Herbert W. Armstrong was ahead of his time!

[David Ben-Ariel]

Herbert W. Armstrong Was Ahead of His Time! (http://tinyurl.com/abw7h)

Was Herbert W. Armstrong right or wrong? What about all his predictions? Did he teach the plain truth of the Bible?

[Hitch]

Herbert W. Armstrong Was Ahead of His Time! (http://tinyurl.com/abw7h)

Was Herbert W. Armstrong right or wrong? What about all his predictions? Did he teach the plain truth of the Bible?
Armstrongism is a recognized cult and you have no business posting his filth on these pages you and he belong on the unorthodox section.

[David Ben-Ariel]

Armstrongism is a recognized cult

Only by those steeped in the baptized paganism of the Mystery Babylon religion pretending to be Christian, but who are as distant from the biblical Jesus and biblical Christianity as you can get, having fallen for Rome's false father figure with bloody Rome's idolatrous traditions.

The "religious" crucify Christ again since they hate Him and His true representatives and can't refute anything we teach from the Bible, so they get angry and engage in character assassination and bleat "cult" when they're guilty of everything they accuse others of and will soon be rebuked by Jesus Christ when He reigns in Jerusalem and teaches the same biblical Sabbath, the same biblical festivals and the same biblical dietary laws and teachings as His apostle Herbert Armstrong - because Jesus will TEACH TORAH - not the idolatrous traditions of deceived and deceiving Roman wolves in sheep's clothing!

[BurningBush--U]

Armstrongism is a recognized cult and you have no business posting his filth on these pages you and he belong on the unorthodox section.
So no thing at all from the dude is valid?

Remember, you can get fed from all forms of men, even scavengers. Was there anyone given as an example in the bible that was fed in such a way?

:tongue:

[Hitch]

So no thing at all from the dude is valid?

Remember, you can get fed from all forms of men, even scavengers. Was there anyone given as an example in the bible that was fed in such a way?

:tongue: I see you have a point, the proper headwear will help.

[Bill the Cat]

I see you have a point, the proper headwear will help.
This thread has been moved to Unorthodox Theology

[Bill Hohmann]

Only by those steeped in the baptized paganism of the Mystery Babylon religion pretending to be Christian, but who are as distant from the biblical Jesus and biblical Christianity as you can get, having fallen for Rome's false father figure with bloody Rome's idolatrous traditions.

The "religious" crucify Christ again since they hate Him and His true representatives and can't refute anything we teach from the Bible, so they get angry and engage in character assassination and bleat "cult" when they're guilty of everything they accuse others of and will soon be rebuked by Jesus Christ when He reigns in Jerusalem and teaches the same biblical Sabbath, the same biblical festivals and the same biblical dietary laws and teachings as His apostle Herbert Armstrong - because Jesus will TEACH TORAH - not the idolatrous traditions of deceived and deceiving Roman wolves in sheep's clothing!

Looks whose making accusations!

I graduated from Armstrong's school with a degree in theology, and I will refute any teaching of Armstrong you want, but it will be you who won't listen; you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

Typical is the black and white thinking here of those in a cult; if you aren't for Armstrong, you are for Catholicism, etc. There is no middle ground; there are no other alternatives.

The ones who put Jesus to death were the ones teaching TORAH. They took the law and used it for their own nefarious means. Armstrong did the same.

False prophet? How many false predictions do you have to make before your followers label you a false minister of Christ? Even in is last book, Mystery of the Ages, he claims Christ will return before the end of the 20th century.

[Bill Hohmann]

Only by those steeped in the baptized paganism of the Mystery Babylon religion pretending to be Christian, but who are as distant from the biblical Jesus and biblical Christianity as you can get, having fallen for Rome's false father figure with bloody Rome's idolatrous traditions.

The "religious" crucify Christ again since they hate Him and His true representatives and can't refute anything we teach from the Bible, so they get angry and engage in character assassination and bleat "cult" when they're guilty of everything they accuse others of and will soon be rebuked by Jesus Christ when He reigns in Jerusalem and teaches the same biblical Sabbath, the same biblical festivals and the same biblical dietary laws and teachings as His apostle Herbert Armstrong - because Jesus will TEACH TORAH - not the idolatrous traditions of deceived and deceiving Roman wolves in sheep's clothing!

— Proof the Sabbath is not binding on Christians


Various Sabbatarians have produced works claiming to prove the Sabbath as binding on Christianity. These proofs are not sound evidence, but conjecture and assumption. They violate every rule of proper Biblical scholarship.

This article will not only refute these proofs, demonstrating how they do not adhere to proper Biblical scholarship and rules of evidence, but will also provide evidence to the contrary they have conveniently overlooked in their attempts to prove the Sabbath binding on Christianity.

