Some time ago, I submitted an article here at Banned which detailed the controversial details on HWA's Baptism. The questions were posed concerning if the Baptism of Herbert Armstrong could possibly be valid - in that Herbert Armstrong was baptized in a Worldly Baptist Church - something he, himself, over and over again, condemned as one of "satan's churches", worldly, not knowing the truth, and on and on, you know the rest.
The response was huge - and varied. Some said that God is not restricted as to how he works since the Gospel was suppressed for 1900 years. To others, it made all the sense in the world and explained much. Still, the main fact was very clear - HWA was baptized in a way both he, and the church, agreed in virtually every way was thoroughly worldly, thoroughly wrong, and in a completely (to them) satanic institution.
What I did not go into, and will now - is another aspect that needs to be discussed about baptism - the Church's teaching on the laying on of hands - and the Baptism of Herbert Armstrong - and does it matter?
It is Important to note this: Most baptist churches DO NOT practice a "laying on of hands ceremony". It was never considered a mandatory matter, regardless of whether a baptist church did so, or did not do so.
Here is what Herbert Armstrong said about his own baptism:
GN, AUG 69, Page 4 - No mention of Laying on of Hands.
I looked further into this, to see the "worldly church's" practices on the Laying on of Hands Ceremony, to see if it is possible if it did happen. I also tried to see if I may have overlooked an HWA mention of such regarding himself inadvertently.
The Southern Baptist Church, the Pentecostals, Anglicans, Catholics - most mainstream groups - do NOT officiate a laying on of hands ceremony. In nearly every case, this ceremony is reserved for ordinations. Also, since nearly every Baptist Church does NOT practice this as a Baptism rite (though some leave this up to individual church choice), even if HWA says it happened that way (and I have not found anywhere that says that he had this happen to him), I would NOT believe it. It would be a rare thing for this to happen with a Baptist Church - anywhere - at least then.
The practice of the Worldwide Church of God was the laying on of hands by the ministry as an example and recognition of the "human instruments through which He works", even in Baptism.
The Church taught:
Timothy couldn't be ordained by just any church or any minister. He had to be ordained by the TRUE CHURCH and the TRUE MINISTRY, through which God was working.
What, then, separates the act of baptism from the act of ordination? What was it that separated Herbert Armstrong from the rest of the heathens at that Baptist Church that somehow, God worked differently? And, if Herbert Armstrong did not have the "laying on of hands ceremony" in His baptism, according to the very traditions and teachings of his church, is this further evidence that Herbert Armstrong's baptism - in accordance with his very teachings and very practices on the subject - could not be determined as valid? And does his recorded and obviously UN-Christian fruits bear evidence to the same? And - Did ANYONE else in the Worldwide Church of God ever receive ordination if hands were not laid on that person in baptism?
I must add that a question was raised in a "giveshare" article if HWA was possibly re-baptized in another congregation later, to overcome the "error" of a "worldly" baptism. The conclusion was that that was not a correct memory.
Regardless of whether HWA received a "Laying on of Hands" in Baptism or not - this remains:
" 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" - All about Water Baptism.
Contributed by SHT.
Ah, yes. Probably also the template Bob Thiel invokes regarding ordination as a prophet. Of course, they’re going to say or do anything to substantiate their positions and authority.
ReplyDeleteWhat this amounts to for most is the moral equivalent of a “desert island” situation, which necessitates some sort of emergency departure for Armstrongite preachers from the rules. Logic, and the rules or examples of the early church they claim to be restoring therefore are waived or have nothing to do with validity issues. They place themselves beyond authentication. How convenient!
Best to look at the fruits or results when judging whether or not it was of the Spirit. There is too much evidence against it being of the Spirit to give into their desert island reasoning. This is like Robert Duval baptizing himself as an apostle in the theatric film “The Apostle”.
Is it not so that the answer depends on the level of pharasaic ritualistic legalism one adheres to and the fallacious position of believing hwa and wcg was "legalist".
ReplyDeleteEven if 80 percent of members and ministry might have been legalists it was not so. Or one should answer why hwa always preached that "most did not get it". Why was that?
