Hinson Baptist Church
March 10, 1965 Co-Worker Letter:
I was dumbfounded to discover that in boyhood Sunday School
days, I had been taught in many basic doctrines, the preciseopposite of what the Bible plainly teaches. I was astonished tofind that, taken to mean what it plainly says, THE BIBLE MAKESSENSE! It became the most interesting study of my life. I sawthat I had to surrender my will to GOD. I did. I accepted CHRIST.I was baptized in a Baptist Church, though I did not join it. Myunderstanding was opened by receiving God's Holy Spirit -- just asGod promises all minds may be. Now I could begin to UNDERSTAND theBible. It was a thrilling experience.
- Herbert Armstrong was baptized in a Baptist Church.
- Herbert Armstrong received God's Holy Spirit from a Baptism in a Worldly Protestant Church.
- If Herbert Armstrong received God's Holy Spirit from a Baptism in a Worldly Protestant Church, then the Protestant Churches are NOT Satan's Churches - making all of Herbert Armstrong's claims and the backbone of his theology invalid.
- If Herbert Armstrong WAS correct that the Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church and all the rest are SATAN'S CHURCHES, then the Baptism he received from these worldly Churches was not God's spirit, but an EVIL SPIRIT.
CHECKMATE AND BOOM.
SHT seems to be overlooking a couple of the foundational premises of Armstrongism.
ReplyDeleteChief among those premises is that God used HWA to restore to the church what had been lost for 1900 years. Not just hidden, but actually lost. God could raise up a stone or a Baptist minister to do His work of baptizing HWA.
SHT seems to have the silly idea that there should be one standard for everyone in the church, from HWA to the newest member. Of course, that idea is anathema to Armstrongism, which has always placed HWA on its highest pedestal, with ministers at different ranks below him but above the lowly members.
So, the special way God got HWA baptized is PROOF that HWA was special in a way that SHT is not and will never be. CHECKMATE and BOOM. HWA 1, SHT 0.
"Herbert Armstrong was baptized in a Baptist Church".
ReplyDeleteMY COMMENT - I remember in the 1970s when I was exiting the Church, I had a very difficult time reconciling this fact with what the Church taught. I could never get an answer as to how Herbert Armstrong's Baptist Church baptism could be valid from my family who remained in the Church.
Richard
It would explain a lot if he received the spirit of error. But then it would leave open the question, where is the spirit of truth?
ReplyDeleteYep.
ReplyDeleteThe august Board of said church granted special permission "to be baptized in Christ", but not into his church.
The same applied with his ordination. After his ordination into 7th day church, he did not join that "community/ekklessia" after he found that they would not change after his preaching.
HWA s criteria for the baptisn was that after consulting preachers of 4 denominations, the baptist had "the best and clearest explanation", "and was warm and friendly." The board ruled it was possible to be "baptised in christ through the imparting of the Holy Spirit."
Nck
The Baptist minister's full name , who apparently baptized HWA, was John Marvin Dean. Interestingly enough, Dean was actually from Pasadena CA!
ReplyDeleteHe was removed from the pulpit by his board of deacons, around July of 1929 for "behavior unbecoming to a minister". It had something to do with his time of serving parallel to his ministry at Hinson Baptist and his time at Western Theological Seminary, which was a co-ed institution. Apparently he had involvement with some of the female students, or at least that was what was being implied by many major newspaper articles that ran the story all over the western United States. It was a huge scandal.
More things change, the more they stay the same!
"The august Board of said church granted special permission "to be baptized in Christ", but not into his church.
ReplyDeleteThe same applied with his ordination. After his ordination into 7th day church, he did not join that "community/ekklessia" after he found that they would not change after his preaching."
This should not matter, because this is a determination made by a "Satanic church". Since when did a Baptist Board have the power to grant permission to be baptized in Christ?
There is further documentation that will be posted later which will give more to the story from further doctrinal teachings concerning baptism in a worldly church, which will further prove the church's teachings about baptisms in a worldly church.