As a precursor to covering this topic, I have included a brief methodology regarding how one determines whether a religious teaching is true or false.

False doctrines espoused by false religious leaders or individuals were prophesied by Jesus to occur before His second coming and the end of this "age". (See Mt. 24)

All teachings or claims therefore put forward by churches or religious leaders/teachers need to be subjected to methods designed to determine the veracity or falsehood of their claims.

The method required to accomplish this is twofold:

1. Subject religious claims of belief or doctrine to "Critical thinking".

2. A thorough familiarity with scripture.

All too often, one being "recruited" by a church or cult is not well versed in scripture and the means to determine the veracity of their claims.

Unfortunately then, many people are fixed into a set of beliefs long before they have a good familiarity with scripture, causing those thereafter to color what they read in the light of what they have been led to believe is true.

Coupled with fear and phobia indoctrination, it can be extremely difficult for many to throw off beliefs they have been taught to them by religious teachers who constantly warned or threatened them with eternal damnation should they stray from those teachings.

Critical thinking is a methodology of applying certain criteria regarding a belief such as the following:

1) Is the claim "falsifiable"?

For any claim to be considered as true, it must be of such a nature that it can be conceivable that evidence could exist to disprove the claim. In other words, the claim cannot be so vague as to defy examination that could conceivably produce evidence to the contrary. There must be relevant evidence for the claim. The claim cannot be invulnerable to any evidence.

In the realm of religion, what are some examples of claims that are not falsifiable?

A religious leader who claims personal revelation from God.

A religious leader who claims to be infallible.

There is no way to falsify the claim. The claim is worthless when it comes to determining the truth of the claim or claims made as a result of the first claim. If one were to claim this as proof of what he teaches, he and what he teaches should be rejected. God has not left us in the dark when it comes to determining whether one is a wolf or a shepherd.

One might conclude that a claim of infallibility could be falsified by producing evidence of the person being wrong concerning some belief or teaching. However, the problem here is that the person and his adherents reject contrary evidence because the leader is considered to be right regardless of evidence to the contrary. In other words, even though he is wrong, he is right: he is infallible.

2) Is the claim Logical?

Many doctrinal claims sound reasonable and logical, but are still wrong. To subject a claim to logic is to determine if the claim holds true for all circumstances affected by it. For example, do counter- examples demonstrate the claim to be false?

Many claims are based upon false premises which also must be exposed to this methodology. If the premise is found to be invalid, or is determined to be unfalsifiable, then the conclusion must be rejected.

3) Is the evidence used to support the claim comprehensive? (exhaustive)

Sabbatarians have produced a plethora of arguments to favor Sabbath keeping in an attempt to make it appear there is comprehensive evidence, but it is all smoke and mirrors. What we see is not comprehensive proof (a thus saith the Lord) but rather an attempt to appear to be comprehensive when in reality it is nothing more than a flood of assumptions.

* Is there ample evidence to support the claim without having to resort to inference or assumption?

* Does evidence that appears to contradict the claim exist? Did the one making a claim examine the evidence to the contrary and offer proof the evidence does not actually contradict the claim?

* If one making a claim ignores or refuses to address evidence to the contrary, the claim needs to be rejected or at least subjected to healthy skepticism.


The first proof I put forward is by itself enough to disprove the belief the Sabbath is binding on Christians.


Proof # 1: The Sabbath command is found within the confines of the covenant between God and the ancient nation of Israel. That covenant was between those two parties, and no others can become a part of that covenant unless they are circumcised and become a part of the nation of Israel. It was adequately demonstrated in scripture that Christians are not required to become Israelites first (Acts 15), then Christians. Therefore it is impossible for Christians to be held to the Sabbath, seeing as they are not a party to that first covenant. To bind Christians to any precept of that covenant is to violate that covenant. It is an "illegal" or lawless act.

Where Sabbatarians make a fatal flaw in their arguments is in the unspoken assumption that somehow, this covenant between God and ancient Israel is transferred or reassigned to Christians. This is legally impossible.

The refutations I have seen regarding this first proof have been bizarre. In order to show the reader the lack of rational debate over the issue, I include here a response by one Sabbatarian (Bob Theil) along with an explanation as to why his critique does not work.

Regarding 'proof' 1, he seems to forget that Christians are spiritual Israelites which negates the latter half of his argument--his premise is also false (please see the article Were the Ten Commandments in Effect Before Mount Sinai).

Nowhere in scripture are Christians called spiritual Israelites. Even if Christians were so called, Mr. Theil does not explain how this would make Christians bound to the Sabbath command. There is no offering of evidence to support the claim; just a matter-of-fact declaration this is so.

