All this to say that many of the "truths" attributed to HWA which the COGs claim were "restored" by him were actually taught previously by others, fifteen to fifty years or more before he ever came on the scene in any public way. Not all of these men were necessarily Sabbath keepers, but some were, and some had ties to the Millerite movement in the 1800s. Their books, articles, etc. were circulated and would have probably been available in libraries with religious sections. For example, Russell's books entitled Studies in the Scriptures printed around twenty million copies in various languages and were distributed all over the world, according to Wikipedia. You can still find them in print available on Amazon.
If we in the COGs claim to uphold "truth" then we also have to be willing to uphold "truth" even when we find it doesn't fit the narrative we have been told, and many among us still believe. I am not speaking here of the legitimacy or not of some of these specific doctrines, which people who come to this blog will hold different opinions on, and would involve a much longer conversation. But, we have been taught a certain narrative of our own church history and its founder that isn't completely accurate when one delves into the actual facts of the matter, and we become hypocrites if we continue to promote a false narrative to those who come after us, when the facts are there for anyone to see and research for themselves.
For those interested in doing some follow up on Charles Taze Russell, you can find some of his writings here... http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Russell%2C%20C%2E%20T%2E%20%28Charles%20Taze%29%2C%201852%2D1916
A direct link to the Journal article as mentioned in the above comment is here...http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue202/jx013118.pdf
In the above article, a man by the name of George Storrs is also mentioned as being a mentor of Russell, and a volume of his Six Sermons can be found here... http://watchtowerdocuments.org/documents/1856_Six_Sermons_Storrs.pdf
As others have mentioned, G.G. Rupert was a proponent of keeping the Biblical holy days. Some of his writings can be found here... http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/GG%20Rupert/ggrupert.htm
An online version of Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright can be found here...https://originofnations.org/books,%20papers/JUDAH'S%20SCEPTRE%20AND%20JOSEPH'S%20BIRTHRIGHT%20(J%20H%20Allen).pdf
Or here...http://www.christianchurchesofgod.com/books/jhallen/start.html
by Concerned Sister
45 comments:
The conclusion of the matter is HWA distilled everything that is important for Salvation and put it on a platter for us. No one comes close. It is good enough for me as it is the truth. Thanks for the information, Concerned Sister.
All Herbert Armstrong did is distill everything that is important in making a lot of money. Salvation had nothing to do with it.
You sound like a true COG zombie to me anon 12:37. No individual thoughts allowed and worshiping the great HWA to get salvation.
The days of specific doctrine listed Churches are over Concerned Sister. And have been for years.
Therefore the days of arguing over doctrine points are becoming rarer in younger generations.
Similarly, writer of G-Mark used Homer, then writers of subsequent gospels used Mark? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJT67kgsfc
My sense has always been that Mr. armstrong never claimed to originate or come up with the various teachings from scratch through a devine pipeline to God, as though they had never existed before then. When he would say that God revealed these things to him, it was more the case that he believed that God inspired and guided him to assemble 99% of what was already out there for the most part, into a coherent and integrated understanding of the Bible and salvation and the plan of God for humankind. True, there are no bibliographies in his books, but this is by no means unusual. In addition, some of what was attributed to him was done in his name and in his administration by the very many clingy losers with him. By no means justifiable, and Mr. Armstrong should have more than fired the lot of them.
I write as one who believes and practices what some believe and were taught as biblical truth, and as one who sees that these various church of god groups are as off-track and insidious as one can imagine. I've experienced the worst from them and from their ersatz ministers. The charlatans from Charlotte, for example.
HWA commented on having "seen" a copy of Allen's book, and mentioned how it had "many errors". HWA's significant departure from Allen's theme, brought out in Ralph Orr's history of BI in the COGs, was prophecy. Where Allen stressed the blessings of the nations said to be descendant from Israel, HWA applied the cursings.
By identifying these nations as "Israel", HWA applied prophecies regarding Israel to these nations - with heavy emphasis on the UK and the USA. I'd say this is still the main reason splinters hang on to the BI teaching.
there is likely a grain of truth in every organization, else it wouldn't be believable...
the Baptists teach that Jesus is the Son of God, which is true....doesn't mean they understand it (they don't), but the statement itself is true.
same principle applies to SDAs, JWs,LDS, and pretty much every other group.....