"SHT seems to have the silly idea that there should be one standard for everyone in the church, from HWA to the newest member"
That standard is the Holy Spirit. If you are suggesting God used Satan's Church to baptize Herbert Armstrong by Satan's minister (that is what he taught, is it not), and God used Satan's Church and Satan's Minister to give God's Spirit, then you will have to explain why Herbert's fruits were not the fruits of the Spirit (temper, rage, duplicity, lack of self-control, love of money, etc, etc, etc.)
What you are suggesting does not add up with the fruits. The fruits of the Spirit do not match up with the fruits of Herbert Armstrong.
Anyone with any sense of inquisition can see there is something seriously wrong with your argument, and the picture you are presenting.
-SHT
Perhaps, he received the HS, assuming he was really converted, at the time of conversion. The baptism in water would be a symbol of what has already taken place, not the means, see Acts 10:45. Throughout Acts, when asked, What must I do to be saved, the answer is BELIEVE, not be baptized. Acts 2:38 is better translated, be baptized BECAUSE your sins have been forgiven, not in order to get your sins forgiven. See Matt 3 when it says that John the Baptist baptized them FOR repentance. This was not waterboarding until they repented, but BECAUSE they repented. Baptism, by whatever means, is only a symbolic act, not the means by which one is saved. What if a WCG member was baptized by someone who wasn't really converted? Would that be valid?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, he received the HS, assuming he was really converted, at the time of conversion. The baptism in water would be a symbol of what has already taken place, not the means, see Acts 10:45. Throughout Acts, when asked, What must I do to be saved, the answer is BELIEVE, not be baptized. Acts 2:38 is better translated, be baptized BECAUSE your sins have been forgiven, not in order to get your sins forgiven. See Matt 3 when it says that John the Baptist baptized them FOR repentance. This was not waterboarding until they repented, but BECAUSE they repented. Baptism, by whatever means, is only a symbolic act, not the means by which one is saved. What if a WCG member was baptized by someone who wasn't really converted? Would that be valid?
ReplyDeleteA reading from the dictionary:
ReplyDeleteRationalize: to ascribe (one’s acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes; to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes.
This is what takes place in scams, and this is what took place in Armstrongism, a church movement started by a man whose background and skill set were rooted in advertising science and psychology.
Those who accepted the rationalizations at face value, and repeated them as church mantras were said to “have the Holy Spirit” or described as being “converted” or in the process known as “qualifying for God’s Kingdom”
HWA’s baptism is yet one more example of rationalization. The apparent conflict has always been a complete non-starter with those for whom the rationalization component of the brainwashing was effective. Those firmly on the path of rationalization will never accept “checkmate” from objective or critical thinkers. Unless and until something goes terribly wrong in their church or lives, something that exceeds the possibility of rationalization.
HWA was very open about this matter in all mass publications
ReplyDeleteIn 1960, 1969 and later. I'm no religious scolar but I expect that the rationalization of this issue was clear. I mean, it was not kept a dirty little secret or something. As if it was not easy to sweep this issue under a rug.
I expect the catholic church has solutions for the administering of sacraments if bishops are not present and people are dying or something.
I know God and the Holy Spirit are knowm to not be limited by petty concerns regarding rituals.
Still interestimg theological "debate", and of course some juicy gossip by connie. I loved that contribution. I'm very much into insertions like connies.
Nck
“perhaps, he received the HS, assuming he was really converted at the time of conversation”. There is no evidence he was ever converted! He was committing incest/ rape of his teenage daughter. He copied and plagiarized material that he called his own. He was never kind, gentle, long suffering, humble or any other fruit of a Christian. What I have observed was an egocentric self absorbed man.
ReplyDeleteJim-AZ
See that the daughter cults follow Herbie well enough. They use the bible like its a owners manual for a car. Such bullshit! Your can now understand some book because you got the HS? Will the HS help you understand a physics equation? I think not!
ReplyDeleteI always wondered why HWA didn't get baptized by a Church of God (Seventh Day) minister if it was, as he claimed, the "true" Church of God. Instead he goes to a Protestant minister!