Only morons believe the holy spirit can only work after the proper administration of certain ritual. The proper administration of ritual is just a human expression of the need or arrival at admittance "to a next level" in all human constructs and organisations like a tennis club or a church.
I know, they would be the same legalistic morons not seeing doctors when in need of one. Those were wrong also, in ministry or lay members.
It could be that the wcg construct did not encourage spirituality among a large body of its members. I guess one was better of if one was grounded in eternal universal principles before joining wcg. Otherwise the legalists would quickly assimilate the newborn in the faith I assume.
Nck
one should answer why hwa always preached that "most did not get it". Why was that?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is obvious. In a Corporation Sole, HWA got it all, and you got nothing!
Thx. Sounds rational.
DeleteNck
Ah, it all crumbles down!!
ReplyDeleteHWA did not get a proper baptism or a laying-on of hands. Hence he did not receive the spirit and had no spirit to impart when he baptized others despite laying hands on them; the chain continued down to ANYONE currently being baptized in the COGs: no spirit to be handed down.
I used to wonder why the church was so whack if it was supposed to be led by the spirit. Now it all makes sense: there was no spirit, never was and never will.
But some people are baptized, given the holy spirit by God, then promptly fall away.
ReplyDeleteSo looking at peoples fruits to determine whether they were given the holy spirit can be misleading.
The Armstrongite "Holy Spirit" is not unlike Star Wars' "The Force". Everyone can tap into it. In some the Force is strong. The Jedi's don't teach the proper use of the Force to just anyone etc etc The Force is however more of a yin and yang concept equalling/or balancing evil in power.
ReplyDeletenck
Who cares?!?! Baptists are as much Christian as HWA was a Christian.
ReplyDeleteJesus had the Holy Spirit descend like a dove after baptism by John the baptist.
ReplyDeleteThe disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit in mid message by Peter without being baptized first.
The Bible does have exceptions.
The same goes for healing - miracles did not require being anointed with oil first.
There is NO unbroken line of "laying on of hands" going back to Christ composing of Sabbatarians, or even Baptists! Somewhere in the past somebody just simply "ordained themselves".
ReplyDeleteThere is the" legend of the hands" that waifs about in the COGS, that is sort of similar to the Blood Flag of the Nazi regime. Every Nazi flag had to be "ordained" and touched by either the blood flag, or a flag that had been touched by the Blood Flag.
FROM WIKIPEDIA-The Blutfahne (pronounced [bluːtˈfaːnə]), or Blood Flag, is a Nazi German Hakenkreuz (swastika) flag that was carried during the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, Germany on 9 November 1923, during which it became soaked in the blood of one of the SA men who died. It subsequently became one of the most revered objects of the NSDAP (Nazi Party). It was used in ceremonies in which new flags for party organizations were consecrated by the Blood Flag when touched by it.
I got baptized with the Holy Ghost & fire at a Pentecostal tent revival.
ReplyDeleteIn both instances of Baptism AND Ordination, Herbert Armstrong got what he wanted from who he wanted. In the baptism scenario, he made certain he was not baptized into the organization. In the ordination, he was soon gone from them too. In both instances, he had already determined exactly what he wanted, how he was going to get what he wanted, and where he would go from there on his own.
ReplyDeleteIt really didn't matter to him where - or who - the source was, that gave him the credibility he needed to advance his agenda. To Herbert, it could've been the baptist church down the street, or anyone else who could give him the status he was looking for. He had a goal, an agenda, and a mission.
Here's the evidence so far:
1. He hung out with millionares, and learned advertising and sales skills.
2. He was driven with an unending passion to become successful.
3. The depression hit and swept any products (and buyers) away.
4. He was looking desperately for a product to sell to become important and successful.
5. Religion entered into the picture through Loma.
6. He read the Bible without any training - and through the eyes of a businessman.
7. Instead of seeing the Bible for what it was intended - he saw opportunity.
8. He saw the Law as a framework, and a construct, for his product.
9. He recognized the tax-free status and benefits of religion. Bingo.
10. He tried it, first using Christian-type verbiage etc., and it worked.
11. He applied the business aspects throughout. It worked.
12. When it became a free-wheeling enterprise, he went total berzerk with power and control and began to realize his dream of being an important, successful person to the detriment of anyone who dared cross his path, using religion as a pretense for his accomplishments, up to and including seeing important people from famous Hollywood Worldlies to kings and princes, to the most expensive stores and building the most expensive "house" anywhere - with no concern at all for those who were suffering because of it.