Anonymous 12:37
"The conclusion of the matter is HWA distilled everything that is important for Salvation and put it on a platter for us. No one comes close. It is good enough for me as it is the truth."
That isn't what Jesus said. Your statement is evidence that Armstrongism is a cult of man-made doctrines.
Jesus said "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."
What did Jesus consider to be salvational? EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD. Where are these words found? Well, Jesus was a Torah teacher, and he quoted the above from the Torah in Deu 8:3.
Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the "Word of God", which is essential for salvation.
Did Jesus keep the commands of the Old Testament? Like Deu 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." He had to keep this command if he was sinless, and a law-keeper. So he didn't add anything, or remove anything from the word, correct?
You may be agreeing up to this point, but where is British Israelism, and all the other non-biblical HWA teachings in the "Word"?
...Nowhere? Now you have to start adding to the "Word of God." Because the word of God isn't sufficient for salvation in HWA's opinion? Jesus was not allowed to add to the "Word" but HWA is allowed to?
If your Savior is not allowed to change the "Word" but your chosen end-time servant is allowed to change it. That officially makes you a man worshipper, you have put your man above your Savior.
Paul warns of this in Rom 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Col 2:18 "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels{messengers}, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,"
I just had a look at the Wikipedia article on Russell. It told me more than I want to know. It was a little creepy. There was a section on Pyramidology. I had thought this was probably mostly concocted by HWA but now I see there was a forerunner.
I have noticed that the leitmotif that binds all these Restorationist groups together is a belief in some form of polytheism. This theme also moves them outside the pale of Christianity.
Anonymous 12:37: Really a very sad, sad statement.
******* Click on my icon to view my Disclaimer
Hey Hoss.
I like your theorizing.
As the Roman Catholic diocesed in Europe exactly mirror the administrative districts of the Roman Empire.
So will in the future ACOG churches reflect the Anglo-American Empire when they are long gone and dissolved into The Great Reset Empire.
Nck
NEO
“ ... I had thought this was probably mostly concocted by HWA but now I see there was a forerunner ..”
HWA never had an original idea in his entire life.
More on BI today:
https://herbertwarmstrong.com/2020/11/21/more-on-anglo-israelism/
Hoss I understand the blessing emphasis from a 19th century writer and the curses from a post ww1 (the war to end all wars) , 1929 crisis writer.
Of course the USA was yet to embark on its journey to its zenith and hwa sat at the pinnacle at the UN headquarters in 1984.
Nck
Nck
"The conclusion of the matter is HWA distilled everything that is important for Salvation and put it on a platter for us."
No, the conclusion of the matter is that God "distilled" everything that is important for salvation and he gives that understanding to whomever he gives his Spirit.
It has nothing to do with which organization you're in, or how perfectly you obey him. Notwithstanding obedience is expected!
km
Arguing over B.I. doctrine is for the oldies.
Anyone under 50 is not interested in the argument.
Actually, 11:44 that is not true. In all the cults that have "colleges" and "education" centers British Israelism is a major teaching they receive Once it is ingrained in them it continues in the church as a vital doctrine. Without it Armstrongism disintegrates.
"..HWA distilled everything that is important for Salvation and put it on a platter for us."
The exact opposite is true. He frequently wrote "beware of pulling yourself up by your own boot straps." In his Holy days booklet, Herb taught that God will fight our battles for us and clean us up. My first minister followed in Herbs footsteps by complaining that I had grown by using my own strength. This is all in contradiction to the parable of the talents. The differing outcomes in the parable proves that it's people, not God that's in the driver's seat.
So out of envy, loser HWA taught his followers to bury their talents in the ground. Like all deceivers, Herb mis directed his victims minds on trivia such as the "30 restored truths" which have nothing to do with every day living, and lowered the church's intellectual level with his incessant two trees sermons. He was a spiritual vandal, a barbarian in a twentieth century business suit.
They should.