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but as Wikipedia notes: "Despite his own unique teaching on baptism his own account is noteworthy for the absence of any mention of the process of laying on of hands or a special prayer in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, which were considered fundamental for membership in the Worldwide Church of God and reason for many a new convert's rebaptism." As Pam Dewey concluded in her investigation of the matter: "If he were to have applied for membership in the WCG forty years later in 1967, he would have very likely been required to be re-baptized!" HWA was so consistently inconsistent wasn't he?!
And further to what Connie said about Dean's sexual impropriety is there a link per chance to this information?
It wouldn't surprise me if when HWA was baptized the "unclean spirit(s)" associated with Dean was transferred to Armstrong, hence HWA's sexual immorality with his own daughter and if he later baptized his son GTA it was again transferred to him knowing his even worse sexual immorality as well. Just a thought, but at the same time it seems that "temptations of the flesh" are characteristic to the clergy (e.g. Anglican, Catholic, etc. sexual scandals).
I'm going to highlight a couple doctrinal positions that will be in a future post now, because it's important. I won't be extensive in this, because it's a comment, but here's the nuts and bolts:
ReplyDelete1. "Satan submitted a false Christ, and a false baptism by those who observe pagan customs". (C.Paul Meredith) - The Baptist church is one of those who observe pagan customs. The baptizing minister was one who observed pagan customs, according to church teaching. Yet the church went along with the fact that somehow, because of HWA's unique position, that this baptism being valid was a one-in-a-million exception to the rule. This then should have been under scrutinizing evaluation, I would think. But there was no one who could, or would, evaluate HWA - without being expelled from the Church.
2. "You need to really repent and be baptized into Christ by a true servant of God in order to receive the Holy Spirit and be added to the body of Christ — the true Church" (I Cor. 12:13).- Plain Truth Staff (The Bible Answers Short Questions From Our Readers) - here one might make the argument that HWA was different (see the first comment in this thread for an example), but the argument is contradicted again by the fact that the minister who did the baptism was what he considered - and continued to insist for decades was not a true servant of God.
3. From the book "All About Baptism" -"However, notice that the one performing the baptism ceremony was a representative (though not necessarily an ordained minister) of the true Church of God in every New Testament case. This was the Church Jesus founded (Matthew 16:18").(All About Water Baptism). This is a pretty self explanatory example. If HWA truly felt this teaching was accurate, then he would have done himself what he expected from everyone else - a baptism (or re-baptism) from a representative of what he considered the "true church of God". He did not. He maintained that he felt his baptism was legitimate, even while conducted by those he would literally condemn throughout his entire life. At the very least, this is hypocritical, and a solid example of how he considered himself a universal exemption the the "rule of laws" that he put on a non-changeable government platform.
... cont (SHT)
Cont...
ReplyDelete...Why then, was such an obvious contradiction in the very basis of the movement seemingly "brushed under the rug"? The answer is they were convinced to look at the wrong fruits as evidence of God's blessing.
The fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The fruits that HWA pointed to as evidence and the sign of one bearing the Spirit were (after suggesting the above) added and emphasized by: Sabbath-keeping, Holy-Day keeping, observance of the law, monetary growth, government, obedience, prophecy, and the "truth" of British Israel-ism.
Because so many people looked at HWA's proofs of the Church (those filled with the Spirit who were being used as a warning of repentance and the message of Christ) instead of the biblical fruits of the Spirit, it was easy to look at the Church in accordance with HWA's version then the Biblical version of the fruits of the Spirit. In reality, though, the Church actually looked down on those in many ways who were gentle, kind and peaceful as not exactly manly, and certainly not "ministerial" in a preaching-elder-pastor-evangelist position. This is not an all inclusive argument in the comment section, but gives a little bit of what I'm presenting here.
Connie's addition, by the way, of information on the actual "baptizer" of Herbert Armstrong which came out two years later in 1929 is of no small insignificance. "Behavior unbecoming of a minister" and consorting with females was no small matter, if one takes into account the baptizer's spiritual conversion himself, because this was actually Herbert's SON'S exact downfall. This will require further a deeper look into.