How does this all relate to the Splinters?
ReplyDeleteAfter the big crash and bang in 1995, the Empire collapsed. Even before that, there were weaknesses for opportunities for those who wanted the success and piece of the pie that Herbert enjoyed. But once it all bit the dust, all of the people vying for power and control and greed suddenly flashed out - regardless of how educated or how successful or how qualified they were. They all started running out to the street grabbing dollars at every opportunity. This is verifiable by the scene we see today.
1. The Wadsworth guy with his empire.
2. The Edmond guy with his empire.
3. The UCG guys with their empire.
4. The LCG guys with their empire.
5. THE COGWA guys that split from the UCG guys with their empire.
6. The CGI guys with their empire.
7. The hundreds of other little guys who wish they were as big as the big guys with their attempts at an empire that are more of a lemonade stand.
8. That Wiener guy who tried and completely failed and earned a felony record because of it.
9. That Malm guy who keeps trying with his own way of it and makes a joke out of it all trying to build his lemonade stand.
10. That Guy with the crooked bookcases and the ragged curtains and the wild gestures who forced his way in the bunch and found a bunch of users to call his following.
11. That one guy with a few dozens of YouTube viewers who yells into a microphone enjoying the echoes and you can hardly hear a word he's saying.
ALL of these people are trying to emulate Armstrong's tactics in one form or another. All are trying to grow. ALL say they are the one. NONE of them can ever get together on anything. If there's any evidence to what I am saying it is this - they all are in it for themselves, and you couldn't get them together for one feast if their eternal lives depended on it.
Honestly. It's all out there plain as day, and open for all to see. It's embarrassing to watch. It's crazy to see. Yet, they are all trying to earn a paycheck the only way they know how. Any other way - they'd probably all have to be plumbers, which makes sense, when you actually think about it...........
"Paul, an apostle, not sent from men nor made by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father . . . But I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached by me is not according to man; 12. Because neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it by man; rather, it was by the revelation of Jesus Christ . . . To reveal His own Son in me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles . . . (Galatians 1:11 - 12, 16)."
ReplyDeletePaul's own "ordination" was in his head and in vision. Paul's Christ and Gospel was hallucinated to him by "Jesus". Paul got nothing from the Apostles Peter, James or John or as he said, "I learned nothing from them." Galatians 2:6 Paul was a lone wolf in the Gospel, no team player and sarcastically disparaged the Jerusalem Apostles for not preaching the Gospel given to HIM. This is CLEARLY seen in Galatians and in James rebuttal of Paul's views in Roman on faith and works etc. As then, so today....
Galatians 2.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/436-paul-knew-the-12-taught-another-jesus.html
Anonymous 11:48 said: "But some people are baptized, given the holy spirit by God, then promptly fall away. So looking at peoples fruits to determine whether they were given the holy spirit can be misleading."
ReplyDeleteWe're not meant to discern whether someone has the Holy Spirit or not. That's God's prerogative.
We're simply instructed by Christ to discern by a person's words and deeds whether s/he conforms to God's will or not as revealed by His Scriptures and understood by us through His Holy Spirit. As such HWA's words and deeds prove he was neither a prophet nor an apostle, but a false prophet and a false apostle. Thus, imho you can take what you want from his life and teachings and leave what you want. Don't let someone else tell you what to believe. Prove it for yourself and walk accordingly in faith.
Anonymous: 12:35 said: "Jesus had the Holy Spirit descend like a dove after baptism by John the baptist. The disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit in mid message by Peter without being baptized first. The Bible does have exceptions. The same goes for healing - miracles did not require being anointed with oil first."
But, in each of those cases you outlined there was manifest confirmation that the Holy Spirit had been given (ie John Baptist's eyewitness testimony; speaking in tongues; prophesying, etc.). Just because someone like HWA asserts that he believes God's Holy Spirit was given to him doesn't make it true (anymore than the Pope saying he is the vicar of Christ on earth or Queen Elizabeth II claiming she is sitting on the throne of King David). This is where Christ's instructions come in to play so as Christ-followers we can prove by a man's "fruits" whether he is truly of God or not.
