are based upon the beliefs that they have been taught to them.
Having said this, Mr. Weinland was not speaking presumptuously through the speculation of other beliefs, but rather he was deriving his conclusion of what the time-frame was through the beliefs that God’s Church had been believing for many many decades. Now, as we have seen with so very many of the truths of God, there is much revelation that God gives to His servants and thus to His Church, His body of Christ, as without this revelation, God’s Church would become stagnated and would become lukewarm, complacent, and lethargic in truth and in spirit, and when this ocurred in God’s Church, God separated Himself (cut Himself off from) His body of Christ, He spewed them out of His mouth, vomitted him out of His mouth because God does not dwell in lukewarmness, and then God began calling back a remnant into a single unified church body.
If it wasn’t for God’s Church having believed that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, then Mr. Weinland would indeed be a false prophet because he wouldn’t be basing his spoken words from his faith in his beliefs. Mr. Weinland was basing his beliefs ONLY upon what his beliefs already were, and he did not once stray away from that before God gave him revelation as to the true timing for the return of Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. God judges His people based ONLY on the understand that they have been given through His revelation to them, because any other judgement executed upon them based on any understanding that God had not yet given to them would not be mercifull on God’s part. So thus, God judges Mr. Weinland based SOLELY upon what God has revealed to Him. Since God’s Church had believed that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets (before the revelation of the 50th Truth), that is what God would be using to judge His people. According to the Scriptures, God would have to be judging whether or not they are wavering in their faith, as THAT is the true test of prophets, because should they go straying away from their beliefs in order to speculate about something that wasn’t revealed to them through revelation from God, then they are being presumptuous and therefore would be false prophets.
Since Mr. Weinland was having 100% faith in the beliefs that God’s Church had at that time, Mr. Weinland was not speaking presumptuously, but was only speaking assumptuously, when he stated that April 17th, 2008 would be and was the blowing of the 1st Trumpet of Revelation. If we have a problem with why it is that God chose to not give His revelation for the timing for the return of Jesus Christ much sooner, than we need to be praying to Him and asking this of Him, not of Mr. Weinland, because God is in full control of what he reveals and when he reveals, God’s servants have no control at all whatsoever over those revelations, and so thus, until further revelation is given, they must hold fast onto what they have been believing until revelation changes those beliefs. Most of the level-headed individuals that now deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet because of the timing issue did not express their concern that Mr. Armstrong might have been a false apostle when he had to change things based upon revelation from, and such an instance of this would be when God had revealed to His Church that they were not to be keeping Pentecost on a Monday, but rather they should be keeping it on a Sunday, and that was purely revelation from God, and as God’s apostle in God’s Church, that revelation from God gave Mr. Armstrong the authority to fine-tune the doctrine that they had very much long believed. People today understood it much much more than many in God’s Church understood it back during that time, but now that one of God’s prophets had spoken something that was based solely upon the long-held beliefs in God’s Church, we want to immediately deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet. If God would only judge His people based ONLY upon what God has given to them thus so far, then we must not judge anymore differently than that. There are so many other instances where God’s apostles and prophets had to change or fine-tune their doctrines because God had revealed to them the deeper spiritual meaning behind the Scriptures contained within the Bible, and that is the ONLY means by which God’s Church, the body of Christ, can grow both in truth and in spirit, through the progressive revelation from God to His servants and thus to His Church. That is how God had worked back during those times, and there is thus so far no reason at all whatsoever to believe that God is working any differently right here right now.
Now, please remember that I am not one whom can get you to see the truths of God, because God and God alone is the one whom can open-up somebody’s mind to be able to see the light of His truth, no human-being dead or alive can be successfull for in such an accomplishment. But all I can do is just hope and pray that this message will have been enough of an inspiration for you to sincerely and genuinely pray to God and pour your heart out to Him and pray for Him to give you only the truth, no matter what that truth may be. If I am speaking falsely, or if Mr. Weinland has been speaking falsely, or if Mr. Armstrong had been speaking falsely, then pray to God to reveal this to you, but just pray to our Eternal God the Father that He reveal what is of the truth to you. As long as you have adopted a humble spirit of humility for desiring the real truths of God, then he will bring you into the light of His powerfull truth, whatever that real truth would so happen to be.
Now, I will say right here right now that if Mr. Weinland should so ever state anything (without powerfull revelation from God) that is based upon anything else other than what God’s Church believes, then I shall deem him to be a false prophet. Had God’s Church already believed that Jesus Christ would be returning on Pentecost, or had there been no further revelation regarding the timing, then Mr. Weinland would most assuredly be a false prophet and I would have had no problem stating this as such, but I have not yet found this to be the case because God’s prophet is only speaking things which are based upon what God’s Church believes until God otherwise corrects them in their tracks. God had not corrected them for a very long while about the true timing for the return of Jesus Christ, and this waiting was for very great purposes that only God can help us to understand, as no manner of intellect or intelligence can help anybody at all whatsoever to understand God and the truths of God, it takes help from God, this is the only only manner of this occurring. We need to pray to God and ask him to help us to spiritually see more deeply into a certain matter, instead of relying upon our own intelligence and intellect by seeing something purely in a physical light, because God is spirit, and so thus he works spiritually, he doesn’t work physically, his mind works spiritually, and since we are only physical human-beings, we need God to us the power of His Holy Spirit for us to be able to think spiritually, that is the only manner in which we can think like God thinks.
I love all of you no matter what, no matter if you believe in these words or not, as we each and every one of us is commanded to love our God, to love our neighbors, and even to love our enemies regardless of and no matter what evils they might be committing or have committed in the past. This is why God states in the New Testament that we are to hang ALL of His Laws upon the Laws of loving God and loving your neighbors, because the first 4 commandments regard loving God, and the last 6 commandments regard loving your neighbors. God saying that all of the Law is hung upon the Law of love is NOT saying that the Law is done away with and that we only have to act nice towards each one another, no, that is most certainly quite the contrary, because the very following of those commandments is what hanging those Laws upon the 2 Laws of love because all of the 10 Commandments from God stem from those 2 Laws of love, so thus, the Laws of love in the New Testament are what FULLFILLS the 10 Commandments, it does NOT in ANY way, shape, fashion, or form, make one jot or one tittle pass away from the Law, and such will not be the case until the heavens and the Earth pass away, just as it was stated by our Eternal God the Father’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ, the Messiah for mankind.
Aaron Robinson
I’m postingly this comment simply to be able to select the option of notifying me when I receive comments to my posting.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
I am amazed how those who are called are like minded. also, as I continue to read God’s word, I am in awe how I have the same mind as those whom God used to write it. When Jesus prayed that we would be one even as he and the Father are one (same mind), that can only be experienced when we are called and God grants us repentance. I am so thankful for everything that God has allowed (purposed) in my life to bring me to humility. Actually, words are inadequate to express how thankful I am.
I humbly ask any here that know the truth to pray for my wife. She left me shortly after God called me (she’s protestant) and I love her more than I ever have.
Thank you, Mark
There is a very stark difference between being the End-Time Elijah and being God himself. Somebody does indeed have to come in the full truth and spirit of Elijah, very truly “restoring all things”. The economy has begun to collapse in a big, manner, and even though we are being led to falsely believe that the economy is under a massive recovery, this couldn’t be further from the truth, because of how so very much corruption we are seeing within government and Wall Street, they have given the false appearance of an economic recovery, but we are losing just as many jobs as from before, because although the un-employment rate is still up there at a whopping 10%, the real actual figure number is actually much much higher due to the fact that the government does not count the people whom have quit looking for work, and when people are no long getting un-employment benefits, they are no longer counted as being un-employed, which very very greatly affects the number of un-employed, and not only that, but the un-employment figure itself is normally at least over double what they’re reporting, and there cannot be a jobless recovery, and people are touting this recovery as a recovery but just except without all of the jobs, but that is such a sick, twisted, and perverted way of distorting the existence of even havign a recovery in the very first place. Ronald Weinland did indeed prophesy that this would be occuring with the economy 3 years before it actually finally to the first huge nose-dive in September 2008. Everybody thought he was just so absolutely crazy to be saying that the economy was about to go down-hill in a very rapid hurry, and then they were shocked when it just suddenly occured. It’s hard to say that Mr. Weinland was right now that it appears that our economy has been recovering, but sadly ithas not, and we are being greatly conned into believing that we are actually recovering in a vey big way. I will have to read his books again because there are other things that he might have predicted but which I have forgotten because I have been watching for the 2nd Trumpet and forgetting some of the other things that he had said regarding things that would be happening before this. If nothing occurs by the first part of 2011, then I will deem Mr. Ronald Weinland to be a false prophet, and this is my first time for this because I never stated that I would deem him to be a false prophet before the first 1st Trumpet didn’t blow, so I didn’t back-out on my word for that, but really very truly I would have to stop believing Mr. Weinland and pray to God to reveal the truth to us and to ask why we were led this far astray when we have been truly desiring the real truths of God, because as long as we are sincere and genuine about our desire to come to the truths of God (no matter what those truths might be, mind you), then God will give lead, guide, and direct our lives to bring us intot he light of His truth.
I personally don’t believe that we will be getting too far deeply into the year of 2010 will be occuring, but those are ju7st my words and not the words of neither Mr. Weinand nor God Himself. I’m just speculating of the possibility of how that since 9/11 was portraying the future destruction and demise of the United States Of America and this foreshadowing occuring during the first year of the decade, that this actual future destruction of the United States will be occuring in the last year of the decade, would be great symbolism if you ask me. Now, I could very well be wrong about this, and that it would occur as late as like the 1st Quarter of 2011, but it would just seem to be so very fitting for the foreshadowing of the demise occuring in the first year of this decade to be connected to that actual future demise occuring in the last year of this decade. If you think about it, that Full-Moon, Blue-Moon, and Lunar-Eclipse that we had back on New Year’s Eve was actually on January 1st, 2010 (1/1/2010) because it was already the evening after sun-set in most of the rest of the World, and actually even in the United States the Lunar-Eclipse had occured at the transitioning from between the very late afternoon and on into the evening, and the Blue-Moon began in the afternoon and lasted for like the next 14 hours, so it’s almost as if the year of 2010 is marked for something. Not only this, but we are right in the middle of a Triple Eclipse whereby we’re witnessing a Total Solar Eclipse that are on the 1st of Av during all 3 consecutive years of 2008, 2009, & 2010, which is really very incredibly rare, and this just so happens to occur from 2008 – 2010 ? Not only this, but in 2009 we had another very incredibly rare Triple-Eclipse whereby we had 3 Eclipses within the time-span of just 30 Days, whereby we had Lunar 7/7/2009, Solar 7/22/2009, Lunar 8/6/2009, so thus 2 Lunar Eclipses with a Solar-Eclipse right smack dab in the middle of that time-span. This marked the middle Solar Eclipse of the 2008/2009/2010 Triple Eclipse. Not only that, but we have had 3 Annular Solar Eclipses in the month of January for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Now, this whole series of Triple Eclipses just so happens to be ending on July 11th, 2010 (7/11/2010). Could this just be a very very massive coincidence that we have 1 very rare Triple Eclipse of 3 Total Solar Eclipses all on the 1st of Av (the time during which the Jewish people have always equating with troubles because of historic events occuring during that time), and then having another very rare Triple-Eclipse of 3 Eclipses within just a 30-Day period, and to top that all off, both of those 2 very rare Triple-Eclipse patterns over-lapping each other right in the middle in the year of 2009 ? That really looks like a sign to me, and I thought that maybe it was a sign for 2009, but maybe God was giving us a sign 3 times, and that if we didn’t recognize this sign by the 3rd Total Solar Eclipse occuring on the 1st of Av, then the long-awaited 2nd Trumpet will finally be blowing, although it could very well blow before this also, and then again it could blow at any given time until the beginning portion of the year of 2011.
Aaron Robinson
marcusmaxis said “Just as it says in the Bible no one knows when that time is when Jesus is to return. Jesus’s return will be like a theif in the night. FOR EVERYONE!!!!”
That’s not correct. Scripture says that Jesus’ return comes on THE WORLD as a thief in the night, but that days does NOT come as a thief in the night for the Church of God….
1 Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon THEM, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But YE, brethren, are NOT in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. <——NOTE THIS
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are NOT of the night, nor of darkness.
Time will indeed tell.
Hi marcusmaxis,
To a large degree I can understand your position regarding Ronald Weinland.
I started off as a ‘fence-sitter’, then concluded he was false and made strong comments against him on this blog similar to yourself. Now I am back on the fence.
Here are a few reasons why I now believe it is worth giving him further time, and why I don’t go along with what you said.
1. I don’t agree with you that Jesus will come as a thief in the night for EVERYONE. I believe Scripture allows for God’s people to know the date of Christ’s return and, therefore, for Ronald Weinland, if he is God’s prophet, to have the date revealed to him.
The Apostle Paul said in 1 Thess 5 vs 1-6:
“But concerning the times and seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night. For when they say “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labour pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. BUT YOU, BRETHREN, ARE NOT IN DARKNESS SO THAT THIS DAY SHOULD OVERTAKE YOU AS A THIEF. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. THEREFORE, LET US NOT SLEEP, AS OTHERS DO, BUT LET US WATCH AND BE SOBER.”
2. I am someone who believes wholeheartedly in the 7000 year plan of God and how it relates to God’s Sabbath, with Jesus returning after 6000 years. We are approx at that time NOW. So this is a legitimate time to be looking out for God’s end time Elijah/witness.
3. Ronald Weinland has come up with a very significant set of numbers which fit with God’s Festivals. He changed his original timeline due to what he calls the ‘50th truth’. In my opinion, the ‘50th truth’ is significant and was a legitimate reason for RW to change his timeline.
In fact, due to the SEQUENCE of his prophecies, the fact he changed to a second timeline (which turned out to be a perfect fit with the festivals) makes it MORE, not less, likely that he could be genuine in my opinion. The odds against all the numerical fits he has come up with being pure coincidence must be extremely high ?
4. His ‘thunders’ are certainly rumbling to some degree even if they haven’t yet become deafeningly loud.
5. His preaching continues to give a clarity and cohesiveness to Scripture which I have rarely found elsewhere. His preaching is authoritative, in my opinion sound, and anyone who has recently heard him will notice he is growing in confidence. Additionally, I find him totally humble before God. In short, he has qualities not unlike what I would expect from the ‘end-time witness.’
As So Thankful says, “Time will indeed tell”.
MarcusMaxis, in regards to your comment that no man knows the day or the hour, that is something which Jesus Christ had told to his disciples and that was true at the time that he stated that, but if you combine those verses with Amos 3:7 which says that God surely does nothing without first revealing His works to His servants the prophets, then this shows that we can indeed know the timing when God’s prophet would give it to God’s Church. You seem to be holding-onto what the churches of traditional Christianity, and I just ask that you approach this with an opened-mind, not with a mind that feels that it already has the truth, because then God will withhold you being able to realize and understand His truths. I wrote very detailed in my posting how it can be that God’s prophet could state something (based on long-helf belief in God’s Church) and not come to pass in the time-frame as originally stated, which just simply shows that God had not revealed the timing to His prophet until after he had already gave his first time-frame which was solely based upon the long-held belief in the Church, once again God only judging people based solely upon what has been given to them thus so far.
Also, I don’t believe that you listen to Mr. Weinland’s sermons because he stated very clearly in the sermon immediately prior to the 50th Truth sermon that he should not have stated that he would stop preaching and all of that stuff, and that those were mistakes that he had made that he wish he would have reacted differently in the interviews when they were essentially pounding upon him.
Also, Jesus Christ didn’t just say that things would come upon everybody like a thief in the night, as those whom are wise and watchfull and ready things will NOT come to them as a thief in the night, but for those whom are not watching an not ready, for those it WILL indeed come upon them as a thief in the night. It does not say that it will come upon everybody like a thief in the night.
Aaron
Saying that you are 100% for sure about something shows that you are not adopting a humble sense of humility. The very fact that you state that you know 100% for sure that you aren’t wrong is pridefull all by itself, regardless of whether Mr. Weinland is even for real or not. Be sincerely and genuinely praying to God that if Mr. Weinland is indeed His prophet, then to give you greater understanding for what you cannot just using your own intelligence and intellect, no manner of which can ever hope to grasp, comprehend, and understand the truths of God. Not even Albert Einstein or Aristotle or Socrates the great scientists and philosophers can come to the truths of God unless God gives it to them, but they would first have to be adopting a humble sense of humility through the lacking of the pridefullness of them feeling like they already have the truth.
Aaron
Hi Aaron
With regard to this topic of ‘The Presumptuousness vs Assumptuousness of God’s Prophets’, I feel bound to ask your opinion on the following issue, as I believe it is important to look at both sides of the argument about Mr Weinland.
In your introductory post on this subject, you started off talking about the fact that the 2nd Trumpet of Revelation was not blown within the time-frame that he had originally given us (that means 45-90 days after the first trumpet).
Then for the rest of your post you go on to the subject of how Ron Weinland was not presumptuous when he moved the timeline because he was only assuming what the church had assumed for years, that Jesus would return on the Festival of Trumpets. I agree that this seems a fair argument for Ron Weinland moving the overall 1335 day timeline.
But what I would like to ask you is if these two issues are really connected or are they separate ?
Regarding the second trumpet, Ron Weinland was very firm in his interviews that the second trumpet would blow 45-90 days after the first trumpet. This clearly didn’t happen. He was equally clear that the first trumpet would result in physical devastation to the land in the USA. This also hasn’t happened.
So the question is, on this subject of presumptuousness vs assumptuousness, does the shifting forwards of the whole timeline due to the church’s wrong assumption that Jesus would return on the Festival of Trumpets, give a legitimate reason to overlook his prediction of the physical affects of the first trumpet and also the 45-90 days prediction for the second trumpet ?
Hi Mal, you raise very good points, and I knew that I would be forgetting some certain things within my postings, and those are some things that I have been wondering about. Now, I had first heard about Mr. Weinland in the Spring 2008, but I had only peeked at his http://www.RonaldWeinland.Com web-site but I only read like the very latest posting, and at that point, I don’t believe that God was fully giving me the understanding of what Mr. Weinland was saying. That was right around the very time that everybody was waiting to see the manifestation of April 17th, 2009 and 45-90 thereafter, but somehow I didn’t realize how deeply this had gotten because I was only picking-and-choosing what to be reading, such just as like me just only reading the 7 Thunders portion of Mr. Weinland’s book “2008 – God’s Final Witness”. But however, then came very close to the day of Pentecost in 2009, and my Mom was on a trip to Pennsylvania to see her family, and so that is when I decided to totally read both “The Prophesied End-Time” & “2008 – God’s Final Witness”, and I got so very much more out of it by fully and totally reading both of those books of his. I didn’t even realize that it was right on the very day of Pentecost, May 31st, 2009 that I first wrote to Mr. Weinland, I didn’t realize this until like months later-on.
I learned about the 45 – 90 Days thing through the listening of some of his interviews and also his sermons, but I still don’t know where the 45 – 90 Days came from, like if there was understanding of Bible prophesy somewhere, or what. Maybe somebody here could tell me where he said that the 45 – 90 Days came from in terms of understanding what the meaning of it indeed was. Regardless of my understanding of that though, Mr. Weinland did say that the time-frame had indeed changed for the 1,335 Days, which he said also meant that the 45 – 90 Days was also not valid, although I probably missed some of those sermons to discover why.
I have also been wondering about the physical manifestation of the 1st Trumpet, and I don’t have all of the answers for that. Perhaps Mr. Weinland didn’t fully understand everything, hence the revelation from God of the 50th Truth, and then further revelations after that, revelations that haven’t changed the time for the returning of Jesus Christ on Pentecost 2012, but which are further fine-tuning Mr. Weinland’s understanding of the present and of the future. One of those revelations is of “God’s Time”, the real true meaing of the phrasing of “Time, Times, and Half-A-Time”, and that God always shows great mercy in his judgements. Think of it this way, that regardless of whether or not Mr. Weinland is really truly one of God’s prophets, whomever would come as God’s real true prophets would be constantly receiving revelation from God to be revealing what the real truth is about certain matters. So thus, if one of God’s prophet(s) would state something as like there being physical destruction through the manifestation of the 1st Trumpet, then perhaps God would be giving his prophet(s) revelation regarding the real truth of it, as God never gives all of His truths and revelations all at once, just as like the revelation of the 50th Truth would greatly prove to be the case if Mr. Weinland is really truly one of God’s prophets. I would almost expect God to give only progressive revelation to his prophet(s) and to also show His prophets’ humble spirit of humility by boldly stating that what he has said is being fine-tuned through God’s revelation of His truths. Perhaps God giving revelation after Mr. Weinland has already stated something is to test and try the humble spirit of humility of not only his servants, but of His Church, and also of the World. What God has been showing me is that we cannot always assume what God is doing, because He could have very great purpose in doing things in just the very precise manner that He is doing those various things. I will be listening to more of Mr. Weinland’s interviews and perhaps listen to some of his sermons which mention the 45 – 90 Days and where he derived that time-frame from. I will also be praying that God give me understanding of His truths, whatever those truths happens to be, even if that means that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, but God hasn’t yet shown that to me.
Mr. Weinland seems to be very different than people like Vincent Xavier whom said unequivocally that Washington, D.C. would be having nuclear detonation in October 2009, and then he stated that it must have been for October 2010, but he said each time that it had directly come from God, but no good explanation was given. Mr. Weinland gives very incredibly plausible explanations for what has been occuring or not occuring, giving very powerfull revelations such as incredible timing that just could not be chalked-up to mere coincidences that just so happen to be fitting with everything else, especially when inter-mingling between the Roman Gregorian & Hebrew/Jewish calendars. I just cannot consciously ignore those timings because of how incredibly powerfull they really truly are. Like I have always been saying from before, I will have to stop following Mr. Weinland if physical manifestion of the 2nd Trumpet is not witnessed by the beginning of the year of 2011, although I personally believe that it will be within the next 6 months or so, but this is just purely speculation on my part.
Aaron Robinson
marcusmaxis,
I can appreciate your frustration; I’ve been following this blog for awhile now and was sad to see that Citizen X has changed his position on Mr. Weinland. That being said, all we can really do is present the reasons for what we believe; it is only God Who can change hearts and minds.
I believe the people posting here are truly sincere, but sincerity alone is not sufficient. I am not one to be swayed by feelings and the boldness with which others speak, so I’m not distracted by those things nor am I convinced by them. I trust in and believe the Bible alone, and nowhere do I see that any of God’s prophets ever stood up and proclaimed themselves as such as Mr. Weinland is doing; nowhere do I see that any of God’s prophets prophesied falsely and pointed to God as the reason for their failure; nowhere do I see that any false prophets repented and were reinstated as a true prophet; the list goes on and on. The Bible is my ONLY ruler of truth, so I will measure the words of anyone who puts their words on the same level as the Bible with a microscope, if need be; and if that makes me a “fault finder” so be it.
To continue following someone whose prophecies have failed takes a tremendous amount of faith, because they have to deal with everyone who challenges their belief, and all the doubts and fears associated with the uncertainty of believing a prophet who expects them to take his words purely on faith. I’m encouraged, though, that Citizen X is allowing healthy discussion because it’s not good to only allow opinions that agree with your own.
If I can find nothing else with which to agree, I will agree with this:
“…as we each and every one of us is commanded to love our God, to love our neighbors, and even to love our enemies regardless of and no matter what evils they might be committing or have committed in the past.”
Hi angel
As far as I am aware Citizen X has not changed his position. He has declared Ronald Weinland to be a false prophet.
Citizen X has simply allowed Aaron some scope on this forum and Aaron has a more open mind about Mr. Weinland. I believe this has been good for the forum and has given the discussions a new lease of life. It is good to see that some of the Weinland supporters who had previously left the blog are now re-entering the discussions.
Can you please expand on your comment “nowhere do I see that any of God`s prophets ever stood up and proclaimed themselves as such as Mr Weinland is doing”. As far as I can see, every Biblical prophet announced that they were speaking for God.
Mal,
“As far as I can see, every Biblical prophet announced that they were speaking for God.”
That’s exactly right; a prophet would have to say they were speaking for God in order for anyone to know that’s what they were doing, however, that’s not the same as saying they “proclaimed THEMSELVES” as Mr. Weinland is doing.
In the gospels, we’re told John came out of the desert and started preaching. It was Jesus Who told the multitudes John was a great prophet. In the same chapter, we’re told that the multitudes, upon seeing Jesus raise a young man from the dead; glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.”
God’s prophets did not need to proclaim, as Mr. Weinland does repeatedly, “I am God’s Prophet”. We know someone is “claiming” to be a prophet when he prophesies; so how do we determine whether he’s a true or a false prophet? Do we believe him because his words excite us and get us fired up about God? Do we believe him because he speaks with boldness? Do we believe him because he seems sincere? Do we believe him because we’ve accepted his teachings as being true, so we feel we must accept his prophesies also, even if they don’t come to pass? Does the Bible tell us to use our feelings, our perception of others, things a prophet has previously taught, to determine if a prophet is true or false?
Let’s look at Deut. 18:20-22 again:
“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’
Okay, the prophet who presumes….presumes what? To speak a word in His name which God has not commanded him to speak. A prophet who presumes shall die; God takes this very seriously, as should we.
Verse 21 & 22 goes on to say, “And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— (here’s the answer) – when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”
How does God say we will know the word which He has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, IF THE THING DOES NOT HAPPEN OR COME TO PASS, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. And if the LORD has not spoken it, the prophet has spoken it presumptuously – this is how we know what God means by presumptuous.
It is very clear, and very simple. It doesn’t need to be interpreted. This is one of God’s Laws, so anyone who believes it is important to obey them should not be looking for a loophole; God has given us a way to test a prophet for our protection.
Mal,
In Deut. 12:32, God said “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”
God has defined for us what He means by presumptuous; we must not redefine it for our own convenience.
God said, regarding the presumptuous false prophet, that we SHALL NOT be afraid of him. This is not a suggestion, it’s a command. We are not to allow this prophet to frighten us into believing him; to disregard this is rebellion against God.
Ron’s prophecies are based on the prophecies God revealed to JOHN. What he’s done is expand on them by giving details of how these events will occur and the timing of the events, including exact dates. If we remove from his prophecies the portion that was revealed to John, we see that Ron added to these prophecies; that part is his alone, and it is that part that has failed.
Revelation 22:18,19 says, “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
I do very much appreciate your comments and feelings, you do indeed express them in a very respectfull manner and I commend you for this. I do want you to realize that just because somebody mentions that Mr. Weinland is speaking boldly and confidently, that doesn’t mean that this somebody is letting that be their driving-force behind having faith in the prophet. I only find that Mr. Weinland’s boldness and confident is how a prophet should be acting in his demeanor, but this is no way defines whether or not we should believe a prophet.
I was kinda of confused because didn’t many of God’s prophets proclaim to others that they were indeed prophets, and yes, even though others had proclaimed others to be prophets, they have proclaimed themselves to be prophets to others, right ? I mean, don’t think that there weren’t prophets that didn’t themselves say that they were a prophet from God.
Aaron Robinson
Hi Angel, I wasn’t sure why you said that Mr. Weinland’s source of claiming himself to be a prophet was purely from himself, I mean he said that God had revealed to him that he was to have a role of as a prophet, but he didn’t claimed it from himself, he proclaimed it from God. God’s prophets most certainly indeed proclaimed themselves to be prophets of God. Are you saying that you can find not one place that shows where God’s prophets had stated that they were a prophet sent from God ?
I also want to mention that I’m not believing Mr. Weinland just because he speaks great things, or because he speaks of exciting things, or because he speaks with boldness and confidence, and I’m not believing his prophecies just because I accept his teachings. But however, I’m trying to be thinking more objectively about it. For instance, in Deuteronomy, it says if the Lord has not spoken it, AND the prophet has spoken it presumptuously (some translations say, “but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously”. Now, you could chalk this up to being a loop-hole, but it would make perfect sense if this is what it meant because it would be saying that the sign of a false prophet is if the prophet has spoken something presumptuously. Mr. Weinland using what he believed to be the truth in God’s Church (God’s Church believing that Jesus Christ was returning on the Feast Of Trumpets) was not being presumptuous because it was belief in the church that was revealed to not be true through powerfull revelation, and it was powerfull in all of the perfect timing associated with it, which no man could have come-up with, I mean you can go hundreds of years backwards and hundreds of years forwards and you will never find the same configuration of Christmas (Roman Gregorian calendar) to Trumpets, and then that same Trumpets to Pentecost, and from that same Trumpets of 1,335 Days showing the 1st Trumpet of 1,260 Days, and then God’s Time of 40 Weeks occuring again and ending on the Feast Of Trumpets both from Christmas 2007 and also from the 1st Trumpet on 12/14/2008, and then of course the first revelation for God’s Time through the revealing of the Man Of Sin by the same 40-Week judgement period. Not only this, but God was using timing between both the Roman Gregorian calendar and the Jewish/Hebrew calendar, I mean that’s just not the timing from a man. Now, even if this timing could very well indeed be from a man and not from God, other things still make total sense about this.
Deuteronomy says, “But the prophet whom presumes to speak a word in my name.” Presumes would mean if he pre-sumed it, which means pre-meditatedly speculated and came-out with something knowing that it didn’t come from God. In a sense, if God knew full well that He had not yet revealed the truth of the timing for the return of Jesus Christ, then in a sense God was commanding him to speak about the original time-frame because that was showing Mr. Weinland’s faith in using everything that God’s Church had believed at that time before the revelation, and if Mr. Weinland had just stood idly by and NOT used what the Church had believed to be true, then Mr. Weinland would have been holding back which would have been lacking the faith in God’s Church. Since God had not yet given the revelation of the 50th Truth to Mr. Weinland, the only thing that he could go by was that 2008 was God’s Final Witness and that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, and God’s prophet showing his full faith in everything that God’s Church had believed at that time, in a sense God was commanding his prophet to speak what he believed to be true since the Church had believed for many many decades in the Trumpets return of Christ, and since that belief was part of God’s Church, that would be part of what God would EXPECT His prophet to be using when speaking for God regarding the understanding of existing prophecy. Why would God hold it against His prophet when the 50th Truth was not yet revealed by Him to His Church ? God would only be judging His prophets based upon what they had already believed, regardless of whatever future revelation would be given, because that is God’s choice when he chooses to give his revelations to His servants. God would be EXPECTING his servants to use what His Church believed, even if that means giving understanding of the prophecies of the Bible, and if it was already after an original time-frame was given before the revelation of the 50th Truth which would fine-tune that time-frame, then sure we could say that he could be a false-prophet, but isn’t it just very possible that God has a purpose in how he is working all of this out ? Now, had Mr. Weinland gave a different date other than April 17th, 2008 for the blowing of the 1st Trumpet, then that would have deemed him to be a false-prophet because any other date would have been speaking presumptuously because then he wouldn’t have been utilizing the belief in the Trumpets return of Christ, which means that it would have been purely speculation and guessing, which would be speaking presumptuously.
Mr. Weinland was not presuming the belief in the Trumpets return of Christ, but rather he was assuming that belief because that is what God’s Church had very long believed, so God would be expecting him to be using what they had believed to be truth in the Church for a very long time, and if he had used ANYTHING else other than the Trumpets return of Christ, then Mr. Weinland would have been speaking presumptuously because it would have just been purely speculation, but instead he was using belief that existed within the Church at that time to make statements about the timing of events, but then the revelation of the 50th Truth came. Now, this doesn’t mean that we have to 100% believe him just because of this revelation, but we should at least be considering it and seeing it as very well possible that God could be working in this way because it really does make alot of sense to me that God would be expecting His prophet to use ONLY what His Church believes when He speaks for God, so Mr. Weinland was indeed speaking for God because that is what God’s Church had believed and it was God’s prerogative that he chose to give the revelation of the 50th Truth after Mr. Weinland had already given his first time-frame. God could have revealed the 50th Truth much sooner, but I could cite so very many reasons why God would have wanted to withhold this powerfull revelation until later-on. God’s prophet would only be presumptuous if he was speculating something to be true, rather than having the faith of something being true because God’s Church had believed it for such a very very long time. So, was Mr. Weinland as a prophet being presumptuous in giving his first time-frame when he was using only what God’s Church had believed to be true for a very long time ? Mr. Weinland would have been presumptuous if he DIDN’T use what God’s Church had believed, because then he would just be guessing or speculating, which is what being presumptuous means, but doesn’t the very fact that Mr. Weinland had used precisely what God’s Church had very long believed make Mr. Weinland NOT speaking presumptuously ? Had God’s Church not believed in the Trumpets return of Christ, then Mr. Weinland would have 100% spoken presumptuously because nothing else would have been directing him towardz the date of April 17th, 2008.
I do very much agree that Mr. Weinland should not have stated that he would stop ministering if he was wrong, he had stated before the 50th Truth was revealed to God’s Church that he shouldn’t have stated those things because he wasn’t thinking ahead that God could be giving him powerfull revelation which would be changing the first time-frame, I mean how could Mr. Weinland have known that God was going to be doing that ? God and only God would have known this kind of thing, and there was very great purpose in God having done it in this very manner.
I am still standing by my belief that if nothing happens by the begining of 2011, then I will deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet and I will stop following the Church Of God – PKG because it would certainly be clear that the 50th Truth was not real true revelation from God if further revelation would change the revelation of the 50th Truth. So no, I’m not following Mr. Weinland as blindly as a bat, but I am being objective about this and trying to give the chance because it does make sense that God would be working in this manner. I very greatly understand how following a prophet where his time-frame just very simply didn’t occur is a very wondering thing, but I am allowing the room for God working in manners that we just cannot understand unless God show this to us.
Aaron Robinson
Hi Angel, I want you to know that I’m not being frightened into believing him or following him, that is not my inspiration into believing him or at least further considering him and not deeming him to be a false prophet. I think much more objectively than that, and if anybody was frightening me into believing their church, then I would still be within traditional Christianity. You are right, words are not to be added to those prophecies contained within the book of Revelation, but that is not what God had done, and this is the very very very first time that anybody has ever mentioned this as being something wrong that Mr. Weinland had done wrong and sinner by. What Mr. Weinland is doing is giving spiritual meaning and understanding to existing prophecy. If giving spiritual understanding of prophecy meant adding things to prophecy, then this means that God could not ever give any revelation about End-Time events, I mean would that really maky any sense though ?
Aaron
Aaron,
Well said. My only concern for you is that you do not “lock God” into what and how you have determined in your own mind for him to accomplish that which he is accomplishing before Christ’s return.
All will be humbled. His Church is just on top of that list.
Hi angel
I essentially go along with what Aaron has said in his posts. Apologies if this repeats some of what he has already said.
Sorry, but I find your criticism of Mr Weinland announcing himself to be God’s prophet invalid. Also misleading.
You have isolated two incidents (one of which concerned Christ Himself), which purport to show Mr Weinland is somehow out of order in proclaiming himself to be God’s prophet. In fact, I believe the vast majority of the biblical prophets did indeed proclaim themselves to be speaking for God. Furthermore, it makes total sense that they would do so, since this provides authority for their words.
In a similar way, the Apostle Paul over and over again made the personal proclamation that he was Christ’s Apostle. Take a look at the beginning of each of Paul’s epistles. The Apostle Peter also made a similar personal proclamation in his epistles.
………………………………………………………………………………….
I also consider your point about ‘adding to Scripture’ invalid.
In fact, Ronald Weinland’s prophesies are centred around Daniel and John, not just John.
Daniel, when he asked for the meaning of the words concerning end-time events to be revealed was told that the meaning of the words was sealed UNTIL the time of the end. This included the meaning of 1335, 1290 and 1260 days.
Clearly this meant that at a future time the meaning of these numbers would be revealed through one of God’s servants. So for a spokesman of God to eventually explain the meaning of end-time events and how they relate to these numbers (regardless of whether or not it is Mr Weinland) cannot be construed as ‘adding to Scripture’.
………………………………………………………………………………….
Your key argument against Mr Weinland being God’s true prophet seems to revolve around the one issue of whether the worldly physical manifestations he said would occur have taken place.
For me, there are other reasons than just this single issue for keeping the door open for him. I am already aware from your previous posts that you do not consider these issues of much importance.
1. It seems to me it is possible that Mr Weinland’s credentials for being God’s prophet could be through the numerical revelations he claims God has given him.
I already understand from your previous posts that you are not interested in ‘playing the numbers game’.
However, surely it is clear that God does not put numbers in Scripture like 1335, 1290, 1260, 7, 40, etc for no reason ? He also does not put expressions like ‘time, times and half a time’ for no reason (especially when this particular expression occurs twice).
Isn’t it clear from Scripture that at the ‘time of the end’ God will reveal the meaning of these things ? So when Mr Weinland, who is claiming to be God’s prophet, comes up with an extraordinary fit for these numbers and IT IS UNIQUELY BASED AROUND THE YEAR 2008, THE EXACT YEAR AROUND WHICH HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO WRITE A BOOK, then to me that is a fair reason not to dismiss him too quickly.
2. Another reason, again which I believe from your posts that you give little credence to, is that I see in Scripture God’s 7000 year plan, with Jesus returning after 6000 years. That time is approx NOW. So the approx time I would expect God’s end time Elijah/witness to be revealed is NOW.
3. Another question I ask myself: Is Mr Weinland manifesting the characteristics I might expect from an end-time witness of God ? Does what he is saying make sense with God’s Word, does it appear to be coming from a sound mind or is it wacky ? Does he exalt God or himself ?
Frankly, I am understanding God’s Word with a clarity and coherence unsurpassed in my previous church experience. Although unconventional in some ways, with links to the history of the Church of God, it does come over as coherent and making sense.
Another thing about Mr. Weinland is that he comes across as being totally humble before God.
Of course, none of this proves anything about his credentials as a prophet of God, but it is additional justification in my own mind for giving him more time.
marcusmaxis
Actually, that revelation was given to Ron to give to the Church during the Feast of Tabernacles 2005.
Your right, no one else has that revelation but God’s true Church.
To all:
Let me try and share a two fold purpose for the times we now live.
#1. God is now giving Truth to his people through his chosen Prophet/Apostle for the pupose of sanctification at an unprecedeted rate. There are some who are alive and remain (of the 144,000) that will still be alive at the Lords coming. They, along with those who are dead but continued faithfully in the Truth that was presently revealed to them will be presented to Jesus at his coming.
1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Daniel 12:9-10
9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.
#2. God is also opening the minds of many to his Truth as revealed through his Prophet – Ron. They are those who are not apart of the 144,000 but will have the wonderful oppurtunity to live into the time of restoration when Jesus returns.
I will also say this. If you are unsure or have completely dismissed him and his wife. Be careful.
1 Samuel 26:9
But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD’s anointed, and be guiltless?”
Psalm 105:15
Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.”
Zechariah 4:14
So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.”
I am not saying you should fear Ron, but you better have a fear of God.
#3 – If you put your mouth against God’s anointed ones and they Just happen to be Ron and his wife Laura, You will not partake of either #1 or #2. Though we know at this point, #1 is a done deal. Are you good with what’s behind door #2?
Hi marcusmaxis
You must know full well that the youtube video you recommend us to listen to is very old and addresses Ron Weinland’s first timeline. The extraordinary numerical tie-ups with Scripture given in the ‘50th truth’ which resulted in the second timeline came after his interview on this video.
Personally, I would not be prepared to adversely judge Ronald Weinland’s words on the video because I have little doubt that in his shoes I would have behaved in the same way, if I believed God had revealed something as extraordinary as the ‘50th truth’ to me.
I am not a mathematician, but the odds against the 1335 and 280 linking up with the festivals in the way they do occurring just by chance must be extremely high indeed. Maybe there is somebody out there who could calculate the odds ?
Mal,
If you’re referring to the fact that Trumpets 2008 is 1335 days from Pentecost 2012, that’s not at all a unique event. It happens several times per century. It will happen again in the year 2025.
Trumpets 9/23/2025
+1290 days = 4/5/2029, day before the Last Day of Unleavened Bread
+1335 days = 5/20/2029, Pentecost
People have known this for years. It just takes a little effort to look it up is all.
Please tell me no one is going to “wait and see” until 2029.
Musicsoulworldly,
I have to disagree that Mr. Weinland didn’t add to John’s prophecies; John did not give details of how the events he described were going to happen and John did not give us dates – Ron added these things to John’s prophecy.
In his books, he said God had revealed to him how these events would unfold, and the date the devastation would begin; he was wrong, therefore he was presumptuous because he claimed to speak for God, but we know the words he spoke were not from God because those events didn’t happen as he said. This is how God has clearly defined being presumptuous, so I can’t accept your definition. You’ve offered a lengthy explanation of what you believe being presumptuous means, but it doesn’t line up with what is said in Deut. 18:20-22.
You said, “If giving spiritual understanding of prophecy meant adding things to prophecy, then this means that God could not ever give any revelation about End-Time events…”
There have been lots of false prophecies made in the last 2,000 years, and I’m not aware of any “true” prophecies regarding end times outside of the Bible. Jesus said, “If anyone adds to these things…” – adds what? Information that was not included in the words of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. Mr. Weinland claimed to be giving a prophecy, not just “spiritual meaning and understanding”, of how the events described in Revelation would come to pass, and the date it would begin.
I see nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe God intends to give any further revelation about end-time events. In the OT, God made many prophecies when He was dealing with the nation of Israel, but there came a time when that ended. We know this because the OT ends with the book of Malachi, and the Jews haven’t added any further prophecies to it. About 400 years passed between the time Malachi was written and Jesus was born.
In the NT, John, who wrote the last book, tells us Jesus said nothing is to be added or taken away from the words of the prophecy of this book (Revelation). Jesus had previously told His disciples no one knows the time (that end-time events would begin), so for someone to claim that they have additional information from God about the end-time events John described that has not been previously revealed, as well as the date – contradicts what Jesus said.
Mr. Weinland made these claims, which contradict what Jesus said, and he was wrong, as all the other prophets who have made similar claims in the last 2,000 years have been wrong. God did not give him the spiritual meaning and understanding of John’s prophecies; this was proven when his prophecies failed.
Mal,
I gave two examples of what I was talking about because I felt they illustrated what I was trying to say; the pattern I see is that prophets didn’t seem go around making the statement “I am God’s prophet.”
If you know of a passage where a Biblical prophet proclaimed himself by making this statement, please share it with me. What I see is that a true prophet of God was typically acknowledged by others. I didn’t say making this statement proves Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, because it certainly doesn’t; I just don’t see an example of a Biblical prophet doing this.
In the case of Paul, the book of Acts tells us the 11 remaining apostles chose a 12th to take Judas’ place, and their criteria was someone who had accompanied them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up, to become a witness with them of His resurrection. No wonder, then, that although the other apostles had accepted Paul as an apostle, he had to defend his apostleship to those that may have felt he didn’t fulfill that criteria.
God didn’t reveal to Daniel the same things He revealed to John. Jesus’ statement in Revelation specifically stated not to add things to that book. Mr. Weinland’s prophecies were based on events in Revelation, such as the trumpets, etc., which are not found in the book of Daniel.
Daniel was told to seal up his book until the time of the end; and that the wicked would not understand, only the wise. God did not give Mr. Weinland the understanding of the details of end-time events or the timing, which was proven by the failure of his prophecy as defined in Deut. 18:20-22, so that doesn’t put him in the wise category.
Whether someone acts humble or not, and whether or not our perception of that is correct, does not in any way prove/disprove whether they are a true prophet of God or not; the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not their prophecy came to pass at the time that it should have.
Deut. 18:20-22 says NOTHING about any previous teachings made by a prophet (or whether or not he seems humble) who claims to be speaking for God. I don’t believe such criteria should be added, as supported by Deut. 12:32, “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”
xHWA
Thanks for your info. I checked out a Hebrew calendar and you are right about the 1335 day tie-up, it will not occur again until 2025. That exact spacing happens so infrequently because God’s Holy Days move around the calendar from year to year.
But the 1335 is only part of the story. As you surely know, Ron Weinland’s ‘50th truth’ is built around a combination of TWO timespans, 280 and 1335. God ‘showed him’ that starting from Trumpets 2008 and working back to Satan’s festival of Christmas 2007 is shown to be exactly 280 days.
As you say, it takes a little effort, but I have now checked out the combination of 280 and 1335 and, unless I am mistaken, IT IS UNIQUE TO 2008 AT LEAST TO THE END OF THIS CENTURY. I ran out of time to look beyond that.
But as I have said in previous posts, it is the SEQUENCE of Ron Weinland’s preaching and prophesies I find particularly interesting.
He did not first look for a unique combination of numbers, find one that occurred in 2008 and THEN call his book ‘2008 God’s Final Witness’. It came the other way round. It was AFTER he was drawn to call his book ‘2008 God’s Final Witness’ that these number sequences ‘appeared’. Number sequences that I believe are not repeated beyond 2008 for at least the rest of this century.
Not only that, but since the ‘50th truth’, the number 280 has also been shown to link up with God’s Festivals if used in the biblical expression ‘time, times and half a time’. Coincidence ? – possibly, but the odds against it are stacking up.
In the years preceding 2008, the numbers that had formed the major part of his preaching were – guess what ? – 280 AND 1335.
He had always said that God’s sign that Joseph Tkach was the ‘man of sin’ of 2Thess2 vs 3,4 was that he died exactly 280 days (40 x7) after his sermon that tore down the major doctrines of HWA’s church (including that the church no longer needed to keep God’s Holy Days). Ron Weinland identified the number 280 with the ‘judgement’ of Joseph Tkach. Identified it again with the ‘judgement’ of Satan in the 50th truth, and has identified it again as the ‘judgement’ of mankind in the end-time expression ‘time, times and half a time’.
Personally, I find these numerical combinations extraordinary, and particularly when considering the order in which it has all come about. If anything, I would say his second timeline makes it MORE not less likely that he could be genuine.
Like Aaron, I’m keeping the door open for him for the time being. We only have a relatively short time to wait. There is no question of any more timelines beyond Pentecost 2012.
musicsoulworldly,
When I read So Thankful’s post, I thought, here we go; this is why it’s so important to remember Deut. 18:22, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” False prophets (and those who follow them) often use this kind of tactics; verses about not “harming” prophets, and this type of not so subtle statements:
“If you are unsure or have completely dismissed him and his wife. Be careful.”
“I am not saying you should fear Ron, but you better have a fear of God.”
“If you put your mouth against God’s anointed ones and they Just happen to be Ron and his wife Laura, you will not partake of…” (didn’t bother with the rest of it).
A true prophet of God is not “harmed” by being tested. The truth doesn’t harm us, Jesus said it sets us free, and in this case it frees us from having to fear someone whose prophecies have failed. Since I am one of those who is, “unsure or have completely dismissed him and his wife”, this is my response:
I AM careful, that’s why I test all things, in accordance with scripture.
I DO fear God, which is why I refuse to disobey His command not to fear prophets whose prophecies have failed.
Scripture does NOT prohibit me from speaking the truth about Mr. Weinland’s failed prophecies; they did not come to pass as he said and he’s changed the timeline even though he said he wouldn’t do that – that’s the truth. Mr. Weinland said if his prophecies did not come to pass as he said he would stop preaching – that’s the truth. Mr. Weinland did not keep his word and stop preaching – that’s the truth.
So Thankful on 1/22,
I really do very much appreciate you telling me how you felt about this. I’m assuming that you mean I didn’t that God was the source of my understanding, and while I might not say this in every individual posting that I make on here, I have stated and I will continue to remain steadfast in my stating that the only reason why I have come to realize, grasp, and understand those things is through God and the power of His Holy Spirit to work in the minds of millions upon millions of individual human-beings all simultaneously at the same exact timing. I verbally speak to God nearly every single day, and I tell him how so very thankfull I am that he has given my his great mercy by allowing me to have understanding about what is going on in these times. I apologize if I didn’t make this very clear before, even though I have very much indeed stated this in the past, but no human-being can come to understand the truths of God without direct help from God through the power of His Holy Spirit, otherwise there is only physical understanding of Scriptures and physical understanding of certain various events, rather than spiritual understanding, and there are so many Worlds of difference between physical understanding and spiritual understanding. Only God can open somebody’s mind to cause them to be guided into the light of His truth.
Aaron Robinson
Mal,
I want to predicate everything I say with the fact that I am not against any of you.
On the contrary, I am very much for you. But first and foremost I must be for God and truth. IF that appears to be opposed to you, I must apologize and remind you that if you are for the God and the truth, then we are not against each other at all.
Here is what concerns me:
“Like Aaron, I’m keeping the door open for him for the time being.”
Your statement tells me that you are curious, but not exactly a faithful believer. You have doubts. Then I know you will understand when I have doubts as well.
All that aside, I wonder, what will you do IF in 2012 nothing happens? Aaron has clearly stated that he will not be allowing for a third timeline. I applaud that. What about you?
You do have a plan, I hope?
You have said that 2012 is unique. If 2012 comes and goes, then there is no other opportunity to match 280 and 1335. Can I conclude that you are saying it’s 2012 or nothing?
The alternative is to downplay the significance of either 280 or 1335. Which means they are not important right now, and all this is much ado about nothing. Or, to recalculate from some currently “unrevealed” timing – which still leaves us with much ado about nothing, only now we have a third timeline to go with it.
There is more to my question than I would care to discuss here, but what you both do in 2012 IF things do not pan out will be of incredible importance. And that is what really concerns me.
I end as I began: I am not against you; I am very much for you.
More than you know.
Mal,
I would only comment on one additional thing. Ron never used to mention “280″. It was always 40, and never 280. Now, you can say that 280 is 7 x 40, but “280″ is never how he anyone understood timing until Ron recently said it was revealed to him.
7 was taught. 40 was taught. Even 50 was taught. But not 7×40.
I’m not sure what Biblical backing Ron has in saying that Pentecost being 280 days from Christmas is significant, but if you wish to paste that verse here, I’d be glad to see it.
I find it very commendable that you would talk about one of God’s truths from Mr. Weinland even though you do indeed believe him to be a false prophet. In terms of the existence of Jesus Christ, it is part of the Pagan Trinity to believe that Jesus has eternally existed. The other part teaches that Jesus Christ was nothing more than the physical manifestation of God upon the Earth, which would mean that Jesus Christ and God are the same being and that is just not true at all whatsoever. The verses that describe God and Jesus Christ “being one” is because they are atoned to each other, they are “at one” with each other, just as each one of us that enters into God’s Family of Elohim will be “at one” with our God the Father, in essence we all become God because we will all be “at one”, although don’t mix this up with how Satan deceives peope into thinking that all human-beings are individual gods, we will become as gods, that is just so very much so different. The truth about the non-eternal existence of Jesus Christ is indeed a very beautifull truth, and since most churches preach the Trinity, you just know that the Trinity is false since it stems all of the way back from the Roman Catholic Church, once yet again a tradition of man and not the tradition of God. Nearly everything that the Roman Catholic Church believes is false and nothing more than the traditions of men, and also, nearly everything that the majority of Christian churches preach about can be traced back to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, especially after the year of 325 A.D. when the Council Of Nicea had made so very many changes to the keeping of God’s Laws and Commandments.
Aaron Robinson
I did write regarding this in one of my previous postings on here. What So Thankfull said is right in the sense that God’s Church is the only one that received revelation from God. I provided instances whereby I was illustrating how somebody could have the same truths as God’s Church, but that does not mean that they got those revelations from God. There was one church, I think it might be the Church Of Philadelphia but I’m not totally for sure regarding that, where the pastor was claiming that Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. was indeed the Man Of Sin, and he had made this claim before Mr. Tkach had died, although I’m not totally for sure whether or not he claimed for him to be the Man Of Sin before or after the sermon on December 17th, 1994, probably after since people would notice the blatant disregard for most of God’s Laws and Commandments. Now, once Mr. Tkach had died, this pastor of the Church Of Philadelphia had to change whom the Man Of Sin was to Mr. Tkach’s son. So thus, even though this pastor had the actual truth of whom the Man Of Sin was, he did not understand the spiritual meanings behind it since God was not in it, it was not of God’s revelation, it was revelation from himself from his own intelligence and intellect, no manner of which can give somebody the truth about anything because God is not in it. So thus, having the actual real truth is not as important as knowing the source of the truth, and to have deeper spiritual understanding of the truth instead of just purely knowing the truth and having no further understanding behind it. So, if Mr. Weinland is indeed God’s prophet, then that would mean that only God’s Church received revelation from God because God doesn’t work with multiple church bodies anyhow.
Aaron Robinson
What Mal said is correct, because even though the Trumpets-Pentecost configuration happens several times per century, the configuration of Christmas-Trumpets-Pentecost is what is very much incredibly rare, and God gave part of his revelation of what “Time” is, that being of 40 Weeks (280 Days), which is where the 280 Days from Christmas-Pentecost comes from, so it’s not even like Mr. Weinland just made the time-span before the 2008 Feast Of Trumpets as being whatever that time-span would be, but rather it was through the revealing of the Man Of Sin through the very consuming of the Man Of Sin with the breath of his mouth (the revelation of the Man Of Sin through his death precisely 40 Sabbaths after he had committed the “Abomination Of Desolation” (the desolation of God’s Temple, of God’s Church). Not only this, but this very same 40 Weeks (280 Days) is manifested once yet again from between the blowing of the 1st Trumpet on 12/14/2008 until the Feast Of Trumpets on 9/19/2009. So, not only would the Christmas-Trumpets-Pentecost configuration have to be a freakishly huge coincidence, but also would the witnessing of the 40 Weeks (280 Days) judgement 3 separate times have to be a coincidence of astronomical probability. So thus, for this freakish coincidence to be just so happening to occur around the year of 2008 of God’s Final Witness is incredible for me, although this is not the only reason why I believe Mr. Weinland is God’s prophet.
Aaron
Point taken, Aaron. I’m not here to argue away what anyone here believes. This is your forum. I’m just asking questions so I can understand you better.
I’m also waiting for someone to give me firm Biblical reasoning about a prophesied 280 days, and where it indicates this period will start at Christmas. I would like to look in to this further.
Angel on 1/24/2010 @ 2:11 AM,
I can fully understand you being skeptical regarding Mr. Weinland’s prophethood because of the time-frame having been changed, and even being skeptical of other things, but some of the things you wrote in this posting just seem to be grasping at straws for further proof that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet.
You said that Mr. Weinland is false also for having given any prophecies at all. This is the first time I have seen you mention that giving any prophecies at all whatsoever regarding End-Time events is already proof enough that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet. Why wouldn’t you have made this point before this if it’s important to understand that there should be no more prophecies regarding End-Time events ever again. So let me just ask you what are the 2 prophets in Revelation supposed to be prophecying about ? Are they supposed to be prophecying about the past, or maybe about only the future for after Jesus Christ has already returned to this Earth ? The book of Revelation itself said that prophets would be prophecying, so wouldn’t it make sense that they would be prophecying about the very End-Time events which would be un-folding before they would die in the streets of Jerusalem 3-and-1/2 days before the 7th Trumpet blast is blown heralding the very return of Jesus Christ to this Earth ? Are you saying that God will not be sending any prophet into the World to prophecy regarding End-Time events ? It wouldn’t make sense that God would allow us to rely only upon John’s prophecies because John’s prophecies can be interpreted in so many different ways, there would be no clear prophecies for people to see the power of God’s servants, and God’s Church, and God’s Word, and plus, this would totally discount the part of Revelation that states that there will be 2 prophets of God whom would be prophecying.
You said that Mr. Weinland told us in his books the date of destruction, and that is just not true. He gave us a general statement about the collapse or the beginning of the collapse occuring by the Fall of year of 2008 and part of that did indeed occur, but he didn’t even tell us within either of his 2 books that there would be nuclear detonations on certain dates, that did nt come about until during his interviews and during his sermons.