What does MAGA mean??? And we're talking current administration.
What is "again", when was "that period called again"???
Nck
For me, contra HWA:
Jesus Christ and the Saints will be in heaven during the Millennium; hence
Jesus Christ will not be literally ruling from the throne of David.
David of Ezekiel 34 and 37 is not a resurrected David - but Jesus Christ.
Ezekiel 37 does not picture a resurrection after the Millennium.
The LGD does not picture the White Throne Judgment.
The term “House of Israel” is used for the House of Judah
No one has ‘sat’ on the throne of David since Zedekiah - waiting for Christ - two occupied thrones go together - Temple and Palace; there are “if” clauses in everlasting covenants.
Christ was not Melchizedek
The tender (rak) twig of Ezekiel 17 is the Messiah, cp, branch, Jeremiah, and shoot, Isaiah
Crucifixion was not on a Wednesday, but on a Friday
Resurrection was not on the Sabbath, but on a Sunday
The third day from Friday is Sunday, using ANE inclusive reckoning.
Timing of Passover sacrifice - end of the day; hence
Between the evenings at the end of the day;
“after the sabbaths” (Matt 28:1) is not after a holy day and weekly Sabbath;
Non-atonement holy days are not annual Sabbaths, food can be prepared on these days.
Christ died AD 30; 1st Day of UB fell on a Sabbath, according to the calendar used by John
Modern Rabbinic calendar was not in use in Second Temple days.
Elohim is not a uni-plural word.
Peter was the Rock of Matthew 16:18
Pope is not the Antichrist or Man of Sin
Popes, as a broad generalization, did not dominate Holy Roman Emperors
RCC destroyed at beginning of Tribulation
Image of the beast is not the RCC; yet future
Little horn of Daniel 7 is not the Pope
Antichrist is a king; not a priest.
Deadly wound of Rev 13 was not the end of the Roman Empire proper (AD476); yet future.
Judgment 1 Pe 4:17 does not refer to the Church being judged now and non-Church being judged in the future.
No time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2
(Suggested, what was actually ‘created’ in Genesis 1 was Eden, with its Garden - ANE cosmology).
(1)
"I repeat, at this point, this is the crux of the whole matter: the initiative is God's. His purpose shall stand. The world is full of religions that originated in the imagination, reasoning and speculating of certain humans. But they had no true basis to reason from. The TRUTH is REVEALED from GOD!...So I give you, now, a brief synopsis of the experience by which Jesus Christ struck me down, so to speak, and revealed ASTOUNDING TRUTHS! Biblical truths not believed or taught by the churches!"
"Brethren, do you see, from this, HOW METHODICALLY God began revealing His Truth to me?...I had not yet received God's Holy Spirit. I was still searching with a carnal mind—-but, with this knowledge, I had SURRENDERED my will, my hostility against God, all rebellion against His Law. I had REPENTED, and I had come to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ as personal Saviour."
"So I next studied that question [baptism] diligently, in the Bible. I went to four preachers for help, but relied solely on the Bible for final decision. A Seventh-Day Adventist preacher seemed coldly legalistic, lacking spiritual warmth. A Church of God (seventh-day, Stanberry, Missouri) preacher didn't want to be bothered and was insulting. A Quaker minister was friendly, but had to admit, finally, that he himself questioned his church's doctrine on this point and only went along with it because other "holy men of God" (as he called them) in his church did. A Baptist minister had the best and clearest explanation, and was warm and friendly and, I felt, more spiritual in a sane and sensible way. So I asked him to baptize me, not into his church, but into Christ. For this I had to obtain permission from the rather august and dignified Board of the Church. On being baptized I knew God then and there gave me His HOLY SPIRIT!"
(2)
So HWA claimed that he doesn't recognize religions that originated in the imagination and speculation of humans (e.g.: personal revelation), then he goes on to recount his personal revelations whereby he made up a new religion (separate from the then current "True Church" COG7D), who refused to baptize him, so instead he went to a satanic counterfeit false church, who lacked God's Sabbath, didn't follow "The Law," kept Christmas, etc... who laid hands on him and HWA received the Holy Spirit from them...