Imho I believe that his motives for baptism were carnal since he makes excuses for why this or that minister was rejected by him to conduct his baptism. I don't understand why he didn't get baptized by a COG(7th Day) minister when he believed it was God's true Church and he had opportunity. It just doesn't make sense!
SHT 3:37 & 3:48
ReplyDeleteSPOT ON!!!
The non laying on of hands and the Baptist baptism charge against HWA is a weak attempt to discredit the man. His words are telling in that he was a young man entering a religious experience seeking to follow a truth as he defined it. How many if in the same sitution at the same age would have had the same thought process in choosing which man (denomination) would baptize you? I would have never thought the way he did nor make the same choice as he did. HWA did acknowledge that he knew of some that were converted outside of the church and some were not required to be re-baptized upon entering WCG. Most of those were probably COG 7th day because HWA equated conversion with keeping the law - the Sabbath, and that (conversion) superseded where or how one was baptized in his mind at least for a few acknowledged people including himself.
ReplyDeleteThere is no solid how when or where regarding baptism, the laying on of hands or the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the bible. HWA taught that there was one way but it wasn't a completely solid teaching and he understood the importance of repentance/conversion was above that of the symbols of water and hands.
It’s all irrelevant anyway, since the Holy Spirit was never present in Armstrongism. They faked Him. And, that’s got to be the worst possible con, the most evil one that could ever exist!
ReplyDelete7:45
ReplyDeleteThe non-laying on of hands and the Baptist baptism charge do not discredit the man.
His FRUITS discredit the man.
The EVIDENCE discredits the man.
His BEHAVIOR discredits the man.
Failed PREDICTION, SPECULATION, or whatever you call it discredits the man.
The reports of others discredits the man.
Most of all, the GOSPEL discredits the man.
I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy and double standard, and showing a reasoning that does not make sense no matter how you try to be apologetic to it.
@ 3:16PM, did the tent burn down?
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:19 AM, you should have respect for others deeply held beliefs.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSHT 8:54 said:
The non-laying on of hands and the Baptist baptism charge do not discredit the man.
It is absolutely a charge to discredit HWA by the fruits of being duplicate and a hypocrite and operating by a double standard concerning his early life experience and later teaching.
Many have commented concerning this and if you go back and read those comments you will at least have to consider that the charge is weak for many reasons.
More questions that could be brought forth concerning this subject would be: what way, where, by whom and by what denomination would have HWA's baptism been considered valid in 1927 compared with what he later taught? Was the man whose name was to be called Jesus (Savior) baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit invalid because he participated in a baptism of repentance of which he had no need and without hands being laid upon him for the receipt of the Holy Spirit of the which he already had. If you would answer yes that the manner and way and by whom that Jesus was baptized is valid then is now the manner way and by whom baptism that the disciples practiced in Acts valid because they were not disciples of John and practiced the laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Spirit? Now the big question has to be asked, is our baptism valid? Assuming you and I and most reading were baptized in the WCG, non of us were baptized in the same manner or way and by whom as were the followers of John the Baptist. Non of were baptized in the same manner or way and by whom as was HWA. And most importantly, non of us were baptized in the same manner or way and by whom as was the person who we claim to follow first and foremost, and that would be Jesus Christ.
This subject could be a long continued discussion but in the end, is there enough evidence to discredit a decision by a young HWA and by extension his person in this one area of his life and teaching or is it mudslinging?
The two (baptism/laying on of hands) submitted articles were well worth putting out because not too far deep in this area was the seed planted into his mind that got HWA into all kinds of trouble and forever impacted families and children. That seed was acknowledging that his baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit and beginning into the ministry was so utterly unique that no other man had such. By placing himself in the category of utterly unique and building upon it he placed himself above true doctrine and above true church government and the result is hard for me to think about right now.
It makes perfect sense that a legalistic church would attach legalism to baptism, and separate that from what God saw in the person’s heart. Why do legalists always insist on restraining God???
ReplyDelete