I do have to disagree with you that God defined the meaning of being presumptuous. Deuteronomy 18:22, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of God, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which God hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Some translations say, “which God has not spoken, and the prophet has spoken it presumptuously”, or even “which God has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously”. Angel, even the translation that you always quote has the semi-colon in place of the word “and”, because semi-colons designate “and”, or even “but”, but a semi-colon never means “then” or “so” or “thus”. Since it means “and” or “but”, it would be saying that if the thing did not come to pass, BUT or AND the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, then (colon) thou shall not be afraid of him. When you change the meaning from “and” to “thus”, it changes the meaning of what the verse is saying. Even in the very translation that you yourself have been using, there is a semi-colon which means “and”, it doesn’t mean “so” nor “then” nor “thus”. Now, you might say that this is nitt-pickng, but we do need to examine the verses and not just read through it and miss the context of it. Now that you should be understanding what this verse really even states, now you can begin to see how Mr. Weinland was not speaking presumptuously because speaking presumptuously would mean that Mr. Weinland was just speculating about the future events, but he was very confident that those events would be occuring during his first time-frame simply because he had 100% faith in what God’s Church had believed for so very long. Speaking presumptuously would have been to NOT consider the timing of the supposed returning of Jesus Christ on the Feast Of Trumpets, or to be considering other things which were not part of what God’s Church believed. In fact, Mr. Weinland was showing such very much faith in what God’s Church had believed that he even stated that he would stop ministering if what he said didn’t come to pass, and that to not do so would be insane. Yes, he stated those things but it was only because he was having so very much faith in what His Church had believed, which makes what Mr. Weinland said regarding the timing NOT presumptuous because he was not “presuming” or speculating that the timing would come to pass, he was going 100% on faith that the timing would come to pass because of what God’s Church believed for so very long. Basing something upon your faith and long-held beliefs is the opposite of being presumptuous. Being presumptuous means that you know that you might be wrong but Mr. Weinland did not believe that he was wrong because of the belief of Jesus Christ returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, that was faith, not presumption. God was not stating that what doesn’t come to pass is what makes somebody presumptuous, the verse is stating that if the thing doesn’t come to pass AND (or BUT) he spoke presumptuously, then we should not fear him. God does not define “speaking presumptuously” in this verse, it is only. In fact, this very verse almost caused me to question Mr. Weinland’s prophethood since his original time-frame was in error, but then I examined this verse more carefully instead of just skimming on over it as I had originally done. If I believed in what God’s Church was believing, then I would have done precisely the very same thing as Mr. Weinland and have stated that I was a false prophet if this timing didn’t occur. Then, if I was given very powerfull revelation showing that the belief of Jesus Christ returning on the Feast Of Trumpets was not of the truth (which had occured throughout the history of God’s Church before revelation of various truths was given), then I would have not felt that I was speaking presumptuously because I wouldn’t have been presuming anything if I stated what I stated based upon the faith in those beliefs. If anything, Mr. Weinland stating what he did because of long-held belief in the church further shows the faith that he was having in God’s Church. In fact, if Mr. Weinland had gone against the Trumpets doctrine in order to give the timing of End-Time events, then he would have been breaking-away from the faith that God’s Church had, and THAT would have been speaking presumptuously because he would have been “presuming” that God’s Church did not have the truth about the timing for the returning of Jesus Christ. In order to be speaking presumptuously, a prophet would have to be presuming that the Church is wrong about something, that the Church doesn’t have the truth about something, in order to presume that what he is saying might not be correct. That is what being presumptuous means, it doesn’t mean speaking based upon faith, as that would be the opposite. Speaking presumptuously and speaking on faith are the opposite of each other. When you are speaking on faith, you are not presuming anything because you are believing with 100% confidence that what you are saying is correct because of holding 100% faith in the beliefs from which your statements are stemming from. Speaking presumptuously would be pre-suming, “pre” meaning before-hand, that what is said might or might not be correct.
Another one of the things that you mention is that there have been no true prophecies of End-Time events outside of the Bible, which makes totall sense though since the End-Time was not even upon us until that very End-Time 2,000 years after the life of Jesus Christ upon this Earth. Why would there indeed be any prophecies that have come true regarding End-Time events before those very End-Times were even yet upon us ?
Also, you said that Jesus said that nothing is to be added to or taken away from the words of the prophecy of this book of Revelation. Mr. Weinland was not adding to the words of the prophecy which John wrote about, as Mr. Weinland was giving us prophecy himself, meaning that it was not adding to the already-existing prophecy that John wrote, but rather it was giving new prophecy. It doesn’t even matter that Mr. Weinland’s prophecies are regarding End-Time events, I mean, neither John, nor Jesus Christ, nor God, stated that there would be no future prophets whom would prophecy regarding End-Time events, they only said that no words are to be added to or taken away from the prophecy of this book, and Mr. Weinland did not add to the words of the prophecy as it was a prophecy itself, at least regarding the timing and some other various things that John did not write about. The things which John did indeed write about that Mr. Weinland has talked about were given greater understanding through revelation from God to His Church. Giving understanding of existing prophecies is not condemned in the Bible. The book of Revelation does say that John is to seal up those words until knowledge and travel have greatly increased, which seems to say that the words will become un-sealed (revealed) in some manner, as in revelation from God. Daniel is also told to seal-up the prophecies which he was given until the time of the end, and Daniel’s prophecies had so very much to do with End-Time events, so shouldn’t those things be revealed during the time of the end just as Daniel’s prophecy had stated ?
If you believe in Daniel’s prophecy, which will require that the words of Daniel’s prophecy will become un-sealed (understanding of it revealed) at the time of the end, but then you say that nothing can be stated regarding End-Time events because of no words being allowed to be added to the words of the prophecy of the book of Revelation, then you are essentially saying that the Bible is contradicting itself, which would mean that you cannot trust what the Bible is saying, which means that you don’t have faith in what the Bible says. How are you able to get past what you seem to be showing us is a contradiction in the very words of the Bible ? There cannot just be no further revelations of End-Time events since Daniel’s prophecy very clearly states that his words are to be sealed UNTIL the time of the end, and those future revelations would not in any manner add to the words of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. Those revelations would be giving new prophecy to what is not written in Revelation, and would be giving greater understanding and meaning to what IS indeed written in Revelation. God never said that understanding of Revelation would not be given in the future, and in fact, Daniel’s prophecies essentially promise to us that we WILL INDEED be gaining understanding during the time of the end, because otherwise we would have to say that Daniel was a false prophet and that his words would not be coming to pass.
The other thing that you stated, Angel, was that Jesus Christ previously told his disciples that no one knows the timing that end-time events would begin, which was very true at that time. Jesus Christ said that no one knows the day or the hour, and indeed nobody knew at the time that Christ stated that. His statement was not an “always forever and ever more” statement, it was a “present” statement, which means that no one presently knows the day or the hour, and that was very much indeed true, he stated “no one KNOWS the day or the hour”, not that nobody CAN EVER know, nor that nobody WILL EVER know. This is also confirmed in Amos 3:7 whereby it states that God surely does nothing without first revealing his secrets to His servants the prophets. So thus, to be thinking that God will never ever ever be revealing the timing neither for the End-Time events nor for the returning of Jesus Christ, to be thinking this is to be discounting Amos 3:7. Plus, Jesus Christ stated that not even the Son Of Man knows the day or the hour, which means that Jesus Christ himself WOULD NOT EVER be given the timing for his very own return, I mean that just wouldn’t even make any sense at all whatsoever that God wouldn’t reveal all of the timing to Jesus Christ at some point since Jesus Christ is the only one whom is accounted worthy of opening-up all of the 7 Seals of Revelation. I guess Jesus Christ would just have to simply be guesstmating as to when to do everything that God said would occur, but that God will perpetually hide this timing from Jesus Christ since you say that “no man know the day or the hour” means that no man will ever know the day or the hour, and it’s not even stating that no man TODAY knows the day or the hour (as opposed to in the future), but the “knows” (present tense) was stated back during the life of Jesus Christ, which meant that Jesus Christ was telling his disciples that “nobody knows”, which was true that nobody knew back that, but we are changing the very words of Jesus Christ if we are saying that Christ said that nobody will ever know, because then Jesus Christ himself would never know either and he would eventually have to know. We take that verse of “no man knows the day or the hour” and so twist and distort it to the point that it is very greatly limiting God’s power of revelation to His servants and to His Church and to the World, because Amos 3:7 is a very very clear statement that we cannot just discount. Even your thing about not adding to the words of John’s prophecy, I mean, Amos 3:7 tells us that there will be given understanding of everything contained within the book of Revelation at some point during the future and BEFORE those events actually occur, not AFTER those events have already occured.
From some of the things you have stated, the Bible would have to be contradicting itself like all over the place, which means that you should have a difficult time even believing what the Bible says in the very first place. Now, this doesn’t prove that Mr. Weinland is a true prophet of God, but it should at least leave the door open for that possibility, instead of slamming the door shut upon him without even examining what the Scriptures are saying. I mean, it would have very greatly humbled Mr. Weinland when he realized why his original time-frame didn’t occur, and to know that he was basing what he said upon already-established belief within God’s Church, proving to himself that he was having 100% faith in God’s Church, which is the opposite of being presumptuous.
Also, in your last paragraph you once again state that since all of the claims in the past 2,000 years have all be wrong, then that means this has to be wrong also. We cannot take on the attitude that everybody else has been wrong so everybody whom comes along claiming prophethood and claiming events to be occuring will be false since it has been tht way for 2,000 years, because then we’re calling God a liar for saying that the foundation of God’s Church is God’s servants the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, and also calling God a liar for promising us that he will do nothing without first revealing those things to his servants the prophets, and also calling God a liar for promising that he would be un-sealing the words of the prophecy, which means to give greater meaning and understanding through revelation. Now, even if Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, then the above things within this paragraph are still true because it is what the Bible very clearly states, so even without Ronld Weinland in this picture, some of the things that you have stated would be in contradiction to what the Bible says, and that is even aside from the “speaking presumptuously” thing.
Aaron Robinson
Angel on 1/24/2010 @ 2:14 AM,
You seem to be Hell-bent on the harping on points such as like being humble does not prove whether somebody is a true prophet of God, when Mal even stated that, and nobody disagrees with that, so is there really any reason to be saying this to Mal when he even said this very same thing himself ?
Also, you seem to be saying that apostles and prophets cannot give any kind of deeper spiritual understanding of anything contained within the whole entire Bible because you say that doing so would be adding to the words of the Bible. If this is your stance, then you are essentially saying that there would be no need for God’s Holy Spirit to be living and dwelling within them and His body of Christ. There would not even be any need for God’s Church if the World supposedly had all of the truth right in front of them in the Bible. Mankind cannot understand everything in the Bible without the power of God’s Holy Spirit working in our lives, and it doesn’t work in everybody’s lives, most especially for the people that already believe that they know the truth and that there is no further understand coming. Apparently, according to you, no prophet will be coming to prophecy about anything contained within the pages of the book of Revelation, which would include not only the 7 Seals, and the 7 Trumpets, and the 7 Vials, but also about ANYTHING regarding God’s Kingdom since that is talked about in Revelation. I guess that means that no prophets will be coming to prophecy even though Revelation specifically states that there will be 2 prophets whom will be prophecying. If you discount anything and everything that those 2 prophets would be prophecying just because it says not to add to the words of the prophecy of this book, then you are discounting the book of Revelation itself since 2 prophets are to come and will prophecy. Are you saying that those 2 prophets during the tribulation period would not be prophecying regarding ANYTHING even remotely related to End-Time events ? If we were to rely upon the book of Revelation as it is stated without any deeper spiritual meaning or understand behind, then everybody would be in the dark until the very day that Jesus Christ returns, and this would contradict Amos 3:7 whereby it is stated that God reveals things before he does them.
For instance, God had revealed to His servants that there would be coming a great falling-awqay from the ruth, a great apostasy, a whopping 2,000 years before it was to actually occur. If that were to be the case, then you would be saying that anything and everything that God’s Church has ever preached has been wrong since it is not just only the words in the Bible. If a pastor of God’s Church (over the past 2,000 years) is describing something using words that are not word-for-word contained within the Scriptures, then you are saying that those words through the preaching are adding to the words of the Scriptures. If this were to be the case, then God’s Church would have ONLY ever read the verses and Scriptures from the Bible and would not have never ever been allowed to expound upon what those things even meant. What would be the point of God’s Church without growing in understanding, or as the Bible states, growing in truth and in spirit ?
Whether it’s giving deeper spiritual understanding of existing prophecy (which the very prophecies of Daniel promise to us during the time of the end), or it’s giving brand-spankin’-new prophecy, that is not adding to the words of John’s prophecy because either they are new prophecies which make them separate from John’ prophecy, or they are giving deeper spiritual meaning and understanding to the words that John gave. God never ever tells us in the Bible that giving deeper spiritual understanding of Scriptures is adding to or taking away from God’s Word. Or just think about the apostles and prophets that came AFTER much of the Bible was already written. You didn’t see God ever condemning them for actually adding whole books to the Bible, I mean, talk about adding words to the Bible. Also, whom is to say that our current Bible is 100% totally finished ? I would be willing to bet that during the Millenium, that there will be further books added to the Bible, like of the name of the 2 prophets that prophecy until the very return of Jesus Christ (3.5 days before this return), regardless of whether or not Ronald & Laura Weinland are indeed those 2 prophets. But, regardless if any further books are added to the Bible during the Millenium, giving revelation of the understanding and meaning of what is contained within the pages of the Bible (or even giving brand-spankin’-new prophecy not found within the Bible) is NOT what it means to be adding words to the Bible or adding words to the prophecy contained within the book of Revelation.
I would like to directly comment on my questions that I have raised to you regarding these things because I’m just kinda captivated by how you could arrive at the conclusions that somehow giving deeper spiritual understanding and meaning to what is already written in the Bible (or even giving new prophecy not found in the Bible) you consider to be adding to the words of the prophecy or adding to the words of the Bible.
Aaron Robinson
Angel on 1/25/2010 @ 12:13 AM,
I do indeed feel that you should be doing those things, being carefull, and testing thngs according to Scripture, but if somebody else like me or Mal is telling you that there is another angle of looking at those things and doesn’t even go against what the Scriptures say, then why can’t you at least consider the possibility that maybe you don’t fully understand everything ? I already stated that I could very well indeed be wrong about certain things. Now, I believe in all my faith that it is correct, but I have to leave room for what happens if it is shown to be wrong. Do I stick to my guns and refuse to believe that anything else could possibly be true or do I stick with something to the very bitter end because I feel that I already have all of everything ? If nothing occurs by 2011, then I will be deeming Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet, that is just plain and simple, and I have never stated anything different in regards to when I would declare that kind of a powerfull statement. But, on the very same token, you should also be considering the possibilities that you are wrong also in certain things that you are thinking. What if God really did allow His servants to believe things all of the way up until He finally gave His revelation of the truth regarding that certain something ? This is even prophecied within the Bible that this would occur, that truth would be lost, and that the truth would be restored. What if God doesn’t consider Mr. Weinland to have spoken presumptuously because he was having 100% faith in the beliefs that were part of God’s Church, regardless of whether or not the original time-frame that he spoke was incorrect, because couldn’t it be that the only reason why the time-frame was incorrect because God hadn’t yet revealed the truth regarding the timing for Christ’s return ? If that were to be true, then Mr. Weinland was not speaking presumptuously because he was strictly stating things that were in accordance with the teachings and beliefs in God’s Church, but Mr. Weinland could not have known that Jesus Christ returning on Trumpets was not the truth and that he was going to be given powerfull revelation that would reveal the truth of Christ returning. Now, you could chalk this up to us blaming God, but we should be taking this up with God if we cannot understand why he would allow a prophet to speak something that wouldn’t be occuring until after the revelation of the 50th Truth was given. Imagine how so very humbled Mr. Weinland must have been when the original time-frame didn’t occur, and to learn the reasons why it didn’t occur, I mean God humbles people, even His servants, with the power of His Holy Spirit.
Aaron Robinson
muzicsoulworldly,
I don’t have a corner on the truth; I’m just sharing my views and listening to yours. I’m enjoying this discussion, but it’s heating up a little so I’m going to let it cool down and I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
Have a pleasant evening!
I very much so absolutely believe when you tell us that you are not against us, because I do believe that you are being sincere and genuine in your persuit of knowledge of the truth, whatever that truth just so happens to be, even if that discounts anything and everything that we have ever been taught in life. What is good about the 2012 timing is that we don’t even have to wait until 2012, because the collapse of the government of the United States should be recognized as being very much incredibly imminent by the ending of the year of 2010 or the beginning of the year of 2011. If nothing at all whatsoever occurs by then, then Mr. Weinland will have been a false prophet, but I do believe with every fiber of my being that Mr. Weinland is one of God’s prophets for this End-Time. Now, only time will tell, and no, I will not be extending any time-lines, and should Mr. Weinland come out sometime during the year of 2010 with a 3rd time-line that causes Jesus Christ to be returning even later than the day of Pentecost 2012, then I will immediately deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet. I love you very much xHWA, as we are both striving for the truth, and sharing our beliefs and opinions and view-points of what is being stated by various people.
I still think that it is sio very un-canny that 9/11 occured during the first year of this decade, and now we are in the last year of this decade. Everybody seems to be saying that 2010 has now begun the new decade but they don’t even seem to know their very own Roman Gregorian calendar, which shows us that the year 2010 is actually the last year of the decade which began with the year 2001. The events of 9/11 in the first year of this decade (and century and millenium) giving us a portrayal, a foreshadowing, of the future destruction of the United States Of America; being connected to those very future events occuring during the last year of this decade, I mean just how so very awesome would that be for that kind of connection ? Now, this is not something that Mr. Weinland has stated, but this connects all of this together in my mind as to the connection between the symbolism of the future events and those future events themselves. It still excites me how those 2 overlapping Triple-Eclipse sequences also end on July 11th, 2010 (7/11/2010).
Aaron Robinson
You are right that Mr. Weinland did indeed talk about the 40 Weeks, although he might not have talked about 7 X 40, or 280 Days, but he did talk about the 40 Weeks, and 40 Weeks always comes-out to be 280 Days regardless of whether or not this is actually states. I do think that Mr. Weinland did mention that Mr. Tkach died 40 Weeks, or 280 Days, later following the sermon that Mr. Tkach gave to God’s Church back on December 17th, 1994 (12/17/1994), but however, even in mentioning that it was 280 Days, Mr. Weinland still had not receiving the deeper meaning behind the 40 Weeks as he didn’t know that the 40 Weeks (280 Days) would be utilized again in the future. So yes, Mr. Weinland did talk about 280 Days but only in the context of Mr. Tkach having died precisely 40 Weeks later. But then, God gave revelation to Mr. Weinland regarding the 50th Truth, which gave very powerfull meaning to why 40 Weeks (280 Days) was used to reveal Mr. Tkach as being the Man Of Sin. So no, the 280 Days was not discussed in the respect that it would be utilized again in further revelation.
By the way, it is not Pentecost that is 280 Days away from Christmas, it is the Feast Of Trumpets in 2008 which was 280 Days since Christmas 2007. The Bible doesn’t specifically mention this, but Daniel’s prophecy does indeed tell us that the revealing of the understanding of the 1,335 and the 1,290 would occur at the time of the end, so there is the Biblical proofing that you need to believe that the Bible tells us that God will be revealing the meaning and the understanding of the timing in the future, and this very revelation to Mr. Weinland and to God’s Church is just precisely what Daniel’s prophecy was speaking of when it says that this prohecy is to be sealed-up until the time of the end, and then it was un-sealed and given to God’s servant during ths time of the end. Read Daniel 9 and Daniel 12.
Aaron
Angel on 1/25/2010 @ 11:19 PM,
I wasn’t accusing you of having a corner or a monopoly of the truth, I was just saying that you don’t even consider it to be a possibility of what I have told you regarding Deuteronomy 18 and what that verse means when it says “AND has spoken it presumptuously”. I’m not expecting you to fully believe it without any oher thought, but why is it just no possibility that this is true ? Also, how about the “no man knows the day or the hour” thing which I discussed in a few of my comment-postings on here tonight ? What do you think of my view of it, does it not seem right what I have said regarding this ?
Just so that you know, all we’re doing is taling or discussing, we’re not heating this up or anything, we’re just discussing on here, so please don’t take this to heart or anything.
Aaron Robinson
Hi xHWA
Yes, I confirm I am very much for God and the truth. We are, therefore, certainly not against one another.
From your posts I can see that you are a caring person who clearly felt let down through your experience with HWA’s church and so you want to give anybody tending to listen to Ronald Weinland a forewarning. I thank you for that and I feel I have benefited from what you shared in that it will have increased my level of caution.
Like Aaron, I will not be making any allowances for a third timeline. If Ronald Weinland does turn out to be false, it will be a ‘soft landing’ so to speak as certain events do have to gradually start happening prior to Pentecost 2012.
…………………………………………………………………………………
God, Jesus Christ and the Bible have been the focus of my life for around fifteen years now. I see my understanding of the Bible as a box of jigsaw puzzle pieces of which I am gradually fitting the pieces together. Some of the puzzle pieces in the box are additional and don’t belong in the final picture and therefore have to be discarded.
The jigsaw puzzle is gradually assembled through continual study of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek concordances, church and world history books, other books by various Christian authors etc and, of course, prayer to God for greater wisdom and understanding and for God’s truth to be revealed. As more and more of the pieces of the puzzle are put in place, a clearer picture emerges.
At the same time, some pieces of the puzzle which I thought were in the correct place are discovered to be some of the false pieces, so have to be removed and discarded. Examples of this are the concept I originally had of ultimately ‘going to heaven’ or else ‘eternal torment in hell’, my initial concept of a warlike, bloodthirsty Old Testament God who was quite unlike Jesus Christ, the concept of the Trinity, the false nature of Christmas, Easter etc.
God’s 7000 year salvation plan with Christ returning after 6000 years is part of the puzzle which I believe is supported by many other pieces. That is one reason I am particularly watchful at this point in history.
Some of the things Mr Weinland has said appear to fit into the puzzle, such as Joe Tkach of the Worldwide Church of God being the man of sin of 2Thess2 vs 3,4. At the moment those pieces of the puzzle are only half pushed in and will be fully pushed in or removed depending on events over the coming months.
………………………………………………………………………………….
Regarding the apparent remarkable tie up of numbers like 1335 and 280 with the year 2008 and the festivals, yes I agree that 280 is DERIVED from 40 x 7. It was precisely 40 Sabbaths or 280 days after Joseph Tkach made his speech, where he said amongst other things that God’s Holy Days no longer needed to be kept, that he died. But since then, several more links with the number 280 appear to have
been ‘revealed’ to Ron Weinland.
Ok- let’s say you totally ignore the number 280 from the ‘50th truth’, which leaves just the 1335. That the 1335 would link up with God’s Festivals as well as the year 2008 in the way it does is still odds of approx 17:1 against. In my book, that is still sufficient to keep the door open for him at the moment. Just to say though, that it is not just the numbers. His sermons seem to bring a clarity to God’s Word I have seldom encountered. I can already hear your response to that.
As Aaron said in his post, just because prophecies from others have failed in the past it cannot be said that this automatically rules out every prophet . Eventually the true end time witness of Scripture will have to arise. That is a biblical fact and the time for this to occur, in accordance with my biblical understanding, is approx NOW. Whether or not it is Ron Weinland will soon be proven.
But thanks again for sharing your own thoughts and experience. I found it helpful and I will remain cautious.
Mal,
Thank you for your balanced and open response to me. True, meaningful conversation is possible even if we are of totally different opinions.
Civilization… it’s a good thing.
I notice that Aaron said earlier that he first heard of Ron Weinland in the spring of 2008. I would like to explain that I first attended his church in 1997. He baptized me. I have been watching Ron Weinland for the past 13 years. That is why I do not rush to believe him now.
I take a holistic approach. I want to know everything a person has said on a subject — not just the things he’s said recently to cover up the things he said a while ago that contradict entirely the things he said 10 years ago. I feel it all counts. Here’s my reasoning:
If he called himself a prophet since 1997 (or whenever, I don’t recall his exact date) then I knew him as a prophet. I know that he spoke out very strongly against various people at that time (as a prophet.) He condemned and castigated people (as a prophet) for teaching and doing things he is now himself doing (as a prophet.) Take this quote for one example of many:
“[An evangelist in God's scattered Church] even plants the thought that there are experts who believe one of the two witnesses may fulfill this role of the Elijah to come. How could such a man be so blind, especially after all that he experienced in the Church during Philadelphia? ”
-Ron Weinland, News Watch, Q4 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20020624195633/cog-pkg.org/publications/nw/01/q4.html
Should not a prophet have had better sense than that? So, he condemned people for doing well, did he not? “Better to obey God than man” and all. I have long ago forgiven him for everything he has or may have or is perceived by me to have done to me. But has he repented of what he did to others? I have never seen nor heard of it. And what would real repentance be? To say, “I’m sorry about that”? Yes. And no! It’s a start. He should also be gravely cautious when speaking out against people now, lest he learn in the next few months that he was wrong. We will, after all, be judged by every word that proceeds out of our mouths.
I feel that if there is such a thing as “progressive revelation”, then a man has a responsibility to keep his head, and not make such boastful claims as if he has all the truth now. Wouldn’t you agree?
I’ve tried to explain this to other people many times. I am not against anything but false judgment and condemnation. It is an affront to our Judge, and a shame to us.
Now, let’s speculate ~IF~ he does come to nothing in 2012. Both you and Aaron (though I would like to see Aaron be a bit more cautious in this respect; I’m not his judge) will have prepared yourselves for a “soft landing.” That is very wise. I commend you.
But I wonder to myself if you understand what you could land softly in? What of the next lying mouth that comes along? Will you always “wait and see”? Or, more importantly, what of the other things Ron Weinland has taught – doctrinal issues – that seemed as sure to you as his office of prophet? Was he lying about those as well?
Are you prepared to answer those questions?
I am glad you are not opposed to me. I truly hope you meant it when you recognized I am not against you either. And I hope, when that time comes, that you feel comfortable to contact me, and we will discuss things together as much as you need.
Hey there xHWA, I love reading your comment-postings because they are always kept very very respectfull no matter how much you might disgree with stuff that others are saying. I am glad that you have forgiven Mr. Weinland in time, because if there is one thing that we can always agree with, we are not to EVER have any kind of hatred or animosity toward any human-being on this planet Earth.This might sound strange, but we are not even to hate people like Osama bin Laden. Now, this doesn’t mean that we should be condoning what he does, but just like Jesus Christ said regarding the very people that were putting himself to death, he said, “Lord, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” We are to love our enemies just as we are to love our other neighbors. Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaeda have committed some very heinous crimes, but we are still to love them because we are commanded to do so from our Eternal God the Father and God the Christ. Most of them are probably just way too far gone for God to be giving them favour to survive on into the Millenium of Christ. They will just have to die just as like the rest of the 6 billion people that will be dying over the next 2 years and 4 months.
Do you remember how Mr. Weinland was saying that although Bible prophecy tells us that a tithe (10%) of 1/3 of the Church that was scattered will be called back into a remnant, and how it is very possible that God could show great mercy by having it be a 10% of the whole instead of rather just being 10% of the 1/3 ? Well, I’m thinking of how very mercifull it would be instead of only a tithe (10%) of 1/3 of the people in the scattered nations of Israel surviving on into the Millenium of Christ, that instead God allows for 10% of the whole of the scattered nations of Israel, which would mean that instead of just only 10 million surviving from within the United States and Canada, that maybe possibly up to 30 million would be surviving through God’s great mercy. Now, this doesn’t mean that God is not a mercifull God if only 10 million survive, because not one of us deserves life, we are not owed life from our Eternal God, we all deserve death for our transgressions, and it is only through God’s great mercy through the sacrifice of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ that we are able to be forgiven of our transgressions, but people remember that it’s not just about asking for forgiveness, it is about being sincere and genuine about it with a genuine attitude of repentence, being desirous of repenting by thinking and doing differently than from before. Actually, God already knows how many will be surviving on into the Millenium of Christ, it is essentially anybody and everybody whom adopts a humble spirit of humility, and seeks to know the truth, even if that means that they have to swallow their own prides and prejudices in order to come to the real truths of God, because they could be very very different from what they currenty believe in. This is how this is totally our choice, we all have free moral agency of choice, regardless of what Satan and the World does or is doing, it is still our choice, and God just so happens to already know what those choices are and are going to be, he knows all, he is omniscient, he is omnipotent.
So thus, God does choose whom to save, but how does he do that choosing ? He chooses based upon our very thoughts and actions. If we are continue to be seething and puffed-up with our pride (whether it’s pride of appearance, or pride of wealth and prosperity, or pride of knowing all truth), then God will be less inclined to work in the minds of those people because they are haughty and pridefull, and this is something that I agree with Mr. Weinland regardless of his prophethood, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Satan has been so very desirous that we have lust for physical flesh (the touches and sensations through touch), and the lust of what we physically see through our eyes, the very lustfull desires which will not produce lasting peace and prosperity. Those lustfull desires leads to the pride of life. Can you see just how so very slyly and masterfully Satan has been destroying mankind from the inside on out. Satan is using our very carnal human nature against ourselves, so very masterfull he is. God is obviously over Satan, but God has allowed Satan to be the god of this World until God’s Kingdom is established upon this Earth. Satan knows how to destroy mankind, not from outsidr threats, but from the inside on out.
I had recently talked to somebody about the truths that I have come to learn over the past 2 years, and he said that I was knocking down everything that he was saying, even though I was doing it in a very respectfull manner. That was like in December when I was talking with him. Now, he said that he has had contact with angels, with whom he thought was Michael and the righteous angels trying to lead him to the truth. This is so very powerfull for me because this shows some of the hidden spiritual World that most of us just do not ever get to experience. After we had that talk, my friend told me that within like 1 day, he said that an angel came to him. Now, most people don’t have heightened enough senses to experience things on a spiritual plane, but some people do, basically that happens for the people whom Satan and his demons are trying to influence and manipulate. The people whom don’t have those experiences often just cannot be touched by the demons because God’s righteous angels are protecting them from being influenced by the demonic angels. But anyhow, an angel came to my friend and began offering him great things. My friend realized that this had to be Satan because this angel was offering him great, amazing things, all of the glitz, the glamour, the fame, the fortune, the money, the wealth, the prosperity, and the happiness, he was being offered anything and everything, just as so long as he would follow him instead of following God. He told him that he doesn’t need to be following God to have those things. This really freaked my friend out, but more especially because of how Satan had come to him, which was as an angel of light. My friend could see so very much deception in Satan having come to him as an angel of light. All demons are still angels of light just as they always were and always have been, but they are fallen angels of light, but they still come to people as angels of light because they are still very much indeed eternal angels of light. My friend has been thanking me ever since then for talking with him about those things from before because he is beginning to see the realm for what it really truly is.
That experience sobered me to my very core, to know that within 24 hours after I have a long, in-depth conversation regarding the truth with my friend, that then Satan came to my friend. I believe that Satan came to him because Satan knew that he was in danger of losing my friend to the real truth, instead of keeping him locked into this false deception of protection and safety that he probably had him locked into before this. The truth really does have the power to set you free, to make you free, and this is evidence of the powers of Satan and his fellow demonic angels. Satan is attempting to thwart God’s purpose and plan for mankind through the destruction of mankind from the inside on out through the influence and manipulation of the very carnal nature that he knows that we get weak in the knees for, so much so (weak in the knees) that we move away from God in order to satisfy that very carnal nature. Now, mankind would have become the same way even without Satan, but it just would have taken longer to get there, and then the witness of the past 6,000 years wouldn’t be as strong and powerfull of a witness because it wouldn’t be quite as grim as it has been with Satan and his demons influencing mankind in the World.
This is why the religions of Buddhism and Hinduism are a very attractive alternative to former Christians, especially for our youth, because those religions teach how to us love and peace to look inward for peace, to look inward for everything. God and Jesus Christ has taught us that looking inward is the very opposite of what we are to do. Those religions teach us to look inward to the temple within, so that we can attain a higher sense of awareness and consciousness, and that love and peace will come from this, but that is such a crock if you ask me. We are to look and project outwardly, to give outwardly, to do everything outwardly so that nothing is done for the self. This is a self-sacrificing love, and this is a very powerfull message that Jesus Christ has been giving to mankind. If we aren’t sacrificing self in order to show love and kindness to others, then we are not showing the kind of love that God has, the kind of love that God is all about. John 3:16, “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.” God is such a very loving and mercifull God that He gave His only begotten Son that whomever believes in His son shall not perish but rather shall have everlasting life. God did not have to do this for the World. He could have just been an angry god and let everybody whom would not obey Him to just die and never live again. God is showing great love and mercy to all of mankind just with the mere plan for the resurrection of every human-being whom has ever lived and died on this planet Earth. God doesn’t have to be giving us a second life, but that is part of His great love and mercy that He would choose to do something like this. God desires so very much for us to choose Him, not to be forcefully choosing Him (such as like would be the case if He created us to follow Him), but for us to choose Him, to choose Him and His ways of living our lives, for us to have that kindle of a burning flame of being zealously on-fire for His way of life, which is why that He doesn’t want us to be just lukewarm, He wants us to be either cold or hott, not just sorta-kinda in the middle by “going through the motions” of His ways.
I’m sure that Mr. Weinland didn’t realize that Mr. Amstrong was not fully the “Elijah to come”, although he was a “type” of that spirit. You see, just as Mr. Weinland was not being presumptuous in giving his original time-frame since he was having 100% faith in the belief that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets (and therefore was not sinfull), it’s very possible that Mr. Weinland was not even being sinfull since he was having 100% faith in the belief that Mr. Armstrong was the full “Elijah to come”. He believed it with every fiber of his being that Mr. Armstrong was the “Elijah to come”, and if God was allowing for him to believe this whole-heartedly as being truth until the revelation of the real truth in late 2009, then Mr. Weinland was not being sinfull because Mr. Weinland was having 100% faith in Mr. Armstrong having come in the full power and spirit of the “Elijah to come”, and God was not correcting him, and if God isn’t correcting him or His Church, then they are to continue having 100% faith in what the Church believes until corrected otherwise. Now, should Mr. Weinland or the members of God’s Church be repenting for having 100% faith in what the whole Church believed ? If God was not yet correcting them and setting them straight in terms of the real truth, then they are not being sinfull. In fact, had Mr. Weinland believed anything other than Mr. Armstrong being the “Elijah to come”, then Mr. Weinland would have been breaking away from God’s Church in what was believed before God corrected them to the truth, and that would show God that Mr. Weinland was breaking his faith in the body of Christ being at-one with each other.
Now, the dichotomy comes in where God’s Church felt that God had given them the truth of Mr. Armstrong being the “Elijah to come” only to come to 2009 to find out that Mr. Armstrong was only a “type” of the “Elijah to come”. But however, we shouldn’t get rid of the huge importance of this “type” of the “Elijah to come” because God’s Church would not be where it is today without Mr. Armstrong having “restored all things” regarding the truths essential to the foundation of salvation. The truths that Mr. Weinland is revealing through being in the full spirit of the “Elijah to come” to really truly restore ALL things (and not just only restoring the founational truths) are not essentiall to salvation. Mr. Armstrong restored all of the foundational truths which are essentiall to salvation so he was very powerfull in a very important form of “restoring all things”, so thus, being just a “type” of the “Elijah to come” is no small thing, believe you me.
This creates a dichotomy because Mr. Armstrong was indeed an “Elijah to come”, but he just didn’t come in the full truth and spirit of the “Elijah to come”. Now, I cannot say whether or not this is true absolutely for sure, but it could be very well possible that God was allowing for Mr. Armstrong to make the predictions he was making about the imminent return of Jesus Christ, because you know what that does ? That serves to teach us what Paul was trying to impart, which was that we must always conduct ourselves as if the day of Christ is at hand, so even though Mr. Armstrong was believing things were happening but they weren’t yet fully happening in terms of the very end, God could have been allowing Mr. Armstrong to believe those things to teach a very good lesson as to how we are supposed to be watching and be ready for the day of Christ AT ALL TIMES, instead of just “going through the motions” for many many more decades, and plus, God knew that he would be revealing the truth sometime in the future anyhow, and that His Church would be strong enough to accept that truth.
Here is something to think about though, which is how that God had allowed the apostles to believe that Jesus Christ was going to become King when he arrived into Jerusalem. Now, just as like people are saying that Mr. Armstrong was prophecying by saying something would happen and then it didn’t occur (even though he wasn’t a prophet), the apostles and others (possibly even some of the prophets, but I’m not for sure about them) had said that Jesus Christ was coming into Jerusalem to become king, which according to some of you means that they were prophecying, and then Jesus Christ indeed did not become king, so what they had prophecied about did not come to pass, but did that make them false teachers or false prophets ? This is actually Biblical proof of how God allows His people to believe certain things (for a purpose) until God fully reveals the real truth to them sometime in the future, because once yet again, if God had given them (or Mr. Armstrong) much more truth, then there would be so much less truth to make manifested in the future, which is the whole reason for progressive revelation. I’m beginning to believe that God’s progressive revelation comes with a purpose of Him allowing His people to believe certain things before the revelation of the real truth comes to light in the future. God could have told all of His followers, including His servants, that Jesus Christ was not going to become king during his human-life existence, but God’s plan all along was to not reveal this during that time. Another reason for God allowing His people to believe certain things (and even to proclaim certain things) is for the trying and testing of their faith. God trying and testing their faith to witness how His people respond to those things, to witness whether they will accept the changes as truth or whether they will reject the changes and then be lacking in their faith in what God’s Church believes. Trying and testing their faith by allowing them to believe certain things, I mean maybe I’m wrong about this, but maybe God has been working in this manner, it would make sense, wouldn’t it ? I mean, how do we get past the fact that God’s followers and servants believed that Jesus Christ was going to become king when he arrived into Jerusalem, I mean, they were announcing it as if they knew it as being the real truth. This is a very powerfull instance whereby God allows His people to believe things as if they were truth. Now, this isn’t that God is leading them away from His truth, but there is great purpose in allowing His people to believe certain things before the real truth comes to light. I mean, it almost has to be that way, because before ANY real truth comes out, anything relating to that truth is not the full truth until the full truth is revealed, because otherwise, ALL real truth would have to be known all at the same time from the very beginning, but since that cannot happen that way, there will always be truth that is believed to be true but is really not true, but if God is not correcting what His Church is believing to be true, then His people have to walk in 100% faith and continue to follow what they are believing to be true until God reveals that they haven’t yet had the full truth of whatever it is, and then they will have to follow the new truth that has been revealed to them, it’s really a very beautifull process when you think about it in this light.
In regards to what you sad about a soft landing, I fully understand what you’re meaning, because I know that so very many people would be just so very totally crushed by having everything they have come to believe in crushed before their very eyes, but you know what ? Mr. Weinland being wrong about Pentecost 2012 would not cause me to “be soon shaken in mind”, because I have learned so very much through God, even if it was things being taught by a false prophet. I wouldn’t continue to have faith that Mr. Weinland is one of God’s prophet and witnesses, but I would take most of what I have learned with me, such as like as keeping God’s Sabbath Days Holy, both His Weekly Sabbath and His Annuall Holy Sabbath High-Days. I would also take what I learned about what it means to not be enslaved by the Law because God’s Law is not what saves us. Now, this doesn’t mean that we are not to follow God’s Law because it says to not be enslaved by it, but we have to understand that just following the Law is not what saves somebody, because couldn’t you be technically following God’s Laws but not be sincere or genuine or on-fire for God’s way of life ? This is called “going through the motions”, and if somebody just “goes through the motions” of obeying God’s Laws without being zealously on-fire for God’s ways of living life, then you are nothing more than lukewarm and God doesn’t dwell in lukewarmness. In fact, if you are just going through the motions of God’s Law or are just obeying God because you want to be saved and not see eternal death, then right there you are breaking the commandment to love God above everything else, and if somebody is just going through the motions of obeying God just so that you are spared from God’s Wrath, then they are putting themselves in greater importance than God. One of the very biggest ways to have a humble spirit of humility is to tell God that you do not deserve life, because you only deserve death for evey transgression that has been committed, and that is just the case in point, that we all, every single human-being, deserves death for their transgression of God’s Law. Now, even though everybody deserves this death, all we can do is sincerely and genuinely pray to God for forgiveness, but not just because we want to be forgiven of our sins (because that is selfish), but we need to be praying for forgiveness to tell him that we want and desire with all of our being to repent, to change our thinking and our actions. There is no forgiveness without repentence, I mean, without the repentence, all it would be is “going through the motions” of believing that you will always be forgiven of your sins no matter what, and that is not how it works at all whatsoever.
So you see, there are so very many things that I have learned by listening to Mr. Weinland, but I do have to make sure that they agree with Scripture, which is why I do not believe in the Trinity, or the nailing of God’s Laws to the cross, or the chaging of God’s Sabbath from the 7th Day of the Week to the 1st Day of the Week. I have learned those things from God through Mr. Weinland regardless of his prophethood, so thus, I won’t have too hard of a landing, although I will be desiring to find where God is really truly working at that point in time, because I absolutely refuse to believe that God is working within many many churches, and I refuse to believe that God is not working within any church, so I will have to pray to God to guide me to the real truth.
In regards to Mr. Weinland saying that there are those in God’s scattered Church that say that one of the witnesses could be the “Elijah to come”, I believe that Mr. Weinland was believing with 100% faith that Mr. Armstrong was the totall fullfillment of the “Elijah to come”, and God had not corrected him otherwise, so Mr. Weinland should not have believed anything to the contrary of that until correction came from God. Now, Mr. Armstrong did indeed come in the truth and spirit of Elijah but that wasn’t the totall fullfillment of that role, of which God has now given His Church the full truth regarding the “Elijah to come”. Just imagine if God had revealed to the WorldWide Church Of God that the fullfillment of the “Elijah to come” would not be coming for decades more to come ? That would have caused God’s Church to put ALOT less faith and importance in Mr. Armstrong because they would have seen him as having less important of a role, and so then, that would have caused the spirit of Laodicea to creep into the spirit of Philadelphia much much more sooner than God was planning for. Now, maybe I’m wrong about this, but shouldn’t we at least stop to examine the possibility for this ? I mean, anything less than this would be not having a humble spirit of humility. I am actually learning quite a bit from people like xHWA and Angel telling me how they feel about Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Weinland because it’s allowing me to think of things that I have not yet thought about before this, such as how God could be working. Now, maybe I’m wrong about all of this, but there just seems to be something so very powerfull with how God was using Mr. Armstrong in the restoration of God’s Church after the Sardis era had made the church nearly all dead and gone, and now how God is using Mr. Weinland in, during, and after the Laodician era, there just seems to be something very powerfull going on with all of this, and yes maybe this is all wrong, but so very many people are being guided to this, I mean would God really do that ?
If we really truly are in the End-Time, in the last days, even within a decade from then, wouldn’t God be guiding a portion of the World to His Church to show where the truth is ? I hear about so many people being guided to the Roman Catholic Church, but I’m also hearing about even more people realizing how so very false this church is that they are leaving it because they finally have seen the false truth contained within it. It just seems like the Church Of God – PKG through Mr. Weinland and the Roman Catholic Church through the Pope are both gaining more and more recognition as the time passes us on by, I mean there just seems like there is something very powerfull occuring with all of this. Even if all of the rest of the Trumpets blow just as precisely as Mr. Weinland stated that they would, so very many people just simply will not allow themselves to come to believe Mr. Weinland even unto the very bitter end because of the whole time-line issue, they will just refuse to believe him, even though the United States Of America would have already collapsed and the federation of 10 nations in Europe would have already arose and the powers in Asia would have already arisen, and by that point, not many voices left in the World to choose from, but still, they will choose to reject Mr. Weinland just because of the timing issue that they cannot seem to get past, and that will be like a splinter in their mind driving them madd (quoting from “The Matrix”, lol).
Something just seems to be powerfull about the Church Of God – PKG, and yes, I do have to allow for the possibility that I’m wrong, but there is just something very strong about all of this, and we will know over the course of the next year or so, although most of whom have already declared Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet will still refuse to believe him after the United States has already collapsed, and some of them will accept Mr. Weinland the further and further along we go here, but many will refuse to believe him even unto the very day that Jesus Christ returns to this Earth.
Now, even if you choose not to believe what I have said regarding God’s progressive revelation and how that affects what God allows His people to believe both before, during, and after His revelation of the real truth, hopefully you will at least examine this as a possibility. Just think of it this way, that before the real truth comes, doesn’t God’s Church have to believe something in the mean-time until that revelation comes ? Then, once the real truth does come to light, then that will make much of God’s Church humbled to learn the real truth, realizing where they have gone wrong all along from before, because they can finally understand the real truth through the deeper spiritual understanding given. It seems like God was progressively revealing the truth about the “Elijah to come” by first revealing that Mr. Armstrong was the “Elijah to come” but not revealing in how much power Mr. Armstrong came as this “Elijah to come”. God wasn’t intending to reveal that Mr. Armstrong was only a “type” of the “Elijah to come” until the very time of the actuall fullfillment of the “Elijah to come” was to be made and become manifested. It’s really almost beautifull if God did it in this manner. Now, should Mr. Weinland be faulted for what and when God chose to reveal to God’s Church throughout It’s whole entire history ? Should Mr. Armstrong be faulted for going along with what he felt was the truth because of what was occuring in the World through World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War ? Isn’t it possible that God allowed him to believe that the end was near because it was teaching the lesson that we are to live our lives as if the very end is already here ? Paul even teaches us that we are not to be soon shaken in mind, which means having 100% faith in what is believed until God corrects through revelation, and Paul also teaches us that we are to live our lives as if the very day of Christ is at hand, regardless of whether or not the day of Christ actually is indeed at hand, or is actually indeed at hand. Now, once yet again, maybe I’m wrong in this thinking, but isn’t it possible, or is it just so totally 100% impossible that this thinking is not correct ? I’m not trying to be right here, but I’m offering the possibility for why God would have allowed for Mr. Armstrong to say that the end was here when it really truly wasn’t. I mean, God has not ever given His Church ALL truth all at one time, and since God doesn’t give all truth at one time, God has to allow His Church to believe some things that aren’t of the full truth until the revelation of the full truth is made manifested. I did provide one powerfull instance in the time of Jesus Christ that shows God doing this and it was for a purpose. So many people, including some of God’s servants, believing and even proclaiming that Jesus Christ was coming into Jerusalem to become king, even though God knew full well that Jesus Christ was not going to become king until 1,981 years later, but yet God allowed for them to believe this until after Jesus Christ was already crucified and dead and His Holy Spirit entered into them on the day of Pentecost in the year of 31 A.D. This is a very powerfull instance of God allowing His people to believe something that wasn’t of the full truth until the revelation of the full truth became manifested unto them. The power of revelation from God is the power to humble His people into a greater spirit of humility and a less spirit of pridefullness. Imagine how the non-believers treated them when it was proven that Jesus Christ was not to become king during that time ? They would have thought they were following Satan, or following the wrong people like Peter, Paul, John, or whomever else was serving God. This seems very similar to this thing with Mr. Weinland. Now, maybe I’m wrong about this, but isn’t what I’m saying a possibility, or is it just simply 100% impossible and that’z it ?
With all of this being said, isn’t is very much so possible that God was allowing for Mr. Weinland to believe with 100% un-wavering faith that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets resulting in the first time-line that Mr. Weinland gave, for God to then humble him and His Church through the revelation of the 50th Truth resulting in the second time-line that Mr. Weinland gave ? Mr. Weinland was indeed speaking for God even for the first time-line because God had allowed him and His Church to continue to believe in the Trumpets return of Christ because God was not yet ready to reveal the real full truth regarding the timing for the return of His Son Jesus Christ, and there was so very much purpose in withholding that revelation until much later-on. Why did God withhold the revelation from His people and His servants that Jesus Christ was to become king in a different age and not in that current age ? Was this God allowing His people to believe a lie ? Of course not, and you understand this for that circumstance, so why would God allowing Mr. Weinland and His Church to believe something different about the timing for the return of Jesus Christ be any different than God allowing His people and His servants to believe that Christ was coming into Jerusalem to become king ? Neither thing was of the full truth, but those things are what God was allowing for His people to believe in until the time was come for the revelation of the real truth to be given to them. God was not yet giving them the truth about those things because it just wasn’t in God’s time to do so, and we must not ever judge God in what He does. Now, you might say, well then you could use this excuse for anything and everything that every church on this planet Earth does. But that is taking it a lil’ bit too far because you have to still be examining things to see if it would run contrary to what the Bible says. Even in Deuteronomy 18:20, this shows that since Mr. Weinland was not being presumptuous because he was using everything that he believed in 100% faithfullness from God’s Church, he was not sinfull and does not need to repent for what God chose not to reveal to him until later. Did God tell His people that they were to repent of their ways forbelieving that Jesus Christ was to become king even though he really truly wasn’t to become king in that age ? Of course not. Were God’s servants (whom were proclaiming that Jesus Christ was going to become king when he arrived into Jerusalenm) being presumptuous by believing something that turned-out to be false ? No, they were not considered false prophets or false apostles at all whastsoever, and so thus, does it really have to be any different with Mr. Weinland since he was proclaiming what he did using his 100% faith in what God’s Church had believed ? God’s servants were not being presumptuous in believing that Jesus Christ was to become king in their age and thus weren’t sinning and thus did not need to repent, and Mr. Weinland was not being presumptuous in believing that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets and thus was not sinning and thus did not and does not need to repent. Deuteronomy is talking about whether or not a prophet is presumptuously speaking in His name. A prophet doesn’t become a false prophet if he is not speaking presumptuously.
For instance, pastor Vincent Xavier was believing that there would be nuclear detonation in Washington, D.C. sometime during the month of October, and he said probably October 11th, 2009 but then it just kept on being pushed further and further along later within that month, and then at the very end of it, he stated that it must have been for October 2010. Now, that right there is an instance of speaking presumptuously, because he was presuming something that was not based upon anything else that he taught in his church ministry, no other truth involved in it. This most definitely made Vincent Xavier a false prophet. But however, Deuteronomy 18:20 isn’t speaking about Mr. Weinland, or Mr. Armstrong, or God’s servants whom were proclaiming that Jesus Christ was going to become king once he arrived into Jerusalem, because they were not speaking presumptuously, they were speaking on 100% faith, using what they knew to be the truth to believe that Christ was going to become king. Now, the difference with the Jews is that they no longer believed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but God’s servants still believed the Jesus Christ was their Messiah and their saviour, most especially after God’s Holy Spirit enterred on into them.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
You seem to have put much thought into this. Since you treat me with respect in return, I have considered this progressive revelation as you have explained it.
I have much to say to you about where I disagree, but out of respect for the purpose of this blog I feel I should not discuss that here.
As I said, I’m not here to argue you into what I believe. Who am I? My sole desire is for the glory of Christ. And my concern isn’t about who is or is not a prophet, but about the judgment and condemnation that gets tossed around without regard.
One very small example of where I disagree, then I will be about my business.
When you say there is no sin or condemnation in what Herbert Armstrong and Ron Weinland did (preaching an utterly false thing in the name and authority of the One God in which there is nothing false) because they were ignorant and convinced they were right – then on what moral ground do you feel those should be punished who preach Catholicism, but do so in complete faith in Christ and ignorance? One preaches what is false, the other preaches what is false. One does it in faith and ignorance, the other does it in faith and ignorance. What’s the difference?
I want you to consider the slippery slope! (And consistency.)
I will pray for you. I would hope you would pray for me? And let’s just leave it at that for now.
Hi Aaron
Some web links have appeared with xHWA’s posts on this site. They show that xHWA is very active indeed in anti-Weinlandism and anti-Armstrongism on other sites.
I would just encourage you with this site. It was called by Citizen X a safe-haven for Weinland followers and those who are undecided about Mr Weinland.
It is so important for it to continue as that, because we need a balance – there are a lot of anti-Weinland sites and a whole lot of venom out there.
Yes. I am very active opposing lots of different -isms. I haven’t attempted to hide that. I said right out front that I disagree with you. Did I misrepresent myself in any way? But I would prefer it be understood that I promote Christ rather than oppose this or that thing.
Once more, I would like to point out that my opposition is to judgment and condemnation, not Ron Weinland personally.
Nor have I attempted to push anything here. My comments are available for whomever is interested …or not. If they make you uncomfortable, I humbly suggest you should ask yourself why a view can’t stand up to scrutiny, rather than take it personally or feel threatened. I never push my ideas on anyone. I firmly believe that you cannot ride my coat tails into God’s Kingdom. In other words, work out your own faith.
As for those pesky links, WordPress fills those in automatically, and I hadn’t thought about it. I am not attempting to advertise my blog here. My apologies.
You do raise a very good point. The thing is that we have to figure-out which church is God’s Church. If a church is not God’s Church, and they are breaking God’s Laws anyhow, then they aren’t even holding onto their faith in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t follow the ways of the Bible on nearly al counts, regardless of the prophetic things that they believe in. Most churches do not follow the very most basics of God’s Laws, so if they aren’t holding the faith in God’s Laws, then they can’t be holding faith in what they believe they are receiving through revelation, and in fact, those other churches aren’t even getting revelation, they just go about teaching and preaching the same things, but they aren’t coming-up with new ideas and stuff like that. Now, for the churches that are following God’s Laws, we might find it very difficult to know within which church God is working in and through, and the only thing that I can say to this is that we can’t prove to somebody which church is God’s Church, because God does show very much great mercy to His Church, to His one and only body of Christ, so he does show great mercy to His Church by not condemning them for holding fast to their beliefs, just as so long as they accept the revelations that are given to them, but in churches that claim to get revelations, many of them don’t accept the new doctrines or truths, they will just very simply leave the church.
I would like to know your person feelings regarding what I said regarding Jesus Christ becoming king. Why would God have allowed His people to believe that Jesus Christ was going to become king when he arrived into Jerusalem, when that was something that was false ? He knew that His people were believing this false truth, but yet He allowed them to believe this as if it were of the truth. How do you get past this, I mean is this situation just like exempted because it occurred during the times of Jesus Christ, or what ? What are your personal feelings regarding God allowing His people to believe something like this, especially regarding His very own Son Jesus Christ, I mean, shouldn’t God have told His people the truth that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah but was not to become king when he arrived into Jerusalem. Do you see the purpose of why God did indeed withhold that revelation and instead allowdd them to believe something that wasn’t true until the revelation of that truth was indee given unto them ? Was God allowed to do this back then but ohhh He would never do that 2,000 years later, or 1,500 years later, right ? I mean, how do you feel about this, I genuinely desiring to know how you feel about this.
Aaron Robinson
You have been fine on this blog xHWA, regardless of how you might conduct yourself on other web-site, that is not in my place to look at what you do elsewhere but except for on this very web-site. So Mal, we need to respect xHWA’s opinions and beliefs, even if he is saying that he does not believe Mr. Weinland, because xHWA has not been vile or hatred towards him, he has just been respectfully stating how he feels, and we should respect xHWA in the very same manner. xHWA just doesn’t share the same belief that we share, but we aren’t here to try changing peopl’s beliefs, although we do hope that people become inspired and at least examine everything that is being said here, so we can learn things from each other.
Aaron Robinson
Thank you, Aaron. I appreciate that.
You would like to know my opinion on Jesus becoming King? OK. Here goes.
You said:
“God could have told all of His followers, including His servants, that Jesus Christ was not going to become king during his human-life existence, but God’s plan all along was to not reveal this during that time.”
To which I respond:
God had told them precisely that the Christ would suffer and die hundreds of years before.
You will recall that even the gospel was preached to Abraham. You also have an understanding of the symbolism of the Day of Atonement, which yearly pointed to a suffering Christ.
I would caution you against saying “God’s plan was not to reveal” what God had long ago very much revealed, but faithlessness hid from men’s eyes. Their eyes were blinded by the same veil that is over those who read Moses to this day without faith in Jesus.
Jesus waited and winked at their errors because the time was not yet right to reveal the full truth. They could not yet understand even if He told them (JOHN 16: 12). And he did tell them – openly! But why didn’t they understand? Because the Holy Spirit was not yet given (JOHN 7: 39). Because even though Jesus opened the minds of the Apostles to these things before the Holy Spirit was given (LUKE 24: 44-49), it is the Holy Spirit that opens our minds to what Jesus taught (JOHN 14: 26).