-SHT
"As Pam Dewey concluded in her investigation of the matter: "If he were to have applied for membership in the WCG forty years later in 1967, he would have very likely been required to be re-baptized!" HWA was so consistently inconsistent wasn't he?! "
ReplyDeleteThis is duplicity, and the double standard that HWA had used literally his whole life.
There are volumes of things that he and those he liked got away with - using the "binding and loosing" policies of his ministerial judgement. At the same time, there are volumes of things that should never have been used in ministerial judgement for those he did NOT like.
Did it really come down to who/what was liked and who/what was not liked? You be the judge.
-SHT
A little background on Hinson Baptist Church:
ReplyDeleteThe Pastor of the Church, W.B. Hinson, died of a stroke in 1926.
They elected a new pastor, Albert Johnson, to pastor the Church in 1934, who pastored the church for 21 years.
At the time of HWA's Baptism, the church was fairly sizeable with a congregation of 1,400 people.
It appears that HWA kinda "snuck in there" at a time between pastors, where the Board of Deacons was operating without a senior pastor's advice/approval/etc.
-SHT
https://www.hinsonchurch.org/foundations/
ANON 6:27
ReplyDeleteInformation on Dean is available at https://library.uoregon.edu/dc/newspaper/searchresults.php?newspaper=oregonian&searchType=Subject&searchTerm=%22DEAN,%20DR.%20JOHN%20MARVIN%22
Also the "Christian Century" magazine ran an article about this too in 1929...
https://books.google.com/books?d=n2k5AQAAIAAJ&dq=%22john+marvin+dean%22+hinson+baptist++scandal&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22john+marvin+dean%22+hinson+baptist++scandal
I see all the nonsense now and wonder why I couldn't see it all back then. That's the power of an accomplished con artist who can get people of idolize him. It's caused me to see how my German relatives were suckered in by Hitler and the denizens of the Bible Belt by Trump. Never underestimate the power of a mesmerizing blowhard.
ReplyDeleteHWA said that "he had to surrender his will to God." I am not aware of the bible using that expression. Rather it uses following God, obeying Gods voice, following Gods laws, obeying God etc. Even the English word 'obey' is misleading since it has a military flavor, whereas the original Hebrew and Greek word obey does not.
ReplyDelete'Surrendering his will to God' (really the minister) implies being possessed/dominated. So conversion means being mentally/psychologically dominated by a mafia minister.
This is why church fasts are a waste of time, and the splinters are withering.
We often wonder how people can remain committed to Armstrongism despite all of the facts which are so available and have been made common knowledge for decades. Most of the ACOG people who are so dismissive of the allegations made against the Armstrongs and the organization they founded never seriously contemplate the details that SHT and others are currently walking us through. The ministers hand members the cliches which are concocted to spin the problem areas. That’s their “teflon”. Members generally accept it, and go no deeper.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it’s human nature to cover up anything which would register poorly with the public’s conscience and trust.
SHT 6:33 PM said: "Why then, was such an obvious contradiction in the very basis of the movement seemingly 'brushed under the rug'?"
ReplyDeleteI feel a lot of WCG members learning what they would've over time about HWA, GTA, and the rest of the WCG oligarchy along with the double standards and outright hypocrisy of these men would've suffered from a form of "cognitive dissonance" for years or decades, if not the rest of their lives. That is, to know HWA wasn't baptized according to his own "magic formula" is tantamount imho to overthrowing the entire foundation of his movement! He accused Catholic and Protestant Christians of error concerning their baptismal rite asserting baptized Catholics and Protestants could not have the Holy Spirit--even though respected Catholics and Protestants have published persuasively defending fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith from the Bible to the point of martyrdom!--yet he was just as guilty himself of being baptized like these "traditional" or "mainstream" Christians and yet somehow he received the Holy Spirit and they did not?! It just doesn't add up! And thus such "cognitive dissonance" would either lead to further suppression of such uncomfortable truths or, better yet as in my own experience, an honest admission and reappraisal of the man and his teachings a la chewing the meat and spitting out the bones.