As far as declaring the premise false, he claims the Ten Commandments were in effect prior to the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, which is nothing more than using one false teaching to prove another false teaching. It was through this "tangled web" of ‘proofs' so many are deceived into following Sabbatarian legalism. This ‘proof' is addressed later in the article, but Mr. Theil fails to mention this in his one point critique. He does not wish his readers to examine the article themselves, so he does them the favor of telling them the rest of the article is faulty; don't waste your time; don't prove this all for yourself; take his word for it.

Suffice it to say that the other 'proofs' and the counter-arguments he raises are also not correct. For example his first 'counter-argument is (which he also calls proofs), "Here then are a list of proofs used commonly by Sabbatarian groups and their refutations. Proof # 1 -- Sabbath Began at Creation The rationalization used here is that God sanctified the seventh day. What is overlooked is that it was this specific seventh day that was sanctified, not the weekly seventh day that was sanctified. The Sabbatarian overlooks this "minor" detail."

I am afraid William has overlooked the 'minor detail' that Exodus 20:8 states that God wanted people to Remember the Sabbath day and then cited God's resting on that Sabbath as the primary reason why others should as well. Perhaps he feels this is only a coincidence.

Exodus 20:8 does not say God wanted "people" as if to imply all people were to remember the Sabbath day. God was addressing Israel. God was commanding them, and not all people to keep the Sabbath, using the example of God resting on the seventh day of creation. I am afraid what Bob overlooked is the rendering of this command in Deuteronomy 5 where no mention of this rest of creation is made, but rather that they were slaves in Egypt, and because of God saving them from this slavery they are to remember the Sabbath command also.

Both renderings need to be taken together to get the understanding of what is happening. In both instances, it is Israel being addressed and not all mankind. It was Israel that was a slave in Egypt, not all people. What is so hard to understand here for the Sabbatarian is that assumptions are not proofs.

Furthermore, regarding his other first proof, William seems to forget that all the ten commandments were in effect before Mount Sinai, that Jesus kept and taught the Ten Commandments, and that so did Paul and the other New Testament writers.

He now repeats himself, as though it were a new thought, but this is a common practice, repetition in the hopes the claim will be believed without proof. Bundled with this is the declaration that Jesus taught the Ten Commandments, as well as Paul and the other NT writers. Links to articles ‘proving' these claims are given, again as though these claims were self-evident. The reader is invited to link to these proofs, but admonished to ignore this particular article. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..."

Instead of bothering to critique the entire article, demonstrating where each point is wrong, he takes a pot-shot at a small part— offers no proof they are wrong, then insists one need only read the articles proving the Sabbath and law are binding. Don't waste your time reading this article.

This covenant had the two parties to it: Israel and God. Like any other covenant or contract, no other parties can enter into a contract once it has been put in force. The only method permitted by the covenant for those not born of Israel to become a participant of this covenant was to be circumcised. Then and only then could one not born of Israel be as one born of Israel. It was amply brought out in N.T. scripture that Christians are not required to be circumcised, ergo they are not brought under the conditions of, or made a part of that covenant containing the Sabbath. In essence, those that insist Christians are required to keep the law, such as the Sabbath, violate the law in attempting to comply with the law!

Sabbatarians have rarely confronted the covenant concept head on, but rather have worked around it, concentrating on points or aspects of this covenant all the while holding to the assumption they apply to all Christians or all peoples everywhere for all time. For example, this covenant between God and Israel had a provision within it that extended the conditions of the covenant to those born later of Israel, even though those that were born later were not a party to the covenant. (Exodus 31:13)

Normally, a covenant (contract) is neither inheritable or assignable. In order to make the covenant binding on the offspring of Israel, this condition was necessary in order to extend the conditions of the covenant out to those who would later be born of Israel. Those that would claim this "forever" clause applies to Christians make another assumption; that God was careless in neglecting to clearly state in scripture Christians are required to keep this aspect of the law, the Sabbath.

Scriptural evidence supports the conclusion that the Christian covenant is not like the covenant made with Israel, therefore it can be safely concluded that the Sabbath requirement would have to be reiterated in the Christian covenant or specifically addressed in the New Testament.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Hebrews 8:8-9

Sabbatarians try to obfuscate the obvious here by claiming the problem was with the people, and not the covenant, in order to make a case for Christians keeping the first covenant even though this example of scripture plainly states the new covenant is not like the one with Israel that contains the Sabbath.

In order to disprove this conclusion of Sabbatarians, two counter-examples exist:

1. The literal rendering of the Greek does not support the conclusion the fault rested solely with the people. The literal Greek says, "For finding fault, He says to them..."