I hold that none of the Old Testament can be truly understood without looking at it through the lens of the New and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And therefore they would never have fully grasped even if He told them. And I think Abraham would agree with me (LUKE 16: 29-31).
But I need to also clarify what it was that Jesus winked at.
Did the Apostles claim to speak “by authority of God Almighty” a “SURE” thing that Christ would become King at that time? No. They thought that false thing because that’s what all the scribes taught, and asked they Him about it, and He revealed the truth to their blind eyes, and they still misunderstood, however they never prophesied in the name of God.
Why do I mention that? Because prophesying in the name of God is what I see Ron Weinland doing. I can show you quotes where that is what HWA did. And there’s the rub. It’s not the ignorance, it’s the authority one claims in their ignorance.
And for me, it’s more than that. It’s not the mistakes, because men make mistakes, it’s the condemnation we breathe out in our ignorance, and the lives we ruin preaching false things as “SURE” and “by authority of God Almighty.” Lives have been ruined.
I would like to respond about your statement earlier.
“The thing is that we have to figure-out which church is God’s Church.”
I would disagree with this because God is not a respecter of persons.
I do not see anywhere that God will give His church license to preach falsely in His name simply because they are His Church. God’s justice is perfectly righteous.
I think you will find few better verses that describe what I’m trying to say than Romans 3: 3-8.
A perfectly, unwaveringly good God cannot allow anything false to exist, no matter where it comes from, because He is not false. All that any of us can hope for is that His justice is satisfied by the blood of Christ, not our membership in a specific church. The distinction is hard to see, but it is profound. Because the distinction is that it isn’t about us. Everything is about Christ (ROM. 11: 36).
I would like to add one addendum to my beliefs about Jesus being king, then I will stop.
I forgot to mention that Jesus was King at that time. Before Jerusalem was, Jesus was King. Jesus was blood heir to the throne and rightful King. I firmly believe that Joseph had to die before Jesus began His ministry precisely so that Jesus could assume the position of rightful heir and King of Israel.
Ergo, even if the Jews said the Christ came to be King at that time, they would technically be perfectly correct.
In a sense.
The difference, I suppose, is that He didn’t come to actually free Israel from physical captivity at that time.
I understand what you’re saying, but what about before truth was given to God’s Church ? Meaning after God’s Holy Spirit was living and dwelling within His people, how come His people still did not have all of the truth yet ? How come the truth had slipped away from God’s Church because the truth was dying-out, which was even prophecied within the pages of the Bible ? The truth wasn’t always in the Church because of lukewarmness and complacency. Then we put the blame on those future generations whom were essentially born-into those later years thinking that they had the 100% even though the truth was dying-out due to the lukewarmness and lethargicness in their spirit, but when certain truths were no longer being kept by God’s Church, then why didn’t God immediately correct them instead of allowing them to go on their own course for quite a long while of time before God began to progressively reveal the foundational truths to them ?
Or is there a church out there, or even a people out there, whom have kept God’s Laws and Commandments and truth all of the way throughout time and they were never wrong ? Let me just ask you this, which is that what truth would God’s Church believe in before the future revelation of more truth comes about ? Or is there just never revelation of truth and God’s people just continue doing what they have always done ? The Bible confirms that there is progressive revelation because if all of God’s people have the revelation right now this very minute and they know ALL that they are supposed to, then where are they, why aren’t they making themselves known to the World ? It wouldn’t be too very difficult to miss them since not much of this World keeps all of God’s Laws and Commandments. If they have this revelation already, then how come the foundation of God’s Church always was and always will be the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as being the chief corner-stone ? I still cannot get past Angel saying that she doesn’t beleive that any more revelation is coming when the Bible clearly states that there will be 2 prophets in the last days whom will prophecy powerfull things, I mean is that not revelation that would be given to them to give to God’s Church to give to the World ? If the revelation is not indeed progressive, then why didn’t God reveal everything to His apostles and prophets that would ever EVER be revealed from then on into the distant future ? God did not reveal everything to them from the very moment that they received God’s Holy Spirit into their beings. If God’s revelation to His servants and to His Church and to His people is not indeed progressive, then what is it, static revelation that just never gives new truth, or that never revives old truth that had died-out within God’s Church ? How does the revelation work if it is not revealed over long periods of time ? If John was very much indeed the very last and final prophet and/or apostle to receive revelation from God, then why is it that God revealed to John that there would be prophets coming along whom would be prophecying great things ? Are they going to be prophecying about has has already occured in the past throughout the course of history ? Of course not, they would have to be prophecying about the very near future since they would be within the tribulation period.
Now, if Mr. Weinland and Mr. Armstrong were not God’s servants and so thus part of God’s Church, then this means that the great apostasy, the great falling-away has not taken place yet, unless you believe the Roman Catholic Church when they say that the great falling-away occured within their churches throughout the course of time. I don’t think that many on here reading this blog on here believe in the Roman Catholic Church as being God’s Church, but I know that a very few of you might, so I will respect your views on this. But if this great apostasy of God’s Church has not yet indeed occurred, then how much longer before it has to happen before the end can even BEGIN to come ? There would have to be like 20 – 30 more years left before we could have all of those events occuring to God’s Church, and you are right, God wants us to realize that His people are not the church and organization themselves, but it is true that God organizes His people into a church body, I mean the Bible says that He will set-up His church, He didn’t say set-up His people, He said set-up His church, and he didn’t say churches plural, he said church singular. So we should be looking for a church body whom is really truly preaching the Word Of God, but it’s hard to do that if we are not already baptized into God’s Church because we don’t have God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within us, which is why He does use the power of His Holy Spirit upon us, which does cause us to grasp, understand, and comprehend things on a spiritual plane, but then you begin to even more deeply spiritually understand matters once we are begotten of God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within our beings. If God’s Church was not the WorldWide Church Of God, and if it’s not the Church Of God – PKG right here right now, then where is God’s Church ? We cannot just randomly follow churches just because they preach the God’s 7th Day Sabbath and God’s Annuall Sabbaths (Holy High Days). What are we to be doing in terms of inspiration from God’s servants, which the Bible says is how God’s Church works. The foundation of God’s Church is through the apostles and prophets, and if there are no real true ones alive today, then where are we to get our inspiration of God’s Word if we are not begotten of God’s Holy Spirit yet, or are we able to become begotten of God’s Holy Spirit without the baptism and without the laying on of hands ? Where do we go from here if the Church Of God – PKG is not God’s Church ?
Aaron Robinson
I’m glad you said what you said because I don’t understand something. Are you saying that Jesus Christ will become a king for a second time, or that he has already been king for 2,000 years ? This is not what the Bible teaches to us. The very gospel of Jesus Christ is the message of the “good news” of the future coming of God’s Kingdom, where Jesus Christ will become the King of kings, and he will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Why would Jesus Christ have already been a king ? Was Jesus Christ lying to Pontius Pilate when he told him that he would be king in a different age, because Pilate was asking Jesus Christ was he a king, and Christ said that that is my purpose but my kingdom is not of this age. You cannot be a king without a kingdom, and God’s Kingdom is not yet here, and it has not ever been here. The Roman Catholic Church preaches that God’s Kingdom is already here upon the Earth, so to say that Jesus Christ is already the king means that God’s Kingdom is already here upon this Earth. He can’t become the King of kings if he is already the King, you see what I mean though ? I actually never heard anybody say that Jesus Christ was already a king, I mean nobody has ever aid that before that I have heard in my 29 years of living my life, and that would run contrary to what Jesus Christ told to Pontius Pilate.
Aaron Robinson
I said Jesus was a King… in a sense. He obviously was blood heir, and by all rights should have been seated on a throne in Israel at Joseph’s death – or shortly before. But He wasn’t.
But don’t misunderstand… that’s a technicality, not something I’m claiming was a full reality.
I only pointed that out as an interesting tidbit for you to chew on. You said you’d never heard that before. Something new to think about.
To me, you see, that makes the tragedy of Jesus coming here to suffer all the more vivid. He should have been King, had no place to rest His head, was rejected by His own, and was killed like a thief. How tragic is that? What a thing He did for us!
You ask:
“But if this great apostasy of God’s Church has not yet indeed occurred, then how much longer before it has to happen before the end can even BEGIN to come ?”
That is truly a good question. I cannot answer that for you, unfortunately. If that information were in the Bible, Jesus never would have said that He didn’t know at that time. All I can possibly do is give you my own speculation, and that isn’t worth the pixels I waste to type it.
Will all respect I want to gently remind you of something. ~IF~ Ron Weinland is incorrect, in June of 2012 you will face this very question in full. I would think you would be doing yourself a favor by meditating on your question before then.
…or not worrying about it because it will come when it comes and there’s nothing we can do about it.
You are asking some deep questions, Aaron. Whether I answer to your satisfaction or not, I want to commend you for asking. Keep asking questions! Even question the things you think are true. Question them again and again as you grow. The truth can stand up to scrutiny. What is false will fall away. If someone tells you not to ask questions, that person knows something they don’t want you to know. Don’t trust them.
You ask:
“when certain truths were no longer being kept by God’s Church, then why didn’t God immediately correct them”
You ask a very similar thing to what Paul deals with in Romans 9; especially verses 22-24.
You see, God had corrected them already, but those later generations had no more faith than the earlier, and they rejected His correction.
Here is faith: that you trust God.
Believe the Word of God is so true that you may as well have been at the Red Sea crossing yourself. You may as well have seen miracles. If you see no miracle in your entire life, it makes no difference because you’ve seen them long ago. Right? So, if those later generations had faith, they would have read the scriptures and believed, and repented.
For example of what I’m trying to say, look at the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The rich man begged Abraham to warn his family now. Abraham said there already was a warning for them long ago.
To put it another way, God corrected them before they were even born.
Now I want to answer you in a second way. But this way is hard to accept because it is pretty deep and will be fairly long. I don’t want to get into that here. Not only that, but I already feel that my answering you in any way at all is going to make Mal uncomfortable. I did not come here for that. I respect Mal and this blog.
If you give me your email address, then we can talk. Your call.
xHWA on 1/28/2010 @ 9:25 AM,
Well, please understand that I’m not worrying about it, but I am examining it because it does mean all of our futures, and even though we cannot control when things will be coming into fruition, for us to be adopting a sense of not knowng what is going on will throw us into a spirit of complacency, a spirit whereby we think we have more and more and more time with which to not repent and to not turn away from mankind’s ways of living life. We must not let our not knowing the whens of everything to cause the spirit of Laodicea to creep into our lives, and even if Mr. Weinland is not God’s prophet, the spirit of Laodicea is still really very real in this World, and we must be always watching and ready, just as the Bible tells us, because for those whom are not ready and watchfull, the tribulation will come upon them like a thief in the night, but for those of whom are indeed ready and watchfull, the tribulation will NOT come upon them like a thief in the night. So thus, if just for desiring to remain watchfull and ready just in case it’s real, I wanna at least be keeping-up with Mr. Weinland and what he is teaching and prophecying because if he turns-out to be God’s prophet, I wanna be ready and watchfull for what is happening in this World. We need to always be conducting ourselves as if the very day of Christ is at hand, just as if the return of God’s Kingdom is constanty imminent.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/28/2010 @ 11:47 AM,
My e-mail address is Muzic.Soul.Worldly@gmail.com
But however, I want you to learn to not feel like you need to be holding back your thoughts and your feelings on account of Mal or even myself, I mean, all you need to do is keep what you’re saying in a respectfull tone, and something is not dis-respectfull just because it makes people feel un-comfortable, I mean, just imagine how so very dis-respectfull that would have made Jesus Christ for how so very un-comfortable he made so very many people feel, most especially the Roman governmet and also the Pharohs. I want you to be able to share what you’re thinking and feeling with us on here because that is what this blogg is really for, and it’s not to make people feel are warm and fuzzy and cozy and comfortable inside.
I do understand what you’re saying about God having corrected them from before-hand, but that was only regarding ceertain things. For brand-new revelation of truth (since because God’s Church has never had ALL of the truths of God cuz otherwise there would be no more mystery regarding God or how He works), but so for brand-new revelation of truth, wouldn’t God’s Church have to believe something different before the revelation of that particular truth ? Plus, with so very many generations passing from between the generation that began losing their faith in God in his ways and the many many generations passing which would gradually lose their history to even have the ability to look back on, why wouldn’t God have mercy with those later generations and show them the truth since they might not be able to fully understand it by look back through their history, especially the much further back that they have to look in their history ? But, most especially for new truth that has never even been revealed before, are God’s people supposed to already be keeping the new truths which have never even yet been revealed ? What are they supposed to be believing before the revelation of the new truths ?
Aaron Robinson
One thing I was asking you from before is that
Hi xHWA
I have read some of the things on your anti-Armstrong/Weinland personal forum, and can see they do not contain the vitriol and sarcasm of most of the other sites I followed links to. Some of that sarcasm is extreme, vicious, and obviously being much enjoyed by the blog contributors. Not only is it directed at Ron Weinland, but at his wife and other members of Church of God PKG.
The butt of the sarcasm is often the boring nature of Ron Weinland’s sermons. I wondered if these people could possibly have been listening to the same sermons as myself. I find his sermons extremely interesting, clear and coherent. In my view he has a gifting in correct interpretation of Scripture – anything but boring.
I can see from your own blog entries that we are a long way apart in our thinking about the Word of God.
You feel you have been set free by moving away from ‘Armstrongism’ back in the direction of mainstream Christianity. How far you have moved away I’m not clear, but my guess is that you are now more aligned with Joseph Tkach than Herbert W Armstrong.
My experience of the ‘mainstream’ Christian churches is that their doctrines are fragmented, unclear, differing from church to church, no real idea of God’s wonderful 7000 year salvation plan and how it relates to His Sabbath and His Festivals. Most Christians (sadly) are unprepared for the horrific end-time events the Bible is very clear will come (of which God’s people need not fear). If these events do indeed come soon, their faith is likely to be shaken to the core.
Before I ever even heard of H W Armstrong, I was shown that God had a wonderful 7000 year salvation plan and that it was linked with the Sabbath and God’s Festivals, and for the first time in my life Christianity and the Bible started to make real sense and became immensely exciting. I was also shown deeper level ‘types and shadows’ of that plan in Scripture which reinforced it. Initially I was quite shocked to hear about the false nature of Christmas and Easter, how these were unbiblical and had been worked into the Christian church calendar to replace God’s own Festivals. It was much later that I found out that ‘Armstrongism’ incorporated those elements of my understanding I just described.
Why don’t the traditional churches teach about God’s salvation plan, and about the first resurrection which will begin the Millenium when Christ will be King on earth, and about the second resurrection at the end of the 7000 years when a loving God is going to save billions upon billions of people ?
Why is it that we get a confused muddle about a woolly ‘going to heaven’ if we ‘accept Jesus’? Why is it that the wider Christian church is so in despair that their friends and relatives will go to ‘hell’ in eternal torment because they haven’t accepted Jesus in this life. If that were to be the case we don’t have a very powerful God do we? What about all the Moslems, Hindus, little kids who never heard of Jesus ? Would a loving God abandon them to such a fate?
So why all this ignorance and confusion about what God is doing ? I’ve little doubt one major reason is because the satanic powers have sown confusion by seducing the early church away from the Sabbath and God’s Festivals (which contain wonderfully exciting information about God’s 7000 year salvation plan) and substituted pagan festivals which contain no information whatsoever. Don’t you think it a little bit strange that NONE of God’s Festivals are kept by mainstream Christianity having been replaced by festivals that are ALL pagan ? Satan has also added to the confusion by sowing the false doctrine of the Trinity which was begun by the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church we also get Mary worship as the ’mother of God’. Yes, Satan has indeed immensely misled and sown confusion.
God’s laws come from a loving Heavenly Father because they are for our BENEFIT. Strange as it may seem to some, we are set free (from Satan) by KEEPING God’s laws (including the Sabbath).
Scripture makes it clear that faith does not replace the law:
Romans 3:31 “Do we, then, abolish the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we UPHOLD the law”.
Jesus said:
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will OBEY my commandments”.
Scripture tells us without any doubt at all that we are ‘into the lifeboat’ by faith in Christ. But then the Holy Spirit (the helper) helps us KEEP the law ie. we will then WANT to keep God’s laws. We start on the bottom rung of the ladder and then commence our ascent with the help of the Holy Spirit.
God’s plan for all that are saved through faith in Christ is that eventually He will get us to the ‘measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (see Eph 4:11-13). Praise His Name !
The jigsaw puzzle I spoke of in my earlier post really started to be put together when I swept away the false teachings of ‘mainstream’ Christianity. There is much truth, which makes a whole lot of sense, in H W Armstrong’s book ‘Mystery of the Ages’.
Jesus prophesied in two parables about the way ‘Christendom’ would develop over the centuries. How God’s true church would become corrupted and grow into something unnatural and corrupted by evil: The Parable of the Leaven and the Parable of the Mustard Seed.
God bless.
I’m fairly certain that most of those people that find Mr. Weinland’s sermons to be boring are probably rabbid aetheists whom don’t even believe that there is a God in the very first place. Even if they aren’t aetheists, most of them are probably people whom have become so very turned-off by anything dealing with religion, unless it’s peace-seeking such as like Buddhism and Hinduism claim to be. They don’t want to be hearing the same ole’ sermons telling us to follow our God, follow our Lord, follow our savious Jesus Christ, it’s boring to them because this preaching about it in the World has gone on for nearly 2,000 years now, which doesn’t help the fact that they feel like the churches are telling them what to do, and as for the few churches which preach that we are to follow all of God’s Laws and Commandments, they don’t want to feel like they are enslaved to the Law.
The Bible itself even tells us that we are not to become slaves to God’s Law, which is because God’s Laws and Commandments were never MEANT and PURPOSED to enslave man into bondage into a master/slave relationship where God is commanding for us to obey him just so he can flaunt HIs great mighty powers. Now, on the contraty, because the Bible even states in those very same verses after saying that we are not to remain enslaved to the Law because it is the very Laws of God that actually FREE us from bondage, that free us from the bondage of the curse of mankind, the curse being that NOT following God’s Laws is what has given us this 6,000 year witness of the evils of what mankind does when He doesn’t follow God.
In fact, God didn’t first create mankind and THEN give us a witness by allowing us to rule ourselves for 6,000 years to show us how we become, but the whole purpose for God having created mankind in the very first place was to give a witness for His future Family. It’s so very incredibly beautifull to understand that the purpose for ALL things, the purpose for mankind, the purpose for the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, the purpose for the whole entire physical Universe, and the purpose for the Angelic-Realm of angels and demons, the purpose for ALL things, being for one solitary purpose, and that purpose is for God’s Family, Elohim. Now, how did God intend to show to His future Elohim what intelligent and intellectual thinking beings will always divert to when God is not being kept in the picture ? Very simply through the creation of physical human-beings (man-kind) whom would be created with a carnal nature for the very purpose of showing what we become when we don’t follow God, and since we were created with the very carnal mind which is naturally in enmity against God, in a certain sense, God created us to initially reject Him for a time in order to teach us the incredible lesson of how beings treat each other and also God when they do not keep the truths of God in their lives.
God created the Angelic-Realm of angels also with free moral agency of choice (much just as like mankind was created with free moral agency of choice), but the angels were not created with a witness for their future selves. It did not take long time before 1/3 of the whole entire Angelic-Realm under-went a massive rebellion against God and His ways. Maybe the Angelic-Realm would have not had a rebellion if they first had the kind of witness that mankind did of how things become when the ways of God are done away with and their own ways are sought after instead. The very creation of mankind HAS BEEN THE WITNESS ITSELF. Without God having created His Family as physical human-beings first, there would be no witness as to how beings become when they lack God’s ways in their lives, and we would have done just as like what 1/3 of the angels did and would have fiercely rebelled against God in a very powerfull manner, so much so that we would have never changed our minds later, just as the demonic angels will not be changing their minds. If God had created His Elohim as spirit-beings, then we would not have had the witness of ourselves because we would have only been privvy to God’s ways and we would have eventually come to think that there just HAS TO BE other ways that will work over, and possibly even be better than, God’s ways. This is why so much of the Angelic-Realm had rebelled against God because they felt enslaved to be living only God’s ways instead of living their own ways as they saw fit, and Lucifer did not like the part of God’s purpose and plan when it was revealed to him that His Family through mankind would become higher than the angels, and Satan was not going to tolerate mankind becoming higher than the angels, and even regardless of his other fellow angels, he was not going to tolerate mankind becoming higher than just himself. God had given so very much to Lucifer, so much spiritual and physical wealth and prosperity, but yet Lucifer threw it all away because of his pride, as not money is the source of all evil, because pride is the source of all evil. Pride is what causes people to crave and desire the money, the wealth, and the prosperity, and to have all of those things above all others, this is a result of pride. Pride, pride, pride, that is the real true source behind all evils and wickedness.
Now are you beginning to see just how so very loving and giving and mercifull God has been since the very very beginning of His workking towards His Family ? God didn’t have to give us our witness, but he has given it to us because he has been so very mercifull in desiring for us to recognize this witness so that we would see what things become like when God is thrown to the side of things and His ways of living life are not being kept or followed. The very part regarding God sitting back and allowing all of the evils in this World to be had is what is going to save us in the long-term, because ONLY through showing us what things are like WITHOUT God can we ever really truly desire to live life WITH God, and IN God’s image, and by living God’s ways of living life, and not only that, but actually being zealously on-fire for God’s ways of life, and not just living God’s ways to selfishly become saved and not lost or burning in Hell for all of eternity, but because we have this kindle of a burning flame inside of us that is telling us that God’s ways are the ONLY ways which will EVER produce lasting peace and prosperity. We even have proof that what God said in the Bible is so very absolutely true, which is that mankind does not know the way to peace, as only God knows the way to peace, and if we would continue to reject God, then mankind would just never ever find the way to peace, it would just never ever occurr.
God has been so very mercifull to us gy creating us to become His future family and by provide a witness for us which would teach us great lessons in life, the lessons that we NEED God in our lives, living and dwelling within us, because no other way works, and now we have unequivocal proof with the past 6,000 years (or even hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years, for whomever believes that human-beings have existed for that very long of a time-span) that we cannot reject God’s ways if we ever hope to attain lasting peace and prosperity in this World, only God’s ways will work, and God won’t even just say, “Well, see, I told ya, your ways have not produced peace and prosperity so now my way is here and you shall follow it”. He won’t even let us to just take His word for it because after this 6,000 year witness of proving how things become without God, He will be proving to us that His ways really truly do work by giving us a further 1,000 year witness of God’s ways. In fact, He is only having us see His ways for 1,000 years because the World will not need any longer than 1,000 years, even though it has taken 6,000 years for mankind to begin understanding his very own nature. God is giving us a witness both of how beings are without God and of how beings are WITH God. Not only this, but God has given us a witness of the Angelic-Realm, which is a witness of the witness. This proves that God’s Family of Elohim really truly needs the witness, because the angels did not have any of the witness that mankind has, and so thus this is the very proof for the very need of this witness. God gave us a witness both unto how things are without God and unto how things are with God, but then He even gave us so very much as to provide us with proof of the need for those witnesses because of what the Angelic-Realm had happened to it through the lacking of this witness.
All of this teaches us how so very loving, and giving, and mercifull, our Eternal God the Father really truly is, and how He is not some angry God trying to settle a score for His creations disobeying Him. Those whom still reject God’s ways unto their very bitter end, even though by the ending of the Great White Throne period there will be no more mystery of God’s purpose and plan for all things, but if we remain in defiance against God’s ways (maybe because we just will always feel like we have no freedom because we MUST live God’s ways and not our own ways, which feels like a lacking of freedom and liberty), then we will suffer for it, but it won’t be a suffering of eternal torturing and eternal tormenting, but just very simply the eternal punishment of eternal death. Everybody will even be aware of this eternal punishment of eternal death, but some will still rather choose to be dead for all of eternity than to live eternally in what they would see as a World of bondage of following a Master while they would feel like they are the slaves of the Master. But however, when this is all said and done, I wouldn’t be the very least bit surprised if the vast majority (90%) of all human-beings whom have ever lived and died upon this Earth sincerely ad genuinely choose to live God’s way of life, because it will be quite clear to them after the witness of the past 7,100 years that God’s ways are the ONLY ways that wil ever indeed work, and there is so very much power in the witnesses that God has provided for us because that is the very proof of the workings of God’s ways and the lacking of the workings of other ways which run contrary to God’s ways.
So thus, regardless of whether Mr. Weinland is a false prophet/apostle or a true prophet/apostle, and regardless of whether Mr. Armstrong was a false apostle or a true apostle, I hope that this message within this here posting will have been inspiring enough for us to follow God’s ways of living life, regardless of whom we believe are God’s true servants. Let us not be cold, nor let us be even lukewarm, but let us have that kindle of a blazing inferno inside of ever fiber of our beings for being zealously on-fire for God’s ways of living life through the love for our Eternal God and the love for our neighbor (neighbor being family, friend, neighbor, or even enemy and foe).
Aaron Robinson
Aaron, I like two things that you said:
“We must not let our not knowing the whens of everything to cause the spirit of Laodicea to creep into our lives”
“We need to always be conducting ourselves as if the very day of Christ is at hand, just as if the return of God’s Kingdom is constantly imminent.”
I read these statements and I see that you are desiring to have a closer relationship with God. What gives me the most hope is that you know proximity to “the end” is what it always was – a non-factor.
Prophecy becomes a crutch to people. It’s a type of escapism. They can face the day if they feel they won’t have to face it for much longer. But it leads to putting ones faith either in one’s self or in one’s prophet (both of which will utterly disappoint). And when that disappointment is realized… look out.
“Cursed is the man whose trust is in man” (JER. 17: 5).
If only their faith was completely in Christ.
Aaron,
You ask:
“But, most especially for new truth that has never even been revealed before, are God’s people supposed to already be keeping the new truths which have never even yet been revealed?”
“What are they supposed to be believing before the revelation of the new truths?”
That depends. Are you still speaking of the Old Covenant days or now?
The adherants to the Old Covenant by necessity would have to be doing something different than the New Covenant. I mean, just look at the nature of the New Covenant and it is plain – the New Covenant is infinitely superior, and it is eternal.
I can see how there would have to be some form of a new thing revealed as far as timing is concerned ~IF~ the Adventism that became later Armstrongism is true. But timing and revealing new doctrinal truth are two far and away different things.
There is no prophecy in the Bible that says there will be new doctrinal truth revealed before the second advent. I believe that one of the most oft repeated verses I heard in my 30 years of following Herbert Armstrong was “hold fast to what you received.” Another was “once and for all delivered.” So, I believe that the most incredulous thing a preacher can do is claim He has a new, never-before-seen teaching from God.
If we view it honestly, it betrays what’s in the man’s heart.. that he finds Christ insufficient. And I always ask, “In what was was Christ insufficient?” One person has foolishly dared attempt an answer at that. I suspect because all Christians inherantly know that if Christ is who He said He is, and if He did what He said He did, then we don’t need anything more doctrinally.
He said, “It is finished.”
Yes, we do not put our trust in man.
But we do follow than Man that God has established as his present spokesman. If indeed God has revealed to the individual who that spokesman is. The only time in history when God’s Church was without Government is right after the apostasy. God still protected those whom he would restore. From Tkach ,Dec 17, 1994 until Petecost 1998. 1260 days.
Was Paul Called as God’s spokesman?
1 Corinthians 11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Sadly, as Paul gave account, many also turned against him.
At one point, all did.
2 Timothy 4:9-Be diligent to come to me quickly; 10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. 12 And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.
14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. 15 You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words.
16 At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them.
Mal,
I must confess, there have been many times when I mocked Ron Weinland. Sarcasm it easy for me.
I can also say that I’m not proud of that. I don’t recommend it for anyone.
I try very hard not to mock. I still slip from time to time.
As for your other questions, the answers to most of them are on ABD already.
You mention confusion in mainstream Christianity. I can show you that there is equal confusion in Armstrongism. we were told that God revealed a new date for Pentecost (sunday instead of Monday). Did you know there is a controversy to this day in Armstrongism about that? Some say what was revealed from the beginning is the only way. Now that’s not the end of it. Some, like John Ritenbaugh’s group, keep it on a Sunday, but in years when the first day of Unleavened Bread falls on a weekly Sabbath, they keep Pentecost on a Sunday in a different week.
Or take Unleavened Bread for example. There are at least three different opinions on when to start Passover.
Or take the interpretation of the days. Some say Jesus will come on Trumpets. Others say Pentecost. Others say both. Some say He will return on Atonement.
Now, you could say that you’ve determined what is correct, but how have you? Can you prove it to those people? Will you tell them that Weinland says so… a man you’re not fully certain about yourself?
And will you judge or condemn them for not keeping it right? Then you judge and condemn yourself. (I’m not saying you will, I’m just asking hypothetically.)
But while you teach the law, Sabbath, and Holy Days are mandatory to retain salvation, what I can tell you is that you don’t keep the these things as they are written in the Bible. It’s not that you try and fail. It’s that you don’t even try.
Tell me, when was the last time you built a booth on Tabernacles as you are utterly commanded to do? Have you built it precisely out of the specific wood that is commanded? Have you blown a trumpet on Atonement as you are commanded? Have you waved the wave sheaf during Unleavened Bread? The wave sheaf is mandatory to start the count of Pentecost. Do you travel not once but three times a year to the place where the Lord chooses to place His name? When was the last time you traveled for Passover and Pentecost the way you do for Tabernacles. Deuteronomy 16 isn’t just about festival offerings, you know. It’s commanded. And when do you keep the Sabbath? At sundown Friday night? Would that be sundown Jerusalem time, or sundown your local time? Because the Bible isn’t clear on that. From the time it was instituted until the temple was utterly wrecked in 130 AD the correct determination of sundown was reckoned by the priests in Israel. Have you kindled a fire, or left your home, or went to a restaurant and caused a servant to work for you, or have you followed absolutely every last one of the other restrictions that are not talmudic at all but are clearly written in the Bible?
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? I will remind you of James 2: 10 that states if you keep the whole law but stumble in even one point you are guilty of all. And that isn’t the only verse to that effect! Yet I demonstrate that in one tiny area – where the Holy Days and Sabbaths are concerned – you do not even attempt to keep the whole law. Holy Spirit or no.
Yet I know that you will still try to tell me about the necessity of the law you don’t keep. The following is a list of things that do not come by the law:
Justification (GAL. 2: 16)
Righteousness (GAL. 2: 21)
The Spirit (GAL. 3: 2)
Perfection (GAL. 3: 3; HEB. 7: 19)
Miracles (GAL. 3: 5)
Inheritance (GAL. 3: 18)
Life (GAL. 3: 21)
Grace (GAL. 5: 4)
Why do I say all of these things? It is to illustrate to you only one thing:
Do not judge or condemn. Because you only judge and condemn yourself.
You talk about how mainstream Christianity is confused and they will not be in the Kingdom, but you preach the law and don’t keep it! Don’t you know the law?
I was where you are. I know the law. But now I know Christ. Those things that do not come from the law all come from the promise that we inherit through faith in Christ. And that promise cannot be nullified by the law because the promise came before the law.
I hope you understand, Mal.. I am not against you in any way. I know you will not accept what I say because I cannot give this to you. I say it only to help you to see the futility of judgment and condemnation. There is One Judge. When Ron Weinland THINKS he knows the truth, he judges and condemns. Then he learns he was incorrect. What does he do? Repent? No. He actually said he has no need to apologize. But instead he goes right on judging and condemning. This is what I am against. Not Ron Weinland himself. I could care less who it is. I hope you see that I have no judgment or condemnation in my heart for you. I know you will still try to keep the fraction of the law as Ron Weinland interprets it. But I hope that you take my advice and stop talking down about mainstream Christians who try to follow Jesus Christ as best they can.
God bless!
If we stumble in one point and are condemned, who will save us? Christ!
His mercy that you depend on is the same mercy mainstream Christianity depends on.
What, then is the difference? You are a sinner who is guilty of breaking the whole law. They are also sinners who are guilty of breaking the whole law.
The one hope of all mankind is Christ. I begrudge His grace to no man who believes in Him.
xHWA on 1/28/2010 @ 10:47 PM,
You’re right, my passion is for our Eternal God the Father and for His only begotten Son, God the Christ, but however, the journey for me was helped by Mr. Weinland, I mean if I hadn’t read his 2 books and listened to his sermons, I might not have developed this burning flame inside of me, a great zealous fire for God’s way of life. Now, if Mr. Weinland turns-out to be a false-prophet, then I will continue having that flame inside of me, although I will have to pray to God and ask Him why I was led astray, and ask him if I should ever trust how I believe that God is leading me, because if I am being 100% totally sincere and genuine about being led into the light of His truth, no matter what that truth so happens to be, and that if keeps on leading me to the teachings and prophecies of Mr. Weinland, then I won’t be able to understand how God is working with me and what he wants me to do and where he wants me to go. In the beginning, part of it was the thrill of the prophecies and everything that was and has been occurring in the World, but that has grown into a flame for desiring God’s way of life in me. So thus, I cannot predict just precisely how I would react or respond to Mr. Weinland proving that he is a false-prophet, but I will very truly wonder why God didn’t lead me into the light of His truth when He knows how so very badly that I desire to have the truth in my life, no matter what that truth so happens to be, I just want the full and totall truth, and He hasn’t guided me away from Mr. Weinland and the Church Of God – PKG, and it’s difficult to think that God might not have really truly been calling me after all that has happened over the past 2 years, I mean it’s just all so weird for me.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/28/2010 @ 11:27 PM,
I don’t even necessarily mean before the 2nd advent, but even during the Millenium of Christ, I mean wouldn’t it be foolosh to say that all of God’s mysteries have already been revealed ? If it’s not a matter of timing but rather a matter of learning more and more about God, we would have to eventually learn new things about God because we will never know everything there is to know regarding God. I mean, how is God’s Church supposed to be constantly growing in truth and in spirit during the Millenium of Christ if they already have ALL of the truth that there is to have ? God’s Church will not become stagnated because it will always be growing, and not growing in size or membership or popularity, but growing in truth and in spirit, and they cannot grow in truth if they already have all of the truth. Do you see the dichotomy here with all of this ?
We know that we are essentially right at 2,000 after Jesus Christ was upon the Earth, so if God’s real true Church doesn’t become more and more manifested in power in this World, then does this mean that we will never discover where God is really truly working ? I mean it has to be really very incredibly soon otherwise there won’t be enough time for a great apostasy to occurr, and then to begin calling back a remnant to God, and then for the prophecying of God’s real true prophet to begin and then for the tribulation period to begin, I mean there’s just not too very much time left for all of those events to begin occurring. So thus, I want to ask you, since you feel 100% for sure that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet/apostle, then where is God really truly working. I mean do you have your eyes set on certain churches that would be candidates for where God is working, or are you still waiting and watching for when God’s Church will begin arising in recognition in this World ?
Aaron Robinson
So Thankfull on 1/28/2010 @ 11:36 PM,
You raise a very good point because even though we are to follow our Eternal God, He has indeed given us His servants the apostles and prophets throughout the course of time, many prophets in the Old Testament, and many apostles and prophets in the New Testament, they weren’t given so that we would always ditch even God’s men, God does want us to follow His servants when they do indeed come, and not to be against them, but we just have to know whom God’s servants really truly are, and besides the course of time, how else are we to come to know 100% for sure whom is speaking for God and whom is not speaking for God, I mean only time would tell.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/29/2010 @ 12:10 AM,
Well, in a certain sense, you have also judged the people whom follow Armstrongism as having it wrong, don’t you. You say that people are wrong in following Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Weinland, and even if you are correct in the end, you still judged them as not being right since they are following false servants, isn’t that right ?
Was it wrong that God’s servants let it be known that others like the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman government and the Pharohs and everybody all throughout history have not been following God ? Is saying that traditional Christianity is not following God a judgement or a condemnation ? The Bible does teach us that where we know that God is not being followed, you can judge by letting it be known whom is clearly not following God. I mean, it was either Peter or Paul whom was not keeping God’s Commandments because he was still sinning even as he was treaching and preaching to not sin by keeping God’s Commandmenets, but yet God still considered him to be His servant.
Now, having said that, aren’t you making a very broad assumption that Mal is not keeping God’s Laws and Commandments ? I mean, if Mal is indeed following Mr. Weinland, then he very well could be keeping God’s Laws because the Church Of God – PKG does indee do the thing with the booths and everything else that was commanded in the Bible, but except for the animal sacrifices which were indeed changed by God and Jesus Christ. You stated that Mal might not be following God’s Laws, but then you stated that Mal was not following God’s Laws, I mean how can you know that Mal is not following those things, just because there are many of them and most people would have a difficult time keeping them ?
As for myself, I haven’t been in this for really too long, and I am still learning the things I need to be doing, and plus, to be assembled together with God’s people, you first have to know whom God’s people really truly are, because if you are meeting with the wrong people that are teaching the wrong things, then that would be wrong, and plus, some of those things aren’t to be down outside of baptism, isn’t that correct ? I still have yet to become baptized into the Church Of God – PKG. If there are no people to come together to assemble with whom keep God’s Laws and Commandmenets, then how can we be following God to the very letter ? I mean, if we know that some of what they teach is wrong but yet we still assemble together with them, then are we choosing to dwell outside of the truth in order to come together to assemble and to keep some of God’s Laws ? I mean, what are we to do, which kinda brings me to one of my questions from my other posting, which was that of asking you where do you attend church services, or do you not attend right now because you are searching for which churches are of the truth ?
Aaron Robinson
How do you know that Mal breaks the whole Law, I mean do you know for sure that he is not keeping all of God’s Law ? You already judged Mal for not keeping God’s Law, and unless you have been physically with him to see what all he is doing and where he is going, you do not know about Mal. Now, you can indeed judge somebody if you know 100% for sure that they are breaking the Law, but I don’t think that you know unless you and Mal are great friends and know about everything that each other does within each other’s lives. Paul judged others for knowing that they were not keeping God’s Laws, such as like for keeping the 1st Day of the Week instead of keeping the 7th Day of the Week, and He did this knowng full well that he sinned, he stole, he coveted, and he even murdered, but he still judged others for not keeping God’s Laws.
If we know that certain groups of people are most definitely not keeping certain portions of God’s Law, are we not allowed to tell where they are going wrong. Like for instance, we know that most of Christianity is breaking God’s Law because they don’t keep the 7th Day Sabbath, now just because that is stated, it doesn’t mean that somebody is 100% obeying God through His Laws, but they are pointing-out where they know that others are not following God’s Laws, and maybe that person is still learning God’s Laws, especially if they are newer in being called to God, but if they indeed know 100% for sure that groups are disobeying God, we can call them out on it, and really, Mal isn’t calling on specific groups, he is mentioning traditional Christianity because together as a whole they break every Law, even though some groups do indeed keep some of God’s Laws and Commandments. Maybe Mal is keeping all of God’s Laws, and maybe he isn’t keeping all of God’s Laws, but that doesn’t really matter because even Peter or Paul knew full well that they were still sinning even though he was telling people where they were going wrong, but Jesus Christ didn’t dis-fellowship him or anything like that, although he was being corrected by God when the timing came for those things.
Even if I go out and steal something tomorrow, that doesn’t give any less of a voice for me saying that most of traditional Christianity does not follow God’s most basic and testing Law of keeping the 7th Day Sabbath. God does allow for us to call on people whom we know are breaking the Law, the history of God’s Church shows us that God allows this to occurr because that is how it differentiates whom is keeping which Laws and where people need to be corrected, and if this has the effect of showing where even God’s Church is going wrong, then it’s a good thing to have happen.
It sounds very very mainstreamy when you say that mainstream Christianity depends upon Christ to redeem them of their sins, but he doesn’t just redeem people whom take on the attitude that they know that they are sinners and that they break God’s Laws, but that we were created as sinners and sinners we shall be until our Lord and saviour comes to rescuse us from our transgressions. Those kind of attitudes (not saying that this is you xHWA, by the way) are not sincerely and genuinely of seeking to live God’s way of life, because that is one of, I know that I am sinning but we were created this way, and in the end we will all be saved just as so long as we believe in the name of Jesus Christ. That is just such a very false way of believing that God and Jesus Christ work that way because that is not what the Bible says, and even if somebody is not keeping ALL of God’s Laws and commandments, are we to keep our mouths totally closed and not point-out where we know somebody else is not follow God as hey claim to be ? Now, we shouldn’t be pointing those things out if we haven’t physically witnessed the transgressions, but if we have witnessed those things, or if the beliefs of certain particular churches state that the meet on Sundays and they state that the believe in the Trinity, then those things should be called-out as goign against God, regardless of what other things the accuser doesn’t have right in their lives. When you say that Christianity depends upon God’s amazing grace to save them from their transgressions of God’s Laws, it kinda sound slike you are saying that we shall be saved just for believing that we are follwing God and following God’s Laws, even if we are really truly not, because you say that they depend upon grace to save them, regardless of how they have sinned and transgressed God’s Laws, but being created to have carnal minds in enmity against God is still no excuse to not be following God’s Laws, so regardless of whether or not Mal is keeping all of God’s Laws, is he so very wrong in calling-out traditional Christianity for disregarding God’s Laws for thousands of years ? God will not just automatically save people whom believe in the name of Jesus Christ just because they believe that they are following Him, and even if the accuser is not following all of God’s Laws (just as Peter or Paul was accusing even though they were transgressing God’s Laws), what the accused now have to face is their own selves because they were called-out as not following God’s Laws, and since it was brought to their attention, will they just continue in defiance against God’s Laws even after providing warnings for them, or will they just continue to disobey God just because a sinfull accuser is accusing them of transgressing God’s Laws ?
As far as Armstrongism goes, like the keeping of Pentecost on a Sunday, I mean, of course many have been against that change and always will be forever ad ever more, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not true. I mean once God’s Church was dying in truth and in spirit, wouldn’t you expect that even some within the confines of God’s Church, within the confines of the body of Christ, tht some will reject the teaching of what the Church used to believe from the Bible ? Many within all of the different eras of God’s Church probably left the Church because of the teachings which they saw as being against God even though they came right from out of the Bible, so just because certain doctrines are controversial and many are confused about them, doesn’t make those doctrines false. So, maybe Armstrongism is false, but just because it is confusing to people doesn’t make it false, you know what I mean ?
We will not be saved just because we simply asked to be saved, we have to desire to be saved for the right reason, which is knowing that God’s ways are the only ways to lasting peace and prosperity, and that because of that fact, that God’s ways are really truly the only ways of living our lives, and we have to be zealously on-fire for that way of life, otherwise God sees us as being lukewarm and God will not save lukewarmness-minded individuals. If mainstream Christianity just says that yes we do transgress God’s Laws but Jesus Christ saved us through grace and redemption, and if they aren’t repenting of those transgressions because they feel that Christ wll be redeeming them when the time comes, then they will not be saved, that is what the Bible so very clearly states to us.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron:
You make a fine statement:
“Well, in a certain sense, you have also judged the people whom follow Armstrongism as having it wrong, don’t you. You say that people are wrong in following Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Weinland, and even if you are correct in the end, you still judged them as not being right since they are following false servants, isn’t that right ?”
I do. It’s right what you say. Yes. And I am guilty. Who will save me? Christ alone.
But if I may offer only one thing in my defense – saying someone is wrong is not the same as condemning them. Correction can be a form of love.
I try to never say those who follow Herbert Armstrong are unsaved or not Christian.
For a long time I struggled with that very thing. Not that I wanted you to be unsaved or unChristian, mind you. But I wanted to know if I was unsaved and unChristian because I followed Herbert Armstrong.
There is only one answer to that. Would you like me to tell you what it is? It’s not more law….
Hope and trust in Christ!
There is absolutely no hope for mankind apart from Christ. There is nothing else for any of us because we are all sinners in our very nature. Who can save us from this body of death?
Aaron,
“how else are we to come to know 100% for sure whom is speaking for God and whom is not speaking for God, I mean only time would tell.”
“Only time will tell” is the litmus test for those to whom it has not been revealed.
God gives to the mind of each individual according to HIS good will and pleasure.
It is God who calls and God who Chooses. He sees the finished product – The Kingdom of God.
Aaron,
You ask:
“How do you know that Mal breaks the whole Law, I mean do you know for sure that he is not keeping all of God’s Law?”
I don’t care if he does. He doesn’t answer to me. This isn’t about if Mal breaks the law. And he doesn’t answer to me if he does break the law anyhow. I speak to you about contradictions.
For three decades I followed Armstrongism. I know what is taught and what is followed and what is not. I taught Armstrongism from the pulpit. And now, are you attempting to convince me that Ron Weinland teaches, and you all have perfectly followed, every last one of those things I mentioned above that are from God’s law? And not only that you have kept these things, but you are on fire for them? You are on fire with zeal each time you build a booth as you are commanded in Leviticus 23: 42?
If you say “no” to any one of those points I mentioned – and I only mentioned a few and only in regards to the Sabbath and Holy Days (there are many more; could have made my list much, much longer) – then you have broken the whole law (JAS. 2: 10). That is the standard of the law as written in the Bible.
And by your personal standard, if you are not on fire for every one of those things in the whole law, then even if you’ve kept them it has benefited you nothing.
Am I misrepresenting what you said to me above? Please correct me gently, beucause I just want to get this straight.
I will show you a contradiction, and I would like you to answer me in the most non-contradictory way you can think of.
I will start with your words from your most recent response to me:
“It sounds very very mainstreamy when you say that mainstream Christianity depends upon Christ to redeem them of their sins”
And now your words to me previous to that:
“we have to understand that just following the Law is not what saves somebody”
OK?
I will quote one more thing that you have said to me:
“and that is just the case in point, that we all, every single human-being, deserves death for their transgression of God’s Law. Now, even though everybody deserves this death, all we can do is sincerely and genuinely pray to God for forgiveness”
Now, please tell me, knowing that you have not kept every last bit of the law, and that you are worthy of death (or else you would be saying you have no sin and thus God is a liar), and the law cannot save you, then what on earth will save you if not the grace of Jesus Christ alone?
And given all of this, you say:
“but he doesn’t just redeem people whom take on the attitude that they know that they are sinners and that they break God’s Laws”
This is a contradiction!
Then you, by your own words admit that even the Apostle Paul himself is not saved – because even the Apostle Paul himself said, in his own words, that he is a sinner, sold under sin, oh wretched man that I am, who can save me from this body of death?!
Now I ask you, what percentage of the law must you keep in order to earn forgiveness? And please be specific. And please back that up with the verse which gives you the answer [I have already given you that verse]. Because you have also said this:
“If mainstream Christianity just says that yes we do transgress God’s Laws but Jesus Christ saved us through grace and redemption [which is precisely the same as what you say], and if they aren’t repenting of those transgressions [are you now going to start keeping the whole law perfectly?] because they feel that Christ wll be redeeming them when the time comes [which is precisely the same as what you say], then they will not be saved, that is what the Bible so very clearly states to us.”
And I conclude that out of your own mouth you have determined your own fate.
And I say to you that your conclusion is utterly incorrect! And you should hope I’m right about that.
You show me one verse that agrees with what you’ve said, and I will show you a verse that condemns you to the exact same fate that you say condemns mainstream Christianity. Because whether or not I personally know that you have not kept the law is immaterial and moot on its face. I am not your judge! But God is. And God knows.
And if you claim you know the law, and you say it must be zealously kept in order to be forgiven, and you see that you break a any portion of it, please tell me what hope in this world or the next have you?
And not only that, but please tell me in exactly what way is what you’re saying now different than Old Covenant Judaism? And if what you say is true, then please tell me of what value at all was Christ’s death?
I have not come to this forum to either judge you or Mal or anyone else. In fact I do not judge or condemn you. I do not want anyone to respond to me that they are sinners – or are not sinners. I have enough sin of my own to deal with, thank you very much. What I say now I did not want to say. And I told you many times that I didn’t want to get into this.
I only want you to see the condemnation and try to put an end to it as much as you are able.
I understand what you’re saying, but how exactly did Mal condemn traditional Christianity ? It is indeed true that if people within traditional Christianity do not repent of their transgressions, then they will not be saved, it is as simple as that, right directly straight from out of the very pages of the Bible. Should we not be condemning anything that is not of God ? If most of Christianity is transgressing in terms of God’s Laws, shouldn’t it be fine to say that they need to be repentive of their ways because then otherwise they will not be saved ? Only God and Jesus Christ can save human-beings, but if a human-being is not willing to repent of their ways, then God will not be saving that human-being if he refuses to accept God, and not their false god(s), but the real true God from the Bible. Did Mal say something wrong by saying that they are wrong in what they are doing ? Didn’t the apostles and prophets tell people that they were doing wrong ?
Aaron Robinson
“It is indeed true that if people within traditional Christianity do not repent of their transgressions, then they will not be saved, it is as simple as that, right directly straight from out of the very pages of the Bible.”
And I tell you that this is incorrect. It is precisely because no man can satisfy God’s absolutely, utterly perfect sense of justice that you cannot possibly ever repent to God’s satisfaction. And that is why Christ needed to satisfy God’s justice on our behalf.
I ask you, if God’s justice was indeed satisfied (and it was), then what more can you hope to add to that?
I am not saying that you have no responsibility at all. I do not say that. I have not said that. I will not say that.
What I say is that you feel deep inside you that something must be done but you are incorrect to believe the way to satisfy that longing in your soul for repentance is through more failure to keep the law.
Failure to keep the law cannot atoned with more and more failure to keep the law.
When you find what it is that can, and it was written in the Bible now these 2,000 years ago, THEN not only will God be satisfied, but you too will be satisfied forevermore!
Romans 3:30-31
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Romans 13: 8
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
xHWA on 1/29/2010 @ 11:35 AM,
I want you to know that you can speak your mind freely just as so long as it’s kept in a respectfull manner, so don’t feel like you have to hold yourself back from saying whatever it might be if you think that it might be offending me. That having been said, I mainly brought-up what you said regarding Mal because you stated that he wasn’t keeping the Law, but yet you said you weren’t being the judge of that, but you stated it as if it was fact. Even though Mal had been looking at Mr. Weinland as possibly being God’s real prophet, I don’t believe that he was actually a member of the church, at least from what I remember, and then he he deemed Mr. Weinland to be a false-prophet until the revelation of the 50th truth had become manifested into God’s Church. So thus, just because Mal was looking at those things of Mr. Weinland and Mr. Armstrong does not mean that he was doing everything that they were teaching, and that he didn’t do anything that was different from what they were saying. Now, chances are he hasn’t been doing everything anyhow, but unless we know this absolutely 100% for sure, then we can’t state that somebody isn’t following God’s Laws because we just don’t know this for sure.
Now, I also want to mention that I never said that the keeping of God’s Law is what allows for the forgiveness of our sins or transgressions. I did say that asking for forgiveness doesn’t mean that you will automatically get forgiveness, because a person needs to have an attitude of repentence, and they have to be sincerely and genuinely sorry for their transgression and to truly desire to repent of their sins, so it is about more than just simply asking for forgiveness because just simply “going through the motions” of praying for forgiveness will not automatically grant them their forgiveness, I mean there wouldn’t be any point to forgiveness if it was just given away to the people whom aren’t really genuine about desiring to change how they’re living their lives.
You also seem to be saying that I was saying that the Law doesn’t need to be kept since it doesn’t save us, but that isn’t what I was trying to impart. What I mean is that it is true that the Law does indeed save us because it teaches us how we are to be living our lives, but just the mere keeping of God’s Laws is not what saves somebody, because if somebody is just honoring their father and mother so that God doesn’t strike them down or so that they can become saved, or so that they don’t get yelled at or grounded by their parents, then those are not the right reasons to be following God’s Laws, to obey them just to become saved, or just to be saved from tribulation, or so that you can attain God’s Kingdom, those are all reasons that God would see as not being genuine. If I were to be keeping God’s Laws just so that I feel like I will be escaping God’s Wrath, then God will not accept that.
Now, I realize that I wasn’t explaining it 100% clearly, but I’m not saying that any of us are capable of keeping 100% of the Law at all times, and I wasn’t saying that those whom don’t follow God’s Laws will not be saved. I was saying that people need to be repenting of their transgressions, and even though it’s difficult to do especially in the very very beginning, repenting is something that must be done, and God will know whether or not we are sincere and genuine in our persuit of repenting, and many many people think that they can fool God into just praying for forgiveness and saying that they will change even though that person knows that they will not be making any changes in their life. That is when God will not forgive the sins of those people whom are not truly and genuinely seeking repentence. We absolutely cannot go through life without sinning, even God’s 144,000 first-fruits have sinned all of the way up until they were sealed and thus saved, but their sins did becoe less and less as the time passed them on by until they virtually had no sins within their lives, and when sin did indeed creep-in, they would very quickly repent of those things, and that is when God can look at them and say, “Now I know you” because God knows that even in sinning that this person will be repenting and will very quickly change their thinking and their ways.
I was not saying that Paul was not saved because of his sinfull ways, I was just saying that even the apostle Paul knew that he was steeped in sin when he was judging others by telling them that they were not following the ways of God. Paul did indeed eventually repent more and more quickly of his very own ways, but I was only mentioning him to show how even the apostle Paul was sinning while he was telling others to not be sinning and calling them out when they were not following God’s Laws.
When I said that it seems very mainstreamy for somebody to say that mainstream Christianity depends upon Christ to redeem them of our sins, and whil it is so very true that only Jesus Christ can redeem their sins and save them, they cannot be saved just by simply praising Jesus Christ and praising God and saying forgive me Lord forgive me, please save me please. Now, if they are sincerely and genuinely desiring to repent of their ways, then that is different, but if they are just going through the motions of praying for forgiveness and praying to be saved and praying for Christ to redeem them of their sins and praising God and Christ and worshipping God and Christ, if they are just going through the motions of those things, then they will not be saved, because they must be repenting.
So it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with how much percentage of God’s Law needs to be kept, because mankind will always be sinning, but the key is the repentence, because traditional Christianity prays to God for the forgiveness of their sins and transgressions, but yet they don’t repent and being seeking to keep God’s 7th Day Sabbath, let alone all of God’s Annuall Sabbath Holy High Days. Now, some of them might repent and change, but very few have been seen to leave traditional Christianity, they aren’t like doing this in hoards. Most of traditional Christianity believes that they are following God’s Laws even though they aren’t, so they are praying for forgiveness without even saying that they have sinned against God’s Sabbat hDay because they don’t even feel that they have broken that Law, or they feel that God’s Law was done away with and was nailed to the cross, that is what most of Christianity believes, the preachers says ohhh yes I know the Lord praise God, but then when asked if they keep God’s Law they say ohhh no God’s Law was done away with after Jesus Christ died. This is what I’m meaning when I’m saying that traditional Christianity will not be saved, but except that they begin repenting of their transgressions, and no, they will not be keeping God’s Laws perfectly in every way and manner, most especially in the very beginning, but they must be repenting, and most of traditional Christianity are not repenting of their sins against God’s most basic Laws for salvation, which is evident if they remain continuing to attend their church services on Sundays, that is not changing their ways. Some have prayed for forgiveness like all year long and then decades later have not left the doctrine of Sunday worshipping.
You are right that Jesus Christ does indeed redeem us, but that redemption is not an automatic redemption of everybody whom has ever sinned, because it depends upon your praying for forgiveness WITH repentence and WITh the changing of one’s life. If it didn’t depend upon the attitude of our spirits, then ALL human-beings would be redeemed and not all human-beings are going to be redeemed and saved, many will not be redeemed, but not always because they didn’t ask for forgiveness or didn’t ask to be saved, but because they weren’t repenting of their sins after praying, they just continued living in their sinfull ways without changing their actions in their lives but just hoping and praying to be saved even though they weren’t repenting.