Connie Schmidt 7:26 PM Thanks very much for the info! ;-) I'll definitely be checking that out tonight! :-)
9:02 and 11:01
ReplyDeleteDid you miss my comment that this information was not surpressed at all?
It was in all masz publications where SHT found it. HWA spoke about it also in the Good News 1969.
So everyone.
How did they solve this puzzle, since it was widely accepted and publicized?
Nck
had to laugh at this...so much confusion.
ReplyDeletebaptism does not give anyone the holy spirit...and HWA receiving the holy spirit after baptism in a baptist church does not make the baptist church legitimate.
remember the group of gentiles that clearly had the spirit, but had not been baptized?
you folks here clearly don't understand much, if anything.....guess that's why you are so "anti-church".....constantly throwing accusation after accusation, hoping something will stick. (so much like the news media types going after Trump)
From HWAs "All About Water Baptism":
Delete'"REPENT"! shouted the inspired Peter in great power, "AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"! (Acts 2:38.)
There are the conditions — JUST TWO — the same as Jesus gave them at the very beginning of His Gospel — REPENT, and BELIEVE! For one cannot be rightly baptized except he believe (Acts 8:37). Baptism is an ordinance symbolizing FAITH in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Once these conditions are complied with, God stands bound by a PROMISE to put within the repentant believer HIS SPIRIT...WATER BAPTISM, THEN, IS A REQUIRED PART OF THE WAY OF SALVATION!'
Kind of witchcrafty. isnt it? "Binding" the god to give you something?
And later in the same booklet...
Delete"Now water baptism is a required CONDITION to receiving the Holy Spirit. At Samaria, and again at Ephesus, they did not receive the Holy Spirit until after they were baptized in water (Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6). True, at Cornelius' house they did receive the Holy Spirit, and thereby were baptized BY the Spirit into the CHURCH before water baptism — but Peter immediately commanded water baptism. This was a rare exception to the rule.
BUT THERE IS NO PROMISE THAT ANYONE WILL RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT UNTIL BAPTIZED IN WATER — even though God in His wisdom and love may on rare occasions make an exception."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletethat should be, gentiles that had not had hands laid on them...
ReplyDeletethe point being, the exception does not make the rule.
And the OT types that were supposed to be in the world tomorrow? Who baptized them?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like 7:00 am is on to something! I am awaiting official word by current saints.
Nck
Those who have commented fall into two basic categories: those who believe that HWA did have the Holy Spirit, and those who believe that he did not.
ReplyDeleteThose who believe that he did not have examined the circumstances of a baptism which did not conform with HWA’s own teachings and requirements on the subject. Imagine how the ministry, the faculty, and my fellow students at Ambassador College would have reacted if I had gotten baptised by a minister at one of the local Baptist churches, instead of by one of “God’s ministers”!
You have to look at the fruits of HWA and his church to determine whether the Holy Spirit was involved. Incest, irrational anger, entitlement to opulence, double talk, and oppressive church government are not fruits of the Spirit of God. They cause a toxic environment to “stick” So, you don’t have to hope that something will stick. It’s a case of “by their fruits you will know them” in discerning using the New Testament, and Deut 18:20-22 in discerning using the Old Testament. The stuff that is capable of sticking has already stuck.
This thread is an excellent example of confirmation bias, by the way.
ReplyDeleteIn this whole thread are example after example of very valid, properly sourced points concerning one way of thinking. One person makes a point (7:00) and another person (8:52) suddenly says, because it agrees with his already determined position "looks like you're on to something!"
The only reason why said person is said to be "on to something" is because it confirms what is already believed. The exact definition of confirmation bias.
-SHT
8.55 AM
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your analysis is that people get baptised, are given the holy spirit, and then fall away. Sometimes the falling away is shortly after baptism. So the lack of fruits does not necessarily mean that the holy spirit was never given.
At the end of the day, people are free moral agents.
