Herbert Armstrong taught the following in a May 13, 1978 sermon:
And so it is. Adam had made his choice. In other words, Adam said to God in effect … And let me just paraphrase it in my own words. In effect, he said: “God, I want you to keep your nose out of my affairs. I will not accept you as my ruler. I reject you as my king, as my ruler. I reject you as my God for salvation. I reject you as a source of knowledge to tell me what is good and what is evil, and I will decide it myself.”
And God said, “Well, I’ve given you the choice.” Now, instead of choosing character, he chose the wrong way; and God allowed that. God has not going to force you to choose the right way. Adam was able to choose whatever he pleased, and so are we. But, if you make the wrong choice, you’ll never have the character of God. And God is able to take care of that too.
From then in effect, God said, “Okay. You have rejected me. You have said you will create your own knowledge. You rejected me as your ruler and my government over you. You have rejected me as a Savior and a God and as the source of knowledge. So now I sentence you and your children after you – THE WHOLE WORLD that will come (and we have all come from Adam) – to 6,000 years of being cutoff from ME. All except the few in the world that I will decide I need to call and choose to do something for me in my service. Them I will call. But otherwise, ALL HUMANITY will be cut off from me.”
Is THIS the truth according to scripture? Is this the message of the Gospel? Is this what the New Testament boldly proclaims? Is THIS the Gospel of reconciliation?
The entire theme of the New Testament is what Jesus did for ALL of mankind. John 3:16 says God so loved the world, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. In Acts, we read how the Holy Spirit was poured out to not only Jew but Gentile. We read in Galatians that there in neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free - nor male or female - that all are one in Jesus Christ. We read in 2 Corinthians that God has reconciled the world to Himself through Christ. We read in Romans how we are no longer enemies to God but reconciled through Christ.
Herbert's teaching that the Whole world - from Adam forward 6,000 years in his teaching (of which time we have now past, by the way), is cut off. ALL humanity. This is a doctrine that is the exact opposite of what the New Testament teaches. It is in exact opposition of what the Holy Spirit did when He came to not only Jew but Gentile. If Herbert's teaching was correct, then Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female is incorrect. If Herbert's teaching is correct, John 3:16 is woefully false. This teaching is contrary to the essential teachings of Paul, the decisions of the Apostles at the Jerusalem council, every missionary effort by Paul through the foreign lands of the Gentiles, every move of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles, every martyr of the founding fathers of Christianity, and the action of reconciliation of mankind to the Father through Christ. Herbert's teaching basically invalidates scripture after scripture of Good News for all of mankind.
Herbert's "different Gospel" sideswipes what Christ did, what the Spirit has done and is doing, eliminates any reconciliation of the Gentiles, places bondage and restrictions on the Gentiles (which the Spirit and the Jerusalem Council outlawed, by the way!), reaffirms differences between Jew and Gentile in relation to Christ, and rejects any "Gentile" as defined in scripture as apostate because of their differences with Jewish/Mosaic Law. Herbert's teachings are pharisaical and are in absolute opposition with every teaching and effort that Paul had with great effort taught to the Gentile Church who accepted and believed in Jesus Christ.
Herbert's teaching, along with the teachings of the Judaizers, was that observances of rituals and ceremonies and the Law was commanded and required for Christians. This very argument was resolved in the Jerusalem Council. The reality is, according to scripture, that the teachings of Herbert Armstrong - that man continues to be cut off from God - ALL of mankind - ALL of humanity - except for an infinitesimal few - is nothing less that absolutely ANTICHRIST, Anti-Spirit, Anti-New Testament, Anti-reconciliation, and anti-truth. It is the opposite of what the truth of the Gospel is - and what the Old Testament pointed to - that Jew and Gentile both have been accepted to God through the reconciliation of mankind through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the Father. The very fruits - and current status - of Armstrongism bear witness to the futility and result of going against what Jesus Christ Himself accomplished, and what the Spirit had done, is doing, and will continue to do through the Spirit of God through those - ALL those - whomever and wherever they may be - who believe - whether Jew, Gentile, Slave, Greek, Male, Female, American, British, Australian, African, or any other person on the face of this Earth who has heard and who has accepted and believes in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and for that, we give thanks.