Also, repenting has nothing to do with suddenly keeping God’s Law 100% perfectly, as repenting is where the changing of one’s life begins, as one’s life cannot change without the repentence in their life. I have been repenting in my life by keeping the Sabbath Day and I’m learning about the Holy Days so that I can follow them a I am still really very new to so much of this, but I am desiring to change so that I can follow God’s Laws and Commandments, and no I will never become 100% perfect at it, but I will have to become better and better at it and striving to live God’s ways of living life as knowing that those ways are what frees us from the bondage of sin, even though we are never 100% freed from that curse but except that we are born-again as a spirit-being.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/29/2010 @ 11:55 AM,
You’re sounding like repenting means to be fully and 100% following God’s Laws and Commandments, and that is not what repenting means. Repenting means to be thinking differently, and then utilizing that to begin following more and more of God’s Laws and Commandments, and nobody will ever become 100% absolutely perfect, but that doesn’t mean that repentence is not needed. Repenting of our sins does not mean that we are required to follow God 100% without any sinning whatsoever, because that is so very impossible of a task, but repenting is about changing, not about becoming perfect, but about changing and desiring those changes in your life and making those changes and when we sin, we must quickly repent of our sins, and that repenting will become quicker and quicker all of the times, but in no way will we become perfect. You are right, we will never become perfect, but there does come a point whereby God knows how you will be conducting yourself, and that is when God can look at somebody as say, “Now I know you”, even though that person still is capable of sin and does sin, God knows that they will change their ways very very quickly when they realized that they have transgressed against God. People cannot be saved without repentence, I wasn’t saying that people cannot be saved without following God perfectly, I said without repenting, which does not mean perfectly following God, it means to begin changing their ways and their attitudes about their ways, and to begin to follow God more and more and better and better, even though they will never become 100% perfect at it.
Aaron Robinson
I like many of the things you said, Aaron. I think we can agree on a lot of that.
I also know that much of what both you and I said disagrees with Armstrongism. That’s just a fact of Armstrongism, and nothing we can change.
“So it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with how much percentage of God’s Law needs to be kept, because mankind will always be sinning, but the key is the repentence”
OK. So I ask….. repentence from what and to what?
Armstrongism teaches “repentence from breaking the law” (that they break).
For example, they preach we must keep the seventh day Sabbath. Well, there is a whole lot more to the Sabbath law than just resting on the seventh day. And one portion of the Sabbath law cannot be separated from the another portion. But that’s precisely what we did.
My point is, as was Paul’s, one cannot start by saying “the law must be kept”, and finish there unless they keep the whole thing in all of its facets. But all of its facets are not taught or kept. Only “observe the Sabbath”.
That is wholly insufficient.
So that is why I am asking you for your opinion. Repent from what, and to what?
xHWA on 1/29/2010 @ 12:07 PM,
It sounds like you are saying that repenting has no important to God in whether or not we are saved. You’re sounding like as long as you read and accept in the Bible that it says that Jesus Christ can redeem us, then God is satisfied with us enough to save us just merely through our acceptance of Christ being able to redeem us ? Christ doesn’t redeem us just because we believe that he is the one whom redeem us. Does repenting have no important in salvation, because the Bible says that we must repent, it is a command, and so if we are just accepting that Christ CAN redeem us but are not repenting of our sinfull ways (which does not mean becoming 100% perfect but it means to strive to be that way and to rid yourself of your sins with a firey zeal, and when you sin, you will quickly change those ways quicker and quicker as the time passes you on by, and you will then be sinning less and less, and you will never become 100% perfect and sinless, but you will sin less and less), because otherwise, what is the point in even tryng to follow God’s Laws and Commandments and striving to change our ways if changing our ways is not what saves us ? Why would we be given a second life during the Great White Throne if we are all redeemed upon the return of Jesus Christ with God’s Kingdom ? There would be no reason at all whatsoever for the great resurrection of every human-being whom has ever lived and died upon this Earth.
Aaron Robinson
I must be confused because Mr. Weinland does indeed say that the 7th Day Sabbath is not just about attending church services on that day. What else regarding the 7th-Day Sabbath does the Church Of God – PKG not teach ?
You’re saying that Paul’s point was that we cannot say the Law must be kept unless all of the Law is kept ? That is like saying that we cannot state that we must keep God’s Law since it’s not even possible to 100% perfectly keep God’s Law. We are not to state that we must do it even though we aren’t able to do it perfectly ? What we are repenting of is our sins, our transgresssions of the Law, but repenting doesn’t mean that we will be following God’s Laws and Commandments 100% perfectly, that is not what repenting means. Repenting does not mean following perfectly, it means to be thinking differently, and we must have the attitude of desiring to change and actually making changes, regardless of whether or not it is done perfectly, because it will never be done 100% perfectly, but God desires us to think differently and then to change as much as is possible for us to change, until the point where God can look at you and say “Now I know you.” The point when he says this is not when you have masterred and perfected God’s Laws and Commandments, but it comes at the point in time when God knows you because He knows that you will always repent when you transgress His Laws, because that is what we are to do, to repent of our transgressions. Repenting of our transgressions does not mean that we will ever be following God’s Laws 100% perfectly, but it means to have a change in your life, and to continually become better and better at keeping God’s Laws and Commandments, but where in the Bible does it say that repenting is not needed as part of salvation since we can never become sinless in God’s Laws ? Salvation does not come when we perfect ourselves, it comes when God knows that you will always repent and QUICKLY repent, and will become better and better and sin less and less as the time passes them on by.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
That’s all good and well what you say, but I fail to see how you differ at all from, say, Lutherism.
Which is why I asked what you repent from, specifically, and what you change to.
Ron Weinland might say the Sabbath is nor just for rest, but does he teach every biblical regulation regarding the Sabbath day? No, he does not.
And, yes, Paul and James both say keep the whole law or you are guilty of all.
Aaron,
“What we are repenting of is our sins, our transgresssions of the Law, but repenting doesn’t mean that we will be following God’s Laws and Commandments 100% perfectly, that is not what repenting means.”
OK. And according to Armstrongism, this is a fine working definition. According to Armstrongism, I would say you are as close to correct as one can be without being anal about it.
But here’s the catch..
“our sins, our transgresssions of the Law”
..what about the portions of the commanded law that you do not even begin to keep?
That is why I gave examples.
Armstrongism teaches a person cannot be forgiven unless they “keep the Sabbath”. To the last one, when asked, every Armstrongist I have ever encountered has backed away from their first position about having to keep the law and instead answered “you can’t keep it perfectly, but you at least have to try.” But the Sabbath isn’t a neat, tidy package that can be wrapped up as “rest and go to church and be nice to people.” There are laws in the Bible that regard to Sabbath keeping, without which one cannot be said to be “keeping the Sabbath”, and those things are not even tried. So that is why I ask, “what percent?” Do I have to try to keep 90% of the Sabbath regulations? 30%? Who decides?
Some Armstrongist churches flagrantly violate the Biblical regulations that define “Sabbath keeping”. In doing so, they are not “keeping the Sabbath” at all. They don’t go to work, they do go to church (most of the time), and they say “I keep the Sabbath”. Paul and James disagree. Yet those very people teach that “Sabbath keeping” is mandatory for forgiveness, and anyone who doesn’t observe a seventh-day Sabbath is not forgiven. While they themselves do not “keep the Sabbath”. Are they not playing the hypocrite?
And then, one must ask, why, if the Pharisees were so fastidious in Sabbath keeping and tithing, did Jesus find any fault with them at all? Keeping the Sabbath TOO well?
So, I need to “keep the Sabbath”, but not as the Bible defines it, and not overly much?
It is exceedingly difficult to put this into words. I feel I’ve said the same thing 5 times now. But does that clear it up any?
Wow! What a flurry of postings – so much to read.
I’m sure that what we can all agree on is that we have a Heavenly Father who loves each of us more than we can comprehend and wants the very best for each of us. God IS love, in Him dwells no darkness at all. God is not someone with a big stick, saying we must do this or that. Rather, He gives us freedom to learn what happens when we depart from under His protection and Satan is allowed into our lives. The parable of the prodigal son well sums up our loving Heavenly Father’s character and how much he wants us in His family.
Law is not the best translation from the Hebrew. God’s Law or ‘Torah’ in Hebrew actually means ‘pointing of the way’.
There is a principle that has been at work all through the Bible. Satan is held at bay if God’s ways are followed but allowed to operate if not. Therefore, I contend that God’s ways are most definitely for our BENEFIT and we should not be looking for excuses why they don’t apply. Clearly, many laws like animal sacrifice, circumcision etc are now obsolete. But I believe God’s basic 10 commandments (which include thou shalt keep the Sabbath day Holy), are in no way done away with by Christ’s sacrifice for us.
Jesus even told us that the Sabbath was ‘made for man’. When He finished off the sentence with ’and not man for the Sabbath’, He was referring to the ridiculous way the Pharisees interpreted the Sabbath. For example, they had added a whole list of extreme things that constituted ‘work’. They had departed from God’s true intent for the Sabbath.
In the Old Testament God put HUGE emphasis on the Sabbath. For example, He reminded the Israelites about the Sabbath for 40 years by giving the double portion of manna the day before.
Isaiah 58:13,14 is another example:
“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. Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken.”
Jesus our Lord, who we are to follow, kept the Sabbath and so did the Apostle Paul and the original church.
Satan continually tempts us to disobey God. It seems to me it is not unlike the story of man’s fall in the garden of Eden when the serpent says to Eve, “Did God REALLY say you shall not eat of every tree in the garden ?”. Instead, try substituting “Did God REALLY say you have to keep the Sabbath Day holy? Surely, pagan SUNday is just as good, God won’t mind will He… ?”.
So much went wrong for Israel when they didn’t keep the Sabbath and God’s Festivals. For example, Jereboam thought he could worship God on his own terms by using substitute forms of worship on unsanctified festivals. As a result God carried out His predicted warnings given through His prophets and allowed the people of Israel to be defeated by their enemies.
………………………………………………………………………………….
NONE of us can perfectly keep God’s ways, because we are a fallen race. That is why we are ’into the lifeboat’ through faith in Christ.
But I agree with Aaron’s last few posts when he says that after we are ‘into the lifeboat’, God is then looking for an ATTITUDE OF REPENTANCE. We are saved from our just punishment of eternal death by having faith in Christ, but then the Holy Spirit starts to change us so that it is our DESIRE to walk in God’s ways. None of the prominent men of God in the Bible were in any way perfect, but they did repent before God. They didn’t just carry on blatantly living contrary to God’s commandments. It is the attitude of repentance regarding God’s Holy Days that is missing from the mainstream Christian church. I don’t believe God is looking for perfection.
I agree with the following words by Aaron:-
“Repenting means to be thinking differently, and then utilizing that to begin following more and more of God’s Laws and Commandments, and nobody will ever become 100% absolutely perfect, but that doesn’t mean that repentence is not needed. Repenting of our sins does not mean that we are required to follow God 100% without any sinning whatsoever, because that is so very impossible of a task, but repenting is about changing, not about becoming perfect, but about changing and desiring those changes in your life and making those changes and when we sin, we must quickly repent of our sins, and that repenting will become quicker and quicker all of the times, but in no way will we become perfect. You are right, we will never become perfect, but there does come a point whereby God knows how you will be conducting yourself, and that is when God can look at somebody as say, “Now I know you”, even though that person still is capable of sin and does sin”
I know from Ron Weinland’s sermons that he shares that same thinking. He has said that the 144,000, when they receive their glorified bodies at Christ’s second coming, will be those who during the past 6000 years have walked with God to the degree that God can say to them “Now I know you”. They are the ones who will rule and reign with Christ during the Millenium, when Satan is locked up and God’s ways will gradually transform the earth.
Eventually, God’s plan after the second resurrection at the end of the Millenium is that billions of people will get another chance to live God’s way of life to the degree that He will say “I know you”, and then they will also receive their glorified bodies not subject to disease or death.
People may well respond “Why should we believe what Ron Weinland says ?”. Well, certainly to me it makes a whole lot of sense Scripturally and ‘puts a lot of the missing jigsaw puzzle pieces in place.’
By ignoring God’s Sabbath and God’s Festivals, the mainstream Christian church seems to have no clear idea whatever of God’s plan, of where we are in God’s timetable, about the Millenium, about the second resurrection etc. Just a woolly “You’ve got this one chance in this life to ‘accept Jesus’ and ‘go to heaven’, and if you don’t ‘accept Jesus’ you’ll go to everlasting torment in hell. Consequently, much of mainstream Christianity is sick with worry that their family members and friends are on their way to hell.
I believe that a loving God has a far greater plan than that, in fact to ultimately redeem billions of human beings from Satan’s clutches.
Ron Weinland preaches such a powerful and loving God, and I believe him.
xHWA on 1/29/2010 @ 3:25 PM,
I apologize to you for not responding back to you sooner than this, but here I am now. You are right that keeping the Weekly 7th-Day Sabbath is about more than just attending assembled convocations, refraining from servile work, and being nice to people, and I don’t think that Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Weinland said that those are the only things that we must do to be keeping the Sabbath, because obviously the 7th-Day Adventists do those basic things, and so do most of the very many spliter groups that came from out of the Worldwide Church Of God. Now, I am still doing a very great deal or learning in terms of listening to Mr. Weinland’s past sermons and reading more and more of the Bible, because I don’t know everything in the Bible yet and so I am learning as we’re speaking. There might very well be something that God commands for us to be doing on His 7th-Day Sabbath that the Church Of God – PKG does not keep but I am still continually learning, and yes, sometimes I do slip, like I did today, whereby I ended-up sleeping from the last-morning and woke-up at like 3:30 PM, and then began listening to some of Mr. Weinland’s live sermon and I fell-asleep again, and I felt absolutely horrible about that, because I did not want to be doing that, but it did teach me to learn that I need to have ways to prevent those things such as using an alarm in order to wake me up, as my sleeping-patterns are all out of whack right now. But anyhow, I verbally told God that I was sorry about missing alot of the sermon given on the Sabbath, and then I listened to the sermon just as soon as it was uploaded to the web-site, but it did go past sun-down before I finished the whole entire sermon.
But anyhow, if you could, please let me know what are some of the things that we are supposed to be keeping regarding the 7th-Day Sabbath which the Church Of God – PKG is not keeping, because I want to learn about those things and consider them from within the pages of the Bible. I am still very new to this way of life and it’s never easy in the very beginning.
One of the things that you said is every Armstrongite whom you have ever encountered have backed-away from their origin position of having to keep the Law and then instead answered that we cannot keep it perfectly but we have to at least be trying. I have never backed-away from saying that we must keep God’s Laws and Commandments, it is what we are commanded to do by God, but mankind is not capable of doing this perfectly. The only human-being throughout all of the course of history whom has ever followed 100% of God’s Laws and Commandments has been Jesus Christ, he has been the ONLY one because he didn’t and doesn’t have the mind of a man, he had and has the mind of our Eternal God. God already knows that human-beings are not able to perfectly follow every facet of God, but I never said that this gives us a free pass to be transgressing just because we are not capable of being perfect in the eyes of God. If we had to be perfect in the God’s eyes in order to be saved and born-again into a spirit-being, then no human-being would ever be saved. The key is repentence, and no, repentence is not extremely easy, most especially in the beginning, and most especially for people whom were very strictly religious in their up-bringing and were taught to never stray-away from what their church has taught them over the course of their whole entire lives. When we sin, which is the transgression of God’s Law, then we must pray to God for forgiveness, but the key is repentence, because forgiveness does not come without repentence, which means to be changing.
You ask ask a very good question of what % of God’s Laws do we need to keeping, and the answer is that this is not for me to be judging. There is no set percentage of God’s Law that God looks for us to be keeping as a threshold. God says that we must repent of our sins and transgressions, and He doesn’t look for a certain percentage of His Law being kept, what He is looking for is an attitude of repentence and change, and we can’t just SAY that we want to repent and change our lives, we have to be sincere and genuine about our desire to be repenting and changing our lives, and not just “going through the motions” of praying to God for forgiveness. We must also pray to God for Him to HELP us to repent and change, because we cannot repent and change without God’s help in those endeavors.
Now, you said that according to Armstrongism that I’m right about, “What we are repenting of is our sins, our transgresssions of the Law, but repenting doesn’t mean that we will be following God’s Laws and Commandments 100% perfectly, that is not what repenting means.” Are you sayng that this is not correct and that you’re able to repent by 100% perfectly following God’s Laws and Commandments ? If this is the case, then you are saying that you can become sinless through repentence, but there is nothing that you can do to become sinless. What God desires is that we learn more and more and more how to obey Him, and no it’s not easy especially in the very beginning, but it does become easier and easier as the time goes on, but there will always be times when we will stumble but as the time goes on, we will more and more quickly be repenting of our sins when we do indeed sin. We will never ever become 100% perfectly sinless, but if we really truly sincerely genuinely take-on an attitude of repentence, then we will eventually reach a point whereby God can say, “Now I know you.” When God says this about somebody, this doesn’t mean that this somebody is sinless and will not be transgressing God’s Law in the future, but this just means that God knows how this somebody will be conducting their life in the future, meaning that He knows that they will always quickly repent when they sin, but they will always be capable of sinning just as so long as they are physical human-beings. My question for you is which part of my above-quoted statement is incorrect ? If it’s incorrect, then you must be 100% perfectly following God’s Laws and Commandments at all times no matter what.
We are commanded to be keeping all of God’s Laws and Commandments, but that doesn’t mean that we can because we are not even capable of that. We still need to be repenting of our old ways and follow God more and more and become better and better at it until God says that He knows us. But however, so very much of Christianity believes that since we were created as sinners with carnal human nature that we have no choice but to be sinners whom cannot change. What God desires is for us to be zealously on-fire for His ways of living of lives, but no manner of zealousness will cause us to become 100% perectly sinless, but God does indeed know when we are being red-hott for His way of life. Many that say that they are on-fire for God’s way of living life are not really truly that way, and only God knows the sincereity and genuineness of our thoughts.
As for your statements regarding the keeping of God’s 7th-Day Sabbath, I am curious what are some of the things that the Church Of God – PKG does not keep. Just so you know though, I’m not speaking regarding of of God’s Annuall Holy High Day Sabbaths, but just only God’s 7th-Day Sabbath. If there are things that I should be following regarding God’s 7th-Day Sabbath, then I do need to be repenting of those things, so I’m just wondering what are some of those things that you speak of that Armstrongism doesn’t teach us ?
P.S. Jesus Christ found fault with the Pharisees because they weren’t obeying God, regardless of their 7th-Day Sabbath keeping (which I didn’t even think that they did but that would be something new that I would have learned).
P.P.S God working in our minds to mold and fashion our lives only goes so far without God’s Holy Spirit livig and dwelling within us. I have not yet become baptized into God’s Church, and so thus I don’t have God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within me. Now, even if God has indeed been calling me to grasp and understand His truths, this can only go to a certain point, which is why we need to become baptized into God’s Church through the immersion and submersion into water, and then the “laying on of hands” to impregnant us with God’s Holy Spirit. We can repent to a certain point but we won’t ever be able to reach the point of God saying that He knows us without God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling and growing within us, so God’s calling us only takes us so far.
Aaron Robinson
I want to ask a general question.
According to the Jews, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, there are 613 laws in the Old Testament that Israel was to follow. About how many of those would you say you keep and are on fire for?
Granted, we will have to subtract quite a few from that because that number includes sacrificial things that even Armstrongism teaches was removed by Christ.
But out of a reasonable remainder, let’s say 200 laws, how many would you say you even attempt?
Again, this is why I ask about percentages. (Even though you already know my own position is that percentages are irrelevant.) Because the Old Covenant was not “keep as much as you are able,” but it was “keep all of it.”
Let’s say you keep 35%, and someone else keeps 5% and someone else 95%. None even attempts the rest of the law – in other words, none of you keeps the “whole law”. Let’s say you all see your flaws, all have a repentant attitude, and all see the need for forgiveness. How is it that any of you are saved at all?
About my general question above, I want everyone to be clear that they see the condition of the question – which matches perfectly the conditions in real life.
Not a one of those people in my question is repentant for the portions of the law they don’t keep. One is not repentant whatsoever for 5%, another is not repentant whatsoever for 65%, and another is not repentant whatsoever for 95%. They are only repentant for the percentage of the law they try to keep (but fail at).
Keep that in mind while you think about how they can possibly be forgiven.
Mal,
“NONE of us can perfectly keep God’s ways, because we are a fallen race. That is why we are ’into the lifeboat’ through faith in Christ.”
You have such a good heart. You are SO CLOSE to the truth!
Extend that lifeboat to all others whom you would regularly say are not in that lifeboat, ALL people who have faith in Christ, and you have hit the mark.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 11:04 AM,
But you see, people can keep 100% of the Law, that people are able to do, but what people are not able to do is keep them forever and ever as we will always eventually transgress against them, whether it’s by mistake or relatives visiting and you don’t wanna leave them, or whatever the reasons may be. We will always eventually sin, which means lying and stealing and covetting are included in the transgressions of the Law, which means that you could still be transgressing God’s Law through lying, stealing, or covetting, even if that person keep the “appointed times” commands 100% faithfully, so we must be looking at not only the “appointed times” Laws but also the “loving neighbors” Laws.
You say that those people don’t even attempt the rest of the Law, but whom says that you are correct in that ? How do you know that they don’t attempt all of God’s Laws. Somebody might keep 100% of God’s Laws but then fail after 3 months because you lied about something, or because you stole something, and then you will not have kept 100% of God’s Law. If transgressing one of the Laws or Commandments is transgressing the whole Law, then everybody is guilty of transgressing the whole Law, but that still does not give us the go-ahead to sin and not ever repent. God looks for us to repent of our ways, like when we realized that we have transgressed against God, then we need to repent as quickly as possible and pray to God for help in doing so, to help guide your life to change your ways in which you’re living. People can be keeping 100% of God’s Law but it’s the amount of time of keeping all of it that will always have us fail in keeping 100% of it because we will eventually stumble in keeping something, but not necessarily stumbling in keeping an “appointed time”, but even if lying, or stealing, or covetting. God does desire for us to keep 100% of HIs Law for 100% of our lives, but God already knows that human-beings are not even capable of doing that, and so thus He looks for us to be repenting of those ways and to be sincerely and genuinely changing for the reasons of knowing that it’s the best way of living life in order for mankind to attain lasting peace and prosperity. We will never be sinless until we are born-again into a spirit-being, but we must repent of our sins. You are correct that we are not commanded to just keep as much of the Law as we can, we are indeed commanded to keep all of the Law (and I think that is maybe where you thought I was wrong because you might have been thinking that I meant that we are not required to keep all of the Law since we are not capable of doing that), but human-beings with our carnal nature cannot always be keeping God’s Laws and Commandments, so are you saying that you are indeed keeping all of God’s Laws and Commandments, because if you are, then God lied when He said that no human-being is capable of doing that just as so long as we are physical human beings with carnal nature ? We can indeed keep 100% of God’s Laws, but there will come times when we stumble in following God’s Laws and Commandments, but if we are really truly repenting, then the time-span between those stumblings will become more and more greater and greater, even though they will never totally vanish from existence, but we become better and better until the point where God knows that we will always very quickly repent when we realize that we have stumbled in our faith.
So thus, we are required to keep 100% of God’s Laws but nobody is capable of doing that forever and ever, but the key is time, and if we are repenting, then we will be sinning less and less as the time passes on by. I still do not yet know every one of God’s Laws and Commandments, but I am constantly learning new things. I can’t be following something that I’m not even aware of yet, and I don’t yet know the whole entire Bible, but that is why we go through a learning process when we begin repenting of our old ways of our past. I do hoe and desire that God will help me to repent as much as I possibly can to the point where God knows that I will always very quickly repent when I realize that I have sinned and transgressed against God, but I realize that I will never be able to perfectly master never ever sinning because the only human-being whom has ever kept 100% of God’s Law for 100% of the time has been that Of our Eternal God the Father’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
You know what is intriguing to me though ? In just a very very short time from now (whether or not Mr. Weinland is God’s prophet), we will no longer be able to say God’s only begotten son Jesus Christ, because then God will have 144,001 begotten sons until the end of the Millenium of Christ in God’s Kingdom and the beginning of the Great White Throne when God will be begetting millions upon billions of people whom were sealed during the Millenium of Christ. Then finally, at the very end of the Great White Throne period, every human-being whom is ever going to be begotten by God will have become God’s begotten children, and no more human-beings will exist after that point in time.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
I completely understand that you take the Sabbath off from the Internet. No apology necessary. I would never purposefully ask you to do something you think is wrong. If it’s sin to you, then it’s sin to you.
“There might very well be something that God commands for us to be doing on His 7th-Day Sabbath that the Church Of God – PKG does not keep”
Oh? Take Hebrews 8: 9 into account. What did God say was the reason He rejected Israel?
“because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.”
The covenant said “you shall” and they did not. Then, in your opinion, if COG-PKG repeats that are they “keeping the Sabbath” as God said it must be kept? Which parts of the law that we must try to keep in order to be forgiven does God say it’s OK for us to ignore?
Remember what we spoke about earlier concerning God correcting people thousands of years prior.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 11:10 AM,
But how do you know whether or not somebody is repentant of something ? How do you know that certain people are not being repentive of all of God’s Laws. I never said that human-beings are not capable of repenting of ALL of God’s Laws and Commandments, but the key is realizing that even if they repent of all of God’s Laws, there is always will come a time when they will stumble and will transgress against God, but whom is to say that people will not repent of all of God’s Laws. Maybe they won’t repent of everything at first, which might even be because they haven’t learned all of God’s Laws and Commandments yet. But once they do learn all of it, they can repent of ALL of it, and they might not repent of all of it within like one day or one week or even one month, as repenting is a life-long process, which is why we need to be judged according to a full life where we don’t prematurely die during the Great White Throne period, whereby we will be living a full life by which we will go through a life-long process of repenting against our sinfull and transgressing ways in which we’re living our lives. People might not be repenting of ALL of God’s Laws and Commandments from the very very beginning of their calling, but as the time passes them on by, they will learn to keep more and more of God’s Law until they are indeed keeping 100% of God’s Laws and are now just stumbling in keeping them from time to time but repenting when you realize that you have indeed stumbled. So thus, people can be keeping all of God’s Laws, but they cannot keep that accomplishment forever and ever because human-beings with carnal nature will always eventually stumble, but the time-span in-between each transgression should become less and less as somebody’s life progresses on forward.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
“You say that those people don’t even attempt the rest of the Law, but whom says that you are correct in that ?”
I’ve given you several examples. I will repeat one:
We are not commanded to travel for Tabernacles only, but three times each year to the place where the Lord places His name – at Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles – as DEU. 16, EXO. 23, and EXO. 34 plainly command?
If you don’t do this three times, as commanded, then are you “keeping the Holy Days”? And if not, how can you say they are required for others if you are not keeping them yourself?
Aaron,
“the key is realizing that even if they repent of all of God’s Laws, there is always will come a time when they will stumble and will transgress against God, but whom is to say that people will not repent of all of God’s Laws.”
This is no different than what I’m trying to get you to understand. When you do stumble, the law only has provision for your death. There is no true mercy in the law. None. Search it from top to bottom; it’s not there. You have sinned and nothing in the law can remove your past sin. So, since you know for a fact that no man can perfectly keep the law, all they do by failing is add more imperfection.
So I ask, where does true remission of sins come from?
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 11:15 AM,
But here’s the thing about your posting though. You said this life-boat is extended ALL people whom have faith in Jesus Christ, and this is true, but except for the fact that most of Christianity is not even repenting, because they choose not to believe what Jesus Christ taught us even thought it’s so very clear in the Bible that he kept God’s 7th-Day Sabbath and all of God’s Annuall Holy High-Day Sabbaths, but most of traditional Christianity does not keep those days because they don’t even believe that we are commanded to keep those Laws and Commandments in today’s times. So thus, even though THEY say that they have faith in Jesus Christ, they really truly do not even have faith in Jesus Christ. What they have faith in is false gods because that is what they are worshipping, and it’s at it’s worst when they don’t even acknowledge what the Bible even tells us is true. They claim to represent the life of Jesus Christ and yet they do not at all whatsoever represent or follow the things that Jesus Christ followed to be obeying God. They are not in that life-boat because even they do not have faith in Jesus Christ because they dishonour him and his Father, and that is a lacking of faith in him. If they had faith in Jesus Christ, then they would be repenting at least of God’s 10 Commandments, and most all of Christianity does not even begin to repent of God’s 4th Commandment, so thus, they do not have true faith in Jesus Christ, they have a false faith in Jesus Christ, or a faith in a false Christ. The Christ that they represent is a false Christ, which in turn represents a false god.
Aaron Robinson
But Aaron, what I’m demonstrating to you is that YOU don’t keep them either!
“So thus, even though THEY say that they have faith in Jesus Christ, they really truly do not even have faith in Jesus Christ.”
And by this you contradict the Bible. Galatians 3: 12 says the law is NOT faith. They are two different things, and you must not confuse them.
Look at Romans 9: 30-32
“30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.”
Faith is not of the law.
Nor either are these things:
Justification (GAL. 2: 16)
Righteousness (GAL. 2: 21)
The Spirit (GAL. 3: 2)
Perfection (GAL. 3: 3; HEB. 7: 19)
Miracles (GAL. 3: 5)
Inheritance (GAL. 3: 18)
Life (GAL. 3: 21)
Grace (GAL. 5: 4)
Also
“One of the things that you said is every Armstrongite whom you have ever encountered have backed-away from their origin position of having to keep the Law”
Yes.
“I have never backed-away from saying that we must keep God’s Laws and Commandments”
Oh? Then what is this?
“If they had faith in Jesus Christ, then they would be repenting at least of God’s 10 Commandments”
At least the 10 Commandments??? You know as well as I that the Holy Days are not in the 10 Commandments. But if you think the Holy Days are annual Sabbaths, then why emphasize Passover, which is not?
What all Armstrongists do is back away from their position on the “whole law” and then they all take it back to “well at least the 10 Commandments” and then we fall into the issue of the Holy Days.
And here we are. What I said is true.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 11:57 AM,
I don’t know where you got that I take the Sabbath off from being on the Internet, I mean we never even discussed that, so I’m kinda curious where you got this from if you don’t mind my asking you this. I never said that being on the Internet on the Sabbath is sinning.
I never ever said that it is okay for us to ignore even one teeny tiny lil’ bit of God’s Law. I was just simply asking you what are some of the things regarding God’s 7th-Day Sabbath does Armstrongism not indeed keep or follow ? I’m not asking you this to be sarcastic, I’m asking because I really truly do want to know because I really truly do want to be obeying God in every possibly way and/or manner.
P.S. Please try holding-off on posting any more comment-postings until I’m caught-up in responing to what you have posted thus so far, thanks so very much.
Aaron Robinson
What detail or details is Armstrongism missing about the weekly Sabbath? I will give you a couple. I only give a couple because it is far better for you to research this on your own:
EXO. 16; EXO. 35 — no one may cook
EXO. 20 — you may not do any work, or cause anyone else to do any work [including cooking]
Ergo, no out to eat & no potluck on Sabbath.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 12:03 PM,
As for me personally, I’m still learning about how to obey God as I don’t know everything yet. I don’t even know 100 of God’s Laws and Commandments yet, so this is the only reason why I might not be keeping God’s Laws, but I’m constantly learning those things. Learning to follow God is not just only a 1-day or 1-month endeavor to learn everything. Since I know that every human-being is commanded to do those things, I am just stating them as being so, because I know that they are commanded, even though I haven’t yet learned about 100% of everything.
Also, as far as travelling to the places where God places His name, I mean, how do we know when it’s in God’s name and not in a false god’s name ? I mean, if a church is not really truly God’s Church, then it’s not in God’s name, and so thus, how can we know where God’s name is being placed during those 3 time-periods during the year unless He directly tells us those things ?
Aaron Robinson
Aaron,
You are now asking questions. And you are doing very well. I applaud you.
The true remission of sins does indeed come from Jesus Christ, and I have never spoken otherwise, but however, all I was trying to say is that traditional Christianity is largely not repenting because they fail to even recognize that the 7th-Day Sabbath is still the Law of the land of the Earth. Those in traditional Christianity will not become saved through Jesus Christ if they choose to never repent and remain steadfast in their false beliefs in false gods and false christs, I mean, isn’t that correct ? I think this whole line of dialogue was eminating from when said that traditional Christianity won’t be saved if they don’t repent, but it’s not even just Christianity, because any human-being that does not repent of their transgressions will not be saved through Jesus Christ. Every human-being has the free moral agency of choice to choose whether to accept God’s ways and repent of your old ways, or to reject God’s ways and not even repent at all whatsoever because you already believe that you are following the ways and truths of God. I tend to talk more about traditional Christianity because they are the very most hypocritical in that they claim this devout faith in God and in Jesus Christ but yet they deny what he taught us to do to faithfully obey God. The only hope that we have to become saved is through Jesus Christ and through the forgiveness of our sins, and I’ve said that before in the past, but God will not be saving us through Jesus Christ if we choose to not repent of our ways and continue to live by our ways. We have a way to become saved through salvation but that is not just automatically granted to us just because God has provided that way for us, we have to desire it and we have to walk that path, but those whom refuse to repent of their transgressions will not be saved through Jesus Christ.
Aaron Robinson
“Those in traditional Christianity will not become saved through Jesus Christ if they choose to never repent and remain steadfast in their false beliefs in false gods and false christs, I mean, isn’t that correct?”
Let me put it to you this way:
You say to me that the law is required for salvation and I’ll only prove to you that you’re not keeping the law. you say to me that no one is keeping the law and I will show you how you have just undone your own argument. You are not being consistent. You must demand a consistent answer or all you will ever get is more circles. Circles after circles. Round and round we go.
How did Jesus Christ solve this? It’s right there in the Bible.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 12:16 PM,
Okay, please slow down just a lil’ bit so that I can catch-up with my responses to your comment-postings, so please for right now don’t post anything else until I am finished with my responses, because I don’t want to be lagging too far behind and then some of our thought-processes of the various questions are becoming so very intertwined that confusion of what we are trying to impart to each one another will become more manifested.
You are right that the Law and faith are different. What Romans 9:30-32 is saying is that the keeping of the law does not have one attain righteousness, it is having the faith IN the Law that gives righteousness, because if seek righteous by just there mere following of God’s laws but don’t have faith in what they are even for and why they were even commanded in the very first place, then we are not going to find righteousness, but however, if we have full faith in Jesus Christ, that means that we believe in everything that Jesus Christ said or did, and so thus we strive to follow the law through the faith of knowing that the Law is the only way of living our lives that promises us the results of lasting peace and prosperity, and no other manner of the ways of mankind can hope to achieve those same results. The Law is nothing without the faith because without the faith it’s just “going through the motions” because maybe they are just afraid of God’s Wrath due to disobeying Him, or maybe they are keeping God’s Laws so that they will become saved, but those things are lacking the faith.
You still have not told me what some of the things regarding the 7th-Day Sabbath are that the Church Of God – PKG is not obeying, so how can I know what you are saying if you’re not telling me this ? You don’t even have to tell me everything that is not being kept, I just want to know some of those things.
Also, you said that I contradict where the Bible says that the Law is not faith, but where in my above-quoted statement did I mention the Law when I talked about faith in Christ. “So thus, even though THEY say that they have faith in Jesus Christ, they really truly do not even have faith in Jesus Christ.” Now, how does this contradict where the Bible says that the Law is different than faith ?
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 12:21 PM,
I would have hoped that you already knew that I know that all of God’s Law must be kept, which is more than the 10 Commandments. I was not saying that only the 10 Commandments are commanded to be kept. I was just simply saying that people need to be repenting of something, and even though they need to be repenting of everything, repentence is a life-long process so not everything is repented of in the very beginning. The 10 Commandments are what most people are familiar with, and the reason I bring them up is that if people are not going to repent of transgressing at least the 10 Commandments, then they are not going to repent of transgressing all of God’s other Laws and Commandments which reside outside of the confines of those 10 Commandments (all of which God commands for us to obey). I was not diminishing the important of any of God’s Laws or Commandments, I was just simply stating that they need to beging their repentence somewhere, and if they aren’t even repenting of breaking the 10 Commandments, then they sure aren’t repenting of the rest of God’s Law because they don’t even recognize God’s 10 most basic Laws (which is not the whole entire Law though). I have not stated that not all of God’s Law need to be kept, I’m just saying what it is that people do when they aren’t repenting of anything. The better way of phrasing what I was saying is if they had faith in Jesus Christ, then they would begin their repentence somewhere, and since repentence is a life-long process, people won’t be repenting of ALL of God’s Laws until they have addressed ALL of their sins, and that doesn’t occurr over-night or even in a week or a month. We cannot possibly address (in a very short period of time) ALL of our sins that we committ because there are just so very many sins that we committ that we cannot address them all together in one lump sum. Nobody wakes up one morning and says I’m gonna repent and then addresses everything that they do wrong right then and there, it’s a longer process than that, even though all the while we are always required to be keeping 100% of God’s Law, but repentence takes time, and it’s not always easy. The problem I state with traditional Christianity is that most of them don’t even feel that there is anything to repent of, especially since they refuse to even believe what Jesus Christ said and taught and did. Even though I’m not yet following everything that God commands of us (partly because I don’t even yet know about everything because there is alot to be learning), I still state that I recognize those things and that I need to be repenting of those things, but traditional Christianity does not even feel that it needs to repent of those things because they don’t even think that hey are breaking God’s Laws by not keeping the Sabbath, in fact one of the most horrible things they believe is that God’s Law had been abolished ever since the times of Jesus Christ on this Earth. Their first step in their walk of salvation is recognizing that God’s Law does still very much indeed apply to today’s times, and then they need to begin repenting of their transgressions, even though they won’t be able to repent of 100% of everything all at once all together, but they need to be repenting of something otherwise their walk of salvation never ever begins.
The point is that we need to be keeping God’s 7th-Day Sabbath as well as all of His Annuall Holy High-Day Sabbaths and the rest of the 10 Commandments and any other Law or Commandment which God has commanded of us to live by. If we are not even willing to repent of what is false, especially if we don’t even believe that we are being false, then we are not living by faith in Jesus Christ, or even in God for that matter.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron, one thing that I see consistently in everything you say is that you’re not basing what you say on the Bible, or on the fact of what is taught and not taught within Armstrongism. You’re reasoning through this on your own.
I think that’s why what you’re saying isn’t consistent.
(PRO. 3: 5) Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding
What’s going on here is we’re having two different conversations. I’m talking about reliance in Christ, and you’re saying whatever sounds reasonable in response to my questions.
That’s not an accusation; it’s just an observation.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 12:30 PM,
You are right, although as far as I knew, they have taught that we are to do those things, that we are to cook the day before and not cook the day of. Those things are not discussed during every Sabbath service because His Church already knows about those things, just as much as they know they they are commanded to be assembling themselves together in holy convocation.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 12:48 PM,
I never said that I was keeping all of God’s Law, especially since I am new to so very much of this and I don’t even yet know about everything as of yet. I already know that I’m not keeping all of God’s Law, but does that make it wrong for me to be saying that we are commanded to keep God’s Law ? I’m wondering how come why you are so very Hell-bent on proving that I’m not keeping God’s Law, especially when I never even denied this ? I did say that no one is keeping the Law, and I know that I’m not keeping the Law either, and I never said that I was, especially since I am learning what those Laws even are, I know many of them, but not all of them, but I’m learning all of the time.
Aaron Robinson
xHWA on 1/31/2010 @ 1:41 PM,
I’m not just merely saying whatever sounds reasonable in response to your questions. Isn’t it true that we cannot walk in faith of Jesus Christ without repentence ? Is Jesus Christ reeling us in on this life-boat if we are not even repenting of things such as like not keeping God’s 7th-Day Sabbath or keeping God’s Annuall Holy High-Day Sabbaths? How can we have reliance in Christ if we don’t even rely on what Christ said, did, and/or commanded ? How can we be relying on Christ if we don’t even recognize the only sign that God gave to prove that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah ? Traditional Christianity is not repenting of those things because they don’t even feel that they have sinned in those things. I am not basing what the truth is from what Armstrongism teaches, I am speaking what the Bible says regarding sinning, and repentence, and how there can be no forgiveness without the sincereity and genuinity of coming to repentence. Do you really believe that God forgives us if we don’t repent of our ways ? There would be no point to just automatically granting forgiveness without changing the ways in which we’re living.
If there is still a question regarding what I believe is true regarding sinning and repentence and forgiveness and salvation and faith in Jesus Christ and keeping God’s Laws and Commandments, after everything that I have put in my comment-postings, then please don’t hesitate to bring it to my attention. Some of what I said in the beginning I didn’t properly explain, such as like when I talked about following “at least” the 10 Commandments, because I wasn’t saying that we only have to repent of not following the 10 Commandments, but that was to say that if they’re not even going to be repenting of God’s basic 10 Commandments, then they surely aren’t gonna be repenting of the other things which are not part of those 10 Commandments because very few recognize the Law outside of those 10 Commandments, so if they aren’t going to be repenting of their transgressions of the 4th Commandment, then they aren’t gonna be repenting of their transgressions of the Law which is outside of the 10 Commandments. But anyhow, if there is anything like this that you are still un-sure of what I’m believing, then please let me know as I don’t bite or anything.
Aaron Robinson
You’ve reached my latest comment. Can I respond now?
Just asking.
Yes you silly-head, I told you that once I had finished responding to your most recent comment-posting, that you could respond back to my comment-postings, lol.
Aaron Robinson
LOL!
I would very much like to come to some agreement on these things because I would very much like to put this all aside and just be your friend. I think we’d get along wonderfully.
xHWA on 1/31/2010 on 2:33 PM,
But you are my friend no matter what happens, so don’t you worry about that, I mean, we’re just discussing is all. I was lookin forward to you responding back to my responses that I gave to you though…
Aaron Robinson
I say all that I’m about to say (and all I’ve said to this point) with absolutely no accusation towards you or anyone else. Only love.
“it is having the faith IN the Law that gives righteousness”
You show me one place where the Bible commands us to have faith in the law.
I want you to take this most seriously, because faith is reserved for God alone, and if you have faith in the law then the law is your god and you run a dangerous risk of becoming an idolater.
You’ll not hear that in Armstrongism, but it’s true.
“So thus, even though THEY say that they have faith in Jesus Christ, they really truly do not even have faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are you their judge?
“Now, how does this contradict where the Bible says that the Law is different than faith?”
Because the Bible clearly states that the law and faith are two absolutely, completely different and unrelated things. Just as trusting God will resurrect you is different than finishing your homework. They’re not even the same sport.
Ask yourself, what did righteous Abraham have faith in if the law wasn’t given until 430 years after God’s promises came to him?
What do these verses say to you?
(ROM. 3: 21-28) 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
“I’m wondering how come why you are so very Hell-bent on proving that I’m not keeping God’s Law, especially when I never even denied this?”
I’m sorry if my insistence on this point is rubbing you the wrong way. I am not trying to convict you of anything except the mercy of Christ. I’m a sinner too. I’ll take the Pepsi challenge with your sins any day. My sins are red as scarlet! I’m not trying to make you feel bad.
But why I insist on bringing this up again and again is because the law isn’t something you can choose little bits of here or there. There isn’t this law here, and that law there, and 5 parts of this law out of which I keep three. It’s one complete unit – whole and complete and unalterable. Like the Constitution of the United States – sure, it has many parts, but it is one Constitution. Take it all or leave it all. So is God’s law. You cannot excell at 35% of it, try hard for 25% of it, and never even hear about 40% of it.
Why is it so important? Because, there is a covenant involved. A legally binding agreement between man and God. We do not have the option of cherry picking. You can’t just set the rules as you go. Once the covenant is set, it’s set.
The covenant was not “grow into the law over time and I’m good if you finish at 80% success.” It was, “Here is my covenant and the rules that you will adhere to in it. Do not add to it. Do not take away from it. Do all of it and I will bless you. Violate it in the least and I will curse you.” That is what you’re up against.
That’s why God says “count the cost.” Because you’d better not get caught up in a covenant with God only to later say “Oops! If I’d known that before I would never have agreed to this.”
Israel agreed, and Israel broke the covenant. How? They did not continue in ALL of it. It’s not that they wholeheartedly abandoned it, or Saul could never say that according to the law he was blameless. Jesus never accused the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath, Holy Days, or tithe laws. Not once! He accused them of only keeping some of the covenant. And the Sabbath, Holy Days, and tithing, which they kept, were not even the “weightier” parts! That was a violation of the covenant. They were hypocrites; saying one thing and doing another.
There is a cavalier attitude that I see where people who say, “the law is required” and who also say, “I don’t keep the law,” and somehow they think that’s not only OK in God’s eyes, but they think that’s exactly what God wants from them. There is no difference in this approach and how the Pharisees acted. Keep a little here, ignore a little over there. I can think off the top of my head of 4 covenants that God made with men (Noah, Abraham, Old Covenant, New Covenant). Not a one of them bound men to what you’re saying to me.
Is God a God of failure?
I keep harping on this point so that you will accept the idea that your approach is IMPOSSIBLE! The covenant is all or nothing. If you require a law, then require it. If not, then not. “Be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” There is no in between in the law because there is no mercy in the law.
You speak to me about repentance, and I say YES! Repent! But from what? And to what?
You reply “law”, and I am trying to show you that you are ignoring the terms of the covenant.
I ask you “what law” because you need to know that the law is the terms of the covenant.
I haven’t even gotten into asking which covenant’s laws are you referring to? Do you mean the Old Covenant? Then you are bound to its laws. Do you mean the New Covenant? Then you are bound to its laws. You may not choose on your own to mix bits of one covenant with bits of another. You are bound to the covenant you agree to. You cannot sit on a fence between the Old and New Covenants. In doing bits of both you fulfill neither.
You might ask – aren’t they the same thing? And I say, judge for yourself. If they were, then why does Hebrews 7: 12 say the priesthood was change as well as the law?
According to the law, a party is only bound to the covenant as long as they live (I COR. 7 goes into this.) It was no minor thing that Jesus did when He died!!
But there’s more – and I say all that I’ve said with absolutely no accusation towards you or anyone else – you are misunderstanding faith.
For example:
“There would be no point to just automatically granting forgiveness without changing the ways in which we’re living.”
And the Bible says yes there is a point. The point is HUGE.
The point is to show God is merciful and the justifier of mankind, and that it is a gift of His mercy and not somethine we earn, and so that no man may boast in anything they’ve done whatsoever, and that it comes by promise not by the law, and that He is all in all, and that everything is from Him, and through Hum, and to Him again. The point is HUGE!! The point is the glory of God.
It is not that you must force yourself to conform to an external law that no man can keep, but it IS that Christ in you will be changing your heart through faith – NOT the law. The old covenant was “thou shalt.” The New Covenant is “God will.” The old was condemnation, the new is life. All of what I’ve said I can back up with Bible verses. The confusion is this:
You will never understand either covenant if you view the New Covenant through the lense of the Old. You see it backwards and upside down if you do that. The puzzle pieces may seem to fit, but what good is a backwards and upside down picture? Precisely as the Apostles could not understand what Jesus was up to, even though He told them centuries beforehand. You must view the Old Covenant through the lens of the New!
The question is, do you have the faith to both believe God with all your heart and to accept that God has done this wonderful thing for us?
Psalm 119:7
I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws.
Deuteronomy 6:25
And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”
Ezekiel 18:9
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Romans 2:13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Romans 8:3-5
3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
Okay, now we are getting into some very weird but yet intriguing waters here, You said that we are only bound by the particular Covenant to which we agree to ? Are you saying that God gives us the choice of which Covenant to be bound to, and then that choice will dictate how we are to live our lives in order to be saved ? Does this mean that if I choose to agree to be bound by the Old Covenant that I am not in any manner bound by the New Covenant ? I have never heard anybody, whether it be preacher, pastor, minister, reverend, father, bishop, elder, I have never ever once heard any of them say that God gives us the choice of which Covenant to be bound by, I mean how is that true at all whatsoever ? Show me where in the Bible that it says that all human-beings have a choice of which Covenant to be bound by, because I have never even witnessed anybody on this planet ever making such a case for this. Why would God allow us to be bound by the Old Covenant but not bound by the New Covenant. Now, when you say New Covenant, are you regarding when Jesus Christ said to hang all of God’s Law on the 2 laws of loving God and loving neighbor ?
You also seem to be saying that we can become sinless and masters of God’s Law through God’s mercy with Jesus Christ. Where does it say in the Bible that just as so long as we believe in Jesus Christ that we will never sin again anymore. How can any human-being become perfect so as so long as they are still indeed a human-being, are they able to become perfect ? The only one whom was perfect was Jesus Christ, and then of course God the Father, those are the only 2 beings whom have ever been perfect. Didn’t some of the apostles still committ a murder even though they believed and had faith in Jesus Christ ? Just merely believing and having faith in Jesus Christ does not cause somebody to become sinless, or does it ?
Also, when I said that we should have faith in the Law, I was speaking indirectly, because it is through our faith in Jesus Christ that we will desire to keep God’s Laws, that we will come to repentence of our old ways, even though we will never become perfect just as so long as we are physical human-beings because the carnal mind is enmity against God. Doesn’t the Bible very clearly state that God and Jesus Christ are the only beings whom have conducted the course of their lives perfectly and without any fault at all whatsoever ? How then does any human-being become perfect BEFORE being resurrected into a spirit-being ? If you are saying that we cannot become perfect as human-beings, then are you saying that God will be saving EVERY human-being since all have sinned, or maybe that God will be saving every human-being whom says that they believe in and have faith in Jesus Christ ?
Also, does somebody just simply stating that they have faith in Jesus Christ mean that they actually really truly do have faith in Jesus Christ ? Can somebody believe and have faith in Jesus Christ if they deny the very things that Christ said and did ? Most people claiming to be devout Christians deny that Jesus Christ is their Messiah, and the manner in which they deny this is through the denying of the very only sign that proves that Jesus Christ is indeed our Messiah, which is that “just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights, so will the Son Of Man be in the heart heart of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights.” They also deny that they are commanded to be keeping God’s 7th-Day Sabbath, and they are also denying that they are commanded to be keeping God’s Annuall Holy High-Day Sabbaths. If somebody not only doesn’t kee God’s Laws but actually flat-out denies that they are even commanded to be keeping them in the very first place, then how on Earth can they be believing and having faith in Jesus Christ. Aren’t they believing in a false god and a false christ to deny what Christ said and did as being of the truth ? How can somebody deny the truth of what Christ said and did and still be considered to be believing in and having faith in Jesus Christ ? Now, if believing and having faith in Jesus Christ does NOT mean that we must believe what he said and did, then are you saying that ALL human-beings have faith and believe in Jesus Christ even though most people deny the very things that Jesus Christ said and did ?
I still have never said that we are only commanded to keep a certain percentage of God’s Law. Having been commanded to do something and actually doing them are two totally different things. If human-beings are not even capable of being 100% totally sinless, then how are we to keep all of God’s Laws if the only one wom has ever accomplished this has been Jesus Christ ? You are either saying that 100% of mankind is saved regardless of their actions, or that none of mankind is saved since the requirement is keeping all of God’s Laws but we are not even capable of being 100% perfect in this endeavor. I would like for you to answer this specific question if you don’t mind.
My very last paragraph is the reason why repentence is so very important, because since no human-being is capable of being 100% perfectly sinless, our only hope is through repentence of our old ways and striving to be with God in every way, and the only way to repentence is through faith in Jesus Christ, and we certainly cannot have faith in Jesus Christ if we deny so very many of the important things that he said and did.
Another thing you are saying that I was saying is that we only have to strive to keep a certain percentage of God’s Law and that it is okay to be ignoring the rest of God’s Law, but however, I never said any such thing as that. I very clearly stated that we must strive and repent to all of God’s Law, but is it realistic that any human-being is capable of doing this really very quickly ? Of course not, which is why repentence is a life-long process of trials, tribulations, and hardships. The only thing that I made light of is that we aren’t going to be following all of God’s Law when we begin our spiritual awakening, and the only thing that I can think of is that you’re assuming that I’m meaning that God is cool with this. For 100% of our lives, God commands for us to be keeping His Laws and Commandments, but this does not mean that we are gonna be repenting in the beginning of every individual thing that we have ever sinned against. Repentence is a life-long process of change, and do you believe that any human-being will be repenting of ALL of their sins right from the very very beginning of their spiritual journey ? Of course not. I don’t wanna be judging you, but I doubt very much so that you were repenting of ALL of your sins from since the time that you became spiritually awakened to those things. Now, even though I’m saying this stuff, this does not in any way mean that God is relaxing his requirements for the keeping of His Laws, we are still 100% bound by 100% of God’s Law, but this doesn’t mean that any one of us just magically becomes 100% perfectly sinless just by stating that we believe and have faith in Jesus Christ, I mean, repentence doesn’t work like that.
Now, you asked me repent from what and to what. We are to repent FROM our old ways and TO the ways of God, and we do this through believing and having faith in Jesus Christ, but believing and having faith in Jesus Christ is not just a matter of believing that Jesus Christ existed, or believing that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God (Son Of Man) and our saviour. The Bible proves this because so very many people that said that they believed in Jesus Christ were condemned because they didn’t really truly believe in Jesus Christ, but it wasn’t because they were lying about believing in Jesus Christ, it was because they only believed in the name of Jesus Christ, only believing that he was the Son Of Man, but not necessarily believing or having faith in anything else that Jesus Christ or even God had said or commanded. Believing and having faith in Jesus Christ is about so very much more than just simply believing that he was God’s only begotten Son living upon this Earth. Now, if you believe that this is in error and thus not correct, but quote this and let me know where I’m wrong in this.
Christ being in us will change our heart through faith, but we still must choose to either accept that faith or reject that faith, and if we deny what Jesus Christ said and did, then we are denying that very faith in him which is to save us from our penalty of death. Is God still going to save the people whom have rejected the things that Jesus Christ said and did while still claiming that they believe in and have faith in Jesus Christ, will those people still be saved ?
You said that the Old Covenant is “thou shalt” and that the New Covenant is “God will”. Does this mean that if we choose to be bound by the New Covenant (which according to you is totally our free choice of which of God’s Covenants that we will be bound and judged by) that we no longer have to keep God’s Laws from the Old Covenant since we are not bound by the Old Covenant since we chose to be bound by the New Covenant ?
By the way, where oh where do we find that Israel agreed to God’s Covenant, and by Israel I’m assuming that you mean ALL of the people that resided in Israel back during that time ? Did God sit down with Israel and say that you must agree to this covenant before you can be bound this covenent ? No, of course not. I mean, God told Moses to bring His Law to the Israelites as commandments from God, not as a question as to whether or not they would agree to the terms of the covenent through some kind of spiritual signing of the contractual covenent. I have honestly never heard anybody on this planet ever say that any human-being in history had to agree to the terms of the covenent in order to the be bound by that covenent, I mean that is not what the Bible states, and you are the very first person whom has ever said this in all of my whole entire life. Not even Angel has said anything this like, I mean at least I could understand her thinking and understanding of portions like Deuteronomy 18:20-22 or other things that she has brought-up, but she might not agree with you on this stuff, although I’m not 100% absolutely for sure on this.
Now, please don’t take what I’m saying to mean that I don’t like you, because I do very much indeed love you very very much as another felow human-being on this planet Earth whom God has so very beautifully created from the dust of this Earth. But however, I would like for you to go through this comment-posting of mine and try responding to each individual question that I raised, because some of the questions you never get to answer and then I’m still left wondering how you’re feeling about some particular issue.
Aaron Robinson
I told you when we started this conversation that I didn’t want to get into it, and that I can’t give this to you, but you keep asking me things — and for some unknown reason I keep answering you; even though it’s against my better judgment and Titus 3: 9.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 1.
If I come across as saying that you have an option to choose which covenant (Old or New) you want to be under, then that’s my poor communication skills at work. You have no such option because the Old Covenant is gone. There is now only one Covenant offered – the New Covenant. Either you accept it or you accept nothing. You may reject it, but there is no option to go with Old.
My point was that no one may invent their own Covenant. Nor may we alter the terms of the two Covenants. Nor may we blend the Old with the New. The terms are set and defined, and no man may alter it one iota.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 2.