Are you subtly implying that HWA “fell away”? Oh boy! Is that ever going to be a slippery slope for some! If so, when? Remember, although some go with the final teachings, other people already choose the specific teachings from certain HWA eras. As an example, Flurry still makes his followers shun doctors and medication, despite HWA’s enthusiastic usage of both in his latter life, all the while still idolizing HWA. Some say that the earlier form of church government HWA taught before authoritarian top-down was correct. Others point to HWA eating unclean meats to avoid offending international dignitaries. And then, there is the incest.
DeleteBecause of all the confusion and the state of these churches today, it makes much more sense that HWA never had the Holy Spirit, and that throughout the history of Armstrongism, the presence of the Holy Spirit in WCG + splinters was purely imaginary, based on confirmation bias. Keeping the Old Covenant oracles did NOT cause Armstrongism to have a correct understanding of end times prophecy. Had it done so, (revisionism and backpedaling notwithstanding), we would have fled in ‘72, Jesus would have returned in ‘75, or the timeline would have in some way peaked simultaneously with the peaking of the message. But it never did. The supposed boiling points for both were lost decades ago. Did Jeremiah or Jonah just fizzle out?
Armstrongism was either A) Bogus and man-made, or B) A scam from the very beginning.
Recognising a person’s baptism from one of the ‘worlds churches’ did happen on rare occasions, even with ‘ordinary’ members in the WCG.
ReplyDeleteI remember a family I knew fairly well in our church in the early seventies who were baptised in a ‘bible believing’ protestant church. The family told me that the WCG minister felt they had genuinely repented according to their understanding at the time, so a second baptism by a minister WCG was not necessary.
I was aware of a couple of other incidents similar to that too, although this was by no means what usually happened.
Maybe this was because that was the way HWA had done it?
SHT
ReplyDeletePeople are not slaves to confirmation bias or any other bias for that matter. People are still free to 'choose life or choose death.'
So are those who chose “life” COG members or all Christians? Are those who choose “death” those that leave the CoG movement? I can assure you that anyone who has left the COG are not condemned to death for turning their backs on anything.
Delete9:58
ReplyDeleteYou are utterly mistaken about the confirmation bias.
The 7:00 comment was the first attempt into answering a question regarding how solved "the problem" which was obviously not a problem for the readers of the mass circulation publications.
SHT seems to have posed a oroblem thatis unsolvable "or check mate" because of his own confirmation bias.
The problem WAS AT ONE TIME SOLVED and I asked, how. 7:00 did not "confirm" anything although I said he might be on to something because at one time RUBIKS CUBE posed by SHT was solved otherwise it would have been hidden as a dirty little secret and not publicized in mass circulation.
Nck
I always felt there was something of the chicken or egg element to how wwcg presented the receiving of the HS through laying on of hands after baptism. After which the mind is opened to understand "the truth". People must have understood something prior to baptism or they would have never been baptized in the first place.
ReplyDeleteConfirmation bias is that SHT sees confirmed that what he believes that I believe. He is afraid to face the answers my question will yield and tries to immediately squelch possible answers that might not confirm his "check mate" bias.
ReplyDeleteThat much is clear so far regarding cb while I patiently await if there is an answer to SHT's honest riddle and my honest question.
Nck
12.54 PM
ReplyDeleteMembers can always check with God whether they have the holy spirit or only imagine they do. He directly communicates with people.
1.04 PM
Choose life or death applies to all mankind and refers to living by the ten commandments or not. A Christian is one who follows Christ (stated 23 times in the NT) rather than someone who attends or doesn't attend a COG.
Most ACOG people have, in the wake of the WCG apostasy, changed their understanding about baptism and laying on of hands.
ReplyDeleteThe teaching used to be that most of humanity would have it's day of salvation during the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment. The teaching was that by accepting baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, members were choosing to make THIS their day of salvation. Falling away after receiving the Holy Spirit meant that you were going to the lake of fire.
It was only after the apostasy, when most remaining ACOG people found 90+ percent of their friends and family "out of the church," that we started hearing over and over again the excuse, "He wasn't really converted, so his baptism doesn't matter and he'll come up in the White Throne Judgment to learn the Truth." That's a recent innovation, and not very sound scripturally.