Submitted by SHT
25 comments:
SHT- Both HWAs and your statement are both woefully simplistic.
There are scriptures that are difficult to reconcile and understand fully such as "many are called , but few are chosen".
“no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
...and many more. HWAs attempt to create the "exclusive franchise" on the giving of the Holy Spirit is obviously wrong. On the other hand, in this current age, universalim does not appear to be a Biblical concept either.
"Herbert's teachings are PHARISAICAL [emphasis added] and are in absolute opposition with every teaching and effort that Paul ..."
"Herbert's teaching, ... is nothing less that absolutely ANTICHRIST, Anti-Spirit, Anti-New Testament, Anti-reconciliation, and anti-truth."
Yet Christians all over the world fervently support Zionism, which is even more anti-Christ than Herbert's cult, and is controlled by REAL PHARISEES who REJECTED THE MESSIAH. At least HWA believed in Jesus. Yet the Zionists and Christian-Zionists are never called a cult. They get a pass. Lunacy.
Those who had Christ KILLED are never called Anti-Christ. So what are they? Pro-Christ?
HWA and other cults were frequently attacked by mainstream Christianity. Yet they did not attack Judaism or Islam with nearly the same fervor, if at all. Sometimes they condemn Muslim terror, but not Islam itself. Yet Judaism and Islam are also cults.
Why did they hate HWA? Because he exposed their paganism and their fake Christianity.
Tonto 11:06 -
Here's one interpretation of "called" vs. "chosen".
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-did-jesus-mean-by-many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen/
Obviously this will open up more questions than answers for many, but I think that two things are important. 1) Context. 2) It's a Parable. 3) The External Call goes out to all people, but the Internal Call is only experienced by the "elect". - this is the opinion of Guy Waters, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary.
Which is probably enough to cause many to read, but few to listen. ;)
11:16, I will not pretend I know enough with high intelligence about the Zionism movement to make an opinion on the subject. Hopefully others here might have the knowledge to chime in intelligently on the subject.
The main watered-down Gospel HWA preached was in public lectures. He talked about a "strong hand from someplace" and about the give and get way. Not exactly the true Gospel.
"Why did they hate HWA? Because he exposed their paganism and their fake Christianity. "
Fake Christianity? Hypocrisy? Health Wealth? Name It-Claim it? Heresies? Sure, you could list a ton of charges for Corporate Christianity - and many of them would be valid. You could fire up just as many charges for Armstrongism - and many of those would be just as valid.
Paganism? Now there's a whole different argument and a whole different topic - and regarding HWA's "pick and choose what is and isn't pagan" - the whole context has to come down to one word that HWA and GTA could not stand. That word? "Heart".
Calling the Jews anti-Christ because some of their religious leaders along with the Romans killed Jesus - according to God's plan - 2,000 years ago, is like calling the Democrats pro-slavery because the southern Democrat controlled states went to war to preserve their rights to keep slaves.
Past history is past history. We cannot fix the past, but we can fix the future if we come to our senses in the present.
BTW - because of the Jews we have Christianity and the OT and the NT.
Go listen to the Beatles "Revolution" to hear John Lennon's take on the affairs of his day.
Tonto:
Many passages are "difficult". My take on some of these is as follows:
Man are called, but few are chosen. The choosing is based on one's response to the call.
Imagine the Military asking for volunteers. Only a few raise their hands. Those who raise their hands are chosen. He was speaking of the Jewish leaders, not mankind in general.
Only a few of the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
No man can come to me unless draws him (John 6:44). But later, John 12:32, But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
Matt 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate (faith) . . . only a few find it (the gate into the Kingdom, see Acts 14:22). Again, he might be referring to the audience of Jews, who, on the whole, rejected Him. Rev 7:9 speaks of a great multitude who were saved, from every nation.