...Wait, why did we believe him?
Also, if God directly revealed truths to HWA that were only found in the Bible, then why do the following pseudo-historical/biblical lies only be found outside the Bible? (and taught long before God revealed them to HWA?)
The lies of British Israelism
The False History of the [True] Church
The entire prophetic picture as specified by HWA (United States of Europe)
Pyramidology
"Government is Everything" (Just read the NT and tell me where Jesus or his disciples or hinted this was the case)
"Prophetic Duality" - Elijah/John the Baptist/HWA
The Gospel - Instead of this being salvation opened to the gentiles and the Work of Christ, it is "a soon coming, world ruling super government"
So, if these ideas, being the cornerstone(s) of Armstrongism, which God directly inspired HWA to see, then they should be scrutinized and stand the test of time. However, if even one of them falls, Armstrongism has been invalidated since it was failed/false revelation from God to HWA.
The problem with post-modern COGers is they want to change some of what HWA taught, but hold to some other things and still think they are within the belief system. The problem is, HWA's system doesn't allow members to pick and choose what to keep. The personal revelations came to HWA, not to the membership. In my experience, most members (myself included) just never asked the hard questions about their beliefs.
It somewhat astounds me that current COGers can acknowledge HWA "got things wrong" but ignore the fact that these "wrong things," were massive doctrines" that made up the substructure of the belief system which were supposedly "directly inspired by God." Eliminate them, and you are basically a COG7 member or SDA.
Actually it is the truth Anon 12:42.
Only those over 50 years of age (to be kind), but more closer to over 60 years are ruffled up about BI beliefs. But even those are few in number, if truth be told.
The cold reality, that anti B.I believers will not accept in a million years, is different generations go to war with each other, over matters that other generations don't.
Look at scripture, N.T Christians torn apart over doctrine disputes that hold no sway to later generations.
B.I is one of those. That will be a hard pill to be taken.
5.15 AM
Interesting post, but too many points to focus on.
"then he goes on to recount his personal revelations whereby he made up a new religion (separate from the then current "True Church" COG7D), who refused to baptize him"
Refused to baptize him? That's news to me. Where can I find that stated?
Not long ago, l complained to God about a vile middle aged relative. The holy spirit informed me that he will experience the tribulation.
Meaning, a reality check with God about BI is advisable.
HWA was not refused baptism by the COG 7th day. He simply preferred to be baptized by a Baptist minister that was of his own preferred choosing.
Later, this Baptist minister was defrocked for deducting girls at a Bible College in the 1930s.
Here is HWAs recollections about his baptism election from his autobiography...
https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getbook&InfoID=1326385034&InfoType=Biography1
Yes Tonto.
But to be EXACT.
HWA felt that for baptism he chose the preacher that was closer to God.
Something must have triggered that feeling.
Nck
If HWA "chose the preacher that was closer to God" for baptism as NCK asserts then those who are contemplating baptism in the COGs today should have the same option. This however isn't the case, as most COG groups will not accept as valid baptisms performed by church groups or ministers outside their circles, sighting inaccurate or false teachings in other churches even if those churches practice full immersion baptism and understand the basics of repentance, etc. In many cases this would include other Sabbath keeping groups like the SDAs or even COG7. Some COG groups will even question baptisms by other COG ministers in other groups. The way HWA and the subsequent splinter groups have set up their governmental systems, most people are stuck dealing with whoever happens to be assigned to their local area by the headquarters of that particular group, and seeking counsel or other services from someone else is frowned upon, and labeled as "minister hopping".
Concerned Sister
Concerned Sister.
That is not MY assertion. Those are HWA's words in mass publication to more than 1.5 million subscribers. It could be argued that HWA felt he needed to make that choice since "the only true church at the time had rejected god."
But a closer look at HWA reveals that he was quite comfortable recognizing Godly qualities in "able people" outside the church, to the point of denying God in people in top positions in the Church itself.
For instance 100 percent trust in a non baptized counsel or asking leaders 4 years after the act of watching over the murder of a million communists, "what they were going to do about communism next", and completely disqualifying Meredith as Church leader on print and subsequently send him packing on exile to the barren volcanic outer region of the USA based on the edge of 2 tectonic plates, i.e Hawai.