2. The counter-example regarding the first covenant being faultless:

In Matthew 19:7-8:

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The old covenant allowed an "easy" divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. This concession of the law demonstrates it was not a perfect law or covenant. Those who hold to the old covenant being perfect, eternal, etc. fail to subject their claims to critical analysis in this regard. The Sermon on the Mount evidence also brings this out where Jesus points out where the law; the first covenant was lacking. The pattern is one of Jesus declaring, "the law said thus, but I say unto you this".

In the attempt to claim the fault lay with the people, the Sabbatarian overlooks the previous verse:

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Hebrews 8:7

To sum up this proof then: The Sabbath, along with the rest of the law is not applicable to Christians because Christians were never a party to that covenant; neither do they become Israelites in order to become Christians. Christians are bound directly to Christ, and not to Christ via the law and the Sabbath. (Romans 7:4)

When one claims Christians are to keep the Sabbath, they unwittingly declare God to be a liar, seeing as they claim Christians are a party to the covenant command when they are not.

Some will claim it is the law that defines sin for Christians, citing I John 3:4, however this will be addressed in the "Refutation of Sabbath Proofs" section.


Proof #2: The Sabbath command can only work from one geographical location.

There are locations on the earth, such as the polar regions, where there is no consistent setting and rising of the sun approximately every 24 hours. In these areas, it is impossible to have the Sabbath be applicable, unless one insists people "rest" for several months while not working.

Another problem arises when you try to determine when the Sabbath day begins and ends based upon one's location in relation to Israel. If one travels east from Israel to the United States, then one would be keeping the Sabbath on what is Friday. If one travels west from Israel to the United States, then they would be keeping the Sabbath on Saturday. Different Sabbatarian groups have addressed the issue by making their own determinations of when to keep the Sabbath, despite the biblical instructions regarding sunsets being the determining factor. Some even go so far as to insist the Sabbath is to be kept when the Sabbath is occurring in Israel, despite one's location. This then becomes a case of keeping the Sabbath through consensus and not by command.

I would point out here that there is convincing evidence that days did not originally begin at sunset, but that this was a later construct of post-exilic Rabbis. Regardless, the "day" still shifts to a day earlier for one traveling east instead of west from Israel when traveling to the new world.

The problem becomes even more severe if one circumnavigates the earth more than one time in any one direction. Travel around the earth twice, ending up back in Israel, one would be keeping the Sabbath two days off from when everyone else is keeping the Sabbath.

This particular problem is rarely addressed by Sabbatarian groups, mainly because they do not wish to cover a problem that has the potential of people examining their beliefs in a critical manner. Their power and control is based upon people's blind faith in their leadership. To cover a subject in a manner that requires people to think in order to understand is counter-productive.


Proof #3: Christians are not bound to the letter of the law, but to the spirit only. Christians are "dead" to the law.

Most all Sabbatarian groups understand they are not bound to the letter of the law when it comes to circumcision and sacrifices. In a manner never explained though, this concept is not carried over to the Sabbath command, even though the evidence to the contrary is extant.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

Sabbatarians create all kinds of constructs in order to circumvent plain statements in scripture, such as this. A common practice is to insert the word "only" between "not" and "in" so as to make it read:

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not only in the oldness of the letter.

The justification for doing this is through the use of circular reasoning: They believe first and foremost that the Sabbath IS required of Christians, therefore the scriptures are interpreted to comply with this presumption. Therefore this passage requires "modification" seeing as the translation is "misleading" due to how languages change over time, the "true" meaning having been lost or misconstrued. But there is no such loss over time or through translation, and the context only supports the rendering as it stands. The apostle Paul begins in chapter 7 with an analogy in order to understand how and why the law (which includes the Sabbath command) does not apply to Christians. The analogy is the law or covenant of marriage. As long as two married people are alive, they are bound in marriage. As soon as one dies, neither is held as under the marriage covenant. The survivor is free to remarry, for example.

Paul then explains where he is going with this; Christians are no longer bound to the law because they "died" to the law. They, if they were Jews (or Israelites for that matter) are no longer answerable to the first covenant seeing as they had died. One who has died cannot be held to a previous contract or covenant.

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

What the Sabbatarian cannot understand here in Romans chapter 7 is that a Christian becomes "dead" to the law in order to now be "bound" or married to Christ, in order to bring forth fruit unto God. When one is bound to the law, the fruit produced is a fruit that results in death. By insisting on adherence to the law, even the Sabbath, is to claim Christians are married to both the law and to Christ— an impossibility. One can only be bound to one or the other; not both. This would be a case of spiritual adultery and spiritual idolatry. A Christian can only be bound to one: Christ. If one claiming to be Christian believes they are bound to the law, they make the de-facto declaration that they have to keep the law (and the Sabbath) for the sake of their salvation, which is in contrast to the declaration of Jesus and the apostles that it is through faith in Him and only Him we have our salvation. A Christian's salvation is not dependent on both Jesus and the law— spiritual idolatry. The law cannot save anyone. The law could only condemn.