3:47 - You have done what few in Armstrongism do - put scriptures in CONTEXT. I agree with your takes, especially who the audience is of whom he was referring to. Realizing who the audiences were is absolutely critical to understanding why what is being said when and to whom.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (mainly) - Jesus' words BEFORE Crucifixion/Res. (UNDER THE LAW), Jewish Audience (Original 12 Apostles were all Jewish).
Acts - the Inclusion of the Gentiles, Jerusalem Council, Coming of the Holy Spirit, the Acts of the Spirit.
Pauline Letters - Ministry To the accepted GENTILES, AFTER Res. (Age of Faith and Grace, NOT UNDER LAW (Per J. Council), Revealing of Mysteries, etc.)
Hebrews - To Jewish Christians (Struggling with the Inclusion of Gentiles and fulfillment of the Law, NT Applications)
James - written by a Christian Jew.
Timothy - written by Paul.
Jude - likely an audience of Jewish Christians.
If the context is not understood, how can one possibly know where the puzzle pieces fit? Square pegs don't fit in round holes. Once you realize the audience, who wrote what, and what was being said to each audience- Jew and Gentile - things begin to make a lot more sense.
I think Tonto is pretty stop on here.
Since I left the COG community, I'm always a little perplexed by Christians who seriously put the label "heretic" on HWA. When you're a non-believer and you look at the scriptures on each side, its very easy to see that the Bible is simply just not clear in most of its teachings (because it was written by many different people with different perspectives).
Mainline Christians here (and over at Exit Support Network) love to critique the HWA's non-trinitarian view. But there are just so many obvious problems with the trinity to make it ridiculous, and so many obvious problems with HWA's view to make it also ridiculous. Surely, SHT will come to the conclusion after thinking a little more that both views are incompatible with EVERY scripture in the Bible, and just give up the useless battle to find a unifying Christian doctrine.
Studying "the human experience" my entire life I have come to the conclusion that HWA's teaching in this matter is far more rational than the one SHT defends.
I cannot believe that a single human being is "one with God" at present in any way.
Although I can attest for some mighty good attempts of man to ACT "good."
I do admit. My viewpoint of HWA teaching the more rational view is by observation of history and current affairs only. Man seems to be an "animal that is able to do good", therefore I expect the bible to reflect that dichotomy.
nck
Kieren - from reading the different blogs, you surely have come to the realization that most people are set in their ways?
Those of us who have left the COGs have already undergone a cataclysmic shift and are looking for a safe island.
I am one of those who are still in the transition journey with destination unknown, but I think most have found their new island and built a home with high walls to keep out unwelcome ideas.
For those of us who don't think rock music is a deadly evil, I refer you to this song. Note the last 2 lines of the song.
The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again, no, no
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
Yeaah!
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no no
Yeaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Songwriters: PETER TOWNSHEND
© Spirit Music Group
For non-commercial use only.
SHT you said in a previous post this: "selective reading of Paul is pretty common in the COGs. It's looked through a filter, a lens, that is only read through the delivered message of Herbert Armstrong ".
Have you not committed the same with this post? Paul stated in 2Cor. 5:19 that God in Christ reconciled the world unto himself. Paul just 16 verses later calls the same unbelieving world unrighteous, darkness, Belial believers, infidels, idol worshipers. Paul says to come out from among them (world), and seperate from them.
Did Paul just change his mind in such a short period of thought? What is it, is the whole world reconciled to God or cut off from him?
The last figures I looked at said that 40% of people in the US were atheists or unbelieving. The numbers were much higher in the Scandinavian countries were it is close to 75%. That is a lot of people who don't desire to be reconciled to God. So just using the 'great' formula of common sense, there is no way the whole world is reconciled to God.
So is Paul wrong in his thinking? Was Herbert Armstrong wrong in his thinking? Both were absolutely right concerning this subject. Paul said in Romans 5:10 that WE were enemies of God even though the fact for the potential and possibility of reconciliation was already there by Jesus Christ`s sacrifice.
God has only reconciled the whole world to himself by not imputing there trespasses unto them. The actual action of reconciliation unto God by a person is stated clearly by Paul. Until that action takes place, many in the world remain enemies and cutoff from God.