I am not saying you will be sinless. In fact, what I’m about to say will sound a lot like what you already believe; but it’s not. If I may be so bold, and I mean no offense to you, your perspective is slightly off. This is not your fault, but our teachers’ faults.
We will never be sinless as long as we are in this flesh. Not one thing in the whole world can we do to be sinless. We cannot earn it by the law. We cannot remove it once it’s here. The stain is removed in one way alone – Christ. His sacrifice removes the stain, not ours. His obedience, not ours. And that comes to us by faith in Him.
“Just merely believing and having faith in Jesus Christ does not cause somebody to become sinless, or does it?”
Are we sinless? No. But we are under grace through faith. God looks at us, by His mercy accepts the payment Christ paid 2,000 years ago, and as a gift Christ’s righteousness is accounted to us. Not at all in any way is this because of anything we do apart from trust. It is a free gift; an undeserved gift. And it is a promise.
It’s not grace through law, because failing to properly keep the law is what got us here in the first place. Law doesn’t even factor in.
Think about it this way: You are one body with Christ through faith. If you are truly one body with Him, how could you be anything besides saved?
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 3.
“through our faith in Jesus Christ that we will desire to keep God’s Laws, that we will come to repentence of our old ways”
Almost! You’re so close. SO very close.
Faith will cause us to want to change our ways. Yes! But this is why I ask “repent to what?”
If your problem is not keeping the law, and you repent, then continue to not keep the law, what in reality have you done? Nothing.
It is not even that we will be desiring to keep the laws that were outlined in the Old Covenant, because the Old Covenant is gone, instead we will be compelled by the Holy Spirit in us to follow what Jesus commanded in the New Covenant – and that is “love.” And love does not undo the old law, but fulfills all the righteous requirements of the old law. And it matches God’s righteousness, because what is God? He is love (I JOHN 4: 8).
“or maybe that God will be saving every human-being whom says that they believe in and have faith in Jesus Christ?”
You ask about “just saying” but you refer to genuine faith. I believe faith must be genuine. Still, salvation is not because of us, but because of Him.
(ACTS. 2: 21; ACTS 16: 31; ROM. 5: 9-10; EPH. 2: 8; I THS. 5: 9; II THS. 2: 13; TIT. 2: 11; I PET. 1: 9)
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 4.
“does somebody just simply stating that they have faith in Jesus Christ mean that they actually really truly do have faith in Jesus Christ?”
No. Men are liars by nature. We can lie about faith, too. Not everyone who says “Lord! Lord!” Will be saved.
Refer to the previous paragraph – faith will allow God’s Spirit to reside in us, and God’s Spirit will be changing us. This is the proof! If you want to know who has faith, look at the fruits of the Spirit.
Where we differ is in this: you think God still requires us to keep the old law that no man can keep and that will be the proof, when the fruits you should be looking for are of His Spirit, not the law. Sabbath is not a fruit of the Spirit. Even someone who has never heard of Christ can keep the Sabbath and Holy Days – and men did for 1,400 years. So what have you? It’s no proof at all.
“If somebody not only doesn’t keep God’s Laws but actually flat-out denies that they are even commanded to be keeping them in the very first place, then how on Earth can they be believing and having faith in Jesus Christ.”
Again, none of these are of the law:
Justification (GAL. 2: 16)
Righteousness (GAL. 2: 21)
The Spirit (GAL. 3: 2)
Perfection (GAL. 3: 3; HEB. 7: 19)
Miracles (GAL. 3: 5)
Inheritance (GAL. 3: 18)
Life (GAL. 3: 21)
Grace (GAL. 5: 4)
The law is condemnation; Christ is salvation.
You say the law is required, but the law is the Old Covenant. If the law is required, then the law is required according to the terms of the law; those terms are 100% perfect all the time; no exceptions. That is the law. The attempt is impossible. I strongly urge you to accept this one fact.
Let me give you an analogy. If I command you to “jump to the moon in one try or die”, what will you do? Keep jumping all you want, you’ll never make it. So why bother? If I say “if Jesus jumps to the moon for you, I will be satisfied with that,” what will you do? Continue to jump for the rest of your life? Wasting your time in fruitlessness? Is God a God of failure? Or will you have faith in Christ? Now you will be free to go about the things Christ wants you to do.
In Matthew 25: 31-46, Christ separates the sheep from the goats. Does He do so by of acts of law, like Sabbath keeping, or does He do so by acts of love, which is from His Spirit?
The Old Covenant law is not what the New Covenant requires. You are blending the covenants. When you read I John, and you see the word “commandments”, you might say “Aha! The 10 Commandments!” But you must not take what John is saying out of context. John defines “commandments” in his own writing. The commandments in the New Covenant are faith and love.
(I JOHN 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.
(I JOHN 4: 21) And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.
John is not referring back to the Old Covenant, but back to the Gospel.
(JOHN 6: 29) Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
(JOHN 13: 34; JOHN 15: 12, 17) A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
And Paul says if you do this, not only are you in keeping with the New Covenant, but you have also fulfilled all that was required of you in the Old as well. Because all the law, even the 10 Commandments, are summed up in one word: “love.”
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 5&6.
Your specific question is this:
“If human-beings are not even capable of being 100% totally sinless, then how are we to keep all of God’s Laws if the only one wom has ever accomplished this has been Jesus Christ ? You are either saying that 100% of mankind is saved regardless of their actions, or that none of mankind is saved since the requirement is keeping all of God’s Laws but we are not even capable of being 100% perfect in this endeavor.”
My answer is this:
No man can keep the law. It’s impossible. That was the point. We have to learn that we can never hope to reach God’s standard of righteousness. Even the attempt is doomed to fail from the very outset. Once you realize that, why bother attempting it? It’s impossible.
I am not saying 100% of mankind is saved regardless of their actions. I am saying that 100% of mankind has failed to meet God’s standards and we are flat condemned and utterly hopeless because the requirement was to keep the law 100% perfectly and without interruption in perfection. Even in your “repentance” you then turn right back to failure to keep the law (so, have you actually repented?). We are all of us condemned to death in our sins. What hope has any man, then?
Enter the Savior! Praise God!!
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 7.
You are close to the truth in this paragraph, but I see you still trying to blend the two Covenants together.
If you take to heart the truth of what I said to you just now, from paragraph 5, you should see that if the law is 100% required, yet Armstrongism never for one day taught all of the law, then Armstrongism is not a path to keeping 100% of the law — a which goal no man can hope to achieve anyways.
“this doesn’t mean that any one of us just magically becomes 100% perfectly sinless just by stating that we believe and have faith in Jesus Christ, I mean, repentence doesn’t work like that.”
You’re right, repentence doesn’t work like that. Refer to what I said earlier. But I never said WE become sinless. This whole ballgame isn’t about you or me. It’s about Christ. It’s not for our glory, it’s for His. We are not sinless – He is. Our “repentence” is still our effort, and thus if it our effort then it is moot. But if repentence is from God, it will result in His Spirit living in us and His Spirit will produce fruit as we allow it to work in our lives. It’s not law; it’s faith. And faith does work like that.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 8.
“believing and having faith in Jesus Christ is not just a matter of believing that Jesus Christ existed, or believing that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God (Son Of Man) and our saviour.”
Agreed!! Almost all that you say in this paragraph I agree with. You are not wrong.
The conclusions afterwards where we differ. Faith does not require or cause us to begin keeping the Old Covenant law.
Faith does include believing that Jesus is who He said He is. It also involves believing He has done what He said He has done, and that He will do what He said He will do.
And a large part of what He did was die… and by His death the Old Covenant was wiped away. That is the law of covenants.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 9.
This paragraph is the exact question debated between two groups for centuries. One is the Calvinists, who say once saved always saved. The other are is the Arminian group who say, salvation is by faith, but you always have the option of rejecting Christ – thus you must hold fast to the end.
Whom do I agree with? I tend towards Arminianism.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 10.
“Does this mean that if we choose to be bound by the New Covenant … that we no longer have to keep God’s Laws from the Old Covenant since we are not bound by the Old Covenant since we chose to be bound by the New Covenant?”
Yes. You are correct. This is only natural. When Christ died, the Old Covenant was broken to pieces.
However, clarifying my points from earlier: the Old Covenant is not an option, and when you accept the New Covenant by faith in Jesus Christ, His Spirit will change your heart and produce fruit, and thus you will fulfill all the righteous requirements of the law.
About your most recent reply. Paragraph 11.
“where do we find that Israel agreed to God’s Covenant”
This is Old Covenant 101. Heck, it’s covenants in the Bible 101.
The Old Covenant is first agreed to in Exodus 19: 8. The covenant is renewed in Deuteronomy 5-6. They ratified it again in Joshua 24: 16-18, 22-28.
But the covenant was not only to those Israelites standing there, it was also to their descendants. This is hinted at in verses like this one:
(DEU. 29: 14) I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, 15 but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today
This attitude that God can make an agreement with Israel and their descendants is not unusual. If Levi paid tithes in Abraham, a verse you are no doubt familiar with, then the Israelites who were not there that day also were included. If a promise can be to Abraham and his Seed, then this is not groundbreaking stuff we’re talking about here.
“Did God sit down with Israel and say that you must agree to this covenant before you can be bound this covenent ? No, of course not.”
Did they sit down individually? No. Did they all come to the Mount Sinai and all agree to the covenant at one time? Yes.
The New Covenant is not like the Old, though. That Old was to Israel as a whole. The New is to each of us indivicually.
You know what… rather than type this all out again (this is like the 10,000th time I’ve done this in the past year), why don’t you go here and read up on the differences in the Covenants:
http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html
WHEW!
That’s a lotta typin’!!
Anything else I can clarify for ya?
But if I had my druthers, this would be the last thing I say about the matter.
well said xhwa!
i can relate to what you’re saying….get’s tiring repeating your stance time after time after time.
xHWA
I have read your posts including the web link with the differences between Old and New Covenants. I am in complete agreement with you that we are incapable of saving ourselves by keeping the law, and that we are only able to be saved through faith in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection.
I hope this will not be too much of a repeat of my earlier posts, but I will try to expand on my view that the New Covenant should not mean we ignore God’s Holy Days.
Firstly, I believe many have a false perception of ‘the law’. The law is described as the ‘law of sin and death’, not because we should avoid it, but because the law identifies how far removed from God we all are, and that without Christ we would receive our just wages, which is death. In our current fallen state it is clearly impossible for us to keep all of God’s commandments. It is faith in Christ alone that gets us ‘into the lifeboat’.
But after that, it is expected that we don’t stay the same person. Receiving the Holy Spirit should result in gradual change towards loving God and loving our neighbour. We start on the bottom rung of the ladder and begin to climb. In the Old Testament there are fifteen psalms called the “Psalms of Ascent,” which are a picture of the spiritual ascent of Christian believers through their growth in life and experience.
The higher up the ladder we climb, the closer we walk with God. Christ doesn’t mean us to just stay on the bottom rung after we are saved by faith. God’s goal is that eventually, through the help of the Holy Spirit, we will be brought to the ‘measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph 4:11-13).
………………………………………………………………………………….
Yes, it is clear the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. The New Covenant was Christ’s sacrificial death followed by His resurrection and the Holy Spirit coming upon us so that the basic requirements of the law, to love God and to love our neighbour, gets written on our hearts.
Christians who take the view that Christ’s sacrifice for them allows them to blatantly disobey God must be making God weep. There is surely a difference in stumbling due to our human weakness, when Jesus forgives us and picks us up, and blatantly sinning. Particularly, blatantly sinning against one of God’s Ten Commandments.
Would a Christian ever suggest that the commandment ‘You shall not murder’ is no longer applicable, or ‘You shall not steal’ is done away with? So, why would the commandment ‘You shall keep the Sabbath Holy’ be done away with?
Yes, ritualistic things are no longer in force such as circumcision, binding God’s commandments in leather pouches onto the arm and between the eye (Deut 6:8) or wearing tzitzit fringes at the corner of garments as a reminder to follow the law (Num 15:38-40). None of these kinds of things are any longer required because the Holy Spirit is sent to write the law on our hearts and remind us when we are going against God.
Ron Weinland preaches that the 144,000 are those that have ‘climbed the ladder’ and walked with God sufficiently for Him to say “Now I know you”. They are not perfect, because while we are in the flesh this is not possible, they are saved through Christ – BUT they have developed to the degree that God has identified them as ‘firstfruits’ for them to receive their glorified bodies and rule and reign with Christ during the Millenium.
………………………………………………………………………………….
Why would God change his mind about something as important as the Sabbath ?
It is clear from Scripture that the Sabbath is MASSIVE in God’s eyes as can be seen from the huge emphasis he puts on it all through Scripture. The Sabbath was the day God set aside especially to convene with mankind and a sign between Him and His people.
The Sabbath was consecrated way before Moses, right back in Genesis 2:3. In Ex 20:8 it says REMEMBER to keep the Sabbath holy, referring back to Genesis. Almost certainly, men righteous in God’s eyes like Enoch, Noah and Abraham were observing the Sabbath as a matter of course.
Why did God decide there would be a 7 day week and make the last day of the week the Sabbath – because He was tired and needed a rest? The Sabbath is, in fact, a portrayal of the wonderful Millenium to come at the end of 6000 years and which is now almost upon us.
The Bible is full of ‘types and shadows’, and as Isaiah 28:10 says, we have to put ‘precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little’. That is the key to deeper understanding of Scripture, to help us to assemble the jigsaw puzzle. There are many such ‘types and shadows’ in Scripture concerning the 7000 year salvation plan of God.
One such helpful Scripture in the puzzle is the following:
(2Pe 3:8) “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Of course, Satan’s day of SUNday completely loses the significance of God’s Sabbath, which is why the wider Christian church is largely ignorant of God’s salvation plan.
The Apostle Paul made it clear that God’s Festivals in Leviticus 23 are all about Christ (Colossians 2:16,17.). In fact, the Festivals are a wonderful picture of God’s complete salvation plan; Christ’s first coming, Christ’s second coming and way into the future up to the second resurrection and beyond.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Surely, if we love God and we love Christ we will love God’s Holy Days, and not choose instead to come before Him on days that Satan inaugurated? This is surely a slap in the face for the God and Jesus we love?
Jesus said He was ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ and ‘The Sabbath was made for man’, noting that He didn’t say ‘made for the Jews’ or ‘made for Israel’ but ‘made for man’.
Christ Himself kept the Sabbath. Why? – because it was the righteous thing to do. Christ himself was baptised. Why? – because, similarly, it was the righteous thing to do. Surely Christ is our blueprint ? Once saved surely we owe it to Him to live in a righteous way like Him as best we can ?
Regarding God’s Holy Days/Festivals, we should expect the Holy Spirit to show us what is pleasing to God and what isn’t. When you look at it, isn’t it remarkable that ALL God’s Holy Days are IGNORED and have been replaced by ALL pagan days ? If you raise this point with anyone in the church, it is quite likely to stir up anger since Sunday, Christmas, Easter etc are so embedded in our ‘traditions’.
What does God say about that? :-
(Mark 7:7-8) “Their worship of me is empty, because they teach human rules as doctrines. You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
Why if God’s Festivals and the Sabbath were done away with after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection is it clear in the Acts of the Apostles that God’s Holy Days were still being kept? (For example, Acts 20:6, 1 Corinthians 16:8, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9, 1 Corinthians 5:8.).
Also, there are Biblical references to God’s Holy Days being kept in a time yet FUTURE to ours. For example:
Zechariah 14:16 mentions God requiring the Festival of Tabernacles to be kept.
Isaiah 66:23 indicates that, even at the time of ‘the new heavens and the new earth’, man will be worshipping on the Sabbath.
………………………………………………………………………………….
To sum up, I cannot believe that faith in Christ and the subsequent receiving of the Holy Spirit would make it acceptable to God to ignore one of the Ten Commandments, and to replace His Holy Days by pagan days. I suggest that the mainstream Christian church has been led away from the 7000 year salvation plan of God by ignoring the importance of God’s Holy Days and, by choice, coming before God on worship days inaugurated by Satan (the weekly SUNday, December 25th and Easter/Ishtar).
Based on Scriptures which relate to a yet future time, it seems clear that God will require mankind to keep His Holy Days as a reminder of the awesome salvation work that God performed for mankind.
Mal,
I would say that if you feel you must keep a seventh day Sabbath, then do so. My point is nothing more than “don’t talk down about others who disagree.” My point is as simple as that.
It seems there is some confusion about what Mainstream Christianity “keeps”. I think you would feel a bit different if you knew that not all Mainstream Christians keep days like Halloween and Christmas. I would also hope that you would feel a bit different if you knew the real history of the day we now call “easter”. It’s quite a bit different than the old “things were changed in 325 AD” lie we were told.
I would ask, if you go somewhere to appear before God, then surely you can tell me where the place is that the Lord places His name?
I would ask two additional questions:
The Old Covenant was done away?
The law was magnified?
Sorry, I forgot one more question..
Do you do animal sacrifices?
Some will ask “Why ask what I asked?” I am just going to respond to Mal’s conclusion only, since the whole comment was too long.
Please forgive me if my follow-up appears curt. I do not intend to offend.
__”To sum up, I cannot believe that faith in Christ and the subsequent receiving of the Holy Spirit would make it acceptable to God to ignore one of the Ten Commandments”
It’s your prerogative to believe or not.
But please don’t then tell me you’ve read what I wrote. If you had comprehended what you read, you would have known that love fulfills the righteous requirements of the whole law and upholds it. I never said it ignores the righteous requirements of the law.
If I may.. what you’re propagating here is a false dilemma built by Herbert Armstrong which basically states that if one isn’t following the 10 Commandments then one is flagrantly violating them all.
This is neither realistic, considering God’s Spirit that is in us by faith will not cause us to violate the righteous requirements of the law but will produce Fruit of the Spirit, nor does it accurately represent what Mainstream Christianity teaches and believes, nor does it begin to address how the Sabbath was only a shadow, and was “magnified.”
Are we to believe that Jesus magnified the law, but left the Sabbath untouched? And that if we don’t practice the Sabbath precisely as the Old Covenant describes it, then we don’t please God in the New Covenant? The very idea is a blending of the two Covenants and fulfills neither.
__”and to replace His Holy Days by pagan days.”
Which is more important: what someone says or what someone does?
Put another way, if I say I believe something, but I myself don’t perform that thing I believe, then am I a liar?
Put yet another way, when you interpret John 14: 15, which says in English “If you love Me, [you will] keep My commandments”, you see the English translated word “commandments”, and you interpret that as referring the 10 Commandments, do you not? So you say with your mouth that you keep the 10 Commandments. But when it comes to actions, do you keep them?
Not only do all men violate them regularly (and you don’t deny this), but what I say to you is that Armstrongism doesn’t even attempt to teach all that is involved with the Sabbath command and thus it is not a path to following it properly. If you want a test of this, try convincing a Messianic Jew that you’re keeping the law properly.
So, even though they cry “The law! The law!” it’s always in effect qualified with “…well, not THAT law.”
We didn’t know any better. We were half ignorant; thinking ourselves wise. But we never let that stop us from condemning the whole world. Take the Sabbath for example :
When I was in the Worldwide Church of God back in the 1980′s, we had potlucks quarterly. My most recent “Church of God” cooked and ate a potluck every single week. Other churches regularly go out to eat after Sabbath services. When I was in Ron Weinland’s church, I once took my family to breakfast before services, and there was Ron Weinland and his family. Oh the law! The law! ….just not that pesky law about not cooking, or that other tiresome detail about not making anyone else cook for you.
How does one warm a potluck dish without kindling a fire? Some would say “Well, I put it in the microwave!” Sure. I’m certain the cleverness involved in circumventing the law one claims to keep like that pleases God immensely.
So, I hear “Sabbath! Sabbath!” But what actions I see are “…well, not the way God said to keep it. I like my way better. But never mind me.. how about those Satanic Easter keepers!”
I put more weight on what a man does than how he assigns the pejorative “Satan’s” to Easter and etc, while excusing his own faults completely. Let’s take a closer look at that, too.
Since you say you keep the Feast of Booths, but you don’t go to where the Lord places His name (just going to another town is not what the Bible indicates), nor do you build a booth there, then what have you in fact done? Certainly not what God told you to do in observance of what you call “His Holy Day.”
So I ask – and I am trying to ask politely – if you’re not following God’s instructions to be in the place He said to be or do the things He said to do there, whose instructions or traditions are you keeping? By Herbert Armstrong’s own reasoning – if it’s not God’s then it must be Satan’s! So, are you not, then, keeping “Satan’s Feast of Tabernacles?” Because we’ve removed what God said to do and replaced the Feast of Booths with the Feast of Vacations, and then we turn right around and slam Mainstream Christianity for doing something that we ourselves are doing.
How is one way any better than the other way? Your faith in Christ?? Is that not the one and only self-same name in which they place their faith? Yet you say it saves you from your sins but not them?
So, I hear “Holy Days! Holy Days!” But what actions I see are “…well, not the way God said to keep them. I like my tradition better; it’s much easier. But never mind me.. how about those Satanic Easter keepers!”
And you give a list of verses in the New Testament that merely mention the names of the days. The verses do not say the Holy Days were being kept by the Gentile church; only names of days are mentioned. The days are mentioned and that’s good enough for you.
But when Acts 21: 24 plain as day shows James instructing Paul to follow the ritual cleansing, do you also perform cleansing rituals? No. Or when John 10: 22 shows Jesus observing Hanukkah, do you observe Hanukkah? No. Consistency!
I haven’t even touched on the things that are outrightly changed without any regard to the Bible. Tell me because you know and love the law, what are the things the Bible says are valid to be tithed upon? And then tell me, who were the only people allowed to receive the tithes?
What I see is, “The law! The law! …. well… not THAT law.”
__”I suggest that the mainstream Christian church has been led away from the 7000 year salvation plan of God”
First, prove that to me from the Bible. With all due respect, I don’t care what any man suggests, I care what God suggests. You said “in fact”. Well, if it is a fact, then show me the verses that say God has a “7,000 year plan,” or the ones that say “God’s 7,000 year plan is based on the Holy Days.” But if you cannot explain it apart from the Bible, then please don’t represent it as a fact but represent it as what it is – your speculative interpretation.
You have given me one verse, II Peter. 3: 8, which states “…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” But Psalm 90: 4, states “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.” So is a thousand years a day, or like a watch in the night? It makes a difference.
Again then there is the problem of cinsistency. My single largest complaint about Armastrongism is that there is no consistency. A thing is interpreted one way in one place to make a belief fit, and the same thing is interpreted differently in a different place to make a belief fit. There is no wisdom at all in inconsistency – “how long will you falter between two opinions?” (I KIN. 18: 21).
If we apply Armstrong’s interpretation consistently, then the Day of the Lord (a prophetic term) is also 1,000 years, is it not? Yet Armstrongism does not teach that.
Have you not considered that God exists outside of time, and where there is no time, eternity is like a day and a day is like eternity? The terms “1,000 years” and “forever” are known Jewish idioms referring to a non-specific but very long period of time. They could even be less than 1,000 years. But that would ruin the secret information that Herbert Armstrong felt God has placed in that verse for only the followers of Armstrongism to discern.
At first you say “The Apostle Paul made it clear that God’s Festivals in Leviticus 23 are all about Christ (Colossians 2:16,17.).” So, the Apostle Paul made that clear that the Holy Days are all about Christ. Which Apostle gave you the rest of your interpretation? None other than the “Apostle” Herbert Armstrong. This was his idea. You won’t find it in the Bible. It sounds good, but I for one will not place my faith on speculation. I might even say, “Hey! This is interesting!” But I would not recommend making that equal to actual Biblical doctrine.
__”by ignoring the importance of God’s Holy Days and, by choice, coming before God on worship days inaugurated by Satan (the weekly SUNday, December 25th and Easter/Ishtar).”
You have assigned a private interpretation that isn’t what Paul gave you and then you ignore what the Bible actually says about the Holy Days. So you differ from those you castigate in what way?
Let’s look closer at some of your details and we’ll see what kind of “fact” this is. Let’s look at Easter.
In all of my studies I cannot find the term “Easter” in use before 900 AD. Anywhere. It’s an English word after all, taken from the Old English word Eastre. And in all historical likelihood, “Eastre” is not derived from the word “Ishtar”. All scholars are not agreed about the etymology, but the most likely origin is the Germanic word “Eostre.” So on what grounds do you associate it with Ishtar?
The first appearance of “Eostre” is found in the 800′s AD. That’s some 500 years after Armstrong taught the day was adopted, in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea.
Given that information, we must ask, what was the celebration called before then? Please tell me you thoroughly studied this before you chose to condemn a billion+ people for observing it! Is it called by its English name everywhere in Christendom? No. Then what is it called?
Pascha! As in Passover! Read Acts 12: 4 in the King James. It says “Easter” but it’s taken from the word “Pascha.” And “pascha” is the Greek translation of “Passover.” Now, how did William Tyndale know Easter and Pascha are one and the same thing when he translated it into English? Because he studied about it before he made any claims.
To this very day it’s called “Pascha” in certain areas of the world.
And as to the timing, the day was not derived from a pagan equinox festival. The timing was derived because of a controversy about accuracy. All Christians were divided over the issue. From the time the temple was obliterated in 70 AD, and also when Hadrian barred Jews from setting foot in Jerusalem in 135 AD, the timing of days and months and seasons could not be established any longer as it had long been. Some Christians opted to follow the timing of the Jews as the Jewish priests tried to approximate the old timing. Some Christians wanted a fixed date and be done with it, because they didn’t trust following after the Jews who reject Christ. The Jews also eventually affixed a date. It was the very same celebration, different days.
Don’t believe me! Read Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, book III, Chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”. Here is a link:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.v.html
All of the pagan traditions you refer to were added to this celebration much, much later. They have no bearing on the origin of the day as you say they do. So, if you don’t like them, by all means don’t do them. If it’s sin to you then it’s sin to you! But at the same time, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” (ROM. 14: 4).
I will remind the reader that Herbert Armstrong disagrees with the Jews about their own timing. In one place he says, “the Jews, to whom were entrusted the oracles of God, kept the timing of the Sabbath for us through history.” And in another place he turns around and says the Jews get the timing of Passover and Pentecost wrong. As well as a great many other things.
Consistency!
“Yes, it is clear the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant.”
People tell me this all the time. I used to tell people this all the time. But none seem able to tell me just what was the Old Covenant. I figure, since they can’t tell me, I’ll tell me. And here it is:
(EXO. 34: 28) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
(DEU. 9: 9) When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
(DEU. 9: 11) And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.
(DEU. 9: 15) So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire; and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.
So there you have it. Written under God’s own inspiration to Moses. The 10 Commandments ARE the foundational stones of the Old Covenant.
And now let’s turn our attention to the Ark of the Covenant. Why do you suppose they called it the “Ark of the Covenant”? Because it was the Ark (box, repository) of the Covenant (Ten Commandments).
(I KIN. 8: 9, 21) 9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 21 And there I have made a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.
There are 45 verses in the KJV where the phrase “Ark of the Covenant” can be found.
(NUM. 10: 33; 14: 44; DEU. 10: 8; 31: 9, 25, 26; JOS. 3: 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17; 4: 7, 9, 18; 6: 6, 8; 8: 33; JDG. 20: 27; I SAM. 4: 3-5; II SAM. 15: 24; I KIN. 3: 15; 6: 19; 8: 1, 6, 9, 21; I CHR. 15: 25-29; 16: 6, 37; 17: 1; 22: 19; 28: 2, 18; II CHR. 5: 2, 7, 10; 6: 11; JER. 3: 16; HEB. 9: 4)
Then, without skipping a beat, they ask:
“Why would God change his mind about something as important as the Sabbath?”
And I refer them to the top of this comment again. [Please read this comment again from the top.]
xHWA
Firstly, I want to re-affirm that we are not against one another. We are both seeking God and the truth of His Word.
I am not intending to be judgemental of anyone. My posts on this blog are how I interpret Scripture. I am a sinner, totally reliant on Christ and praying for clearer understanding.
………………………………………………………………………………….
In response to your posts, I put to you the following points:
The Old Covenant was THE AGREEMENT between the Israelites and God that they would keep the Ten Commandments. This is explained in Ex 19:5-8 as follows:-
“And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My Covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which Jehovah commanded him.
And all the people answered together and said, All that Jehovah has spoken WE WILL DO. And Moses returned the words of the people to Jehovah.”
……………………………………………………………………………….
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant because, of course, Israel was incapable of keeping the Old Covenant even though they had agreed with God to keep it. They failed time and time again like we do.
It wasn’t that God’s Ten Commandments were made null and void. They are as much in force today as when God gave them.
The New Covenant is Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection and the coming of God’s Holy Spirit (the Helper) to write God’s Ten Commandments on our hearts and help us to keep them.
Scripture makes it clear that faith does not replace the Ten Commandments:-
Romans 3:31 “Do we, then, abolish the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we UPHOLD the law”.
………………………………………………………………………………….
There is a lot of information on the web about the ancient origin of ‘Easter’. I quote from one such reference:
Easter is derived from the name ‘Eostre’ or ‘Eastre’. ‘Eastre’ is none other than Astarte or Ashtaroth who was introduced into the British Isles by the Druids and is just one more name for Beltis or Ishtar of the Babylonians.
Ashtaroth is mentioned in Scripture in Judges 10:6
“And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and ASHTAROTH, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him.”
Easter has nothing to do with God’s Festival of Passover, apart from the Christian veneer that has been put upon a pagan festival. Hot cross buns, Easter bunnies and Easter eggs are all of ancient pagan origin.
The date of Easter does not line up with Passover and is normally far removed from it.
Furthermore, Easter is a false representation of the timespan for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. God’s Word tells us Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights and not just from ‘Good Friday’ to ‘Easter Sunday’.
………………………………………………………………………………….
The 7000 year plan of God was not conjured up by Herbert W Armstrong, it was understood by the ancient Jewish Rabbis and was also taught in the early church.
Herbert W Armstrong simply revived knowledge that the wider Christian church had ‘lost’. I truly believe the 7000 year salvation plan was ‘lost’ due to the fact that the church had been seduced in the direction of pagan festivals and other false doctrines by the Catholic church.
These two ‘cut and pastes’ show that the early church was well aware of God’s 7000 year salvation plan:-
EXAMPLE 1
Quote from the 200 A.D Epistle of Barnabas, Chap.15 The Apostolic Fathers, pp.151-152:
“of the sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of his hands in six days and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.`Give heed, children, what this meaneth,`He ended in six days.`He meaneth this, that IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS THE LORD SHALL BRING ALL THINGS TO AN END, for the day with Him signifieth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness,saying, behold,the day of the Lord shall be as a THOUSAND YEARS.
`
Therefore,children, in six days, that is IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS, EVERYTHING SHALL COME TO AN END. And He rested on the seventh day. This he meaneth; when HIS SON SHALL COME, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day”.
EXAMPLE 2
Irenaeus of Lyons, summarizes salvation-history in “Against Heresies” (AD 180).
He argues for human resurrection in two stages: an earthly millennial inheritance followed by the final judgment. Irenaeus subscribes to the seven-day theory of history, declaring that the Messianic promises are to take place “in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, . . . which is the true Sabbath of the righteous.” (5.33.2).
Irenaeus establishes his teachings on the testimonies of Papias, John the apostle, and the Old Testament prophets, including Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel.
End quote.
God bless.
muzicsoulworldly,
I just wanted to chime in and answer something you mentioned in one of your recent posts about whether I agreed with xHWA’s statements concerning Israel or any human being in history having to agree to the terms of the covenant in order to be bound by that covenant.
When I studied thru the books of the law, that IS one of the things I noticed; that the Old Covenant was made between Himself and the “children of Israel”, and their physical descendants, and they agreed to it.
I can relate to you saying you’ve never heard anyone teach this, because the church I was raised in never brought this to my attention in any of their sermons, and I since I never did any indepth Bible studies before I became a Christian I never noticed it. Since then, though, I’ve not only seen this for myself in my own study, but I’ve heard it taught at various churches that I now attend, and read it in books that I’ve studied over the years.
It makes perfect sense to me that for someone to be bound to a covenant they have to agree to it. If someone tried to sue you for violating a contract that you never entered into, wouldn’t you point out to them that you are not named in that contract and never agreed to it? The Old Covenant, essentially, was a contract that was agreed to by a specific group of people; it named, as the parties, God and the “children of Israel” and included their as yet unborn physical descendants.
A contract, or covenant, that is “replaced” by another one; superceded by it – is no longer in force. God made it clear that the New Covenant replaced the Old because it was better. God’s covenant with the children of Israel was that they would obey His voice and keep His covenant; and xHWA has explained beautifully exactly what that “covenant” was; the Ten Commandments.
Please don’t understand this to say we can just go hog-wild and worship any god we want, murder, lie, etc. That is so far from the truth it’s not even in the same vicinity as the truth. The truth is that we have a better covenant!
The New Covenant is different; it is a “contract” between Jesus and all who choose to enter into it. I entered into that covenant when I put my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and committed my life to Him. Some people make light of that, but in fact it was a commitment I made with all my heart, even more important than the covenant I made with my spouse because it goes beyond the grave.
It was never an option for us to enter into the Old Covenant since it, 1. Did not include us. 2. Has been superceded by the New Covenant. 3. Would be impossible for us to keep precisely as God commanded in any event. It would be a mistake to put our faith in keeping the law rather than in Christ because the law never could save anyone, it was never intended to; only Jesus can do that. If keeping the law could save us, Jesus would not have needed to die.
Mal,
Thanks for reassuring me. I know the things you believe are deeply held beliefs, and I respect that. It is plain to me that you sincerely love God and just want to follow Him. Sometimes a conversation like we’re having cannot help but ruffle some feathers. But you’re always polite to me, and I’m glad we can discuss matters as two civilized gentlemen.
__ “The Old Covenant was THE AGREEMENT between the Israelites and God that they would keep the Ten Commandments.”
I suppose that I will only misunderstand you unless I ask for further clarification of what you mean in this quote..?
Let me illustrate what I think you’re saying:
If I go to a bank to get a mortgage, is the act of agreeing itself a mortgage, or are the terms of the agreement included in the mortgage?
It appears to me that you are saying the Old Covenant was simply the act of agreeing… or were the terms of the agreement, written and engraved in stone, also part of the Old Covenant?
Because if the Old Covenant was simply an act of agreeing with God, separate from the terms, then no one could possibly violate the Old Covenant once they agreed. And Hebrews 8: 9 says the problem was “because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.”
So, please help my misunderstanding of what you mean.
__”It wasn’t that God’s Ten Commandments were made null and void. They are as much in force today as when God gave them.”
You make this statement, but you back it up with no verse. There’s a reason why I say that. Because there’s a subtle difference in what you understand and what the New Covenant involves. That difference, though appearing subtle, is profound… as profound as Jesus is greater than the Levitical Priesthood.
And again:
“to write God’s Ten Commandments on our hearts and help us to keep them.”
Show me one verse that says what you just said. I am asking you for a verse from the New Testament, where the New Covenant is being lived and spoken about, that also clearly mentions not just “commandments” (because that is a confusion caused by an English translation) but specifically “Ten Commentments”.
If I give a command, it’s a command. If I give two commands, they are commandments. But I am looking for a verse that is clearly in reference to the Ten Commandments being written on our hearts.
I’m of the opinion that you’re not far off in what you’re saying, because if you love you will be fulfilling the law, but I am pointing out that Herbert Armstrong misunderstood what was written on your heart (it’s not the Old law, but the New law), and he misunderstood what was required of the Gentiles, and he misunderstood how the Sabbath was magnified, and he misunderstood Christ’s glory, and that and that you still don’t keep the 10 Commandments anyway. Christ might be getting you into the boat, but in a minute flat you’re right back into the water again, because the water is the breaking of the law you don’t keep.
I promise you, there is a way to stay in that boat and NEVER leave it again! The word “qualify” will never cross your lips ever again. [You can't get this from me.]
__”Scripture makes it clear that faith does not replace the Ten Commandments:-
Romans 3:31 “Do we, then, abolish the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we UPHOLD the law”.
But my sincere friend, you misquote Romans 3: 31. In a chapter that specifically mentions righteousness is not of the law, you try to make the point that righteousness is of the law. Context is key!
Now, I’m not talking about justification or salvation, mind you. You and I are already in complete agreement on that! I’m talking about righteousness.
I’ve sat through sermon after sermon where Harold Smith of the CGFNW tried to prove righteousness is of the 10 Commandments. He is in direct contradiction to Paul’s clear words in the very chapter you point out.
Please forgive me if I use a lot of space, but I would like to paste some verses here for everyone to be reminded that righteousness is not of the law:
(ROM. 1: 17) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(ROM. 3: 20-22) 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…
(ROM. 4: 5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(PHP. 3: 9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith
(2 PET. 1: 1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours
(GAL. 3: 10-14) 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
And I harp on the point – Aaron says I’m “hell bent” lol (I like Aaron very much) – that righteousness is only of the law if a man keeps all of it, but no man does!
(DEU. 6: 25) Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe ALL these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.’
[emphasis mine, of course]
Do you see what has been done? You have extracted that Romans 3: 31 completely out of context, removed the rest of the chapter and the whole point Paul was trying to make to the Romans (and to the Galatians), and assigned this verse a brand new meaning that not only is inappropriate, but perfectly contradicts the point Paul was trying to make in the very chapter from which you took the quote.
In effect what you’ve done is taken the words of Paul to undo the other words of Paul. That is not an honest use of the scripture. I can take a dictionary and find the words “This” “dictionary” “is” “flat” “wrong”. But have I used it honestly? Not at all.
Read all of Romans. At least read Romans chapters 1-3. I mean, just look at Paul’s greeting in Romans 1: 1-6; it’s about faith and not law.
My friend, you and I are in such agreement about the need to change and God’s involvement in that process, but there is an answer that doesn’t involve slicing the New Testament into tiny bits and trying to get it to match the Old Testament. None other than Jesus Christ Himself says that this approach cannot be done.
(MATT. 9: 16-17) 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
Don’t you see that Jesus is referring to the two Covenants?
But we must ask “Why would anyone do this?” And I will tell you why. It is for one reason only!
Herbert Armstrong did not and cannot tell you how the Sabbath was magnified.
You are forced to take verses like Romans 3: 31 out of context because Armstrongism has no other recourse since we clearly understand one cannot simply commit adultery, or blaspheme God, and remain a Godly person (both of which are of the 10 Commandments) — but they also then must explain also about the seventh-day Sabbath according to the 10 Commandments as well; regarding the whole law being “magnified” except this one thing which must be kept without change.
What a dilemma you are forced into! Can you take Paul at his inspired word about faith? Not entirely. But then what can you do? You must focus on small chunks taken completely out of context or everything falls apart. As a necessary result, you have no consistency.
__”The 7000 year plan of God was not conjured up by Herbert W Armstrong, it was understood by the ancient Jewish Rabbis and was also taught in the early church.”
Very good! So, you have done some study! I commend you!
When I said “it was HWA’s idea,” of course I mean HWA was the one who introduced the idea to his church – not that he thought it up himself.
But I would also point out that these words you quote are from men whom Herbert Armstrong called “liars” and “demon influenced” in order that you would distrust what they say that forcefully contradict his teachings. How do you rectify that you are using them in reference here, about what you consider such a foundational truth, but you disbelieve everything else they taught?
Is that not cherry picking?
Allow me to post some quotes:
Mathetes, in his Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 4, verse 1, (written some time between 150 and 200 AD) says this:
“But again [the Jews'] scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration.”
Ignatius (lived 50-98 or 117 AD; disciple of John), in his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 8, verse 1, takes the idea even farther:
“For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace”
And I recommend everyone read Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (written in the 130s AD).
__”Herbert W Armstrong simply revived knowledge that the wider Christian church had ‘lost’.”
I’ll tell you another historical bit. Did you know Herbert Armstrong didn’t revive this? HWA “borrowed” it from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. C. T. Russell of the Watchtower Society was teaching that doctrine in the late 1800′s. Even Wikipedia (which I rarely recommend) records this fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_doctrine
In much the same way, HWA “borrowed” a great number of things from the COG7, and from the SDA church, and from the Mormons, and from Alexander Hyslop, and from J. H. Allen, etc.
For an example, follow this link:
http://www.allen-armstrong.org/
And about what HWA revived (I speak of the ever-expanding list of “Truths”), did you know that in fact there were not 3 truths “restored” to the Sardis Era (I use Armstrong’s terms; this term refers to the COG7)?
Here, read this article:
http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/historysdcog/history11.html
Note the established doctrines of the Salem COG7 group, circa 1936.
Does that not at least raise the eyebrow a little?
__”Easter is derived from the name ‘Eostre’ or ‘Eastre’. ‘Eastre’ is none other than Astarte or Ashtaroth who was introduced into the British Isles by the Druids and is just one more name for Beltis or Ishtar of the Babylonians.”
Don’t just say a thing – PROVE a thing. Where do you get this information?
You’ve made a claim that is perfectly in line with what Herbert Armstrong taught. I wonder if your resource isn’t Armstrongist in nature. But Herbert Armstrong got his historical information from his official historian, Herman Hoeh. And Herman Hoeh is a known liar and historical incompetent, and I can prove it to you.
Read this:
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/10/true-history-of-true-church.html
And read this:
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-true-history.html
Both of those links are packed with direct quotes from HWA and Hoeh, and I went to the source material and plainly display how the source material was butchered and in some places rewritten, then passed off as “truth”. Send me an email and I’ll send you the full version of the study – and if it doesn’t blow you away I cannot think of what will.
More specifically to what you said about Astarte – HWA “borrowed” material from a Presbyterian minister (a “daughter of the Harlot” according to Armstrongism) who wrote in the 1850′s, by the name of Alexander Hyslop. His book “The Two Babylons” might seem incredibly interesting on the surface, but there is more you must know.
There was a man named Ralph Woodrow who was so intrigued by “The Two Babylons” that he became it’s biggest proponent. He wrote “Babylon Mystery Religion” entirely based off of Hyslop’s research. One day he was challenged to prove his words, and to his utter dismay he found he could not. His subsequent research into Alexander Hyslop was some of the most eye-opening, jaw-dropping material I’ve ever read. We were LIED to! Not just lied, because you might think some truth was altered slightly. NO! Hyslop flat out made most of that up!! And Herbert Armstrong taught it as truth; to this day I receive material from Living Church of God that treats the lies as truth. They’re not the only group, either. I only mention them because they seem to rely on it so much more heavily than the others.
Here, read about these things for yourself:
http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/12/babylon-connection.html
Now, one might be wondering if I am attempting to claim that Easter Eggs and Christmas Trees come from the Bible.. I certainly am not. I am merely saying that the origin of the days is not what Armstrongism teaches in their overabundance of material about the subjects. Easter did not come from the Council of Nicea; the name was not “Easter” until hundreds of years later; the traditions were added hundreds of years later. The traditions have no bearing on the origin of the day. Remove them all, and you will still have Pascha – only on a different day.
Once we split hairs about timing, I will only show how there is little agreement in Armstrongism about timing of days. So one is equally as wrong as the other.
And as it stands, if you feel those additions are sin to you, then they are sin to you. Avoid them! But that in no way is a license to condemn a billion people who disagree with you.
What will one gain if in their zeal to keep the law of idolatry they violate the law of mercy? It won’t be praise from God, I assure you of that.
__”Furthermore, Easter is a false representation of the timespan for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. God’s Word tells us Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights and not just from ‘Good Friday’ to ‘Easter Sunday’.”
And now that I know you do read the ancient writings, I also know that you have read how a good number of them from the earliest times believed Jesus died on a Friday and was raised on a Sunday as well. So what consistency have you here? You take what agrees with you and ignore the rest. Consistency!
I had a post all written and clicked submit, but *pouf*
It go, it gone, bye bye
*sigh*
Mal,
Thanks for your reassurance to me. I’m certain that you are sincere, and truly only intend to do what you feel will bring you closer to God. Any conversation like we’re having is bound to ruffle a few feathers, but I’m glad we’re able to be two gentleman engaged in a civilized discussion. That’s to Christ’s credit.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”The Old Covenant was THE AGREEMENT between the Israelites and God that they would keep the Ten Commandments.”
I suppose I will only misunderstand what you are saying unless I ask you for more clarification. I don’t quite get what you are saying. Please clear it up for me?
If I may explain what I think you are saying, so you can better clarify:
If I get a mortgage, is that mortgage the act of agreeing only, or is the mortgage also the terms of the agreement? Because what it appears to me that you are saying is that the Old Covenant was the act of Israel agreeing with God, but the terms of that agreement were not part of the Covenant?
What Hebrews 8: 9 says is this: “because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.” And what that says to me is the people did not continue in the terms of the Covenant, and that is what God responded to negatively.
So, please correct me here on what you mean.
……………………………………………………………………………….
__”It wasn’t that God’s Ten Commandments were made null and void. They are as much in force today as when God gave them.”
Here’s how I see it. They were the terms of the Old Covenant. If the Old Covenant is gone, the terms go with it. This is the law regarding covenants, and Paul discusses that in Romans 7: 1-6, and hints again at in I Corinthians 7: 39.
The entire Covenant being utterly destroyed, their authority over anyone wiped away, the 10 Commandments could only make it into the New Covenant if the terms were reinstated. But they were not. Something else was, and that principal is much higher than the 10 Commandments; I speak about love. Love fulfills the righteous requirements of the Old law. It is because of the law of love and faith that we will not commit adultery – not because it was one of the 10 Commandments.
But here’s the confusion as I see it… Herbert Armstrong, knowing that no person who commits adultery or theft could be righteous, sees those two things and concludes the 10 Commandments are good! And thus they are (ROM. 7: 12). But that leaves the 4th Commandment. He always would say “the only Commandment the world has a problem with is the 4th.” And I say the same about him – the only Commandment he has a problem with is the 4th.
In order to make sense of this dilemma he chops both the New and the Old Covenants into little pieces called “proof texts” and proceeds to sew them together again. But no less than Jesus Christ Himself says this cannot be done
(MATT. 9: 16-17) 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
Is it not plain that Christ was speaking of the two Covenants? No one can blend them.
HWA does this because he does not understand the difference between the Covenants, nor the perfect and unmerciful demands of the law, nor the perfect and complete grace of Christ, nor how faith can make a person righteous apart from the law, nor the nature of covenants, nor the nature of the location of the temple in the New Covenant (I refer to Gods presence in us), nor that man cannot keep the law they preach must be kept, and I could rattle of a few other things.
But most importantly when we’re talking about the Sabbath in particular is this: he did not understand how the shadow that is the Sabbath has found its fulfillment and substance. Find the fulfillment of the Sabbath, and you’ll answer the mystery of why a person can fulfill the righteous requirements of the 10 Commandments and yet not need them.
__“write God’s Ten Commandments on our hearts and help us to keep them.”
Here’s the thing, though… the Bible never says the 10 Commandments will be written on anyone’s heart. And if God had been helping you, you’d be keeping them. Unless you feel He does not accomplish what He starts.
__”Scripture makes it clear that faith does not replace the Ten Commandments:-“
I would like you to provide the verse(s) that you refer to. And please be quite specific! Because what I ask you for are verses that specify the 10 Commandments – not just the word “commandment.” It makes a difference. For example, if I give a command, it’s a commandment. If I give two or more commands, they are commandments. But none of those are the 10 Commandments.
__“Romans 3:31 ‘Do we, then, abolish the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we UPHOLD the law’.”
My sincere friend, I would point out to you that you have taken Romans 3: 31 completely out of context. You are attempting to show righteousness is of the law in a chapter that specifically states it is not. You are using the words of Paul to undo the words of Paul. And that isn’t a proper use of scripture.
To borrow an argument from Rod Merideth, I can go to any dictionary and find the words “this” “dictionary” “is” “wrong”, but that isn’t a proper use of evidence. Context is key!
Now, I’m not talking about salvation or justification, as we already are very much in agreement that neither of those are from the law. I’m talking about righteousness (meaning: morally upright; in accordance with virtue or morality.)
I sat through hours of sermons from Harold Smith of the CGFNW listening to him painfully fail to prove that righteousness is keeping the 10 Commandments. Keeping the 10 Commandments is how he defined what righteousness is. But that is in direct opposition to what Paul says in the very chapter you quote from.
Please allow me to use up quite a bit of space with some verses that I think are interesting:
(ROM. 1: 17) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(ROM. 3: 20-22) 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…
(ROM. 4: 5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked,his faith is credited as righteousness.
(PHP. 3: 9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith
(2 PET. 1: 1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours
(GAL. 3: 10-14) 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
So, when you say the 10 Commandments are required, we must also ask, “Required for what?” Not for righteousness, the definition of which is to be morally upright. Not for faith. Not for justification or sanctification or forgiveness. Not to receive the Holy Spirit. Not for miracles or grace or inheritance or life or perfection. None of these things are of the law. So, then what comes of them? Paul answers: condemnation. And his answer to condemnation is faith in Jesus Christ, not the 10 Commandments.
You say Jesus pulls you into the boat, and that is fine and well, but what is the water? Is it not failure to keep the law which no man can keep? So, as soon as you are in the boat, you continue failing to keep the law and you’re right back out of the boat again! And thus it is evident that in your method God has not solved the dilemma of continuing in the Covenant (HEB. 8: 9).
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”Easter is derived from the name ‘Eostre’ or ‘Eastre’. ‘Eastre’ is none other than Astarte or Ashtaroth who was introduced into the British Isles by the Druids and is just one more name for Beltis or Ishtar of the Babylonians.”
So, you do read and study! I commend you!
However, you’ve not said what your source is. Your information sounds directly in line with what Armstrong taught, so I am naturally curious if your source wasn’t Armstrongist in nature.
See, the thing with HWA and history is that HWA got most of his history from his favorite “historian” Herman Hoeh. Old Herman Hoeh is a known fraud, liar, and historical incompetent. Harsh words for sure! And I am loathe to use them, but they are accurate, and I can prove it. Here, read these two posts:
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/10/true-history-of-true-church.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-true-history.html
In these posts, I have taken what HWA and Hoeh have written, gone to their source material, and proven out that their claims on history are distorted beyond belief. Whether they were incompetent or out rightly deceptive, I don’t know. Either way they weren’t writing the “truth”. I would recommend no one simply take anything they read from the Worldwide Church of God on face value.
__”Easter has nothing to do with God’s Festival of Passover”
You didn’t read that Eusebius link, did you? Because Eusebius contradicts you when he says, “the diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast caused the greatest disagreement between those who kept it.” And he ought to know, he was there.
Or are you referring to how Pascha doesn’t look back to the Red Sea Crossing? This is only natural, as we are supposed to remember Jesus, not Moses.
The name, the traditions, etc, were all added hundreds of years later. They have no bearing on the origins of the day. But just in case someone might mistake me, and think I’m saying Easter Eggs and Christmas Trees are from the Bible, I am not saying that. If they are sin to you, they are sin to you. By all means avoid them! But that’s still no excuse to condemn a billion+ people who disagree.
(ROM. 14: 4) Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
__”Furthermore, Easter is a false representation of the timespan for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.”
If you read the “early church fathers” material, you will see that many of the earliest writings also indicate that the people held Jesus to have died on a Friday and returned on Sunday. Doesn’t even HWA accuse them of “changing Saturday for Sunday”? And they met on Sunday because they believed it!
For but one of many examples, please take Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his epistle to the Magnesians (written between 97 and 117 AD), chapter 9: 1-2, he says this:
“9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices [Jews] attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day,
9:2 on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny-a mystery whereby we attained unto belief,”
We have the handicap of writing almost 2,000 years after the fact. But Ignatius was taught by the very Apostles who witnessed the act.
Nevertheless, if we want to split hairs on timing, I’ll point out again the lack of unity in Armstrongism as to the timing of Passover and Pentecost.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”The 7000 year plan of God was not conjured up by Herbert W Armstrong”
When I said it was HWA’s idea, I meant he was the one who introduced that to his church. Not that he was the one who made it up from scratch. I guess I was a bit unclear in my wording. (Wouldn’t be the first time.)
As a point of interest, HWA didn’t “restore” that idea; he “borrowed” it from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Much in the same way as he “borrowed” ideas from the COG7, the SDA church, the Mormons, Alexander Hyslop, and J. H. Allen, and etc. Here’s a link to demonstrate HWA’s “borrowing”:
http://www.allen-armstrong.org/
C. T. Russell, of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, was teaching that 7,000 year plan doctrine in the late 1800’s. I don’t usually recommend Wikipedia, but here’s an article with more info if anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_doctrine
About your quotes from the “early church fathers,” I’m curious why you would even quote from those authors, since Herbert Armstrong said they were “liars” and “philosophers” and “demon influenced”. He said that specifically to scare us off so we wouldn’t read how they strongly contradict what he taught (I praise you immensely if those things didn’t scare you off.) Even so, it seems to me that you are taking what bit of evidence that appears to agree with you, and throwing out the rest. Is that not cherry-picking? Please allow me to paste some quotes for emphasis:
Mathetes, in his Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 4, verse 1 (written somewhere between 150-200 AD), says this:
“But again [the Jews'] scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration.”
Ignatius (lived 50-98 or 117 AD; disciple of John), in his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 8, verse 1, takes the idea even farther:
“For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace”
And I always recommend people read Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (written sometime in the 130’s AD).
But then it comes back to my earlier question about cherry-picking the evidence. My main complaint still applies… consistency!
I can sympathize xHWA – that has happened to me a couple of times.
Just a short comment on angel’s post.
The Ten Commandments are God’s directives for righteous living. Their application and benefit are surely for ALL mankind ?
Israel were simply the representatives of all mankind that God chose to work with.
I cannot go along with the idea that the Old Covenant was only made with Israel and not with us, so that the Ten Commandments don’t apply to us. I believe that to look for reasons why the Ten Commandments do not apply to the ‘church’ is the wrong approach. The New Covenant was given so that the Holy Spirit would empower us and enable us to KEEP the Ten Commandments.
Regarding the Sabbath, God consecrated that special day for all mankind right back in Genesis 2 vs 3, many centuries before Israel became a people.
………………………………………………………………………………….
Note the strong words of Jesus in Matt 5 vs 17-19:-
“Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.
Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
Yes, we can be saved through faith in Christ, but would we prefer to be least in the Kingdom of Heaven or great in the Kingdom of Heaven ?
I think I would be satisfied just to be in the Kingdom at all.
“The New Covenant was given so that the Holy Spirit would empower us and enable us to KEEP the Ten Commandments.”
But you still haven’t addressed which verse says that, or why you still don’t keep them – most especially if now that God is helping you.
The position you hold (as I once did) is untenable, as now not only do men fail to keep it on their own but even God Himself can’t accomplish it in you.
I’ve asked about Matthew 5 as well. How was the Sabbath fulfilled/magnified? Certainly the answer is not “He left it be.” If the command was “rest,” what is it now, “rest harder?” If He says so seriously that He’s fulfilled it, then certainly leaving it alone is the opposite of what He did.
I seriously believe that when you answer what the New Covenant does about the Sabbath – you will see that it is not loosed at all, but magnified as far than the east is from the west.. or you could say, as far as the High Priest is beyond the Levites.
Everything that was the real intent of the law is now revealed. And the righteousness definitely exceeds the fanatic law-keeping of the Pharisees.
Mal,
To say that the Old Covenant names God and the children of Israel as the parties; that both agreed to it, and that it has been replaced by the New Covenant is not about looking for reasons why the Ten Commandments do not apply to the church. Romans 12:1 beseeches us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.
Jesus tells us which commandments are the greatest in Mark 12:29-31:
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
**********
It is important that you understand; Everything I say is my current understanding. 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.
**********
Right-o, Angel. I agree with that.
I’ll lay it out really plainly, as plainly as I can, what most Mainstream Christians believe:
By faith in Jesus Christ, a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. This is regardless of any law or any sin. Even the lowest sinner can turn to Christ and cry out in faith for forgiveness. (In fact, that’s how most of us start out.) Now God gets to work.