Nck
5:15 AM said: “so instead he went to a satanic counterfeit false church, who lacked God's Sabbath, didn't follow "The Law," kept Christmas, etc... who laid hands on him and HWA received the Holy Spirit from them...”
Correction HWA never went through the “laying on of hands” ritual at the time of his baptism. As Pam Dewey noted on the subject:
“In other words … Armstrong was not baptized by a Sabbatarian. AND—there is no mention of any process of “laying on of hands” and a special prayer regarding the dispensing of the Holy Spirit connected with his baptism.
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!” (http://www.isitso.org/guide/hwaord.html)
Funny how the Holy Spirit's information always accords with your own desires, Anon 9:15.
5.05 PM
Sure, carry on like a minister. People have a right to express their opinion without being attacked or abused by you.
Not only did HWA's baptism fall outside the accepted standards of most COG groups, but he was allowed to begin giving sermons within just a few months of beginning to attend COG7. This was without any formalized training or lengthy time for thorough vetting or indoctrination within the group. This type of scenario would be unheard of today within these groups, so a repeat of having anyone like an HWA quickly rising up within one of these groups would never happen.
An outsider coming in and wanting to speak or address a congregation of one of these churches after having attended for just a few months and not being counseled or baptized by an official duly ordained "minister" would never be allowed. The fact that he broke all the accepted COG rules and standards is never brought up or questioned by those who hail him as an apostle, prophet, or great spiritual leader, and yet anyone else following the same pattern and claiming special knowledge from God would never be accepted within these groups and would immediately be labeled as a false teacher because they were not baptized by a minister of the "true church," did not receive formal indoctrination or training by said church, and did not wait years to be recognized or rise up through the ranks of "God's government."
Concerned Sister
Concerned Sister
HWA was from a former generation which was poorly educated by today's standards. Is it really fair to judge him by contemporary standards?
Anonymous Nov. 22 at 6:53 PM said...
"5.05 PM
Sure, carry on like a minister. People have a right to express their opinion without being attacked or abused by you."
We all have a right to express our opinion all right, but you messed up on the last part there. This is a discussion. The idea is to throw out ideas and get responses. In fact, that's the whole point--to stimulate feedback. Learn from it if you can, instead of whining about being "attacked or abused."
Anonymous November 22, 2020 at 10:01 PM
said...
Concerned Sister
HWA was from a former generation which was poorly educated by today's standards. Is it really fair to judge him by contemporary standards?
IMO judging HWA by the standards he imposed on others is not only fair, but just. It proves he was a hypocrite and a false prophet/apostle.
Well that could be used as a positive for Herbert considering the standard of recognised leaders these days.
WRONG!! Concerned Sister only you and your husband question others baptism in another COG group.
Surprisingly many COG Ministry recognise baptism from other COG groups.
Anon 12:56 Ministry ? Certainly feels the need to share inner most thoughts on everything under the sun which rates as "normal behaviour" for Ministry.
Pro Catholic Ministry as well.
10.16 PM
You sound like pathological attacker km, so I'II disengage.
I will say this once for the record and benefit of whomever is behind the comment of November 22, at 10:54 PM... I am not a member of UCG, and never have been. I grew up in the WCG, and have attended other splinter groups, but am not connected in any way with UCG or it's hierarchy.
I have chosen on my own to research some of the back history and information concerning the movement I grew up in and have found that the picture I was presented with and have spent most of my adult life taking for granted was not completely honest or accurate. the comments and posts I make come from my own observations and research, as a nobody, who grew up in WCG and is still connected with the movement.
The comment about "some" ministers or COG groups questioning baptisms done in other COG groups was made from personal observation. I personally know someone who was baptized in one group and it was suggested to them that they might need to be re-baptized, after they began attending with a different group. I did not mean to suggest that this was a universal sentiment or practice among the groups and many people have moved between groups without an issue. It isn't completely unheard of though.