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


Continued:

Bill, we don't allow back-to-back replies to the same message, nor to get past the 24K character limit per post.

[Bill Hohmann]

Continuation:

Proof #4: Requiring Christians to keep the Sabbath is to subordinate faith with the physical.

Faith becomes negated. Faith is rejected in favor of the letter of the law, which Paul declares, "The law is not of faith..." (Galatians 3:12)

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. — Galatians 5:4

The Sabbatarian rejects this concept, claiming that he does not keep the Sabbath for the sake of justification. He will claim that he is saved because of grace and not the law concerning the Sabbath. But the Sabbatarian is just arguing semantics. He believes he must keep the Sabbath in order to maintain his justification. If one believes they must keep the law to not sin, then it is a prima-facia admission regarding justification through law. No one will be justified through the law:

And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 13:39

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16

These last three scriptures make an important point, easily overlooked: it is the "deeds" or "works" of the law wherein lies the problem. The Sabbatarian attempts to blur the deeds of the law with the entirety of the law in order to make a case for those who do not believe they have to keep the Sabbath as advocating lawlessness or anarchy. The deeds/works of the law are those points of the law that require action on the part of the one under the law: Sabbath keeping, circumcision, sacrifices, for example. Other points of the law require no action, such as "you shall not murder". No action is required in order to comply.

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galatians 3:11

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Galatians 3:24-25

Living by faith is to live in the belief of Jesus as your Lord and Savior. The law requires no faith to comply with it. Complying with a law does not prove one to be a good person. It only demonstrates the person has not broken the law. It imparts no righteousness or justification at all. For example: If the speed limit law is 55 and you never go over 55, the state isn't going to congratulate you and present you with some reward at the end of your life for never exceeding the speed limit. You did that which was required of you. Those that think keeping a "work" of the law such as the Sabbath believe there is some reward for doing this, when in actuality they set themselves up for condemnation should they ever transgress it, seeing as they have decided to live by the law and not according to faith in and of Christ.

To sum this up. If one has faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but another comes along and declares they must keep the law in order to be saved; or "maintain" their salvation, this makes the declaration that faith is insufficient in and of itself. God's Spirit within a man is an insufficient guide; faith is not enough. Faith becomes subordinated to something physical, in this case the Sabbath.


Proof #5: The statements in the scriptures regarding salvation being solely dependent upon faith in and the faith of Jesus. No statements exist that make the declaration of the works of the law affecting one's salvation, such as adherence to the Sabbath command.

There exists comprehensive evidence to support this claim.

Psalms 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.

Psalms 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.

Psalms 78:22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid:

Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins...

Acts 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ephesians 1:10-14: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

The Sabbatarian, as a matter of habit, would conclude here that to obey Him is to keep the commandments. Yet Jesus' commands to His apostles and those who became Christians does not support this assumption. Jesus' commands were not the law; were not the ten commandments. It is an assumption without supporting evidence.

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

1 Peter 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

By what method could the devil take this word out of someone's heart? By convincing the hearer it is not true. How can the devil convince one the gospel is not true? By convincing the one that other things are necessary and required for salvation. All the devil need to is divide the one's attention between belief and something else, such as the law or the Sabbath, and the devil has succeeded. Divide and conquer is a great truism.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

This is from the narrative concerning the conversion of Cornelius and his household. The words they heard led to their salvation, along with the earnest which was receiving the Holy Spirit. They were told that it is Jesus Christ in whom we have our salvation to those who believe (have faith) in Him. Cornelius' was given God's Spirit without the requirement of the law; any of it. Sabbatarians assume he did keep the law and the Sabbath (seeing as they believe this first and foremost, therefore everything must comply with their pre-conceived assumptions) but it is utterly impossible. Cornelius was a high ranking official in the Roman army. He would have been "on call" 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every day, every year.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

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.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

If ever there was a subject with sufficient scriptural support, this is it; that it is belief only in Jesus as the Savior that results in one's salvation.

Why then do so many believe there is more to it than belief/faith? It's too easy for them. It defies their sense of "logic" in that they cannot perceive how one can attain salvation without adherence to the law. They conclude, erroneously, that Christians "can't be trusted to behave on their own" therefore they need the law to guide their lives, and not faith in Jesus Christ to guide their lives. Their ego's demand there be action on their part so that they can boast to themselves and others that it was by their good "works" or behavior that led to their salvation, and not only faith in Jesus Christ.