Once we receive the Holy Spirit by faith in Jesus, we are utterly and completely forgiven. Forgiveness is undeserved. All the whole slate is wiped clean. Scarlet is white; east from west; that sort of thing. Now, some residual effects of sin may remain – for example, a person’s sexual sins may have led to disease, and the disease will likely remain, or other sins may have led to debt, and the debt remains. But the point is, all record of sin is wiped clean because God’s love has now been applied and love keeps no record of sin.
We are now under grace and no longer under any law or any condemnation from the law. God looks at us, sees the sacrifice, death, resurrection, and life of Jesus, and He is satisfied. So long as we desire to remain in grace, we will remain in grace. Salvation is not something to qualify for, it is now assured. God will never toss us out.
(TIT. 3: 4-7) 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
God’s Spirit will be like a seed in us, starting small and growing larger all the time. Here’s the thing though…. it has nothing to do with us. It’s Him, not us. God changes the heart from the inside. We, following an external set of rules of our own power, cannot do what God is doing. All of Saul’s legalism, Paul said he counted as dung (PHP. 3: 7-9). If the righteousness comes from us, it is like filthy rags to God. He wants His own righteousness. He satisfies His own demands in us (ROM. 10: 3-4).
If there are good works, or mercy, or encouragement, or teaching, or preaching, or evangelism, or charity, or correction, or whatever good thing there is that comes from us, it was not us, rather, it was God in us. We don’t keep any law because God is keeping the righteous requirements of the law in us.
We just allow God to work in us by faith is all we do, trusting Him to complete what He has started, and like a log on a river we are swept along in God’s current.
Are we perfect? Heck no! We will never ever ever ever be perfect in this flesh. Not for a split second. But God doesn’t require us to be perfect, like the law required of us. He is perfect, and He is in us. He IS our perfection.
Now, can we violate faith and run off on our own? Yes. Should we? No! But I personally believe it is possible (as I said much earlier, I lean Armenian and not Calvinist.)
What are some ways? Quenching the Holy Spirit and running off after lust and wickedness is one way. We will always have sin and temptation with us, that is our nature. But to run off after sin is a totally different thing. Also, attempting to find our own righteousness by the law is another way. By our will we sin, or by our will we think to do good. Both are from us and not God, and if it’s not from God by faith, then it isn’t pleasing to God.
(PRO. 14: 12) There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
This is why Paul is so very, very serious in Galatians:
(GAL. 5: 1-4) 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage [the Old law]. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised [which is to say, if we set out after law keeping], Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law [ALL of it; PERFECTLY; without interruption]. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Oh my!
Falling from grace is not exactly the result we thought we’d get from trying to keep the law, eh?
The problem, as I said, is one of who is doing the work. I hear “the Spirit will help us keep the law.” The evidence I see all around me is that the Spirit isn’t very good at that. But the truth is, if the Spirit isn’t doing it all, 100%, then whatever is of us is dross and will be burned off, profiting us nothing. It sounds like a righteous path, but the end of it could even be death.
(JOHN 6: 63) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Do you avoid adultery? So do I! Do you avoid theft? So do I! Do you avoid blasphemy? So do I! All of those things that are of the moral law are things Mainstream Christians also do. Because the whole law is summed up in one word: “love.”
But Armstrongism attempts it by flawed human effort from an external law outside of the heart, and you readily admit it is hard and you fail often, while Christ Himself performs these good works in those who move forward by faith. And what Christ does, is done perfectly.
I do NOTHING of myself. The only thing that comes from me is sin. But from the Holy Spirit in a person comes fruit!
(JOHN 15: 5) I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
And that is why we are admonished to look at the fruit (MAT. 7: 16, 20)! If it’s God at work, there will be fruit of the Spirit. If it’s man at work, there will be things that seem good to a man, sure, but it won’t be God’s fruit.
To some a little is given. To some much. To some in one way; to some in a different way. What is that to us? It is for God’s glory. What a person has, he should use for the good of all.
Now that salvation is assured, and confidence in Christ has come in, we may set out to do what He wills for us to do. It’s as if we are on a bus. I don’t need a speed limit law because Christ is driving. He is the way and the truth and the life, and He will get us there. He is the path, and the guide along that path, and the destination at the end of the path. Though we may not clearly see the way, He does. From before the world began, He knew the way. And we will get there, guaranteed!
Is there a way to lose salvation, then? Not for the faithful. (MAR. 6: 16; LUK. 7: 50; JON. 3: 17; JON. 10: 9; ACT. 2: 21; ACT. 4: 12; ACT. 5: 11; ACT. 16: 31; ROM. 5: 9-10; ROM. 10: 9, 13; I COR. 15: 1-4; EPH. 2: 5, 8; TIT. 3: 4-7.) Nothing can take salvation away from the faithful, because the faithful trust in Christ. Christ cannot fail.
But for those who have faith, if (God forbid!) they consciously determine on our own that they will no longer allow God to work in them, knowing there is a God, knowing the consequences, and turn to a life of sin willfully and without repentance… they are dead. There is no more sacrifice for them. And from what it appears to my quite imperfect eyes, they cannot be reinstated.
It is not about an external set of regulations. It is about an internal dwelling of God inside, changing the heart from inside.
All of this is as plain as I could make it. Now what remains unsaid… the Sabbath! This is the sticking point. But I do not feel comfortable answering that. I truly feel it is something a person must ask God for understanding about on their own. I’ve spoken about it in other places. Many people have written about it. Learn how the law was fulfilled, and you will have nothing stopping you from walking boldly into the New Covenant. And you will even find that continuing in a seventh-day Sabbath is perfectly acceptable in every way. So long as one doesn’t condemn another for disagreeing.
God bless you and give you His own truth, and no man’s besides!
**********
It is important that you understand; Everything I say is my current understanding. 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.
**********
angel
The greatest commandment which Jesus quoted:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength”, was from Deuteronomy Chapter 6, and was directly related to keeping the Ten Commandments (which includes keeping the Sabbath):
(Deu 6:5) So love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.
(Deu 6:6) Memorize his laws
(Deu 6:7) and tell them to your children over and over again. Talk about them all the time, whether you’re at home or walking along the road or going to bed at night, or getting up in the morning.
(Deu 6:8) Write down copies and tie them to your wrists and foreheads to help you obey them.
(Deu 6:9) Write these laws on the door frames of your homes and on your town gates.
(Deu 10:13) The LORD wants you to obey his commands and laws that I’m giving you today for your own good.
(Deu 11:1) Love the LORD your God, and do what he wants you to do. Always obey his laws, rules, and commands.
(Deu 11:22) Faithfully obey all these commands I’m giving you. Love the LORD your God, follow all his directions, and be loyal to him.
……………………………………………………………………………..
xHWA
I can quite well relate to the words in your last post, except that certain Scriptures indicate to me that the Christian walk is a tough one and I’m not sure this aspect particularly comes across. Additionally, you already know my thoughts about the mainstream Christian church ignoring God’s Holy Days.
This is how I interpret the following Scriptures. The Scriptures indicate to me that the true Christian walk will involve repentance, perseverance, going with God against the flow, prepared to be hated etc.
………………………………………………………………………………….
1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:
(Mat 7:14) But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there IS SO HARD TO FOLLOW THAT ONLY A FEW PEOPLE FIND IT.
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:
(Mat 7:21) NOT EVERYONE WHO SAYS TO ME, LORD,LORD, WILL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT THE ONES WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER IN HEAVEN.
(Mat 7:22) Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many works of power?
(Mat 7:23) And then I will declare to them, I NEVER KNEW YOU; “DEPART FROM ME, THOSE WORKING LAWLESSNESS!”
………………………………………………………………………………….
3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:
(Jam 2:14) My brothers, what profit is it if a man says he has faith and does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM ?
(Jam 2:17) Even so, IF IT DOES NOT HAVE WORKS, FAITH IS DEAD, BEING BY ITSELF.
(Jam 2:19) You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble.
(Jam 2:20) But will you know, O vain man, that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD?
(Jam 2:24) You see then how a man IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY.
………………………………………………………………………………….
4) Having our sins wiped out is dependent on repentance:
(Act 3:19) Therefore, REPENT and turn to Him to have your sins blotted out,
………………………………………………………………………………….
5) We will not be saved unless we repent:
(Luk 13:3) Absolutely not, I tell you! But IF YOU DON’T REPENT, THEN YOU, TOO, WILL ALL DIE.
………………………………………………………………………………….
6) A true, obedient follower of Christ will be hated. We have to endure the hatred to the end to be saved:
(Mat 10:22) You will be HATED BY EVERYONE because of my name. But the person WHO ENDURES TO THE END WILL BE SAVED.
………………………………………………………………………………….
How do you see these Scriptures in relation to your post about the views of the mainstream church ?
Additionally, you did not mention ‘baptism’ or ‘laying on of hands’. Do you see either of these as being relevant to being saved or receiving the Holy Spirit ?
Mal,
In Mark chapter twelve, Jesus is being confronted and challenged by the Pharisees, Herodians, Sadduccees and scribes. In verses 28 thru 34, He is being asked a very specific question by a scribe, “Which is the first commandment of all?”.
Jesus’ answer actually pleased the scribe, who said, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And Jesus said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
This scribe understood that love was the key, and meant more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, which is saying a lot because without the burnt offerings their sins were not covered.
As xHWA pointed out, we all agree that it is right and good to avoid adultery, theft, and blasphemy; do we really need a law to live this way, or would we live this way even if there were not a law commanding us not to do these things? When I was a child, my parents had rules that taught me right from wrong, and about consequences; I obeyed them to avoid getting in trouble; if not for that, I would not have cleaned my room, told the truth, brushed my teeth, etc., on a regular basis. As an adult, I do those things because I know they are right and good, not because of rules or fear of punishment.
In a way, I see the time God worked thru the Jews as the “childhood” of mankind, and the church age as the “adulthood”; we know right from wrong, and the consequences of sin, and having repented and received the Holy Spirit our sins no longer condemn us because we’ve been forgiven and Jesus paid for our sin.
The Jews, after having made a burnt offering that covered their sin, and leaving there continued sinning, as we all do; had to come back and make another offering, over and over until they died. They had to do this because their sin was not paid for; somebody/something had to die for all their sins and each sacrifice only covered their sins to that point. Jesus died for all of our sins, those of people who had already died, those of people who were/are not yet born; past, present and future.
In the OT, a person’s belief in God (not just believed there WAS a God, but one who had FAITH in what God said) was accounted to him for righteousness; so it was not their works that made them righteous in God’s eyes, it was their belief/faith in God. When James said faith without works is dead, what he meant was that faith produces works, so without works there is no evidence of your faith – not that faith is not enough and you must keep the law.
Have you ever tried to give someone something, as a free gift, and have them tell you no; they would prefer to either work for it or pay for it themselves? I had a co-worker, a friend, who needed some financial help but wouldn’t ask; when I offered to help she wouldn’t take it; her pride and independence wouldn’t allow it. I explained to her that my offer was not out of pity or a desire to undermine her ability to be self-sufficient; it was meant to help her thru a tough time, which can happen to anyone. If she was praying to God for help, how could He help if she refused it? How could I be blessed by obeying God’s command to love others as myself, and help those in need, if she wouldn’t let me help?
This is how I see grace; God is offering a free gift which He’s already paid for. Should we say, no thanks, I’d rather work/pay for it myself? Should we rob God of this blessing; make Jesus’ sacrifice of no effect? Should we pray for mercy, forgiveness and salvation; then refuse the means by which He will grant it? It is not enough to say you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins if you do not trust that His sacrifice is the ONLY means by which you can be saved.
The Jews were already keeping (trying, anyway) to keep the law; the fact that God commanded them to do so doesn’t mean that the law was His plan of salvation, rather, it is the law that condemns us. Jesus came to save us, to do the work that we could not do, to make the only sacrifice that God would accept as payment for our sins.
I think you were trying to make a point that there are things WE must do to be saved, such as believe, have faith, repent, etc. We know from the OT that God counts belief/faith in Him as righteousness; the NT tells us we must repent, receive the Holy Spirit, etc.
The way I see it, it starts with belief/faith, which produces repentance, which results in forgiveness and receiving the Holy Spirit. Yes, we must endure hatred and endure to the end; and how do we do this? Through our own efforts? Or by the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? You see, it is the work of the SPIRIT that gives us the ability to endure the trials of life and hold fast to the end. And how do we get faith? By hearing the word of God. So really it is God doing all the work; we couldn’t do anything without Him.
Mal,
__”you already know my thoughts about the mainstream Christian church ignoring God’s Holy Days.”
You don’t have to give up what you’ve become accustomed to in order to take up Christmas and Easter. It’s not so entirely popular, but there are Christians who reject Christmas and Easter. And there are Feast of Tabernacles gatherings that bring together from multiple churches. Check this link out for a tiny sample (more links on this site):
http://lifeafterwcg2.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/a-feast-of-tabernacles-in-disneyworld/
__”This is how I interpret the following Scriptures. The Scriptures indicate to me that the true Christian walk will involve repentance, perseverance, going with God against the flow, prepared to be hated etc.”
http://www.persecution.com/
http://christianpersecutionindia.blogspot.com/
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/in-iran-two-jailed-christian-women-face-execution/
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:”
I agree that the Christian walk can be difficult.
To go against the grain while others follow after a flood of dissipation is not very easy. To avoid false prophets, false teachings, false gospels, etc, is not easy at all. Some of that stuff if pretty tempting and awfully convincing. God sends sign posts and warnings along the way. To say no to temptation is definitely not easy. To constantly witness God being hated, and the morals of society around you going into the toilet is very difficult. To offer Christ to a world that just doesn’t want Him is nothing if not frustrating. To trust in Jesus Christ alone when everything screams out to earn my own way is unnaturally difficult. But it’s all about Jesus Christ. He makes it possible.
(MATT. 19: 26) 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Note that the man in Matthew 19: 16-22 didn’t enter in by Commandment keeping.)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:”
I completely agree. And it is my position that the ones who are not depending on Christ are the ones who will be rejected. Matthew 7: 24 clearly shows the house must be built on Christ.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:”
I agree with you here too. Faith without works is dead faith, because faith that is living will allow the Holy Spirit to reside in a person and produce fruit. It’s not us that produce the fruit, it is the Holy Spirit. So, if fruit isn’t there, the faith is dead faith.
There are at least three types of works that I see. Galatians 5 talks about works of the flesh and unfruitful works of wickedness. Romans 9 and Galatians 2 and 3 talk about works of law. The Gospels and epistles all talk about good works. None of these works save us if we do them. But we are called to be doing good works.
(EPH. 2: 8-10) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Now, what might be an example of good works? Matthew 25: 31-46 is fairly plain in showing those works are works of love and charity as opposed to works of law. These good works are the ones we are judged by. But since you mentioned James, I would like to show how James gives an example of what James means by works.
(JAS. 2: 15-16) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
And we see these are good works, not legal works. That’s just some of what James goes over. James 5 also has a lot of other great works we should be doing if Christ is motivating us and changing our hearts.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”4) Having our sins wiped out is dependent on repentance:”
I have a slightly different way of looking at this.
You said, “God is looking for an attitude of repentance.” I might call this a “yes and no.” I believe God Himself is building that attitude within us. He’s not looking for it to come only from us, especially while we’re still dead in our sins. If it’s there, it’s because He put it there.
(PHP. 2: 13) for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Perhaps you could say that God leads us along and carries us along to a certain point where we finally say, “Aha! I get it! And I hate how I’ve been acting. Please forgive me.” Kinda like Job.
(JOB 42: 5-6) 5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. 6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
I would suppose no one will ever get there unless God worked in their life. I would say I John 1: 8-10 makes is pretty clear that we have to be honest enough with God and ourselves to admit that we really are sinners before God will forgive us. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. But if you’re referring to the need to begin keeping a law before we are forgiven, I would definitely disagree with that.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”5) We will not be saved unless we repent:”
I somewhat agree. I know there are some people of a Calvinist persuasion who wouldn’t. I pray they’re right. But that’s up to God, I suppose.
Notice that the example Jesus gives right after the verse you mention is about the fruits of the Spirit as opposed to law keeping – which can only be referring to the New Covenant. And notice that His audience were believers in Old Covenant law keeping. Many of them no doubt rejected Christ and did find a tragic and wholly avoidable end in 70 AD when Jerusalem, and the temple in it, fell much like the tower of Siloam.
But I’ll just copy and paste what I said earlier because I think it applies here to how I understand things:
“Nothing can take salvation away from the faithful, because the faithful trust in Christ. Christ cannot fail.
But for those who have faith, if (God forbid!) they consciously determine on our own that they will no longer allow God to work in them, knowing there is a God, knowing the consequences, and turn to a life of sin willfully and without repentance… they are dead. There is no more sacrifice for them. And from what it appears to my quite imperfect eyes, they cannot be reinstated.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”6) A true, obedient follower of Christ will be hated. We have to endure the hatred to the end to be saved:”
I would say that this is an easy verse to get confused. Jesus was specifically addressing His 12 Apostles here; the chapter even names them by name. These are not necessarily orders for us all. They are good verses for us to take a lesson from, sure, but they might not necessarily apply to us all… unless, we are all called to travel the world with one coat, evangelizing and casting out demons.
I’ve given you a few small links at the start of my reply. Follow those. You’ll find plenty of people to hate you and desire to kill you for Christ’s name’s sake. In fact, if you’d like to find a few people in the English-speaking nations that will hate you (but not try to kill you) I can most definitely get you in touch with a few. They hate Christ, and they’ll treat you poorly as well.
Just as an unrelated side note — Some people will get extremely anal about verses like Matthew 10: 22 because it has the word “all”. They would say, “It says ALL!” So, what am I supposed to believe? Even the people who accept them in and turn to faith will hate them? “It says ALL!” Whatever. I just sigh and let those kinds of people go on about their business.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”How do you see these Scriptures in relation to your post about the views of the mainstream church?
Additionally, you did not mention ‘baptism’ or ‘laying on of hands’. Do you see either of these as being relevant to being saved or receiving the Holy Spirit?”
I do see baptism and laying on of hands as being important. But it’s a ritual, not a magic formula that God can’t operate without. What I mean is, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (ACT 10: 44-48). God can do all sorts of miracles apart from baptism. Mainstream Christianity pretty universally believes in baptism.
Herbert Armstrong used to make a massive deal about baptism being full-body immersion ONLY. And one would get the impression that he was the only one who practiced it. Many denominations practice full-body immersion. It depends on their tradition, and it depends on the person being baptized. But there is an ancient document called the Didache.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
It was supposedly written anywhere from 50 to 120 AD. At any rate, it is extremely old. It’s a great look into what was held at that time. It is the first known attempt to summarize Christian belief into one simple document. I do not personally agree with every word in the document (I’m not saying I’m the one that’s right about that, BTW) but it does go into detail in chapter 7 about baptism:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
So, yeah. I’d say baptism and laying on of hands actually has a place and a wonderful meaning in Christianity.
Since I’m on the Didache, chapter 11 is also incredibly interesting:
“But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”
Mal,
I’m having some trouble posting this, so I’ll try it again. Maybe I’ll only have a duplicate comment for my trouble. If I do, please delete one. Sorry bout that.
__”you already know my thoughts about the mainstream Christian church ignoring God’s Holy Days.”
You don’t have to give up what you’ve become accustomed to in order to take up Christmas and Easter. It’s not so entirely popular, but there are Christians who reject Christmas and Easter. And there are Feast of Tabernacles gatherings that bring together from multiple churches. Check this link out for a tiny sample (more links on this site):
http://lifeafterwcg2.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/a-feast-of-tabernacles-in-disneyworld/
__”This is how I interpret the following Scriptures. The Scriptures indicate to me that the true Christian walk will involve repentance, perseverance, going with God against the flow, prepared to be hated etc.”
http://www.persecution.com/
http://christianpersecutionindia.blogspot.com/
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/in-iran-two-jailed-christian-women-face-execution/
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:”
I agree that the Christian walk can be difficult.
To go against the grain while others follow after a flood of dissipation is not very easy. To avoid false prophets, false teachings, false gospels, etc, is not easy at all. Some of that stuff if pretty tempting and awfully convincing. God sends sign posts and warnings along the way. To say no to temptation is definitely not easy. To constantly witness God being hated, and the morals of society around you going into the toilet is very difficult. To offer Christ to a world that just doesn’t want Him is nothing if not frustrating. To trust in Jesus Christ alone when everything screams out to earn my own way is unnaturally difficult. But it’s all about Jesus Christ. He makes it possible.
(MATT. 19: 26) 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Note that the man in Matthew 19: 16-22 didn’t enter in by Commandment keeping.)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:”
I completely agree. And it is my position that the ones who are not depending on Christ are the ones who will be rejected. Matthew 7: 24 clearly shows the house must be built on Christ.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:”
I agree with you here too. Faith without works is dead faith, because faith that is living will allow the Holy Spirit to reside in a person and produce fruit. It’s not us that produce the fruit, it is the Holy Spirit. So, if fruit isn’t there, the faith is dead faith.
There are at least three types of works that I see. Galatians 5 talks about works of the flesh and unfruitful works of wickedness. Romans 9 and Galatians 2 and 3 talk about works of law. The Gospels and epistles all talk about good works. None of these works save us if we do them. But we are called to be doing good works.
(EPH. 2: 8-10) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Now, what might be an example of good works? Matthew 25: 31-46 is fairly plain in showing those works are works of love and charity as opposed to works of law. These good works are the ones we are judged by. But since you mentioned James, I would like to show how James gives an example of what James means by works.
(JAS. 2: 15-16) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
And we see these are good works, not legal works. That’s just some of what James goes over. James 5 also has a lot of other great works we should be doing if Christ is motivating us and changing our hearts.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”4) Having our sins wiped out is dependent on repentance:”
I have a slightly different way of looking at this.
You said, “God is looking for an attitude of repentance.” I might call this a “yes and no.” I believe God Himself is building that attitude within us. He’s not looking for it to come only from us, especially while we’re still dead in our sins. If it’s there, it’s because He put it there.
(PHP. 2: 13) for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Perhaps you could say that God leads us along and carries us along to a certain point where we finally say, “Aha! I get it! And I hate how I’ve been acting. Please forgive me.” Kinda like Job.
(JOB 42: 5-6) 5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. 6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
I would suppose no one will ever get there unless God worked in their life. I would say I John 1: 8-10 makes is pretty clear that we have to be honest enough with God and ourselves to admit that we really are sinners before God will forgive us. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. But if you’re referring to the need to begin keeping a law before we are forgiven, I would definitely disagree with that.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”5) We will not be saved unless we repent:”
I somewhat agree. I know there are some people of a Calvinist persuasion who wouldn’t. I pray they’re right. But that’s up to God, I suppose.
Notice that the example Jesus gives right after the verse you mention is about the fruits of the Spirit as opposed to law keeping – which can only be referring to the New Covenant. And notice that His audience were believers in Old Covenant law keeping. Many of them no doubt rejected Christ and did find a tragic and wholly avoidable end in 70 AD when Jerusalem, and the temple in it, fell much like the tower of Siloam.
But I’ll just copy and paste what I said earlier because I think it applies here to how I understand things:
“Nothing can take salvation away from the faithful, because the faithful trust in Christ. Christ cannot fail.
But for those who have faith, if (God forbid!) they consciously determine on our own that they will no longer allow God to work in them, knowing there is a God, knowing the consequences, and turn to a life of sin willfully and without repentance… they are dead. There is no more sacrifice for them. And from what it appears to my quite imperfect eyes, they cannot be reinstated.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”6) A true, obedient follower of Christ will be hated. We have to endure the hatred to the end to be saved:”
I would say that this is an easy verse to get confused. Jesus was specifically addressing His 12 Apostles here; the chapter even names them by name. These are not necessarily orders for us all. They are good verses for us to take a lesson from, sure, but they might not necessarily apply to us all… unless, we are all called to travel the world with one coat, evangelizing and casting out demons.
I’ve given you a few small links at the start of my reply. Follow those. You’ll find plenty of people to hate you and desire to kill you for Christ’s name’s sake. In fact, if you’d like to find a few people in the English-speaking nations that will hate you (but not try to kill you) I can most definitely get you in touch with a few. They hate Christ, and they’ll treat you poorly as well.
Just as an unrelated side note — Some people will get extremely anal about verses like Matthew 10: 22 because it has the word “all”. They would say, “It says ALL!” So, what am I supposed to believe? Even the people who accept them in and turn to faith will hate them? “It says ALL!” Whatever. I just sigh and let those kinds of people go on about their business.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”How do you see these Scriptures in relation to your post about the views of the mainstream church?
Additionally, you did not mention ‘baptism’ or ‘laying on of hands’. Do you see either of these as being relevant to being saved or receiving the Holy Spirit?”
I do see baptism and laying on of hands as being important. But it’s a ritual, not a magic formula that God can’t operate without. What I mean is, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (ACT 10: 44-48). God can do all sorts of miracles apart from baptism. Mainstream Christianity pretty universally believes in baptism.
Herbert Armstrong used to make a massive deal about baptism being full-body immersion ONLY. And one would get the impression that he was the only one who practiced it. Many denominations practice full-body immersion. It depends on their tradition, and it depends on the person being baptized. But there is an ancient document called the Didache.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
It was supposedly written anywhere from 50 to 120 AD. At any rate, it is extremely old. It’s a great look into what was held at that time. It is the first known attempt to summarize Christian belief into one simple document. I do not personally agree with every word in the document (I’m not saying I’m the one that’s right about that, BTW) but it does go into detail in chapter 7 about baptism:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
So, yeah. I’d say baptism and laying on of hands actually has a place and a wonderful meaning in Christianity.
Since I’m on the Didache, chapter 11 is also incredibly interesting:
“But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”
Mal,
Here we go for try number three on getting this comment to go through. Hopefully third time’s a charm.
__”you already know my thoughts about the mainstream Christian church ignoring God’s Holy Days.”
You don’t have to give up what you’ve become accustomed to in order to take up Christmas and Easter. It’s not so entirely popular, but there are Christians who reject Christmas and Easter. And there are Feast of Tabernacles gatherings that bring together from multiple churches. Check this link out for a tiny sample (more links on this site):
http://lifeafterwcg2.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/a-feast-of-tabernacles-in-disneyworld/
__”This is how I interpret the following Scriptures. The Scriptures indicate to me that the true Christian walk will involve repentance, perseverance, going with God against the flow, prepared to be hated etc.”
http://www.persecution.com/
http://christianpersecutionindia.blogspot.com/
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/in-iran-two-jailed-christian-women-face-execution/
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:”
I agree that the Christian walk can be difficult.
To go against the grain while others follow after a flood of dissipation is not very easy. To avoid false prophets, false teachings, false gospels, etc, is not easy at all. Some of that stuff if pretty tempting and awfully convincing. God sends sign posts and warnings along the way. To say no to temptation is definitely not easy. To constantly witness God being hated, and the morals of society around you going into the toilet is very difficult. To offer Christ to a world that just doesn’t want Him is nothing if not frustrating. To trust in Jesus Christ alone when everything screams out to earn my own way is unnaturally difficult. But it’s all about Jesus Christ. He makes it possible.
(MATT. 19: 26) 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Note that the man in Matthew 19: 16-22 didn’t enter in by Commandment keeping.)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:”
I completely agree. And it is my position that the ones who are not depending on Christ are the ones who will be rejected. Matthew 7: 24 clearly shows the house must be built on Christ.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:”
I agree with you here too. Faith without works is dead faith, because faith that is living will allow the Holy Spirit to reside in a person and produce fruit. It’s not us that produce the fruit, it is the Holy Spirit. So, if fruit isn’t there, the faith is dead faith.
There are at least three types of works that I see. Galatians 5 talks about works of the flesh and unfruitful works of wickedness. Romans 9 and Galatians 2 and 3 talk about works of law. The Gospels and epistles all talk about good works. None of these works save us if we do them. But we are called to be doing good works.
(EPH. 2: 8-10) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Now, what might be an example of good works? Matthew 25: 31-46 is fairly plain in showing those works are works of love and charity as opposed to works of law. These good works are the ones we are judged by. But since you mentioned James, I would like to show how James gives an example of what James means by works.
(JAS. 2: 15-16) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
And we see these are good works, not legal works. That’s just some of what James goes over. James 5 also has a lot of other great works we should be doing if Christ is motivating us and changing our hearts.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”4) Having our sins wiped out is dependent on repentance:”
I have a slightly different way of looking at this.
You said, “God is looking for an attitude of repentance.” I might call this a “yes and no.” I believe God Himself is building that attitude within us. He’s not looking for it to come only from us, especially while we’re still dead in our sins. If it’s there, it’s because He put it there.
(PHP. 2: 13) for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Perhaps you could say that God leads us along and carries us along to a certain point where we finally say, “Aha! I get it! And I hate how I’ve been acting. Please forgive me.” Kinda like Job.
(JOB 42: 5-6) 5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. 6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
I would suppose no one will ever get there unless God worked in their life. I would say I John 1: 8-10 makes is pretty clear that we have to be honest enough with God and ourselves to admit that we really are sinners before God will forgive us. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. But if you’re referring to the need to begin keeping a law before we are forgiven, I would definitely disagree with that.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”5) We will not be saved unless we repent:”
I somewhat agree. I know there are some people of a Calvinist persuasion who wouldn’t. I pray they’re right. But that’s up to God, I suppose.
Notice that the example Jesus gives right after the verse you mention is about the fruits of the Spirit as opposed to law keeping – which can only be referring to the New Covenant. And notice that His audience were believers in Old Covenant law keeping. Many of them no doubt rejected Christ and did find a tragic and wholly avoidable end in 70 AD when Jerusalem, and the temple in it, fell much like the tower of Siloam.
But I’ll just copy and paste what I said earlier because I think it applies here to how I understand things:
“Nothing can take salvation away from the faithful, because the faithful trust in Christ. Christ cannot fail.
But for those who have faith, if (God forbid!) they consciously determine on our own that they will no longer allow God to work in them, knowing there is a God, knowing the consequences, and turn to a life of sin willfully and without repentance… they are dead. There is no more sacrifice for them. And from what it appears to my quite imperfect eyes, they cannot be reinstated.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”6) A true, obedient follower of Christ will be hated. We have to endure the hatred to the end to be saved:”
I would say that this is an easy verse to get confused. Jesus was specifically addressing His 12 Apostles here; the chapter even names them by name. These are not necessarily orders for us all. They are good verses for us to take a lesson from, sure, but they might not necessarily apply to us all… unless, we are all called to travel the world with one coat, evangelizing and casting out demons.
I’ve given you a few small links at the start of my reply. Follow those. You’ll find plenty of people to hate you and desire to kill you for Christ’s name’s sake. In fact, if you’d like to find a few people in the English-speaking nations that will hate you (but not try to kill you) I can most definitely get you in touch with a few. They hate Christ, and they’ll treat you poorly as well.
Just as an unrelated side note — Some people will get extremely anal about verses like Matthew 10: 22 because it has the word “all”. They would say, “It says ALL!” So, what am I supposed to believe? Even the people who accept them in and turn to faith will hate them? “It says ALL!” Whatever. I just sigh and let those kinds of people go on about their business.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”How do you see these Scriptures in relation to your post about the views of the mainstream church?
Additionally, you did not mention ‘baptism’ or ‘laying on of hands’. Do you see either of these as being relevant to being saved or receiving the Holy Spirit?”
I do see baptism and laying on of hands as being important. But it’s a ritual, not a magic formula that God can’t operate without. What I mean is, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (ACT 10: 44-48). God can do all sorts of miracles apart from baptism. Mainstream Christianity pretty universally believes in baptism.
Herbert Armstrong used to make a massive deal about baptism being full-body immersion ONLY. And one would get the impression that he was the only one who practiced it. Many denominations practice full-body immersion. It depends on their tradition, and it depends on the person being baptized. But there is an ancient document called the Didache.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
It was supposedly written anywhere from 50 to 120 AD. At any rate, it is extremely old. It’s a great look into what was held at that time. It is the first known attempt to summarize Christian belief into one simple document. I do not personally agree with every word in the document (I’m not saying I’m the one that’s right about that, BTW) but it does go into detail in chapter 7 about baptism:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
So, yeah. I’d say baptism and laying on of hands actually has a place and a wonderful meaning in Christianity.
Since I’m on the Didache, chapter 11 is also incredibly interesting:
“But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”
I would definitely post a reply to you, Mal, but the system won’t let me submit. I hit submit, the screen refreshes, and I get nothing. Tried three separate times.
I suppose I’m cut off.
Mal,
I’m going to try this in two parts to see if that helps.
__” true Christian walk will involve repentance, perseverance, going with God against the flow, prepared to be hated etc.”
http://www.persecution.com/
http://christianpersecutionindia.blogspot.com/
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/in-iran-two-jailed-christian-women-face-execution/
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:”
I agree that the Christian walk can be difficult.
To go against the grain while others follow after a flood of dissipation is not very easy. To avoid false prophets, false teachings, false gospels, etc, is not easy at all. Some of that stuff if pretty tempting and awfully convincing. God sends sign posts and warnings along the way. To say no to temptation is definitely not easy. To constantly witness God being hated, and the morals of society around you going into the toilet is very difficult. To offer Christ to a world that just doesn’t want Him is nothing if not frustrating. To trust in Jesus Christ alone when everything screams out to earn my own way is unnaturally difficult. But it’s all about Jesus Christ. He makes it possible.
(MATT. 19: 26) 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Note that the man in Matthew 19: 16-22 didn’t enter in by Commandment keeping.)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:”
I completely agree. And it is my position that the ones who are not depending on Christ are the ones who will be rejected. Matthew 7: 24 clearly shows the house must be built on Christ.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:”
I agree with you here too. Faith without works is dead faith, because faith that is living will allow the Holy Spirit to reside in a person and produce fruit. It’s not us that produce the fruit, it is the Holy Spirit. So, if fruit isn’t there, the faith is dead faith.
There are at least three types of works that I see. Galatians 5 talks about works of the flesh and unfruitful works of wickedness. Romans 9 and Galatians 2 and 3 talk about works of law. The Gospels and epistles all talk about good works. None of these works save us if we do them. But we are called to be doing good works.
(EPH. 2: 8-10) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Now, what might be an example of good works? Matthew 25: 31-46 is fairly plain in showing those works are works of love and charity as opposed to works of law. These good works are the ones we are judged by. But since you mentioned James, I would like to show how James gives an example of what James means by works.
(JAS. 2: 15-16) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
And we see these are good works, not legal works. I try to remind people not to get “works” and “law” mixed. They aren’t synonymous. But that is just what Herbert Armstrong always taught us; and I couldn’t disagree more. That’s just some of what James goes over. James 5 also has a lot of other great works we should be doing if Christ is motivating us and changing our hearts.
Mal,
I’m going to try this a fifth time. I’ll split my comment into two parts.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”1) The Christian walk to everlasting life is tough and only a few will achieve it:”
I agree that the Christian walk can be difficult.
To go against the grain while others follow after a flood of dissipation is not very easy. To avoid false prophets, false teachings, false gospels, etc, is not easy at all. Some of that stuff if pretty tempting and awfully convincing. God sends sign posts and warnings along the way. To say no to temptation is definitely not easy. To constantly witness God being hated, and the morals of society around you going into the toilet is very difficult. To offer Christ to a world that just doesn’t want Him is nothing if not frustrating. To trust in Jesus Christ alone when everything screams out to earn my own way is unnaturally difficult. But it’s all about Jesus Christ. He makes it possible.
(MATT. 19: 26) 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Note that the man in Matthew 19: 16-22 didn’t enter in by Commandment keeping.)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”2) Some who think they are saved will be rejected by Christ:”
I completely agree. And it is my position that the ones who are not depending on Christ are the ones who will be rejected. Matthew 7: 24 clearly shows the house must be built on Christ.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”3) James suggests faith alone without works will not be enough:”
I agree with you here too. Faith without works is dead faith, because faith that is living will allow the Holy Spirit to reside in a person and produce fruit. It’s not us that produce the fruit, it is the Holy Spirit. So, if fruit isn’t there, the faith is dead faith.
There are at least three types of works that I see. Galatians 5 talks about works of the flesh and unfruitful works of wickedness. Romans 9 and Galatians 2 and 3 talk about works of law. The Gospels and epistles all talk about good works. None of these works save us if we do them. But we are called to be doing good works.
(EPH. 2: 8-10) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Now, what might be an example of good works? Matthew 25: 31-46 is fairly plain in showing those works are works of love and charity as opposed to works of law. These good works are the ones we are judged by. But since you mentioned James, I would like to show how James gives an example of what James means by works.
(JAS. 2: 15-16) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
And we see these are good works, not legal works. I try to remind people not to get “works” and “law” mixed. They aren’t synonymous. But that is just what Herbert Armstrong always taught us; and I couldn’t disagree more. That’s just some of what James goes over. James 5 also has a lot of other great works we should be doing if Christ is motivating us and changing our hearts.
………………………………………………………………………………….
(continued)
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”4) Having our sins wiped out is dependent on repentance:”
I disagree. What your view does is makes some portion of our salvation dependent on us. God’s forgiveness is completely undeserved. Jesus died for us while we were yet His enemies. In all of the miracles Jesus did, the forgiveness came before the repentance was even asked for. Healing came before “go and sin no more.”
Here, look at these two absolutely profound verses:
(HEB. 13: 20-21) 20 Now may [this is the Spirit inspiring the author of Hebrews to bless us with God’s will – God is about to do something] the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead [God & Jesus have done and will do it all], that great Shepherd of the sheep [He guides us Himself; no longer the law], through the blood of the everlasting covenant [the whole Covenant is in Jesus], 21 make you complete in every good work to do His will [God Himself will make you complete – with everything you need, from gift to knowledge to desire to opportunity to fruit], working in you [the works aren’t ours] what is well pleasing in His sight [God works in you to please Himself; it’s not required of you to please God on your own], through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever [and not to us, because it was always Him]. Amen [It’s complete. Let it be done.].
I hope you see my point here. God isn’t giving us understanding of His will, and then standing back and looking to see if we obey His laws. That is the Old Covenant, and it doesn’t work.
Rather, God is giving us understanding of His will, God is bringing us to trust (faith) in Him, His Spirit is in us, He is changing our hearts, He is motivating, He is the one doing the works, He is producing fruits. If He is looking for anything at all, it is a desire to reciprocate to His love.
You said, “God is looking for an attitude of repentance.” I might call this a “yes and no.” God Himself is building that attitude within us. He’s not looking for it to originate from us, especially while we’re still dead in our sins. If repentance is there, it’s because He put it there.
(PHP. 2: 13) for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
We only need to avoid refusing Him. Perhaps you could say that God leads us along and carries us along to a certain point where we finally say, “Aha! I get it! And I hate how I’ve been acting. Please forgive me, and put a different heart in me.” Kinda like Job.
(JOB 42: 5-6) 5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. 6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
The law says for us to do this or that thing. It is a set of regulations from outside of us that cannot bear on our hearts. Even if we obey, we’re just following a regulation. It’s no more a relationship than a master has to a servant. A servant can love a kind master, but it’s not what God wants. We worked to please God; the work was ours. It didn’t work. God is not looking for this.
But now God is in us; God is working to please God. The work is His. He’s not a Master anymore, but a Father. Before, sin was “thou shalt not”, and we had better not. Still, we did. Now, when we see all that God is doing for us, there is no more “thou shalt not,” because we will truly have a loving desire in us to stop all that sinful nonsense and express our love for God as good works towards those God loves. Not because of law, but because the love of God is in us through trust (faith). We don’t need a law to tell us how this and how that. God in us will be making His will come about if we are in this loving relationship with Him. How do we know? Look at the fruit!
It’s as if God used to say, “thou shalt love Me. Here’s how.” But we didn’t. Now, God is in us with perfect forgiveness and unbreakable salvation, and we see those things and know and trust, we are motivated by love for God, and we have to express that love or we’ll burst. With the Old law we heard of God; but with the New Covenant we experience Him for ourselves.
We will never be perfect in this life, but it doesn’t matter. We are saved to the uttermost. We will stand because Jesus is able to make us stand. Our salvation was guaranteed 2,000 years ago, and not by anything we worked to earn. In the next, and we will without doubt be in the next, then we will be perfect. Just trust God, and hold fast in this relationship to the end.
I would suppose no one will ever get there unless God worked in their life. I would say I John 1: 8-10 makes is pretty clear that we have to be honest enough with God and ourselves to admit that we really are sinners before God will forgive us. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. But if you’re referring to the need to begin keeping a law before we are forgiven, I would definitely disagree with that.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”5) We will not be saved unless we repent:”
I somewhat agree. If we aren’t repenting then God is not in us. And if God is not in us then how can we be saved? I know there are some of a Calvinist persuasion who would disagree. I hope they’re right.
Notice that the example Jesus gives right after the verse you mention is about the fruits of the Spirit as opposed to law keeping – which can only be referring to the New Covenant. And notice that His audience were believers in Old Covenant law keeping. Many of them no doubt rejected Christ and did find a tragic and wholly avoidable end in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple fell much like the tower of Siloam.
But I’ll just copy and paste what I said earlier because I think it applies here to how I understand things:
“Nothing can take salvation away from the faithful, because the faithful trust in Christ. Christ cannot fail.
But for those who have faith, if (God forbid!) they consciously determine on our own that they will no longer allow God to work in them, knowing there is a God, knowing the consequences, and turn to a life of sin willfully and without repentance… they are dead. There is no more sacrifice for them. And from what it appears to my quite imperfect eyes, they cannot be reinstated.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”6) A true, obedient follower of Christ will be hated. We have to endure the hatred to the end to be saved:”
I would say that this is an easy verse to get confused. Jesus was specifically addressing His 12 Apostles here; the chapter even names them by name. These are not necessarily orders for us all. They are good verses for us to take a lesson from, sure, but they might not necessarily apply to us all… unless, we are all called to travel the world with one coat, evangelizing and casting out demons.
Do a google search on Christian persecution and you’ll find all the martyrdom you want. You’ll find plenty of people to hate you and desire to kill you for Christ’s name’s sake. In fact, if you’d like to find a few people in the English-speaking nations that will hate you (but not try to kill you) I can most definitely get you in touch with a few. They hate Christ, and they’ll treat you poorly as well.
Just as an unrelated side note — Some people will get extremely anal about verses like Matthew 10: 22 because it has the word “all”. They would say, “It says ALL!” So, what am I supposed to believe? Even the people who accept them in and turn to faith will hate them? “It says ALL!” Whatever. I just sigh and let those kinds of people go on about their business.
………………………………………………………………………………….
__”How do you see these Scriptures in relation to your post about the views of the mainstream church?
Additionally, you did not mention ‘baptism’ or ‘laying on of hands’. Do you see either of these as being relevant to being saved or receiving the Holy Spirit?”
I do see baptism and laying on of hands as being important. But it’s a ritual, not a magic formula that God can’t operate without. It’s not an incantation that must be performed just so or it doesn’t take. What I mean is, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (ACT 10: 44-48). God can do all sorts of miracles apart from baptism. Still, Mainstream Christianity pretty universally believes in baptism.
Herbert Armstrong used to make a massive deal about baptism being full-body immersion ONLY. And one would get the impression that he was the only one who practiced it. Many denominations practice full-body immersion. It depends on their tradition, and it depends on the person being baptized. But there is an ancient document called the Didache.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
It was supposedly written anywhere from 50 to 120 AD. At any rate, it is extremely old. It’s a great look into what was held at that time. It is the first known attempt to summarize Christian belief into one simple document. I do not personally agree with every word in the document (I’m not saying I’m the one that’s right about that, BTW) but it does go into detail in chapter 7 about baptism:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
So, yeah. I’d say baptism and laying on of hands actually has a place and a wonderful meaning in Christianity.
Since I’m on about the Didache, chapter 11 is also incredibly interesting:
“But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”
muzicsoulworldly,
You mentioned in past posts that you are just starting to learn all the laws; which tells me you haven’t been studying for long. Everyone has to start somewhere; I remember the first year I was a Christian and reading thru the Bible, I decided to put aside all my previous preconceptions, things I’d been taught at church, and look at it with fresh eyes. I asked the Holy Spirit to be my tutor and help me understand what God wanted me to know.
One of the most important things I learned is that it takes time to get a good understanding of scripture; time to search everything the Bible says on a subject, time to learn how to know the difference between a personal conviction and conviction that comes from God. There were times I stopped (or started) doing something because at that time I thought it was right; and as I’ve gained a better understanding of scripture, I’ve made adjustments along the way.
This is one of the reasons the Bible tells us not to despise someone who is doing/believing something different than we are; what if we are the ones who are wrong? We are told to reason together, not to dispute over doubtful things, not to divide, not to be contentious, not to judge another’s (God’s) servant, to attempt to be like-minded, to love one another as ourselves. If we get prideful; about our knowledge/understanding of scripture, or think we are better than others; how will we able to do these things God has asked us to do?
I’m fairly certain most would deny they are prideful about this, but if you have a prideful tone/spirit – it’s gonna tell on you. My observation (not judgment, because only God knows the heart) has been that many people who feel strongly convicted about keeping God’s laws as a requirement of salvation fall prey to the sin of pride.
The Bible says we should be fully convinced in our own minds about what we believe. This is not saying it’s okay to believe whatever you want about everything; it’s saying it’s important that you have a clear conscience before God, and that God holds you accountable not to do what you think is sin (even if He doesn’t).
I’ve had people tell me things they thought God convicted them of, but when I search the scriptures I realize it’s either their own personal conviction, something God thinks is best for them, or they just have a poor understanding of scripture. I don’t condemn people for that; I may share what I see/understand about that subject, if they’re willing to listen, but it’s God’s job to help them grow in grace and understanding, just as He helps me.
In case you’re wondering what I mean about God thinking something is best for them, I mean things like, if someone is weak in a certain area and God wants them to avoid it altogether, this is something that is not necessarily what God would convict people of who don’t have a problem with it.
I wish you well in your study of scripture; it seems to me that you are sincere in your desire to please God and understand Him.
What do you all think about Mr. Weinland’s latest statements concerning the Seven Thunders? From what I understand, some of the things stated were in there to give some people a hard time, to “find fault”; and some were “a matter of oneness with God”.
Do these statements agree with or conflict with statements he’s made in the past regarding the Seven Thunders?
I’d be interested to hear comments on his current position on these Thunders.
To reiterate, TWW is not a place for Weinland-haters. It is designed for those who are undecideds and believers.
Recently, with the addition of Aaron’s contributions, the policy had been tempered to include those who were reasonable and civil, but even that is now being reconsidered.
Hi everybody, I wanted to apologize to everybody on here for not being as active over the past several weeks, partly because the postings were becoming very long and so thus me writing alot in response, which is partly my fault because I kinda dumped alot of stuff into my writings, which naturally would induce many comments in a single comment-posting. What I would like to do from now on is to focus upon a single topic per posting and then have response-comments only regaring the pertaining posting. I have been doing various other things and just kept on forgetting about my blogging, one reason being I’ve never really blogged before this blogg before. I believe that most people commenting on my postings have been sincere and genuine and respectfull in their comment-postings. Occassionally things might be mentioned in a sarcastic manner, which kinda borders on mocking, but as long as it’s not done in a vile manner, I’m not gonna disapprove comments that have just a lil’ bit of that within the comment, but I still ask that everything is kept as respectfully as possible. I also want to mention that this blogg is for people whom inherrently share a belief in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. If you only believe that some parts of the Bible are real and true, then having good discussions are much more difficult because the core belief is different. A very good friend of mine was telling me that he believes in the Bible, but he is not comfortable with the whole entire Bible, and that he believes the Bible when it comes to principle, but doesn’t necessarily believe everything that the Bible says.
With this having been said, I again apologize for my tardyness in responding back to many of your comment-postings. I will do my very best to respond to the remaining comments, and then I’m gonna be posting a brand-spankin’-new posting dealing with the 7 Thunders, and I would like for those comments to that posting to be only regarding the 7 Thunders, and in your comment-postings, please limit your posting to speaking regarding just 1 of the 7 Thunders, so put the other Thunders in a separate comment-posting so that it makes it more easier for us to respond to everything. I’m also asking that you finish-up your comments within this current posting, and then all new comments to this posting should be regarding Mr. Weinland’s presumptuousness, as was the original intent of this posting. I did, however, put more from my thoughts than just Mr. Weinland’s presumptuousness, so I apologize for this because it caused very long postings between many of the comments, and this is what I wanted to avoid because this many long postings becomes very confusing and longer comments, but I will take the blame and responsibility for this.
I hope everybody is having a good year of 2010 thus so far, and regardless of whether or not you currently believe Mr. Weinland to be a true prophet or a false prophet, I’m hoping that you’re at least finding his incredibly powerfull winter to be very intriguing regarding the 3rd Thunder outlined by Mr. Weinland, and also those powerfull Earth-Quakes that we’ve been seeing more of lately (just today there was a 6.5 EQ in Indonesia and also a 6.6 in Japan), and I will be explaining in my next posting how it is that I see the increasingness of this 2nd Thunder, because most Weinland-haters will say that they see no evidence in the Thunders, and in fact, one person even said that he hasn’t seen an increase in ANY of the 7 Thunders since the year 2001 when the 6th Seal was opened, nor since 2008 when the 7th Seal was opened, but I will be saving this for my next posting onto here.
I want all of you to know that I am not against any of you, and I love all of you just the very same. Obviously we have many disagreements, but we shouldn’t let that come in the way of loving each other, which it so often seems to do on other anti-Weinland web-sites and bloggs. I mean, those bloggs also attack the Church elders, speaking of the one elder stumbling through the closing prayer, as if that even matters, I mean, nobody upon this Earth speaks fluently and perfectly, and we shouldn’t be mocking and ridiculing something as petty as that, regardless of whether or not we believe that they are part of a false church. But anyhow, I don’t ant to incite a bunch of extra comments to this, so I will draw this on to a closing. Look for my posting over the few days or so, and I will be responding to some of yoru comment-postings from within my last original posting.
Aaron Robinson
Wow, so very many long comments, so it’s overwhelming for me to know where to begin with all of this. I really truly want to respond to everything in your comment-postings, and I shall try my very very best, but then I get afraid that then there will just be more very long postings and it will just keep on compunding like this, especially when 3 or 4 people are responding to each other and stuff like this. In so many of the Scriptures that xHWA and Angel have posted, I’m interpreting the meanings of those verses differently. Angel, I was glad to see that you want what is right and true, and that you don’t want to be pridefull in what you feel that you know and believe in, and that you have been wrong along our journey. One thing to keep in mind is that no manner of studying of the Bible or of scholarly works can get us to understand the meaning of what is being said within Scriptures. This means that even if we study the Bible 24/7 and are more intelligent and more intellectual than most other people, that still doesn’t have us comprehend and understand what Scriptures are telling us. Even the most advanced Bible scholars upon this whole entire plaet Earth do not always understand what the Bible says, even though they feel very very strongly that they do.
What I’m wondering is, do you feel that there is any way that you could be wrong about some things that you post about ? It does work for me too though, because I too have to realize that I might very well be misunderstanding something from Scriptures, but we cannot both be right. I’m just wondering about specifically you though, I mean, is there a way that you might be wrong about some of what you said ? Like what if there is something about the relationship and connection between God’s Law and faith in Jesus Christ that you don’t yet understand ? Do you feel that there is a possibility that God hasn’t yet shown you the true meaning of it yet, just as like that he might not have yet given me understanding of it yet ? We obviously both feel very strongly that we are interpreting the Bible correctly and we desire to impart those things to each other because we want so very badly for us to be able to see it. Just as I know that maybe I’m wrong about everything that I have been experiencing over the past couple of years, is it not possible that maybe just possibly some of what you very strongly believe is not actually true ? I know it seems like if we feel that somebody is a false prophet that anything and everything that comes of of his or her mouth has to be false then.
This is one thing that I don’t like about the true Weinland haters (not you, by the way), when they denounce anything and everything that Mr. Weinland says or does, even if it really truly does agree with Scriptures. Now, regardless of whether or not he is a false prophet should be irrevelent, because just because a prophet is false doesn’t mean that he will never ever say anything that is really the truth. Another thing I don’t like about the true Weinland mockers is how it seems like they have made it their divine mission in life to bring him on down and destroy everything that he represents, and this is why refer to them as having vile and evil spirits, not because they are disagreeing with me or are disobeying God, but because the kind of spirit they had is the kind of spirit that Satan had. They have a spirit of trying to destroy somebody because they don’t agree with them, even if they are affecting people’s lives. Which brings me to another point, because they are so very Hell-bent on tearing on down Mr. Weinland at any and all costs, and one reason they give is because he is affecting and destroying people’s lives in what he is saying and doing, but since when does the responsibility lie upon everybody else but except for self ? Meaning, why can’t they place some of the responsibility upon the people that are CHOOSING to believe Mr. Weinland without a gun being pointed at their heads ? Every human-being has the free moral agency of choice, and this gets lost by those kind of people that just simply flat-out refuse to put the blame on anybody else than but the false prophet. Many people against Mr. Weinland & Mr. Armstrong are doing this because they have families that are still believing what they say, but you know what, those people listening to them aren’t being forced into doing it, and they have just as much responsibility as to whether or not they choose to accept them or to reject them, and if Mr. Weinland and Mr. Armstrong have been false servants, then only God can bring them out of that, and no manner of their related families mocking, ridiculing, and being down-right angry and vile against them is going to get them to stop. Now, they might just so happen to leave because they read something or see something or can’t accept revelation that could very well be from God and so they just rebel against it and choose to leave and then spread their feelings to the World that they have been betrayed.
I’m glad that most of you on here don’t share this same vile spirit that seek to destroy people just because they don’t agree with them or because they think that they are liars, because if they really believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, then there is no excuse to be mean, angry, vile, hostile, scoffing, mocking, ridiculing in any manner towars any other human-being upon this planet Earth, because that goes so very much against what Jesus Christ taught about loving. I didn’t mean for this to become a longer posting, but this was a feeling that I’ve been happening that I wanted to mention on this blogg.
I was wondering what you thought though regarding whether or not you feel that you could even be wrong about some of what you have posted on here, just as like you admitted that you were wrong about other stuff during your spiritual journey ? Maybe I’m wrong too, but what do you personally feel regarding your current beliefs ?
Aaron
Muzicsoulworldly,
The question of whether or not one can be wrong in their beliefs is an important one and I appreciate the sincerity in which you ask me this.
The Bible tells us to grow in grace and knowledge; I hope to continue doing this until the day the Lord takes me home. It also tells us to reason together, to seek to be like-minded, to be able to give a defense to anyone who asks about the hope we have, and to love others as ourselves. I love discussing the Bible with anyone who is reasonable, even those who don’t agree with me; and I don’t just talk “at” them, I listen, because maybe they’ve seen something I’ve missed.
I never rely on “experiences” to decide what is true, because feelings can change and they can be misleading. I’ve had experiences, don’t get me wrong, but they are for me alone – not to use to influence anyone else about something I believe. I never point people to books outside the Bible or any Bible teacher to find truth, because the Bible is the only thing I have that I KNOW is true; other books or teachers are only what I THINK is right.
We are told to be fully convinced in our own minds about what we believe, and that is probably what you’re hearing in the tone of my posts – but I’m also keeping my ears open for anything I could be wrong about. I’m always mindful that I hold the truth in my hands (the Bible) and as long as I hold on to it, and don’t let to go to take hold of someone else’s “truth”, God will keep me safe from deception.
This is why I hold so tightly to Deut. 18:20-22; I sometimes get “beat up” about that by people who are listening to someone who’s prophecies didn’t come to pass, but so far have seen no reason to change. I listen to their understanding of this passage, which is nothing it clearly says; and what I come away with is that they have no way to discern a false prophet based on solid biblical support. They seem to rely on their own understanding, ability to discern spiritual truth, and often, feelings that something is true or that God has shown them something.