For many years, until she died, many in the church held the opinion that God was working first and foremost through Loma Armstrong (e.g. her famous dreams, no doubt now an enabler of Bitter Bob Thiel's approach). This was also how Gerald Flurry held on to many followers in the beginning; they saw Barbara Flurry as a strict, but very kind and very generous, spirit, in the model of Loma Armstrong. Gerry's drunken ego was more forgivable when Barbara was alive to tell him privately that he had been an ass and needed to apologize, and Barbara would often apologize and intervene when Gerry was too proud to do so. Gerry had problems from the beginning, but after Barbara's death he took PCG into crazy-town full-time at full speed.
ReplyDeleteAnyone met someone speaking im tongues btw?
ReplyDeleteI just read Mickey. Now I have another question regarding this "calling business". Who was calling and how much "opening of the mind" did it involve?
The only thing that wcg clearly defined for me was that the holy spirit was limitless "in nature" and could only be squelched by the opposite behavior of "the force" through our actions and behavior. I believe a psalm was written to clarify that principle.
I dont think water can wash away sins. So it looks like we have some literalist pharisees criticizing things they cannot understand. But please help since I have only basic understanding of biblical principles.
Nck
"How did they solve this puzzle, since it was widely accepted and publicized?"
ReplyDeleteHWA + WCG + AC + ACIF + 30% Growth = Sent By God = Accept it no matter what. (a)
GTA + Sins + Infidelity + HWA as Father + Son of HWA = Accept it no matter what. (b)
If (a) and (b) are accepted, then:
Baptism (C) + Protestant Church (D) must equal Holy Spirit (E).
Holy Spirit (E) Must contain the fruits of the Holy Spirit (F)
So if the Value of F is zero in A, can A and E without F = Truth?
So then, how did they solve the puzzle?
Take A,B,C. Open NEW FOLDER entitled "RATIONALIZE". Place in NEW FOLDER. Close New Folder. Place New Folder in Recycle Bin. Now, Ignore.
Open "SERMONS AND SERMONETTES, BOOKLETS, BOOKS, AND COURSES". Read.
The answer to this is they looked to the wrong fruits. The fruits that confirmed in the COG's that HWA's baptism was valid, even though baptized in what they considered to be a false, worldly church, were not the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits that were accepted as proof of HWA's calling were growth, the advancement of the college, the increase of the Church, the mass circulation of the magazines, monetary wealth - all the physical attributes of a worldwide work.
The REAL fruits of the Spirit - gentleness, patience, self-control, meekness - all of those - were literally placed second (or ninety-fourth) compared to the COUNTERFEIT fruits (Which weren't really spiritually fruits at all, but worldly fruits of corporate success). Which means that the question "How did they solve the puzzle" was by rationalizing that since HWA exhibited the "fruits", then it must be all true, while all the while looking at the incorrect FRUITS (of the Spirit) that were virtually non-existent among the upper leadership.
I'll be blunt.
They were deceived.
-SHT
There have been some very gifted rock stars who were both wealthier and more humble than HWA.
ReplyDeleteMickey 12:39 PM said: “I always felt there was something of the chicken or egg element to how wwcg presented the receiving of the HS through laying on of hands after baptism. After which the mind is opened to understand ‘the truth’. People must have understood something prior to baptism or they would have never been baptized in the first place.”
ReplyDeleteTrue! So potential converts had to have a questioning mind prior to joining WCG to critically analyze their present church’s teachings, history or leadership (e.g. Catholic, Protestant), but after joining WCG they were essentially forbidden to question and critically analyze the same in WCG otherwise they would be eventually marked and labeled as a troublemaker and excommunicated as a heretic.
And SHT 2:13 PM basically HWA followed the mantra of false apostles who reckon “gain [or wealth] is [proof of their] godliness” (1 Timothy 6:5).
In the R/WCG, the answer to what comes first, the chicken or the egg, the correct answer was always “the rooster” (HWA).
Deletenck 12:28 AM said: “Did you miss my comment that this information was not surpressed at all? It was in all masz publications where SHT found it. HWA spoke about it also in the Good News 1969.”