Sabbatarians brag in the Sabbath. "We keep God's Sabbath and you do not. We are God's chosen people and you are not. You are false Christians. Your faith in God's Christ Jesus is nothing because you don't keep the Sabbath." It not only is a point of bragging, but a condemnation to others, claiming one's faith in Jesus as Savior is not valid because they do not keep the Sabbath, or other points of law. Faith is subordinated to law keeping. Can the spiritual truly be subordinated to the physical? Absolutely not. The physical can only be subordinated to the spiritual.

Concerning this brag or boast in the Sabbath:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Romans 3:27

There is no boasting in the law, such as the Sabbath, because one's righteousness and salvation are not dependent upon the law. It is dependent upon faith and faith only. The law, and the Sabbath, have no bearing because it is not relevant to faith in Christ.

The whole point of Acts 15 was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised AND keep the law of Moses, which includes the Sabbath command. It was adequately concluded they did not need to do these things; they were sanctified by faith.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:7-10

The common denominator is faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. In no scripture do we find a formula that it is faith AND the keeping of the Sabbath or any of the law that results in salvation. To the contrary, the examples in Acts 11 regarding the conversion of Cornelius and his household and Acts 15 demonstrate their receiving of God's Spirit was without the requirement to keep any of the law, let alone the Sabbath.

Those who insisted on Gentiles keeping the law were viewed by the apostles in Acts 15 of subverting the souls of those Gentiles for making their claim.

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Acts 15:24

The practice of insisting the law affects one's salvation is to add law keeping to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a deception, to add to the Gospel. Yet many have done just this, beginning with the apostolic era.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Galatians 3:1-3

The law dealt with "the flesh". The Spirit deals with the spiritual. The truth has to do with faith only. To add the law is to not obey the truth; it demonstrates a lack of faith which is no faith at all.

Some Sabbatarians go so far as to redefine faith as being impossible without keeping the law; that faith without this "obedience" is not faith; that faith leads to obedience. Yet the passages of scripture just cited show that faith is belief from the heart; not faith based in action.

[Bill Hohmann]

Only by those steeped in the baptized paganism of the Mystery Babylon religion pretending to be Christian, but who are as distant from the biblical Jesus and biblical Christianity as you can get, having fallen for Rome's false father figure with bloody Rome's idolatrous traditions.

The "religious" crucify Christ again since they hate Him and His true representatives and can't refute anything we teach from the Bible, so they get angry and engage in character assassination and bleat "cult" when they're guilty of everything they accuse others of and will soon be rebuked by Jesus Christ when He reigns in Jerusalem and teaches the same biblical Sabbath, the same biblical festivals and the same biblical dietary laws and teachings as His apostle Herbert Armstrong - because Jesus will TEACH TORAH - not the idolatrous traditions of deceived and deceiving Roman wolves in sheep's clothing!

Part 3

Proof #6: The other party to the first covenant, the LORD (who later became Jesus) died, thus ending that covenant.

Sabbatarians have always been quick to point out that it was Jesus Christ who was the God of the Old Testament, using this as an argument (proof) for Christians keeping the law and Sabbath:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

What this understanding does though is force another conclusion. Jesus died on the cross, therefore, as in any contract or covenant between two parties, the death of either party ends a covenant, such as the marriage covenant example brought out by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 7.

So even though there may well be Israelites alive throughout the world, it is irrelevant regarding this covenant. The one party of the covenant, now known as Jesus the Christ, who was the God of Israel, died.

It is interesting to note that in the prophets of Israel, God was depicted as a husband to Israel:

For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. Isaiah 54:5

Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 3:20

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jeremiah 31:32

The Sabbatarian claims Christians are bound to the law and the Sabbath. To word it another way, the Sabbatarian believes Christians are bound to the conditions of a "marriage covenant" where the mate has died.

In the narrative where some religious leaders (who did not believe in the resurrection) ask Jesus a question about a woman who marries several brothers who each died in turn, then inquire as to which one she is married to in the resurrection; Jesus declares first that they erred, not knowing the scriptures, and that, after the resurrection, one was still no longer bound to a prior mate, but rather in that spiritual realm, there is no such thing as marriage in that regard.

In the same manner, the Sabbatarian does not know the scriptures either, for they believe Christians are bound to the "old" husband Israel was bound to; the husband who died.

God would now be viewed as being adulterous otherwise, as his bride is now the church, and not Israel.

Proof #7: New Testament Evidence.

There is no command within the confines of the New Testament enjoining the Sabbath on Christians. Sabbatarians present what is called an "argument through silence": The belief that, seeing as there was a debate over circumcision, there would have been a debate just as evident over the Sabbath if the Sabbath were brought into question.