I don’t fall back in awe when someone says God showed them something; my first response is always going to be to search the scriptures for support of that idea. God has given us His word and His Holy Spirit to help us understand it, so when someone comes along and says God has given them a special understanding – I’m still going to search the scriptures, and if it doesn’t line up with them, well, enough said.
If someone offered me a cup of water with a speck of dirt in it; I could fish it out and drink the rest – it won’t kill me. If someone offered me water with a drop of poison in it; I’d dump it out immediately. False teaching/prophecy is condemned by scripture, so it’s spiritually poisonous. There are a lot of good Bible teachers out there, so I don’t see the need, nor do I think it’s wise, to listen to someone who has taught or prophesied falsely, and is unrepentant.
When someone I care about tells me they are listening to a false teacher/prophet, I will try to knock that cup out of their hands, figuratively speaking, because I believe with all my heart that God would not offer us His Word, Living Water, the Bread of Life, with poison in it. I have no doubt that every false teacher/prophet teaches things that are true, but whereas you could flick off a speck of dirt, or tear mold off a piece of bread; poison taints the whole thing.
The way I feel about false teachers/prophets is based on the warnings I see in the Bible; it’s not personal toward Mr. Weinland or any others out there like him. It’s not my job to “take him down”, and yes, I agree that those who follow him have to take responsibility for that choice. Remember, though, that Satan is called a Murderer, not because of having personally murdered anyone, but because of all those who have died because they listened to his lies.
There is a stricter judgment for teachers, so I look at them as the culprits of the crimes of false teaching/prophecy, and followers as the victims of deception. A teacher would be wise to listen to the counsel of other teachers so that he does not fall into deception himself; from what I understand, Mr. Weinland surrounds himself only with people who agree with him; everyone who doesn’t gets the boot.
I think that anyone who was part of Mr. Weinland’s group and left because his prophecies did not come to pass has a legitimate complaint; particularly if their lives and relationships were affected. For Mr. Weinland to turn it around on them and ridicule them for believing that his prophecies were physical when he clearly said so is a shameful thing (and he did that even to the people who stayed) and how anyone can defend him for doing so is beyond me.
It’s not my job to stop Mr. Weinland from preaching, I’m happy to leave that in God’s hands, but I think maybe sometimes what you think of as hateful mocking and scoffing is in fact righteous anger – as Jesus demonstrated when He overturned the moneychangers tables.
If we are being honest with ourselves, and each other, then we have to be humble enough to say we could be wrong. What I currently believe is based on my current understanding of scripture; one day I will have to give an account to God, and I have faith that He knows my heart, that He is fair, and that if I ask for wisdom He will give it to me so if I am in error I believe He will correct that.
Aaron, you’ve been rather critical of Weinland’s critics here — well actually me. I’d respond on this forum, but Citizen X will swoop in soon and delete whatever I post here.
So I’ve responded in a post on my blog. Please stop by and explain yourself.
Good post, Angel.
Thank you, Jack.
Aaron,
I was thinking about your comments about “Weinland mockers”, and how you look at that situation differently than I do from the other side of that fence.
I’ve been on the receiving end of an often (not always) harsh attitude toward “traditional Christianity”; but rather than focus on how that makes me feel I keep in mind that it’s most likely not personal, since the person doesn’t really know me. An attitude like that can come from self-righteousness, pride, frustration, anger, hate, etc., and that’s really a personal problem for them.
On the other hand, it can be a manifestation of having been hurt in some way. It’s a natural reaction to turn away from or lash out at something/someone that has hurt you. This too, is a personal problem for that person.
Since I don’t exactly know what is behind that harsh attitude, it would be more beneficial not to respond with harshness but to try to understand where they’re coming from. Mockery and sarcasm are often tinged with anger; again, this can be a response to having been hurt.
Last year I spent some time commenting on the website of an ex-Armstrongist who had become an atheist; he was in great emotional pain because of his family life in that belief system and the events that transpired when the WWCG turned away from the teachings of HWA. It broke my heart and I just wanted to reach out and ease his pain somehow, even though he now despised all things to do with God, and Christians most of all.
It was kind of like approaching a wild animal in pain; move slowly, no sudden moves, speak quietly – knowing that at any moment he can turn on you and rip your head off. Of course he immediately challenged me, ready to pounce, so I didn’t preach – just answered as best I could, not trying to push anything on him. He tolerated my presence reluctantly, but underneath the denial, I felt he still had a belief in God and was angry with Him. He has now abandoned his atheism and is involved in some new age stuff, but I hope and pray he’ll work out his issues, exhaust all the spiritual dead-ends, and be drawn to God.
I’d like to comment on a couple of statements you made:
“…..Now, regardless of whether or not he is a false prophet should be irrevelent, because just because a prophet is false doesn’t mean that he will never ever say anything that is really the truth.”
I have to wholeheartedly and unequivocally disagree with that. In my opinion, just because a false prophet says some things that are really the truth is irrelevant because that prophet is teachings things that he did not receive from God and in fact contradict God’s word; the Bible says a false prophet teaches people to rebel against God – that is not someone I care to listen to!
“…..Another thing I don’t like about the true Weinland mockers is how it seems like they have made it their divine mission in life to bring him on down and destroy everything that he represents, and this is why refer to them as having vile and evil spirits, not because they are disagreeing with me or are disobeying God, but because the kind of spirit they had is the kind of spirit that Satan had.”
First of all, can you honestly say you know for a fact what’s in their hearts? If they are mocking Mr. Weinland because of his failed prophecies, which the Bible clearly states are the sign of a false prophet – how can that be the spirit of Satan? It seems to me Satan would want a false prophet to go on deceiving as many people as possible.
In the 1800’s a false prophet was persecuted and mocked by both Christians and ex-followers. He was driven out of several communities and finally settled in an area where he set up his own government built on his cultic teachings. He was eventually arrested for inciting a riot which ensued as a result of his false teachings, and murdered while in jail. The cult he started was the Mormon church, which now has millions of members worldwide.
Were the people who persecuted him and tried to destroy everything he represented wrong to do this? I’d just as soon let God be the judge.
Hi Angel, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Also, to Mike (DDTFA), I’ve been writing a response to your e-mail to me and I saved it as a draft but I never got around to finishing it, but I’ll be sending it to you very soon now. Angel, I’m gonna respond to your comment-posting from 3/16/2010:
One thing you sad was that you hold the truth (the Bible) in your hands, and just as so long as you hold onto it, God will keep you safe from deception. I agree with you on this, but then we have to know whether or not something we believe is true, because what if we have interpreted Scriptures and took in a different meaning other than what the Bible was originally conveying to us ? We would be holding onto something that is not indeed of truth, but holding onto it and never letting go, so thus, sometimes we are holding onto the very deception that we don’t desire to be holding onto. What we need to be doing is sincerely and genuinely praying to God that he open-up our minds so that we can better understand what the Bible is saying, regardless of whether or not Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, because we should be desiring the real truth regardless of where it’s coming from, and if we are sincere and geuine in our persuit of the truth, then God will guide us into the light of His truth. Many people say they desire the truth but deep deep inside their minds they don’t want the real truth, and I’m not referring to you Angel, I’m just generally speaking for right now. I mean, so very many people swear up and down that you go to Heaven when you die just as so long as you were having faith in Jesus Christ. When they are presented with direct Biblical proof that you don’t go to Heaven when you die (Jesus Christ himself stated this, as well as God’s apostles), they find some other reason to keep themselves believing this belief, even though this kind of Scripture cannot be interpreted in any other manner, because Jesus Christ states that no man ascends into Heaven but He whom came down from there. I’m not just saying this because Mr. Weinland has stated this, but the Bible does indeed state this right from Jesus Christ himself. Is going to Heaven something that you could still defend after knowing that Jesus Christ himself tells us that we don’t go to Heaven when we die, and that Peter tells us that not even King David has ascended into Heaven ?
Now, I know that you’re probably thinking about Deuteronomy right about now so let me address this right now (I don’t mean this in a bad way).
Deuteronomy 18:22, “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him.”
Another translation also states, “…which the Lord has not spoken, and the prophet has not spoken it presumptuously…”
Now, maybe I’m wrong about this, but this seems to be saying that if the thing the prophet spoke of did not come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, AND (or but) the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, then you shall not be afraid of him. It seems like the prophet has to speak his thing presumptuously in addition to it not coming to pass. For instance, Pastor Vincent Xavier prophecized that there would be a nucelar detonation in Washington, D.C. on a Sunday in October 2009. That time-frame came and went, and then Mr. Xavier said that God must have been referring to October 2010 and then revealed that God didn’t specifically say the year 2009, but he made such a very huge hype about this definitely occurring during October 2009 (more specifically being likely on October 11th, 2009. He was presumming that God was telling him October 2009 when he then admitted afterwards that God didn’t tell him that it would be for the year 2009, so that it must have been for the year 2010, but then he still says nothing about 2011, 2012, or any other future year that it could very well indeed possibly be. Now, Mr. Weinland on the other hand was not speaking presumptuously because he wasn’t presuming anything outside of what God’s Church had long believed. Mr. Weinland (as long as the Church Of God – PKG is indeed God’s Church, that is) was bold and confident and was holding onto the faith of what God’s Church had believed up until that moment in time, which was showing his steadfast faith in God’s Church. Had Mr. Weinland derived hs time-frame using any other method or calculation outside of Jesus Christ returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, then he would have been speaking presumptuously, and thus would have been a fase prophet. So thus, if this interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:22 is indeed correct (and maybe it’s not), then couldn’t this be a possibility of showing how even God’s prophets learn to become humbled through what they learn ?
Now, even if my interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:22 is correct, people would still have a difficult time believing that God would allow His prophet to speak something which didn’t occurr during the original time-frame stated. This is a perfectly understandable way of feeling because naturally people feel that everything a prophet states going to happen regardless of what truth the prophet knew at the time. But however, what if God just so happens to be working in a way they most of the World just cannot understand, especially when the Bible doesn’t really have a solid case of a prophet speaking something that did indeed come to pass but during a different timing than was stated ? What if God allowed His prophet for this End-Time to speak the time-line based upon the understanding that God’s Church believed to be of the truth ? What would be the purpose of this ? Well, firstly, to throw off Satan and his minions of demons so that they wouldn’t have the upper-hand too soon ahead of time, but also to bring His people to further humility and humbleness to show both His Church and the World that even God’s servants are constantly learning and growing and sometimes believe something to be true which is really not, so maybe God was using this period to bring His people to greater humility by allowing His prophet to interpret prophecy using what His Church had been believing for a long while, and then giving incredibly powerfull revelation to show where His Church was wrong in their understanding of the timing for the return of Jesus Christ, and would serve to bring His people to greater humility by showing them and even His prophet where they were wrong in what they believed to be true.
Another thing to think about is that there is a difference between giving prophecy and interpreting prophecy. Prophets can either give new prophecy or give understanding of already-existing prophecy. Since there haven’t been any prophets since John wrote the book of Revelation, there haven’t been any prophets whom have given understanding of existing prophecy. Now, perhaps when giving understanding of existing prophecy it is God’s purpose to allow the prophet to interpret prophecy through the understanding in God’s Church, but there wouldn’t be a basis for this since there hasn’t been prophets in this World since the 1st Century A.D. Now, people cringe at the thought of believing that something could be true that the Bible didn’t write about, but however, what about all of the people in the times of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t they have been just as skeptical as we are today about adding to the Bible when they assumed that the Bible was already completed ? Now, I’m not suggested that you just blatantly and blindly add things to the Bible to support whatever we so desire to support, but my point is, what if God is working with His End-Time prophet in a manner in which is not mentioned in the Bible simply because there would have been no other prophets after John to have the history for something like this ? There really hasn’t been prophets giving understanding of ezxsting prophecy and the prophecies regarding the End-Time were to be sealed until the timing of the end was nearly at hand and travel would have been greatly increased. Then, now that Mr. Weinland would have been the very first prophet of God to give understanding of existing prophecy, there would be no previous account in the Bible for how God works specifically with a prophet giving understanding of existing prophecy, and maybe God’s process for this is by allowing His prophet to speak things that are based upon what His Church believes to be true. I don’t know about you, but I see great purpose in this, and not just only because Mr. Weinland says so.
I’m just not willing to throw-away everything just because I might not understand how God is working, because maybe God is truly indeed working in this very manner. Now, I choose to believe this very strongly because of everything that has happened over the past couple of years, even some personal experiences,but however, I don’t fault anybody for not yet believing since Mr. Weinland’s original time-frame did not come to pass, and yes, even though he did state that the timing would be important, and yes, the timing is still important, but Mr. Weinland didn’t fully understand that timing and God humbled him and His Church in a very powerfull manner through the revelation of the truth of the timing for the return of Jesus Christ, especially given how very perfectly all of the days and dates (even inter-calendar, between the Jewish calendar and the Roman Gregorian calendar) ust so happen to line-up so very perfectly not once, not twice, not thrice, but 4 times, fom Christmas 2007 to Trumpets 2008 to Trumpets 2009 and Pentecost 2012, and not to mention how the very same “Time” was used to reveal Mr. Tkach as being the Man Of Sin by God consuming him with the breath of His mouth (directly ending his life), and the revealing is by the fact that he died precisely 40 Sabbaths later to the very hour of committing the abomination of the desolation of God’s Church, 40 being the number used throughout the Bible as the number for God’s judgements upon people.
Now, many people scream that those are lying wonders, but I don’t think that Satan could come-up with something that perfect, and plus, even if it might be lying wonders, what about the possibility that it’s actually not lying wonders ? All of the things above have been very powerfull for me and I believe that God desires that kind of power so as to inspire people to desire to come to the truth and to receive it with humility while at the same timebeing cautious. At the very least, we should not just automatically discount Mr. Weinland until the end of Spring season of 2011, because what if it so happens that the United States Of America is destroyed in the manner that Mr. Weinland stated, and then 10 nations arise from out of the Europe, and all the while Mr. Weinland and the Roman Catholic Church are the 2 very strongest voices on the face of the planet Earth, talking back and forth regarding how the other is a false prophet and what not. What if this scenario does indeed happen, would you still somehow convince yourself that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet just because of the timing issue which God would have had a purpose in ? Those events are going to mightily humble many persons, and if Mr. Weinland is truly indeed a true prophet of God, than what happens is going to be so very beautifull to know and understand what it’s actually all about, and we’ll be able to teach people what the truth is and help them through a very incredibly horrifying time in history.
Now, if the 2nd Trumpet is not blown by the end of Spring of 2011, then I will firmly deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet, it will be very difficult, but I will have to do it because then it will be very clear to me because if everything that I stated regarding how God is working with the timing and how He is working with His Church and with His prophets is really true, then the time-frame that Mr. Weinland gave would not be changing again because God would not give powerfull revelation only to change the revelation later-on. Now, I know that we shouldn’t be focussing on certain dates, and I’m not holding them to be absolute or anything concrete, but I feel that it’s possible that something huge could be happening on July 11th, 2010 (7/11/2010) which would also be July 12th, 2010 (7/12/2010) on the Jewsh calendar. I’m also thinking about April 17th, 2010 and how very freaky that would be (given how much belief was given to April 17th, 2008), and that is 770 Days until Pentecost 2012, so just kinda intriguing to think about is all. I will post an e-mail draft that I have which explains why I believe that 7/11/2010 could be it, but I’m not holding any amount of faith to that date because this didn’t come from God or anything like this.
Also, just think about this way. If the 2nd Trumpet had blown within 90 days of April 17th, 2008, then wouldn’t so very many people flock to Mr. Weinland because he would have so much more credability and validity ? This would make the Bible untrue that the World mocks and ridicule God’s people and even God’s servants the apostles and prophets. Because there would have been great purposes in allowing God’s prophet to interpret existing prophecy based upon the knowledge within God’s Church believed to be of the truth, this would then have also served to allow God’s people to be mocked and ridiculed when the original time-frame did not come to pass, and this also serves to showe the true nature of mankind, how even if somebody were to be a false prophet that they would called the worst things imaginable, which shouldn’t be the case even for our very worst enemies. If we get all of the way to the 5th Trumpet but yet there is still no other prophets in the World that is telling of things that then do indeed occur, are you still going to refuse to believe that Mr. Weinland is one of God’s prophets and Witnesses for this End-Time ? But anyhow, it’s almost necessary that God’s people are mocked and ridiculed and go through trials and tribulations because they must persevere and push through all of that all the while retaining full faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and this is a major trying and testing of God’s people throughout this whole entire process.
I’m just so very much excited to see everything unfolding such as like what is occurring economically over there in Europe right now. I mean I can already see how 10 nations within the European Union are gonna become fed-up with the Euro (and so thus the European Union itself) being in danger of collapsing and will break-off to form a solidly united federation). Other thoughts I have is will we see another very huge economic disruption proceeding the blowing of the 2nd Trumpet which would rival the 2008 Crash ? This would be incredible because the 1st Trumpet is supposed to be announcing the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Trumpets, and if much of the 1st Trumpet was regarding the downward-spiral of the economy, then another very big wave could hit us which would further announce that the 2nd Trumpet is very near to being blown. There still could be something very physical regarding the 1st trumpet, although perhaps the burning of 1/3 of the trees and all of the green grass is indicative of the effects of the nuclear detonations since the 1st Trumpet lasts for the duration of the first 4 Trumpets. Also, Mr. Weinland hasn’t yet stated this before, but the symbolic part of the 1st Trumpet could partly be the trees symbolizing money since that is where money is said to come from, and 1/3 of the trees could be the 1/3 of the wealth of the World which was said to be lost during this economic crisis that this World has been plunged on into.
It very much amazes me the intensity of the 3rd Thunder of abnormal weather, although many people just discount it because nothing has come even close to rivalling the 2005 Hurricane Season, but we should be very well aware that abnormal weather extends very much further than just Hurricanes. 2008 saw the very most tornados ever within a single season, with 1,400 tornadoes already by April 2008, when normally there are like 1,400 for the whole entire year. This very past Winter Season that this World just experienced was so very powerfull, I mean the North-Eastern United States receiving upwards of 75 inches of snow-fall within just only 3 months, and came from just only 4 huge snow-storms, coming one right after another, and now this very same area is being inundated by heavy rain-falls and record flooding in many places up there, and they had 2 incredibly slowly-moving rain-storm systems within the past 2 weeks, I mean this is just not normal at all whatsoever. Most of Europe & Asian experienced their worst Winter in like 70 – 90 years, and Australia broke their record night-time temperature by having night-time temperatures over 100 degrees. Georgia experienced below-freezing temperature for like 2 – 3 weeks, including 24/7. We experienced like 24 days of 12 – 19 degree temperatures within like 5 weeks, I mean it was just so very freaky, and now, some parts of Georgia are going to be seeing 85 degrees this week, in late March, which is actually a record for this time of year. This could turn-out to be one whopper of an incredibly extreme Summer season, which will further show us the intensity of this 3rd Thunder. In 2006 & 2007 there were very major droughts while also very major floodings throughout the United States, and then in 2008 and 2009 maybe of those very same places which were droughted then experienced some of the very worst flooding ever experienced in history, with Georgia witnessing 300 – 500 year flooding during the week of 9/19/2009, which just so happened to be the area where Mr. Tkach committed the Abomination Of Desolation, and is also intriguing because it was 770 Weeks from since that time until the flooding, which is an intriguing number although this wasn’t yet given by God as being significant, but it’s still rather intriguing for me.
The biggest thing about the Thunder is intensity and frequency, but people are trying to put this into a 2 or 3 year time-window for all 7 Thunders to be greatly intensified, but really the Thunders began in 2001 so it’s really a 9-year period, and if you pull back and look at the big picture, you can see those Thunders increasing over-time, with the frequency becoming greater and greater, even if the intensity doesn’t increase at the same rate, but regarding the 2nd Thunder, we have witnessed 4 of the 16 strongest Earth-Quakes in recorded history within just the past 5 years, and nearly 500,000 people died within just only 2 Earth-Quakes within the past 5 years, which is most definitely of higher intensity than even the most extreme in history. If we have another very powerfull Earth-Quake within the next few months or so, of at least the Magnitude which Chile recently had, then we will have had 2 of the 7 Strongest Earth-Quakes ever recorded within just months of each other. The point is that Mr. Weinland never stated that each Earth-Quake would be strongest than the very last Earth-Quake, as that is not what increasing intensity means. If you pull-back and look at the whole 7 – 9 year period, then you will see a gradual increasing of the intensity and frequency of those Earth-Quakes.
What amazed me even more about the 7 Thunders is what science shows us, which is that the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Solar System is gradually moving through the galactic plane of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is the central gravitational force for the whole entire galaxy. So just imagine if you will that the Earth is going through this incredibly powerfull gravitational force. Wouldn’t this mean that we would randomly see abnormal weather and earth-quakes and volcanoes getting more intense, more deadly, and more frequently ? This could be how God gave us those particular Thunders by making the Earth to reach this point in the Milky Galaxy at precisely this moment in time, isn’t this amazing ? Even if this proves nothing, this is still very much intriguing for me.
I should probably moe-on from this though because I’m gonna be posting regarding the 7 Thunders in a soon-coming future posting. Another thing you said is that God has given us His Holy Spirit to helps us understand Him. Well, some of us have been given God’s Holy Spirit but the way you speak of it is like that everybody on Earth has received God’s Holy Spirit or that we receive it just simply because we say that we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God and died for our sins. We as a whole have not received God’s Holy Spirit, as He doesn’t just blindly give it out to just anybody and everybody. Very few have had the opportunity throughout history to experience the power of God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within them, so if you don’t already have God’s Holy Spirit in you, then it’s possible that you could then see what God’s Church is seeing once God’s Holy Spirit is working with you. Now, maybe it’s already working with you, but what if it’s not ? Maybe it’s not working with me, but what if it is ? We have to consider those questions because what we believe is God’s Holy Spirit might just be our very own minds, so we have to examine things.
You also said that Mr. Weinland surrounds himself with people who agree with him. Well, this doesn’t just automatically make him bad because if you think about it, would God really truly want just anybody and everybody whom is curious about their ways to become baptized into the body of Christ and then possibly turning many people against God’s Holy Spirit just as like Mr. Tkach and his followers did ? I mean, I wouldn’t e letting non-believers into God’s Church either if God had placed me into authority under Jesus Christ and was showing me that the people whom are not at one with God’s Church should not be here because God’s people as part of the body of Christ are to be united as much as is possible, because if should I let them remain in the Church, then they could disrupt the learning and the faith, even with God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within them, because if 2nd Thessalonians is any guide for us, God’s Holy Spirit does not guarantee that we are gonna be following God all the way to the end, because we still have the free moral agency of choice, which is precisely the lesson behind Satan beng let loose for a lil’ season at the end of the Millenium of Christ, to show us what mankind is still capable of even with God’s Holy Spirit living and dwelling within us, even with Jesus Christ ruling in God’s Kingdom over the nations, that many human-beings can and will turn against those things to follow their own ways (especially having grown-up with Jesus Christ and God’s Kingdom always there, and then finally Satan influencing their minds to follow his ways of living their lives. So anyhow, I could totally understand why Mr. Weinland, if he is really truly one of God’s prophets, would want to make sure that God’s Church is protected as much as is possible, especially during this End-Time period when Satan and his minions of demons are running wreck so very much havoc upon this World.
You said, “particularly if their lives and relationships were affected.” I agree with you, but this would be kinda like a woman entering into a long-term committed relationship with a guy and then spending years of her life with him changing her life in a very profound manner and then the guy becomes lying and cheating and becomes a whole totally different person, like the Tiger Woods thing. I’ve heard so very many woman say that those men need to be prosecuted for up-rooting their lives and changing their lives since they didn’t know that he was going to be a cheating husband on them. But you know what ? I mean, that is just so very ridiculous for me because any woman should know that they take a risk with their lives when they enter into a relationship with another person, and if they person turns out to be different than what they had originally thought, even though it’s very wrong of the guy, the woman still took the chance and the risk and gave her life to him, and he doesn’t need to go to jail or anything like this. I know that you didn’t say that Mr. Weinland should be rotting in jail or anything like this, but I’m just providing an instance for you whereby people take chances and up-root their lived based upon following somebody, and if they turn out to be a false prophet, obviously it’s not a great thing to have happen, but they chose to follow him, even knowing that some things which Mr. Armstrong said didn’t occurr when they thought they would (even though I’ve read alot from Mr. Armstrong where he said certain things would be happening soon but didn’t say how soon, so it would really be up for debate when he meant, and even the 1975 in prophecy, when talking about it being a sure thing, Mr. Armstrong even stated back in 1972 that he was referring to the events being a sure thing, and not the timing being a sure thing, and this was even 3 years prior to the year 1975, so.
You said, “For Mr. Weinland to turn it around on them and ridicule them for believing that his prophecies were physical when he clearly said so is a shameful thing (and he did that even to the people who stayed) and how anyone can defend him for doing so is beyond me.”
I know what you’re referring to, but Mr. Weinland wasn’t ridiculing them for believing that his prophecies were physical, he was first telling how he didn’t even know at the time that the prophecies weren’t all just only purely physical and that there were spiritual elements tied into them also, and then he was just simply saying how not everybody can understand those spiritual elements of prophecy without God’s Holy Spirit working in our minds and allowing us to be able to spiritually see those things. But I don’t think that he talked down to them in a mocking or ridiculing way that they couldn’t spiritually understand those things, he just stated why most people wouldn’t be able to see those spiritual matters without God’s help and guidance. If you feel that Mr. Weinland was talking them down in a mean manner, then please show me so that I can examine it, but in everything I have listened to thus so far, he hasn’t gone so far as to ridicule them for not understanding, but just pointing-out how they cannot understand unless God opens-up their mind to reater understanding of those things.
I understand what you mean when you say that hatefull mocking and scoffing could be righteous anger, but there is a proper way to express anger. I’m not really sure if I can compare it to Jesus Christ or not because maybe Jesus Christ was righteous is acting in this manner since he had the mind of God, but no other human-being all throughout the course of history has ever had the mind of God, so I’m wondering if anybody else can have righteous anger whereby throwing-over tables wouldn’t be considered sinning because you’re not honouring neighbor and loving your enemies. I know what you mean though, and I’m not talking about the respectfull kind of anger whereby somebody respectfully says how they are feeling and what they are thinking, and that is not mocking or ridiculing, but when it does reach those levels is when they say things in a mocking manner, such as like saying, “Well, I guess his witness powers aren’t too good right now because he wasn’t able to shut-up the heavens so that it wouldn’t snow in order to be able to have Sabbath services.” Firstly, they are totally missing the whole point behind haing those powers, but even so aside from this though, they are saying it in a mocking manner.” The non-mocking way to state something like this would be to say something like, “The book of Revelation states that the 2 End-Time Witnesses have the power to shut-up the heavens so that it doesn’t rain in the days of their prophecy, but how come they didn’t use those powers to stop the bad weather so that they could have a good Sabbath service ?” This doesn’t have to be stated like this verbatim but just so that it’s lacking a mean-spirited, mocking tone to what is being said, such as like saying, “Ohhh, well, I don’t see any fire coming from out of your lying mouths yet, perhaps becoming friends with some dragons would help to remedy this.” When things similar to this are stated, this is what the nature of mocking is, no matter if it’s a rapist, a murderer, or the President of the United States Of America. Now, I’m certainly not condoning the activities of the aforementioned persons, but however, a spirit of mocking and ridicule is something that should never be done, especially if somebody is Christian and trying to live a life like Christ lived in spirit. Now, just i case Mike (DDTFA) is reading this right here, I want him to know that I will be responding to your “Vile Spirits” posting because there is a huge difference between the things that you and people against Mr. Weinland say, and the things that Mr. Weinland himself says, so I will e-mail you my responses to your posting because there is alot that I would like to respond about.
I will be separately responding to your more recent posting on here, so only respond to each posting so that we can keep straight what we’re responding to.
Aaron Robinson
Angel on 3/19/2010:
Hi Angel… I want you to understand that I’m not at all whatsoever suggesting that people follow a false prophet, I’m just merely saying that even false prophets sometimes say things that are true, meaning that just because a prophet is a false prophet doesn’t mean that he doesn’t speak anythint that just so happens to be true. This would just be like any church within the realm of traditional Christianity preaching many false things but also preaching some true things as well, even if nobody in that church is a prophet at all whatsoever. My point with this is that we shouldn’t just automatically feel that nothing else can ever possibly be true that he says, meaning that we shouldn’t at least examine what he’s saying from the Bible to see if it actually might just possibly be true, instead of just blatantly assuming that everything else he says will 100% be 100% false, but I’m certainly not saying that we should be following a false prophet and blindly believing what is being said.
No, I cannot say what is in their hearts, but I did say that it seems like they have made it their divine mission in life to bring him down, not that every last one of them feels this way, but that it seems like many of them feel this way in how they talk about it. Now, maybe none of them at all feel this way, but it does really seem like many of them are doing everything they can to bring this man down, and even if he is a false prophet, we shouldn’t be doing this because we are to love even our enemies, and it doesn’t mean to follow them or believe them, but not treat them in a manner which we would surely not desire to be treated, and this is regardless of how the person is treating them, because we are to treat them just as we would like to be treated, even if they don’t return that same kind of respect on back to us.
You asked me were the people whom persecuted the 19th Century prophet wrong to persecute and destroy him, and the answer is of course this was wrong of them. Even though he was a false prophet, I mean, people can disagree with him or debate him or argue with him all they so desire to, but we are not to persecute and destroy others regardless of how steamed and angry we are at them, and surely it can be understandable if the false prophet ruined people’s lives, but turning around and ruining the life of the false prophet just brings us on down to the level of the false prophet. I cannot judge what is really truly in their hearts and in the minds, but God does allow for us to know for sure when somebody is sinning, and if we know that they are sinning, and treating others horribly, then those things can be brought to light just like Jesus Christ and his followers did, but they didn’t do it in a mocking or ridiculing manner, and if they did, then they were wrong in doing so because there is a right way and a wrong way to talk about somebody else’s inquities, because if somebody is mocking and ridiculing the sins of others, they have to realize that they have their iniquities also.
I talk about the spirit of Satan because it is Satan that has a mocking spirit, hence all of those Christmas songs and even the concept of Santa Clause is so very much mocking and ridiculing God and his powers. Even if a prophet is very clearly a false prophet, mocking and ridiculing is not right and is the kind of spirit which Satan had, to mock and ridicule anything and everything that he despized. Jesus Christ never mocked or ridiculed anyone for being false. I mean, he most surely called them out on what they were doing, but he never took on the spirit of mocking and ridiculing others for their sins or false teachings. People would never want to admit that their mocking and ridiculing is the spirit that Satan had, because then it makes them feel that they are of Satan, but this is not the case at all. They are not Satanic people or Satan worshippers, but they are allowing the spirit of Satan to consume their minds to the point of lashing-out, and yes, even if the reason they are lashing-out is due to the teaching of the false prophet, this still doesn’t make it right to take on this kind of attitude. Many of Mr. Weinland’s mockers are atheists and their family might be atheist also, or they are indeed Christians but just never experienced the Church Of God or Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Weinland, and they still mock and ridicule anyhow because of what they see as Mr. Weinland’s failed time-line. They are no more righteous to be doing what they are doing than the people whom were actually members of the Church Of God. That kind of spirit is a foul spirit no matter what a false prophet has done, because mocking and ridiculing somebody else’s sins doesn’t make their very own sins righteous. I’m not really sure about this whole righteous anger thing, but even if all human-beings could have righteous anger, certainly mocking and ridiuling are not part of righteous anger because Jesus Christ didn’t mock or ridicule those money-changers, he was angry with them and told others about them so that they would understand what they were doing and to avoid doing those things, but he in no way was mocking them or ridiculing them, because that is a much different spirit than a spirit of righteous anger.
Aaron Robinson
Hi Mike, I wanted to let you know that you can go ahead and post but just remember the rules of this blogg, and just speak differently than you would speak on your blogg, and be mindfull that many people on here still believe that Mr. Weinland is God’s prophet, and you don’t have to believe what you believe, but just keep it respectfull and cordial (even through disagreeing) and you may post here. I ask for Citizen X to not disapprove Mike’s comments just as so long as they are not considered to be disrespectfull of what others believe. I am still sending you my response to your posting on “Vile Spirits”. I’m gonna be sending you my response via e-mail, and you can decide which parts to post into your blogg, although I’m hoping that you’ll make an exception and just post everything that I respond to you with since your posting was specifically for me, they should be able to see how I responded, but obviously this ball is in your court on this.
Aaron Robinson
I’ll give it a go to see if my comment will be deleted. I simply have a question, and it even relates to the original topic of this thread. Referring to Deut. 18:22, you stated:
” Another translation also states, “…which the Lord has not spoken, and the prophet has not spoken it presumptuously…” ”
Which translation is that exactly? Please provide a reference (link). Bible Gateway has 18 different translations of this verse, and I couldn’t find your version in any of them.
Hi Mike, for the King James Version, it should read, “…which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet as not spoken it presumptusously: you shall not be afraid of him.” I inadvertently put the an “and” in place of the semi-colon because I always think “and” in my mind because that is what the semi-colon means, and I wasn’t carefull to copy it just as it appears. But anyhow, whether it’s and or but, they both seemto be saying that if the the thing doesn’t come to pass, and (or but) the prophet spoke it presumptuously, then you shall not be afraid of him. Furthermore, the colon means that the final part of the thought follows, but some other translations put the colon after “…which the Lord has not spoken:”, which would change the whole meaning, so we have to consider those possibilities. So, it does seem as though it’s possible that God made sure this was written just in this very manner because He knew that there would come a time when the original timing spoken of by the prophet would not come to pass, but that he didn’t presumptuously speak what he spoke. Now, this alone all by itself doesn’t unequivocally make Mr. Weinland a true prophet of God,but this does open-up for the possibility for revelation of truth from God to change the stated timing with new understanding, but however, this timing can not be changed from Pentecost 2012 otherwise it would be 2 changes via revelation regarding the very same issue, and this would most certainly make him a false prophet.
Aaron Robinson
Aaron, your translation is the New King James Version which according to
when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
And you’ve misquoted it, more than putting an “and” in. You also added “not” in front of “spoken it presumptuously” which reverses the meaning.
If a word would be added to clarify the meaning it would be a “then” right after the comma. But it’s unnecessary to add that word for most people who understand that it’s implied.
Here is a translation from the 21st Century King James Version:
“when a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
Or this from the New Living Translation
“If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.”
So the Bible defines what “presumptuous” is. If you predict something in the name of the Lord, and your prediction fails, then you spoke presumptuously. No jail house lawyering about “oh, I assumed so therefore I didn’t presume”. You can assume all you want, but if you give voice to your assumptions claiming to be a prophet of God, then you are being presumptuous. Which is exactly what Weinland did.
You’re right, I mistakenly put not spoken presumptuously, clearly that was an unintentional error on my part. Now, are you saying that the Bible defines what being presumptuous is by totally omitting it from those verses ? The New Living Translation doesn’t even include the term presumptuously, nor does it even give a synonym for that word, because that translation gives more of the thought behind message, which is often incorrect. Now, the other translation you quotes stated, “the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously”, this is what seems to imply “BUT the prophet spoke it presumptuously”, or in the case of the semi-colon “AND the prophet spoke it presumptuously, THEN (colon) you shall not be afraid of him”. In one of the translations, the colon is moved to make it seem like it’s saying, “THEN (colon) the prophet has spoken preseumptuously. So, which do we believe ? The problem with English translations is that the meaning is not always preserved, especially when the moving of colons changes the meaning of what is being said.
As an aside-note, what if God’s prophet speaks of the timing that does indeed come to pass during his first original time-frame. That would cause so very many people to flock toward Mr. Weinland’s side because they would very firmly believe him then. I believe that God would want to teach His people a huge lesson regarding humility and being humble even in the face of incredibly adversity. I’m not trying to give excuses for Mr. Weinland, but it would just make alot of sense to me that God would use something not only to trip-up Satan and his minions of demons from knowing the truth too early-on but as well as for humbling His people to a spirit of humility. But what about the various servants of God whom stated things in God’s Church that weren’t totally correct because they didn’t yet receive revelation or corection from what they believed to be true, shouldn’t they also be false prophets then if they were saying that the end was very near and God’s Kingdom was at hand because Jerusalem and the temple was being destroyed for the second time ? They would have to be false prophets and false apostles just as much as you would like for Mr. Weinland & Mr. Armstrong to be false prophets and false apostles. So then, what does this say regarding Deuteronomy 18:20-22 regarding the apostles and prophets from within the Bible ? There must be something that we’re not understanding if God’s servants in the Bible were allowed to say things that weren’t totally 100% accurate. This occured both before and after the death of Jesus Christ, instances whereby God allowed His prophets and apostles to believe that Jesus Christ was coming on into Jerusalem to overthrow the Roman government and to become King over them. xHWA has said that this was because they wouldn’t have understood the truth anyhow, but should that really have mattered as to whether or not God’s servants would have be allowed to speak things which weren’t true later-on or didn’t come to pass just as precisely as they were stating ? Deuteronomy originated all of the way back to the times of Moses, so thus, I surely think that this would apply to the apostles and prophets of the New Testament times. So thus, there must be something that we’re missing here if the Bible shows over and over again how God’s servants have said things which weren’t true and needed correction for through revelation through the power of God’s Holy Spirit.
Aaron Robinson
It wasn’t clear that adding “not” was unintentional. If you say that it was unintentional, then I’ll accept that statement.
It is you, Weinland and his followers who are hung up on the word “presumptuously”. The Living Translation gives the meaning which was to speak without authority.
You also misinterpret what a comma and semicolon mean. They also mean “then” or “therefore”. You say they mean “and”. But you seem to think that sometimes they mean “and if”.
Here is the New King James version as you seem to translate the semicolons, with the replacement words shown in CAPS.
“when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken AND IF the prophet has spoken it presumptuously THEN you shall not be afraid of him”
Here is is with a consistent word used instead of the semicolons.
“when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken THEREFORE the prophet has spoken it presumptuously THEREFORE you shall not be afraid of him”
As far as your “what if”: That is exactly what Weinland was angling for, when he went on interviews, and when he allowed an Australian TV program to interview him. He wanted to put out his prophesies, so that when they came true people would flock to him.
Your “what if” argument doesn’t fly. Since the Weinlands are the Two Witnesses, they are by definition already humble so they don’t need to be humbled.
You say that biblical prophets falsely prophesied as God’s representative and then later on prophesied correctly. Cite specific examples with scriptural references.
muzicsoulworldly,
The Bible says we should grow in grace and knowledge, and abide in the Word. If we do this, we should have a better understanding of scripture as time goes by, and at the very least we will know what the Bible does and does not say.
It’s not hard to misunderstand things the Bible says, but like anything else, constant searching and studying helps. As I alone am responsible for what I believe, I don’t put it in someone else’s hands to explain to me what the Bible “means”; I take it under advisement and search it out for myself. I also don’t listen to only one teacher or only one church organization because that’s typically how people get stuck in a wrong belief.
Maybe’s and what if’s are not good arguments; speculations don’t equal truth. It seems to me that you’re expending a tremendous amount of time and energy on dates – for what purpose? I’m glad you’re not saying your opinions come from God, but what is the point in guessing? You said you will deem Mr. Weinland a false prophet if nothing happens by spring 2011 because God would not give powerful revelation and then change the timeline AGAIN. I look forward to spring 2011 because at least you’ll be free of this false prophet, but what’s to keep you from following another one if you continue this fascination with dates?
When I read through your posts I am struck by the amount of speculation they contain, and how you present scenarios that allow you to conclude things that aren’t supported by scripture. I was particularly amazed by the one where Mr. Weinland and the Catholic church are the “2 very strongest voices on the face of the planet Earth, talking back and forth regarding how the other is a false prophet and what not.” Not to be rude, but if you insist on making statements that seem based more on fantasy than on scripture, you should not be surprised if mockery is the result. Mockery doesn’t prove anything, however, and that’s something we should keep in perspective – it cannot be used to be prove anything is true or untrue. The Bible says people will mock God, the gospel, the truth, etc. That’s a fact, but mockery is not the means by which we determine if someone’s biblical beliefs/understanding is correct.
I find it interesting that you’re super-sensitive to mockery from people who don’t agree with Mr. Weinland, but you can’t detect it when it’s coming from him. To be honest it makes me question your sincerity, which makes me sad because usually I think you’re being straight with me. If you want to hear what I consider mocking/hateful/disparaging statements by Mr. Weinland – listen to any sermon where he talks about those who mock him.
muzicsoulwordly,
Regarding your comparison of a church within the realm of traditional Christianity teaching false doctrines and a false prophet – I would avoid both, because we are warned against both in scripture. Two wrongs have never made a right; why would you try to excuse a false prophet with an example like that? You say people shouldn’t be trying to “bring down” Mr. Weinland because we’re supposed to love our enemies; Aaron, an unrepentant false prophet is under a death sentence – if that’s not bringing a man down I don’t know what is.
Jesus said the church would not be overcome. If you truly believe COG-PKG is God’s true church, why are you so concerned? At one moment you’re complaining about all the mockery aimed at Mr. Weinland’s failed prophecies and in the next, you’re saying the church must be mocked or the Bible wouldn’t be true. I would say, Aaron, that if you think mocking is wrong, then you shouldn’t tolerate it from anyone – not even Mr. Weinland.
The next time you hear his comments about people who mock him; listen to what he says about them and ask yourself how you would feel if he was talking about you. Mr. Weinland complains about mockers; then proceeds to mock them. I don’t see him turning the other cheek, as you seem to expect everyone else to do. I don’t disagree that mocking isn’t the best way to deal with people, but I do think that if you’re going to complain about this you should hold Mr. Weinland to the standards you’re holding everyone else to.
Mike on 4/1/2010 @ 9:45 PM:
One thing you said was that semi-colons can also mean “then” or “therefore”, meaning that you know that they can also mean “and”or “but”, so are we to just assume that it means therefore if that is what makes it fit what you believe ? Now, maybe I’m wrong about my interpretation, but I’m leaving it open because maybe this is how God is working with His prophet for this End-Time, and I’m not just saying this in defense of Mr. Weinland, I mean, I just want to leave this possibility open because otherwise I would be “presumptuous” to just assume that this means what the World has always thought. Another thing that I believe is that God allowed Mr. Weinland to say what he said as part of trying and testing, but that’s not the only thing, God obviously wanted to keep Satan and his minions of demons out of the loop for just as much as long as was possible, and plus, this further teaches His people that even they can be wrong about things (meaning the belief in the returning of Jesus Christ being on the Feast Of Trumpets, and God was showing His people that His prophet was conducting himself in 100% faith to what he believed was the truth in God’s Church, and I believe that God allowed His Church to believe those various truths all throughout history for a purpose, until finally offering them correction through revelation from God’s Holy Spirit.
It would be a fallicy to say that God’s Church always had 100% of the truth 100% of the time and never needed correction by God for anything at all whatsoever. This would mean that God’s apostles at various times were not teaching 100% correctly (through faulty interpretation of Scripture or just being dead or complacent or lethargic or luke-warm in their spirits and losing their truths from this), which would mean that Mr. Armstrong wouldn’t have been the first Apostle to have taught wrong, because none of God’s people have ever taught 100% perfectly but except for that of Jesus Christ, which means that Mr. Armstrong was not that much different from the apostles of the past. If you want Scriptures, just read the letters that the prophet John was inspired to write to those 7 Church Of God assemblies in Asia, all of which has dire problems that they needed to address in their lives. Even throughout the Bible you can see times when God’s servants are telling them where other servants are going wrong in their teachings and so they’re offering correction with God’s help. For us to say that Mr. Armstrong was false because he didn’t have everything 100% correctly would be a majorly fallicy since God’s Church in the Bible didn’t have everything 100% correctly either, and while God would desire for His servants to have everything 100% correctly from the very get-go, this is just not possible since even God’s servants are human-beings, and even when inspired by God, sometimes they get things wrong, just as much like John was telling the various scattered assemblies of God’s Church where they were wrong and that they needed to repent and correct their ways.
Also, you said “so that when they came true people would flock to him”. So are you saying that Mr. Weinland believed that those events would indeed come true because you said that he put out his prophecies so that when they came true people would flock to him. I mean, if he believed that his prophecies would indeed be coming to pass, then how do you know that he was just only purely doing so for the masses of people to be flocking all over to him ? Regarding the Weinlands already being humble, I’m sure that you realize that even God’s servants can lose their humility and humbleness if they are not carefull, and plus, I was also referring to God’s people as a whole, not just only God’s prophets and witnesses. Do God’s prophets never need correction from God ? Once yet again, how about God’s servants whom needed much correction, such as like was written about by John and others to tell God’s other servants when and where they were wrong ? Didn’t even one of the original 12 Apostles committ murder ? If Mr. Armstrong had physically killed somebody, would this have automatically barred him from being one of God’s servants ? Well, most people in today’s World, just as like back during the times of the Bible, most persons could never accept one of God’s servants whom committ murder, but yet God’s servants sometimes did those things for whatever reasons, but God still worked with them because there was purpose to work with them and teach them and guide them and direct them in their lives.
What about with Ezekiel writing prophecies regarding events that had already come to pass when the city was already taken into captivity ? Had Mr. Weinland wrote about events which already occurred, I would be willing to be everything that even more people would find him to be a false prophet than currently do so. As far as stories of the many accounts of God’s servants believing that Jesus Christ was coming into Jerusalem to become king, I shouldn’t have to spend my time quoting finding and quoting those Scriptures when you know this is true, and even most traditional Christians believe this anyhow, as this is something that is not really very much debated. Same thing regarding God’s people saying that the end was very near and God’s Kingdom was soon-coming because the temple was being destroyed and they took that as a sign, especially given when Jesus Christ said that there would come a time when all of the stones of the temple would be cast on down, and they believed the end to be near because of what Jesus Christ said, but they just didn’t yet understand what Jesus Christ meant by what he had said. This is very much well-known so I shouldn’t have to spend my time on this. They believed certain things because of the conditions all around them, and plus, they didn’t always totally understand what was happening because they weren’t yet given understanding for many of those matters. Did God consider them to be false teachers because of believing and saying things that were not true ? This has been the case all throughout the stories of the Bible because one of the messages is that even God’s chosen elect are not perfect, and certain things that they feel are happening were not actually happening because they were seeing things physically, just as like Mr. Weinland was seeing some of what he has stated in a physical manner, having faith in the belief within God’s Church that the final 3.5-year tribulation period would begin with massive death and destruction from the very get-go. Well, God then showed him that this was not the case and gave him correction just like God has given correction to His servants all throughout the Bible.
I know you don’t like what ifs because you consider it to be speculation, but people have asked me what I would do if nothing happens in 2011, so I’m just only wondering certain things, because I very much doubt that you would be treating Mr. Weinland much differently if the 2nd Trumpet was blown in July 2008, and do you know what I say this ? Because you would still believe Mr. Armstrong to be false because of his so-called failed predictions (even though he just stated what he believed was soon coming because of the global conditions of this World, and God’s servants all throughout history have believed and stated that the end was soon-coming and that God’s Kingdom was nearly at hand, but did this make them false apostles of prophets ? I believe that you would probably still try everything to find fault with Mr. Weinland even if the 2nd Trumpet did indeed blow during his original time-frame given because you still despise Mr. Armstrong to this very day and the About section of your blogg even states that Herbie isn’t around anymore to be able to pay him back, so you’re just going after the prophets to pay it forward from what Mr. Armstrong did.
I mean, you and many other people whom are totally against Mr. Weinland constantly complain at how incredibly boring and hair-pulling and mind-numbingly painfull it is to be listening to Mr. Weinland’s sermons and even to be talking about him and Mr. Armstrong. My question is, why even put yourself through all of this if you are in so much pain and you’re so bored to death by what you are doing ? Mr. Weinland is right when he says it’s “like” Mr. Armstrong is eating away inside of you like a terminal cancer and it just keeps on growing stronger and stronger and stronger and consuming you more and more and more all of the time. I mean, if you believe that you are trying to save people from Mr. Weinland then you are going about this in the wrong manner because no manner of telling people and ruining his reputation is going to bring people to the truth unless God is calling on them to see the truth. I don’t see hundreds of people running away from Mr. Weinland whom have believed him, because if he really truly is God’s prophet, then God will need to be the one to open-up their minds to the truth so that they can then move away from him. You’re putting yourself through so very much torture when you could just focus on other things that you actually do very much enjoy doing, but clearly you are being tortured by listening to Ron’s sermons minute by minute.
Also, there are plenty of other false prophets that are even more clearly false and have even more people following them but yet I don’t hear much about any of them because you wanna devote your time to ruining Mr. Weinland but not anybody else. I mean, I’m sure that alof of your fans, even being within the realm of traditional Christianity, know that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church because of the very blatantly wrong things that they teach, and the Pope of the Catholic Church believes that he is the vicar of Christ and so thus is the Christ. I mean, how can we not be trying to wake people up to their senses and stop following people like Pope Benedict XVI when very clearly 1 billion people follow him ? There are over 1 billion persons following the Pope, but yet only hundreds of people are following Mr. Weinland but yet Mr. Weinland is whom you are choosing to deface and to expose so that people will come to their senses.
Now, I’m sorry if my thoughts are not accurate on this, but I believe that you have a vendetta against Mr. Weinland and the things you believe he intentionally did to your family and to your friends, because you desire to have pay-back as you have said this so by your own self. I’m not just saying this to defend Mr. Weinland, but he is right when he says that it seems like his mockers are just doing everything in within their power to find fault with him, spending pain-staking hours listening to ultra-boring sermons until finding juicy bits of speech to slander. I mean, if anything, the things you’re saying against Mr. Weinland are just gonna make the people whom are following him that much more desirous to tune-out what you’re saying, and if it’s somebody that you know, then they might eventually want to sever their ties with you for their own sanity. I mean, why are you putting yourself through so very much of this torture when the ones whom are left are probably not gonna be “coming to their senses” anytime really soon, and plus, you’ve got to let them see the truth on their own from God because you can’t get them to see it if what they are following is indeed false in the very first place. How you talk about getting your pay-back just seems to validate when I say that you seem to have this vendetta against a man whom has been dead since 1986, and now you are transmuting those ill feelings you have against Mr. Armstrong onto Mr. Weinland because he is currently living. This might be a lil’ bit of a poor analogy, but this is sorta-kinda similar to so very many Obama-supporters out there whom have probably transmuted their hatred for Bush into love for Obama, even though all of those politicians are corrupted and wicked because of the things that they have been doing for the better part of this past century. But anyhow, why not go after the Pope whom have 1 billion people needing saving, or any number of other false prophets out there such as like Vincent Xavier or Sollog ? Focussing on just only one person further proves that you have something personal against the Church Of God and it’s not just because you believe him to be a false prophet, because even if you saw his events come to pass from before, you still would probably be hung-up and angry against the late Mr. Armstrong because you feel that you need to get your pay-back by paying it forward. This is why I mention about vile spirits because it is morally wrong to be doing this, and even if Mr. Weinland were wrong in what he is doing, this isn’t an excuse for you to be doing this also, especially since I know that you believe in God and His Kingdom. Jesus Christ did have righteous anger but it was for a much different reason than your anger, because he had the mind of God and was angry how they were money-changing and blasphemizing God, but your anger just seems like bitter hatred against somebody whom you claim hurt people you love, but this isn’t righteous anger that you’re expressing by attempting to receive pay-back to pay-forward Mr. Armstrong onto somebody else.
I mean, Citizen X has been half-skeptical about Mr. Weinland ever since his statements didn’t come to pass during his orignal time-frame, and then he very clearly deemed him to be a false-prophet, but yet even Citizen X himself believes that many of Mr. Weinlands critics are behaving rabidly like venom, and he totally believes that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet. So is this because he has no spine or no back-bone and doesn’t wanna go all the way ? Does this mean that he believes Mr. Weinland through the omission of being vile ? Of course not. So why does Citizen X behave much more differently than you ? I very much honestly believe it is because you have a history within the Worldwide Church Of God and you have it so very deeply rooted and embedded within your being that you want to pay Mr. Armstrong back for what he did to you and his other followers. This describes a vile spirit, and regardless of whether or not Mr. Weinland is saying bad things against you, does this make it right what you are doing ? It really seems like most of the people whom have major rabid beefs against Mr. Weinland are the very persons whom were a part of the Worldwide Church Of God under Mr. Armstrong. I mean, there are some whom have come out of the Church Of God – PKG, but they don’t speak like the other ones do, which is probably because they didn’t have the same history under Mr. Armstrong and don’t have this deeply-engrained within their being as being something that they feel that they just must do before they wither and die upon this Earth, even if they believe that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, they will just leave it at that and move-on in their spiritual journey. But why continue-on with this pay-back of yours which you seek and give yourself some peace, because you have the choice to either give yourself peace and sanity, or continue draining yourself being massively bored and angry and bent on paying-forward what Mr. Armstrong did to you ?
Also, I will be responding to your comment-posting Angel, just so you don’t feel that I’m ignoring you, so please wait to respond to this here comment of mine until I have responded back to your comment-posting. I do really appreciate and respect how you and xHWA have talked to me in the past. I mean, if there is any gauge of respect, then guage it according to Angel and xHWA because they manifest the epitome of non-bitterly constructively disagreeing. Mike, I don’t feel towards all anti-Weinlanders the very same, but it’s all in how you talk to people because ranting-off a bunch of mockery and ridicule (meaning really truly ridiculing, not just merely disagreeing, mind you) won’t get you anywhere with most people, because they will be just that much more inclined to tune you out and not hear what you have to say when you speak in the manner that you speak.
Aaron Robinson
Angel on 4/1/2010 @ 2:47 PM
You are right that we should seek to grow in knowledge, but I don’t agree that we can do this by just reading and studying the Bible and trying to follow God’s ways of living life, because God will probably not be helping somebody if they are not willing to dispose of their past beliefs in order to believe what is really true, and no manner of studying the Bible can bring somebody to the truth. God’s Word can only abide in somebody if God either calling them into this process and opening-up their mind to His truth, or if they have become baptized into the body of Christ and have had hands laid upon them in order to receive God’s Holy Spirit into their being so that God our Father and Jesus Christ can live and dwell within our lives. We cannot have a much better understanding of scripture just by studying the Bible. Sometimes we cannot know what the Bible is or is not saying because of translations, although I will admit that many passages are very clear such as like various things which Jesus Christ himself stated.
If it’s not difficult to misunderstand things the Bible says, then why is it that there are thousands of denominations of the Christian faith whom all differ from each other in some manner and most of which very very rarely ever change their beliefs due to revelation from God ? You said that you take others’ advisements and search out the truth for yourself, but you don’t say that you allow God to help you during every step of your seeking, you just say that you search it out for yourself. If you seek-out the truth by yourself, then you will never find it because God doesn’t normally help people whom believe that they can find what they need to understand on your own, you know what I mean ? Maybe on the very surface you feel that you desire God’s help in finding the truth, but if you can say that you’re seeking things out on your own, then perhaps much deeper on inside of you that you aren’t genuinely seeking for his help unless you become stuck for a long while and cannot figure-out something out for yourself on your very own. I wouldn’t fault you for this though because this is how most of mankind is and I used to be like this before also, so you’re not alone in this. I just find it amazing and beautifull how God says that we as human-beings don’t even know our own minds, even though we believe that we do.
Now, for your next point that you made of me, I know full-well that speculation doesn’t equal truth, and I have stated many many times within my past that I’m not holding any weight to my speculating, and I know very well that most of the time I won’t be right anyhow, but I just say what I’m thinking when it comes to feeling when something might be happening, not because I know this timing, but rather just because I find the timing of what I think of is intriguing, such as like the 2 rare Triple Eclipse sequences just happening to begin in the year 2008, the year of God’s Final Witness for mankind, and which all occur on the 1st of Av in the Jewish Calendar, and ending on 7/11-7/12/2010. This isn’t something I’m holding any weight on because I know very well that I don’t know this timing and could be wrong, and I’m never claiming to be confident in something happening on a certain date. I will never say that “Ohhh, this just seems too perfect to be true, so this date has just GOT to work-out and happen just like this.”