ReplyDeleteThe inference in my statement i.e. “And thus such ‘cognitive dissonance’ would either lead to further suppression of such uncomfortable truths or...an honest admission and reappraisal of the man and his teachings...” was that individual church members would subconsciously suppress such obvious contradictions within themselves not that such information would be censored by the church hierarchy in print.
I thinks SHT brings back some really painful memories regarding the "1969 schism" in the church.
ReplyDeleteWho doesn't remember when HWA full of tears announced that he really never was baptized in a cog but in a baptist church instead. Of course we all are full of memories about that fateful moment when Herman Hoeh stormed the podium, ripped the microphone from HWA's hands and in his usual agressive manner that Hoeh was known for, pointed at HWA and shouted "you impostor, son of beelzebub."
Of course later 40 percent of the church split with Hoeh who Stanley Rader later had rebranded as "the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama" spreading a message of world peace.
Of course it was only later that we found out that Stanley Rader had heavily invested in "orange robe factories" that were to be distributed to the membership solely through Stan's companies. Who doesn't remember though when Hoeh appeared at the Jamaican FOT in a white "indian administrators" robe in order to have Stan's financial empire crumble as the synagogue of satan.
Some 3 percent of all members went with Gerald Waterhouse. One must remember that sleeping pills and sedatives had not been allowed up to that point. So Waterhouse's sermons served a lot of people well and he was wildly popular among the elderly. Although especially a large contingent of young mothers went with Waterhouse for exactly that reason also. Other reasons cited are that the "unequally yoked" mothers husbands really had no problem with Waterhouse, since he did not seem to be sexually threatening to women at all. As a matter of fact, he was quite a smart dresser.
The real men of course split with the "no colored shirts church." It seems the leading minister of that split had been traumatized by an extended stay on Hawai. Hence the "no colored shirt rule." Although other critics of said split off are convinced that the only reason the word "shirt" was added was for legal reasons.
During this period the CIA had been carefully monitoring the events unfolding. I mean if it had been possible that a "non cog baptized person" presided over a cog for an extended period, then perhaps, just perhaps they might one day try and install a kenyan born person of color to preside as the "highest elected official" of the nation. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
The CIA board of directors quickly dismissed that idea. I mean, next time you are telling us "an orange colored, fake hair, person enemy of the free press might one day occupy that position.
ONLY ONE VOICE, THE VOICE OF SANITY the voice of NCK said it could be possible. The only thing that was needed to convince the stupid american people, according to agent nck, was to change JUST ONE yota in his name from the name of the biggest american enemy ever AND NO ONE WOULD NOTICE his kenyan roots.
Since nck had a 100 percent record of being right in hindsight after the fact the CIA followed through and NOW WE ALL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, eventually even leading into an orange colored president officiating in meetings with foreign dignitaries speaking unfact as if they are fact being laid hands upon by a beatiful lady who knows about love first hand from Benny Hin as taught in that faithful city built on seven hills, where they discussed the interpretation of love as captured on camera.
nck
"Now water baptism is a required CONDITION to receiving the Holy Spirit. At Samaria, and again at Ephesus, they did not receive the Holy Spirit until after they were baptized in water (Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6). True, at Cornelius' house they did receive the Holy Spirit, and thereby were baptized BY the Spirit into the CHURCH before water baptism — but Peter immediately commanded water baptism. This was a rare exception to the rule.
ReplyDeleteBUT THERE IS NO PROMISE THAT ANYONE WILL RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT UNTIL BAPTIZED IN WATER — even though God in His wisdom and love may on rare occasions make an exception."
Perhaps the reason for the delay was to allow time for the Jewish Christians to come and baptize the Gentiles to help bring the two groups together. This helped the Jews to accept the Gentiles as equal members of the church.
And, not all who claim to be Christians or even those in the ministry are real Christians, with the Holy Spirit. Matt 7:22 Jesus says to some, "depart from me, (a nice way of saying 'Go to hell') I never knew you.
Yes Yes 5:54. It is all explained in detail in the STP. "Water baptism" As in "full immersion", not the sprinkling of a child.
ReplyDeletenck