First of all, this line of rationale lacks rationale. Proof through silence is no proof at all. On the contrary, the New Testament scriptures do address the issue of the Sabbath, and the way the issue of the Sabbath is discussed does not sit favorably with the Sabbatarian. This condition then of believing there is a proof or evidence through silence is not surprising when you consider that spiritual blindness and deafness is a trademark of those who cannot accept the truth of a matter.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

Even Sabbatarians have admitted that the sabbath days mentioned here refer to the weekly sabbath, seeing as the pattern here is similar to other usages in this regard: holyday(s) which are annual, new moons, which refer to monthly, and sabbath days referring to weekly. These things listed above are regarded as shadows, and even the Sabbatarian understands Christians are not required to participate in shadows of the reality which is Jesus Christ. The loophole they believe they have found here is in the phrase, "a shadow of things to come."

In believing the sabbath day to be a shadow "of things to come" the argument is made that the sabbath is not yet a shadow that has seen its fulfillment in Christ.

This idea ignores the whole concept of what the sabbath was. It was designed to not only look back as a memorial of creation and the liberation of Israel out of bondage, but to also look forward, not only to Christ, but the rest found in Him and the eventual liberation of all mankind. Some of this is yet to come.

Christ's sacrifice, of which the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of, extends out to all of mankind, past, present, and future. If we accept the argument put forth above regarding the sabbath, then we would have to be forced to accept the same argument relating to sacrifices.

One needs to understand what a shadow is. It is a reflection without substance. It is dimensionally lacking. It is an "image" of something else which does have substance and is real; solid; of substance. A shadow has no substance. What then has substance, seeing as the Sabbath is but a shadow? Jesus Christ.

So there is an option here; choose the shadow lacking reality and substance, or choose Christ who has substance and is the reality. But all too many think they can choose both. But to choose the shadow is to choose a crutch whereas to walk in the spirit through faith is to truly walk.

Another thing here that the Sabbatarian cannot accept is actually quite obvious, if one is but willing to entertain the possibility. If the Sabbath and other points of the law were not enjoined on Gentile Christians, and the conference in Acts 15 only supports this, then you can imagine that then, even as today, there would be those that would insist Gentile Christians should keep the sabbath and other points of law, such as food and drink regulations, tithing, etc.

The whole purpose of the counsel of Acts 15 was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, wherein lies the sabbath command. The conclusion of the counsel was no, they did not.

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Acts 15:24

The self-imposed blindness of the Sabbatarian sees only the circumcision argument here, and not the rest of the law, especially the sabbath command.

It was self appointed Jews that went around behind Paul's back, telling Gentile converts they had to keep the law, hence what Paul wrote to the Galatians, calling them foolish. They were sanctified through their faith; they received the Spirit of God because of their faith, law keeping had nothing to do with it. There was nothing to be gained by keeping the law. On the contrary, they put their faith in jeopardy because of it.

Another relevant scripture regarding the sabbath is found in Hebrews 3 and 4, where two sabbaths are discussed; the weekly, physical sabbath, which sabbath Israel partook of, and the spiritual sabbath that they could not enter because of their unbelief. This is the sabbath Christians enter into. This is the sabbath that they could not enter into because of their lack of faith; the faith Christians are to have that is not reliant on the law. Christ is our sabbath, and as such, we would no longer find it necessary to partake of the shadow when we have the reality, Jesus Christ.


Proof # 8: The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel.

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: Exodus 31:17

It was a sign to set them apart from the rest of the nations; all other people. If all people are to keep the Sabbath, then it could not possibly be a sign between God and Israel.

When reading the scriptures, one needs to keep in mind that the covenants relate to Israel, and that Gentiles in the N.T. era are seen as having been grafted in during this era of Grace and Faith. Gentiles are pictured as being called now; this time of the Gentiles, in order to make Israel jealous.
Their circumcision is not a physical one, but a spiritual one; a circumcision not made with hands. The physical was a type of the spiritual, just as the Sabbath is a type of the spiritual.

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. Romans 10:19-21

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Romans 11:11

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 9:30-33

The Gentiles, who did not have the law, achieved what the Jews could not do with the law; righteousness without law; righteousness based on faith; not law. Righteousness based upon that "stumblingblock" Jesus Christ, who said salvation was found in Him, and not the law. The Jews couldn't comprehend salvation and righteousness apart from the law. The same holds true for many today.

[Hitch]

* edited by a moderator * Bill?

[BurningBush--U]

Looks whose making accusations!

I graduated from Armstrong's school with a degree in theology, and I will refute any teaching of Armstrong you want, but it will be you who won't listen; you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

Typical is the black and white thinking here of those in a cult; if you aren't for Armstrong, you are for Catholicism, etc. There is no middle ground; there are no other alternatives.

The ones who put Jesus to death were the ones teaching TORAH. They took the law and used it for their own nefarious means. Armstrong did the same.