".. put the label "heretic" on HWA."
During Great Depression, well fed Butterball hijacks COG-7-day booklet to start his own cult! http://www.servantsnews.com/sn9811/s981123.htm
I don't think SHT is overly simplistic for a single page article. The Lord is looking for faith and belief. This is counted as righteousness. As SHT referenced John 3:16 which says God loved the world enough to give His Son for it. Yes, Christ sacrifice can redeem the entire world if they believe...the opportunity is there and belief does reconcile. The Sacrifice covers in that any that come to the Father are reconciled. This is not true without Christ's sacrifice. This is reconciliation- I have given My Son Who is greater than all sin, so if you come to Me accepting my Son, we are reconciled. I don't see SHT saying something different. I also don't see how Paul calling the world full of darkness and deception is contrary to this.
As a side interesting note (at least to me) Matt. 22:14 which has been translated "many are called, few are chosen" has been very poorly taught in the COGs. As others have noted, this is directed to the Pharisees. "Chosen" here is an adjective not a verb (the "are" in "are chosen" was added)
In the parable, the Children of Israel were the "chosen" that did not accept the invitation to the wedding feast and in fact killed the messengers (the prophets). Finally, the Lord invites those of "the World". They come to the Wedding.
I believe the better translation should be and some translations have it as such:
"Many are the called ones, few are the chosen ones."
Jesus is poking holes in the Pharisees' belief that they as the once "chosen people" are acceptable before the Lord without heeding the call to the Wedding. This verse is directed to the Pharisees not to all the many Christians that the COGs would have us believe.
Regarding those that are at the Wedding: Many are those called (from the World); few are those that accept the invitation from among the "chosen".
The Gospel is to accept the invitation to life in Christ's sacrifice and come to Him. Christ will live in you and His Spirit will create fruits of the Spirit. Call it simplified if you wish. But, what does complexity add for one that has come to Christ and has fruits of repentance?
"SHT you said in a previous post this: "selective reading of Paul is pretty common in the COGs. It's looked through a filter, a lens, that is only read through the delivered message of Herbert Armstrong ".
Have you not committed the same with this post? Paul stated in 2Cor. 5:19 that God in Christ reconciled the world unto himself. Paul just 16 verses later calls the same unbelieving world unrighteous, darkness, Belial believers, infidels, idol worshipers. Paul says to come out from among them (world), and seperate from them.
Did Paul just change his mind in such a short period of thought? What is it, is the whole world reconciled to God or cut off from him? "
No, I don't think that I have. Here's why.
God reconciled the whole world to himself through Jesus Christ. Not to beat a dead horse, but this was proven with the acceptance of even the *GASP* Gentiles, a total shock to the Jewish Church, and even to the Apostles themselves. No other demands were made on the Gentiles, except to repent (of the exact things you stated, not the breaking of the Mosaic Law which they were not observing anyway), accept, and believe. The OPPORTUNITY is there through reconciliation on behalf of what Christ did for us.
The OPPORTUNITY is there. The MESSAGE of that opportunity is the Gospel - that Christ has reconciled mankind to the Father, and salvation is freely and openly available because of the reconciliation of mankind to the Father through Jesus Christ. The CHOICE is available by the masses who, as you have rightly pointed out, have said "NO" to Jesus, and have chosen not to believe. This does not mean they are not a part of the reconciliation. This means they have made the choice to reject it.
If we have NOT been reconciled to the Father, then we wouldn't have a chance even if we tried. We would be in the exact situation that Herbert Armstrong tried to convince people of: That mankind had been "sentenced" to 6,000 years cut off from God and there's nothing you can do about it except God points at you and says "You, join the one and only true Church." Then, we have to throw out dozens of scriptures that flatly reject this argument - and of course, throw out the decisions of the early church in regard to the Gentiles who were faced with the same question - does Jesus' invitation to salvation include the Gentiles? In this regard, according to Acts, the Holy Spirit said that they were certainly accepted, welcomed, and given the opportunity for salvation.
The problem is not with the lack of reconciliation. The majority of mankind have simply and totally rejected the offer.