You do make a very excellent point about the potential of following other fale prophets after moving-on from Mr. Weinland. Well, let me first make this very clear that it is not my fascination with dates that drew me to Mr. Weinland, and certainly not because of my fascinations with my very own speculations. I knew of some of Mr. Weinland’s dates and time-frames, but I still wasn’t all-there back during this time, because it took me ready 100% of both of his books that very deeply inspired me to at least keep a very opened mind regarding Mr. Weinland. I thought it was sorta-kinds semi-intriguing, but I didn’t know what everything meant until I studies the Bible along with reading Mr. Weinland’s 2 books.
Regarding my speculations and speculating, I don’t use those to construct scenarios to then conclude something, I mean, I might have my own thoughts and feelings about what something might mean, but I don’t hold any weight to those things that find intriguing for me. Regarding Mr. Weinland & the Roman Catholic Church being the 2 strongest voices, I wasn’t saying that Scripture even supported this notion, but I was merely just asking you how you would react and respond if this specific scenario would happen if Mr. Weinland was correct. Just merely asking you how you would feel about this shouldn’t lead to the resulting of mockery, and I was assuming that you would already know that I’m not believing that my scenario is part of Scripture, this is why I said if it happened in this manner, how would you react or respond to this ? Also, I never alluded to mocking being the driving force behind proving what is either true or false. I was just simply saying that one way to discern God’s people fro the rest of the World is to see how they are treated by the rest of the World, but this is by no means the sole thing to recognize in God’s people. I know that mockery isn’t the means by which we determine somebody’s beliefs, although my theory would be that God wouldn’t lead and guide somebody to the truth if they are behaving in this manner, because it’s not a learning attitude and spirit of which to have.
Now, I do very much appreciate you being honest with me about not knowing my true sincerity because of the mocking issue, but I shall do my very best to describe my feelings regarding this. When Mr. Weinland addresses his mockers, what he doesn’t do is make fun of them all over the place, and ridicule them, and just plain mocking them as like he is imitating somebody behind their back. What many anti-Weinlanders do is mock Mr.Weinland’s supposed witness powers, I mean they even given them names for his witness powers, and that is mocking. They aren’t just merely disagreeing with things Mr. Weinland says and quoting Scriptures to show that he is a horrible false prophet, this runs much deeper than just disagreeing with him. The kinds of comments I see are just so full of mockery like there’s no tomorrow, and I’m not saying that he doesn’t say a few words every once in a while that might be sorta-kinda poking fun of his mockers, but he doesn’t do it much at all and he doesn’t do it as viciously and with the intent of bringing them down like so many of them spend their time doing. I mean somebody was directly mocking me, and this is probably the epitome of mocking:
“Kirrily XPKG says:
February 25, 2010 at 20:00
It’s alright Darius, please don’t be upset with us. We are just blind evil heathens, God has decided not to reveal his Truths to us – which He obviously has to you. You must feel very special, and rightly so – truly, truly. I must thank you though, that even though God has not shown us His truths, that you thought you could make us ’see’ with your profound wisdom and knowledge. You might have succeeded where God failed. You are fortunate that you can ’see’, and we can not – it’s probably because you are very obedient and astute. You are probably also one of the sealed, indeed, perhaps a prophet also. It’s dumbfounding. I’m dumbfounded. Blinded by the light of your words. I know it must be such a burden to be right, to be able to see so clearly, that everyone else is wrong. Enjoy your righteousness, and please pray for our lost souls, and ask that our blind eyes be opened, just as yours obviously are. I hope your hands are not too tired from all that typing. Have a great day, and I love you too – and powerfully so.”
Mr. Weinland does not ever do any kind of mocking such as like the above. Those are the kinds of things that are done so very often by many anti-Weinlanders, and what bit of good is this doing for anybody ? I’m at least sincere in what I’m saying but they turn it into funny jokes and act like it’s a game of some sort to see whom can provide the very best mockery to the crowd of on-listeners. Yes, Mr. Weinland does talk about his mockers, but he is just simply giving them warnings that if they don’t leave God’s people alone and don’t quit mocking, ridiculing, and tormenting them, they they will be paying a very dear price, but he very clearly let’s them know that their hope is for repentence and changing of their attitude and that if they change their ways then they will not suffer for it. Now, don’t complain about the what-if thing again, but if Mr. Weinland is a false prophet, then what about God’s true prophets ? Whenever God’s real true prophet come onto the scene, are you gonna expect them to not give the same kinds of warnings and spiritual threats if he really truly is following God and His will ? My point in bringing this up is that is seems like many of the anti-Weinlanders have a problem with Mr. Weinland giving them those warnings (and they also take those warnings as being mockery, but they don’t seem to know what the word even means because giving warnings to people is not mockery, and just merely talking about somebody and telling what they are doing is not mockery. Mockery is when you knowingly scoff at or make fun of them in a mean-spirited manner, and this kind of behavior shouldn’t be afforded to ANY human-being, including NONE of the false prophets in this World, especially if they claim to be leading a Christian way of living their life. My question for you Angel is would you be just as much condemning those very same warnings of death from whomever really truly is God’s prophets ? It’s like you’re saying that those warnings he has given them are inherrently wrong, even though the Bible very clearly talks about God and His prophets/witnessing taking care of those kinds of people in the same manners that they harm them in. It just seems like you might be upset that Mr. Weinland is still preaching and that those warnings are wrong since you don’t even believe he is God’s prophet in the very first place.
Aaron Robinson
Angel on 4/2/2010 @ 12:28 AM
Paragraph # 1:
I’m not at all excusing Mr. Weinland being a false prophet based upon teachings within the realm of traditional Christianity, and I never even implied that those 2 things were even connectedat all whatsoever. When I say bringing him down, I’m not referring to Mr. Weinland being under a death sentence if he is indeed a false prophet, but rather I’m saying that many of the anti-Weinland persons are seeming to be saying or doing anything that will bring down Mr. Weinland and either land him in jail or make him declare himself a false prophet, or just lace all of their disagreements with tons of mockery and ridicule that will not do too very much in bringing anybody away from the Church Of God – PKG, and regardless of how they might feel regarding Mr. Weinland’s death-threatening his mockers, if they are claiming to be good Christians, then why would they stoop so very low to speak how they speak ? Jesus Christ had righteous anger but he wasn’t all full of mockery ridicule at the people whom hated on him. He just spoke the truth as much as he possibly could and helped them as best as he could in understanding things, and even physical helping them if they were in peril.
Paragraph 2:
I’m not so much concerned about the Church Of God – PKG as I am just telling how I feel about what people say and how they say what they say. I’m complaining about the mockery because it is a senseless way to be speaking against somebody and does nothing to help mostly everybody whom is in this. But however, even though mocking is not right, I still do realize that this is what God’s Church has to go through because this is how so very much of this World treats God’s people, and so I know that it will be happening anyhow, but this doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t speak-out against this. Jesus Christ knew that he had to be mocked and ridiculed unto death, but yet he let them know how he felt about it and what would be happening to them as a result of their ways.
I very much agree with you that I should be holding Mr. Weinland to the very same standards as everybody else, but I honestly do not hear Mr. Weinland making fun of his mockers, unless of course you feel that telling them what will be happening for them as a result of their actions is considered mockery and ridicule. Telling them what they are doing without blatantly making fun of them is not mockery. People (anti-Weinlanders) whom dislike somebody (Mr. Weinland) for reasons other than mockery will often say that they are the ones whom are being mocked, but they feel they are being mocked whenever Mr. Weinland is addressing his mockers, without actual mockery actually being had. Giving warnings and ultimatums about their actions is not considered to be mockery. Now, if Mr. Weinland were to turn many things he says about his mockers into jokes and things to make fun of and scoff at, then he would indeed be mocking them, but he is not mocking them by the things which he is saying regarding them.
Aaron Robinson
muzicsoulworldly,
I agree that you need the Holy Spirit to help you understand scripture; I’ve said this in past posts so I thought that went without saying. I try not to repeat too much of what I’ve said before so as to avoid the “repetitive blather” Mike was referring to. BTW, he offered you some excellent advice. I’ve had to work on keeping my posts to a half-way decent length so I can relate to what he’s saying, and it actually takes more time and effort to say what I want to say with less words.
You remind me of a friend of mine, who uses a lot of words to say what most people could say with much less verbiage. She’s aware of this, because she’s been told and she’s watched people’s eyes glaze over as they lose focus, but it’s hard to change a lifetime habit. She’s doing better, though. I hope you take this constructively, because it will help you to communicate better; the fact is that a lot of people don’t have the patience to read thru an uninterrupted block of words. Not only that, but it’s difficult to go back thru it and pick out the stuff you want to respond to. “Talking” in print doesn’t really work that well; it may be easier for you if you don’t mind typing a lot, but it is difficult to read, and it can get repetitive, which is frustrating.
Think of it like this (I’m going to give you a “what if” here); what if you were sitting at a table and I came in and threw food all over it. Yes, it would be edible, but you’d probably like it better if I served it to you on a plate; preferably with the food in neat piles, not just haphazardly slung on top of each other so you have to dig thru to see what you’re eating. It’s worth the effort to make your posts attractive to the reader and easier to read.
I tried reading the Bible before I committed my life to Christ, so I know what you mean; although there were things I could understand, there were many more that I couldn’t. What I was trying to communicate before is that I don’t depend on other “people” or other “books” to understand the Bible.
I just want to respond to one more comment before I close this post:
“If it’s not difficult to misunderstand things the Bible says, then why is it that there are thousands of denominations of the Christian faith whom all differ from each other in some manner and most of which very very rarely ever change their beliefs due to revelation from God ?”
The fact that there are many denominations in the Christian faith that differ proves my point that it’s not difficult to misunderstand what the Bible says. Every church organization in existence broke off from another, i.e.; the person/group that started each one was originally part of another one and left it. There are about as many churches that teach something either slightly or majorly different as there are people who have slightly or majorly different opinions about scripture; do you see the connection?
Used to be that one group “controlled” (or tried to, anyway) the Christian faith, and it was either be part of them or you’re doomed. Now there’s not just one “controlling” group, but there are certainly churches out there that try to be that controlling; by saying you have to listen to their teacher, believe their doctrines, be baptized by their pastor, etc.
I’m glad to be living in this day and age; where I have the freedom to find a place that has good teaching, good fellowship, etc., and avoid the places that don’t. At the same time, I’m sad there are so many differences between believers.
muzicsoulwordly,
I completely understand how you feel about mockery, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I’ve been blogging for about 3 years now, give or take, and when I first started sharing my views I was SHOCKED at some of the rude, mocking, hostile responses I received. A lot more Weinland followers were posting back then, and there were other bloggers that had their own beliefs and were mocking Weinland AND anyone part of “traditional Christianity”.
I had no idea there were people who called themselves believers who would talk to each other that way, and I was thoroughly intimidated and humiliated at first.
But I toughed it out, and learned a lot from that experience.
Mike’s blog is mild compared to others I’ve participated in; I had to develop a thicker skin if I wanted to share my faith and views. I can’t control what other people do or say, so I just try to treat them the way I would like to be treated.
You’ve shared your thoughts about why you think Mike (and Kirrily) reacts the way he does to Weinland and HWA, let me share mine:
Mike, having experienced first-hand what it was like to be part of the COG (I don’t remember exactly which one), and seen how it affected himself and his family, doesn’t want others to be caught up in that deception.
Kirrily was drawn in by GFW2008; for a time she was spellbound, as so many others have been (and still are). When Mr. Weinland’s prophecies failed, she was devastated; she put her life (as in lifestyle, not safety) and marriage on the line to follow him, so she was bitterly disappointed and hurt. If you’ve never experienced that kind of pain and betrayal, you can’t understand what it was like for her.
To make light of their pain is a form of mockery, Aaron, because it’s like saying you don’t care or it doesn’t matter.
I’ve had people tell me of painful things they experienced at a church. I’ve been thru some tough times myself so I know it happens. I would never close my eyes to it or defend bad behavior in some kind of misguided effort to defend “the church”; that would be lying to myself as well as to others.
The church, after all, is a body of believers, and each one has to answer for itself because there are different people in each one and it wouldn’t be fair to lump them all together and say they should all be accountable for what happens in one particular group; although too often that is exactly what happens.
It saddens me when I hear that; I listen, try to comfort them, help them put it in perspective, and encourage them to seek God for emotional healing. I don’t diminish their feelings or get defensive; that would display a heartlessness and lack of compassion, and call into question my sincerity and integrity.
People who are taking the time to listen to Mr. Weinland’s sermons do this so they can accurately identify and address false teachings/prophecies. His followers used to challenge me by asking “have you listened to his sermons, read his books?” They felt that if I hadn’t done that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Mr. Weinland, on the other hand, complains about this, I believe, because they listen and read – but don’t believe him. So when it comes to him and his followers, you’re darned if you do, and darned if you don’t.
People like Mike (I think) feel a burden, a responsibility, to share what they know so that others can have the opportunity to check it out for themselves and hopefully avoid what he’s gone thru. You may not like the way he does it, but it works for some people and they’ve been helped.
Kirrily has a place where she can share her feelings and find compassion; her hurt and anger are expressed in the form of mockery, I believe, and over time she will work thru those issues and begin to trust her ability to discern truth from error.
Mike doesn’t “suffer” thru those sermons for fun, it’s hard work (I tried it so I know) he does it because he cares about others.
All is quiet on the Weinland Witness blogs. Time perhaps for some reflection to re-examine the basis of Mr Weinland’s end-time teachings.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
or Meditations on INTERPRETATION & AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
MEDITATION No. 1: ON THE BACKGROUND TO “GOD’S 7000 YEAR PLAN”
“God’s 7000 year plan”, as such, is not mentioned in the Bible, but was formulated by inference from 7-day-week typology by 2nd century Christians. The hopes of early Christians were, at first, dominated by the firm expectation of Christ’s imminent return. When that expectation was not fulfilled, most adjusted with remarkable ease to the notion of an indefinitely postponed Second Coming and others to the more finely tuned “God’s 7000 year plan”. Some thought that the 6-day working week and the Sabbath in Exodus 20:8-11 might represent symbolically a 6-thousand year period (mankind’s existence) and a further 1000 year period (millennial reign by Jesus Christ), respectively. The conceptual origins lie in Jewish Rabbinic Literature of traditional Judaism, e.g. in Sanhedrin 97 of the Talmud, Rabbi Kattina is quoted: “One thousand years out of seven shall be fallow”. Further concepts from Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8 and Revelation 20:6-7 complete the ingredients for the “plan”. The first instance in which a Christian writer indicates that the world as we know it would last 6000 years followed by a 1000 year reign of Christ is in the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas 15:1-8 (early 2nd century AD).
MEDITATION No. 2: ON MR WEINLAND & THE ACHAEOLOGISTS
(a) The essential presupposition on which “God’s 7000 year plan” relies is that current mankind has existed on earth for no longer than 6000 years. That “6000 year” presupposition is so dominant and so all-pervading in Mr Weinland’s end-time thinking that he returns to it repeatedly and emphatically as a constant underlying theme more than 40 times in his book “2008 God’s Final Witness” (pages 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 112, 129, 133, 139, 143, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 178, 179, 180, 224, & 244). The “6000 years” presupposition is derived from taking as historical fact a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Genesis creation stories of Adam and Eve and Biblical genealogies. In Mr Weinland’s view, the “plan” indicates that God has now allowed mankind 6000 years of inept, bloodstained, and disastrous self-rule, therefore the return of Jesus Christ to establish a peaceful millennial rule on earth is imminent.
(b) The unanimous and universally accepted finding of mainstream archaeologists is that we, current mankind (the sub-species Homo sapiens), are directly descended from our behaviourally modern Homo sapiens ancestors who lived at least 40,000 years ago. This is undisputed in mainstream science and archaeology. It’s based on a unanimous INTERPRETATION of archaeological evidence of Homo sapiens found world-wide in reliably dated time periods going back tens of thousands of years. Archaeologists are not merely saying that other now-extinct types of non-humans (e.g. Neanderthal man) who were not our ancestors once lived prior to 4000 BC, but that we are direct descendants of Homo sapiens ancestors who lived at least 40,000 years ago.
On page 27 of his book “2008GFW”, Mr Weinland says, “Lying is the outcome of people being right in their own eyes and stubbornly holding to their own viewpoint, regardless of evidence to the contrary”. Even though he repeatedly stresses his “6000 years existence of mankind” viewpoint more than 40 times in his book, Mr Weinland never acknowledges the existence of the well-known scientific “evidence to the contrary”. It’s never raised or discussed. The problem with investigating prehistory solely by consulting scripture is that it ignores the wealth of available material evidence, and bypasses the stringent checks and balances of the scientific method. The result will be a THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION of historical scripture, but not a SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION of the pre-historical evidence.
However, as the online article at
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p87.htm entitled “Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record” points out: “The God of the Bible is also the God of nature. We need to embrace a worldview that remains true, both to responsible interpretations of the Bible and also to our present scientific knowledge of the world”. The article goes on to say, ”The fossil record gives no indication that humans appeared suddenly. Rather it suggests continuity between pre-human and human physical forms. This evidence suggests a strong, unbroken sequence of forms from Ardipithecus to Australopithecus to Homo sapiens. Although it cannot be proven, the simplest conclusion is that the later forms were descended from the earlier ones”. However, what can and has been proven, and what is undisputed in mainstream science and archaeology and accepted by a majority of Christians, is that behaviourally modern Homo sapiens appeared about 40,000 years ago and that we are their direct descendants.
If the Biblical story as seen by Mr Weinland contradicts that, maybe it’s because he is INTERPRETING scripture in a way that’s inconsistent with the God of nature. Most mainstream Biblical scholars conclude that the Genesis accounts of the creation of the world have their background in ancient Near Eastern mythology, and should not be INTERPRETED as providing a scientific account of the origin of the universe. For instance, according to Professor J.R. Porter (Emeritus Professor of Theology, University of Exeter, UK) such accounts are religious, not scientific, statements which are designed to show God’s glory and greatness, the result of theological reflection by which the older mythology was radically transformed to express Israel’s distinctive faith (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, New York/Oxford, OUP, 1993, p.140).
MEDITATION No. 3: ON KEEPING PACE
“God’s 7000 Year Plan” was formulated in the 2nd century at a time when all Christians believed, according to THEIR LITERAL INTERPRETATION of scripture, that the Bible taught that our entire universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were literally created by God around 4000 BC. This is no longer a majority Christian belief. Mr Weinland himself, for example, accepts (a) that the earth is millions of years old, and (b) that forms of life existed on earth prior to 4000 BC (pp.150-152, 2008GFW). Had he been an early Christian living in a pre-scientific age, he most certainly would not have held those beliefs. These are but two examples of how RE-INTERPRETATION of scripture is required to keep pace with universally accepted mainstream scientific and archaeological discoveries.
However, having accepted archaeologists’ above findings, Mr Weinland then labels as “sick” anyone who might teach that mankind has existed on earth for at least 40,000 years, or, as he puts it, “doesn’t accept the story of Adam and Eve as part of his history” (p.55, 2008GFW). Why does he accept the former archaeological findings but reject the latter? Because it challenges HIS INTERPRETATION of scripture. If mankind’s origins can be traced back more than 40,000 years, then it’s certainly not the case that “God’s purpose from the outset, before He ever placed man on earth, was to give him 6000 years of self-rule”, as Mr Weinland claims (2008GFW, p.72). If the archaeologists are right, “God’s 7000 year plan” instantly self-destructs because it never existed in the first place. Rejecting scientific findings on the basis of lack of evidence or faulty analysis of data is fair enough, but Mr Weinland never explores that. Rejecting a scientific finding on the basis that it challenges one’s INTERPRETATION of scripture is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist Christianity. For example, based on his astronomical observations in the 17th century, Galileo taught the heliocentric view that the sun, not the earth, was at the centre of our universe (i.e. that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth), thus challenging the then current Christian INTERPRETATION of scripture. In 1616, the then-fundamentalist Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture”, and later convicted Galileo of heresy. Lesson learned: The problem wasn’t Galileo, or scripture, or science – the problem was ILL-INFORMED INTERPRETATION of scripture, an important distinction.
The above three examples – the age of the earth, life forms prior to 4000 BC, and heliocentrism – illustrate how RE-INTERPRETATION of scripture is required to keep pace with scientific and archaeological discoveries. Science, by its very nature, is always open to RE-INTERPRETATION of the evidence, and subsequent fine-tuning of its findings. That’s a given, and that’s how advances in knowledge occur. But any fine-tuning of modern major scientific findings which have long enjoyed universal support, such as the age of the earth, life-forms before 4000 BC, heliocentrism, and mankind’s descent from ancestors who lived 40,000 years ago, is unlikely to displace the central tenets of those findings.
Science is not the only field of human endeavour which drives changes and revisions in INTERPRETATION of scripture. More enlightened social attitudes also lead to such changes. For example, in 19th century America, many fundamentalist churches vigorously quoted scriptural passages to justify retention of slavery. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a sincere apology for its past policies on race, slavery, and segregation which their members had previously justified by THEIR INTERPRETATION of scripture. They had formerly taught that because God’s laws (e.g. Exodus 21:1-11,20,26,32, Leviticus 25:39-46, Ephesians 6:5-8, Titus 2:9, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, & 1 Peter 2:18) so clearly endorse the institution of slavery, then slavery must also be legitimate for modern Christians – “Slavery is of God!” cried the anti-abolitionist preachers. (Whether the Bible actually endorses slavery as it existed in the 18th and 19th centuries is another question, but the point is that that was THEIR INTERPRETATION.) These four examples – the age of the earth, life-forms before 4000 BC, heliocentrism, and the question of slavery – all make the point that INTERPRETATION of scripture needs to change to keep pace with scientific discoveries and more enlightened social attitudes.
Mr Weinland presumably accepts the necessity to revise EARLIER CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE to keep pace with those abovementioned four examples. However, his LITERAL INTERPRETATION of Genesis in relation to mankind’s time on earth has failed to keep pace with one of the most important scientific discoveries of modern times. Mr Weinland never acknowledges this in his writings. As far as I can tell, the point has never been raised for discussion in these blogs either, almost as if readers are trying to ignore the well-known and all-too-obvious inconvenient truth or “elephant in the room”. There is an excellent online article at http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?446 entitled “Science and Religion: Handling Conflicts” which I think is a thoughtful and balanced approach to the “elephant” problem.
Those who use “God’s 7000 year plan” to indicate the timing of the return of Jesus Christ must surely know that it’s a plan based on the demonstrably false assumption that mankind has lived on earth for no longer than 6000 years, that it’s not explicitly taught in scripture, and that it’s constructed by man not by God. Some might say that the “plan” comes to them by divine revelation, but that doesn’t negate the fact that ultimately it’s based on a fiction. Suppose someone INTERPRETED SCRIPTURE to say that the sun revolves around the earth (it’s been done before as we’ve seen!). Suppose he based his key theological position on that assumption. Suppose that basic assumption was so important and so integral to his teaching it became a pervasive concept permeating his explanatory book to the extent of being emphasised more than 40 times. Suppose he labelled as “sick” those who refused to believe that God caused the sun to revolve around the earth. Suppose he knew that mainstream science said that his basic assumption was a fiction in that the scientific evidence showed it was the earth which moved around the sun. Suppose he just completely ignored that evidence and that objection, and in his book went on to develop complex theologies as if the fictional assumption were true. How much credibility would you assign to such a person? Would not all of this, based on his faulty INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE and his unwillingness to come to terms with reality, cast doubt on his ability to properly discern and assess material relating to his key teachings? Mr Weinland’s situation precisely parallels this scenario.
My INTERPRETATION of scripture tells me that none of the dramatic end-time events of great global importance as predicted by Mr Weinland will happen, and that consequently there are going to be very many more disappointed and disillusioned people over the next two years leading up to 27 May 2012. It’s likely that Mr Weinland will be obliged to produce yet more “divine revelations” to explain why God has delayed or cancelled the predicted complete collapse of the US, UK, Canada, Australia & NZ, and why God has delayed or cancelled the predicted outbreak of World War III between a coalition of Chinese-Russian led “Asiatic” forces and German-led United States of Europe forces, and finally to explain why God has delayed the return of Jesus Christ as predicted by Mr Weinland.
I note that he has already taken the wise precaution of alerting his followers to expect even more delays and changes to his revised end-time scenario. In his website posting of 24 December 2009 under “Final Fulfillment” he looks to the future and says: “God alone is responsible for the revelation of Christ’s return and the timing involved. If God changes or in any fashion alters the timing involved, then He will reveal it through His prophet. God has also altered the timing for massive destruction to begin. God can do that whenever He chooses. He is God!”
According to Mr Weinland, eighteen months of the three and one-half years period of tribulation have now elapsed. On the 27th of May 2010 it’s exactly two years to the return of Jesus Christ as predicted by Mr Weinland. Time will tell whose INTERPRETATION of scripture was soundly based.
Don D
Mal and Angle.How are we? I am well.I pray you both had productive Passover,Day’s Of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost.We live in exciting times.God is shaping Europe so all that is prophesied will come to pass as written. What is Sin (1 John 3:4) The universal message from pulpits falsely tells people Christ abolished His Father’s law—but the Bible states otherwise. No one can be born into God’s kingdom unless he completely submits to God’s authority.
Muzicsoulworldly,
On 15 January 2010 you said, referring to Mr Weinland’s “original” Seventh Seal time-frame, that: “Mr Weinland was basing his beliefs ONLY upon what his beliefs already were, and he did not once stray away from that before God gave him revelation as to the true timing for the return of Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost”.
I want to make sure that I am understanding you properly on this point. So may I ask you the following question?
Are you saying that Mr Weinland did not speak presumptuously and should not be deemed a false prophet, because his belief in his “original” time-frame was derived ONLY from what “God’s Church” had long believed at the time, and was NOT derived from specific revelations given to him by God prior to the “50th Truth”?
Just a simple brief response would be much appreciated, thank you.
Don D
Roger,
Your message just popped up in my email. I am well, thank you.
As Christians we should all be concerned with sin – Jesus died in our place to pay for our sins. The message that is preached from many pulpits is that the death of Jesus wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, and that Jesus said unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
The law condemns us; this is not good news! The good news of the gospel is that we are saved by grace thru faith, not of ourselves, not of works – it is the gift of God. This is the message being preached in most churches today.
Just testing to see it this site is still “alive”!
Is there anyone overseeing this website now?
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
For those who still think that Ron Weinland may be God’s end-time prophet receiving divine revelation, here is an overview and analysis of his most pertinent claims both before and after the “50th Truth” of mid-2008.
* Mr Weinland claimed on page 72 of his book “2008 – God’s Final Witness” (2008GFW) that “God’s 7000 Year Plan” indicates that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. This “plan” relies on Mr Weinland’s theologically fundamentalist presupposition that current mankind, “homo sapiens”, has lived on earth for only 6000 years. The vast amount of prehistoric evidence collected by scientists and archaeologists demonstrates conclusively that homo sapiens has existed continuously for at least 40,000 years. There could NEVER have been a “7000 Year Plan” as envisaged by Mr Weinland.
* Mr Weinland’s original claim was that at “the most momentous time in all human history” God had chosen Mr Weinland as his end-time prophet, and that in “the ultimate revelation of 6,000 years” God spent seven years revealing to him details of end-time truth from the Books of Daniel and Revelation. Soon after Mr Weinland delivered “the words of God and what He is about to do” – in short, that end-time tribulation would begin with the opening of the seventh seal on 18 March 2008 and conclude with the return of Jesus Christ on 29 September 2011 – the world would realise the truth of those claims.
* However, despite his claim to have received this time-frame by divine revelation, by his own admission Mr Weinland got his entire original time-frame for the return of Jesus Christ wrong. How did Mr Weinland reconcile this with his earlier claim that God had spent seven years revealing to him the very details of that end-time scenario?
* His first “explanation” for getting things wrong amounted to a repudiation of that claim to divine revelation. He said that his original time-frame was, after all, only based on what his Church of God–PKG had, mistakenly, believed. He said that God’s “actual time-frame” was not delivered to him until around July 2008 in the “50th Truth” – some months after 18 March 2008. The immediately obvious problem with this childish explanation is that it was Mr Weinland himself who’d taught these “mistaken” beliefs to his church in the first place – the same beliefs which he’d claimed had come to him from God by divine revelation. This simply reinforces the conclusion that he had NEVER RECEIVED divine revelation – his original “ultimate revelation of 6,000 years” was pure delusion.
* Mr Weinland’s second “explanation” effectively blames God. He said that he got things wrong because God ALTERED THE TIMING for the start of Great Tribulation (without informing Mr Weinland at the time). In other words, if God HADN’T ALTERED the timing, Ron Weinland would have got the timings right. This necessarily means that God must have delivered an EARLIER time-frame and ALTERED THAT without telling Mr Weinland – for even God cannot “alter” something which does not already exist. The obvious problem with this is that it contradicts his first explanation that God had had only one time-frame – the ACTUAL one (to quote his term) – which was delivered around July 2008.
* The second problem with this explanation is that it’s inconsistent with what he’d said on page 24 of 2008GFW: “You can be certain of one thing, ‘The Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets’ (Amos 3:7)”. Similarly, it’s inconsistent with his online posting of 24 Dec 2009: “If God changes or in any fashion alters the timing involved, then He will reveal it through His prophet”. In this particular instance, God obviously left it too late to reveal the change to Mr Weinland.
* The third problem with this explanation is that if God is truly omniscient (i.e. knows everything including the future) it means that when God originally “revealed” to Mr Weinland that catastrophic destruction would begin on 18 March 2008, God would have known at the time that this would NOT happen. This means that either God deceived his own end-time prophet or that God is not omniscient after all, or (which is more likely) that Mr Weinland’s claim to have received divine revelation was delusionary.
* The fourth problem with this explanation is that in ‘2008GFW’ Mr Weinland had said that “God had a SET TIME for His plan” which was “PREDETERMINED” (pp. 52 & 147), and that this predetermined set plan was (as revealed to him the Book of Revelation) that catastrophic destruction would begin with the opening of the seventh seal. Would God really change this biblically revealed “set time” for his “predetermined plan”? Yes, says Mr Weinland in his online posting of 24 December 2009: “God has CHANGED THE TIMING for the start of massive destruction. God can do that whenever He chooses. He is God!” If Mr Weinland is correct, it means that biblical foreshadowing of future events can no longer be considered reliable for they are now subject to change by God without notice. But on page 13 of “2008 GFW” Mr Weinland had written that that the two end-time witnesses “will give testimony of the validity of God’s word that is to be revealed to man over the next few years”. However, if God changed the timing of the onset of great destruction so that what was envisioned in the Book of Revelation as a “predetermined plan with a set time” did NOT take place, then instead of demonstrating “the VALIDITY of God’s word”, that plainly demonstrates the INVALIDITY of God’s word!
* Despite his claim to have been the recipient of divine revelation, Mr Weinland had NOT KNOWN “what God was about to do” when he boasted that God, to prove that Mr Weinland was God’s end-time witness and spokesman, would bring to pass all of Mr Weinland’s end-time predictions “exactly as I have described”. In the event, God failed to do this, thus proving, by Mr Weinland’s own account, that he was NOT God’s end-time witness and spokesman. Mr Weinland failed his OWN TEST of who he claimed to be.
* Mr Weinland had claimed that those in the “scattered churches” who disbelieved his claim that catastrophic destruction would begin with the opening of the Seventh Seal on 18 March 2008, would, as a result of their unbelief, die in that destruction. Although Mr Weinland had claimed that “his words” were “God’s truth”, as it turned out the ‘scattered churches’ were proved to be RIGHT, and he was proved to be WRONG. Incredibly enough, despite that debacle he continues to issue warnings of death to those in the “scattered Churches” who refuse to take seriously “what God is now revealing to me” (See his online posting of 15 January 2010 headed “Finding Fault”; “The Prophesied End Time” pp.45-46; “2008GFW” pp. 57-61, 84, 89, 90, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 114, 126, 131, 173 & 174; “Time Has Run Out” at http://www.cog-pkg.org/publications/ pp.30-32; “News Watch for the Church of God” at http://www.cog-pkg.org/publications/nw.aspx – click on “4th Quarter” of News Watch Archive, 2002, pp.1-2).
* Mr Weinland’s obsession with controlling, punishing and/or liquidating those who challenge his teaching is reminiscent of the mindset which drove the Catholic Church’s Holy Inquisition in its darkest days or which informed the ruthless tyranny of Stalin in the Soviet Union. As it was with the Catholic Church and Stalin, Ron Weinland simply cannot abide dissent. If people refuse to conform, to HIS fundamentalist interpretation of scripture (which he equates with God’s truth), they deserve to be punished and/or liquidated so that uniform belief and behaviour as decreed by him may reign unchallenged. This chilling obsession permeates his writings. On page 89 of ‘2008GFW’, obsession descends into seriously disturbing depths of psychological terror as he eagerly looks forward to the time when he and his wife (the “two end-time witnesses”) will, sometime in the 17 months remaining until 27 May 2012, commit serious criminal acts of terrorism by performing “devastating destruction as often as they choose” (Mr Weinland’s emphasis), and by calling “all manner of plagues upon any part of the earth as often as they choose”. I note that under the USA Patriot Act of 2006 planning such terrorist attacks is classed as serious crimes carrying penalties ranging from 20 years to life imprisonment. In a nutshell, the Weinland gospel of intimidation and terror can be summarised thus: “If you stubbornly refuse to believe what I teach, you are opposing God who will authorise and empower me to punish you with suffering and/or death”. Mr Weinland thus joins the long list of psychologically disturbed people who throughout history have fallen prey to the fantasy that they have heard the voice of God urging them to commit crimes against humanity for their own good and in the name of God. This will prove how wrong their enemies are. Sadly, some people have taken this man seriously. Happily, Mr Weinland’s conviction that God will empower him to play the role of God’s Holy Terrorist simply signifies his ongoing state of serious delusion.
* Having got his original time-frame wrong, Mr Weinland then claimed to have received further divine revelation from God for his revised time-frame. But his REVISED TIME-FRAME is increasingly in tatters as well. In his “50th Truth” revelation he claimed that predicted events would still happen, but just “A FEW MONTHS LATER than the previously expected timing”. However, as at December 2010, it is now TWO YEARS AND NINE MONTHS LATER than his “previously expected timing” of March 2008 for the start of “catastrophic destruction”. Furthermore, on page 244 of 2008GFW Mr Weinland had predicted that within twelve months (at the latest) after the fall of 2008, the United States would no longer exist as an independent nation. At the end of December 2010, it is TWELVE MONTHS LATER than his “previously expected” deadline of end-of-2009 for the total collapse of the US.
His explanation for getting his “divinely revealed” revised set of predictions wrong is that GOD HAS GIVEN HIM EVEN MORE DIVINE REVELATION (!) to the effect that God is “holding back” the destruction in response to intercessions by COG-PKG (see his online posting of 5 August 2010, “THE FEAST & NEW TRUTHS”). This is nothing more than dishonest Weinland propaganda. Mal, in his Weinland Witness posting of 5 January 2010 said: “PKG adherents say that God, in His mercy, has responded to the prayer and fasting undertaken last January by Weinland’s church and delayed these events in order to shorten mankind’s suffering. I have just gone back and listened to the whole two hour sermon from the time of the fast (sermon entitled ‘A Great Fast’, dated January 31st 2009). Nowhere in that sermon did I hear any mention whatsoever of the church petitioning God for a delay in end time tribulation events in order to shorten the period of suffering. In fact, the opposite is true. Ronald Weinland, in that sermon, directs his church members to pray that God humbles mankind into repentance by bringing to pass all the events listed as ‘thunders’ in his book, i.e. increased world conflict, destruction by weather, massive earthquakes, crashing economy, death from plagues etc. So that the idea that the predicted events in the book have not occurred due to God hearing the prayers and petitions of Mr Weinland’s church does not appear to make sense”.
The sad truth is that Ron Weinland has tried to fabricate his church’s recent history in order to convey the false impression that the continuing lack of catastrophic destruction reflects God’s response to his church’s prayers and petitions rather than Mr Weinland’s miscalculations.
* Despite Mr Weinland’s claims to have received, firstly, seven years of revelation from God on “the meaning and timing of end-time events”, and, secondly, to have received revelation from God in the “50th Truth” of 2008, no evidence in support of these claims has emerged. As documented above, he repeatedly has NO INKLING of “what God is about to do”, despite his numerous and ongoing assertions that he is the recipient of divine revelation. All the evidence indicates that his claims about receiving divine revelation as God’s end-time prophet are no more than serious long-term delusion.
* Nonetheless, Mr Weinland is still attracting attention by what is perceived (as Mal points out in his posting of 5 January 2010 in the Weinland Witness blog) to be: “a significant fit of numbers ‘God has revealed to him’ linking end time Scriptures from Daniel and Revelation with God’s Festivals which on the face of it would be quite something to occur by chance. This is summarised very well in the timeline chart available on the Church of God PKG website (Go to ‘Publications’ and ‘The 50 Truths of God’). It cannot be ruled out that this, along with the ‘50 Truths’, is indeed the evidence God has provided which rubber stamps Mr Weinland as His end-time prophet”.
However, we should bear in mind that almost all generations from the first century onwards have shared Mr Weinland’s belief that the prophecies in the Books of Daniel and Revelation “pertain to our time now” (as he puts it on page 13, ‘2008GFW’), and have expected Christ’s imminent return in their own time. An inscription found in a crypt near Poitiers dated around AD 670 reads: “Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. For all things become every day worse and worse, for the end is drawing near”. Most generations have produced “biblical experts” who see in scripture many a significant ‘fit of numbers’ which relates so closely to specific events and deteriorating conditions in their own era that an end-time connection appears to be beyond all chance. All such calculations and consequent predictions have two characteristics in common: 1) they were all derived from intensive and prayerful study of the Bible over periods of many years using a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, and 2) despite their claims for a detailed insight into scripture far deeper than all others, their predictions have had a failure rate of 100%. However, the above does demonstrate one thing – that scripture is so resplendent with numerological data of various kinds that with a judicious selection of combinations of data or “fit of numbers”, one can, with a bit of sustained effort, produce apparently meaningful and convincing “proof” for virtually ANY OUTCOME one might care to nominate. My critics will assure me that inevitably one of these predictions will, one day, have to be right. My interpretation of scripture does not give me that assurance.
* Not one date-specific event that ‘God’s end-time prophet’ predicted has so far happened, and Mr Weinland can give us no indication of when any catastrophically destructive end-time events might BEGIN. But he’s emphatic that he knows (see “Topics” in the CoG web site under the heading of “Conspiracy Theories”) when they will FINISH:
“The government of God is coming to this earth on May 27, 2012. Nothing and no one can stop this from taking place!”
However, on 17 May 2008 I downloaded the following equally emphatic claim in exactly the same online place:
“The government of God is coming to this earth on September 29, 2011. Nothing and no one can stop this from taking place!”
As I’ve demonstrated above, Mr Weinland has perfected the art of making repeated emphatic claims which come to nothing. Time will tell how reliable is his emphatic claim for May 27, 2012.
* Two years and one month of the revised three and a half year period of Great Tribulation have already elapsed. As at 27 December 2010 there are exactly seventeen months left to the return of Jesus Christ on 27 May 2012, as ‘revealed’ by God to Mr Weinland in the Second Time-Frame for the Great Tribulation. If he is to be believed, in those next 17 months the US, Canada, UK, Australia and NZ will have totally collapsed, and Word War Three between a China/Russia led coalition of “Asiatics” and a German-led United States of Europe will have been waged. As detailed above, not one of Mr Weinland’s date-specific predictions before or after the “50th Truth” has so far come to pass. I predict that sooner or later he will be obliged to announce yet more “revelations” in which he will celebrate receiving yet more ”New Truths” to further explain the continuing lack of “catastrophic destruction” in the Great Tribulation. Right now, his credibility rating is ZERO, and no amount of classic Weinland sophistry can alter that fact.
* Mr Weinland refuses to allow his past mistakes and failures to modify his behaviour. He is still using the same old arrogant language, still equating HIS teaching with GOD’S TRUTH, still castigating and threatening death to those who dare to disagree with his interpretations of scripture, still claiming he is God’s end-time witness and prophet, and still, contrary to all the proof presented above, claiming to be the recipient of divine revelation from God. He has never acknowledged the contradictory nature of his two “explanations” for getting his original time-frame wrong, nor the problems inherent in each (perhaps he’s completely unaware of these things). He has never candidly acknowledged his 1) proven miscalculations, 2) proven contradictions in his “explanations” for getting his original time-frame wrong, 3) proven misinterpretations of scripture, 4) proven wrong predictions, 5) proven delusions about receiving divine revelation, 6) proven fabrication of his church’s history to try to explain the continuing delay to the start of catastrophic destruction, and, above all, 7) his proven outright failure to pass his own self-imposed test designed to prove that he was God’s end-time prophet receiving revelation from God. People who dare to point out these SEVEN TRUTHS (blindingly obvious to those who open their eyes) are indiscriminately labelled “mockers and scoffers”. However, the emperor’s clothes are wearing ever thinner!
* To take his current claims seriously, one has to do what Mr Weinland does, and that is TO COMPLETELY IGNORE all of his now-discredited claims before and after the “50th Truth”, and to pretend that those discredited claims have no material bearing on how we assess the credibility of his continuing claim to be God’s end-time witness and prophet.
When William Miller (Ron Weinland’s spiritual ancestor, and founder of the Adventist movement in North America) experienced the disappointment of the failure of Jesus Christ to return on April 18 1844, he wrote, “I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment; yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near, even at the door”. In the days following May 27 2012 Mr Weinland may well write something similar, although I seriously doubt that he would ever contemplate using the opening four words.
Don D.
As at 26 January 2011 this site seems to have been abandoned. Not altogether surprising. I note that Ronald Weinland himself has said nothing online in his own website for almost six months.
Isn’t it wonderful that even those who don’t understand the testimony of Jesus Christ will still be saved?
And what is it we will be saved from? Eternal death. Plain and simple.
Don D. on 1/26/2011 @ 1:48 AM
Mr. Weinland hasn’t updated his personal blogg, but the Church’s web-site has been updated to reflect 57 Truths, and adding a booklet complimenting Mr. Armstrong’s “Mystery Of The Ages”. There are things said in various sermons but if you don’t listen to them, and are relying on just only his blogg, then you aren’t going to know what he’s thinking or feeling or saying, which he expresses in his sermons.
Aaron
I’m not sure whether or not Citizen X still checks this blogg, and I’ve been a co-contributer for a little over a year now, although I haven’t really checked it since like the Spring – Summer 2010, but I will try looking at it more though.
Aaron
Don D. on 6/6/2010 @ 9:32 PM
I apologize for this late response Don, I haven’t been checking this site for quite a long while. The simplest way to put this is that Mr. Weinland was given the year 2008 by God to be part of the title for his 2nd book, for a purpose. The year of 2008 was to be the focal-point of the count-downs, as well as the final year of mankind’s 6,000 witness before the 7 Trumpets would begin sounding. Mr. Weinland used this year of 2008, and his knowledge of the final 3.5 years, and the Church’s belief that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, and he used all of this to come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ would be returning on the Feast Of Trumpets, Thursday, September 29th, 2011 (wouldn’t it uncanny if the 2nd Trumpet ended up blowing on 9/29/2011, lol ?
You were asking if Mr. Weinland was not deriving his first time-frame from specific revelations given to him by God prior to the 50th Truth. The year of 2008 was a very big revelation he was given because it was going to be connected to the rest of the time-line, which Mr. Weinland originally got wrong but was only because God had not yet revealed the timing for the returning of Jesus Christ. This was one area that God’s Church had to be corrected in, just like the Church has been corrected throughout history, especially the times noted in the Bible when the Church wasn’t preaching something correctly, or the members doing other things that went against the true teachings. God has very often not given correction immediately upon the wrong action (not wrong meaning sin, but just not being in the full truth). God waits to give correction in his own due time, when it would benefit God’s Church the very most, to learn various lessons. God chose not to reveal the timing for the return of Jesus Christ until Mr. Weinland had already gave his first time-line. If I knew everything that Mr. Weinland and God’s Church had known and believed, and I was given 2008 as the year to connect everything with the 1,335-1,290-1,260 Days and Jesus Christ returning on the the Feast Of Trumpets, then I would have given the same time-line that Mr. Weinland gave. Why would God be faulting Mr. Weinland for giving a time-line that was based upon long-held belief in God’s Church if God chose not to correct their belief in Christ returning on Trumpets ? God judges His people based upon only what was given to them, and if correction has not been given for a wrong teaching, God wouldn’t fault His servant for giving what he believed was the true time-line, especially since he derived it from their long-held belief of Trumpets.
In short, the year 2008 was the key (as the starting point), but God hadn’t yet given the other key for the ending point. The letter John wrote to the Church in Laodicea was about God cutting off God’s people from Himself due to ALL of them spiritually falling-asleep, and before this era even began, this Trumpets belief was already being taught because they had believed that it was true, but God never intended to correct them on this point until later, and for very good reason because otherwise Satan would have the upper-hand of knowing even more in advance for when his reign would be ending, and he would use this against the Church, and plus, God’s revelation to His Church is progressive, because if God’s people had all of every truth right from the very beginning, then the Church would have stagnated in their growth because there wouldn’t be anything else to learn for the 2,000 years.
But I will hold to what I’ve been saying all along, which is that I will 100% declare that Mr. Weinland is unequivocally a false-prophet if the 2nd Trumpet does not blow in the year 2011, so we don’t even have to wait until the mid-2012, and quite frankly I personally believe that the economy will be crumbling between now and the next 7 months, because the 6th Trumpet could blow as late as April 2012, and backing off 5 months from this would bring us to November 2011 as the latest for the 5th Trumpet, so the latest the 2nd Trumpet would blow would be November 2011, although if the 5th Trumpet blows in November 2011 then the 2nd Trumpet would more likely be at least the month before, cause the 2nd & 3rd Trumpets could be just days apart, and then the 4th Trumpet is simply the effects from those Trumpets. So October 2011could be the latest for the 2nd Trumpet (possible after the Feast Of Tabernacles), in which case the economy (not only through the 4th Thunder but also through the 1st Trumpet) will be much much worse before October 2011, and it could take a plunge at any given time from now, anything could set it off, probably dealing with nations choosing other currencies over the Dollar.
Aaron
To answer your question much more in-short, Mr. Weinland’s time-frame was derived from at least one specific revelation given by God, that being regarding the year 2008 as being a major focal-point, the year of final witness. So no, I’m not saying that there wasn’t any revelation before the 50th Truth, but just as how God has always worked, God only revealed one of the keys for the time-line, the other key was to be given later, and when God gives something that is to be expounded upon later, he doesn’t tell them that there is more coming (like something that would make a conceived time-line be somewhat altered in order to agree with what is being given).
The other thing that God’s people had long believed was that the great physical tribulation would begin from the very out-set of the opening of the 7th Seal, which I’m surmising is why he wrote in his 2nd book that the United States will have collapsed by the Fall of 2008 up to 6 months after that time. What I find fascinating is how I never even knew until like mid-2010 that Mr. Weinland had said (sometime before the 50th Truth) that there was a 6 – 9 month period for something that was not yet known, but that it had to do with the timing. The 8 months difference from April – December 2008 was pretty much clear that this was that 6 – 9 month period, because the time-line shifted upon the revelation of the 50th Truth (the time-line was always the same in reality, but was just not fully revealed until the 50th Truth). This would explain why Mr. Weinland gave what he truly believed was the time-line, but it turned out that he didn’t have it fully correct because the full revelation was not yet given, but the 2008 connection was given, and he derived his 1st time-line by using what both he and God’s Church believed for such a long time. Had Mr. Weinland NOT given this time-line, or based it upon something other than than Jesus Christ returning on Trumpets, then he would have been presumptuous by not using what the Church believed, even though the Trumpets teaching was not correct, but it was believed by the Church throughout generations and so this was used to formulate his 1st time-line.
Everything is set in stone now though, and so if nothing happens before 2011 is finished, then Mr. Weinland is indeed a false prophet and will pay a very heavy price for this. If the full revelation of the time-line has now been given, then it cannot be changed once again, and if that date of Pentecost 2012 should ever change before it comes, then I would 100% declare him a false-prophet, even if he spoke this today that Pentecost 2012 is not correct due to further revelation. The correction came once, so shouldn’t we at least give him the benefit of the doubt since God does give correction to His Church ?
Aaron
Muzicsoulworldly,
Thanks for your response to my postings. You say that I ought to acquaint myself with what Ron Weinland is saying now. You miss my point which was that it doesn’t matter what Ron Weinland is saying NOW, because nothing he says now can possibly change or negate the proof that by his own standard of tests he was long ago proven to be false.
You go on to make two points:
1) Concerning divine revelation given to Mr Weinland prior to the “50th Truth”, you say that: “Mr. Weinland’s time-frame was derived from at least one specific revelation given by God, that being regarding the year 2008 as being a major focal-point, the year of final witness”.
2) You then echo one of Mr Weinland’s own excuses for getting his timings wrong. You say that his original prediction that one-third of the US would be destroyed when the Seventh Seal was opened was based simply on what the members of his Church had mistakenly believed for some time prior to the “50th Truth”. That being so, you say, Mr Weinland can’t then be blamed for basing his incorrect original time-frame on that mistaken belief.
But Mr Weinland is dishonestly re-writing his own history. When he originally predicted that one-third of the US would be destroyed at the opening of the Seventh Seal, he claimed emphatically that this information CAME FROM GOD BY REVELATION. Don’t forget that his claim that God had revealed to him, as God’s end-time Witness, details and timings of end-time events was the central theme in his book “2008 God’s Final Witness”.
Here’s chapter and verse for the whole picture. On pp. 173 & 57of “2008 GFW” he says: “God has given me the words in this book. That which I am telling you is not of me; it is from the God of Abraham – the Almighty God of the Universe”. (That is, he claims that his book is the divinely inspired Word of God.) On p.51 he says: “God is about to prove that this book is telling the truth!” and on p.111 he says: “The question about how God has revealed His truth to me is a fair one. The answer that I am who I say I am will be given by the events described in both books coming true exactly as I have described. This will be the proof that I am God’s end-time witness and spokesman”.
On pages 4 & 114 he describes those events and when they will begin: “The final stage is referred to as the Great Tribulation which is prophesied to last for a final three and one-half years. It will begin with one-third of the United States being destroyed…when the Seventh Seal is opened”. For those who might be skeptical about such a prediction, he boasts on page 24: “God is going to begin removing the skepticism of the world, especially once the Seventh Seal is opened”. In other words, it is God who is going to use the one-third destruction of the US as the very “event” which will silence Mr Weinland’s skeptical critics and prove that he is who he says he is! Note that the basis for making that prediction was REVELATION FROM GOD.
And on page 24 he confirms how he knows what date that will be:”God has given to Jesus Christ the timing for the seals to be opened, and Jesus Christ, in turn, has given the timing to me”. That’s a very unequivocal claim.
So that when, in his subsequent writings and sermons, he announces to the world that the Seventh Seal would be opened on March 18, 2008 accompanied by one-third destruction of the US, all of this, according to Mr Weinland, has come to him by revelation from God.
To sum up: If end-time events happened exactly as Mr Weinland described – in particular the destruction of one-third of the US when the Seventh Seal was opened, as revealed to him by God – it would PROVE that his book was the truth; it would PROVE that he had been receiving revelation from God; and it would PROVE that he was God’s end-time Witness.
But he also said that if those events did NOT happen exactly as he’d predicted it would prove the contrary: “If nothing happens, then you can know positively that this is complete fiction” (p.8, “2008 GFW”).
THAT was the acid test he set for himself in “2008 GFW”.
As we all know, March 18, 2008 came and went but nothing happened. Instead of honouring his word, he offered two contradictory excuses as to why he got things wrong.
His first excuse: In a breath-taking about-face in his “50th Truth” in mid-2008 and in later writings he said that he had announced a false time-frame because his belief that one-third of the US would be destroyed when the Seventh Seal was opened was based on the mistaken beliefs of his own church. Remember that he’d previously assured us that it was God who had revealed to him that this would be THE KEY EVENT which would silence his skeptical critics, and prove that he was God’s end-time Witness receiving revelation from God. The lack of events proved that such boasts had been empty rhetoric. Note that this is not just a simple matter of “getting his calculations wrong” – he got his divine revelation wrong. Conclusion: When he seriously imagined he’d been receiving that “divine revelation” he’d been seriously deluded.
His first excuse (in the “50th Truth”) went on to say that in fact God had chosen not to reveal the “actual timing” until the latter part of 2008. All of this plainly contradicts his original claim (in “2008 GFW”) that God had revealed the “actual timing” (i.e. that catastrophic destruction would begin at the opening of the Seventh Seal) prior to 2006.
By his own admission, the earlier “revelation” was FALSE and he’d been DELUDED when he thought he’d been receiving it. And yet when was obliged to deliver his so-called “50th Truth” to repair the damage done when he got his time-frame wrong, he actually expected people to believe that this time the revelation was GENUINE and that he was NO LONGER DELUDED!
Now to his second excuse: Astonishingly, he contradicted all of the above when he claimed that God had CHANGED THE TIMING for the start of catastrophic destruction (without telling Mr Weinland). This excuse was designed to clear Mr Weinland of any blame for getting the timing wrong – effectively it was God’s fault. But a very confused Ron Weinland failed to realise that if God had “changed the timing”, then God must have had an EARLIER TIMING to change. Even God cannot change something which does not already exist! Therefore, Mr Weinland’s second excuse that God CHANGED THE TIMING flatly contradicts his first excuse that God had revealed only ONE “ACTUAL TIMING” in the latter part of 2008.
Conclusion: Ron Weinland’s first excuse contradicts his claims in “2008 GFW” (the “Word of God”), and his second excuse contradicts his first excuse.
All of his writings and sermons over the past couple of years have been nothing more than desperate attempts to draw attention away from his failure to pass HIS OWN tests designed to prove that his book was “the truth” and that he was God’s end-time witness and prophet receiving divine revelation from God. Nothing he says now can change that.
Final Comment: It’s now two years and four months (28 months) since the Seventh Seal was supposedly opened. That’s 66.6% (the three sixes!) of the entire Great Tribulation period! In the latter half of 2008 Mr Weinland claimed that God had revealed to him that things would still happen as he’d predicted – just a few months later than originally envisaged. Can one really call 28 months “a few months”? I’ll wager that at that stage he certainly WASN’T contemplating a delay amounting to two-thirds of the entire Great Tribulation period! Over the past few years, either God is guilty of an awful lot of flawed “revelation”, or Mr Weinland is just making it up as he goes along.
Ron Weinland is a spiritual descendant of and a victim of US Christian Fundamentalism. This means that he ignores the last three centuries of serious biblical scholarship. Weinland claims that through (revised) divine revelation and his (revised) interpretation of scripture he knows that Jesus Christ will return on May 27, 2012.
I emailed Mr Weinland exactly three years ago on March 26, 2008 pointing out how fatally flawed was his fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, and I predicted
1) that he would be obliged to announce another “divine revelation” changing the date of Jesus Christ’s return (at that stage he was still claiming that God had revealed to him that this would be September 29, 2011),
2) that he would use “bad news” reports of earthquakes, disasters, and economic downturn etc to bolster his case,
3) that the predicted total collapse of the US, Canada, UK & Australia (as “revealed” to him by God) would not eventuate,
4) that the predicted outbreak of World War III between a German-led United States of Europe and a China-led coalition of “Asiatic” forces (as “revealed” to him by God) would not eventuate, and
5) that the predicted return of Jesus Christ on the revised date (as “revealed” to him by God) would also not eventuate.
So far, my specific predictions are on track. None of Mr Weinland’s specific predictions has come to pass.
I look forward to yet another of Ron Weinland’s “divine revelations” in the next 14 months explaining why God has further postponed the return of Jesus Christ. Perhaps he will rehash his earlier utterance that God is allowing yet more time for sinners to repent.
Don Doherty