So is not the law of the bible?

How, did armstrong teach torah?

You could also say the same for other flavors of Babylonian religions.

What, please tell if anything he was correct on and what he was in error on, as I am sure there are those that would value the knowledge if accurate.

[Bill Hohmann]

So is not the law of the bible?

How, did armstrong teach torah?

You could also say the same for other flavors of Babylonian religions.

What, please tell if anything he was correct on and what he was in error on, as I am sure there are those that would value the knowledge if accurate.

Now that someone is here who can refute the teachings of Armstrong, I guess he, David, doesn't want to discuss it any more.

Armstrong taught the law all right, and wielded it with all the zeal of a Pharisee gone mad.

Armstrong was in error on EVERYTHING! I can't think of one teaching of his that was not twisted in some fashion or another.

He taught a false gospel where Jesus Christ was just the "mere" messenger of the gospel, and that the gospel had nothing at all to do with him. The gospel according to Armstrong was about the kingdom of God ruled through the law of Moses. Faith was of no consequence.

[Provoker]

He(Armstrong) taught a false gospel where Jesus Christ was just the "mere" messenger of the gospel, and that the gospel had nothing at all to do with him. The gospel according to Armstrong was about the kingdom of God ruled through the law of Moses. Faith was of no consequence.
Hello Bill:
Not being a studier of men's teachings, I was not aware of Armstrong's position, however if what you say regarding his teachings is true, maybe he was ahead of his time...LOL
The "true" gospel is the gospel of the kingdom, which was first proclaimed in 6th century BC Babylon, when a prophet said that a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David. That is the same gospel that John the baptist and Jesus preached, the gospel Jesus taught his disciples, and the gospel he commission them, as apostles, to preach to every person in the world, and it is the same gospel that the apostles preached for the rest of their lives.
John the baptist obviously expected more from Jesus than Jesus was doing, because he sent Jesus a message of frustration, asking; "Are you the one or do we wait for another?". Jesus answered simply that "he was preaching the gospel and healing the backsliding of the Jews", which suggests that Jesus only acknowledged his role as messenger.
God completely and clearly defines His New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and there is absolutely nothing in that description which involves anyone's death, let alone Jesus'.
I am not likely to read any of Armstrong's stuff, but now I have some respect for the man...LOL

[Bill Hohmann]

Hello Bill:
Not being a studier of men's teachings, I was not aware of Armstrong's position, however if what you say regarding his teachings is true, maybe he was ahead of his time...LOL
The "true" gospel is the gospel of the kingdom, which was first proclaimed in 6th century BC Babylon, when a prophet said that a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David. That is the same gospel that John the baptist and Jesus preached, the gospel Jesus taught his disciples, and the gospel he commission them, as apostles, to preach to every person in the world, and it is the same gospel that the apostles preached for the rest of their lives.

One could make a case that the gospel was preached to Anc. Israel when they came out of Egypt:

Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.



John the baptist obviously expected more from Jesus than Jesus was doing, because he sent Jesus a message of frustration, asking; "Are you the one or do we wait for another?". Jesus answered simply that "he was preaching the gospel and healing the backsliding of the Jews", which suggests that Jesus only acknowledged his role as messenger.

Interesting interpretation. When judged based on the rest of scripture, it's a bit lacking.

God completely and clearly defines His New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and there is absolutely nothing in that description which involves anyone's death, let alone Jesus'.


Completely and clearly???

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.


I am not likely to read any of Armstrong's stuff, but now I have some respect for the man...LOL

If you had known him as I have, and knew what I know, you would have no respect for the man.

Bill

[Provoker]

One could make a case that the gospel was preached to Anc. Israel when they came out of Egypt:

Make the case Bill. I don't remember anything about the kingdom coming when the Israelites left Egypt.
Interesting interpretation. When judged based on the rest of scripture, it's a bit lacking.
Don't just say it Bill. Explain why the rest of scripture would judge it lacking. I base it on the whole bible story...LOL
Completely and clearly???

Jer. 31:31-34 clearly tells why the new covenant will be made, It tells who it will be made with, it tells what the new covenant will consist of, and it is quite obvious that it has not yet been made.
Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

This is clear??? The writer of Hebrews is talking about a last will and testament, which has abslutely nothing to do with either the old, or new, covenants.
The everlasting(old) covenant is actually just a simple conditional promise, in which God promises to make Israel into a great nation which will be a blessing to all the peoples of the world, as long as Israel keeps God's laws. It required no death and no blood, but was simply dedicated with some convenient blood taken from a sacrifice which had already been made for some other ritual purpose...Read the story...LOL

Incidently, I don't have any more respect for Armstrong, but I do for some of his bible interpretations now...LOL