"BTW - because of the Jews we have Christianity and the OT and the NT."
That is three strikes against them. Christianity, the OT, and the NT. Three strikes and you're out. No wonder people are "anti-semitic". Just calmly discussing their destructive effect on the world make someone a "hater". Duh.
It is a bit tiring to have "bobby fisher without the chess skills" commenting.
So emperor Constantine was jewish now?
And the "protocols" were not written by Russian secret service to scapegoat and enforce power, like US false flag operations past and present?
Nck
"Herbert's teaching that the Whole world - from Adam forward 6,000 years in his teaching (of which time we have now past, by the way), is cut off. ALL humanity. This is a doctrine that is the exact opposite of what the New Testament teaches."
no, as a matter of fact that is exactly what the NT teaches...and also that God has made a way to reconcile....it's all there in His plan, for those with ears to hear.
11.10 PM
HWA didn't get it quite right. Christ condemned the Pharisee's, pointing out that even prostitutes were entering the kingdom, while they rejected it. This was before the holy spirit was given. Meaning, some had repented, and were qualifying for the kingdom by building the mind of God. Where these prostitutes and others the first fruits? No, but they were still qualifying for the lesser resurrection.
Even if not called, people still have the ability to have a relationship with God and grow as a Christian. And God does answer their prayers as experience repeatedly shows.
HWA at best was silent on this matter, or rejected it since his was the "only true church." Everyone else was a fake Christian.
Who said Constantine was a Jew? Maybe just influenced by them. Why isn't that possible?
And the "protocols" were not written by Russian secret service to scapegoat and enforce power, like US false flag operations past and present?
Several Orthodox Rabbis have confirmed the protocols are accurate.
Musicians like Townsend give us very little real analysis. Just a few vague versus that can be taken different ways.
Anonymous 6/18 7:22 AM said..."HWA didn't get it quite right. Christ condemned the Pharisee's, pointing out that even prostitutes were entering the kingdom, while they rejected it. This was before the holy spirit was given. Meaning, some had repented, and were qualifying for the kingdom by building the mind of God. Where these prostitutes and others the first fruits? No, but they were still qualifying for the lesser resurrection. Even if not called, people still have the ability to have a relationship with God and grow as a Christian. And God does answer their prayers as experience repeatedly shows. HWA at best was silent on this matter, or rejected it since his was the 'only true church.' Everyone else was a fake Christian."
Idk if you can say they "were still qualifying for the lesser resurrection" if Christ said they "were entering the kingdom." My interpretation would be exactly what Christ plainly told his audience i.e. they were qualifying for the first resurrection not the second. It'd be the Pharisees that would qualify for the second resurrection. Remember Christ told the thief on the cross he would be with Him in paradise. So if one equates the Kingdom of Christ, the coming new age, the 1000 year rule of Christ on earth and paradise together one would have to interpret the thief will rise at the first resurrection too unless I'm missing something? And remember Christ's parable of Lazarus and the rich man? Lazarus inherited everlasting life while the rich man was in the flames of hell. Doesn't this imply people up to Christ's time could still qualify for the first resurrection and everlasting life even though they may have been ignorant of Jesus as the Christ or Sacred Scripture is silent about them, but they are known to God alone?
"On the other hand, in this current age, universalim does not appear to be a Biblical concept either."
Universalism is the new globalist religion. It's the stupidest most contradictory religion yet.
8.05 PM
To be in the first resurrection, one must be holy, ie, chosen of God and given the holy spirit. This is where denominations like the Jehovah's Witnesses get it wrong. One cannot choose to be the bride of Christ. It's only God the Father who does the choosing as in "no man can come to me unless the Father draws him."
The thief on the cross can be in paradise in any number of ways. It can be the second resurrection or a taste of the second resurrection in order to fulfill this promise. Or it could be just a physical resurrection in the earthly paradise at the end of Christs one thousand year rule.
Any scripture must be evaluated in the context of all the other scriptures, as in "live by EVERY word of God, rather some word/s of God.
Post a Comment