It is much more common among the COGs to reject baptisms done by people in churches outside the Armstrong COG sphere, and that would in many cases include those of people crossing over from the SDAs or even the COG7, as well as more mainstream groups such as the Baptists. This is often done as a matter of course without regard to a person's personal growth or commitment to Jesus Christ. The reasoning being that unless someone is baptized by an official representative of the "true church" their baptism must automatically be invalid, and in order to be considered converted and allowed to participate in our Passover services they must be re-baptized. In my opinion this starts to give baptism some sort of superstitious aura, rather than simply seeing it as a symbol of someone's repentance and commitment to Jesus Christ. And if we aren't careful it can begin to place more importance on the person being used as the instrument to perform the act, rather than on the importance of the act itself or the commitment or mindset of the person being baptized. It also suggests that the ministry within these groups has the power to arbitrarily decide whom God has given His spirit to or whom He hasn't based solely on who baptized them.
If HWA's baptism and ministerial credentials were accepted without question and considered valid proof of his fitness to lead a church or his approval by God, then the same standards and benefit of the doubt should be given to others who might come from similar backgrounds. As a hypothetical example, if someone coming from the COG7, who was considered an "elder" and served as such in that group decided to join one of the offshoots of the Armstrong WCG, say because he became convinced that keeping the holy days would be beneficial and something God would want him to do, why would we not accept the validity of his baptism, or for that matter his "eldership"? Is this not essentially what we claim HWA did? And if we apply one standard to HWA, and another standard to someone else, as I have personally seen done, how does this not make us into hypocrites? Where is the consistency here?
God is no respecter of persons. HWA rose to a position of influence and power by claiming certain things of himself and his teachings that in hindsight were not all together honest or accurate. He also took advantage of the more relaxed governmental structures of the COG7, and then put in place much more stringent structures within his own group. So, how is it honest or Godly to turn a blind eye to these things, giving him the benefit of the doubt, while using a completely different set of standards for everyone else?
Concerned Sister
Herbert Armstrong is dead Concerned Sister. Dead for years. Asleep as dead can be.
You expose your own age, Concerned Sister, by being obsessed by him. You also expose your age by never mentioning Loma, as if Herbert was a one man band.
Maybe you should share the Herbert frustrations with Joel Meeker, who you claimed last year, to be partying with at COGWA WFW. Oh that wasn't the truth perhaps....
Ii agree with your posting CC.
"arbitrarily decide" : of course there is this "fruit of the spirit" thing.
Aztecs: I do believe that some Aztecs were completely dedicated to their god who required a sacrifice of blood. In the eyes of the Conquistadors this was a horrific practice, whilst for many some priests may have been respected for their dedication, sacrifice, and general concern for others while not standing on top of the temple with a poor victim.
Such person would despite his many virtues require a rebaptism.
nck
Concerned Sister, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Having grown up in WCG and then went on to spend most of my life in a splinter, I recently left the COG's entirely. Needless to say, I am not a fan of HWA. I still have acquaintances in the COGs, who stay for a variety of their own reasons.
I have seen a lot of the material you present in this post, thank you! But to ask the question, have you proven that HWA was not altogether honest or accurate but still choose to stay in the belief system he founded? I struggle with this from time to time and was wondering if there was a logic behind staying in the COG's but say HWA, was wrong/inaccurate. Of the people I know in the splinters, they are there and either 1. have never looked into HWA or his claims, 2. Say they don't regard him as special but still believe his personal revelations 3. Added their own beliefs to his theology to justify their positions. Is there a logic to HWA being wrong/inaccurate, but still believing you need to stay in the COGs?
I mean that question sincerely, as if the founder of the religion is obviously wrong, why continue in that fellowship? I dismiss L. Ron Hubbard because he was a liar and fraud, Charles Taze Russel, Joseph Smith, William Miller and many others similarly because there is clear evidence of their transgressions/inaccuracies. I would assert if we take HWA at his own words, and they are wrong, then we dismiss him with all the others.
Is there an argument for claiming Herbert was wrong on many points, but the system he began is somehow still right? I have heard a couple members make this claim and I just don't understand how that works out.
Writing to self now?
Post a Comment